Another day another delay in the Chilcot Report - Beeb
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
Tuc in defence, many years ago there was a root and branch reform of the AFD with branches closed, buildings returned to owners, telephones disconnected etc.
At the work face we carried on in ignorance. Many documents and manuals continued in use for a while until cracks started to appear. Only then did we discover there was no sponsor. No doubt some withered on the vine and others were picked up lower down the tree.
The unit I closed 6 years ago still features in some MOD documents. I was asked to contribute to one 10 years ago; I asked who would have ownership of the document. My question went unanswered.
At the work face we carried on in ignorance. Many documents and manuals continued in use for a while until cracks started to appear. Only then did we discover there was no sponsor. No doubt some withered on the vine and others were picked up lower down the tree.
The unit I closed 6 years ago still features in some MOD documents. I was asked to contribute to one 10 years ago; I asked who would have ownership of the document. My question went unanswered.
PN
I agree. Too many reorganisations with entire functions omitted under the new one. The example I used (Chinook Mk3), we were sitting reading the report when the man they said couldn't be identified walked past! Anyone at a squadron should be personally involved in the identification of capability gaps. The CO, senior pilot, engineer, observer (delete as appropriate) then attends the Service-led committee that categorises the (mainly) constraints. The minutes are DEC's action plan for the following year. It's not difficult, but as you say entirely possible nobody bothers nowadays. But not bothering is quite different from the existence of a robust process, and it would seem Chilcot was misled. I suspect MoD didn't say anything, because the truth is infinitely worse.
I agree. Too many reorganisations with entire functions omitted under the new one. The example I used (Chinook Mk3), we were sitting reading the report when the man they said couldn't be identified walked past! Anyone at a squadron should be personally involved in the identification of capability gaps. The CO, senior pilot, engineer, observer (delete as appropriate) then attends the Service-led committee that categorises the (mainly) constraints. The minutes are DEC's action plan for the following year. It's not difficult, but as you say entirely possible nobody bothers nowadays. But not bothering is quite different from the existence of a robust process, and it would seem Chilcot was misled. I suspect MoD didn't say anything, because the truth is infinitely worse.
I've managed to wade through Section 141 of the report (Military equipment).
While obviously sanitised, and in parts simplistic, I think it required reading for anyone thinking of criticising procurement delays. It is just page after page of beancounters in the Centre and politicians deferring ISDs and salami slicing budgets by a few million here, a few million there; while ignoring astronomical waste of hundreds of millions, if not billions. And the support they received from, frankly, sycophantic senior staff.
As for the top level criticism of identifying capability gaps (above) the report actually makes a pretty decent job of describing the process, although contracts two steps into one, implying front line fulfills a role undertaken by DEC. That would explain his criticism and he was probably very frustrated at the lack of answers from MoD, which doesn't come across as very helpful, probably down to the fact it no longer requires retention of corporate memory.
I can think of quite a few IPT staff who will see this as vindication. And many others who will recognise their significant contribution to Saddam's war effort. It will be interesting to see what it says about BOWMAN, and if it mentions that a replacement was endorsed, delivered and in theatre the week before the main contract was let to produce obsolescent and even obsolete kit. Now THAT is waste.
While obviously sanitised, and in parts simplistic, I think it required reading for anyone thinking of criticising procurement delays. It is just page after page of beancounters in the Centre and politicians deferring ISDs and salami slicing budgets by a few million here, a few million there; while ignoring astronomical waste of hundreds of millions, if not billions. And the support they received from, frankly, sycophantic senior staff.
As for the top level criticism of identifying capability gaps (above) the report actually makes a pretty decent job of describing the process, although contracts two steps into one, implying front line fulfills a role undertaken by DEC. That would explain his criticism and he was probably very frustrated at the lack of answers from MoD, which doesn't come across as very helpful, probably down to the fact it no longer requires retention of corporate memory.
I can think of quite a few IPT staff who will see this as vindication. And many others who will recognise their significant contribution to Saddam's war effort. It will be interesting to see what it says about BOWMAN, and if it mentions that a replacement was endorsed, delivered and in theatre the week before the main contract was let to produce obsolescent and even obsolete kit. Now THAT is waste.
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: England
Posts: 924
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I make no rambling point
Nowadays..the British establishment didn't or don't really care about young guys being killed in war, that much. Unless the press kick it up (which they do). Or am I wrong? Maybe they do care.?
When you think, in the past, we have sort of got it together a bit to counter a threat. I'm thinking say WW2 44-45 we did eventually develop a counter to Panther or Tiger when we eventually developed Archer, Firefly and Comet.
Or in NI we developed Wheelbarrow to counter bombers targeting our experts.
Why the slow reaction to deal with the failure of "snatch land-rover"? Why?
I spoke a lot about this with ordinary people and they were particularly hard faced. "You choose to join the military but are surprised to be killed or maimed? What did you expect". Is that the final answer?
Chilcott is already fading after 3 days.
When you think, in the past, we have sort of got it together a bit to counter a threat. I'm thinking say WW2 44-45 we did eventually develop a counter to Panther or Tiger when we eventually developed Archer, Firefly and Comet.
Or in NI we developed Wheelbarrow to counter bombers targeting our experts.
Why the slow reaction to deal with the failure of "snatch land-rover"? Why?
I spoke a lot about this with ordinary people and they were particularly hard faced. "You choose to join the military but are surprised to be killed or maimed? What did you expect". Is that the final answer?
Chilcott is already fading after 3 days.
Two Jags
Good to see that at least one NuLabor politician of the day has had the honesty to speak out: John Prescott: Ex-deputy PM says Iraq War was illegal - BBC News
One might disagree with Baron Prescott's politics, but he cannot be accused of not speaking his mind honestly - and what you see is what you get.
One might disagree with Baron Prescott's politics, but he cannot be accused of not speaking his mind honestly - and what you see is what you get.
Why the slow reaction to deal with the failure of "snatch land-rover"? Why?
It does however talk a bit about FRES (Future Rapid Effects System). When circulated in April 2002, the FRES URD was viewed with horror. The main problem was the relatively new concept of DEC not being allowed to specify ("solutionise" was the word), so most URDs had to waltz round the requirement and find a way of telling the procurers what was needed, without actually telling them. So, for example, on Survivability the URD says "protection required by FRES is assessed as being equivalent to [X mm] AP point blank and [Y %] probability of protection against 150mm fragments at 10m". (I haven't just inserted the X and Y - that's what it actually says). Straight away, most toppled and said WTF? From the viewpoint of the Snatch replacement project manager it wasn't at all clear if this new URD was replacing his programme (FNIPV) as well as consolidating others (TRACER, MRAV, etc.). Another KUR (Deployability) specifically omitted using C130 to transport any FRES vehicle, requiring use of A400 and "other FLA". Most here will recognise the impracticality of this, not least as it required FRES to wait and see what "other FLA" was. Again, a chorus of WTF?
Straight away you had major questions against 2 of the 11 KURs. Another, Interoperability, was also immediately in question, because simultaneously DEC had issued a directive that Interoperability was not to be mentioned in an even bigger and dependent Army programme. The URD was probably a fine example of a paper required at Staff College, but even in 2002 it was obvious that FRES was in many ways a huge savings measure, as it was more or less impossible to make progress and it cancelled, froze or seriously delayed all other related programmes. It was to be the Army equivalent of SABR (Support Amphibious Battlefield Rotorcraft). Years spent on studies, knowing there is no endorsed funding.
My point is, acquisition in general was being wholly compromised in this period by political machinations, long before procurers even saw the Requirements. A solution emerges...
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I haven't seen a list pf the SO's who were responsible for the whole Iraq debacle..................
If we're going to pilory the politicians and the Security boys I think the names of the guilty in the MoD and the armed forces shoul also be known - if only so we can ignore them when they write books, give interviews and pontificate in the press.
So far I haven't seen ONE get the full-on "Today" grilling......
If we're going to pilory the politicians and the Security boys I think the names of the guilty in the MoD and the armed forces shoul also be known - if only so we can ignore them when they write books, give interviews and pontificate in the press.
So far I haven't seen ONE get the full-on "Today" grilling......
The scrutineer's fanatical pride in cancelling or delaying any programme that had any practical solutionising (as well as use of made-up words) was easily defeated by an intelligent Customer 1 / 2 careful drafting.
Otherwise known as deciding what you need right now with the end user and then listing its unique capabilities as KURs whilst trying to keep all the end-users gobs shut if the unique capabilities quoted were irrelevant to them but would prompt the purchase of what they wanted/needed.
Otherwise known as deciding what you need right now with the end user and then listing its unique capabilities as KURs whilst trying to keep all the end-users gobs shut if the unique capabilities quoted were irrelevant to them but would prompt the purchase of what they wanted/needed.
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: England
Posts: 286
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I haven't seen a list pf the SO's who were responsible for the whole Iraq debacle..................
If we're going to pilory the politicians and the Security boys I think the names of the guilty in the MoD and the armed forces shoul also be known - if only so we can ignore them when they write books, give interviews and pontificate in the press.
So far I haven't seen ONE get the full-on "Today" grilling......
If we're going to pilory the politicians and the Security boys I think the names of the guilty in the MoD and the armed forces shoul also be known - if only so we can ignore them when they write books, give interviews and pontificate in the press.
So far I haven't seen ONE get the full-on "Today" grilling......
EG
intelligent Customer 1 / 2 careful drafting
My last aircraft programme, C2 declared they would not support the programme in any way, so it was just a DIY job from start to finish. My last Army programme, both C1/2 went AWOL, but the end users more than compensated, immediately accepting that the Yeoman of Signals knew what he was talking about, so no need to get involved above junior NCO. Completely ignored DEC's original KURs and delivered exactly what YoS wanted, much to the Management Board's annoyance. In fact, what you just said JTO!
In practice, the best way to deal with a nonsensical URD was for the project manager to prepare a "clarification paper", have C1 sign it and stick it in the back of the URD as an Annex. This avoided resubmission and many buoys. This became ever more difficult as PMs were no longer required to know this stuff, partly because aforesaid HQ sections had closed and no-one had the experience. I recall one job in 2002-3 when my spec called for systems integration (and, hence, functional safety). The sole purpose of the programme was to reduce battlefield casualties. A senior officer called a halt and let a 6 month contract on a consultant, asking for a report telling him what "systems integration" was in the first place. The problem was (is), MoD's rules rather assume this knowledge, merely mandating the procedures for implementation. A solution emerges....
BEagle......could it be that he just threw his mate "phoney" under a bus? Prescott's been shrewd......he know's the shrapnel will start flying now, so he thought he'd get his apology in first. I don't think he did anything honourable there.
MD
MD
Good to see that at least one NuLabor politician of the day has had the honesty to speak out: John Prescott: Ex-deputy PM says Iraq War was illegal - BBC News
One might disagree with Baron Prescott's politics, but he cannot be accused of not speaking his mind honestly - and what you see is what you get.
One might disagree with Baron Prescott's politics, but he cannot be accused of not speaking his mind honestly - and what you see is what you get.
Defence Committee has announced MoD's response to Chilcot is to be sought and examined. Non/Ex-MoD witnesses have already been asked to appear, before the above announcement was even made! It would seem the message is getting through that MoD routinely lies to the committee, so an honest view is needed. Good try and it will be a test of Dr Julian Lewis.
Baron Prescott failed his 11 plus (or whatever it was called in his day.) He now has a degree - in hindsight.
I used to think he was mildly amusing......now I think he's a treacherous hypocrite and a thug! At least he's stopped pulling that bloody pledge card out of his pocket......funny how he never mentions the 500 million he wasted on that bloody ridiculous regional assembly idea! He's kicked his mate phoney right in the nuts with his pathetic attempt at contrition......they're a disgrace.....the pair of 'em!!
HH:-
I don't! That is the usual out for the VSOs who never get named! Sacrificial SOs up to and including 1* are regularly fingered by UK Inquiries into MOD scandals. Who fingers them? The Star Chamber that protects its own! The real problem is the MOD itself, the greatest threat to HM Forces.
Unless and until there is a thorough sweeping out of the Stygian MOD Stables and complete reform of it carried out, HM Forces will continue to go to war ill-equipped and ill-prepared for the "events, Dear Boy" that confront this nation.
The reason that crap vehicles and crap radios went to Iraq is the MOD. Reform it if you want decent kit at a decent cost!
I think the names of the guilty in the MoD and the armed forces should also be known
Unless and until there is a thorough sweeping out of the Stygian MOD Stables and complete reform of it carried out, HM Forces will continue to go to war ill-equipped and ill-prepared for the "events, Dear Boy" that confront this nation.
The reason that crap vehicles and crap radios went to Iraq is the MOD. Reform it if you want decent kit at a decent cost!
Having had some experience of the MOD and my attempts to improve equipment and capability from the uniformed side, I would agree change is required. However in my opinion it is the Treasury scrutineers that cause most of the road blocks and poor compromises. They are imbedded all Government departments.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Posts: 786
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Did the Dr David Kelly business get a mention?
Let's not forget that he had made the point that the case was intentionally exagerated ("sexed up") - who wanted it so and why, should have been explored - and don't forget that two heads of the BBC were chopped for daring to run with Dr Kellys (true) story.
And what does it matter whether puppets like Bliar are scolded - who really moves things in our "democracies"? - cui bono? - no potent enemies of Israel left in the Middle East, eh? - or is that the elephant in the room on these forums?
Let's not forget that he had made the point that the case was intentionally exagerated ("sexed up") - who wanted it so and why, should have been explored - and don't forget that two heads of the BBC were chopped for daring to run with Dr Kellys (true) story.
And what does it matter whether puppets like Bliar are scolded - who really moves things in our "democracies"? - cui bono? - no potent enemies of Israel left in the Middle East, eh? - or is that the elephant in the room on these forums?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh dear - I'm no admirer of Israel but that comment is really weird - ALL the evidence is that it was "personal" for Bush Junior and that some if not all of his acolytes could see great geo-political and economic benifits in replacing Saddam with someone more pliable
Blair was a pitiful PR guy who believed his own hype and signed up without thinking
TBH I have never seen, read or heard of any input by Israel, APAC or any other Zionist lobby into the planning of this shambles - they had little to gain TBH - Saddam wasn't a serious threat to them and he was very sound on people like Al Quaida & the Mad Mullahs in Tehran
Blair was a pitiful PR guy who believed his own hype and signed up without thinking
TBH I have never seen, read or heard of any input by Israel, APAC or any other Zionist lobby into the planning of this shambles - they had little to gain TBH - Saddam wasn't a serious threat to them and he was very sound on people like Al Quaida & the Mad Mullahs in Tehran
