MoD equipment plan unaffordable

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by spike7451, Oct 15, 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. spike7451

    spike7451 RIP

    Hamg on to your hats while Liebour sping this one!
    Ironic is'nt it,I mean our senior brass have told them,resigned over it,the Tom's have told them & now a report tells liebour of the mis management of the supply of the right equipment to the troops & yet,they (liebour) still cannot grasp the concept!

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8308634.stm

     
  2. For some reason MOD seems obsessed with spending 200% extra to gain 5% capability on pretty much everything it wants.
     
  3. Bouillabaisse

    Bouillabaisse LE Book Reviewer

    This is also being done on another thread, but the reason why DE&S go for the extra 5% is that military staff at DEC and Fleet HQ and Land HQ insist on it.
     
  4. Sympathetic_Reaction

    Sympathetic_Reaction LE Book Reviewer

    I see this a lot and it is an issue I have commented on in several companies who deal with the MOD. The Americans and several other countries have a more streamlined approach to purchasing....basically buying a system that meets 80% of the whole life requirement, with the option to extend and enchance over time. As long as your current ops are covered by the 80% then you should be able to get a usable system in service in short order and then carryu out upgrades over the next 5 or 10 years as required.

    Specifying a system for worldwide ops and insisting that it meets and demonstrates this prior to service adds huge cost in time and money to the program at the start.....the enhancements may take longer and cost a bit more, but you will have the vehicle in service during this time and can spread the time/cost over a number of years rather than up front.

    It's one of the quirks of the MOD procurement system I don't fully understand.

    S_R
     
  5. And so it should. Or would you like to save some money and give the boys on the frontline equipment that only works 95% of the time?

    Edited to add that this is is response to OIL Slick, not the other contributors who got in first.
     
  6. spike7451

    spike7451 RIP

    Maybe jobs-for-the-boys' when they retire from Goverment er,servitude/cushy life styly*



    *delete as applicable
     
  7. What? Like BOWMAN....?
     
  8. Sympathetic_Reaction

    Sympathetic_Reaction LE Book Reviewer

    No you have that wrong...would you rather have kit now that works where you are using it, but doesn't work in a maritime environment or maybe only has a useable life of 5 years before major overhaul? Or would like something in 5 years time which can work in a maritime env. and lasts 30 years before major overhaul, but cost twice as much?

    ALL UK military kit is specced to work in worldwide conditions, extreme cold (northern siberia levels) to extreme hot (Sahara desert levels)...getting that level of compliance is expensive and time consuming...if you accepted it working in very cold (afghan winter) and very hot (afghan summer) you could have it faster and cheaper....then while you have it start a programme for extending it's capability.

    S_R
     
  9. Ding ding. 10 Points for that man.
     

  10. And my response to you is : SA80A1…

    Best rifle in the world they told us. Well it was certainly the most expensive.
     
  11. spike7451

    spike7451 RIP

    Bowman.....Typhoon....Nimrod MR4.....Chinook....the list is endless!