Dr Liam Fox MP - Buying COTS for HM Forces

[GasFitter]

I saw the interview with Dr Liam Fox MP this morning, suggesting that we should "consider the Canadian option" of buying Commercial Off-The Shelf (COTS) equipment instead of supporting British Industry and British jobs.
When pushed by the interviewer, he sid that Defence of the Realm comes first amd that we should realize that we do not have a sole 'British Defence Industry'.
So, should we buy more COTS (more unemployed, more DSS payments, less money for Defence, Chinooks parked in hangars) or support British Industry (more expensive, more delay, less money for Defence).
Question: COTS - 'Deal' or 'No Deal'?

[PPRuNeUser0211]

err, samurai, methinks what the potential next government thinks about what they should be buying for the uk military has everything to do with mil aircrew...even those who aren't british who have to work alongside the poor buggers...

COTS? Deal if it's the right kit for the right job! TI sights for the guys on the ground in the sandbox would be a good place to start!

[BEagle]

Ruggedised COTS equipment is often the most pragmatic solution to urgent equipment procurement needs. No individual suppliers should consider that they have an automatic right to supply the UK Armed Forces.

[Safeware]

Buying COTS is what got us into the Chinook Mk 3 poo.

IMHO, JSF is, depsite having such an 'influence' almost COTS as far as we are concerned. And that's a view held even by BAES staff on the project.

COTS is ok if you want to use it exactly as it says on the tin. If you want to tinker, caveat emptor.

sw

[wokawoka]

WRONG!

COTS did not get us in the Mk3 poo as you say. If we had bought the Dutch cockpit as originally planned we would have been fine. As money was taken away from the project by various other departments, it was decided that we had to save money and came up with the great idea of keeping the analogue engine instruments. Therefore the design of interfacing analogue and digital feeds using a mil std as opposed to def std 55/56 recognised by Boscombe.
If we had kept to COTS (yes off the shelf!) instead of being tight wads where we end up paying more in the end, we d be ok with 8 more airframes.
Rant over.....

[Safeware]

Woka,
I think you need to read my last sentence again. We tinkered with COTS. Whatever the reason, we tinkered. And the issues went beyond those you mentioned into 'How would you support this if you want to put it into service?'
COTS and esp COTS software doesn't fit easily with the UK military view of buying a bit of kit and then modifying it to do what we really want it to do for this war.
You can switch your rant back on if you want

ps 00-55/56 has nothing to do with interfacing analogue to digital.

sw

[Chugalug2]

COTS and esp COTS software doesn't fit easily with the UK military view of buying a bit of kit and then modifying it to do what we really want it to do for this war.

So don't tinker! Disband the army of people whose sole raison d'etre is to tinker. Off the shelf means off the shelf!

[wokawoka]

Sorry I was referring to your first statement. First one is definitly wrong but your second one is definitly right.

However I do think that COTS would work for us in some areas. In the example of the Mk3 if we d kept to the original design (our design!!!) we would have been fine. The Dutch are.....

[Safeware]

Chug,

If we don't tinker, we have peace-planes, not warplanes.

If we don't need to tinker, we can have COTS, if we need to tinker we don't need COTS.

sw

[Safeware]

Woka,

But the first and last are inextricably linked. If we hadn't tried to by it as a COTS product we wouldn't (hopefully) have ended up in the RTS poo.

Maybe I should have said "Thinking we were buying COTS ......"

But even if we hadn't tried to tinker, it wouldn't really have worked for the UK unless using it exactly as it said on the tin was what we would do. And I know that wouldn't have happened.

sw

[Chugalug2]

Peace planes like the Hercules Ks and Js! The tinkerers wanted to hang RR Tynes on them, when Lockheed finally stopped laughing long enough to say no, the tinkerers stuffed it full of UK electronics instead. Lots of useful warplane stuff like Decca Mk1, which told you where you were (provided you were in the UK or the Gulf), but first you had to tell it where it was! The Smiths Autopilot took one look at the impedance of the US wiring, and went into a sulk so was collared off for a year. Other useful war equipment was the downward looking periscope for the Nav to supply drop, as the side windows at floor level could not possibly suffice, and an Astrodome requiring enlargement of the roof escape hatch to fit. This was not for navigation, as a "sun gun" in the roof was already supplied, but for the Force Commander on a formation drop to observe his command. "Peacetime" kit that the USAF had already fitted as standard, ie ESF, was not deemed necessary, as it was not produced in the UK. The result? the USAF have had Hercules ready for war ever since and we have not! Don't tinker and sack the tinkerers!

[ase engineer]

COTS for the armed forces

Dashed good idea - why don't you hire lots more Ghurkas (cheap to get, run and retire) and fire all those British chaps (expensive, keep complaining about rights and always whingeing about not having the best kit unless they bought it from another country)?

[Chugalug2]

I agree that the Ghurkas are good value for money, I for one am glad that they are on our side! British troops are also great value for money, and acknowledged as some of the best troops in the world, not by us but by others. British companies that produce first class products for the armed forces, either as stand alone items, or as part of a multi-partner programme, are great value for money. The bods who take such products and emasculate them into the expensive useless tat sitting in a BD hangar are not. British companies that hang on to life by leeching onto the British tax payer, via the MOD, because they cannot sell their tat onto an open market are not. The UK defence budget should be spent on defence, not on shoring up marginal constituencies by the incumbent government. We are at war, and this cosy set up is costing the lives of our servicemen and women now! Enough already!

[ianp]

Did anyone else think that this thread was about buying more camp beds for detachments?

[Mr-AEO]

Chugs,

Sometimes we tinker because the end-user wants us to, not because we are all sitting idle thinking, "I wonder how I can tinker with that?"

There are lots of good reasons for tinkering with COTS equipment, not least because 1 size usually fits none.

GF

COTS doesn't necessarily mean 'overseas'. We can still go COTS and keep UK jobs supporting British Industry. So your opening argument/point of debate is flawed.

[itsonlyme]

Cots-c17

COTS is the way ahead. When the C17 was leased the deal was that it was operated as per the original boeing design and the way in which the USAF operate (although obviously lower down the food chain i.e. commands etc they managed a small amount of tinkering to ensure that it was operated much below it's capabilities)

This aircraft works and works well. does the job, very rarely goes u/s and gets praise from everyone who uses it. Unfortunately most things do get "tinkered" with. Why is the RAF the only organization in the world where the following happens. "we need a dog" .... ""lets buy a cat and give it surgery"

[SIT head]

I used to think COTS was the answer to everything, why bother designing things that will be out of date by the time they reach the front-line? But then, after seeing at first-hand how nigh-on impossible it is to integrate a COTS system with other systems (bespoke or COTS), I now have my doubts. If you can get a COTS item/system that covers in every respect all of the requirements, then that is just grand - but, if it needs to be integrated with other systems, STOP! STOP! STOP! Integration costs (and time) can often mean the benefits of COTS are blown away and the end user is left with a bu**ers muddle that falls way short of what was promised/contracted or required.
UORs attempt to plug gaps that previous circumstances/decisions have levied and are very often COTS in their design. The problem is, UORs are often withdrawn because the cost of integrating them into legacy systems and programmes becomes prohibitively expensive - hence we bin the enhancement and the end-user has to live with that consequence. So, come the revolution my take would be:
COTS if the requirement is holistically met, with the greatest care being taken to make sure the COTS kit doesn't mess-up the people/equipment/system that it needs to work with. If it doesn't, well, a bespoke suit will cost you more, but last longer, fit better, look better, create a better impression...

[talk_shy_tall_knight]

Didn't we 'tinker' with the C-17 by putting a fuel tank or something half way up the cabin which restricts certain loads...or was that the J...or I might have just dreamt it.

[Exrigger]

Rumour has it that a new aircraft (not british) went the route of COTS for some avionic boxes, when they arrived they did not fit in the space in the aircraft that had been built for it. The cost of changing the aircaft structure so the COTS equipment would fit was quite a lot, it turned out cheaper to tell the manufacturers first what size hole the kit needs to fit in and have the boxes re-designed.

[Two's in]

Considering the whole DPA structure is based around a few thousand well-intentioned individuals "tinkering" with perfectly good kit in order to to justify their salaries, don't hold your breath for The Vision on the road to Damascus any time soon. You can't change the system until you have fixed the culture.