Maritime Patrol Capability: The SDSR’s Wolf Whistle
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Maritime Patrol Capability: The SDSR’s Wolf Whistle
https://www.rusi.org/publications/de.../#.VfMq8-RVK1E
"The UK’s maritime patrol capability should be the result of an open competition, rather than a behind-the-curtains purchase of a preferred airframe"
discuss...
"The UK’s maritime patrol capability should be the result of an open competition, rather than a behind-the-curtains purchase of a preferred airframe"
discuss...
Last edited by glad rag; 12th Sep 2015 at 21:49. Reason: clarification..
Did we not do that with the Nimrod AEW ??
Look what happened !!
Look what happened !!
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Guernsey
Posts: 110
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So the 'seedcorn' guys are flying the P8 with the USAF. I wonder if the rest of the topic was equally researched to the same level.... Or was it just a few words from RUSI's sponsors?
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 1,515
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's the sort of academic spraff that these guys knock up in the coffee break to get a bit of exposure. Eloquent and seemingly incisive, it is actually badly written (try and find the point they are making) badly structured and inconclusive.
They seem to be vaguely pointing towards the development of a UK asset tailored towards future as much as present needs. (albeit, I've read 4/5 times and I'm still not sure). If that is case surely a paragraph on the inherent dangers of further delay would balance the article a little more?? Or perhaps a balanced article is not their intent? Or perhaps they know, or care, little about skill fade and such like.
Significantly, do we invest our tax pounds in seeking solutions against a considered, predetermined requirement, or do we fall into camps, championing one piece of equipment against another? Because the latter scenario quickly defaults to a public relations campaign, the deployment of smart business development skills and the dark arts of customer-relationship management: all components of modern life, but we should be able to develop world-leading defence capabilities without these practices being to the fore.
I would suggest (no...I would state) that in trying unsuccessfully to develop a "world leading" defence capability called Nimrod 2000 AKA Nimrod MRA4, the dark art of customer-relationship management was very much front and centre in the mid nineties. Ditto AEW Nimrod in the 70s, as mentioned above (although we probably called CRM something else then) and probably every other bit of kit we ever bought.
See what I mean about academic spraff.
edited
Good spot...complacent, casual academic spraff then.
GG2 knows this...he was being ironic...doh!
They seem to be vaguely pointing towards the development of a UK asset tailored towards future as much as present needs. (albeit, I've read 4/5 times and I'm still not sure). If that is case surely a paragraph on the inherent dangers of further delay would balance the article a little more?? Or perhaps a balanced article is not their intent? Or perhaps they know, or care, little about skill fade and such like.
Significantly, do we invest our tax pounds in seeking solutions against a considered, predetermined requirement, or do we fall into camps, championing one piece of equipment against another? Because the latter scenario quickly defaults to a public relations campaign, the deployment of smart business development skills and the dark arts of customer-relationship management: all components of modern life, but we should be able to develop world-leading defence capabilities without these practices being to the fore.
I would suggest (no...I would state) that in trying unsuccessfully to develop a "world leading" defence capability called Nimrod 2000 AKA Nimrod MRA4, the dark art of customer-relationship management was very much front and centre in the mid nineties. Ditto AEW Nimrod in the 70s, as mentioned above (although we probably called CRM something else then) and probably every other bit of kit we ever bought.
See what I mean about academic spraff.
edited
So the 'seedcorn' guys are flying the P8 with the USAF
Most likely as well as your post since the USAF does not own a single P-8A. The USN flies them.
Last edited by The Old Fat One; 12th Sep 2015 at 06:42.
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Home alone
Posts: 295
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wait. Time and again, the only thing I ever hear from people is that our biggest procurement problem is that some of our most important capabilities aren't put up for a proper tendering process; but now someone is saying we should hold a competition for an MPA replacement, and you're all saying its ridiculous!? The P8 may or may not be the best option, but that doesn't change the fact that we may well end up getting them without fully evaluating the other options.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 1,515
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
but now someone is saying we should hold a competition for an MPA replacement, and you're all saying its ridiculous!?
Where has any one said it (a fair competition) is ridiculous. The thrust of the posts is simply....crap piece of work.
The argument against holding an extended competition, and even more so designing something new is incredibly simple...
due to a decision taken in 2010 we are in 2015...out of time!
It would have been nice (not to mention academically sound) to have seen that problem more firmly represented in this flimsy POS.
As an aside:
Prof Louth is a former RAF officer.
Dr Roberts is a former RN officer (a PWO, IIRC)
Strange that in service careers which, between them, lasted for at least 30 years neither noticed who operated the American MPA force...
Prof Louth is a former RAF officer.
Dr Roberts is a former RN officer (a PWO, IIRC)
Strange that in service careers which, between them, lasted for at least 30 years neither noticed who operated the American MPA force...
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Penzance, Cornwall UK
Age: 83
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But then the search for the perfect solution always takes ten times as long and is more expensive than the perfectly adequate solution. Gold plating is expensive.
Ain't that the truth with knobs on?
Ain't that the truth with knobs on?
Regarding the good 'Professor' - a quick squint at the London Gazette and it looks like he Commissioned in 1987 as an Admin Officer and had a meteoric rise (not!) to Sqn Ldr and retired in 2004 at his 16/38 point. Hardly a sparkling military career in my opinion. According to his various bios it seems he did a bit of non-senior work on accounting and funding for the IND and then left to get wrapped up in the self-licking lollipop called 'Academia'. Hardly gives him the right background to write some of the stuff on which he has seen fit to do; again, in my humble opinion.
I agree with B Word. Swindon Poly (aka the Defence Academy) is filled with equally unimpressive academics in my opinion. Also, RUSI seems to be a similar gravy-train that is allegedly funded by the UK Defence companies - hardly independent.
I stopped even reading RUSI papers and Service Doctrine years ago - written by walts and read by fools.
All in my humble opinion of course...
LJ
I agree with B Word. Swindon Poly (aka the Defence Academy) is filled with equally unimpressive academics in my opinion. Also, RUSI seems to be a similar gravy-train that is allegedly funded by the UK Defence companies - hardly independent.
I stopped even reading RUSI papers and Service Doctrine years ago - written by walts and read by fools.
All in my humble opinion of course...
LJ
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
Oh dear, my daughter and SiL are there and our own Archimedes too.
Remember your academic tries to suggest both sides of an issue for you to come to a reasoned logical conclusion; it is not to give you the answer.
Pontificating and proposing a solution is what they put in papers and books to earn money.
Remember your academic tries to suggest both sides of an issue for you to come to a reasoned logical conclusion; it is not to give you the answer.
Pontificating and proposing a solution is what they put in papers and books to earn money.
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: aus
Posts: 277
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
GR, "The UK’s maritime patrol capability should be the result of an open competition, rather than a behind-the-curtains purchase of a preferred airframe"
You are assuming that anything can get near the P-8a system, to warrant having a competition. Otherwise it's just a waste of money and time.
You are assuming that anything can get near the P-8a system, to warrant having a competition. Otherwise it's just a waste of money and time.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"" quotation marks; now I actually know they teach this stuff in Aussie schools, so what’s your excuse?
I am assuming nothing, as MR is way darkside for me...
I am assuming nothing, as MR is way darkside for me...
Apologies if a re-post but hard to sort the wheat from the chaff on this board sometimes.....
Lockheed Martin offers up Nimrod replacement - Telegraph
Lockheed Martin offers up Nimrod replacement - Telegraph
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: UK
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"...should be the result of an open competition, rather than a behind-the-curtains purchase of a preferred airframe." > could this be the F-35 as well?
Still wondering on basing options for a UK MPA procurement, best guess anyone?
Still wondering on basing options for a UK MPA procurement, best guess anyone?
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Closer than you think...
Age: 64
Posts: 390
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My ten pence worth say's
Buy a working system that the operators know and will restore the capablity NOW. Then go in for the competitive procurement malarky for the next generation platform/system + 1 (ie jump a generation).
It restores the capability quickly and takes the urgency out of the procurement process which should (hopefully) allow for a more focused procurement competition.
Oh and don't let the MoD contract writing 'experts' anywhere near the process....
Buy a working system that the operators know and will restore the capablity NOW. Then go in for the competitive procurement malarky for the next generation platform/system + 1 (ie jump a generation).
It restores the capability quickly and takes the urgency out of the procurement process which should (hopefully) allow for a more focused procurement competition.
Oh and don't let the MoD contract writing 'experts' anywhere near the process....
