Defence Procurement. Engineer binned for speaking out.

Discussion in 'Tanks, planes & ships' started by SkiBum, Nov 7, 2009.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. The bellow text is from a mate who spoke his mind about a project he was working on. As a result he is now unemployed. As well as having a degree in engineering, I must point out that he was a Crew Commander (RAC) and Gunner Mech’, so knows what he’s talking about and what the lads and lasses still serving need. I have no personal knowledge of the project, but I do know, he would have been very closely connected to it and would have been well aware of the consequences of speaking out.


    Quote:
    “For some strange reason my employer didn't like me pointing out that we were putting an overpriced, underperforming, potentially dangerous gun on a chassis that was twice the size of the one the Army had actually asked for.

    When I further protested about commercial organisations putting profits before the lives of British soldiers, it was decided that perhaps I was in the wrong job. Ah well, tell the boys on Facebook that I tried, but even a Lancer can't fight 2,500 *********. (Well you can, you just lose!) Unfortunately, in the case, so has the taxpayer, to the tune of £5 Billion, and the Army, which will end up with a much less capable set of AFV's than the fleet they have now.
    Of course joe public, nor indeed the Army, will notice anything amiss. Some career bull shitter will tell the Minister that all is well and the Army will be suitably grateful when re-equipped with their undergunned, underarmoured, barn-sized, barely mobile death trap.
    Similarly, the complacent **** who turned a blind eye to my pointing out that a certain company was hazarding the lives of the Infantry so that they could gain a contract, will arselick his way to a gold-plated pension, sufficient to pay the wages of a complete fire team.

    Then, as happened with Nimrod, everybody will be trying to blame everybody else when a score of young men die for no good reason.”
     
  2. Unfortunately, the expression pissing in the wind springs to mind. Sounds like a decent bloke.

    P-T
     
  3. Start a facebook page, in protest to the sacking, if what your pal is saying is true then it will be taken onboard and something will done about it, we live in the age of the information super highway and if enough people know about it something will ultimatly be done about it. It seems like there is a chance here to stop something before it goes wrong, name and shame this company and this would be a good time to get journos involved
     
  4. The Nimrod report named people who were at fault so get public and bang the facts off to everyone involved in the project.( and Newspapers and MPs ) It wont change things for this completed project but may improve future ones. Plus, if years down the line any incidents occur he can rest easy knowing he tried to highlight the problems.
     

  5. You posted this enough times yesterday as well, how long until you get the hint?
     
  6. I don't know your mate, I suspect I know the project he's refering to but to be frank I suspect he was in the wrong job!

    Commercial organisations exist to make profit for their shareholders.
    Government policy recognises this and attempts to regulate profit through the use of competition to reduce prices. The alternative is to have a nationalised arms industry with all the consequences that has for buraucracy, lethargy and cost as demonstrated in the past.

    If the system being proposed was such an innappropriate solution the it is the responsibility of DE&S to not select that solution as "non-compliant".

    I do not believe I've ever worked for a company that would put profit before the lives of British soldiers, many employ a substantial number of ex-servicemen precisely to give them the necessary insight.

    Whilst I have some sympathy for your mate and wish him a speedy return to employment he might want to reflect upon his black and white stance before entering the many shades of grey world that is successfully designing, building and delivering the nearest solution to the MOD's changing goals.
     
  7. Gren it was suggested on one of the other threads
     
  8. He took the hint yesterday & moved it here, safe in the knowledge that the red-tabbed or pin-striped merchants from HQ QMG/MOD Def Procurement agency will (or should) be monitoring this site, along with the odd defence correspondent & perhaps someone from the national audit office.

    It's called bore-sighting:)
     
  9. So it's a four letter word beginning with 'F' and a French gun based on a concept the US had a government audit about wasting money on, as the basic physics of the arrangement gave no appreciable benefit over conventional weapons.

    Do these concerns also apply to another project of more interest to the infantry?
     
  10. If anyone can, watch the movie 'Pentagon Wars', and your eyes will definatly be opened.
     
  11. Not sure how Pentagon Wars and the Bradley are necessarily relevant.
     
  12. I would have thought that considering the OP is relating to AFVs and the joys of procurment (even if it is the yanks) would have been very relevant, but thats getting off topic.
     
  13. I can see some similarity, but it isn't about the scope creep that so bedevilled the Bradley project so much as decisions being made for possibly less-than-sound reasons.