Britain told "No Access" to F-35 Software codes

[aeropilot]

RizzoTheRat said:

The UK are buying the STOVL, mainly because more of it is made in the UK I believe (the lift fan system is made by Rolls Royce).

The Rolls engine (F136 IIRC) is not a given, it's the optional engine program for the F-35 which is not a given that will happen.

The reason we're going with the silly STOVL version is because of the silly interservice pi$$ing contest between the RAF and RN. Going trap n cat again will mean a massive training cost that doesn't exist currently as the RN hasn't needed that for well over 30 years since the old Ark was decommissioned. The Harrier being used by both RAF/RN means that RAF pilots can land on a deck with minimal extra training as opposed to that required for cat n trap. Hence the fixed wing FAA has all but dissappeared and will have by the time F-35 comes into service, and all F-35 drivers would likely be light-blue not dark blue.

I agree though, I'm not convinced that in reality (rather than politcally), going 3 identical build CV's with the French with a Rafale buy with a joint RN/Aeronavle training system wouldn't be the cheaper way to go. I can't see us ever needing the stealth of the F-35 TBH, especially as soon as you hang anything underneath it for any reasonable ordance load or extra fuel it becomes non-stealthy

[rhinochopig]

aeropilot said:

RizzoTheRat said:

The UK are buying the STOVL, mainly because more of it is made in the UK I believe (the lift fan system is made by Rolls Royce).

The Rolls engine (F136 IIRC) is not a given, it's the optional engine program for the F-35 which is not a given that will happen.

The reason we're going with the silly STOVL version is because of the silly interservice pi$$ing contest between the RAF and RN. Going trap n cat again will mean a massive training cost that doesn't exist currently as the RN hasn't needed that for well over 30 years since the old Ark was decommissioned. The Harrier being used by both RAF/RN means that RAF pilots can land on a deck with minimal extra training as opposed to that required for cat n trap. Hence the fixed wing FAA has all but dissappeared and will have by the time F-35 comes into service, and all F-35 drivers would likely be light-blue not dark blue.

I agree though, I'm not convinced that in reality (rather than politcally), going 3 identical build CV's with the French with a Rafale buy with a joint RN/Aeronavle training system wouldn't be the cheaper way to go. I can't see us ever needing the stealth of the F-35 TBH, especially as soon as you hang anything underneath it for any reasonable ordance load or extra fuel it becomes non-stealthy

You forgot the "plan" to use the two seat variants to extract the labour party leaders to their secret nazi base at the south pole. They wouldn't want the public tracking them now would they.

[RizzoTheRat]

dilbert said:

I think we ought to be thinking about developing a new battlefield helicopter myself. Such a machine should be somewhere between the Chinook and the Apache, but without the complexity of the Osprey. It would stop the squaddies loosing their limbs. Something like a more aggressive land oriented Merlin.

Merlin meets Hind-D? Nice. Makes a lot of sense. Wasn't the Hind developed as a flying infantry fighting vehicle for operations very similar to what we've got now in Afganistan?

aeropilot said:

I can't see us ever needing the stealth of the F-35 TBH, especially as soon as you hang anything underneath it for any reasonable ordance load or extra fuel it becomes non-stealthy

Especially as the lift fan business means the STOVL has a shorter range and smaller payload than standard one, and I believe the navalised version has a longer range than the standard.

Edited by RizzoTheRat on Thursday 26th November 13:47

[dilbert]

rhinochopig said:

dilbert said:

Jonny671 said:

Whats wrong with the Typhoon?

In my opinion not a lot, except that it was late, and many people argue that it's irrelevant because of it's lack of stealth. Somehow, the machine got through without being converted to a stealth multirole machine along the way. That is an admirable end. Had we switched focus along the way, it would only have been because we were following the leader.

It would take effort to make it suitable for a carrier, but I still think that's worth it. I mean, you don't get anything without some sort of effort.

I despise the way the UK increasingly just buys it's military hardware from other countries. I don't think we should support Rafale, except where it actually meets a specific need. Rafale and the Typhoon are opponents, and Typhoon would win out. If nothing else, the French have already taken more than enough British high technology business, in the name of "sharing".

We should back the Typhoon to the hilt, even though the Americans have some superior technology.

More significantly we should build an aerospace industry capable of integrating our own top level technology, like aircraft carriers, and aeroplanes.

We are slightly behind the curve as set by the US. But I say so what. We can't take on the US at war, but in business, there is no reason why not, their products are very expensive. Maintaining our independence in this way also allows us to determine our own future.

I think we ought to be thinking about developing a new battlefield helicopter myself. Such a machine should be somewhere between the Chinook and the Apache, but without the complexity of the Osprey. It would stop the squaddies loosing their limbs.

Edited by dilbert on Thursday 26th November 12:58

Why? We've proved time and time again that we're utterly incapable of procuring value for money, on time, home sourced equipment for whatever reasons.

• Typhoon II - Late and overspent
• Nimrod refits - Late, overspent, found to be dangerous. Read the official report, it makes harrowing reading
• Astute - Very late massively over-spent
• SA80 - jammed, had to be re-engineered by HK.
• BOWMAN radio system - Too fragile, too heavy, ability to call in air-support deleted.
• Blue screen problems with the PMS on one of the recent surface ships - can't remember which now Ocean or T45.

and that list is just off the top of my head.

And quite simply because politicians see value for money in terms of dead squaddies being cheaper than new equipment.

I mean there are components that underpin that statement, but when you add them all up, that's the final conclusion.

[ninja-lewis]

rhinochopig said:

You forgot the "plan" to use the two seat variants to extract the labour party leaders to their secret nazi base at the south pole. They wouldn't want the public tracking them now would they.

Incidently there isn't going to be two seat variants of the F35 is there? Like the F22 most of the training will be done on stimulators AFAIK.

[rhinochopig]

dilbert said:

rhinochopig said:

dilbert said:

Jonny671 said:

Whats wrong with the Typhoon?

In my opinion not a lot, except that it was late, and many people argue that it's irrelevant because of it's lack of stealth. Somehow, the machine got through without being converted to a stealth multirole machine along the way. That is an admirable end. Had we switched focus along the way, it would only have been because we were following the leader.

It would take effort to make it suitable for a carrier, but I still think that's worth it. I mean, you don't get anything without some sort of effort.

I despise the way the UK increasingly just buys it's military hardware from other countries. I don't think we should support Rafale, except where it actually meets a specific need. Rafale and the Typhoon are opponents, and Typhoon would win out. If nothing else, the French have already taken more than enough British high technology business, in the name of "sharing".

We should back the Typhoon to the hilt, even though the Americans have some superior technology.

More significantly we should build an aerospace industry capable of integrating our own top level technology, like aircraft carriers, and aeroplanes.

We are slightly behind the curve as set by the US. But I say so what. We can't take on the US at war, but in business, there is no reason why not, their products are very expensive. Maintaining our independence in this way also allows us to determine our own future.

I think we ought to be thinking about developing a new battlefield helicopter myself. Such a machine should be somewhere between the Chinook and the Apache, but without the complexity of the Osprey. It would stop the squaddies loosing their limbs.

Edited by dilbert on Thursday 26th November 12:58

Why? We've proved time and time again that we're utterly incapable of procuring value for money, on time, home sourced equipment for whatever reasons.

• Typhoon II - Late and overspent
• Nimrod refits - Late, overspent, found to be dangerous. Read the official report, it makes harrowing reading
• Astute - Very late massively over-spent
• SA80 - jammed, had to be re-engineered by HK.
• BOWMAN radio system - Too fragile, too heavy, ability to call in air-support deleted.
• Blue screen problems with the PMS on one of the recent surface ships - can't remember which now Ocean or T45.

and that list is just off the top of my head.

And quite simply because politicians see value for money in terms of dead squaddies being cheaper than new equipment.

I mean there are components that underpin that statement, but when you add them all up, that's the final conclusion.

Much as I dislike the current government, I feel that is a slightly disingenuous statement. Look at from the politicians view point.

MoD goes to central government and ask for new turbo killing machine. How much asks CG? 1bn says MoD. Here's your 1bn says CG. 2 years later - Err MoD where's this turbo killing machine you wanted? MoD - err well we fked up the acquisition process so it's going to cost 2bn and take two years longer than expected.

Repeat that enough times and CG will get to the point that it requires MoD to improve its checks and balances, which increases the lead time for getting some new kit in-service. No matter how corrupt the politicians are, I think even they don't go about deliberately killing our troops. MoD has the money, it's just not very good at getting VFM. One of the big problems is how the MoD operates. Officers within an IPT will only be in post for a couple of years, and will always have one eye on their next billet. For most acq projects that is simply not long enough, so much of the tacit information which would help stop these cock-ups happening is lost when the music starts and the IPT all swap chairs. All IMHO obviously.

[rhinochopig]

ninja-lewis said:

rhinochopig said:

You forgot the "plan" to use the two seat variants to extract the labour party leaders to their secret nazi base at the south pole. They wouldn't want the public tracking them now would they.

Incidently there isn't going to be two seat variants of the F35 is there? Like the F22 most of the training will be done on stimulators AFAIK.

Really, what a fking disaster. Lets hope the simulators have improved somewhat then because when I did my thesis on simulator training in the late 90s, there were still some major issues with them. One classic was pilot focussing head down during simulated dog fights to stop themselves from throwing up due to the micro-difference between perceived and actual motion which screwed up their vestibular system.

[MartG]

dilbert said:

rhinochopig said:

dilbert said:

Jonny671 said:

Whats wrong with the Typhoon?

In my opinion not a lot, except that it was late, and many people argue that it's irrelevant because of it's lack of stealth. Somehow, the machine got through without being converted to a stealth multirole machine along the way. That is an admirable end. Had we switched focus along the way, it would only have been because we were following the leader.

It would take effort to make it suitable for a carrier, but I still think that's worth it. I mean, you don't get anything without some sort of effort.

I despise the way the UK increasingly just buys it's military hardware from other countries. I don't think we should support Rafale, except where it actually meets a specific need. Rafale and the Typhoon are opponents, and Typhoon would win out. If nothing else, the French have already taken more than enough British high technology business, in the name of "sharing".

We should back the Typhoon to the hilt, even though the Americans have some superior technology.

More significantly we should build an aerospace industry capable of integrating our own top level technology, like aircraft carriers, and aeroplanes.

We are slightly behind the curve as set by the US. But I say so what. We can't take on the US at war, but in business, there is no reason why not, their products are very expensive. Maintaining our independence in this way also allows us to determine our own future.

I think we ought to be thinking about developing a new battlefield helicopter myself. Such a machine should be somewhere between the Chinook and the Apache, but without the complexity of the Osprey. It would stop the squaddies loosing their limbs.

Edited by dilbert on Thursday 26th November 12:58

Why? We've proved time and time again that we're utterly incapable of procuring value for money, on time, home sourced equipment for whatever reasons.

• Typhoon II - Late and overspent
• Nimrod refits - Late, overspent, found to be dangerous. Read the official report, it makes harrowing reading
• Astute - Very late massively over-spent
• SA80 - jammed, had to be re-engineered by HK.
• BOWMAN radio system - Too fragile, too heavy, ability to call in air-support deleted.
• Blue screen problems with the PMS on one of the recent surface ships - can't remember which now Ocean or T45.

and that list is just off the top of my head.

And quite simply because politicians see value for money in terms of dead squaddies being cheaper than new equipment.

I mean there are components that underpin that statement, but when you add them all up, that's the final conclusion.

And, to be fair to the various contractors involved, if the politicians didn't keep interfering by changing requirements/stretching out the timescales etc. then things would run a lot smoother. How much of the cost/time overrun on Typhoon was due to all the changes and political maneouvring required to keep all the governments ( e.g. the German Greens ) of the different countries involved happy ?

[dilbert]

rhinochopig said:

dilbert said:

rhinochopig said:

dilbert said:

Jonny671 said:

Whats wrong with the Typhoon?

In my opinion not a lot, except that it was late, and many people argue that it's irrelevant because of it's lack of stealth. Somehow, the machine got through without being converted to a stealth multirole machine along the way. That is an admirable end. Had we switched focus along the way, it would only have been because we were following the leader.

It would take effort to make it suitable for a carrier, but I still think that's worth it. I mean, you don't get anything without some sort of effort.

I despise the way the UK increasingly just buys it's military hardware from other countries. I don't think we should support Rafale, except where it actually meets a specific need. Rafale and the Typhoon are opponents, and Typhoon would win out. If nothing else, the French have already taken more than enough British high technology business, in the name of "sharing".

We should back the Typhoon to the hilt, even though the Americans have some superior technology.

More significantly we should build an aerospace industry capable of integrating our own top level technology, like aircraft carriers, and aeroplanes.

We are slightly behind the curve as set by the US. But I say so what. We can't take on the US at war, but in business, there is no reason why not, their products are very expensive. Maintaining our independence in this way also allows us to determine our own future.

I think we ought to be thinking about developing a new battlefield helicopter myself. Such a machine should be somewhere between the Chinook and the Apache, but without the complexity of the Osprey. It would stop the squaddies loosing their limbs.

Edited by dilbert on Thursday 26th November 12:58

Why? We've proved time and time again that we're utterly incapable of procuring value for money, on time, home sourced equipment for whatever reasons.

• Typhoon II - Late and overspent
• Nimrod refits - Late, overspent, found to be dangerous. Read the official report, it makes harrowing reading
• Astute - Very late massively over-spent
• SA80 - jammed, had to be re-engineered by HK.
• BOWMAN radio system - Too fragile, too heavy, ability to call in air-support deleted.
• Blue screen problems with the PMS on one of the recent surface ships - can't remember which now Ocean or T45.

and that list is just off the top of my head.

And quite simply because politicians see value for money in terms of dead squaddies being cheaper than new equipment.

I mean there are components that underpin that statement, but when you add them all up, that's the final conclusion.

Much as I dislike the current government, I feel that is a slightly disingenuous statement. Look at from the politicians view point.

MoD goes to central government and ask for new turbo killing machine. How much asks CG? 1bn says MoD. Here's your 1bn says CG. 2 years later - Err MoD where's this turbo killing machine you wanted? MoD - err well we fked up the acquisition process so it's going to cost 2bn and take two years longer than expected.

Repeat that enough times and CG will get to the point that it requires MoD to improve its checks and balances, which increases the lead time for getting some new kit in-service. No matter how corrupt the politicians are, I think even they don't go about deliberately killing our troops. MoD has the money, it's just not very good at getting VFM. One of the big problems is how the MoD operates. Officers within an IPT will only be in post for a couple of years, and will always have one eye on their next billet. For most acq projects that is simply not long enough, so much of the tacit information which would help stop these cock-ups happening is lost when the music starts and the IPT all swap chairs. All IMHO obviously.

Yeah, but accusations of insincerity are a tool of the enemy within.

Just yesterday I was listening to a comedian on Radio 4 talking about what is acceptable as humour in society. He was quite clear that humour in relation to soldiers is now taboo. Not laughing at them, but laughing about the dire state of the situation. I think the comedian is right. Humour is an important communication tool. Everyone likes to laugh with Mark Thomas and Micheal Moore. They have an important impact on social awareness, irrespective of being right or wrong. It is important that people think. Perhaps the awareness is now so strong, that the humour is unwarranted.

Your argument, however, is an attempt at making people not think, and that is just plain wrong. All IMHO obviously.

No doubt your use of TLA's is exemplifies your continuing civic service, I suppose. The MoD does not have the money. It could not initiate a new helicopter development program, for example, without the say so of the government. It does not have that say-so.

The only possible argument in your statement that stands is that the government are too stupid to realise what I explained, and you thought was disingenuous. If that is the case why are they running the country, when we can all see them killing our bravest people.

The way I see this, is simple. If we can't afford it, we shouldn't be there. If we choose to afford it, then we can remain, and perhaps fulfil an important global function.

The same half-arsed approach to procurement of military equipment that always ends in disaster, can be applied to a half-arsed approach to War in Afghanistan.

[ninja-lewis]

rhinochopig said:

ninja-lewis said:

rhinochopig said:

You forgot the "plan" to use the two seat variants to extract the labour party leaders to their secret nazi base at the south pole. They wouldn't want the public tracking them now would they.

Incidently there isn't going to be two seat variants of the F35 is there? Like the F22 most of the training will be done on stimulators AFAIK.

Really, what a fking disaster. Lets hope the simulators have improved somewhat then because when I did my thesis on simulator training in the late 90s, there were still some major issues with them. One classic was pilot focussing head down during simulated dog fights to stop themselves from throwing up due to the micro-difference between perceived and actual motion which screwed up their vestibular system.

Well that's the way the USAF have gone with the F22 (although IIRC neither the A-10 or the F-117 ever had two seat trainers). However, I believe the F-22 pilots are mainly experienced F-15 pilots so it's perhaps less of a problem. But the F-35B is probably a whole different kettle of fish.

[rhinochopig]

dilbert said:

rhinochopig said:

dilbert said:

rhinochopig said:

dilbert said:

Jonny671 said:

Whats wrong with the Typhoon?

In my opinion not a lot, except that it was late, and many people argue that it's irrelevant because of it's lack of stealth. Somehow, the machine got through without being converted to a stealth multirole machine along the way. That is an admirable end. Had we switched focus along the way, it would only have been because we were following the leader.

It would take effort to make it suitable for a carrier, but I still think that's worth it. I mean, you don't get anything without some sort of effort.

I despise the way the UK increasingly just buys it's military hardware from other countries. I don't think we should support Rafale, except where it actually meets a specific need. Rafale and the Typhoon are opponents, and Typhoon would win out. If nothing else, the French have already taken more than enough British high technology business, in the name of "sharing".

We should back the Typhoon to the hilt, even though the Americans have some superior technology.

More significantly we should build an aerospace industry capable of integrating our own top level technology, like aircraft carriers, and aeroplanes.

We are slightly behind the curve as set by the US. But I say so what. We can't take on the US at war, but in business, there is no reason why not, their products are very expensive. Maintaining our independence in this way also allows us to determine our own future.

I think we ought to be thinking about developing a new battlefield helicopter myself. Such a machine should be somewhere between the Chinook and the Apache, but without the complexity of the Osprey. It would stop the squaddies loosing their limbs.

Edited by dilbert on Thursday 26th November 12:58

Why? We've proved time and time again that we're utterly incapable of procuring value for money, on time, home sourced equipment for whatever reasons.

• Typhoon II - Late and overspent
• Nimrod refits - Late, overspent, found to be dangerous. Read the official report, it makes harrowing reading
• Astute - Very late massively over-spent
• SA80 - jammed, had to be re-engineered by HK.
• BOWMAN radio system - Too fragile, too heavy, ability to call in air-support deleted.
• Blue screen problems with the PMS on one of the recent surface ships - can't remember which now Ocean or T45.

and that list is just off the top of my head.

And quite simply because politicians see value for money in terms of dead squaddies being cheaper than new equipment.

I mean there are components that underpin that statement, but when you add them all up, that's the final conclusion.

Much as I dislike the current government, I feel that is a slightly disingenuous statement. Look at from the politicians view point.

MoD goes to central government and ask for new turbo killing machine. How much asks CG? 1bn says MoD. Here's your 1bn says CG. 2 years later - Err MoD where's this turbo killing machine you wanted? MoD - err well we fked up the acquisition process so it's going to cost 2bn and take two years longer than expected.

Repeat that enough times and CG will get to the point that it requires MoD to improve its checks and balances, which increases the lead time for getting some new kit in-service. No matter how corrupt the politicians are, I think even they don't go about deliberately killing our troops. MoD has the money, it's just not very good at getting VFM. One of the big problems is how the MoD operates. Officers within an IPT will only be in post for a couple of years, and will always have one eye on their next billet. For most acq projects that is simply not long enough, so much of the tacit information which would help stop these cock-ups happening is lost when the music starts and the IPT all swap chairs. All IMHO obviously.

Yeah, but accusations of insincerity are a tool of the enemy within.

Just yesterday I was listening to a comedian on Radio 4 talking about what is acceptable as humour in society. He was quite clear that humour in relation to soldiers is now taboo. Not laughing at them, but laughing about the dire state of the situation. I think the comedian is right. Humour is an important communication tool. Everyone likes to laugh with Mark Thomas and Micheal Moore. They have an important impact on social awareness, irrespective of being right or wrong. It is important that people think. Perhaps the awareness is now so strong, that the humour is unwarranted.

Your argument, however, is an attempt at making people not think, and that is just plain wrong. All IMHO obviously.

No doubt your use of TLA's is exemplifies your continuing civic service, I suppose. The MoD does not have the money. It could not initiate a new helicopter development program, for example, without the say so of the government. It does not have that say-so.

The only possible argument in your statement that stands is that the government are too stupid to realise what I explained, and you thought was disingenuous. If that is the case why are they running the country, when we can all see them killing our bravest people.

The way I see this, is simple. If we can't afford it, we shouldn't be there. If we choose to afford it, then we can remain, and perhaps fulfil an important global function.

The same half-arsed approach to procurement of military equipment that always ends in disaster, can be applied to a half-arsed approach to War in Afghanistan.

Not at all. IME there are just as many soldiers / sailors / airman who are just as complicit in the procurement screw-ups as there are politicians. It is disingenuous, and all too easy IMO, to lay the blame squarely at the governments feet. Look at the Nimrod report - the IPTs get a real kicking as do some very very senior RAF officers. The IPTs are largely made up of serving airman seconded to places like Abbey Wood.

It is also not fair to say that there is a half arsed approach to procurement. It's often quite the opposite IME, procurement being driven by one of the many table thumping uniforms who then rotates out of position to be replaced by another table thumper with a different perspective on things.

Re your comment on lack of money. There was a recent article (and thread here) about Britain's plans to procure a new mine resistant vehicle. The equivalent US project was seeing unit costs of a third of what the UK was going to have to pay. We have the money, we just don't spend it very well. And yes I agree we try, military, to live a champaign lifestyle on an asti-spumanti budget. Not a very good combination.

Ignoring either standpoint, I think we both agree that neither position is adequate or indeed acceptable given very real consequences of recent procurement decisions.

[dilbert]

rhinochopig said:

Not at all. IME there are just as many soldiers / sailors / airman who are just as complicit in the procurement screw-ups as there are politicians. It is disingenuous, and all too easy IMO, to lay the blame squarely at the governments feet. Look at the Nimrod report - the IPTs get a real kicking as do some very very senior RAF officers. The IPTs are largely made up of serving airman seconded to places like Abbey Wood.

It is also not fair to say that there is a half arsed approach to procurement. It's often quite the opposite IME, procurement being driven by one of the many table thumping uniforms who then rotates out of position to be replaced by another table thumper with a different perspective on things.

Re your comment on lack of money. There was a recent article (and thread here) about Britain's plans to procure a new mine resistant vehicle. The equivalent US project was seeing unit costs of a third of what the UK was going to have to pay. We have the money, we just don't spend it very well. And yes I agree we try, military, to live a champaign lifestyle on an asti-spumanti budget. Not a very good combination.

Ignoring either standpoint, I think we both agree that neither position is adequate or indeed acceptable given very real consequences of recent procurement decisions.

No.

The lack of money is quite clear to me. You're the one aiming the blame at service personnel, how can I be disingenuous?

But, why would anyone assume that the UK can complete any technical project at the same cost as any other country? If you drill down into that assumption, it is blatantly crass.

There may well be benefits and disadvantages to using the UK or the US or even Botswana for the provision of armoured vehicles, but an existing precedent for the technologies involved will naturally reduce costs. It is not even correct to assume that an existing precedent will lead in the direction of better technology.

The cost of everything and the value of nothing. It's half-arsed.

If you really work for the services, the only thing I can say is that you've become immune to, and accepting of the crap you're delivered. If the PM approaches the CDS and says "go", the CDS might protest, but he will go, one way or another.

I've seen this before in service personnel, however.

It's the idea that an intent is enough. An intent is not enough. A delivery may be satisfactory. Otherwise it's sloppy. One may apply the intent, and manufacture an incredible force, but the sum of that force can still be half-arsed when the delivery is not finely and tactically guided. In my opinion it is very important that the services deliver that message to their masters with all the necessary vigour. Nevertheless it is a cultural trait, not without endearment.

Edited by dilbert on Thursday 26th November 17:02

[rhinochopig]

dilbert said:

rhinochopig said:

Not at all. IME there are just as many soldiers / sailors / airman who are just as complicit in the procurement screw-ups as there are politicians. It is disingenuous, and all too easy IMO, to lay the blame squarely at the governments feet. Look at the Nimrod report - the IPTs get a real kicking as do some very very senior RAF officers. The IPTs are largely made up of serving airman seconded to places like Abbey Wood.

It is also not fair to say that there is a half arsed approach to procurement. It's often quite the opposite IME, procurement being driven by one of the many table thumping uniforms who then rotates out of position to be replaced by another table thumper with a different perspective on things.

Re your comment on lack of money. There was a recent article (and thread here) about Britain's plans to procure a new mine resistant vehicle. The equivalent US project was seeing unit costs of a third of what the UK was going to have to pay. We have the money, we just don't spend it very well. And yes I agree we try, military, to live a champaign lifestyle on an asti-spumanti budget. Not a very good combination.

Ignoring either standpoint, I think we both agree that neither position is adequate or indeed acceptable given very real consequences of recent procurement decisions.

No.

The lack of money is quite clear to me. You're the one aiming the blame at service personnel, how can I be disingenuous? Because the blame is shared between the services and government - to blame either alone is wrong

But, why would anyone assume that the UK can complete any technical project at the same cost as any other country? If you drill down into that assumption, it is blatantly crass. Not at all. Why is it crass to look to others to see what materiel is costing them and aim to get similar value. Other countries adopt this view - we deliver a nuclear deterrent on a shoestring (relatively speaking) and are the envy of many nations for that.

There may well be benefits and disadvantages to using the UK or the US or even Botswana for the provision of armoured vehicles, but an existing precedent for the technologies involved will naturally reduce costs. It is not even correct to assume that an existing precedent will lead in the direction of better technology. Don't actually understand what your saying there

The cost of everything and the value of nothing. It's half-arsed.

If you really work for the services, the only thing I can say is that you've become immune to, and accepting of the crap you're delivered. If the PM approaches the CDS and says "go", the CDS might protest, but he will go, one way or another. I *don't* think I accept the crap I'm delivered. I think I have a realist view of how MoD acquisition works, and find this comment hard to not take as a personal insult really.

I've seen this before in service personnel, however.

It's the idea that an intent is enough. An intent is not enough. A delivery may be satisfactory. Otherwise it's sloppy. One may apply the intent, and manufacture an incredible force, but the sum of that force can still be half-arsed when the delivery is not finely and tactically guided. In my opinion it is very important that the services deliver that message to their masters with all the necessary vigour. Nevertheless it is a cultural trait, not without endearment. You seem to have a view that the services can do no wrong, that they have clear and concise requirements. The reality is far from this. One of the key problems is that the services do deliver a message to their masters with all the necessary vigour, but that message is often a confused one and at odds across the three services.

Edited by dilbert on Thursday 26th November 17:02

[dilbert]

rhinochopig said:

dilbert said:

rhinochopig said:

Not at all. IME there are just as many soldiers / sailors / airmanTWOwho are just as complicit in the procurement screw-ups as there are politicians. It is disingenuous, and all too easy IMO, to lay the blame squarely at the governments feet. Look at the Nimrod report - the IPTs get a real kicking as do some very very senior RAF officers. The IPTs are largely made up of serving airman seconded to places like Abbey Wood.

It is also not fair to say that there is a half arsed approach to procurement. It's often quite the opposite IME, procurement being driven by one of the many table thumping uniforms who then rotates out of position to be replaced by another table thumper with a different perspective on things.

Re your comment on lack of money. There was a recent article (andCANthread here) about Britain's plans to procure a new mine resistant vehicle. The equivalent US project was seeing unit costs of a third of what the UK was going to have to pay. We have the money, we just don't spend it very well. And yes I agree we try, military, to live a champaign lifestyle on an asti-spumanti budget. Not a very good combination.

Ignoring either standpoint, I think we both agree that neither position is adequate or indeed acceptable given very real consequences of recent procurement decisions.

No.

The lack of money is quite clear to me. You're the one aiming the blame at service personnel, how can I be disingenuous? Because the blame is shared between the services and government - to blame either alone is wrong

But, why would anyone assume that the UK can complete any technical project at the same cost as any other country? If you drill down into that assumption, it is blatantly crass. Not at all. Why is it crass to look to others to see what materiel is costing them and aim to get similar value. Other countries adopt this view PLAY - we deliver a nuclear deterrent on a shoestring (relatively speaking) and are the envy of many nations for that.

There may well be benefits and disadvantages to using the UK or the US or even Botswana for the provision of armoured vehicles, but an existing precedent for the technologies involved will naturally reduce costs. It is not even correct to assume that an existing precedent will lead in the direction of better technology. Don't actually understand what your saying there

The cost of everything and the value of nothing. It's half-arsed.

If you really work for the services, the only thing I can say is that you've become immune to, and accepting of the crap you're delivered. If the PM approaches the CDS and says "go", the CDS might protest, but heTHATwill go, one way or another. I *don't* think I accept the crap I'm delivered. I think I have a realist view of how MoD acquisition works, and find this comment hard to not take as a personal insult really.

I've seen this before in service personnel, however.

It's the idea that an intent is enough. An intent is not enough. A delivery may be satisfactory. Otherwise it's sloppy. One may apply the intent, and manufacture an incredible force, but the sum of that force can still be half-arsed when the delivery is not finely and tactically guided. In my opinion it is very important that the services deliverGAMEthat message to their masters with all the necessary vigour. Nevertheless it is a cultural trait, not without endearment. You seem to have a view that the services can do no wrong, that they have clear and concise requirements. The reality is far from this. One of the key problems is that the services do deliver a message to their masters with all the necessary vigour, but that message is often a confused one and at odds across the three services.

Edited by dilbert on Thursday 26th November 17:02

If you decide to forward an opinion which is not fractured, I will respond to it (and perhaps I'll even read it).

Edited by dilbert on Friday 27th November 13:02

[rhinochopig]

dilbert said:

rhinochopig said:

dilbert said:

rhinochopig said:

Not at all. IME there are just as many soldiers / sailors / airmanTWOwho are just as complicit in the procurement screw-ups as there are politicians. It is disingenuous, and all too easy IMO, to lay the blame squarely at the governments feet. Look at the Nimrod report - the IPTs get a real kicking as do some very very senior RAF officers. The IPTs are largely made up of serving airman seconded to places like Abbey Wood.

It is also not fair to say that there is a half arsed approach to procurement. It's often quite the opposite IME, procurement being driven by one of the many table thumping uniforms who then rotates out of position to be replaced by another table thumper with a different perspective on things.

Re your comment on lack of money. There was a recent article (andCANthread here) about Britain's plans to procure a new mine resistant vehicle. The equivalent US project was seeing unit costs of a third of what the UK was going to have to pay. We have the money, we just don't spend it very well. And yes I agree we try, military, to live a champaign lifestyle on an asti-spumanti budget. Not a very good combination.

Ignoring either standpoint, I think we both agree that neither position is adequate or indeed acceptable given very real consequences of recent procurement decisions.

No.

The lack of money is quite clear to me. You're the one aiming the blame at service personnel, how can I be disingenuous? Because the blame is shared between the services and government - to blame either alone is wrong

But, why would anyone assume that the UK can complete any technical project at the same cost as any other country? If you drill down into that assumption, it is blatantly crass. Not at all. Why is it crass to look to others to see what materiel is costing them and aim to get similar value. Other countries adopt this view PLAY - we deliver a nuclear deterrent on a shoestring (relatively speaking) and are the envy of many nations for that.

There may well be benefits and disadvantages to using the UK or the US or even Botswana for the provision of armoured vehicles, but an existing precedent for the technologies involved will naturally reduce costs. It is not even correct to assume that an existing precedent will lead in the direction of better technology. Don't actually understand what your saying there

The cost of everything and the value of nothing. It's half-arsed.

If you really work for the services, the only thing I can say is that you've become immune to, and accepting of the crap you're delivered. If the PM approaches the CDS and says "go", the CDS might protest, but heTHATwill go, one way or another. I *don't* think I accept the crap I'm delivered. I think I have a realist view of how MoD acquisition works, and find this comment hard to not take as a personal insult really.

I've seen this before in service personnel, however.

It's the idea that an intent is enough. An intent is not enough. A delivery may be satisfactory. Otherwise it's sloppy. One may apply the intent, and manufacture an incredible force, but the sum of that force can still be half-arsed when the delivery is not finely and tactically guided. In my opinion it is very important that the services deliverGAMEthat message to their masters with all the necessary vigour. Nevertheless it is a cultural trait, not without endearment. You seem to have a view that the services can do no wrong, that they have clear and concise requirements. The reality is far from this. One of the key problems is that the services do deliver a message to their masters with all the necessary vigour, but that message is often a confused one and at odds across the three services.

Edited by dilbert on Thursday 26th November 17:02

If you decide to forward an opinion which is not fractured, I will respond to it (and perhaps I'll even read it).

Edited by dilbert on Friday 27th November 13:02

Sorry you've lost me. I responded to each of your points in turn. If you want to make silly grandiose statements that's up to you. I was debating my standpoint in a manner clear to the majority on here.

I can't be bothered with theatrics - in the words of the dragons den "I'm Oot"

[dilbert]

rhinochopig said:

Sorry you've lost me. I responded to each of your points in turn. If you want to make silly grandiose statements that's up to you. I was debating my standpoint in a manner clear to the majority on here.

I can't be bothered with theatrics - in the words of the dragons den "I'm Oot"

That's fine.

I think my point remains. The government procurement process is just too complicated.

Rhinochopig suggests that he understands the way in which the procurement process works. I have personally seen the document that explains the way the process works. For reference, it's something like an electronic schematic.

Now to me that is simply too complicated. I mean, it's good that someone has taken the time to understand consider and document how this works. The trouble is that you really have to think deeply to work it out. I would wager that some who are involved in the process don't completely understand it. - Not that there is any real way to assess that.

The reality is that there are just too many people involved, and when the overriding necessity of action becomes too great to ignore, then an arbitrary team are presumably formed to cut through the crap. Because the standing system never really functions, it's not even like the government can pluck the talent and structure a focussed team. Since the standing system does not work, it never has the function of refining talent.

Edited by dilbert on Friday 27th November 15:02

[dilbert]

Telegraph said:

The language of secret military reports is nearly always dry, terse, and filled with jargon. Not this one. “This is disgraceful,” it said “and if known to a wider audience, would cause serious questions to be asked as to the reason that such a pathetic situation pertains in the 21st century for one of the most advanced Armed Forces in the world.”

It was May 14 2004. In what became known as the “Battle of Danny Boy”, one of the fiercest ever fought by the British in Iraq, soldiers of 1st Bn, the Princess of Wales’s Royal Regiment (1 PWRR), had just been ambushed by about 100 armed insurgents. They were fighting them off with close-quarter rifle fire and bayonets. They badly needed to call for help.

But according to the “post-operational report” leaked to The Sunday Telegraph, their Army radios failed completely.

To get reinforcements, the beleaguered soldiers – bullets whistling past their ears – had to ring the Ministry of Defence switchboard operator in London on their mobiles and ask her to pass on a message, as urgently as she could, to their own headquarters, less than 20 miles down the road from where they were. “The sitreps [situation reports] from the officer commanding in contact [in battle] were sent via the Whitehall operator to the battle group operations room 30 kilometres away from the contact point,” the report said.

As well as being “pathetic” and “disgraceful”, it added: “The fact that the ground was flat between the two points with no urban areas [in between] makes the failure [of the radios] even more abject.”

Today, thanks to this and other leaked documents, we can for the first time place before that wider audience the sometimes heroic, sometimes shocking, and mostly untold story of 1 PWRR – the unit at the heart of the storm.

They came for peacekeeping in a rebuilt Iraq. But then the Americans decided to arrest a key Shia leader, causing a nationwide rebellion. The same week as 1 PWRR arrived, the country collapsed around them, almost overnight. They became involved in “heavy battles with significant enemy dead” and their mission turned into “the most sustained period of conflict faced by a British Army unit since the Korean War”.

They represented the best of Britain’s Armed Forces. For his actions during this tour, Pte Johnson Beharry, a 1 PWRR soldier, became the first man in 22 years to win the Victoria Cross and the first British living recipient of the award since 1965. “It’s been rather a long time since I’ve awarded one of these,” the Queen said as she pinned on the medal.

But the report also disclosed the worst of the military – “abject” equipment failures which led to large numbers of unnecessary casualties, both British and Iraqi.

It has raised new questions about the battle amid allegations, which last week became the subject of a judicial inquiry, that the soldiers involved committed war crimes. Much of 1 PWRR’s equipment was “excellent”, the report said. But as well as basic communication, they lacked a lot of basic protection. They faced 850 “contacts”, or engagements with the enemy, during their tour, including 350 mortar and rocket attacks. They sustained 40 casualties. They were constantly on the highest alert, “never at less than 30 minutes’ notice to move”, according to Maj Gen Andrew Stewart, the overall British commander.

But although their camp was “mortared every night”, they were “without hardened accommodation,” he said. At night soldiers slept in unprotected tents, portable cabins and buildings, lying there hoping the insurgent mortars would not hit them.

Daytimes were just as bad. Maj Gen Stewart said the soldiers were “attacked by rocket-propelled grenades (RPGs) and small arms each time they patrolled”.

“Woefully inadequate” communications “certainly caused [British] casualties”, said the report. “In addition, the death of up to 40 [enemy] fighters could have been avoided, had the call signs [British units] involved [in killing them] been able to talk to each other.” Amid so much bloodshed, the unit made careful provisions to limit stress disorders. It sent as many soldiers as it could on “operational stand-down” – short breaks outside the combat area, allowing them to “relax in the company of friends” and discuss what they had been through.

But some of the tensions may allegedly have found expression after Danny Boy. The MoD consistently said that 20 bodies were recovered, all killed “on the battlefield.” It also said that nine Iraqis were taken prisoner, and all nine left British custody alive. However, there have been persistent claims that a further 15 to 20 Iraqis, not necessarily combatants in the battle, were detained and murdered by British troops.

In a court case brought by relatives of the alleged victims, it was found that the ministry failed to disclose key documents, in which concerns were raised about the treatment of prisoners and which contradicted claims made on oath by MoD officials. Bob Ainsworth, the Defence Secretary, was forced to apologise.

The leaked report has shed new light on further potential inconsistencies in the official account. In one part, the death toll cited was “at least 20 enemy dead”. In another part, the number of enemy dead is given as 35 – a difference which could be accounted for by the 15 the Iraqis say were killed.

A judicial inquiry into the claims by the retired High Court judge, Sir Thayne Forbes, was announced last week. If they are proved, it will be a terrible stain on the Army.

For the moment, however, the last word on the British force in Iraq remains with Maj Gen Stewart. “Under extreme provocation they have demonstrated extraordinary restraint,” he said. “They are the most flexible and effective weapons system in anyone’s armoury.”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/6680354/Ira...

http://www.nao.org.uk/whats_new/0506/05061050.aspx...
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200607/...

It's not just my idea that the Government knows Defence procurement is too complicated. Even the Government knows it, so the question is, "When the heck is someone going to sort this out?"

As a UK electronics engineer, with experience of producing successful military systems exclusively for our European allies, I wonder why I can't find work. It's insane.

Edited by dilbert on Sunday 29th November 00:51

[RizzoTheRat]

Ah but they still had Clansman on Danny Boy, now they're Better Off With Map And Nokia.

[dilbert]

RizzoTheRat said:

Ah but they still had Clansman on Danny Boy, now they're Better Off With Map And Nokia.

What? They had been preparing for Bowman since 1989. After twelve years, they changed supplier and developed a customised off the shelf mess in six years.

If defence procurement hadn't faffed around for ten years spending our money on "zero" then they could have had a radio that worked, wasn't too heavy, could be installed in 30,000 distinct vehicles, and started saving lives in 2001.

It is a measure of the problem, that Bowman is considered to be O.K. now, by the government. In the end, the "get out of the st rescue plan" has become a "defacto gold standard", destined to screw up operations well into the 21st century.

The service personnel that use the equipment say that it doesn't take into account most of the things that they asked for in the equipment. It's not surprising, since the "rescue mission" simply reconfigured existing equipment for the new requirement.

When the complaints came the manufacturers added unwanted functionality in software to try and compensate. Not only was the radio more difficult to use, but it also overwhelmed the dating microprocessors that underpinned these "old radios".

I suspect that the original, failed, plan ultimately would have yielded a radio better suited to it's task. It is inexcusable, however, that it took in excess of decade for defence procurement to recognise that the supplier was not going to come up with the goods.

Edited by dilbert on Sunday 29th November 13:15

[MartG]

Another worry for the F-35 programme

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/08/12/f35_turkey...