Procurement Parables
 

I was recently talking with an RCAF pilot assigned to an MH squadron "flying" the new Cyclone helicopter. The flying is in quotation marks because the serviceability rate of the new helicopter, which is still not FMC is so low.

It reminded me of an airline flight I took in 2002. I got to talking to my seat mate who was a aeronautical engineer and had been hired straight out of university in 1984 as a Defense Department civilian employee assigned to the New Shipborne Helicopter Program office. This office was stood up in 1977 to work on a replacement for the SeaKing helicopter which first entered service in 1963. The project office still exists, and is funded to 2027 as it tries to get the Cyclone finished. So the CAF will have had an office to procure a new helicopter that will have been running for 50 years. During the conversation with my engineer seat mate he declared that he was sure he would reach retirement age before the project office closed. I thought he was exaggerating....

Oh Canada…
 

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. There are many reasons why I love Canada. A country good enough to give me citizenship and one with truly some of the most beautiful scenery on the planet. As an ex member of the UK Military, one of the reasons I love Canada is that, no matter how bad UK procurement is, I am reminded that there is always at least one country that manages to screw it up more completely than Britain.

F35 is a great example. It took the current Liberal government almost two full terms to realise that one of their major manifesto pledges, to dump F35, was the wrong call. After hundreds of millions of dollars of taxpayers money was wasted they came to the realisation that the only jet on the market that could meet the requirements they stated was the one jet they were desperate to eliminate from the competition.

Now, shall we talk about submarines?

BV

You’re referring to the purchase from Nigel’s used submarine emporium?

West Coast
 

Yep. One careful owner. Sold as seen.

BV

AEW Nimrods, SA80 rifles, various armoured vehicles, Type 45 destroyers

Old Duffer

Not forgetting Tornado F2/F3.......

Aircraft Carriers

No one dithers like our friends to the North (well perhaps India and Argentina, but that seems more funding constrained).

The CH-47, P-8 and A330 tanker seem to be "quick" and proper moves.

The CH-148 order was placed in 2004. I wonder how long the EH101 would have been in service by now....

STOVL carriers and F-35B changed to CATOBAR carriers and F-35C changed back to STOVL carriers and F-35B.

Eurofighter design requirement for a gun. No longer 'need' gun so decide to take gun out. Find the flight control computer needs the gun (or something of the same mass) so decide to replace with a block of concrete. Find it's easier just to leave the gun in place but not to use it so don't support with ammunition/training, etc. Find the gun has an operational value, so then support and use it.

Puts me in mind of the alleged procurement tale - many years ago - of the RAF's Wessex.

The RN already had their Mk 5s, and the RAF wanted something very similar, which became the Mk 2 (don't ask!).

The RN ones came with folding tails, which initially scared the RAF; thus:

RAF: Hello Mr Westland, we'd like some Wessex like the Mk5 please, but without the folding tail, which we think is dangerous, and is only useful on carriers.

Mr W: Well that's how it comes - with folding tail!

RAF: No, no no - can you remove the folding tail?

Mr W: Of course we can ......... but it'll cost yer.....

And so, Best Beloved, the first Mk2s were delivered without folding tails. But - lo and behold - the RAF found you could get more Wessi in a hangar with folded tails - which clearly were no longer dangerous...

RAF: Hello Mr Westland - it's me again. We've decided we DO want folding tails on our Wessex, can you retro-fit them??

Mr W: Of course we can ......... but it'll cost yer.....!!

And so they paid twice for what would have been free ..........

[And I'm not sure why they wanted smaller cabin windows either!]

Not to mention the “bullet-proof” self-sealing tanks. (We won’t need those - ah yes we will!)

Mog

To increase airframe longevity with the cabin pressurisation cycles.

😂😂🤣🤣


I'll get me coat. 🤓

Maybe a bit of drift,but to continue; early on the WX2 was sent on an exercise,somewhere by sea,and so off 72 went on a carrier...No folding tails,no blade folding kit,no proper seaworthy corrosion at manufacture,never used AvCat before....The carrier`s Captain is believed to have said words to the effect that..`I may have felt inclined to bulldoze the lot overboard```...

Except the RAF ordered the mk 2s before RN ordered the mk 5, and the mk 2 preceeded the mk 5 into service

But then the RAF “borrowed” RN Wessex 5s (complete with their folding tails) for pilot training…. so those of my era never flew a Mk2.

I think one of the reasons for the oddities of Mk Nos was that - at that time - the RN used odd numbers and the RAF even for same type. So the RN already had 1s, 3s and 5s, leaving 2s and 4s (Queen's Flight) for the RAF.

OK Davef68 -it's a fair cop.

But preceded only by a few months, Mk2s in Feb '64, Mk5s in Jun/Jul '64, so I guess pre-production examples were flying at the same time.

And it's a shame to spoil a good story with facts!

This has nothing to do with requirements drift and everything to do with budgets and through-life programme costs.

I am told the original Typhoon spec included a gun, as you might expect. Then comes the call to tackle cost growth, for which your only options are reducing the spec, the numbers or the delivery profile (capability trading).

“How much to fit, maintain, sustain and train for the gun, Hoskins?”

”£80m over 10 years, my liege.”

“Excellent, we’ll use that. Delete the gun, it will save weight too.”

”Sire, the Great Satan tells us we need the weight of a gun in the place where a gun would have been.”

“Stick some concrete in there, it worked with the F2.”

”But concrete doesn’t weigh enough…”

”Well, let’s have a dummy gun instead”

”We have been quoted £9m for design and manufacture of your dummy gun, whereas the gun itself is only £2m.”

”Ah…”

(continue ad nauseam)

You can't separate 'requirements drift' and budgets. The requirement is stated by the customer, and it is for he to make adequate materiel and financial provision for any changes he makes. Not the procurer. If the procurer is having to do it, something has gone very badly wrong at requirements/committee stage, and it's far too late. Procurers are not represented on these committees. They're handed the committee's decision. If it's wrong in any way, some junior pleb has to either overrule the committee, or send it back. Both are fraught with danger, and frequent occurrences. If you bought the approved requirement every time, things would be an even bigger ****show!