• ARRSE have partnered with Armadillo Merino to bring you an ARRSE exclusive, generous discount offer on their full price range.
    To keep you warm with the best of Merino gear, visit www.armadillomerino.co.uk and use the code: NEWARRSE40 at the checkout to get 40% off!
    This superb deal has been generously offered to us by Armadillo Merino and is valid until midnight on the the 28th of February.

MoD still failing on kit supply

#1
BBC article

The NAO also says armoured vehicles brought in to replace Land Rovers deemed to be too lightly-armoured are themselves unreliable.
There have been a number of vehicles procured through the UOR process. It would be interesting to see which one has come in for criticism in the report.

Edited to add the NAO Report

NAO Report

It looks like it is Vector.
 
#3
On the contrary, I think MoD came out of it quite well. The BBC decided to highlight a point that has been known for some time – Vector did not meet up with expectations. However, MoD has addressed that by funding new UORs for Mastiff, Ridgeback etc.
 
#7
Perhaps those slagging off the MOD should go and read the report before making their ill informed criticisms.

The report actually pretty positive and points out the superb job done by forces and civilian staff in supporting two high intensity operations on the other side of the globe. Yes some things aren't perfect, and everyone that I know in the UOR community would admit that, but I think we're doing a bloody good job in the process and given the number of UORs delivered, the challenge of supporting the operations, the difficulties of getting spares sometimes, its a far more complex pattern than you might think.

Its easy to say MOD is crap, but try reading the report first before spouting off ill informed crap.
 
#8
I read the report and the MOD come out better than they normaly do in recent reports, they might have improved but they are still a waste of space
 
#9
tropper66 said:
Or the Upholder class submarines, never in service sold to Canada for pennies
Because you obviously predicted the end of the cold war ahead of everyone else. I'm guessing the decision to actually build these subs was taken somewhere around the early to mid 1980's when you clearly knew the Soviets were actually a hollow threat. Did you not think to tell everyone at the time, or were you still at school?

Very easy to smoke the UOR process, but the very nature of them is that the risk process is cut short, therefore you are more likely to get a bad choice. To mitigate against this you buy in small batches, and only purchase more if things go well. Vector didn't, and got binned. Simple as.
 
#10
Tropper - do you actually know who the MOD is? you do realise that its your peers and superiors who go in on short term posts don't you?

Do you understand the basics of UOR procurement - buy now, in a hurry, to save peoples lives, and go for the 80% solution rather than wait years for the 100% solution? Thats why things don't always work, as we're trying to get stuff into service that will save lives now and not in the next decade.
 
#11
One might argue that whilst the MoD is doing a fine job with UOR's the very existence of the need for UOR's is in fact a failure of the first order, i.e. a failure to procure equipment for a medium scale conflict
 
#12
hulahoop7 said:
tropper66 said:
Or the Upholder class submarines, never in service sold to Canada for pennies
Because you obviously predicted the end of the cold war ahead of everyone else. I'm guessing the decision to actually build these subs was taken somewhere around the early to mid 1980's when you clearly knew the Soviets were actually a hollow threat. Did you not think to tell everyone at the time, or were you still at school?

Very easy to smoke the UOR process, but the very nature of them is that the risk process is cut short, therefore you are more likely to get a bad choice. To mitigate against this you buy in small batches, and only purchase more if things go well. Vector didn't, and got binned. Simple as.
Whats the cold war got to do with it, The Upholders would have been a cheap way of complimenting the Nuke sub force untill the new class comes on line, or at a push, a cheaper alterative. Other countrys seem to be quite happy with diesel/electric subs, so why not us
 
#13
Sorry Meridian that is absolute rubbish.

The UOR process is a great thing - but we're only buying things that we couldnt have seriously considered in the first place as being a potential threat. I'm not going into any specifics, but if you look at what we buy, it is in response to threats that planners could not have reasonably forseen and not buying out capability risks.

I brief on the UOR process and one of the key points I make is that USURs (pre UOR request) that smack of "lets use it to fund an option that never got through" simply don't happen. If you look at what we buy, it is related to very specific threats, and not a more general 'we need capability now' procurement.

If you gents in MB want to understand the process properly, then PM me and I'll arrange an at desk briefing for you on this subject.
 
#14
I am not on about UOR, I am on about the fact that in the last forty years the MOD has bought a load of crap kit when better was around. My own pet hate was the Chieftain engine way back in the 60s, and nothing seems to have changed
 
#15
jim30 said:
Tropper - do you actually know who the MOD is? you do realise that its your peers and superiors who go in on short term posts don't you?

Do you understand the basics of UOR procurement - buy now, in a hurry, to save peoples lives, and go for the 80% solution rather than wait years for the 100% solution? Thats why things don't always work, as we're trying to get stuff into service that will save lives now and not in the next decade.
Thank God for that, Jim. Or British soldiers might die because they don't have the right kit!

Oh, hang on... 8O :roll:
 
#16
jim30 said:
Sorry Meridian that is absolute rubbish.

The UOR process is a great thing - but we're only buying things that we couldnt have seriously considered in the first place as being a potential threat.
Like body armour?
 
#17
Hi Jim, I respect your expertise on the UOR's and I would not blithely criticise the process because it is self evident what a fantastic job has been done, no doubt about that at all but that is not my point.

UOR's are evidently an admission of a failure, wherever the blame lies for that failure let it fall. Lack of absolute funding, funding priorities, failure of planning, failure of execution and whilst some things could not have been predicted most could and should have been.

Electronics, vehicles, weapons, maintenance kit or personal equipment are the bread and butter of any armed forces so you cannot defend the situation, we were wholly unprepared for Afghanistan and everyone knows it.

The MoD would command a great deal more respect from people if it was up front and honest, admits it's failures and cracks on.

We were caught with our pants down and service personnel have died as a result, again, I am not having a go at the process but the need for it to such a large scale in the first place.
 
#18
It took seven years to get the Panther, a veh. already in production into Afghanistan. in WW1 it took about a year to develop the tank, produce it, and get it into battle, some improvement.
 
#19
jim30 said:
Sorry Meridian that is absolute rubbish.

The UOR process is a great thing - but we're only buying things that we couldnt have seriously considered in the first place as being a potential threat. I'm not going into any specifics, but if you look at what we buy, it is in response to threats that planners could not have reasonably forseen and not buying out capability risks.

I brief on the UOR process and one of the key points I make is that USURs (pre UOR request) that smack of "lets use it to fund an option that never got through" simply don't happen. If you look at what we buy, it is related to very specific threats, and not a more general 'we need capability now' procurement.

If you gents in MB want to understand the process properly, then PM me and I'll arrange an at desk briefing for you on this subject.
But you would say that wouldn't you, you're part of the machine. Mate the MOD fcuks up on a regular basis, we've all had to manage because of it. Getting something right is the basics, it should be the aim of everyone. I can't believe you want a pat on the back for doing your job, thats what they give you that money for.
 
#20
tropper66 said:
I am not on about UOR, I am on about the fact that in the last forty years the MOD has bought a load of crap kit when better was around. My own pet hate was the Chieftain engine way back in the 60s, and nothing seems to have changed
Chieftan engine was crap (although good in concept), but the rest of the tank was first class - especially compared to the competition. Sitting in a scrape on the German border, I can't think of any other NATO tank I would have wanted to be in when the manure started to fly...

Apart from Vector (which was an abortion), I would hardly say that MoD* has consistently bought bad kit...the grass is always greener on the other side, and there are plenty of examples where so-called alternatives are not viewed well in the hands of their owners.

* Jim makes a good point. There is no such thing as the faceless 'MoD' of myth. The decision-making element, consists for the most part of SO2s and SO1s, many of whom are just coming from - or going to - a field posting.
 

Latest Threads

New Posts