No long term planning for equipment procurement by MOD??

[S78]

BBC NEWS | Politics | Warning over UK defence equipment (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7911207.stm)



S78

[KENNYR]

S78, I don't know why anyone would be surprised by the news article. We all know that the MOD procurement system is in need of a complete make-over. The money that is spent on cancelled or delayed procurement projects is disgusting. A lot of this wasted money could be saved if the politicians actually asked the soldier/airman/seaman on the front line what he/she needs.

[onlywatching]

A lot of money could be saved if the politicians actually listened to DE&S rather than getting involved themselves.

[Madbob]

We all know that MOD procurement is a joke. This is never helped by political interference and the cumulative effect of under-funding/over-stretch......

In an ideal world the Govt ought to set up a sinking fund out of each year's budget allocation, such that as that as the fatigue life of each aircraft, helo, ship, tank or whatever was consumed a "payment" was made into the fund needed to replace that asset.

Over time, the "fund" would accumulate and out of that the cost of each replacement would be met.....then there wouldn't be half the heartache of having to make "difficult" decisions....It all sounds too simple.

It makes the "options for change" review at the end of the Cold War sound a bit hollow. Cuts in manpower, base closures etc. with promises of more "teeth and less tail" whilst ensuring the UK had the best equipped forces.... Now the tail is gone, the TA and reserve forces are regularly having to fill holes in the front-line and the "teeth" are falling out!

If it wasn't so serious, I would have to laugh:{.

MB

[dervish]

It's actually those with a vested interest having a rant about failure to implement Lord Drayson's (remember him?) Defence Industrial Strategy and Defence Technology Strategy.

[Wader2]

Madbob, where float this sinking fund? In the same deep hole as the National Insurance Fund?

[Madbob]

I made a caveat in my post .....in an "ideal world" is what I said.....

MB

[Mister-T]

Lets be blunt here, the Labour Government have used and abused the MoD since coming into power, and that ladies and gentlemen is the root cause.

[The Helpful Stacker]

Mister-T - Although I'm usually quick to jump on the "kick Labour in the @rse" bandwagon the Tories weren't exactly tripping over themselves either to provide the MoD with the budget it needed for the task in hand.

I will agree though that the defence budget has been much more poorly handled by those lords and masters who have sent the armed forces of this country into two large scale operations at the same time, but rose-tinted specs may need to be removed when casting an eye back of Tory defence spending.

[airborne_artist]

Mister-T - MoD procurement has been a failure since much further back than 1997, I can assure you.

In no particular order - spineless officers worried about their pension and their post-retirement civvy job working in the defence sector, civil servants, and politicians. Stir together well, and you'd be lucky to get the content of a stationery cupboard, let alone feed, clothe and equip all the Armed Services.

[Not_a_boffin]

The problem tends to be lots of long-term planning (of admittedly variable quality, but some really very good) which is all undone when DEP (or whatever they're called now) in town makes a short-term programme change, usually to reprofile the EP&S lines to stay within the somewhat artificial constraint of the annual capital & resource budgets. Impact - large amounts of said planning out the window, or crucial assumptions in said plans inconspicuously undone.

Result - a bigger mess the following year. I have yet to see a reprofiling achieve its desired effect........

[tucumseh]

I’m a firm believer in keeping things simple;

The budget is finite, so don’t waste what you have.
Make it an offence to deliberately waste money, or instructing others to. Unfortunately………... Ah, you know the story by now. I have this letter from some **** called Moonie saying I’m the only person in MoD who believes this.

[Evalu8ter]

"I have yet to see a reprofiling achieve its desired effect........"

NaB, oh but you have!! The desired effect is to delay making a decision until after posting/promotion/CBE/retirement/General Election/Defence Review (delete as appropriate).

[NutLoose]

Wonder what i could get out of them for this?

Yours for free: The James Bond Stealth ship U.S. Navy can't even give away | Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1156524/Yours-free-The-James-Bond-Stealth-ship-U-S-Navy-away.html)

[Jackonicko]

Come back Paul Drayson.....

[Pontius Navigator]

I agree with THS, before 1997 I would actually put the Labour ahead of Tory as far as defence spending was concerned. In retrospect I think Dennis Healey really was the forces friend and it probably was of a benefit that we had one Defence Minister for thw whole of that labour terms who then served as Chancellor for the whole of the next. Now THAT is continuity.

While we could go round the TSR2 buoy, remember the F4, C130, Tornado and even keeping the 3 through-deck cruisers.

It is after 1997 that committments escalated but defence shrunk.

[Melchett01]

Without getting into the debate of which party is better / worse at procurement, as has already been said, the lack of planning in procurement is nothing new and certainly pre-dates 1997.

In fact, I would go so far as to say that the lack of planning across Govt is nothing new, and I can think of one report published IIRC by the Hansard Society as far back as 1979 that highlighted the fact. The problem lies in the fact that industry relies on longer term planning assumptions in order to plan and equip itself - probably why the Minister responsible for DIS - I forget which claimed industry told him they didn't want a constantly updated DIS.

On the other hand, politicians who control the purse strings and rightly or wrongly make the decisions are not interested in anything beyond the term of Parliament, after all, they may be doing something else in 5 years time.

What is somewhat concerning / distressing is that despite this short termism being highlighted as far back as 79, there appears to be no appetite to do anything about it.

[BEagle]

Remember Options for Change?
http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a341/nw969/Internet/zxzxz.jpg

We need force levels which we can afford and which can realistically be manned, given demographic pressures in the 1990s. The aim is smaller forces, better equipped, properly trained and housed, and well motivated. They will need to be flexible and mobile and able to contribute both in NATO and, if necessary, elsewhere.

The 'smaller forces' were proposed to be:

A reduction in service manpower by 18% over about five years to an Army of around 120,000, a Navy of around 60,000 and the RAF of around 75,000.

A week after Options for Change was published, Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait.

Just compare the pitiful current strength of the RAF under nuLabor to the way it was even in 1990, let alone when I joined in 1968 (at the end of which year the RAF had 112433 personnel and 1738 aircraft) and it doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand why so many have left in disgust.....:mad:

According to a letter in Flight International at the time, the RAF's 'teeth' aircraft for the 'forthcoming decade' were to be:

96 Buccaneers, 100 Phantoms, 100 Lightnings, 50 Vulcans, 150 Jaguars and 60 Harriers.......

There were also around 40 more military aerodromes in the UK alone back then compared with today.....

:(

[Pontius Navigator]

The aim is smaller forces, better equipped, properly trained and housed, and well motivated

Certainly smaller. Certainly better equipped. Certainly properly trained. That leaves just two to go.

I am told that Channel 4 is fishing on Facebook for material about housing and their airships are worried about how this will be presented. If there is no problem then they should not be worried.

Mmm, bit like the cabinet papers ne c'est pa?