Air Chief Marshal Clive Loader passed over for top RAF job

#2
Why? What did he do? Linky needs fixing......
 
#4
Loader has served at PJHQ and has perhaps developed a view about what matters for Defence rather than what matters for the RAF. We NEED people (from all 3 Services) to take a Defence-wide view - we do not have enough resources to keep playing a childish game of 'my Service is more important than your Service'. We NEED people with Joint credentials at the top.
 
#5
Oh dear, that article was pure unmitigated drivel from start to finish. Its 1.5bn, not 1.5m, the article makes ill informed speculation on what may be cut, and ignores the fact that the Predator was bought from UOR funding and not from "Core funding" (main defence budget). Seems like someone is feeling a little bitter...
 
#6
jim30 said:
Oh dear, that article was pure unmitigated drivel from start to finish. Its 1.5bn, not 1.5m, the article makes ill informed speculation on what may be cut, and ignores the fact that the Predator was bought from UOR funding and not from "Core funding" (main defence budget). Seems like someone is feeling a little bitter...
jim re Predator - at what point does UOR switch to core funding? Appreciate your knowledge in these areas. From the "lay" perspective, am I alone in thinking that a project such as Predator being a UOR, as a bit strange?

Any clarification on definitions would be great - thanks in advance.

Good point from Fifth columnist regarding "defence wide view" - the "mesh" between the three services needs to be closer then ever.
 
#7
I saw the headline 'Loader passed over for top RAF job' and thought quite right too - those movements people are too far up themselves as it is.
 
#8
ABrighter2006 said:
jim30 said:
Oh dear, that article was pure unmitigated drivel from start to finish. Its 1.5bn, not 1.5m, the article makes ill informed speculation on what may be cut, and ignores the fact that the Predator was bought from UOR funding and not from "Core funding" (main defence budget). Seems like someone is feeling a little bitter...
jim re Predator - at what point does UOR switch to core funding? Appreciate your knowledge in these areas. From the "lay" perspective, am I alone in thinking that a project such as Predator being a UOR, as a bit strange?

Any clarification on definitions would be great - thanks in advance.

Good point from Fifth columnist regarding "defence wide view" - the "mesh" between the three services needs to be closer then ever.
The argument is "would we buy this equipment if we weren't deployed to this particular theatre?" I understand that we wouldn't have Predator, because our future UAV is Watchkeeper. Hence, Predator will remain a UOR with the Treasury funding it from the contingency pot. At least, AFAIK!

UORs are lifed; no more than 2 years, generally. If the equipment is so Gucci that we want to bring it into general service, then it has to go into the EP along with everything else, which means the through-life support costs must be identified, and the case for continuing service must be made. Great fun!

Litotes
 
#9
Litotes said:
ABrighter2006 said:
jim30 said:
Oh dear, that article was pure unmitigated drivel from start to finish. Its 1.5bn, not 1.5m, the article makes ill informed speculation on what may be cut, and ignores the fact that the Predator was bought from UOR funding and not from "Core funding" (main defence budget). Seems like someone is feeling a little bitter...
jim re Predator - at what point does UOR switch to core funding? Appreciate your knowledge in these areas. From the "lay" perspective, am I alone in thinking that a project such as Predator being a UOR, as a bit strange?

Any clarification on definitions would be great - thanks in advance.

Good point from Fifth columnist regarding "defence wide view" - the "mesh" between the three services needs to be closer then ever.
The argument is "would we buy this equipment if we weren't deployed to this particular theatre?" I understand that we wouldn't have Predator, because our future UAV is Watchkeeper. Hence, Predator will remain a UOR with the Treasury funding it from the contingency pot. At least, AFAIK!

UORs are lifed; no more than 2 years, generally. If the equipment is so Gucci that we want to bring it into general service, then it has to go into the EP along with everything else, which means the through-life support costs must be identified, and the case for continuing service must be made. Great fun!

Litotes
So, If I've got this right, we've possibly messed up the budget for Watchkeeper or will have to flog off the Predators as there's no money for them?
 
#10
Kitmarlowe said:
Litotes said:
ABrighter2006 said:
jim30 said:
Oh dear, that article was pure unmitigated drivel from start to finish. Its 1.5bn, not 1.5m, the article makes ill informed speculation on what may be cut, and ignores the fact that the Predator was bought from UOR funding and not from "Core funding" (main defence budget). Seems like someone is feeling a little bitter...
jim re Predator - at what point does UOR switch to core funding? Appreciate your knowledge in these areas. From the "lay" perspective, am I alone in thinking that a project such as Predator being a UOR, as a bit strange?

Any clarification on definitions would be great - thanks in advance.

Good point from Fifth columnist regarding "defence wide view" - the "mesh" between the three services needs to be closer then ever.
The argument is "would we buy this equipment if we weren't deployed to this particular theatre?" I understand that we wouldn't have Predator, because our future UAV is Watchkeeper. Hence, Predator will remain a UOR with the Treasury funding it from the contingency pot. At least, AFAIK!

UORs are lifed; no more than 2 years, generally. If the equipment is so Gucci that we want to bring it into general service, then it has to go into the EP along with everything else, which means the through-life support costs must be identified, and the case for continuing service must be made. Great fun!

Litotes
So, If I've got this right, we've possibly messed up the budget for Watchkeeper or will have to flog off the Predators as there's no money for them?
I couldn't possibly second guess the DECs....

AFAIK, Watchkeeper is on track but it's a big project and not due to deliver for a while yet (I recall that last summer they were sounding out the public about flying the beast at 20,000ft over Salisbury Plain).

When our Afghanistan venture finishes, the funding from the Treasury's contingency fund will cease and the Predators will be sold off as they are not a core equipment. (One could argue that the Treasury currently owns and runs them, not the MOD, but I doubt if the Treasury sees it that way)!

If, at that point, Watchkeeper had not delivered, and we were deployed at medium scale elsewhere (Iceland or France for example :twisted: ), the DEC would, no doubt, argue that they needed to retain/improve the capability.

Litotes
 
#11
"jim re Predator - at what point does UOR switch to core funding? Appreciate your knowledge in these areas. From the "lay" perspective, am I alone in thinking that a project such as Predator being a UOR, as a bit strange?"

There are two different funding streams - the Core plan, which is all the kit that we've identified that we need long term for the armed forces. UORs exist as a means of providing kit in a hurry to meet emerging requirements, or to respond to specific changes in theatre which need new kit. So far the system has worked reasonably well.

Our challenge is to work out what to do with the kit once the op is over - we can scrap it, send it to another theatre (if there is a need to do so) or send it to core. If we send it to core then we need to make room for it, often at the expense of something else. HMT is strict on this because it doesnt want the UOR fund to be seen as a "lots of new toys for the army fund" and then have to find a stack more money afterwards to keep it in service.

The problem we have at the moment is that our aspirations outweigh our money by a very significant amount indeed. We need to balance the programmes and that is proving to be painful!
 
#12
It is Air CHIEF Marshall actually and a bloody bloke he is too!

Clearly, the filth and I use such a word advisedly, who are in control of this country at present, were not prepared to have a 'straight talking truth teller' giving them grief.

The ultimate result of this disgraced and dishonest government's selection of men for the top, will be men and women at the bottom being killed!

There are some VERY senior men in the Forces who should be hanging their heads in shame for accepting appointments that are entirely POLITICALLY driven - shame!
 
#13
Hopefully he was passed over because he turned up at my unit a couple of weeks ago and lectured us on the importance of wearing our blue uniform wherever possible whilst wearing a flying suit himself. The chap struck me as being as out of touch as the rest of our senior leadership, but that's what happens when we refuse to promote anyone who can't fly above the rank of AVM.
 
#14
jim30 said:
...HMT is strict on this because it doesnt want the UOR fund to be seen as a "lots of new toys for the army fund" and then have to find a stack more money afterwards to keep it in service.

The problem we have at the moment is that our aspirations outweigh our money by a very significant amount indeed. We need to balance the programmes and that is proving to be painful!
Thanks jim30.

Have cut the quote to save space, and all points are good.

In relation to the "lots of new toys" / legacy support issue, my initial thoughts were that Predator was with us to stay, in the long term - hence my question about it being UOR. Can understand this for the initial project take-on, but still find it difficult to either see Predator being retired at the end of HERRICK.

As you're the man in the know jim30 - do you have figures to hand / direction to source, on what the UOR budget has been since HERRICK and TELIC commenced?

Cripes, I'm sounding more like a journalist everyday. 8O
 
#15
Agree its difficult to see it being retired, but the RAF will have to start thinking about how to pay for the capabiltiy when it hits core.

I don't have any figures to hand, but its usually a fair amount of cash floating round each year.
 
#17
ABrighter2006 said:
do you have figures to hand / direction to source, on what the UOR budget has been since HERRICK and TELIC commenced?
How much detail do you require?

Here's a very simple/brief starter.

Operations

The additional net costs incurred on operations (for example in Afghanistan and Iraq) are not paid for from the Defence Budget, but rather by the Treasury Reserve. Since 2001, the Reserve has provided an additional £9.5Bn on top of the Defence Budget to cover operational costs. This reflects over £3.6Bn that has been approved for Urgent Operational Requirements. This is a process designed to provide commanders on the ground with the equipment they need quickly.
Far greater detail available if requested, but need time to do a search on my HD and elsewhere.
 
#18
Err, the UK have NOT bought the MQ-1 Predator!!!!!!!

We have however bought the MQ-9 Reaper which is an entirely different UAV, and have RAF (and RN) personnel operating the Pred as part of 39 Sqn A Flt (formerly 1114 Flt). 39 Sqn B Flt fly the Reaper.

Edited to say 'oops, I meant to say 1115 Flt'!!
 
#19
Magic_Mushroom said:
Err, the UK have NOT bought the MQ-1 Predator!!!!!!!

We have however bought the MQ-9 Reaper which is an entirely different UAV, and have RAF (and RN) personnel operating the Pred as part of 39 Sqn A Flt (formerly 1114 Flt). 39 Sqn B Flt fly the Reaper.
Cheers MM - sorry to the original poster, seem to have drifted the thread slightly - feel free to split the UOR stuff into something else PTP.

MM / jim30 - what are your views on the life term of this UOR then?

whitecity - no panic, but if you have anything that drills down to where the money has been spent, I'd be curious.

Just out of interest, what approach does the HMT take to cost benefits analysis on UOR spend - is it a question of leaving it to the MOD to say whether it's money well spent, or does HMT carry out its own studies?

- Not spoiling for a fight, or stirring the shit, more just trying to make sense of how effective UOR projects are in the long term, and how the political budgeting works in reality - sorry, for the bone questions guys.

I'll go back and carry on testing now Sandra. :)
 
#20
AB2006 - the thread may deserve to be drifted from the story.

The idea that Torpy, a former CJO who has spent the last two and a bit years pushing the importance of air-land integration - and who's done so hand in glove with CGS on occasion (e.g. the strategy document pushed out as his first big thing when in post, or the large conference on air-land operations jointly sponsored by the two Chiefs which was held last year as but two examples), would veto someone for not being sufficiently single-service enough seems about as likely as reading that the Pope vetoed the appointment of a Cardinal because the candidate was just too anti-abortion.

I've heard the man speak on too many occasions, and with some force, about the importance of inter-service relationships for the idea that he's turned into some sort of light-blue, stuff-the-other services type to fail to compute with me.
 

Similar threads

New Posts

Latest Threads

Top