General Sir Patrick Sanders as Chief of the General Staff

[Danny_Dravot]

Why correctly?

No one has done anything illegal, but they have still be punished.

If people want to talk about a failing in values and standards, could they at least state where the Army has previously said soldiers cant have sex with willing females?
Unless of course, they haven't said anything of the sort and this is just someones personal opinion on morals.

They could look at where the Army has squandered billions on Ajax. Not illegal, but truly inefficient. Still, at least making bold statements and blanket punishments about values and standards keeps the heat off the bigger issues.

 

[Bobby_Bert]

Why correctly?

No one has done anything illegal, but they have still be punished.
.

Read Annex B to AGAI 67. You’ll notice that misconduct doesn’t have to be unlawful. It is possible for an incident to be lawful but still bring the Army into disrepute.

Your issue really isn’t about the law is it? Your issue is you don’t feel it is fair that a gang bang shared on social media has been assessed as unacceptable behaviour.

 

[stacker1]

Read Annex B to AGAI 67. You’ll notice that misconduct doesn’t have to be unlawful. It is possible for an incident to be lawful but still bring the Army into disrepute.

Is having group sex disreputable? If it is, is there a guideline what Sanders/the Army thinks is acceptable when it comes to sex?

Your issue really isn’t about the law is it? Your issue is you don’t feel it is fair that a gang bang shared on social media has been assessed as unacceptable behaviour.

Thats about the size of it, dont like gang bangs? Dont watch it.
Im not a fan of gay orgies, so I wouldnt bother viewing them. Yet some people seem to have watched the paras videos just to be outraged by it.

 

[stacker1]

I would take that up with the good General...who has throughout his career displayed all of the salient points of good leadership.

Yeah I remember him being a shining light for gay people, except when he overstepped the mark of course in his eagerness to show how trendy he is.

An Apology from Lt Gen Patrick Sanders…

An Apology from Lt Gen Patrick Sanders, Army LGBT Champion An Apology I enjoyed and learned a great deal from the LGBT Forum at RMAS earlier this week. The speakers were thought provoking, inspirin…

armylgbt.org.uk

I note 3PARA, credit to them, are not questioning the CGS's decision.

Not much they can do about it is there?

 

[Ritch]

Mod warning: Derailment of the thread to swing handbags ceaselessly isn't on. A couple of users are taking some time out from the thread.

 

[Ceser Romero]

Mod warning: Derailment of the thread to swing handbags ceaselessly isn't on. A couple of users are taking some time out from the thread.

Another thread stackerd.

Seems to be a theme here, perhaps a helpful set of directions to the poo poo thread may help.

 

[Bubbles_Barker]

The Treasury in this case is absolutely correct, unfortunately. £5.5 billion budgeted for AJAX, of which £3.5 billion has been spent, to deliver just over a dozen vehicles, none of which work, some of which permanently injure anyone who rides in them, and no-one knows what is wrong or how to fix it. With the remaining £2 billion they need to figure that out and produce nearly 600 more working vehicles and get them into service. There is simply no possibility this will happen. And this was entirely the Army's doing, this, WCSP, everything else, the Treasury knows fully well that any taxpayer's money it gives to the Army will be squandered and that none of the officers involved will ever be held accountable, they'll be promoted instead! Even the billions allocated for the estate have vanished and the accom is in a worst state than ever.

Complete reform at the top is needed, a complete change in culture to recognise that in the modern world "smiting the Queen's enemies" really means "delivering the Queen's procurement projects on time and on budget". Sanders I notice is not actually an Old Etonian, but he is the same sort, it will not happen under his leadership.

Well, that’s a nice simple description.

 

[Stonker]

There is a reason they aren’t considered qualified police officers by the Home Office…

I'm well aware of where they sit in the onion-ring diagram of police-and-associated-bodies in UK. It's on the outermost circumference.

Nor were the Home Office willing (in 1980s Transition To War planning) even to accord RMP troops the status of Special Constable.

That was (is?) very telling.

 

[Stonker]

The biggest change needed is an understanding that army does not = infantry.

. . . or any other single Arm, for that matter . . . .

 

[Bubbles_Barker]

. . . or any other single Arm, for that matter . . . .

Yes, but the Army’s problems aren’t caused by folks thinking Army = RA for example..

 

[Stonker]

Yes, but the Army’s problems aren’t caused by folks thinking Army = RA for example..

I'm not in disagreement, as well you know: my point being that allowing CapBadgeWars to distort the timely evolution of this nation's defence capability is insane, irrespective of which Arm might be predominant at any point in time.

 

[Sarastro]

They could look at where the Army has squandered billions on Ajax. Not illegal, but truly inefficient. Still, at least making bold statements and blanket punishments about values and standards keeps the heat off the bigger issues.

Although so far the story on AJAX doesn't seem to be a clear cut case of Army or Defence malfeasance. Despite the commercial sector boosterism beloved of some posters on here, a lot of the blame seems to fall on General Dynamics. Unless the traditional cry of "but the contract didn't specify this!" implies that all contracts need to specify every possible basic assumption of competent engineering, for example, "Ship will not sink", "Airplane will function in air", "Vehicle will not shake itself to pieces when moving", and several million more permutations.

The Defence parts of the project actually seem to have raised objections how and when they should. The Army elements suggest incompetent and absentee management - not a surprise to anyone familiar with our officer corps. But both of those are about identifying and managing problems, while ultimately the actual problems arise from the commercial side delivering a totally substandard product.

 

[Bubbles_Barker]

Although so far the story on AJAX doesn't seem to be a clear cut case of Army or Defence malfeasance. Despite the commercial sector boosterism beloved of some posters on here, a lot of the blame seems to fall on General Dynamics. Unless the traditional cry of "but the contract didn't specify this!" implies that all contracts need to specify every possible basic assumption of competent engineering, for example, "Ship will not sink", "Airplane will function in air", "Vehicle will not shake itself to pieces when moving", and several million more permutations.

The Defence parts of the project actually seem to have raised objections how and when they should. The Army elements suggest incompetent and absentee management - not a surprise to anyone familiar with our officer corps. But both of those are about identifying and managing problems, while ultimately the actual problems arise from the commercial side delivering a totally substandard product.

Perhaps worth remembering that CR2 failed its acceptance trials in 1994 and took a further 4 years to come into service yet we talk about it in hushed tones even now for its operational performance.

 

[Sarastro]

Perhaps worth remembering that CR2 failed its acceptance trials in 1994 and took a further 4 years to come into service yet we talk about it in hushed tones even now for its operational performance.

i.e. late and over budget, so that operational performance was still delivered late and over budget. Clear even in the best case scenario that will also apply to AJAX. Not sure those are headlines I'd chose if I were running either project, but when you have slim pickings...

Time will tell whether your comparison is correct, but given that a) four years late would have been last year, b) audit reports indicate numerous fundamental problems, and c) ministers are trailing cancellation, it's not a bet I would take.

 

[Bubbles_Barker]

i.e. late and over budget, so that operational performance was still delivered late and over budget. Clear even in the best case scenario that will also apply to AJAX. Not sure those are headlines I'd chose if I were running either project, but when you have slim pickings...

Time will tell whether your comparison is correct, but given that a) four years late would have been last year, b) audit reports indicate numerous fundamental problems, and c) ministers are trailing cancellation, it's not a bet I would take.

My point is not that it was a shining example of procurement success rather that even our best kit can have a difficult birth. See @Listy for details of similar projects.

 

[Alamo]

My point is not that it was a shining example of procurement success rather that even our best kit can have a difficult birth. See @Listy for details of similar projects.

Agreed, and most aircraft have a prolonged labour. But at least there’s an actual aircraft being developed. This project (in its various guises) had been running for years when I did procurement in 2008.

 

[delivering_capability]

Off topic from the original thread title but I think part of the problem with Ajax started when the Front Line Commands wrested greater control of procurement from DE&S a few years ago.

Talk about kids in a toy shop, shiny things being looked at galore and touched but very little professional procurement expertise or experience in the FLCs. I expect attention to the boring stuff like safety and/or vibration went a long way down the list, relative to shiny capability demos. Of course, the 'warfighter' knows better than a bunch of stupid loggies or vibration specialists right?

There have been some spectacularly bad procurement decisions made by the other services too, as a result of this change, but less well known than Ajax. Several from the light blue side, including at least three training projects.

I dont get the impression up coming procurements are any different, lots of drooling at shiny stuff, a scary level of procurement and project delivery experience and a 2 year posting cycle contributing to pie in the sky requirements and 'want that one' type approach. The latest trend seems to be trying to turn MOD into a tech company just in time for the second dot com bubble in both private and public markets.

DE&S has had its critics but it was effectively sidelined in a lot of this stuff and it is coming back to bite Defence.

 

[Bubbles_Barker]

Agreed, and most aircraft have a prolonged labour. But at least there’s an actual aircraft being developed. This project (in its various guises) had been running for years when I did procurement in 2008.

Oh I don't disagree - vying with Nimrod MRA4.

 

[Sarastro]

Off topic from the original thread title but I think part of the problem with Ajax started when the Front Line Commands wrested greater control of procurement from DE&S a few years ago.

Talk about kids in a toy shop, shiny things being looked at galore and touched but very little professional procurement expertise or experience in the FLCs. I expect attention to the boring stuff like safety and/or vibration went a long way down the list, relative to shiny capability demos. Of course, the 'warfighter' knows better than a bunch of stupid loggies or vibration specialists right?

There have been some spectacularly bad procurement decisions made by the other services too, as a result of this change, but less well known than Ajax. Several from the light blue side, including at least three training projects.

I dont get the impression up coming procurements are any different, lots of drooling at shiny stuff, a scary level of procurement and project delivery experience and a 2 year posting cycle contributing to pie in the sky requirements and 'want that one' type approach. The latest trend seems to be trying to turn MOD into a tech company just in time for the second dot com bubble in both private and public markets.

DE&S has had its critics but it was effectively sidelined in a lot of this stuff and it is coming back to bite Defence.

Agreed, and I think this was a totally predictable (and by some totally predicted) consequence of that decision. But that decision was always 100% a political one about pushing responsibility onto the Services as a long-term good, both in practical terms, de-centralised decision making, and political terms, insulating those in the MOD making the decision from responsibility. It was not about the short-term prospects of current projects.

The not-so-secret internal opinion was that exactly these kinds of project failures would force the Services to face up to their own complicity and responsibility for them, wherever that might lie.

 

[delivering_capability]

The not-so-secret internal opinion was that exactly these kinds of project failures would force the Services to face up to their own complicity and responsibility for them, wherever that might lie.

This is definitely happening with the Army and Ajax but I see very little evidence of learning from experience and it is definitely still amateur hour in terms of upcoming procurements.