Jacknory.....you no listen...........you no listen....I AM NOT TALKING ABOUT DEFENDING THE FALKLANDS AKA 1982 (there he said it again). Are you suggesting that the UK military prostitutes its total future capability to satisfy a requirement in what is guerilla war? How shortsighted.

If we take you line to it's logical conclusion, the lets bin Typhoon, and everything else that does not DIRECTLY support the Army in Iraqistan. Lets close all those UK bases, bin Trident, bin CVF, bin the CRCs, bin the bunkers, bin Challenger, bin AS90, Bin ASTOR, bin Astute, Bin MR4A, Bin the SAR flights, bin T45, bin Future Rotorcraft, bin every future and current project and spend it all on sniper rifles, Land Rovers, 50 cal machine guns, and helicopters. Air support can be provided by the Yanks and transport by British Airways, Catering by ESS. Your Myopic viewpoint, centred around an absolute drive to defend anything with a roundel on it, does not do your title as a journalist any credit.

I agree that funds are short and unlikely to change but you clearly need to spend a few weeks at the college of knowledge and accept that there are some people in the MOD who are trying their best with limited resource. People who have got to where they are through years of Service, conflict and experience and have the knowledge to back up their decisions. People far more capable than I and more informed and un-biased than you. I will go no further as I am on the verge of being rude, which I have no wish to do. WEBF come back ...all is forgiven.

Just as long as the troops do not need any hold baggage in theatre.:E

Am I suggesting that the UK "prostitutes its total future capability to satisfy a requirement in what is guerilla war?"

No Widger, that's not what I'm suggesting.

What I'm suggesting is that within the AVAILABLE budget we should have balanced forces, concentrating on the most useful and most cost-effective capabilities, and ensuring that we can do routine operations autonomously, while relying on allies to provide the little-used and most expensive capabilities.

I'm suggesting that we need to be able to do another Granby, or another Allied Force, or another Telic. (All of which did not require a UK aircraft carrier). But not necessarily another Corporate.

So I want plenty of frigates to do all the ad hoc stuff that frigates do all the time (Caribbean guardship, drug interdiction, etc.) and I want TLAM-launching submarines. I want plenty of land-based FJs, tankers, recce and SEAD. I want plenty of AT and SH.

But I don't think that carriers and JSF can be justified, any more than we can justify a strategic bomber force. They are simply not useful enough often enough, and not a cost-effective, efficient or agile way of delivering effect.

France and UK
 

Carrier Group operations: by facilitating the generation of a combined maritime strike capability when required for national, EU-led or NATO operations. This capability could be expanded to other European countries able and willing to make a contribution.

The joint statement has the above paragraph. The CV's are now clearly as important to France and the UK as their nuclear detterents.

Jacko,

I'd be VERY interested to hear when those statements were made.

Regards,
MM

MM,

The Gould quote comes from:

House of Commons, Defence Committee
Defence Equipment 2008, Tenth Report of Session 2007–08

http://www.publications.parliament.u...ce/295/295.pdf

Page Ev11, RH column

Because I have it only from single and dual sources, I can't elaborate, but I can say that I believe this quote to be absolutely untrue, specifically that the flight trial and mission system programmes are not, by any stretch of the imagination, "going very well."

The other comes from:

REPORT BY THE COMPTROLLER AND AUDITOR GENERAL | HC 98-II Session 2007-2008 | 30 November 2007
MINISTRY OF DEFENCE
Major Projects Report 2007
Project Summary Sheets

p.102

http://www.official-documents.gov.uk...98/0098_ii.asp

I believe that outstanding problems with MRA4 are such that it would preclude KURs being judged as being 'met'.

Why do we always examine the near/medium term projects when we are asked for cuts? Presumably because it is near/medium term overpressure in the Equipment Capability Plan. These sort of cuts are always controversial, because the projects are so mature and have been justified time and again.

Why not take the pain now and make some future plans that do not cause us this pain in the future? Let's take DPOC for a starter - £3.5Bn of money for something that doesn't yet have an agreed requirement. Cut it before it becomes a problem child, not when it is one.

Am I the only one who finds it astonishing that no matter how badly BAE perform on this they still manage to pocket the full contract price.
They have been compensated for their own failure to deliver by now only being obliged to deliver a 12 aircraft fleet - for the price of the original 21.

Even the poor old RAF carries the can because those original 21 airframes, build by one of BAE's honoured predeccessors, but in contract speak supplied by the RAF, were so inconsistent in build standard that all the new bits had to be reworked.

Considering that all the really tricky stuff, the area where Nimrod AEW f:mad: up, is done for them - the mission equipment is being supplied by Boeing.

The meal they've made of the rest of the job is staggering.

When the contract was changed to a Target Cost Incentive Fee (TCIF) arrangement for Design and Development on 23 February 2004 it was meant to "be the best means of incentivising BAE SYSTEMS to deliver the aircraft without further cost and time slippage."

Can anyone give any evidence that this has happened, or is Jetex Jim correct, and has BAE continued to profit, while continuing to f*** up in spades?

Or is it right that everything's going swimmingly, as Gould avers, and all KURs are a piece of cake?

“The production, flight trial and mission system programmes are going very well.”

http://www.scifidimensions.com/Jun07..._pinnochio.JPG

David Gould.

It wasn't all that long ago (ok perhaps a few years!) that many self professed 'defence gurus' used pprune to complain that the UK acquiring apache was a total waste of money and a cold war type asset that had no role in the modern wargame. I would assume these armchair experts are now relieved of the anonimity of such forums.

My point is that any planned equipment project does not come to fruition for so many years that it is impossible to say for certain what UK plc will be requiring of its military when the goods are actually delivered. Do the new carriers provide flexibilty to deal with the next unimaginable wargame? Does JSF? Does Typhoon?

Who would have imagined 5 years ago that the traditionally very maritime ASaC Sea King community would be contemplating deploying to sandy places to provide overland strategic effect?

I'm not saying I have the answers but I think we all have to be careful of dismissing future projects on the basis of current requirements. My personal view is that we have to accept that the coffers are almost empty and that buying known capability off the shelf must be more cost effective than trying to remain at the forefront of the defence industry by investing in the design and development side of things when we dont have the luxury of being able to throw money at it til it works.

What an amazing thread - page 3 already!
IF the MR4 is actually capable of being completed, and working (unlike AEW) then only an idiot would cancel it. I have no doubt there are lots of bad things about it - many years ago I suggested they provide a disc loading system that allowed somebody in NBC gear to load a disc (Fisher Price controls, is how I phrased it at the time) and I was treated to a display of 'wow, what a strange idea!?' from the nerds I was talking to.
(The same nerds who figured an 8 inch floppy that took 20 attempts to load from was a good thing, I suspect).

If, on the other hand, there are endless delays ahead while BAe eventually admits that it can't deliver the aircraft contracted for, so that it actually performs pretty well as specified, then we should cut our losses - and make sure we don't sign BAe up to anyhting that's at all difficult in future. One can't help but wonder if the company is capable of producing this type of platform any more.

P8 - tell you what, let's have some new MR2s... fix the AAR and other nasty bits that have surfaced, but for maritime patrol the MR2 is still the dog's nadgers. Searchwater is still bloody good, for overall 'protect the island ASW', our traditional and still necessary role, it's a brilliant piece of kit that BAe must have stumbled on by accident. B737's for God's sake? How can anyone complain that the MR4 is a rebadged antique and then suggest we buy a 737? We'd be better off with Shack Mk3's....

As for CV vs MPA arguments - I cannot see the point of having CVs if there are insufficient DDG/FFG in the fleet to protect them so they can go into warzones. Why we need so many admirals is a mystery - there must be two for every vessel larger than a sloop in the RN these days (I suspect Air MArshals v Aircraft is at a similarly ridiculous ratio). We need to be able to protect our local area around the UK, in addition it is nice to have ships to deploy for exercise abroad, and to extend power into distant areas a la Falklands.... but if you can only fund one of these tasks properly then for heaven's sake buy lots of ASW frigates and sod the CV's that you can't afford to lose anyway. Whilst 1982 is a significant date in this argument, a squadron of F4's on the FI and a decent garrison, coupled with some sense in the foreign office etc at the time, would have prevented the whole debacle.

The CV's were a fix for a situation that should never have arisen, that doesn't mean we should plan future ops around them.

The RN need more ships, personally I think they ought to have a bunch of FFG/DDG rather than 2 CV''s that will be lightly protected, and that - in a conflict - will be considered too expensive to risk. In a world where we don't, really, project power, we should be looking to get bang for our buck in the defensive arena.

What a delightful piece of NUSPEAK
The notion of paying only for a delivered, functional bit kit, an idea applied to every other buisiness transaction - aside from defence procurement - must be just too difficult a concept.

Not really a difficult concept, but not a firm grasp of the reality of defence procurement.

For example, how many other buyers are there for a CVF? They are designing making them for us and the French so we pay the design costs; this is basic acquisition of a unique capability, not popping to the local Vauxhall dealer for a Zafira.

Do you really suggest that we could pay at the till as we walk out the door with a CVF under our arm? :\

It's clear enough buying military kit is not like buying an iPod, someone has to cover design and development.

But if you buy an iPod and it doesn't work you either get your money back or a new one.

Not so with these jokers, they get to charge full wack if they deliver or not. - See Nimrod AEW saga.

Now at least if you buy from the yanks you are liable to get something that works - as long as BAE are not involved - 'adding value to it'

Well,
we could always send an Admiral along to say 'naaah, don't like the colour - tell you what, knock off the VAT and I'll give you cash'.

It does rather raise the question of what the company would do if we said 'too much' and refused to pay - sue the government? Not really an option, is it? Ultimately the question is 'who has who over the barrel?'*

Dave

* note 'OVER' the barrel, not the Naval version 'IN the barrel'.

And of course at any sniff of cancellation BAE start whining about all the jobs that will be lost.



Essentially they make you buy the barrel they f:mad:k you in.

Jetex Jim,

"At least if you buy from the yanks you are liable to get something that works - as long as BAE are not involved."

Hmmm.

Care to try that one out on the Aussies (just ask about Seasprite or Wedgetail)?

Or the Italians (KC-767)?

Or even the USAF itself, asking whether the F/A-18E/F's AESA radar has gone on a proper cruise, yet, or whether an F-22 can talk to anyone but his own wingman using the datalink?

Or cast an eye into the recent past and look at the C-130J as an example of "something that works."

And is the MRA4 fiasco (if there is a fiasco?) entirely BAE's fault? Do Boeing bear no responsibility?

And would buying P-8 guarantee working, useful kit? Is the 737 suited to ASW as we practise it?

Fair point. Whilst I risk antagonising you with a non-Nimrod example once more, it is a closer one than CVF;) Look at ASTOR, has that been satisfactorily delivered & does it meet our requirements, NO, has Industry been paid? YES and lots.

Also:

High-G centrifuge. We kicked this off and then cancelled the programme. We got sued in court and had to paid most of the total costs anyway, yet Industry kept the equipment, which I recall was then sold to Malaysia! Industry profit 2 times, we get stuff all for the money.

What I'm saying is, is this behaviour unique to BAES? I think not.

It is not hard to find other military projects that are overspent and late, that's military procurement.

No one, apparently, has come up with a satisfactory way to 'incentivise' the suppliers - in the face of the job lobby, the need to maintain technical capability lobby etc. The operational requirement lobby is just way too weak.



While there may be other runners in the overspent and late race - Nimrod is still in a class of its own.

The MRA4 will probably be 10 years late and each cost 3 times as much, many believe BAe are responsible. However the project is close (relatively) to completion and a replacement for the MR2 is desperately needed.

Any guesses who responsible for building the Carriers? Based on previous performance can they be expected to deliver within costs and deadlines, I doubt it. If they couldn't measure and fit a new set of wings, how on earth are they going to mate huge sections from different dock yards together?