Dr Liam Fox MP - Buying COTS for HM Forces

[GasFitter]

I saw the interview with Dr Liam Fox MP this morning, suggesting that we should "consider the Canadian option" of buying Commercial Off-The Shelf (COTS) equipment instead of supporting British Industry and British jobs.
When pushed by the interviewer, he sid that Defence of the Realm comes first amd that we should realize that we do not have a sole 'British Defence Industry'.
So, should we buy more COTS (more unemployed, more DSS payments, less money for Defence, Chinooks parked in hangars) or support British Industry (more expensive, more delay, less money for Defence).
Question: COTS - 'Deal' or 'No Deal'?

[PPRuNeUser0211]

err, samurai, methinks what the potential next government thinks about what they should be buying for the uk military has everything to do with mil aircrew...even those who aren't british who have to work alongside the poor buggers...

COTS? Deal if it's the right kit for the right job! TI sights for the guys on the ground in the sandbox would be a good place to start!

[BEagle]

Ruggedised COTS equipment is often the most pragmatic solution to urgent equipment procurement needs. No individual suppliers should consider that they have an automatic right to supply the UK Armed Forces.

[Safeware]

Buying COTS is what got us into the Chinook Mk 3 poo.

IMHO, JSF is, depsite having such an 'influence' almost COTS as far as we are concerned. And that's a view held even by BAES staff on the project.

COTS is ok if you want to use it exactly as it says on the tin. If you want to tinker, caveat emptor.

sw

[wokawoka]

COTS did not get us in the Mk3 poo as you say. If we had bought the Dutch cockpit as originally planned we would have been fine. As money was taken away from the project by various other departments, it was decided that we had to save money and came up with the great idea of keeping the analogue engine instruments. Therefore the design of interfacing analogue and digital feeds using a mil std as opposed to def std 55/56 recognised by Boscombe.
If we had kept to COTS (yes off the shelf!) instead of being tight wads where we end up paying more in the end, we d be ok with 8 more airframes.
Rant over.....

[Safeware]

Woka,
I think you need to read my last sentence again. We tinkered with COTS. Whatever the reason, we tinkered. And the issues went beyond those you mentioned into 'How would you support this if you want to put it into service?'
COTS and esp COTS software doesn't fit easily with the UK military view of buying a bit of kit and then modifying it to do what we really want it to do for this war.
You can switch your rant back on if you want :)

ps 00-55/56 has nothing to do with interfacing analogue to digital.

sw

[Chugalug2]

COTS and esp COTS software doesn't fit easily with the UK military view of buying a bit of kit and then modifying it to do what we really want it to do for this war.
So don't tinker! Disband the army of people whose sole raison d'etre is to tinker. Off the shelf means off the shelf!

[wokawoka]

Sorry I was referring to your first statement. First one is definitly wrong but your second one is definitly right.

However I do think that COTS would work for us in some areas. In the example of the Mk3 if we d kept to the original design (our design!!!) we would have been fine. The Dutch are.....

[Safeware]

Chug,

If we don't tinker, we have peace-planes, not warplanes.

If we don't need to tinker, we can have COTS, if we need to tinker we don't need COTS.

sw

[Safeware]

Woka,

But the first and last are inextricably linked. If we hadn't tried to by it as a COTS product we wouldn't (hopefully) have ended up in the RTS poo.

Maybe I should have said "Thinking we were buying COTS ......"

But even if we hadn't tried to tinker, it wouldn't really have worked for the UK unless using it exactly as it said on the tin was what we would do. And I know that wouldn't have happened.

sw

[Chugalug2]

Peace planes like the Hercules Ks and Js! The tinkerers wanted to hang RR Tynes on them, when Lockheed finally stopped laughing long enough to say no, the tinkerers stuffed it full of UK electronics instead. Lots of useful warplane stuff like Decca Mk1, which told you where you were (provided you were in the UK or the Gulf), but first you had to tell it where it was! The Smiths Autopilot took one look at the impedance of the US wiring, and went into a sulk so was collared off for a year. Other useful war equipment was the downward looking periscope for the Nav to supply drop, as the side windows at floor level could not possibly suffice, and an Astrodome requiring enlargement of the roof escape hatch to fit. This was not for navigation, as a "sun gun" in the roof was already supplied, but for the Force Commander on a formation drop to observe his command. "Peacetime" kit that the USAF had already fitted as standard, ie ESF, was not deemed necessary, as it was not produced in the UK. The result? the USAF have had Hercules ready for war ever since and we have not! Don't tinker and sack the tinkerers!

[ase engineer]

Dashed good idea - why don't you hire lots more Ghurkas (cheap to get, run and retire) and fire all those British chaps (expensive, keep complaining about rights and always whingeing about not having the best kit unless they bought it from another country)?

[Chugalug2]

I agree that the Ghurkas are good value for money, I for one am glad that they are on our side! British troops are also great value for money, and acknowledged as some of the best troops in the world, not by us but by others. British companies that produce first class products for the armed forces, either as stand alone items, or as part of a multi-partner programme, are great value for money. The bods who take such products and emasculate them into the expensive useless tat sitting in a BD hangar are not. British companies that hang on to life by leeching onto the British tax payer, via the MOD, because they cannot sell their tat onto an open market are not. The UK defence budget should be spent on defence, not on shoring up marginal constituencies by the incumbent government. We are at war, and this cosy set up is costing the lives of our servicemen and women now! Enough already!

[ianp]

Did anyone else think that this thread was about buying more camp beds for detachments?

[Mr-AEO]

Chugs,

Sometimes we tinker because the end-user wants us to, not because we are all sitting idle thinking, "I wonder how I can tinker with that?"

There are lots of good reasons for tinkering with COTS equipment, not least because 1 size usually fits none.

GF

COTS doesn't necessarily mean 'overseas'. We can still go COTS and keep UK jobs supporting British Industry. So your opening argument/point of debate is flawed.:p

[itsonlyme]

COTS is the way ahead. When the C17 was leased the deal was that it was operated as per the original boeing design and the way in which the USAF operate (although obviously lower down the food chain i.e. commands etc they managed a small amount of tinkering to ensure that it was operated much below it's capabilities)

This aircraft works and works well. does the job, very rarely goes u/s and gets praise from everyone who uses it. Unfortunately most things do get "tinkered" with. Why is the RAF the only organization in the world where the following happens. "we need a dog" .... ""lets buy a cat and give it surgery" :ugh:

[SIT head]

I used to think COTS was the answer to everything, why bother designing things that will be out of date by the time they reach the front-line? But then, after seeing at first-hand how nigh-on impossible it is to integrate a COTS system with other systems (bespoke or COTS), I now have my doubts. If you can get a COTS item/system that covers in every respect all of the requirements, then that is just grand - but, if it needs to be integrated with other systems, STOP! STOP! STOP! Integration costs (and time) can often mean the benefits of COTS are blown away and the end user is left with a bu**ers muddle that falls way short of what was promised/contracted or required.
UORs attempt to plug gaps that previous circumstances/decisions have levied and are very often COTS in their design. The problem is, UORs are often withdrawn because the cost of integrating them into legacy systems and programmes becomes prohibitively expensive - hence we bin the enhancement and the end-user has to live with that consequence. So, come the revolution my take would be:
COTS if the requirement is holistically met, with the greatest care being taken to make sure the COTS kit doesn't mess-up the people/equipment/system that it needs to work with. If it doesn't, well, a bespoke suit will cost you more, but last longer, fit better, look better, create a better impression...

[talk_shy_tall_knight]

Didn't we 'tinker' with the C-17 by putting a fuel tank or something half way up the cabin which restricts certain loads...or was that the J...or I might have just dreamt it.:confused:

[Exrigger]

Rumour has it that a new aircraft (not british) went the route of COTS for some avionic boxes, when they arrived they did not fit in the space in the aircraft that had been built for it. The cost of changing the aircaft structure so the COTS equipment would fit was quite a lot, it turned out cheaper to tell the manufacturers first what size hole the kit needs to fit in and have the boxes re-designed.

[Two's in]

Considering the whole DPA structure is based around a few thousand well-intentioned individuals "tinkering" with perfectly good kit in order to to justify their salaries, don't hold your breath for The Vision on the road to Damascus any time soon. You can't change the system until you have fixed the culture.

[Chugalug2]

Chugs,
Sometimes we tinker because the end-user wants us to, not because we are all sitting idle thinking, "I wonder how I can tinker with that?"
There are lots of good reasons for tinkering with COTS equipment, not least because 1 size usually fits none.

Mr AEO; Point taken, and we have to carry out a heavy cull of those bods, of whatever hue, in order to improve the situation! Its win win if they move back to the sharp end, which is probably where most of them would prefer top be anyway. Then all the senior staff officers in charge of those now defunct teams, projects, establishments, etc would be surplus to requirements and so...., oh I think I've just spotted the insurmountable obstacle alluded to by Two's in! Perhaps a real cull would then be called for? :)

[tucumseh]

I think the issue would be much clearer if you used the term “Military Off The Shelf” (MOTS) instead of COTS. MoD makes this distinction. That is, kit which has been developed and certified to recognised military standards. One step removed from this is “ruggedised” COTS, which takes time and money in the context of urgent requirements. (It used to be easier when we had our own workshops to do the ruggedising, but….. ). Finally, one could consider COTS but it is not the panacea many think. It’s highly unlikely to be designed or built to exacting military standards. Think comms – the chances of it passing TEMPEST or EMC tests would be minimal. However, I do agree that there are times when any of the above will suffice. But Safeware is right – if we have to deviate in any way from the build standard, it can be very messy, expensive and time consuming acquiring user rights to the Intellectual Property. I’ve seen UORs procure COTS kit in double quick time, but when the users asked how to work the kit the project office said “Oops, we don’t have that info and can’t afford to buy it or train you”. The user I’m thinking of reverted to Clansman. At least they had a manual for that.


Beagle said “No individual suppliers should consider that they have an automatic right to supply the UK Armed Forces”.

I agree, but have you had a look at the Defence Industrial Strategy and its offspring the Dstl, sorry, Defence Technology Strategy? And Project Orchid, whose sole aim seems to be to meet the demands of BAeS? Mark my words, it won’t be long before defence procurement is simply a matter of looking up the BAeS catalogue and asking them if they would, please, consider selling some kit, at their convenience, to a minor customer. MoD.

[MarkD]

Anyone know what he meant by COTS for Canada? Not the rusty Cormorants surely?

[Hilife]

I suspect the Maritime Helicopter Programme (MHP), 28 CH-148 Cyclone's (H-92 Superhawks) for the Canadian Forces.

[GasFitter]

Liam Fox certainly said COTS.

[Mr-AEO]

2's in.

You have about 18 working days to make your dream a reality, therafter the DPA is dead, long live the DE&S. To take you and Chug's proposal to the ultimate conclusion, we would have no military in the IPTs, Support Groups - are you really sure that you would rather enclave all military in the front line? Not to mention the benefit that they bring to the DE&S, as recognised by VCDS, but also where the hell will you go for some stability after your back to back tours in Eye-Rak or the 'Stan?

BTW, I wouldn't be trusting the technical knowledge of Ministers such as Liam Fox (COTS vs MOTS), whilst they may have a huge brain that can process stuff, they seem to have an ineptitude for technical accuracy. I doubt he's ever heard of MOTS; until he's briefed that is.

[tucumseh]

Those old enough to remember will know that the DE&S structure is largely the same as pre-1991, before (e.g.) aircraft support was split out into AMSO. Which became AML and then part of DLO. DE&S even reverts to terminology of the day, whereby OR Branches (DEC) were Sponsors, not Customer 1 and Services will be Users again. The latter will regain the absolute right to state their priority when it comes to committing money. Last time I had that was 1987. I’m not sure they’ll go back to the old IPT system, but ILS will probably revert to its old meaning. (Good). Although they don’t say it in so many words, it looks like elements of the old Long Term Costings system may return. There was a certain discipline about 2nd and 3rd Order Assumptions which forced OR and Users to work out what they really wanted, where and when. It prevented the nonsense we see today whereby DEC give you a URD, £xM, an ISD 6 weeks hence; but in the “quantity” box say “to be advised next year”.

Having read the propaganda, one thing is crystal clear. Whoever’s driving this has simply trawled the “suggestions box” and rejected MIDAS/GEMS submissions of the mid-90s. In all that I’ve read there is not one single original thought.

[Mr-AEO]

GF sorry for Thread Drift but..

Tuc - a man in the know! You should join the DDMIT team and give them a good steer! I'm not familiar with the way of doing business that you describe, but I hope that we are not re-inventing the wheel completely:bored:

w.r.t Long Term Costings. STP and EP are due to disappear I think, in favour of a 10 year plan that covers both. Support Costs will be approved up front rather than just noted.

As for Customer 1 and 2, I've not seen anything that will alter that terminology - is that what you meant?

[tucumseh]

Mr AEO

“w.r.t Long Term Costings. STP and EP are due to disappear I think, in favour of a 10 year plan that covers both. Support Costs will be approved up front rather than just noted”.

What you describe is precisely what used to happen. 2nd and 3rd Order Assumptions. Note what you have. (Since around 1990 the MoD has not been required to actually know what it has). Work out what you need. Make new materiel and financial provision to buy and support the difference. That is, support costs approved in detail (down to 1/2/3 Line spares, Test Equipment, Training and 4th line repairs and spares) right up front along with the Capital bid. Last time the RN (for example) did this was LTC95 (February 1994). Even then it was only the last remaining post holder from the previous regime who remembered how who did it, on his equipment (sonics for SK ASW if I recall). The others had stopped in 1989, shortly after ASE was formed. Oddly enough, the Permanent LTC Instructions that describe this process have never been rescinded. All DE&S have to do is dig out an old copy (and find someone who knows how to implement them to train the grossly inexperienced staff who now populate DPA and DLO). It is also a feature of this process that financiers/beancounters have very little say in it. These instructions include the statement that (what is now called the Requirement Manager / ILS manager – it used to be the same thing and a civvy post) can use his engineering judgement to overrule the (result of) LTC Instructions. It follows that all RMs must be engineers or they are severely limited; few are. So, this will not solve everything, but it is a start.


”As for Customer 1 and 2, I've not seen anything that will alter that terminology - is that what you meant?”

Yes. Reverting to Sponsor and User. Reason given is that it causes confusion in Industry. (They regard the “Customer” as the IPT project manager, as that’s what their contract says). This is nothing compared to the overall. Page upon page of “new ideas” which are old policies regurgitated. But it’s one thing being able to read old papers, but quite another to be able to implement them!


Apologies for drift. PM me if you want.

[MarkD]

Hilife - forgot about those - thanks. :ok:

Stupid of me to forget that a politician would use an aircraft not yet in CF service to declare the success or otherwise of an initiative :rolleyes:

[modtinbasher]

It maybe only small beer, but, with the advent of the Non Project Procurement Organisation (NPPO) some 5 years ago, I remember the female head of the organisation (an admin grade) giving me (as a very qualified MOD officer involved in the procurement of specialised commodities) a hard time over the buy of some leading edge tape for a front line airframe. "Why can we not get this stuff from Buy and Queue", she said, "after all, we pay a ridiculous price for aircraft quality nuts and bolts, we could get those from Unifart much cheaper, I'm sure"!

Well, folks, nuff said I reckon, but one day there will be cause to dwell on those less than well informed questions....I just hope nobody dies because of the penny-pinching!