Re: the thread title.

Yep, no shocks at all. Or tyres and brakes etc...

Has been known to have been a good way to ensure that certain required supplies reach where needed.............there are at least 2 ways to read that :)

SRENNAPS wrote

I don't see it that way. Call me cynical. I just see the BBC going for a dramatic headline simply to jump on the Typhoon bashing bandwagon. News stories such as this will not make the slightest bit of difference, IMHO.

TJ

Maybe I missed it but Typhoon was supposed to break the mould.

Logistics support was on a 4 Nation basis. The "hole in the wall" was going to provide spares on demand from whichever country had the spare on the shelf. Good so far.

The catch was, Nations estimated how many spares they needed and stated the requirement. The UK MOD (read Treasury) decided we couldn't afford that many spares and cut back on our provision (read "cash"). Fail to fill the spares bucket and you get less access to spares.

Now we're short of spares. Go figure!

Anyone familiar with the RB199 saga in the 90s will understand my point.

Like all Strategic Defence Reviews, the reality hits home many years later when it really matters.

TEEEJ

"I just see the BBC going for a dramatic headline simply to jump on the Typhoon bashing bandwagon".

Why have you have chosen to single out the BBC? This story was on all the TV News Channels and all the major newspapers as indeed it should be!

Are you really suggesting that the PAC just had an axe to grind? Do we just accept we are pre-destined to screw up all major defence projects ad infinitum with no lessons ever to be learned from previous mistakes?

TEEEJ

Cynical yes, and there is an element of truth in what you say.

However the way I look at it is that the BBC maybe bashing the Typhoon, but the public see it as yet another problem with the lack of money spent on the Armed Forces when they have been committed to yet another operation. In work today I have had several people commenting (with some disgust) that our latest and most modern aircraft has no spares. When I explained that this was nothing new and we suffered the same problem with the Tonka back in 1980, they were even more horrified. Some of them do take notice and they do care!

It was only post GW2 and the ramp up off Afghanistan that the message about the lack of proper equipment such as boots and body armour started to be reported by the press. It was reported and reported and quite often hyped up out of all proportion. But it worked and finally decent equipment (and many other things) was delivered.

When there is no publicity given to a particular problem, then the MOD (including the Senior Officers) and the Government will not react.
If the BBC want to broadcast another 20 hyped up stories about the Typhoon, then let it be.

Geehovah

It was called ILS – Integrated Logistic Support -Not Instrument Landing System:p

Mil Std 1388, Def Stan 0060 (now 600) and it was to be the saviour of the supportability world.

The truth of the matter is that we have always been very good at predicting how many spares we need, even from the old CSDE days.

However, what is the point of all this good analysis if the bean counters “save money” by not buying the recommended spares. You end up with short term, false economies and in a situation that we never actually recover from.

And to be quite frank the situation is fully endorsed within the MOD by our lords and masters from Sqn Ldr upwards on every project.:ugh::ugh:

Of course, another problem with 'christmas trees' is that when the big part finally arrives, the jet can't just get airborne with the Unit Test Pilot. All the other robbed parts being put back in causes a long list of minor to major snags. I used to fly 'shakedown' trips, as they were known, to find out what was misbehaving before the UTP got it. The warning panel certainly looked like a christmas tree at times.
One of these days, there will be a combination of snags that requires a MB letdown, and we won't have saved too much money then.

Ah, but is it the aircraft or the crew...?

Sky News ticker tape at the bottom of the screen on Friday night was saying 'Typoons grounded due to lack of Aircrew spares'... I was wondering what this actually meant, pilots with the 1 leg or something I guess...?

Draken55,

I singled out the BBC because that is the link that was posted. My gripe is why not report it in a timely fashion? That info was public knowledge back in early March. Some hack has simply stumbled on the public accounts committee webpage and went straight for an easy headline.They could re-hash the story every week and it still wouldn't make the slightest bit of difference, IMHO.

TJ

Indeed, when flying stuff in C-130s out to The Gulf the load was always 'a 199 + ...'

T'was always better when a Conway was on board, they only ever seemed to break when way out West.

SRENNAPS,

I've also seen reaction from people believing that the entire fleet was grounded due to the BBC headline. I can see your point of view and thanks for the debate.

TJ

Precisely. We saw Def Stan 0060 being pushed in the RN back in the 90s as the be all and end all and to a man we all knew the shiny new procedures and paperwork would go precisely as far as the Treasury wanted, and no further.

It still amazes me how few people realise that accountants run the country, not politicians.

Short-order batches - one offs - cost a mega and are the cause of these "scandal" reports of £00s for a bulb or bolt. So, buy Economic Order Quantites, like airlines? Well no. Airline operation is at predictable intensity, so a balance can be made: best-value modification status, vs. stock obsolescence which condemns new kit from shelf to scrap. Except only for Airworthiness Mandatory items, airlines issue all their modification status A kit before releasing status B stock. Or that's what they try to do. The cheapest way is concurrently with original build to buy a life-of-type stock of bits. But that locks the User in to Day 1 status, losing the benefit of upgrades. Like running this screen on Windows Version Dawn-of-Time-You-Must-Be-Joking. I have that option for this, my innocent pastime. No-one is coming at me with harmful intent, with better kit than mine.

It's not Treasury. Treasury, alone, never cuts anything. Their bright young folk ask simple questions in the sense "Why do you want this thing". If the Buyer Minister has a good answer, he gets it. If not, not. Finite pot of gold; alternative uses...like leaving our money in our pockets. The Sun's front page + 2 more, on Monday, was Junk Jet, pics. of (they said: 60) Harrier GR9 stored at Cottesmore, shortly to be chopped. Scandal. Well, no. The collective of Ministers cut the Defence Budget. SecState for Defence, not the Chancellor of the Exchequer, offered up Harriers. If you want them to retain Harrier, then offer up something else. Or pay more taxes. Or vote in the other lot.

I remember the time when we trained at a similar tempo to the way we expected to fight.

As ever, training goes down the pan when the cash flow becomes a dribble.