Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Aircrew Forums > Military Aviation
Reload this Page >

MoD cuts equipment orders to save £700m

Wikiposts
Search
Military Aviation A forum for the professionals who fly military hardware. Also for the backroom boys and girls who support the flying and maintain the equipment, and without whom nothing would ever leave the ground. All armies, navies and air forces of the world equally welcome here.

MoD cuts equipment orders to save £700m

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 25th Nov 2005, 07:45
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: in my combat underpants
Age: 53
Posts: 1,065
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
MoD cuts equipment orders to save £700m

From the Telegraph this very day. Perhaps we should have a small, no-cost, out of core hours celebration at the savings made:


The Ministry of Defence saved £700 million in the past year by cutting back on aircraft, missiles and technology, the National Audit Office said yesterday.

The annual audit of the MoD's equipment programmes found that savings were made by reducing the size of orders and downgrading some specifications.

Although the new Nimrod MRA4 maritime patrol aircraft programme has saved millions by cutting the order from 18 to 12 aircraft, its costs have overrun by £215 million in the last year, the NAO's major projects report said.

The final price is expected to be £3.8 billion - almost £1 billion over budget - with the aircraft to enter service in 2010, seven years late.

Similarly, the Joint Combat Aircraft, an American-made fighter-bomber, has had provisions for extra weapons' capabilities removed to save £428 million. Other savings had been made by cutting orders for Meteor air-to-air missiles.

The Type 45 destroyer has also had its "capabilities reduced" to save £145 million.
Mr C Hinecap is offline  
Old 25th Nov 2005, 07:57
  #2 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 1998
Location: England
Posts: 1,930
Received 7 Likes on 4 Posts
But of course prOOne will be along shortly to assert that these aren't cuts, these are merely savings measures and the money saved is re-invested in the ever growing Defence budget.
Roland Pulfrew is offline  
Old 25th Nov 2005, 08:13
  #3 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: North Yorkshire
Age: 82
Posts: 641
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
If you look at it closely you will see that they haven't actually made any saving on the Defence budget. By reducing the capability of the equipment on order they have reduced the amount of overspend by £700 million. Scarcely grounds for rejoicing.
Clockwork Mouse is offline  
Old 25th Nov 2005, 09:13
  #4 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Under a Log
Posts: 264
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Interesting reading (for a quite cold day in the office)

http://www.nao.org.uk/publications/n.../0506595_I.pdf

FSTA “current forecast assessment” now at £24m, up from the initial £13m
mary_hinge is offline  
Old 25th Nov 2005, 09:32
  #5 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 1998
Location: England
Posts: 1,930
Received 7 Likes on 4 Posts
CM - My point exactly

MH - That is only the assessment phase costs that you are quoting for FSTA. IIRC you are allowed to spend up to 10% of the project funding under Smart Procurement or is that Smart Acquisition or is that Smart Bks? So at present given whole life costs of some £13B then £24M is peanuts!! More interesting is that the NAO document you quote shows FSTA as going for Main Gate in September 2005 - Oh yes that was 2 months ago! And that had slipped from Dec 2003, June 2004, Dec 2004......... so when can we expect main gate? Or more reasonably just when are they going to ditch this PFI too far and BUY some KC30s?
Roland Pulfrew is offline  
Old 25th Nov 2005, 09:41
  #6 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Under a Log
Posts: 264
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
RP

I agree with you, but given that the assessment phase was some 80% light, how safe is the £13 B ?
mary_hinge is offline  
Old 25th Nov 2005, 11:05
  #7 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Quite near 'An aerodrome somewhere in England'
Posts: 26,819
Received 271 Likes on 110 Posts
Highly risky..... At a guess.

An RP, not the KC-30 but rather the A330 MRTT.

Whichever, not under the bolleaux of PFI
BEagle is offline  
Old 25th Nov 2005, 11:08
  #8 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 3,225
Received 172 Likes on 65 Posts
The sad thing is that this report is the usual mixture of facts, half truths and omissions.

MoD dismisses the facts as being based on a snapshot many moons ago and says they have improved since then. They say this every year and staff are told to take this line.

The NAO haven’t got the remit to look wider and dig deeper, don’t ask the right questions, so the answer is a disingenuous half truth. This applies to all Government committees.

And the MoD can’t believe their luck at the projects which aren’t looked at, particularly those that are dependant on the ones that are.
tucumseh is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.