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

Stackers go private

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.

Stackers go private

Old 20th Feb 2015, 09:52
  #21 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: The Whyte House
Age: 91
Posts: 1,884
Oh dear, I fear you maybe about to be subjected to 'just in time logistics'
It would be an improvement on the 'not quite in time logistics' that were certainly around a few years back.
Willard Whyte is offline  
Old 20th Feb 2015, 11:25
  #22 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: South Africa
Age: 82
Posts: 1,327
Stores are for storing, not issuing!
I understood that the change in name from Storeman to Supplier was an attempt to get rid of this mentality.
ian16th is offline  
Old 20th Feb 2015, 11:31
  #23 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Canada
Posts: 2,897
It was either an attempt to deflect criticism, or an attempt by a 1* to get promoted.
Fox3WheresMyBanana is offline  
Old 20th Feb 2015, 12:07
  #24 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: in my combat underpants
Age: 48
Posts: 1,066
For those who are talking about something else, this is not the civilization of RAF Logistics. This is the contractorization of many off-base aspects that have largely been in civilian hands for most of the last 2 decades if not longer.
What you have seen on-base is civilians working in non-deployable roles to allow logistics to happen despite the downturn in manpower and the focus on deployed ops.
Mr C Hinecap is offline  
Old 20th Feb 2015, 12:54
  #25 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 2,874
WW

It would be an improvement on the 'not quite in time logistics' that were certainly around a few years back.
Quite. I'm sure your comment is slightly tongue in cheek but it is actually spot on. In April 1990 AMSO formally introduced a "Not in time" policy, whereby contracts were not let to replenish spares until there was an outstanding demand. Overnight, MoD went from a Max/Min stock level system to (approx) 12 months lead time to satisfy even the highest priority demands. The FUD system went out the window.

This was compounded by AMSO issuing instructions that all stocks held forward at 4th line (to support contracted turn round times) should be scrapped. A policy that wasted hundreds of millions in one financial year; swiftly followed by the spares having to be bought again. TRTs went from weeks to over a year.

Therein lie the reasons for IFS's criticism of AMSO in, for example, his Hercules ART report of 1996; and the explanation behind the Nimrod Review's "Savings at the expense of safety". The "savings" (not holding stock and other contract cancellations) were necessary because the scrapped spares had to be replaced, and there was only a finite budget. But it was the same people involved. They chose the "savings" instead of simply rescinding the NiT policy.

NiT was eventually replaced with "Just in Time", which was a compromise whereby the Max/Min levels were reinstated, but at much lower levels. It took no account of the concept of random failures. JiT was sold as a savings initiative, but it was actually a panic reaction to the ART reports which, inter alia, complained of 2nd Line having to carry out unauthorised and unverifiable repairs using stock of questionable quality. On one notorious occasion, the Lynx office issued an instruction to fit a scrap main rotorhead as the aircraft was "only needed for a transit flight from Fleetlands to Portland". The MRH workshop refused to certify it. That stance forced the issue.
tucumseh is online now  
Old 20th Feb 2015, 14:38
  #26 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Temporarily Unsure!
Posts: 204
And for the Stacker critics, just remind me what Branch AMSO was
rarelyathome is offline  
Old 20th Feb 2015, 16:36
  #27 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: 2 m South of Radstock VRP
Posts: 2,042
Regarding the Naval supply system, Max/Min provisioning was a rarity due to the DASA designed statistical provioning system. It needed to be understood, though, to work intelligently and Contractors, sorry, Partners found it rather complicated. Add to that the head scratching by the IPT not clerkies and a slow degeneration to Max/Min began. How fortunate for the Competition winner.

I'm now visualising all the Trident critical Items in the GS and Gen POL ranges. Still, it must be a low risk as the grownups wouldn't have signed up to it, would they.
GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU is offline  
Old 21st Feb 2015, 12:12
  #28 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: with the wife
Posts: 343
Did he have a market stall?
Nutty,

That bloke's dividend for going private was three and a half years inside for burglary.
4mastacker is offline  
Old 22nd Feb 2015, 13:38
  #29 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Road to Nowhere
Posts: 1,007
Now it will be "Sorry, none in stock, you will have to wait at least 6 months!"
Nothing new about that. The last pair of shoes I got from my Unit took 9 mths to come in and I'd ordered them twice. Apparently there wasn't much demand for officers' shoes at the Unit (HW) - that could be because they increased the price from 42 to 143 a pair. Fortunately, I was exchanging mine because they were the wrong size.

STH
SirToppamHat is offline  
Old 23rd Feb 2015, 13:57
  #30 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Middle England
Posts: 550
Single Service stovepipes and procurement that is just stupid and blinkered.
A number of posters here are under the mistaken assumption that this is about procurement; it isn't. This is the contactorisation of the Depots that are currently run by LCS. The procurers are untouched but will now be up against a company (and contract terms) to store their 300years worth of kit (at current consumption) and are likely to have to pay for that storage (which they don't do at present). Should be fun.....
Jumping_Jack is offline  
Old 23rd Feb 2015, 18:31
  #31 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 735
Regarding the Naval supply system,
Nothing wrong with the Two-Bin System ! .... .... LFH

Last edited by Lordflasheart; 23rd Feb 2015 at 19:46.
Lordflasheart is offline  
Old 23rd Feb 2015, 21:31
  #32 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: in my combat underpants
Age: 48
Posts: 1,066
A number of posters here are under the mistaken assumption that this is about procurement; it isn't. This is the contactorisation of the Depots that are currently run by LCS.
The broken procurement system exacerbates the broken storage and maintenance system. There are multiple contracts for the same and similar items across all areas, leading to storage problems brought on by these issues. It might give some cohesion to the storage capabilities and a single decent voice that can effectively shout at Abbey Wood & the FLCs.
Mr C Hinecap is offline  
Old 23rd Feb 2015, 21:55
  #33 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: UK East Anglia
Age: 62
Posts: 666
Does anyone recall the proposals for a Common Range Aircraft Parts IPT at Wyton circa DLO changing to DE&S era?


I was party to only a few daft decisions leading to duplication of inventory. Most of this was standard low value nuts and bolts that had been classified as ** aircraft only, so yy aircraft team bought the same against a different NSN. This was never meant to happen, or so I was told.


When I first set out we had C stores up the Ying yang.
dragartist is offline  
Old 23rd Feb 2015, 22:37
  #34 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: 2 m South of Radstock VRP
Posts: 2,042
Originally Posted by Lordflasheart
Nothing wrong with the Two-Bin System
Indeed not; horses for courses. You may remember, though, that the totally adequate Twin Bin systems in the Dockyard Retail Ready Use Stores were replenished from the CRISP provisioned (statistical) Base Main Stock.
GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU is offline  
Old 24th Feb 2015, 07:20
  #35 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: @RAF_IFA
Posts: 3,265
FOFAD, anyone?
Al R is offline  
Old 24th Feb 2015, 15:39
  #36 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: 2 m South of Radstock VRP
Posts: 2,042
Would that require Donnington having another bonfire?
GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU 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


Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.