<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: The Dangers of ‘Off Someone Else’s Shelf’</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2009/05/the-dangers-of-off-someone-elses-shelf/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2009/05/the-dangers-of-off-someone-elses-shelf/</link>
	<description>A progressive view on UK military affairs</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 10 Feb 2012 21:58:20 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: AT</title>
		<link>http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2009/05/the-dangers-of-off-someone-elses-shelf/#comment-91</link>
		<dc:creator>AT</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 20 Aug 2009 15:28:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2009/05/the-dangers-of-off-someone-elses-shelf/#comment-91</guid>
		<description>&quot;After 18 months of negotiations the contract was amended, NP Aerospace were allowed to source spares from other manufacturers and the problems largely resolved.&quot; 

Should hope so, and why so long ? A contract condition, that, in the event of not being able to obtain spares from the single source suppier, alternative suppliers can be used, maybe with reasonable royality payments, should have been agreed at the outset ?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;After 18 months of negotiations the contract was amended, NP Aerospace were allowed to source spares from other manufacturers and the problems largely resolved.&#8221; </p>
<p>Should hope so, and why so long ? A contract condition, that, in the event of not being able to obtain spares from the single source suppier, alternative suppliers can be used, maybe with reasonable royality payments, should have been agreed at the outset ?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: admin</title>
		<link>http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2009/05/the-dangers-of-off-someone-elses-shelf/#comment-48</link>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 04 Jun 2009 12:54:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2009/05/the-dangers-of-off-someone-elses-shelf/#comment-48</guid>
		<description>Anon makes the point that it would be nice to credit the original authors of this piece, the NAO.

The piece is original and uses many sources for inspiration and factual accuracy including the NAO report but this was one of many sources. 

Also, the NAO report is highlighted in a previous singular post.

If any confusion has been caused this is not the intent and there is no deliberate obscuration of sources.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Anon makes the point that it would be nice to credit the original authors of this piece, the NAO.</p>
<p>The piece is original and uses many sources for inspiration and factual accuracy including the NAO report but this was one of many sources. </p>
<p>Also, the NAO report is highlighted in a previous singular post.</p>
<p>If any confusion has been caused this is not the intent and there is no deliberate obscuration of sources.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Anon</title>
		<link>http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2009/05/the-dangers-of-off-someone-elses-shelf/#comment-47</link>
		<dc:creator>Anon</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 04 Jun 2009 10:45:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2009/05/the-dangers-of-off-someone-elses-shelf/#comment-47</guid>
		<description>It would be nice to credit the original authors of this piece, the National Audit Office&#039;s report Support to High Intensity Operations, Box 3 page 13.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It would be nice to credit the original authors of this piece, the National Audit Office&#8217;s report Support to High Intensity Operations, Box 3 page 13.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: DominicJ</title>
		<link>http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2009/05/the-dangers-of-off-someone-elses-shelf/#comment-44</link>
		<dc:creator>DominicJ</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 22 May 2009 13:38:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2009/05/the-dangers-of-off-someone-elses-shelf/#comment-44</guid>
		<description>&quot;Off the Shelf&quot; and &quot;Urgent Operating Requirement&quot; are two very different issues, planned and unplanned procurement, and its at best, unfair, and at worst downright devious to mix the two.


Planned Procurement is for needs that have been identified in advance, which either need a custom solution, Eurofighter, F-35 Type 45 Destroyer, SA80, Challenger 2 or have an existing solution that can be bought &quot;off the shelf&quot;, such as the Chinook Helicopter.
Its hard to argue the SA80, Eurofighter and Darling Class were more successful purchases than the Chinook.

And its simply not true that had we bought Leapord Tanks instead of Challenger Twos we&#039;d be running out of supplies left right and centre.


Unplanned procurement is something else entirely.
For some reason, we apparently had no idea we were going mine resistant vehicles in Afghanistan,.
When it became clear that we would, we could either buy what was available Cougar, or see what BAE Land Systems could design and build for us.
Although are Mastiff fleet was down to 70% of its nominal strength, could anyone else have provided more operational vehicles in the time frame?


We shouldnt end up 4 years into a war with the wrong kit, but if we do, its no ones fault but our own, and certainly has no relevence over who we should buy our planned requirements from and under no circumstances does it means that no product on the market is ever suitable.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;Off the Shelf&#8221; and &#8220;Urgent Operating Requirement&#8221; are two very different issues, planned and unplanned procurement, and its at best, unfair, and at worst downright devious to mix the two.</p>
<p>Planned Procurement is for needs that have been identified in advance, which either need a custom solution, Eurofighter, F-35 Type 45 Destroyer, SA80, Challenger 2 or have an existing solution that can be bought &#8220;off the shelf&#8221;, such as the Chinook Helicopter.<br />
Its hard to argue the SA80, Eurofighter and Darling Class were more successful purchases than the Chinook.</p>
<p>And its simply not true that had we bought Leapord Tanks instead of Challenger Twos we&#8217;d be running out of supplies left right and centre.</p>
<p>Unplanned procurement is something else entirely.<br />
For some reason, we apparently had no idea we were going mine resistant vehicles in Afghanistan,.<br />
When it became clear that we would, we could either buy what was available Cougar, or see what BAE Land Systems could design and build for us.<br />
Although are Mastiff fleet was down to 70% of its nominal strength, could anyone else have provided more operational vehicles in the time frame?</p>
<p>We shouldnt end up 4 years into a war with the wrong kit, but if we do, its no ones fault but our own, and certainly has no relevence over who we should buy our planned requirements from and under no circumstances does it means that no product on the market is ever suitable.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Richard Stockley</title>
		<link>http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2009/05/the-dangers-of-off-someone-elses-shelf/#comment-41</link>
		<dc:creator>Richard Stockley</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 19 May 2009 22:46:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2009/05/the-dangers-of-off-someone-elses-shelf/#comment-41</guid>
		<description>The Dangers of the &#039;Traditional&#039; Route

UOR&#039;s do create contractual and supply problems however, it is therefore difficult to comprehend how even after many years of service the Army suddenly finds itself short of such items as Westland Lynx Tail Rotor Drive Shafts, critical items that should never be in short supply.  IRCM (Infra Red Counter Measure) attachment bolts, only to be informed that there were no spares available as none were ever supplied or ordered, these situations took years to effectively resolve.  PBN Islander nose wheel hub bolts were equally scarce even though they could’ve been purchased from a civillian company over the internet and delivered in days.  This highlights the dangers of procuring an aircraft which has no civilian equivalent and when a civillian aircraft is procured, having a logistical supply system that is so financially and bureaucratically constipated that it becomes operationally inflexible even when spare parts are critically short.  This is in addition to the contractual problems of the equipment provider.  Shortages of equipment supplied through a UOR can be forgiven as spares are limited by the production output of the factory, such is the nature of the beast.  To run short of spares for equipment that has been in service for a number of years and is provided by a supposed sovereign company is both unacceptable and unforgivable.  Rommel was right, “Before you win a battle, you must win the war with the quartermasters!”</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The Dangers of the &#8216;Traditional&#8217; Route</p>
<p>UOR&#8217;s do create contractual and supply problems however, it is therefore difficult to comprehend how even after many years of service the Army suddenly finds itself short of such items as Westland Lynx Tail Rotor Drive Shafts, critical items that should never be in short supply.  IRCM (Infra Red Counter Measure) attachment bolts, only to be informed that there were no spares available as none were ever supplied or ordered, these situations took years to effectively resolve.  PBN Islander nose wheel hub bolts were equally scarce even though they could’ve been purchased from a civillian company over the internet and delivered in days.  This highlights the dangers of procuring an aircraft which has no civilian equivalent and when a civillian aircraft is procured, having a logistical supply system that is so financially and bureaucratically constipated that it becomes operationally inflexible even when spare parts are critically short.  This is in addition to the contractual problems of the equipment provider.  Shortages of equipment supplied through a UOR can be forgiven as spares are limited by the production output of the factory, such is the nature of the beast.  To run short of spares for equipment that has been in service for a number of years and is provided by a supposed sovereign company is both unacceptable and unforgivable.  Rommel was right, “Before you win a battle, you must win the war with the quartermasters!”</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

