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

ASDOT Contract chopped?

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.

ASDOT Contract chopped?

Old 20th Mar 2019, 22:19
  #21 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Here and there
Age: 36
Posts: 202
Originally Posted by typerated View Post
Cheapest to just invite the Poles over to play!
With their Block 52 F16s?
frodo_monkey is offline  
Old 20th Mar 2019, 22:20
  #22 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: the far south
Posts: 337
Fair Call -You got me!

Was thinking Migs of course!
typerated is offline  
Old 21st Mar 2019, 03:25
  #23 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Near the coast
Posts: 1,559
Warren Peace

I mean this in the most polite way possible but thank God you’re not in charge of manning!

Let’s say your plan of only paying flying pay whilst in a flying role came to fruition. How would you persuade any pilot to fulfil a ground based role if to do so would cause him/her an enormous pay cut?

Aside from promotion which requires, rightly or wrongly the need to complete ‘broadening’ jobs outside of the normal flying routine there are some ground based jobs that need the input of a pilot.

If an OC PSF (just an example that everyone can relate to) were able to deliver simulator training, provide aircraft SME inputs or teach ground school (as a few quick examples off the top of my head) then maybe your plan would have merit. I think the reverse is probably true but let’s not get into that right now.

Doctors who become consultants step away from the day to day routine of ward rounds etc to focus on the bigger picture. Would you pay them less because they spend less time in the ward? I hope you can understand my analogy.

Also, once again, it is not ‘flying pay’ and hasn’t been for years. RAF pilots do not get sector pay like an airline pilot based on the number of flights they partake in. Pilots receive RRP. A Flt Lt salary without RRP would not retain anybody who is a qualified pilot. Even the lowliest airline can beat that.

I’m sure I am coming across as precious to some people but since you brought up the civilian sector then think how the civilian sector treats pay. Individuals are paid appropriately for their experience. If there is demand then pay is good. Pilots are currently in huge demand in the RAF.

I know it is anathema to some but an individual who has received years of expensive training and possesses the unique skill sets of a military pilot needs to be remunerated correctly.

Before I get the ‘me, me, me’ banter I know that every trade can argue their own worth (ATC’ers are a great example) but I am a FJ pilot. I’ll stick to fighting my own battles for now.

BV

Last edited by Bob Viking; 21st Mar 2019 at 07:00.
Bob Viking is offline  
Old 21st Mar 2019, 07:33
  #24 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,074
A point raised earlier does warrant further investigation.

If one were to imaginatively and collaboratively amass all the DACT / affil requests from neighbouring Air Forces plus USAFE - you might find that mutual provision of Red Air would work. Savings made by not tasking F-5, early F-16 or (woeful) Hawk to do the job may even allow for a small uplift in CFT.

Of course - it would rely on everyone pulling their weight and adopting good behaviours.

I don’t subscribe to the view that providing Red Air is inherently bad. I agree that you need a fair share of Blue but with a bit of imagination you can get a lot out of a Red Air sortie.

Perhaps Air just needs to set up a Combat Air dating agency using the EAG which is a good 12metres from the front door.
orca is offline  
Old 21st Mar 2019, 08:28
  #25 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: UK
Posts: 23
Bob Viking:

Pilots are currently in huge demand in the RAF.
Well maybe, just maybe if the omni-shambles of Ascent and all the others with a finger in that pie, hadn't made such a pig's ear of producing them in recent years...


When you eat the seedcorn, you are going to be hungry soon.
Warren Peace is offline  
Old 21st Mar 2019, 09:10
  #26 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: West London
Posts: 987
Originally Posted by Rheinstorff View Post


Which bit? Carillion? Patisserie Valerie? HMV? Lehman Brothers? I could go on, but I imagine you get the point.
Indeed.
I would go as far as to say, that the RAF should indeed take a lesson from the commercial world, and that is don't blindly follow it!
GeeRam is offline  
Old 21st Mar 2019, 12:24
  #27 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 2,818
Bob V

Good posts.

20+ years ago I was on a course. Guest speaker was DG (Finance). He called for debate on the latest proposal from the Treasury that unless one was 'current' in one's chosen profession, then you should be out on your ear. All 24 of us had to argue the case, one way or the other.

To his surprise, 23 thought it bollix, the only disenter being a Naval Architect. ('Nuff said). Many were pilots, and I recall one making your point. He'd been a Commander RN for a couple of years, no longer flew regularly (but often enough), and had been posted to Merlin to provide piloty expertise. And very good he was too. I was a bum airframe/electrical fitter trained on thermionic valves, and wasn't up to date on digital circuit design, but that didn't make me a bad project manager. And so on. The last guy was Director Special Projects, a Brigadier and lately CO Black Watch (Royal Highland Regiment). He agreed with us, but added, 'I'm just a grunt infantryman, trained to kill. I'm current'. DG(Fin) went quiet and said goodbye. Never heard any more about it. But you do get these beancounter-esque suggestions now and again.

Last edited by tucumseh; 21st Mar 2019 at 13:37.
tucumseh is offline  
Old 21st Mar 2019, 15:31
  #28 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,074
Wonderful bit of logic.

We acknowledge that only folk with your skill set can do your job - we should know, we wrote the spec. However, because you’re adding value, but not doing the specific activity that made you valuable, we are going to reduce your package. Based on single digit millions to train you and a saving of approx £20 a day we will plan on saving siro 0.1% of the cost to train you per annum. There is a risk that some will outflow but so long as this is below 1 in a thousand our maths stands. We expect you to be happy and remain in the organisation until pension point which we’ve just moved further away.
orca is offline  
Old 21st Mar 2019, 15:58
  #29 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2018
Location: Down South
Posts: 140
Originally Posted by Evalu8ter View Post
ASDOT was a lot more than just DACT; EW training for the RAF/RN and a lot of other facilities were "rolled up" to replace legacy capabilities such as 100 Sqn, 736 NAS and the Cobham Falcon 20s. There has been, IMHO, some very poor behaviours and dreadful requirements management from MoD. Doubtless "the conspiracy of optimism" has served a few individuals well in getting promoted and bailing out before this stage, but the ever moving goalposts and uncertainty about funding has dogged this project nearly from the start, with numerous revisions/recasts. The notion was sound, but the requirements ill-conceived (some would say bloated) and the credibility of some of the bidders to deliver what was required within the budget was being stretched mighty thin. Wait now for panic contract extensions to Cobham and, perhaps, a nice little contract to BAES for another tranche of Hawk T2s to replace 100, 736 and the Reds (and slip a few more in for MFTS perhaps to ease that clusterf*ck)…..A sad indictment all round of MoD's inability to contract out for complex services, and a blow to the concept of "Whole Force Approach".

Hey mate,

I discussed this with TD when he was then the T1/T2 Requirements Manager (I think I remember telling you?) and he said the T2 wasn't suitable for the kind of flying the Reds do - it's not aerobatic enough, apparently. Perhaps because it's considerably heavier? I don't know.

I quite like the jet AERALIS are designing and that might be more attractive for the Reds in 2035.
BVRAAM is offline  
Old 21st Mar 2019, 19:42
  #30 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Zummerset
Posts: 950
BVRAAM,
Maybe, but beggars can’t be choosers. An amended display is better than no display, and bean counters would doubtless resist another type on the books purely to display (unless it was very cheap........).
Evalu8ter is online now  
Old 21st Mar 2019, 20:45
  #31 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 3,785
Originally Posted by BVRAAM View Post
Hey mate,

I discussed this with TD when he was then the T1/T2 Requirements Manager (I think I remember telling you?) and he said the T2 wasn't suitable for the kind of flying the Reds do - it's not aerobatic enough, apparently. Perhaps because it's considerably heavier? I don't know.

I quite like the jet AERALIS are designing and that might be more attractive for the Reds in 2035.
Nothing to do with TD now working for Aeralis, surely?
Lima Juliet is offline  
Old 21st Mar 2019, 21:07
  #32 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Dreamland
Posts: 521
The AERALIS thing looks rather like an ugly duckling, it's going to need a lot of treasure to become a swan.
Harley Quinn is offline  
Old 21st Mar 2019, 22:50
  #33 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2018
Location: Down South
Posts: 140
I just can't see how it's going to make any sense whatsoever to kit out three squadrons with T2's when there are the wrong end of 400 pilots in various stages of holding, due to a lack of assets, simulators and staff.......

The ultimate kick in the teeth and as taxpayers we shouldn't support it.
BVRAAM is offline  
Old 22nd Mar 2019, 07:21
  #34 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,074
Does anyone know how much of a factor RAFAT was/ is in the ASDOT story?
orca is offline  
Old 22nd Mar 2019, 09:38
  #35 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Zummerset
Posts: 950
BVRAAM,
The "sense" is that unless those aircraft are replaced, there will be a significant capability gap. Only a fraction of the 100/736 task is DACT; much of it is in providing specialist training to maritime and army units - ie JFAC / Thursday War training. They already cannot cope with demand, and elements are contracted out to civil companies operating surrogate aircraft through a number of somewhat ad hoc arrangements. If 100/736 and Cobham 2020 are not replaced by ASDOT then something will need to be purchased by MoD or a de-scoped "ASDOT-lite" will need to be worked up - quickly. Assumptions about Hawk T1 airframe life will have been made, no doubt, with ASDOT as a key factor. Buying a second batch of T2s is good industrially for the UK (one reason why, as taxpayers, we should support it), and another, say, 40 or so jets should be enough to re-equip 100/736 and RAFAT (again, showcasing the current jet for potential exports) - probably leaving a small number that could be used to surge MFTS if required (assuming they can get enough RAF QFIs to stay or enough civvies to move to Valley). That would leave a small, specialised, Gen 4 / 4.5 DACT task which could be re-competed at a later date with T1 Typhoons filling the gap.
Evalu8ter is online now  
Old 22nd Mar 2019, 10:17
  #36 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 15,686
Originally Posted by Bob Viking View Post
Firstly, flying pay has been called Recruitment and Retention Pay for years now. The powers that be are doing their level best to get rid of it but soon enough they may find the true meaning of the saying ‘no bucks, no Buck Rogers’. Maybe the RAF need to accept that pilots are a specialisation that need to be paid more than others of the same rank. There I said it.

BV
Hi Bob



NutLoose is offline  
Old 24th Mar 2019, 19:13
  #37 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2018
Location: Down South
Posts: 140
What will be the exact role of the newly formed 12(B) Sqn and soon to be formed IX Squadron at Coningsby and Lossie, respectively?

I read on Faceache just now that apparently they are both going to be Red Air Squadrons, with 12 having the additional commitment of providing support to the Qataris while they get established with the Typhoon.

When SDSR15 was published, and it was announced that Tranche 1 Typhoons would be retained for air defence, I was under the impression this would be for QRA purposes, since they don't possess any A-G kit that I know of.
I don't remember reading they would be used as Red Air assets for the Typhoon frontline.

Will they be deployable or are they home commitment only?
BVRAAM is offline  
Old 24th Mar 2019, 20:14
  #38 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Spain
Age: 76
Posts: 47
Originally Posted by Warren Peace View Post
When they are not at sea in a submarine, or about to go, yes.
Then in a very small period of time you would have submarines but no crews for them.
kkbuk is offline  
Old 25th Mar 2019, 01:06
  #39 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Leicestershire, England
Posts: 1,114
Originally Posted by BVRAAM View Post
When SDSR15 was published, and it was announced that Tranche 1 Typhoons would be retained for air defence, I was under the impression this would be for QRA purposes, since they don't possess any A-G kit that I know of.
All Typhoons have air-to-ground capability, with the Tranche 1 Typhoons it was introduced at Block 5 and was the 'austere' capability which included integration of Litening III and Paveway II / Enhanced Paveway II, the later Tranche 2/3 jets had additional weapons integration and improved capabilities which were not available to the Tranche 1 jets...

-RP
Rhino power is offline  
Old 26th Mar 2019, 20:22
  #40 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: London/Oxford/New York
Posts: 2,090
Originally Posted by Rheinstorff View Post


All commercial officers belong to the Cabinet Office and it is they, not MOD, that let HMG’s contracts of this scale. That’s not to say the requirement setting doesn’t rest with MOD, but even that has to be agreed by the commercial types and can be changed by them. That’s how you exert central fiscal authority in the UK these days. I don’t agree with it, but it seems we’re stuck with it.

I know it’s fashionable to trot out the ‘MOD can’t contract for toffee’ mantra, but in truth MOD (literally) can’t contract at all in this case.

Credit (or discredit if that’s even a thing) where it is due?

Rheinstorff,

You are wrong in your understanding of how Commercial Officers operate in Government. The element of the Cabinet Office that you refer to, the Crown Commercial Service or Government Commercial Office does not "take over" procurement contracts, it merely acts as a sort of licensing authority for Commercially qualified staff, this has been at SCS and Grade 6 up until now and is now being extended down to Grade 7. All this means is that to continue to operate you must have passed a Cabinet office assessment day. Once you have passed this you are permanently allocated to a Government Department or Ministry in the relevant Commercial Directorate, which ALL Government Departments have, over 300 alone in the Home Office and the same number in the MoJ for instance. These Commercial Directorates then have Commercial Officers embedded in the various operating divisions and functional areas who carry out normal commercial functions, procurements, competitions and contract management being the main areas of operation. These folk have delegated authority of up to £100m and a lot higher in some areas. They carry out ALL aspects of procurement, the Cabinet Office does not, it merely provides a series of Framework Contracts through which usually quite small procurements are carried out, the bulk of Government procurements being under £5m. Anything strategically sensitive or of the multi Billion range is managed by the same process but with a sign off by Ministers, if it is particular sensitive then it will have the PM as sign off, after the Secretary of State for the Department has signed it off.
pr00ne is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

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