Military madness; Why?
Thread Starter
Military madness; Why?
Around the World we are seeing defence projects spinning out of control failing to deliver on-time and on-budget.
Here in Australia, billions are sunk into failed projects and huge cost over-runs and loss of capability and all of this is dismissed by both military and Government leaders as yet another 'oh dear, we'll do better next time'...
Why are we unable to manage this process?
Here in Australia, billions are sunk into failed projects and huge cost over-runs and loss of capability and all of this is dismissed by both military and Government leaders as yet another 'oh dear, we'll do better next time'...
Why are we unable to manage this process?
Last edited by TBM-Legend; 4th Feb 2011 at 08:41.
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: england
Posts: 385
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The size and complexity of most projects mean they will take xx number of years to implement. Over the course of that time, the original aim & need for the item will no doubt change and the goal posts move. Adding onto that, most items are bespoke for the required role, often featuring new technology, so there are bound to be hiccups, teething problems or even complete re-designs required to overcome unforseen problems. Add to that far too many people sticking thier oar in, and trying to "save" money, it all add's up to a hideous mess that is over budget, over timescale, under performing and unreliable
Over the course of that time, the original aim & need for the item will no doubt change and the goal posts move.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 1,515
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Because whenever the commercial world (where profit is king) meets the public sector world (where career protection and an easy life is king) blood is spilled (the blood in this instance being the tax-payer's money).
It was ever thus.
Content yourself in the knowledge that most of the money is just going round in a circle.
It was ever thus.
Content yourself in the knowledge that most of the money is just going round in a circle.
Part of the problem is the lack of any personnel on projects (military or civil service) with a jot of commercial experience. The IPT 'Commercial' Officers (Contract Officers in old speak), typically B or C grade, have no, repeat no commercial savvy.
I had the dubious experience of having to run the family business (a small engineering firm) at a moment's notice from a young age before I joined the Service; at least I learned about the difference between an invoice and a statement; basic tax principles (eg the difference between sales tax exempt and zero-rated sales tax), the need to determine a fixed price before placing an order, basic industrial relations and basic contract law - basic business dog-f*k that in my experience, few civil servants and military have any knowledge of.
For example, years later working in the RAF Infrastructure Organsiation, I was shocked to find few of the 'Works' officers had ever ventured on to a building site, let alone having any knowledge of procurement, design and construction (the default was, 'we use a consultant') thus had absolutely no idea what things actually cost to procure or build. The Screwfix catalogue was a revelation to many - 'Oh, so a shower cubicle only costs that much?' The 'professional' DE personnel were rarely any better. I subsequently served as Customer 1 for a large programme and remained similarly shocked with the naivety of so many people on the customer side.
Whilst in Afghanistan a few years ago I attended a meeting on the expansion of KAF; the US and Canadians have extremely experienced civil engineers there; the RAF had a young officer who had done a week-long Exped Ops course and had previously served as OC PSF. It was not only cringing to see the reactions of our Allied professionals to her lack of knowledge; it was professionally embarrasing to the Service.
Luckily I have moved in to more interesting work over the most of the last 10 years, but I have little confidence that the situation has improved. I stand to be corrected.
I had the dubious experience of having to run the family business (a small engineering firm) at a moment's notice from a young age before I joined the Service; at least I learned about the difference between an invoice and a statement; basic tax principles (eg the difference between sales tax exempt and zero-rated sales tax), the need to determine a fixed price before placing an order, basic industrial relations and basic contract law - basic business dog-f*k that in my experience, few civil servants and military have any knowledge of.
For example, years later working in the RAF Infrastructure Organsiation, I was shocked to find few of the 'Works' officers had ever ventured on to a building site, let alone having any knowledge of procurement, design and construction (the default was, 'we use a consultant') thus had absolutely no idea what things actually cost to procure or build. The Screwfix catalogue was a revelation to many - 'Oh, so a shower cubicle only costs that much?' The 'professional' DE personnel were rarely any better. I subsequently served as Customer 1 for a large programme and remained similarly shocked with the naivety of so many people on the customer side.
Whilst in Afghanistan a few years ago I attended a meeting on the expansion of KAF; the US and Canadians have extremely experienced civil engineers there; the RAF had a young officer who had done a week-long Exped Ops course and had previously served as OC PSF. It was not only cringing to see the reactions of our Allied professionals to her lack of knowledge; it was professionally embarrasing to the Service.
Luckily I have moved in to more interesting work over the most of the last 10 years, but I have little confidence that the situation has improved. I stand to be corrected.
Last edited by Whenurhappy; 4th Feb 2011 at 09:10.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Somewhere flat
Age: 68
Posts: 5,567
Likes: 0
Received 46 Likes
on
31 Posts
Undermanning within the PTs means that they work excedingly hard with few resources to come up with a solution that is passed upwards. The bean counters then come back and say "do it for 40% cheaper". Start again from scratch. Another - probably less perfect solution - is found. This is again sent upwards and again, the response is "make it another 10% cheaper". A frustrated PT team start again and come up with a solution that is within estimates and goes some way to meeting the requirement. After a year of contract negociations, when the contractors regularly change their funding estimates, an agreement is reached that satisfies all parties. At this point, the treasury changes the goalposts and cuts the funds available by half: some very frustrated PT personnel start all over again, and some pi**ed off contractors say "why are we doing this?" and add their administration costs for 2 years to the bill.
The end result is nearly 2 years of expensive delay with no solution in sight and a UOR (that will cost twice the original estimate of 2 years previous) rapidly approaching. Meanwhile, the service members of the PT have been posted on and the number of CS posts has been reduced to fund the more expensive UOR.
Work in the PT is rapidly becoming impossible due to the constraints being placed upon it and the moving financial goal posts from the "customer". I suppose the a service analagy is the cost in man hours of producing the business case for T&S.
The end result is nearly 2 years of expensive delay with no solution in sight and a UOR (that will cost twice the original estimate of 2 years previous) rapidly approaching. Meanwhile, the service members of the PT have been posted on and the number of CS posts has been reduced to fund the more expensive UOR.
Work in the PT is rapidly becoming impossible due to the constraints being placed upon it and the moving financial goal posts from the "customer". I suppose the a service analagy is the cost in man hours of producing the business case for T&S.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
Whenur, quite right. As my own works officer at home I knew when i was being taken for a ride at work. Unfortunately I was occasionally caught out when I wasn't looking.
£6.5k to put up a flag pole. Well it also came with its own 7 foot chain link fence topped by 3 strands of barbed wire, a flight of steps and a hand rail. I asked why the fence only to be told there was a vandalism problem as a different site in a different situation.
We had to remove the barbed wire as the flag would catch on it!
£6.5k to put up a flag pole. Well it also came with its own 7 foot chain link fence topped by 3 strands of barbed wire, a flight of steps and a hand rail. I asked why the fence only to be told there was a vandalism problem as a different site in a different situation.
We had to remove the barbed wire as the flag would catch on it!
Ref Posts 8 & 11. The lask of professional building engineers in uniform has always been a problem on stations - ie the young Admin Sec Fg Off up against an archirtect or two and gruff project managers from industry. Happened when we were taking over the refurbished bunker at Neatishead, and a major problem for me (even as hoary sqn ldr at Mt Pleasant) as OC SSS taking over £450M worth of facilities from the contractors - the Army had a RE Major, with a civilian "construction" qualification doing the job for them. I worked on the basis of "does it do what it says on the tin?" - ie when the dog compound fence was not high enough to keep the police dogs in, I refused to take it over - wails from PSA and the contractor, and the first of several interviews with the stn cdr from Stanley. It was when they tried to get me to take over the airfield lighting, with loose wires sticking out of the pedestals that I nearly flipped - that got me a face to face with the one-star equivalent PSA head honcho on his grounded ship! Nevertheless, it was aleays a bit of an unequal struggle.
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Longton, Lancs, UK
Age: 80
Posts: 1,527
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
TBM
Prior to year 2001, I regarded the Australian DMO as a relatively efficient organisation - in my experience, certainly better the UK MoD equivalent. But that view was expunged following the Howard Government's decision in June 2002 to join the JSF programme, abandoning at a stroke all ongoing effort to seek a long-term replacement for the F-18 Hornet via the usual and well-established regulatory processes. Stunning at the time, this decision was taken after 'clandestine' meetings between Australian and US Defence Material officials had taken place over the previous twelve months, all without the knowledge of the ADF or DSTO. A whiff of corruption lingered awhile, to be overtaken by some of the more recent dubious RAAF procurement decisions. But at least you retain a decent-sized air force (relative to GDP/population) compared to that of the newly-raped RAF.
Prior to year 2001, I regarded the Australian DMO as a relatively efficient organisation - in my experience, certainly better the UK MoD equivalent. But that view was expunged following the Howard Government's decision in June 2002 to join the JSF programme, abandoning at a stroke all ongoing effort to seek a long-term replacement for the F-18 Hornet via the usual and well-established regulatory processes. Stunning at the time, this decision was taken after 'clandestine' meetings between Australian and US Defence Material officials had taken place over the previous twelve months, all without the knowledge of the ADF or DSTO. A whiff of corruption lingered awhile, to be overtaken by some of the more recent dubious RAAF procurement decisions. But at least you retain a decent-sized air force (relative to GDP/population) compared to that of the newly-raped RAF.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
Wander, you remind me of the 'new' ASI Ops in 1984. The plans were approved by an 'expert' Slops. His replacement during the next 6-month tour went completely hands off as he would not be there when it was ready. We got the benefit.
It was an L-shaped building - Comcen at one end, Admin at the other and Ops had the corridor in between - no desks or consoles. The 'notice board' provided was a standard 2x3 board and that was that.
Fortunately we had the ex-VC10 sqn ldr (him from the Dom War Stories) who had just redesigned and built a sqn ops. He drew up the plans and did a fair amount of the carpentry too to actually build an Ops 'room' although it remained a through passage from Comcen to Admin.
It was an L-shaped building - Comcen at one end, Admin at the other and Ops had the corridor in between - no desks or consoles. The 'notice board' provided was a standard 2x3 board and that was that.
Fortunately we had the ex-VC10 sqn ldr (him from the Dom War Stories) who had just redesigned and built a sqn ops. He drew up the plans and did a fair amount of the carpentry too to actually build an Ops 'room' although it remained a through passage from Comcen to Admin.
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: UK
Posts: 126
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Accepting yes, that all is not good in the Defence arena, we would do well to realise that in the broad scope of Public Sector 'mega projects' Defence as a whole doesn't do too badly! For UK, Millenium Dome, Olympics, Wembly etc etc. The one good one that stands out as the exception is BAA T5.
Keng-130 has half the problem - but one issue is that the Private Sector that is almost always contacted nowadays is a very, very large conglomerate with a huge corporate structure and huge "corporate self-defence" systems to pay for as well as its design and development staff.
In the "Old Days" that contact was always to a smaller, independant company like Avro, Blackburn, English Electric or Gloucester who had far less overheads, less time in committee's and more dedicated time on project, where quick and early development mean profit as soon as possible.
How long did the Bucc take from concept to getting in the air?
I really don't know, but I'd bet it was less than a UAV's entry into service today.
That doesn't sound like Progress in modern production to me - or success!
In the "Old Days" that contact was always to a smaller, independant company like Avro, Blackburn, English Electric or Gloucester who had far less overheads, less time in committee's and more dedicated time on project, where quick and early development mean profit as soon as possible.
How long did the Bucc take from concept to getting in the air?
I really don't know, but I'd bet it was less than a UAV's entry into service today.
That doesn't sound like Progress in modern production to me - or success!
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 274
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When you buy a car, you go to the showroom, see what closest matches your requirements and what you can afford, and then you haggle a bit to save money and then pay up and drive off.
In the military a bunch of people of 2 year tours come up with the requirement and industry seeks to match it, then after 2 years, another bunch of staff officers tinker with the requirement and industry reacts to the requested changes, then after 2 years come more staff officers, then comes the development, then service entry, then obsolesence issues because it has been so long since the requirement... And so it goes on...and all the while things keep changing...
In the military a bunch of people of 2 year tours come up with the requirement and industry seeks to match it, then after 2 years, another bunch of staff officers tinker with the requirement and industry reacts to the requested changes, then after 2 years come more staff officers, then comes the development, then service entry, then obsolesence issues because it has been so long since the requirement... And so it goes on...and all the while things keep changing...
Thread Starter
You don't need protracted processes that take years to look at the case for the introduction of new equipment and the selection thereof.
In Oz we took the C-17 and Super Bug projects through to the end in a couple of years on time and on budget. Why? Because we purchased off the shelf proven technology. Good enough for Uncle Sam then good enough for us. As someone once said never buy the "A" model of anything...
Small nations like us cannot afford the luxury of developing our own versions of high tech stuff to be built in small quantities. The R&D for a start has be be amortised over such few units the economics just won't cut it.
Singapore is a great model for getting things done. Years ago a friend of mine worked for Northrop when they sold F-5E's to them. He was part of the sales team of three people who meet with PM Lee, the Defence Minister, Head of Finance, Chiefs of Defence Force and Air Force and a couple of others in Lee's office. Three hours later basic deal done. Off the shelf models purchased and the support train developed during the aircraft build time. Voila, all on time and budget. Also my friend told be Lee pushed the pricing himself!
In Oz we took the C-17 and Super Bug projects through to the end in a couple of years on time and on budget. Why? Because we purchased off the shelf proven technology. Good enough for Uncle Sam then good enough for us. As someone once said never buy the "A" model of anything...
Small nations like us cannot afford the luxury of developing our own versions of high tech stuff to be built in small quantities. The R&D for a start has be be amortised over such few units the economics just won't cut it.
Singapore is a great model for getting things done. Years ago a friend of mine worked for Northrop when they sold F-5E's to them. He was part of the sales team of three people who meet with PM Lee, the Defence Minister, Head of Finance, Chiefs of Defence Force and Air Force and a couple of others in Lee's office. Three hours later basic deal done. Off the shelf models purchased and the support train developed during the aircraft build time. Voila, all on time and budget. Also my friend told be Lee pushed the pricing himself!
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: The Fletcher Memorial Home
Age: 59
Posts: 303
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just want to clarify a subtle difference, "Off the shelf" (OTS) comes in two flavours. COTS is "Commercial", which covers the sort of stuff you can buy in any high street store. MOTS is "Military" which means that it has been designed and manufactured specifically with the military customer in mind.
Everyone keeps shouting "we can buy this stuff in <insert name of high street store of choice> so why is it so expensive?" The easy answer is that is has been designed for civil use, and does not need to go through the rigorous environmental tests procedures that military kit does. For example, any black box that goes on an aircraft has to undergo vibration testing (there is a mil-standard tests with different parameters for prop, jet and rotary aircraft!). I seriously doubt that any COTS box will meet the standards, even if it says it was designed to be taken four wheel driving!
MOTS kit has been through these tests, but with so many other things you get what you buy. If you want it changed for any reason, you have to engineer the change THEN re-test it to the same standard to ensure it still complies. This all adds to the costs.
So we can buy off the shelf and live with the restrictions of the kit, or get kit built to do what we want where we want to do it and pay the price.
Everyone keeps shouting "we can buy this stuff in <insert name of high street store of choice> so why is it so expensive?" The easy answer is that is has been designed for civil use, and does not need to go through the rigorous environmental tests procedures that military kit does. For example, any black box that goes on an aircraft has to undergo vibration testing (there is a mil-standard tests with different parameters for prop, jet and rotary aircraft!). I seriously doubt that any COTS box will meet the standards, even if it says it was designed to be taken four wheel driving!
MOTS kit has been through these tests, but with so many other things you get what you buy. If you want it changed for any reason, you have to engineer the change THEN re-test it to the same standard to ensure it still complies. This all adds to the costs.
So we can buy off the shelf and live with the restrictions of the kit, or get kit built to do what we want where we want to do it and pay the price.