“UORs only have a limited applicability - they only last a 'wee while' - whereas Equipment Programmes (EPs) last longer, with frame life-cycle costs considered. However EPs take longer to get funding than UORs - more staffing, bigger long-term costs etc”.
Flipster is correct. That is, you get a years funding for the UOR during which time the sponsoring DEC has to decide whether or not to run an EP bid. If he doesn’t, there is no more funding for the kit. If it is used after the one year nominal lifespan without a complementary EP bid, then something else has to give. Usually spares. In practice, this is the norm, mainly because the sponsor moves on and his relief has new things to occupy his mind. Also the norm is for the UOR to be an SEM, with associated shortcuts taken on installation design, incorporation and safety. One answer is for the Requirements Manager to stick his head above the parapet and demand proper trialling, installation etc for his UOR, but the last one I saw do that was crucified, as it delays introduction. It is the eternal conundrum faced by lower grades/ranks in DPA and DLO – and one which senior management show no interest in solving. However, it must be said that certain IPTs are good at managing this – as ever much depends on the experience of their staff and ability to do DEC’s job for them.
Nigel – I do hope the acquisitions you speak of are sustainable through proper EP funding, and not just short-term political expediency. A question you may wish to ask. I think I posted once before on the subject of very useful and much needed UOR DAS kit lying unserviceable, but fully repairable, because there was no money to repair it. The “system” permitted millions to be spent on replacement kit under another UOR, but not thousands on simple repairs to the originals.