Dannatt and Page
Dannatt at least spouts from a background of some knowledge. Page doesn't even have that.
JB didn't cover himself in glory either.
Portillos F16 argument fell a bit flat...
Might watch the +1 version just to confirm what I thought I heard
JB didn't cover himself in glory either.
Portillos F16 argument fell a bit flat...
Might watch the +1 version just to confirm what I thought I heard
Page went on about US content (potentially) affecting export which missed the point somewhat about why others were arguing for the importance of soverign industrial capability. US content doesn't necessarily rule out export, so his point was irrelevant anyway.
One wonders who pays for these "defence analysts" and self proclaimed "experts" who it is clear don't understand, and obviously haven't actually done, what they criticise all and sundry of being incompetent at. Too much weight is placed on their half baked opinions, which in themselves can lead to ill-informed knee jerk initiatives that create, rather than reduce, waste.
One wonders who pays for these "defence analysts" and self proclaimed "experts" who it is clear don't understand, and obviously haven't actually done, what they criticise all and sundry of being incompetent at. Too much weight is placed on their half baked opinions, which in themselves can lead to ill-informed knee jerk initiatives that create, rather than reduce, waste.
Pretty much the whole programme was based on Bernard Greys report, with a little bit of drama thrown in and the positive bits (the solutions) thrown out. I was a bit interested until they wheeled on Lewis Page!!
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 274
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The MOD has been double ****ed because the figures quoted are spectacular at a time when the new Government is preaching fiscal responsibility and Afghanistan has meant people felt empowered to ask the questions that needed to be asked. How many people have sat on Squadrons looking at unfit for role kit whilst wishing that they had the stuff that they know works?
The problems are deep-seated. Firstly, how can you run a procurement system that is overseen by out-of-role professionals who are doing an amateur job of buying kit in their all-too-brief staff apointment. Secondly, as the prgramme kept referring to, Defence equipment is a business and the companies supplying the kit aren't going to make a loss.
If you put an ambitious staff officer in a procurement role, he/she only has 2 years to make and impact and get the reports required - how can they then follow through on a programme that will take many years to mature? The impact may only have short-term gains, but the drawbacks may linger for many years. What seems like a smart idea now, may come back and bite you in the years to come.
Sadly, the MOD isn't alone, but it's an easy target. It would be great if it was going to get better, but are these rapid cuts going to be like the quick impact good ideas?
The problems are deep-seated. Firstly, how can you run a procurement system that is overseen by out-of-role professionals who are doing an amateur job of buying kit in their all-too-brief staff apointment. Secondly, as the prgramme kept referring to, Defence equipment is a business and the companies supplying the kit aren't going to make a loss.
If you put an ambitious staff officer in a procurement role, he/she only has 2 years to make and impact and get the reports required - how can they then follow through on a programme that will take many years to mature? The impact may only have short-term gains, but the drawbacks may linger for many years. What seems like a smart idea now, may come back and bite you in the years to come.
Sadly, the MOD isn't alone, but it's an easy target. It would be great if it was going to get better, but are these rapid cuts going to be like the quick impact good ideas?
It occurred to me that every time they wanted to make a point about waste and white elephants versus the dire need for helicopters (Blackhawks) the Typhoon was shown cavorting over Farnborough. No doubt many will have seen this and been given the impression of BAE Systems and all the Defence Procurement Ministers and Officers fiddling while Afghanistan burns.
FB
FB
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: South
Posts: 41
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
At least the would be fiddling had they not saved money by reducing the number of strings on each instrument and cut the requirement for bows until sometime after they were in service.
Sorry, couldn't resist.
Reading the, admittedly, 'anecdotes' of Ministerial interference in the running of the 19th Century Navy as well as the number of Senior Officer come Businessmen could lead one to believe that nothing has changed; money making opportunities and the Defence Industry have always been close allies. Afterall, the military always want something a bit better, yet seem to do well with whatever they've got! Tongue in cheek
Sorry, couldn't resist.
Reading the, admittedly, 'anecdotes' of Ministerial interference in the running of the 19th Century Navy as well as the number of Senior Officer come Businessmen could lead one to believe that nothing has changed; money making opportunities and the Defence Industry have always been close allies. Afterall, the military always want something a bit better, yet seem to do well with whatever they've got! Tongue in cheek
Join Date: May 2006
Location: 2 m South of Radstock VRP
Posts: 2,042
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Compressorstall
If you put an ambitious staff officer in a procurement role, he/she only has 2 years to make and impact and get the reports required - how can they then follow through on a programme that will take many years to mature?
I had a few drinks last night with a munitions contracts wallah (Commercial Officer in new MoDspeak) thoroughly poxed off with senior "ops" chaps in brown suits making "promises" to Contractors that are contractually impossible.
The civvy project and logs staff do a pretty good job; if only they are allowed to do it.
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Aylesbury
Age: 58
Posts: 378
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pardon me for playing devils advocate here, but what is it about Lewis Page that gets you guys so riled?
Is what he reports completely factually incorrect, or only half the story, an incorrect perspective, or what?
Genuine question, not a wind up.
Is what he reports completely factually incorrect, or only half the story, an incorrect perspective, or what?
Genuine question, not a wind up.
Jabba
The last two of your questions. I have read his book (didn't buy it - wouldn't give him the satisfaction; borrowed it from a library
) and it is full of
Obviously it is his perspective and he is entitled to it, but I would say it is often incorrect.
The last two of your questions. I have read his book (didn't buy it - wouldn't give him the satisfaction; borrowed it from a library
) and it is full of
half the story and an incorrect perspective
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Bridgwater Somerset
Posts: 459
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think Haddon-Cave was spot on when he said in the Nimrod Review that there was 'an unsatisfactory relationship between the MOD and Industry'. When Portillo said the chairman of BAE Systems can walk into No 10 anytime and see the PM it speaks volumes about their cosy relationship. Hardly surprising then the reluctance I am getting from the authorities to persue those named in his report.Especially when they say they have spoken to the Home Office.
Last edited by Tappers Dad; 21st Sep 2010 at 09:22. Reason: spelling
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 1,515
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As I watched the programme one thought kept repeating.
Is this virtually an exact copy of the Panorama programme shown in the early eighties following the Nimrod AEW fiasco?
The faces change, the language of procurement changes, the story does not.
Another thought...
Anybody who thinks this is purely an MOD/Defence industry issue is either sadly under educated or on an anti military agenda.
I'll see your MRA4 project and raise you the Scottish Parliment. (MRA4, 4 X over budget, Scottish Parliment Building, 10 X over budget)
Is this virtually an exact copy of the Panorama programme shown in the early eighties following the Nimrod AEW fiasco?
The faces change, the language of procurement changes, the story does not.
Another thought...
Anybody who thinks this is purely an MOD/Defence industry issue is either sadly under educated or on an anti military agenda.
I'll see your MRA4 project and raise you the Scottish Parliment. (MRA4, 4 X over budget, Scottish Parliment Building, 10 X over budget)
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Racedo blows goats
Posts: 677
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The programme was looking for the big impact, was too shallow and had too much knocking of the services eg "the RAFs largest procurement" with little understanding of the procurement process. Rattled on time again about delays and cost without mentioning treasury oversight or political interference. Talked about the shortage of helicopters without mentioning the often announced and always reduced amount of money for them.
This was the TV version of a Daily Mail article. Apart from that it was sound.
regards
retard
This was the TV version of a Daily Mail article. Apart from that it was sound.
regards
retard
I fully agree with Eng(Retard).
I watched it a scribbled a few notes. In the order raised in the programme;
1. Minefield incident. Perfect opportunity to get into BOWMAN (the comms problems the BoI reported, tens of millions wasted on batteries that had to be recalled and destroyed, thus denying troops a Critical Enabling Technology etc).
2. Kiley stated MoD was not under resourced, rather what they get is wasted. This is largely true but the message was lost because, I think, he didn’t fully understand the subject.
3. Following on from that, there was the usual failure to differentiate between procurement and acquisition. The programme trashed procurement, but actually concentrated on the initial acquisition processes and Government policy.
4. Ian Godden spoke well on constant requirement change, but the ordinary punter (and 95% of the MoD) wouldn’t understand, because of 3. above. He made the point 75% of projects were on time and to budget, but this needed exploring. The question that needed asking was why MoD refuses to learn from these successes. (I’d be interested where the 75% figure came from. I’d say that means the situation is getting worse. They need to place these figures in context).
5. Mike Bell stated, correctly, that the Nimrod MR2 shouldn’t have been in the air at all, but then the programme linked this to late MRA4 when, in fact, the primary reason was systemic airworthiness failings. Also, the procurement officer (RAF?) said of the mainplane issue “by the time realisation set in...”, which indicates he wasn’t there at the beginning, when this risk was flagged on day 1, by both BAeS and MoD. (In fact, they were raised in the 80s on the Nimrod AEW programme). This meant the true issues were missed – that experience and corporate knowledge was ignored.
6. I’m always in 2 minds about Lewis Page, as he usually makes good headline points but never seems to back them up with any real knowledge. I think someone just feeds him lines and he recites them parrot fashion; but you know from subtle errors in the use of terminology he doesn’t truly understand. A lot like much of DE&S! He was spot on about much of our high-tech being US sourced, so making it difficult for us to sell abroad. But, again, the programme didn’t stop to offer examples. It just came across as willy waving between Band and Page, but both made reasonably valid points. (Although I thought Band sounded like an arrogant prat). This issue isn’t black and white.
7. Excellent visual explanation of the financial Bow Wave which most probably understood. Most procurers would have been shouting at the telly saying “Now, tell everyone this isn’t a procurement failure”, but they didn’t.
There was too much inconsequential “filler” when they could have used the time to explain a few finer points which would have got to the nub of the problem. The first 15 mins was playing to the crowd and lacked substance. Later, the procurement officer had a good stab by mentioning 2 year postings, lack of training, parachuting in grossly inexperienced staffs etc. But the bottom line is that most viewers will now think “procurement” is the only problem, when in fact it is the procurers who have to spend most of their time working round the problems caused in MB and political corridors.
Good attempt. 7/10.
I watched it a scribbled a few notes. In the order raised in the programme;
1. Minefield incident. Perfect opportunity to get into BOWMAN (the comms problems the BoI reported, tens of millions wasted on batteries that had to be recalled and destroyed, thus denying troops a Critical Enabling Technology etc).
2. Kiley stated MoD was not under resourced, rather what they get is wasted. This is largely true but the message was lost because, I think, he didn’t fully understand the subject.
3. Following on from that, there was the usual failure to differentiate between procurement and acquisition. The programme trashed procurement, but actually concentrated on the initial acquisition processes and Government policy.
4. Ian Godden spoke well on constant requirement change, but the ordinary punter (and 95% of the MoD) wouldn’t understand, because of 3. above. He made the point 75% of projects were on time and to budget, but this needed exploring. The question that needed asking was why MoD refuses to learn from these successes. (I’d be interested where the 75% figure came from. I’d say that means the situation is getting worse. They need to place these figures in context).
5. Mike Bell stated, correctly, that the Nimrod MR2 shouldn’t have been in the air at all, but then the programme linked this to late MRA4 when, in fact, the primary reason was systemic airworthiness failings. Also, the procurement officer (RAF?) said of the mainplane issue “by the time realisation set in...”, which indicates he wasn’t there at the beginning, when this risk was flagged on day 1, by both BAeS and MoD. (In fact, they were raised in the 80s on the Nimrod AEW programme). This meant the true issues were missed – that experience and corporate knowledge was ignored.
6. I’m always in 2 minds about Lewis Page, as he usually makes good headline points but never seems to back them up with any real knowledge. I think someone just feeds him lines and he recites them parrot fashion; but you know from subtle errors in the use of terminology he doesn’t truly understand. A lot like much of DE&S! He was spot on about much of our high-tech being US sourced, so making it difficult for us to sell abroad. But, again, the programme didn’t stop to offer examples. It just came across as willy waving between Band and Page, but both made reasonably valid points. (Although I thought Band sounded like an arrogant prat). This issue isn’t black and white.
7. Excellent visual explanation of the financial Bow Wave which most probably understood. Most procurers would have been shouting at the telly saying “Now, tell everyone this isn’t a procurement failure”, but they didn’t.
There was too much inconsequential “filler” when they could have used the time to explain a few finer points which would have got to the nub of the problem. The first 15 mins was playing to the crowd and lacked substance. Later, the procurement officer had a good stab by mentioning 2 year postings, lack of training, parachuting in grossly inexperienced staffs etc. But the bottom line is that most viewers will now think “procurement” is the only problem, when in fact it is the procurers who have to spend most of their time working round the problems caused in MB and political corridors.
Good attempt. 7/10.
I'll see your MRA4 project and raise you the Scottish Parliment. (MRA4, 4 X over budget, Scottish Parliment Building, 10 X over budget)
I'll see your Scottish Parliament and raise you a Portcullis House - at £235 million, the most expensive office block in Europe (more than £1 million for every MP that has an office there).
I'll see your Scottish Parliament and raise you a Portcullis House - at £235 million, the most expensive office block in Europe (more than £1 million for every MP that has an office there).
Lewis Page = Throbber.
Served as a diver, refused to do broadening appointments and threw teddies out of pram and left when being told he couldnt command an MCMV without doing PWO course.
Those who served with him allegedly have a very low opinion of him, both personally and professionally.
He knows a little about MCD work, he knows next to nothing about Defence, yet despite this natural handicap wrote the most puerile piece of ****e I've ever had the misfortune to read, namely Lions & Donkeys. Had he bothered to expand his career and go to staff college, he might have saved himself some embarrassing mistakes in print and on his website...
Media love him because he's a damn good self publicist, not because he knows anything. He's as qualified to comment on defence matters as I am to fly a Typhoon...
Served as a diver, refused to do broadening appointments and threw teddies out of pram and left when being told he couldnt command an MCMV without doing PWO course.
Those who served with him allegedly have a very low opinion of him, both personally and professionally.
He knows a little about MCD work, he knows next to nothing about Defence, yet despite this natural handicap wrote the most puerile piece of ****e I've ever had the misfortune to read, namely Lions & Donkeys. Had he bothered to expand his career and go to staff college, he might have saved himself some embarrassing mistakes in print and on his website...
Media love him because he's a damn good self publicist, not because he knows anything. He's as qualified to comment on defence matters as I am to fly a Typhoon...
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 1,515
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Also, the procurement officer (RAF?) said of the mainplane issue “by the time realisation set in...”, which indicates he wasn’t there at the beginning, when this risk was flagged on day 1, by both BAeS and MoD. (In fact, they were raised in the 80s on the Nimrod AEW programme). This meant the true issues were missed – that experience and corporate knowledge was ignored.
You are completely correct that experience and knowledge was ignored - however, worse than that in my opinion, experienced operators were "ordered" to keep their opinions to themselves.
In fact one Kinloss Staish (you may work out who if you want) said..
"On my watch the entry into service of Nimrod 2000, will be smoother than the entry into service of the MR2, and I will not accept any contrary opinion."
And that is a pretty accurate quote, as others can verify if they wish.
I’m always in 2 minds about Lewis Page.....He was spot on about much of our high-tech being US sourced, so making it difficult for us to sell abroad. But, again, the programme didn’t stop to offer examples.
The programme was stitched together to show Lewis erroneously challenging the importance of a sov UK capability by ONLY talking about the potential export impact of US content in 'UK' products. He then quoted Typhoon as an example that can't be exported due to US content. Typhoon does have some US content, but as you say it is not black and white, and whilst it can make life complicated, it hasn't stopped its export so far. In this respect he was clearly talking total rubbish - he should have noticed that Typhoon has of course been exported, so not a great example to use!
He sits there all smug and criticising others - while not having a clue himself. Chiselling fun sponge!