Future Carrier (Including Costs)
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: YES
Posts: 779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well that about wraps it up for the carriers
With Ton Bliar's desicion on New subs to replace VANGUARD class have the cabinet sorted out any new funding........emmmm nope so guess were the aspirational funding for the CVF's will go?
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Falmouth
Posts: 1,651
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Cabinet doesn't do funding....the Treasury does funding. The cabinet were not even invited into the debate. The cabinet had a chance to view the "context" of the report but were not involved in the decision.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: YES
Posts: 779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
exactley and what will happen is the procurement of Vanguard replacement will be an either new carrier or new SSBN or pay for out of existing budgets as no new money will be available......As has been most politically driven defence decisions of late.....remember extra finance for Gulf, Sierra Leone, Bosnia, Kosovo
The bomber funding in the EP is in later years than that for CVF, so unlikely to be an either / or issue. Much more likely to put the mockers on FSC or FOAS (whatever it's called now) depending on whether it's a centrally funded (should be) or single-service funded (like last time) project.
I will keep banging on about it - why is no-one challenging the received wisdom that defence spending (%age of GDP or in total, take your pick) should automatically be assumed to fall? The Op Tempo is busier than in living memory, pay is falling in relation to civvy street, kit is wearing out faster, recapitalisation is desperately needed. Obscene amounts of taxpayers money are wasted across government (the MoD is actually among the better departments) and still everyone blindly follows the assumption that the defence budget must fall because.......er, why exactly? McKinsey says so? RAND says so?
The latest infrastructure cuts across all three services are another symptom of this. If not stopped soon, extinction will follow.....
I will keep banging on about it - why is no-one challenging the received wisdom that defence spending (%age of GDP or in total, take your pick) should automatically be assumed to fall? The Op Tempo is busier than in living memory, pay is falling in relation to civvy street, kit is wearing out faster, recapitalisation is desperately needed. Obscene amounts of taxpayers money are wasted across government (the MoD is actually among the better departments) and still everyone blindly follows the assumption that the defence budget must fall because.......er, why exactly? McKinsey says so? RAND says so?
The latest infrastructure cuts across all three services are another symptom of this. If not stopped soon, extinction will follow.....
Thread Starter
Absolutely right N_a_b. But surely the consultants are aleays right? At least that's what Government think.
On a more positive note: Some good F35B related news
While it is without question one of the greatest engineering marvels of the first century of manned flight, the Harrier is a confusing beast to fly, with more controls to take care of than the pilot has hands. With the F-35B, however, that problem will be no more, and I was assured that after no more than a quick briefing I would be able to fly and land the VAAC Harrier....
Didn't the Captain of HMS Invincible (a non aviator) land the VAAC Harrier on deck last year?
If the modified Harrier’s performance is anything to go by, the stability offered by the F-35B’s liftfan and roll posts will be truly spectacular, with only slight inputs required to manoeuvre it around an airfield or onto the deck of an aircraft carrier or assault ship. And Qinetiq has already successfully demonstrated the VAAC Harrier’s ability to automatically return to and land aboard a rolling and pitching aircraft carrier with centimetric accuracy, meaning that the F-35B’s safety record should be remarkably better than the STOVL platforms it will replace.
The vertical landing part of the F35B's capabilities was discussed earlier in this thread. This has to be very been good news.
British technology too.......
On a more positive note: Some good F35B related news
While it is without question one of the greatest engineering marvels of the first century of manned flight, the Harrier is a confusing beast to fly, with more controls to take care of than the pilot has hands. With the F-35B, however, that problem will be no more, and I was assured that after no more than a quick briefing I would be able to fly and land the VAAC Harrier....
Didn't the Captain of HMS Invincible (a non aviator) land the VAAC Harrier on deck last year?
If the modified Harrier’s performance is anything to go by, the stability offered by the F-35B’s liftfan and roll posts will be truly spectacular, with only slight inputs required to manoeuvre it around an airfield or onto the deck of an aircraft carrier or assault ship. And Qinetiq has already successfully demonstrated the VAAC Harrier’s ability to automatically return to and land aboard a rolling and pitching aircraft carrier with centimetric accuracy, meaning that the F-35B’s safety record should be remarkably better than the STOVL platforms it will replace.
The vertical landing part of the F35B's capabilities was discussed earlier in this thread. This has to be very been good news.
British technology too.......
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: YES
Posts: 779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Absolutely right N_a_b. But surely the consultants are aleays right? At least that's what Government think.
On a more positive note: Some good F35B related news
While it is without question one of the greatest engineering marvels of the first century of manned flight, the Harrier is a confusing beast to fly, with more controls to take care of than the pilot has hands. With the F-35B, however, that problem will be no more, and I was assured that after no more than a quick briefing I would be able to fly and land the VAAC Harrier....
Didn't the Captain of HMS Invincible (a non aviator) land the VAAC Harrier on deck last year?
If the modified Harrier’s performance is anything to go by, the stability offered by the F-35B’s liftfan and roll posts will be truly spectacular, with only slight inputs required to manoeuvre it around an airfield or onto the deck of an aircraft carrier or assault ship. And Qinetiq has already successfully demonstrated the VAAC Harrier’s ability to automatically return to and land aboard a rolling and pitching aircraft carrier with centimetric accuracy, meaning that the F-35B’s safety record should be remarkably better than the STOVL platforms it will replace.
The vertical landing part of the F35B's capabilities was discussed earlier in this thread. This has to be very been good news.
British technology too.......
On a more positive note: Some good F35B related news
While it is without question one of the greatest engineering marvels of the first century of manned flight, the Harrier is a confusing beast to fly, with more controls to take care of than the pilot has hands. With the F-35B, however, that problem will be no more, and I was assured that after no more than a quick briefing I would be able to fly and land the VAAC Harrier....
Didn't the Captain of HMS Invincible (a non aviator) land the VAAC Harrier on deck last year?
If the modified Harrier’s performance is anything to go by, the stability offered by the F-35B’s liftfan and roll posts will be truly spectacular, with only slight inputs required to manoeuvre it around an airfield or onto the deck of an aircraft carrier or assault ship. And Qinetiq has already successfully demonstrated the VAAC Harrier’s ability to automatically return to and land aboard a rolling and pitching aircraft carrier with centimetric accuracy, meaning that the F-35B’s safety record should be remarkably better than the STOVL platforms it will replace.
The vertical landing part of the F35B's capabilities was discussed earlier in this thread. This has to be very been good news.
British technology too.......
Great But what will happen when President Clinton cancels F35b on taking office?
Join Date: May 2006
Location: 2 m South of Radstock VRP
Posts: 2,042
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Or if Qinetiq ceases to be a British asset?
WE B F
When did we start appointing non aviating Carrier drivers? Oh no! he's not a submariner, is he
DISCLAIMER
Any visible adverts are nothing to do with me.
WE B F
When did we start appointing non aviating Carrier drivers? Oh no! he's not a submariner, is he
DISCLAIMER
Any visible adverts are nothing to do with me.
Last edited by GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU; 6th Dec 2006 at 15:26. Reason: Disclaimer
Thread Starter
Great But what will happen when President Clinton cancels F35b on taking office?
I don't think that will happen, what with the USMC expecting to get lots of them. Without F35B what will become of all those LHA(R)s etc? Also wasn't the USAF interested in F35B?
When did we start appointing non aviating Carrier drivers? Oh no! he's not a submariner, is he?
About the same time that the carrier was invented during the First World War.
Those of you with an interest in history will know that today is the anniversary of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. The US carriers were not in port that day, hence the Japanese aircraft (also carrierborne) could not hit them. As a result, the US was able to fight an expeditionary war far from friendly territory.
I don't think that will happen, what with the USMC expecting to get lots of them. Without F35B what will become of all those LHA(R)s etc? Also wasn't the USAF interested in F35B?
When did we start appointing non aviating Carrier drivers? Oh no! he's not a submariner, is he?
About the same time that the carrier was invented during the First World War.
Those of you with an interest in history will know that today is the anniversary of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. The US carriers were not in port that day, hence the Japanese aircraft (also carrierborne) could not hit them. As a result, the US was able to fight an expeditionary war far from friendly territory.
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Scotland
Posts: 425
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WEBF,
And not a SHAR in sight!!!!
Sorry I just could not resist it.
Cheers
BHR
Those of you with an interest in history will know that today is the anniversary of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. The US carriers were not in port that day, hence the Japanese aircraft (also carrierborne) could not hit them. As a result, the US was able to fight an expeditionary war far from friendly territory.
Sorry I just could not resist it.
Cheers
BHR
Thread Starter
No SHAR indeed, but lots of other carrierborne fighters.
I started this thread partly because the Sea Jet thread was excessively long and cumbersome. For this reason, I did not intend to bump it. However, whilst innocently surfing the web I came across this story from Pompey local news.
Deeper Cuts to Fleet Feared
The so called think tank proposes cutting the frigate/destroyer force to just 14, which would make current operations impossible. Further investigation reveals that Lewis Page played a part in writing this proposal. Page manages to avoid taking into account recent and current operations (both Gulf Wars, Bosnia, the current War On Terror) and the practices of other Navies. He comes across as a self important and bitter person, and I hope no political party is stupid enough to listen to him.
One last thought. When Iran and Saudi Arabia come to blows over Iraq (following a US/coalition pull out), as reported here in the Telegraph, how are we going to protect merchant shipping in the Persian Gulf without adequate naval forces?
I started this thread partly because the Sea Jet thread was excessively long and cumbersome. For this reason, I did not intend to bump it. However, whilst innocently surfing the web I came across this story from Pompey local news.
Deeper Cuts to Fleet Feared
The so called think tank proposes cutting the frigate/destroyer force to just 14, which would make current operations impossible. Further investigation reveals that Lewis Page played a part in writing this proposal. Page manages to avoid taking into account recent and current operations (both Gulf Wars, Bosnia, the current War On Terror) and the practices of other Navies. He comes across as a self important and bitter person, and I hope no political party is stupid enough to listen to him.
One last thought. When Iran and Saudi Arabia come to blows over Iraq (following a US/coalition pull out), as reported here in the Telegraph, how are we going to protect merchant shipping in the Persian Gulf without adequate naval forces?
Join Date: May 2006
Location: 2 m South of Radstock VRP
Posts: 2,042
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One last thought. When Iran and Saudi Arabia come to blows over Iraq (following a US/coalition pull out), as reported here in the Telegraph, how are we going to protect merchant shipping in the Persian Gulf without adequate naval forces?
The Navy is all set to be a single Task Group that will only have a credible presence in one place at a time.
Will 1SL follow CGS's example?
Thread Starter
Will 1SL follow CGS's example?
In a way, he already has. See this from Janes.
The previous First Sea Lord also outlined his concerns in public.
The size of the RN's frigate/destroyer force has seen a significant decline over the past decade, falling from 35 ships in 1996 to 25 today. Admiral Sir Alan West, Adm Band's predecessor as Chief of Naval Staff and First Sea Lord, was public in his opinion that this level is too small to meet the full spectrum of taskings, noting that the figure of 25 was based on analysis of high-intensity warfighting tasks alone and did not address wider maritime security needs, or make any allowance for attrition.
See also this from the Telegraph. At the time of the article he had about a year left in office.
There are other examples, some mentioned elsewhere on this thread, where senior RN Officers have been candid about the effects of cuts.
It would appear that one of the links in my previous post takes you to an article which mentions a so called think tank that was influenced far too much by Lewis Page, who decided to ignore recent and current operations. No need for frigates and destroyers he says. Well Mr Page, here is my retort.
a)Most current RN commitments are frigate/destroyer commitments.......see here.
b)Frigates and destroyers are vital in defending high value assets (carriers, amphibious ships etc) from air, surface and submarine threats. Without protection these would be little more than floating targets, cf the Falklands. They can also preform independent tasks such as shore bombardment, landing special forces, reece etc.
c)Carrier aviation is very good, but inevitably their will be gaps in air cover which surface based defences can fill.
d)Losing any more frigates/destroyers will mean losing layered defence. Against air threats, we have no carrier based fighter now that the Sea Jet has been retired, so rely totally on shipborne defences. The Type 45 will be a huge leap forward. Page proposes having no real defence against air attack until CVF and JCA come along. Even with carrier fighters, SAM armed escorts fill the gaps in cover and mean attacking a/c that get through can be dealt with. Likewise submarines, frigates provide close defence against submarine threats. Sharkey Ward talks about this in his book, despite the all the criticisms made against him he never claimed that carrier aviation can replace the surface fleet, and he makes a very good case for layered defence (in depth).
Some very basic maths demostrate this concept. Now assuming that a target can be destroyed only once:
If a system has a probability of kill (pk) of 0.75, then 0.25 (1 in 4) of attacking forces will get through. The same result can be achieved with two layers of defence with a pk of 0.5. However, if two layers of defence exist, both with a pk of 0.75 then the probability of an attacker getting through is 0.065 - 6.25% or 1 in 16. Which gives the guys and girls aboard the high value assets a much better chance of survival and getting the job done.
Even if pk is down to 0.5, three layers of defence will ensure only 1 in 8 attackers will get through. Down to 0.3 then two layers will ensure that only 0.49 of attackers get through, three layers and only 0.343 will get through.
This why layered defence is the key of the Navy's defensive phillosophy, and has been for decades.
In a way, he already has. See this from Janes.
The previous First Sea Lord also outlined his concerns in public.
The size of the RN's frigate/destroyer force has seen a significant decline over the past decade, falling from 35 ships in 1996 to 25 today. Admiral Sir Alan West, Adm Band's predecessor as Chief of Naval Staff and First Sea Lord, was public in his opinion that this level is too small to meet the full spectrum of taskings, noting that the figure of 25 was based on analysis of high-intensity warfighting tasks alone and did not address wider maritime security needs, or make any allowance for attrition.
See also this from the Telegraph. At the time of the article he had about a year left in office.
There are other examples, some mentioned elsewhere on this thread, where senior RN Officers have been candid about the effects of cuts.
It would appear that one of the links in my previous post takes you to an article which mentions a so called think tank that was influenced far too much by Lewis Page, who decided to ignore recent and current operations. No need for frigates and destroyers he says. Well Mr Page, here is my retort.
a)Most current RN commitments are frigate/destroyer commitments.......see here.
b)Frigates and destroyers are vital in defending high value assets (carriers, amphibious ships etc) from air, surface and submarine threats. Without protection these would be little more than floating targets, cf the Falklands. They can also preform independent tasks such as shore bombardment, landing special forces, reece etc.
c)Carrier aviation is very good, but inevitably their will be gaps in air cover which surface based defences can fill.
d)Losing any more frigates/destroyers will mean losing layered defence. Against air threats, we have no carrier based fighter now that the Sea Jet has been retired, so rely totally on shipborne defences. The Type 45 will be a huge leap forward. Page proposes having no real defence against air attack until CVF and JCA come along. Even with carrier fighters, SAM armed escorts fill the gaps in cover and mean attacking a/c that get through can be dealt with. Likewise submarines, frigates provide close defence against submarine threats. Sharkey Ward talks about this in his book, despite the all the criticisms made against him he never claimed that carrier aviation can replace the surface fleet, and he makes a very good case for layered defence (in depth).
Some very basic maths demostrate this concept. Now assuming that a target can be destroyed only once:
If a system has a probability of kill (pk) of 0.75, then 0.25 (1 in 4) of attacking forces will get through. The same result can be achieved with two layers of defence with a pk of 0.5. However, if two layers of defence exist, both with a pk of 0.75 then the probability of an attacker getting through is 0.065 - 6.25% or 1 in 16. Which gives the guys and girls aboard the high value assets a much better chance of survival and getting the job done.
Even if pk is down to 0.5, three layers of defence will ensure only 1 in 8 attackers will get through. Down to 0.3 then two layers will ensure that only 0.49 of attackers get through, three layers and only 0.343 will get through.
This why layered defence is the key of the Navy's defensive phillosophy, and has been for decades.
Suspicion breeds confidence
If as has been suggested a "mini review" is underway at the MoD then I can see nothing other further cutbacks and delays. The MoD is paying for two campaigns with its future hardware budget. Maybe it should get a mortgage?
Thread Starter
I know that I should be pleased that the Memorandum of Understanding regarding the JSF/F35 has been signed, but by God, all this talk of even more cuts is depressing.
Surely the politicians realise less ships = less operational capability = less operations.
As for the MP (Doris) who claimed ships today were six times more capable than those twenty years ago, I assume she meant to say "those being designed and planned for". T45 will be more capable than T42, CVF more capable than CVS. But since neither is in service yet........
Surely the politicians realise less ships = less operational capability = less operations.
As for the MP (Doris) who claimed ships today were six times more capable than those twenty years ago, I assume she meant to say "those being designed and planned for". T45 will be more capable than T42, CVF more capable than CVS. But since neither is in service yet........
Last edited by WE Branch Fanatic; 15th Dec 2006 at 19:39.
Thread Starter
Two developments to report today.
Firstly, the Times is reporting that the plans to merge the shipbuilding businesses of BAE Systems and Vosper Thorneycroft.
Government says joint venture will help Navy
This issue is also discussed here. I do wonder why they think creating a monopoly will be helpful? Better value for money without competition?
The second one is the news from the Defence Contracts Bulletin that CVF has a need "for a number of Training Needs Analyses".
I think that some training in Project Management is needed in the MOD.
Firstly, the Times is reporting that the plans to merge the shipbuilding businesses of BAE Systems and Vosper Thorneycroft.
Government says joint venture will help Navy
This issue is also discussed here. I do wonder why they think creating a monopoly will be helpful? Better value for money without competition?
The second one is the news from the Defence Contracts Bulletin that CVF has a need "for a number of Training Needs Analyses".
I think that some training in Project Management is needed in the MOD.
WEBF
Good spot...
"The Future Aircraft Carrier (CVF) programme is currently in the Demonstration Phase and has a requirement for a number of Training Needs Analyses...."
As it's entered the Demonstration Phase, the inference is Main Gate has been attained. Well done.
And yes, TNAs seem to be an afterthought these days. It's to be expected now that training is considered part of ILS. On an aircraft project, it is always wise to consider the simulator as the 3rd aircraft in the delivery schedule (after the TI and PI) but be prepared to tweak accordingly. This way, training is always in your face in the programme schedule, rather than a one liner in a voluminous ILS Plan. Services stopped doing this in the early 90s, which coincided with it being subsumed into ILS, in turn leading to many programmes which "forgot" training, delivered it late or not at all. The outcome is usually a shortfall in financial provision. Interesting that the TNAs are going out to contract under separate bulletin. If they've not already been prepared by those employed to do so, it seems odd they aren't included in the prime contract, which will be underpinned by a procurement strategy, SRD, TLMP and Main Gate Business Case, none of which can (should) be approved without addressing training. Whoever wins must be fully embedded into the prime's team. For a start a confidentiality agreement could take months to agree, which delays matters, so better to place the responsibility with him in the first place. Something not quite right with the background to this bulletin. I'm sure all will become clear.
Good spot...
"The Future Aircraft Carrier (CVF) programme is currently in the Demonstration Phase and has a requirement for a number of Training Needs Analyses...."
As it's entered the Demonstration Phase, the inference is Main Gate has been attained. Well done.
And yes, TNAs seem to be an afterthought these days. It's to be expected now that training is considered part of ILS. On an aircraft project, it is always wise to consider the simulator as the 3rd aircraft in the delivery schedule (after the TI and PI) but be prepared to tweak accordingly. This way, training is always in your face in the programme schedule, rather than a one liner in a voluminous ILS Plan. Services stopped doing this in the early 90s, which coincided with it being subsumed into ILS, in turn leading to many programmes which "forgot" training, delivered it late or not at all. The outcome is usually a shortfall in financial provision. Interesting that the TNAs are going out to contract under separate bulletin. If they've not already been prepared by those employed to do so, it seems odd they aren't included in the prime contract, which will be underpinned by a procurement strategy, SRD, TLMP and Main Gate Business Case, none of which can (should) be approved without addressing training. Whoever wins must be fully embedded into the prime's team. For a start a confidentiality agreement could take months to agree, which delays matters, so better to place the responsibility with him in the first place. Something not quite right with the background to this bulletin. I'm sure all will become clear.
Suspicion breeds confidence
Welcome to the world of fudge. CVF has gone through a two part main gate. I suspect what you are reading relates to the former, not the much anticipated second phase. I still have most things crossed.
Naval Eye is bang on. The Main gate 1 passed last year opened up the Demo phase (and allowed Alstom & RR to do some long-lead procurement) to do the detailed design and validate the performance (via modelling of course..........). The manufacture MG is yet to be signed off and thats where the big bunce is.
tucumseh, could you translate your post into English please?
"This way, training is always in your face in the programme schedule, rather than a one liner in a voluminous ILS Plan.
Interesting that the TNAs are going out to contract under separate bulletin.
underpinned by a procurement strategy"
It was all so simple when the RAF just flew green aeroplanes which went 'whoosh'.....
"This way, training is always in your face in the programme schedule, rather than a one liner in a voluminous ILS Plan.
Interesting that the TNAs are going out to contract under separate bulletin.
underpinned by a procurement strategy"
It was all so simple when the RAF just flew green aeroplanes which went 'whoosh'.....
Beagle
Gladly.
When initiating a project, which includes putting together pretty good cost estimates - within 5% these days, no such thing as 20% CB Tolerance now - one has to think of everything.
In times long gone, a set of "LTC Instructions" were issued annually, around February. They told the Customer (not PE/DPA) what the LTC parameters were. There is no equivalent under the new EP system. I can't speak for ships and bases, but on aircraft you were instructed to treat the simulator as, for all intents and purposes, a spare aircraft. That way, when checking the bid, you had to deliberately exclude training (and everything else), rather than remember to include it. When the project passed to PE, the PM similarly regarded the sim as an aircraft, typically #3.
This system died in the early 90s - to my knowledge it was last used for LTC93 (i.e Feb 92). Training became considered as part of ILS. Since then, training has been an afterthought on many project, to be considered only as an ILS deliverable, usually at the Logistic Support Date 3 months before ISD. That's no use if pilot training takes much longer (Apache is a good example). On one recent a/c project the status of the simulator was as a single item of Government Furnished Equipment requested by the contractor, because the ILSM had made a deliberate decision not to make provision for a simulator. In other words, the project received full IAB approval in the certain knowledge that the ISD (fully operational flight of x a/c) could not be attained because there would be no trained aircrew. Both the PM and the contractor recognised the error, but the Customer wouldn't budge. Straight away the project was in financial trouble, and the PM had to cut features in order to afford the sim (we ignored the Customer's requirement - sorry!). If the Customer had asked for the sim, the a/c would have all the features required in the original spec. If we had met his requirement, all a/c would now be languishing in a hangar somewhere. This is a common scenario, across all 3 services. (BTW, the ISD was achieved).
Given the above, it follows that, at the very least, a preliminary TNA needs to be conducted during the Concept phase, if only to put a ballpark cost in the plans, and to establish the principle for all time that training is actually required. Detail emerges with the design.
I've seen training ignored too many times. It may seem obvious, but the above example was a complete howler and demonstrated (if it were needed) that the bidding and scrutiny process is fundamentally flawed. This is a view supported by MoD's own internal auditors. In my experience, a great majority of funding problems on projects could have been avoided if this old process had been followed. And because it is a well known process, which has never actually been rescinded but just fallen into disuse, it is very easy to prove what I say simply by constructing a dummy "LTC" bid. But who am I to contradict MoD, who say it is unnecessary attention to detail and a waste of time? (Tell that to anyone who has had to leave expensive new kit behind when deployed, because they haven't been trained how to use it).
Sorry for the length of reply, but this is a fundamental issue. It is the reason why the fair and reasonable cost of kit often exceeds the available budget - not because of penny pinching (although that occurs) but because the Customer didn't compile a proper shopping list. You learn this basic competence long before reaching the lowest project manager grade. But nowadays very few PMs have served at these lower grades, so exacerbating the situation.
Hope this helps. Feel free to PM me. (I'll tell you what the above a/c was and you can check for yourself).
Gladly.
When initiating a project, which includes putting together pretty good cost estimates - within 5% these days, no such thing as 20% CB Tolerance now - one has to think of everything.
In times long gone, a set of "LTC Instructions" were issued annually, around February. They told the Customer (not PE/DPA) what the LTC parameters were. There is no equivalent under the new EP system. I can't speak for ships and bases, but on aircraft you were instructed to treat the simulator as, for all intents and purposes, a spare aircraft. That way, when checking the bid, you had to deliberately exclude training (and everything else), rather than remember to include it. When the project passed to PE, the PM similarly regarded the sim as an aircraft, typically #3.
This system died in the early 90s - to my knowledge it was last used for LTC93 (i.e Feb 92). Training became considered as part of ILS. Since then, training has been an afterthought on many project, to be considered only as an ILS deliverable, usually at the Logistic Support Date 3 months before ISD. That's no use if pilot training takes much longer (Apache is a good example). On one recent a/c project the status of the simulator was as a single item of Government Furnished Equipment requested by the contractor, because the ILSM had made a deliberate decision not to make provision for a simulator. In other words, the project received full IAB approval in the certain knowledge that the ISD (fully operational flight of x a/c) could not be attained because there would be no trained aircrew. Both the PM and the contractor recognised the error, but the Customer wouldn't budge. Straight away the project was in financial trouble, and the PM had to cut features in order to afford the sim (we ignored the Customer's requirement - sorry!). If the Customer had asked for the sim, the a/c would have all the features required in the original spec. If we had met his requirement, all a/c would now be languishing in a hangar somewhere. This is a common scenario, across all 3 services. (BTW, the ISD was achieved).
Given the above, it follows that, at the very least, a preliminary TNA needs to be conducted during the Concept phase, if only to put a ballpark cost in the plans, and to establish the principle for all time that training is actually required. Detail emerges with the design.
I've seen training ignored too many times. It may seem obvious, but the above example was a complete howler and demonstrated (if it were needed) that the bidding and scrutiny process is fundamentally flawed. This is a view supported by MoD's own internal auditors. In my experience, a great majority of funding problems on projects could have been avoided if this old process had been followed. And because it is a well known process, which has never actually been rescinded but just fallen into disuse, it is very easy to prove what I say simply by constructing a dummy "LTC" bid. But who am I to contradict MoD, who say it is unnecessary attention to detail and a waste of time? (Tell that to anyone who has had to leave expensive new kit behind when deployed, because they haven't been trained how to use it).
Sorry for the length of reply, but this is a fundamental issue. It is the reason why the fair and reasonable cost of kit often exceeds the available budget - not because of penny pinching (although that occurs) but because the Customer didn't compile a proper shopping list. You learn this basic competence long before reaching the lowest project manager grade. But nowadays very few PMs have served at these lower grades, so exacerbating the situation.
Hope this helps. Feel free to PM me. (I'll tell you what the above a/c was and you can check for yourself).