Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Aircrew Forums > Military Aviation
Reload this Page >

Defence cuts 'led to MoD project cost rise'

Wikiposts
Search
Military Aviation A forum for the professionals who fly military hardware. Also for the backroom boys and girls who support the flying and maintain the equipment, and without whom nothing would ever leave the ground. All armies, navies and air forces of the world equally welcome here.

Defence cuts 'led to MoD project cost rise'

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 18th Nov 2011, 12:44
  #21 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 608
Received 5 Likes on 3 Posts
Tuc,

Totally agree with you.

I have worked both in the Civil Service and Local Government.

The people who are actually doing the work, usually to a very high standard are treated as pond life and not worthy of much. Nearly all of the so called managers and leaders I have come accross are completely unemployable anywhere else. The result? The good ones leave.

We have the Civil Service and Local Government we deserve.

Doc C
Doctor Cruces is offline  
Old 18th Nov 2011, 14:08
  #22 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: UK and where I'm sent!
Posts: 519
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I take your point, Widger, and PWC are a very capable company. However, our experience of contracting out anything hasn't exactly been great, has it? Partly because virtually every MoD contract is seen as a massive cash cow and partly because the companies' lawyers are bigger than ours so the contracts always end up favouring the manufacturer/supplier/contractor.



APG63, you remember too much! The Typhoon Police will come and find you! As I recall, we said,

"Your radome isn't compliant with our radar."

The Germans said,

"Your radar isn't compliant with our radome!"

So we had to take another price hike to bolt the antenna on 90° out to change to polarization. So, yes, budget cuts do put up prices, but so does contractor incompetence.
Mach Two is offline  
Old 18th Nov 2011, 16:28
  #23 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Portsmouth
Posts: 532
Received 178 Likes on 94 Posts
Tuc

You are correct as always. However, Mr Gray also seemed to somehow ignore the other end of the M4, which in my experience is at least as dysfunctional as ABW and needs fixing with at least as high a priority. Many of the "issues" in DE&S are directly attributable to the folk in MB (and the Treasury implants therein).
Not_a_boffin is offline  
Old 19th Nov 2011, 09:58
  #24 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: 2 m South of Radstock VRP
Posts: 2,042
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Not_a_boffin. Remember that indispensable component of the Managers' tool box; the long screwdriver. Unfortunately, the screwdriver only ever seemed to point westwards (unless you worked in Bath).
GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU is offline  
Old 21st Nov 2011, 13:44
  #25 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Edinburgh
Posts: 43
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Mach Two - I was working on the project at the time....

...apparently, with the Germans narked at workshare (the FCS, engines, radar, and airframe all by now being British-led) they took on the radome. They hadn't quite appreciated how difficult it was to make an RF-transparent pointy thing that's still strong enough to be thrown about the sky at high speed. When we finally got the results of radar/radome integration, it all went pear-shaped. Refraction's a sod...

They admitted fault (by not meeting the originally-agreed and carefully-written requirement specification) and we provided a solution... there wasn't much of an argument from the radome manufacturer, apparently one of the visual demonstrations of the effect was rather graphic.
Gravelbelly is offline  
Old 21st Nov 2011, 13:57
  #26 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: UK and where I'm sent!
Posts: 519
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Yeah, that rings bells GB. Great engineers the Germans, but they had so little recent experience in that field - a bit like us when we were building AI24!!!!

Last edited by Mach Two; 21st Nov 2011 at 13:59. Reason: Correction
Mach Two is offline  
Old 22nd Nov 2011, 12:13
  #27 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 119
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Foxhunter!!! Actually, I think it looked good on paper, but the technology wasn't quite ready for the plan. But, again, a poorly written, cost-plus contract, awarded to the wrong company (because of previous naughtiness by the only competitor - milking Bloodhound, I think) with the MoD as prime contractor! Then the MoD wanted extra modes that it hadn't think to ask for: stern capability, combat modes, etc.

Was there a case of budget cuts causing the price to rise here? Maybe not initially, but once we struggled past B, W and Z list versions it all started to go horribly wrong. Rather than get it all sorted we "spread the cost" over numerous expensive upgrades, which cost a lot more in the long run. When you hear figures like 63% over-budget and 4 years late, that was only to a working, sub-spec radar in the jet. It took a lot more cash and a lot longer to get to Stage 2 (let alone beyond).

Hope I haven't gone off topic here!
APG63 is offline  
Old 22nd Nov 2011, 14:43
  #28 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: The Roman Empire
Posts: 2,454
Received 73 Likes on 33 Posts
I wouldn't worry about going off topic - everyone else on here does it at some point, so you won't be alone!
Biggus is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.