Impotency writ large

[RAENORTH]

Jon Lehman, secretary of the Navy in the Reagan administration, has a pop at spiralling inflation in defence costs in the <em>WSJ</em> today. When John McCain was shot down over Hanoi in 1967, writes Lehman, he was flying an A4 Skyhawk. That jet cost $860,000. Inflation has risen by 700 percent since then. So Mr McCain's A4 cost $6.1 million in 2008 dollars.

View full article here

[Andrew]

Why can't Gordon Brown bang heads together? He's only going to be in the job very likely for around 9 months longer. Would he prefer to spend that time kicking fax machines and bullying secretaries or taking on a real challenge?

[RAENORTH]

Why can't Gordon Brown bang heads together? He's only going to be in the job very likely for around 9 months longer. Would he prefer to spend that time kicking fax machines and bullying secretaries or taking on a real challenge?

The MoD is rather like the FCO - a law unto itself. This is what I keep trying to point out ... it is out of control. The buttons are pressed, levers are pulled, memos are sent ... and nothing happens. This is why the Treasury, in desperation, put the blocks on, fed up with writing blank cheques every time the MoD sent a messenger round. Even since then, we have had the "briefing" as to how "Gordon Brown" has been "starving the troops" of money. No, it isn't like that. It was an attempt to bring the MoD into line, conforming with the requirement actually to make out a "business case" to justify its spending on major projects. Faced with that discipline, instead of responding, the MoD went into a giant sulk, mortified that a mere Chancellor of the Exchequer had the unmitigated gall to require the MoD to account for its spending. The media fell for the "spin" hook, line and sinker ... and now we are seeing the results.

[gareth]

In these austere times if the Treasury says 'do things cheaper' the MOD/RAF has spent too long doing things it's own way to be prepared to change. They have been unthinkingly indulged to the point of painting our Forces into a corner. Expensive land vehicles that haven't been produced or are destroyed by a single bomb. Horrifically expensive fast jets doing a compromised job of close air support. They clearly are doing a good job but is it the most effective they could do? The lack of air assets, the sheer lack of knowledge about Taleban movements and an inability to combat the threat of IEDs seem to be like headbutting a brick wall. Pride comes before a fall and our Top Brass are very, very proud.

Why isn't the Government doing more to get the message across about the relative cheapness of decent enough helicopters and aircraft for transport, supply runs and CAS? Why isn't Parliament? They are in control (or should be) but it is the easy option to keep writing the cheques. There are cheaper options that could be fielded in much larger numbers which would make our troops more effective and the MOD refuses to take them on board - it's an easy argument to make and the politicians should be making it.

What can be done to make the MOD work smarter not harder? Fixing it's budget hasn't worked.

[Graham]

Perhaps one question that need to be asked is "why are most of our transport helicopters (Chinooks & Pumas etc.) operated by the RAF?"
It's clear that all the RAF are interested in is fast jets (Typhoon), and will never divert enough of their budget to mundane things like Army transports. This also applies to passenger jets, as evidenced by the fact they still operate a fleet of decrepit VC-10s and Tri-Stars.
In addition, they appear to be hell-bent on retiring the Harrier early, which could kill off the Fleet Air Arm for good, and with it the F-35C and the new carriers.

I would say all transport helicopters should be given over to the Army, and the RAF should lease a fleet of modern passenger jets.
And if they can't make use of the Typhoons to provide Air support over Afghanistan, then they should be not allowed to buy any more.

Regarding the cost escalation of fighter jets.
It must be borne in mind thet the F/A-18 is a truly multi-role arcraft, and so can provide the capabilites of a multitude of earlier aircraft: not only the A-4 Skyhawk, but also of the F-8 Crusader, the F-4 Phantom, the F-14 Tomcat (more or less), the A-7 Corsair II, the A-6 Intuder (more or less).
As such, it is bound to cost more.

However, there is an argument for the use of large numbers of low-cost, simple, but rugged aircraft in modern warfare.
The USAF tried to bin the A-10 for years, in favour of more fast movers. Only recently have they begun to appreciate its capabilities, and upgraded the aircraft accordingly.

[RAENORTH]

In these austere times if the Treasury says 'do things cheaper' the MOD/RAF has spent too long doing things it's own way to be prepared to change. They have been unthinkingly indulged to the point of painting our Forces into a corner. Expensive land vehicles that haven't been produced or are destroyed by a single bomb. Horrifically expensive fast jets doing a compromised job of close air support. They clearly are doing a good job but is it the most effective they could do? The lack of air assets, the sheer lack of knowledge about Taleban movements and an inability to combat the threat of IEDs seem to be like headbutting a brick wall. Pride comes before a fall and our Top Brass are very, very proud.

Why isn't the Government doing more to get the message across about the relative cheapness of decent enough helicopters and aircraft for transport, supply runs and CAS? Why isn't Parliament? They are in control (or should be) but it is the easy option to keep writing the cheques. There are cheaper options that could be fielded in much larger numbers which would make our troops more effective and the MOD refuses to take them on board - it's an easy argument to make and the politicians should be making it.

What can be done to make the MOD work smarter not harder? Fixing it's budget hasn't worked.

We have a "gold plating" mentality with EU legislation ... we have a similar mentality with procurement of military equipment. Is this a genetic trait, written into the Civil Service DNA?

[sharpz111 unactivated]

Why can't Gordon Brown bang heads together? He's only going to be in the job very likely for around 9 months longer. Would he prefer to spend that time kicking fax machines and bullying secretaries or taking on a real challenge?

This couldn't possibly be a reference to Jamie 'Mad-dog' MacDonald by any chance?

http://www.imdb.com/video/imdb/vi4170449433/ (see roughly 45 seconds in to the video)


On a more relevant note...

US Sec Def Robert Gates made the exact same point about 'defense' procurement in the Jan/Feb issue of Foreign Affairs.

http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/ ... d-strategy

The whole article is 'subscription only' for the moment but the relevant paragraph is pasted below...

"When it comes to procurement, for the better part of five decades, the trend has gone toward lower numbers as technology gains have made each system more capable. In recent years, these platforms have grown ever more baroque, have become ever more costly, are taking longer to build, and are being fielded in ever-dwindling quantities. Given that resources are not unlimited, the dynamic of exchanging numbers for capability is perhaps reaching a point of diminishing returns. A given ship or aircraft, no matter how capable or well equipped, can be in only one place at one time."

I'd swap our 'Bob' for theirs at the drop of a hat.

[RAENORTH]

"When it comes to procurement, for the better part of five decades, the trend has gone toward lower numbers as technology gains have made each system more capable. In recent years, these platforms have grown ever more baroque, have become ever more costly, are taking longer to build, and are being fielded in ever-dwindling quantities. Given that resources are not unlimited, the dynamic of exchanging numbers for capability is perhaps reaching a point of diminishing returns. A given ship or aircraft, no matter how capable or well equipped, can be in only one place at one time."

I'd swap our 'Bob' for theirs at the drop of a hat.

Their procurement system is just as much out of control as ours ... the presidential helicopter is an absolute beaut.

[gareth]

Weren't they just about trying to make a chopper version of Air Force One when all it needed to be was a flying limo?

Keep It Simple Stupid! Knowing what you want and can get before you sign on the dotted line would help too.

Is expenditure on the toys something of a prestige issue with the militaries of the world? Or perhaps it is easier to justify a few very expensive bits of kit that need fewer people to operate them rather than less complicated and less costly gear and a larger number of people?

[RAENORTH]

Weren't they just about trying to make a chopper version of Air Force One when all it needed to be was a flying limo?

Keep It Simple Stupid! Knowing what you want and can get before you sign on the dotted line would help too.

Is expenditure on the toys something of a prestige issue with the militaries of the world? Or perhaps it is easier to justify a few very expensive bits of kit that need fewer people to operate them rather than less complicated and less costly gear and a larger number of people?

I guess it's what happens when people have absolute power in their own domain, with weak external scrutiny and little accountability, and are spending other peoples' money. This applies throughout the public sector, but is especially acute in the military, where the "toys" are so expensive and complicated. This is why, whether they like it or not, the military must always be under strong external scrutiny.

[sharpz111]

Or perhaps it is easier to justify a few very expensive bits of kit that need fewer people to operate them rather than less complicated and less costly gear and a larger number of people?

Good point.

With regards to the (now-cancelled) VH-71 Presidential Helicopter programme: It probably isn't the best example, because it involves meddling by the White House (who wanted an overly complex aircraft, and who vaccilated over terminating their overly flashy programme when the DoD had decided to pull the plug way back in 2007).

As commented on before, the Osprey is perhaps the best example, especially as it involves the wasteful delusions of the USMC top-brass run amok...FRES anyone?

[RAENORTH]

I've never really got my brain round Osprey ... read the occasional piece and cringed. I suspect that if we had the same sort of money, we too would be indulging in something similar, making it an exemplar of the argument that the more money you give them, the more they will waste. There is no top limit to the amount of money the defence establishment can spend. It will always be short of money - in its own terms - and the more you give it, the more it will want.

[Guest]

However, there is an argument for the use of large numbers of low-cost, simple, but rugged aircraft in modern warfare.
The USAF tried to bin the A-10 for years, in favour of more fast movers. Only recently have they begun to appreciate its capabilities, and upgraded the aircraft accordingly.

It was a bit more political than that. The world second biggest airforce wasn't getting the necessary level of CAS for its ground elements from its supplier of this. For those of you who don't know who the former organisation is I am talking about the US Army. The supplier is of course the USAF. Through its supporters on the Hill the US Army started to push for its own fixed wing 'plane; this prompted the USAF into action. (It should be remembered that the Cheyenne compound attack helicopter was cancelled in this time frame too.)

It also worth remembering that the US Army operate fixed wing transports. The latest being the C27J Spartan.

The A10 is an excellent aircraft. They would have been asset to the RAF.

[Guest]

I've never really got my brain round Osprey ... read the occasional piece and cringed. I suspect that if we had the same sort of money, we too would be indulging in something similar, making it an exemplar of the argument that the more money you give them, the more they will waste. There is no top limit to the amount of money the defence establishment can spend. It will always be short of money - in its own terms - and the more you give it, the more it will want.

My favourite quote about the Osprey is that it "glides like a brick", neither can it auto-rotate like helicopter nor does have sufficient wing area to glide. It is a unique aircraft and in some roles it will be a boon. But it should be compared to the new CH53K. The latter doesn't have the range or the speed, but it can carry more, is safer, and still can be folded up to be stowed below on a carrier. It is the sort of helicopter you need to deliver the balance of forces once the LZ has been secure by your pathfinders. The Germans carry the small Wiesel tracked vehicles two at time in CH53; useful for fire support.

I think we should pause for a moment and remember the Fairey Rotodyne.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairey_Rotodyne

[Andrew]

Why can't Gordon Brown bang heads together? He's only going to be in the job very likely for around 9 months longer. Would he prefer to spend that time kicking fax machines and bullying secretaries or taking on a real challenge?

This couldn't possibly be a reference to Jamie 'Mad-dog' MacDonald by any chance?

http://www.imdb.com/video/imdb/vi4170449433/ (see roughly 45 seconds in to the video)

Yes i enjoyed the film, but it's a reminder of alleged Brown behaviour (screaming at civil servants, kicking desks etc).