UK Strategic Defence Review 2020 - get your bids in now ladies & gents
Thread Starter
With things kicking in off in the ME expect every UK service to be out there promoting it's readiness to ... do whatever gets the biggest coverage.........
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: cardboard box in't middle of t'road
Posts: 745
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
For too long 'people with "deep expertise in specific fields"' have been ignored, their views and informed opinions ridiculed. Looking on with interest as to how the politicians try to roll over and ingratiate themselves to a regime committed to the removal of our way of life.
The following users liked this post:
Thread Starter
"Times" lists HS2 and the QE's as possible targets for the root and branch review of legacy projects announced yesterday..................
If one applies Cummings’ words to Defence aviation, and in particular what most Servicemen tend (rightly) to have a good old moan about;
1. MoD’s quite deliberate policy to rid itself of ‘deep expertise’ is now 30 years old. A huge second tranche was taken in 1996. One cannot replace thousands of people overnight. It needs significant long-term investment and a major change in personnel policy.
2. ‘Deep expertise’ in the important domains is incompatible with recruiting 21 year old graduates who are allowed to skip the first five grades. Few know they ARE at the sixth grade, so don’t know what is NOT being done. Again, a long-term issue.
3. The ‘civil service union’ that is quoted is the First Division Association. It represents relatively few, all of whom will do their level best to block Mr Cummings (unless they’re shareholders in the agencies who provide ‘consultants’, PFI providers or the likes of SERCO). He needs to get the ‘premier division’ involved. (Well, they asked for that!)
But here’s an alternative suggestion. Just ask one question. Why were some major programmes delivered to time, cost and performance (and better), while simple ones failed miserably? Don’t ask the FDA; they won’t know, and wouldn’t tell you anyway.
I was asked by another country a few weeks ago to do a presentation on a related subject. There was no need. Just sent them a single, deleted Defence Standard; and if they wanted to use Powerpoint, a single slide saying ‘Implement it’. Same reply to the above question. Everything else falls out of it.
I’ve been retired for 16 years and have no axe to grind. I’ve seen both systems. Neither were perfect, but I know which one worked if the right people were in the right jobs. Most of those jobs and people no longer exist. For God’s sake hang on to what you’ve still got.
1. MoD’s quite deliberate policy to rid itself of ‘deep expertise’ is now 30 years old. A huge second tranche was taken in 1996. One cannot replace thousands of people overnight. It needs significant long-term investment and a major change in personnel policy.
2. ‘Deep expertise’ in the important domains is incompatible with recruiting 21 year old graduates who are allowed to skip the first five grades. Few know they ARE at the sixth grade, so don’t know what is NOT being done. Again, a long-term issue.
3. The ‘civil service union’ that is quoted is the First Division Association. It represents relatively few, all of whom will do their level best to block Mr Cummings (unless they’re shareholders in the agencies who provide ‘consultants’, PFI providers or the likes of SERCO). He needs to get the ‘premier division’ involved. (Well, they asked for that!)
But here’s an alternative suggestion. Just ask one question. Why were some major programmes delivered to time, cost and performance (and better), while simple ones failed miserably? Don’t ask the FDA; they won’t know, and wouldn’t tell you anyway.
I was asked by another country a few weeks ago to do a presentation on a related subject. There was no need. Just sent them a single, deleted Defence Standard; and if they wanted to use Powerpoint, a single slide saying ‘Implement it’. Same reply to the above question. Everything else falls out of it.
I’ve been retired for 16 years and have no axe to grind. I’ve seen both systems. Neither were perfect, but I know which one worked if the right people were in the right jobs. Most of those jobs and people no longer exist. For God’s sake hang on to what you’ve still got.
Thread Starter
Tuc - even you would agree there has to be a balance between retaining certain ways of doing things and modernisation. There are many cases of organisations "staying with what they had" and it resulting in catastrophe (think the Crimean War), the reluctance of the UK Admiralty to adopt a convoy system in WW 1 or the complete inability of the system to handle expensive complex acquisition of the TSR2.
It's a matter of balance - but I think it often comes down to leadership in all spheres. A good leader and his team seem to be able to navigate the shoals that others come ashore on - hence the (odd) project delivered on time and on spec and the majority which are neither
It's a matter of balance - but I think it often comes down to leadership in all spheres. A good leader and his team seem to be able to navigate the shoals that others come ashore on - hence the (odd) project delivered on time and on spec and the majority which are neither
Asturias56
Not sure what you mean by 'even you'.
If there is a Standard that, if implemented, leads to equipment delivered to time, cost and performance (with literally thousands of examples available); that explains the procedure for fixing almost every support problem; demonstrably would have prevented many accidents (XX177, ZG710, ZD576, XV230, etc); and in any case makes unnecessary 90% of recommendations in Board of Inquiry/Service Inquiry reports; then I simply suggest adhering to known good practice (and mandates).
I fully agree there is a need to 'modernise'. The various terms in the Standard need updating, and around six of the accompanying Specfications are now redundant, and probably need replacing to reflect newer capabilities. Even so, it remains perfectly clear.
A separate issue is why the Standard has officially been deleted, yet still forms the basis of, for example, the Infantry's flagship programme whose sole aim is to reduce casualties. That is where MoD won't go.
Not sure what you mean by 'even you'.
If there is a Standard that, if implemented, leads to equipment delivered to time, cost and performance (with literally thousands of examples available); that explains the procedure for fixing almost every support problem; demonstrably would have prevented many accidents (XX177, ZG710, ZD576, XV230, etc); and in any case makes unnecessary 90% of recommendations in Board of Inquiry/Service Inquiry reports; then I simply suggest adhering to known good practice (and mandates).
I fully agree there is a need to 'modernise'. The various terms in the Standard need updating, and around six of the accompanying Specfications are now redundant, and probably need replacing to reflect newer capabilities. Even so, it remains perfectly clear.
A separate issue is why the Standard has officially been deleted, yet still forms the basis of, for example, the Infantry's flagship programme whose sole aim is to reduce casualties. That is where MoD won't go.
Bean countering, the E3 retirement accelerated with UK AWACS total withdrawal in the next few years, no overlap with replacements. Capability gap ‘filled’ by NATO/US and anyone else whilst waiting delivery of full fleet of E7 wedgetails.
Not saying it’s a good idea, but like the carrier capability gap of a few years back, there’s a precedent when the replacement has been identified/ordered.
Not saying it’s a good idea, but like the carrier capability gap of a few years back, there’s a precedent when the replacement has been identified/ordered.
Thread Starter
ANother year - another cost overrun
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-51052124 UK nuclear weapons programme £1.3bn over budget
By Jonathan Beale Defence correspondent, BBC News
The MoD said it would carefully look at the report's findings.
The projects, initially valued at £2.5bn, are being built to enhance or replace existing facilities at Barrow-in-Furness in Cumbria, where four new submarines are being built by BAE Systems to carry Trident missiles. The other sites are Raynesway near Derby, where Rolls Royce is developing nuclear reactors to power the submarines, and at Burghfield in Berkshire, where the Atomic Weapons Establishment are assembling nuclear warheads.
Nearly half of the £1.3bn in increased costs are due to construction starting too early and then having to be revised, the NAO found.
The watchdog acknowledged there have been unique challenges, including the need to comply with stricter security and safety regulations for the nuclear industry, such as the construction of buildings able to withstand seismic activity. But it said the MoD did not have the controls in place to overcome these barriers and prevent infrastructure designs from being over-specified and to ensure designs are "cost-effective".
Gareth Davies, the head of the NAO, said the "MoD's failure to mitigate commercial and delivery risks early on has led to project delays and cost increases as well as impacting its wider work". The spending watchdog did acknowledge oversight had recently improved. But the criticisms will likely catch the attention of the prime minister's chief special adviser, Dominic Cummings, who wants to overhaul the way the MoD buys military equipment.
Mr Cummings, who has been a harsh critic of defence procurement, has already held talks with Defence Secretary Ben Wallace about ways of tackling waste. Mr Wallace recently admitted there was a shortfall in the department's budget. In a statement the Ministry of Defence said it was carefully examining the conclusions of the report but was committed to strengthening the management of its nuclear programme.
By Jonathan Beale Defence correspondent, BBC News
- 6 hours ago
- The Ministry Of Defence's "poor management" of Britain's nuclear weapons programme has led to rising costs and lengthy delays, according to the government spending watchdog.
The MoD said it would carefully look at the report's findings.
The projects, initially valued at £2.5bn, are being built to enhance or replace existing facilities at Barrow-in-Furness in Cumbria, where four new submarines are being built by BAE Systems to carry Trident missiles. The other sites are Raynesway near Derby, where Rolls Royce is developing nuclear reactors to power the submarines, and at Burghfield in Berkshire, where the Atomic Weapons Establishment are assembling nuclear warheads.
Nearly half of the £1.3bn in increased costs are due to construction starting too early and then having to be revised, the NAO found.
The watchdog acknowledged there have been unique challenges, including the need to comply with stricter security and safety regulations for the nuclear industry, such as the construction of buildings able to withstand seismic activity. But it said the MoD did not have the controls in place to overcome these barriers and prevent infrastructure designs from being over-specified and to ensure designs are "cost-effective".
'Monopolistic suppliers'
The NAO also criticised what it called "poor contracts", with the MoD taking all the risks and with the work being carried out by "monopolistic" suppliers. BAE Systems earned an extra £10m in management fees following cost increases. The company has no liability for costs and damages relating to non-performance. AWE also received additional fees when work was deferred. The report said it was disappointing to see the MoD making similar mistakes to ones it made 30 years ago. It says the department should not have allowed work to start too early and should have more control to agree to cost-effective designs. In not doing so, the MoD's early management of the programme has "not delivered value for money", said the NAO.Gareth Davies, the head of the NAO, said the "MoD's failure to mitigate commercial and delivery risks early on has led to project delays and cost increases as well as impacting its wider work". The spending watchdog did acknowledge oversight had recently improved. But the criticisms will likely catch the attention of the prime minister's chief special adviser, Dominic Cummings, who wants to overhaul the way the MoD buys military equipment.
Mr Cummings, who has been a harsh critic of defence procurement, has already held talks with Defence Secretary Ben Wallace about ways of tackling waste. Mr Wallace recently admitted there was a shortfall in the department's budget. In a statement the Ministry of Defence said it was carefully examining the conclusions of the report but was committed to strengthening the management of its nuclear programme.
That article conflates so many issues it’s impossible to know where to begin, except that MoD’s ‘procurers’ play a very small part in it.
The thread is about SDR and ‘bids’.
I doubt if there’s more than a handful here who have done the former. (Only one has ever declared himself, on the old Mull of Kintyre thread, and not in this context).
Fewer still have done the latter, if only because in the aircraft world the Service HQs only employed about 4 or 5 to do it. (In pre-computer days, when their output was accurate).
These civilians prepared the ‘Shopping Lists’ and staffed ‘Board Submissions’ or ‘Business Cases’; the level of approval depending on cost. Only then did the procurers get involved to any degree.
A personal aspiration of these junior staff, who were seen as the ‘owners’ of Service kit, responsible for availability, reliability and maintainability, and accountable directly to an Admiral (for the RN), was to be promoted to the most junior project management grade. (Think about that, and compare with current DE&S). The advantage they then had is self-evident, explaining in part why the success of a project is often entirely dependant on the manager’s background.
Most of the errors in what people term ‘procurement’ occur long before procurers get a chance to apply reality, by which time the money is set in concrete. So, a project can be vastly ‘over cost’, but below a fair and reasonable price – which is what the project manager actually signs for. Plainly, an aim is to reconcile the two, but that is largely outwith his gift.
Bottom line. The mandated rules are there. Implement them. They help you (the Service HQ) to avoid the avoidable, leaving the project manager to manage the unavoidable. If you don’t, he hasn’t a chance.
The thread is about SDR and ‘bids’.
I doubt if there’s more than a handful here who have done the former. (Only one has ever declared himself, on the old Mull of Kintyre thread, and not in this context).
Fewer still have done the latter, if only because in the aircraft world the Service HQs only employed about 4 or 5 to do it. (In pre-computer days, when their output was accurate).
These civilians prepared the ‘Shopping Lists’ and staffed ‘Board Submissions’ or ‘Business Cases’; the level of approval depending on cost. Only then did the procurers get involved to any degree.
A personal aspiration of these junior staff, who were seen as the ‘owners’ of Service kit, responsible for availability, reliability and maintainability, and accountable directly to an Admiral (for the RN), was to be promoted to the most junior project management grade. (Think about that, and compare with current DE&S). The advantage they then had is self-evident, explaining in part why the success of a project is often entirely dependant on the manager’s background.
Most of the errors in what people term ‘procurement’ occur long before procurers get a chance to apply reality, by which time the money is set in concrete. So, a project can be vastly ‘over cost’, but below a fair and reasonable price – which is what the project manager actually signs for. Plainly, an aim is to reconcile the two, but that is largely outwith his gift.
Bottom line. The mandated rules are there. Implement them. They help you (the Service HQ) to avoid the avoidable, leaving the project manager to manage the unavoidable. If you don’t, he hasn’t a chance.
About 20 years ago.
I imagine there are fair few people on here who’ve created submissions for SDSR and/or ABC options (I’ve done both). It really isn’t a rarified or civilian sport.
I imagine there are fair few people on here who’ve created submissions for SDSR and/or ABC options (I’ve done both). It really isn’t a rarified or civilian sport.
Agreed Alfred. The posts were gradually 'militarised' from 1990. I think you're RN - the last civilian postholder left DGA(N) HQ in 1993. He'd been on the radar/sonics desk. Today the nearest equivalent is Requirements Manager, but even then not very close. The Board Submissions I spoke of were the final ones - approval triggered the requisition to MoD(PE). The programme clock ran, and any change after that would force delay. The decision on what to ask for had been made by OR (but not quantified) - the author had to be able to articulate it in whatever detail the screening meetings required, and prepare alternatives, etc. There'd be lots of interim staffing that didn't constitute the formal Service requirement. The 1st level I mentioned was that which decides there's going to be a Navy, Army and Air Force, and what is expected of them. Out of that discussion flows the myriad of 'what if' questions us mere mortals have to answer, when you hope the right person is asked!
Thread Starter
Britain must be prepared to fight wars without the United States as its key ally, the Defence Secretary has warned.
Ben Wallace said the prospect of the US stepping back from its international leadership role under Donald Trump "keeps me awake at night". It may force the UK to rethink its assumptions about defence, he added. His comments come as the UK prepares to carry out the "deepest review" of Britain's security, defence and foreign policy since the end of the Cold War.
"I worry if the United States withdraws from its leadership around the world," Mr Wallace told the Sunday Times. "That would be bad for the world and bad for us. We plan for the worst and hope for the best."
He said the defence review should be used to make the UK less dependent on the US in future conflicts. "Over the last year we've had the US pull out from Syria, the statement by Donald Trump on Iraq where he said Nato should take over and do more in the Middle East," Mr Wallace said. "The assumptions of 2010 that we were always going to be part of a US coalition is really just not where we are going to be. We are very dependent on American air cover and American intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance assets. We need to diversify our assets."
Mr Wallace said last month there was a shortfall of funding in the Ministry of Defence's budget.
Ben Wallace said the prospect of the US stepping back from its international leadership role under Donald Trump "keeps me awake at night". It may force the UK to rethink its assumptions about defence, he added. His comments come as the UK prepares to carry out the "deepest review" of Britain's security, defence and foreign policy since the end of the Cold War.
"I worry if the United States withdraws from its leadership around the world," Mr Wallace told the Sunday Times. "That would be bad for the world and bad for us. We plan for the worst and hope for the best."
He said the defence review should be used to make the UK less dependent on the US in future conflicts. "Over the last year we've had the US pull out from Syria, the statement by Donald Trump on Iraq where he said Nato should take over and do more in the Middle East," Mr Wallace said. "The assumptions of 2010 that we were always going to be part of a US coalition is really just not where we are going to be. We are very dependent on American air cover and American intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance assets. We need to diversify our assets."
Mr Wallace said last month there was a shortfall of funding in the Ministry of Defence's budget.
An aside which might be relevant. I am amazed at the percentage that the Voyager represents.
https://twitter.com/andynetherwood/s...537834496?s=21
https://twitter.com/andynetherwood/s...537834496?s=21
Though with only 9 aircraft in the fleet, yes it is a lot.
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 482
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
An aside which might be relevant. I am amazed at the percentage that the Voyager represents.
https://twitter.com/andynetherwood/s...537834496?s=21
https://twitter.com/andynetherwood/s...537834496?s=21
Ask the Navy.
An aside which might be relevant. I am amazed at the percentage that the Voyager represents.
https://twitter.com/andynetherwood/s...537834496?s=21
https://twitter.com/andynetherwood/s...537834496?s=21