MoD budgeting 'harms' UK missions

[Wanderer]

What are the chances of this report having any effect at all? The system is of procurement is so flawed and outdated that it can only remain ineffective and slow for many years to come. Good luck Mr Gray in trying to solve this one.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8216556.stm

 

[FOMz]

MoD budgeting 'harms' UK missions

Ministry of Defence systems for buying new equipment are so inefficient they are "harming our ability" to conduct operations, a leaked report suggests.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8216556.stm

No sh1t sherlock!

 

[vim_fuego]

297 pages costing no doubt hundreds of thousands of tax payers money to tell the population something we already knew...

Puts them in the same ball park as the people responsible for procurement doesn't it?



I could describe the problem on the back of a fag packet using a 49p biro...BAE/Thales/Any producer with UK links and too many high ranking O's looking for places on the board of these firms when they leave plus an unrealistic and obstinate aspiration by the government to create jobs for the boys at any cost or loss of capability...

Complete...

 

[Ex-Bay]

But how long will it take to change ?
And WILL it change next year ??

Somehow I doubt it.

 

[firestorm]

Stop the press!
"Government couldn't run a p1$$ up in a brewery shocker!"

 

[FOMz]

And the Governments reply is........

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8217172.stm

Bill Rammell has no credibility in my eyes and I don't believe a word that comes out of his mouth. Next he'll be saying JPA audits are a good thing for the Armed Forces.. (just remind us Bill about you claiming for a second home 20 odd miles away from Parliment)

 

[Rigga]

Just a guess really....but...

It will take about six months to find someone prepared to head a study group.
A further six months to complile a group prepared to study the issue.
A further 12 months to decide what parts of the issue are to be studied (and why) and what parts should be left well alone (and why)
A start date for the study will be announced - some months ahead of the start
The study will start - slowly - as soon as everyone is back from other jobs and holidays.
The study halts for six months due to unforseen circumstances.
The study recommences but with reduced manpower due to new jobs holidays etc.
A mid study report takes three months to compile. It is issued and says that nothing of significance has been noticed so far.
One year later the study is completed and five more months go by whilst the report is drafted.
The 1st Draft does the rounds - taking 1 year.
There is some high level discussion about the suitability/qualifications of the Head of the Study
Second Draft is passed after just 6 months.
The report does the rounds prior to issue - An MoD minister decides to sit on it untill after an election - 12 months more.
The report is leaked to the press after three months.
The report is quickly published to quieten headlines before the election.

The report says there needs to be a study into the productivity of current procurement systems throughout MoD urgently!


...'course - I might be wrong!

Rigga

 

[Stax]

IMHO, the main problem is the third Tenent of the MOD which is "to support British industry". If you are one of those companies who get a contract from the MOD, you're quids in as we are duty bound to support the programme to the end. It doesn't help that we don't always know what we want from the contractors. Take Typhoon, initially a cold war concept for air to air comabat, the we had to pay out even more for MROED to allow it to fight the kindof war we tend to find ourselves in. Flash to bang, 40 odd years? Astor and JCA? Both off the shelf, tried and tested aircraft and systems. Flash to bang, around 10 to 15 years (may not be fullly accurate but you get my drift). If British industry wants our support and our money then they need to do things better!

Rant over!

 

[Toxicseagull]

snippets of the slides from the presentation of the report if your interested

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/nickrobinson/2009/08/gray_report_sli.html

as an example

If British industry wants our support and our money then they need to do things better!

there are significant problems with oversea's equipment as well though, software access for the Sentinel and the F35, as well as the Chinooks, being pushed back in the line of production for the home state benefits, no money made from exports etc.
it is a vital industry and one of Britain leading ones (just like our fledgling space industry). of course they will take you to the cleaners, every other manufacturer does that to the home team but they do some great kit when they are given a decent requirement that doesnt try to make one piece of equipment do everything at once and expecting it to be the lowest price as well.

 

[Shugster]

IMHO, the main problem is the third Tenent of the MOD which is "to support British industry". If you are one of those companies who get a contract from the MOD, you're quids in as we are duty bound to support the programme to the end. It doesn't help that we don't always know what we want from the contractors. Take Typhoon, initially a cold war concept for air to air comabat, the we had to pay out even more for MROED to allow it to fight the kindof war we tend to find ourselves in. Flash to bang, 40 odd years? Astor and JCA? Both off the shelf, tried and tested aircraft and systems. Flash to bang, around 10 to 15 years (may not be fullly accurate but you get my drift). If British industry wants our support and our money then they need to do things better!

Rant over!

Have to agree here.

As you pointed out from concept to production can and does take MANY years, by which time the requirement has changed and the available technology has moved on.

Contractors do to a certain extent ride the gravy train once they're on board and aren't too keen for the ride to end early.

I was talking to an old friend in the industry about coding and design when he said, "As long as fits and works it's OK"... "B0ll0x", said I.

You build something that allows you to add things later on without any drastic design changes. For the cost of more memory and a faster processor it makes sense to leave room for changes at the start. And the code has to be as efficient as possible from the start so that adding a feature doesn't mean a complete re-write which could require months if not years of testing and development.

But the main problem IMHO are those who haggle the contracts on behalf of the MOD may have very little understanding of what's involved to design and build whatever it is they want.

 

[Shugster]

snippets of the slides from the presentation of the report if your interested

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/nickrobinson/2009/08/gray_report_sli.html

as an example

there are significant problems with oversea's equipment as well though, software access for the Sentinel and the F35, as well as the Chinooks, being pushed back in the line of production for the home state benefits, no money made from exports etc.
it is a vital industry and one of Britain leading ones (just like our fledgling space industry). of course they will take you to the cleaners, every other manufacturer does that to the home team but they do some great kit when they are given a decent requirement that doesnt try to make one piece of equipment do everything at once and expecting it to be the lowest price as well.

That's where the yanks beat us every time. 1 A/C, 1 job, (Maybe 2 jobs).
The A/C fleet costs more but kicks ar5e at what it does.

 

[metimmee]

Have to agree here.

As you pointed out from concept to production can and does take MANY years, by which time the requirement has changed and the available technology has moved on.

Contractors do to a certain extent ride the gravy train once they're on board and aren't too keen for the ride to end early.

I was talking to an old friend in the industry about coding and design when he said, "As long as fits and works it's OK"... "B0ll0x", said I.

You build something that allows you to add things later on without any drastic design changes. For the cost of more memory and a faster processor it makes sense to leave room for changes at the start. And the code has to be as efficient as possible from the start so that adding a feature doesn't mean a complete re-write which could require months if not years of testing and development.

But the main problem IMHO are those who haggle the contracts on behalf of the MOD may have very little understanding of what's involved to design and build whatever it is they want.

It depends...if the customer demands extensibility then great. If its not in the requirements then it doesnt go in. You'd have a degree of risk mitigation in capacity but in general you'll only produce whats good enough for the task. From a hardware perspective the fewer components, the cooler, the smaller...lastly the cheaper the better.

You'll make more money obfuscating the code - if the customer isnt intelligent enough and doesnt impose standards and proper testing. I'd hazard a guess that this is one of the issues in our dealings with the Spams - issues that we have because MoD is an intelligent customer - imposing airworthiness standards that may not have been met.

Remember the F22 dateline snag that grounded a squadron of F22s in transit? They pushed out a fix within a week - I find it very unlikely that they managed to locate and properly test flight critical software in a controlled fashion in accordance with proper standards.

 

[Ogre]

IMHO, the main problem is the third Tenent of the MOD which is "to support British industry". If you are one of those companies who get a contract from the MOD, you're quids in as we are duty bound to support the programme to the end. It doesn't help that we don't always know what we want from the contractors....... If British industry wants our support and our money then they need to do things better!

Rant over!

As someone who has spent time in the "British Defence Industry" I must admit I used to think the same way (Oh the good old days of "British Wasteofspace"). However, having seen the other side of the fence I must say that the customer could help by making up his mind what he wants!
70 years ago it took a couple of years to design an aircraft from scratch and get it into production, and the cost was relatively minimal. Even through the cold war we could have one aircraft to do one job, so each airframe was designed for a single purpose and most of them did it very well. Since the 70's however each aircraft type has been asked to do cover more than one role, and the end result is always a compromise.
With the speed that world events have changed in the last 10 years the customer keeps saying "oh and can it do this as well....?" which means more redesign and more compromises.

Personal opinion, find something cheap and easy to build, but lots, stick some ordinance on them and if it lasts 5 years it's been worth it. But don't expect it to have all the bells and whistles!

 

[Shugster]

It depends...if the customer demands extensibility then great. If its not in the requirements then it doesnt go in. You'd have a degree of risk mitigation in capacity but in general you'll only produce whats good enough for the task. From a hardware perspective the fewer components, the cooler, the smaller...lastly the cheaper the better.

You'll make more money obfuscating the code - if the customer isnt intelligent enough and doesnt impose standards and proper testing. I'd hazard a guess that this is one of the issues in our dealings with the Spams - issues that we have because MoD is an intelligent customer - imposing airworthiness standards that may not have been met.

Remember the F22 dateline snag that grounded a squadron of F22s in transit? They pushed out a fix within a week - I find it very unlikely that they managed to locate and properly test flight critical software in a controlled fashion in accordance with proper standards.

Experience has taught me to always have something up your sleeve for when someone has forgotten something and your company is liable to pay for a solution. DT_Xtremez_26:

Allowing for expansion could be as simple as putting in extra sockets with a few unused select lines. If they're there at the start it'll be alot easier.

 

[Rigga]

Maybe ... if we decided to ask for all aircraft to have the ability to operate from grass airstrips.. we could have the Cold War Soviet Spec for our aircraft?

Ogre is right - it is mostly the MoD and RAF/RN that keep changing Design Specs as they see new 'toys' appear on the horizon.

What designer is going to turn down a wealthy customer who doesn't know what he wants?

Answers on a postcard to....