MoD equipment plan unaffordable

#1
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

The way the Ministry of Defence (MoD) buys new equipment is "unaffordable", according to a new report.

The review, commissioned by the MoD, said too many types of equipment were being ordered for too large a range of tasks at too high a specification.

It found programmes are, on average, five years late into service, cost an extra £300m as a result and should be put at arms length from the MoD.

The MoD accepted some of the findings and is working on "implementing them".

The report, written by former MoD adviser Bernard Gray, was commissioned last year to assess how best to reform the procurement process.

It has called for systemic changes and improvements in the planning, management and delivery of equipment.

We accept most of his recommendations and are getting on with implementing them
Lord Drayson
Minister for Strategic Defence Acquisition Reform

Ian Godden, Secretary of the Defence Industries Council, welcomed the report, which he said highlighted the need to set clear industry budgets.

"We don't have a long-term view of what the budget should be, there are delays to programmes caused by that budget pressure which then compound themselves in future years and, by those delays, the cost of projects go up," he said.

"It is this overheating which is causing, in simplistic terms, a major mismatch between what is perceived to be needed versus what is actually achieved."

Defence Secretary Bob Ainsworth acknowledged "problems" in the procurement process, but rejected calls for the Defence Equipment and Support (DE&S) group to contract out the acquisition of equipment.

'Thorough job'

He said: "The government has thought about this carefully, but we are not convinced that such a change would ultimately lead to better outcomes for the armed forces or defence generally."

The report stated: "The Ministry of Defence has a substantially overheated equipment programme, with too many types of equipment being ordered for too large a range of tasks at too high a specification.

"This programme is unaffordable on any likely projection of future budgets. The result is that programmes take significantly longer than originally estimated."

The Armed Forces were "competing for scarce funding", which meant there was "a systematic incentive to underestimate the likely cost of equipment", the report added.

The findings come just a day after the government announced 500 more troops are likely to go to Afghanistan.

Welcoming the report, Lord Drayson, Minister for Strategic Defence said: "We accept most of his recommendations and are getting on with implementing them alongside broader work to develop a future strategy for Defence Acquisition."

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

Bouillabaisse

LE
Book Reviewer
#3
Oil_Slick said:
For some reason MOD seems obsessed with spending 200% extra to gain 5% capability on pretty much everything it wants.
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
Oil_Slick said:
For some reason MOD seems obsessed with spending 200% extra to gain 5% capability on pretty much everything it wants.
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.
 
#7
Blokeonabike said:
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.
What? Like BOWMAN....?
 
#8
Blokeonabike said:
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?
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
Bouillabaisse said:
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.
Ding ding. 10 Points for that man.
 
#10
Blokeonabike said:
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.

And my response to you is : SA80A1…

Best rifle in the world they told us. Well it was certainly the most expensive.
 
#11
Oil_Slick said:
Blokeonabike said:
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.

And my response to you is : SA80A1…

Best rifle in the world they told us. Well it was certainly the most expensive.
Bowman.....Typhoon....Nimrod MR4.....Chinook....the list is endless!
 

Latest Threads