Where is all this going?

[Out Of Trim]

4th Biggest Military Budget with very little to show for it!

= Piss Poor Procurement.

After the disaster of Browm's Labour Government. I and many ex serviicemen were counting on Cameron's Government to see the light and set things right to enable adequate defence of this country.

Sadly and alas, his Defence decisions have been crass and have now left us almost defenceless. I will never vote Conservative again.

It's UKIP all the way now! Leave the EU now and gain an instant £50 million a day saving, which spent well would go a long way to restore are Defences.

[eructations]

someone seems to know

I completely agree with all the statements made, I was lucky I only had to threaten one senior with "I have no option if you maintain this path but to write directly to the PUS" I was fortunate on two accounts:

1. He was clueless to the whole process.

2. I had in my file the origional letter of delegation I was given during my introduction to Requirement Scrutiny.

[Fox3WheresMyBanana]

Thanks Tecumseh.
So, it is Ministers/MoD who have the power to change things, and they seem incapable of doing so?
Therefore, what must change for them to start doing so?
That was what stumped me. I do not think the current crop of politicians, or senior civil servants, have the least interest in actual results. Keep your head down and keep your job. And silence anyone who speaks up, as (a) they may well be right, (b) you can never tell whether they are right, or have any answers as to how to improve things.(c) delegating control is the last thing an incapable boss will do.

[Ken Scott]

Leave the EU now and gain an instant £50 million a day saving, which spent well would go a long way to restore are Defences.

Or alternatively, reduce Government borrowing to only £450 million per day.

[smujsmith]

Gentlemen,

Perhaps we should target our focus not on the military aspects of this "melt down" in our economy, but, more on the consequences of continuing to try and be "all things to all men" ? I like many can see how the politicos are ripping the sh1t out of everything apart from their own cosy set up. And, while they keep throwing the chaff of leaving the EU, having to get rid of our Nuclear Deterrent because of our parlous economic state, and maintaining our throwing money at states like India/Pakistan, as "overseas aid". The whole thing to me seems to be a diversion, to take the eye away from what is really going on. We, as a country, can no longer afford to be a player on the world stage.

I personally believe that all of our military have given exceptional value for tax payers money for the past 30/40 years (I don't mean to demean the two world wars but different circumstances applied then). But, if the public are now tired of supporting such a long reach, then the government should respect that and adjust accordingly.

I have a serious loathing for the sanctimonious outpouring of grief affected by the politicos every Wednesday, before PMQs. The guys who died knew what they were taking on, unlike the Westminster village 'idiots', who seem to change their minds as frequently as I change my shreddies (currently three times a week). It's a real shame that Parliament is now so totally out of step with us mere mortals.

Smudge

[Andu]

From post #10 on page 1:

We may have the world's 4th largest defence budget but when it is used as a 'benefits systems' for British industry.

Over here in Ozmate, an ex-senior officer friend who is as concerned about the parlous state of the Australian Defence Forces despite huge outlays for high end equipment that all too often doesn't work says that our Department of Defence should be re-named to more accurately reflect its real function: "The Department of Defence Industry."

From comments I've seen here, you seem to have a very similar situation over there. Our politicians are far more concerned that any new high ticket defence buy involves jobs in the right electorates and huge profits to the right multinational defence companies (and of course, as large as possible commissions to those companies' all too often ex-politician and/or ex-senior officer agents or "consultants") rather than deliver a weapons system that (a) works and (b) delivers best bang for buck.

[GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU]

Originally Posted by pr00ne

how come we spend more on Defence than all other countries on the face of the planet bar three?

Well it's all to do with our national wealth; last year our defence spending was about 2.7% of our GDP. Some of that was additonal money allocated to operating in the 'Stan and pre SDSR. Balance that against a NATO "target" of 2% for each Member State. Bear in mind, also, that the UK has additional commitments outside NATO (eg British Overseas Territories and Crown Dependencies).

I've now annoyed myself for again getting wound up over things I've bugger all influence on.

[Chugalug2]

tucumseh:

In MoD there simply is no mechanism to counter an illegal order to waste money, not least because the perpetrator is allowed to judge his own case. This must change and, in fact, it is the only aspect that requires a formal change of rules. The rest is implementation of extant rules. Exactly the same as the airworthiness failures.

That is the crux of this issue, F3WMB. VSO's issued illegal orders, an offence under military law. Those illegal orders were obeyed, again an offence under military law. Thus the system of UK Military Airworthiness provision was fatally compromised, literally, as people died as a consequence. Huge amounts of public money were wasted, entire fleets scrapped, vital capabilities lost and still military airworthiness provision remains compromised under an "independent" MAA. The VSO's responsible are feted and honoured, their reputations protected by those who have replaced them. That is the UK Military High Command of today, that is the state of our nation.

[Sun Who]

How Defence Works

As usual for PPRuNE, some informed commentary on this thread - and some less so.
Can I recommend this by way of reconnaissance: https://www.gov.uk/government/upload...work_dec10.pdf

Page 18 and all references to the Investments Approvals Board are particularly relevant to this discussion.

Sun.

[Fox3WheresMyBanana]

Thanks for the clarity Chugalug. Digging deeper; what's wrong with the VSO system that ends up promoting the bad guys?
I worked for a 2* briefly, who basically sat me in his in-tray. I had eyes wide as dinner plates at some of the stuff. All sorts of vital stuff being canned to keep pet projects going. Very interesting "proof-reading" 1* ACRs. But there was nothing I would judge illegal; stupid, but not illegal. This was mid-80's, so what changed?

[tucumseh]

But there was nothing I would judge illegal; stupid, but not illegal.

It is illegal if the "requirement" is approved without passing Requirement Scrutiny. The very first question is "Why is it required". Others relate to things like safety, adequate support and training, so it must be demonstrated sufficient funding exists. Also, priority and ability to use existing kit (to avoid duplication and ensure commonality). The list is extensive. Every experienced project manager knows it by heart. Those questions also give you an idea what experience and knowledge the scrutineer must possess. In broad terms, being a Requirements Manager is a good first step to attaining this. "It's a pet project" is not a valid answer and would (should) be exposed and rejected very quickly.

But I'd say your example is fairly typical. It is not easy standing up to a 2 Star. The only practical way of dealing with an illegal order (especially in aviation where it can often kill) is to disobey it and take your chances with the system, which will be stacked against you.

One of the most common failures is buying LRUs, but no spares, pubs, training, testing, trials or even installation kits to fit the kit to the aircraft. That is the practical effect most here will appreciate. I mention this because that is precisely the background of an example when an MoD 4 Star (CDP) ruled it was an offence not to sign the approval, when ALL of those were missing. In other words, MoD would buy a raft of kit but be unable to put it to its intended use. He was supported by Ministers etc, as described above. (This was not mentioned at a subsequent inquest, despite being briefed to the Coroner).

[Chugalug2]

tucumseh:-

In the past two months, the Head of the Civil Service (Sir Robert Kerslake) and Min(AF) (Mr Andrew Robothan MP) have both confirmed, in writing;
1. It is an offence to refuse to obey an order to make such a false declaration, and,
2. It is not an offence to issue this order to commit fraud.

F3WMB, that order was issued by an RAF 2*, and confirmed by his RAF 4* superior, I believe (tuc will swiftly correct me if I am wrong). The false declaration was that the Regulations had been adhered to, when they had not been. Tuc, to his very great credit, disobeyed that order, ensuring an aircraft's airworthiness, and has been fighting the consequences ever since. That you were not faced with such a dilemma is your good fortune. Many were though, and took the easy way out, with a "what can one person do?" bit of self justifying rhetoric. They were the last links in a system that is supposed to ensure, for instance, that no unairworthy aircraft is offered to the UK military, but even if it were to be, it would not receive a Release to Service. All of that happened though and people died. 62, if you add up all the deaths in Airworthiness Related Fatal Accidents reviewed in this Forum, but probably far more as not only is Airworthiness Provision so compromised, Air Accident Investigation is as well. Haddon-Cave was supposed to have remedied all that. He failed, and the compromised MAA and MAAIB of today resulted.

[salad-dodger]

Oh dear, a good discussion thread has been dragged into being another airworthiness discussion using the same rhetoric that has been repeated on countless other threads. Tuc banging the same old drum and Chug repeating it for everyone. I'm not doubting what you say Tuc, but do you have to repeat it on so many threads? As for Chugalug, having watched your posts develop over the years, it's clear that you have very little experience of much of what you write, it's simply material recycled from PPRuNe, and most of it from Tuc.

S-D

[sisemen]

I'm a Cat 1 and 2 and learnt during my service to keep my mouth shut when I was not up to speed on anything.

Oh, and I also learnt to steer clear of opinionated newarks who rubbish their forebears.

[Chugalug2]

Oh dear, another disparaging post from someone irritated by criticism of the RAF High Command. The ball, man, play the ball! I may be all the things you think of me, and worse. That is not the point. The point of this thread is the shear waste and incompetence that is the MOD.
Tucumseh posts his experience of this and points to RAF VSO's as a major cause of that waste in regard to UK Military Aviation; in money, lives, and materiel. I have posted in support of that, and of him, for he tends to brush lightly over the treatment he received from such worthies, but that is at the very heart of how and why they always prevail.
As to not having experienced such myself, I freely admit that, and count myself lucky. Could it be though that those who have had such experiences do not post here of it for the very reason that they were themselves compromised?
Unairworthy aircraft are bad enough, and have cost much life, treasure, and capability, but I doubt very much if the rot stopped there. The Ministry of Waste is like a Fifth Column, sapping the very vitals from our Defence. It is perhaps the worst thing that Earl Mountbatten ever inflicted on this Nation, and that's saying something!

[GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU]

Relax; when Sir Bernie puts all of this out to Industry, what's legal and illegal will probably become invisible.

[tucumseh]

Chug

The first time I experienced it, the case you quote, it was an RAF 2* (AMSO's Director General Support Management). DGSM's immediate superior was the RAF Chief Engineer, a 3*. I cannot say for certain he condoned my case (shared with a number of others who were at the omnibus disciplinary hearing in Dec 1992, where incidentally we were denied representation), but DGSM would be highly unlikely to threaten dismissal for refusal to commit fraud if he didn't have top cover. Subsequent actions from that quarter (i.e. directing that aircraft be rendered progressively unsafe, in order to recoup money which his predecessors had wasted) tend toward him approving the action or at least turning a blind eye. Anyway, Director Internal Audit ruled against him in his report to PUS (which is the hard, independent evidence that all this occurred as one only needs to ask what event initiated the audit), but PUS ignored this and I think we survived only because the 2* and 3* retired in the interim. It certainly wasn't because we were seen to be "right", as subsequent and recent rulings demonstrate.


It was a later case that involved the MoD(PE) Nimrod & Chinook 2* (who oversaw the "gold standard" cock-ups), who made precisely the same ruling (it's an offence to refuse to commit fraud, but not an offence to issue that order). The PE 3* sat off to one side so it was the 4* (Chief of Defence Procurement) who upheld that case, subsequently supported by a slack handful of Mins(AF) - Ainsworth, Robothan, Ingram etc. (Their briefings were written by the office of the same 4*, so were hardly independent or objective!)


Both cases involved being instructed to make a false declaration about airworthiness, as well as financial probity. No apologies for introducing airworthiness, as it and waste are inextricably linked. My experience is most in MoD don't care about waste, but occasionally the airworthiness aspect filters through, especially if you lose mates.


The first amounted to ordering over £100M deliberate waste, per year, on my projects alone. The second somewhat less. You can only prevent so much when a 2 Star has his entire staffs running around making sure your instructions not to waste the money are ignored. The presure doubles when your line manager is inundated with demands for disciplinary action, as it diverts attention. Companies were also threatened. The classic example is that of GEC Marconi politely declining to quote for Active Dipping Sonar equipment for Hercules, which emphasises the point about Requirement Scrutiny. Question 1. Why is it needed? ADS for C130? Who passed that one? A rhetorical question, it was a Gp Capt supplier. Gp Capt supplier? Now there's waste. Of the £100M per year, I reckon I managed to salvage about 25%. But those 75% year on year cuts, across our entire domain (i.e. maintaining airworthiness) led directly to the deaths you mention.


Depending which side of the fence you sit on you could argue I'm in part responsible because I didn't prevent all that waste. It goes back to a previous point - How much can one person be expected to do, and how do you stand against a 2*. I'm partly ashamed and partly proud that I pinned a 2* (DPA XD5) to a cabinet at AbbeyWood in 2002 when he laughed in my face when told aircraft were at risk of friendly fire, because of the conscious decision not to integrate IFF failure warnings. He did nothing, leading directly to two deaths. The point was that the "requirement" failed scrutiny, as testing, trials, spares, pubs (all the things I mentioned last time) were ignored, yet the contract falsely signed off to the effect the work had all been done and the aircraft met its spec. Those further down the line (toward the front line) have no control or knowledge of all this, they must rely on the integrity and honesty of those before them. By definition, a false and fraudulent declaration was made when signing off this contract as complete. It is entirely typical of what I'm talking about, and I could cite scores of similar examples. Of course, the all time false declaration was on the Chinook HC Mk2 RTS, which failed scrutiny to an unheard of degree. A 2*, funnily enough. Same RAF CE. It isn't a big world and they are readily identified.

[salad-dodger]

Chug, believe me fella, I have no problem with you criticising RAF or any other high command. Fell free also to openly criticise the MoD, civil service and all major or minor defence suppliers and contractors. All equally good targets. But let's have some new material instead of the same old stuff repeated time and time again that you trot out on numerous threads.

Difficult to say that any other way really.

S-D

[tucumseh]

GBZ

I share your slight cynicism. Too often we see these guys parachuted in on fixed term contracts, with bonuses attached, and despite knowing the answer they sit on it and issue a report at the end of their contract. I suppose the difference with Bernard is he wrote his report under Labour, and the Coalition have told him to put his money where his mouth is.

But the fact remains, when he was interviewed on Radio 4 13 months ago, he mentioned an "idea" that is actually long mandated policy. When this was pointed out to Min(AF) by an MP, MoD denied Bernard had uttered the words. Said MP simply forwarded a recording of the programme. MoD still denied it. A picture emerges. No original thought, and a state of complete denial. £300k, or whatever, a year when you could get a 6 year old to read extant policy and dictate a letter saying "Do This".



Sun Who

My experience is most in MoD don't care about waste, but occasionally the airworthiness aspect filters through, especially if you lose mates.

VERY occasionally it seems! The point has already been made that incalculable, deliberate waste and airworthiness failings are directly linked, and the evidence provided proving it. And that the same individuals were directly responsible for both. It's the elephant in the MoD's room, and for as long as MoD ignore or deny it, it is (in my opinion) a perfectly valid point to emphasise as often as need be. Especially as the message doesn't seem to get through.

That's why we've lost so many colleagues. VSOs saying "Ok, you told me the aircraft are unsafe, you've had your say, now forget it and don't mention it again". Too many then walk away thinking they've done their duty.

[Chugalug2]

Ah, got it now Salad Dodger, I can openly criticise the RAF High Command in a thread concerning the problems of UK Defence, but I must only submit "new" evidence of their malevolent acts. Now where have I heard those words before...?