Wrong cover up.

The supposed cover up on the Precision Guided Bomb project is actually normal practice.

"The headline cost of the major projects went down by another £67m as the MoD shifted the costs of fitting out its strike jets with new smart bomb targeting pods: out of "Precision Guided Bomb" and into various planes' ongoing budgets."

The project team bid for all the costs required, then transfer the integration costs to the team that maintains the platform in service (Tornado IPT etc.) to have the new kit integrated with the existing aircraft systems. This is always done by the in service IPT as they have the knowledge of the platform, access to it and contractual arrangements with the OEM. As you write so much about military procurement I thought you knew how it was done.

As far as hurling money at BAES to not close unused factories and sack underemployed defence workers, more has been wasted for less effect than the dockyards, Project Orchid for a start. I often wonder if BAES, legendary bribers of overseas customers, don't do the same in the UK. That is the only explaination for some of the desicions I've seen over the years.

Buying votes is nothing new

So the party in power has moved a major construction project nearer to the Prime Minister's home?

This is hardly news.

I also note, with much amusement that you claim that 54 Reapers would cost us £540m. Maybe that's how much incrementally it would cost the Americans, who already have serious volumes (though probably not enough for that many new UAVs) of satellite comms. For us on the other hand the cost would be far higher (even without the usual 'Special Relationship' markup). The first ten MQ-9s cost the UK £250m (from the BBC) and that's almost certainly a better measure of the life cycle cost than £10m each.

Of course, in your world it's fine to wind every bill into the Typhoon spend, but ignore those for your pet projects.

For what it's worth, I basically agree with you. MoD procurement is bloody awful and needs serious improvement. However, your slight inability to understand the basic numbers means that your analyses, whilst often somewhat entertaining, are based on little more than your best guesses. Which seeing as you can't even google to find the right numbers means that the whole edifice falls apart.

And to quote Lord of War...

"You know who's going to inherit the world? Arms dealers. Because everyone else is too busy killing each other."

don't let the facts get in the way of a story, but

GMLRS has a range of 70km not 40

There is only one regiment of MLRS, the TA regiment provides limited additional capability

Pictures from Afghanistan consistently show GMLRS being fired from within large base areas

GMLRS can only be used against targets that are not going to move

Loitering Munitions are being designed to deal with targets that do move and can be controlled from the ground by the guy who can see the target and coordinate the attack with the troops on the ground (and with a high chance of not engaging the wrong target including friendly troops)

GMLRS like any other artillery engages targets 24 x 7 at short notice (ie minutes) aircraft can take hours to turn up.