QinetiQ to be sold off
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CT - if you're still there.
Hmmm, not sure that the Italian example is great - they did insist on flying 25 hours per airframe with Lockheed in the US before flying them back to Italy and they did benefit from the changes that Lockheed were forced to make by UK/US and Australia. They also paid top $ against our 'pin Lockheed up against the wall until they give us what we want' attitude (which is good for the taxpayer but bad for on-time introduction to service).
Fair point on not repeating trials unnecessarily, but lets be clear that the data has to be available and one of the great things about selling off your military T&E outfit is that not everyone wants to hand over their proprietary or nationally-sensitive information to QinetiQ. I recall that this was an initiative that the IPT were going to persue with the other customers a while back - wonder if it got anywhere.
On the subject of 'coming out with a clearance that says yes you can do it unless we find out later that you definitely can’t', I doubt whether the people in high places (like at DPA and AOC 2 Gp) are prepared to sign off the risk themselves without QinetiQ advice. I can think of at least 2 instances on the J where QinetiQ advised the IPT against doing a trial on the grounds that there was no point, but the IPT insisted on having the recommendation backed by data that was very difficult to obtain and delayed the clearances significantly. Back to the point that has been repeated several times on this thread - QinetiQ do the work required by their customer - the IPT. Agree that the low-grade DAC business was a nonsense but if the requirement was missed by the IPT - it's hardly QinetiQ's fault.
Still waiting for some J pilots to apply for ETPS - that's the most effective way of improving the J knowledge at BD.
SS
Hmmm, not sure that the Italian example is great - they did insist on flying 25 hours per airframe with Lockheed in the US before flying them back to Italy and they did benefit from the changes that Lockheed were forced to make by UK/US and Australia. They also paid top $ against our 'pin Lockheed up against the wall until they give us what we want' attitude (which is good for the taxpayer but bad for on-time introduction to service).
Fair point on not repeating trials unnecessarily, but lets be clear that the data has to be available and one of the great things about selling off your military T&E outfit is that not everyone wants to hand over their proprietary or nationally-sensitive information to QinetiQ. I recall that this was an initiative that the IPT were going to persue with the other customers a while back - wonder if it got anywhere.
On the subject of 'coming out with a clearance that says yes you can do it unless we find out later that you definitely can’t', I doubt whether the people in high places (like at DPA and AOC 2 Gp) are prepared to sign off the risk themselves without QinetiQ advice. I can think of at least 2 instances on the J where QinetiQ advised the IPT against doing a trial on the grounds that there was no point, but the IPT insisted on having the recommendation backed by data that was very difficult to obtain and delayed the clearances significantly. Back to the point that has been repeated several times on this thread - QinetiQ do the work required by their customer - the IPT. Agree that the low-grade DAC business was a nonsense but if the requirement was missed by the IPT - it's hardly QinetiQ's fault.
Still waiting for some J pilots to apply for ETPS - that's the most effective way of improving the J knowledge at BD.
SS
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 1,608
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Personally I think it is a sad state of affairs when the people tasked to provide independent advice on military procurement are in fact a profit making organisation who will shortly be at the mercy of their shareholders.
Sad? - depends upon your view of socialism and holding state-owned enterprises - but judging by the complete lack of drive within many organisations owned by ours and other governments, it can only be a good thing.
A Cold War legacy was that the Govt found itself with an R&D capability that was no longer required in the form of defence research establishments (RAE, RSRE, A&AEE et al) scattered all over the country, manned by ~12,000 civil servants.
What it did was to give it agency status (DRA=>DERA) prior to splitting it off into DSTL (for the nationally sensitive stuff with ~3,000 civil servants) and QinetiQ with ~9,000 employees (no longer civil servants). The challenge for Qinetiq was to become commercially viable in short order prior to sell off.
As far as the Govt is concerned, they are winning all round, having turned a drain into a potential income stream as:
1. The Treasury has reduced its salary and pension liability significantly.
2. The Treasury will be a major benefactor when QinetiQ is floated on the stock market. It could be argued that the Govt could have handled the flotation rather better but that's another story.
As a tax payer, this sounds like a good deal.
It seems though that it's become fashionable for some crew room cognescenti to denigrate QinetiQ, chiefly it seems for wanting to make - cover your ears - a profit. Companies that don't make a profit aren't companies for too long. And, as has been said in previous posts, the customer sets the task.
By the nature of some of the work it's involved in, QinetiQ can't advertise all its capabilities in open forum but there is far more to QinetiQ than Boscombe Down.
Find out which QinetiQ site is supporting your platform and/or sensor and take up the repeated offers to fix up a visit.
What it did was to give it agency status (DRA=>DERA) prior to splitting it off into DSTL (for the nationally sensitive stuff with ~3,000 civil servants) and QinetiQ with ~9,000 employees (no longer civil servants). The challenge for Qinetiq was to become commercially viable in short order prior to sell off.
As far as the Govt is concerned, they are winning all round, having turned a drain into a potential income stream as:
1. The Treasury has reduced its salary and pension liability significantly.
2. The Treasury will be a major benefactor when QinetiQ is floated on the stock market. It could be argued that the Govt could have handled the flotation rather better but that's another story.
As a tax payer, this sounds like a good deal.
It seems though that it's become fashionable for some crew room cognescenti to denigrate QinetiQ, chiefly it seems for wanting to make - cover your ears - a profit. Companies that don't make a profit aren't companies for too long. And, as has been said in previous posts, the customer sets the task.
By the nature of some of the work it's involved in, QinetiQ can't advertise all its capabilities in open forum but there is far more to QinetiQ than Boscombe Down.
Find out which QinetiQ site is supporting your platform and/or sensor and take up the repeated offers to fix up a visit.
sidevalve
“It seems though that it's become fashionable for some crew room cognescenti to denigrate QinetiQ, chiefly it seems for wanting to make - cover your ears - a profit”.
What you say is basically correct, but remember that this profit, and all other QQ costs, only comes from one place – the Defence Budget. I say this without wishing to denigrate QQ or Dstl or PFG or DARA or any of the other services that DEC and DPA did not have to budget for in the past.
A simple example. A project is costed at £20M pre-QQ/Dstl etc. During the project life the PM is suddenly told, “You’ve got to pay for all these services - £4M please. And we‘re not giving you extra money, you must cut something” (thereby failing to meet the endorsed requirement). Letter to DEC, “What do you want to cut”. He reluctantly chooses one of the sensors you speak of. User complains of a capability gap the project was designed to bridge. And so on.
This is nothing more than a political device to chop the Defence Budget by stealth. This is not hypothetical – I can quote numerous examples involving much larger sums than this, and greater losses to capability. The politicos rely on this knowledge fading with the passage of time, and the influx of new staff who don’t know the history. Just so you know.
“It seems though that it's become fashionable for some crew room cognescenti to denigrate QinetiQ, chiefly it seems for wanting to make - cover your ears - a profit”.
What you say is basically correct, but remember that this profit, and all other QQ costs, only comes from one place – the Defence Budget. I say this without wishing to denigrate QQ or Dstl or PFG or DARA or any of the other services that DEC and DPA did not have to budget for in the past.
A simple example. A project is costed at £20M pre-QQ/Dstl etc. During the project life the PM is suddenly told, “You’ve got to pay for all these services - £4M please. And we‘re not giving you extra money, you must cut something” (thereby failing to meet the endorsed requirement). Letter to DEC, “What do you want to cut”. He reluctantly chooses one of the sensors you speak of. User complains of a capability gap the project was designed to bridge. And so on.
This is nothing more than a political device to chop the Defence Budget by stealth. This is not hypothetical – I can quote numerous examples involving much larger sums than this, and greater losses to capability. The politicos rely on this knowledge fading with the passage of time, and the influx of new staff who don’t know the history. Just so you know.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 1,608
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What you say is basically correct, but remember that this profit, and all other QQ costs, only comes from one place – the Defence Budget.
Essentially prices charged to the defence budget will be lower even with the profit incentive, as formally bloated areas that have no commencial justification are wiped out - for example swathes of management eliminated from BA since privatisation for example.
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: england
Posts: 143
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fortunately ive only 'worked' alongside BD and its merry bunch for a few hours as a fill in 'eng' . My abiding memory was of the crew discussion into the next flight trial date...the nav was unavailable to fly the next day due to prior arrangements. Medical..? No. Leave..? No. Golf day would you believe..!! I drove back to rompers green with my decision to leave more firmly cemented in my mind.
Vote with your feet..
5d2d
Vote with your feet..
5d2d
Originally Posted by Re-Heat
But that is completely misguided, as without the profit incentive, it is not only a proven fact that organisations will waste money, but one that has been proven time and again with formerly state-owned enterprises shedding fat and providing better services once they are subject to competition (except the trains).
Essentially prices charged to the defence budget will be lower even with the profit incentive, as formally bloated areas that have no commencial justification are wiped out - for example swathes of management eliminated from BA since privatisation for example.
Essentially prices charged to the defence budget will be lower even with the profit incentive, as formally bloated areas that have no commencial justification are wiped out - for example swathes of management eliminated from BA since privatisation for example.
Reheat
You're missing my point. I don't dispute much of what you say but the way in which the transition to QQ/Dstl was implemented meant that the budget that previously funded them was NOT shared among the projects that used them. My example is typical. A huge % increase in project cost, with no extra provision. I got the same excellent service as I always did from BD, at greater cost (as they added profit), but my Customer had to ditch much needed capability. This was repeated on all my projects at the time, and it will happen again. What I describe is a de facto cut in the Defence Budget.
Privitisation has created swathes of management in QQ and Dstl, mainly non productive commercial and finance staff. And an equal number in DPA and DLO to deal with them. Given a policy of "staff neutral" changes, all this means is that all organisations have lost the people who directly carry out the respective primary roles. This is a greater waste and the more difficult to correct. If you want to conduct MoD business like BA, then show us the timetable for future conflicts and we'll make ready. I suggest we need to retain flexibility.
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Half Way Up The Stairs
Posts: 54
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
tuc,
Thanks.
What we also have to watch for though is a need to cut back on capability in order to meet the political ends driving the customer delivery date. All that I can see happening then is the real customer (the one sitting in the cockpit) being frustrated by what he sees as a poor service from BD - kinda like some of the previous comments on this tread.
I always thought it would be better to have the OEUs at BD, rather than move SAOEU up to the flatlands. That way the 2 aspects of T&E could have worked together within the one environment.
5206
I got the same excellent service as I always did from BD, at greater cost (as they added profit), but my Customer had to ditch much needed capability.
What we also have to watch for though is a need to cut back on capability in order to meet the political ends driving the customer delivery date. All that I can see happening then is the real customer (the one sitting in the cockpit) being frustrated by what he sees as a poor service from BD - kinda like some of the previous comments on this tread.
I always thought it would be better to have the OEUs at BD, rather than move SAOEU up to the flatlands. That way the 2 aspects of T&E could have worked together within the one environment.
5206
"I always thought it would be better to have the OEUs at BD"
Couldn't agree more. When mine moved (scrapped actually) BD lost a lot of expertise. I always thought there was even more added value as current front line aircrew found themselves very close to the procurement decisons and often influenced them for the better. When they are at air stations Customer 2 sits between them and they get a say once a year at the CAG (if indeed they are still held, which I sometimes doubt).
Couldn't agree more. When mine moved (scrapped actually) BD lost a lot of expertise. I always thought there was even more added value as current front line aircrew found themselves very close to the procurement decisons and often influenced them for the better. When they are at air stations Customer 2 sits between them and they get a say once a year at the CAG (if indeed they are still held, which I sometimes doubt).
