What's wrong with "Off The Shelf"?
TwoDeadDogs,
"on the plus side the RAF did buy King Airs and Bell 212's..."
Er, I don't think the RAF did anything of the sort. The MoD bought a capability from a consortium who then went out and bought said aircraft. They are owned and serviced by the contractor and flown by the RAF on a MOCO deal, (military operated contractor owned)
"on the plus side the RAF did buy King Airs and Bell 212's..."
Er, I don't think the RAF did anything of the sort. The MoD bought a capability from a consortium who then went out and bought said aircraft. They are owned and serviced by the contractor and flown by the RAF on a MOCO deal, (military operated contractor owned)
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: West Midlands
Posts: 239
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi PDR
thanks for the reply. You raise some really interesting points and its nice to see that some hard data has been generated in favour of co-operation. Ultimately, (after requirements gathering) a contract is only ever a start point and after 5 years or so, it becomes increasingly irrelevant.
Some of the examples you describe really are at the difficult end - an F-35 programme for instance, as opposed to generating a refurbished KC135. I'm going to ponder further on your post
thanks for the reply. You raise some really interesting points and its nice to see that some hard data has been generated in favour of co-operation. Ultimately, (after requirements gathering) a contract is only ever a start point and after 5 years or so, it becomes increasingly irrelevant.
Some of the examples you describe really are at the difficult end - an F-35 programme for instance, as opposed to generating a refurbished KC135. I'm going to ponder further on your post
Bell 212 went to AAC for use in Brunei and then Belize and MW for training
cheers
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Somerset
Posts: 102
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's not MOCO or COMR, the correct term is MRCOA - Military Registered Civil Owned Aircraft.
Join Date: May 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 59
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Speccing the equipment is obviously critical and the military has a hugely unfortunate tendency to make it all far to too difficult. The best example I can think of is the coffee machine on a certain US aircraft, capable of operating at +6,-3g, massive temperature margins and can withstand a 27g impact.
The unit had an EMC susceptibility requirement that was laughable... power levels 1/4 of the spec would have killed the pilot...
Hi PDR
thanks for the reply. You raise some really interesting points and its nice to see that some hard data has been generated in favour of co-operation. Ultimately, (after requirements gathering) a contract is only ever a start point and after 5 years or so, it becomes increasingly irrelevant.
Some of the examples you describe really are at the difficult end - an F-35 programme for instance, as opposed to generating a refurbished KC135. I'm going to ponder further on your post
thanks for the reply. You raise some really interesting points and its nice to see that some hard data has been generated in favour of co-operation. Ultimately, (after requirements gathering) a contract is only ever a start point and after 5 years or so, it becomes increasingly irrelevant.
Some of the examples you describe really are at the difficult end - an F-35 programme for instance, as opposed to generating a refurbished KC135. I'm going to ponder further on your post
One of my core findings was that, in an availability/capability contract, if you observe that the KPIs drive the behaviours it follows that the KPIs influence system performance - ergo they are actually PART of the system. It therefore follows that KPI Design is an engineering activity which needs as much science, rigour and care as (say) the design of the low-observability solution. In hindsight this is glaringly obvious, but when initially suggested to people (both in the MoD and in Industry) it was treated as heresy. The initial response was that KPIs were a purely commercial issue and engineers should stay away from them...
PDR
Historically, the RAF's least 'effective' combat aircraft have been acquired through formal OR and procurement. Conversely, those aircraft the RAF had "no operational requirement" for but fell 'off the shelf' into service have been among the most effective.
Discuss...
Discuss...
The first four were pretty much private ventures with constantly changing AM specs following them around. You could have mentioned the Fairey Battle, that was what the boys in the front line really wanted.
The Hunter was rejected, twice. "Swept-winged nonsense". And we had to buy Sabres whilst the AM procrastinated.
I'll grant you #6 but not #7. The GR5 was not the GR5 of first choice but was the off the shelf version.
Hawk? I did say combat aircraft. And didn't it replace an OR'd twin jet at 'short' notice?
The Hunter was rejected, twice. "Swept-winged nonsense". And we had to buy Sabres whilst the AM procrastinated.
I'll grant you #6 but not #7. The GR5 was not the GR5 of first choice but was the off the shelf version.
Hawk? I did say combat aircraft. And didn't it replace an OR'd twin jet at 'short' notice?
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,937
Received 2,851 Likes
on
1,219 Posts
Well they did arm the Hawk as an air defence last resort sidewinder armed variant did they not ?
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: The Fletcher Memorial Home
Age: 59
Posts: 303
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
those aircraft the RAF had "no operational requirement" for but fell 'off the shelf' into service have been among the most effective.