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 19th Mar 2019, 23:33
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: liverpool uk
Age: 62
Posts: 1,150
ASDOT Contract chopped?

Looks as if the plan has been dropped for dis-similar ACT for the RAF.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business...train-against/
air pig is offline  
Old 20th Mar 2019, 09:09
  #2 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Zummerset
Posts: 954
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".
Evalu8ter is offline  
Old 20th Mar 2019, 11:49
  #3 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: liverpool uk
Age: 62
Posts: 1,150
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)Ö..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".
Twas ever thus when it comes to the MoD and contracting.
air pig is offline  
Old 20th Mar 2019, 14:34
  #4 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Bucks
Posts: 63
Originally Posted by air pig View Post
Twas ever thus when it comes to the MoD and contracting.
All commercial officers belong to the Cabinet Office and it is they, not MOD, that let HMGís contracts of this scale. Thatís not to say the requirement setting doesnít rest with MOD, but even that has to be agreed by the commercial types and can be changed by them. Thatís how you exert central fiscal authority in the UK these days. I donít agree with it, but it seems weíre stuck with it.

I know itís fashionable to trot out the ĎMOD canít contract for toffeeí mantra, but in truth MOD (literally) canít contract at all in this case.

Credit (or discredit if thatís even a thing) where it is due?
Rheinstorff is offline  
Old 20th Mar 2019, 15:02
  #5 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Posts: 602
Originally Posted by Rheinstorff View Post


All commercial officers belong to the Cabinet Office and it is they, not MOD, that let HMGís contracts of this scale. Thatís not to say the requirement setting doesnít rest with MOD, but even that has to be agreed by the commercial types and can be changed by them. Thatís how you exert central fiscal authority in the UK these days. I donít agree with it, but it seems weíre stuck with it.

I know itís fashionable to trot out the ĎMOD canít contract for toffeeí mantra, but in truth MOD (literally) canít contract at all in this case.

Credit (or discredit if thatís even a thing) where it is due?
You sure? What are all those hundreds and hundreds (literally) of Commercial Officers doing at Abbey Wood then?

So at what value is a contract handed over from the MoD to the Cabinet Office, assuming you are correct.
Chris Kebab is offline  
Old 20th Mar 2019, 16:24
  #6 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 1,863
Even frontline commands are handcuffed to HMT - their delegated authority is capped at £100k. Even amounts below this may still have to be referred to HMT if they meet the ever-widening 'novel or contentious' limitations.

The big ticket items are all at the whim of HMT. Even when funded and approved HMT reserves the right to arbitrarily cut funding or delay programmes, even if this attracts additional costs down the line. HMT-induced delays are the biggest additional cost burden on the MoD (I guess they must have a similar death-grip on other government departments, but I have no direct knowledge). HMT-induced costs are always attributed to the MoD and, dutifully, the press follows the usual lines and heaps scorn on the MoD with an artificial belief that there are bunch of senior people in the MoD are moving money around as they see fit within a fixed budget. Even Urgent Operational Requirements have to laid before the Treasury and they don't even have to write a justification piece if they decide not to fund a requirement; a simple rejection will suffice with the operational risk remaining with operational commander.

None of this is new, it just gets overlooked.
Just This Once... is offline  
Old 20th Mar 2019, 17:37
  #7 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: UK
Posts: 23
Originally Posted by Just This Once... View Post
Even frontline commands are handcuffed to HMT - their delegated authority is capped at £100k. Even amounts below this may still have to be referred to HMT if they meet the ever-widening 'novel or contentious' limitations.

The big ticket items are all at the whim of HMT. Even when funded and approved HMT reserves the right to arbitrarily cut funding or delay programmes, even if this attracts additional costs down the line. HMT-induced delays are the biggest additional cost burden on the MoD (I guess they must have a similar death-grip on other government departments, but I have no direct knowledge). HMT-induced costs are always attributed to the MoD and, dutifully, the press follows the usual lines and heaps scorn on the MoD with an artificial belief that there are bunch of senior people in the MoD are moving money around as they see fit within a fixed budget. Even Urgent Operational Requirements have to laid before the Treasury and they don't even have to write a justification piece if they decide not to fund a requirement; a simple rejection will suffice with the operational risk remaining with operational commander.

None of this is new, it just gets overlooked.

While there may well be, probably is, truth in your comments, let's not rush to absolve everyone downstream from the repercussions of their decision making.

In the old world, there was much to be gained by sticking to the adage of look after the pennies etc.

Nowadays, we see so much waste that we become conditioned to it. I doubt that HM Treasury dictated the issue of wiggly greens and a Kevlar hat for everyone at basic training. That's more likely to have cost the service money as a result of awarding a supply contract to a former supplier, than to have enhanced operational capability through flexibility.

With such evidence of a reluctance to be prudent with the small change, it's no surprise that the Mandarins think that senior RAF Officers are unable to look after a large budget.

The farce of trainee aircrew holding for years, must be the best example of waste.

The RAF should take a lesson from the commercial world. Establish when (if) Valley will (might) be ready for students, recruit accordingly, and bin everyone in a hold, asap.

Curtail flying pay for people who have not flown for weeks, never mind months/years. Ensure that active aircrew are getting the hours they need to be really current, not just the minimum. Allocate enough staff to sections to be able to support the flying program, instead of this slash and burn approach to being the next guy who deserves a promotion for instigating cost savings by having people doing less.
Warren Peace is offline  
Old 20th Mar 2019, 17:58
  #8 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Bucks
Posts: 63
Originally Posted by Chris Kebab View Post
You sure? What are all those hundreds and hundreds (literally) of Commercial Officers doing at Abbey Wood then?

So at what value is a contract handed over from the MoD to the Cabinet Office, assuming you are correct.
Just because theyíre at Abbey Wood doesnít mean they are owned by MOD. All commercial officers, who are the only ones with the delegations to sign contracts, are part of Crown Commercial Services.
Rheinstorff is offline  
Old 20th Mar 2019, 18:01
  #9 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 1,863
Curtail flying pay for those who have not flown for weeks?

I'd like to see your maths. Training pilots is expensive and we don't pay them particularly highly so retention is always a challenge. Pay them less and more will walk and your training bill soars. The entire cost of pilot RRP(Flying) is covered by the cost of training just 2 replacement pilots.

As for the 'waste' associated with the PFI for aircrew training, well just what made you think that any of the services thought that any of the costly PFIs were a good idea? Again, look towards the Treasury.
Just This Once... is offline  
Old 20th Mar 2019, 18:10
  #10 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Near the coast
Posts: 1,616
Warren Peace

Iím not going to address everything you said but I do have two points.

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 Ďno bucks, no Buck Rogersí. 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.

Secondly, the RAF (and the Navy in their own way) got rid of loads of students back in 2010. Aside from the poor students that had their dreams crushed the whole episode left a very bitter taste across a far broader spectrum of people. It also left a bubble that worked its way through the system.

Is it any coincidence that we have faced a pilot and particularly a QFI shortage over the last few years? Those pilots would all have been well into their second and third tours by now.

BV

Bob Viking is online now  
Old 20th Mar 2019, 18:14
  #11 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Bucks
Posts: 63
Originally Posted by Warren Peace View Post
The RAF should take a lesson from the commercial world.
Which bit? Carillion? Patisserie Valerie? HMV? Lehman Brothers? I could go on, but I imagine you get the point.

The Ďcommerce is always right ideaí is wrong. I wish the world were as simple as it is in the minds of those who say Ďif only they just did this...í. Regrettably, much of our world is replete with interactive, not systematic complexity.

This will come as a blow to those who believe they know all of the factors that obtain, and also to those who believe all the factors are knowable. It just ainít so. There is no simple binary cause-effect relationship in a lot of things, no algorithm that just requires a couple of numbers to be applied to it to get the invariably right answer.

Thatís not to excuse waste, which people should be rightly concerned about and which does require people to be incentivised to avoid and sanctioned when they make an egregious mistake (Just Culture anyone?). However, donít assume that just because something hasnít worked well that the outcome was predictable at the point the decision was made.
Rheinstorff is offline  
Old 20th Mar 2019, 18:20
  #12 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: UK
Posts: 23
Originally Posted by Rheinstorff View Post


However, donít assume that just because something hasnít worked well that the outcome was predictable at the point the decision was made.
As the pages of PPRuNe will show, this current farce at Valley not only could have been seen coming, it was discussed here.

Warren Peace is offline  
Old 20th Mar 2019, 20:01
  #13 (permalink)  
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Lincolnshire
Age: 76
Posts: 16,593
BV, noted.

FP is not the only specialist pay where people not directly in the appropriate billet continue to receive the pay. Addressing only the remark 'weeks ' would you remove pay from submarine crews for instance?
Pontius Navigator is online now  
Old 20th Mar 2019, 20:07
  #14 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: UK
Posts: 23
Originally Posted by Pontius Navigator View Post
BV, noted.

FP is not the only specialist pay where people not directly in the appropriate billet continue to receive the pay. Addressing only the remark 'weeks ' would you remove pay from submarine crews for instance?
When they are not at sea in a submarine, or about to go, yes.

Warren Peace is offline  
Old 20th Mar 2019, 20:18
  #15 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: UK
Posts: 23
Originally Posted by Bob Viking View Post
Iím not going to address everything you said but I do have two points.

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 Ďno bucks, no Buck Rogersí. 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.

Secondly, the RAF (and the Navy in their own way) got rid of loads of students back in 2010. Aside from the poor students that had their dreams crushed the whole episode left a very bitter taste across a far broader spectrum of people. It also left a bubble that worked its way through the system.

Is it any coincidence that we have faced a pilot and particularly a QFI shortage over the last few years? Those pilots would all have been well into their second and third tours by now.

BV


Bob, I quite agree that a Flt Lt Pilot should be paid more than a scribbly, or even an ATCO, but only while he's a Pilot. Not when he or she is doing an Ops job for 18 months, or holding while they get to try out for some other role having been chopped, or carrying a bag for some senior Thruster at High Wycombe.

As for the bubble working through the system, that's what's wrong just now. A cull is the best cure for that. I don't think those guys would actually have been ready to be QFIs, having done two tours, as they would not in fact have been trained, that's part of why they were culled.

The shortfall that will happen, will happen anyway. You can't go back and train people five years ago, so that you have their experience now.

So instead of letting the held up students work their way to the front line and be at a leaving point (in terms of time served or emotionally) after only one tour, why not train, in a reasonable timescale, the recent joiners, so that there is potential for getting a useful return of service from them?

Warren Peace is offline  
Old 20th Mar 2019, 21:10
  #16 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: the far south
Posts: 342
I get the part of DACT where the opposition use bad guy tactics.
But For the 'D' part of DACT could the RAF save a few bob and write the phone number of Lakenheath and Leeuwarden on the Ops room desk address book?
typerated is offline  
Old 20th Mar 2019, 21:39
  #17 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Here
Posts: 1,213
Originally Posted by Bob Viking View Post


Is it any coincidence that we have faced a pilot and particularly a QFI shortage over the last few years? Those pilots would all have been well into their second and third tours by now.
Or just finished their pre-OCU hold!! :-)

Davef68 is offline  
Old 20th Mar 2019, 21:43
  #18 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Here
Posts: 1,213
Originally Posted by air pig View Post
Looks as if the plan has been dropped for dis-similar ACT for the RAF.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business...train-against/
Chopped or gone back to look for cheaper alternatives?
Davef68 is offline  
Old 20th Mar 2019, 22:08
  #19 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Here and there
Age: 36
Posts: 203
Originally Posted by typerated View Post
I get the part of DACT where the opposition use bad guy tactics.
But For the 'D' part of DACT could the RAF save a few bob and write the phone number of Lakenheath and Leeuwarden on the Ops room desk address book?
You think that doesnít happen anyway?! Unfortunately you then have to give back sorties flying red air for the benefit of those youíre flying against (= less time rehearsing your own tactics in a climate of reduced flying hours). Unless youíre suggesting that our standard threats should be AMRAAM-firing US-made F-jets?
frodo_monkey is offline  
Old 20th Mar 2019, 22:16
  #20 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: the far south
Posts: 342
Originally Posted by frodo_monkey View Post


You think that doesnít happen anyway?! Unfortunately you then have to give back sorties flying red air for the benefit of those youíre flying against (= less time rehearsing your own tactics in a climate of reduced flying hours). Unless youíre suggesting that our standard threats should be AMRAAM-firing US-made F-jets?
Who Knows? Might be Mirage 2000's MDBA MICA from next month!

No I appreciate the problem of simulating Red Air - and was being slightly tongue in cheek.

But also, replicating Red Air you do get flying time and also get to see the picture from the other side - bit like instructing.

Cheapest to just invite the Poles over to play!

typerated 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.