# Surely not ???



## MikeK (Jul 3, 2007)

Hi all, just read this on the local rag site. I just cannot believe such an idea would even be contemplated !

http://www.portsmouth.co.uk/newshome/Navy-workers39-fears-over-RFA.5803981.jp

Mike


----------



## Santos (Mar 16, 2005)

Mike,

Anything is possible with this bunch of cr.p we have to call a government - another cost cutting exercise to ensure there is plenty of money at hand for their pay and expenses.

How Brown and his cronies could have the gaul to attend the Festival of Remembrance and the Cenotaph, knowing that they have failed and continue to fail this countrys Armed Forces beats me they must have skins like rhinoceroses.

Chris.


----------



## E.Martin (Sep 6, 2008)

Two words,that goes for every governmenr department "Enemy Within"


----------



## MikeK (Jul 3, 2007)

Hi Chris, cannot agree with you more. I'm still waiting for someone to explain how we still need the same (or more (MAD) ) British politicians when we are supposedly run from Brussels ? If, as they claim, we are losing our sovereignty to over the water then surely they are superfluous ? One thing is for sure between Bliar and Brown the UK has been dragged to the depths !
Rant over, I'm off to kick the cat around the garden - only joking before the PC brigade jumps into action followed by elf and safety !

Mike


----------



## stores (Apr 8, 2007)

*Cost Cuts,*

Well we dont have a merchant navy any more, next thing to go will be royal navy, replaced by european navy, MPs will have larger ponds, moats and floating duckhouses, replacement for royal navy ! UK has finally gone to the dogs, army will be given bows and arrows to fight the taliban, US army arrived to do a joint mission with UK troops recently, they arrived with more helicopters for one mission than all british helicopters in Afghanistan, send british goverment (joke ) to fight taliban. STORES.


----------



## Pat Kennedy (Apr 14, 2007)

As I read the story, it says the Treasury are putting 'heavy pressure' on the MOD to cut costs, and it is the MOD who have come up with the wheeze of hiving off the RFA to private enterprise.
Anyone who has ever had to deal with MOD Navy will know that they are not the most rational or forward thinking group of _civil servants._
Much as you may like to bash the Government, the Treasury are well within their rights to look for savings, and the MOD have a reputation of not being very careful with the taxpayer's money.


----------



## Ron Stringer (Mar 15, 2005)

*Privatisation*

Does anyone know if there have been any studies into the possibility of replacing the Ministry of Defence's procurement arm with a private services company such as Serco? After all, the National Audit Office regularly slates the MoD for its non-performance in the procurement and support of military equipment and services. Vast cost over-runs, shortage of equipment and failure of purchased items to meet specification, seem to be the norm.

There are lots of private organisations that appear able to establish and operate manufacturing systems that are dependent on effective procurement and supply arrangements. When did you ever hear of a car factory closing down because of a 5-year delay in the supply of essential parts? When did Sony fail to supply TVs because the LCD screens wouldn't light up or the speakers couldn't be heard? Do you read about Volkswagen or Toyota paying several thousand dollars a time for half-inch bolts or toilet seats?

Having clearly agreed with the end-users (the military) what is required, it ought not to be too difficult to establish with suppliers how all products tendered will be examined prior to acceptance, to confirm that they meet the requirements. Writing a contract that makes clear what is to be expected, how performance will be confirmed and how payment will be approved, is meat and drink to the commercial/legal expertise available within any large commercial company.

Employing a lot of former serving military personnel, supported by a host of career civil servants, may not be the best model for a slick and effective procurement operation. Certainly their civilian suppliers appear to be far more successful at achieving essential business objectives (i.e. getting a lot of profit from MoD orders) than the state's procurement agency is at hitting the taxpayers' objectives (purchasing a timely supply of high-performing, reliable equipment at keen prices). Perhaps the government's time would be better spent reviewing alternatives to the MoD, than reviewing ways of compensating MPs for the expenses that they incur in carrying out their duties.


----------



## barrinoz (Oct 9, 2006)

'We are continually looking at how we can maximise the benefit that we obtain from the resources that are given to us and this review is part of that activity.' From: http://www.portsmouth.co.uk/newshome...RFA.5803981.jp

It never ceases to amaze me how various boffins in every Govt. dept. anywhere in the world, always try to excuse their cost-cutting exercises by citing responsibility for the accountability of taxpayers' money and yet the same coffers of taxpayer funds are, apparently, bottomless pits when it comes to supplying the funds necessary to keep them in outrageous salaries and perks. 
barrinoz.


----------



## Ray Mac (Sep 22, 2007)

*Rfa*

Due you think the MOD and the Treasury would dare privatise the RFA(MAD)

Ray


----------



## Ray Mac (Sep 22, 2007)

Looks like it could happen in the next few weeks.


----------



## Lancastrian (Feb 8, 2006)

Burned Toast said:


> Looks like it could happen in the next few weeks.


 You are being a bit premature. The Review Board has not even been formed yet. This matter has also been under discussion  HERE


----------



## chadburn (Jun 2, 2008)

I had a visit to a local airbase (RAF Linton- on- Ouse on Tuesday where the RAF/Navy fly Tucano training aircraft, all the Engineering work from first line Mtce, Sched Mtce through to deep Mtce is done by Contract (VT Aerospace) All the building mtce even Married Quarter's mtce is done by Contract (Carillion), some of the equipment fitted to the aircraft is only on lease and the Company Ron may be after is called "Defence Equipment and Support" (DE&S) they equip and support the UK's armed forces for current and future operations, they employ 25,500 people with a Budget of £13 BILLION, it's H/Q is at Bristol with other office's elsewhere, I wonder if they are going to be involved in the "stripping back" of the RFA?


----------



## Lancastrian (Feb 8, 2006)

They are not a company, but a MoD Department, headed by a General, with three 3 star and several 2 star officers under him.
http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/MicroSite/Des/

A bit of pruning there would not come amiss. Apart from the RFA one star of course!


----------



## chadburn (Jun 2, 2008)

Of course you a right Lancastrian, I should have used the term "outfit" rather than "Company", I went astray when listing the other Companies that are working for the MOD at Linton and elsewhere, most probably making a fortune, it seems amazing that some of the equipment fitted to the aircraft are only on lease , although that is not new to the RFA who have manned chartered ships like the old "Brambleleaf". Hope you are keeping an eye on your Pension,s there is something behind it all when the MOD have not ordered Double Hulls, the dispentations can only be temporary surely as a "Bridging Measure"


----------



## Satanic Mechanic (Feb 23, 2009)

Pat Kennedy said:


> As I read the story, it says the Treasury are putting 'heavy pressure' on the MOD to cut costs, and it is the MOD who have come up with the wheeze of hiving off the RFA to private enterprise.
> Anyone who has ever had to deal with MOD Navy will know that they are not the most rational or forward thinking group of _civil servants._
> Much as you may like to bash the Government, the Treasury are well within their rights to look for savings, and the MOD have a reputation of not being very careful with the taxpayer's money.


And we have a winner for this years "understatement of the year " award. (K) 

Fully agree Pat, the MoD has a nearly supernatural ability to waste money, in fact scrub that - it is supernatural. Almost all attempts at subduing their money burning urges is met with the 'national interest' /'civilian meddling' defence. It is one department that really needs sorting out but just look at the reactions, even within this thread, when you try. The Government are quite right to look at ways to curb the spending - we should be due the 'Foreign crews in Royal Navy" "Navy sold down the river" and of course the old favourite "500 years of tradition.....(with random mentions of Nelson).." headlines any day now


----------



## Lancastrian (Feb 8, 2006)

No one would argue that the MoD itself is not in drastic need of reform, but the fact remains that we need to spend far more of the national cake on front line Defence and that money needs to come from other budgets. I can think of several suitable candidates.


----------



## Lancastrian (Feb 8, 2006)

chadburn said:


> Hope you are keeping an eye on your Pensions


Fortunately RFA pensions come under the Civil Service scheme which is probably the safest there is - as yet!


----------



## Satanic Mechanic (Feb 23, 2009)

Lancastrian said:


> No one would argue that the MoD itself is not in drastic need of reform, but the fact remains that we need to spend far more of the national cake on front line Defence and that money needs to come from other budgets.


I would twist that slightly.

We need to spend more on defence on the right things at the right price, the MoD offers very poor value for money, we could get a great deal more if they were to start operating efficiently. 

Where would you make the other cuts?


----------



## Lancastrian (Feb 8, 2006)

Satanic Mechanic said:


> I would twist that slightly.
> 
> Where would you make the other cuts?


I would start with the 3 biggest.
Social Security 185 Billion. ( 8 million of working age economically inactive)
Health 82 Billion (The NHS is even more inefficient than MoD)
Education 63 Billion (Most higher education is wasted. Degrees for nurses?)
I could go on. (Defence is 32 Billion).


----------



## Pat Kennedy (Apr 14, 2007)

MOD Navy when procuring equipment always used to go for the lowest bid. They would then discover that the cheapest equipment was not up to scratch and put the screws on the contractor to upgrade the kit. The contactor then responded with 'It will take time and money'
As night follows day, huge cost overuns, very long delays, and equipment that was basically bodged ensued.
I saw it time and again in Cammell Lairds, and the frustration at the 'lunatics from Bath' was very evident.
We did get a small measure of revenge when the head MOD Navy wallah arrived at RFA Resource in drydock, parked his Rover on the crane tracks and went on board. The crane(driven by me) backed up and cut his car in half!
He was dancing round in rage until the ship manager told him he had no business parking on the crane tracks. 
Regards, 
Pat


----------



## Lancastrian (Feb 8, 2006)

They are trying to mend their ways Pat. See this lot - http://www.ogc.gov.uk/gps_digest_the_royal_fleet_auxiliary_-_a_case_study.asp


----------



## Satanic Mechanic (Feb 23, 2009)

Pat Kennedy said:


> MOD Navy when procuring equipment always used to go for the lowest bid. They would then discover that the cheapest equipment was not up to scratch and put the screws on the contractor to upgrade the kit. The contactor then responded with 'It will take time and money'
> As night follows day, huge cost overuns, very long delays, and equipment that was basically bodged ensued.
> I saw it time and again in Cammell Lairds, and the frustration at the 'lunatics from Bath' was very evident.
> We did get a small measure of revenge when the head MOD Navy wallah arrived at RFA Resource in drydock, parked his Rover on the crane tracks and went on board. The crane(driven by me) backed up and cut his car in half!
> ...


Having installed approx. 40km of high tensile small bore hydraulic pipe mostly in runs without joints in them they then :

A) made me cut them and put unions in for no apparent reason in several places including at the bottom of tanks
B) looked at the pipe and told me take it all out out as it was copper (you do get a patina with this pipe but it is not like copper)
C) Then refused to believe me that it was steel despite the fact that I had now stuck a magnet to it
D) ask me if I had considered the implications of a missile strike on my system - reply "No, but if I had I would have made the pipe runs without any joints in them"
E) having finally realised the folly of non essential unions - asked me to take them out and restore the system to how it was
F) Having realised just how stupid their previous request was they then seriously considered replacing all the lines again


----------



## Billieboy (May 18, 2009)

Satanic Mechanic said:


> Having installed approx. 40km of high tensile small bore hydraulic pipe mostly in runs without joints in them they then :
> 
> A) made me cut them and put unions in for no apparent reason in several places including at the bottom of tanks
> B) looked at the pipe and told me take it all out out as it was copper (you do get a patina with this pipe but it is not like copper)
> ...


Reminds me of a job I had to attend to on a new building refinery, some butterfly valves were suspected as leaking. Did a full paper check to see what was delivered and was due to be delivered. Arrived at the clerk of the works office on site, went to check the valves in question and found that they had not been fully closed, as was standard delivery procedure. 

Back at the Clerk's office, I asked how many spades and shovels were being purchased for the main Fire fighting system, as all the hydrant valves were hand lever operated and would be buried two meters below ground. I thought that the Clerk was going to have a heart attack. Solved the problem, (for a good price), without any delay in the building programme. (Thumb)


----------



## Pat Kennedy (Apr 14, 2007)

Lancastrian said:


> They are trying to mend their ways Pat. See this lot - http://www.ogc.gov.uk/gps_digest_the_royal_fleet_auxiliary_-_a_case_study.asp


Lancastrian, 
It is very impressive, and should have been implemented before now.
Part of the problem is government interference. Historically, the government of the day will use RFA refits to alleviate the effects of high unemployment in towns like Birkenhead. Very laudable, and does have a good effect, but inevitably has cost implications for MOD.
Pat(Smoke)


----------



## Ron Stringer (Mar 15, 2005)

Lancastrian said:


> ... we need to spend far more of the national cake on front line Defence and that money needs to come from other budgets.


I can understand why we need to spend money here on the NHS - the threat to the nation's welfare from the negative effects of injury and disease are clearly identifiable to the man in the street (me). But I really don't see who we are defending against when we spend money on nuclear submarines, aircraft carriers and the like. (That leaves out the matter of why we need to employ several Admirals/Vice-Admirals per vessel in the fleet). Who is going to attack us? What could they hope to gain (what do we have to take)?

Since 1945/46, we have not been attacked by anyone. The nearest we have come to that was for a minor assault on some islands in the South Atlantic, several thousand miles from here. *Nobody has attacked the UK*. Such attacks that have been made on the British public have all come from terrorist within the country -the IRA and the more recent London bombers. None of these problems were prevented by the presence of substantial military forces and containment was not by naval forces but by police (supported by infantrymen in the case of Northern Ireland). Resolution was (and continues to be) by negotiation and compromise.

So why do we require an Army, an Air Force and a Navy capable of operating freely in any part of the world, accompanied by the concomitant logistical support? 

What the armed forces *have* been used for in that time is to allow politicians, in this country and elsewhere, to enhance their personal egos and try to enforce their will (or that of their commercial sponsors) on the peoples of other countries. Without the armed forces, the politicians would have had to resolve their differences and achieve their aims by other, more peaceful methods. As a result, millions of civilians would not have been killed in the name of saving the world for democracy. 

I don't elect any MP to restore democracy to Afghanistan, Burma, Iraq, Iran, or any of the other members of the United Nations. I don't want the RAF to bomb people in mud huts in Iraq or anywhere else. Leave them alone to work out their own problems - we sure have plenty of our own that need the attention of the Government. By all means offer advice, give financial and technical support as far as we can. But don't go and kill them in order to improve their situation.

Those countries with the highest standards of living for *all* their citizens do not seem to need the large military forces that we seem to find essential. We are well down the league table for both standard of living and quality of life. Should we not be reviewing our political objectives rather than our military abilities?


----------



## Satanic Mechanic (Feb 23, 2009)

Can't disagree with a single word of that Ron. Quite why a very small country in the north west of europe insists on having an armed force so out of proportion to size and why it commits troops in the numbers it does baffles me.


----------



## joebuckham (Apr 1, 2005)

ron, a great post(Thumb)


----------



## macrae (May 11, 2006)

When I was young,this Britain was a wonderfully fair, fully employed rich, ( we still had our colonies to subsidise us) almost crime free country(A) , without the expensive,mismanaged NHS, ETC (if you were sick and poor...tough, life expectancy 40 odd ).

With secure? safe ? work, ( providing you worked the 45hr week and didnt expect much holidays or pensions or become ill (health and safety ..nil.)

SINCE THEN ITS BEEN ALL DOWN HILL!

(EEK) such an opinion would have nothing to do with me having reached that age of being a grumpy old codger.? ??

 Anyway our government members have been selected by us. 
The only power they have is what we give them.
Almost any one of us could have selected to be considered for election and try to alter our country.
However expect unending criticism regardless of what you do.
its goes with the occupation!

Personally speaking I consider it has got better and better compared to how it was, when I was young anyway(Thumb)

The real gripe I have,with our ancient form of democracy, is the power the inner cabinet has to force its will over the majority of elected members.
This power means that we can all be dragged into questionable wars,or any other unpopular decision without an honest explanation.

Government by the wishes of majority not by an all powerful cabinet


----------



## Lancastrian (Feb 8, 2006)

Ron Stringer said:


> Since 1945/46, we have not been attacked by anyone.



Ah the pacifists are emerging! Learn the lessons of history. If you are strong you are unlikely to be attacked. If you are weak, eventually you will be.
Whilst some of Tony's wars may have been unnecessary, the reason for retaining a substantial Navy are the same as ever - protection of the 90% of our trade which is seaborne.
We are not spending out of our league. See the world figures - http://wapedia.mobi/en/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures 
and particularly our position on the list of expenditure as a proportion of GDP.


----------



## Ron Stringer (Mar 15, 2005)

I lay no claims to pacifism. When sufficiently provoked I have readily (some say too readily) found it within me to respond with violence. (Having red hair and both Irish and Scottish blood in my ancestry are possibly contributing factors).

However, I am able to detect a difference between 

a) being strong and able to defend your self at home, and 

b) running around the world (usually with a bunch of mates, especially big, strong, mates) attacking those who are weaker than you, or who support different ideals than you, or who have something that you would like to own or gain access to.

My grandfather was a career soldier, my father was an infantryman for 6 years in WW2, during which time his brother was killed on active service in the RAF. I admire their actions, respect their motives and give thanks for the freedom that they and the other military men gave us. 

That debt of gratitude does not prevent me from judging the motives and actions of the current batch of political leaders with their ambitions to fashion the world in their image. Just as I would resent a foreign army arriving here to make us all follow communism, or Islam or some other different way of life than our traditional one, I understand why the people of other countries object to our troops arriving there to make them adopt our political and economic systems.

If we had things sewn up at home, with a total absence of poverty, no homeless people, no child abuse, proper care for the mentally and physically sick, full employment for those that wanted it, we would be able to claim that our approach was one to be admired. With the cohesion of our society having been heavily damaged over the past 50 years, with homeless people living rough on our streets, 5 million children living in poverty, many children leaving school illiterate, youngsters with no hope of getting employment, young couples with no hope of getting a home of their own, and the many other failures of our society, who are we to press our ways onto others? 

As one who (I believe) lived through the best period in our history, I benefitted from the changes in education that came about at the end of WW2, from the Welfare State introduced in 1948 and from the full employment of the 1960s/70s. I was already a home owner when the housing boom took off. My children were raised in comfort and on completion of their education, readily found jobs that they enjoyed and that provided for their needs. 

There are many things that I admire about the UK but, since Suez, our foreign policy and the use/misuse of our armed forces (ostensibly raised for the nation's defence) overseas are not amongst them.


----------



## ROBERT HENDERSON (Apr 11, 2008)

Like Ron I am not a pacifist, but agree with all Ron has posted. I can see the difference between defending our own country and wars based on lies and propaganda.
Google Pipeline Politics, there is a whole timetable of events leading up to the invasion of Afghanistan, which was being planned before 9/11.

Regards Robert


----------



## Lancastrian (Feb 8, 2006)

But defending our country cannot just be done on our own doorstep. World wide interests necessary to our survival also have to be defended.
You seem to overlook that for some forty odd years after 1945 , we were engaged in a Cold War which was eventually won by outspending the opposition.
The dubious activities of our present government do not negate the need for being prepared for any eventuality.


----------



## Pat Kennedy (Apr 14, 2007)

And yet, the Navy seems powerless to protect our citizens from pirates, even when the piracy takes place right under their nose.


----------



## Ron Stringer (Mar 15, 2005)

Lancastrian said:


> But defending our country cannot just be done on our own doorstep. World wide interests necessary to our survival also have to be defended.


But I don't understand how the 200 or so countries in the world (who presumably also have 'world wide interests' necessary for their survival) other than the USA and the UK, defend their interests without invading other peoples' territory. That suggests that there is at least one other way to promote and protect your interests, maybe more than one, rather than bombing foreign civilians.



Lancastrian said:


> You seem to overlook that for some forty odd years after 1945 , we were engaged in a Cold War which was eventually won by outspending the opposition.


I hardly think that the spending activities of the MoD brought the USSR/Eastern Bloc countries down - even though the cost over-runs in Whitehall may nearly have brought the UK taxpayer to his knees.



Lancastrian said:


> The dubious activities of our present government do not negate the need for being prepared for any eventuality.


Perhaps it might be considered more effective to engage in co-operation with our friends, and in diplomatic engagement and discussion with those less well-disposed to our ambitions, rather than to engage in an arms race and try to outspend everyone else. 

We shall see, in the next few years, as clearly this grossly-indebted country is not in any position to outspend any but the poorest. Any attempt to do so would result in significant reduction in standard of living for much of the population and the party in government would not survive.


----------



## Lancastrian (Feb 8, 2006)

Pat Kennedy said:


> And yet, the Navy seems powerless to protect our citizens from pirates, even when the piracy takes place right under their nose.


That's because Rules of Engagement are laid down by politicians.
And anyway only Special Forces could have sorted that situation.
The full story has yet to emerge.


----------



## Lancastrian (Feb 8, 2006)

Ron Stringer said:


> But I don't understand how the 200 or so countries in the world (who presumably also have 'world wide interests' necessary for their survival) other than the USA and the UK, defend their interests without invading other peoples' territory. That suggests that there is at least one other way to promote and protect your interests, maybe more than one, rather than bombing foreign civilians.


You are asking the wrong person on that one. Ask Tony and George W.



> I hardly think that the spending activities of the MoD brought the USSR/Eastern Bloc countries down - even though the cost over-runs in Whitehall may nearly have brought the UK taxpayer to his knees.


It was the attempt by the Soviet Union to match NATO spending which brought it down.




> Perhaps it might be considered more effective to engage in co-operation with our friends, and in diplomatic engagement and discussion with those less well-disposed to our ambitions, rather than to engage in an arms race and try to outspend everyone else.


Speak softly but carry a big stick.



> We shall see, in the next few years, as clearly this grossly-indebted country is not in any position to outspend any but the poorest. Any attempt to do so would result in significant reduction in standard of living for much of the population and the party in government would not survive.


That's the problem with democracy! [=P]


----------

