Ministry of Defences disastrous decision over Chinooks

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by redleg6, Aug 25, 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 Times have reported the truth on this sorry saga. Insiders knew that the effort to falsely blame the Yanks would eventually fail. This is another classic MOD blunder...the buffoons responsible for this disaster need to be held accountable.

    The septics have, honourably, kept their mouths closed on this fiasco, now the truth has come out. All those who hve bashed the Yanks on this specific topic need to read the full article in the Times.


    Ministry of Defence's 'disastrous' decision over Chinooks

    The shortage of helicopters in Afghanistan can be traced to a “disastrous” Ministry of Defence decision to try to economise by designing its own software, The Times has been told.

    The MoD agreed in 1995 to buy eight Chinook Mk3s from Boeing for £259 million. The avionics software would have cost a further £40 million, but defence insiders say that the ministry wanted to fit its own software — in spite of a warning from Boeing that it might not work.

    When the aircraft were delivered six years later, the ministry found that it could not design the software which meant that the helicopters could not fly in difficult decisions. They have been stored in climate-controlled hangars ever since, in spite of two military conflicts, and when they finally come into service the total bill will be at least £500 million.

    Defence insiders said: “The MoD and RAF said they wanted to fit their own avionics software. Boeing told them that they would have trouble integrating their software, but the MoD believed it could do it better than Boeing. The MoD found it couldn’t design the software for the Mk3s, as Boeing had warned.”

  2. That does not suprise me at all. Is it just me or is the MOD simply run by clowns with no common sense, always looking to take some kind of short cut to save afew bob. When will they realise that you cannot do Defence on the cheap.
  3. If ever there was a Hanging Matter it's this one.
    Overpaid, overpromoted and more then likely too get away with it.
    The 'people' who took this decision are more then likely out of the game by now, retired or move on too better paid jobs in the IT industry.
    Track them down and offer them up for public criticism.
  4. My understanding from what ive read about it is the hybrid anolog digital was chosen for industrial reasons at a time when all digital systems were still not fully developed. By end of development of UK the hybrid system full digital systems had been finished else where.

    The result was UK hybrid system was a one off orphan that was a technological deadend. The costs of validating the hybrid system had also not been included in costs of the program. By the time issue of validating became a issue the deadend nature of UK system was known. Sense the UK system was a industrial not a defense driven descion there was no willingness to continue the project to completion after it was known it was going to be a failure as a industrial project.

    Faced with a failed industrial project that would require more money to finish but never return the desired industrial results the descion was made to simply stop the program and ship chinooks to storage.

    The chinooks sat there for several years because of a refusal to ether finish development of the UK hybrid system or do what was eventualy decided upon last year of rebuilding the chinooks to a existing standard that had already benn validated.
  5. Yes they could fly and no the hangars are not climate controlled. Yet more bollox from the mouthpiece of the spinners. Perhaps the real reason might have something to do with QinetiQ being a private company and hence a competitor to Boeing in certain fields, rather than a government department. How much was made by the few on that deal when DERA was sold off??
  6. What do Boeing know about aircraft?

    I am confident that whatever lessons may be learnt from this sad tale, will NOT be learnt.
  7. the_boy_syrup

    the_boy_syrup LE Book Reviewer

    Been happening for years how much did we waste on Nimrod before admiting defeat and buying AWACS?
    Didn't we shoe horn some UK kit into Phantoms and lose performance?
  8. OldSnowy

    OldSnowy LE Moderator Book Reviewer

    If you believe this crap you'll believe anything - but people do, now, believe anything that bashes the MOD. I'll stick to the version that Boeing were not at all happy at UK trying to maintain some sort of aerospace/heli industry, and did its level best to muck them about, and that the MOD were not - contrary to some rubbish you read now -deliberately scheming to stop Helis getting into service.

    Utter tosh.
  9. Ord_Sgt

    Ord_Sgt RIP

    Not really news, this has been well known for years. The amateurism in dealing with the problem since is the real issue, joe90 will be along shortly to defend the ******* at the MoD for trying their best. :roll:

  10. Or, conversely, when will they learn to buy 'off the shelf'. No bolt-ons, no gold plating - just as it is in the show-room.

  11. Again we see the apologists for this stupidity turn out to defend the indefensible.

    One angle that hasn't been mentioned yet though is the fact that the helos as delivered were not actually unsafe. UK troops are allowed to fly on helos with these avionics as long as they are operated by someone else. The problem was that they cannot pass through the UK certification process without the source codes, not that there was a reason to think they couldn't.

    They could however have been operated by the RAF had someone senior in a blue suit decided that the risk of casualties resulting from a lack of lift in theatre outweighed the risk of the kit developing problems in UK service that no other operator has experienced.

    However, because the RAF is not at war it stuck to peacetime procedures - which also served to avoid embarassing their political masters - and did nothing. Yes, they stuck to the rules - as did MPs and their expenses - but it would have been be nice to see them do the right thing instead.
  12. I'm in a team that does a lot of software stuff and it's not always as black and white as the good old papers set out.

    Turn the bandwagon engine off and sign the keys back in gents.
  14. Ord_Sgt

    Ord_Sgt RIP

    Oh do shut up until you have an inkling of what you're talking about you dullard. :roll:

  15. This has been widely known by those of inside the system and the wider specialized aviation industry from the beginning. The 'Boeing won't sell us the source code spin was always smoke and mirrors' to cover up MOD incompetence.