Typhoon - Lack of Spares. No shocks there then

[SRENNAPS]

BBC News - RAF Typhoon jets 'grounded owing to spares shortages' (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-13081691)

The committee claimed that the RAF was having to cannibalise aircraft for spare parts in order to keep the maximum number of Typhoon

Ahhh "Robbing", brings back so many happy memories.

[Redcarpet]

Is there a fleet where that doesn't happen !?

[4Greens]

Hangar Queen, Christmas Tree in the RN. Happy days.

[dkh51250]

However, do bear in mind that this is an availability contract, and BAE should be picking up the tab for any airframe shortfalls.

[Jabba_TG12]

Hmmm.

With particular emphasis on the "should"..... :ugh:

Pardon my cynicism if I take that with a JCB bucket full of salt...:suspect:

[GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU]

BAE should be picking up the tab for any airframe shortfalls.

That is a nice cosy thought, isn't it. Unfortunately for the Taxpayer, these machines aren't Far Eastern built motor cars where they will replace free of charge any bits that wear out. If you want that level of support, you have to pay for it and HM Treasury is not that free with "its" money. I don't know but I suspect that the contract would have been negotiated and approved for peacetime operational tempo with limited overseas dets. Additionally, any support stores held by the MoD would have been provisioned on that wonderful barely enough just too late principle; the one where stock holding is strongly discouraged by those equally wonderful RAB charges.

Don't ask why the MoD put in place such bone programme inhibitors: it didn't; the Treasury did.

[Pontius Navigator]

That strongly discouraged by those equally wonderful RAB charges.

Don't ask why the MoD put in place such bone programme inhibitors: it didn't; the Treasury did.

the Treasury did - which Chancellor dreamt that one up?

[tucumseh]

that wonderful barely enough just too late principle


Prior to 13.1.88 MoD had a max/min stock level system. The "min" level included War Reserve so during peacetime you never actually got down to the "min" level. In theory.


On 13.1.88, AMSO decided to scrap all consumable spares held both at MoD and Industry to support 4th line repair. Henceforth, spares demands that were at inability took the procurement lead time (at least 12 months for many) to be satisfied. Of course, this meant the spares that were scrapped had to be replaced more or less immediately, but as they were now to be bought on an "as required" basis, the unit price rocketed. (Try going to a supplier and asking for one Travelling Wave Tube. Something that cost £8k each for Qty 50, now cost £20k for a one-off, due to production yield etc. That's a typical FW example of the day).


To complement this wasteful policy, from 1.10.90 any demand for a repairable or limited class store (LRUs etc) was allowed to go to inability and only then was a requisition raised to initiate contract action for a repair contract. Again, the lead time was in many cases 12 months. (Contract negotiation, order spares, repair etc).


As part of this policy, the concept of holding War Reserve serviceable was ditched as another savings measure. AMSO successfully met their target by managing to rid us of much War Reserve "just in time" for the outbreak of GW1.


The later introduction of "just in time" was actually a desperate attempt to rescind these policies by acknowledging that front line units usually required whatever they were demanding PDQ.


When generations have been brought up under the old systems I describe, "just in time" is unlikely to work very well!


And then along came "Integrated Operational Support" contracts..... God help us.

[Rossian]

...you've laid out for us, Tuc.
I often wonder if ANY of these very clever chaps ever see the results of their thinking?

I remember a long time ago being told about "Monte Carlo" simulation where you created a lot of likely outcomes and then rolled dice to answer the question "What do we do if......happens" Surely there must be a modern equivalent? Do they ever use it?

I did hear first hand of a young sharp graduate sent in by the management consultants who queried why we kept such large stocks of ammunition when the "just in time" practice would fill the bill. It took a much older and wiser head to say "Listen son you're a squaddie in a forward outpost. You're under fire and you run out of bullets. How do you propose resupplying him in that situation"
"I hadn't thought of that....!"

Answer was the management consultants hired an independent consultant with direct sevice experience to sort out the FUBAR (and bill MOD for the second consultant's fee.)

T'would make you weep.

The Ancient Mariner

[racedo]

I think the Libya Debacle is showing up just how lacking an ability there is to keep a minor operation going for any length of time both in resources and crew.

Russians no doubt are taking all this in as now would be an ideal time to start playing games out of the North Atlantic for a couple of weeks.

I'd ask how it has come to this but shareholders of the suppliers are smiling.

Least the almost 100 year old expression from WW1 is still apt, the Donkeys are still in charge.

[TEEEJ]

This is old news. How many more times are journalists going to re-hash an old story in order to get an attention grabbing headline?

House of Commons Oral Evidence - Public Accounts Committee - 9th March 2011.

Corrected Evidence - 860-i (http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmselect/cmpubacc/c860-i/c86001.htm)

Public Accounts Committee - Thirtieth Report - Management of the Typhoon Project

House of Commons - Management of the Typhoon Project - Public Accounts Committee (http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmselect/cmpubacc/860/86002.htm)

TJ

[green granite]

What It boils down to is that we either fund our armed forces properly or stop pretending that we are still a world player and poking our nose into things.

[NutLoose]

Shock horror aircraft get robbed lol......... They must be living in a dream world, never happened on Tornados at war did it..............


http://sharpshooter-maj.com/Images/bv16/treepresents.jpg


LOL :p

[SCAFITE]

More Battles have been lost to lack of Supply and Logistics that you can shake a stick at. By the sounds of it (I have been out for 8 years) the RAF Supply network as been taken back 40 years, by handing most of the Supply network to the Army (God Bless Them). Back in the late 70s when the RAF Supply got its first real time computer, the AMSO could for the first time there and then see what he had in stock and where it was located and in the case of reparables what condition they were in and how long it would take to get them back on the shelf. In the RAF not a spare part large or small ever belonged to an individual unit or Sqn it was always owned by the bigger RAF, and could be moved to where it was needed by command authority or even by some SAC working in PPC (Priority Progression Cell). This global visual of your assets was developed over many years in conjunction with the engineers and worked quite well. Don’t get me wrong nothing was ever perfect and there was always some chap who could not get a pair of shoes or socks, and to the average Joe the effectiveness of the Supply network was only what he could see in front of his nose which is understandable. But the bigger system did deliver especially to where it was important i.e. Aircraft grounded by spares in some far flung land. As the previous post stated Max and Min stocks were the life blood of any Stacker worth his salt, especially when it was done manually before effective computer systems. Even under the manual system daily reports were still signaled to Command reporting major or important items which would affect operations. In the Army this was never the case in fact once issue forward from depot it vanished into a black hole and only at regimental level did they have visual on assets. So you had the case of one regiment of Tanks U/S for spares only to have a regiment down the road with a load of spare that no one could see. In the first Gulf war the only way for the Army in Germany to prep their tanks and other important vehicles was to place adverts of BFBS TV asking all QM to report stocks, all the RAF had to do to find out about Aircraft bits and bobs was to ring command or PPC as ask for a global and they could tell you where all the bit were located and what levels of serviceability they were at, it is just as important to know what you have not got as it is important to know what you have got. So after years of developing a system for the tracking and locating valuable assets it looks as if has been kicked into touch and given over to Army. I am sure the current RAF Suppliers or (Logs Sup) or whatever they are called are doing the best job possible, but it seems the system behind them is going to Rat ****. The Military have never been like industry and unexpected wars or operation sometimes bite you in the Bum, so effective stock reserves or manpower reserves are still a must or you will fail or at least not be able to go on for very long.

[GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU]

Prior to 13.1.88 MoD had a max/min stock level system.

Except in the Navy where Max/Min provisioning was only used for certain "simple" store ranges. Most provisioning was via a statistical system that used (and still does) quite a clever stock algorithm. The key element in that system is the Safety Stock. There was always pressure to reduce the Safety Stock from people who thought it was ring-fenced stock sat on a shelf/pallet/rack/you name it. It was/is just a variable value inside the algorithm. It could be reduced by tinkering with the provisioning parameters but the cash saving was a one off event and usually needed "buys" to be closer together. That little but often buying often does work economically but the Enabling Arrangement with the Contractor to achieve it didn't/doesn't guarantee a worthwhile overall purchase quantity. The unit price of the store usually increased/increases accordingly.

Then came the Consultants: KPMG. They conjoured up a series of "levers" that any simpleton could pull to make desirable things happen inside the Support Chain. The Consultant's findings and recommendations cost a lot of money to produce and there was no way anyone was to be allowed to argue with them. You don't always actually get what you pay for.

[SRENNAPS]

TEEEJ

It might be old news in one form or the other, but at the end of the day the more times that it is reported by our press the more chance that the problems will be resolved.

The general public still support our Armed Forces and the politicians hate news stories like this…..so keep them coming.

I for one do not hold anybody responsible for the lack of spares. It is the way it was, the way it is, and the way it will always be. But there is a chance that something will be done to resolve the issues when these problems are continually highlighted to the general public.

NutLoose

Cracking picture

[Spurlash2]

The Register, courtesy of Lewis Page, has more HERE (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/04/15/eurofighters_attack_the_pac/).

[F3sRBest]

The Register, courtesy of Lewis Page, has more HERE (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/04/15/eurofighters_attack_the_pac/).

Oh joy, yet more insightful and well-informed analysis!!! :uhoh:

[Gaz ED]

Lewis Page can f*ck off, along with Sharkey. I'm getting fed up with this inane drivel.

Buy american, it's the best. The Americans never have overspend. All their equipment is on time and cost.Ballocks!

In the words of Malcom Tucker;-

"F*ck the F*ck off!"

I'm going the pub................

[F3sRBest]

I'm sure I've met you Gaz ED ;)

[Unchecked]

Re: the thread title.

Yep, no shocks at all. Or tyres and brakes etc...

[racedo]

I'm going the pub................

Has been known to have been a good way to ensure that certain required supplies reach where needed.............there are at least 2 ways to read that :)

[TEEEJ]

SRENNAPS wrote



It might be old news in one form or the other, but at the end of the day the more times that it is reported by our press the more chance that the problems will be resolved.

I don't see it that way. Call me cynical. I just see the BBC going for a dramatic headline simply to jump on the Typhoon bashing bandwagon. News stories such as this will not make the slightest bit of difference, IMHO.

TJ

[Geehovah]

Maybe I missed it but Typhoon was supposed to break the mould.

Logistics support was on a 4 Nation basis. The "hole in the wall" was going to provide spares on demand from whichever country had the spare on the shelf. Good so far.

The catch was, Nations estimated how many spares they needed and stated the requirement. The UK MOD (read Treasury) decided we couldn't afford that many spares and cut back on our provision (read "cash"). Fail to fill the spares bucket and you get less access to spares.

Now we're short of spares. Go figure!

Anyone familiar with the RB199 saga in the 90s will understand my point.

Like all Strategic Defence Reviews, the reality hits home many years later when it really matters.

[draken55]

TEEEJ

"I just see the BBC going for a dramatic headline simply to jump on the Typhoon bashing bandwagon".

Why have you have chosen to single out the BBC? This story was on all the TV News Channels and all the major newspapers as indeed it should be!

Are you really suggesting that the PAC just had an axe to grind? Do we just accept we are pre-destined to screw up all major defence projects ad infinitum with no lessons ever to be learned from previous mistakes?

[SRENNAPS]

TEEEJ

I don't see it that way. Call me cynical. I just see the BBC going for a dramatic headline simply to jump on the Typhoon bashing bandwagon. News stories such as this will not make the slightest bit of difference, IMHO

Cynical yes, and there is an element of truth in what you say.

However the way I look at it is that the BBC maybe bashing the Typhoon, but the public see it as yet another problem with the lack of money spent on the Armed Forces when they have been committed to yet another operation. In work today I have had several people commenting (with some disgust) that our latest and most modern aircraft has no spares. When I explained that this was nothing new and we suffered the same problem with the Tonka back in 1980, they were even more horrified. Some of them do take notice and they do care!

It was only post GW2 and the ramp up off Afghanistan that the message about the lack of proper equipment such as boots and body armour started to be reported by the press. It was reported and reported and quite often hyped up out of all proportion. But it worked and finally decent equipment (and many other things) was delivered.

When there is no publicity given to a particular problem, then the MOD (including the Senior Officers) and the Government will not react.
If the BBC want to broadcast another 20 hyped up stories about the Typhoon, then let it be.

Geehovah

Maybe I missed it but Typhoon was supposed to break the mould.

Logistics support was on a 4 Nation basis.

It was called ILS – Integrated Logistic Support -Not Instrument Landing System:p

Mil Std 1388, Def Stan 0060 (now 600) and it was to be the saviour of the supportability world.

The truth of the matter is that we have always been very good at predicting how many spares we need, even from the old CSDE days.

However, what is the point of all this good analysis if the bean counters “save money” by not buying the recommended spares. You end up with short term, false economies and in a situation that we never actually recover from.

And to be quite frank the situation is fully endorsed within the MOD by our lords and masters from Sqn Ldr upwards on every project.:ugh::ugh:

[Fox3WheresMyBanana]

Of course, another problem with 'christmas trees' is that when the big part finally arrives, the jet can't just get airborne with the Unit Test Pilot. All the other robbed parts being put back in causes a long list of minor to major snags. I used to fly 'shakedown' trips, as they were known, to find out what was misbehaving before the UTP got it. The warning panel certainly looked like a christmas tree at times.
One of these days, there will be a combination of snags that requires a MB letdown, and we won't have saved too much money then.

[Chidken Sangwich]

Ah, but is it the aircraft or the crew...?

Sky News ticker tape at the bottom of the screen on Friday night was saying 'Typoons grounded due to lack of Aircrew spares'... I was wondering what this actually meant, pilots with the 1 leg or something I guess...?

[TEEEJ]

Draken55,

I singled out the BBC because that is the link that was posted. My gripe is why not report it in a timely fashion? That info was public knowledge back in early March. Some hack has simply stumbled on the public accounts committee webpage and went straight for an easy headline.They could re-hash the story every week and it still wouldn't make the slightest bit of difference, IMHO.

TJ

[Willard Whyte]

Anyone familiar with the RB199 saga in the 90s will understand my point.Indeed, when flying stuff in C-130s out to The Gulf the load was always 'a 199 + ...'

T'was always better when a Conway was on board, they only ever seemed to break when way out West.

[TEEEJ]

SRENNAPS,

I've also seen reaction from people believing that the entire fleet was grounded due to the BBC headline. I can see your point of view and thanks for the debate.

TJ

[LookingNorth]

TEEEJ
It was called ILS – Integrated Logistic Support -Not Instrument Landing System:p

Mil Std 1388, Def Stan 0060 (now 600) and it was to be the saviour of the supportability world.

The truth of the matter is that we have always been very good at predicting how many spares we need, even from the old CSDE days.

However, what is the point of all this good analysis if the bean counters “save money” by not buying the recommended spares. You end up with short term, false economies and in a situation that we never actually recover from.

And to be quite frank the situation is fully endorsed within the MOD by our lords and masters from Sqn Ldr upwards on every project.:ugh::ugh:

Precisely. We saw Def Stan 0060 being pushed in the RN back in the 90s as the be all and end all and to a man we all knew the shiny new procedures and paperwork would go precisely as far as the Treasury wanted, and no further.

It still amazes me how few people realise that accountants run the country, not politicians.

[tornadoken]

Short-order batches - one offs - cost a mega and are the cause of these "scandal" reports of £00s for a bulb or bolt. So, buy Economic Order Quantites, like airlines? Well no. Airline operation is at predictable intensity, so a balance can be made: best-value modification status, vs. stock obsolescence which condemns new kit from shelf to scrap. Except only for Airworthiness Mandatory items, airlines issue all their modification status A kit before releasing status B stock. Or that's what they try to do. The cheapest way is concurrently with original build to buy a life-of-type stock of bits. But that locks the User in to Day 1 status, losing the benefit of upgrades. Like running this screen on Windows Version Dawn-of-Time-You-Must-Be-Joking. I have that option for this, my innocent pastime. No-one is coming at me with harmful intent, with better kit than mine.

It's not Treasury. Treasury, alone, never cuts anything. Their bright young folk ask simple questions in the sense "Why do you want this thing". If the Buyer Minister has a good answer, he gets it. If not, not. Finite pot of gold; alternative uses...like leaving our money in our pockets. The Sun's front page + 2 more, on Monday, was Junk Jet, pics. of (they said: 60) Harrier GR9 stored at Cottesmore, shortly to be chopped. Scandal. Well, no. The collective of Ministers cut the Defence Budget. SecState for Defence, not the Chancellor of the Exchequer, offered up Harriers. If you want them to retain Harrier, then offer up something else. Or pay more taxes. Or vote in the other lot.

[Willard Whyte]

So, buy Economic Order Quantites, like airlines? Well no. Airline operation is at predictable intensity, so a balance can be made: best-value modification status, vs. stock obsolescence which condemns new kit from shelf to scrap.I remember the time when we trained at a similar tempo to the way we expected to fight.

As ever, training goes down the pan when the cash flow becomes a dribble.