The BAE Gravy Train
My two pennyworth ...... its no one organisation that is at fault.
I recall (maybe an urban legend) that the Chairman of BAE in the late 90's / early noughties, told a Parliamentary committee that if MOD knew the true cost of what they had asked for, they would never be able to afford anything.
Sadly, as a country we are just rubbish at defining and purchasing things. This is not unique to defence as rail, transport, government are just as bad.
No real insight into why this may be, but just opinions.
Personally, I think it comes down to an overweening British desire to reinvent the wheel every time rather than make do and have 90% of what we want, now. Instead we try and beat the Americans capabilities with something that will only be available in a decades time, might not work and will cost billions more than the original estimate. This desire is not unique to the armed forces.
And then be obsolete when/if it is ever finished.
Is it any wonder that the Bowman system because known as Better Off With Map And Nokia
I recall (maybe an urban legend) that the Chairman of BAE in the late 90's / early noughties, told a Parliamentary committee that if MOD knew the true cost of what they had asked for, they would never be able to afford anything.
Sadly, as a country we are just rubbish at defining and purchasing things. This is not unique to defence as rail, transport, government are just as bad.
No real insight into why this may be, but just opinions.
Personally, I think it comes down to an overweening British desire to reinvent the wheel every time rather than make do and have 90% of what we want, now. Instead we try and beat the Americans capabilities with something that will only be available in a decades time, might not work and will cost billions more than the original estimate. This desire is not unique to the armed forces.
And then be obsolete when/if it is ever finished.
Is it any wonder that the Bowman system because known as Better Off With Map And Nokia
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
Are bean counters so used to thinking in terms of 10^6 or ^9 or even ^12
that pennies never even enter in to it?
At the sharp end there it the accounting for every penny on subsistence etc - at what cost - and at the other does the company account to the MOD for its contract T&S?
Years ago now but during the Stingray procurement a Neddy arrived at the testing range without his briefcase. This was absolutely essential to the conduct of the trial. The briefcase was found, driven to Boscombe, flown in a Canberra to Kinloss and driven to the test range.
By the time the briefcase reached the range the trial was complete and the neddy had gone back to Boscombe.
Where did the cost of that little exercise fall? It should have fallen on someone's personal bank account.
that pennies never even enter in to it?
At the sharp end there it the accounting for every penny on subsistence etc - at what cost - and at the other does the company account to the MOD for its contract T&S?
Years ago now but during the Stingray procurement a Neddy arrived at the testing range without his briefcase. This was absolutely essential to the conduct of the trial. The briefcase was found, driven to Boscombe, flown in a Canberra to Kinloss and driven to the test range.
By the time the briefcase reached the range the trial was complete and the neddy had gone back to Boscombe.
Where did the cost of that little exercise fall? It should have fallen on someone's personal bank account.
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Blackpool
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The problem is more widespread that just the Treasury Bean Counters
There seems to be a widespread malaise in the whole of the Aerospace Industry (or is it the economy in general?) and Customer Community, where despite masses of well meaning but futile effort being put into Project Management, and ever more complex processes and procedures, we are unable to break the death spiral of increasing costs with reducing capability.
This isn't just happening in the UK, as an example the F35 is also in serious trouble (see latest in Wired: Things Could Get Worse for Troubled Stealth Jet | Danger Room | Wired.com ). We could all quote other examples across many countries and organisations. Possibly the most significant common factor is the over-enthusiastic application of Business Management techniques, giving us the volatile mixture of top heavy organisations which have 8 coxes and 1 rower rather than 1 cox and 8 rowers, coupled with a naive and over-optimistic expectation of easy success.
I wish I could come up with a magic bullet, but change for the better can only start if there is recognision that there is a fundamental problem which needs to be addressed, rather than settling for cowardly conformity (or would that be called "Best Practice"?).
This isn't just happening in the UK, as an example the F35 is also in serious trouble (see latest in Wired: Things Could Get Worse for Troubled Stealth Jet | Danger Room | Wired.com ). We could all quote other examples across many countries and organisations. Possibly the most significant common factor is the over-enthusiastic application of Business Management techniques, giving us the volatile mixture of top heavy organisations which have 8 coxes and 1 rower rather than 1 cox and 8 rowers, coupled with a naive and over-optimistic expectation of easy success.
I wish I could come up with a magic bullet, but change for the better can only start if there is recognision that there is a fundamental problem which needs to be addressed, rather than settling for cowardly conformity (or would that be called "Best Practice"?).
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: The Whyte House
Age: 95
Posts: 1,966
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You may make razor blades from aluminium alloys, but you are not going to sell many and you're repeat business forecasts will eventually be revealed for the fiction they always were. Please tell me you're not on a project team.
You do know how anally retentive this sort of post makes people seem? I do hope you don't communicate this way in real life.
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't know how they do it, but the MoD (customer) seems always to have a habit for making it very difficult for things to progress easily. Some recent examples (15 yrs) we've seen have been:
wanting a JTIDS type terminal on a jet. original price & spec too much, so a new bid with 'features-lite' option sent. agreed, then 1/2 way through implenentation & testing a request for "can we have all the functions please? - we've decided we now can't do without it" aaarg. time and costs wasted.
trying to get a 25mm guun on a jet. over 10 years of fiddling and mincing trying to sort it and failing.... no reason ever given why someone wouldn't own up, or just cancel it, or use the 30mm older one that was fine, or buy the US one of the shelf. probably some "i can't admit we're wrong" problems in the system somewhere
upgraded engines, more thrust, better hot weather perf, trialled in 1988 or so, got on the jet finally in 2005 ish. and the type that really needed it, it was OSD just as they were working on how to get the engine into it...!
and others, but you get the idea.......... Imagine how you'd feel if you tried to build a Ford Focus for someone who asked for FWD one week, then RWD the next, then changed the spec from a hatchback to an estate the next...! Or even how you'd feel if when you asked to buy a focus, Ford said 'Give us 10,000quid and a couple of years and we'll have a prototype', then 2 yrs later they wanted another 10k, and then 2 yrs after that, you paid another 10k, and got a car that only had 1 door, and would only drive 10 miles, and only in daylight......... unless you paid another 10k to fix it.....
CHF
wanting a JTIDS type terminal on a jet. original price & spec too much, so a new bid with 'features-lite' option sent. agreed, then 1/2 way through implenentation & testing a request for "can we have all the functions please? - we've decided we now can't do without it" aaarg. time and costs wasted.
trying to get a 25mm guun on a jet. over 10 years of fiddling and mincing trying to sort it and failing.... no reason ever given why someone wouldn't own up, or just cancel it, or use the 30mm older one that was fine, or buy the US one of the shelf. probably some "i can't admit we're wrong" problems in the system somewhere
upgraded engines, more thrust, better hot weather perf, trialled in 1988 or so, got on the jet finally in 2005 ish. and the type that really needed it, it was OSD just as they were working on how to get the engine into it...!
and others, but you get the idea.......... Imagine how you'd feel if you tried to build a Ford Focus for someone who asked for FWD one week, then RWD the next, then changed the spec from a hatchback to an estate the next...! Or even how you'd feel if when you asked to buy a focus, Ford said 'Give us 10,000quid and a couple of years and we'll have a prototype', then 2 yrs later they wanted another 10k, and then 2 yrs after that, you paid another 10k, and got a car that only had 1 door, and would only drive 10 miles, and only in daylight......... unless you paid another 10k to fix it.....
CHF
None but a blockhead
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: London, UK
Posts: 535
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A friend who was something senior (don't want to drop him in it) in Clansman radio production way back when tells me that one of the suppliers basically told the MOD to shove its contract after enduring something like a thousand mod revisions after the production line had started. No amount of money could compensate for the fact it was making the company impossible to run.
Mind you, he has plenty of war stories.
As for Bowman: has anyone written that story yet? I'd love to read it. If not, I'd love to write it!
R
Mind you, he has plenty of war stories.
As for Bowman: has anyone written that story yet? I'd love to read it. If not, I'd love to write it!
R
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Secret base, SW
Posts: 41
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Col onHF
Jaguar?
upgraded engines, more thrust, better hot weather perf, trialled in 1988 or so, got on the jet finally in 2005 ish. and the type that really needed it, it was OSD just as they were working on how to get the engine into it...!
In a similar vein, a well known 'mobile' company was asked to modify a working, existing system to, amongst other things, fit a UK security chip and refused point blank to do so.
When 'taken to task' by the MoD, it was pointed out face to face, that the dozen or so engineers who would mess around with a perfectly good product just for the MoD to buy a few hundred devices, were working on a mobile phone which would net a few hundred thousand units in sales, each with a higher gross and net margin than the units the MoD wanted. So no, it isn't something they wanted to do.
MoD had no answer.
Just as well, as the 'urgent' need for the system went away 12 months later
A lot of the problems come from naivete..... in the definition of requirements, which have become hellishly complicated and frequently contradictory. Also, in my experience, there is a belief that where there are equally valid interpretations of a need, that the MoD have the correct interpretation and the contractors equally valid interpretation is flawed. However no commercial company signs a contract which requires psychic abilities to define anything.
MoD asks the contractor to grow a ton of apples.
The contractor plants the trees, grows the apples and delivers them.
The MoD points out they didn't want Golden Delicious apples but wanted Granny Smiths.
The contractor has to either graft GS onto a GD tree or start again.
The MoD hasn't got a leg (or branch) to stand on, and has to pay up for its poor definition.
When 'taken to task' by the MoD, it was pointed out face to face, that the dozen or so engineers who would mess around with a perfectly good product just for the MoD to buy a few hundred devices, were working on a mobile phone which would net a few hundred thousand units in sales, each with a higher gross and net margin than the units the MoD wanted. So no, it isn't something they wanted to do.
MoD had no answer.
Just as well, as the 'urgent' need for the system went away 12 months later
A lot of the problems come from naivete..... in the definition of requirements, which have become hellishly complicated and frequently contradictory. Also, in my experience, there is a belief that where there are equally valid interpretations of a need, that the MoD have the correct interpretation and the contractors equally valid interpretation is flawed. However no commercial company signs a contract which requires psychic abilities to define anything.
MoD asks the contractor to grow a ton of apples.
The contractor plants the trees, grows the apples and delivers them.
The MoD points out they didn't want Golden Delicious apples but wanted Granny Smiths.
The contractor has to either graft GS onto a GD tree or start again.
The MoD hasn't got a leg (or branch) to stand on, and has to pay up for its poor definition.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
GO, quite. We let one contract where I admit we were uncertain want we wanted. To use your example we asked for Apples or Pears.
The winning contractor said that he would provided Apples or Pears.
His bid was compliant.
The contractor that said he would provide a crop from a suitable orchard managed to the highest horticulural standards was rejected as non-compliant. You get the drift?
The winning contractor said that he would provided Apples or Pears.
His bid was compliant.
The contractor that said he would provide a crop from a suitable orchard managed to the highest horticulural standards was rejected as non-compliant. You get the drift?
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 799
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Col On HF raised the example of the 25mm gun - a good example of how things go wrong, but possibly deserves a bit more detail.
Original 25mm Aden was developed from the 30mm design by RO and was not right - but accepted and paid for by the MoD.
Job was taken off RO and given to a small company who did a great job of fixing it - result (in well under 10 years) was the best 25mm cannon ever built - fast, accurate required no external power. The original 30mm shell was not up to the requirements for ground attack performance.
Problem - MoD had insisted that BAES design the pod and ammo feeds - ALL other gun teams design the gun and the pod. Result - jams and problems with spent links.
Project was cancelled mainly because of the RAF dogma that guns were inaccurate and of no potential use. This was in 1997. Right.
The 25mm failed due to MoD failure to use basic systems project management and lack of funds, but primarily because of user ignorance over what a modern gun could do.
Damn shame, actually.
Best Regards
Engines
Original 25mm Aden was developed from the 30mm design by RO and was not right - but accepted and paid for by the MoD.
Job was taken off RO and given to a small company who did a great job of fixing it - result (in well under 10 years) was the best 25mm cannon ever built - fast, accurate required no external power. The original 30mm shell was not up to the requirements for ground attack performance.
Problem - MoD had insisted that BAES design the pod and ammo feeds - ALL other gun teams design the gun and the pod. Result - jams and problems with spent links.
Project was cancelled mainly because of the RAF dogma that guns were inaccurate and of no potential use. This was in 1997. Right.
The 25mm failed due to MoD failure to use basic systems project management and lack of funds, but primarily because of user ignorance over what a modern gun could do.
Damn shame, actually.
Best Regards
Engines
Job was taken off RO and given to a small company who did a great job of fixing it - result (in well under 10 years) was the best 25mm cannon ever built - fast, accurate required no external power.
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: UK
Posts: 126
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
theloudone
And your metric to compare it to is...........??? 
GrahamO has it spot on!!! If you look at the constraints put on Defence Industry by Gov't they should be lucky anyone wants to do business at all with MoD if there are other equivalent busienss opportunities. Add on top of that the inability of MoD to sort it's requirements processes out........
Not wishing to carry on with the BAE bashing, its not been the best run of contracts, and yes, i have had first hand experience of it
GrahamO has it spot on!!! If you look at the constraints put on Defence Industry by Gov't they should be lucky anyone wants to do business at all with MoD if there are other equivalent busienss opportunities. Add on top of that the inability of MoD to sort it's requirements processes out........
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Lord only knows
Age: 63
Posts: 100
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
F3sRBest
Having been at St Athan during the time when the Tornado was serviced there, and comparing it to that of what i have been involved with at Marham, St`s seemed that bit more organised, to say the least !
I know its all about saving cost, that i understand, but the way in which BAE have structured the management is not good.Whats the saying, too many chiefs and not enough indians.
I know its all about saving cost, that i understand, but the way in which BAE have structured the management is not good.Whats the saying, too many chiefs and not enough indians.
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: UK
Posts: 126
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
theloudone,
I too was at 'Saints' when Tornado was serviced there, and have involvement at Marham too. Yes, BAES management is different to what you would expect given an 'old fashioned' military chain of command-type structure, but I don't think it's as chaotic as you believe. Things were not always so rosy when the RAF did the whole job! And given how things have changed since then, I don't think the whole team (don't forget many of whom are still RAF!) are doing a bad job!
Clearly since this post tends to the view that BAES personnel are not all evil money grabbing swine with no conscience it will be duly ignred by the majority here in favour of the current sport of 'BAES are bad, RAF are brilliant but hard done by' prevelant in this part of PPRUNE!! (not a personal dig theloudone - you obviously have views based on experiences so fair enough!)
I too was at 'Saints' when Tornado was serviced there, and have involvement at Marham too. Yes, BAES management is different to what you would expect given an 'old fashioned' military chain of command-type structure, but I don't think it's as chaotic as you believe. Things were not always so rosy when the RAF did the whole job! And given how things have changed since then, I don't think the whole team (don't forget many of whom are still RAF!) are doing a bad job!
Clearly since this post tends to the view that BAES personnel are not all evil money grabbing swine with no conscience it will be duly ignred by the majority here in favour of the current sport of 'BAES are bad, RAF are brilliant but hard done by' prevelant in this part of PPRUNE!!
(not a personal dig theloudone - you obviously have views based on experiences so fair enough!)
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Lord only knows
Age: 63
Posts: 100
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
F3sRBest
I am certainly not digging at the RAF or the team there, i do agree, they do a good job, and things were not all that rosy as you put it. I dont think for one minute BAE staff are evil money grabbers, quite the opposite, i have had to survive on their pay.
However, not wishing to divert to far from this thread, BAE are contracted to "deliver" under this contract, and are paid well for it, yet still as the prime contractor and with all their experience, they seem to fall short.
If you run a contract similar to this within an airline these days, and i have been involved with such contracts, BAE would have lost the business by now, and after all, its a business.
However, not wishing to divert to far from this thread, BAE are contracted to "deliver" under this contract, and are paid well for it, yet still as the prime contractor and with all their experience, they seem to fall short.
If you run a contract similar to this within an airline these days, and i have been involved with such contracts, BAE would have lost the business by now, and after all, its a business.
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: UK
Posts: 126
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
theloudone
Then again, if you tried to setup a busienss with the level of 'customer-owned' dependencies (that subsequently fail!) you would be laughed off the Stock Exchange! BAES were put in this position by the circumstances the MoD faced. I won't go into this anymore to avoid thread drift, suffice to say I think we are looking at the same thing from slightly different angles! My own opinion (and I have seen from both sides!) is that it's not doing so badly..considering... but I do concede that in comparison with some of the slicker commercial (civilian) companies, there's a lot to learn - BAES and MoD both!
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Here and there, occasionally at home.
Age: 56
Posts: 146
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am no apologist for either BAES or MoD, they both have theirgood/bad points. If you look at what's happened to defence procurement over the last 10 years, with massive intrusion and meddling by the treasury, it's a surprise anything got delivered over that period.
On MRA4, the IPT had bought 21 aircraft's worth of IP spares (bulk buy = savings!), only for the then Chancellor (Darth Vader's Dad-Gordon Brown) to decide we had to pay VAT on those items ('cos they were just sat on a shelf not earning any money). Add to that the constant in-year cost saving drives of between 5-15% (oddly enough the savings the PT had to make were only notified after agreeing the contract targets for that year, unsurprisingly having agreed milestones and deliverables, we then had to go back to the Co and ask how we could cut stuff out to save money!), I reckon nearly £700mil of the £3.6Bn program cost ended up back with HMT.
On MRA4, the IPT had bought 21 aircraft's worth of IP spares (bulk buy = savings!), only for the then Chancellor (Darth Vader's Dad-Gordon Brown) to decide we had to pay VAT on those items ('cos they were just sat on a shelf not earning any money). Add to that the constant in-year cost saving drives of between 5-15% (oddly enough the savings the PT had to make were only notified after agreeing the contract targets for that year, unsurprisingly having agreed milestones and deliverables, we then had to go back to the Co and ask how we could cut stuff out to save money!), I reckon nearly £700mil of the £3.6Bn program cost ended up back with HMT.
Join Date: May 2006
Location: 2 m South of Radstock VRP
Posts: 2,042
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Are you sure it was VAT and not that bloody nightmare called RAB? That great smoke and mirrors trick guaranteed to syphon money back to the Treasury; Resource Account Budget.
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Lincolnshire
Posts: 107
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In this instance SFO is correct, it was VAT. All down to production assets becoming spares assets. You're still correct about this being Treasury wooden dollars being used to reduce actual cash budgets.