CDS to go early
 

Chess moves at the top inbound.

Defence chief to be axed - Times Online

Obviously he is being fired along with the senior MOD civil servant. I guess it's considered that he was too close to the old government. Never mind, he gets a pretty good pension.

Have a good rest Jock, you did your best.

In financial terms, this is the key paragraph. PUS (Jeffrey) is the Chief Accounting Officer. It is his job to oversee the implementation of the rules requiring the scrutiny Fox talks of. This scrutiny is nothing new. It has been mandated since time began. The trouble is, successive PUSs going back over 20 years have failed miserably to ensure their own regulations are enforced - not just since 2005. The key report on the subject, issued by MoD's own internal auditors, is dated June 1996. 19 recommendations, none of which were implemented. Untold Billions have been wasted as a result; which, had it not been spent, would not have affected Operational Capability. That is the essential difference between true efficiency, which the scrutiny rules are designed to ensure, and the forthcoming cuts which are designed to compensate for incompetence.


This very true statement applies equally to senior Servicemen and Civilians alike. Can we now look forward to a similar cull of those in DE&S who issued instructions to ignore PUS's scrutiny regulations, just to avoid rocking the political boat? Jeffrey is taking the blame for his lack of leadership, but history tells us the real perpetrators won't change.

Annularity used to be the elephant in the room. Save, save, save, surplus, spend.

Contractorisation was supposed to get round this and the Regional Prime for works was a step in the right direction but as 5 years was too short. But even before year one in our region was out came the cuts. Paintng was cut, demolition was cut and so on. They had a good contract but there we were meddling with it.

Landmarc OTOH had a long contract and a complacent approach. thought they were the bees knees and too complacrent to realise their customer hated them :mad:

The next big money saving scheme by the Queen's first son-in-law is one BIG overarching contract in 2013. But big contracts need lots of monitors at every level but had Defence Estates trained any Contract Monitors?

failed his annual fitness test 3 times...................... ;)

If I remember correctly he was DCINC STC when Burridge was CINC STC, Burridge was tipped for the top job until he took his pants down with the wrong women and Stirrup got the job, says it all really.

With the TV and radio coverage, the BBC seem to repeatedly state that he was a FJ pilot previously. Just wondering if that's supposed to be a "read between the lines" reference to his suitability to carry out the top job.

And that politicisation has spread downwards to the point where no-one seems capable of doing the 'right' thing in a given situation, instead doing everything in their power to avoid being seen to do the 'wrong' thing to keep their profile squeaky clean whilst spreading misery below them.

You mean the promotion "Monkey Tree"?

Those at the top look down and see smiling faces looking up at them. Those at the bottom look up and see ars*h*les.:oh:

Would it not make more sense for a new CDS & PUS to be appointed now before the SDSR so that the decisions made are made by those who have to stand up & be counted for their decisions and they can lead the mil into the new regime they have created. At this rate some pretty nasty cuts will be 'blamed' on those just left and nobody will be in post to be held accountable...I predict a riot :ugh:

Let us all hope that these sackings (well the closest to that you could hope for) are a prelude to a complete reform of this incompetent and corrupt ministry. If Dr Fox can achieve that then he will go down as one of the greatest SoS's that the MOD has had since Mountbatten had his great idea (which in keeping with all his other great ideas has wasted lives needlessly)

fincastle84:
Quite!

After seeing Dr Fox on the "box", why do I get the feeling he should have stuck to "prescriptions"?

Spanish Waltzer: It looks like you were 'on the money'. It appears he is being pushed to leave now! :eek: Hello General Sir David Julian Richards KCB, CBE, DSO, ADC .. don'tcha know... (I'll bet he's got a pair of red trousers). Well, come on, who else is it gonna be ..

Sir Jock Stirrup 'should go before defence review' | UK news | The Guardian

A senior Pongo was on the news a couple of nights ago questioning the number of FJ for the RAF and Carriers for the Navy, but no mention about his Army, somewhat biased methinks. :rolleyes:

acmech1954 wrote...

...A senior Pongo was on the news a couple of nights ago questioning the number of FJ for the RAF and Carriers for the Navy, but no mention about his Army, somewhat biased methinks. :rolleyes:...

possibly because the whole of the Army is involved in A'stan - AS90 Regiments re-roled to Light Gun, Challenger 2 crews re-roled to crew just about anything that moves in theatre - the Army has many 'traditional war' legacy systems that don't fit into COIN very well, but it has demonstrated that it is willing and able to put them (and the corresponding 'glamour and prestege' surrounding those roles) into storage and re-role in order to prosecute the war we are actually fighting. the RAF on the other hand, has created/allowed a perception (and quite a convincing perception) to evolve that it really isn't interested in A'stan - sure it makes some crumbs-from-the-table changes like Sentinel, RQ-9, RAPTOR, and a couple of extra C-17's - but that really the RAF is only interested in pointy fast jets, and the wars in which they are of use.

there is a balance to be struck between 'the war', and 'a war', but 'the RAF' as represented by Jockstrap got both the balance, and the presentation of that balance, badly wrong.

It is slightly easier to take a tank driver and give him something else to drive. Likewise take the AS90 crew and give them a field gun, not much training required, they are all soldiers, just with some specialised training. They could all just go as infantry at the end of the day.
The RAF is a lot more technical than that, and as such resources cannot easily be moved at the drop of a hat without considerable expensive retraining, and that applies to both air and ground trades.
Given that when we initially went into Afghanistan we were not expecting to fight(If you believe the politicians), you cannot expect the chiefs to have spent millions retraining people, and buying new equipment for roles that may not be required.
Look at the army, they have not sold off their battle tanks or AS90's simply put them to one side. How much squealing would there be if the Navy/RAF started complaining about the cost of these systems that are not of any use in the current conflict, sell them off, make some money.....
How much damage was done to the perception of the RAF by removing the Harrier? Was this a deliberate political decision by a green CinC?
The armed forces need to prepare for all eventualities, not just yesterdays. If that means we need air defence fast jets, maritime surveillance, MBT or simply 1000's of infantry soldiers then that is what we need, and the price we need to pay for the defence of the realm.

Isn't it?

Surely Richards has compromised himself in the same way as Dannatt did. He is so far hard over on Army capability at the expense of the RN and RAF, and "we must win in Afgh whatever the mortgage to the future" that he cannot be seen as being someone who can give impartial advice to SofS and PM. He is also far too arrogant now that he has made 4*. Houghton has a more purple upbringing and is probably more acceptable to the other 2 Services.....but Stanhope is gaining plaudits in MoD as well.

nobody is suggesting the RAF should divest itself of anything not immediately required - hence the Army not flogging off its AS90's or Ch2 - rather that it reconfigures its 'back-burner' and 'front-burner' priorities, and be seen to do so. the Army has done this - Armour and Arillery are vastly smaller percentages of the Army than they were in 1991 - capability is still maintained, but emphasis has shifted.

it is complete rubbish for the RAF to use the 'won't fire a shot in anger' excuse for its failure to adjust - the RAF fast jet capability has been the least used part of its fleet for the last 20 years, :mad: knows how many wars since 1991 have shown that the RAF's greatest contribution has been AT SH and ISTAR, yet those capabilities continually get the hind tit in terms of both cash and service priority, in contrast to the rarely used fast jets.

yes the RAF, not least to avoid skill fade and because of the long lead times of aircraft procurement, needs to maintain a rounded fleet - but what it can do, but seems unwilling to do, is to shift the emphasis it places on particular areas within that fleet, and, as i say above, this isn't 'knee-jerk, only-since-2007' stuff, this is 20 years of combined operations to which the RAF has consistently brought the wrong tool set so it can favour the wars it wants to fight, rather than the wars every other cnut gets lumbered with.

Dannatt's a Tory
 

I thought Dannatt was getting a House of Lords job or similar so he can be a defence advisor to the Conservatives? He came out of the closet rather publicly last year. He will cut a deal with Fox to ensure that there is a suitable Army man (Richards?) in the CDS post in time for SDR. Otherwise the RAF and RN might get to keep some capability.

Make no mistake, the Services are truly partisan now and the Army's focus on the current conflict at the expense of any generic credible future air or naval power will hurt us all.

With the recent rumours in the media (fuelled recently by Cameron and Fox) about us starting to withdraw from Afghanistan as soon as possible one wonders whether SDR will leave us with a capability tailored to that op only just as we bring a portion of our troops home from it.

Still, not to worry. Who needs air superiority anyway? I wonder if Joint Advanced Staff College has taught any of our 2+ stars anything about each other's services that will survive the spectre of the budgetary axe. :ugh:

no, we never use our fast jets for ops
 

How about:

Gulf War 1
Gulf War 2 / TELIC (fast jets came home last year thanks)
HERRICK from 2004 - 2 years before the Army sent conventional forces
Bosnia
Sierra Leone
Kosovo

Not to mention patrolling Northern and Southern No Fly Zones in Iraq for 12 or so years in order that there was no requirement for any boots on the ground in Saudi to show a presence.

Whether you agree with our involvement etc isn't the point - the Govt sent the RAF and the RAF in the form of fast jets with bombs on, bombs which were regularly dropped in all of those conflicts (except Sierra Leone, where the Harriers used the noise of their jets for shows of force, and very effective, too, says an Army Officer I worked with who was on the ground and grateful).