dervish
The 1995 announcement was from the RN's Aircraft Support Executive (infamous for not supporting aircraft or making executive decisions). Initially, it applied to avionics; then to all aviation when, later the same year, they withdrew all support for a major aircraft programme (which I believe you're familiar with). Same section - ELog (Engineering Logistics) - was meant to make materiel and financial provision and manage same (the subject we're talking about). They changed their TORs to not making M&F provision, and "monitoring" instead of managing.
The RAF had a more simplistic system (partly because they didn't have to cope with supporting aircraft at sea for 6 months) but the last time I saw them implement it was 1986. I've had less involvement with Army but they rarely quantified and, until very recently and to my personal knowledge, simply put "TBA" against quantity in, for example, many Land System URDs. The finance section would then (obviously) also say "TBA". Anyone who signed something like that and accepted it into DE&S was a fool.
dragartist
The efficiency (and probity) of the PAC depends very much on leadership. Chairmanship is, by convention, handed to an Opposition MP. Most reports are blatantly politically motivated and omit unpalatable truths. A Labour MP (e.g. Hodge) is hardly going to be allowed to sign a report that notes Ainsworth, Ingram etc formally condoned and encouraged waste; but demonstrably they did. As does the current regime, which is what gives the report some credibility, at a basic, 5 year old level.
Otherwise, entirely agree. Who briefs them? Well, MoD actively prevents anyone who knows the truth having an input, and there are umpteen layers between the briefer and the brief hitting Minister's table. I once managed a programme that drew the attention of the PAC. I had to submit a progress report to MB every Friday morning. Eventually, CDP (4 Star) was called to a hearing to answer questions, which you are given in advance (this was after production had been completed, 30% under budget, 5 months early and to a better spec). His office filtered them down to the plebs. I was not even allowed to see them, never mind answer them. "No way are you being allowed to tell the truth". CDP then, perhaps inadvertently, misled the PAC. Instead of taking the opportunity to retaliate first by pointing to a successful programme, he meekly accepted criticism because his briefing, by an unrelated department in a remote location, said the programme was still in development. Talk about shooting yourself in the foot. Even then, the PAC did nothing.
Suitably qualified staff to manage materiel and financial provision? There is a simple formula laid down which determines Depot Stock. It varies slightly depending on use, for example the avionics one includes annual flying hours but the ground equipment one doesn't. Every single person in DE&S remotely connected with equipment support should be fully conversant with maintaining the integrity of every parameter in this formula and how to manage them to solve support problems, before being promoted into DE&S. In June 1996 the Director Internal Audit reported to PUS that this process wasn't being implemented properly, when confirming waste amounting to Billions. Not one of the 19 recommendations has ever been implemented.
Aircraft equipment formula......
NHP (1-R1) (1-R2) 100
S = ------------------------ x --- (+ 16%)
MTBR 1
(sorry, it loses formatting, but you get the idea)
Last edited by tucumseh; 2nd Mar 2013 at 06:58.