Cost effective defence
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 398
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cost effective defence
Thought you might like to have a look at this...
http://eureferendum2.********.com/20...e-defence.html
Discuss.
http://eureferendum2.********.com/20...e-defence.html
Discuss.
Below the Glidepath - not correcting
Or you might just save yourself the time and not bother. The original article is by Lewis Page, who's opinions were articulated in "Lions, Donkeys and Dinosaurs" which was also extensively commented upon here. But this link is to a blog called EU Referendum, which is an anti-EU hobby horse of many, but led by Dr. Richard North and Len Szamuely. So an opinionated ex-matelot is being quoted and critiqued by a Brussels hater - hardly objective is it? I think most threads on here are far less removed from the facts than these self elected experts seem to be.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Temporarily missing from the Joe Louis Arena
Posts: 2,131
Received 27 Likes
on
16 Posts
I love it when people like Lewis Page solve all of the Armed Forces financial problems with the ever-so-simple 'cut back on Typhoon'.
So leaving aside the fact that the contract to provide Typhoon for the RAF is so water-tight that it'd actually be more cost-effective to just receive the a/c and leave them unused, such are the financial penalties for pulling out, what does Mr Page in all his wisdom believe will replace the F3 and more importantly, the Jaguar when spares/hours start to run out?
The guy is an arrse.
So leaving aside the fact that the contract to provide Typhoon for the RAF is so water-tight that it'd actually be more cost-effective to just receive the a/c and leave them unused, such are the financial penalties for pulling out, what does Mr Page in all his wisdom believe will replace the F3 and more importantly, the Jaguar when spares/hours start to run out?
The guy is an arrse.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: uk(occasionally)
Posts: 130
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To summarise, the book review says:
He suggests RAF cuts, fine
He suggests RN cuts, fine
He suggests Army cuts, he doesnt know what he is talking about!
The last paragraph says it all:
He suggests RAF cuts, fine
He suggests RN cuts, fine
He suggests Army cuts, he doesnt know what he is talking about!
The last paragraph says it all:
All of this makes for an extraordinarily shallow paper, which offers nothing that can be treated as a serious contribution to defence strategy. Nevertheless, up front, I did commend the Economic Research Council for publishing the paper – as a contribution to the debate - and stand by that. I wish, though, the Council had been a little more aggressive in testing the arguments of its author before going public.
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Bradford
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Debate
Or you might just save yourself the time and not bother. The original article is by Lewis Page, who's opinions were articulated in "Lions, Donkeys and Dinosaurs" which was also extensively commented upon here. But this link is to a blog called EU Referendum, which is an anti-EU hobby horse of many, but led by Dr. Richard North and Len Szamuely. So an opinionated ex-matelot is being quoted and critiqued by a Brussels hater - hardly objective is it? I think most threads on here are far less removed from the facts than these self elected experts seem to be.
As for Lewis Page, his paper covers different territory from his book - hence our review of it. Of course it is not "objective" - it is highly opinionated. How would you have a debate otherwise? Would you suggest that we start with a consensus?
Page's paper actually runs to 40 pages. We cannot critique it all in one review. But we are very far from sure that the blue water fleet should be cut, and while I personally would not have chosen the Eurofighter, now the thing is up and running, we might as well make the best of it.
Where I have been following developments most closely though is in counterinsurgency techniques and make my most detailed comments there.
Here, I am convinced of the role and utility of UCAVs (but do we have the bandwidth for extensive deployment?), I don't believe we have anything like enough light helicopters (of the ARH variety) and I don't believe we have given anything like enough thought to anti-IED strategies and force protection.
Further, I am extremely dubious about implementing FRES - on current knowledge I see it as a Ł14 billion white elephant.
Overall, though, the most important thing here is that we do have a debate. Not least, the Defence Committee is about to run an inquiry on FRES and it strikes me that the implications are so huge for the whole of the defence budget and defence strategy that there should be very much wider discussion.
Join Date: May 2006
Location: 2 m South of Radstock VRP
Posts: 2,042
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My own view of Lewis Page is that he does a very good impersonation of an embittered, self publicising, money seeking and blinkered intellectual pygmy. After 11 years service and 2 rings round his sleeve, he is a military expert and strategic genius. He sells books and magazine articles for money and fair play to him for that.
He seems opposed to warships "in depth" that can extend presence across our world interests, combat aircraft that can do anything more than CAS and ships with a realistic ASW capability. He looks at the Cold War period and compares it to the tribal firefights we now get involved in. His "vision" is totally reliant upon allies and dependable foreign trading partners and a Britain that would probably not deserve a permanent seat on UN Security Council. He seems blind to the increase in High Seas piracy, contraband running, conflicts over diminishing resources and emerging giants like China and a newly confident Russia. The length of time it takes between writing a SOR and receiving the eventual kit for service, interspersed with Treasury hindrance, seems a complete mystery to him. We all buy cars and washing machines so what's difficult about that.
It worries me that someone with his flare for presentation and sensationalism should be considered seriously by experts. He is worthy of a place in the Cabinet Office, though.
He seems opposed to warships "in depth" that can extend presence across our world interests, combat aircraft that can do anything more than CAS and ships with a realistic ASW capability. He looks at the Cold War period and compares it to the tribal firefights we now get involved in. His "vision" is totally reliant upon allies and dependable foreign trading partners and a Britain that would probably not deserve a permanent seat on UN Security Council. He seems blind to the increase in High Seas piracy, contraband running, conflicts over diminishing resources and emerging giants like China and a newly confident Russia. The length of time it takes between writing a SOR and receiving the eventual kit for service, interspersed with Treasury hindrance, seems a complete mystery to him. We all buy cars and washing machines so what's difficult about that.
It worries me that someone with his flare for presentation and sensationalism should be considered seriously by experts. He is worthy of a place in the Cabinet Office, though.
I agree with this view of Page. On the topic of warships, he claims the Type 23 is a waste of money, purely ASW and unable to do other roles. Perhaps he never saw the things forward of the Superstructure - 4.5" gun, VL Sea Wolf, Harpoon, what be they?
Maybe this level of ignorance partly explains why he never got that half ring?
Maybe this level of ignorance partly explains why he never got that half ring?
Well, I sat and read the actual report and I must say I quite enjoyed it. I now know why he didn’t get his half ring – anyone who suggests any kind of savings in MoD risks his career, so this guy committed professional suicide.
Yes, it is shallow, but I think the intention is to stimulate debate, not solve the Defence problem at a stroke. I wonder at his sources. On one project, he twice demonstrates a complete misunderstanding of its purpose, once in the narrative and then contradicts himself in the Glossary (and is wrong both times) yet has remarkably up to date costs which very few are aware of, or the reasons why the figures changed (reduced) so drastically, so recently. In other places, his information seems to be 5 years old.
I think he makes some excellent points, many reflected widely on Pprune. Cost effectiveness of Argus. MASC. The years wasted on RW programmes, only for them to be consolidated into FRC, with consequent delays and procrastination. Apache procurement strategy. UK being a minor player in defence procurement compared to US, yet we aspire to keep up and achieve little while wasting much.
I don’t agree with all he says, but when did a single person know it all about defence? If he did, we could make redundant the MoD from Brigadier upwards, including the entire DPA and DLO XBs, and Politicians. Not a bad idea that. At least if Mr Page were in charge timely decisions would be made. Some right, some wrong; so no change there then!
Yes, it is shallow, but I think the intention is to stimulate debate, not solve the Defence problem at a stroke. I wonder at his sources. On one project, he twice demonstrates a complete misunderstanding of its purpose, once in the narrative and then contradicts himself in the Glossary (and is wrong both times) yet has remarkably up to date costs which very few are aware of, or the reasons why the figures changed (reduced) so drastically, so recently. In other places, his information seems to be 5 years old.
I think he makes some excellent points, many reflected widely on Pprune. Cost effectiveness of Argus. MASC. The years wasted on RW programmes, only for them to be consolidated into FRC, with consequent delays and procrastination. Apache procurement strategy. UK being a minor player in defence procurement compared to US, yet we aspire to keep up and achieve little while wasting much.
I don’t agree with all he says, but when did a single person know it all about defence? If he did, we could make redundant the MoD from Brigadier upwards, including the entire DPA and DLO XBs, and Politicians. Not a bad idea that. At least if Mr Page were in charge timely decisions would be made. Some right, some wrong; so no change there then!
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: listening to the sound of aviation
Posts: 48
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Perhaps...
Perhaps Golf Bravo Zulu and tucumseh have encapulated the argument? The primary problem with the entity that is the the MoD is that it is large, unwieldy and therefore, like a supertanker, difficult to change direction in a hurry - especially if the course is into different waters than that planned for. In my humble opinion, whenever cuts are needed it would be more effective to prune the upper levels first than the lower ones!
Guest
Posts: n/a
WEBF, the 23 is a comfortable ship to serve in but a pig to handle. In addition, with the bulk of the weapons systems onboard carried in VERY close proximity to one another it's interesting to think what your survivability would be after one decent impact forward of the bridge screen.
The new sonar kit is indeed impressive but compared to a 42, it's a Skoda.
The new sonar kit is indeed impressive but compared to a 42, it's a Skoda.
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Bradford
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Perhaps Golf Bravo Zulu and tucumseh have encapulated the argument? The primary problem with the entity that is the the MoD is that it is large, unwieldy and therefore, like a supertanker, difficult to change direction in a hurry - especially if the course is into different waters than that planned for. In my humble opinion, whenever cuts are needed it would be more effective to prune the upper levels first than the lower ones!
EU Referendum
With all due respect, Tesco’s primary aims for the foreseeable future are known – sell loadsa grub, make loadsa profit, and keep on expanding. Whereas the MoD’s are infinitely variable at a moments notice and are non profit making. And our Armed Forces are definitely not expanding, although their roles are. Tesco’s investment matches their aspirations, MoD’s doesn’t.
To get back to Mr Page’s point – cost effectiveness. A major part of this is avoiding waste. If there is no political will or leadership within MoD – and demonstrably there is not in this respect – then you’ll never get past first base. Management sets the tone.
With all due respect, Tesco’s primary aims for the foreseeable future are known – sell loadsa grub, make loadsa profit, and keep on expanding. Whereas the MoD’s are infinitely variable at a moments notice and are non profit making. And our Armed Forces are definitely not expanding, although their roles are. Tesco’s investment matches their aspirations, MoD’s doesn’t.
To get back to Mr Page’s point – cost effectiveness. A major part of this is avoiding waste. If there is no political will or leadership within MoD – and demonstrably there is not in this respect – then you’ll never get past first base. Management sets the tone.
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Bradford
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
EU Referendum
With all due respect, Tesco’s primary aims for the foreseeable future are known – sell loadsa grub, make loadsa profit, and keep on expanding. Whereas the MoD’s are infinitely variable at a moments notice and are non profit making. And our Armed Forces are definitely not expanding, although their roles are. Tesco’s investment matches their aspirations, MoD’s doesn’t.
To get back to Mr Page’s point – cost effectiveness. A major part of this is avoiding waste. If there is no political will or leadership within MoD – and demonstrably there is not in this respect – then you’ll never get past first base. Management sets the tone.
With all due respect, Tesco’s primary aims for the foreseeable future are known – sell loadsa grub, make loadsa profit, and keep on expanding. Whereas the MoD’s are infinitely variable at a moments notice and are non profit making. And our Armed Forces are definitely not expanding, although their roles are. Tesco’s investment matches their aspirations, MoD’s doesn’t.
To get back to Mr Page’s point – cost effectiveness. A major part of this is avoiding waste. If there is no political will or leadership within MoD – and demonstrably there is not in this respect – then you’ll never get past first base. Management sets the tone.
"Informed scrutiny" is mandatory for all MoD expenditure. It is not practiced. This has been formally condoned at ministerial level, in that, despite repeated warnings from various auditors, they refuse to enforce the rules.
Again, management sets the tone.
Again, management sets the tone.
Registered User **
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: LONDON
Posts: 372
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ah but does the economic scrutiny by Parliament and the media dine below the derivative? Whilst in the MOD the refined potential ices the unpleasant phrase, every misguided asset escapes near an ended escapade. So you see, the spectrum of Armed Forces costs treks without the elected examiner.
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Far from the madding crowd
Posts: 250
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ah but does the economic scrutiny by Parliament and the media dine below the derivative? Whilst in the MOD the refined potential ices the unpleasant phrase, every misguided asset escapes near an ended escapade. So you see, the spectrum of Armed Forces costs treks without the elected examiner.
Newspeak at its best, you don't do speech writing for dear Tone do you?
Join Date: May 2006
Location: 2 m South of Radstock VRP
Posts: 2,042
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I sometimes suspect that, perhaps, movadinkampa747 is a gifted scientist who's developing a novel and advanced form of artificial intelligence. This seems to be in the form of a text generator that can provide apposite comments and opinions on particular discussion points that have been in-put. I would imagine that he is currently ironing out the use of English and sentence construction algorithms. It will be interesting to see the finished product.
DISCLAIMER
Any adverts appearing against this Post are nothing to do with me.
GBZ
DISCLAIMER
Any adverts appearing against this Post are nothing to do with me.
GBZ
Last edited by GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU; 7th Nov 2006 at 10:20. Reason: Standard Finger Trouble
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: YES
Posts: 779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
there is a huge need to balance the UKDF with the missions envisaged and equipment issued. but it shouldn't be done on the current shoe string. If we are having small numbers of expensive assets we need the support infrastructure there along with full support to acheive availability of 75-90% at all times.