Damning Defence report

#1
Nick Robinson Blog
Very little actual information contained in this but it may well get updated, found the part about how the MoD accept overruns on time and cost to such magnitude as part and parcel slightly concerning.

views?

p.s. if this has been brought up already apologies
 
#3


Can't argue with that!
 
#4
More of the same here;

The Times
Last night the BBC reported that a draft report claimed that the “top 40 programmes annually expect an 80 per cent overrun on time, and 40 per cent on cost”. The report added that the MoD was “in denial”.
You know, having read some of the stuff in CA, I find that so hard to believe...
 
#5
This clearly isn't going to be comfortable reading for MoD and DE&S in particular. However, some of the comments on the Beeb seem naive to say the least. What were the chances?

I only had a passing acquaintance with some procurement programmes, but am surprised that the slides suggest there are no project management skills - my view was that there was an incredible amount of governance on risk and a rigid gate system.

Similarly, I don't like the 'it's all the civvies fault' lines of blame. One of the biggest flaws was the lack of continuity that a 2-year posting cycle for RMs and suchlike presented. Yes, there were some not particularly capable civil servants. But then, given the pay grades not everyone is going to be an industry leader. Similarly, I had the fortune to meet extremely good ones who had the Forces' best interests at heart. I also saw disinterested military folk in post.

A final thought is, as ever, one of resources. I have a feeling that until the Government (not just this present one) accepts how much Defence Procurement costs, this will remain the case. There are some very bright people who I'm sure know that the timescales and costs they cite in project reviews are spurious. However, if they are going to get the programme going and ensure the frontline gets the kit it needs, then they need to be optimistic. An expensive programme is not going to make the cut, after all.

I stand by to be corrected.
 
#6
"A final thought is, as ever, one of resources. I have a feeling that until the Government (not just this present one) accepts how much Defence Procurement costs, this will remain the case. There "

Absolutely - that is, in my view, the critical problem. Every year now we've had to run a planning round to bring costs within control totals. We've had to do this against the backdrop of the PM refusing to let us cancel high cost projects, and the defence guidance laid down in the SDR.

We need to accept that the increase in costs is a direct result of our having to reprofile expenditure in Yrs1-10, in order to meet unrealistic spending targets, in turn brought about because our beloved PM loathes defence and doesnt want to spend a penny more on it.

Fund the programme properly, or let us cancel a big ticket item and many of the problems go away instantly. Neither choice is acceptable to Brown.
 
#7
miles_gloriosus said:
This clearly isn't going to be comfortable reading for MoD and DE&S in particular. However, some of the comments on the Beeb seem naive to say the least. What were the chances?

I only had a passing acquaintance with some procurement programmes, but am surprised that the slides suggest there are no project management skills - my view was that there was an incredible amount of governance on risk and a rigid gate system.

Similarly, I don't like the 'it's all the civvies fault' lines of blame. One of the biggest flaws was the lack of continuity that a 2-year posting cycle for RMs and suchlike presented. Yes, there were some not particularly capable civil servants. But then, given the pay grades not everyone is going to be an industry leader. Similarly, I had the fortune to meet extremely good ones who had the Forces' best interests at heart. I also saw disinterested military folk in post.

A final thought is, as ever, one of resources. I have a feeling that until the Government (not just this present one) accepts how much Defence Procurement costs, this will remain the case. There are some very bright people who I'm sure know that the timescales and costs they cite in project reviews are spurious. However, if they are going to get the programme going and ensure the frontline gets the kit it needs, then they need to be optimistic. An expensive programme is not going to make the cut, after all.

I stand by to be corrected.

MOD > Procurement > Retirement > Job with BAE etc

MOD CS > Procurement > Retirement > Job with BAE etc

GOV > Procurement > Retirement > Job with BAE etc

Hmmmm… I wonder?
 
#8
Why don't the Top Brass go public with the need to cancel big ticket items, that only remain for political convenience?

What the fcuk does Gordon Brown know about running UKAF? He was the one who slashed spending on Helos a few short years ago......

3 more dead paras in a discredited armoured vehicle that is being directly targetted by Taliban.....
 
#9
nigegilb said:
Why don't the Top Brass go public with the need to cancel big ticket items, that only remain for political convenience?

What the fcuk does Gordon Brown know about running UKAF? He was the one who slashed spending on Helos a few short years ago......

3 more dead paras in a discredited armoured vehicle that is being directly targetted by Taliban.....

When I was first shown the Jackal I pointed out what I thought were some utterly basic design flaws in it… The MOD PRO swanning around told to shut the fvck up and mind my own business. She still hates me, even more so now I was proven right.
 
#10
Worse still, the much hyped very expensive armoured vehicle coming into service next year doesn't even have a v shaped hull, just like Jackal.

Now we hear that Merlin crews will be pressed into theatre in a helo not fit for purpose against the ballistic threat. Presumably because risk to soldiers on the ground in woefully inadequate vehicles is much greater.

Military planners, generals and the like should hold their heads in shame for sending their men to their deaths.

Gung ho idiots.
 
#11
nigegilb said:
Worse still, the much hyped very expensive armoured vehicle coming into service next year doesn't even have a v shaped hull, just like Jackal.

Now we hear that Merlin crews will be pressed into theatre in a helo not fit for purpose against the ballistic threat. Presumably because risk to soldiers on the ground in woefully inadequate vehicles is much greater.

Military planners, generals and the like should hold their heads in shame for sending their men to their deaths.

Gung ho idiots.

Actually it was not the hull I was bothered about. I told her straight that sitting over the front wheels in a vehicle that was likely to take a mine strike was sheer blood insanity and the person who came up with the concept should be made to test out the vehicle in person by driving over a mine or two.

Ditto the open sides, no crew blast protection for a vehicle exposed to roadside bombs.
 
#12
Agreed, and what you have stated is widely acknowledged and widely known (esp to the enemy), yet still, Jackal is used on MSRs. I was merely pointing out that US Forces rejected the vehicle that we are spending an enormous amount of money on, that will come into service 4 years late, from when it was so desperately needed.

The lack of funding, equipment and support is finding UKAF out, in the killing fields of Afghanistan.

The 2006 deployment was shameful for it's inadequacy lack of thought, planning, resources and equipment.

We are now playing catch up, but the enemy is cunning and brutal.

My greatest respect to the soldiers who volunteer to go out there. Pity they don't have the support they deserve from either the chain of command or British Govt.
 
#13
Ah, so here is the big pushback:

"The Ministry of Defence is to improve the way it orders equipment after a report said it did "not really know the price of any kit", the BBC understands.

A new unit has been established inside the MoD to improve the process of ordering new military equipment. "


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8189558.stm

The BBC "understands" eh?

Top reporting skill there because in the last reshuffle Lord Drayson was appointed Minister of State for Strategic Defence Acquisition Reform with responsibilities for Defence Acquisition, Defence R&D and Defence Industrial Strategy.
 
#14
Well, there's an outstanding piece of detective work.

'People don't know how much it costs to build something that hasn't been built before'.

Unless something is bought COTS or MOTS this is always going to be the case. Even then, the whole DLOD piece means that how we want to employ the beasty may massively ramp up the training/infrastructure package. I can imagine the concept phase now: 'Exactly how much is battlefield-ready, low-maintenance, simple to operate, lightweight ECM/sensor equipment going to cost to find an indeterminate threat and issued to an undefined level? Come on man, spit it out'

Still doesn't excuse JACKAL, though.

Edited for spelling.
 
#15
I have to say I was expecting more from the link, those slides seem seem a statement of the overwhelmingly obvious and broad goals, like 'must improve'
 
#16
I have said it once and I will say it again, if this level of incompetence was shown in civdiv, then people would walk! beleive it or not cost can be limited, you bid your plans on kit out to the best deal you can get, if it means it will not be built in britain tough. Also if a company says it will cost x amount for everything, pay it but put in caveats ie time frames etc.

With regards to bowman can anyone shed any light on any rupert who truly understood digital comms, but was put in charge of overseeing the procurement, at a cost of millions, this will go on and on, because experts are not consulted, within the armed forces, and the mod is always trying to buy eqpt on the cheap!
 
#17
I think it,s quite right that the MoD is in denial, as is the whole of Government, and has been since the day Bliar and his Frog stepped into No10, he denied his country, its history, its heritage, its freedom, its citizens right to think for themselves, I could go on ad nauseam but what good would it do, the Government would only deny that I existed and I,d be a "banned" person just like in South Africa years ago. :x :x
 
#18
To be fair to blair and co. Heseltine was saying more or less the same thing about the mod and Alan clarke was scathing about it in his diarys while he was a junior minister :oops:
although they had'nt got themselves into a protracted war where obvious failings were shown up :roll: .
falklands short desperate op
granby short vicsous op
SA80a1 the whole sorry saga took years and was a dogs breakfast when fielded LAW 80 renamed 94mm as ten years late. how does a heat rocket take 10 years to field :twisted:

too ambitious too cheap and then cut numbers and wonder why the whole thing ends up over budget :(.
MOD's been making a fubar of provision for the last 30 years at least
 

Latest Threads

Top