1 post • joined Saturday 28th February 2009 00:39 GMT
Not sure about this ...
A good analysis again by Lewis, only let down by the facts ...
Undoubtedly MOD faces a challenge in meeting the requirements of value for money kit for the front-line, whilst also directing strategically important high-tech development work to UK industry, who perhaps aren't as good as US counterparts (however, comparing like-with-like, they are better value for money, since US defence enjoys proportionally far, far greater funding than UK). However, it is virtually only the US (as oppose to France, Germany) that often presents the better alternative offer that Lewis so often recomends. Secondly, buying strategically significant technology from the US requires that the country understands the technology itself, which, given the MOD's run-down R&D capability, requires the involvement of the dreaded 'blood-sucking' UK industry.
As someone who has previously been in MOD, but now works in industry, and is proud to support the UK national interest with advanced technology, I guess I am supposed to be paid a lot more now than I was back then (I am not). I can also recall junior officers in the Army and RAF 'toasting' the relatively large salaries they made in their late-20s or so - they certainly earnt them on deployments and so on, but I don't think their pay could be said to be worse than civvy street. Still I guess I have some big pay days to look forward to!
- How much did NSA pay to put a backdoor in RSA crypto? Try $10m – report
- Google: Surge in pressure from govts to DELETE CHUNKS of the web
- Updated ARM server chip upstart Calxeda bites the dust in its quest for 64-bit glory
- Geek's Guide to Britain Mosquitoes, Comets and Vampires: The de Havilland Museum