ASDOT Contract chopped?
 

Looks as if the plan has been dropped for dis-similar ACT for the RAF.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business...train-against/

ASDOT was a lot more than just DACT; EW training for the RAF/RN and a lot of other facilities were "rolled up" to replace legacy capabilities such as 100 Sqn, 736 NAS and the Cobham Falcon 20s. There has been, IMHO, some very poor behaviours and dreadful requirements management from MoD. Doubtless "the conspiracy of optimism" has served a few individuals well in getting promoted and bailing out before this stage, but the ever moving goalposts and uncertainty about funding has dogged this project nearly from the start, with numerous revisions/recasts. The notion was sound, but the requirements ill-conceived (some would say bloated) and the credibility of some of the bidders to deliver what was required within the budget was being stretched mighty thin. Wait now for panic contract extensions to Cobham and, perhaps, a nice little contract to BAES for another tranche of Hawk T2s to replace 100, 736 and the Reds (and slip a few more in for MFTS perhaps to ease that clusterf*ck)…..A sad indictment all round of MoD's inability to contract out for complex services, and a blow to the concept of "Whole Force Approach".

Twas ever thus when it comes to the MoD and contracting.

You sure? What are all those hundreds and hundreds (literally) of Commercial Officers doing at Abbey Wood then?

So at what value is a contract handed over from the MoD to the Cabinet Office, assuming you are correct.

Even frontline commands are handcuffed to HMT - their delegated authority is capped at £100k. Even amounts below this may still have to be referred to HMT if they meet the ever-widening 'novel or contentious' limitations.

The big ticket items are all at the whim of HMT. Even when funded and approved HMT reserves the right to arbitrarily cut funding or delay programmes, even if this attracts additional costs down the line. HMT-induced delays are the biggest additional cost burden on the MoD (I guess they must have a similar death-grip on other government departments, but I have no direct knowledge). HMT-induced costs are always attributed to the MoD and, dutifully, the press follows the usual lines and heaps scorn on the MoD with an artificial belief that there are bunch of senior people in the MoD are moving money around as they see fit within a fixed budget. Even Urgent Operational Requirements have to laid before the Treasury and they don't even have to write a justification piece if they decide not to fund a requirement; a simple rejection will suffice with the operational risk remaining with operational commander.

None of this is new, it just gets overlooked.

While there may well be, probably is, truth in your comments, let's not rush to absolve everyone downstream from the repercussions of their decision making.

In the old world, there was much to be gained by sticking to the adage of look after the pennies etc.

Nowadays, we see so much waste that we become conditioned to it. I doubt that HM Treasury dictated the issue of wiggly greens and a Kevlar hat for everyone at basic training. That's more likely to have cost the service money as a result of awarding a supply contract to a former supplier, than to have enhanced operational capability through flexibility.

With such evidence of a reluctance to be prudent with the small change, it's no surprise that the Mandarins think that senior RAF Officers are unable to look after a large budget.

The farce of trainee aircrew holding for years, must be the best example of waste.

The RAF should take a lesson from the commercial world. Establish when (if) Valley will (might) be ready for students, recruit accordingly, and bin everyone in a hold, asap.

Curtail flying pay for people who have not flown for weeks, never mind months/years. Ensure that active aircrew are getting the hours they need to be really current, not just the minimum. Allocate enough staff to sections to be able to support the flying program, instead of this slash and burn approach to being the next guy who deserves a promotion for instigating cost savings by having people doing less.

Curtail flying pay for those who have not flown for weeks?

I'd like to see your maths. Training pilots is expensive and we don't pay them particularly highly so retention is always a challenge. Pay them less and more will walk and your training bill soars. The entire cost of pilot RRP(Flying) is covered by the cost of training just 2 replacement pilots.

As for the 'waste' associated with the PFI for aircrew training, well just what made you think that any of the services thought that any of the costly PFIs were a good idea? Again, look towards the Treasury.

Warren Peace
 

As the pages of pprune will show, this current farce at Valley not only could have been seen coming, it was discussed here.

BV, noted.

FP is not the only specialist pay where people not directly in the appropriate billet continue to receive the pay. Addressing only the remark 'weeks ' would you remove pay from submarine crews for instance?

When they are not at sea in a submarine, or about to go, yes.

Bob, I quite agree that a Flt Lt Pilot should be paid more than a scribbly, or even an ATCO, but only while he's a Pilot. Not when he or she is doing an Ops job for 18 months, or holding while they get to try out for some other role having been chopped, or carrying a bag for some senior Thruster at High Wycombe.

As for the bubble working through the system, that's what's wrong just now. A cull is the best cure for that. I don't think those guys would actually have been ready to be QFIs, having done two tours, as they would not in fact have been trained, that's part of why they were culled.

The shortfall that will happen, will happen anyway. You can't go back and train people five years ago, so that you have their experience now.

So instead of letting the held up students work their way to the front line and be at a leaving point (in terms of time served or emotionally) after only one tour, why not train, in a reasonable timescale, the recent joiners, so that there is potential for getting a useful return of service from them?

I get the part of DACT where the opposition use bad guy tactics.
But For the 'D' part of DACT could the RAF save a few bob and write the phone number of Lakenheath and Leeuwarden on the Ops room desk address book?

Or just finished their pre-OCU hold!! :-)

Chopped or gone back to look for cheaper alternatives?

Who Knows? Might be Mirage 2000's MDBA MICA from next month!

No I appreciate the problem of simulating Red Air - and was being slightly tongue in cheek.

But also, replicating Red Air you do get flying time and also get to see the picture from the other side - bit like instructing.

Cheapest to just invite the Poles over to play!