General Sir Richard Dannatt on radio 4
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: bristol
Age: 56
Posts: 1,051
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
General Sir Richard Dannatt on radio 4
Hi all.
First off, I cannot give full details for this topic, as I cannot get proper internet access at the moment, so apologies for that.
Earlier this morning there was an interview on radio 4 with the above general, and he was voicing his opinion on strategy in Afghanistan. One of the other things he mentioned was that he believes that (now there is a new government) there should be a review of the PFI air tanker deal, as it is a disaster (my words, not his). He also said the number of fast jests the RAF has needs to be looked at, as we have too many.
I have to admit, I totally agree with his view on the air tanker deal.
Just thought I would mention this, as he is maybe using the election of the new government to try to move some things on. If you can get access to Iplayer it may be worth looking up the interview (it was on the 'today show')
First off, I cannot give full details for this topic, as I cannot get proper internet access at the moment, so apologies for that.
Earlier this morning there was an interview on radio 4 with the above general, and he was voicing his opinion on strategy in Afghanistan. One of the other things he mentioned was that he believes that (now there is a new government) there should be a review of the PFI air tanker deal, as it is a disaster (my words, not his). He also said the number of fast jests the RAF has needs to be looked at, as we have too many.
I have to admit, I totally agree with his view on the air tanker deal.
Just thought I would mention this, as he is maybe using the election of the new government to try to move some things on. If you can get access to Iplayer it may be worth looking up the interview (it was on the 'today show')
I suppose it shows that even a blinkered fool like Dannatt can sometimes get it right.
The tanker PFI is a disaster? No sh*t, Sherlock. (But the clever thing is what you do about it now....)
Too many RAF FJs? Two Harrier, two Typhoon, one F3 and seven GR4 Squadrons.
12 Squadrons seems to be below the irreduceable minimum to me, since we need five squadrons for UK AD alone, and since we seem to struggle to maintain a single squadron on a long term enduring operational deployment with 7 GR4 Squadrons..........
It's terrifying that this bloke has such power and influence in the new Government.
The tanker PFI is a disaster? No sh*t, Sherlock. (But the clever thing is what you do about it now....)
Too many RAF FJs? Two Harrier, two Typhoon, one F3 and seven GR4 Squadrons.
12 Squadrons seems to be below the irreduceable minimum to me, since we need five squadrons for UK AD alone, and since we seem to struggle to maintain a single squadron on a long term enduring operational deployment with 7 GR4 Squadrons..........
It's terrifying that this bloke has such power and influence in the new Government.
number of fast jests the RAF has
I listened to it and my interpretation was that yes tankers a farce but there was a need for 3 services and that he said we had too many Tanks, Big guns and Typhoons . So cuts all round then.
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's terrifying that this bloke has such power and influence in the new Government.
Was he specific about his criticisms of Air Tanker? Were his criticisms aimed at the entire PFI strategy? Or at the execution of the plan?
If you start with the premise that you need to find a way to fly the A330s productively, all year round, virtually round the clock (as they fly in airlines) then you need to build unusual flexibility into their operational capability. It is difficult to see how you could do that other than having the ability to offer them on the civilian charter market when not in use by the RAF. If there is no capability to use them productively on the civilian market in peacetime, then the RAF will still be using them in fifty years time when they are flying dinosaurs - like Tri*.
Last edited by Trim Stab; 14th May 2010 at 11:29.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: bristol
Age: 56
Posts: 1,051
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jacko
IMHO you are coming across as a bit bitter recently.
I take it you have met the general several times to come to your conclusion on him (bearing in mind it is a personal, not professional attack).
I didn't get the impression he has only just come to this conclusion, but then the previous government seemed to love PFI's, even if that went against MOD/service advice.
IMHO you are coming across as a bit bitter recently.
I take it you have met the general several times to come to your conclusion on him (bearing in mind it is a personal, not professional attack).
I didn't get the impression he has only just come to this conclusion, but then the previous government seemed to love PFI's, even if that went against MOD/service advice.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Temporarily missing from the Joe Louis Arena
Posts: 2,131
Received 27 Likes
on
16 Posts
Unfortunately all the services have their own "my service first"/colour blind to navy blue/light blue/green throbbers and Gen (Rtd) Sir Richard Dannatt has long stood (in my ever-so-humble opinion) as one of that particular herd.
Too many fast jets? Aye, Harrier and Tonka not to far-off their use-by date, why not thin them out now and have another defence capability holiday? I'm sure he won't be the first to jump up and down when 'his' boys are screaming out even more for air support in Afgan (the only conflict the MoD is going to face in the next 30 years it seems) when the last few Tonkas sit in bits at Marham worn out and two dozen Tiffys add 'drop bomb on bad guy' to their list, just below Northern QRA, Southern QRA and Falklands Islands QRA.
The long, drawn-out process of introducing Bowman/Apache and all number of 'green' projects must surely be an indicator to this buffoon that slightly more complex things such as fighter aircraft able to deal with modern threats are neither cheap, quick to develop nor quick to field, which might be quite an important consideration if Afghanistan doesn't turn out to be the only conflict the British forces face over the next 20 or so years.
Who would have guessed 20 years ago that the British military would upto now have been involved in two major wars involving Iraq, a post-colonial conflict in Africa, two peacekeeping operations in Eastern Europe and a continuing nasty war in an old stamping ground from the days of the Raj?
As others have said, its a crying shame this chap has such a high-profile soapbox to blather his single service mentality from. Him and his ilk are undoing many years valuable work to create a truely 'purple' military, which can only untimately damage to defence capability of this nation.
Oh and ps,
No I haven't met the chap and you're probably (almost definately) right that I know less about defence than him. What I do know though is down at the comparitively lowly levels at which I served, more often than not during my career in Tri-service enviroments, people were trying very hard to get over the idiocy that is single service politics in order that the job could get done. Comments from this chap are no better than those made by light blue bedecked windbags calling for all avaition in the military to be flown by one of their chums rather than the Andrew or TWA.
Too many fast jets? Aye, Harrier and Tonka not to far-off their use-by date, why not thin them out now and have another defence capability holiday? I'm sure he won't be the first to jump up and down when 'his' boys are screaming out even more for air support in Afgan (the only conflict the MoD is going to face in the next 30 years it seems) when the last few Tonkas sit in bits at Marham worn out and two dozen Tiffys add 'drop bomb on bad guy' to their list, just below Northern QRA, Southern QRA and Falklands Islands QRA.
The long, drawn-out process of introducing Bowman/Apache and all number of 'green' projects must surely be an indicator to this buffoon that slightly more complex things such as fighter aircraft able to deal with modern threats are neither cheap, quick to develop nor quick to field, which might be quite an important consideration if Afghanistan doesn't turn out to be the only conflict the British forces face over the next 20 or so years.
Who would have guessed 20 years ago that the British military would upto now have been involved in two major wars involving Iraq, a post-colonial conflict in Africa, two peacekeeping operations in Eastern Europe and a continuing nasty war in an old stamping ground from the days of the Raj?
As others have said, its a crying shame this chap has such a high-profile soapbox to blather his single service mentality from. Him and his ilk are undoing many years valuable work to create a truely 'purple' military, which can only untimately damage to defence capability of this nation.
Oh and ps,
No I haven't met the chap and you're probably (almost definately) right that I know less about defence than him. What I do know though is down at the comparitively lowly levels at which I served, more often than not during my career in Tri-service enviroments, people were trying very hard to get over the idiocy that is single service politics in order that the job could get done. Comments from this chap are no better than those made by light blue bedecked windbags calling for all avaition in the military to be flown by one of their chums rather than the Andrew or TWA.
Unfortunately all the services have their own "my service first"/colour blind to navy blue/light blue/green throbbers and Gen (Rtd) Sir Richard Dannatt has long stood (in my ever-so-humble opinion) as one of that particular herd.
Who would have guessed 20 years ago that the British military would upto now have been involved in two major wars involving Iraq, a post-colonial conflict in Africa, two peacekeeping operations in Eastern Europe and a continuing nasty war in an old stamping ground from the days of the Raj?
Champagne anyone...?
Have to agree with with his comments about fast jets and the Tanker PFI. Not being truckie-centric and I'm well aware how air power works 
however I would question the need for the x many hundred typhoons we're getting and the bottomless pit that is JSF. The details of the Air Tanker deal are nothing short of hilarious and I can only assume they managed to pin down that awesome PFI deal through one of those daytime TV finance ads..... 
I've actually spent quite a bit of time chatting with Dannatt and I seriously have to take issue with your comments Jacko me old. The chap is neither blinkered nor a fool and holds pretty broad, sharp opinions on how to deal with our defence spending problems. Big ticket items like Typhoon and JSF need to be properly justified as the financial axe looms but similarly the Army need to look at what they actually need and don't need hence his comments about armour and heavy artillery. Simply saying we need 5 Sqns for UK AD and that's that simply won't wash. A possibly ludditic suggestion might be one up north, one down south and one OCU. Chuck a few jets in storage and go overborne on engineers and pilots on each squadron. And that we can only maintain a small det off the back of 7 GR4 sqns says more about our internal management than it does about the amount of money we have. The inference is we need 100 jets so we can get 2 in the air. A very simplistic view of the world perhaps but to be fair that's all we in the truckie world receive back from our FJ masters.
The RAF is pouring obscene amounts of money into the whole Typhoon project - not just the aircraft, but basing infrastructure too. That's all well and good but at the other end of the food chain you have projects like Future Brize where there is no money for new builds and some of the workarounds being suggested are nothing short of ridiculous. This isn't petty jealousy just an observation of how skewed the upper echelons are in their appreciation of what is important in today's RAF.
The MoD isn't ringfenced from the forthcoming cuts and the RAF needs to box clever if it wants to avoid being hammered. I don't hold out much hope though - during a recent Airshiporial visit to a secret Wiltshire airbase, the gentleman concerned chose not to address the pressing local matters of dying fleets, closing squadrons, lack of hours, moving stations and missing aircraft upgrades and instead implored us to not worry as "JSF is on it's way!"
Seriously sir, none of us - many with hundreds if not thousands of hours of operationally deployed flying - could care less.
however I would question the need for the x many hundred typhoons we're getting and the bottomless pit that is JSF. The details of the Air Tanker deal are nothing short of hilarious and I can only assume they managed to pin down that awesome PFI deal through one of those daytime TV finance ads..... I've actually spent quite a bit of time chatting with Dannatt and I seriously have to take issue with your comments Jacko me old. The chap is neither blinkered nor a fool and holds pretty broad, sharp opinions on how to deal with our defence spending problems. Big ticket items like Typhoon and JSF need to be properly justified as the financial axe looms but similarly the Army need to look at what they actually need and don't need hence his comments about armour and heavy artillery. Simply saying we need 5 Sqns for UK AD and that's that simply won't wash. A possibly ludditic suggestion might be one up north, one down south and one OCU. Chuck a few jets in storage and go overborne on engineers and pilots on each squadron. And that we can only maintain a small det off the back of 7 GR4 sqns says more about our internal management than it does about the amount of money we have. The inference is we need 100 jets so we can get 2 in the air. A very simplistic view of the world perhaps but to be fair that's all we in the truckie world receive back from our FJ masters.
The RAF is pouring obscene amounts of money into the whole Typhoon project - not just the aircraft, but basing infrastructure too. That's all well and good but at the other end of the food chain you have projects like Future Brize where there is no money for new builds and some of the workarounds being suggested are nothing short of ridiculous. This isn't petty jealousy just an observation of how skewed the upper echelons are in their appreciation of what is important in today's RAF.
The MoD isn't ringfenced from the forthcoming cuts and the RAF needs to box clever if it wants to avoid being hammered. I don't hold out much hope though - during a recent Airshiporial visit to a secret Wiltshire airbase, the gentleman concerned chose not to address the pressing local matters of dying fleets, closing squadrons, lack of hours, moving stations and missing aircraft upgrades and instead implored us to not worry as "JSF is on it's way!"
Seriously sir, none of us - many with hundreds if not thousands of hours of operationally deployed flying - could care less.
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 794
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Stop,
I echo Trim, a very good post.
Sir Dannatt is a very clever, elqouent and charming gentleman. To say he is thinking one-sidedly shows the limit of one's understanding of the shape that defence is in at the moment.
Tankers - I think we are all agreed.
Jets - Umm, maybe too many and are they suitable for CAS in that 30 year war mentioned above?
Jet Carrying Boats - Got to have them to set up that floating FOB anywhere on the globe. Like it or not the RN will probably keep them.
Tanks - Yesterday's kit and people like the Royal Tank Regiment know this.
Big Guns - Again, probably yesterday's kit. Light and airmobile is probably the way forward. The RA is working on this and has already made a big landgrab on TUAVs.
SH - Need more...still.
AH - Good when it works.
AT - Discussed loads on here and I hope the current models hang in until replacements arrive.
Whether you like it or not there is going to be a big push for UAS.
Overall, you may wear light blue, dark blue or green, this year is going to be painful but it may help us all deliver a better service to those that need it...ie the frontline. This should start with more Streamlining (I am yet to see any benefits of this) and a good pullthrough, with much oil, of DE&S...
g
I echo Trim, a very good post.
Sir Dannatt is a very clever, elqouent and charming gentleman. To say he is thinking one-sidedly shows the limit of one's understanding of the shape that defence is in at the moment.
Tankers - I think we are all agreed.
Jets - Umm, maybe too many and are they suitable for CAS in that 30 year war mentioned above?
Jet Carrying Boats - Got to have them to set up that floating FOB anywhere on the globe. Like it or not the RN will probably keep them.
Tanks - Yesterday's kit and people like the Royal Tank Regiment know this.
Big Guns - Again, probably yesterday's kit. Light and airmobile is probably the way forward. The RA is working on this and has already made a big landgrab on TUAVs.
SH - Need more...still.
AH - Good when it works.
AT - Discussed loads on here and I hope the current models hang in until replacements arrive.
Whether you like it or not there is going to be a big push for UAS.
Overall, you may wear light blue, dark blue or green, this year is going to be painful but it may help us all deliver a better service to those that need it...ie the frontline. This should start with more Streamlining (I am yet to see any benefits of this) and a good pullthrough, with much oil, of DE&S...
g
Stop Start
Excellent.
And in that simple statement lies the cause of so many of MoD's problems. The failure to properly justify, to scrutineers.
MoD's own Internal Auditors (DIA) issued a coruscating report to PUS (the Chief Accounting Officer) in June 1996 making 19 recommendations all based on the need to justify, through proper Requirement Scrutiny (see JSP414 and the old PE Finance Handbook). Before anyone thinks this is beancounter work, RS is conducted from the User's viewpoint and is one of the key roles of any Requirements Manager, which nowadays is almost exclusively an SO2 or SO1 post. But if you ever meet one who knows the first thing about RS, let me know. Failing to understand and make one's own case is what lets the beancounters step in and walk all over the Services.
To take one example, implementing Recommendation 15 properly would have nipped many airworthiness problems in the bud, negating the need for Haddon-Cave and the costly retrospective application of mandated regulations. In fact, like Haddon-Cave, most of the 19 Recommendations could be summarised as "Implement existing regulations".
MoD say they do not have this report and cannot say if any of the recommendations have been implemented. (Although clearly one of us has a copy). What they are quite happy to confirm, however, is that conducting RS in accordance with the regulations remains a disciplinary offence.
Sort that out, save billions, and move on to the NHS "citadel of waste".
Excellent.
need to be properly justified
MoD's own Internal Auditors (DIA) issued a coruscating report to PUS (the Chief Accounting Officer) in June 1996 making 19 recommendations all based on the need to justify, through proper Requirement Scrutiny (see JSP414 and the old PE Finance Handbook). Before anyone thinks this is beancounter work, RS is conducted from the User's viewpoint and is one of the key roles of any Requirements Manager, which nowadays is almost exclusively an SO2 or SO1 post. But if you ever meet one who knows the first thing about RS, let me know. Failing to understand and make one's own case is what lets the beancounters step in and walk all over the Services.
To take one example, implementing Recommendation 15 properly would have nipped many airworthiness problems in the bud, negating the need for Haddon-Cave and the costly retrospective application of mandated regulations. In fact, like Haddon-Cave, most of the 19 Recommendations could be summarised as "Implement existing regulations".
MoD say they do not have this report and cannot say if any of the recommendations have been implemented. (Although clearly one of us has a copy
). What they are quite happy to confirm, however, is that conducting RS in accordance with the regulations remains a disciplinary offence. Sort that out, save billions, and move on to the NHS "citadel of waste".
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 794
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
'But if you ever meet one who knows the first thing about RS, let me know. That ignorance and lack of training is what lets the beancounters step in and walk all over the Services.'
Do they?
I don't think they did during my 23 months as an RM on one of the projects detailed above.
If a requirement isn't constructed well enough to convince everyone reading it then that is another story. We are in danger of getting into the UOR vs EP debate here but overall you won't find many RMs that don't have the best interests of the User at heart.
Are they correctly trained or effectively employed? Are the CS that work in DE&S suitable to take on the might of LM, BAe, Westlands, GD etc
Different questions and ones that should be addressed by my well-oiled, 25mm x 25mm comment above.
G
Do they?
I don't think they did during my 23 months as an RM on one of the projects detailed above.
If a requirement isn't constructed well enough to convince everyone reading it then that is another story. We are in danger of getting into the UOR vs EP debate here but overall you won't find many RMs that don't have the best interests of the User at heart.
Are they correctly trained or effectively employed? Are the CS that work in DE&S suitable to take on the might of LM, BAe, Westlands, GD etc
Different questions and ones that should be addressed by my well-oiled, 25mm x 25mm comment above.
G
gijoe
I amended my post as I thought I was being too harsh on Service RqMs. As a civvy, I was trained as a RqM, a pre-requisite being many years relevant experience on (in my case) the equipment and aircraft; designing, building, repairing, managing as a project etc. The regulations require a RqM to be an engineer, if only because they also say that he must use his "Engineering Judgement" as the final arbiter in cases of conflict. Another tool to defeat the beancounters.
When these became Service posts, it was immediately obvious most were not trained and very few were engineers. Very quickly, the meat of the jobs defaulted to the civvys anyway (whose terms and conditions state they must be able to do all jobs in the project team if non-engineering / non-civilian staff cannot or will not). That is not the fault of the RqMs. Most, do indeed, have the best interests of their Service at heart. The last time I even bothered "my" RqM he politely asked me to do it myself as I knew how, and he would crack on as IPT Social Secretary. Did a great job as well. Waste of a Colonel's post though.
To your last question. No, the civvys are not trained these days in the way I describe and it is more or less an obligation of the job to allow companies to walk all over you. (A former Chief of Defence Procurement even named a company!). Those who rebel are quickly put down.
I amended my post as I thought I was being too harsh on Service RqMs. As a civvy, I was trained as a RqM, a pre-requisite being many years relevant experience on (in my case) the equipment and aircraft; designing, building, repairing, managing as a project etc. The regulations require a RqM to be an engineer, if only because they also say that he must use his "Engineering Judgement" as the final arbiter in cases of conflict. Another tool to defeat the beancounters.
When these became Service posts, it was immediately obvious most were not trained and very few were engineers. Very quickly, the meat of the jobs defaulted to the civvys anyway (whose terms and conditions state they must be able to do all jobs in the project team if non-engineering / non-civilian staff cannot or will not). That is not the fault of the RqMs. Most, do indeed, have the best interests of their Service at heart. The last time I even bothered "my" RqM he politely asked me to do it myself as I knew how, and he would crack on as IPT Social Secretary. Did a great job as well. Waste of a Colonel's post though.
To your last question. No, the civvys are not trained these days in the way I describe and it is more or less an obligation of the job to allow companies to walk all over you. (A former Chief of Defence Procurement even named a company!). Those who rebel are quickly put down.
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 794
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Point taken and agreed - there are aspects of the job that require continuity and other skills, driving DOORs etc. We had a contractor on my team of 6 to do this. There are evdinetly people that are out of their depth in this sort of role.
Another way to look at this question is to ask 'Would you stay there for 5 years to fully learn the trade?' Good for schools, good for Mrs, not moving house again etc
I wouldn't given the current state of DE&S.
G
PS BEng, MSc, CEng so I hope I brought something useful to the table.
Another way to look at this question is to ask 'Would you stay there for 5 years to fully learn the trade?' Good for schools, good for Mrs, not moving house again etc
I wouldn't given the current state of DE&S.
G
PS BEng, MSc, CEng so I hope I brought something useful to the table.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Uk
Posts: 182
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
a few points
1.typhoon has already been cut from 232 to 160...ish
2. does anyone honestly think we'll get anything near 140 jsf?
3. FSTA is a steaming pile of pooh, but what's the alternative
the one thing it has going for it is that it doesn't involve upfront capital expenditure, any alternative is likely to involve spending more money (we don't have) sooner rather than later.
Then there's the issue of cancellation charges for the current contract
its liable to delay tri-stars replacement again not ideal when we already have an AT train crash on the way
1.typhoon has already been cut from 232 to 160...ish
2. does anyone honestly think we'll get anything near 140 jsf?
3. FSTA is a steaming pile of pooh, but what's the alternative
the one thing it has going for it is that it doesn't involve upfront capital expenditure, any alternative is likely to involve spending more money (we don't have) sooner rather than later.
Then there's the issue of cancellation charges for the current contract
its liable to delay tri-stars replacement again not ideal when we already have an AT train crash on the way
BEng, MSc, CEng
Hmmm...is that the turning of worms I hear? Time to call out the guard methinks, as it seems there's trouble at t'mill. People talk about inter-service rivalry but the RAF it seems is more afflicted these days by in-service rivalry, with the "Cavalry of the Clouds" as ever keen to maintain their dominance. I too am a mere (ex)-truckie and despair at the way AT and SH, so vital in theatre, have been squeezed by the costly machinations of their more nimble brethren. As usual all this is played out in that den of iniquity, the Ministry of Defence. Tuc has more intimate knowledge of the skulduggery there than most, certainly than I, but unless and until those dark corridors are finally swept clean, needless waste will continue, needless losses will be suffered. When one remembers that it was very much Mountbatten's baby then the built in incompetence and dissembling can perhaps be better comprehended. Nothing less than total reform is needed and (the punch line at last!) it should start with the complete separation from it of the new MAA and the formation of an Independent MAAIB separate in turn from the MAA.
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 794
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
'If you'd worked in MoD(PE) in 1996, under the same CDP I mentioned, you'd have been out on your ear. No need for technical staff on technology programmes.'
...there were times during my tenure when I would have judged that nothing had changed.
It is a self-licking dinosaur lolly!
G
...there were times during my tenure when I would have judged that nothing had changed.
It is a self-licking dinosaur lolly!
G
Champagne anyone...?
knowitall
1. Good. And if the very electric C130J can manage to generate about 50% of it's fleet on a daily basis then it must be safe to assume that 50 odd (allowing for storage etc) Typhoons smashing round the UKLFS every day isn't an unreasonable request....?
2. Nope, so why not acknowledge it and cut our cloth accordingly?
3. The alternative is we suck it up and buy off the shelf for once. The Australians are doing ok with their 330s and there are plenty of other types out there. The issue of capital expenditure cannot surely raised against the ridiculous through life costs of the PFI? I know the tanker won't get binned and that this all hot internet air but the MoD runs about telling it's employees to be financially sensible and not to get into debt problems and then turns round and signs up to a deal that this lot would be proud of. I also still love the hilarious notion that these jets will be revenue generating in their spare time. Seriously, when civvy airlines pare down aircraft weights to the bare minimums to save fuel burn & maximise bum on seats, who on earth is going to want to rent a part time tanker that comes with a couple of tonnes of extra fuel pipework? Still, fair play to whoever got that through as an idea - my only question would be where on earth did they find such a vast quantity of Wool (Eyes), Pulling for the use of?
I gurn about it endlessly at work but the RAF's massive failing in this day age is a) we cling to outdated ideals that we're simply the best air force in the world and b) we therefore deserve to have the very best, gold-plated thing going regardless of cost. My particular aircraft type could be fully "spammed-up" with the kit we're crying out for tomorrow by simply lowering our ludicrous standards slightly and buying off the shelf. Instead we fanny about speccing our own local clobber that is 10 times the price, 5 years late and then not integratable. We need to be realistic about balancing what it is we want to do as an air force against what we need to do and then how much it's actually going to cost.
Until we do that we will continue to exist like penniless, homeless tramps with nothing to our names except a diamond encusted Rolex Oyster watch & a confirmed order for that Sunseeker 46Ft Yacht (payable over 200 years at a £500 a day - starting 2 years after delivery) we really need...
1. Good. And if the very electric C130J can manage to generate about 50% of it's fleet on a daily basis then it must be safe to assume that 50 odd (allowing for storage etc) Typhoons smashing round the UKLFS every day isn't an unreasonable request....?
2. Nope, so why not acknowledge it and cut our cloth accordingly?
3. The alternative is we suck it up and buy off the shelf for once. The Australians are doing ok with their 330s and there are plenty of other types out there. The issue of capital expenditure cannot surely raised against the ridiculous through life costs of the PFI? I know the tanker won't get binned and that this all hot internet air but the MoD runs about telling it's employees to be financially sensible and not to get into debt problems and then turns round and signs up to a deal that this lot would be proud of. I also still love the hilarious notion that these jets will be revenue generating in their spare time. Seriously, when civvy airlines pare down aircraft weights to the bare minimums to save fuel burn & maximise bum on seats, who on earth is going to want to rent a part time tanker that comes with a couple of tonnes of extra fuel pipework? Still, fair play to whoever got that through as an idea - my only question would be where on earth did they find such a vast quantity of Wool (Eyes), Pulling for the use of?
I gurn about it endlessly at work but the RAF's massive failing in this day age is a) we cling to outdated ideals that we're simply the best air force in the world and b) we therefore deserve to have the very best, gold-plated thing going regardless of cost. My particular aircraft type could be fully "spammed-up" with the kit we're crying out for tomorrow by simply lowering our ludicrous standards slightly and buying off the shelf. Instead we fanny about speccing our own local clobber that is 10 times the price, 5 years late and then not integratable. We need to be realistic about balancing what it is we want to do as an air force against what we need to do and then how much it's actually going to cost.
Until we do that we will continue to exist like penniless, homeless tramps with nothing to our names except a diamond encusted Rolex Oyster watch & a confirmed order for that Sunseeker 46Ft Yacht (payable over 200 years at a £500 a day - starting 2 years after delivery) we really need...