Tuesday, 15 December 2009
We're going to buy 22 more Chinooks? I know Gordon wants to demonstrate how he "gets" Defence all of a sudden (Hey, is there an election coming up?) but why the hell are we buying these?
Lets assume that we need them. If that's the case, we need them now. We need to get more helicopters out to Afghanistan as soon as possible. Instead we're buying these and getting them delivered in 2013. We're planning to start withdrawal next year. By 2013 we'll have much fewer troops in theatre and will probably have enough SH (Support Helicopter) assets in theatre to keep them all happy. Well, reasonably happy anyway. But these will not arrive in time to make the Military situation any better, all they will do is make Gordon look politically better.
But do we actually need them? I don't think so. I believe that Gordon is making a political decision that just demonstrates his complete lack of understanding of how the military works. He has been told that we don't have enough Helicopters in Afghanistan, so has decided to buy some more. Whilst this seems logical at first blush, it isn't. We don't have enough helicopters in Afghanistan because we don't have enough helicopters, it's because we don't have enough crews.
I'm told that you need roughly 5 crews to operate any given Chinook properly. That's 10 trained and qualified pilots for each airframe. We have 262 trained Chinook pilots. That means we can fly about 26 helicopters. We currently have about 46 Chinooks, of which 8 are being converted from the failed Mark 3 standard. We don't have anywhere near enough pilots to even run our current number of Chinooks. These airframes will sit in a hanger for most of their lives, unless we spend a hell of a lot of money quickly training up more pilots. Just to run these additional helicopters, we'll need about another 220 pilots, nearly the same number as we've already got trained. Where will the money come from to double the number of Chinook pilots? Where will the money come from to double the number of engineers and mechanics?
So, they won't arrive early enough and we can't use them when we get them but are we at least going to get a decent deal. Recently I looked at the Canadian purchase of 15 Chinooks for $1.5Bn, with ~$2Bn of support costs for 25+ years.
We're looking to buy 22 Airframes for £1Bn, though the deal hasn't been done and I seriously doubt it will for that amount. The Canadians are paying £61m per airframe, or £143m with support costs. If we can get ours for the same price, we'll be looking to get 16 helicopters, or if we buy all 22, we'll be paying £1.35Bn, a mere 35% over what we're estimating now.
With support costs that rises to £3.15Bn, 315% more than we're estimating. And that's not including Pilots, Mechanics, Engineers, Loadies and the rest of the people we'll need to run them. They'll drive the price up even further.
So, to summarise, Gordon is buying something we won't get soon enough if we were able to use them, which we're not. And he's not even being honest about how much it's going to cost us.
Monday, 14 December 2009
So, it looks like Defence will be getting hit by ~£6Bn of cuts (more than an aircraft carrier). That's quite a lot of money. If only we had some other areas of spend that we cut first. Lets assume we have to continue to protect schools and hospitals. I'm just going to look at the spend commitments that most people will agree we don't need to be spending cash on.
Gordon has pledged £1.5Bn recently to combat climate change. Actually, what he means is that he wants to give this money to poor countries to help them deal with our post-
We could look at the Department for International Development, who in 2010 has a budget of £7.8Bn, up from £5.3Bn in 2008. From 2013 the government has pledged to increase the budget to 0.7% of Gross National Income, doubling from 2008 (so we're looking at the wrong side of £10Bn / year).
We could actually keep the budget where it was in 2008 (0.36% GNI) and use the £5Bn to help fill the hole in our defence budget.
Gordon has just returned from a trip to Afghanistan and there have been numerous stories recently about how he's finally "getting" Defence. Yet his plan is to cut Defence's budget by much the same amount he's raising our budget for international aid (Yes, the same aid that has sent roughly ~£1Bn to India, a country rich enough to launch their own rockets to the Moon).
Supporting poorer countries is important. But we can only afford to spank Billions around when the country is doing well. Surely the average person in the street would prefer Labour to focus on reducing the Debt (not just the deficit) and cutting the taxes that punish them for working than spending their money on other, increasingly rich countries?
Most of the £6Bn spent on Defence remains in this country, it flows from the government to the contractors then their workers, who spend it, boosting local and national economies and pay tax back to the government again. Can we say the same about International Aid?
How can Gordon justify boosting that budget whilst cutting Defence?
Friday, 11 December 2009
Our current Debt was about £600Bn in 2008. Labour are planning on increase the debt by £500Bn over this year and the next two. Almost doubling the debt burden and taking us to well over One Trillion Pounds of debt. That's a number so big, I'm not even sure what I could use as a nice easy point of comparison.
For the year 2008 we paid about £31Bn in debt repayments (just interest on the debt). We're basically suggesting that will double (due to more debt) taking us to about £60Bn each year. If our rating goes, this will get even more expensive to service.
Ignoring the problem of our falling ratings, we should look at the clearest problem Labour is inflicting on us. Essentially, thanks to their massive, unprecedented increase in debt, they have taken £30Bn out of the economy every year in the future. That would have been enough to pay for vitually the entire Defence Budget!
But when the ratings start to fall, then £60Bn of interest repayments will look like a glorious deal, instead we'll be paying a lot more. The next government will be forced to slash public spending, just to meet our repayments. Citi are saying that a Hung Parliament will lead almost inevitably to a down-rating. That parliament then won't be able to make the decisions needed to meet the new debt repayments, further down-rating, more problems.
Essentially, voters will have a choice at the next election. Vote Tory, or the country gets it!
Wednesday, 9 December 2009
Let's have a look at his headline, one-off tax on bankers' bonuses. This is estimated to raise £500m. That is estimated by Darling of course, the man who suggested in April that the economy would shrink 3.5%. Today he's decided that in fact he was wrong and the economy has shrunk by 4.75%, over a third more. In 2008 he said that borrowing in 2009 would rise to a massive £43Bn, so looks like he missed that estimate as well (In case you've been dead for the last year, we're now borrowing £178Bn this year, over four times as much as estimated).
Anyway, let's assume that he's right this time. £500m is some pretty serious money. Even Lewis Page would have to admit that it buys at least one Typhoon.
However, to be honest, it's small change. This year we're borrowing £178Bn, next year £176Bn and then £140Bn the year after. I wish I was joking. That's basically £500Bn in borrowings over three years.
Darling would have to run this new tax for 1,000 years to match 3 years of borrowing.
The Tax is ultimately pointless, as "discovering" "efficiency" savings of £3Bn. I'm increasingly starting to believe that Labour are engaging in a Scorched Earth strategy, deliberately destroying the economy just to spite the Tories.
Anyway, just for entertainment, let's take out £500Bn and see what we could be doing with the money, rather than our current attempts at propping up banks and throwing ever larger amounts of benefits.
The Apollo programme, which put 10 men on the Moon and was about the most gloriously expensive thing Mankind has attempted cost about $25Bn in 1969. That was a long time ago. The spectre of inflation has kicked in. We're now looking at that being worth $150Bn in 2009 money. That's less than £100Bn. We could buy five Apollo programmes for three years deficit!
The country could buy every share traded of the following companies:
British American Tobacco, Rio Tinto Group, BHP Billiton, BG Group, Tesco, Xstrata, Anglo American, Diageo, SABMiller, Unilever, Reckitt Benckiser, Imperial Tobacco Group, National Grid, Centrica, BAE Systems, Cadbury Plc, Scottish and Southern Energy, ENRC, BT Group, British Sky Broadcasting, Tullow Oil, Rolls-Royce Plc, Morrisons, Antofagasta, Compass Group, Associated British Foods, WPP Group, Pearson. I've avoided anything Financial, as we own enough of those anyway. At 3rd October prices, we could have all of those and still have about £10Bn left over. We could buy these 30 massive companies and also buy a crate of Champagne for every tax payer to celebrate!
If we could convert that to pennies, we'd have 178,000,000 Tonnes of the little bastards! Let's see the banks try bagging those up! If we melted them down, we've have a steel and copper cube over 5,000m along each axis.
We are not in "A position of strength". Labour are borrowing suicidal amounts of money. At least with the options presented above we'd have something to show for our investment, be that 50 people on the Moon (each group of 10 would start a new project up, using no data and knowledge from the previous one), the world's largest fleet of aircraft or a fun new modern art installation. After three years, Labour will have nothing to show for their staggering economic incompetence.
Monday, 7 December 2009
The Climate Change bandwagon is based on the logic that what we're experiencing now is unprecedented and therefore caused by human emissions. Historical records, unfortunately, disagree. There are many records of what's called the Medieval Warm Period. This was commonly accepted wisdom until the Hockey Stick graph appeared, showing that temperatures have been flat for two thousand years. The Medieval Warm Period was quickly accepted as being a figment of people's imaginations, along with the Mini Ice Age (remember those paintings of Snow Fayres on the Thames?).
The Hockey Stick graphs were based on a few proxies, that weren't actually linked to temperature. This is why the "Nature Trick" was important. It didn't hide the decline in temperatures, it hid that the proxies used to show temperature were flawed. They were unable to show recent warming and were therefore also unable to show historic temperatures.
Actually, a recent paper (by the Nature Trick man himself) has rediscovered what Historians knew all along. There was a Medieval Warm Period, although they're not calling it that. The Romans had Vineyards pretty far north in England, Greenland was actually bloody Green. There's some debate over how warm it was. Some sources suggest that it was about 0.5c (roughly the rise we've had since the 1940s) warmer than 1997 (itself one of the hottest years ever due to an excessive El Nino effect).
Interestingly, there wasn't a great deal of CO2 emissions back in those days, so clearly something else was causing both the warming and then the cooling over the previous years. Also, the whole world wasn't under metres of water, so catastrophic sea level rises seem unlikely as well.
Maybe climate just changes? Looking at a graph of temperature for the last 400,000 years we can see that the warm bits (where we like it) are actually pretty short, usually interspersed with much longer periods of serious cold. We can see several occasions when the temperature was higher than today and the majority of the time where it was a lot lower. However, the times when it was as warm, or warmer are pretty short, before the world slips back into a natty ice coat for another 80,000 years.
Just looking at that graph, I'd suggest that we really shouldn't be worrying too much about the world being 1.1 degrees hotter in 2100, but focusing more on the ice. It's worth remembering that we're not talking about a bit of frost. During the last ice age, there was an ice sheet 3-4km (yes, 3,000m thick) on the UK. We're still recovering from it as the rock in Scotland slowly elastically expands from the sheer compression this much Ice caused.
I don't know about you, but I think I can cope with 1 degree hotter temperatures much better than I could with watching civilisation scrapped off large chunks of the Northern hemisphere.
100 World Leaders are attending, from 192 countries. No, I've got no idea what happened to the 92 who aren't coming along. Maybe they figure that warmer temperatures will help their countries.
Still, these 100 leaders are so charismatic and competent that they require 15,000 delegates and officials to help them. That's a mere 150 per leader. And that's before we get to the 5,000 journos who will be "reporting the news".
So, roughly 20,000 people will be going, no doubt the vast majority will be flying in. Apparently the number of private jets and limos in Copenhagen are sky-rocketing as well, as leader after leader competes to show how hairy their shirt is.
The true reason for this conference is now starting to come out. There's a tiny note in that BBC article saying:
"At the deal's heart must be a settlement between the rich world and the developing world"
This conference has surprisingly little to do with Climate Change and a lot to do with moving money from "rich" countries to "poor" countries. The African Union are demanding billions of dollars and were threatening this morning to leave the conference if they don't get enough money. Indonesia is asking for "funds for forest conservation". Ecuador is looking to "get rich countries to pay $3.5 billion to keep 850 million barrels of its crude in the ground".
We are finally starting to see the effects of the fall of Communism, starting with the Berlin Wall falling just over 20 years ago. Simply, the Reds have become Greens. This international "money sharing" is exactly what they've been pushing for the last 50+ years. Now they've finally found a suitable tool to beat the Western democracies with.
Friday, 4 December 2009
"The six Type 45s will be the largest and most powerful destroyers ever operated by the Royal Navy. With the second of class now in the hands of the MOD, we are forging ahead to deliver an unparalleled air defence capability to the Royal Navy."
Well, largest is pretty much meaningless, Steel is cheap and Air is free. We could probably buy an old supertanker, stick a cannon on it and call it a Destroyer to get a "larger" vessel.
On that point, can anyone really see this ship performing Torpedo attacks on Enemy Ships of the Line? That's what a destroyer was originally supposed to do. Accurately, it's probably a cruiser, T45s are only 4m shorter than the Dido Class Anti-Air Cruisers and have a larger displacement. Actually, lets use the Dido Class as a point of comparison, they're built to do the same job and are about the same size.
The main armament on the Dido class was 10 5.25 inch, with 2 40mm Bofors and a couple of Vickers machine guns.
The main armament on the T45 is Sea Viper, with up to 48 missiles, 1 4.5 inch gun and 2 30mm Oerlikons.
The quote above talks about the T45 being the "most powerful". Well, at the moment, it doesn't appear that Sea Viper works.
So, what we have for our £1Bn is a ship that carries ten times less heavy weapons than a ship built before WWII. Sure, the Sea Viper System will work eventually, and I'm sure the C&C Capabilities of the T45 are excellent. In fact, they were even mentioned in the report:
"With the ability to integrate both land and air forces, HMS Dauntless truly is a joint asset and will carry out a wide range of operations, whilst remaining a highly effective air defence ship. Dauntless is a magnificent feat of engineering."
Wasn't the job of the T45 to guard the carriers we're now building? Won't they pretty much be in charge of integrating air operations? If Sea Viper is the answer to all our prayers, wouldn't it just have been cheaper and easier to put it on the carriers themselves? Afterall, they're going to have plenty of room, seeing as there won't be any planes on them.
I've no doubt that these ships will be excellent once they're up and running properly. I'm sure they'll do the job they're designed to do perfectly. I'm equally sure that they'll do the jobs they weren't designed to do pretty damn well, that's just what our Forces do.
However, I'm pissed off that we've gone from buying 12, to 8, to 6. I'm pissed off that the money isn't there to fit them out properly (Fitted for but not with Tomahawk, CIWS and god knows what else). I'm pissed off that we won't be able to export them to anyone, even we've not got the money to buy them. I'm pissed off that we didn't build something a quarter of the price, but with most of the capability and build more of them. I'm pissed off that we're spunking money on capabilities for them that probably won't be used.
The engineering and the equipment is no doubt top rate, the men and women on board will be equally so. But can't we sort out our procurement to get a bit more bang for our buck than one measly little popgun for £1Bn!
Tuesday, 1 December 2009
- Why the hell would anyone breed dangerous illegal breeds? (ignoring the obvious for dog-fighting answer)
- Why didn't the Police act when someone pointed out the whole "breeding illegal dogs" thing was going on? (too much like real crime?)
- What sort of parents send their kids off to a breeding home for illegal dogs? (I can't seriously believe they didn't know what was going on, who cares if it's your Mother's home, it's still fucking dangerous!)
- And finally: How the hell can it take days to work out if the Dog is illegal? It killed a small child, that's pretty much illegal behaviour in my book.
Why the hell has the government spent time and effort cataloguing the different types of dogs and deciding that Dog X is illegal and Dog Y is lovely. Wouldn't it just be far easier to identify illegal dogs by seeing if they do something illegal, like trying to eat a child?
What would they have done in this case if the dog had turned out to have enough Border-Collie genes to be legal? Just dismissed it as a tragic accident?
The breed of the dog should be irrelevant, it's the behaviour of the dog that should dictate whether there is a crime or not.
Monday, 30 November 2009
Find Osama Bin Laden, Gordon Brown urges Pakistan
Is the first reference GB has ever made to Bin Laden? I've not been able to find any but I certainly can't remember him talking about the chap in such direct terms before. Let's ignore for now the silly macho language of "taking out" (I assume he's suggesting assassination, rather than going on a date, but you never know) and see what he's talking about.
It appears that after several months of talking up the threat from "The Afghan/Pakistan Border Areas" Brown has noticed that we only have troops in the Afghanistan part of it. Well, about time the chaps on the other side pulled their weight! He presumably failed to notice the huge Pakistani offensive in the border regions some time ago.
Foreign Secretary David Miliband said Britain wanted Pakistan to "join us in upping our game" in tackling terrorism on its border with Afghanistan.
This is quite fun. We've just "upped our game" by sending an additional 500 troops out (at some point in the near future). Surely our partners in the T(he) W(ar) A(against) T(errorism) can step up and match our noble efforts? Well, for that recent offensive linked above the Pakistanis were able to mobilise 30,000 troops to fight the militants in the border areas.
How arrogant are this government that they believe that they are in a position to tell another country to "up their game" when the latter have thrown so much more effort at the problem?
Of course, this is not looking at the more general question of why do we want to be targeting the two leaders of Al-Qaeda in the first place? Luckily Gordon has some excellent points on that matter:
We want, after eight years, to see more progress in taking out these two people at the top of al-Qaeda, who have done so much damage and are clearly the brains behind many of the operations that have hit Britain"
Well, for over two of those eight years, Gordon Brown was our PM and if this was such a big deal, maybe he should have mentioned it somewhat sooner. Otherwise, he just sounds like someone flailing around for something to distract us all from the terrible situation we're in.
Still, lets ignore that and examine the quote more closely. I'll even assume that he knows something I don't about the volume of damage caused by these two men and just look at the last bit.
"Clearly the brains behind many of the operations that have hit Britain"
How many operations have "hit" Britain? Even including essential failures in the list, I can only think of three attacks that have actually "hit" Britain. The other 'attacks' I can think of don't actually seem to include any attacking.
- Tube/Bus Bombings Mk I
- Tube/Bus Bombings Mk II
- Car Squibs and Airport Ram Raiders
The last two didn't even do any real damage! The closest either 2 or 3 got to doing damage was setting themselves on fire and falling onto Smeaton's fist a few times.
Where are these "many" operations that "hit" Britain? Is Brown living in a fantasy bunker, with plaster falling from the ceiling as Terrorist bombs explode around him? The bloody IRA was a damn sight more effective than this!
The 7/7 bombing was horrific. It has been tentatively linked with Al-Qaeda. Khan apparently spent some time in Pakistan and an informant (who luckily claims to have been telling the truth) saw him at a training camp which itself was linked to Al-Qaeda.
Even assuming that attack was perfectly linked to Al-Qaeda, are we really supposed to believe that Bin Laden was sat in a cave in Pakistan discussing which Tube stations would make the best targets?
The point is that a well designed Terrorist network like Al-Qaeda is supposed to be will show almost no effect if you "take out" the person running it. Does anyone believe that any of the senior Al-Qaeda command structure has actually had a hand in anything outside of Pakistan recently?
Gordon is supposed to be an educated, intelligent man. He should certainly have educated, intelligent advisers. Why the sudden demand to kill an essentially valueless target? All he will achieve is pissing off one of the few countries who have actually been showing a position of strength to the militants.
Perhaps Gordon is slipping further into the traditional Fuhrer Bunker fantasy and has now started ordering around imaginary armies!
Whilst it'll still take some time to get the remaining 6 Merlins (assuming they've fixed the crashed one), it's good they're pushing ahead to get the ones in theatre up and running as soon as possible.
This does make me think that maybe they've worked so hard because more helicopters are so desperately needed, a fact understood by everyone except the government.
Friday, 27 November 2009
We've also had had a "hack" into the CRU computers (although there is a small amount of circumstantial evidence to suggest it was a leak) exposing a range of emails along with a few small chunks of code.
At the same time, we've had recent stories talking about the disaster that will befoul us all if we don't make some serious adjustments to our lifestyle (Yes, that last link does advocate killing 30% of our livestock).
And we've had stories showing how some of the datasets used to back up the "unprecedented" warming has been "Artificially Adjusted" from a flat line.
Recently we've found out that Copenhagen probably won't get a result, so smaller groups of countries are getting together to make their own deals (such as the Commonwealth plus a few other countries over this weekend).
OK, as far as I see it, there are several camps. On one side we've got a bunch of people saying that the science is settled and if we don't make major changes to our way of life now, we'll be in trouble later. On the other we have some people disputing the maths behind the science and suggesting that it may be an idea until we can get a much better idea of what's actually happening before we commit ourselves to what is likely to be an extremely costly plan. And there's the many people in the middle who don't really care, but appear to lean towards scepticism.
Assuming the science is settled, as we've been told (not least by the BBC who decided that because of this, there's no reason to give both parties equal billing) then pretty much anyone should be able to reproduce a serious chunk of the work themselves. I'm not suggesting that everyone should be able to produce a seriously complex model describing the entire climate ecosystem, but we should certainly be able to look at a graph of CO2 and temperature and see clearly and visibly how they are linked.
At the moment pretty much every climate graph you see is either extremely long term (i.e. using the now discredited sediment and tree-core data) or from 1971. The latter is to hide the cooling period from 1940-1970 where CO2 increased and global temperatures dropped. We should be allowed to see all the information and make our own minds up.
The reason why the CRU data is vitally important is because they are the guys and girls who produce the Global Temperatures, both for recent years and historically. They produce the most critical part of the whole climate modelling. If this isn't right, nothing else will be.
I don't actually think the emails that have emerged are that important, despite the focus placed on them by the mainstream media. Sure, there's some bad wording but quite frankly, I wouldn't like my 'private' work emails to be publicly released. I'm sure I have used language that wouldn't show myself, or my work in the best possible light. The appearance of avoiding the FOI requests looks bad, but quite frankly has little impact on whether they're doing the right thing, despite making it hard to reproduce their work.
I actually found the code they've used to produce their global temperatures and the comments inside it much more interesting. There's actually a great file called HARRY_READ_ME.txt which appears to be describing the work done by some poor researcher as he tries to reproduce previous results and understand where they came from. It's fairly clear that someone with access to all the people, code and datasets used to produce the 'official' global temperatures (which I believe are available for pretty much anyone to have a look at) is pretty much unable to understand where these came from, when you look at the original 'raw' data from temperature monitoring stations. It appears that similar 'tricks' to that used in the New Zealand example linked above are being used on a global basis.
Basically, the database of global temperatures appears to have been built by discarding data that disagrees with the theory and enhancing the status of the data that does agree.
Why does this matter? If we can't even be sure that the historic temperatures we're using to drive our climate models are right, then we certainly can't be sure that the results of those models (Latest I've seen is 6 degrees of warming at the end of the century) are actually right. Hell, surely if the science was settled, we'd only have one model which matched historic results perfectly and was able to make predictions about coming years, which then come true.
The models we're using to make political and economic decisions at Copenhagen can't do this. Even CRU researchers admit that they are unable to explain the current 'decline in temperatures' with their modelling. This doesn't mean that their conclusions of massive global warming are wrong, it just doesn't mean that we've "proved" anything yet.
To my mind, we need to be pretty bloody sure before we gamble our future.
Disclosure: I am not a climate scientist. I am all for energy efficiency and where economically viable we should be using renewable energy. For a start, have you seen the torque of electrically driven vehicles? Energy efficiency is common sense, crippling our economy is not. For those suggesting that environmental policies could be economically advantageous, have a look here.
Thursday, 26 November 2009
I'm even going to ignore the various exam fiascoes that have gone on under his watch and have a look at what he's been doing recently (aside from ignoring emails from his Tory counterpart). I'm actually only going to focus on what he's said about the budget for schools. Should be an area he can be pretty clear about.
He has just stated today that he wants schools to save £750m through cutting back on heating. I assume that is because he needs to reduce his budget just like every other government department. Afterall, every second in October the country became another £4k in debt.
Well, less than two weeks ago, shortly before the Queen's Speech, he was reported demanding an increase in his budget of £2.6Bn. Perhaps he's been persuaded since then of the need for cuts, explaining his most recent pronouncement.
However, in September he said that he was going to cut the school's budget by £2Bn. Mostly through cutting the numbers of headteachers and other senior staff. You know, the people who hold schools together and pretty much the only people in the entire business who are actually responsible for their school's performance.
Then again, in June, he was spouting off about he was going to increase the school budget. Now I'm getting really confused.
In the space of six months this man has said he will increase, then cut, then increase, then cut the school budget. There's probably even more I've not been able to find with a quick search online.
There's a reason why both government and opposition need to be honest about their plans. It means we can weigh up which is the lesser evil and decide who to vote for.
Is this the level of honesty that Labour think the British people deserve?
Wednesday, 25 November 2009
"US to withhold F-35 fighter software codes"
I was quite impressed a few years ago how the government made it pretty damn clear that the source codes to the software were required in order for us to continue with the F35 project. The Americans understood how important it was (afterall, we are a much higher tier partner than "Italy, the Netherlands, Turkey, Canada, Australia, Denmark and Norway" mentioned in the linked article). Well, a deal was done at the time and everything was happy.
However, less than three years later (which is of course nothing in terms of Defence programmes) the Americans have announced that they're going to screw us. It's clearly not enough for them to force us to buy American missiles to fire off the aircraft and charge us incredible amounts to have our missiles cleared for carriage on it (There was a fun rumour that the weapons bay is exactly a few mm less than needed to carry Meteor, just to make us buy more AMRAAM).
A few years back we bought eight Chinooks at great expense. We hadn't agreed as part of the contract that Boeing should give us access to the source codes (Does this sound familiar to anyone?). As a result they've been sitting in a hanger unable to fly since 2002. Afterall, it's not like we've got any need of helicopters at the moment...
This story shows how we then paid another £150m to down-grade the helicopters to the same spec as the rest in service with the RAF. At least they'll be doing something useful soon.
There is frequently a drive to buy into American procurement programmes in order to buy our kit. There's a lot of logic behind that with bulk discounts and similar economies of scale. However, it's clear that time and time again, stretching from the Quebec Agreement that where possible the Americans will do their best to fuck us over.
Well, what should we do about this? Simple. Cancel our F35 buy. Don't put it on hold, or "consider our options". Cancel it completely.
We are a Tier One partner in this project. We've helped design huge chunks of it. We've reinvented our concept of RVL to ensure that the B variant will actually bloody work. Fuck them, we won't need this aircraft for a hell of a long time, certainly long enough to procure something else if needed. Or in time, we return to the table with a far stronger negotiating position than our current one, which appears to be modeled on the girls in the kind of porn Harman wouldn't like.
It's about time this country sent a strong message about it's willingness to stand up to bullies, whether they're Somalian Pirates, or the world's largest Superpower.
Tuesday, 24 November 2009
Basically, Lloyds TSB are having a rights issue to raise money from existing shareholders. As the government owns a decent chunk of the shares another £5.7Bn of our money is heading into the black hole.
Well, I've thought of a new way of sizing this pile of cash. The new Osprey Assault Body Armour (and Mk 7 helmet) cost about £1,600 for each set (£16m contract for 10,000 sets).
So, with this particular bailout we could buy nearly 36 million sets of body armour, hilariously enough for every solider in Afghanistan to have one for every day of the year, with some left over for high days and holidays!
The military don't need as much cash as the banks are getting, but it would be nice if they could at least get the kit they need.
Monday, 23 November 2009
MoD spent £149m on tanks unfit for service
Shit! That's quite a lot of money. Sure, it's only 1.3% of October's debt, but still a decent slug of cash.
Anyway, we've clearly demonstrated that these particular journalists have minimal idea what they're talking about when it comes to Military Equipment.
However, that doesn't mean their article has no point. It is important that there is oversight of MoD spend, maybe this is a good example of it. Let's have a look at what the work done was.
Well, it looks like they're referring to work that was done to upgrade 900 of the rather venerable FV432 vehicles with newer engines and brakes. Some of the vehicles were also up-armoured to help out in Iraq. The contract was completed in 2006. It also sounds like this contract was completed in pretty good time. In my experience "9 months" from contract to delivery may in fact be a record for the MoD (and BAE come to think of it!).
In fact, BAE did such a good job (well, we'll assume so anyway) that they got another contract to upgrade 400 more FV430s. Well, £85m for the first, £70m for the second (It's actually worth noting the second contract costs slightly more per vehicle, but nothing too outrageous by MoD standards).
OK, so we've now found the money. All £155m of it. Ah, bugger, should probably throw in the extra £15m for support for the first 500 and we can assume another £12m for the last 400.
So, the MoD actually spent £182 upgrading and supporting these "tanks", not "£149m". Well, either the MoD is playing loose with FOIs again, or the Journos forgot to do any research. Actually, there's a third option where BAE were able to deliver for less than asked, but I think we can all agree that's unlikely!
So, we've shown that this story is riddled with inaccuracies. However, the general point may be absolutely right - that we can't use these vehicles in Afghanistan due to the lack of roads and excessive volume of IEDs. Well, these contracts were placed some time ago, when various people still believed that Afghanistan could be fought with old equipment (with small upgrades). Obviously with the current threat levels out there, these tin cans would provide nowhere near the protection needed.
OK, so we can't use them in theatre, so obviously all that money was wasted. And £182m could buy a decent chunk of two Chinooks, or something otherwise useful. We've spent something like £200k per vehicle to keep them running for another 15+ years, we've now got a useful and sensibly sized fleet of armoured vehicles for training and for some support roles.
Basically, what has happened is that we spent an extremely small pile of cash in buying something that proved to be bloody useful in one theatre but useless in Afghanistan. This piece of equipment may not be vital now (but I'll bet that the training is appreciated) but it will save lives in the future.
We will not always be in Afghanistan. These vehicles work in a lot of theatres, recently they were working in Iraq. We cannot judge every single piece of equipment on how good it is in Helmand!
Friday, 20 November 2009
Thursday, 19 November 2009
Anyway, another month another story about record debt.
£11.42Bn this time. This is apparently the highest since records began (The phrase "No shit?" rapidly comes to mind).
Well, I for one am starting to get a little bemused by the sheer scale of these figures that are bandied around with alarming regularity. Let's have a look and see how big £11.42Bn really is.
This equates to £370 million pounds every day, or over £4000 every second. Yes, that's right. Every six seconds the country is more in debt to the tune of the Median UK salary. Hell, every 46 seconds we take out enough debt to pay for Gordon Brown for a year.
£11.42Bn could buy us at today's prices 473 tonnes of gold (approx 20% of the total global gold production last year)
We could buy near 240 million barrels of oil, or roughly 20 days worth of the entire Saudi Oil production.
Stocks and Shares
We could buy over a third of Tesco, or a controlling share in Unilever. Or the whole of Cadbury, BT or Rolls-Royce (and probably still have plenty of change left over to through a decent party).
Well, it's one of my standard measures, so I'd best include it. £11.42Bn could buy us about 100 Chinook helicopters. It'd pay for a fleet of about 4 fully fitted out aircraft carriers. We could buy about ten Astute submarines.
With the current average house price, we could buy 57,100 of these, or enough to give one house to every two people in Cambridge.
Previous UK Debts
Just as a point of comparison, the debt in October 2008 was £130m. That was too much then, going up by nearly two orders of magnitude is utter insanity.
The amount we had to go cap-in-hand to the IMF for was £2.9Bn (in 1976 money). Now, unless my inflation estimates are way off, that's about £17Bn in current money.
Yes, that's right. Over the last two months Labour has borrowed much more money than we had to beg for last time they were in power.
Now here's a statement that you might find useful. Next year, when you're standing in the polling booth, every second that you spend making up your mind about where to put your cross, this government spends another £4000 of money the country doesn't have.
Wednesday, 18 November 2009
Mortgage approvals slump to record lows
Bank's Sentance says weak pound aggravating inflation pressures
The pound has weakened about 20%, this is inflation we'll soon be importing. Under whose stewardship did this happen? Again it was Labour.
You'd think they'd at least remove these depressing messages from their own broadcasts!
Tuesday, 17 November 2009
Just a quick thought:
- UK Troops in Afghanistan - 9,500
- US Troops in Afghanistan - 65,000
- UK deaths to date - 234
- US deaths to date- 920
I've assumed that both rotate troops into theatre at the same frequency and have been out there for the same time period (sure it's not exact, but it'll do).
The ratio between UK and US forces is 1:7 but the ratios of terminal casualties has been 1:4.
Does this seem right to you?
The one rule of Helicopter crashes, sorry "Hard Landings", is that you really really want the damn thing to stay upright. It looks like this fell over after hitting the ground, which is hardly ideal. Breaking both legs hardly sounds comfortable.
Still, good that our troops have been training hard in Hot, "High" and Dusty conditions and backs up this story nicely.
£43m has been spent in modifying these relatively new helicopters for the conditions in Afghanistan, including new blades. Well, this crash, sorry "Hard Landing", has blown one of those sets. Hope someone's got the insurance documents!
Still, you've got to be pleased that these are finally getting out to Afghanistan. Sure, this particular helicopter will take 8 weeks to be assembled in field (It might have been faster to just shift the Yeoville factory out there instead) and we're still only expecting six more airframes to go out there.
These 6 are an increase of 25% on the existing fleet, so using a combination of science and alchemy I can infer that there are currently 24 Helicopters in theatre, ranging from the few Chinooks we've got left that haven't been shot down (about 5) to a few Pumas and Sea Kings.
Excellent. Times have changed, we now have 30 helicopters in theatre, people have worked bloody hard to get this far (and I've got no doubt getting to this level has required superhuman performance on the part of everyone involved).
Another way of looking at this figure is to compare it to the total number of helicopters we own. Afterall, we can't be using all of them for training or Christmas Trees.
Well, according to the RAF, we have 48 Chinooks (of which 8 are the SAS versions and thus useless). Assuming we have written off the two we lost recently, we're still looking at 5 in theatre from a pool of 38. Do we really need to have 7 airframes sitting around somewhere just to keep 1 airframe useable?
We have 28 Merlins, 22 initial buy (which we seem to have lost somewhere) and 6 we bought recently off the Danish - does that number sound familiar to anyone?
Pumas: 33 in service vs. the few we've got out there.
The RAF actually has a pretty decently sized SH fleet. We should be able to provide a decent level of support to our men and women on the ground. However, we do not.
The reasons for this are almost certainly down to two factors. Training and Spare Parts. The first fuck-up lies firmly at the door of the service - they have focused on training pilots for FJ and not for the SH mission. The second is a clear symptom of the mismanagement at DE&S. We are unable to put this helicopters where they are because someone didn't negotiate the contract for support properly (Yes, I know they're flying more hours than expected, that just means whoever did the original estimate was a pillock).
This leads to the problem that everyone, including those at the MoD, has had to work to get this small number out to theatre with both hands tied behind their back. I'm impressed at the work done but seriously dismayed that it takes this much work to wind up a fleet of six airframes when we have over 100 available.
Monday, 16 November 2009
"Many adults failed to discover their talents in the classroom because they were made to feel like failures at school, research suggested.
Almost half (46%) of adults said they were regarded as average or poor students, according to a poll of more than 2,000 people."
Well, it certainly shows that whoever put the findings of this survey together is clearly well into the bottom half of the population.
There's lots of other stats pulled from the research which are almost uniformly pointless. Take a gander at this little sequence (and bear in mind I'm pulling these off their press release)
"The findings show that of the 5% who said they were regarded as poor students, more than half (56%) ended up hating school, and feeling less confident (49%).
Half (53%) said they felt their school gave up on them, the survey found."
For one point, this shows that 41% of respondents thought they were considered to be average and more spectacularly that 54% of respondents thought that they were considered to be good. Far from discovering that people have been browbeaten at school, more than you would expect thought they were treated well.
Anyway, moving on from rubbishing the entire premise of the survey, lets look at that poor 5%. Half ended up hating school and half felt that their school gave up on them. Well, no shit! Unsurprisingly if a child is refusing to turn up from school, being generally unhelpful to the teachers, sooner or later their infinite patience will run dry.
Then at the bottom of the press release, we find the real reason behind all of this
"The poll was commissioned to mark the premiere of the new film We Are The People We've Been Waiting For.
The film, inspired by Lord Puttnam, looks at whether the current education system gives young people the opportunity to develop their talents properly."
Well, I'd bet that the film already knows what the results should be "Schools should make everyone feel like they are precious little flowers, so they can build their full potential". The research merely demonstrates that's pretty much bollocks.
Some people are thick, some children are little shits whose parents don't back up the teachers when they attempt to discipline them. Schools are a place of learning, if you are bad, or unable to do that, you're not going to enjoy it. Children should not be able to choose whether or not they "buy in" to the concept of schools. They are their to learn. Sometimes they should just shut the fuck up and get on with it (and that goes for the parents as well).
Friday, 13 November 2009
Anyway, enough preamble. I've had a hunt around for an interesting Defence story today.
I found this story quite interesting. It's certainly a pretty damn clear example of how the UK isn't the only country that can't do procurement in a sensible manner.
This particular contract demonstrates lots of the age-old procurement problems, that affect all countries pretty much equally.
It shows how the cool, sexy stuff like new Ships, Fighter Jets and Missiles are fairly easy to procure. The boring, staid stuff that wins you wars like ISTAR, AAR and anything logistics based is mostly ignored and felt that it can be pushed to the right for as long as wanted. The US is using currently using Stratotankers. The last of these was delivered in 1965, making the youngest and shiniest of this fleet a mere 44 years old. Sure, they also fly a few of the bigger, newer (and presumably shinier) KC-10s, but these are nearly outnumbered 10-1 by the Stratotankers.
OK, so it's pretty clear that despite this being a pretty boring capability, it's increasingly becoming an urgently required piece of kit.
Most people reading this will probably know that this contract was already awarded back in 2008. The Northrop / Airbus system, offering lots of manufacturing done in the South of the US managed to fairly comprehensively beat the Boeing system, which offered lots of manufacturing in the North-West of the US.
Well, this throws up another universal law of procurement. You can't spend all your time thinking about which system is the best, you've got to weigh up the relevant work-share.
In this case there was another fun element. I'm sure you've already spotted the convenience of the timing of the last 'decision' and the relevant political leanings of the two areas chosen for each companies' work. Well, Boeing threw their toys out of the pram, The USAF responded (Screw You)in a surprisingly robust manner.
Rule: You can't rely on being based in the same country as the person making the decision, sometimes you'll be beaten by a cheaper foreign product.
Eventually the selection process was restarted. This was then stopped, by Gates, to give the incoming administration a chance to redesign the selection process however they wanted.
Another Rule: Politicians will always demand their say. They'll also make the whole process take too long and simultaneously be unable to make a decision.
Well, the contest has now been redesigned. The 800 requirements that existed before have been pared down. Now some aren't even mandatory. Whenever I wrote requirements, I made damn sure that you had to have a bloody good reason to bend any.
Let me pull a quote from that article: "Northrop has argued that the Air Force's decision to pare the requirements to 373 mandatory ones and 93 non-mandatory ones puts significant issues like the fuel offload rate for the airplanes on the same level with less serious issues like the water flow rate in on-board toilets."
We're now back exactly where we were earlier. Before Boeing were bitching about the USAF picking the bigger plane, now the other side are bitching about their strengths being ignored (at the same time I'm also ignoring the amusing story about how the USAF were basically expecting Boeing to offer a 777 derivative, rather than try and use this deal to keep the 767 production line open. Fuck me, by the time this is finished, we'll have 787 derivatives on offer!)
Rule: Stupidity is not confined to the Military
Sure, it would be fun to point and laugh at the Americans. Normally the saying goes "Fast, Cheap, Capable: Pick Two". However, as they've taken so much time to make this decision (and no doubt pissing more money up the wall in the process) they'll manage to get into a situation where they don't hit any of those basic points.
But there's no point laughing. Are our people and processes really any better?
Thursday, 12 November 2009
I particularly liked this quote from Trainee Logistician William Boyes
"It's quieter at night because you don't have the constant snoring of other people and we no longer have 24 people fighting for four washing machines, because there is one per eight."
Well, I can deal with some 17 year old kid making a fuck-up like that. But is someone being paid to push out pointless PR fluff like this and not being able to spot that 1 washing machine for 6 people is less people per machine than 1 washing machine for 8 people.
In other news Mrs Bercow is standing as a Labour MP at the next election. That's a fucking surprise. The only reason he was selected was to piss off the Tories before they got in, as he was clearly sliding left as far as his wife could take him. Sure the rules say he has to be impartial and say nothing about his wife. I wonder how well the Public sector would take things if the female CEO of Goldman Sachs was married to the head of the FSA?
Tuesday, 10 November 2009
- The Defence Budget is screwed. The Equipment plan is running far too hot (though it has been for some time).
- We've got the best part of 10,000 troops in Afghanistan. These guys are doing an incredibly difficult job and the lack of equipment suited for their task in that environment is getting them killed.
- The Royal Navy's size has been slashed since 1997, we've lost a third of our surface and subsurface combatants.
- The RAF haven't suffered as badly (to their eyes), losing ~1/5 of their fixed wing aircraft and gaining the important but catastrophically expensive Typhoon.
- The army want lots of soldiers, with plenty of support (helicopters, artillery, decent MRAPs to get them around, CAS)
- The RN want their two nice shiny carriers. They should also want enough planes to fly off them and enough escorts to both keep the carriers safe and being doing something else useful. (Admittedly, they don't care about the last two but I'm going to assume they stop caring about the carriers to the exclusion of all else)
- The RAF want lots of shiny fast aeroplanes they can use to show off to girls. They should also want a decent air-to-air refueling capability, plenty of logistics aircraft (C130s and up)
- The MoD wants a nice big civilian staff so the PPS at the top can feel like he's got more power
- Other things that would sure be useful: C4ISTAR in whatever form bloody works, Some form of nuclear deterrent (that actually does what it's supposed to), decent training budgets and enough fuel to keep everything running
Monday, 9 November 2009
The smooth talking chap and the strident angry woman (How is it that they always seem to have the same two people on no matter what the problem is?) were both agreeing with each other!
Whatever it was they were talking about must have been so fundamentally obvious that even these two diametrically opposed views were perfectly capable of agreeing. This had a chance of being interesting.
Part of this is due to the entertaining media coverage around this report (BBC: Tough love 'is good for children'. Guardian: How tough love breeds smart children). A habit of mine is to read the report and see if there are any interesting outcomes that don't make the media.
There's a nice graph (page 39) showing that the children bought up by their natural parents, who are married are twice as likely to be in the top quintile for "Child Outcomes" than those who have single parents. Amazingly (particularly with a sample size of 9,000 families, which means we can discount that as a reason) this ratio is even higher when comparing to married, step couples. There's a fun one conclusion from that - Divorce is bad for your kids, even worse is to shack up with someone else.
(Though it's worth noting, if you do get remarried, your kids are slightly less likely to end up in the bottom quintile. Swings and Roundabouts, right?)
I originally started this piece with the intention of either going on a lovely rant about how the media spin the results of serious research or how serious research is often mind-numbingly obvious and utterly pointless.
Well, I'm not going to do either of those. Sure the media have over simplified the report but they are journos afterall, and the report does seem to be obvious to anyone.
However, research like this is useful. It does serve a purpose. In a world of "Science backed Policy" (OK, OK, this lot are bad at it, but hopefully the next lot will be better!) we need evidence like this before we can make some decent policy.
This report makes two essential points.
- Bad Parents fuck up kids.
- Good Parenting is more important than wodges of cash, though the two are often correlated
Maybe people just shouldn't be allowed to breed until they're mentally, physically and economically capable of dealing with it?
Friday, 6 November 2009
Thursday, 5 November 2009
Today the BoW MPC has voted to increase QE to £200Bn (source). An increase of £25Bn (a mere 188 Chinooks then).
QE doesn't seem to be doing anything directly to help the economy. We're looking at at >3% fall in the GDP since it started. It doesn't seem to be doing anything to help the flow of credit (the vast majority seems to be locked into banks as capital). So why the hell are we extending it?
Well, every minute we're another £340k in debt.
Let me just check that figure, surely I've made a mistake in my calculations? Record borrowing in Sept was £14.8Bn (3 Aircraft Carriers). That's nearly £500m every single day. Fuck me!
That debt is going to be bloody expensive to pay off, even with our current AAA rating. If our rating falls, it'll get more expensive for us to get into debt. At the moment it's like we're borrowing on our authorised overdraft, if the rating falls, it'll be like borrowing off a credit card.
Up to now, the vast majority of QE has been spent buying government debt / gilts (I hear figures of 2% is spent on commercial paper, the rest UK gilts).
If the government are unable to sell their gilts, they'll have to expect their rating to fall. One of the mysteries of the last few months has been how we've managed to maintain a AAA rating when ramping debt up like a terminal cancer victim.
Simples. The BoE buys the debt, leaving a much smaller pie that has to be sold to real people. There's plenty of demand for the bits that are left, our debt rating stays high and the government can continue getting us into hock for the next three generations.
We're going to be completely fucked when the wheels come off. Bring on the election!
Wednesday, 4 November 2009
I assumed that because it had been the largest open petition for some time and the 10th largest of all time there would be a well thought out and rounded response.
Well, we've now got a response. What could possibly have taken two weeks to create?
"The Prime Minister is completely focussed [sic - 2 weeks and no spell check?] on restoring the economy, getting people back to work and improving standards in public services. As the Prime Minister has consistently said, he is determined to build a stronger, fairer, better Britain for all." from here.
Are they fucking serious? Since this petition was created (22nd May I think) the following things have happened:
GDP has fallen by 3.5% - so much for 'restoring the economy'.
Unemployment has increased by 650 thousand - getting people back to work?! I'll agree that there is some increase of the public sector, but this can't seriously be the game-plan.
I'll agree with the sentiment that we want a 'stronger, fairer and better Britain'. If this was really what Brown wanted, rather than clinging to power with his fingernails, he should bloody resign. Like we asked him to six months ago.
This leads me to ask: Why are house prices rising?
Tuesday, 3 November 2009
This link shows that the government has decided to dump another £39.2Bn into a couple of banks. That is a seriously staggering amount of money!
One of my pet habits is referring to large sums of government money in terms of things that are simpler to understand, such as Chinook helicopters, which are desperately needed by our troops in the sandpit. Looking at the recent Canadian deal, they were able to procure 15
brand new Chinooks (including 20+ years of support and maintenance) for $3.4Bn. We could have bought (and supported) 300 heavy lift helicopters for the 'price' of this single bank-bailout. (OK, OK, add on pilot and training costs and you're probably down to 100, but this would be a capability equivalent to anyone in the world).
I remember Brown standing up in the HoC talking about how the number of helicopters has increased by 60% in recent months. This was an increase of Chinooks from 5 to 8. Of this 8, 2 have been shot down recently, putting us nearly back where we started.
I understand fully the need for a liquid and sustainable banking sector, really I do. However, when Brown claims there is nothing more that can be done to help our troops, he has to be lying.
"A penny spent on defence is a penny wasted" - Gordon Brown