Daily Telegraph letter from Admiral Lambert Saturday 26.9.09

seaweed

LE
Book Reviewer
#1
I don't see a thread on this so thought I would put this on:
(http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/...of-poorly-equipped-troops-in-Afghanistan.html)

"SIR – I must respond to the suggestion in your report ("Armour so poor troops couldn't wear it", September 25) that our troops are being "sent to the slaughter" because they are not getting the protection they require.

"The top priority of the Ministry of Defence has always been to provide the best equipment for our people in Afghanistan. Service personnel do not have to "moonlight" to buy their own kit.

"Every single soldier, sailor and airmen who deploys to theatre is issued with a helmet and body armour, as well as a black bag, valued at £3,500, that contains all the other personal equipment they require – boots, clothing, goggles, sunglasses and ear protectors.

"To say that vital equipment is not reaching the front line ignores the fact that over the last three years, we have delivered equipment worth £10 billion.

"Our commanders have a variety of helicopters, protected patrol vehicles, unmanned aerial vehicles and other key equipment at their disposal.

Vice Admiral Paul Lambert
Deputy Chief of the Defence Staff (Capability)
London SW1"

So that's all right then.
 
#2
"Our commanders have a variety of helicopters, protected patrol vehicles, unmanned aerial vehicles and other key equipment at their disposal. "

Can ayone see the word "sufficient"?
 
#3
seaweed said:
SNIP...as well as a black bag, valued at £3,500...SNIP
That's one hell of an expensive bag...
 
#4
seaweed said:
"Every single soldier, sailor and airmen who deploys to theatre is issued with a helmet and body armour, as well as a black bag, valued at £3,500, that contains all the other personal equipment they require – boots, clothing, goggles, sunglasses and ear protectors.

Hmmmmm… nothing about it neccessarily being the best kit I note.
 
#5
seaweed said:
I don't see a thread on this so thought I would put this on:
(http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/...of-poorly-equipped-troops-in-Afghanistan.html)

"SIR – I must respond to the suggestion in your report ("Armour so poor troops couldn't wear it", September 25) that our troops are being "sent to the slaughter" because they are not getting the protection they require.

"The top priority of the Ministry of Defence has always been to provide the best equipment for our people in Afghanistan. Service personnel do not have to "moonlight" to buy their own kit.

"Every single soldier, sailor and airmen who deploys to theatre is issued with a helmet and body armour, as well as a black bag, valued at £3,500, that contains all the other personal equipment they require – boots, clothing, goggles, sunglasses and ear protectors.

"To say that vital equipment is not reaching the front line ignores the fact that over the last three years, we have delivered equipment worth £10 billion.

"Our commanders have a variety of helicopters, protected patrol vehicles, unmanned aerial vehicles and other key equipment at their disposal.

Vice Admiral Paul Lambert
Deputy Chief of the Defence Staff (Capability)
London SW1"

So that's all right then.
Wow, that's some black bag. Mine's rubbis and not worth more than £20.
 
#7
AlMiles said:
Oil_Slick said:
Hmmmmm… nothing about it neccessarily being the best kit I note.
That's because "best" is not "best value for money", which is what the Government says it buys.

Indeed; for 'best value for money' often read 'cheapest'.
 

Biped

LE
Book Reviewer
#9
I wonder if there's another Admiral's job up for grabs somewhere . . . .
 
#11
Oil_Slick said:
AlMiles said:
Oil_Slick said:
Hmmmmm… nothing about it neccessarily being the best kit I note.
That's because "best" is not "best value for money", which is what the Government says it buys.

Indeed; for 'best value for money' often read 'cheapest'.
So exactly what are you saying Slick - that Osprey is not up to scratch?

Or are you just wittering again :roll:
 
#12
Whet said:
Oil_Slick said:
AlMiles said:
Oil_Slick said:
Hmmmmm… nothing about it neccessarily being the best kit I note.
That's because "best" is not "best value for money", which is what the Government says it buys.

Indeed; for 'best value for money' often read 'cheapest'.
So exactly what are you saying Slick - that Osprey is not up to scratch?

Or are you just wittering again :roll:

Your not in the MOD, are you doley?

Please tell us of your first hand experience of MOD kit these days?
 

Bouillabaisse

LE
Book Reviewer
#13
This is in response to the telegraph article saying that soldiers were moonlighting to pay for kit and chrimbo presents and that it was partly their comments that caused the civil servant to leak the expenses papers. As Bravo_Baravo points out, nowhere does he say "sufficient" and nowhere does he say that soldiers don't have to moonlight to pay for christmas and other basics.

Lambert's a good bloke, defending his patch, probably under political instruction (he may have agreed to the letter but I bet he didn't actually write it).
 
#14
Whet said:
Oil_Slick said:
AlMiles said:
Oil_Slick said:
Hmmmmm… nothing about it neccessarily being the best kit I note.
That's because "best" is not "best value for money", which is what the Government says it buys.

Indeed; for 'best value for money' often read 'cheapest'.
So exactly what are you saying Slick - that Osprey is not up to scratch?

Or are you just wittering again :roll:
He said "often" not "always". Keep spinning Whet, one day you'll get it right.
 
#15
Oil_Slick said:
Whet said:
Oil_Slick said:
AlMiles said:
Oil_Slick said:
Hmmmmm… nothing about it neccessarily being the best kit I note.
That's because "best" is not "best value for money", which is what the Government says it buys.

Indeed; for 'best value for money' often read 'cheapest'.
So exactly what are you saying Slick - that Osprey is not up to scratch?

Or are you just wittering again :roll:

Your not in the MOD, are you doley?

Please tell us of your first hand experience of MOD kit these days?
You answer first Slick - are you saying it is rubbish? Come on justify your post.
 
#16
Whet said:
Oil_Slick said:
Whet said:
Oil_Slick said:
AlMiles said:
Oil_Slick said:
Hmmmmm… nothing about it neccessarily being the best kit I note.
That's because "best" is not "best value for money", which is what the Government says it buys.

Indeed; for 'best value for money' often read 'cheapest'.
So exactly what are you saying Slick - that Osprey is not up to scratch?

Or are you just wittering again :roll:

Your not in the MOD, are you doley?

Please tell us of your first hand experience of MOD kit these days?
You answer first Slick - are you saying it is rubbish? Come on justify your post.

Come on doley, what is your current first hand experience of MOD kit?

Do tell, and no, reading about it in Combat & Survival in Smiths while waiting to sign on doesn't count.
 
#17
I'm not current on most of the kit used by the forces nowadays. Which is why I asked about it when this article was first brought to attention.

So Slick, why are you calling the armour given out. IS it that bad?

Are the troops going out there with missing personal equipment as the Telegraph suggested?
 
#18
Whet said:
I'm not current on most of the kit used by the forces nowadays. Which is why I asked about it when this article was first brought to attention.

So Slick, why are you calling the armour given out. IS it that bad?

Are the troops going out there with missing personal equipment as the Telegraph suggested?
Without prejudice:

1326 posts in just under six months, you need to get out more mate ;-)
 
#19
Whet said:
I'm not current on most of the kit used by the forces nowadays. Which is why I asked about it when this article was first brought to attention.

So Slick, why are you calling the armour given out. IS it that bad?

Are the troops going out there with missing personal equipment as the Telegraph suggested?

Try harder Whet…

I said: Indeed; for 'best value for money' often read 'cheapest'.

Now, have you got a job yet doley?

8 years as a sponger is rather a long time!
 
#20
Oil_Slick said:
Whet said:
I'm not current on most of the kit used by the forces nowadays. Which is why I asked about it when this article was first brought to attention.

So Slick, why are you calling the armour given out. IS it that bad?

Are the troops going out there with missing personal equipment as the Telegraph suggested?

Try harder Whet…

I said: Indeed; for 'best value for money' often read 'cheapest'.

Now, have you got a job yet doley?

8 years as a sponger is rather a long time!
Funny that, I thought I was commenting on the "Hmmmmm… nothing about it neccessarily being the best kit I note.", despite the admiral saying "The top priority of the Ministry of Defence has always been to provide the best equipment for our people in Afghanistan."

So, since you are so keen on gainsaying the Admiral, why do you think the armour is not good enough?
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top