At the risk of being run out of town on my first post I have to take issue with the way that the MoD and Defence Chiefs spend their money. I accept wholly that the current situation of the government trying to run two wars on a finite defence budget is morally wrong, especially when servicemen and women are dying becuase of lack of appropriate kit, (I am especially ticked about the UOR's coming from the total budget). However surely the service chiefs and the MoD are bright enough to get a grip of what actually we need, where we are buying it from and how much we are spending. For example;
Why are the Navy getting two 65,000 ton carrier to fly short-ranged VTOL F-35's when the French have got a decently sized 40,000 ton carrier able to fly proven combat jets like the Rafaele or Super Hornet ? Why can't the two carriers be reduced by 1/3 and the money used to build another very useful LPH (another Ocean if we are going cheap or better something along the lines of the Tarawa Class.)
Why are we spending £££ billions on a totally unproven piece of technology (F-35), when the Super Hornet is sitting there, combat proven and about half the price ?
Why haven't the government cancelled Tranche 3 Typhoon and instead bought a decent CAS system which will cost far far less. Surely the geniuses at BAe can update and uprate the Hawk or the Harrier to provide cheap effective CAS.
Why is everyone so upset about FRES ? The RAF don't have the capacity to transport them in any numbers so they would have to go by sea anyway. Why not use the money and just buy loads of improved Warriors.
On the subject of the RAF, why won't they cancel the A400 and buy more Globemasters ?
And Finally why are we being flooded with new Blackhawks for the army ? Everyone knows the threat of IED's yet there is still a helicopter shortage.
I know that the DPA is incompetent and that the government don't really give a stuff, but surely it's time that the Chiefs of Staff got their acts together and made the government get them really useful stuff rather than shiney toys that look nice in the brochure ?
Why are the Navy getting two 65,000 ton carrier to fly short-ranged VTOL F-35's when the French have got a decently sized 40,000 ton carrier able to fly proven combat jets like the Rafaele or Super Hornet ? Why can't the two carriers be reduced by 1/3 and the money used to build another very useful LPH (another Ocean if we are going cheap or better something along the lines of the Tarawa Class.)
Why are we spending £££ billions on a totally unproven piece of technology (F-35), when the Super Hornet is sitting there, combat proven and about half the price ?
Why haven't the government cancelled Tranche 3 Typhoon and instead bought a decent CAS system which will cost far far less. Surely the geniuses at BAe can update and uprate the Hawk or the Harrier to provide cheap effective CAS.
Why is everyone so upset about FRES ? The RAF don't have the capacity to transport them in any numbers so they would have to go by sea anyway. Why not use the money and just buy loads of improved Warriors.
On the subject of the RAF, why won't they cancel the A400 and buy more Globemasters ?
And Finally why are we being flooded with new Blackhawks for the army ? Everyone knows the threat of IED's yet there is still a helicopter shortage.
I know that the DPA is incompetent and that the government don't really give a stuff, but surely it's time that the Chiefs of Staff got their acts together and made the government get them really useful stuff rather than shiney toys that look nice in the brochure ?
