* Posts by Peter 6

18 posts • joined 7 Aug 2009

Who will fix our Internal Banking Mess? TSB hires IBM amid online banking woes

Peter 6
FAIL

A long time coming.

Visa were chasing Lloyds Banking Group as far back as 2007 to improve their capacity to process transactions. Their IT systems have always been a bit of a joke. I believe at one point Visa were processing about 30-40% of LBG's transactions during one Christmas period because LBG's systems couldn't cope and they were too lazy/scared to upset the carefully built equilibrium made up of decades of mergers and acquisitions so found it easier to pay Visa in yachts to process their traffic for them.

TSB are a casualty of this awful approach to IT policy.

Lloyds finally inks mega 10-year cloudy outsourcing deal with IBM

Peter 6

Karma for staff...their command center staff anyway.

In my time working for a big payment technology company I've never had the displeasure of meeting a more ruder, more miserable bunch of people than LBG's IT staff. Regardless of whether they were phoning you to inform you of maintenance or if you were phoning them to enquire if there was a problem with their systems or if we had a problem and we were dealing with the response was *always* incredibly surly, sarcastic and depressingly rude.

So forgive me if I don't shed a tear or two for those whose jobs are about to be off-shored abroad...

Android is a mess and needs sprucing up, admits chief

Peter 6
FAIL

Sorry but....

....I refuse to listen to a man who a couple of years ago confidently predicted that Blackberry was going to rule the earth.

RAF Eurofighter Typhoons 'beaten by Pakistani F-16s'

Peter 6
FAIL

@ Martin Gregorie..

Umm...

http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2011-05-20/news/29564950_1_eurofighter-typhoon-bae-systems-india-sweden-s-gripen

The title? "Eurofighter Typhoon frontrunner to bag the $11 billion Indian Air Force Multi-Role Combat Aircraft contract". The RAF even sent a few Typhoons over to play with the IAF's SU-30MKIs to see how they'd work together and the IAF loved them.

India are actually playing a very smart game. The strategy is to use the Su-30s with their powerful radars and weapon loads to stand off and pick any baddies off while the Typhoons charge in and do the dirty work at relatively close quarters.

This strategy is suitable both for wars against Pakistan and China.

RAF Eurofighters make devastating attack – on Parliament

Peter 6
FAIL

So if the Rafale is so amazing...

...why hasn't anyone outside of France bought one?

Its been beaten time after time in trials in Brazil, India and in Europe. What Lewis and his acolytes refuse to acknowledge is that the Typhoon has sold more than the Rafale. Period. Fact. End of story.

India is going to buy 140 odd with the option of buying more Carrier ready "Sea Typhoons" for their future carrier fleet. India have to buy navalised Russian planes for its new INS Vikramaditya but after that the future is bright and it certainly isn'tthe Rafale.

So now the Typhoon can bomb stuff (which Lewis has repeatedly said it couldn't) and the Typhoon is rapidly becoming a commercial success (which, again, Lewis has repeatedly denied)...

...why are we listening to this fish-head again?

Eurofighter Typhoon: It's EVEN WORSE than we thought

Peter 6
FAIL

Also...

You want to know why they're expanding the capabilties of the Typhoon to handle ground attack? The fact that the F-35 is continuing to be a delayed over budget behemoth threatening to de-rail the procurement programs of multiple countries as well as the Americans. I'd though you would have kept that on the quiet being as biased towards American kit as Arsene Wenger is towards Arsenal.

Speaking of which maybe you should declare any interests you may or may not have.Just saying.

Just because Britain can't watch its finances properly doesn't mean you should have a pop at a perfectly good plane like the Typhoon.

For shame Lewis, for shaaame.

Cameron cocks up UK's defences - and betrays Afghan troops

Peter 6

Er..well...

I could think of several flaws in this article.

Firstly, as many have rightly pointed out, the majority of the original Chinook order wouldn't come on stream until 2015 by which time the British Army would have left Afghanistan. The first batch arriving in 2013 wouldn't be affected by Cameron's cut. So your argument Lewis is false.

Secondly, on the idea of cutting Frigates. Which ones? The ones currently patroling the Indian Ocean for pirates and using their Lynx and Merlin helos - a capability the Americans and others in the multi-national anti-piracy task force don't have by the way - and generally providing excellent mentoring for other navies? Maybe the ones patroling in the Caribean for drugs and providing excellent soft power? Or maybe the ones protecting traffic passing close to Iran in the Gulf?

As said by John Salt, a lot of what Lewis says (ASW, etc) can be done by Frigates who can also do a lot more.

Again the tanks. Why were the Americans, Canadians and now Australians are considering using heavier armour in Afghanistan? Because its a safer and more accurate projection of force. Being able to get close up in a Leopard II means less civilian casualties and less aggro as a result. Simple economics.

As for Nimrod, after chatting with a good friend who is working on the Global Hawk program, I'm really excited about the idea of using Global Hawk as an ASW, Search & Rescue and Spy platform. Sounds like an excellent use of money!

Lets be honest, this is an awful set of circumstances but while the Tories did indeed sign up to the Typhoon, Nimrod upgrade and other programs (to be fair to the Tories, the F-35 program was barely a twinkle in the eyes of planners when the contracts were dried in 1995, remember that it wasn't until the ealy 2000s that Boeing and Lockheed's prototypes were rolled out) Labour had over 13 years..THIRTEEN YEARS LEWIS COUNT THEM..to either renegotiate or cancel these programs altogether.

They had all that time to sort it out and in the end fiddled while Whitehall burned. That in itself it a more damning indictment to me.

Cameron: Carriers tomorrow, bombers today

Peter 6
FAIL

Robert Peston...

...isn't really getting the economics behind knocking the Nimrod program on the head when its 90% complete.

But then again what does he know? He's only a business/economics wiz and doesn't peddle American kit ENDLESSLY on El Reg so he obviously knows NOTHING about the economics of the Defence industry.

That said though, I never liked the idea of "upgrading" ancient kit in the first place kind of like the Lynx Wildcat fiasco so I'm fully against the Nimrod upgrade but if its already more or less done they may as well use it or at least just sell it on....if someone would take it.

As for the Carriers, I'm going to say the MoD should have bought French Rafaeles just to p*ss Lewis "Made in America" Page off!!!!! Oh I'm such a naughty boy!!! :D

Ranting Ohio Republican scares interwebs

Peter 6
Heart

Poor chap.

The guy just looks absolutely terrified. I'd have calmed him down and given him a nice cup of tea.

Who needs a hug.

Raptor over Blighty: Watch the stealth fighter in infrared

Peter 6

Eh?

Yes because the late and over budget F22 was definitely value for money for the US Government. So much so that Robert Gates canned it the minute he got into the Pentagon.

Meanwhile the Typhoon stands a good chance of being exported to India and Japan because the US Government isn't going to export the F22 under any circumstances. Most of the world would call that an "export success" while El Reg and Lewis Page would call it a "costly fiasco."

Hardly the "off the shelf American" tech you keep prattling on about.

UK arms industry 'same as striking coal miners' - Army head

Peter 6
FAIL

Oh dear not again...

More non-points and sillyness I'm afraid.

A) Again, don't argue with the British if the French refuse to buy Trident. The French chose to develop their own system because they wanted something truly independent. And to be honest, what exactly is the point in a "EuroSLBM" if nobody can agree to use it? You may as well should get rid of nukes completely and re-allocate the £40 Billion odd elsewhere.

B) See above. Not waste at all as Britain and America's nuclear development programs are closely linked.

C)

D) Once again, missed the facts, you've ignored the fact that actually the British and French are co-operating closely to develop carriers. The two new British carriers are the design that the French will be using for their 2nd carrier.

Also, I think you got your facts muddled up. The British are struggling to finance two proper carriers while the French struggle to operate on their single one (they only have one by the way)

The problem with all your points is one thing: Europe. Yes, of course it'd be nice for there to be one single European program for everything and in a perfect world a single European defence force/navy/air force would operate perfectly but this is the real world.

Like I said, have Eurofighter, Eurocopter and the A400 taught you anything? Europe can barely even agree on the EXACT wording of any eventual European Defence Force and its last big foray into the outside world (to Chad) wasn't exactly its finest hour as rather timid Irish special forces clashed with cavalier and gung ho French Foreign Legionaires.

Also how can you save money when all of these big pan-european defence programs are coming in way over budget and late. Eurofighter has ended up way over budget (although an export success) and the A400 will end up even worse. God knows what a 20 nation Frigate program or Submarine program would end up like.

I know you mean well but your suggestions would end up WASTING even more money than the existing problems you're trying to solve!

Peter 6
Go

er...

1. Definitely true but the Russians and the Chinese have their own problems. China's emerging air industry is having serious "quality control" issues with its new home developed fighters like the J-10. And the SU-34? Just a shell with engines. Theres no indication or proof that the Russians have actually gotten any farther than just making the thing fly and haven't developed any of its stealth capability or electronic systems yet.

2. Sadly NOT waste. Challenger is now legacy as the production line has ended and the export version was canned. LeClerc is also legacy after a short but successful export life which leaves Leopard as the only European MBT on the market right now. Bit of a non-point this.

3. Again not waste and if it is, don't blame Eurofighter for it. Who left Eurofighter in a huff? The French. Don't whinge at Britain, Germany, Italy and Spain if they can't compel the French to come back in. What are you going to do? Threaten the French with war if they don't drop the Rafale? Grippen is a completely private venture and I don't think the Swedes actually support Saab as much as everyone else supports EADS.

4. Debatable that having seven countries in a continent that can barely agree on whether the A400 should have green or grey paint can efficiently design build and deploy a Frigate program that can not only satisfy seven differing naval visions but also be on budget and on time. Hasn't Eurofighter or the A400 program taught us anything?

5. Agree wholeheartedly on that one.

MoD turns to bloggers for advice on UK defence policy

Peter 6
Flame

Actually...

Bob Ainsworth might be better off getting his advice from the War is Boring and Free Range International blogs who provide sensible advice (i.e. don't hide in MRAPs or FOBs)

If Bob Ainsworth paid attention to El Reg's "Military man" then all our kit would be American and only marginally cheaper, the Navy would still be facing a crippling shortfall in new Frigates and Destroyers and we'd probably be ploughing our money into buying loads of nice F35s which, despite being waaaaay over budget are American and thus are "cheap off the shelf kit" regardless of the facts.

Please shut up about the Mull of Kintyre Chinook crash

Peter 6
FAIL

Wow, way to go Lewis!

Out of all the relevant defence stories over the past few weeks such as the Royal Navy facing almost certain catastrophic collapse in fleet size, the cost of the "off the shelf American" Joint Strike Fighter going up, more shipbuilding issues at Northrop-Grumman and Lockheed Martin two of the very worst shipbuilders in the western world and fine purveyors of "off the shelf" American kit and you decide to ignore all of that and basically insult most of your audience in your quest to hammer home your message of "American kit goooood, British kit baaaaaaaaaaad!"

Look, Lewis, you don't like British stuff that costs too much and you like American kit that costs slightly less after its been tailored to British needs. WE GET IT! Now can we PLEASE have some decent defence journalism for once? Please? Can we? I honestly feel that by the time you DO finally get around to whinging about the state of the Navy you'll try and tie your argument to buying lots of American DDGs from two American contractors who make BAE Systems and British Shipyards look the prime example of efficiency.

Get over yourself mate.

MoD does everything right for once in Xmas shocker

Peter 6
Dead Vulture

Does this actually change anything though?

I'm not actually all that sure we should be applauding this really and not because we're buying American, British or Taiwanese.

Its more because this does nothing to solve the ultra short term view that the MOD takes towards spending which results in wildly fluctuating spending priorities which leave the constant (i.e. the chaps on the front line) woefully underfunded and equipped as the MOD swings sharply between big projects and short term emergency purchases such as these Chinooks.

The bottom line is (and Mr Page hasn't pointed this out) is that if there was a defence review every two or three years and if the findings of those reviews were carried out in full then we wouldn't have the need to canabalise large parts of the budget in some short sighted rush to buy "off the shelf" American kit that won't be ready until 2012/13 at the very earliest by which time the entire game may well have changed to a completely different part of the planet or may have ended (in ignominy, humiliation or "withdrawal with honour" I don't know) and we'll be sitting there wondering why we have 22 new Chinooks when we could have had more Destroyers and Frigates and less Trident nukes for example instead.

So in short this:

- Doesn't change anything.

- hasn't stopped short term fluctuations in spending.

- Hasn't killed off any silly cash black holes/big projects.

- Doesn't answer the question of how exactly are we meant to honour our existing commitments in the Caribbean, the Gulf, East Africa, South Atlantic AND defend two large carriers with 6 Destroyers and barely 13 or 14 frigates by 2018.

- Doesn't herald the start of much needed and regular defence reviews.

MOD doing "everything right for once"? Give me a break!

Tombstone because I sit on my own in a log cabin with a revolver awaiting the Lewis Page fanclub to come and kill me or neg-rep me at the very least...

Peter 6
FAIL

For "off the shelf American kit"...

...its going to take an awful long time for it to arrive.

Also, was Lewis aware that one of the reasons why the Apache took such a long time to arrive was also down to painfully slow training of pilots? To the point that Westland had built most of the Apaches (damn them! *shakes fist*) only for them to sit around in storage because there was no pilots to fly them and so on?

Don't let slow training schedules get in the way of promoting the equally blood sucking parasites that is the US Defence industry, eh Lewis?

Most expensive RAF aircraft ever takes to the skies

Peter 6
FAIL

Actually...

If you want to save even more money and do the same job, simply fix the blatant safety issues in the MR2 and get it to continue its job in Afghanistan which was surveilence and audio relay.

Better still, just do what the likes of several nations such as Iraq and Lebanon are doing and just buy King Air light aircraft fitted out with surveilance equipment and two hardpoints for hellfire missiles. So far the concept has been very successful in Iraq and has led to the USAF to issue a request for light aircraft, both king air style and light attack aircraft such as the Super Tucano or the old Bronco from the years of COIN in Vietnam.

As we can't afford the "off the shelf" (*snicker*) American drones, we can do the job far better with real pilots and surveilance ops in theatre for a fraction of the price!

MoD to bin F-35B navy jumpjets in favour of tailhook birds?

Peter 6
Coat

Tch...

We should have listened to Lewis and bought some American "off the shelf" Aircraft Carriers from Walmart last time Gordon Broon was in America...

...for the record, my coat was bought "off the shelf" from Barneys at New York..

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019