SO:_
What's the point of doing all that, tucumsuh, Name and shame and then try to reform, rebuild, and regain that lost knowledge and ability. If you simply go for:- a whole new way forward |
ShotOne,
BAe build parts for F1 cars, does that count? |
Oh well, diddums, suppose that's what you get for wasting billions of taxpayer £s on BS wars that are not our concern.
|
"Implement the regs, identify the culprits". By all means, chug. Just don't kid yourself that by doing so you'll be ushering in a new era of defence procurement. In the civil world, those responsible for a failed project generally lose their jobs, so yes, I agree and share your disgust at the apparent lack of accountability. But will the name and shame of a few "culprits" really get us better defence equipment? It'll only ensure "the regs" are followed to the letter, no decision, however trivial without the full committee and lots of meetings and minutes to make sure everyone's covered.
|
Shot One
What's the point of doing all that, tucumsuh, when the key point of this paper is that the existing system needs fundamental change? This is about a whole new way forward, not a post-mortem and a bit of tweaking for what's gone before. If this can be achieved, why do we need a fundamental change? What we need is to teach new staffs how these successes were achieved, and give that a shot. In the civil world, those responsible for a failed project generally lose their jobs |
Magz Macleod captures seagull photobombing Red Arrows in Stornoway | Highlands & Islands | News
Reds incremental acquisition upgrade already under way. :ok: |
I'm really not sure how helpful all these clever essays are.
Grouping of SMEs? This seems based on F1=good, how do we copy that? It seems to miss the point that what F1 does (well) is build technology that lasts 5 minutes and throw it away after a week, to some tightly defined rules. Not really a model for an aircraft to last e.g. 20-30 years. At the end of the day, if you want to replace e.g. Tornado, then you need something like e.g. a productionised Taranis. A bunch of SMEs won't knock that up in a shed - it is an expensive long term business. No real shortcuts. Whilst expensive to do domestically, as France and Sweden show, all it takes it a decision to get on with it - and stick it out through the inevitable bumps. See APT and TGV. The UK spends so long agonising about how to do things, beating itself up and spending hundreds of millions on CM2Hills and Bechtels to reinvent what is basically just a project management office (abbey wood). Project management always has its ups and downs and technically risky projects can incur delay and cost growth - or are difficult to effectively estimate the cost and schedule for at the outset - depending on your point of view. UK could make Taranis happen - if it wants to. Need some ballsy politicians to say, lets just do it and ride out the inevitable bumps. Watch as the French do just that with Neuron, smirking at the indecisive Brits squander their technology base! |
"BAe build parts for F1 cars, does that count?"
They used to build aircraft - shoulda stuck with that |
All times are GMT. The time now is 22:28. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.