Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Aircrew Forums > Military Aviation
Reload this Page >

Carriers and Main Gate

Wikiposts
Search
Military Aviation A forum for the professionals who fly military hardware. Also for the backroom boys and girls who support the flying and maintain the equipment, and without whom nothing would ever leave the ground. All armies, navies and air forces of the world equally welcome here.

Carriers and Main Gate

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 24th Oct 2006, 08:21
  #21 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Hampshire
Age: 62
Posts: 144
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Its possible that the review being carried out by Sir John Parker has thrown up some concerns?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/mai...18/cnavy18.xml
Sunk at Narvik is offline  
Old 24th Oct 2006, 08:51
  #22 (permalink)  
Suspicion breeds confidence
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Gibraltar
Posts: 2,405
Likes: 0
Received 8 Likes on 3 Posts
It can't have failed main gate submission since it does not get submitted until this Thursday.

Last edited by Navaleye; 24th Oct 2006 at 09:33.
Navaleye is offline  
Old 24th Oct 2006, 10:30
  #23 (permalink)  
6Z3
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: God's Country
Posts: 646
Received 4 Likes on 2 Posts
Google define: Main Gate =

"An exacting approval hurdle, between the Assessment and Demonstration Phases of the CADMID procurement phases. A Business Case at Main Gate should recommend a single technical and procurement option. Risk must have been reduced to the extent that the Capability Manager and IPT Leader can, with a high degree of confidence, undertake to deliver the project to narrowly defined performance, cost (whole-life and procurement) and time parameters."

From the MoD's Acquisition Management System (AMS) website
6Z3 is online now  
Old 24th Oct 2006, 15:12
  #24 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Hampshire
Age: 49
Posts: 77
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Is it just me?

Am I alone in wondering why on earth all this is taking so long? it struck me the other day that Kennedy ordered NASA to go to the Moon in '62 and they were there in '69. The SDR was the initial document which mentioned the intention to acquire 2 new carriers and that was published 9 years ago! We haven't even cut any metal yet!!
I may be a bit of a simpleton, but it really can't be that difficult? Or is it as I suspect that the army of consultants, contractors and time-wasters are taking a few too many expenses funded lunches?
If someone can put me right I would be most grateful....
Wannabe1974 is offline  
Old 24th Oct 2006, 15:37
  #25 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Portsmouth
Posts: 530
Received 174 Likes on 93 Posts
http://www.pprune.org/forums/showpos...&postcount=657

Try this for starters. Less a problem with expenses paid lunches, but with ability of MoD to make decisions and ability of the ACA to interpret requirements and make accurate cost estimates.
Not_a_boffin is offline  
Old 24th Oct 2006, 16:03
  #26 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: uk(occasionally)
Posts: 130
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
If its true then thank goodness. Get rid of the carriers and buy more Typhoons.
NoseGunner is offline  
Old 24th Oct 2006, 16:11
  #27 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Hampshire
Age: 49
Posts: 77
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by NoseGunner
If its true then thank goodness. Get rid of the carriers and buy more Typhoons.
I think the RAF have won that battle once too often in the 20th century. What do we need more Typhoons for? They're already about as in-date as the cheese at the back of my fridge...
Wannabe1974 is offline  
Old 24th Oct 2006, 16:19
  #28 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: uk(occasionally)
Posts: 130
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Thats one.
NoseGunner is offline  
Old 24th Oct 2006, 19:49
  #29 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Hampshire
Age: 62
Posts: 144
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Bah!

<drops monicle into whisky tumbler>

Sunk at Narvik is offline  
Old 24th Oct 2006, 19:51
  #30 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 3,399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Cannot believe somebody bit that.
Tourist is offline  
Old 24th Oct 2006, 21:51
  #31 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: SW England
Posts: 86
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Now that Larry Grayson has leant his full weight to the program I get the feeling that CVF will not fail at all, but will meet nay even surpass the trivial Main Gate procedure. It will just be a rubber stamp scrutineering hatchet job as the Defence industry has far too much at stake for it to fail.

Believe me I have been through the torturous process with the Lynx replacement.

This is a single source procurement with absolutely no danger of failure.
the funky munky is offline  
Old 24th Oct 2006, 22:53
  #32 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Gloucestershire
Posts: 403
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by the funky munky

Believe me I have been through the torturous process with the Lynx replacement.

This is a single source procurement with absolutely no danger of failure.
Believe me I've been through more procurements than I like to count.

There is every possibility of a horrible and highly embarrassing failure.

MOD wants the carriers for a low price and no risk; the contractor wants to deliver at a price it can make a profit from, at acceptable risk. You'd think these positions are compatible, but I wonder if in this case they are even close.

The change log will already be open and waiting for MOD's business.
GlosMikeP is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.