SDSR 15
BV,
I guess because he sold himself well. And papers, including the Telegraph, may not realise that his bio shows his somewhat sheltered 11 year RN career as being focussed on ship ops, diving, mine clearance and IED disposal. Nothing much relating to the other two services, on which he writes as it he were an expert, and nothing that would have given him any experience of defence procurement, on which he writes as if he were an expert.
As for his credentials to comment on aircraft, air ops or the RAF, well, he did spend some time at a UAS. Can't find any Army connections there.
The Phoenix Rant Tank are bound to snap him up!
I guess because he sold himself well. And papers, including the Telegraph, may not realise that his bio shows his somewhat sheltered 11 year RN career as being focussed on ship ops, diving, mine clearance and IED disposal. Nothing much relating to the other two services, on which he writes as it he were an expert, and nothing that would have given him any experience of defence procurement, on which he writes as if he were an expert.
As for his credentials to comment on aircraft, air ops or the RAF, well, he did spend some time at a UAS. Can't find any Army connections there.
The Phoenix Rant Tank are bound to snap him up!
Reading the responses to this guy's diatribe, I detect a certain "windiness" in certain reactions.
Perhaps it might be a better idea to address( and/or dismiss) the message, rather than concentrating on castigating and denigrating the messenger ?
Perhaps it might be a better idea to address( and/or dismiss) the message, rather than concentrating on castigating and denigrating the messenger ?
ATG 
Haraka, I think the point is that the article is so contemptible, badly conceived and factually flawed that its message really doesn't need addressing. Instead it points to an author that either is dreadfully bitter, terribly badly informed of simply not very smart. Because there is such a lack of credibility in his writing, one has to wonder what his motivation is for writing that. That is bound to attract a degree of speculation about the author.
Haraka, I think the point is that the article is so contemptible, badly conceived and factually flawed that its message really doesn't need addressing. Instead it points to an author that either is dreadfully bitter, terribly badly informed of simply not very smart. Because there is such a lack of credibility in his writing, one has to wonder what his motivation is for writing that. That is bound to attract a degree of speculation about the author.
Gents.......it goes without saying that I bow to your greater knowledge.....and no, I'm not being sarcastic. I have a question though.........if we have the fifth largest defence budget, why are the forces in such a state? I know I'm oversimplifying things, but why don't we have the fifth (or thereabouts) largest armed forces?
It strikes me that BAe have had it pretty good......how much was thrown at Nimrod in its various guises? The Clansman radio system......wasn't that another debacle?
I want our forces to have the best........but dear god......no one is accountable for anything? Does anything ever come in (reasonably) on time or (give or take, reasonably) on budget?
I'm standing by for some incoming, but I'm just asking?
MD
It strikes me that BAe have had it pretty good......how much was thrown at Nimrod in its various guises? The Clansman radio system......wasn't that another debacle?
I want our forces to have the best........but dear god......no one is accountable for anything? Does anything ever come in (reasonably) on time or (give or take, reasonably) on budget?
I'm standing by for some incoming, but I'm just asking?
MD
Mopardave
Good kit doesn't come cheap. I realise that the old quote of:
"Quantity has a quality all of it's own"
is relevant here but just because we don't have hundreds of jets/ships/tanks doesn't mean we're in a terrible state. If we came up with a policy that said we wanted lots of cheap kit we could probably have it. For most conflicts that'd probably work just fine. But if the sh1t really hit the fan we'd be screwed.
I know we all yearn for the past. God knows if the Jaguar were still in service I'd jump at the chance to go back. However as the world advances we have to keep up.
We all love to hate the F35B, for example, but have any of you actually spoken to the guys flying it? It may not look as good at an airshow as other jets but then that's hardly it's primary role.
Let's not forget also that a large part of the defence budget gets eaten up by us. The people. Pay and pensions make up an enormous part of the pot of cash.
We may have cut the forces considerably since the end of the cold war but most of the people who left are still alive and still getting a pension. Maybe if we devoted a special task force to bumping some of them off we could free up some spare dosh.
BV
PS. If you can't sense the tongue in cheek tone of my last paragraph I can only apologise.
"Quantity has a quality all of it's own"
is relevant here but just because we don't have hundreds of jets/ships/tanks doesn't mean we're in a terrible state. If we came up with a policy that said we wanted lots of cheap kit we could probably have it. For most conflicts that'd probably work just fine. But if the sh1t really hit the fan we'd be screwed.
I know we all yearn for the past. God knows if the Jaguar were still in service I'd jump at the chance to go back. However as the world advances we have to keep up.
We all love to hate the F35B, for example, but have any of you actually spoken to the guys flying it? It may not look as good at an airshow as other jets but then that's hardly it's primary role.
Let's not forget also that a large part of the defence budget gets eaten up by us. The people. Pay and pensions make up an enormous part of the pot of cash.
We may have cut the forces considerably since the end of the cold war but most of the people who left are still alive and still getting a pension. Maybe if we devoted a special task force to bumping some of them off we could free up some spare dosh.
BV
PS. If you can't sense the tongue in cheek tone of my last paragraph I can only apologise.
One more thing...
I should also add that I fully agree that we get ripped off by industry but look at it like motorway service stations. If you want to eat you are a captive audience. The same applies to defence procurement.
I wish it weren't the case but such is life.
BV
I wish it weren't the case but such is life.
BV
BV
"motorway service stations".......that is actually a great analogy......I get what you're saying.
As for the pensioner hit squad idea.......now you're making me feel nervous bruv!
MD
"motorway service stations".......that is actually a great analogy......I get what you're saying.
As for the pensioner hit squad idea.......now you're making me feel nervous bruv!
MD
I forgot to say!
I was talking to a junior officer from the awacs community on Friday night.......a thoroughly nice guy who told me that from where he was stood, life in the RAF was pretty good right now! I know not everyone would agree with him, but it was nice to hear an alternative view.
MD, I would think that a lot of us are asking the same question. Hopefully a few here will give you some good answers. I'll stick my head over the thingy and offer this.
The UK armed forces are still bloody good, but suffered repeated cuts since the end of the Cold War - actually since the end of WWII, but if you go back there we'll never get an answer. There has been a continuous disconnect between certain politicians (many of whom have little understanding of how the Armed Forces wok) and various parts of the MoD. At times, the disparate need to save money for other departments' use has led to delaying spending on projects, which does three things: it saves money this year, it delays the programme, it makes the programme more expensive.
As Defence spending has shrunk, so have the Defence industries. Therefore companies merge until the UK ends up with one main contractor that does everything. A virtual monopoly supported by the faith that the Government will always want to support the national economy and, therefore, always buy British or, at least, buy from a consortium or project that includes the remaining UK Defence industry. Therefore, the remaining main contractor holds all the trump cards.
UK Government is not willing to, or feels unable to, commit to a major programme alone in the belief that sharing risk, development costs and production costs will save them money. They overlook the consequences of multinational disagreement or failures by other nations contractors and the effects that these factors will have on the project's timeline and its costs.
The customer spends a lot of time deciding what its requirement may be. Then new people take over the job at MoD and decide that they didn't get it right and make changes. Industry tries to adapt the design to accommodate the changes, but this takes time, costs money and leads to other complications in the design, some of which will resurface later as issues later in the programme.
The next Government decides to make make defence cuts. So, priorities in existing programmes have to change. Changes to a programme leads to delays and cost. Something gets cancelled and another programme has to try to pick up the slack.
The country gets involved in an overseas conflict. Existing equipment doesn't conform to the operation. Let's say they don't have a certain piece of equipment that another, bigger country requires the UK's aircraft to have in order to join in the fight. The MoD has to drop everything, find emergency funding and a way to buy and incorporate the required equipment in their aircraft. Well, some of them. After the conflict is over, the MoD has a number of aircraft at a different standard to the rest. Now what? You know the kit is needed in the whole fleet, but where does the money come from?
And on and on and on. Everyone wants a world-beating Air Force. No one wants to fund it properly. Kit gets more and more expensive. Kit wears out and must be replaced. Politicians believe that saying they love the Forces will make it OK. No will to spend money in peacetime, a desperate wish to deploy forces when it gives the polis a place on the world stage.
Some countries have the guts to go ahead and do it alone. Well almost. The U.S. do it, but have recently been bitten by costs and delays in some recent programmes. But they keep doing it and they are very big. France does it because they're like that. Sweden do it. So maybe it's something to do with government determination.
In short, mopardavd, I have no idea.
The UK armed forces are still bloody good, but suffered repeated cuts since the end of the Cold War - actually since the end of WWII, but if you go back there we'll never get an answer. There has been a continuous disconnect between certain politicians (many of whom have little understanding of how the Armed Forces wok) and various parts of the MoD. At times, the disparate need to save money for other departments' use has led to delaying spending on projects, which does three things: it saves money this year, it delays the programme, it makes the programme more expensive.
As Defence spending has shrunk, so have the Defence industries. Therefore companies merge until the UK ends up with one main contractor that does everything. A virtual monopoly supported by the faith that the Government will always want to support the national economy and, therefore, always buy British or, at least, buy from a consortium or project that includes the remaining UK Defence industry. Therefore, the remaining main contractor holds all the trump cards.
UK Government is not willing to, or feels unable to, commit to a major programme alone in the belief that sharing risk, development costs and production costs will save them money. They overlook the consequences of multinational disagreement or failures by other nations contractors and the effects that these factors will have on the project's timeline and its costs.
The customer spends a lot of time deciding what its requirement may be. Then new people take over the job at MoD and decide that they didn't get it right and make changes. Industry tries to adapt the design to accommodate the changes, but this takes time, costs money and leads to other complications in the design, some of which will resurface later as issues later in the programme.
The next Government decides to make make defence cuts. So, priorities in existing programmes have to change. Changes to a programme leads to delays and cost. Something gets cancelled and another programme has to try to pick up the slack.
The country gets involved in an overseas conflict. Existing equipment doesn't conform to the operation. Let's say they don't have a certain piece of equipment that another, bigger country requires the UK's aircraft to have in order to join in the fight. The MoD has to drop everything, find emergency funding and a way to buy and incorporate the required equipment in their aircraft. Well, some of them. After the conflict is over, the MoD has a number of aircraft at a different standard to the rest. Now what? You know the kit is needed in the whole fleet, but where does the money come from?
And on and on and on. Everyone wants a world-beating Air Force. No one wants to fund it properly. Kit gets more and more expensive. Kit wears out and must be replaced. Politicians believe that saying they love the Forces will make it OK. No will to spend money in peacetime, a desperate wish to deploy forces when it gives the polis a place on the world stage.
Some countries have the guts to go ahead and do it alone. Well almost. The U.S. do it, but have recently been bitten by costs and delays in some recent programmes. But they keep doing it and they are very big. France does it because they're like that. Sweden do it. So maybe it's something to do with government determination.
In short, mopardavd, I have no idea.
CM.......I asked a question about a complex subject......and I got a succinct and reasoned answer. Thanks for that. What you say makes perfect sense........but it still leaves a nasty taste in the throat, right? In short, the only "losers" in this game are the men and women on the "front line" doing the bidding of those with their hands on the leavers of power (and dare I say, their snouts in the trough!).
I do have some experience of this.....in my previous emergency services life, I got into conversation with a provider of IT systems. He told me it was virtually impossible dealing with my particular organisation due to the constant changes in senior personnel (with differing agenda's, and mysterious and constantly shifting goal posts!). In fact......they just gave up on us! Makes ya weep!
MD
I do have some experience of this.....in my previous emergency services life, I got into conversation with a provider of IT systems. He told me it was virtually impossible dealing with my particular organisation due to the constant changes in senior personnel (with differing agenda's, and mysterious and constantly shifting goal posts!). In fact......they just gave up on us! Makes ya weep!
MD
Going back to LP's comments about F-18s and such like, it doesn't appear to have occurred to him that Naval Aviation is to support the Fleet on its expeditionary operations, not to defend UK or European airspace. Nor that long range maritime air operations and reconnaissance etc operate (when we have them) in defence of UK waters and the approaches to them. Personally I think think the Navy should be broken up along with the Army and their respective core role subsumed into a resurgent RAF Marine Craft service and the RAF Regiment!
There, sorted!
FB
There, sorted!
FB
mopardave,
Are you sure that "leavers" wasn't a Freudian slip?
Are you sure that "leavers" wasn't a Freudian slip?
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: East Sussex UK
Age: 66
Posts: 6,995
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Here's a bright idea ... How about now logging Mil flying time from 'Top of Climb' to 'Start of Descent' ... That'll produce some savings
1973 Oil Crisis anyone
1973 Oil Crisis anyone
mopardave,
Are you sure that "leavers" wasn't a Freudian slip?
Are you sure that "leavers" wasn't a Freudian slip?
MD
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: S of 55N
Posts: 360
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I started this thread by saying:
If this article is to be believed, it looks like I'm going to be disappointed.
Sun.
Personally, I'd like to see SDSR15 be a properly strategic review, that looks at the threat before the cost - and then adjusts to ensure affordability (rather than the other way around)
Sun.
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: East Anglia
Posts: 349
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sun,
I wish I could add something of value to this thread, and if I/we all thought that the next SDSR would be presented after deep thought, academic rigour and a strategically robust evolution conducted over sensible timelines, then maybe we would all chip in and give our two pennies worth. But really we all know it is just another cost cutting exercise, and we haven't even finished trying to implement the huge change from the last SDSR yet.
I think you are finding user apathy, lethargy and fatigue as yet more change is coming and yet more cuts, so why bother trying to discuss reasoned logical solutions or recommendations? It appears that those with their hands on the purse strings, political and MoD have already made up their minds and are doing some rapid work in compressed timelines to justify these decisions.
The majority on here are either using their online time to plan their exit strategy from a shrinking Defence or are stuck in a CEA or Pension rut and are just doing their best to keep their heads above water as more is asked from less, as all the good bright people around them depart, leaving empty desks and younger/less experienced cockpits/support staff.
Sadly nothing strategic about how to make in year real term cost savings.
I wish I could add something of value to this thread, and if I/we all thought that the next SDSR would be presented after deep thought, academic rigour and a strategically robust evolution conducted over sensible timelines, then maybe we would all chip in and give our two pennies worth. But really we all know it is just another cost cutting exercise, and we haven't even finished trying to implement the huge change from the last SDSR yet.
I think you are finding user apathy, lethargy and fatigue as yet more change is coming and yet more cuts, so why bother trying to discuss reasoned logical solutions or recommendations? It appears that those with their hands on the purse strings, political and MoD have already made up their minds and are doing some rapid work in compressed timelines to justify these decisions.
The majority on here are either using their online time to plan their exit strategy from a shrinking Defence or are stuck in a CEA or Pension rut and are just doing their best to keep their heads above water as more is asked from less, as all the good bright people around them depart, leaving empty desks and younger/less experienced cockpits/support staff.
Sadly nothing strategic about how to make in year real term cost savings.