Come on, you really shouldn't believe everything you read on Pprune! :=Especially if it comes from the usual cast of industry bashers.:E Many of whom appear to know F all about the subject.

On the major programmes in which I was involved, the contracts allowed us a specified maximum percentage profit, the MOD audited our books and any excess profit would be recovered. How many other industries have their costs analysed by their customers who can then refuse to pay ?

The large cost overruns were invariably caused by MOD either changing the requirement part way through the development, or by pushing programmes out to the right to 'save money' On one major contract PE decided to zero fund the contract for 12 months as a savings measure, with no guarantee that funding would be in place in a year's time resulting in all work stopping both in industry and the research establishments (in the days we had any). The company obviously wasnt going to pay for a team of 100 expensive development engineers to sit on their hands for a year so the team was disbanded and many went off to more highly paid jobs in the telecoms and IT industries, never to return to Defence. When MOD suddenly decided after 18 months to turn the project back on again, the company said OK, but it will take us at least 6 months to build up and retrain a new team. The end result was a 24 month slippage and a new development team which was less qualified and less experienced than the original, and a programme that ended up the subject of a parliamentary enquiry.

Having worked in Trials and Evaluation, Operational Requirements, Procurement, and Industry I would say they all have their shortcomings, but if you want to see where the problem lies, look within the greater MOD empire.

TOFO, a contract bid is a case in point. You accept the invite, you examine the SOR, you send someone to conduct due diligence, you price the SOR, you submit your bid hoping your future guess is correct, you meet the SOR, offer better VFM than other bidders, and hope you win.

If you lose that is a big cost thrown in the wind and if there are several losers that it a lot of money blown.

So you join with several competitors and form a consortium. You spread the cost, you reduce the risk and you improve the odds to evens or better (no other bidder).

The MOD is now over a barrel, bend over and take it or go back in house. Last one I was involved with the over bidder offered least risk and got the contract. The under bidder was still well over budget and they were working on 5% and anticipatory good will.

Quite right. One of the most robust MoD policies. And everything is (or was) transparent in the QMAC schedules.

The problem is variable implementation of policy, whereby MoD allows unqualified staff to self-delegate, and they are encouraged to sign off and make payment before the job is complete if it means meeting the Time and Cost elements of Time, Cost and Performance. Further down the line their successors have to ask for more money and delay occurs....... The worst example of this was the Nimrod MRA4 2 Star condoning it. It's one of the reasons why MoD and Government don't want a public inquiry.


The main problem with the Telegraph article is he doesn't know why MRA4 was cancelled. On the other hand, if he did he probably wouldn't be allowed to publish!

Big article on MPA in the latest Jane's Navy International (June) for anyone that has access to it or can find a copy in the crewroom. Does that mean that Flt Lt T*** gets slabbed again?

Do you have a link?

Regarding the P1/P8 debate, I hadn't realised the P1 was physically as big as it is:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...gi_in_2014.JPG

ith only a few months to go before the results of its latest Strategic Defence and Security Review (SDSR) will be announced, the UK government is facing fresh calls to reinstate its military's lapsed maritime patrol aircraft capability.

Responding to questions in the House of Lords on 4 June, minister of state Earl Howe said the forthcoming SDSR is "the right point to look again at the requirement for a maritime patrol aircraft".

A two-and-a-half-year study has already been conducted, which he says has allowed the Ministry of Defence "to understand better the nature of the platforms in existence, as well as the timeframe in which novel technologies are likely to mature".

Around 30 personnel from the UK's earlier British Aerospace Nimrod MR2 community are maintaining their skills via a Project "Seedcorn" arrangement with four allied nations, which is intended to "reduce the time and risks associated with regenerating a capability", he adds.

Likely candidates for a new maritime patrol aircraft requirement include Airbus C295, Boeing 737-based P-8 and refurbished Lockheed Martin C-130J tactical transports.

Lord Empey of the Ulster Unionist Party describes the question of whether to re-establish such a capability as being a "no-brainer". This, he says, is due to the need to protect the UK's sea lanes against "an increasingly aggressive Russian naval force", and also to ensure that it has the "adequate protection" for its submarine-based nuclear deterrent.

But Lord West of Spithead a former First Sea Lord of the Royal Navy cautions: "If we are going to provide this capability, what capabilities are going to be removed because there is just not enough money to do the things we need to do?"

The UK has been without a dedicated maritime patrol aircraft capability since the Royal Air Force retired its last Nimrod MR2s (below) in 2010. Their planned replacement BAE Systems' Nimrod MRA4 was cancelled in an SDSR later the same year.

C-130 anyone?
 

A new article on using the C-130J for MPA. Notes that everyone seems to have concluded that P-8 is the answer for the UK, but with with the planned drawdown of the J, thre will be some airframes around.....And roll-on, roll-off pallets allows for repurposing.

Note the comments on torpedos, which they say could be fitted.

Paris Air Show 2015: Lockheed Martin says maritime C-130 offering for UK has international potential - IHS Jane's 360

Re C130 anyone
 

It's an interesting and obvious idea I'd have thought, from an LM point of view, or a similar idea for the A400, but whether it's the right idea and can deliver the right capability I will leave to those better qualified to comment

LM have been touting a Sea Herc for some time but it only exists on paper. To get serious interest they need to actually come up with a prototype.

The USMC have already fielded the Harvest HAWK RO/RO package.

It will not happen, but this could supplement or privide added flexibility to this as a concept.

A Herc mission module system, for instance ABCCC or VIP fit was mooted decades ago. Has any air force ever used a module system?

I remember hearing at the time that Margaret Thatcher flew from Ascension to the Falklands in a sound-proofed VIP ISO container on board a C-130.

KC-130J with HARVEST HAWK Kit
 

PN,

As already stated, the USMC has RO/RO HARVEST HAWK kits for the KC-130J fleet. The main components are: an internally fitted pallet with WSO control consoles, a Gunslinger launcher for Griffin missiles on the ramp, Hellfire missiles on an under wing pylon, and a sensor ball as used on the AH-1Z mounted below an under wing fuel tank. Used in Afghanistan to effect.

Control Module:

http://www.blackfive.net/.a/6a00d834...998d441970c-pi

Gunslinger Launcher:
http://media.defenceindustrydaily.co...st_Hawk_lg.jpg

Hellfire Pylon:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...h_Hellfire.jpg

Sensor Ball:

http://www.codeonemagazine.com/thumb...g&size=gallery

HARVEST HAWK: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ERzT8KoVY7k

Gunslinger launched Griffin: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mk1Me_AKxxU

The U.S. had C130 ABCCC for many years, also SENIOR SCOUT is still around. Both modular the SS is normally taken up from a normal AT ac. The ABCCC, when it was in service, stayed on one platform as it was too expensive to swap over all the comms, however, now that would not be such a problem with small satcom antenna which fit into escape hatches etc. Other nations also have C130 special fits which role in roll out.

Seems to me to be a good idea which allows for flexibility. Buying the P8 does not have this option.

1 point - how many C130 frames do the USMC have? Looks like they are the guys using the above kit. I suspect they don't 'role on / role off' (sic) this capability - the wiring looms alone must add a significant payload to the frame as well as the time in depth to fit. I guess if needed to, they could revert to cargo use but given how many frames they have - would they need to?
UK RAF on the other hand - could we tie up frames getting the conversion done and then manage their use among the cargo/pax taskings? I would seriously doubt it. If we had the spare capacity in the lifter fleet, I'd be guessing that is being swiftly allocated to avoid looking like 'surplus' come SDSR. More likely, there is no spare capacity for the palleted option.

Jet in Vitro
I'm not sure the flexibility you quote will bring the advantages and savings you expect. For such a critical capability as LRMPA, a dedicated, specialised platform is the only sensible solution. A C130 bodge up would be just that.

Not a "Herc mate", but from what I have read here and elsewhere, night not internal noise in the Herc be significant factor

The US Coast Guard have used C-130s for long range ops for decades, so there is a precedent, and one or two other nations have also undertaken MR/SAR duties. I think Indonesia and Brazil have.

As for VIP duties, the Saudis have at least one configured, as far as I am aware.

With the P-3 no longer in production I would have thought that Lockheed Martin would be really pushing a 'PC-130'. There are a lot of nations out there that cannot afford the Poseidon but will want something more than a C.295.