Fox to crack down on military overspends [Archive]

Geehovah

21st Feb 2011, 07:01

Such a complex issue and how to sum it up in a few paragraphs. Having spent years in requirements and test I don't have the answer.

I had one project that was well defined (both requirement and spec) and small enough to be able to be developed on time on cost. On delivery it worked. It had issues but basically it was sound. It was a National programme.

Now take Typhoon. The aircraft was designed as an air to air aircraft with a ground attack secondary capability, although UK was the only country pushing for that secondary capability from the early days. The ISD when I joined the project was 1996 with one approved slip of up to 2 years. It was to use state of the art technology - in other words off the shelf - and the company would write the specs and development would be "hands off" to avoid requirement creep. Throw in politics; the Germans delayed their requiremnts by years, add the usual development problems such as flying control software that didn't work and we see an actual ISD of 2005. Remember that at one time it was called Eurofighter 2000? Add to that orders from the nations that are then trimmed back pushing up the unit cost because of a smaller buy.

You can't keep hundreds of companies active over a 9 year delay and expect to come in on cost. Such a delay also builds in obsolescence both in components and requirement. There was a minor change in circumstances during that period as "The Wall" fell. How can such events be ignored during an aquisition and expect still to have a platform that meets the operational need?

Until we have punitive payments for delays and built in "mid development upgrades" to keep the design relevant and viable, we won't make progress. We also need a contracts branch who write tight contracts that the company can't just ignore.

That said, fixed price contracts do not work. Unforseen problems in a complex development are inevitable. Fixed price means that either the cost is renegotiated or the additional expense is camouflaged. Companies will always protect their profit so if the price stays the same, corners are cut elsewhere. In my experience that was things like operational testing so the "short cuts" remain undetected for longer and the effectiveness suffers. To solve this some form of closely monitored fixed price plus system is needed with a contingency built in to the contract funding.

I could go on for hours but still not come up with a solution. That said, I'm sure the Governments aim is not to deliver more effective equipment, rather to save money, Cheap, invariably, is not effective.

tucumseh

21st Feb 2011, 11:07

Just a few comments;

Fox (actually, Bernard Gray, judging by some of the language);

He will say: “For years successive Defence Secretaries have failed to get a grip on the equipment programme and failed to hold the department and industry to account for delays and poor cost-estimation.”
He will criticise what he calls a “conspiracy of optimism based on poor cost-estimation, unrealistic timescales” at the MoD and in industry.
“These practices in the MOD would simply not be tolerated in the private sector, and they will no longer be tolerated in the MoD.”

Here are three ideas. 1. Dig out the mandated “Permanent LTC Instructions”, unused by most since 1987 but never rescinded. (My dog-eared copy never left my side while at work). 2. Recruit people junior enough to implement them. (As no-one in DE&S is). 3. Implement them. Doesn’t solve every problem, but it avoids most of the recurring ones you come across. That is, it is the first step in Risk Management – avoid the avoidable, manage the unavoidable. And future Project Officers, Project Managers and Programme Managers will learn the basics.

Geehovah

That said, fixed price contracts do not work.

Old saying; Firm is Fixed, Fixed is variable. Fixed Price and Cost Plus contracts still have their place; the trick is having the experience and competence to know which works in any given situation. MoD no longer requires those attributes, and hasn’t since about 1990.

To solve this some form of closely monitored fixed price plus system is needed with a contingency built in to the contract funding.

Remember “Contract Branch Tolerance”? Allowed a 20% variation in price before resubmission was required. That sounds a lot, but typically 17.5% would be taken up because OR (DEC) forgot to include VAT! Something that didn’t happen when Scrutiny was conducted properly (as above).

Ah, Requirement Scrutiny, mandated by PUS (the Chief Accounting officer) and designed to ensure that a proposed spend is both proper and fair and reasonable based on the actual requirement; not necessarily what is in the proposal/SRD/submission/business case etc. Not conducted properly since 1992, when it was deemed an offence to do so. Upheld by CDP in 1998 and successive Ministers every year since. Rescind that one and take a huge step forward in getting the requirement and cost right.

In my experience that was things like operational testing so the "short cuts" remain undetected for longer and the effectiveness (and safety) suffers.

And it is that true statement that illustrates the link to Haddon-Cave (which everyone has heard of) and the previous, much more detailed and damning reports which make H-C look like a 5 year old having a strop (and which MoD don’t want you to know about).

maxburner

21st Feb 2011, 16:31

Haven't we heard something like this before? Geehovah sums up the problems nicely and I can concur with what he says having worked in the Main Building for 2 years. My impression was of good will on all sides - but problems do crop up and requirements do change. That's life. It's especially problematic in international programmes. Cost escalation in inevitable unles we buy off the shelf aircraft with standard kit. The risks of that course are enormous.

Not_a_boffin

21st Feb 2011, 18:18

high spirits

21st Feb 2011, 18:24

Nope, didn't understand a f**king word of that....sounds like staff speak guff! Explain in squaddie 'sun' speak for us blondes!

21st Feb 2011, 19:43

Good Lord, nine well thought out, considered posts giving insight to the question before someone reduces it to the usual Pprune 'proud to appear thick' level of debate. This is far too informative, please desist!

Yours,
Disgusted of Hampshire

high spirits

21st Feb 2011, 19:52

Proud to be thick...and proud to serve beyond the relatively safe confines of Bastion, or even London. I simply asked for an explanation, dry your eyes princess!:{

Geehovah

21st Feb 2011, 19:59

I think most of us served beyond the confines of London............................... and happily, survived:ugh:

Roland Pulfrew

21st Feb 2011, 20:44

And of course not helped by the fact that HMT will only allow the recognised rate of inflation to be factored into the the Planning Rounds, despite the fact that "defence inflation" often runs at 3 or 4 times the HMT recognise rate. In general a programme has no chance of meeting its budget, particularly if it takes a long time to procure or is large and complex. I am surprised that Sec Def didn't know that.

GrahamO

21st Feb 2011, 21:47

In my experience, requirement creep is one thing, but the random reprofiling caused by budget inflexibility across years every PR is the other major one. If you read the NAO report, pretty much all of QEC variance from MG approval is down to schedule change and associated assumptions rather than requirements creep.

Fix that and you go a long way (by no means all) towards fixing the problem.

This means ;

Factor 1

Project A runs late/overbudget and underspends some years and forecasts to overspend others.

This means the schedule for Projects B, C and D have to be rephased to accommodate the problems of Project A. This increases the cost of B, C and D.

Now that B, C and D have changed and are ove-budget, this rippled through onto E, F and G.

Result : MOD buries head in sand and carries on overspending.

Solution : Do not be late on Project A (obvious, radical and unlikely)

Factor 2

MoD asks for an apple and get a price. Offer is accepted and supplier plants orchard.

MOD asks for progress reports and gets them. All is well.

MOD asks for more technical detail to integrate the apples with the cider press.

Contractor provides data on Granny Smiths apples and the MOD realises that they make rubbish cider.

MOD asks for a contract change to Cox's pippins after realising that the contractor has provided a fruit compliant to the spec.

Contractor will deliver 12 months later than originally planned, but is not late.

MOD renegotiate with the press supplier, the bottle supplier and staff and find that they are going to lose money, as everyones prices are now higher for later deliveries.

Result : MOD buries head in sand and carries on overspending.

Solution : Write down what you want and then stick to it. Learn to like Granny Smith cider as you may never actually get any cider after all.

tucumseh

22nd Feb 2011, 05:42

MoD asks for an apple and get a price. Offer is accepted and supplier plants orchard.

MOD asks for progress reports and gets them. All is well.

Excellent. Or, to cite an actual project from 2006.

1. MoD asks for an apple to be grown to a certain spec.
2. Bidder A says “We have an actual apple, to a better spec (sweeter tasting, stays ripe longer, bigger, cheaper). We can’t grow to your spec because it is so outdated we’ve thrown away all the seeds”.
3. Bidder B says “We haven’t a scoobie but we’ll plant a seed and see what happens. Come back in 3 years and our Director (a Junior Defence Minister) will give you a report”.
4. MoD awards contract to Bidder B who give up the ghost after 2 years.
5. Troops die from starvation.
6. F***wit promoted. Teaches all junior staff that above is best practice.

dctyke

22nd Feb 2011, 06:07

You forgot one little thing:

Senior Officer leaves project team to become Head of Cider Production:rolleyes:

Mr C Hinecap

22nd Feb 2011, 06:24

As project is never allowed close to fermentation, troops adapt to new target of delivery of apple juice rather than cider. Troops purchase own yeast and produce viable cider in the roof void of their accommodation. Little quality control of cider leads to several accidents over several years. Senior officers ignore local cider-related incidents, maintaining apple juice was and is being delivered on time and on cost, ignoring all evidence of local modification of the product. Eventually, an eminent QC is called in and produces a 600 page investigation into the culture of scrumpy in the Armed Forces. Much wringing of hands, pressing of apples, orchards are razed to the ground and Boulmers are accused of profiteering. Perry is viewed as a possible alternative.

We begin again.

Geehovah

22nd Feb 2011, 06:33

Another example from the late 80s. I can talk about it because aircraft deployed are protected effectively so no one is at risk from my comments.

A piece of "state of the art" electronic equipment is developed to protect aircraft A. Development dribbles on for many years and by the time it's ready to be fitted and tested it's apparent that the threats it was designed to counter are obsolescent. It's too late to change the spec (contractually) and something is better than nothing so it's fitted to aircraft A. Plans to fit the system to aircraft B (funded) are reviwed and it's concluded that a similar system being developed for aircraft C would give better protection and could be fitted reasonably easily. Plans are offered to use the funds to switch to the more modern system, albeit at additional cost. The scrutineers see the review as a sign of weakness and the funds are withdrawn so aircraft B remains unprotected. The capability is "taken at risk".

Move on to the "naughties". Aicraft A deploys to a nasty place where an enemy is shooting at us. Operators point out that the system isn't very good as most of the threats it was specified against have gone away. A podded off the shelf solution is cobbled together and fitted. Luckily our friends across the Pond still have systems on the shelf! The threat to aircraft B has not gone away and when it becomes apparent that it is also about to go in harms way, it finally gets a podded off the shelf system many years after the funding had been pulled. Staff rush around finding cash, fitting stuff as quickly as possible and working out how to support the equipment in service.

Ironically, the updated system for aircraft C is delayed into service by 15 years and, not surprisingly, the threats it was designed to counter are obsolescent. Moreover, the technology the contractor chose, against the wishes of the customer, doesn't work as well as it should. The capability is taken at risk as the aircraft is not deployed.

If aircraft A and aircraft B both needed a podded off the shelf system when in harms way, what's the betting that aircraft C will also need one when it deploys? I'd also bet money that in the current climate, the piece of equipment currently fitted will not be updated. Do you think William Hill would take that bet on. If so, I could make money.

It couldn't happen could it? Truth can be stranger than fiction.

Defence is a chess match not a business. There are no accolades for coming second and enemies don't respect "best practice". To win the match we need to be responsive not procedural. If the budget is fixed we need to buy less but smarter. Does that ring a bell. Best we start doing it rather than writing about it.

Cows getting bigger

22nd Feb 2011, 06:51

But don't we need orange juice next year?

Farfrompuken

22nd Feb 2011, 09:20

Geehova

your quote There are no accolades for coming second and enemies don't respect "best practice". To win the match we need to be responsive not procedural. rings very true in all aspects of what we do.

We've allowed ourselves in all facets of our operation (not 'business') to get totally bogged down by meaningless, time-consuming, unproductive management process. It almost drives me to tears when I see people fail to apply common sense, preferring @rse covering tactics to no effect.

Sadly I don't see it getting better as those that get to the top are those that employ excel and powerpoint to best effect, not those who have a brain.

maxburner

22nd Feb 2011, 10:28

Farfrom...we are far from alone in that. I've worked for a couple of BIG organisations, UK and elsewhere, and the same arse covering is commonplace. Risk taking is, well, risky! It's always safer to say that you would like to help, but the contract doesn't quite say that etc etc. I'd guess it's a universal blight. I work for myself now and the aim is, as always, to keep the customer satisfied. It's relatively easy for me as most of my work is short term in duration so there's little scope for requirements to change.

RumPunch

22nd Feb 2011, 10:44

Liam Fox is ranting on about the MOD will not get away any more wasting money etc etc

Surely when it comes to major defence purchases the green light and nod has to go through the defence secretary even the Prime minister, so why is he blaming the MOD for all the agreed projects in the past. Maybe im just looking at it from a different angle.

andyy

22nd Feb 2011, 10:55

RP, good point. The MoD are to blame, the Users (Requirements people) are to blame, industry is to blame but we have Initial Gate & Main Gate & Ministerial decision points precisely to ensure that projects stay on track.

If they are not, then its because ultimately Ministers sign up to it.

manccowboy

22nd Feb 2011, 11:13

Capt P U G Wash

22nd Feb 2011, 11:30

Not only is it the MoD's fault, rather than the individual Services, Defence Secrataries rarely stay long enough to take the rap - no doubt this one will be no different. And the men in gray suits will just sit behind their all powerful unions and in their mandarin clubs. The only ones left to live with the mess are the Services - so stop beating them up and sack the incompetents that fail to deliver in the Head Office.

WillDAQ

22nd Feb 2011, 12:38

Surely the simplest thing todo is what most businesses do......build in fines for not producing on time, Im amazed this has never been done and only release money when targets are met throughout the project.

The problem is that the company often supplies exactly what the MoD wanted... even though what the MoD wanted was not what it needed.

Time to introduce 'sudden death' to IPTs. Mess up and you're fired. Would reduce the headcount a bit.

LFFC

22nd Feb 2011, 13:29

Is this another £1b that the government can't afford?

Navy to buy new aircraft. (http://www.portsmouth.co.uk/news/local/east-hampshire/navy_to_buy_new_aircraft_1_2437696)

Published on Tue Feb 22 13:07:21 GMT 2011

THE Royal Navy is looking to buy a fleet of maritime patrol aircraft for up to £1 billion just weeks after the Ministry of Defence scrapped the new Nimrod aircraft at a cost of £3.6 billion.

The MoD confirmed last week that the navy wanted to buy its own maritime patrol aircraft to track enemy submarines to replace the Nimrods, which are being broken up for scrap. The new RAF Nimrod MRA4s had not even come into service when the prime minister announced last October that as part of the strategic defence review he was scrapping Nimrod.

The navy, which was furious that RAF bosses had agreed to get rid of Nimrod at a time of increased submarine activity, has already set up a team to buy a replacement and ensure that it is flown by the Fleet Air Arm. The programme is being run by Commodore Simon Kings with a team made up of naval officers.

If this is a legitimate programme, then surely it would be more cost effective to employ the expertise to be found up at Kinloss rather than allowing them to be made redundant and then recruiting and training new people. Or is this just another attempt by the RN to save the FAA?

Pontius Navigator

22nd Feb 2011, 13:58

Surely the simplest thing todo is what most businesses do......build in fines for not producing on time, Im amazed this has never been done and only release money when targets are met throughout the project.

At a very simple level, my contractor had a small contract with very tight margins. As the contract period drew to a close his estimated costs 5 years previous, and the MODs agreed payments, became increasingly squeezed.

The contractor tries to extend his machinery to the end of the contract but it is prone to increased failure rates and the contractor starts to miss his targets.

The MOD witholds payments because the Contractor did not meet the contract.

The Contractor goes bust.

Now when you only have one contractor, can you afford to have him go bust?

Cows getting bigger

22nd Feb 2011, 13:58

You really couldn't make it up. :ouch:

Capt P U G Wash

22nd Feb 2011, 14:14

The RN have their own private MPA project team? Sounds like a target for a saving to me.
The RAF did not let Nimrod go, the politicians did. The blame for this leads all the way to the top.

davejb

22nd Feb 2011, 15:26

If this is a legitimate programme, then surely it would be more cost effective to employ the expertise to be found up at Kinloss rather than allowing them to be made redundant and then recruiting and training new people. Or is this just another attempt by the RN to save the FAA?

You'd imagine that this made sense, but I wouldn't bet on it happening. Similarly I doubt the RN will be asking too many ex Nimrod officers for their opinions on equipment etc.

It's arguable that the RN has long had an airborne ASW capability, and I suspect they'll rationalise it as just being a step up from SKJ etc to developing a fixed wing capability. The downside to it being an all dark blue project would be the wasted knowledge and experience, on the plus side the RN will, I suspect, think keeping it all in house instead of letting the crabs b****r it up is a major factor.

This'll end up as one of those things where somebody proves (to everybody above Sqn Ldr/Lt Cdr level) that going round the sides of a square is faster than cutting across the diagonal....probably by using Powerpoint.
Dave

andyy

22nd Feb 2011, 15:59

Few people would argue that we don't need an LRMP ASW/ ASuW capability I suspect so if the RN are prepared to give something els up in order to provide it then why not?

Nimrod MRA4 has gone but the requirement has not. Money is in short supply but if a system can bought by giving up the funds currently allocated to other, presumably lower priority, programmes then so be it. I think the RN has a fair few Observers and Aircrewman around whose core competence is in ASW/ASuW.

So which platform is to be (and which lower priority programmes are to be cut)? Taking a leaf out of the RAF book, the RN could buy/ lease some old P3 or S3 & refurbish them, much as the RAF are doing with Rivet Joint vice Nimrod R1.

GrahamO

22nd Feb 2011, 16:34

There are pro's and Cons to bringing in a team from the previous generation of platforms.

New team, new concepts based around an existing platform. No more re-inventing the wheel. Use the flipping thing as others do, and stop rewriting the Ops Manual.

You would like to think that lessons learned from earlier platforms would not be repeated. I am too cynical to believe that would happen.

Old team, old thinking, and a desire to turn this into MRA4.5 will appear.

Nothing will be good enough, everything will be compared to MRA4 and will be unacceptable.

I think this last issue will be the biggest concern but I do hope all the MRA folks can keep some kind of job, even if it involves being told not to change anything and to live with it as it is.

davejb

22nd Feb 2011, 16:56

Old team, old thinking, and a desire to turn this into MRA4.5 will appear.

I doubt that very much - The fitted sensors will impose their own limitations on what can be done, and no amount of wanting an MRA4 would change that. I don't think you'd find RAF Nimrod aircrew insisting on anything, they'd just try to get the best they could out of the kit...and if we're talking refurbished S-3's and the like then this will probably mean winding back on what is achievable.

I don't think RAF aircrew are likely to feature in this anyway. If they did though, I doubt very much that they'd be as silly as you suggest...I don't think you know Nimrod aircrew very well.

Dave

LFFC

22nd Feb 2011, 17:55

Nimrod MRA4 has gone but the requirement has not. Money is in short supply but if a system can bought by giving up the funds currently allocated to other, presumably lower priority, programmes then so be it.

But surely if the RN can find other, lower priority, programmes to sacrifice, they should have done so in the first place! It just strikes me that this is a prime example of non-joint, muddled and self-centred thinking that is exactly what Liam Fox needs to stamp on if he's to avoid overspends and waste in the future! :rolleyes:

Charlie Time

22nd Feb 2011, 18:00

As I understand it the Cap AW studies into regenerating an MPA capability is being led by a Wg Cdr who is ex-Nimrod.

GrahamO

22nd Feb 2011, 18:09

davejb

I don't think you know Nimrod aircrew very well.

You are completely correct - I know one pilot and thats it and he's a sensible chap after 5 or more years in industry :D

My point was that if the new platform is being spec'd and Nimrod has a performance factor of "six cats per square ironing board", and the off the shelf item only offers five at a price of £100M , I can pretty much guarantee someone senior in the wider MOD will be insisting on six as a minimum with a development cost of £50M and a rock solid guarantee that it will be late.

Our country has a strong track record of modifying completely working items until they are late and don't work - and thats not just the purview of the MOD.

F3sRBest

22nd Feb 2011, 18:10

Surely the simplest thing todo is what most businesses do......build in fines for not producing on time, Im amazed this has never been done and only release money when targets are met throughout the project.

Simple? Unenforceable! Given the earlier postings about apples/orchards and cider (which made me smile in a sad, knowing way!) watch any Defence Contractor take the MoD to pieces in court and watch the MoD fail miserably to defend its postion!

The navy, which was furious that RAF bosses had agreed to get rid of Nimrod at a time of increased submarine activity, has already set up a team to buy a replacement and ensure that it is flown by the Fleet Air Arm. The programme is being run by Commodore Simon Kings with a team made up of naval officers.

Oh purlease! Either this is disengenuous RN spin or a complete failure to understand how things work! The RN (sub RAF/Army etc) doesn't actually 'buy' anything!!! And even if the RN is taking its life in its hands it will fail at the first approval hurdle. The last senior officer I know who tried it had his cards seriously (and unfairly) marked!

draken55

22nd Feb 2011, 18:23

"if the RN can find other, lower priority, programmes to sacrifice, they should have done so in the first place!"

I doubt this is a true story but if the unexpected and total loss of RAF MPA capability due to the SDSR meant that the Navy was looking at options for a fixed wing LRMP/ASW platform even at the cost of losing something else why not.

Non-joint, muddled and self centered thinking is what has created this capability gap. After all, who was it that offered up MPA and hence Nimrod as well as Harrier in favour of Tornado.:*

Bismark

22nd Feb 2011, 19:43

Given the very close relationship the RN has with the USN I could see a situation whereby a lend/lease agreement is reached at low cost initially - training and deep maintenance all carried out in Norfolk, VA and fobbed to Culdrose.

Finnpog

22nd Feb 2011, 20:11

And then a detachment to cover the bomber boats based at, say, HMS Gannet.

S3's? It is not totally crazy a scheme, it might just be down to cold, hard cash.

camelspyyder

22nd Feb 2011, 20:43

tucumseh

22nd Feb 2011, 21:38

If I can return to the main subject, on 18th September 2002 PROSPECT (the Trades Union representing most MoD project mangers at AbbeyWood) formally notified members that the Chief of Defence Procurement (which is, after all, what we're talking about) had formally ruled;

1. The saving of 30% on a project (while delivering 10 months ahead of schedule, to a better specification) is so common in the MoD that it deserves no special mention in an annual report, nor is the method of achieving these savings worthy of being reported to more senior management to learn lessons.

2. Staff may be instructed to falsely state a requirement is “fair and reasonable”, thereby wasting public funds and committing fraud.

When asked, MoD declined to speculate how many staffs had achieved the above.

tucumseh

23rd Feb 2011, 13:10

Well, that inconvenient little fact brought the thread to a grinding halt!

Thomas coupling

23rd Feb 2011, 15:04

http://www.pprune.org/military-aircrew/441848-bae-gravy-train.html

says it all......

the buck stops here.............no here...............no....here.....no

langleybaston

23rd Feb 2011, 15:14

The day that I last believed any politician who unwittingly said anything that I agreed with was when Churchill said WW II was over.

Al R

24th Feb 2011, 15:34

At 1700 hrs (I remember it well) on Jan 17th, we racked up £1 trillion in National Debt. We pay £43 billions each year in interest alone to service that. £120 millions a day is more than we spend on defence, fullstop.

Now then. How much did scrapping Nimrod save us?

andyy

24th Feb 2011, 15:41

I understand that the RN team looking in to an "RN MPA" are in actaul fact looking at the replacement for the ASaC7 capability when the SK is retired. Puts a slightly different complection on things, I think.

GreenKnight121

25th Feb 2011, 05:14

It can't do the job.

A capacity of 59 sonobuoys might have been fine in 1974, but targets have got somewhat quieter since...I can certainly recall using near 200 during a six hour task in the last decade.

Unless we buy enough aircraft to swap every 2 hours on station

CS

And NO sonobuoys and NO hours on station are better how?

Isn't it better to have some capability than none whatsoever?

GrahamO

25th Feb 2011, 07:39

@tucumseh

The saving of 30% on a project (while delivering 10 months ahead of schedule, to a better specification) is so common in the MoD that it deserves no special mention in an annual report, nor is the method of achieving these savings worthy of being reported to more senior management to learn lessons.Whilst such efficiency should always be applauded, one possible interpretation of this, given that the people who produced the estimate have no particular need to come up with an accurate initial forecast, is that the project people responsible for the original estimate cannot count or tell the time. In my experience, such large diversions from the baseline are due to initial estimates being wildly pessimistic and from military procurement programmes which rarely deliver to time, thats REALLY wildly pessimistic.

Plaudits yes, common maybe. But if its so common, why are MOD regularly wildly overestimating on projects, especially given the net track record overall is years late. and hugely overspent?

tucumseh

25th Feb 2011, 10:41

Graham O

In general terms you are correct, but the project cited was very high risk, the focus of Public Accounts Committee scrutiny and weekly scrutiny by DEC (OR). This, because six previous attempts to get it up and running had failed and the last attempt was to be the final one - hence the close scrutiny and monitoring.

I don't know your background but you may understand the significance of a single tender, split prime programme, which has been re-endorsed? The last means you don't have your 20% tolerance. Having split primes means MoD has accepted they own a lot of risk as they sit between the two companies, with each dependent on MoD. Single tender is (wrongly in my opinion) a no-no but permission was granted at 4 Star level in this case due to previous failures and the expectation it would never get to contract anyway.

It was of particular embarrassment because our allies had complained we did not have a certain capability, making interoperability nigh on impossible. (Not that interoperability is policy, but you try to sneak it into the spec if possible).

"Embarrassment" is the key word. Turning such a programme round successfully made a lot of people twitch and, in the words of the 1 Star, "Set the bar too high" for other staffs. Perhaps that was why a number of attempts were made to cancel the programme. That they didn't succeed was largely due to Full Production being quietly launched before seeking approval to enter Development. (When detractors are trying to cancel your programmes for the wrong reasons you have to be creative). But, they get you in the end! But you got your capability.

Hope that explains a few things.