Eurofighter a dud - London plans to reduce order for obsolescent fighter
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: your mother's bedroom
Posts: 54
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Eurofighter a dud - London plans to reduce order for obsolescent fighter
UK govt trying to cut, delay or cancel Eurofighter Typhoon order - report
13-SEP-2007 08:17
13-SEP-2007 08:17
LONDON (Thomson Financial) - The UK government is trying to reduce, delay or entirely cancel a 5 bln stg order for 88 Eurofighter Typhoon jets from a consortium including European aerospace group EADS and BAE Systems PLC, according to a report.
The Ministry of Defence (MoD) is in talks with the consortium about how much it would cost to cut the so-called Tranche 3 contract for the aircraft, the Times quoted the chief executive of EADS Defence Systems, Stefan Zoller, as saying.
http://www.lse.co.uk/PoliticsNews.as...order_-_report
13-SEP-2007 08:17
13-SEP-2007 08:17
LONDON (Thomson Financial) - The UK government is trying to reduce, delay or entirely cancel a 5 bln stg order for 88 Eurofighter Typhoon jets from a consortium including European aerospace group EADS and BAE Systems PLC, according to a report.
The Ministry of Defence (MoD) is in talks with the consortium about how much it would cost to cut the so-called Tranche 3 contract for the aircraft, the Times quoted the chief executive of EADS Defence Systems, Stefan Zoller, as saying.
http://www.lse.co.uk/PoliticsNews.as...order_-_report
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 48
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Britain has already bought 144 of the jets for the Royal Air Force (RAF), but the UK Treasury will not allow the MoD to buy both Tranche 3 of Eurofighter and the Joint Strike Fighter, which will fly from the two new aircraft carriers being built for the Royal Navy, the newspaper quoted unidentified defence sources as saying.
Translation - "You can replace your QRA Tonkas and swing-role ground pounders, or you can have aircraft flying off carriers. Not both.
Cant believe its really come to this. If the budget for procurement was this damned tight, I'll be surprised we've got enough money to fly Spitfires off those carriers if they get built...
Translation - "You can replace your QRA Tonkas and swing-role ground pounders, or you can have aircraft flying off carriers. Not both.
Cant believe its really come to this. If the budget for procurement was this damned tight, I'll be surprised we've got enough money to fly Spitfires off those carriers if they get built...
Cant believe its really come to this. If the budget for procurement was this damned tight, I'll be surprised we've got enough money to fly Spitfires off those carriers if they get built...
I suppose it would be too much to ask that those working in the MoD are given a good hard kick in the bollocks every time they screw up and project over runs lead to a little bit more of the country's defence capability being whittled away? After a couple of times of mincing their way down Whitehall to get the train back to their cushy houses in the Shires, they may get fed up and start to do their jobs properly. Just a thought. Well more of a hope really.
If MoD do all their project management based around Prince2, if I were the originator of Prince2 I would be looking to distance myself from this shower of ****e.
Melchett
It’s difficult to point fingers at ordinary sponsors (OR/DEC) and procurers (PE/DPA/DE&S) when those at the top (Ingram, and now Ainsworth) are prepared to place in writing their unqualified support for those who knowingly and quite deliberately waste money, and who uphold disciplinary action against those who refuse to commit such a fraud.
I’ve mentioned before that it would take me 5 minutes to make a case to save £200M on a single (named) project, with no adverse effect. In fact, I’ve done it, and been ignored. The process I used, mandated by PUS, is a legal obligation on all MoD staff, yet has effectively been outlawed by the above Ministerial rulings. I know good people who would rather lie, deceive and commit that fraud simply to avoid the odium they would face for doing their job properly. When you have that sort of conflict at the top, what chance does the ordinary man have? It’s politics. And the pressure from the fallout overcomes otherwise sane and competent people. I believe most in MoD do their best, but inside those cushy homes they have families to feed, and I cannot condemn them out of hand when they know they face the sack for refusing to waste money. In my experience, those who do stick their heads above the parapet are usually close to retirement or terminally ill. MoD ignores them, knowing one way or another they will soon be gone. The only thing that really has to be said to support this is - Dr David Kelly.
It’s difficult to point fingers at ordinary sponsors (OR/DEC) and procurers (PE/DPA/DE&S) when those at the top (Ingram, and now Ainsworth) are prepared to place in writing their unqualified support for those who knowingly and quite deliberately waste money, and who uphold disciplinary action against those who refuse to commit such a fraud.
I’ve mentioned before that it would take me 5 minutes to make a case to save £200M on a single (named) project, with no adverse effect. In fact, I’ve done it, and been ignored. The process I used, mandated by PUS, is a legal obligation on all MoD staff, yet has effectively been outlawed by the above Ministerial rulings. I know good people who would rather lie, deceive and commit that fraud simply to avoid the odium they would face for doing their job properly. When you have that sort of conflict at the top, what chance does the ordinary man have? It’s politics. And the pressure from the fallout overcomes otherwise sane and competent people. I believe most in MoD do their best, but inside those cushy homes they have families to feed, and I cannot condemn them out of hand when they know they face the sack for refusing to waste money. In my experience, those who do stick their heads above the parapet are usually close to retirement or terminally ill. MoD ignores them, knowing one way or another they will soon be gone. The only thing that really has to be said to support this is - Dr David Kelly.
Right you are... the contract was written that way to avoid the syndrome of partners proposing to buy large numbers of aircraft, thereby inflating their share of engineering and manufacturing work, and then scaling back.
But the pain of it is that now - with CVF and JSF committed and locked together - the Govt now announces that it can't afford JSF and Typhoon, and the UK gets JSF, which is slower, shorter-legged and less versatile.
But the pain of it is that now - with CVF and JSF committed and locked together - the Govt now announces that it can't afford JSF and Typhoon, and the UK gets JSF, which is slower, shorter-legged and less versatile.
The question should be whether the country can afford this government.
Maybe on one of his days off from looking after Jockistan, Swiss Des could explain his position regarding TypHoon and F-35?
Maybe on one of his days off from looking after Jockistan, Swiss Des could explain his position regarding TypHoon and F-35?
Tucumseh
You are right, it is difficult to accuse those at the implementation level ie mid management levels of screwing up massively. As much as I like a good harrumph at Civil Servants & MoD etc, there are probably very few of them that wake up in the mornings and go to work with the intention of doing a bad job.
The people that really need the kick in the bollocks are the senior policy stream - our so-called high flyers and the Machieavellian Sir Humphry types with their own personal agendas and power games (oh and the contract writers who are just plain incompetent). But I would reserve the biggest kick in the bollocks for the politicians who 'direct' and I use that word in its loosest sense, our defence policy.
You are right, it is difficult to accuse those at the implementation level ie mid management levels of screwing up massively. As much as I like a good harrumph at Civil Servants & MoD etc, there are probably very few of them that wake up in the mornings and go to work with the intention of doing a bad job.
The people that really need the kick in the bollocks are the senior policy stream - our so-called high flyers and the Machieavellian Sir Humphry types with their own personal agendas and power games (oh and the contract writers who are just plain incompetent). But I would reserve the biggest kick in the bollocks for the politicians who 'direct' and I use that word in its loosest sense, our defence policy.
For those on this thread who are outraged at this threat to the expected fighter aircraft re-equipment of the Royal Air Force, the mechanics of this wasteful incompetence are succinctly encapsulated in tucumseh's post. Read it, study it, and read his previous posts on the Mull, Parliamentary and Panorama threads re Chinook, Hercules and Nimrod compromised airworthiness. In my view his testimony amounts to a damning indictment of the MOD and its political, civil service and military leadership. Now that it is seen to ensnare the "cavalry" as against the "truckers" and the "watchers", who are actually at war, there is a hue and cry raised. Well so be it, but you won't get your precious kit back by stamping your feet. There has to be a root and branch reform of the MOD, and military airworthiness needs to be removed to an independent authority beyond its incompetent malevolent reach. Self regulation has failed here as it always does, and the price is paid in wasted lives and squillions of pounds of tax.
Last edited by Chugalug2; 14th Sep 2007 at 09:16. Reason: spelin
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
Middle management is not blameless though.
In a project costing £1bn there are so many noughts that even a £10m saving barely registers.
In one case a senior civil servant - B1 ish - left his briefcase behind.
Someone drove to his office, collected the briefcase, drove to an airfield, delivered it to a Canberra crew, who flew it to a remote Scottish airfield, where it was then delivered to where its owner had wanted it.
In the great scheme of things it was a 'dot' on the accounts sheet. It was a total waste of money because the meeting went ahead anyway and the CS had left.
Now if budgets were devolved so that real decisions on expenditure had to be made at the petty cash end we might get some cumulative savings.
I know the old saw, spend upto or over budget otherwise it will be cut next year. Why not do it on a 'profit' and 'bonus' basis?
Not the "oh he's a jolly good chap, sterling job in adverse circumstances - enhanced bonus, next - "
But "Ah, this team has come in £100k under budget this year. We can afford to pay them a £10k bonus. The £90k can be rolled forward or put into the nice to have pot."
Real saving. Real bonus.
In a project costing £1bn there are so many noughts that even a £10m saving barely registers.
In one case a senior civil servant - B1 ish - left his briefcase behind.
Someone drove to his office, collected the briefcase, drove to an airfield, delivered it to a Canberra crew, who flew it to a remote Scottish airfield, where it was then delivered to where its owner had wanted it.
In the great scheme of things it was a 'dot' on the accounts sheet. It was a total waste of money because the meeting went ahead anyway and the CS had left.
Now if budgets were devolved so that real decisions on expenditure had to be made at the petty cash end we might get some cumulative savings.
I know the old saw, spend upto or over budget otherwise it will be cut next year. Why not do it on a 'profit' and 'bonus' basis?
Not the "oh he's a jolly good chap, sterling job in adverse circumstances - enhanced bonus, next - "
But "Ah, this team has come in £100k under budget this year. We can afford to pay them a £10k bonus. The £90k can be rolled forward or put into the nice to have pot."
Real saving. Real bonus.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: East Anglia
Posts: 1,873
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Unfortunately if a team comes in 100k under budget the bean counters say, well obviously you didn't budget properly or you deliberately inflated your requirement, therefore we will take the 100k plus a percentage as punishment for being inefficient from next years budget. Maybe a little too cynical but you know what I mean.
Next gripe really is what effect does making 5% year on year savings through efficiencies really achieve? I suspect that there is very little fat that can be pared now without stopping the routine and mundane and essential tasks that used to be done regularly.
Next gripe really is what effect does making 5% year on year savings through efficiencies really achieve? I suspect that there is very little fat that can be pared now without stopping the routine and mundane and essential tasks that used to be done regularly.
Cunning Artificer
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: The spiritual home of DeHavilland
Age: 76
Posts: 3,127
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Aren't our rulers getting their carts before their horses?
If we can't afford the equipment then we can't commit our armed forces to foreign squabbles. The ill equipped and under resourced troops must be withdrawn from the fray.
Then we don't need Carrier Groups, so we cancel the carriers and the aircraft to go on them, hand the Malvinas over to Argentina and concentrate the RAF's role on home air defence, the navy on protecting the shipping lanes and the army on defending the beaches and landing grounds.
Or else we increase the defence budget to cover the cost of HM Government's committments to supporting and participating in foreign wars.
If we can't afford the equipment then we can't commit our armed forces to foreign squabbles. The ill equipped and under resourced troops must be withdrawn from the fray.
Then we don't need Carrier Groups, so we cancel the carriers and the aircraft to go on them, hand the Malvinas over to Argentina and concentrate the RAF's role on home air defence, the navy on protecting the shipping lanes and the army on defending the beaches and landing grounds.
Or else we increase the defence budget to cover the cost of HM Government's committments to supporting and participating in foreign wars.
