The Register is having great fun with former defence minister, Lord Gilbert, who has described the A400M military transport plane as a "Euro-wanking make-work project" in the written Parliamentary record. The Peer further goes on to say that he regards the decision on the A400M as the most bone-stupid in the 40 years that I have been at one end or other of this building (parliament). It is an absolutely idiotic decision.

View full article here

Why did you clip the picture half-way?


Right-left: Fox, Osborne, Hague and Cameron.

It's double-points for getting one in the centre.

""They are selling out our Armed Forces from under our noses, and no one seems to give a damn.""
No one in a position of political influence, that is. As ever, the instincts of the public are ignored and our PR-trained prime minister is able to make policy to suit his beliefs/image.
And now it seems that CCHQ (probably Dave himself) didn't like the off-message posts on ConservativeHome and censorship has been enforced - they call it 'moderation'. Very Blairesque.

It has been enforced for some time ... when I have posted coments recently (which have been just a little critical of Dave) they have disappeared ... competely. Not a trace left. They are getting like the Grauniad .... they talk the talk about freedom of speech, but are first in line with the censor's pen.

It is the same with many aviation related issues. A new and useless but powerful body the European Aviation Safety Agency has more power than both Houses of Parliament combined. We ARE a tiny annexe of a mighty Franco-German Axis and boy will it/does it cost us.

I wonder how many brand new DC3's you could build for £130M, or even £70M? A proven design, and known throughout the world, so spares and servicing would be no problem....

Or as suggested in The Register article if they really don't want to buy the C17, there are plenty of Russian aircraft that would do the job. Even if they were updated with modern systems, it would still work out cheaper.

When is someone finally going to sort the military's procurement out?

Dr. N wrote: "They are selling out our Armed Forces from under our noses, and no one seems to give a damn." Selling? Why do I think it looks like 'giving away'?

Surely the British aren't that care-free and care-less? I know there were always some idiots, but most I've known have a fair number of brain cells. Maybe, though, slimechild is more in touch than we know: maybe most British heads are in the same substance his is. That way they won't even notice when the armed forces turn against us - under the command of our superiors, the Franco-Germans.

So they just want us to think that none of us care; the censorship is geared that way. But that does tell us that they're also afraid of us. The ambiguous nature of a puppet government makes it very weak: if the people open up the dialogue and then take control of it, the 'middle-men' get shot at by both sides.

This is not a military procurement problem ... it is a political problem.

I didn't know the RAF was planning to re-wing some of its C-130Js (HC.4/5) in 2012 due to excessive use in Afghanistan/Iraq until I read this NAO Report.

From the Reg article, Lord Gilbert said:

Here's what I have a major problem understanding: We could either have a cheap, proven useful aircraft or an expensive under performing one and we have doggedly stuck with the under performing one for grossly political reasons. Why has it under performed? Again for political reasons. I can appreciate why it is expensive - relatively small numbers, cost of development etc - but not why it is *so* expensive. Is the cost of developing the Hercules comparable? It was presumably funded by the US Government and that cost written off.

A potential way forward: Increase the sales by making two versions - a turbo fan long range one* and a turbo prop tactical landing one. The aircraft needs to be cheap enough to be used.

* Suitable for maritime patrol perhaps?

Alternatively we could waste enormous amounts of money putting turbo props on some C-17 so they could be regularly used in a tactical role.

Their "moderation" used to be called censorship, and still is in my book. It seems that ConHome has sold out to the Claggerons completely, "we accept no criticism of the great leader" type of thing.

Lockheed privately funded development of the J and closed the H production line to ensure sales. Given that the J is 58% dearer than the H/K is it also 58% more capable and cheaper to run?
French desire to ensure independence in strategic airlift may be connected with American prevarication over providing C-119s to resupply Dien Bien Phu until too late. Alternatively, American support to Britain and France over Suez (what a missed opportunity to nip Nasser and Arab nationalism in the bud and solve the Middle East, all because Ike was on the golf course) could be the reason.

Of all the problems at Dien Bien Phu, I would put French incompetence right at the top. But it is certainly the case that the French tend to respond to the results of their own incompetence by blaming others, especially foreigners if they can (as in May-June 1940), in which can one can see them wanting an entirely independent provision. However, their paradigm is more than a little flawed. There is no such thing as a national aircraft manufacturer. Lockheed is an international business, and so is Airbust. Neither could function without the US but then, neither could function without European (and increasingly Asian) manufacturers.

What's the difference between the European Air Transport Command and the Coalition helicopter cabrank in Afghanistan? It would appear that the EATC with its varied fleet would be able to allocate the most suitable aircraft to do a particular task, thus the RAF doesn't use C-17 or C-130 hours for an EADS CASA-295 or C-27 job. The RAF already does In Flight Refuelling in exchange for cargo flights from other air forces and the worry about relying on other countries doesn't apply when Russian or Ukrainian Antonov An-124s are chartered. Ideally, I would like a modern version of the days when the RAF flew everything from Pioneers up to Beverleys and Belfasts but aircraft costs have increased faster than GDP growth and although we could afford it, it wouldn't be the best way to spend £tax.

Difference is easy. The EATC is imposed from the top down n the pursuit of political integration of our armed forces under a single unified command. The "cab rank" asyou call it is a voluntary arrangement during a joint military operation that doesn't exceed the lifetime of that operation - that is, once the war is over, it stops existing. The EATC won't be going away, and as it settles in it takes away our own ability to properly coordinate our own armed forces by requiring us to go through the joint command for everything. The system in afghanistan doesn't extend to aircraft movements in the Falklands, to pick a random example. The EATC will.