Apache TADS/NVS upgrade and DE&S
Thread Starter
Apache TADS/NVS upgrade and DE&S
This month, a special edition of “Preview” has been published to launch DE&S (combined DPA and DLO).
On page 21, Adam Ingram is reported to have responded to a PQ thus - “Between May 2006 and January 2007 there were 60 cases of faults with the Target Acquisition Designation Sight / Pilot Night Vision Sensor System in the Apache helicopter (singular!) serving in Afghanistan with maintenance recorded against them”
On page 24, Mr Ingram also states (presumably in answer to the same question) “A programme to replace the Target Acquisition Designation Sight / Pilot Night Vision System is in place for (all 67) Apache helicopters”.
So, this is how to replace unreliable kit – report faults and get a replacement. Mind you, 60 faults in 7 or 8 months (in how many a/c in AFG), is pretty disastrous. Wonder if all faults were formally reported? I hope the Apache IPT have negotiated free replacement from the supplier. The other subtle inference is that procuring this new kit has been made possible by – DE&S.
Now listen, this rag really is magnificent entertainment…… There’s more. Interviews with most of the new Directors General in DE&S. They occupy two camps. Those who genuinely think combining DPA and DLO is novel; and those who clearly recall pre-1992 but toe the party line and don’t refer to that period. That means everyone simply has to read up on old management plans etc, spin in a few new catchphrases and give the impression they’ve spent the last year devising this new arrangement.
“Page 8 “Merger – it’s long overdue”. If it’s overdue, why split in the first place when the world and their dog, including every auditor known to MoD, said it would be a waste of money, and then proved it?
Page 11 “Coherent output will deliver capability to the front line”. Well, why keep employing those who, up until now, argued incoherence was ok?
Page 12 “Weapons to be procured in a consistent manner”. Ditto. Maybe one day we’ll resurrect specialist Directorates, like D/Air Armament. Good Lord, we may even staff it with people who know what they’re talking about. Oh, and their DG “set up and led the first IPT to undertake activities across the whole equipment life cycle”. As that happened in December 1989, with first IPT meeting shortly afterwards (in St Georges Court, Room 303, commencing 1000, minutes available on request, and he wasn’t there!!), I think what they actually mean is the first IPT when the concept was resurrected in 1999; as usual, someone spotted a decent idea from the past and spun it as his own.
Now here’s a good one, and relevant to Mull of Kintyre and other incidents that were predicted and ignored, to various degrees. Page 13 “Providing high quality safety advice”. Of course, I’m not inferring previous safety advice was low quality. No, CDP and Ministers had simply ruled safety optional. But wait, as if to prove the subject has just entered their mind, the make up of the Safety Board has yet to be decided – you only had a year guys.
Really, get a copy, there’s stuff like this on every page. In fact, it’s a page turner, if only because you’ve read it all before.
On page 21, Adam Ingram is reported to have responded to a PQ thus - “Between May 2006 and January 2007 there were 60 cases of faults with the Target Acquisition Designation Sight / Pilot Night Vision Sensor System in the Apache helicopter (singular!) serving in Afghanistan with maintenance recorded against them”
On page 24, Mr Ingram also states (presumably in answer to the same question) “A programme to replace the Target Acquisition Designation Sight / Pilot Night Vision System is in place for (all 67) Apache helicopters”.
So, this is how to replace unreliable kit – report faults and get a replacement. Mind you, 60 faults in 7 or 8 months (in how many a/c in AFG), is pretty disastrous. Wonder if all faults were formally reported? I hope the Apache IPT have negotiated free replacement from the supplier. The other subtle inference is that procuring this new kit has been made possible by – DE&S.
Now listen, this rag really is magnificent entertainment…… There’s more. Interviews with most of the new Directors General in DE&S. They occupy two camps. Those who genuinely think combining DPA and DLO is novel; and those who clearly recall pre-1992 but toe the party line and don’t refer to that period. That means everyone simply has to read up on old management plans etc, spin in a few new catchphrases and give the impression they’ve spent the last year devising this new arrangement.
“Page 8 “Merger – it’s long overdue”. If it’s overdue, why split in the first place when the world and their dog, including every auditor known to MoD, said it would be a waste of money, and then proved it?
Page 11 “Coherent output will deliver capability to the front line”. Well, why keep employing those who, up until now, argued incoherence was ok?
Page 12 “Weapons to be procured in a consistent manner”. Ditto. Maybe one day we’ll resurrect specialist Directorates, like D/Air Armament. Good Lord, we may even staff it with people who know what they’re talking about. Oh, and their DG “set up and led the first IPT to undertake activities across the whole equipment life cycle”. As that happened in December 1989, with first IPT meeting shortly afterwards (in St Georges Court, Room 303, commencing 1000, minutes available on request, and he wasn’t there!!), I think what they actually mean is the first IPT when the concept was resurrected in 1999; as usual, someone spotted a decent idea from the past and spun it as his own.
Now here’s a good one, and relevant to Mull of Kintyre and other incidents that were predicted and ignored, to various degrees. Page 13 “Providing high quality safety advice”. Of course, I’m not inferring previous safety advice was low quality. No, CDP and Ministers had simply ruled safety optional. But wait, as if to prove the subject has just entered their mind, the make up of the Safety Board has yet to be decided – you only had a year guys.
Really, get a copy, there’s stuff like this on every page. In fact, it’s a page turner, if only because you’ve read it all before.
So, this is how to replace unreliable kit – report faults and get a replacement.
PS: When Browne stands down as SoS, will DES need to change its name?
Last edited by BossEyed; 6th Apr 2007 at 08:45.
Thread Starter
Thanks Boss
DES - brilliant. I'm too slow.
I'm not too familiar with AH avionics - some of us asked to be transferred to the team in 96, to be told "We're buying avionics OTS, so don't need specialists". It wasn't so much off-the-shelf, but dragged kicking out of long term storage. We pointed out that some of the equipment list the US had offered had been declared obsolescent by the RN in 1984, whose maintenance policy had been repair by cannibalisation since 1985. They renegotiated it after that......
DES - brilliant. I'm too slow.
I'm not too familiar with AH avionics - some of us asked to be transferred to the team in 96, to be told "We're buying avionics OTS, so don't need specialists". It wasn't so much off-the-shelf, but dragged kicking out of long term storage. We pointed out that some of the equipment list the US had offered had been declared obsolescent by the RN in 1984, whose maintenance policy had been repair by cannibalisation since 1985. They renegotiated it after that......
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 345
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MTADS was a recognised requirement from the outset but three options were available:
1. Invest significant amounts in UK R & D for a 'local' upgrade.
2. Invest in the in-progress US R & D for an upgrade.
3. Wait for the US solution to be fielded and get a somewhat lower price avoiding some if not all of the R & D costs.
Needless to say we went for option 3 and this has been in the pipeline for some 3+ years.
We continue to operate effectively with what we have but there is no doubt that the upgrade will be a welcome enhancement to an already potent capability.
The upgrade is imminent so it would be ill advised to invest massive amounts in new spares for the old system when we are about to begin the upgrade.
Bit of a no brainer really,
HEDP
1. Invest significant amounts in UK R & D for a 'local' upgrade.
2. Invest in the in-progress US R & D for an upgrade.
3. Wait for the US solution to be fielded and get a somewhat lower price avoiding some if not all of the R & D costs.
Needless to say we went for option 3 and this has been in the pipeline for some 3+ years.
We continue to operate effectively with what we have but there is no doubt that the upgrade will be a welcome enhancement to an already potent capability.
The upgrade is imminent so it would be ill advised to invest massive amounts in new spares for the old system when we are about to begin the upgrade.
Bit of a no brainer really,
HEDP
Below the Glidepath - not correcting
HEDP,
...now is that a DPA "imminent" or waiting for a plane ride out of Teheran "imminent"? Use this post as a placeholder, and let's pull it back up when the first system is fielded to the AAC.
The upgrade is imminent
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 123
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
tucumseh
Is it really that good a read? I normally wonder what the cost of all these glossy magazines actually is and what the really serve? But I am always willing to give it a go!
