Where is all this going?
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: The Sunny Side
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
feel free to twist it any way you want Chug.
One possible note of caution for you though. Malevolent is a very emotive term, particularly as your only evidence would appear to be the words of one other on an internet forum.
S-D
One possible note of caution for you though. Malevolent is a very emotive term, particularly as your only evidence would appear to be the words of one other on an internet forum.
S-D
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
to say teh UK faces more danger now "than at any time inteh last 40 years" is absolute nonsense and just plays into teh hands of those who wantto cut teh defence budget
A few guys running about Central Mali, a one off raid on a desert oil station in the Algerian desert and some piracy off Somalia cannot be compared to the Cold War
Even if China- Japan kicks off its a longggg way from Dover and
A few guys running about Central Mali, a one off raid on a desert oil station in the Algerian desert and some piracy off Somalia cannot be compared to the Cold War
Even if China- Japan kicks off its a longggg way from Dover and
Forgive me if I was unclear. The 2* I worked for was one of the good guys. He wanted me to know what went on. At the time, I concluded that there was only one RAF VSO who was, shall we say, really going to the dark side. It was mostly the higher civil servants in MoD making crass priority decisions and forbidding anyone from discussing same. I was given quite a selection of stuff to "proof-read", and in a few cases asked to do draft responses. It was very educational in learning how the game was played at that level.
Caution duly noted S-D. BTW, as one who is so concerned that the thread is not allowed to drift off the course you have decided upon, have you nothing to contribute to it other than to deride my apparently feeble posts?
F3WMB, you asked earlier when it all changed. I can only offer this in reply; 1987. Perhaps this will explain:-
https://www.sites.google.com/site/mi...airworthiness/
F3WMB, you asked earlier when it all changed. I can only offer this in reply; 1987. Perhaps this will explain:-
https://www.sites.google.com/site/mi...airworthiness/
Last edited by Chugalug2; 24th Jan 2013 at 11:28.
Join Date: May 2006
Location: 2 m South of Radstock VRP
Posts: 2,042
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
tucumseh. If yer man Gray was just another political appointee tasked with writing yet another report, I wouldn't be too fussed. This bugger is the CDM, though. I would suggest that he's not somuch been told to put his money where his mouth is but put our money (£220 pa plus actual expenses) where his mouth is. As CDM, with a slot in the Defence Council and a direct line to the PUS, he can dismantle and contract out almost anything he wishes. If it all goes to rats, the worst than can happen to him is dismissal; and how likely is that as an option.
One of the reasons that the MoD (and all other departments of Government) shows up badly against commerce and industry is the web of Treasury, Cabinet Office and Parliamentary rules, regulations and targets that it must comply with. Once any of the DES functions are put out to contract, how many of those restraints will still be restraints? If shedding restraints is an improvement and a saving; great. That begs the question, though, why were they needed in the first place?
One of the reasons that the MoD (and all other departments of Government) shows up badly against commerce and industry is the web of Treasury, Cabinet Office and Parliamentary rules, regulations and targets that it must comply with. Once any of the DES functions are put out to contract, how many of those restraints will still be restraints? If shedding restraints is an improvement and a saving; great. That begs the question, though, why were they needed in the first place?
Last edited by GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU; 24th Jan 2013 at 12:56. Reason: Mong typing
salad-dodger
Who would that be? Me? The evidence I present is freely available for all to read. Chug was open minded enough to read it, sit and discuss it with me and be convinced. It is all verifiable and simply a presentation of MoD's own words. That is it's strength. The proof is in the pudding. Chinook. Nimrod. Hercules. Haddon-Cave. Lord Philip.
I'm reminded it is now 10 years since I joined this forum. My very first post concerned the unairworthiness of the Chinook HC Mk2, brought about by deliberate waste. I was pilloried, notably by a 3 Star who was the originator of one of the most the wasteful policies (June 1987). But I'm used to that having worked in MoD under his successors. His words simply emphasised the lies and who MoD was trying to protect, and following the lies revealed the truth. Being a lone voice or part of a small minority doesn't mean you're wrong. It just means you've got to work a little harder to get the truth across, in the face of people who deride you without offering any thoughts of their own. That's the kind of arrogance that led to the problems in the first place.
If MoD, or anyone, thinks I'm wrong in what I say, then I welcome their thoughts. One thing I won't do is dismiss them without the courtesy of a balanced counter argument. Truth is the ultimate defence.
one other on an internet forum.
Who would that be? Me? The evidence I present is freely available for all to read. Chug was open minded enough to read it, sit and discuss it with me and be convinced. It is all verifiable and simply a presentation of MoD's own words. That is it's strength. The proof is in the pudding. Chinook. Nimrod. Hercules. Haddon-Cave. Lord Philip.
I'm reminded it is now 10 years since I joined this forum. My very first post concerned the unairworthiness of the Chinook HC Mk2, brought about by deliberate waste. I was pilloried, notably by a 3 Star who was the originator of one of the most the wasteful policies (June 1987). But I'm used to that having worked in MoD under his successors. His words simply emphasised the lies and who MoD was trying to protect, and following the lies revealed the truth. Being a lone voice or part of a small minority doesn't mean you're wrong. It just means you've got to work a little harder to get the truth across, in the face of people who deride you without offering any thoughts of their own. That's the kind of arrogance that led to the problems in the first place.
If MoD, or anyone, thinks I'm wrong in what I say, then I welcome their thoughts. One thing I won't do is dismiss them without the courtesy of a balanced counter argument. Truth is the ultimate defence.
GBZ
Good points and I agree. I must admit I thought well of Gray when I read his original report, albeit it was a little naive and simplistic in places. I'm also aware some senior people in MoD are making his life very difficult and are hostile to what he's trying to achieve. Mainly because if he succeeds, it exposes them for what they are.
I mentioned above a mandated policy that he presented as his own. (In engineering terms, it amounts to the proper implementation of system integration techniques, more widely applied to programme and business management. All Design Authorities will immediately recognise what he's talking about, and dig out the basic regulations called up in their contracts). It may well be that he didn't know this was policy, but his senior staffs certainly would, as one of MoD's flagship Army programmes invokes it (despite it being based on an Airworthiness Def Stan!) Assuming he knew of this policy, then he's struggling with implementing his cunning plans. The fact MoD lied to Min(AF) about what Gray said tends to support this theory. It's little things like this that reveal the bigger picture. After such a time in post, to fall back on a mandated policy and dress it up as a new idea smacks of desperation. The positive side is that two of MoD's major suppliers are already up to speed with it's use on a major programme, so I suspect they will be leading Gray by the hand a little. The negative side is that one of them is #1 on my personal blacklist and I wouldn't give them a contract to buy a bar of soap.
If we stick to the basic subject here, efficiency and avoidance of waste, it will indeed be interesting to see Industry's response to being invited to take over some DE&S functions. Eventually, I think MoD will benefit from a greater professionalism (not difficult, given MoD ditched that concept in 1996), but in the first place Industry will spend a lot of time pointing out legacy problems that must be fixed, to establish a stable baseline/foundation for the initiative. This will involve MoD being told they have not been following their own mandated rules, which they nevertheless imposed on Industry (causing serious disconnects throughout the acquisition cycle). Those foundations will cost money. I'd like to think it would truly be a spend to save measure but the devil is in the detail and that hasn't been published yet. As this is an aviation forum, I'd personally like to see Westland with a major role. I dealt with them for many years and they never once let me down. Unfortunately, I suspect bigger players will have already got their bung in; sorry, made their pitch.
Good points and I agree. I must admit I thought well of Gray when I read his original report, albeit it was a little naive and simplistic in places. I'm also aware some senior people in MoD are making his life very difficult and are hostile to what he's trying to achieve. Mainly because if he succeeds, it exposes them for what they are.
I mentioned above a mandated policy that he presented as his own. (In engineering terms, it amounts to the proper implementation of system integration techniques, more widely applied to programme and business management. All Design Authorities will immediately recognise what he's talking about, and dig out the basic regulations called up in their contracts). It may well be that he didn't know this was policy, but his senior staffs certainly would, as one of MoD's flagship Army programmes invokes it (despite it being based on an Airworthiness Def Stan!) Assuming he knew of this policy, then he's struggling with implementing his cunning plans. The fact MoD lied to Min(AF) about what Gray said tends to support this theory. It's little things like this that reveal the bigger picture. After such a time in post, to fall back on a mandated policy and dress it up as a new idea smacks of desperation. The positive side is that two of MoD's major suppliers are already up to speed with it's use on a major programme, so I suspect they will be leading Gray by the hand a little. The negative side is that one of them is #1 on my personal blacklist and I wouldn't give them a contract to buy a bar of soap.
If we stick to the basic subject here, efficiency and avoidance of waste, it will indeed be interesting to see Industry's response to being invited to take over some DE&S functions. Eventually, I think MoD will benefit from a greater professionalism (not difficult, given MoD ditched that concept in 1996), but in the first place Industry will spend a lot of time pointing out legacy problems that must be fixed, to establish a stable baseline/foundation for the initiative. This will involve MoD being told they have not been following their own mandated rules, which they nevertheless imposed on Industry (causing serious disconnects throughout the acquisition cycle). Those foundations will cost money. I'd like to think it would truly be a spend to save measure but the devil is in the detail and that hasn't been published yet. As this is an aviation forum, I'd personally like to see Westland with a major role. I dealt with them for many years and they never once let me down. Unfortunately, I suspect bigger players will have already got their bung in; sorry, made their pitch.
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Aylesbury
Age: 58
Posts: 378
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FWIW, I fit into WM's cat1 as well.
IMVHO, a lot of it is down to p*ss poor leadership by the VSO's of all 3 services following the end of the Cold War. Those who were in VSO berths back in those days set the course for where we find ourselves today. F3WMB, Chug and Tuc make excellent points as ever, which make - or should make - very uncomfortable reading.
And to the poster who claims that Chug and Tuc should only post "new evidence".... oh for heavens sake... what they are referring to is when the rot started and has yet to show any signs of even being being made conspicuous to the point where fixing it is seen as a political imperative. What they have detailed, particularly tuc, should be splashed on every front page in the land.
The combination of p*ss poor leadership from the VSO's plus the utterly shameful attitude of New Labour and Brown in particular from 97-2010 is what has led us to this point. As tuc has documented before, there are elements within DE&S and particularly under the IPT model introduced in the 97 SDR that were not up to the job, did not have the savvy to be able to deal with what faced them. Then again, given how much the NHS pays for generic prescription drugs, such ignorance and lack of commercial awareness is not purely confined to MoD, which means that prime contractors like BAe and others get away with murder and are more than content to indulge in the kind of pork barrel politics that Brown signed upto for CVF.
Unfortunately, the public, much as they support those in uniform, are not to put to fine a point on it, either completely disinterested in the details or wilfully ignorant/self centred when it comes to the privacy of the ballot box. As long as we continue to vote in these fools, they will continue to shaft our brothers in arms and will continue to waste the 4th largest defence budget in the world and have next to f**k all but disjointed, Afghan legacy capabilities to show for it.
IMVHO, a lot of it is down to p*ss poor leadership by the VSO's of all 3 services following the end of the Cold War. Those who were in VSO berths back in those days set the course for where we find ourselves today. F3WMB, Chug and Tuc make excellent points as ever, which make - or should make - very uncomfortable reading.
And to the poster who claims that Chug and Tuc should only post "new evidence".... oh for heavens sake... what they are referring to is when the rot started and has yet to show any signs of even being being made conspicuous to the point where fixing it is seen as a political imperative. What they have detailed, particularly tuc, should be splashed on every front page in the land.
The combination of p*ss poor leadership from the VSO's plus the utterly shameful attitude of New Labour and Brown in particular from 97-2010 is what has led us to this point. As tuc has documented before, there are elements within DE&S and particularly under the IPT model introduced in the 97 SDR that were not up to the job, did not have the savvy to be able to deal with what faced them. Then again, given how much the NHS pays for generic prescription drugs, such ignorance and lack of commercial awareness is not purely confined to MoD, which means that prime contractors like BAe and others get away with murder and are more than content to indulge in the kind of pork barrel politics that Brown signed upto for CVF.
Unfortunately, the public, much as they support those in uniform, are not to put to fine a point on it, either completely disinterested in the details or wilfully ignorant/self centred when it comes to the privacy of the ballot box. As long as we continue to vote in these fools, they will continue to shaft our brothers in arms and will continue to waste the 4th largest defence budget in the world and have next to f**k all but disjointed, Afghan legacy capabilities to show for it.
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: The Sunny Side
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Courtney, thank you. I was not for one moment questioning Tuc's views.
Jabba, I said nothing about nothing about only presenting new evidence. Please, read what I posted rather than how Chug chose to interpret it.
What I have questioned is the continuous dragging of numerous threads down the same airworthiness route, mainly be the same single poster. He posts nothing knew and it's also fairly clear his experience of the subject is limited to what he has read on this forum.
S-D
Jabba, I said nothing about nothing about only presenting new evidence. Please, read what I posted rather than how Chug chose to interpret it.
What I have questioned is the continuous dragging of numerous threads down the same airworthiness route, mainly be the same single poster. He posts nothing knew and it's also fairly clear his experience of the subject is limited to what he has read on this forum.
S-D
S-D, you may object to me, you may object to what I post, but you do not post anything yourself that contributes to this thread at all. Is that a sign that you have no experience? I see that you started a thread dedicated to the weeding out of the "untermenschen" that you think infect this forum. I can only hope that the mods never consider recruiting you to their ranks, for the subsequent culling would be terrible!
Perhaps if you worried less about what others post and tried posting positive contributions yourself then we might all move into sunny uplands and peace and harmony could prevail? Or not, as you please...
Perhaps if you worried less about what others post and tried posting positive contributions yourself then we might all move into sunny uplands and peace and harmony could prevail? Or not, as you please...
It's not a fight.
Again, Chugs, I don't think he was having a go at you at you or the content of your posts (with which I heartily agree). I think it's just a matter of relevance to the thread (which is obviously a matter of opinion). Not one to take personally.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: East Anglia
Posts: 349
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wow, some really interesting and detailed analysis here to what was a pretty general opening gambit. But on reading these posts as someone on the shop floor I do get the sense that historically we in Defence have been wasteful and inefficient with our equipment procurement (and therefore have to accept the current fiscal culling); and that the senior leadership is also to blame; and that the politicians and British public do not understand or care too much for Defence spending and HM Forces.
That is the way that I read these posts.
Which means, let's reduce Defence expenditure much further, chuck the funds across to our kids for schooling and parents for their old age, let's not spend on anything which doesn't add value to protecting purely UK waters or sovereign territory. Let's maintain a small niche high readiness capability for NEOs only, and a few ships to protect our trade routes (only when a requirement exists, not as a standing force). Reduce MoD numbers further, rely even more on reserves (for wars of national survival). Have the same relationship with coalition operations as Denmark, Estonia or Australia, small focused and specialist.
Sit back, watch Sky News and see what happens in the world and watch from our armchairs, knowing that the once MoD budget has been switched to our schools, health, transport and environment and all the other things that allegedly the British public really want in preference to Defence.
That is the way that I read these posts.
Which means, let's reduce Defence expenditure much further, chuck the funds across to our kids for schooling and parents for their old age, let's not spend on anything which doesn't add value to protecting purely UK waters or sovereign territory. Let's maintain a small niche high readiness capability for NEOs only, and a few ships to protect our trade routes (only when a requirement exists, not as a standing force). Reduce MoD numbers further, rely even more on reserves (for wars of national survival). Have the same relationship with coalition operations as Denmark, Estonia or Australia, small focused and specialist.
Sit back, watch Sky News and see what happens in the world and watch from our armchairs, knowing that the once MoD budget has been switched to our schools, health, transport and environment and all the other things that allegedly the British public really want in preference to Defence.
Last edited by MaroonMan4; 25th Jan 2013 at 16:43.
chuck the funds across to our kids for schooling
I submit that UK education is an even bigger waste at present. I'm currently trying to help set up a Free School to do something about that, but that's about as pleasant as mud-wrestling a rabid pig in a freezing sty. In the dark.
UK education spending has increased by 67% since 1998 (inflation-adjusted). According to the Government, standards have increased by measuring exam grades. According to everyone else, they've dropped and the Government has happily watched the exam standards drop.
E.g PISA (largest international survey)
Science performance
....Year Score Posn
UK 2000 532 4th
....2009 514 16th
Last edited by Fox3WheresMyBanana; 25th Jan 2013 at 17:27.
I'm not sure how you come to that conclusion, OP. I'd say that Jabba has summed it all up rather well, but then I would wouldn't I because he wrote nice things about tuc and myself ;-)
Agree with Jabba. FWIW, you can see how out of touch the VSO's had become in the multi world as "micro-management" became the norm after IRAQ 2.
Not sure where the mess they have now created will end.
OAP
Not sure where the mess they have now created will end.
OAP
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: East Anglia
Posts: 349
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Times
26 January 2013
Extract of article interviewing William Hague
'The world is becoming a more dangerous place. The risk of conflict has risen'
He does not support the form of "liberal interventionism" adopted by Tony Blair. "I eschew doctrines" he says. "It is about solving problems regionally, but in a holistic way. We are intervening (in Africa) militarily, we are working with their troops on the ground, rather than using our own combat forces.
We need to think more of Somalia than Afghanistan." The Govt has "no plans" to send combat forces to Mali.
The shift in emphasis, he argues, makes the Armed Forces cuts announced this week sustainable. "We still have the fourth biggest military budget in the world. But what we need is more capability in surveillance, special forces and cyber skills."-
26 January 2013
Extract of article interviewing William Hague
'The world is becoming a more dangerous place. The risk of conflict has risen'
He does not support the form of "liberal interventionism" adopted by Tony Blair. "I eschew doctrines" he says. "It is about solving problems regionally, but in a holistic way. We are intervening (in Africa) militarily, we are working with their troops on the ground, rather than using our own combat forces.
We need to think more of Somalia than Afghanistan." The Govt has "no plans" to send combat forces to Mali.
The shift in emphasis, he argues, makes the Armed Forces cuts announced this week sustainable. "We still have the fourth biggest military budget in the world. But what we need is more capability in surveillance, special forces and cyber skills."-
Last edited by MaroonMan4; 26th Jan 2013 at 09:43.
