Tweet
11 pages of waffle, with one page listing commitments dating back to 2016.
Not good enough, try harder.
Not good enough, try harder.
-
-
I thought it might have just been me thinking that it was a load of waffle...Originally posted by TangoSierra View PostComment
-
The above DFSS is welcome as road map to make the DF fit for operational aspirations. However there is an intricate tapestry of actors involved within Defence and with varying calls on Defence and not yet numerically quantifiable. The strength is fixed at 9500 with 4169 Reservists. The Navy is to be a 9 ship organisation which for ships alone would require 1215 seagoing rotatable all ranks of specialised rates, NCO's , and Officers. Defence Force Cyber security must be a Defence task. Overall Cyper security must start with an analysis of all companies in the state involved in cyber services.Originally posted by Rhodes View PostComment
-
You don’t see much level of detail in these documents. Nor should you, they are statements of strategy.
The detail is in other documentsComment
-
-
There most likely is, haven’t been around to look recently, being restricted you’ll only see them if your entitledOriginally posted by Sparky42 View PostComment
-
Specifics were strengths overall, ship numbers, mil vehicles, aircraft, cyber security, ATCP in local emergencies( possible Rapid Response Unit for Floods ) Fishery protection to a controlling agency ( SFPA), participation in overseas peace/partnership operations, and some 400m Euro over many years for equipments.Comment
-
400m is a joke, is it protected capital expenditure? ringfenced? or how much of that will be requisitioned to pay salaries or pensions etc"He is an enemy officer taken in battle and entitled to fair treatment."
"No, sir. He's a sergeant, and they don't deserve no respect at all, sir. I should know. They're cunning and artful, if they're any good. I wouldn't mind if he was an officer, sir. But sergeants are clever."Comment
-
Zero it’s capital expenditure not total expenditure (current and capital and is the Defence Vote not the combined vote)Originally posted by morpheus View PostComment
-
Most likely not is the reality unfortunately.
Lack of detail in a strategy statement is a cop out. It's important to understand the details. They're called nuances and they help make informed mature decisions that appear simplistic but are based on detailed knowledge.
Something the DoD couldn't give a rats about tbhComment
-
The difference between the strategic, operational and tactical levelsOriginally posted by TangoSierra View Post
Strategy statements don’t go into detail because they aren’t suppose to.
Some of the detail would have national security considerations, could be commercially sensitive, etc etc - that’s why it isn’t in the public domainComment
-
No. Stop Dev-splaining please.Comment
-
If your a member of the DF you can log on and view themOriginally posted by TangoSierra View PostComment
-
You're *Originally posted by DeV View PostFor now, everything hangs on implementation of the CoDF report.Comment
-
No Grammar Nazis. This is not that thread."Are they trying to shoot down the other drone? "
"No, they're trying to fly the tank"Comment
Comment