RAF widow hits out at "cutbacks"

A brighter 2006.
I was going on what Jackson himself said on the Sunday AM program. He admitted he knew that not all of the equipment was in the right place, but I am sure he said that there were enough sets of body armour somewhere in Iraq. I think the guys doing the logistics did an amazing job in the circumstances. What saddened me the most, is that a British Army General was not prepared to demand more time to ensure his men had the equipment they needed. Sgt Roberts himself complained bitterly about the lack of equipment. His pleas fell on deaf ears and it cost him his life. I know Jackson had a glittering career but I have little respect for his failure to stand up for his boys. General Dannatt is a genuine leader. I think the politicians are too scared to sack him. They have seen here on ARRSE how much support he has. He has literally changed the course of British foreign policy, single handed. Pity he was not in charge at the beginning of GW2. He might have saved an awful lot of lives.
 
Two points:

Re: Nimrod
Irrespective of the figure on which 50% increase is based, with all the additional work that the Nimrods are doing, in places far from home, and far from ideal, ONLY 50% increase is a DISGRACE.

Sadly, it's all bean-counters know about - figures in columns, not real life difficulties and problems!

Re: Body armour
An aquaintance of mine (TA Grantham at the weekends, Armor Gp in Kuwait as the day job!!!) told me that they 'found' about 20,000 sets of UK pattern body armour - various parts thereof - (the missing sets???) in a wharehouse in Kuwait in the summer/autumn of '03. Finders made a tidy profit selling onto civvies going into Iraq through '04 and '05 - mostly US contractors!
 
SkiCarver said:
Is the lack of logistics, just another facet of the cut-backs endured by the army and air-force? Logistics is something which in peacetime must be kept at levels FAR in excess of those required so then when it is required during hostilities, it is available. Unfortunately, governments do not think like that. they simply see excess resources and get rid of them, with the predictable outcome during times of war.

It is standard teaching in all 'good' business schools to extoll the virtues of 'just-in-time' as 'good practice'. It 'saves' a sh!t-load of company money - depending on how your bean-counter cooks the book - and has thus become a very useful tool foistered upon government departments.
 
merkator said:
Two points:

Re: Nimrod
Irrespective of the figure on which 50% increase is based, with all the additional work that the Nimrods are doing, in places far from home, and far from ideal, ONLY 50% increase is a DISGRACE.

Sadly, it's all bean-counters know about - figures in columns, not real life difficulties and problems!

Re: Body armour
An aquaintance of mine (TA Grantham at the weekends, Armor Gp in Kuwait as the day job!!!) told me that they 'found' about 20,000 sets of UK pattern body armour - various parts thereof - (the missing sets???) in a wharehouse in Kuwait in the summer/autumn of '03. Finders made a tidy profit selling onto civvies going into Iraq through '04 and '05 - mostly US contractors!

I'd heard a similar anecdote a couple of years ago regarding the CBA. Unfortunately, March 2003 was the "in" season for CBA and for every General / MOD PR or Minister that denied that there was any kind of problem, there were countless British forces personnel without. I think the official report describes this as "some minor problems" - and if it takes from March 2003 to midway through TELIC 2 to locate the stuff - somebody should ask just how we track our assets.
 
ABrighter2006 said:
I'd heard a similar anecdote a couple of years ago regarding the CBA. Unfortunately, March 2003 was the "in" season for CBA and for every General / MOD PR or Minister that denied that there was any kind of problem, there were countless British forces personnel without. I think the official report describes this as "some minor problems" - and if it takes from March 2003 to midway through TELIC 2 to locate the stuff - somebody should ask just how we track our assets.

I'm not checking any facts as I write this, it's all from memory - so I'm prepared to be put right if someone cares.

I recall, one of the official statements made on the subject, at one of the official hearings, was that 'sufficiant body armour was "in theater" but had, regrettably, not been distributed prior to offensive operations ... blah blah ... but all commanders confirmed they were "ready" to proceed.' Get the gist?

My little anecdote, if true, proves said statements were factually correct but pragmatically irrelevant. A shipment of CBA 'lost' is no better than not having the shipment at all. Said spokesman, then or subsequently, failed to mention that although the bean-counters confirmed it was "in theater", they had no idea where "in theater" or any idea at all where!!!! In reality, they had a barcode reading of it being loaded at Marchwood and a barcode reading of it being unloaded in Kuwait. Ahhhh, technology. Don't you just love it?
 
Source BBC 16 Jan 2004

Sgt Steve Roberts was shot dead as he tried to quell a protest - a Ministry of Defence report showed a flak jacket could have saved his life.

The BBC's defence correspondent Paul Adams takes a closer look at the issues surrounding equipment supply in the armed forces.

Q: Is it usual for all soldiers to be issued with full body armour?

A: Enhanced Combat Body Armour (ECBA) is not currently standard personal issue, but there are some observers who believe it should be.

This would make it the personal responsibility of each soldier to ensure they are protected and should, in theory, avoid situations in which one set of soldiers is forced to hand over their jackets to another group.

The Ministry of Defence ordered adequate supplies of ECBA for the Iraq operation (Operation Telic) but the National Audit Office found in December that "insufficient numbers were distributed in theatre.

This was largely as a result of difficulties with "asset-tracking and distribution".

Asset tracking - military jargon for knowing where all your equipment is at any one time - has been identified as one of the major problems experienced by the military during the war in Iraq.

Q: Are UK soldiers frequently asked to give up their body armour, or other equipment, to colleagues?

A: Commanders on the ground have to make decisions based on a whole range of factors, including operational timetables and equipment available.

Shortages of ECBA meant that priority was given to "dismounted infantry", rather than tank crews.

Q: Is there any kind of defence that Geoff Hoon can mount against his critics?

A: Mr Hoon's defence is based on the fact that, by common consent, Operation Telic was a major success.

Independent confirmation of this is contained in the NAO report, which concluded that "personnel and equipment performed impressively", and described the huge logistics effort as a "success", despite problems with asset tracking.

Had the problems been as acute as critics have suggested, he might argue, then British forces might have suffered greater losses.

To date, the death of Sgt Roberts is the only casualty known to be linked to problems with equipment or supply.

There may be others, but no similar stories have yet emerged.

Q: What does this case mean in terms of the MoD's planning and stockpiling of equipment?

A: Despite the message of overall success, the tragedy of Sgt Roberts highlights a number of fundamental problems.

Senior military chiefs have admitted that the operation was threatened by the late arrival of equipment.

General Sir John Reith, the chief of joint operations, told the Defence Select Committee last year that "we came perilously close".

Critics argue that a policy of "just in time" (ordering equipment for specific operations, rather than the traditional stockpiling of stores, known as "just in case") means that problems of supply are inevitable.

Add to that the fact that, for political reasons, the key decisions about the operational budget were not taken until mid-December, and the breathless speed with which the Iraq operation was put together becomes apparent.

The Americans, meanwhile, had been building up their men and equipment for months.



You can blame Blair for a lot of this. He left the decision too late to get the kit distributed. Chiefs of staff should have demanded more time. It was their duty of care to do so. MoD did not have a leg to stand on with the tragic death of Sgt Roberts.
 
Hejjj. My memory's not so bad, is it?

Nigeglib - as the [i]Indipendant[/i] called him. said:
The Ministry of Defence ordered adequate supplies of ECBA for the Iraq operation (Operation Telic) but the National Audit Office found in December that "insufficient numbers were distributed in theatre.

This was largely as a result of difficulties with "asset-tracking and distribution".

Now, to your last point:

Nigegilb said:
Chiefs of staff should have demanded more time. It was their duty of care to do so.

They did. In private. And were ignored! They could have gone public, but then they would have had Blunkwitt's dog, Mendlesohn's boyfriend, Ruffkind and Portillious Pilot and god knows who else - probably Cherry's soothsayer too - criticising them for being unconstitutional, disloyal and heaven knows what else!!!!!!!
 
Merkator,
You hit the crunch point, these oily politicos, whose only interest is the pursuit and practice of power are missing the point that people like Dannatt and even the MoD have a duty of care to their people. This should override any issue with an imaginary constitution. All the politicos can see is their power diluting. Jackson could have refused but he did not. Dannatt chose a different path and for that many service people should be eternally grateful.

Nigeglib.....
 
merkator said:
...I recall, one of the official statements made on the subject, at one of the official hearings, was that 'sufficiant body armour was "in theater" but had, regrettably, not been distributed prior to offensive operations ... blah blah ... but all commanders confirmed they were "ready" to proceed.' Get the gist?

...if true, proves said statements were factually correct but pragmatically irrelevant. A shipment of CBA 'lost' is no better than not having the shipment at all. Said spokesman, then or subsequently, failed to mention that although the bean-counters confirmed it was "in theater", they had no idea where "in theater" or any idea at all where!!!! In reality, they had a barcode reading of it being loaded at Marchwood and a barcode reading of it being unloaded in Kuwait. Ahhhh, technology. Don't you just love it?

I think you are absolutely spot on with your observation and very much the way that I read it, on the ground.

One of the noticable comments in Feb / Mar 2003, and heard by everyone, "don't worry, you'll be issued it, when you get out there" - not only on CBA, but a whole raft of kit, which, if you were going to war, you'd need. So, everyone wastes time in Northern Q8 trying to locate stuff which they need before StartX, meanwhile Blair calls together his war-cabinet.

The commanders on the ground, knew what the problems were, but I've never seen a commander stand at the bird-table and say "Ah, no CBA, slight problem, as the soldiers were promised it." - Even I can understand that career limiting implications would be the result. So, what starts at the bottom with a silent reticence that "okay, we'll do without" ends up, with CGS going to the war cabinet and telling Tony that we're ready to go and find your (Saddam's) WMD.

In relation to Steve Roberts, the biggest favour he did everyone was to record his concerns onto audio tape. Without that tape, my guess is that his widow would still be fighting the MOD. Which makes me wonder, if next time our government sends it's forces to war, whether we'll expect a little more.
 
I sincerely hope that BAFF get theselves involved in minimum equipment requirements for ops. Insisting that eqquipment is provided for in a timely fashion. Should not be difficult to hammer out and no senior officer would have to sacrifice a career over equipment issues. :D
 
merkator said:
SkiCarver said:
Is the lack of logistics, just another facet of the cut-backs endured by the army and air-force? Logistics is something which in peacetime must be kept at levels FAR in excess of those required so then when it is required during hostilities, it is available. Unfortunately, governments do not think like that. they simply see excess resources and get rid of them, with the predictable outcome during times of war.

It is standard teaching in all 'good' business schools to extoll the virtues of 'just-in-time' as 'good practice'. It 'saves' a sh!t-load of company money - depending on how your bean-counter cooks the book - and has thus become a very useful tool foistered upon government departments.

The link in my original post pointed to this:-


SkiCarver said:
As a civvie engineer working in the UK automotive industry (yes it does still exist), I have experience of a number of useful way that industry saves money. E.g.:-

1. ‘Just In Time’ supply of parts to the vehicle assembly plant happens the day or even the hour that it is to be fitted to a vehicle. This minimises the financial outlay at all stages of the business and improves the profits of the company.
2. Having only the equipment you NEED. If equipment is not going to be fully utilised, then rent/lease it only when you need it. This minimises the financial outlay and allows that money to be spent on more important things. (Shareholders dividends.)

The most significant difference between the application of these principals to industry and to the army is when things go wrong. (Delayed shipment of parts e.g. car seats or body armour, or broken equipment e.g. panel press tool / sand damaged helicopters):-

Industry- If something goes wrong the production line stops, then the workers go for a cuppa and the company losses millions every hour. (bad for share value)
Army- Soldiers are put at risk. (Or even national security!)

To put it another way.

Question. How much ammunition* should the army have available?
Answer. Ideally, more that it could ever conceivably need to get it to the point where production ramps up. (Requires excess manufacturing capability)

*Substitute whatever item you NEED.

If you don’t have more than you could ever need, (which includes logistic capability) there will be shortages. However, as the MOD have a limited (very) budget, if, during peace time, they have to spend money on masses of spares and excess logistic capability, they cannot spend that money elsewhere, (Training, development of new equipment, troop numbers, etc.) something else would have to go. The whole MOD budget, as in industry, is a balancing act, trying to get the ‘biggest bang for your buck’. Unfortunately, there will ALWAYS be a compromise, which inevitably means there will be problems with the amount of equipment, getting it to where it needs to be and the time it takes to speed up production.

To summarise, equipment procurement and the supply industry should be efficient to keep cost down but THE ARMY SHOULD BE IN-EFFICIENT. The army should always have too much equipment and excess ‘stuff’ in stores. (But it’s all a balancing act.)

Reference the 'speaking up' about problems. The political 'balme' culture which is so poisonous in british industry is a top-down phenomenon. It must be led from the top that problems are highlighted regardless of who caused them or the political problems caused. It is a must for an efficient effective organiseation for people to be able to admit mistakes and problems, and they should be encouraged to do so. This government has a MASSIVELY short term view of 'don't ask, don't tell' about problems, as they can be politacally difficult.


Ski.
 

Sven

LE
ABrighter2006 said:
Brick said:
FABLONBIFFCHIT said:
It smacks of the sodier who had to hand over his Flakjacket and lost his life.

To be fair though from what I've read the guy was a RAC bloke and since there was a shortage of enhanced body armour he had to hand it back over for someone in the infantry, with a Challenger 2 being pretty much top of the line in regards to bullet proof protection seems fairly logical the infantry got first dibs compared to tank crews. Of course then he got out of the tank which is when he got shot in the chest.

Edit: Just to be clear I'm not trying to be disparaging to the guy and the sacrifice he made, just saying it wasn't as cut and dried as the press sometimes wrote it.


in_the_cheapseats said:
Brick,

Just remember why we plan. We do so to look at all contingencies, to take them into account and to mitigate risk.

To deploy to a war zone without body armour (when even the journos accept it as a must have) because some fool has dictated that we can always buy it "just enough, just in time", is idiotic whatever way you want to look at it.

Tankies need to get out of their wagons. When they deploy, they will not operate in a benign area nor a partially secure area. They are therefore subject to being shot at. Therefore they needed body armour to wear.

I don't see a problem with that logic - do you?

Article says that MOD have raised the expenditure in maintainance from £2m to 3m an aircraft per year. Anyone know how much additional flying these aircraft have done in the same time period?

If, as I suspect that the flight numbers and duration have gone up at least in proportion to the increased expenditure and there were crew worries that not enough money was being spent in the first place, the AVM's comment is invalid or to put it another way, simple spin.

Any of our RAF brethern able to comment?

I think we all get caught in same way on this, Sgt Roberts gave up his body armour,, because there wasn't enough in theatre to issue each soldier with his own set. We can all question the decision that was made, whereby Steve ended up without his CBA. The fact remains though, that shortages like these are bought about purely because the treasury is not releasing enough money to fund the basic equiping of our forces. We were thousands of sets of CBA short. But nobody was going to say that in March 2003, were they?

It's a simple risk calculation: Upside (soldier lives, doesn't get injured) minus Downside (soldier loses life, badly injured) equals regret. Now put a value against the soldier living, and put value against the regret (worst case) and some given scenarios in between. Now take the cost of ECBA, and multiply by the number of soldiers in theatre. Then work out whether the risk is one you're prepared to take. The UK Government has, it's conclusion is that it's cheaper to underequip and bear the losses, then it is to properly fund and equip our forces. You vote, you decide.

The outcry surrounding CGS's recent comments and the understandable voice from the ranks saying; "At last, somebody with authority, who is prepared to break this conspiracy of silence." My only surprise is that it hadn't happened previously.

If those in the know are of a different opinion, please correct me - but I thought that the whole thing about lack of ECBA in the run up to the war was all down to 'Just in Time' purchasing and therefore, since the oney came from the war chest and not MoD budget, not down to fiscal policies
 

Drago_Drake

Old-Salt
Sven said:
ABrighter2006 said:
Brick said:
FABLONBIFFCHIT said:
It smacks of the sodier who had to hand over his Flakjacket and lost his life.

To be fair though from what I've read the guy was a RAC bloke and since there was a shortage of enhanced body armour he had to hand it back over for someone in the infantry, with a Challenger 2 being pretty much top of the line in regards to bullet proof protection seems fairly logical the infantry got first dibs compared to tank crews. Of course then he got out of the tank which is when he got shot in the chest.

Edit: Just to be clear I'm not trying to be disparaging to the guy and the sacrifice he made, just saying it wasn't as cut and dried as the press sometimes wrote it.


in_the_cheapseats said:
Brick,

Just remember why we plan. We do so to look at all contingencies, to take them into account and to mitigate risk.

To deploy to a war zone without body armour (when even the journos accept it as a must have) because some fool has dictated that we can always buy it "just enough, just in time", is idiotic whatever way you want to look at it.

Tankies need to get out of their wagons. When they deploy, they will not operate in a benign area nor a partially secure area. They are therefore subject to being shot at. Therefore they needed body armour to wear.

I don't see a problem with that logic - do you?

Article says that MOD have raised the expenditure in maintainance from £2m to 3m an aircraft per year. Anyone know how much additional flying these aircraft have done in the same time period?

If, as I suspect that the flight numbers and duration have gone up at least in proportion to the increased expenditure and there were crew worries that not enough money was being spent in the first place, the AVM's comment is invalid or to put it another way, simple spin.

Any of our RAF brethern able to comment?

I think we all get caught in same way on this, Sgt Roberts gave up his body armour,, because there wasn't enough in theatre to issue each soldier with his own set. We can all question the decision that was made, whereby Steve ended up without his CBA. The fact remains though, that shortages like these are bought about purely because the treasury is not releasing enough money to fund the basic equiping of our forces. We were thousands of sets of CBA short. But nobody was going to say that in March 2003, were they?

It's a simple risk calculation: Upside (soldier lives, doesn't get injured) minus Downside (soldier loses life, badly injured) equals regret. Now put a value against the soldier living, and put value against the regret (worst case) and some given scenarios in between. Now take the cost of ECBA, and multiply by the number of soldiers in theatre. Then work out whether the risk is one you're prepared to take. The UK Government has, it's conclusion is that it's cheaper to underequip and bear the losses, then it is to properly fund and equip our forces. You vote, you decide.

The outcry surrounding CGS's recent comments and the understandable voice from the ranks saying; "At last, somebody with authority, who is prepared to break this conspiracy of silence." My only surprise is that it hadn't happened previously.

If those in the know are of a different opinion, please correct me - but I thought that the whole thing about lack of ECBA in the run up to the war was all down to 'Just in Time' purchasing and therefore, since the oney came from the war chest and not MoD budget, not down to fiscal policies

It's because of fiscal policy that they were forced to work on the concept of only procuring what was needed 'Just in Time'.
 
Hansard 25 Mar last year

Mr. Paul Tyler (North Cornwall) (LD): Following previous recess debates, the Deputy Leader of the House has been meticulous in obtaining answers to the questions that we have raised, even if some of those answers have been far from illuminating. He may recall that I have raised on several occasions the alarming case of Sergeant Steven Roberts, the first British casualty in the Iraq invasion, who came from Wadebridge in my constituency.

Today happens to be exactly the second anniversary of his avoidable, unnecessary and truly tragic death. Hon. Members may remember that Steve died because he had to give back his enhanced combat body armour—which, it is now accepted, would have saved his life—due to the Ministry of Defence's failure to ensure sufficient supply of that essential protection. All the evidence is that if he had been wearing the ECBA, he would still be alive today.

As I pointed out as long ago as the recess debate before Christmas in 2003—on 18 December 2003, at column 1753—the National Audit Office reported that no fewer than 200,000 sets of vital equipment had been "lost" by the MOD in the previous few years, and nothing had been done to remedy the discrepancy in the long months of preparation leading up to the Iraq war. I note in passing that today's report from the Select Committee on Defence points to yet more discrepancies and inadequacies in the preparations made by the Ministry of Defence both before and since the invasion.
 

Sven

LE
Drago_Drake said:
Sven said:
ABrighter2006 said:
Brick said:
FABLONBIFFCHIT said:
It smacks of the sodier who had to hand over his Flakjacket and lost his life.

To be fair though from what I've read the guy was a RAC bloke and since there was a shortage of enhanced body armour he had to hand it back over for someone in the infantry, with a Challenger 2 being pretty much top of the line in regards to bullet proof protection seems fairly logical the infantry got first dibs compared to tank crews. Of course then he got out of the tank which is when he got shot in the chest.

Edit: Just to be clear I'm not trying to be disparaging to the guy and the sacrifice he made, just saying it wasn't as cut and dried as the press sometimes wrote it.


in_the_cheapseats said:
Brick,

Just remember why we plan. We do so to look at all contingencies, to take them into account and to mitigate risk.

To deploy to a war zone without body armour (when even the journos accept it as a must have) because some fool has dictated that we can always buy it "just enough, just in time", is idiotic whatever way you want to look at it.

Tankies need to get out of their wagons. When they deploy, they will not operate in a benign area nor a partially secure area. They are therefore subject to being shot at. Therefore they needed body armour to wear.

I don't see a problem with that logic - do you?

Article says that MOD have raised the expenditure in maintainance from £2m to 3m an aircraft per year. Anyone know how much additional flying these aircraft have done in the same time period?

If, as I suspect that the flight numbers and duration have gone up at least in proportion to the increased expenditure and there were crew worries that not enough money was being spent in the first place, the AVM's comment is invalid or to put it another way, simple spin.

Any of our RAF brethern able to comment?

I think we all get caught in same way on this, Sgt Roberts gave up his body armour,, because there wasn't enough in theatre to issue each soldier with his own set. We can all question the decision that was made, whereby Steve ended up without his CBA. The fact remains though, that shortages like these are bought about purely because the treasury is not releasing enough money to fund the basic equiping of our forces. We were thousands of sets of CBA short. But nobody was going to say that in March 2003, were they?

It's a simple risk calculation: Upside (soldier lives, doesn't get injured) minus Downside (soldier loses life, badly injured) equals regret. Now put a value against the soldier living, and put value against the regret (worst case) and some given scenarios in between. Now take the cost of ECBA, and multiply by the number of soldiers in theatre. Then work out whether the risk is one you're prepared to take. The UK Government has, it's conclusion is that it's cheaper to underequip and bear the losses, then it is to properly fund and equip our forces. You vote, you decide.

The outcry surrounding CGS's recent comments and the understandable voice from the ranks saying; "At last, somebody with authority, who is prepared to break this conspiracy of silence." My only surprise is that it hadn't happened previously.

If those in the know are of a different opinion, please correct me - but I thought that the whole thing about lack of ECBA in the run up to the war was all down to 'Just in Time' purchasing and therefore, since the oney came from the war chest and not MoD budget, not down to fiscal policies

It's because of fiscal policy that they were forced to work on the concept of only procuring what was needed 'Just in Time'.

True, and therefore the Tories are to blame since they instigated the policy which made just in time necessary
 

Drago_Drake

Old-Salt
Sven said:
Drago_Drake said:
Sven said:
ABrighter2006 said:
Brick said:
FABLONBIFFCHIT said:
It smacks of the sodier who had to hand over his Flakjacket and lost his life.

To be fair though from what I've read the guy was a RAC bloke and since there was a shortage of enhanced body armour he had to hand it back over for someone in the infantry, with a Challenger 2 being pretty much top of the line in regards to bullet proof protection seems fairly logical the infantry got first dibs compared to tank crews. Of course then he got out of the tank which is when he got shot in the chest.

Edit: Just to be clear I'm not trying to be disparaging to the guy and the sacrifice he made, just saying it wasn't as cut and dried as the press sometimes wrote it.


in_the_cheapseats said:
Brick,

Just remember why we plan. We do so to look at all contingencies, to take them into account and to mitigate risk.

To deploy to a war zone without body armour (when even the journos accept it as a must have) because some fool has dictated that we can always buy it "just enough, just in time", is idiotic whatever way you want to look at it.

Tankies need to get out of their wagons. When they deploy, they will not operate in a benign area nor a partially secure area. They are therefore subject to being shot at. Therefore they needed body armour to wear.

I don't see a problem with that logic - do you?

Article says that MOD have raised the expenditure in maintainance from £2m to 3m an aircraft per year. Anyone know how much additional flying these aircraft have done in the same time period?

If, as I suspect that the flight numbers and duration have gone up at least in proportion to the increased expenditure and there were crew worries that not enough money was being spent in the first place, the AVM's comment is invalid or to put it another way, simple spin.

Any of our RAF brethern able to comment?

I think we all get caught in same way on this, Sgt Roberts gave up his body armour,, because there wasn't enough in theatre to issue each soldier with his own set. We can all question the decision that was made, whereby Steve ended up without his CBA. The fact remains though, that shortages like these are bought about purely because the treasury is not releasing enough money to fund the basic equiping of our forces. We were thousands of sets of CBA short. But nobody was going to say that in March 2003, were they?

It's a simple risk calculation: Upside (soldier lives, doesn't get injured) minus Downside (soldier loses life, badly injured) equals regret. Now put a value against the soldier living, and put value against the regret (worst case) and some given scenarios in between. Now take the cost of ECBA, and multiply by the number of soldiers in theatre. Then work out whether the risk is one you're prepared to take. The UK Government has, it's conclusion is that it's cheaper to underequip and bear the losses, then it is to properly fund and equip our forces. You vote, you decide.

The outcry surrounding CGS's recent comments and the understandable voice from the ranks saying; "At last, somebody with authority, who is prepared to break this conspiracy of silence." My only surprise is that it hadn't happened previously.

If those in the know are of a different opinion, please correct me - but I thought that the whole thing about lack of ECBA in the run up to the war was all down to 'Just in Time' purchasing and therefore, since the oney came from the war chest and not MoD budget, not down to fiscal policies

It's because of fiscal policy that they were forced to work on the concept of only procuring what was needed 'Just in Time'.

True, and therefore the Tories are to blame since they instigated the policy which made just in time necessary

And of course Labour is equally to blame for not repealing such a measure when starting wars, ... if we are assigning blame of course.
 
Sven said:
True, and therefore the Tories are to blame since they instigated the policy which made just in time necessary

Bullshit Sven, stop playing party politics with this issue, this is about men’s lives not your infatuation with New Labour.

Blair refused to order the equipment in good time so as not to alert his own party to the impending war. When the stuff was made the logistics were a disaster that should have resulted in prison sentences for theft and incompetance, not medals.

The fault is at the door of the MOD and the successive Govts who refused to reform it. And that includes your pin up boy who’s been in power for over nine years now.

The MOD needs gutting, not raised eyebrows in Parliament.
 

Sven

LE
armchair_jihad said:
Sven said:
True, and therefore the Tories are to blame since they instigated the policy which made just in time necessary

Bullshit Sven, stop playing party politics with this issue, this is about men’s lives not your infatuation with New Labour.

Blair refused to order the equipment in good time so as not to alert his own party to the impending war. When the stuff was made the logistics were a disaster that should have resulted in prison sentences for theft and incompetance, not medals.

The fault is at the door of the MOD and the successive Govts who refused to reform it. And that includes your pin up boy who’s been in power for over nine years now.

The MOD needs gutting, not raised eyebrows in Parliament.

If You look back, I wasn't the one who introduced party politics into this - I just got into the spirit of things - I have a funny feeling that if I put the blame at Blairs door You wouldn't have felt the need to castigate me. So, if You want to keep politics out of it - do so, but if You come out with Your usual "I blame Blair for everything including the Tsunami" type crap then expect to be responded to.

And incidentally - if Blair wanted to keep the war a secret, why did He spend four months trying to convince the UN to go to war.

My hero, by the way, doesn't do red mate :roll:
 
Top