Fox to crack down on military overspends
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Great Britain
Posts: 471
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Given the very close relationship the RN has with the USN I could see a situation whereby a lend/lease agreement is reached at low cost initially - training and deep maintenance all carried out in Norfolk, VA and fobbed to Culdrose.
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Waiting to return to the Loire.
Age: 54
Posts: 386
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And then a detachment to cover the bomber boats based at, say, HMS Gannet.
S3's? It is not totally crazy a scheme, it might just be down to cold, hard cash.
S3's? It is not totally crazy a scheme, it might just be down to cold, hard cash.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: 4 Civvy Street. Nowhere-near-a-base. The Shires.
Posts: 559
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Give upon the S3's already
It can't do the job.
A capacity of 59 sonobuoys might have been fine in 1974, but targets have got somewhat quieter since...I can certainly recall using near 200 during a six hour task in the last decade.
Unless we buy enough aircraft to swap every 2 hours on station
CS
A capacity of 59 sonobuoys might have been fine in 1974, but targets have got somewhat quieter since...I can certainly recall using near 200 during a six hour task in the last decade.
Unless we buy enough aircraft to swap every 2 hours on station
CS
If I can return to the main subject, on 18th September 2002 PROSPECT (the Trades Union representing most MoD project mangers at AbbeyWood) formally notified members that the Chief of Defence Procurement (which is, after all, what we're talking about) had formally ruled;
1. The saving of 30% on a project (while delivering 10 months ahead of schedule, to a better specification) is so common in the MoD that it deserves no special mention in an annual report, nor is the method of achieving these savings worthy of being reported to more senior management to learn lessons.
2. Staff may be instructed to falsely state a requirement is “fair and reasonable”, thereby wasting public funds and committing fraud.
When asked, MoD declined to speculate how many staffs had achieved the above.
1. The saving of 30% on a project (while delivering 10 months ahead of schedule, to a better specification) is so common in the MoD that it deserves no special mention in an annual report, nor is the method of achieving these savings worthy of being reported to more senior management to learn lessons.
2. Staff may be instructed to falsely state a requirement is “fair and reasonable”, thereby wasting public funds and committing fraud.
When asked, MoD declined to speculate how many staffs had achieved the above.
http://www.pprune.org/military-aircr...avy-train.html
says it all......
the buck stops here.............no here...............no....here.....no
says it all......
the buck stops here.............no here...............no....here.....no
The day that I last believed any politician who unwittingly said anything that I agreed with was when Churchill said WW II was over.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: @exRAF_Al
Posts: 3,297
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
At 1700 hrs (I remember it well) on Jan 17th, we racked up £1 trillion in National Debt. We pay £43 billions each year in interest alone to service that. £120 millions a day is more than we spend on defence, fullstop.
Now then. How much did scrapping Nimrod save us?
Now then. How much did scrapping Nimrod save us?
I understand that the RN team looking in to an "RN MPA" are in actaul fact looking at the replacement for the ASaC7 capability when the SK is retired. Puts a slightly different complection on things, I think.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: by the Great Salt Lake, USA
Posts: 1,542
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by camelspyyder
It can't do the job.
A capacity of 59 sonobuoys might have been fine in 1974, but targets have got somewhat quieter since...I can certainly recall using near 200 during a six hour task in the last decade.
Unless we buy enough aircraft to swap every 2 hours on station
CS
A capacity of 59 sonobuoys might have been fine in 1974, but targets have got somewhat quieter since...I can certainly recall using near 200 during a six hour task in the last decade.
Unless we buy enough aircraft to swap every 2 hours on station
CS
Isn't it better to have some capability than none whatsoever?
@tucumseh
Whilst such efficiency should always be applauded, one possible interpretation of this, given that the people who produced the estimate have no particular need to come up with an accurate initial forecast, is that the project people responsible for the original estimate cannot count or tell the time. In my experience, such large diversions from the baseline are due to initial estimates being wildly pessimistic and from military procurement programmes which rarely deliver to time, thats REALLY wildly pessimistic.
Plaudits yes, common maybe. But if its so common, why are MOD regularly wildly overestimating on projects, especially given the net track record overall is years late. and hugely overspent?
The saving of 30% on a project (while delivering 10 months ahead of schedule, to a better specification) is so common in the MoD that it deserves no special mention in an annual report, nor is the method of achieving these savings worthy of being reported to more senior management to learn lessons.
Plaudits yes, common maybe. But if its so common, why are MOD regularly wildly overestimating on projects, especially given the net track record overall is years late. and hugely overspent?
Graham O
In general terms you are correct, but the project cited was very high risk, the focus of Public Accounts Committee scrutiny and weekly scrutiny by DEC (OR). This, because six previous attempts to get it up and running had failed and the last attempt was to be the final one - hence the close scrutiny and monitoring.
I don't know your background but you may understand the significance of a single tender, split prime programme, which has been re-endorsed? The last means you don't have your 20% tolerance. Having split primes means MoD has accepted they own a lot of risk as they sit between the two companies, with each dependent on MoD. Single tender is (wrongly in my opinion) a no-no but permission was granted at 4 Star level in this case due to previous failures and the expectation it would never get to contract anyway.
It was of particular embarrassment because our allies had complained we did not have a certain capability, making interoperability nigh on impossible. (Not that interoperability is policy, but you try to sneak it into the spec if possible).
"Embarrassment" is the key word. Turning such a programme round successfully made a lot of people twitch and, in the words of the 1 Star, "Set the bar too high" for other staffs. Perhaps that was why a number of attempts were made to cancel the programme. That they didn't succeed was largely due to Full Production being quietly launched before seeking approval to enter Development. (When detractors are trying to cancel your programmes for the wrong reasons you have to be creative). But, they get you in the end! But you got your capability.
Hope that explains a few things.
In general terms you are correct, but the project cited was very high risk, the focus of Public Accounts Committee scrutiny and weekly scrutiny by DEC (OR). This, because six previous attempts to get it up and running had failed and the last attempt was to be the final one - hence the close scrutiny and monitoring.
I don't know your background but you may understand the significance of a single tender, split prime programme, which has been re-endorsed? The last means you don't have your 20% tolerance. Having split primes means MoD has accepted they own a lot of risk as they sit between the two companies, with each dependent on MoD. Single tender is (wrongly in my opinion) a no-no but permission was granted at 4 Star level in this case due to previous failures and the expectation it would never get to contract anyway.
It was of particular embarrassment because our allies had complained we did not have a certain capability, making interoperability nigh on impossible. (Not that interoperability is policy, but you try to sneak it into the spec if possible).
"Embarrassment" is the key word. Turning such a programme round successfully made a lot of people twitch and, in the words of the 1 Star, "Set the bar too high" for other staffs. Perhaps that was why a number of attempts were made to cancel the programme. That they didn't succeed was largely due to Full Production being quietly launched before seeking approval to enter Development. (When detractors are trying to cancel your programmes for the wrong reasons you have to be creative). But, they get you in the end! But you got your capability.
Hope that explains a few things.
