Stackers go private
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: The Whyte House
Age: 95
Posts: 1,966
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh dear, I fear you maybe about to be subjected to 'just in time logistics'
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: in my combat underpants
Age: 53
Posts: 1,065
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
WW
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.
It would be an improvement on the 'not quite in time logistics' that were certainly around a few years back.
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.
Join Date: May 2006
Location: 2 m South of Radstock VRP
Posts: 2,042
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Road to Nowhere
Posts: 1,023
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Now it will be "Sorry, none in stock, you will have to wait at least 6 months!"
STH
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Middle England
Posts: 546
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Single Service stovepipes and procurement that is just stupid and blinkered.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: in my combat underpants
Age: 53
Posts: 1,065
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: UK East Anglia
Age: 66
Posts: 678
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: May 2006
Location: 2 m South of Radstock VRP
Posts: 2,042
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Lordflasheart
Nothing wrong with the Two-Bin System
