Another costly MOD cock-up??

[Osem]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7434205.stm

It sure looks like it ..............

Well yes another one from this glorious government that revels in sending our troops out all over the place but won't give them the kit to get the job done. Pretty soon basic equipment for the British soldier will be sticky tape, string and a blue peter maunal. Send some of these pampered little politicians out to the fun zones and then see how quickly kit goes up in priority bunch of gits.

[BBKing]

Um, as has been pointed out on the Register, anyone who's been paying attention knows that the eight Chinooks is a tiny drop in the ocean of wasted money in recent years*, virtually all of which could have been better spent by a ten year old in a sweetshop.

It's not just the politicians but also the arms industry lobbyists, people who think that UK jobs should be protected at vast public cost (but only if they're in the arms industry) and the MOD civil servants who have a nice retirement package with BAE or AgustaWestland or Qinetiq or similar, if they keep the money flowing.

* It's dwarfed by both the troop training PFI and the future tanker PFI. Oh, and the Astute submarine. And the F-35 JSF. And the Eurofighter....

Yes BB taken as a single matter this is a drop in the spending ocean and so is every equipment problem that keeps cropping up. Getting away from the spending part of it the impact can be a lot more noticeable on the ground these chinooks were specifically ordered for special forces operations and we are now using chinooks not so well suited to do that role which involves more risk for the lads out there doing the job. Body armour is complete peanuts in terms of cost but see how much it impacts morale when you lose someone because they didn't have it that is out of all proportion to the cost of the body armour. Defence matters are not always so simple as the cost of this and that and i really couldn't care less who orders the kit how it gets ordered or where someone involved in the process goes after leaving the MOD i only care that our troops if put at risk do so with the best kit we can get and that we have a government that backs them to the hilt both things that are sadly missing at the minute.

[SMG]

The problem is, & always has been, the lack of co-operation between the civil servants & the military. Cost is the most important thing to the government, whereas decent equipment is obviously the priority of the military.

We see every year the idiots spending millions on crap, then more millions trying to make it work. The SA80 is a prime example.

This Chinook cock up is a disgrace. We need these desperately, in theater, not in hangars.

As BBKing pointed out, the El Reg article

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/06...pter_problems/

shows that the Mk3 Chinooks are only one of the recent MOD purchasing 'anomalies' - in my opinion the Merlin & Lynx helicopters are an even worse example.

I also think we have made the wrong decision going for the 'B' VSTOL version of the F35, rather than fit our new carriers with nuclear power plants & catapults, which effectively means we still won't have a decent airborne radar platform (such as the E2D Hawkeye) - something that was established as essential as far back as the Falklands war....

[BBKing]

Getting away from the spending part of it the impact can be a lot more noticeable on the ground these chinooks were specifically ordered for special forces operations and we are now using chinooks not so well suited to do that role which involves more risk for the lads out there doing the job.

Quite. So would not invading Iraq, of course, since there are helicopters there which could be much better used in Afghanistan. It's bad enough fighting one war with inadequate equipment, starting a second one without fixing the logistics for the first one and it being guaranteed to make the first one worth is...

Well, you know my views on Tony Blair, and they're not fit for public consumption. Sanctimonious ******.

SMG - I'm not sure it's even cost that matters to civil servants, although there are plenty of examples of where cost cutting has led to greater cost in the long run due to inadequate kit, but in the case of Merlin helicopters (and going back a bit the Navy's Phantoms) rejigging things to keep more jobs in the UK costs more and results in inadequate kit. Why can't we just tell BAE that in future they either deliver to cost or we go abroad? That's supposed to be the way markets work, after all.

[Escapee]

Originally Posted by BBKing

It's not just the politicians but also the arms industry lobbyists, people who think that UK jobs should be protected at vast public cost (but only if they're in the arms industry) and the MOD civil servants who have a nice retirement package with BAE or AgustaWestland or Qinetiq or similar, if they keep the money flowing.

Keep the money flowing please, the defence industry is a cash rich place to work.

[BBKing]

As a final aside, why is a competitive market considered essential for providing things like inexpensive, effective washing powder, but not for sufficient defensive equipment and logistics for troops in combat?

[Tezcatlipoca]

Originally Posted by homealone

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/06...pter_problems/

"Lord Smallpox, with these procurements you're really spoiling us"...

[Wicked_and_Crazy]

oohhhhh i thought this was going to be a juicy thread about a forum Mod

Originally Posted by BBKing

As a final aside, why is a competitive market considered essential for providing things like inexpensive, effective washing powder, but not for sufficient defensive equipment and logistics for troops in combat?

The overt reason of protecting jobs in the UK is laudable, however in my opinion this should only be the case if we can produce military systems on par with the 'competition', in terms of capability versus cost.

One thing that appears to be lacking in our approach, in my opinion, is designing the components of the military 'machine' to integrate with each other.

The USA 'Carrier Group' approach to naval deployment seems to be a case in point, which we have failed to address - despite the lessons which should have been learnt in the Falklands.

The lack of adequate airborne radar during the Falklands war was one of our aircraft carriers greatest weaknesses.

You would have thought this would have become paramount in designing new carrier based systems - instead, the planned new ships are possibly relying on unproven & hugely expensive 'special' solutions (F35-B VSTOL jets & Osprey tilt rotor helicopters) to do effectively the same job as much cheaper options.

- note these options don't actually involve many UK jobs ....

Designing these ships with nuclear power plants ( not a problem, we already use them on submarines ) & steam catapult launched planes, which are much cheaper than VSTOL variants, especially factoring in the 'bargain' prices available on Hawkeye AEW planes, would seem to be a 'no brainer'

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/05...ced/page2.html

The chinooks are just another example of a complete lack of joined up thinking by successive governments too inclined to balance books, rather than address real issues, it seems??

[Osem]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7675824.stm

Another fine example of how well our troops are looked after......

[Osem]

.................. and another:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7683909.stm

[SMG]

Originally Posted by homealone

The overt reason of protecting jobs in the UK is laudable, however in my opinion this should only be the case if we can produce military systems on par with the 'competition', in terms of capability versus cost.

One thing that appears to be lacking in our approach, in my opinion, is designing the components of the military 'machine' to integrate with each other.

The USA 'Carrier Group' approach to naval deployment seems to be a case in point, which we have failed to address - despite the lessons which should have been learnt in the Falklands.

The lack of adequate airborne radar during the Falklands war was one of our aircraft carriers greatest weaknesses.

You would have thought this would have become paramount in designing new carrier based systems - instead, the planned new ships are possibly relying on unproven & hugely expensive 'special' solutions (F35-B VSTOL jets & Osprey tilt rotor helicopters) to do effectively the same job as much cheaper options.

- note these options don't actually involve many UK jobs ....

Designing these ships with nuclear power plants ( not a problem, we already use them on submarines ) & steam catapult launched planes, which are much cheaper than VSTOL variants, especially factoring in the 'bargain' prices available on Hawkeye AEW planes, would seem to be a 'no brainer'

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/05...ced/page2.html

The chinooks are just another example of a complete lack of joined up thinking by successive governments too inclined to balance books, rather than address real issues, it seems??

You know, thats quite a good post. When you think of the money we have spent trying to make rotten systems work, when theres a better alternative, it makes your blood boil. Nimrod springs to mind too, I wouldn`t mind 1% of that money in my bank.