1. is utterly insane! A review every 18 months? Those within MB and DE&S will be well aware of just how much nause each change of SAG scenario assumptions can cause in terms of justifying a requirement and consequent new OA studies required. MARS IPT spent best part of six years chasing a changing requirement to buy a fleet tanker FFS! Only to have the programme reprofiled and deferred in the midst of a shipbuilding recession, with yards giving build slots away! Every 5 years might just about be sensible, but even then, is it sustainable given the length of time it takes to get approval, design and procure any bit of kit that is vaguely complex?
2. Last time I looked, SDR was exactly that - strategic, top down and looking properly at the future. That it did not foresee a prolonged high-intensity COIN campaign does not invalidate it. The prolonged COIN campaign (and for example specifically ML helicopters) is causing problems only in that the original SDR was never fully funded by Cyclops and that the knock-on effects of that underfunding are evident everywhere.
3. Sounds like the ES&P line to me. Or are the endless rebalancing/reprofiling exercises my imagination? The cost inflation they cause isn't though......
5 is spot-on.
6. WTF is the IAB? Or the DMB for that matter?
12. Very true. But even the ones who "jumped ship" were operating within a fog of unknowns. The best thing MoD could do is develop a simple costing tool for the "kit" based on clear open-source assumptions. The "intangibles" so often hidden in project management / integration / development could then be exposed and addressed. At the minute, it's too easy to get bogged down in the detail of the widget rather than identify costs of processes annd indecision.