Debate: In a recently published letter to the editor describing Evenes-mayor debate supporting “Keep Andøya AFB” with terms such as “ most debaters more concerned to submit false claims …. “” it has been a endless series of statements that virtually all is incorrect “and” …. desire to misinform many people as possible, most . ” I understand that the mayor here trying to take victimhood in this matter, but to assert that most debaters make inaccurate claims is in my view to go far out of line, direct rudely and a mayor unworthy. Is it really at this level mayor of Evenes want to lead the debate? Moreover, when the main point through known control techniques is to generalize and assert that the counterparty risks with untruths so should the mayor stick to the truth itself.
In the future, I would ask the mayor of Evenes to refute what he perceives as falsehoods by as it is made so that we can get a real factual discussion rather than to make such general accusations.
we are many in Andoy who are engaged in the case. Anything else would be unthinkable after reading the documentation that government on June 17 this year put forward as an argument for the closure of Andøya AFB. Our main concern is primarily to show how good our own airbase is, both qualitatively and geographically, but when assessments of important issues in the Government’s proposed alternative is incomplete and / or non-existent, we must be allowed to ask questions, and point out errors and omissions . We understand well that the pain and irritation that we ask timely questions, but also we are concerned with “the best of Northern Norway, Norway and NATO” that Kristiansen writes in conclusion of his speech.
The mayor seems being in a position where he can guarantee that the PwC report is not designed to underpin an already made its decision. In their eagerness to adopt buildup of Evenes he should restrain himself a bit, not least in respect of an entire society that is now threatened on the basis of a report that you either have to be member of government or resident in Evenes to defend. Andøy has already pointed out a number of conditions which reveal missing, if not totally absent quality assurance report. The decision basis as that report is supposed to be is simply everything bad that Parliament be able to make an important decision. I would argue that the government, based on the past week disclosures should modify its proposal at this point in LTPen. As mayor of Andøy already have looked at – if not FD / PwC fail to bring out simple number of accounting and render them correctly in the report, but actually manages to miss by 90%, what should anyone expect about the more complicated calculations and assessments made in connection with the preparation of the report?
the Norwegian government and the Norwegian defense has long history as regards adding expensive elements after that important irreversible decision has been made and thereby blow all budgets. We want to ensure that this does not happen in this process, by requiring that it be thorough, quality-assured processing in which all parties are heard, where we have presented calculations and get complementary and full answers to our questions.
PwC’s mayor Kristiansen writes an international and prestigious group. This report could FD nice to have written himself, but it is important to present the conclusions have come from a hired consultant company. Note 2 in PwC’s report refer to the “Ministry of Defence (2015). Input to the socio-economic analysis. “. This is a note we do not get access to and which gave PwC framework for the report they were commissioned to work. I would assume that many of the arcane conclusions and figures have their origins in this guideline document. It would be nice if the Ministry of Defence had released that document and any other normative information given in the process so that we might absolve PwC, or at least can understand why PwC concludes way they do.
If the mayor Evenes is not willing to take in you that Evenes has bad approach conditions, he must at least stop claiming that “the truth is quite the contrary.” In my world can not “contrary” of “bad approach matters” mean but that he believes that Evenes has good approach conditions, and it is in my view simply nonsensical, and tends to lie. – And in an opinion piece in which his main concern is the frustration of misconduct and that “counterparty” risks with falsehoods and lies. We have summer ia read in the press that “ Americans to have taken the approach conditions at Evenes that bad, and that they believe the airport is unsuitable for testing of its Global Hawk and Triton drones “, and that, I think says it all. The Americans wanted to Andoy.
I would also remind you that flight condition has as much to do with topography that wind alone. The topography at Andøya can be explained with one word: Flatt. Evenes is everything else, and it affects the aeronautical conditions.
I note that Mayor Kristiansen in his speech uses relatively much space to explain that satellite-based approach system will make the base better equipped and that the well is “reason to believe that the new aircraft will use new technology. ” This is all a long way to acknowledge that approach the conditions are not good, while he sows uncertainty about whether the new aircraft will actually use these technologies.
When the mayor saw sarcastic quotes around the word “experts” who have commented on the weather at Evenes I guess it’s Edmar Schaug-Pettersen post he is referring. Schaug-Pettersen’s statement is undoubtedly an expert opinion in this regard and then Evenes mayor only show so much he wants to “statistics from Avinor, trivia and meteorological reports.” Schaug-Pettersen has 35 years experience as flymeterolog in defense and has worked on all military air bases in Norway, including several times at Evenes.
When Schaug-Pettersen writes that “ Evenes was and is a nightmare respect runway direction subject to strong side wind, often in combination with slippery runway (water ice). Steep approach trace from north of turbulence and lots of water / moisture sources in the area had often sudden bad landing conditions. On the same day with relatively poor weather could aircraft operations discontinued from Andoy, Bodo and Bardufoss but Evenes did not “one aircraft in the air” by weather conditions “so it’s an important statement that the mayor in Evenes can take note and desist from to trivialize and ridicule. Schaug-Pettersen points out a very important factor that should be one of the main criteria when deciding where defense only military airbase in northern Norway will be located. Government writes in LTPen that fighters are sensitive to wind, and the facts are unfortunately so when the military aircraft have on the wings so they need it – and it applies to both MPA (we know after 50 years of operation with Orion on Andøya) and F- 35. They can not sit at Evenes to wait for better weather.
Since the mayor is so tired of questions about space at Evenes then he must also help to produce a plan that disproves what we have so incredibly difficult for thinking – namely that there is space for everything a collocated military enebasebase in northern Norway should be able to cover. I would challenge Kristiansen to contribute to ease some of the pressure by providing a credible plan within MoD’s budgetary framework for enebase at Evenes shows that Evenes, with its many natural space constraints (water, topography and nature reserves), is able to accommodate all the activity that enters at the base in daily operations, during exercise and by mobilization. There must be allowed for us to ask for an areally and accompanying economic statement before Parliament should make an irreversible decision.
Evenes has space limitations and should the proposed solution in the daily house MPA base, forward QRA, future drone squadron and its hangars as well as a growing civil aviation. In addition, as known Americans mooted that they might be interested in a permanent US forward base for reconnaissance, probably with their squadron building / hangar etc. During an exercise or mobilization shall base in addition eg accommodate support for own jagerskvadronene, allies jagerskvadroner with associated support (transport, tanker, crew etc), Allied MPA support, dedicated protruded helikopterskvadroner with support, Allied helikopterskvadroner with support, Allied droneskvadroner with associated equipment, and daily traffic of fighters, helicopters and other units from Allied aircraft carrier out to sea off the Norwegian coast. All this comes in addition to transport and aircraft for transporting personnel and equipment transport dc airlift to Evenes as central reception center during exercise and mobilization.
Mayor Kristiansen applauds at the end of his speech Deputy Minister Øystein Bo’s statement about changes in our security policy setting that underscores the importance of protection of bases of long-range air defense. Long-range air defense there carrying operational argument in enebaseforslaget whether there would be enebase Andøya or at Evenes. It has from many quarters been commented that the long-range air defense is a pie in the sky when Norway has neither a system or under investigation procurement of such systems as from what I understand to be extremely costly. No, nor secretary Bo has so far said this against.
So think therefore the Ministry of Defence, State Secretary Bo and the mayor in Evenes that Parliament should vote for a enebaseløsning at Evenes, which is based on protection of a long-range antiaircraft Parliament has not been presented with, do not know the price of and do not know when any will be in place. On top of it all, the Defense Ministry in its guidelines to PwC determined that predicted frame costs for this system should not be included in the cost setup enebaseløsning Evenes and enebaseløsning Andoy – of course that politicians do not understand what costs we are talking about. In turn, used any decision about enebaseløsningen to argue that the Norwegian Defence must invest in long-range air defense.
At the end I would encourage Mayor Kristiansen to take a closer look at the arguments for shared base. Today Evenes a resolution QRA-base, and Andøy supports it through to propose a shared solution despite the fact that financial disclosures show that enebaseløsning Andoy also backs economically is an equally good proposal that enebaseløsning Evenes. When Christmas comes to Evenes be in the situation that they have neither QRA or MPA.
No comments:
Post a Comment