Defence: Public ignorance, the media, and cutbacks
I wouldn't be too quick to condemn Mr Douglas. With every change to Government policy, effectively the terms and conditions under which he was employed changed. If other Government employees cannot bring themselves to implement these policies, they are required to resign. He was, apparently, on a <3 year contract, which is a longer tour than most in MoD are expected to complete. Perhaps his job was simply made impossible? It wouldn't have been easy to begin with, as he would have quickly realised that he was sold a pup in the shape of his predecessor's "initiatives", which were little more than (a) digging out old ideas from the GEMS suggestion scheme, and (b) suggesting that mandated policy be funded.
Harry
I should have made myself clearer. He (B Gray) didn't actually know he was suggesting this. It was obviously fed to him by a lackey, who had presented it as his own work without understanding it. When it was pointed out by an MP, he denied having said the words. MP duly sent a link to the BBC website, which still had the interview for download. And a copy of the 2-part Defence Standard which, if his most junior staff didn't know by heart, made "time, cost and performance" very difficult to achieve. That he lasted so long after that is one of the great wonders.
I should have made myself clearer. He (B Gray) didn't actually know he was suggesting this. It was obviously fed to him by a lackey, who had presented it as his own work without understanding it. When it was pointed out by an MP, he denied having said the words. MP duly sent a link to the BBC website, which still had the interview for download. And a copy of the 2-part Defence Standard which, if his most junior staff didn't know by heart, made "time, cost and performance" very difficult to achieve. That he lasted so long after that is one of the great wonders.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
thanks Tuc
TBH I'm amazed anyone would ever take such a job - you have no real control over the inputs or the outputs and the aims change constantly.
maybe they said he'd get a knighhood.... I know someone who was promised one if he took a particularly awful role of a similar type....... he was wise enough to do his research before turning it down tho'........
TBH I'm amazed anyone would ever take such a job - you have no real control over the inputs or the outputs and the aims change constantly.
maybe they said he'd get a knighhood.... I know someone who was promised one if he took a particularly awful role of a similar type....... he was wise enough to do his research before turning it down tho'........
Royal Navy could lose 'fight on beaches' ships in planned cuts - BBC News
The Royal Navy could lose its ability to assault enemy-held beaches under plans being considered in the Ministry of Defence, BBC Newsnight understands.
Two specialist landing ships - HMS Albion and Bulwark - would be taken out of service under the proposals.
Two specialist landing ships - HMS Albion and Bulwark - would be taken out of service under the proposals.
Thread Starter
Interesting timing. Yesterday MOD published UK Maritime Power (JDP 0-10)
It outlines the enduring utility of maritime power and how the maritime environment is crucial to the rules based system within which the UK operates. It further explains the principles that underpin the way in which UK maritime forces operate to offer scalable and responsive options, without commitment, to our government in support of our national interests.
The doctrine:
•defines maritime power
•explains the attributes of maritime forces
•explains the use of maritime power through the concept of sea control and the principles of maritime manoeuvre and maritime power projection
•sets out the 3 main roles of UK maritime power: warfighting, maritime security and defence engagement;
•explains the maritime contribution to joint action and the full spectrum approach.
It outlines the enduring utility of maritime power and how the maritime environment is crucial to the rules based system within which the UK operates. It further explains the principles that underpin the way in which UK maritime forces operate to offer scalable and responsive options, without commitment, to our government in support of our national interests.
The doctrine:
•defines maritime power
•explains the attributes of maritime forces
•explains the use of maritime power through the concept of sea control and the principles of maritime manoeuvre and maritime power projection
•sets out the 3 main roles of UK maritime power: warfighting, maritime security and defence engagement;
•explains the maritime contribution to joint action and the full spectrum approach.
Newsnight last night noted that adjustments - not cuts! - would be felt across all 3 services, with RW fleets in the Army and Navy cut back and F35 deliveries likely to be slowed down. The next question then is just what is going on these carriers if that's the case?
BBC News website quoted a 'Senior MOD Official' as blaming the Navy for getting them into this mess so they would have to take the pain for getting them out!
Ambitious VSOs playing games with long-term costings and project dates.....not unlike the bankers gambling with other peoples money.
Ambitious VSOs playing games with long-term costings and project dates.....not unlike the bankers gambling with other peoples money.
Thread Starter
So it is nothing to do with the RN asking for a manpower uplift of 1500 - 2000 people before SDSR 15 (as did the RAF*), and it being accepted, but Cameron bottled it as it would have meant cutting Army numbers which would have looked bad?
If yes, then it is the Generals' mess.
I am sure that when Albion and Bulwark were designed, the assumption was made they would operate with a carrier for protection (Air Defence and ASW), Close Support of the troops, and lift.
This old thread from 2003 suggests so.
*Where will the RAF find people to operate new MPA without causing pain elsewhere in the Service?
If yes, then it is the Generals' mess.
I am sure that when Albion and Bulwark were designed, the assumption was made they would operate with a carrier for protection (Air Defence and ASW), Close Support of the troops, and lift.
This old thread from 2003 suggests so.
*Where will the RAF find people to operate new MPA without causing pain elsewhere in the Service?
This puts the RN in a bit of a bind. Either support/enable/defend the boomers or support/enable/defend the carriers. The RN philosophy for a number of years when it comes to both funding and manning uplifts has been 'they must' supported by an argument about how much has been spent or committed for these capabilities. I'm not sure the argument is working.
Originally Posted by [email protected]
BBC News website quoted a 'Senior MOD Official' as blaming the Navy for getting them into this mess so they would have to take the pain for getting them out!
Ambitious VSOs playing games with long-term costings and project dates.....not unlike the bankers gambling with other peoples money.
Ambitious VSOs playing games with long-term costings and project dates.....not unlike the bankers gambling with other peoples money.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Surrey, UK
Age: 70
Posts: 78
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Navy Wildcats for the chop?
I've just been reading in today's Times that on the same list of "adjustments" as Albion and Bulwark are the entire fleet of 28 Wildcat HMA2 helicopters which would leave the FAA with just Merlin! Surely there must be some element of bluff in floating such ideas, how on earth would the RN manage or are we happy as a nation to sit with a navy of 4 Trident boats and 2 aircraft carriers which are likely to have nothing to "carry" but a few Chinooks and lots of aid packages?
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Kilmarnock,United Kingdom
Age: 68
Posts: 340
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's been said before I am sure but with Ocean going, the SSN's off to the Clyde in the near future and Bulwark and Albion at risk, a big question mark grows over the continued need for Devonport.
Logically, the cost of Trident should be placed back with the Treasury but with all the promises now being made by HMG that is not likely.
Logically, the cost of Trident should be placed back with the Treasury but with all the promises now being made by HMG that is not likely.