Cutting costs 'put troops in danger'

Do you think Government cost-cutting (alias "efficiency savings") are costing lives?

  • Maybe

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • No

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    127

chockhead819

War Hero
An old example of the crazy pricing (going back to the 80s")caused by MOD Procurement was a seaking tail wheel gag, a piece of metal, piece of string & a thick bit of copper wire.
A bright spark chucked the entire sqdns away, so workshops knocked them up for around £5, the sdqn was told they could only use the proper one which cost £250 at the time.

The overpricing of bits for a seaking was/is a disgrace & i bet it goes on still with lynx & merlin.
 

come_the_day

Lantern Swinger
Come on boys and girls - defence is expensive! It only becomes important when there is some kudos in it for the politicos, so most "procurement" is achieved at the last minute, or in other words, when we realise we need something we haven't got. That's why Sgt Roberts died needlessly, as no doubt have many more. For the supply bods at the sharp end - don't take it personally, we know that it's the fault of those elected into office, who have spent their formative years at school, university (school), training for the bar (school) and other generally non-productive forms of employment.

Thevery simple, basic truth that they should all hoist in is that you don't sh1t on the people you expect to defend you and get away with it unscathed. The electors might just have a long enough memory to not make the mistakes they have made since 1997.
 

BeerBad

Lantern Swinger
come_the_day said:
Come on boys and girls - defence is expensive!
Sorry but have to disagree on that point because it is not a case of defence being expensive but procurement being inefficient. I have first hand experience of purchasing goods for a very senior government department. If I had followed the rules and used the approved supplier I would have been shelling out ten times the real cost for blank CDs (and we went thorugh thousands). In the end because my team had some control of it's own budget we were able to source them at a realistic business rate and "sell" them on to other teams within the department. There is no incentive to be efficient in the civil service, only to be seen to be acting in a manner that seems proper and right. But what do you expect from a democracy that allows political parties to receive "loans" that make no business sense. Time to put those b*st*rds up against the wall. :evil:
 

empty_vessel

Midshipman
Helicopters, or lack of them was a point specifically raised by the committee and its a very valid one, unfortunately the answer given by Mr Browne was that they are going to increase availability of current aircraft by means of a long term programme, what long term programme? LEAN. Now LEAN is a very useful tool but it is certainly not the answer to a lack of support helicopters, to solve that problem we need more CHF sqns and if necessary more RAF SH sqns, more trained aircrew, more money, etc etc.

I just don't think there's the money there so it looks like helicopters are going to continue to be a problem for at least the next 10 to 15 years. I just find the whole situation quite depressing. Anyone got any answers?
 

jesse650

War Hero
SILVER_FOX said:
Hey jesse650, have you looked around recently? There's quite a few of us Logistics Specialists out in the field at the sharp end & it's been going on for quite some time. :wink: :)

SF

Ooopps! sorry prehaps wrong terminology.....poss procurement logistics Specialists? (Brace, Brace, Brace) :lol:
 

dt018a9667

War Hero
I hold them in the same contempt as I did thirty years ago.
You only have to look at their defence every time it all goes wrong it’s not our fault it’s theirs and then blame the armed forces.

And I could go on with this rant.

Anyone with me?
 

chieftiff

War Hero
Moderator
I think for once the committee did a good job on this one, their report is honest and probing, although this story got little coverage in the news because of the events of yesterday it is worth having a read of the whole report, not just the little snapshot in the news. If you are interested it is here:

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmselect/cmdfence/1241/1241.pdf

I think the most important thing to come out of the whole report is their promise to probe chief of defence procurement about the issues. Maybe he will have the balls to explain to the MP's that the reason defence equipment is so expensive is their insistance that kit is procured from the UK to bolster UK private business (often consisting of multi-national conglomerates who have happy shareholders) and ultimately please the treasury via employment, taxes etc. It may all sound good for the UK economy but ultimately the kit we need is already out there, in production, it's just not British! You can't have it both ways!

Think about it! would you ask your next door neighbour to design and build you a nice big plasma TV which did all the things a nice big plasma TV should do, then pay him to develop it, build it, and modify it when it doesn't work. When you could have gone to Dixons and bought one that day which you know works because your mate has one and has a 2 year exchange warranty.
 

Not_a_boffin

War Hero
Empty-vessel. Check out this thread on PPrune.

http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=238273

That's the plan in the short term - but if the RAF tanker PFI is anything to go by, it'll be another five years before CHF and the poor old SK4 get any sort of relief. Even then, the PFI they're talking about is aimed at the Crab Puma force, so there's no guarantee that the a/c procured will be marinised or ship-capable.

The permanent solution is a long way off yet as dealt with in the Aged Seaking thread on the WAFU board....
 

Latest Threads

Top