Big Willy Syndrome
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Thread Starter
Big Willy Syndrome
The Grauniad: Britain's armed forces are beset by bureaucracy and big willy syndrome by Max Hastings
.......I suspect there will be more tears before bedtime about the JSF programme, as the day approaches when cheques must be written for it. Somebody, probably the tenant of 10 Downing Street, will ask why we need this plane in addition to spending almost £20bn on the RAF's Typhoon, once called the Eurofighter. With both the F-35 and the Typhoon, a decade or two from now Britain will have too many fast jets and far too few transport aircraft.
The problem derives, as so often, from a big willy syndrome. Airmen measure their virility in terms of combat aircraft, and fight like tigers to maintain a large inventory. A rational defence review would oblige the RAF to face the reality that it needs a very small number of high-altitude interceptors and a modest force of ground-support aircraft...........
.......I suspect there will be more tears before bedtime about the JSF programme, as the day approaches when cheques must be written for it. Somebody, probably the tenant of 10 Downing Street, will ask why we need this plane in addition to spending almost £20bn on the RAF's Typhoon, once called the Eurofighter. With both the F-35 and the Typhoon, a decade or two from now Britain will have too many fast jets and far too few transport aircraft.
The problem derives, as so often, from a big willy syndrome. Airmen measure their virility in terms of combat aircraft, and fight like tigers to maintain a large inventory. A rational defence review would oblige the RAF to face the reality that it needs a very small number of high-altitude interceptors and a modest force of ground-support aircraft...........
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Under the clag EGKA
Posts: 1,026
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So what is he saying? Give the movers lots of big stuff? Merge with Pickfords? I suppose that he may have a point in that maybe we need loads of cheaper kit and pilots to fly it rather than a few bits of expensive stuff which just won't get everywhere it's needed.
TAC Int Bloke
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 975
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hitler' Hastings has been writing Armycentric* defence drivel for far to long now, isn't it sad that the world's greatest military minds ended up as journalists rather than servicemen/women?
*just invented a new word, feel free to intergrate it into dull meetings
*just invented a new word, feel free to intergrate it into dull meetings
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 932
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Glass half full
Some bits of this are very good - and it's good to see it in the Grauniad.
The twin thrusts of the argument - that we need a defence review to sort out a realistic budget or level of Ops/ambition, and that as a government department, the MOD is an expensively disfunctional organisation - seem to me to be spot on. Where it falls apart is in the "Armycentric" approach.
In my view, what needs to be said clearly and coherently is that we need well-equipped, balanced forces, able to project power gloablly and not be reliant on HNS.
Surprisingly, lots of senior people and politicans seem to use words like this, but then miss the next point:
This capability is expensive!
For far too long - and under Tories as well as Labour - there's been a drastic underinvestment in the forces, notably in equipment. In effect, we're using up investment made in the Cold War to fight two hot ones, and the unsurprising result is that things wear out and need to be replaced. In the US this was recognised in the late 90s with the term "block obsolescence", and the result was a reinvestment in equipment (recapitalisation, if you will). Gordon and Tony rightly saw this problem in the NHS and sought to solve it by oodles of dosh: someone needs to make it clear that the MOD needs
(i) recapitalisation
(ii) sized to fit the requirements (in the current world, bigger)
(iii) reform (civil service and procurement, for starters)
Or in other words, leadership. Gordon/David/Ming - the challenge, gentlemen, awaits.
S41
The twin thrusts of the argument - that we need a defence review to sort out a realistic budget or level of Ops/ambition, and that as a government department, the MOD is an expensively disfunctional organisation - seem to me to be spot on. Where it falls apart is in the "Armycentric" approach.
In my view, what needs to be said clearly and coherently is that we need well-equipped, balanced forces, able to project power gloablly and not be reliant on HNS.
Surprisingly, lots of senior people and politicans seem to use words like this, but then miss the next point:
This capability is expensive!
For far too long - and under Tories as well as Labour - there's been a drastic underinvestment in the forces, notably in equipment. In effect, we're using up investment made in the Cold War to fight two hot ones, and the unsurprising result is that things wear out and need to be replaced. In the US this was recognised in the late 90s with the term "block obsolescence", and the result was a reinvestment in equipment (recapitalisation, if you will). Gordon and Tony rightly saw this problem in the NHS and sought to solve it by oodles of dosh: someone needs to make it clear that the MOD needs
(i) recapitalisation
(ii) sized to fit the requirements (in the current world, bigger)
(iii) reform (civil service and procurement, for starters)
Or in other words, leadership. Gordon/David/Ming - the challenge, gentlemen, awaits.
S41
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Lincs
Posts: 203
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hastings is determined to criticise Typhoon and no amount of evidence to the contrary will change his view. However, he got this right:
There are constant complaints that decision-making is too centralised and cumbersome in the hands of the huge corps of MoD civil servants. These people have embraced management-speak in a fashion that promotes fantasy rather than efficiency. The MoD's formal mission statement describes Bill Jeffrey, the unimpressive permanent secretary, as "not only leading the workstream process, but driving it". This gobbledegook is characteristic of a mindset preoccupied with process rather than the pursuit of clear objectives.
Gordon Brown as chancellor was right about one thing concerning the MoD. It is still a metropolis of waste. Lord Drayson, the procurement minister, is a success story aboard what is otherwise an unhappy ship, but he is wrestling with a bureaucracy capable of seeing off Solomon. The service chiefs of staff possess much less executive authority and policy-making influence than the top civilians, most of whom know little or nothing about the armed forces or war-fighting.
We DO need a Defence Review. Max Hastings will not get a say. If we are confident of the contribution that we make to Defence, including the place of Fast Air, then we need not fear the conclusions.
There are constant complaints that decision-making is too centralised and cumbersome in the hands of the huge corps of MoD civil servants. These people have embraced management-speak in a fashion that promotes fantasy rather than efficiency. The MoD's formal mission statement describes Bill Jeffrey, the unimpressive permanent secretary, as "not only leading the workstream process, but driving it". This gobbledegook is characteristic of a mindset preoccupied with process rather than the pursuit of clear objectives.
Gordon Brown as chancellor was right about one thing concerning the MoD. It is still a metropolis of waste. Lord Drayson, the procurement minister, is a success story aboard what is otherwise an unhappy ship, but he is wrestling with a bureaucracy capable of seeing off Solomon. The service chiefs of staff possess much less executive authority and policy-making influence than the top civilians, most of whom know little or nothing about the armed forces or war-fighting.
We DO need a Defence Review. Max Hastings will not get a say. If we are confident of the contribution that we make to Defence, including the place of Fast Air, then we need not fear the conclusions.
Perhaps a more useful exercise than a review (which will pretty much inevitably justify what we have now and add some extra AT/SH/land manoeuvre units) might be a real investigation into where the money actually goes. Anyone who has worked in ABW will be aware that the visibility of what the STP in particular but also EP is actually being spent on is very limited. This has been compounded by RAB which adds all sorts of beanywonderland [(c) GBZ] cost terms which must appear in the budgets, but bear little resemblance to expenditure. One example I came across a couple of years ago was an IPT that supported missile systems. One line item in it's (tens of £M) annual budget equated to 50% of the total and was entitled "Issues to Fleet". Not one person could actually explain what that meant (and no it wasn't something obvious like a custody transfer or expenditure in live-firing - we should be so lucky).
I would suggest that before capability flagellation commences, the cost recording process is sorted first.
I would suggest that before capability flagellation commences, the cost recording process is sorted first.
SQ 41 said "there's been a drastic underinvestment in the forces, notably in equipment."
I would argue that the drastic underinvestment has been in personnel. There is some pretty good quality equipment coming through now and in the near future, but I'm not so sure there will be enough good quality people left to make best use of it!
I would argue that the drastic underinvestment has been in personnel. There is some pretty good quality equipment coming through now and in the near future, but I'm not so sure there will be enough good quality people left to make best use of it!
this euro-folly
If only he'd bother to expand his knowledge of air power beyond what could be written in capitals on a post-it note...
Did someone once post here something to the effect that he'd admitted that he hated the RAF, or just that the poster thought Hastings loathed the service? I can't recall.
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Falmouth
Posts: 1,651
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have to agree with vortex on that point. Sir Max Hastings has it spot on. Defence spending on equipment has never been higher, last year they spent over 5 billion on new equipment (mainly on that folly the Typhoon _ Sir Max is spot on again)
but defence investment in people has been lacking
but defence investment in people has been lacking
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 932
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When is a Review not A Review?
Or indeed, can we please have a real review that fixes things?
N-A-B
I agree, but this is what I mean by a review: setting out the political level aspirations of what we want to be able to do, and then determining the most effective (not most efficient per se) process to deliver it.
Looking at the last four ("New Chapter Describing how to paper over the cracks", "Not very Strategic Defence Review", "Front Line Last", and "Options for Saving Money") and I fully understand the problems with the words "MOD" and "Review"....
VG
I agree but the biggest push factors seem to be operational tempo and administrative b0ll0cks (incl. housing) and whilst I think we can change the world with Pprune, there are certain types of miracle.....!
Seriously, though, "human capital" has to be part and parcel of the renewal of the forces.
S41
N-A-B
I agree, but this is what I mean by a review: setting out the political level aspirations of what we want to be able to do, and then determining the most effective (not most efficient per se) process to deliver it.
Looking at the last four ("New Chapter Describing how to paper over the cracks", "Not very Strategic Defence Review", "Front Line Last", and "Options for Saving Money") and I fully understand the problems with the words "MOD" and "Review"....
VG
I agree but the biggest push factors seem to be operational tempo and administrative b0ll0cks (incl. housing) and whilst I think we can change the world with Pprune, there are certain types of miracle.....!
Seriously, though, "human capital" has to be part and parcel of the renewal of the forces.
S41
C'mon, vecvec, why is Typhoon a folly?
Hastings thinks it's a 'high altitude interceptor' akin to something like the
F-104A as originally designed (or perhaps the Lightning) and totally unable to contribute to the land battle. He says it's being 'modified' to do a job for which it was designed for.
What would you have bought in place? I don't mean more airlift (which we need), or more SH (which we need) but to replace the Jag and F3 so that the UK has an up-to-date multi-role capable aircraft. What would you have bought? Hastings never answers this question, so it would be nice to hear the credible alternatives - all of which are more of a 'Cold War dinosaur' than the Typhoon, or less capable, or more expensive or all three.
Hastings thinks it's a 'high altitude interceptor' akin to something like the
F-104A as originally designed (or perhaps the Lightning) and totally unable to contribute to the land battle. He says it's being 'modified' to do a job for which it was designed for.
What would you have bought in place? I don't mean more airlift (which we need), or more SH (which we need) but to replace the Jag and F3 so that the UK has an up-to-date multi-role capable aircraft. What would you have bought? Hastings never answers this question, so it would be nice to hear the credible alternatives - all of which are more of a 'Cold War dinosaur' than the Typhoon, or less capable, or more expensive or all three.
N-a-B,
"Anyone who has worked in ABW will be aware that the visibility of what the STP in particular but also EP is actually being spent on is very limited. This has been compounded by RAB which adds all sorts of beanywonderland [(c) GBZ] cost terms which must appear in the budgets, but bear little resemblance to expenditure."
All mimsy were the borogoves/And the mome raths outgrabe
I think all the pining for Ms Widdecombe has affected your brain...
"Anyone who has worked in ABW will be aware that the visibility of what the STP in particular but also EP is actually being spent on is very limited. This has been compounded by RAB which adds all sorts of beanywonderland [(c) GBZ] cost terms which must appear in the budgets, but bear little resemblance to expenditure."
All mimsy were the borogoves/And the mome raths outgrabe
I think all the pining for Ms Widdecombe has affected your brain...
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Thread Starter
I think it's more the 250+ Typhoons to equip 6 Sqns and the expected 150+ F-35s to equip 4 Sqns with a current fleet of less than 70.
That's 400+ to replace current fleets half the size.
I know you have to buy a few extra to cope with attrition, but there is a limit.....
You could either:
Half the expected F-35 order to about 90, which would make it difficult to man 2 carriers, plus an OCU/OEU and land based OOA ops.
Or
**** can Typhoon tranche 3 at great penalty expense.
Or
Use tranche 3 to replace tranche 1 aircraft and trade back in for resale (as has recently been suggested) as part of the Saudi deal or to whoever might be interested in them cheap and quick.
Flight International - 30th July:
.......The UK must make an investment decision next year on ordering its first JSFs, and also to meet its commitment to the Tranche 3 production phase of the four-nation Eurofighter Typhoon programme.
However, MoD finance director Trevor Woolley says "no decisions have yet been made" on the final phase of the Eurofighter project. "We have to make decisions on where our priorities lie," he says, adding: "There are always hard choices to be made in defence."
That's 400+ to replace current fleets half the size.
I know you have to buy a few extra to cope with attrition, but there is a limit.....
You could either:
Half the expected F-35 order to about 90, which would make it difficult to man 2 carriers, plus an OCU/OEU and land based OOA ops.
Or
**** can Typhoon tranche 3 at great penalty expense.
Or
Use tranche 3 to replace tranche 1 aircraft and trade back in for resale (as has recently been suggested) as part of the Saudi deal or to whoever might be interested in them cheap and quick.
Flight International - 30th July:
.......The UK must make an investment decision next year on ordering its first JSFs, and also to meet its commitment to the Tranche 3 production phase of the four-nation Eurofighter Typhoon programme.
However, MoD finance director Trevor Woolley says "no decisions have yet been made" on the final phase of the Eurofighter project. "We have to make decisions on where our priorities lie," he says, adding: "There are always hard choices to be made in defence."
Sorry LO
I should simply have posted that MoD has no idea what it's current budget is spent on now. Therefore, changing the budget as the result of any review would be akin to rearranging the deckchairs on the Titanic.
The constant nightmares are clearly affecting my grammar!
I should simply have posted that MoD has no idea what it's current budget is spent on now. Therefore, changing the budget as the result of any review would be akin to rearranging the deckchairs on the Titanic.
The constant nightmares are clearly affecting my grammar!
232 Typhoons to give a force of 137 in-use aircraft (seven x 16 Unit Establishment front line squadrons; the OCU; the OEU plus a couple of trials aircraft). Remaining 95 airframes to be rotated in and out of use/replace lost airframes over the course of the projected minimumprojected 30 years of service.
AIUI, 150 x JCA figure originally included the notion that some of these aircraft might replace some GR4s. There is a requirement for about 60 in use JCA at Lossiemouth, I believe, with the balance being the attrition reserve/means of evening out the FI across the 30+ year service life for the type.
If JCA replaces some GR4s, it'll be as the FCAC(Future Combat Aircraft Capability, IIRC) in two x 8 aircraft (yes, that's right, eight, not 12...) squadrons, but that's not been decided. JCA OEU will be in the US and consist of two aircraft.
AIUI, 150 x JCA figure originally included the notion that some of these aircraft might replace some GR4s. There is a requirement for about 60 in use JCA at Lossiemouth, I believe, with the balance being the attrition reserve/means of evening out the FI across the 30+ year service life for the type.
If JCA replaces some GR4s, it'll be as the FCAC(Future Combat Aircraft Capability, IIRC) in two x 8 aircraft (yes, that's right, eight, not 12...) squadrons, but that's not been decided. JCA OEU will be in the US and consist of two aircraft.
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Here and there. Here at the moment but soon I'll be there.
Posts: 758
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Maple 01 said;
Too late, the Yanks got there first. From Google ....
Countering a Strategic Gambit: Keeping US Airpower Employable in a ...
Its armycentric military has not moved beyond its traditional counterlanding mission to thwart the PRC advances in its naval, air, or missile forces.16 ...
http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/a...05/martin.html - 50k - Cached - Similar pages
Armycentric*
*just invented a new word, feel free to intergrate it into dull meetings
*just invented a new word, feel free to intergrate it into dull meetings
Countering a Strategic Gambit: Keeping US Airpower Employable in a ...
Its armycentric military has not moved beyond its traditional counterlanding mission to thwart the PRC advances in its naval, air, or missile forces.16 ...
http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/a...05/martin.html - 50k - Cached - Similar pages
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Thread Starter
seven x 16 Unit Establishment front line squadrons
And, if the GR7/9 sqns are 8/9 ac, and the FCAC sqns will be 8 aircraft, how long will 16 aircraft remain the standard for Typhoon? F3 Sqns averaged 12 (LU sqns got 3 more for QRA).