UK Strategic Defence Review 2020 - get your bids in now ladies & gents
Thread Starter
It seems impossible to fix the method by which the UK buys kit - this is just the latest in a VERY long catalogue of similar stories. 
Can anyone on here make any suggestions as to how it could be improved?
Can anyone on here make any suggestions as to how it could be improved?
My two penn'orth would be :
Resource it properly - by which I mean recruit, train and retain a cadre of people with the correct domain knowledge and crucially engineering and programme management experience. Contrary to belief in business managemnt circles, possession of a process does not protect you from Captain Cockup unless it is written, implemented and maintained by people who understand its rationale / context. A systems engineer as an example is not easily interchangeable across domains. It is probably best explained as making sure you have people who know what they are supposed to do, how they are supposed to do it and crucially, why they are supposed to do it (NB the answer "so I don't get told off" is not the answer we're looking for). This also means that professionalising the requirements management function - rather than having it as a 2 year SO2/SO1 career path option needs to happen and will be quite difficult. People do not join up solely to write requirements and should not do so without acquiring the operational experience that helps them define and apply context. I once had an OA type try to tell me that a 35kt maximium speed for an ASW frigate was essential - because the model said so.
Fund it properly. That means long-term assured budgets - with associated responsibility / consequence for management thereof (see above for experienced and professional people) - rather than the soul destroying annual savings / enhancement rounds and consequent deferrals. The single most important (and thus far not implemented) recommendation of Sir John Parkers shipbuilding strategy was the provision of ring-fenced capital budgets. Without them, there is no certainty for MoD or industry and time and effort is spent in continual "what if" programme games instead of moving forwards.
Last edited by Not_a_boffin; 15th Jul 2021 at 10:03.
Thread Starter
Off course the Treasury and many politicians hate "multi-year funding" as for the Treasury it means they have less wriggle room in an emergency and for politicians it means there's less for THEM to distribute as others have got there ahead of them
This also means that professionalising the requirements management function - rather than having it as a 2 year SO2/SO1 career path option needs to happen and will be quite difficult. People do not join up solely to write requirements and should not do so without acquiring the operational experience that helps them define and apply context.
Even when civil servants did the job, it was in effect only a 2 year posting. (Two LTC rounds, preferably starting in the Autumn with the Alternative Assumptions). You learned so much, you were snapped up ASAP by a MoD(PE) project office. Once promoted into PE, the bosses there didn't have to worry about you making foolish mistakes. Staffing and funding any omissions was something you'd already learned. And here's a thing. Not a computer or typing pool in the building.
There was a long gap before 'Requirements Managers' were born, and I never came across one who had been taught, or knew, that he was only doing part of the job. However, comparison is unfair. Their previous four ranks weren't a logical progression to such a post. A practical example of what happened was the aforementioned Sea King Mk7 job. In 1995, when asked if they were ever going to quantify their requirement (which is rather important when costing a job), the RN admitted they no longer had the expertise and asked the programme manager if he would work it out for them. He simply pulled out the mandated Permanent Long Term Costings Instructions (never rescinded), which the RN no longer had a copy of, and implemented them. But on projects where the PM hadn't been a 'RqM'.... delay and cost overrun was common.
Of course, there's more to it, but getting the right people is paramount. MoD's recruitment pool was privatised in the mid-90s.
Thread Starter
The problem is that at relatively senior levels in the Civil Service rotation is common and indeed almost a requirement for advancement. In much of industry you can progress in the same silo so you retain a great deal of experience along the command chain.
It's always interested me that Dennis Healey became a real power in the land by sticking in post for so long he'd outlived all his Civil Service advisors. Ministries with a quick turn over of Ministers (such as Defence these days) are often the worst run
It's always interested me that Dennis Healey became a real power in the land by sticking in post for so long he'd outlived all his Civil Service advisors. Ministries with a quick turn over of Ministers (such as Defence these days) are often the worst run
Sir Humphrey…
https://tinyurl.com/852uda3k
No Longer Paying for Breakages - Western Intervention Post Afghanistan
https://tinyurl.com/852uda3k
No Longer Paying for Breakages - Western Intervention Post Afghanistan
Good article ORAC. The telling point is right at the end. This risks being part of a cycle. Afghanistan is likely become a base for the export of terrorism. and militancy, either on its own volition or as a proxy. How long before the major powers find this intolerable and feel compelled to act again? Are there other states that have potential to become new Afghanistans?
If the Taliban were nationalists, they would focus on rebuilding and developing their country, something China would be eager to help them do, if only to help offset their worsening image in the Muslim world.
However, if the Taliban are Islamic first, they will focus on ridding the Islamic community of western colonial constructs such as these various states.
We should find out shortly.
I doubt however that any of the 'major powers' are likely to act even if the Taliban become externally involved. Russia and the US both have been there and done that, no desire to return.
That leaves only China, which has its own unhappy memories of western powers adjusting frontiers, There is no benefit to China to uphold these political structures.
Thread Starter
In their first period of rule they seemed to have enough on their hands inside Afghanistan to think of meddling elsewhere- somewhat different from ISIS
They may well "shelter" some of the unsavoury terrorist crowd but I don't see them marching on their neighbours. The stability of the 'Stands will be driven by their own internal issues and politics - but with Mr Putin at hand to point out what can be achieved by the smack of firm government - Chechnya for example.......
They may well "shelter" some of the unsavoury terrorist crowd but I don't see them marching on their neighbours. The stability of the 'Stands will be driven by their own internal issues and politics - but with Mr Putin at hand to point out what can be achieved by the smack of firm government - Chechnya for example.......
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: The Whyte House
Age: 95
Posts: 1,966
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not sure that the vibration issue has been around for "so many years". It seems only to have surfaced relatively recently once they started running certain variants of the vehicle.
That's the problem with dynamics, natural frequencies and weight/inertia distribution. You can't necessarily predict that it's going to happen - or model it prior to design and build. There also seemed to be some confusion and conflation between vibration and airborne noise which are not necessarily the same thing.
They've taken it to Millbrook, which is exactly where you'd go with a problem like this - and probably where JLR, Nissan etc would go too.
The real problem they have is that they're at the back end of a catastrophic history of programme and development failures (FRES, Tracer etc) that have eaten hundreds of millions if not billions, left the army with a worn-out vehicle fleet, with Warrior CSP cancelled and Chally 3 approved by the skin of its teeth. Politically (particularly with the Tubster and Tobias Nice but Dim as ex-pongoes on the warpath) they can't afford for this to fail, but they're in a real bind. Conkers deep in terms of committed spend, later than a late thing that overslept badly and potentially with a difficult to solve problem.
Which is why turning up with an answer that came across as "ooooh I don't really know Vera" just digs them deeper. Had they put the Tubster back in his box by pointing out that :
1. Analogies with buying a car are irrelevant - you're not buying OTS where models sell in millions, you're essentially asking Bugatti to design and build you a couple of hundred Veyrons only with tracks and a turret. From scratch - which means you have to pay. (Of course whether that bespoke route was the correct choice is a different matter.....)
2. Vibration is difficult to predict and often only occurs when you do your T&E. Which is why you do your T&E.
3. They're asking the experts in the UK to sort it out.and until its diagnosed, they can't predict the fix and therefore cant predict the IOC. So don't ask stupid questions.
they might have come across better. Instead they came across as shifty and evasive.
That's the problem with dynamics, natural frequencies and weight/inertia distribution. You can't necessarily predict that it's going to happen - or model it prior to design and build. There also seemed to be some confusion and conflation between vibration and airborne noise which are not necessarily the same thing.
They've taken it to Millbrook, which is exactly where you'd go with a problem like this - and probably where JLR, Nissan etc would go too.
The real problem they have is that they're at the back end of a catastrophic history of programme and development failures (FRES, Tracer etc) that have eaten hundreds of millions if not billions, left the army with a worn-out vehicle fleet, with Warrior CSP cancelled and Chally 3 approved by the skin of its teeth. Politically (particularly with the Tubster and Tobias Nice but Dim as ex-pongoes on the warpath) they can't afford for this to fail, but they're in a real bind. Conkers deep in terms of committed spend, later than a late thing that overslept badly and potentially with a difficult to solve problem.
Which is why turning up with an answer that came across as "ooooh I don't really know Vera" just digs them deeper. Had they put the Tubster back in his box by pointing out that :
1. Analogies with buying a car are irrelevant - you're not buying OTS where models sell in millions, you're essentially asking Bugatti to design and build you a couple of hundred Veyrons only with tracks and a turret. From scratch - which means you have to pay. (Of course whether that bespoke route was the correct choice is a different matter.....)
2. Vibration is difficult to predict and often only occurs when you do your T&E. Which is why you do your T&E.
3. They're asking the experts in the UK to sort it out.and until its diagnosed, they can't predict the fix and therefore cant predict the IOC. So don't ask stupid questions.
they might have come across better. Instead they came across as shifty and evasive.
......
1. Analogies with buying a car are irrelevant - you're not buying OTS where models sell in millions, you're essentially asking Bugatti to design and build you a couple of hundred Veyrons only with tracks and a turret. From scratch - which means you have to pay. (Of course whether that bespoke route was the correct choice is a different matter.....)
.....
1. Analogies with buying a car are irrelevant - you're not buying OTS where models sell in millions, you're essentially asking Bugatti to design and build you a couple of hundred Veyrons only with tracks and a turret. From scratch - which means you have to pay. (Of course whether that bespoke route was the correct choice is a different matter.....)
.....
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Comments from Sir Humphrey at the ThinPinstripedLine on the Afghanistan debacle. Not directly relevant to Afghanistan itself, so I thought it more relevant here.
https://tinyurl.com/62ztved8
"Intervening & Extracting" - What Future for UK Military Intervention
https://tinyurl.com/62ztved8
"Intervening & Extracting" - What Future for UK Military Intervention
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
I wonder how, or if, the relationship between the UK and USA will recover based on these reports in today’s Sunday Times.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/t...pens-jw782ghxr
Ministers have warned that Britain will have to tear up its foreign policy after the debacle in Afghanistan, amid flaring tempers about America’s decision to cut and run.….A minister denounced American “isolationism” and said that the government would have to “revisit” the recent review on defence and foreign policy because the US was no longer a reliable ally.
“America has just signalled to the world that they are not that keen on playing a global role,” the minister said. “The implications of that are absolutely huge. We need to get the integrated review out and reread it. We are going to have to do a hard-nosed revisit on all our assumptions and policies.
“The US had to be dragged kicking and screaming into the First World War. They turned up late for the Second World War and now they are cutting and running in Afghanistan.”….
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/t...bles-58sdwt3t7
….Ministers are openly questioning both the sanity of Joe Biden, the US president, and the durability of the Anglo-American relationship…
As the situation in Afghanistan deteriorated last week, Biden used a press conference on Monday to say, “The buck stops with me” and rejected any suggestion that the withdrawal could have been handled better. “Getting out would be messy no matter when it occurred,” he insisted.
In London ministers and their advisers watched with incredulity. One minister said the president “looked gaga”. An aide described the press conference as “completely mad” and the president as “doolally”. Such thoughts are normally never whispered in Whitehall, let alone briefed.….
The frustration at the top of the British government with the White House is arguably unlike anything that has been seen since the Falklands War in 1982. Events in Kabul have exposed the sobering reality that Britain’s recent strategic review of foreign and security policy was predicated on a White House that wanted to work with its allies.
A furious minister said: “America has just signalled to the world that they are not that keen on playing a global role. The implications of that are absolutely huge. There is a massive constituency in America that is isolationist.
“We need to get the integrated review out and reread it with a yellow pen. We are going to have to do a hard-nosed revisit on all our assumptions and policies, be it China or the Middle East.
“This is the closest I have come to feeling depressed because of work. Brexit was bad but this is much worse. The castle we thought was built on rocks is built on sand.”……
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/t...pens-jw782ghxr
Ministers have warned that Britain will have to tear up its foreign policy after the debacle in Afghanistan, amid flaring tempers about America’s decision to cut and run.….A minister denounced American “isolationism” and said that the government would have to “revisit” the recent review on defence and foreign policy because the US was no longer a reliable ally.
“America has just signalled to the world that they are not that keen on playing a global role,” the minister said. “The implications of that are absolutely huge. We need to get the integrated review out and reread it. We are going to have to do a hard-nosed revisit on all our assumptions and policies.
“The US had to be dragged kicking and screaming into the First World War. They turned up late for the Second World War and now they are cutting and running in Afghanistan.”….
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/t...bles-58sdwt3t7
….Ministers are openly questioning both the sanity of Joe Biden, the US president, and the durability of the Anglo-American relationship…
As the situation in Afghanistan deteriorated last week, Biden used a press conference on Monday to say, “The buck stops with me” and rejected any suggestion that the withdrawal could have been handled better. “Getting out would be messy no matter when it occurred,” he insisted.
In London ministers and their advisers watched with incredulity. One minister said the president “looked gaga”. An aide described the press conference as “completely mad” and the president as “doolally”. Such thoughts are normally never whispered in Whitehall, let alone briefed.….
The frustration at the top of the British government with the White House is arguably unlike anything that has been seen since the Falklands War in 1982. Events in Kabul have exposed the sobering reality that Britain’s recent strategic review of foreign and security policy was predicated on a White House that wanted to work with its allies.
A furious minister said: “America has just signalled to the world that they are not that keen on playing a global role. The implications of that are absolutely huge. There is a massive constituency in America that is isolationist.
“We need to get the integrated review out and reread it with a yellow pen. We are going to have to do a hard-nosed revisit on all our assumptions and policies, be it China or the Middle East.
“This is the closest I have come to feeling depressed because of work. Brexit was bad but this is much worse. The castle we thought was built on rocks is built on sand.”……
Thread Starter
It's the politicians who have fallen out (and I doubt that referring to the incumbent as "gaga" will help going forward)
It'll recover once Boris has gone - he backed the wrong horse in the US election and then his antics over N Ireland just convinced the US that he's an untrustworthy idiot with the attention span of a gnat
At lower levels things will continue as usual
It'll recover once Boris has gone - he backed the wrong horse in the US election and then his antics over N Ireland just convinced the US that he's an untrustworthy idiot with the attention span of a gnat
At lower levels things will continue as usual
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Tha5 comment might have some validity if it was only Boris who was snubbed - as it was he was the first to be contacted - albeit almost 36 hours after a request for a call was made.
Germany, Norway, France - not one NATO partner involved in operations in Afghanistan was contacted or consulted.
Germany, Norway, France - not one NATO partner involved in operations in Afghanistan was contacted or consulted.
From that Sunday Times article it sounds as if the political elite has worked itself up into a right lather over this. If they can't see why an extended presence in Afghanistan would have been futile, even in retrospect, then the extent of delusion is worse than I'd thought. Ironically they're exhibiting exactly the failings that got us into this mess, dug us deeper into it and kept us there for another decade. Time for a deep breath and a step back, folks: downgrading the US-UK security relationship over a long-overdue strategic decision in Afghanistan (albeit a very badly implemented one) would be the ultimate own goal. I hesitate to adopt such a clichéd turn of phrase, but it would be "exactly what Xi and Putin want".
Tha5 comment might have some validity if it was only Boris who was snubbed - as it was he was the first to be contacted - albeit almost 36 hours after a request for a call was made.
Germany, Norway, France - not one NATO partner involved in operations in Afghanistan was contacted or consulted.
Germany, Norway, France - not one NATO partner involved in operations in Afghanistan was contacted or consulted.
Batco
Thread Starter
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
I was aware of that thread - but it seems to have degenerated into a repeat of why we need to keep the J to support SF, whilst this paper is about the strategic importance of AT as, well, strategic AT.
Which is why I posted it here, not there…
As the army/RM morph into Ranger and more SF type roles and packet forces for ops in Africa etc - and SF forces become ever more sneaky-beaky, there may be cases made for MV-22, C-295s and other STOL types. But that’s a different discussion for another thread.
Which is why I posted it here, not there…
As the army/RM morph into Ranger and more SF type roles and packet forces for ops in Africa etc - and SF forces become ever more sneaky-beaky, there may be cases made for MV-22, C-295s and other STOL types. But that’s a different discussion for another thread.
Last edited by ORAC; 25th Aug 2021 at 15:33. Reason: Sp