Is it time to disband the RLC and sack the MOD Procurement Organisation?

#2
It's not a like a supermarket running out of Plumrose Chopped Ham and Pork is it? Use more road transport eh? Whatever happened to all those trucks that got incinerated in Pakistan? Bone....
 
#3
Deliveries to Afghanistan and elsewhere arrive late mostly because of failures to anticipate demand or delays in getting supplies from manufacturers.
I wonder how many indents are put in early in anticipation of delays. An audit would show them being late but wouldn't acknowledge that they've arrived in time because of success in anticipating demand.
 
#4
They have already done it in the past. In 1991 it was called options for change and the logistics review.
 
#5
I think that this para sums it up neatly, it's the modern way...

Defence minister Peter Luff said a £800million system ‘for a more streamlined, agile, and effective logistics support chain’ was being implemented
And we all know how effective government sponsored IT systems(I'm presuming that's what it is) are, it's a fairly (in)glorious track record.

I'll open the book shall I?

No bets below 5 billion and six years 'til joins the hall of fame.
 
#6
I think that this para sums it up neatly, it's the modern way...

Defence minister Peter Luff said a £800million system ‘for a more streamlined, agile, and effective logistics support chain’ was being implemented

And we all know how effective government sponsored IT systems(I'm presuming that's what it is) are, it's a fairly (in)glorious track record.

I'll open the book shall I?

No bets below 5 billion and six years 'til joins the hall of fame.
My bold.

Problem is, in my experience those words above tend to be an oxymoron.

Generally speaking in the engineering world, the finer you tune a system, this less flexible it ends up being - simple because it doesn't have the slack in the system to cope with anomalies, surges and errors in user input. With the best will in the world the natural friction of fighting a war is such that any fine-tuned system is going to have a headache.
 
#7
The RLC are hardly to blame, any more than the Parachute Regt are to blame for not being used to actually Parachute into operations. In many ways the RLC are simply the messengers in this sorry state of affairs. In fact like soldiers everywhere they do the very best they can with what they have got. Driving from KAF to Bastion may not be glamorous, or as exciting as ambushing Terry; but without those long and very boring drives being made by some very professional people the exciting and glamourous bit would not happen.
Politicians and senior civil servnats make the decisions that screw us.
 
#8
Politicians and senior civil servnats make the decisions that screw us.
Again, the old myth comes out to play.

Is it really so hard to accept that the leadership of MoD is just as much an issue for senior officers (and their staff) of all three services?
 
#9
The RLC are hardly to blame, any more than the Parachute Regt are to blame for not being used to actually Parachute into operations. In many ways the RLC are simply the messengers in this sorry state of affairs. In fact like soldiers everywhere they do the very best they can with what they have got. Driving from KAF to Bastion may not be glamorous, or as exciting as ambushing Terry; but without those long and very boring drives being made by some very professional people the exciting and glamourous bit would not happen.
Politicians and senior civil servnats make the decisions that screw us.
Will you just stop letting the truth get in the way of a good story! ;-)
 
#10
It's a lose/ lose situation. The current ethos of "just enough, just in time" is a noble cost saving system which we all as tax payers would appreciate if it prevents waste.i.e shelves and bunkers of kit lying around deteriorating and becoming obsolete. Unfortunately it has been taken to the extreme because what we have ended up with is "not quite enough, not quite in time.
The bean counter is the only winner on this.
 
#11
Again, the old myth comes out to play.

Is it really so hard to accept that the leadership of MoD is just as much an issue for senior officers (and their staff) of all three services?
I can accept that as long as you understand that the PUS provides that leadership in reality and the service Chiefs are simply advisors to the government. You may remeber the most recent debnacle regarding the legality of offing Gaddafi, it did not matter that CDS was right, what mattered was that the politicians had the last say. In the most simple terms the only real option open to military officers trying to get their voice heard at the most senior levels in the MOD is to fall on their sword, after which they have no position and there opnion is not important. It is avery difficult balancing act and they genuinely have very limited real power.
 
#12
I can accept that as long as you understand that the PUS provides that leadership in reality and the service Chiefs are simply advisors to the government. You may remeber the most recent debnacle regarding the legality of offing Gaddafi, it did not matter that CDS was right, what mattered was that the politicians had the last say. In the most simple terms the only real option open to military officers trying to get their voice heard at the most senior levels in the MOD is to fall on their sword, after which they have no position and there opnion is not important. It is avery difficult balancing act and they genuinely have very limited real power.
The PUS's military equivalent is CDS, and likewise the 2nd PUS works alongside VCDS. Along with the other Defence Board members - including the single-service chiefs (who to be honest, have no real leadership role in their own organisations) - advise SofS. At the next level down, the various DCDS wield power over most of the core functions are themselves military.

Your example above regarding Gadaffi confuses the matter, in that you seem to draw no distinction between politicians and SCS. The reality is that that whilst both Military and SCS provide advice to the politicians, the direction of strategic policy is clearly their decision to make. If the decision regarding topping a foreign head of state could be made without political direction, then we would be in a very bad place indeed...
 
#13
In answer to Western - NO.

It is time to make cuts where they should be made - in welfare budgets - and fund the Armed Forces properly.

What we need is enough (read "a small surplus") supplies "in hand" - not "lean logistics" - and a surplus of movement capacity in order to cope with surges in demand.

We also need enough funds to ensure that the new generation of Log IS is delievered on time and fully effective rather than to an over-optimistic budget.
 
#14
Troops receive just 35 per cent of bullets, weapons and safety equipment within the intended five-day limit, the National Audit Office says.
Wouldnt be anything to do with a lack of aircraft to get equipment (read non existant airbridge) to Afg would it, or lack of vehicles/helicopters in theatre - ah no reason given.

Shockingly enough it is Afg we are talking about, a landlocked country with a hostile operating environment - not a quick trip up the M1.

Deliveries to Afghanistan and elsewhere arrive late mostly because of failures to anticipate demand or delays in getting supplies from manufacturers.
You cannot anticipate user requirements accurately I suppose you could ask the teeth arms to fire x 5.56mm/day, break y vehicles/day (same parts only mind) and wear out z weapons/day to make it easier. Just how many singular items does the UKLF require in Afg I'll bet its more than just a couple, a little more diverse than supplying a large department store anyhow.


Defence minister Peter Luff said a £800million system ‘for a more streamlined, agile, and effective logistics support chain’ was being implemented.
As already said government departments have a bit of a track record for buying shite IT systems (btw what supply system costs 800mil?), I can't see this being any different.

Unless of course he's talking about purchasing 800mil worth of kit which would probably enable the MoD to supply what the troops require by buying, hmm I know, a stockpile of equipment and storing it close to the end user. An idea that went out of vogue after the supply chain adopted "just in time" logistics,(after, without doubt a large consultancy fee), which doesn't work.

Crap reporting and a complete lack of understanding the diversity of stores and the difficulty in suppling them to remote locations within a war zone. Stiil if we can save money..........
 
#15
#16
For the record, this was the MOD official response:

""Various papers and broadcasters followed up on the NAO's report on the use of information systems in the logistics supply chain. The Metro front page suggests that the supply chain is putting Armed Forces' lives at risk on the front line. This is not true. Nowhere in the NAO report does it suggest that lives of Service personnel are being endangered on operations because of delays or shortages. The report in fact talks about the extra stocks kept in theatre to negate the impact of any delays.""
 
#18
It was ever thus. I recall in cold-war days questioning the re-supply process for MILAN missiles only to find out that the answer was irrelevant/academic as there were as good as none in the supply chain anyway.
 
#19
An SSN can only carry X (X being a classified number) of missiles which does not equal Y (Y being total UK stockpile, and again I believe a classified number).

Even if the Duty TLAM Shooter fired her warloads off, she'd still have to rearm a few times prior to exhausting the stockpile. Also, don't forget the wonderful concept of 'attrition buys' - a quick review of UK TLAM engagements in the 15 or so years since it entered service show that we've probably fired off the entire arsenal already at least once. If we need more, we'll just buy some more!
 
#20

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top