At last, someone telling the truth!
 

Sorry if its been posted before!

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle6806498.ece

Spam

Says it all really :yuk: :yuk: :yuk:

Defence procurement "harming" military's operational ability - Telegraph

Torygraph in on the act as well

Looks like even the BBC can't believe the scale of it.

Whilst the Times says:

The BBC report that:

-------------
The BBC have finally got their minds around it and corrected themselves.

£35 million would barely cover the cost of replacing the Gucci coffee machines in Main Building, £5 billion sounds more like it. Mind you, I think the 5 years behind schedule is a bit optimistic...

Shock horror! Defence Procurement is late and over budget. Give me a break, it's been part of the institutionalized failing of the MoD since the bluff and bluster of fighting the Cold War. In those days nobody ever realized just how late or shoddy the equipment was, because nobody was ever firing back at us. Now we are 5 years into a series of major asymmetric campaigns, having our Forces still equipped to stop 3rd Shock Army at the Coppengrugge Gap or stop Russian hunter killers off Norway doesn't look like such a smart move. We still hadn't recovered from the equipment losses in GW1, thirteen years previously, when this lot kicked off.

History demonstrates that we will never know the exact nature of the next threat until we are engaged, but the ability to rapidly and effectively re-equip to offer a capable fighting force is the true measure of an intelligent Armed Forces. Sadly the UK appears to be incapable of doing this through its 60's era acquisition strategy. The system is broken and needs fixing, but despite the well intentioned military professionals who make the best of a bad job, until the incompetence, graft and myopia are removed at senior levels we are destined to continue playing for the second 11 in global conflicts.

Iraq and Afghanistan have all too readily demonstrated that the true cost of this incompetence and negligence is not measured in lost sales bonuses for retired senior offiicers or slow promotion for civil servants, but is in fact measured in the lives of our fellow servicemen and women.

Dithering all the way to disaster
 

The British Govt seems to have become the biggest cash-cow in the world with everyone from illegal immigrants through medical tourists to failed banks queuing up to milk it. Is it any wonder that the defence industry is doing the same and has been for many years?:ugh:

Opinion it might be Crab - but not a well rounded comment based on fact like many of your other posts - what you say is simply not possible - the defence industry cannot "milk" the MoD or UK Government with the procurement scrutiny and rules that apply these days (which in itself adds considerable delays/costs often) - it can and does have to stand by while all its more effiicient plans for design, production and delivery are undermined by constant last minute requirement changes, annual financial changes (often more reduced budgets) and all round political decision making cock ups (eg CH47 SF Mk3 Fix to Field!), which then lead to mega cost and time overruns - this doesn't suit industry anymore than it suits the front line. Unfortunately its the history of at least the last 40 years of UK procurement - despite the several major attempts to sort it (whither "smart aquistion"?). It also has to be said that many of our allies are even worse so lets not stare at our navels too much. Only those countries that truely buy off the shelf on the back of other nations "over expenditure" win this game - eg most 3rd world or emerging nations who also usually get selling nation "grants" to buy it too!!

The simple fact is (as Gray's report identifies - and note he has his own agenda as having been Blair's placeman in 97/98 as the archtiect of smart aquisition with George Robertson (SofS at the time) - and is annoyed at how it was ditched by the entrenched MoD "old Guard"....etc etc....) that the UK has tried for too many years to keep all its roles and the advanced equipment that goes with them... and yet no governing party has seen fit to fully fund the programmes at their outsets to reflect this (particularly the up front R&D and derisking)... and hence it was clear even 5 years ago that the programme was going to cost circa £90B over the next 10 years (before any genuine over-runs) and yet this government's MoD procurement budget plan from the Treasury was (in 2004) £65B - already nearly the £35B gap then!). Therefore decisons needed to be made then to chop programmes - but none were made - as usual we shuffled things around and officalliy extended delivery programmes (see Nimrod MRA4 as a prime example!) and this alone can add 20-50% to a project's cost overrun - the present Labour government being motivated and determined to spin its way out of not being a Defence Cutter government!).

So there you go -at one level (the basic one) its like any other budget - if you decide what you want, understand the risks - agree the price and then stick to the delivery schedule you get a fair chance of it arriving on time and cost....However, if you act like all UK governments of the last 40 years, and not decide and agree truthfully what you want in the first place, (eg hiding AH64 logistic costs to get it through Cabinet at the right price!!), then not fund it properly and then not stick to the procurement schedule (very few programmes have ever done this but some have and they have succeeded!!), - the lack of cash means programmes slip and this immediately causes the spiral of additonal cost and yet further delays.

Meanwhile the old equipemnt (egs VC10,Puma and Sea King, Type 42s etc etc) stays in service at even greater expense than originally funded adding more cost than planned to the annual defence budget which in turn then squeezes cash out of the operational budget (look at how many newish frigates the RN had to sell off in recent years) and the new procurement budget just when it needs more to cope with the officially required delays to the new projects...etc etc ad nauseam.

Same as a household budget really - you buy what you can get with the money you have - or you save up for x years and buy something more special (or get it on a PFI mortgage at 3 times the cost !!) - what you don't do is ask the shop to try and produce for you something you were never gonna be able to afford anyway and then just as it arrives on the counter - say can you hold it back for a few years until I have the money - inflation alone means you'll end up paying a higher price later - and that assuming you still have the original supply chain that can sell you all the components at the right procurement and support chain prices you planned in the first place - and then the next spiral down is to order less (see Typhoon!!) and this in turn means spare parts production costs go up and in service costs shoot above target etc etc etc etc...........:ugh:

My head is now exploding........................... We either fund our defence properly (not an option!) or we get out of the game of being a world expeditionary power...... you can't have it both ways!!! ( PS I support us staying in the game by the way!!)

Cheers

Oh dear; more shock horror and heads should roll. What isn't obvious from these incisive investigations by Government commissioned Wunderkind is the role played by HM Treasury. Forcing postponment of future equipment programmes results technology moving on. Accommodating that costs money. Force budget "reprofiling" on current programmes and, again, technology moves on and Contractors' overheads increase. Additionally, the FLC requirement has time to change (for good reason) and the spec changes. The net result is yet more delay and cost increase.

This is pretty obvious for Naval programmes and I suspect that Air ones can't be that dissimilar. I'm quite confident that the Nimrod 4 could be delivered this year; except that the money isn't there to pay for it.

Privatising the process would be a brilliant idea but I'm not really sure we could afford the experiment. It would certainly sell off the risk; not!

Tallsar,

An excellent summary:ok:

What you say is amply borne out by Norman Augustine, former Lockheed CEO.

Amazon.com: Augustine's Laws, 6th Edition (9781563472404): Norman R. Augustine: Books

- for Bernard Gray as CDM perhaps?

R

Tallsar - I know the procurement process is fundamentally flawed and constantly changing the spec doesn't help at all but both Westlands and BAe have relied heavily on orders from MoD to keep them afloat - why else do so many senior officers retire into jobs with them?

You don't really expect politicians to show integrity and honesty do you?:)

I would love to see defence properly funded but whilst this Govt is haemorraghing money to prop up banks that should have been allowed to fail that isn't going to happen.

How can the armed forces be equipped to meet real threats?
since the FCO and Intelligence services have seamed to fail to identify what wars were end up in its a bit tricky. Add to the equation the treasury wanting to claw back as much money as it can. Then put in a civil service that sees its self as all important and now politicised by special advisers working to a 5 year plan to get the government re-elected and you see the mess unfold.
The solution according to Gray Privitise oh yes with Lord Grey as CEO bring in civilian management consultants to run projects oh yes management consultants who will create more jobs for managemen consultants.
The procurement system like the rest of the armed forces is broken and needs fixing without the political interference or inter departmental fighting that seams to infest the public sector in the UK at the minite.
Do we privitise and have KBR or someone like that run it? what if BAE end up buying the company that runs British defence procurement?
It should stay an MOD function but with much reform and with a reformed civil service.

Riskman. I trust you recognise sarcasm when you see it? :}

Ah yes, Civil Service reform. Does putting it back to how it was before it was reformed (eg 1982, 1991, 1995 etc) count as reform?

Yes, there is much wrong with the acquisition system (not just the procurement part).

The bureaucracy is mind-numbing, but the bit that really grips my **** is the approvals process. Take a simple Business Case to attain Initial or Main Gate.

Ah, the Gates. A euphemism for savings measure, as you automatically have to add at least 6 - 9 months to the project plan as there are so many doorways to go through, and extensive gardens you must cross without treading on them, to get to the Gate Guardian in the first place; whose job it is to prevent you from doing yours.

When we called the Business Case a Board Submission, it was prepared by a civil servant at the grade below that of the most junior PE project manager (PTO 3 or PTO in old money). It was a basic competence you had to acquire before promotion into PE. Anything up to around £20M signed off by your boss (I’ve chosen that old Cat D level as the vast majority of projects are minor – I accept larger ones need higher approvals, but the principles remain the same).

The same Business Case today is meant to be “owned” by DEC, but their input in minimal, and very often worthless. So a CS prepares it, but the problem is he no longer has to have demonstrated this basic competence at a lower grade (most have no longer served at this lower grade). So, it takes longer.

Quite the worst and most inefficient part is the BC having to be reviewed and approved by “Peers” or the ludicrous IPT “Management Board”; usually both.

The last time I prepared a Main Gate Business Case, the IPT MB numbered 15 (out of 39 total in the IPT). The subject was existing technology, but a new application. The requirement was URGENT (as in, required in theatre years ago, with people dying through lack of it). 14 of the MB duly reviewed it, the common comment being “I’m non-technical, don’t understand it, but it looks ok”. (In fact, only two of them were technical, including 3 (!!) Requirements Managers, who by definition must be engineers or they can’t do most of their job. None were). The nearest analogy I can think of is you, as a pilot, having your actions reviewed and approved by junior NCOs, none of whom are aircrew.

But the 15th man was on extended leave, and I (and, more importantly, the prospective Users) had to wait for his return; after which he started on his in-tray. In time, he reached my BC. His only comment? “There’s a double full-stop at the end of this sentence”. You know his background – a 5 page CV of half day seminars, never managed a project or staff in his life. Completely out of his depth, and didn’t realise it because he was better than those around him.

The only good thing that came out of this was I knew the MD of the company (who owned the IPR and were the sole supplier in the world, but the MB wanted a competition, which is why the Users had been waiting for 4 years). He offered free loan of the entire requirement so the User could deploy immediately with proper kit. Don’t tell anyone, and follow it up with a contract ASAP. Yes, suppliers still do this, but they need to trust the PM. Trust? An old-fashioned term, given the treatment suppliers receive at the hands of MoD.

But that didn’t solve the basic problem. It was a device to get round the bureaucracy and very few would chance it. Today’s PMs know that the ability to deliver on time, to cost and performance is not something their promotions depend on – in fact, it can be a hindrance as very often your boss has already had a go at the project, failed, and been promoted. So they often sit back and take years to achieve something that could be done in weeks. There are exceptions, but they are called dinosaurs.

I could write a book.

Yeah you could 'write a book'... or you could do something about it as you are (presumably) in more of a position to do so than the rest of us 'customers' who could be fobbed off with the 'there's a bigger picture than you know' lines..?

Or maybe not

:ugh:

If any of you insomniacs want a cure, help is at hand; SMART Acquisition. http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/AboutDefence/Organisation/KeyFactsAboutDefence/smartacquisition.htm and http://www.mod.uk/NR/rdonlyres/1B07C...cquisition.pdf

If that doesn't induce sleep, try the Transformation Staircase http://www.mod.uk/NR/rdonlyres/BE7B29B8-DAB5-4340-9342-FF64445A27D6/0/dloplan2005_section3.pdf

As tucumsehhas intimated, turn up to a job interview (or, better still, a promotion one) with the key buzz words and broad concepts in your mind and you'll probably get the job. You can be an outside applicant with no grasp of how the system really operates. What it won't do, is prepare you for external interference in your budget

All this started "at the top" on external "expert advice"

Spugford

1. Read my post, and others, to see where my sympathies lie.

2. I have done as you suggested but, as you know, one must escalate suggestions through one's line management. CDP (4 Star) was kind enough to confirm, in writing, his support for my 2 Star that the prevention of waste was "of no concern to MoD(PE)" and one should NOT implement the MANDATED regulations aimed at minimising waste. Subsequently upheld within the DPA, DLO and DE&S regimes. And by the last four Mins(AF).


No point :ugh:at me. Have a go at your own 2 Star and see how he reacts. He won't be the slightest bit interested, especially when he discovers the list of his peers who won't back him up; never mind his seniors. Career limiting you know.

You can't argue on the one hand that MOD has 12 year old strategies which it doent update, and then on the other hand blame the MOD for reprofiling or changing spec.

I think the whole system is flawed at both ends of the telescope, but the above is just an observation.

No, what colour is it?:confused: