RAF Aircraft Struggling
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: EGYD
Posts: 1,073
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RAF Aircraft Struggling
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/6270406.stm
I'm glad to see the Defence Committee, have "real doubts".
Fills me with confidence in politicians, as usual.
I'm glad to see the Defence Committee, have "real doubts".
Fills me with confidence in politicians, as usual.
Good to see! Although :
Defence minister Lord Drayson said the MoD was buying five large aircraft.
"We are making long-term improvements to our airlift capability, adding a fifth C-17 to the four we are currently buying," he said.
does kinda make it sound like we don't already actually have 4 of them already.....
and:
"It called on the MoD to procure more C-17 large transport planes "given the current operational tempo".
They also said the MoD should look at increasing its A400M order, especially as three Hercules had been lost on operations recently."
does actually require more money.... large aircraft don't just grow on trees folks!
Defence minister Lord Drayson said the MoD was buying five large aircraft.
"We are making long-term improvements to our airlift capability, adding a fifth C-17 to the four we are currently buying," he said.
does kinda make it sound like we don't already actually have 4 of them already.....
and:
"It called on the MoD to procure more C-17 large transport planes "given the current operational tempo".
They also said the MoD should look at increasing its A400M order, especially as three Hercules had been lost on operations recently."
does actually require more money.... large aircraft don't just grow on trees folks!
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: North America
Posts: 56
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
3 C130Ks
Just a thought but if they want to more rapidly replace the 3 lost C130Ks might they not order 3 more C130Js as I would be confident they would arrive before the A-400Ms and we will be operating a mixed fleet either way?
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: In the Ether
Posts: 437
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"We are making long-term improvements to our airlift capability, adding a fifth C-17 to the four we are currently buying," he said.
does kinda make it sound like we don't already actually have 4 of them already.....
does kinda make it sound like we don't already actually have 4 of them already.....
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: A lot closer to the sea
Posts: 665
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The defence committe would be better off directing their doubts at the Treasury rather than the MoD. The MoD know how 'stretched' everyone is, but are way short on funds to do a vast amount about it. Perhaps the committee should write the business case to get more real money out the PMs old department and not just bleat to the converted.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: East Anglia
Posts: 1,873
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Listening to James Arbuthnot on R4 this morning what struck me most was that it wasn't until CDS was questioned back in March by the Committee that they started to have 'doubts'. This in spite of other headline grabbing failures such as that from the MP/TA soldier a couple of years ago.
I suspect that the hoary old process of assuring your boss that you can do your job with no resources is what has got us to where we are. At least CDS was upfront enough to use a euphimism (I think he said 'gravely concerned') that the politicos understood to mean 'we are going the wrong way down a certain body of water without adequate means of navigation or propulsion'.
Still, Drayson implying we are increasing the size of the C17 fleet by purchasing what is already in use is a criminal excess of spin. One can only hope that his deity (if he has one) is a vengeful one and he will suffer in his own personal hell along with the rest of this 'government' for his economical truths.
I suspect that the hoary old process of assuring your boss that you can do your job with no resources is what has got us to where we are. At least CDS was upfront enough to use a euphimism (I think he said 'gravely concerned') that the politicos understood to mean 'we are going the wrong way down a certain body of water without adequate means of navigation or propulsion'.
Still, Drayson implying we are increasing the size of the C17 fleet by purchasing what is already in use is a criminal excess of spin. One can only hope that his deity (if he has one) is a vengeful one and he will suffer in his own personal hell along with the rest of this 'government' for his economical truths.
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Chippenham, Wilts
Age: 75
Posts: 297
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Replacement C 130's
Follow me through
Wasn't it 2 x K's and 1 x J that were lost?
3P
Wasn't it 2 x K's and 1 x J that were lost?
3P
Last edited by threeputt; 5th Jul 2007 at 09:44. Reason: Spelling mistake
Drayson is an @rse of the first order, lord alone knows where his reputation as a doer rather than a talker comes from.
His much vaunted industrial strategy is dying on its feet and in any case is predicated on some rather incomplete work from Rand Europe among others. The whole "use the CVF contract as a stick to beat industry with" approach is now being exposed as the excuse for further prevarication that it always was.
His much vaunted industrial strategy is dying on its feet and in any case is predicated on some rather incomplete work from Rand Europe among others. The whole "use the CVF contract as a stick to beat industry with" approach is now being exposed as the excuse for further prevarication that it always was.
To be fair, Paul Drayson does not control the purse strings, so does not always have the means to be able to do what he would want to.
Alone among New Labour politicians, he is someone I'd actually defend, however.
He's an impressive bloke, unlike every other Min DP I've met and dealt with - he is charismatic, articulate and straightforward, and speaks very well. He also has a phenomenal grasp and understanding of his brief - he's someone who could talk intelligently about air power and aircraft capabilities to someone like me, and he has a similar grasp of land and sea systems, too. If ever he's looking for a lower-stress job, he'd make a perfect editor for JDW!
He's not the usual pulic school/Oxbridge PPE/Classics barrister/professional politician fop - he's grounded in the real world - he trained as a production engineer (BSc from Aston, and a PhD in Robotics) and is a successful businessman and entrepreneur.
All that only makes him a talker, and not a doer, of course, but I'd rather have a straight-talking, intelligent and interested bloke in the job than a second rate political appointee like Willy Bach, Liz Symons, and the various Tory occupants of the post before them.
Alone among New Labour politicians, he is someone I'd actually defend, however.
He's an impressive bloke, unlike every other Min DP I've met and dealt with - he is charismatic, articulate and straightforward, and speaks very well. He also has a phenomenal grasp and understanding of his brief - he's someone who could talk intelligently about air power and aircraft capabilities to someone like me, and he has a similar grasp of land and sea systems, too. If ever he's looking for a lower-stress job, he'd make a perfect editor for JDW!
He's not the usual pulic school/Oxbridge PPE/Classics barrister/professional politician fop - he's grounded in the real world - he trained as a production engineer (BSc from Aston, and a PhD in Robotics) and is a successful businessman and entrepreneur.
All that only makes him a talker, and not a doer, of course, but I'd rather have a straight-talking, intelligent and interested bloke in the job than a second rate political appointee like Willy Bach, Liz Symons, and the various Tory occupants of the post before them.
Jacko
Wouldn't disagree with your assessments of the previous incumbents and having never met MinDP in person cannot comment on how he comes across. However, he's been in post long enough to have sorted those projects that are urgently required and do not require Treasury refinancing. There are some - MARS tankers (and of course FSTA) that are being held back by process - a process he is i/c of implementing.
Judging by the lack of progress on virtually all fronts procurement-wise, he's talking a good game (as do we all!) and little else.
Wouldn't disagree with your assessments of the previous incumbents and having never met MinDP in person cannot comment on how he comes across. However, he's been in post long enough to have sorted those projects that are urgently required and do not require Treasury refinancing. There are some - MARS tankers (and of course FSTA) that are being held back by process - a process he is i/c of implementing.
Judging by the lack of progress on virtually all fronts procurement-wise, he's talking a good game (as do we all!) and little else.
Last edited by Not_a_boffin; 5th Jul 2007 at 11:37. Reason: pellings
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Devon, England
Posts: 816
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Follow me through
Wasn't it 2 x K's and 1 x J that were lost?
3P
Wasn't it 2 x K's and 1 x J that were lost?
3P
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 734
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by BBC
The committee said that it was "very concerned" that figures for last November showed that only 41 of the 75 RAF Hercules, TriStar and VC-10 aircraft were available to undertake "required tasks".
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: wilts
Posts: 1,667
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When (cough, cough), news of the stalling of the Herc foam program hit the press, Lord Drayson called in various civil serpents and mil officers from MOD into his office and read them the riot act. He offered to take the request for funding directly to No 11.
He impressed me then and has impressed me since, (he has sorted out Chinook fiasco), even if he acquired his peerage under New Labour SOPs.
He impressed me then and has impressed me since, (he has sorted out Chinook fiasco), even if he acquired his peerage under New Labour SOPs.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Wilts
Posts: 133
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't think he impressed the troops on the ground with this one.
http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/De...tMillbrook.htm
seeing that most losses have been with IED's along side the roads this does not give a lot of protection.But i suppose it will be ideal for the fast hit and run attack on some teliban airfield.
http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/De...tMillbrook.htm
seeing that most losses have been with IED's along side the roads this does not give a lot of protection.But i suppose it will be ideal for the fast hit and run attack on some teliban airfield.
Gar - a lot of the work done in the 'Stan and in the wilds near the Iran/Iraq border requires exactly these sort of vehicles.... (although I'm a traditionalist and believe nothing will ever be more british than a landrover!)
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: In Hyperspace...
Posts: 395
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"..Ageing fleet of aircraft....blah blah..."
How often I hear this phrase, and how it conveniently sidesteps the REAL issue.
The AGE of the aircraft is ALMOST irrelevant - after all, about the only parts of the K's that are ACTUALLY 40 years old are the fuselages. The real issue here is that we cannot fix or service them, because they have LEANed away all our manpower, and we don't have the bits to fix them, because they have 'Just-In-Time'-ed all the spares (now THAT'S a spin-phrase if ever I heard one!
If we somehow managed to aquire, from somewhere, a brand new fleet of K's built to exactly the same specifications as the ones we have, they would require no less (or very little less) maintenance than the '40 year old' ones do. I suspect the same is true of the VC10 and Tristar fleets.
If we could get back the eng manpower, and the spares stocks, we would see availability rocket.
Yes, I KNOW that doesn't address the fatigue issue, but that can be cured (or at least postponed) by bolting on new wings, which puts it straiight into the 'spares' and 'manpower' pidgeonhole in my book.
Another bad decision by a particularly daft bint chasing an OBE...
How often I hear this phrase, and how it conveniently sidesteps the REAL issue.
The AGE of the aircraft is ALMOST irrelevant - after all, about the only parts of the K's that are ACTUALLY 40 years old are the fuselages. The real issue here is that we cannot fix or service them, because they have LEANed away all our manpower, and we don't have the bits to fix them, because they have 'Just-In-Time'-ed all the spares (now THAT'S a spin-phrase if ever I heard one!
If we somehow managed to aquire, from somewhere, a brand new fleet of K's built to exactly the same specifications as the ones we have, they would require no less (or very little less) maintenance than the '40 year old' ones do. I suspect the same is true of the VC10 and Tristar fleets.
If we could get back the eng manpower, and the spares stocks, we would see availability rocket.
Yes, I KNOW that doesn't address the fatigue issue, but that can be cured (or at least postponed) by bolting on new wings, which puts it straiight into the 'spares' and 'manpower' pidgeonhole in my book.
Another bad decision by a particularly daft bint chasing an OBE...
Registered User **
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Cambridge
Posts: 556
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If we somehow managed to aquire, from somewhere, a brand new fleet of K's built to exactly the same specifications as the ones we have, they would require no less (or very little less) maintenance than the '40 year old' ones do. I suspect the same is true of the VC10 and Tristar fleets.
S_H
Well said SH, though I suspect a fleet of brand new Ks would probably require more maintaining than a fleet of something exceedingly new, shiny and designed for ease of/low maintenance in a modern styleee. Witness the difference in serviceability between, say, the Hawk T1/T1a/T1w fleet at valley (i.e. slim to none) vice the serviceability of the more modern hawk fleets across the world (pretty much the same basic design for the 100 series) and the serviceability is significantly better, but not at the same level that a truly modern aircraft could achieve imho, even on a (relatively) simple airframe.