New MPA?
Seems we are in violent agreement Biggus, for the ever rising costs of which you speak are merely enhanced by the very illegality, malevolence, and incompetence of which tuc constantly reminds us. The two carriers are a shining example of that, especially as there is a possibility that neither will enter RN service, let alone operate with the JSFs that they were designed for, and redesigned for, and re-redesigned, etc etc.
If only that nice Mr Broon knew of the scandal. Oh, he does? Ever on the ball then, as witness his comment about the Ministry of Waste. There at least he put his finger on the nub of it all. Like everything else that followed Earl Mountbatten getting a good idea, this creature has turned into a catastrophe and is perhaps the greatest foe confronting the UK Armed Forces.
What's to be done about that? Not my job mate. What is our job though is Flight Safety. That includes the provision of airworthy aircraft to HM Forces and the retention of that airworthiness. That requires an effective Airworthiness Authority and Air Accident Investigator. That requires that the MAA and the MAAIB be separated from and made independent of the MOD and of each other. Only then can we confidently pore over the glossy catalogues and brochures.
Yes, P84 is a stunner isn't it? Do they do easy payments?
If only that nice Mr Broon knew of the scandal. Oh, he does? Ever on the ball then, as witness his comment about the Ministry of Waste. There at least he put his finger on the nub of it all. Like everything else that followed Earl Mountbatten getting a good idea, this creature has turned into a catastrophe and is perhaps the greatest foe confronting the UK Armed Forces.
What's to be done about that? Not my job mate. What is our job though is Flight Safety. That includes the provision of airworthy aircraft to HM Forces and the retention of that airworthiness. That requires an effective Airworthiness Authority and Air Accident Investigator. That requires that the MAA and the MAAIB be separated from and made independent of the MOD and of each other. Only then can we confidently pore over the glossy catalogues and brochures.
Yes, P84 is a stunner isn't it? Do they do easy payments?
Following the highly optimistic tone set by Biggus, perhaps we should have a hands up of who thinks a new MPA/MMA will get any form of mention in SDSR 15?
My guess?
Norfolk and Chance!
My guess?
Norfolk and Chance!
avtur
That's certainly what struck me.
As for the dates, the way I read it the previous audit was 2005 and this is the follow-up. 5 years later sufficient "major" failures remain to warrant cancellation.
But, having little or no Systems Safety Assessment training (thus oversight) within the group responsible for managing the project is just unforgivable and crass.
That's certainly what struck me.
As for the dates, the way I read it the previous audit was 2005 and this is the follow-up. 5 years later sufficient "major" failures remain to warrant cancellation.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
P-8 Costs
31 July 2013, Boeing received a $2.04 billion contract to build 13 P-8A Poseidons as part of the fourth low-rate initial production lot
4 January 2009, India signed an agreement with Boeing for the supply of eight P-8Is at a total cost of US$2.1 billion.
so somewhere around $ 170 - $ 260 mm each
31 July 2013, Boeing received a $2.04 billion contract to build 13 P-8A Poseidons as part of the fourth low-rate initial production lot
4 January 2009, India signed an agreement with Boeing for the supply of eight P-8Is at a total cost of US$2.1 billion.
so somewhere around $ 170 - $ 260 mm each
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Australia
Posts: 495
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think you will find that the $170 is the URF and the $260 is the FMS full package with pilot and crew training etc
http://www.dod.mil/pubs/foi/logistic...DEC%202011.pdf
http://www.dod.mil/pubs/foi/logistic...DEC%202011.pdf
Last edited by JSFfan; 5th Sep 2013 at 17:46.
Still money we don't have....
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 1,515
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've posted this before and even an existing serviceman could not get their head round it (not you Betty) which is extraordinary given all the budget lectures they will go through in training.
The cost of procuring the aircraft - expensive as it will be - is not the main the cost.
The main cost will be - as is always is - the cost of the people to fly, fix and operate it. This will require a real and sizeable change in the Local Unit Establishment (LUE) of whoever gets it (RAF, RN or most likely Joint) which in turn will require a real increase in the defence budget in percentage terms.
That folks is not going to happen (for all sorts of political, democratic and socio-economic reasons).
So if it is coming back, it is coming back at the expense of something else, and that something else will have to be pretty big. Getting rid of the Reds for example would not come remotely close to covering it.
Getting rid of those two carriers might, or maybe scrapping the IND? Of course such things are important for homeland defence too, are they not? As is everything else in the inventory...I'm not aware that the armed forces have kept superfluous capabilities at any time in our recent history.
None of this is an argument for not having an MPA BTW. It is merely a pragmatic view of how hard it will be to ever get one back, which is why this old timer is so mightly p1ssed of at the total SNAFU we made of the one we used to have.
And a great many people, wearing all sorts of uniforms and suits, bear responsibility for that.
PS Just seen dervish's post...
Nobody would love to see a public enquiry into the MRA4 fiasco more than me...I would go to watch and I would go to give evidence. But it would not achieve anything, it would cost a bucketload and it's not going to happen
The cost of procuring the aircraft - expensive as it will be - is not the main the cost.
The main cost will be - as is always is - the cost of the people to fly, fix and operate it. This will require a real and sizeable change in the Local Unit Establishment (LUE) of whoever gets it (RAF, RN or most likely Joint) which in turn will require a real increase in the defence budget in percentage terms.
That folks is not going to happen (for all sorts of political, democratic and socio-economic reasons).
So if it is coming back, it is coming back at the expense of something else, and that something else will have to be pretty big. Getting rid of the Reds for example would not come remotely close to covering it.
Getting rid of those two carriers might, or maybe scrapping the IND? Of course such things are important for homeland defence too, are they not? As is everything else in the inventory...I'm not aware that the armed forces have kept superfluous capabilities at any time in our recent history.
None of this is an argument for not having an MPA BTW. It is merely a pragmatic view of how hard it will be to ever get one back, which is why this old timer is so mightly p1ssed of at the total SNAFU we made of the one we used to have.
And a great many people, wearing all sorts of uniforms and suits, bear responsibility for that.
PS Just seen dervish's post...
Nobody would love to see a public enquiry into the MRA4 fiasco more than me...I would go to watch and I would go to give evidence. But it would not achieve anything, it would cost a bucketload and it's not going to happen
Last edited by The Old Fat One; 6th Sep 2013 at 05:47.
I believe there will be further pressure on the Defence budget to absorb some capabilities that were bought for Afghanistan as UORs (and therefore don't have long term funding) into the core spending arena.
However, as someone nowhere near the procurement empire, I don't know if these costs have already been allowed for in the core Defence budget post 2015...
However, as someone nowhere near the procurement empire, I don't know if these costs have already been allowed for in the core Defence budget post 2015...
TOFO,
You're right but it has already been announced that Sentinel will go post 2015 (I know the decision may be reversed). 5 Sqn is already joint and huge, so just need to swap Army for RN and aircraft type to MAA and you're good to go!
Unless the savings from the removal of Sentinel have already been spent on Typhoon updates? Are we keeping 2 Reaper sqns post 2015?
You're right but it has already been announced that Sentinel will go post 2015 (I know the decision may be reversed). 5 Sqn is already joint and huge, so just need to swap Army for RN and aircraft type to MAA and you're good to go!
Unless the savings from the removal of Sentinel have already been spent on Typhoon updates? Are we keeping 2 Reaper sqns post 2015?
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 1,515
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Funnily enough I talked about this very thing with my mate (ex service like me) and my son as we strolled up a mountain just two days ago (he asked me who's going to pay for all the hardware we might be about to use up)
I can't give you chapter and verse (somebody on here will be able to for sure) but sometime in the last 10-20 years (around the time of foot and mouth???) I believe we changed the way we paid for all this overseas intervention stuff (or "wars", as we used to call them).
In a nutshell, they didn't used to come out the defence budget...now they do.
I'm not sure how accurate that is, I'm old (hence increasingly Mr Thicko) and suffering Post Lagavulin Stress Disorder, but I believe there to be an element of fact in that statement.
Which roughly translates to...
Here is X amount of money. Spend it on what you want (wars included) and when its gone, its gone.
More than happy to stand corrected though.
And PA, that's a good input...maybe some reason for optimism. One can but hope.
PS That beast was not (completely) in service when I left in 2003. And now it's going
That stinks to high heaven as well. WTFIGO!
I can't give you chapter and verse (somebody on here will be able to for sure) but sometime in the last 10-20 years (around the time of foot and mouth???) I believe we changed the way we paid for all this overseas intervention stuff (or "wars", as we used to call them).
In a nutshell, they didn't used to come out the defence budget...now they do.
I'm not sure how accurate that is, I'm old (hence increasingly Mr Thicko) and suffering Post Lagavulin Stress Disorder, but I believe there to be an element of fact in that statement.
Which roughly translates to...
Here is X amount of money. Spend it on what you want (wars included) and when its gone, its gone.
More than happy to stand corrected though.
And PA, that's a good input...maybe some reason for optimism. One can but hope.
PS That beast was not (completely) in service when I left in 2003. And now it's going
That stinks to high heaven as well. WTFIGO!
Last edited by The Old Fat One; 6th Sep 2013 at 10:58.
Here is X amount of money. Spend it on what you want (wars included) and when its gone, its gone.
I'm sure we will both be corrected if wrong, but IIRC your statement is incorrect. We have the core defence budget which we spend as we see fit. It covers pay, new equipment, maintenance, infrastructure, exercises and consumables (fuel/weapons etc) etc. The stuff that you can plan for and programme on a peacetime basis.
If the govt of the day send us off on ops then much of the additional money comes from HMT reserve - this includes UOR kit (the stuff we have to buy because we couldn't foresee a particular requirement for the area we end up operating in), replenishment of used war stocks of ammo etc and it can be used to fund increased usage of spares ie if you are burning up engines for a particular asset because you did not plan to use that asset as much under peacetime rates as you are actually doing on ops. Some of it though, will still come from the core budget so there will be an increased drain on the core budget as well.
Bringing good new "stuff" into core is the issue. Manpower liabilities to operate a new piece of kit on a UOR has to be taken from the core budget - hence if you stand up a new unit for the length of a UOR funded op you find the manpower from elsewhere but within your current cap. Bring it into core at the end of the op and you have to fund the necessary manpower and maintenence from within the existing budget/manpower cap unless you can get an enhancement option through the planning process that agrees an uplift in funding/manpower. Clear? As mud!!
I think
Edited to add:
Any manpower for a UOR is assumed to be released back to "core" roles at the end of a UOR, thus if Sentinel is not brought back in to core then those personnel on the Sentinel programme will be posted to other types. Given the lead time on aircrew training, running Sentinel on beyond 15 might not be viable, as those personnel currently on type will already be pencilled in to fill other core jobs - Voyager, A400, RJ etc etc.
Last edited by Roland Pulfrew; 6th Sep 2013 at 12:11.
PA
I am not certain. It is correct that Sent was a properly funded core programme (albeit late in delivery). My understanding was that it was/is due to exit service after AFG ops (this from 2010). Under normal circumstances that would have meant it would already be drawing down - think VC10 or C130 or MR2 - a slow drawn out decline in capability and manning as aircraft are withdrawn and personnel are posted out. To ensure that R1 could make it to the (significantly brought forward) OSD it is, I believe, subject to some sort of UOR funding. But then memory is a fickle thing.
Edited to add:
PA
I may be wrong, see here Maybe the memory is on the way out!!
I am not certain. It is correct that Sent was a properly funded core programme (albeit late in delivery). My understanding was that it was/is due to exit service after AFG ops (this from 2010). Under normal circumstances that would have meant it would already be drawing down - think VC10 or C130 or MR2 - a slow drawn out decline in capability and manning as aircraft are withdrawn and personnel are posted out. To ensure that R1 could make it to the (significantly brought forward) OSD it is, I believe, subject to some sort of UOR funding. But then memory is a fickle thing.
Edited to add:
PA
I may be wrong, see here Maybe the memory is on the way out!!
Last edited by Roland Pulfrew; 6th Sep 2013 at 15:05.