UK Defence Restructuring
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: BOURNEMOUTH
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mr C Hinecap has it right. Too many civvies in Procurement with no idea of our requirements. The contracts that the MOD signs up to all to often, mean that in the long run we the customer get ripped off. Too many civvie's are involved with first line maintenance and repair of equipment whilst our techs and mechanics are not allowed to perform such tasks. We need more military personnel involved with drawing up the contracts so that we can make best use of our kit. The MOD is a big business and surely it can fight for better deals. That would save money, cutbacks are not the way forward.
CPN
"too many civvies in Procurement?!
Bolleaux!!!!
The decision makers in DPA are military and very senior, it is their lack of contract awareness and ability that frequently leads to procurement disasters when the vendors run rings round them. Two and a half years in post is also a recipe for disaster in procurement, a short time in which you have to make your mark, so you change things even if they don't need changing and get a tick in the box for the next promotion. Some other poor sod then comes along and has two years to undo the damage, so it goes on, and on and on.
On the White paper, does anyone else share my view that we have been looking in the wrong place for cutbacks in fast jets?
Having read the paper in full, I think that the area that could be hit, and hit hard, is Tornado GR4 and Jaguar. The emphasis on multi role capability and the need to do away with single role platforms was stressed time and time again.
I would not be at all surprised to see Typhoon and JSF continue at full procurement levels and see Jaguar cut very early, Tornado GR4 to reduce substantially when A2G tranche 2 and 3 Typhoon hits and done away with entirely when FOAS enters service as a JSF or Typhoon derivative along with multi cruise missile launch platforms such as Type 45 Destroyer and maybe MR4.
Thoughts anyone?
"too many civvies in Procurement?!
Bolleaux!!!!
The decision makers in DPA are military and very senior, it is their lack of contract awareness and ability that frequently leads to procurement disasters when the vendors run rings round them. Two and a half years in post is also a recipe for disaster in procurement, a short time in which you have to make your mark, so you change things even if they don't need changing and get a tick in the box for the next promotion. Some other poor sod then comes along and has two years to undo the damage, so it goes on, and on and on.
On the White paper, does anyone else share my view that we have been looking in the wrong place for cutbacks in fast jets?
Having read the paper in full, I think that the area that could be hit, and hit hard, is Tornado GR4 and Jaguar. The emphasis on multi role capability and the need to do away with single role platforms was stressed time and time again.
I would not be at all surprised to see Typhoon and JSF continue at full procurement levels and see Jaguar cut very early, Tornado GR4 to reduce substantially when A2G tranche 2 and 3 Typhoon hits and done away with entirely when FOAS enters service as a JSF or Typhoon derivative along with multi cruise missile launch platforms such as Type 45 Destroyer and maybe MR4.
Thoughts anyone?
Fast jet jockey days will soon be numbered!! Stay in a job and fly AT or Helo!! Pax will not settle for a chip flying them to Cyprus. UAV AT is a non starter. Otherwise they will have to develop a robot ALM to throw the white lunch boxes at the pax!!
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: sunny england
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The problem with all of this is what are we expected to do? A decent Strategic Defence Review, mmm, I think I heard that somewhere before, would come up with a list of requirements that the MOD would be expected to fullfill. We have had numerous reviews and all they do is save money, they do not enhance capability. Before you start I know that GR-4 is nore capable than a hunter, challenger than a centurion apache han a lynx. But it doesn't go quite right does it. How many Apache's did the Army buy, against how many can they actually fly. The MRA-4 will probably never leave the ground. Typhoon should be operational by now and yet it still hasn't been handed over to the RAF. Not only are there senior officers who make a Bo££ocks of the procurement and oversight of the procurement but then leave the RAF on full pay and oh what a surprise end up being an advisor to the company we're buying from. we are ripped off by British industry because they know we will pay! We get ripped off by senior management in the MOD and all three services because they think it makes men of us to rough it a little on deployment. Soldiers were fighting a war with every expectation of WMD being used and they didn't have all the protection they needed. Heads won't role we will learn the lesson. The whole point of Saif Sereaa was to learn the lessons, not go against a madman with enough poisons to kill the entire middle east. Wasn't it lucky he didn't.
Phew, rant over, sorry.
Phew, rant over, sorry.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Runaway Gun: Delivering Security in a Changing World.
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Where the heart belongs
Age: 55
Posts: 413
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
2 Posts
Rooting around upstairs, I found my old Phantom div card. It lists some 36 aerodromes which were available to us back then in 1982. Of those 36, Alconbury, Bedford, Bentwaters, Binbrook, Brawdy, Bruggen, Finningley, Holme-on-Spalding Moor, Honington, Laarbruch, Machrihanish, Scampton, Upper Heyford, Wattisham, Wethersfield, Wildenrath and Woodbridge are now either gone or are not available to fast jet traffic.....that's about half of the whole list.
Does anyone really think that Buff Hoon isn’t sharpening his knives for yet more cuts?
Does anyone really think that Buff Hoon isn’t sharpening his knives for yet more cuts?
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: earth
Posts: 1,397
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting that the white paper lays emphasis on the need for multi role aircraft - a capability that we had and trained successfully for in 1969 with the Phantom and then abandoned in 1974 - a fine example of reinventing the wheel.
However, it is sound thinking - the smaller the force the more important it is to be able to switch roles to meet the current priority.
Does this secure the short-term future of the Tornado F3 as opposed to the GR4 for SEAD plus in-built AD capability?
Is the Euroblighter to enter service as a multi-role aircraft - if it ever makes it that far?
Will we see stand-off missiles fitted to AWACS and AAR aircraft?
In short, if you can't do at least two jobs, you ain't worth keeping?
However, it is sound thinking - the smaller the force the more important it is to be able to switch roles to meet the current priority.
Does this secure the short-term future of the Tornado F3 as opposed to the GR4 for SEAD plus in-built AD capability?
Is the Euroblighter to enter service as a multi-role aircraft - if it ever makes it that far?
Will we see stand-off missiles fitted to AWACS and AAR aircraft?
In short, if you can't do at least two jobs, you ain't worth keeping?
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Just down the road from ISK
Posts: 328
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Your commanding officer would have to be an absolute fool Blackadder!"
By the way, would everyone like Fries with that and what soft drink?
sorry, just getting in practice for my pending change to the RAF career structure!
By the way, would everyone like Fries with that and what soft drink?
sorry, just getting in practice for my pending change to the RAF career structure!
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 254
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
More pain for Defence Forces, and more 'spin from Buff Hoon
Forces face 'hidden' cuts in shake-up
By Michael Smith, Defence Correspondent
(Filed: 12/12/2003)
A major revamp of the Armed Forces was announced yesterday with the publication of a defence White Paper signalling a cull of warships, tanks and aircraft.
Geoff Hoon, the Defence Secretary, said the changes would better prepare Britain for combating terrorism and weapons of mass destruction.
This would require smaller, more swiftly deployable forces able to fight on a number of fronts at the same time. Modern technology would reduce the amount of equipment needed, he told MPs.
But Conservatives described the move as "a smokescreen" to hide surreptitious cuts.
Nicholas Soames, the shadow defence secretary, accused the Government of "taking very serious risks with equipment and men".
The Liberal Democrats also expressed concern. "The real reason for this White Paper seems to be cover for cuts because the MoD is facing a cash crisis," said Paul Keetch, the defence spokesman.
Mr Hoon, however, insisted there was "no crisis".
But The Telegraph has learned that two major programmes, the Nimrod MRA4 surveillance aircraft and the Ground-based Air Defence radar system (GBAD), are to be cut to make immediate cash savings.
The contract for the £1.2 billion first phase of GBAD, which would upgrade a number of air defence systems, should have been signed some time ago. While a few small elements of the programme are expected to go ahead, the bulk of it will not.
Cancelling the contract for the new Nimrod, on which £428 million has been spent, would be more difficult, leaving the Navy with no long-range anti-submarine capability and the RAF without a strategic bomber.
But the aircraft has already encountered difficulties and it is the only other major programme where short-term savings could be made. Axing it would save £500 million this year and £2 billion overall.
Mr Soames found Mr Hoon's denial of a crisis "hard to believe. It is certainly very contrary to what we have been told. The White Paper is clearly a smokescreen".
The paper was short on detail with the main focus on restructuring the Army to bring in a new rapid reaction light infantry brigade. Heavy armour would be reduced in favour of a mixture of light, medium and heavy forces.
The number of warships, tanks and aircraft were no longer as important as their capabilities, Mr Hoon said.
"Multi-role capability will also allow us to deploy fewer aircraft than previously thought necessary."
The RAF's F3 Tornado fighters and Harrier and Jaguar ground attack aircraft were already due to be replaced by the Eurofighter but Mr Hoon's statement indicated that the number of combat squadrons could be slashed.
MoD officials admitted that although Britain was committed to the 55 aircraft in the first batch of Eurofighters, it was talking to the other countries in the consortium to renegotiate the 88 due in the second phase.
New weapons systems would "inevitably reduce our requirement for heavy armoured fighting vehicles and heavy artillery", Mr Hoon said.
One tank regiment would immediately lose its 60 Challenger 2s with others to follow.
The Navy would lose some of its warships, he admitted. "Some of the older ships can contribute less well to the pattern of operations that we envisage, and some adjustments will be necessary."
Mr Hoon also came under fire for telling the Commons defence select committee that there had been no shortage of equipment in Iraq.
A National Audit Office report was highly critical of the amount of equipment, from desert boots to chemical filters, that did not reach troops.
"Geoff Hoon gave the Commons assurances that British troops were protected from such weapons, and adequately supplied," Mr Soames said. "This report shows that manifestly they were not."
Forces face 'hidden' cuts in shake-up
By Michael Smith, Defence Correspondent
(Filed: 12/12/2003)
A major revamp of the Armed Forces was announced yesterday with the publication of a defence White Paper signalling a cull of warships, tanks and aircraft.
Geoff Hoon, the Defence Secretary, said the changes would better prepare Britain for combating terrorism and weapons of mass destruction.
This would require smaller, more swiftly deployable forces able to fight on a number of fronts at the same time. Modern technology would reduce the amount of equipment needed, he told MPs.
But Conservatives described the move as "a smokescreen" to hide surreptitious cuts.
Nicholas Soames, the shadow defence secretary, accused the Government of "taking very serious risks with equipment and men".
The Liberal Democrats also expressed concern. "The real reason for this White Paper seems to be cover for cuts because the MoD is facing a cash crisis," said Paul Keetch, the defence spokesman.
Mr Hoon, however, insisted there was "no crisis".
But The Telegraph has learned that two major programmes, the Nimrod MRA4 surveillance aircraft and the Ground-based Air Defence radar system (GBAD), are to be cut to make immediate cash savings.
The contract for the £1.2 billion first phase of GBAD, which would upgrade a number of air defence systems, should have been signed some time ago. While a few small elements of the programme are expected to go ahead, the bulk of it will not.
Cancelling the contract for the new Nimrod, on which £428 million has been spent, would be more difficult, leaving the Navy with no long-range anti-submarine capability and the RAF without a strategic bomber.
But the aircraft has already encountered difficulties and it is the only other major programme where short-term savings could be made. Axing it would save £500 million this year and £2 billion overall.
Mr Soames found Mr Hoon's denial of a crisis "hard to believe. It is certainly very contrary to what we have been told. The White Paper is clearly a smokescreen".
The paper was short on detail with the main focus on restructuring the Army to bring in a new rapid reaction light infantry brigade. Heavy armour would be reduced in favour of a mixture of light, medium and heavy forces.
The number of warships, tanks and aircraft were no longer as important as their capabilities, Mr Hoon said.
"Multi-role capability will also allow us to deploy fewer aircraft than previously thought necessary."
The RAF's F3 Tornado fighters and Harrier and Jaguar ground attack aircraft were already due to be replaced by the Eurofighter but Mr Hoon's statement indicated that the number of combat squadrons could be slashed.
MoD officials admitted that although Britain was committed to the 55 aircraft in the first batch of Eurofighters, it was talking to the other countries in the consortium to renegotiate the 88 due in the second phase.
New weapons systems would "inevitably reduce our requirement for heavy armoured fighting vehicles and heavy artillery", Mr Hoon said.
One tank regiment would immediately lose its 60 Challenger 2s with others to follow.
The Navy would lose some of its warships, he admitted. "Some of the older ships can contribute less well to the pattern of operations that we envisage, and some adjustments will be necessary."
Mr Hoon also came under fire for telling the Commons defence select committee that there had been no shortage of equipment in Iraq.
A National Audit Office report was highly critical of the amount of equipment, from desert boots to chemical filters, that did not reach troops.
"Geoff Hoon gave the Commons assurances that British troops were protected from such weapons, and adequately supplied," Mr Soames said. "This report shows that manifestly they were not."
I thought Bunter Soames did a good job demolishing Buff's spin yesterday, armed with the NAO report. Almost as good as the grilling Trust-me-Tone got from Michael Howard at PMQs on Wednesday.
Malvinas campaign - wrong boots.
GW1 - desert kit arrives after war ends.
GW2 - wrong boots AND desert kit arrives after war ends.....
That's progress.
Malvinas campaign - wrong boots.
GW1 - desert kit arrives after war ends.
GW2 - wrong boots AND desert kit arrives after war ends.....
That's progress.
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 254
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A great boost for morale?
British Army now too weak to fight war
GETHIN CHAMBERLAIN DEFENCE CORRESPONDENT
BRITAIN is no longer capable of launching a major military action against another nation state without the help of the United States, the government conceded yesterday.
The admission, in the long-awaited defence white paper, coincided with the publication of a damning report on the handling of the war in Iraq and an accusation from the chairman of an influential Commons committee that British troops in Iraq had been "shamefully let down" by the government.
The report, published by the National Audit Office (NAO), described the campaign in Iraq as a significant military success but lambasted the government for sending troops into combat without adequate equipment, including weapons, ammunition, body armour and medical supplies.
The findings were described by Edward Leigh, the chairman of the Commons public accounts committee, as an "outrage".
"We expect the men and women of the armed forces to fight and maybe die for us. So it is an outrage that they could not expect all of the proper equipment, protection and even clothing to do the job we ask of them. They were shamefully let down," he said.
The report was published less than an hour before Geoff Hoon, the Defence Secretary, stood up in the Commons to introduce the defence white paper, Delivering Security in a Changing World.
The document, the result of a lengthy review of defence policy, heralded a change in British military thinking, away from the doctrines of the Cold War and a reliance on heavily armoured forces towards lighter, more mobile forces which could be deployed quickly to trouble spots around the world.
Mr Hoon revealed a number of cuts in British forces, including an immediate reduction of the number of Challenger 2 main battle tanks in favour of a new light brigade, and future cuts in naval and air forces.
Speculation that the white paper would also include plans to axe historic regiments, including some of the most famous Scottish forces, proved unfounded. Mr Hoon, who had already pledged not to do away with regiments such as the Black Watch and the Royal Scots, deferred any decision on the restructuring of the army until next year.
But the white paper did indicate a drastic reappraisal of the country’s military capabilities. Britain, it said, could never again mount an independent campaign against another nation state.
"The most demanding expeditionary operations, involving intervention against state adversaries, can only plausibly be conducted if US forces are engaged, either leading a coalition or in NATO," it said.
"The significant military contribution the UK is able to make to such operations means that we secure an effective place in the political and military decision-making processes.
"To exploit this effectively, our armed forces will need to be inter-operable with US command and control structures, match the US operational tempo and provide those capabilities that deliver the greatest impact when operating alongside the US."
The first changes will see the army’s three heavy brigades cut to two, and the creation of a new light brigade.
Addressing the Commons, Mr Hoon said that in future, the emphasis would be on using technology to deliver the maximum military effect. He warned that the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and the threat posed by international terrorists, coupled with the consequences of failed or failing states, presented Britain with very real and immediate challenges.
Mr Hoon also played down the criticism of the government in the NAO report.
But last night, the widow of a British soldier killed in Iraq accused the Defence Secretary of failing to make sure that frontline troops were given vital protective kit.
Samantha Roberts said her husband, Steve, died because he was wearing a flak jacket without the normal protective ceramic plates fitted.
The NAO report was highly critical of the supply of body armour, noting that 200,000 sets of body armour issued since the Kosovo campaign has simply disappeared.
"Steve is dead, they can’t bring him back, but what they can do is stop this thing happening again. I am speechless," Mrs Roberts said.
The NAO report painted a chaotic picture with commanders simply unable to locate where their supplies were.
Many of the problems were exacerbated because, under pressure from the Treasury, the Ministry of Defence held only limited stocks of some equipment in order to cut costs.
British Army now too weak to fight war
GETHIN CHAMBERLAIN DEFENCE CORRESPONDENT
BRITAIN is no longer capable of launching a major military action against another nation state without the help of the United States, the government conceded yesterday.
The admission, in the long-awaited defence white paper, coincided with the publication of a damning report on the handling of the war in Iraq and an accusation from the chairman of an influential Commons committee that British troops in Iraq had been "shamefully let down" by the government.
The report, published by the National Audit Office (NAO), described the campaign in Iraq as a significant military success but lambasted the government for sending troops into combat without adequate equipment, including weapons, ammunition, body armour and medical supplies.
The findings were described by Edward Leigh, the chairman of the Commons public accounts committee, as an "outrage".
"We expect the men and women of the armed forces to fight and maybe die for us. So it is an outrage that they could not expect all of the proper equipment, protection and even clothing to do the job we ask of them. They were shamefully let down," he said.
The report was published less than an hour before Geoff Hoon, the Defence Secretary, stood up in the Commons to introduce the defence white paper, Delivering Security in a Changing World.
The document, the result of a lengthy review of defence policy, heralded a change in British military thinking, away from the doctrines of the Cold War and a reliance on heavily armoured forces towards lighter, more mobile forces which could be deployed quickly to trouble spots around the world.
Mr Hoon revealed a number of cuts in British forces, including an immediate reduction of the number of Challenger 2 main battle tanks in favour of a new light brigade, and future cuts in naval and air forces.
Speculation that the white paper would also include plans to axe historic regiments, including some of the most famous Scottish forces, proved unfounded. Mr Hoon, who had already pledged not to do away with regiments such as the Black Watch and the Royal Scots, deferred any decision on the restructuring of the army until next year.
But the white paper did indicate a drastic reappraisal of the country’s military capabilities. Britain, it said, could never again mount an independent campaign against another nation state.
"The most demanding expeditionary operations, involving intervention against state adversaries, can only plausibly be conducted if US forces are engaged, either leading a coalition or in NATO," it said.
"The significant military contribution the UK is able to make to such operations means that we secure an effective place in the political and military decision-making processes.
"To exploit this effectively, our armed forces will need to be inter-operable with US command and control structures, match the US operational tempo and provide those capabilities that deliver the greatest impact when operating alongside the US."
The first changes will see the army’s three heavy brigades cut to two, and the creation of a new light brigade.
Addressing the Commons, Mr Hoon said that in future, the emphasis would be on using technology to deliver the maximum military effect. He warned that the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and the threat posed by international terrorists, coupled with the consequences of failed or failing states, presented Britain with very real and immediate challenges.
Mr Hoon also played down the criticism of the government in the NAO report.
But last night, the widow of a British soldier killed in Iraq accused the Defence Secretary of failing to make sure that frontline troops were given vital protective kit.
Samantha Roberts said her husband, Steve, died because he was wearing a flak jacket without the normal protective ceramic plates fitted.
The NAO report was highly critical of the supply of body armour, noting that 200,000 sets of body armour issued since the Kosovo campaign has simply disappeared.
"Steve is dead, they can’t bring him back, but what they can do is stop this thing happening again. I am speechless," Mrs Roberts said.
The NAO report painted a chaotic picture with commanders simply unable to locate where their supplies were.
Many of the problems were exacerbated because, under pressure from the Treasury, the Ministry of Defence held only limited stocks of some equipment in order to cut costs.
Gentleman Aviator
I Was Lucky_B* et al
.. just a small correction on a point of fact ... don't know where this
comes from, but with the possible exception of CDS (if a 5*) they don't.
2*s and above retire on a maximum of 50% of final pay which is about what 1* and below get. To forestall argument, after 34 years [ie 55 years old], an officer will get 48.5% of "a representative pay rate for the rank", which is usually the top rate. So the further you are from top rate, the closer you get to (and maybe exceed) 50%. But full pay - I don't think so.
And as a soon-to-retire (not very) senior officer, I've researched this closely!!
And let's not get into unpensionable flying pay, which I've only received for 35 years or so ........
.. just a small correction on a point of fact ... don't know where this
senior officers who make a Bo££ocks of the procurement and oversight of the procurement but then leave the RAF on full pay
2*s and above retire on a maximum of 50% of final pay which is about what 1* and below get. To forestall argument, after 34 years [ie 55 years old], an officer will get 48.5% of "a representative pay rate for the rank", which is usually the top rate. So the further you are from top rate, the closer you get to (and maybe exceed) 50%. But full pay - I don't think so.
And as a soon-to-retire (not very) senior officer, I've researched this closely!!
And let's not get into unpensionable flying pay, which I've only received for 35 years or so ........
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Area 51
Posts: 250
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Does anyone have any thoughts on what the cutbacks to JSF/Typhoon will mean real terms vis a vis numbers of squadrons?
Will we be able to sustain all of 6, 11, 25, 41, 43, 54 and 111 (plus a resurrected 29)? I guess not.
Will we be able to sustain all of 6, 11, 25, 41, 43, 54 and 111 (plus a resurrected 29)? I guess not.