Concerns over RAF jet maintenance [Archive]

Jackonicko

5th Sep 2005, 09:51

St Athan has often gone the extra mile for the RAF, as was demonstrated during Granby and during the Jaguar upgrade. It has often proved itself able to do the job 'quicker, cheaper and better' than BAE or Marshall, and though civilianised still has some semblance of a service ethos, and still functions in a similar way to an old style MU.

It's a vital and highly capable engineering resource, and a useful 'second centre' to BAE, who would doubtless love to see it closed.

The way in which this is being presented is interesting - "responsibility for in-depth maintenance was taken away from at St Athan and returned to the military" - but is typically misleading Noo Labour spin.

Work may be returning to RAF Stations - but only under 'make work' schemes for BAE like Harrier Jump, Tornado ATTAC, etc. In effect, work is being civilianised even further, with a slough of availability contracts which may save money, but that will make the generation of aircraft to meet surge requirements almost impossible, and in which the MoD will be paying good money to keep BAE shareholders happy. A generation of risk-averse IPT leaders have been only too happy to shrug off their responsibilties and let BAE Systems carry the weight.

As a result BAE is rapidly becoming a monopoly supplier of maintenance as well as platforms. I remain to be convinced that this is in the long term best interests of the taxpayer, and I'm absolutely convinced that it's not in the long term best interests of the RAF.

tucumseh

5th Sep 2005, 14:09

A very insightful post by Jackonicko

It is an unfortunate by-product of the decision to create an agency of what were RNAY/RNAW/MUs that highly trained servicemen became less attractive as a workforce. The reason is simple. You get around 1600 hours per year from a civilian, less than 900 from a serviceman doing the same job, as the latter has other duties. If a customer needs a job done that takes 80 hours, he can have it in two weeks or four weeks, depending who does the job. A simplification, but you get the drift.

Within DARA, workshops with few, if any, servicemen e.g. Almondbank, have for decades been far more efficient than the likes of Sealand and St Athan; having an hourly rate often less than a third of the others’. Even when RNAW, their capacity to make a profit from repayment work (paid work from the civilian sector) was unique in the MoD. They probably think they’ve been dragged down by the creation of DARA. The downside of this however, is that the Services lose their deployable engineering expertise, and the MoD loses flexibility.

Of course, DARA’s effectiveness assumes the IPTs in DLO provision sufficient spares and deliver them to the correct place and on time. Few do. This is compounded by suppliers (who are often DARA’s direct competitors) knowing this, and so have no incentive to deliver. The “just in time” philosophy is only one reason. Complete ignorance of engineering production matters is another. With the formation of DARA, and their own (generous) payscales, IPTs lost their main recruitment base. I never thought I’d see the day where an aircraft PM didn’t recognise a picture of one of his aircraft; but I have now.

Word has it that what BEeagle describes is a precursor to further changes. Sell off part of DARA. Bring another part back into the MoD fold. Close another. And when DLO rejoins with DPA we’ll have turned full circle – only the experience has gone.

HOODED

5th Sep 2005, 20:21

The RAF is cutting it's engineering staff at the moment on redundancy with the most experienced being targeted. How then does closing St Athan and taking the extra workload to the bases work then? More work done by less men! Hmmmmn maybe not, I believe the way it is being done is to increase flight time between scheduled mainenance by around 40% on most ac types. This apparently will increase availability of ac at the Squadrons! Well maybe, but maybe it'll mean more heavy rectification for Squadron engineers to be done by less personell who are already struggling to keep the other short term broke jets flying. Time will tell but modern ac are highly complex and most of the current ac types ane not too new shall we say. I know which way I think it will go but the lean boys seem to think different!:yuk:

pr00ne

5th Sep 2005, 22:32

DARA was doomed from the very outset. Jacko’s very admirable defence of the concept totally ignores the commercial reality of the 21st Century and once again his anti BAES bias shines through.
The only partner the MOD can possibly entertain for in depth support of future platforms is the OEM, there is no other choice, be it BAES, Lockheed-Martin, Northrop Grumman, Boeing or AgustaWestland. With modern software driven systems the OEM is always going to retain the source codes and then you can only deal with the Design Authority. Marshall have discovered this with the C-130J, no way will Lockheed allow them the freedom of action they did on the K, those days are long gone and the likes of MA will have to partner with the OEM if they are to retain the sort of military work they have become accustomed to. DARA became just another player in the massively overcrowded and competitive MRO marketplace, they needed to attract non MOD work if they were to survive and to do that you need JAR145 type qualified staff which become very expensive. Does DARA Sealand have the approvals etc to deal with modern avionics? Do they have the latest test and diagnostic equipment?
No, after the Jaguar/Harrier/Tornado generation were retired DARA was always going to be left out on a limb, looks like the RAF have just brought their demise forward by a few years.

Hooded,

Maybe the RAF has discovered that you don’t actually NEED to have 1 or 2 jets being serviced on the squadron, 1 or 2 in 2nd Line at Engineering Wing and 1 or 2 in 3rd Line at what we used to call an MU, you just have a “Pulse” type line and do it all at the same time on a much smaller number of frames, at a main operating base, that way you have more to fly. The airlines have been doing it for years. You need a much smaller manpower base for that sort of operation as well. Involve civilian manpower from the OEM and you are onto a winner.

Oh, and Jackonicko, you harp on and on about the RAF only having the one supplier, don't forget, it works the other way round, for MRO type work BAES only have the one customer!

Jackonicko

5th Sep 2005, 23:33

If it's Government Policy, you can be guaranteed to leap to its defence, eh, Proone? And I say that as someone just left of centre on the political spectrum, and not as someone you can dismiss as an uncritical admirer of the Tories (though I did vote for one, last time out).

However damaging it might be to military capability and flexibility, however silly and doctrinaire it may be, if the grinning rock ape and his minnions support it, then so will you.

And since Tony, and Hoon, and Reid and all the other shabbily opportunistic and unprincipalled rogues embrace this shabby commercialisation and privatisation, then so do you.

There's no reason at all why the RAF shouldn't perform all of its own maintenance on virtually every aircraft now in the inventory (including -130J and Typhoon), nor why St Athan shouldn't continue to operate as an MU. Nor would many suppliers refuse to support the RAF's aspirations to provide its own support for future equipment, if that were the price of winning the order. If providing source codes to DARA were a pre-condition to winning the order, in most cases source codes would be provided. And even when they are not, the bulk of 'Depth' work is still traditional airframe- and engine-inspection, servicing, rectification, and repair, which does not have to be shuffled off to the merry Baron and his whippet-wielding chums.

The "commercial reality of the 21st Century" is that if risk-averse IPT leaders devolve their responsibilities to a monopolistic DA/OEM, the result will be a cheaper (in the short term) but significantly less flexible support system, in which the demands of 'lean' and 'just in time' are applied inappropriately, removing flexibility and adaptability, robbing the service of flexible, adaptable, deployable blue-suited manpower.

It's not anti BAE bias to point out the stark difference in cost and timescale between the Tornado and Jaguar upgrades, nor to point out the loss of three VC10 tankers for BAE's track convenience, nor the loss of Nimrod airframes (which allowed the possibility of a war surge) to support a given number of aircraft on the line during peacetime. Nor is it anti-BAE bias to point out that like any non-nationalised commercial concern, it is driven by profit, and a proportion of the price being paid by the RAF is being used to provide shareholder dividends and directors' bonuses.

Proper, honourable, decent and sensible Labour folk used to see a role for the state in strategically important industries and service provision, and didn't want to hive off every possible service for sub standard private industry to make a profit on.

What a pity that your hero, that effete, Fettes-educated, dishonourable, shifty wide boy doesn't seem capable of doing anything else than to slavishly follow inappropriate Thatcherite lunacy/orthodoxy.

HOODED

6th Sep 2005, 05:16

Jack. If pulse is so good then why has a front line squadron had 2 ac on the ground awaiting spare engines from the pulse line for over a week? In the old days we had the spares to produce more engines with a little overtime to counter the surges. Just in time - the engineers (the ones left) call it just too late!

Pontius Navigator

6th Sep 2005, 07:39

The Sentry at Waddo has just gone to civilian maintenance. I think Northrop has a long contract, can't remember the details as my interest level was low. Only thing is BAE will be a subcontractor.

The good news is that only one jet will be in the shed at anyone time.

Yonks ago, when we were fully dependent on Boeing for the software we set up an military team to create in-house software in Jovial. They had a few Boeing mentors who became Anglicised and they were very good. The brass used to marvel at their dedication while they got paid peanuts.

Anyway, we wanted the kit to do something, we could wander down the corridor, speak to a programmer, and often peek their interest. They would beaver away and often, a day or two later, you would be called in to see the result on the big screen.

The hierarchy slowed the implementation but at least we got the whole thing up and running. Without that team we would have had to get the wheels interested, write to the ministry, make a case, get it funded, approach Boeing and ask for a feasibility study.

One case was the compatibility issue between NE3A and E3D. It was simply a question of keyboards £=#. Boeing was pissed when they discovered it.

Another was multiple target simulation display. Boeing solution - one blip and n targets. RAF solution - one blip per target and formation manoeuvre!

BEagle

6th Sep 2005, 09:42

"If providing source codes to DARA were a pre-condition to winning the order, in most cases source codes would be provided."

Absolutely no way in the world that would ever happen, Jacko! Such code is so commercially sensitive that divisions within a multi-national conglomerate won't even pass information to eachother, let alone to the customer.

On this occasion (scarily), pr00ne is correct. Even though 't Bungling Baron and his cronies have been causing budget and project overrun since time immemorial, the only way ahead is for close liaison with the OEM.

Can't wait to see how the Spannering Branch think that they will cope with an Airbus product - unless they wise up to through-life product support, that is!

Jackonicko

6th Sep 2005, 10:30

BEags,

Leaving aside JSF for a moment, even if source codes cannot be provided there is still a huge scope for engineering work outside the DA/OEM, and even Majors ought to be possible - even if some components might require DA/OEM input.

That is undeniably the case with every current in-service type.

The way things are going, however, BAE are trying to take all engineering activities beyond the flightline into its own hands.

Hooded,

I am NO supporter of the inappropriate adoption of civilian commercial practises in military support provision, whether it's Resource Account Budgeting, civilian manning (even if it's cheaper) and certainly not the disciplines common in 'Lean Supply', such as 'Just in Time'.

I do believe that civilianised support will result in a cheaper price and better routine availability but I absolutely agree with you that the ability to 'surge' or to cope with unanticipated demand (when your engine supplier's product falls over more often than was anticipated when the support contract was signed) will be lost. I'd hoped that I'd made that clear.

Furthermore, the loss of blue suit jobs means that a slightly overe-manned eng wing will no longer be able to spare corporal Bloggs for a quick tour at MPA or Basrah, and these commitments will fall on a smaller and smaller number of personnel. (On this basis, I even oppose the civilianisation of MT Flights, etc.).

Over-manning and over-stocking might be entirely wrong if your aim is to generate aircraft for BA, and it's certainly counter to the best interests of stacking cans of beans most efficiently at Tesco, or building Minis most efficiently. The Resource Accounting folk will certainly punish you for it.

But RAF Eng Wings are NOT generating aircraft to fly the bucket and spade brigade to Majorca, nor are they stacking cans of beans. They are a military organisation, and shouldn't be forced to operate as though they were something different. I want them over-manned and over-stocked so that they can generate a surge, or so they can generate extra aircraft for a deployment. Imposing civilian practises is as stupid in this area as it would be to impose civilian health and safety and disabled access considerations on the Para's assault course.

And god help us when the supply of service trained engineers for BAE to 'poach' starts to dry up.

Or if we have to go to war......

Jobza Guddun

6th Sep 2005, 11:18

"And god help us when the supply of service trained engineers for BAE to 'poach' starts to dry up"

Ah, but that's when we'll have redundancies.

Ooer.......

The major hurt from the 2nd Line, or Depth or whatever ****e they call it now, reorganisation is the removal of flexibility from schedules and manpower. With manpower leaned to suit a Pulse-type setup, the ability to deploy 2nd Line manpower at short notice to support an unplanned corrective maintenance task, often on an overseas det, will be virtually non-existent.

In all objectivity, I'm concerned that all I hear is senior officers extolling the virtues of LEAN etc, but no sign of them listening to people with 25 yrs+ engineering experience urging caution and expressing concerns.

Boggled

6th Sep 2005, 11:51

Every time this debate starts, it becomes a critisim of BAE and fairytales of how good DARA are.

Some people in industry have the same concerns as the military, but the reality is the MoD do not have the money to maintain business as usual.

The "can do" attitude of the RAF management is backfiring, because now suddenly the budgets are bust, and what choice is there but to fall into bed with industry.

Defence does not win votes, so no more money will be thrown at solving the problems. This is not a Tory/Labour issue.

The formation of DARA was a scandle. The waste in building Red Dragon is a scandle. But who cares? Until the military declare Squadrons non operational due to lack of bits, nobody will listen, and why should people put their careers on the line over something that is not going to change.

Jackonicko

6th Sep 2005, 12:59

"The MoD do not have the money to maintain business as usual."

1) Increase the budget, and raise taxation in order to do so.

2) Spend money more wisely, by $hit-canning high profile, high-tech, cost-inflating prestige programmes like the new carriers, and Astute, by jettisoning irrelevant Cold War capabilities (Trident, heavy armour), and by managing programmes more effectively to avoid things like the Chinook HC3 fiasco, and to manage upgrades more like Jag than Tornado.
Don't throw away Tornado airframes with less than 3,000 FH on the clock and then spend millions on structural work on the higher houred jets that you do retain.
Don't throw away Jag airframes with less than 2,000 FH on the clock and then spend millions on rear fuselage replacements for shagged out Harrier GR7s.
Don't penalise the forces for maintaining sensible stock and spares by imposing inappropriate civilian accounting procedures.
Encourage IPT leaders to understand and assess risk properly, and to be intelligent customers, and maintain viable alternatives to giving all work to the OEM/DA.

3) Stop wasting money on PFIs that are more expensive in the long term than conventional procurements.

pr00ne

6th Sep 2005, 15:45

JN,

Oh dear! You are allowing your hatred for Blair to blind you aren’t you? If you actually read what I wrote I was very specifically condemning the political decision taken to set up DARA in the first place. Whilst this was first conceived under the previous Tory administration it was seen through to fruition from an initial concept to actuality by the Labour Government who had been in power for over two years when DARA was actually established.
So there you are, an outright condemnation of a Labour Govt action!

There are many, many things that I disagree with that this Govt is either doing or not doing.

As to my springing to the defence of any action by this Govt, tosh! The decision to remove deep maintenance from DARA was taken by top level budget holders in Strike Command and the DLO, NOT politicians!

Where I may agree with you is in your opinion of the IPTs. These appear to have been an absolute disaster for front line capability especially in terms of fleet numbers.

As to source codes, I note BTW that you conveniently “leave aside” the JSF thus ignoring what will be at least 50% of the future fast jet fleet, not even the US Government has been allowed access to LMAS source codes on the C-130J, without these codes the only work left is some very basic airframe work, on composite airframes NOT metal bashing!

As for civilian practices in the military, the one thing that the airlines CAN do is generate airframes that actually FLY for 16 hours a day every day, now that is a capability that I am sure the RAF would love to have! What sort of surge would you require then? BTW, I know but cannot disclose the details for client confidentiality that surge requirements ARE built into contract support deals.
Your point on manpower is well made but that is not the fault of civil industry but of the RAF/MOD and its total inability to manage beyond next Tuesday!

As to your plans for the budget, dream on…………………………….

BEagle

6th Sep 2005, 16:52

Stap me vitals - he's right again!

But yes, I do indeed loathe and detest that slimy little Bush bum-licker!

Boggled

6th Sep 2005, 17:00

Does HMG still own a golden share in BWoS?

Maybe Gorden is going to sort out the budget problems, by milking the petrol profits, and increasing the share price.

Maybe it is time to re-nationalise BWoS? They did it for the railways.

Maple 01

6th Sep 2005, 17:03

Hmmm

Did you say the same about that slimy little Ray-gun bum-licker Maggie BEags?

British support to American foreign policy 1979-97 and 1997 to date - compare and contrast – I’d be impressed if you can show the difference

BEagle

6th Sep 2005, 17:08

I believed that HMG knew what it was doing right up until around 2002 when it was obvious that we were going to be dragged into the mess which is Iraq as a result of the Texan half-wit and his six-gun mentality - which Bliar fell for and won't admit to.

Back to maintenance please......

Denzil

6th Sep 2005, 17:33

Just a snippet on the subject of outsourced maintenance. During my time involved with the heavy maintenance of “Beagles favourite” the TriStar, it was frightening how inefficient the support authority could be at managing the maintenance of just 9 aircraft. Initially it was normal to expect the aircraft to always be late out of checks at the “contractor” when on the receiving end in the RAF. It was soon apparent many of the delays had been caused by SA mistakes.

A couple of examples are an aircraft sitting on jacks after a major with no landing gear. The landing gear had gone away for overhaul to the USA on a separate SA contract which didn’t take into account a required return date. On another occasion it was only decided to carry out some detailed inspections AFTER the areas had all been paneled up, painted etc.

Not sure if the quality/efficiency has improved now the maintenance is carried out in Abu Dhabi.

What level of maintenance will be carried out by civil/military engineering on the A330K?

opso

6th Sep 2005, 18:00

...airframes that actually FLY for 16 hours a day every day, now that is a capability that I am sure the RAF would love to have! Very useful given the reduction in the number of flying hours available - the FJ sqns could their flying in the first week and then take the rest of the month off!

engineer(retard)

6th Sep 2005, 18:27

I'm a bit puzzled by this debate. Why is access to source codes required for deep maintenance and why does deep maintenance have to be done by the OEM?

regards

retard

tucumseh

6th Sep 2005, 19:25

Much has been said here about using OEMs and Design Authorities (often, but not always, the same thing).

Far more fundamental to the in-service phase (i.e. the majority of the project and where upwards of 75% of the money is spent) is the question which has to be answered up front – “Having procured a given build standard, do you intend contracting the OEM/DA to maintain it?” And remember, this process includes safety, aircraft pubs, drawings etc.

If the answer is “yes”, then a Design Authority or Custodian should be appointed and paid to maintain the build standard. No half measures.

If the answer is “no” (i.e. you are knowingly going to compromise safety and the ability of any contractor to repair kit properly), then buy the kit from any old supplier and don’t bother acquiring master drawings or source code.

In my experience, the effectiveness of DARA and their predecessors has often been compromised by the ever increasing tendency to answer “no” to this question. “No we don’t want to maintain safety”. “Maintaining safety is a waste of money”. “We don’t care if kit is repaired using documentation which is 15 years out of date and missing critical mods”. But enough of DPA’s XB and DECs, for they know not what they do. (But don’t forgive them). Experienced PMs largely ignore them anyway.

You’d be amazed at how often u/s kit can pass a standard serviceability test. That’s not a failure within DARA, but because the build standard hasn’t been maintained. Or how seldom an audit trail can be established from an actual current build standard back to the original. Name a procurement fiasco and I’ll show you problems in this area. SA80, Chinook, BOWMAN…..

Finally, I agree with Eng. Many of DARA’s problems have been self inflicted. I simply don’t agree that they should be given access to source code for the sake of it. Its duplication and wasteful. And the OEM doesn’t have to do repairs, but if you employ someone else and he’s not also the Design Custodian, there MUST be a complementary contract with whoever is the DA or DC – and there must always be an audit trail back to the OEM.

Safeware

6th Sep 2005, 20:09

Eng(rtd),

Why is access to source codes required for deep maintenance and why does deep maintenance have to be done by the OEM?

methinks people are confusing software maintenance (the thing that is going to cost the most to maintain on modern aircraft) with ye olde mechanical 3rd/4th line engineering, and the fact that if you don't have IPR then this 'deep maintenance' goes back to the OEM, because it's them and only them that have the 'rights' to modify the code.

rgds

sw

16 blades

6th Sep 2005, 20:32

As for civilian practices in the military, the one thing that the airlines CAN do is generate airframes that actually FLY for 16 hours a day every day, now that is a capability that I am sure the RAF would love to have! What sort of surge would you require then?

Pr00ne, you obviously have NO IDEA about how we do business nowadays. The simple fact is that LEAN, and all it's associated buffoonery, has been nothing short of an unmitigated DISASTER for front line squadrons. We are not here to constantly use airframes in an efficient manner - we are here in case we are needed, which could be anytime, anyplace. Taking a 'snapshot' of operations will almost ALWAYS reveal something that appears to be 'waste' since something always needs to be kept in reserve.

The simple fact is, we no longer have the capability to generate airframes at the same rate as before - and those that we DO generate are a shambles. I have lost count of the number of sorties I have lost over this last month due to mainly minor unserviceabilities that could have easily been sorted under the old system.

Do yourself a big favour and pull your tongue out of the establishment's arse. It is because of people like you that we are in the state we are in.

16B

Safety_Helmut

6th Sep 2005, 20:51

Safeware

I think some of the postings on here are a pretty good demonstration of why we have made such a mess of most procurements involving complex electronic hardware, and by implication software.

So, a hypothetical situation, our friendly OEM delivers the source code with our next shiny new jet, great, everything will be okay now, until of course we want to do something with it. So what do we need, well, just quickly off the top my of my head, we’ll need the development environment used by the developer, the requirements, design, testing and validation tools used, we’ll need the CM tools, we’ll need the documentation (SRS, SDD, STP, STR, SQP etc, etc), almost certainly a suite of CASE tools to read, understand and amend this documentation, because it won’t be on paper. Then of course we’ll need all of the different stage testing rigs (and the ability to maintain them). We will need to be able to carry out all of the VV&T activities which will be required to release this software for service, much of this software will almost certainly be safety related/safety critical, particularly as the systems arriving over the next few years are far more highly integrated and complex.

Oh yes, and now it starts to get difficult, we will need the skilled and experienced software engineers to maintain this software. But we haven’t got any ! So far we have muddled through (admirably I should add, given the constraints), reliant on the dedication and motivation of a few staff pulled from the avionics trade. We do not have, nor to my knowledge do we have any plans to have, a software engineering trade/branch. Perhaps we could use civilian staff ? But given the civil service constraints, how likely are we to be able to recruit and perhaps more importantly, retain a skilled workforce ? So what options do we have left for our software maintenance……….. ?
If you are struggling with any of the acronyms, speak to a software engineer, if you can find one.

Regards

Safety_Helmut

Safeware

6th Sep 2005, 21:01

S_H

Where did you find the friendly OEM? He had some friendly employees though. :)

There are 10 different kinds of people in this world

.
.
.
.
.
.
.

Those that understand software and those that don't.

sw

ARINC

7th Sep 2005, 20:10

Being one of those trained ex whatevers and having had more than my fair share of

DARA St Athan (Nice hangers but what are we going to put in them?)

BAe (RSAF scud watchers club medal, with bar)

Marshals (Now what are we going to do with all our Rover dealerships?)

I find the concept of outsourcing both laughable and laudable, it's horses for courses and without doubt certain Welsh establishments suffer/d from poor management, lack of focus etc etc Whilst other providers continue to make a decent fist of things. We generated a C130k with all the interesting bits to replace the one lost in Iraq in rapid order and that A/C was weeks ahead of schedule.

Edited for the hell of it

Stan Bydike

7th Sep 2005, 20:43

Safety_Helmut

Since 1970 we have had a Nimrod Software Team which has worked with the OEMs to ensure that we have the right software. Indeed I seem to remember that only recently, some sorce code was released to us to enable a software uodate that could be performed more efficiently at Kinloss.

Unfortunately we have learned absolutely nothing since and the MRA4 software will be totally controlled by BWOS, despite the Gin Palace built for them at Kinloss.

Its no wonder we give up and get out :confused:

Safeware

7th Sep 2005, 21:12

Stan,

If 'we' means the man on the ground, then 'we' have learned an awful lot - NST being a DA and HSMU being 2 examples of where the quality of the guys on the ground has shone through.

I blame it most (if not all) of it on contracts. If 'we' is the MOD, 'we' have not learned how to assess our needs and contract appropriately. Industry are (as the shareholders would expect) way smarter at getting the right words into the contract that make it easy for them to make money and difficult for the MOD to go anywhere else.

2 examples of this are C-130J and Chinook Mk3: areas where logic will tell you we need to have 'control' of how software is modified to meet the changing needs of the operators, but these areas are not 'ours' to modify.

When the J was coming into service the Aussies binned the idea of having anything other than flight safety critical updates because they couldn't afford membership of 'the club'.

sw

Safety_Helmut

7th Sep 2005, 22:50

Stan

Not sure about the 1970 bit, because the MR1 is normally sighted as the classic example of an aircraft coming in with no software support. (We're not far off repeating that now by the way)

You're right though. the SSTs have performed admirably, but on mission, not safety critical software. They have been maintaining JOVIAL, CORAL 66, AYK14 and Spirit3, why, because no bugger else wanted to do it in recent years. The software intensive systems entering service over the next few years are far removed from the likes of Tornado, Harrier, Sentry and Nimrod. We simply do not have the capability for in-house support, but we should ask ourselves the question why. We have not made the commitment to have that capability, why should that be ? Software is not understood, and that should be a real worry, beacuse 80-90% of functionality is implemented in software.

In simple terms, we are now at the whim of the OEM, we have no choice, all those people who witter on about not having the source code, yes you're right, but it pales into insignificance besides not even having the nouse to realise that the the OEM has you over a barrel for the life of the equipment, and that there is virtually nothing you can do.

Safety_Helmut