Seriously screwed!

Thursday, February 12, 2009

Seriously screwed!

The Airbus A400M has been delayed again and the earliest the RAF can expect an in-service date is 2014, with deliveries unlikely to start until a year earlier, some seven years later than originally promised. That is a period longer than the whole of World War II. Possibly the in-service date may be even be delayed until 2016, with the aircraft grossly overweight and not fully "mission capable".

Oh for those heady days of May 2000 when that wonderful Mr Tony Blair, imbued with the spirit of European co-operation, so presciently decided to order 25 of those shiny new Airbus A400M military transport aircraft.

How wise he was to spurn the entreaties of US President Bill Clinton, rejecting the tried and tested Lockheed C-130 Hercules, going for the new dawn of European military aviation, free from the oppressive dominance of the United States.

And how pleased the "colleagues" all were, with David Jennings, a spokesman at Airbus Military, welcoming Britain into the fold, even though Germany was not to follow until over a year later. Brimming with confidence, Jennings happily announced that Airbus would launch the programme at the end of the year 2000 and begin deliveries in 2006.

However, with the RAF originally expecting an in-service date by 2007, the delivery date started to slip and by 2004 the in-service date had become 2011. But, even if the shine on the Great European Project was getting just a tiny little bit tarnished, up to 6 February this year the RAF was telling us that its 25-strong fleet would be complete by 2011.

With Airbus categorically denying "rumours" of delay, it was still looking a bit flakey. But never fear! Those Europeans really know what they are doing. A little late, perhaps, but 2011 it was going to be. 

Then, tucked into an obscure publication called Hansard – which nobody bothers reading any more – was a question by Ann Winterton asking for thelatest estimate of the in-service date for the A400M. Thus quoth the unfortunate Quentin Davies:

Airbus Military has announced a series of delays in the development and production of the A400M programme, and has recently indicated that first deliveries to customer nations will be three years after the achievement of first flight of the A400M prototype. Airbus has indicated that first flight will occur no earlier than the second half of 2009, and has also announced a slowdown in its production plans. Early A400M production aircraft will be delivered to some of our partner nations and therefore the first UK delivery would occur at least six months after Airbus delivers the first A400M. This suggests that initial UK deliveries could not start before 2013 and therefore the estimated in-service date of the A400M (defined as acceptance into service of the seventh aircraft) would be 2014.

Hey! Seven years later than the original estimate, with an in-service date now at least three years later than the last estimate of 2011, the shine has most definitely worn off Mr Blair's brave new project. The RAF is in the deepest of deep doo doo.

In June last year there were already warnings of "significant risks" that there would not be enough transport aircraft to fly British forces in future operations if there were any delays in bringing in replacements for the ageing fleet of C-130s.

Then, as many as nine of the older Hercules C-130Ks had been taken out of service early due to wing "fatigue" and five others are due to be retired next year. Even then, with the A400M not due to arrive until the following year, a grave "shortfall of capacity" was being predicted.

By last year we had 42 working Hercules aircraft, but the older C-130Ks were only flying because of a £15.3 million refit, which can only keep them in the air until 2012.

That is not the least of the problems. The newer C-130Js are taking such a hammering on operations (plus losses to enemy action) that several could need an intensive refit by 2012. And it gets worse. Because the bulk of the C-130 fleet was supposed to be retired, there is a shortage of engineers and spares to keep the full fleet running.

And just in case you were thinking it couldn't get worse, it just has.

The delays in the programme are costing Airbus a small fortune and the firm is running out of money. Thus it is indeed slowing down the programme and the MoD's estimates – as of yesterday – are looking unrealistically optimistic. Airbus is now saying that "the first significant wave of operational aircraft would not be delivered before 2014." Since we are down the queue, the chances of us making an in-service date of 2014 are nil. Add another two years at least, sixteen years since Mr Blair's happy little deal.

To add to our joys, there are serious problems with the software and the early versions will not be fully "mission capable". Furthermore, the aircraft coming off the production line are 12 tons heavier than planned. Even with a massive weight reduction programme, only seven tons is potentially capable of being removed from later production versions – and then that is not guaranteed.

This leaves an aircraft with a slated 37-ton capacity over 1,780 nautical miles coming in as a sub-30 ton machine, compared with the 20-ton capacity of the RAF's C-130Js. But then the C-130Js are currently priced at £38-40 million, against the A400M which at current euro exchange rates works out at £98 million – well over twice the price for considerably less than a fifty percent increase in load-carrying capacity.

Then that's "Europe" for you. Twice the money for less performance just about sums it up. But this is not funny. Blair has seriously screwed us – lives are at stake here and our operational capability is seriously at risk. He must be very proud.

I am cross-posting this on Defence of the Realm.

COMMENT THREAD

Wednesday, February 11, 2009

Another day, another prediction

From the Met Office that told us that the summer of 2008 was going to bethe warmest on record, we have yet another of their wonderful predictions.

According to this august source, or so we are told, the Scottish ski industry could disappear "within decades" due to global warming.

Despite the fact that the country's five resorts are currently enjoying exceptional conditions after heavy snowfall in the Highlands, climate change "may mean" they have less than 50 years of skiing left.

Alex Hill, chief government advisor with the Met Office, said the amount of snow in the Scottish mountains had been decreasing for the last 40 years and there was no reason for the decline to stop. He added: "Put it this way, I will not be investing in the ski-ing industry. Will there be a ski industry in Scotland in 50 years' time? Very unlikely."

I don't know what it is about the warmists, but they seem to have it in for skiing – maybe it’s the killjoy streak in them, a modern version of the Puritans. But last May they were having a go at the Alpine ski resorts, predicting many of them were finished – just before they were to enjoy record snowfalls.

The one thing about the warmists though – they never let duff predictions stop them. One might recall that, not so very long ago, they were predicting a five foot rise in sea level in 50 years. Another source was warning us that:

A predicted rise in sea level of one foot within the next 30 to 40 years will drive much of the Atlantic and Gulf shoreline inward by a hundred feet and some of it by more than a thousand feet, according to marine geologists. The environmental and economic consequences will be felt much farther inland.

Both those predictions, interestingly enough, were made in 1986, published in mainstream newspapers – the latter one in The New York Times. The headline was: "Signifigant (sic) rise in sea level now seems certain". Unabashed, they're still at it, even though the measurements from the period 1993–2003 indicated a mean rate of less than an eighth of an inch a year (and even that's disputed).

But hey! What's a duff prediction between friends? Just scrap the last one and make another. By the time it is proven wrong, nobody will ever remember and you'll be getting your nice comfortable pension. Meanwhile, we can all go water-skiing, in the Alps!

COMMENT THREAD

A symptom of our consensus of cowardice

The Heffer offers a rant today, railing against the venal denizens of Parliament, with particular venom for Jacqui Smith.

In some ways, it is more of the same, that we recounted yesterday, with Moore and Melanie Phillips having a go. But Heffer takes a slightly different line. It is, he says, all our fault:

So we let those whose decisions affected our lives proceed largely without account. In Parliament, a large Labour majority neutered backbenchers, an opposition with nothing to say and an ineffectual Speaker allowed free rein to a ruthlessly manipulative Government. The executive became overbearingly powerful. Parliament was rarely included in its counsels. Even when it was, the docility and lack of quality of so many people in it hardly made any impact on the Government's arrogance and control-freakery.

In a way, he his right. Both my co-editor and I are wont to say that we get the government we deserve. And I have been known to say that democracy is not a spectator sport. Basically, use it or loose it.

The trouble is that we have lost it. It will take a fleet of tumbrels to get it back. Anybody here got an NVQ in tumbrel driving?

COMMENT THREAD

It hasn't gone away

Despite having dropped out of the news recently, the kerfuffle over 
British jobs for British workers has not gone away. The continuing effects of commissioner Reding's "space without boundaries" are still too visible.

The latest outcrop of unrest is outside the Staythorpe power station in central England, where around 400 workers have demonstrated over the use of foreign contractors appointed by France's Alstom. A smaller demonstration has also taken place at a plant at the Isle of Grain in southern England, owned by German utility E.ON.

Hundreds of Spanish workers have been hired at Staythorpe, while Polish workers have been brought in at the Isle of Grain.

Steve Syson, regional officer for the Unite union, explains: "We've got a situation on the site at Staythorpe where there's potential work available and the UK lads aren't being given proper consideration for that work so there's anger about that." 

The Staythorpe project, we are told, has defined rates of pay for local workers under a national agreement agreed by unions with the engineering construction industry. But workers fear a loophole in labour law is being exploited, allowing overseas workers to be brought in and paid less than British workers, undercutting the market.

Alstom, of course, deny this, claiming that it is not discriminating against British workers and that all workers are paid the same rates for the job. That may be the case but British workers are not being hired.

Much as the politicians would like to bury their heads in the sand, this issue is not going to go away. People are genuinely angry about this and, whatever the tranzie tendency might say, and however much they rationalise their "space without boundaries", when local people see jobs being given to foreigners, while they themselves are consigned to the dole, there is going to be a reaction.

This is not politics – it is human nature. Whatever intellectual, economic or other arguments there might be, it is going to be seen as a black and white issue by those who are most affected.

And the fact is that, whatever the bosses and the corporates – with the backing of the politicos – might claim, when British workers are on the dole while foreign workers are doing jobs they could do, we the taxpayers end up footing the bill. When this displacement effect is taken into account, I somehow doubt that the economic equation looks quite so advantageous.

The trouble is that these external costs are not borne by the enterprises which employ foreign labour, so they do not come into their calculations. They are for the politicians to work out and so far they are diving for cover.

However, "economic nationalism" is a force that cannot be denied. In times of strife, whether you like it or not, employment – like charity – begins at home. But, if the "colleagues" think the "space without boundaries" is so wonderful, perhaps commissioner Reding would like to explain its benefits to the picket line at Staythorpe – without a police escort.