Originally Posted by
dClbydalpha
As Henra says someone has to be first. If not then there is no advancing of capability.
When someone does take the first step it will be designed, developed, tested and proven for their requirements and procedures. If someone else then takes that product then they must stick to exactly the same regime of operation, regulations and maintenance else it isn't really OTS. I have seen small "tweaks" to an existing design have far reaching and unforeseen consequences - only to have everyone shout "but it was off the shelf!"
Yes, I agree completely with you on this. However, the system seems broken and no-one is ever held to account, I make that statement based upon procurement involving every OEM, not specifically the subject here. If a fresh start procurement involves technology, design or manufacturing techniques that are unproven, then why should the tax-payer assume the risk (and expense) of it not functioning in accordance with the contractual specifications? It seems to me that there is a need to interject some commercial reality and sanity checks into the procurement process everywhere.
Many of the technological advancements are defined by the contracting entity, but originate from the supplier convincing them that it will be a great idea. The evolution cycle and lifespan of a basic platform design certainly needs to incorporate as many achievable technological advances as possible, based upon realistic budgeting and deliverables. Procurement agencies need to ensure that an effective team involving all parties are essentially going to be involved through the entire cycle and also that they are going to be held accountable for the outcome.
Instead, we continually see programmes that never deliver on time and budget and often are incapable of meeting the original contract requirements and then fail to meet any realistic (or acceptable) operational availability goals. It is a backward move to procure a supposedly more capable platform replacing an existing one, only to discover that it can't meet operational availabilty, performance or capability goals.
Something is very wrong with this model and it is seriously diminishing the effectiveness of militaries all over the World to field aviation assets to meet their requirements and commitments.
Just my thoughts.