The UK’s fleet of F-35 stealth fighters may be the most advanced combat aircraft the country has ever fielded, but a new report from Parliament’s Public Accounts Committee paints a troubling picture of delays, cost inflation, and deep-rooted management failures within the Ministry of Defence.
The report finds that while “the Department has procured the best fast jet it has ever had,” the UK’s F-35 programme is marred by capability shortfalls and workforce shortages. Of particular concern is the lack of a standoff weapon to strike ground targets from a safe distance, “not likely to be in place until the early 2030s.” The MoD’s chosen system, the Spear 3 missile, has been delayed by supplier issues and software development problems in the global F-35 programme.
The Committee also highlights “severe shortages” of key personnel, including engineers, cyber specialists, pilots, and instructors, which are limiting aircraft availability. Only “five out of sixteen flying instructor posts were filled in 2025,” it notes, warning that the shortage will take years to fix. The report adds that poor accommodation at RAF Marham, the F-35’s home base, is worsening retention: “The 2034 date for relatively simple service accommodation construction is very complacent and should be given greater priority.”
MPs express particular concern over the MoD’s plan to declare “Full Operating Capability” for the F-35 fleet this year, describing the decision as “based on subjective judgement” and dependent on temporary support from the US-led programme during the current Indo-Pacific carrier deployment. Aircraft availability is expected to fall once the carrier strike group returns.
Financial transparency also comes under scrutiny. The Committee says the MoD has consistently “failed to realistically appraise the programme’s whole-life cost.” Following a National Audit Office intervention earlier this year, the Department was forced to raise its estimate from £18 billion to £57 billion, but even that figure excludes “non-equipment costs such as personnel, fuel and infrastructure,” which the NAO places closer to £71 billion.
The report further questions the June 2025 decision to buy 12 F-35A aircraft, land-based variants capable of carrying nuclear weapons, alongside 15 additional F-35Bs. MPs note that “the Department has not provided any indication of forecast costs” for training, certification, or infrastructure needed to support the new nuclear role.
The Committee’s recommendations call for a “more robust and objective definition of Full Operating Capability,” faster investment in Marham’s accommodation, and a clear plan to ensure standoff strike capability before Spear 3’s delayed entry into service. It also urges the MoD to include all relevant costs, personnel, infrastructure, and fuel, in its long-term financial planning for the fleet.
The Public Accounts Committee’s full report, The UK’s F-35 Stealth Fighter Capability, offers a detailed assessment of how one of Britain’s most ambitious defence projects risks falling short of its potential. It can be read in full on Parliament’s website here.
Another total shambles. I do wonder about how much value the extra investment in defence will deliver. The MOD seems to be riddled with incompetence from top to bottom.
I agree, in many ways I think the business of being in the military is just too complicated now for the people running it. We expect officers many of who never even went to university and that are trained in field work to go on a run massive organisations with vast complicated budgets running science and engineering projects at the bleeding edge of technology the human race is capable of developing.
All that under the charge of one man with just one a level that left school at 18 and only gets two years in the job before retirement. He is overseen by a completely unqualified civilian minister appointed not on merit but political allegiance that has an average tenure of 19 months in the job since 2010.
I couldn’t agree more Jim,
The system was also largely ‘deskilled’ years ago as many civilian roles related to project management across the MoD were downgraded, in particular financial controllers who supported the project and portfolio managers. Needless to say the experienced folk will have left or retired and been replaced by people with insufficient training and knowledge to do the job that the MoD really needs to them to do.
So as you point out officers trained to fight get dropped into complex project management roles and the civilian specialists who would have supported them in the past are not there in sufficient numbers or the shills to cope with the volume or type of work… Result – shambles.
If the MoD delayed funding for Meteor and SPEAR 3 integration in 2018 as Robert says below, then we have really shot ourselves in the foot as well. As for poor housing at Marham, I’m speechless…
Depressing doesn’t cover it.
CR
General Melchett is available to run the MOD.
Its hard to believe all these goings on. Are people just not up to their jobs or what? Aren’t they qualified? Who’s overseeing these jokers? In the commercial world you’d be kicked out for all this mishandling. Sure things are complicated but they’ve had enough to practice and improve and its big money and key defence assets here? And seriously, fix the accommodation at Marham including any gaps in the security fence!
Looks like F35’s being “shot down” twice in a row now !!!
Should have bought F18’s 😁
Or even created a Carrier verson of the typhoon ( I went there) ..now leg it….
Ahh, the mythical “Navalised Typhoon” or “Sea Typhoon” I’m hoping for a “Sea Tempest” of “Tempest of the Seas”.
“Tempest of the Seas” Trumps, Trumps “Trumpest”.
“Unleash the Tempest” as opposed to (With latest Accidents in mind) “Dump the Trump”.
I think I could go on and on and on and on and well, on for a long time with this particular Train of thought.
“Tempest of the Seas” sounds bloody good dunnit ?
I vote for tempest of the seas.. sounds like a really good book I once read about the rise and fall of British maritime power ( sovereign of the seas.. good book you should read it went your not trying to do yourself an injury on a bike).. dump the strumpet 😂😂😂
After spending £7b on carriers and £9m on carriers, we have little more than a token force. Mission capability rates are woeful, support costs high and not falling.and the pace of software upgrades to allow integration of UK weapons.is shockingly slow.
For carrier operation, we have no easy alternative. For all other roles we do- Typhoon.
So cancel planned F35A purchase
Transfer F35A to RN
Order at least 60 new Typhoons to restore lost land based combat air capacity.
what is the RN going to do with F35A? They need B, (or maybe C if they decide to retrofit EMALS/AAG on the carriers)
agree that Typhoon should be on order. 107 is too small a fleet.
also Typhoon is finally getting some love, with ECRS mk2 radar, and EW pods (Germany in cooperation with Saab). maybe some wingman in the future as well as new weapons (antiship, SEAD/DEAD, etc…) which will further enhance the missions it can accomplish.
Tempest won’t be in service for some time (not in enough numbers at first), so Typhoon should still have many years of usefull service.
Sorry meant F35B. We have zero need to buy F35A
thx, i was confused since in one line you say cancel, in the other you say transfer
Isn’t the F35A being purchased to provide the UK with a nuclear gravity bomb capability? The F35B has not been certified for this. So it does have a valid purpose.
Except we don’t have any nuclear gravity bombs of our own to drop.
If you read the report. Its not the aircraft or it’s capability that’s the problem. Its the bad management to supply pilots/engineers/support facilities and infrastructure that’s the problem. Cost cutting in 2018 by the MOD has had the biggest impact on delivering Meteor and Spear 3, not LM. We had the ability to jump the weapons integration que, until the funding was pulled for in year savings. And ordering 60 Typhoons would cost 15+ billion. Where does that money come from
Fair comment. We made things harder than they needed to be; a common occurrence. But we are where we are. Short term F-35B will have to make do with the very acceptable ASRAAM and AMRAAM and I would agree we should buy the US glide bomb, whatever it’s called these days.
I see we have just signed a new defence agreement with Oman. What is that about; buy back of Typhoons and Challenger 2?
👍
Morning mate, its difficult isn’t it…
One of the issues we face is the F35B is an extraordinarily complex and maintenance intensive aircraft.
While the software aspect and weapon options will mature, you can’t do anything about its excessive mechanical complexity.
If we wish to have the same effect as a regular squadron, we are going to have to increase the aircraft allocation on the carriers.
I wonder how many of say 24 aircraft embarked on a QE Class, would remain airworthy after 2 weeks at a full operational tempo, engaged in a potential high end war, as part of an international coalition in say Iran, or the Korean peninsula etc, etc.
We are going to need that third operational squadron, thats for sure.
Afternoon mate.
The A saves them money, that was another factor, even though HMG trumpets it as an improvement.
They won’t u turn I’m sure, unlike benefits.
So 62 B it is.
I agree, not worth buying, and waiting until early 2030’s, for only 12 F-35A’s!
How about the RAF develops a new aircraft, for close combat air support, like the former Jaguar, or even further development of a drone GR Harrier?
The F-35As were not worth buying militarily, but since when is nuclear a military decision?
The nuclear aspect of F35A is a bit of a red herring in my opinion.
It’s the RAF tilting the table to get the F35A into the inventory and start building an A fleet.
T-50s for Hawk replacement?
I can’t read !!!
Seriously though, I do read comics, and a few Bike Mags !
Bikes are fun, even today in the Wind with rain on It’s way, I’m sat in the Garage playing with my nuts. Ordered a Spanner to undo the old Axle Nut and realised the new nut was a different head size so waiting for a new Spanner from Amazon !
This latest “Busa” is having a light refurb with losts of shiny Titanium bits and a few new Trick bits, removing the rather anoying top speed restriction too, can’t possibly live with a restricted bike !
#200mphclub
Im near it with my RS6 performance thats de restricted and mapped. 190mph dont think it would hit 200mph my wifes Gallardo wouldn’t be far away either.
Beggers belief.
Wrong aircraft, but not something that can be admitted.
cannot
You were right the first time
Rubbish
Smacks a bit like Sunak just signing up for boxer 155m guns out of the blue!did Starmer actually ask the RAF about A’s before he signed up for them?
As for the accommodation at Marham no money for that but don’t be at all surprised if the refurbishment of the barracks for the illegals comes out of the defence budget because it’s MOD property!
Starmer would not know an F35A from a Fairey Swordfish, let alone an F35B 🙄.
Scrap F35A – buy something useful and European.
With the small buy from Turkey and the lack of any other orders to keep Wharton in business, not to mention the never ending failure of Lockheed Martin to deliver, it seems clear that the UK must double down on Typhoon.
Even a large order of F35A won’t arrive much before the first delivers of Tempest now.
Given the cost of putting AESA radar on 40 tranche 3 aircraft (£54million each) its best to forget the upgrades and just start rolling with a buy for new tranche 5 airframes.
Typhoon tranche 5 with the new ECM suite and AESA radar is easily able to counter anything Russia has in the air and on the ground and the FC/ASW and meteor will keep it relevant for decades, we know how to use them, maintain them and train pilots on them. Typhoon is the perfect aircraft for European defence and 48F35B gives us a potent expeditionary force.
Totally agree. Skip F-35A and go all in on GCAP. For the foreseeable we’ll need the Bravos for the carriers, so that should be their primary reason, and filling in the stealth/fusion role as an interim for the RAF until GCAP.
Totally agree
A brand new Typhoon will easy cost £100m each! It’s still cheaper to do the upgrades. Tranche 3s have still got a lot of airframe life left.
Forfget the idea of ordering more F35’s of either type and run them with the carriers and order another 30 (?) Typhoons and then plough on with Tempest.
Shambolic. Said it before, I know guys have quit the RAF because they do not want to be sailors. Weapons fit make this a joke for a 5th gen airframe. Of course it is typical of UK procurement, political posturing and MoD incompetence abound with everything.
Sell the bloody carriers and aircraft to India and have done with it. Then either more Typhoons or Gripen E, concentrate on Northern Europe. More submarines, more frigates and equip an army for Nato service.
Rant over, feel free to bite 🙂
Love and hugs
Light Infantry
To focus on Northern Europe is probably right but the North Atlantic is still going to need protected! That’s where our carriers come in we focus there that frees up American carriers to be elsewhere doing the pacific etc.
What’s the obsession with selling the carriers to India? They don’t want them. They definitely don’t want the F-35Bs either.
Yeah, that’s a pretty ridiculous statement.
I am not convinced that the ‘long range’ stand off strike weapon envisaged ie Spear 3 is actually going to be able to do the job when it is finally incorporated, it’s basically assuming the F-35 will remain impervious to defensive measures, which by the early thirties is optimistic at best, certainly for the ranges that Spear 3 can operate at. Is there any reasonable expectation a longer range weapon might be possible on the B, even if a US alternative. Concerned about what seems over confidence entering the equation here.
I didn’t thing Spear 3 was meant to be the long range stand off. I thought the ACPs were carrying those, maybe Stratus?.
No, longer range options are FC/ASW and SIAW and neither will fit internally on F35B
That being said I think SPEAR 3 and F35 is easily able to take on any air defence system but you might want to knock out long range low frequency radars with FC/ASW and a high flying very fast platform like Typhoon is the best for a long range lobbing shot.
Teaming F35 and Tranche 5 in this combination especially with spear EW and ACP’s in the mix would be the ideal solution and a world beating capability.
I assume this covers Block 4 ugrade?
I am not sure how one can appraise future block 5 etc…when these have yet to be defined and what these upgrades will entail. Because as of now a new adaptive engine has been cancelled / put onhold until further notice, but very hard to assess cost (acquisition and maintenance) when the design has not even been finalized.
Tax cutting peace dividend austerity. All in the name of protecting the financial scammers in London and the oligarchs who run the ‘Establishment’.
Truth.
Agreed. Meanwhile wealth is funneled offshore tax free impoverishing the nation.
This is not really an issue with the F35b is constantly prioritising in year cost control over long term efficiency and effectiveness.. which is pure insanity when you are talking about to key component of your nations naval power projection for a nation dependent in every way on maritime power…
The UK alway needed to double down on the carrier.. it needs at least 4 squadrons of F35bs as well as the OCU able to deploy.. In reality it should have 5 squadrons + the OCU to in extremis put out 2 full airwings.
It need to get over itself and just order the full range of available weapons for the f35b, AGM-154 JSOW to give it a 130km strike range as well as 1000ib and 2000ib jdams for hardened target strikes and GBU 53s so it has the able to carry large numbers of munitions that can hit moving targets out to 74km…
It then needs to stop with the whole f35A thing..,that is pure inter service rivalry that impacts on the national interest of the UK.. because carrier strike is the core of Uk power projection.. not diverting to an aircraft that takes way from our ability to develop full air wings for UK carriers.
This government, get over itself?? They have far too many other priorities.
Agree on the Bs. I have no issue with the A, but not at the cost of the B, they need to be additional.
Inter service rivalry, or politics at national level? Too easy to blame the RAF for me. They had their Strike Interdiction role removed by HMG, I don’t blame them wanting the A.
The fanfair around the A for me was due to Starmer’s need to granstand in Paris, where every other nation is expanding and spending more money.
Yep the A is fine after we have at Least 4 squadrons of Bs + the OCU.. ( I would like 5+ OCU) if they want to swap out some of the typhoon squadrons that’s there choice.. personally I don’t think starmer would ever make a decision on something like the A without the brass in the RAF telling him it was a good idea.. the RAF I suspect levered the idea of the nuclear deterrent.. but starmer would not unilaterally come out with let’s buy F35As he would be more likely to not order anything if left to his own decisions.
In the end I think the typhoon will end up pretty much being focused on UK and Falklands air defence as we will only have 96 single seaters left.. which will give 4 squadrons and the Falklands flight moving forward. So essentially really enough for air defence for the UK Falklands and Cyprus..
You know I think we need 12 squadrons. A good balance in the mid 2030s could look like 4 typhoon, 5 f35b ( allowing for 2 carrier based at all times and 4 surge carrier based squadrons ) and 3 F35A ( with the 3 A squadrons allowing 1 land based expeditionary and 2 surge ) .. with tempest the swapped out the 4 typhoon squadrons in the late 2030s and early 40s and the F35A squadrons in the mid late 40s and early 50s for 7 squadrons + 5 carrier based squadrons..
12 has been the new low benchmark ever since it dropped to that level in 2010.
Agree with your balance.
Not happening with only 15 more B ordered, that might get us to 3 B. And where does the money come from for 3 Sqns of A? There are 10 or 12 Billion going into developing Tempest alone.
There is not enough money and this government have no interest in Defence apart from Starmer’s big talk.
So we end up with the smallest fast jet fleet amongst the main European powers, and the RAF is my fav service. Tragic.
In the end it all depends on spending some cash and buying the correct numbers that’s a total of 100+ bs and 60+As because the UK has always needs 250- 300 fast jets..so yep it needs a 15 billion extra recapitalisation over the 5 years.. because 3 billion a year is actually pocket change to the nation if we had the will.. remove the triple lock and have the state pension index linked.. remove child benefit from any household with average income ( 40k household income) that will raise you 20-25 billion a year in freed up income to defence and spread the burden.. that’s 200-250 aircraft from 1 years saving.. as a nation we have lots of money we just makes the choice on how it’s spent..
All cuts that would prove to be very unpopular
And that is the fundamental problem western democracies face.. the electorate as become allergic to bad news or news it does not want to hear and political parties have become allergic to doing things the electorate may not like.. once the party in power would do what it felt needed doing and them after its five years was up the electoral would decide if actually what they did was correct… bad news and all, consider what HMG would once tell the public.. it had no issue with telling them they may all get blown to kingdom come next week, or that sorry we are closing all the coal mines and if you get in our way your getting a truncheon on the bonce.. the British public expectations were that ship would happen.. and the government would get on handle the shit stick.. and the public would take the shit stick, the after 5 years the public would decide if on balance that shit stick was handled ok or if they were giving the other guys a chance..
Governments are meant to make unpopular decisions.. the world is grim..most of the history of humanity is one long episode of getting a shit sandwich and hoping you did not die before your 50 ( the majority died before 50).. unless democracies can get over this immediate reaction by its populations to everything that they don’t like democracies are screwed simple as.. when china and or Russia go to war their populations put up and will put up with immense suffering.. the UK western democracies cannot even manage the winter fuel allowance being cut to all but the poor pensioners without practically overthrown the government.. what happens when there is a major maritime war and we have to institute rationing and the Chinese and Russian trolls stir up a to government and anti war rhetoric.. the west will loss even as its forces win.
I agree however we should not underestimate the importance of being able to grand stand especially in front of Trump. This came at a key time when the only objective was keeping the US engaged and this gave Trump the bone he wanted.
Big question is do they follow through in the Defence Investment Plan.
Well he’s thick as mince, Jim. As what is happening at the moment is not what he wanted, I’m sure. He wants hard military power, not fudged accounts.
I pray they provide more money as promised.
Problem with politicians they’ll happily declare X then down the road row back.
You make valid and rational arguments. Though the one thing I have to comment on is the reliance on power projection. That is great for ‘police actions’, but not a lot of point in an existential engagement. While static airfields are a target it is easier to repair replace or substitute those than it is to refloat a sunk carrier. The only advantage is that a carrier can move around and over the horizon cannot be seen, but it is still vulnerable and the highly questionable availabilities of suitable escorts remains a problem. Carriers are a nice to have additional resource in certain circumstances but not a panacea. If there was a NATO wide European action two carriers and a handful of planes really doesn’t do much.
To be honest Nick what really mean by power projection is not so much day one knock the door down… regime change taking apart a country type events as I’m not a real believer in those.. it’s a about two things
1) naval power projection in the maritime environment.. what the carriers do is allow control of maritime airspace which allows for sea control.. and the UK still needs to be able to exert pr contest and deny others sea control in a number of areas. If you don’t have a decent carrier you cannot really do sea control.. but you also need other elements to do sea control.. you need the surface combatant as well as the sub surface combatants.
2) geostrategic power projection.. there is no greater way to say you are displeased than by parking a carrier 1000 miles away from someone’s cost and the reality is there are only about 3-4% of nations that can actually do anything about you doing that.
The final bit around the existential argument is interesting and I think we need to consider the capabilities of our enemy, and the absolute importance of sea control ( every major global conflict has one defining characteristics.. the winner always had and maintained sea control,) in this case we really mean taking sea control from Russia.. one thing Russia would be able to do is throw a steady stream of cruise and Ballistic missiles at UK airfields and other facilities.. because it does not need a kill chain and in reality Russia is probably incapable of developing kill chains over distance.. so for Russia hitting Uk airfields is a relatively risk free activity in regards to risk on strategic assets.. but as long as we have an airforce it can do little else.. what the carrier allows is to take sea and air control far closer to Russia essentially taking sea control of the high north puts Russia in a bind… it knows it’s irreplaceable SSNs and strategic strike aircraft are the only thing that could attack the carrier that has taken over sea control close to its bastions.. but it also knows that its strategic strike aircraft are not up to facing 5th generation air cover or penetration of a proper integrated air defence.. so it has a choice leave NATO in control of its northern seas or send out its strategic air assets for likely destruction.. its the same with its SSNs it’s it knows its older SSNs would essentially be dead against western ASW so it will keep them in the bastion as a force in existence.. so that leaves is. 3-4 modern SSGNs.of which I will probably only have 1-2 available and they are still a bit behind the west… now they are fine in the high seas hiding and then launching cruise missile attacks on fixed infrastructure.. but trying to hunt a carrier would mean they would have to find then avoid and penetrate modern western sub surface, surface and airborne ASW rings.. then get a kill chain.. they are probably not up to that and losing even one is a none starter for Russia.. so without the carriers essentially the northern seas remain open to either and Russia will potshop the UK with its ground based, airborne and sub surface and even surface cruise missile launches.. park a well supported carrier in the northern oceans and you have sea and air control of that.. space and any Russian sun surface, surface or airborne strike needs to make its way through taxation area of control…or if Russia wants to remove the sea control threat it needs to risk the likely loss of its irreplaceable strategic assets.. at the same time the UK essentially strangles the northern ports.. strangles the northern infrastructure and holds any northern infrastructure at risk.. without it all it can do is get an asute with a 1000km at risk from Russian air ASW and fire a few cruise missiles… the carrier with its ability to manage sea control makes the UK offensive.. and sea control wins the existential wars as it throttles the enemy in slow time.. land powers always find that out to their cost. It’s why china has turned itself into the defector maritime power and is now using that to turn itself into the defacto naval power and its planning to have 6 large CATOBAR carriers for about 2035 so it can reach out a take sea control out to the second island chain and in the eastern Indian Ocean..
Not denying the arguments. The point really under question is the over reliance on the ability to sail round the world with a relatively small fleet and handful of aircraft is really a good use of scarce resources. As far as defence of the UK is concerned, which is what it is all about this emphasis is wrong. We might be able to engage with China in a small way in the Pacific but would does that do for the GI gap and Russian aggression and stated goals of recovering its lost influence in Eastern Europe. Aircrafty carriers are of limited use in such a scenario, which is currenly the recent threat. Carriers and specialist aircraft are a noce to have but that money can be better spent on upping our land and air capabilities in the European theatre. A carrier based F35B doesn’t really cover much of Europe!
To be honest Nick I agree with you I think a geostrategic reality is the pacific is not the UKs core interest.. we need to sculp the carrier force, surface force, sub surface force and strategic land based air ( MPAs, refuelling, ISTAR, maritime strike and transport) to undertake realistic sea control of core areas of geostrategic importance to the UK.
1) Northern waters.. the UK is threatened by this axis of control and can threaten its main likely enemy Russia.. so a core part of the forces should be about sea control of the north.. but a carrier 3 squadrons of f35, 10 Merlin’s, 2 T45s and 3-4 ASW frigates and 3 SSNs.. supported by strategic air ( MPAs, tankers, ISTAR and AEW) and Russia is roundly screwed.
2) North Atlantic.. make sure Russia cannot interrupt UK shipping in the North Atlantic.. preventing a lone Wolf SSN getting into shipping lanes and or preventing strategic air from getting into the Atlantic ( sea control of the northern seas will be the main defence against this.. with more diffuse assests.. MPAs, drones a second line of ASW frigates etc as in the Atlantic they could operate without air cover as long as we hold sea control of the Northern occean.
3) south Atlantic.. at some point this is going to kick off hard.. the Antarctic treaty is a creeking door and it will only take a small kick to tip it over.. the OK claims the very best bit of the Antarctic and the doorway to that and key to extracting the wealth of the Antarctic is the UKs infrastructure based around the Falklands.. everyone and their dog will want in some will ask and some will try and take.. we may end up needing to exert sea control in the BAT or south Atlantic territory.. this will be based mainly around the Antarctic, Falklands, mid Atlantic air bridge ( this UK is the only northern hemisphere nation with a sovereign airbridge to the Antarctic… a carrier is essentially security that nobody can sever the airbridge by popping their own carrier across it.. this is a post 2030 risk around a global china being the dominant martime and naval power and deciding it wants the UK out of the south Atlantic.. now the UK cannot dream of affecting china in the pacific or eastern Indian occean.. but the Atlantic and with the advantages of basing and the tyranny of distance.. those UK carriers would mean the difference between losing the airbridge and the Falklands and retaining it.
3) western Indian occean and the European Asian sea bridge.. essentially if anyone wants to change the way European nations are doing something they can cut the European Asian sea bridge anywhere in the western Indian oceans .. the UK, France and Italian navies together could probably make that to costly to consider even for a china in the 2030s.
Just looking and considering a pacific sino US war.. to be able to fight in the western pacific and try and keep sea control around the first island chain the USN will need every possible aircraft carrier, ship and SSN it can get.. this means the US would need to abandon the Atlantic and western Indian Ocean..the west would need a carrier in the western Ocean region.. and the only option would be the 3 large European carriers.. so between them the UK and France could manage to keep a western carrier presence in the Indian Ocean if or when the PLAN and USN enter a war of mutual destruction ( chinas plan likely more just wipe the board and rebuild quickly).
Well researched and articulated. This is a complex set of possible scenarios, and we are spread far too thin across all fronts, and particularly for Homeland defence! Great that we can secure supply chains from the Far East, but not a lot of good to repel drone or even cyber attacks in the British Isles!
Yep to be honest I think one of our biggest risks is civil defence and resilience.. I think there is a big risk our civilian infrastructure pops like a balloon under pressure and the way to get a nation out of a fight is to convince it population to tell it government to stop.. we need to massively increase resilience in infrastructure as well as population.. I did civil contingency and at present this country struggles to fight its way out of a major snowstorm let alone a war in which the enemy targets power, water and health infrastructure.. if I wanted to really make this country suffer I would smash it’s hospitals..because the NHS cannot manage the flu if it’s full of injured service personnel as well as injured civilians you hit some key hospitals and a lot of people will die through lack of treatment.. so decent air defence for our major military and civilian infrastructure is key as well as a massive civil defence force to keep the nation going.
How can cost inflate from 18 to 57 Billion?
And how can a government department, the Financial Directorate of MoD and advisors get it so wrong so often?
That is some variance, not a few billion out.
Is there endemic corruption in the MoD?
It’s not the aircraft for me, but the system around it. The lack of an ASM and stand off missile are well known shortcomings, as are lack of pilots. A lack of pilots will naturally mean less QFI as well. Not a new situation, but reports highlighting it again will have the Wolves at the door.
Accommodation at Marham. There were articles on UKDJ about the infrastructure works there years back, several hundred millions if I recall correctly. Why wasn’t Accommodation included in the works? I agree with Jacko. Just watch the billions spent on refurbing Barracks for economic migrants. No shortage of money there…
Priorities, and the military isn’t it, which I keep repeating and won’t ever stop believing in until I’m shown proof otherwise regards our ridiculous political class.
Cyber. We seem to have Cyber units coming out of our ears with the number of new Cyber organisations standing up across Defence, and the emphasis placed on this area, yet the RAF has a shortage? I can think of at least two RAF Cyber centric units, so it’s not as if the RAF don’t have any.
Maybe it’s time for the military to put its guns down and turn to Cyber full time….🙄
There’s internal competition for project funding, which means the level of optimism bias in pitches is bound to be off the charts. There should be MOD professionals who are good at realistic costing, but the people who would employ them within the services have a vested interest in not doing so as long as those with whom they are in competition also don’t. You need to have that imposed from above as a discipline. The expertise should come from the NADG as part of professional procurement, but the NAD isn’t above MSHQ, so the appraisers need to be called in by the Office of the CDS and forced on the services.
The SDR is all about faster procurement and less red tape. It’s not about realism. Somebody is going to have to push against the SDR direction to impose that one. Over to Sir Richard.
Yes, well reasoned….
Jesus, a department of State as vital as Defence is run like a School hobby group.
Is corruption endemic.. I suspect wishful thinking and the requirement to gibe politicians and therefore the public the message they want to hear.. essentially this country ( and the wider west ) does have a form of endemic corruption that has influenced every part of governments and the public sector..the need to tell the public what they want to hear ( essentially because they only vote for the party that tells them what they want to hear). I firmly believe this wishful thinking and only saying what people want to hear is what drove the “ end of history and last man” and may in the end be the downfall of western liberal democracy..
I have seen it everywhere in my work in healthcare, public health and civil preparedness.. I saw it rite large in covid. Just a little example of a small corruption..
A long time ago I was an ED charge nurse and the government brought in the 4 hour wait target ( in itself a good idea as before that hospitals would keep old people on ED trolleys for 12 hours over night when we had beds.. purely so as not to wake up other patients on the ward).. now every time you breached this target you had to write why in a book..and we breached about 10% ( target was 5% ) so we failed now a bit later I got promoted and became responsible for overseeing the compliance with contracted care metrics for all the hospitals across a few counties.. and I had to meet my old director of nursing and get a report on metrics like 4 hour wait targets ( at the time I still did ED shifts to keep my hand in) the director would every time report compliance with the target and yet I knew the ED book showed 10% breaches.. but there was nothing I could do ( and was told as such) because my bosses wanted to be able to tell the DOH they passed the target so the minister could tell the public they past the target.. infact I even told the director I know you know that I know what the true figure is..she just laughed at me)… basically the book I wrote in was checked off and exclusions removed by my ED manager ( who had pressure to keep the figure as low as possible) who gave it to the director who had the board pushing her to keep the figures on target.. so she at complete distance would look for exclusions and finally it went to the board who would jump on any missed targets and insist any breach was looked at again.. to see if more exclusions could be found. Finally the figures would be reported to the Commissioner ( contract holder) who’s job it was to keep the ship steady.. ( I was there to highlight waves.. but generally ignored as bad new and risks are generally played down for good news).. the commission was their to report good news to the DOH and woo to any chief executive who reported bad news.. as it would be special measures and a jolly good sacking.. all for the public so they had someone to blame that was. Not the politicians they voted for… essentially as you say corrupt.. but corruption in a way that requires a system to give good news and delivers punishment to those who deliver bad news.. because nobody votes for the person that gives bad news.. only those who say it will all be great.
As I keep saying.
J for PM. I’d vote for you.
W.Edwards Deming was writing decades ago about the folly of management by target setting. It screws up motivation, moral and the process. If you can think of better way send in your answer on a postcard…..
I love Deming he’s my favourite improver.. the red bead game is something I always used to torture classes of learners with.
Cancel the F35s buy more Typhoons and put more money into the Tempest program to speed it up
Where to start when the list is so long? Is having all UK F-35 based in one place wise? When Marham lacks GBAD? Its not just the lack of integration of Spear 3 & Meteor. We have not bought American weapons that are or soon will be integrated. Such as AARGM-ER, JSOW-C or JASSM-ER. Or Norway’s JSM. We have not even bought gun pods or 1000lb JDAMs for F-35B. Then the lack of drop tanks, even though the Israelis have done their own thing to get their F-35I to strike Iran. The first 4 to 14 UK F-35B may not be worthwhile to upgrade. I will stop now before I get onto the need for AAG for QE/PoW.
From what I’ve gathered the Bs are more expensive than the As.
Why not buy more of them to compliment the 12 we are already getting, instead wasting time asking for more Typhoons which are last gen fighters?
wow those estimates were way off. you would expect +10% variation from estimate to final bill, start cringing at 25%, but this is over 300% off. normally you would expect lifetime costs of an aircraft to be several times that of purchase price, so a figther you bought for a 100 may have cost you a total of 300 to 400 upon retirement … but here we are +10x actual purchase cost -> 57billion/48 aircraft -> +1billion per aircraft
so much for “concurrency” (ie start production before you have locked down the final design and done adequate testing) LM were pitching this as the new improved way to roll out products.
In fact it was a ploy to mask growing delays and costs with half-baked deliveries, that need continual fixes, fixes for those fixes etc…. clearly one giant clusterf##k of a process
to be clear i say purchase cost, i mean flyaway cost
The services propose, the civil servant masters dispose. The latter are the corner-cutters, the financial prefects, the ones constantly fiddling with the specs and driving costs down, because it is.a bage of honour in the civvy side of the MOD to show cost cuts, regardless of how random, misguided or counter-productive in the longer term.
This report by the Lords Committee underlines what a shambles the civvy side of the MOD is. For those who think that service personnel are running the various procurement programmes, have a look on the MOD site, the project teams consist of a load of civil servants with maybe one uniform in the room to try to explain things and bat away daft ideas from young Oxbridge things without a clue about the wider defence picture or the intricacies of military kit.
So we have a key defence programme that is 8 times over budget forecast for an aircraft that has an all-time low serviceabilty record, half the number of pilots, instructors and engineers needed, no useful stand-off weapons, not enough HAS and they haven’t even upgrade the the barracks. Great contribution,.MOD folks…
In any private company, a load of heads would roll for such a shambles. I think HMG should start with the permanent under secretary, one David Williams. He is the commander.on the bridge of this hopeless outfit. He can point to political vagaries, budget shortfalls or blame whoever, but this dismal state of affairs happened on his watch.and it really is a woeful catalogue of institutional failure.
The all-dominant civil service needs to be cut down to size in the MOD, as just about every project they touch turns into a similar shambles. It would be a good time to appoint a senior director from private defence industry to run things in a more professional manner, backed up by a senior, experienced officer to guide the whole process, the whole leading to the chiefs of staff committee playing the leading role rather than the current secondary one to senior civil servants
Williams is on his way out. Here’s a snatch from his Wiki that I’m sure you’ll like:
“Williams was appointed Companion of the Order of the Bath (CB) in the 2020 New Year Honours for services to Government Finances.”
What experience did David Williams have to give him the position?
Wasn’t he the only gay in the village ?
The other one was.
😂😂😂
Fortunately the Government has a programme to ease staffing shortages especially at officer level across the services. Unemployment is going to keep rising and AI is taking away a lot of graduate entry career start jobs so recruitment will become easier as the government drives job opportunities down. Simples