Typed that four months ago on the last "defence-cuts-morphed-into-political-bun-fight" thread. Absolutely zilch has changed, so why waste keyboard life, when cut-n-paste says it all.

Another potentially game changing "constitutional process" vote coming up this week. Maybe a few tory mps find their cojones and remember they are elected to represent the views of their constituents and we can toss the whole thing - defence spending included - to Corbyn for a couple of years to sort out ;)

The real danger there is that he does sort it out, but not in the way you might hope for. 'Peace Corps anyone? No need for FJ / AH if all you're doing is humanitarian relief' and hey presto you've sorted maintenance and manning out. Whilst invariably tempting as a strategic move to ensure long term the hard left never get in, like lending him votes for the initial leadership nomination, it's not without risk and is potentially a be careful what you wish for option.

Me hope for? Errm no, not even close, it's just another surreal possibility (or highly amusing one depending on your philosophy towards life) amongst all the other surreal scenarios playing out at the moment.

As I've said many times to my long time (and very Scottish socialist) business associate, now is not the time for serious political debate amongst friends.

Now is the time to kick back with the popcorn and watch it all go to rat****

I concede it is a vexed subject with many possible “solutions”. But I’d say the current situation is driven by the perceived need for savings, without looking at efficiency and operational effectiveness. But I doubt if an accurate investment appraisal has been done to demonstrate actual savings.[/QUOTE]

Sorry but I cannot accept that. Without being specific I have been involved in a number of applications where the previous level 2 to level 4 maintenance policy was radicaly changed to inovative industry led support contracts.
On each the primary requirements was to produce a fully comprehensive cost of ownership model. From this the cost benefit of any change could be demonstrated. It was surprising how little the MoD actually knew about their true costs.
In each a basic requirement was a reliability improvement (in this case the engine). Year on year improvmens were contractualy committed to with penalty or profit payments.

Buster15

I do not disagree, it is just we are talking about different eras. I've no doubt at all that industry cost it properly, and we agree that MoD could not. The HQ posts that did know were disbanded in January 1988. This was followed by privatisation of the workshops, which meant the natural recruitment ground who brought this knowledge to HQ was gone. The only MoD standard to include a procedure for costing any support activity was last amended in January 1992, and later cancelled without replacement. If one had a copy, plus an old set of permanent LTC instructions, you'd be able to make a good fist of it.

The posts I mentioned managed reliability, but (uniquely) had the authority to overrule these permanent Instructions by, for example, trading off the minimum reliability figure (500 hours MTBR for an avionic LRU) for, say, better availability. Like I said, different ways of achieving the same.

In October 1990, this was all replaced with AMSO's "Not In Time" policy, later improved a little by "Just In Time". (Yes, you've delivered it on time to 14MU, but unfortunately the aircraft is on a ship, in the middle of the oggin). Today, I assume things haven't got worse than "Not In Time"! Made easier I suppose by fewer ships and aircraft.

Tucumseh. Thank you for the clarification. You are right; the activities I mentioned were more recent.

Seriously enjoyed the Proms last night.

Well there's not much hope and little chance of glory...........

Some may hold the view that keeping politicians occupied in maintaining the status quo, as opposed to fecking up other stuff, is a positive outcome?

May I refer the Honourable Gentleman to Clause 2(2) of the 1972 European Communities Act

All EU legislation has been introduced by those very same Henry VIII powers - but suddenly, they are undemocratic and unparliamentary?

But those were all approved by Parliament - that is not what is being proposed this time - very different.

OK, since Brexit has resurfaced:
We ARE going to leave the EU. My wife voted to remain, We didn't 'pair' because we didn't trust each other to abstain ;)
When I was a Royal Air Force officer it was expected that one would demonstrate loyalty to corps and country.
Those who continue to undermine the position of HMG are 'giving comfort to the enemy'.
That is why I use the intentionally pejorative term 'Remoaner' and will continue to do so.

Oh yes, my remainer wife now accepts the will of the people and supports the PM, who was also a remainer, in her efforts to obtain the best deal possible for our country.

That's why we call 'em Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition.

We even pay the feckers to oppose HMG.

It's a democracy thing: kinda hard to explain to people who don't understand democracy.

Cazalet33
 

It seems that you are the one who doesn't understand democracy. Over 500 MPs voted in 2015 to allow the people to vote whether to leave or remain in the EU. The democratic result was to leave!

This is not about 'normal' Parliamentary procedure where HMG puts a bill to The House and if HM Opposition doesn't like the proposal their role is to oppose it.

Many traditional Labour supporters, particularly in Wales and the North, voted to leave the EU and the sooner we get out the better the outcome will be!

Basil

Well said!

Why, thank you, kind sir!

Getting back to the OP, I see The Admiralty have been leaking a bit to the media:
Royal Navy a 'laughing stock' with three quarters of its warships out of action and 'struggling to protect British citizens'

While it's true that the official line about the "growing navy" doesn't quite match up to reality - including the fact that frigate and destroyer numbers won't actually increase until the 2030s at the earliest on current plans - one point in the Telegraph report appears to be a straightforward untruth.

Quite simply, the ship has not had engine problems (on this occasion, so far) and has not been delayed. That hasn't stopped the same inaccuracy being picked up by most of the other rags. Expect any correction to be either absent or in tiny font on page 94.

Aside from that, other coverage highlighting the need for more investment is no bad thing I guess.

http://www.pprune.org/military-aviat...quisition.html

has horrible graphic on the number of warships laid up....................

the irony being that those areas benefited enormously from EU funded projects and will now expect the UK taxpayer to do the same.

Its a shame when democracy is used as a shield by those unwilling to see that many who voted out did so for xenophobic or uninformed reasons.

We all want Britain to be great, we just differ on how that is best achieved.

Are you for REAL?
They gave us our own money back but dictated where it was spent!

LMFAO.

Two - and one awaiting refit. The rest of the frigates/destoyers were either deployed, working up for future operations, on in refit....