| x404.co.uk http://www.x404.co.uk/forum/ |
|
| MOD chiefs failing to "get off their fat backsides" http://www.x404.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?f=19&t=11354 |
Page 1 of 1 |
| Author: | pcernie [ Sat Nov 06, 2010 6:36 pm ] |
| Post subject: | MOD chiefs failing to "get off their fat backsides" |
The Duke of York has criticised Ministry of Defence chiefs for failing to "get off their fat backsides" over ordering armoured vehicles. He was speaking about the MoD wanting independent tests carried out on the new Ranger vehicles. "I would say to you that regrettably they will not get off their fat backsides," the Duke said on a tour of the Ranger factory in Weymouth, Dorset. An MoD spokesman said the Ranger did not meet current requirements. Prince Andrew was visiting Universal Engineering as part of his role as a UK trade ambassador. He was shown the new Ranger vehicle, which the company claims offers superior protection for troops from the threat of roadside bombs. The Dorset Echo reports that he was told the company had already carried out tests to show what protection the vehicles could offer, but the MoD had asked for independents tests before considering any orders. "Why do they have to do blast tests?" he is reported as saying. "It's just increasing the cost. "It just seems that because it takes time to get these things done - I would say to you that regrettably they will not get off their fat backsides." He went on to observe that the MoD is "completely hopeless at these kind of things". Roadside bombs, or IEDs, have been a regular threat to soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan. The MoD has said previously it had no immediate plans to order the vehicles, but had asked for tests to determine the Ranger's resistance to roadside bombs. An MoD spokesman said: "We have looked into the Ranger vehicle but it does not meet any of our current requirements. "The size and weight of the prototype Ranger vehicle is similar to that of our Mastiff and Ridgeback vehicles that are already being used in Afghanistan. "In the event that future operational requirements are identified for a vehicle of its type then the Ranger could be considered." Buckingham Palace refused to comment on the Duke's comments, saying it was a "private conversation". Members of the Royal Family are not supposed to express political views. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11704220 |
|
| Author: | Amnesia10 [ Sat Nov 06, 2010 10:36 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: MOD chiefs failing to "get off their fat backsides" |
While the Royal Family have to be politically neutral the is nothing wrong with his argument. The MOD have been slow and incompetent. |
|
| Author: | tombolt [ Sun Nov 07, 2010 12:37 pm ] |
| Post subject: | MOD chiefs failing to "get off their fat backsides" |
What a complete non story, typical echo. Of course they need independent testing, they can't just take the manufacturer's word for it. |
|
| Author: | Amnesia10 [ Sun Nov 07, 2010 9:22 pm ] | |||||||||
| Post subject: | Re: MOD chiefs failing to | |||||||||
So what are the MOD doing about that? If their current option out in Afghanistan is no protection, then these must offer better protection than is available now. Troops lives come first. |
||||||||||
| Author: | jonbwfc [ Sun Nov 07, 2010 10:57 pm ] | |||||||||
| Post subject: | Re: MOD chiefs failing to | |||||||||
I'm afraid you've betrayed a deep misunderstanding of the basis upon which the current Ministry of Defense operates. |
||||||||||
| Author: | pcernie [ Sun Nov 07, 2010 11:24 pm ] | ||||||||||||||||||
| Post subject: | Re: MOD chiefs failing to | ||||||||||||||||||
You stupid boy! 
|
|||||||||||||||||||
| Author: | Amnesia10 [ Mon Nov 08, 2010 12:14 am ] | ||||||||||||||||||
| Post subject: | Re: MOD chiefs failing to | ||||||||||||||||||
I will accept that I am no expert when it comes to the MOD. Though as a former management consultant I that there are a number of things that are important. Value for money, and does it do what it says on the tin? If it saves lives then that is worth more. A saved life is worth a lot more than simple money. If I had kids in the military I would want the minimal risks taken with them. |
|||||||||||||||||||
| Author: | hifidelity2 [ Mon Nov 08, 2010 4:00 pm ] | |||||||||
| Post subject: | Re: MOD chiefs failing to | |||||||||
Unfortunately it is always a compromise between money and safety For example – imaging 1 Chinook will be shot down each year killing 10 soldiers Your choice is then Ban all flights – but that might cause more deaths elsewhere Live with it Improve the Chinook Now if the cost of improvements is say £1 billion so meaning each life saved in £10 million do you still do it? Afterall people who join the army know that there is an inherent level of danger / risk |
||||||||||
| Author: | Amnesia10 [ Mon Nov 08, 2010 4:41 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: MOD chiefs failing to "get off their fat backsides" |
I accept that aspect. But having a lower value on the life of troops than the public have means that any wars with high casualties run the risk of bringing the government down if they are too high. |
|
| Author: | hifidelity2 [ Tue Nov 09, 2010 12:58 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: MOD chiefs failing to "get off their fat backsides" |
With a "popular" war or at least one that is seemed by the majority of the popultation as one that is justified people will "understand" about there being casulties In an unpopular war however every death will be taked about |
|
| Page 1 of 1 | All times are UTC |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group https://www.phpbb.com/ |
|
