Helicopter Replacements?

[tucumseh]

A favourite pastime on this forum is taking potshots at “procurers” (when what you actually mean is “acquirers” – i.e. the various people who manage the acquisition cycle from Concept to Disposal). Some of the criticism is justified.

But if you step back and look at the plethora of excellent, but conflicting, points that have been made here I hope some appreciation of the problems faced by DEC and DE&S emerges. They have so little money to play with, and so many issues to consider, they don’t know if they’re full-bored or countersunk. (And the fact many don’t understand the phrase is one of the problems).

“Helicopter replacement” programmes have been many and various over the last two decades. I’m struggling to recall one that has actually been delivered. Merlin ASW/SH was set in concrete by 1985 (when I saw fully working integration rigs for the first time). Various iterations of Lynx have fallen by the wayside – I think they went round the same bouy half a dozen times. SABR was the most mind numbing experience for all that worked on it – cancellation after 7 or 8 completely wasted years forced some very good people, both Service and civvy, into early retirement.

I suppose most here that criticise haven’t had the misfortune to be an SO3/2/1 in DEC. If you do get such a punishment posting, remember one thing – excellence can be the enemy of the very good. The 90% solution can be very good. To put it bluntly – stop faffing around, make a decision, give your reasons and move on. Most of all, give your reasons. Explain to the users why you made the decision and people will more readily accept the 90%. If you faff around, and see out your two year tour, the next guy hasn’t got much of a benchmark to live up to, has he? He’ll just do the same. And therein lies the reason for most delays.

PS But don't be like one DEC officer I know. When asked to choose what he didn't want, due to lack of funding, he said "safety and training". I ignored him, but there are some who would not.