Just who are these "Defence Chiefs" ??
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Westerham, Kent
Posts: 97
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just who are these "Defence Chiefs" ??
MoD spends £500 million on 'advisers' using money diverted from buying equipment in Afghanistan
Defence chiefs have spent more than £500 million on lawyers and consultants while making thousands of troops redundant.
Most of the money has been siphoned off a budget that should have been used to pay for equipment in Afghanistan.
Defence chiefs have spent more than £500 million on lawyers and consultants while making thousands of troops redundant.
Most of the money has been siphoned off a budget that should have been used to pay for equipment in Afghanistan.
Just who are these "Defence Chiefs", are they Admirals and Field Marshals and Air Commodores who have seen years of service around the world and understand the importance of supporting our troops, or are they verminous bureaucrats who have never held a rifle?
I am sick and tired of how our government and the MoD are treating our boys.
Enough!
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: UK
Posts: 714
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The article is a bit thin on detail as per usual. Ok it makes reference to the FATS system but nothing else other than broad claims that spending on external help has increased. The quoted cost of $4000 (sorry lost my pound sign) per day is actually pretty standard - I have seen higher in other industries. I'm sorry but I'm putting this one down to more MOD bashing from the Mail. At least there was no mention of erroneous aerobatic manoeuvres to get the twitchers excited.
I love how you think 'our boys' and 'the MoD' are two entirely disconnected things.
Most SO1s in the MoD have either come from Unit Command (or Branch Equivalent), or are about to go to it. They know exactly who 'our boys' are.
Most SO1s in the MoD have either come from Unit Command (or Branch Equivalent), or are about to go to it. They know exactly who 'our boys' are.
TJ
What you say is correct. They would have done well to research the subject and quote the criticism of the PAC when, about 6 years ago, the figure was "only" £300M or so. The expenditure is indeed increasing.
But such an article needs to ask why FATS, in its present form, is needed in the first place. From a personal perspective, it started when the Chief Engineer (AMSO) issued an edict in 1991 that henceforth all admin grades would be regarded as senior to engineers. A young lady 3 grades below me was appointed as my line manager, much to her horror.
This extended into MoD(PE) by 1996, when CDP ruled he did not want engineers managing engineering projects.
By 2002 I was bollocked by bosses at AbbeyWood for failing to spend a penny of my multi-million annual "extramural assistance" funding. My explanation that the work was what I regarded as a basic competence for a 3rd year apprentice and I was actually unhappy at the level of grade I had to delegate it to cut no ice. It simply would not do to have a very capable engineer working for me who could do the job. He was to be got rid of and I was to employ consultants. (I didn't). What really annoyed them was the fact the bar was being raised, when policy was to lower it to justify the consultants - hence FATS, which is a laughable concept to anyone over about 60 who has ever worked in MoD. I know who I wanted to get rid of, and it wasn't the guy whose salary of less than £25k saved MoD over £4M, year on year.
Within the same domain, some very capable and highly qualified engineers routinely adjusted their CVs to remove this unwanted attribute. This was when the pass rate for engineers on promotion was in single figures, but over 80% for admin. Bearing in mind that an (avionic) engineer had to be able to do all the admin jobs at the same grade, but not vice versa.
What you say is correct. They would have done well to research the subject and quote the criticism of the PAC when, about 6 years ago, the figure was "only" £300M or so. The expenditure is indeed increasing.
But such an article needs to ask why FATS, in its present form, is needed in the first place. From a personal perspective, it started when the Chief Engineer (AMSO) issued an edict in 1991 that henceforth all admin grades would be regarded as senior to engineers. A young lady 3 grades below me was appointed as my line manager, much to her horror.
This extended into MoD(PE) by 1996, when CDP ruled he did not want engineers managing engineering projects.
By 2002 I was bollocked by bosses at AbbeyWood for failing to spend a penny of my multi-million annual "extramural assistance" funding. My explanation that the work was what I regarded as a basic competence for a 3rd year apprentice and I was actually unhappy at the level of grade I had to delegate it to cut no ice. It simply would not do to have a very capable engineer working for me who could do the job. He was to be got rid of and I was to employ consultants. (I didn't). What really annoyed them was the fact the bar was being raised, when policy was to lower it to justify the consultants - hence FATS, which is a laughable concept to anyone over about 60 who has ever worked in MoD. I know who I wanted to get rid of, and it wasn't the guy whose salary of less than £25k saved MoD over £4M, year on year.
Within the same domain, some very capable and highly qualified engineers routinely adjusted their CVs to remove this unwanted attribute. This was when the pass rate for engineers on promotion was in single figures, but over 80% for admin. Bearing in mind that an (avionic) engineer had to be able to do all the admin jobs at the same grade, but not vice versa.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
ATG, at a media ops symposium not that many years ago it was stated that as far as that other journal of repute, about which we hear little today, despite the sunny weather, the MOD was BAD and our troops were GOOD.
That is unless it was bashing the officer class with away day weekends to Spain or wherever.
MOD good news stories are the stuff of the RAF News etc but don't sell papers.
That is unless it was bashing the officer class with away day weekends to Spain or wherever.
MOD good news stories are the stuff of the RAF News etc but don't sell papers.
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: UK East Anglia
Age: 66
Posts: 678
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DM late on the round out
Well this really is old news. It was discussed in the PAC inNov 2011 through March 12. In particular folks may wish to look up the writtenanswers from the session on 29th March published in Report 88 inApril 2012.
I feel comfortable to speak with some authority on the matter.Also as with all things the reporting in the media only tells half the story orputs a slant on it to drum up feelings. Same is true of the reporting from the 2011 erain the Telegraph who wished to use the depriving our troops in Afg angle.
Steve Jary the Union man from Prospect, mentioned in thearticle, knew all about this then but chose to do nothing visible. The bigissue at the time was the Public Sector Pay Freeze and those below the thresholdwho did get a small raise. In years gone by when Contractors were brought in theUnion was always consulted and had to make a statement on each individual case.This practice probably ceased in the early 90s. The Union became toothless inmy opinion.
Not too sure what the final numbers were in the reduction ofthe MoD Civil Servants. I believe I was one of 11,000 that left under VERS inFY 11/12. I understand the final number approaches 30,000. Some of my dutieswere being undertaken by a FATS contractor before I left. This continued so faras I am aware several months after I signed out. The thing for me was thatindividual had previously been a Civil Servant with no greater knowledge,experience, and qualifications than I. In fact the background was totally irrelevantto the specific project. I have no doubt that ridding the Department of CivilServants was nothing at all to do with cost savings. The greatest travesty wasthose who left on Friday and reported for the same duties on Monday with adifferent paymaster having accepted a significant pay out. Ursula, the PUS,when questioned by the PAC on this, was unaware that previous release schemesgoing back to 2006/07 had existed. I know at least 5 individuals who left undersuch schemes and came back doing the same jobs under FATS. The positions wereon the supply desks with a few Engineers and Engineering/Project managers. Inall cases those with specific skills employed from the Private Sector gainedthose skills from within the department either in Uniform or the Civilian contingent.I just could not believe how out of touch the senior management in the MoD canbe. The decision makers in my area all wore uniform.
Now then, I can explain some of the motives and rationale butit is just creative accounting. Each team has a manpower control total (xnumber of bums on seats) to undertake the core work. When additional work, suchas a UOR comes along we tried to absorb the work or ask for an increase in MCT.That was often granted but recruitment or redeployment was slow. So we get in acontractor. Usually someone we knew who had left the Services or Civil Serviceunder VERS, until a permanent member can be found. When this increase was notagreed the team leader would hold the sponsor to ransom and demand that theproject came with resource (a body) Now who would refuse when we are talkingUORs? Some did. That body was usually a FATS contractor, again someone weusually knew. Ah; and then there was the staff from all these disbanded teams,Jaguar/Canberra, Harrier, VC10, and Nimrod. Goodness knows where these people went.(You got it – they came back as FATS Contractors) They certainly were not madeavailable as Civil Servants or Servicemen to staff any of my projects. In myarea this past 12 years was constant UOR after UOR. In fact I can’t recall atime when we were not reacting to something going on.
Now work out what is more effective. I do not believefor one minute our troops were denied any kit or capabilities because fundswere being diverted to pay for expensive contractors. However I do consider it awaste when the department get rid of good people and hope the Private sectorcan provide in quick time. One case in point from a parallel thread is the protectionsystem for the Tanker. 2 years and mega bucks being quoted. HTF did we manageback in 82 to turn Chinook round in quick time for Corporate and again for Beirutas I noted on another thread. Then repeat a similar job on a large surveillanceaircraft in a matter of weeks for GW1.
I feel comfortable to speak with some authority on the matter.Also as with all things the reporting in the media only tells half the story orputs a slant on it to drum up feelings. Same is true of the reporting from the 2011 erain the Telegraph who wished to use the depriving our troops in Afg angle.
Steve Jary the Union man from Prospect, mentioned in thearticle, knew all about this then but chose to do nothing visible. The bigissue at the time was the Public Sector Pay Freeze and those below the thresholdwho did get a small raise. In years gone by when Contractors were brought in theUnion was always consulted and had to make a statement on each individual case.This practice probably ceased in the early 90s. The Union became toothless inmy opinion.
Not too sure what the final numbers were in the reduction ofthe MoD Civil Servants. I believe I was one of 11,000 that left under VERS inFY 11/12. I understand the final number approaches 30,000. Some of my dutieswere being undertaken by a FATS contractor before I left. This continued so faras I am aware several months after I signed out. The thing for me was thatindividual had previously been a Civil Servant with no greater knowledge,experience, and qualifications than I. In fact the background was totally irrelevantto the specific project. I have no doubt that ridding the Department of CivilServants was nothing at all to do with cost savings. The greatest travesty wasthose who left on Friday and reported for the same duties on Monday with adifferent paymaster having accepted a significant pay out. Ursula, the PUS,when questioned by the PAC on this, was unaware that previous release schemesgoing back to 2006/07 had existed. I know at least 5 individuals who left undersuch schemes and came back doing the same jobs under FATS. The positions wereon the supply desks with a few Engineers and Engineering/Project managers. Inall cases those with specific skills employed from the Private Sector gainedthose skills from within the department either in Uniform or the Civilian contingent.I just could not believe how out of touch the senior management in the MoD canbe. The decision makers in my area all wore uniform.
Now then, I can explain some of the motives and rationale butit is just creative accounting. Each team has a manpower control total (xnumber of bums on seats) to undertake the core work. When additional work, suchas a UOR comes along we tried to absorb the work or ask for an increase in MCT.That was often granted but recruitment or redeployment was slow. So we get in acontractor. Usually someone we knew who had left the Services or Civil Serviceunder VERS, until a permanent member can be found. When this increase was notagreed the team leader would hold the sponsor to ransom and demand that theproject came with resource (a body) Now who would refuse when we are talkingUORs? Some did. That body was usually a FATS contractor, again someone weusually knew. Ah; and then there was the staff from all these disbanded teams,Jaguar/Canberra, Harrier, VC10, and Nimrod. Goodness knows where these people went.(You got it – they came back as FATS Contractors) They certainly were not madeavailable as Civil Servants or Servicemen to staff any of my projects. In myarea this past 12 years was constant UOR after UOR. In fact I can’t recall atime when we were not reacting to something going on.
Now work out what is more effective. I do not believefor one minute our troops were denied any kit or capabilities because fundswere being diverted to pay for expensive contractors. However I do consider it awaste when the department get rid of good people and hope the Private sectorcan provide in quick time. One case in point from a parallel thread is the protectionsystem for the Tanker. 2 years and mega bucks being quoted. HTF did we manageback in 82 to turn Chinook round in quick time for Corporate and again for Beirutas I noted on another thread. Then repeat a similar job on a large surveillanceaircraft in a matter of weeks for GW1.
I seem to remember a scene in the Battle of Britain film, where Ralph Richardson ? (as the British Ambassador) is faced with his overbearing Teutonic counterpart, warning Britain that "they could not win, and should negotiate a treaty, they were badly equipped and unable to stop the might of the German military machine". To which Richardson calmly states that "whatever the odds, Britain would stand and fight, the outcome will decide the truth". It seems that we are entering a similar period, where a parlous national economy dictates a less than ideal funding base for the desired force levels. I suppose the option is to do more personnel and less tech, how does that keep us up to date ? I think I'm old enough now to understand the principle of British journalism, pick a subject, grab a few statistics and shuffle them, write it up and wait for "enraged of Great Missenden" to kick off the public uproar. I suspect, despite never having held a commission, that the people at a level to make decisions on equipment etc are there because of experience, proven ability and capability. Unlike politics, I really doubt that cronyism rules in the upper circles of UK Mil. At the end of the day, "the outcome will decide the truth of it".
Smudge
Smudge
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: UK
Posts: 714
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"We are not now that strength which in old days
Moved earth and heaven; that which we are, we are;
One equal temper of heroic hearts,
Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield."
We just need to find another way of doing it.
But the article certainly is a cheap shot and lazy journalism. In as much as the MoD can be accused of poor financial management, our press and politician's do not comprehend the complexity of defence procurement and through life support. It's always an easy shot to take a pop and who is going to argue against "at the expense of troops on the ground, or at sea or in the air". For my part, I have had the pleasure of working with some of the most dedicated and committed civilian and service IPT leaders. As for the civilian leaders, they may "never have held a rifle" - but this never diminished their commitment or ability.
Tom
Last edited by TomJoad; 4th Aug 2013 at 19:21.
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: UK East Anglia
Age: 66
Posts: 678
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
#8
Good post #8 Tom.
Been thinking whilst out for a walk. Yes how times change. I am still bitter about losing a job I loved for 30 of the 34 years but the world is safer now and not requiring us to have such extensive expeditionary defence forces. I should consider that the loss of my job is part of the peace dividend.
However I remain a tax payer and can't stand by and watch all the waste going on.
As for Smudge and his Cronyism. Well so many of these VSOs are running FATs Agencies. They are just being smart and exploiting a situation they or their cronies did not create.
Been thinking whilst out for a walk. Yes how times change. I am still bitter about losing a job I loved for 30 of the 34 years but the world is safer now and not requiring us to have such extensive expeditionary defence forces. I should consider that the loss of my job is part of the peace dividend.
However I remain a tax payer and can't stand by and watch all the waste going on.
As for Smudge and his Cronyism. Well so many of these VSOs are running FATs Agencies. They are just being smart and exploiting a situation they or their cronies did not create.
Good post dragartist. Recognise all of it.
I recall a few real crackers. The Cat A project (£400M+) that selected a young female graduate as Systems Integration Manager, then allowed her to let a 9 month consultancy contract to tell her what Systems Integration was. The UG7 who let two separate consultancy contracts to prepare 2nd and 3rd Risk Registers on the same programme, telling both that the main task was to omit the embarrassing MoD-owned risks from the main Register. Both constitute fraud, the latter one of the more significant pieces of evidence omitted by Haddon-Cave.
In both cases, the consultants kept a pretty low profile when they realised they didn't have the level of knowledge other PT members had including, respectively, the previous SI Manager and current Risk Manager. There are scores of similar examples.
You are particularly correct about Prospect (IPMS as was). They really are toothless. This in part is due to many full-time representatives actually having relatively low substantive grades. If, for example, a Grade D Union Rep at AbbeyWood upsets senior management, they can influence his position. If he loses his Union position, then his low grade means he has no job at AbbeyWood. Prospect/IPMS is well known for refusing to support its members who complain about this waste and fraud. As, of course, are the HCDC, Minsters and the current Head of the Civil Service.
I recall a few real crackers. The Cat A project (£400M+) that selected a young female graduate as Systems Integration Manager, then allowed her to let a 9 month consultancy contract to tell her what Systems Integration was. The UG7 who let two separate consultancy contracts to prepare 2nd and 3rd Risk Registers on the same programme, telling both that the main task was to omit the embarrassing MoD-owned risks from the main Register. Both constitute fraud, the latter one of the more significant pieces of evidence omitted by Haddon-Cave.
In both cases, the consultants kept a pretty low profile when they realised they didn't have the level of knowledge other PT members had including, respectively, the previous SI Manager and current Risk Manager. There are scores of similar examples.
You are particularly correct about Prospect (IPMS as was). They really are toothless. This in part is due to many full-time representatives actually having relatively low substantive grades. If, for example, a Grade D Union Rep at AbbeyWood upsets senior management, they can influence his position. If he loses his Union position, then his low grade means he has no job at AbbeyWood. Prospect/IPMS is well known for refusing to support its members who complain about this waste and fraud. As, of course, are the HCDC, Minsters and the current Head of the Civil Service.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Just south of the Keevil gap.
Posts: 308
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Agree totally with Tuc and Dragartist, I think in some areas (e.g. Corsham ) the situation is even worse. The high priced help are in such senior positions (Programme Managers etc, ) that they are actually defining policy with very little oversight from their line management who, as Tuc has commented in the past, themselves lack any extensive experience of the correct way of delivering a succesfull project.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Some-r-set
Posts: 163
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've been in the MOD since I left college and I've risen from E2 to a D band in about 5 1/2 years. What was a job for life is now a "get as much engineering training and get the **** out". 
Posts are empty as no one will join externally with the wages being as low as they currently are compared to industry; internal progression is frozen meaning you have to apply externally for a higher grade job in the team you're currently in. This means existing Civil Servants take the new contract and a worse pension scheme.
The only option remaining is the FATS Contract option. Which is great for the life of the contract, but what happens at the end of it?! Oh yeah- the posts are still empty and we can't recruit.
Combine this with the GOCO dream of the Turkey Baron, it's a pretty **** time.
Posts are empty as no one will join externally with the wages being as low as they currently are compared to industry; internal progression is frozen meaning you have to apply externally for a higher grade job in the team you're currently in. This means existing Civil Servants take the new contract and a worse pension scheme.
The only option remaining is the FATS Contract option. Which is great for the life of the contract, but what happens at the end of it?! Oh yeah- the posts are still empty and we can't recruit.
Combine this with the GOCO dream of the Turkey Baron, it's a pretty **** time.
Having briefly worked as a consultant to a couple of Abbeywood IPTs I can confirm it is a bit embarrassing how much they pay for low level work. I was always aware that a much lower rank or grade would regard it as routine. As high-lander says, if they aren't allowed to recruit, this is what happens. It isn't a reflection on the worker bees in Abbeywood. But it is true most of them would have a breakdown if asked to do what their predecessors did 15 or 20 years ago.
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: UK
Posts: 714
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Guys I never knew it was as bad as you have reported you have my sympathies and respect for putting up with such nonsense. I suspect however that as the UK Defence footing continues in its downward trajectory our internal organisational capability and expertise will follow. Looks like the only winner here is the contractor but some prize it is - who would want it.
TJ
If I were a contractor who is also a Design Authority or Design Custodian, I'd realise that I know far more about running a GOCO type contract than MoD seem to, and I'd be pretty keen to get in on the act. The scope for profit is immense, given MoD shut down its department with the necessary expertise 20 years ago (June 1993). I can just imagine these bidders saying to MoD "Well, tell us what you want and how you want us to do it", when they know fine well. They'll milk MoD's ignorance for all its worth.
What staff MoD have left will be on a long learning curve as there seems no-one is left to teach them. I guess the question is, do the GOCO contractors employ a raft of existing consultants, or the MoD staffs who will be surplus when the GOCO contracts are let? High_lander said its a pretty **** time and I must agree.
If I were a contractor who is also a Design Authority or Design Custodian, I'd realise that I know far more about running a GOCO type contract than MoD seem to, and I'd be pretty keen to get in on the act. The scope for profit is immense, given MoD shut down its department with the necessary expertise 20 years ago (June 1993). I can just imagine these bidders saying to MoD "Well, tell us what you want and how you want us to do it", when they know fine well. They'll milk MoD's ignorance for all its worth.
What staff MoD have left will be on a long learning curve as there seems no-one is left to teach them. I guess the question is, do the GOCO contractors employ a raft of existing consultants, or the MoD staffs who will be surplus when the GOCO contracts are let? High_lander said its a pretty **** time and I must agree.
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: UK East Anglia
Age: 66
Posts: 678
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dear Mr Hammond
Dear Secretary of State,
You may wish to appraise yourself of a discussion going on t' intaweb chat room entitled "who are these Defence Chiefs". The discussion is a free and frank exchange of views between some existing and retired senior and junior staff in defence procurement. You aught really to pin those wonderful ears of yours back and listen in before the developing situation becomes irreversible.
I used to be one of your most obedient servants.
Drag
You may wish to appraise yourself of a discussion going on t' intaweb chat room entitled "who are these Defence Chiefs". The discussion is a free and frank exchange of views between some existing and retired senior and junior staff in defence procurement. You aught really to pin those wonderful ears of yours back and listen in before the developing situation becomes irreversible.
I used to be one of your most obedient servants.
Drag
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Abu Dhabi
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dragartist,
What do you mean by this: "but the world is safer now and not requiring us to have such extensive expeditionary defence forces"? Are you saying the Cold War is over therefore Defence Procurement is easier?
What do you mean by this: "but the world is safer now and not requiring us to have such extensive expeditionary defence forces"? Are you saying the Cold War is over therefore Defence Procurement is easier?
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
welll most of us thought the Cold War ended about 20 years ago - but I doubt it makes any difference to Procurement - which always seems to be as dysfunctional as the Home Office
