Defence White Paper

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by Avre, Jul 20, 2004.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. The Secretary of State will explain in the House of Commons on Wednesday 21 July 2004, and through the publication of a White Paper on the same day, more details on the investment in and restructuring of defence activities following the outcome of the Spending Review.
    Defence White Paper: Delivering Security in a Changing World

    The Secretary of State is expected to make his announcement at around 1330
    :evil:

    Here we go again !!!!!!!!!!!!
     
  2. And be shamed / boo'd by 1331. :x
     
  3. Purple_Flash

    Purple_Flash War Hero Moderator

    Quick, call the OED! This is obviously a new and hiterto unknown use of the word "investment" which until now used to indicate putting money or resources into something. :evil:
     
  4. "investment" used to mean putting money or resources into something, with a view of improved subsequent retains...

    This Government have already re-defined it to mean any form of spending - now they are extending that re-definition to mean a reduction in spending too :roll:
     
  5. And go on Holiday as quick as a flash :evil: Prawn.
     
  6. X-Inf

    X-Inf War Hero Book Reviewer

    Did you not mean 'White Wash'? :(
     
  7. Goatman

    Goatman LE Book Reviewer

    The attached from FT......this administration as ever more concerned with media profile than with anything else, this announcement will only be made AFTER the bad news from the White Paper has appeared:

    NATIONAL NEWS: Truck company set to win £3bn MoD contract
    By John Griffiths, Motoring Editor
    Financial Times; Jul 20, 2004



    A contract worth up to £3bn for thousands of military trucks is to go to Wales, with the eventual creation of 1,000 jobs, senior Welsh industry and government officials believe. The contract is expected to be announced by Geoff Hoon, defence secretary, on Thursday as part of a long-delayed defence review.

    Officials close to the years-long tender process said yesterday they expected Mr Hoon to announce that the 30-year contract, to supply 8,500 trucks, back-up parts and support services, was being awarded to Oshkosh Truck Corporation, the US specialist truckmaker.

    Oshkosh has supplied 100 tank transporters to the Ministry of Defence from a small-scale manufacturing operation at Llantrisant in south Wales. It is also preparing to produce 348 articulated fuel and water tankers for the ministry under a separate, £176m contract awarded last year and which is creating 150 jobs. First deliveries are due in 2005.

    Geesink Norba, an Oshkosh subsidiary, also makes garbage trucks at Llantrisant.

    While Oshkosh is maintaining a discreet silence pending the announcement, it is understood to be planning to create a dedicated facility, also near Llantrisant, to undertake the latest contract.

    The 8,500 trucks are to be supplied over 10 years, with spares and other support to be provided for a further 20 years. First deliveries are due in 2006.

    Initially, the project is expected to create 500-600 jobs.

    However, the officials indicated that, although Oshkosh would import the trucks' engines, most other components would be sourced from UK-based component suppliers.

    "The aim will be to get local [UK] content as high as possible - so when you include suppliers several thousand extra jobs could be involved," said one.

    Other bidders for the contract included fellow US truckmaker Stewart and Stevenson, in alliance with UK light commercial vehicle makers LDV; DaimerChrysler and MAN of Austria.

    ------------ends--------------------------

    << Allez les gallois! Va-va-voom!>>

    Le Chevre
     
  8. Talk to real people and you will find that the tank transporters & trailers are crap. Whether its because of the MOD (DLO) constantly changing specs or no real long term evaluation, who knows. They are still crap.
     
  9. Crap they maybe but they are probably cheap.

    Thats the thing about procurement and short term positions.

    They want bang for buck, long term savings and efficiencies (relaibility and cost effectiveness) dont make them look good immeadiatly.

    Future problems (failures) are for future people to sort out.