Fox to crack down on military overspends

[Farfrompuken]

Geehova

your quote

There are no accolades for coming second and enemies don't respect "best practice". To win the match we need to be responsive not procedural.

rings very true in all aspects of what we do.

We've allowed ourselves in all facets of our operation (not 'business') to get totally bogged down by meaningless, time-consuming, unproductive management process. It almost drives me to tears when I see people fail to apply common sense, preferring @rse covering tactics to no effect.

Sadly I don't see it getting better as those that get to the top are those that employ excel and powerpoint to best effect, not those who have a brain.

[maxburner]

Farfrom...we are far from alone in that. I've worked for a couple of BIG organisations, UK and elsewhere, and the same arse covering is commonplace. Risk taking is, well, risky! It's always safer to say that you would like to help, but the contract doesn't quite say that etc etc. I'd guess it's a universal blight. I work for myself now and the aim is, as always, to keep the customer satisfied. It's relatively easy for me as most of my work is short term in duration so there's little scope for requirements to change.

[RumPunch]

Liam Fox is ranting on about the MOD will not get away any more wasting money etc etc

Surely when it comes to major defence purchases the green light and nod has to go through the defence secretary even the Prime minister, so why is he blaming the MOD for all the agreed projects in the past. Maybe im just looking at it from a different angle.

[andyy]

RP, good point. The MoD are to blame, the Users (Requirements people) are to blame, industry is to blame but we have Initial Gate & Main Gate & Ministerial decision points precisely to ensure that projects stay on track.

If they are not, then its because ultimately Ministers sign up to it.

[manccowboy]

Surely the simplest thing todo is what most businesses do......build in fines for not producing on time, Im amazed this has never been done and only release money when targets are met throughout the project.

[Capt P U G Wash]

Not only is it the MoD's fault, rather than the individual Services, Defence Secrataries rarely stay long enough to take the rap - no doubt this one will be no different. And the men in gray suits will just sit behind their all powerful unions and in their mandarin clubs. The only ones left to live with the mess are the Services - so stop beating them up and sack the incompetents that fail to deliver in the Head Office.

[WillDAQ]

Surely the simplest thing todo is what most businesses do......build in fines for not producing on time, Im amazed this has never been done and only release money when targets are met throughout the project.

The problem is that the company often supplies exactly what the MoD wanted... even though what the MoD wanted was not what it needed.

Time to introduce 'sudden death' to IPTs. Mess up and you're fired. Would reduce the headcount a bit.

[LFFC]

Is this another £1b that the government can't afford?

Navy to buy new aircraft.

Published on Tue Feb 22 13:07:21 GMT 2011

THE Royal Navy is looking to buy a fleet of maritime patrol aircraft for up to £1 billion just weeks after the Ministry of Defence scrapped the new Nimrod aircraft at a cost of £3.6 billion.

The MoD confirmed last week that the navy wanted to buy its own maritime patrol aircraft to track enemy submarines to replace the Nimrods, which are being broken up for scrap. The new RAF Nimrod MRA4s had not even come into service when the prime minister announced last October that as part of the strategic defence review he was scrapping Nimrod.

The navy, which was furious that RAF bosses had agreed to get rid of Nimrod at a time of increased submarine activity, has already set up a team to buy a replacement and ensure that it is flown by the Fleet Air Arm. The programme is being run by Commodore Simon Kings with a team made up of naval officers.

If this is a legitimate programme, then surely it would be more cost effective to employ the expertise to be found up at Kinloss rather than allowing them to be made redundant and then recruiting and training new people. Or is this just another attempt by the RN to save the FAA?

[Pontius Navigator]

Originally Posted by manccowboy

Surely the simplest thing todo is what most businesses do......build in fines for not producing on time, Im amazed this has never been done and only release money when targets are met throughout the project.

At a very simple level, my contractor had a small contract with very tight margins. As the contract period drew to a close his estimated costs 5 years previous, and the MODs agreed payments, became increasingly squeezed.

The contractor tries to extend his machinery to the end of the contract but it is prone to increased failure rates and the contractor starts to miss his targets.

The MOD witholds payments because the Contractor did not meet the contract.

The Contractor goes bust.

Now when you only have one contractor, can you afford to have him go bust?

[Cows getting bigger]

You really couldn't make it up.

[Capt P U G Wash]

The RN have their own private MPA project team? Sounds like a target for a saving to me.
The RAF did not let Nimrod go, the politicians did. The blame for this leads all the way to the top.

[davejb]

If this is a legitimate programme, then surely it would be more cost effective to employ the expertise to be found up at Kinloss rather than allowing them to be made redundant and then recruiting and training new people. Or is this just another attempt by the RN to save the FAA?

You'd imagine that this made sense, but I wouldn't bet on it happening. Similarly I doubt the RN will be asking too many ex Nimrod officers for their opinions on equipment etc.

It's arguable that the RN has long had an airborne ASW capability, and I suspect they'll rationalise it as just being a step up from SKJ etc to developing a fixed wing capability. The downside to it being an all dark blue project would be the wasted knowledge and experience, on the plus side the RN will, I suspect, think keeping it all in house instead of letting the crabs b****r it up is a major factor.

This'll end up as one of those things where somebody proves (to everybody above Sqn Ldr/Lt Cdr level) that going round the sides of a square is faster than cutting across the diagonal....probably by using Powerpoint.
Dave

[andyy]

Few people would argue that we don't need an LRMP ASW/ ASuW capability I suspect so if the RN are prepared to give something els up in order to provide it then why not?

Nimrod MRA4 has gone but the requirement has not. Money is in short supply but if a system can bought by giving up the funds currently allocated to other, presumably lower priority, programmes then so be it. I think the RN has a fair few Observers and Aircrewman around whose core competence is in ASW/ASuW.

So which platform is to be (and which lower priority programmes are to be cut)? Taking a leaf out of the RAF book, the RN could buy/ lease some old P3 or S3 & refurbish them, much as the RAF are doing with Rivet Joint vice Nimrod R1.

[GrahamO]

There are pro's and Cons to bringing in a team from the previous generation of platforms.

New team, new concepts based around an existing platform. No more re-inventing the wheel. Use the flipping thing as others do, and stop rewriting the Ops Manual.

You would like to think that lessons learned from earlier platforms would not be repeated. I am too cynical to believe that would happen.

Old team, old thinking, and a desire to turn this into MRA4.5 will appear.

Nothing will be good enough, everything will be compared to MRA4 and will be unacceptable.

I think this last issue will be the biggest concern but I do hope all the MRA folks can keep some kind of job, even if it involves being told not to change anything and to live with it as it is.

[davejb]

Old team, old thinking, and a desire to turn this into MRA4.5 will appear.

I doubt that very much - The fitted sensors will impose their own limitations on what can be done, and no amount of wanting an MRA4 would change that. I don't think you'd find RAF Nimrod aircrew insisting on anything, they'd just try to get the best they could out of the kit...and if we're talking refurbished S-3's and the like then this will probably mean winding back on what is achievable.

I don't think RAF aircrew are likely to feature in this anyway. If they did though, I doubt very much that they'd be as silly as you suggest...I don't think you know Nimrod aircrew very well.

Dave

[LFFC]

Nimrod MRA4 has gone but the requirement has not. Money is in short supply but if a system can bought by giving up the funds currently allocated to other, presumably lower priority, programmes then so be it.

But surely if the RN can find other, lower priority, programmes to sacrifice, they should have done so in the first place! It just strikes me that this is a prime example of non-joint, muddled and self-centred thinking that is exactly what Liam Fox needs to stamp on if he's to avoid overspends and waste in the future!

[Charlie Time]

As I understand it the Cap AW studies into regenerating an MPA capability is being led by a Wg Cdr who is ex-Nimrod.

[GrahamO]

davejb

I don't think you know Nimrod aircrew very well.

You are completely correct - I know one pilot and thats it and he's a sensible chap after 5 or more years in industry

My point was that if the new platform is being spec'd and Nimrod has a performance factor of "six cats per square ironing board", and the off the shelf item only offers five at a price of £100M , I can pretty much guarantee someone senior in the wider MOD will be insisting on six as a minimum with a development cost of £50M and a rock solid guarantee that it will be late.

Our country has a strong track record of modifying completely working items until they are late and don't work - and thats not just the purview of the MOD.

[F3sRBest]

Surely the simplest thing todo is what most businesses do......build in fines for not producing on time, Im amazed this has never been done and only release money when targets are met throughout the project.

Simple? Unenforceable! Given the earlier postings about apples/orchards and cider (which made me smile in a sad, knowing way!) watch any Defence Contractor take the MoD to pieces in court and watch the MoD fail miserably to defend its postion!

The navy, which was furious that RAF bosses had agreed to get rid of Nimrod at a time of increased submarine activity, has already set up a team to buy a replacement and ensure that it is flown by the Fleet Air Arm. The programme is being run by Commodore Simon Kings with a team made up of naval officers.

Oh purlease! Either this is disengenuous RN spin or a complete failure to understand how things work! The RN (sub RAF/Army etc) doesn't actually 'buy' anything!!! And even if the RN is taking its life in its hands it will fail at the first approval hurdle. The last senior officer I know who tried it had his cards seriously (and unfairly) marked!

[draken55]

"if the RN can find other, lower priority, programmes to sacrifice, they should have done so in the first place!"

I doubt this is a true story but if the unexpected and total loss of RAF MPA capability due to the SDSR meant that the Navy was looking at options for a fixed wing LRMP/ASW platform even at the cost of losing something else why not.

Non-joint, muddled and self centered thinking is what has created this capability gap. After all, who was it that offered up MPA and hence Nimrod as well as Harrier in favour of Tornado.