US palms off Downgraded kit on UK

Discussion in 'Weapons, Equipment & Rations' started by AndyPipkin, Feb 23, 2006.

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. Exchange in PSC on DIS today, shamelessly plagiarised from RonO on Warships1.com:

    Mr Ferrero: I think there has been in the MoD in the last five years a concept that somehow or other ultimately we can buy technology from the world market, that in reality we are so close to the Americans politically that they will always sell us anything that we really need. I think that the MoD has now come to realise, through recent experience, that that is not actually true. Even to their closest ally, the Americans, are very restrictive on the way they transfer technology, and systems we have purchased from the Americans in the recent past have turned out to be the "export version" rather than the real version they are prepared to give to the Marines or the Army or the Air Force. That reality will have to guide everything that we do in terms of technology investment in the UK.

    ferrero is the head of Qinetiq so he should know of what he speaks.

    There's also a further exchange that made me laugh my asss off. There's been a study comparing spending by countries on defense against the resulting military capability. The UK claims to get great value for money by buying cheaper equipment from abroad rather than spending your tax money in the Uk with UK companies with a Uk workforce. Turns out that there's no measurable benfit in doing that. France which has exactly the opposite policy is just as efficient. Gordo gets it wrong again.
     
  2. Dont worry, the Septics think they have Chobham armour... ;)
     
  3. How has gordo got it wrong? Surely it's civil servants and the defence minister?

    Anyway, the whole idea is to create competition and drive down the price by accepting tenders from everywhere. Business is supported in the UK by other means, hopefully allowing them to tender a winning bid, rather than giving it straight out.

    Obviously it doesn't work perfectly, or at all. At the end of the day too many contracts are civvy when they should be kept in house, too many projects were joint projects with our countries as we couldn't afford the entire process ourselves, then it overruns and there are arguments and it costs just as much or more than doing it all ourselves from the start. Yet there are noticeable exceptions to the rule. I'd also remind you that chally 2, warrior, as90 and L118 are all home grown kit won through an open bidding process and have proved themselves.

    Basically we're a country obsessed with competition (handed down in part by the EU), yet BAE systems ends up doing almost everything anyway... and we pay for it!
     
  4. Well we could always ge the Kingo's to pinch a few of whatever we want and then our boffins could rip it apart and find out about all the goodies in it...innit! (couldn't resist!)

    T C
     
  5. And there I was innocently wandering what so many scousers were doing in the first Irish Pub in Eastern Europe before the wall came down :D
     

  6. Yea gods - "Efficient" ?? Anyone able to name one project where the kit arrived on time, in budget and did what the user had requested ??

    Nice to know the French are as INefficient as us.
     
  7. Cutaway

    Cutaway LE Reviewer


    :lol: :lol: :lol:

    How wrong can they be !





    The Russians have it...