Comments on: An Off the Shelf Lesson http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2009/08/an-off-the-shelf-lesson/ A progressive view on UK military affairs Fri, 10 Feb 2012 10:33:49 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: admin http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2009/08/an-off-the-shelf-lesson/#comment-1621 admin Wed, 31 Mar 2010 18:06:30 +0000 http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/?p=733#comment-1621 Welcome to Think Defence Shaun, yours is a very good point. Over-management seems to be endemic Welcome to Think Defence Shaun, yours is a very good point.

Over-management seems to be endemic

]]> By: shaun white http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2009/08/an-off-the-shelf-lesson/#comment-1620 shaun white Wed, 31 Mar 2010 18:02:09 +0000 http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/?p=733#comment-1620 maybe its just me but i belive british is best the problem i feel lies within our bungling government and mod. we have designed some of the best military technologies of the past centuary the spitfire, boucing bomb, tall boy bomb, jet engine and harrier to name a few, were just being sold short by a government who dosent care about defence or the armed forces as for pocurement i belive cost and delivery overruns only occur because of this governments compleetly unfounded obseesion with middle management who just prolong decision making and are ultimately there to create jobs it is seen everywhere in the public sector most notably the nhs there is such a saying as too many chefis and not enough indians. basicaly i think the government need to cut the crap and start taking defence seriously and start building world beating equipment with a high export prospects to sustain some of the cost and keep uk citezens in work maybe its just me but i belive british is best the problem i feel lies within our bungling government and mod. we have designed some of the best military technologies of the past centuary the spitfire, boucing bomb, tall boy bomb, jet engine and harrier to name a few, were just being sold short by a government who dosent care about defence or the armed forces as for pocurement i belive cost and delivery overruns only occur because of this governments compleetly unfounded obseesion with middle management who just prolong decision making and are ultimately there to create jobs it is seen everywhere in the public sector most notably the nhs there is such a saying as too many chefis and not enough indians. basicaly i think the government need to cut the crap and start taking defence seriously and start building world beating equipment with a high export prospects to sustain some of the cost and keep uk citezens in work

]]> By: DominicJ http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2009/08/an-off-the-shelf-lesson/#comment-85 DominicJ Thu, 13 Aug 2009 07:38:32 +0000 http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/?p=733#comment-85 I still think your missing the point, or mine anyway, I might be missing everyone elses. I'm all for British Equipment, when its the best option, things like the 105 field gun clearly were/are. The problem is, building our own when its wrong starves us of resources when its right. According to Douglas Carswell MP, the 40 Army Lynxs are going to cost £750m more than 40 Blackhawks. Thats £750m that cannot be spent on The Common Support Gun Program, a program to replace the 105mm field gun and the 4.5" naval gun with a new piece. No one is going to buy FutureLynx, and if we gut its funding to pay for future lynx, no one will by the common support gun either. That we (and our allies) will not ever under any circumstances go elsewhere for military kit, even if we have to change our order to suit the supplier, means our suppliers have very little incentive to make worthwhile kit at an attractive price. We'll buy any old tat and our allies wouldnt buy it even if it did work. I still think your missing the point, or mine anyway, I might be missing everyone elses.

I’m all for British Equipment, when its the best option, things like the 105 field gun clearly were/are.

The problem is, building our own when its wrong starves us of resources when its right.
According to Douglas Carswell MP, the 40 Army Lynxs are going to cost £750m more than 40 Blackhawks.
Thats £750m that cannot be spent on The Common Support Gun Program, a program to replace the 105mm field gun and the 4.5″ naval gun with a new piece.

No one is going to buy FutureLynx, and if we gut its funding to pay for future lynx, no one will by the common support gun either.

That we (and our allies) will not ever under any circumstances go elsewhere for military kit, even if we have to change our order to suit the supplier, means our suppliers have very little incentive to make worthwhile kit at an attractive price.
We’ll buy any old tat and our allies wouldnt buy it even if it did work.

]]> By: Richard Stockley http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2009/08/an-off-the-shelf-lesson/#comment-84 Richard Stockley Tue, 11 Aug 2009 22:49:52 +0000 http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/?p=733#comment-84 I don't believe it is a case of assuming that because it's British its bad, but a case of ensuring that a series of checks and balances are in place to ensure a project doesn't become another Nimrod AEW.3. The major differences between Government projects and company funded projects is the business model. If a private product costs too much to develope or manufacture then it is shelved, there will be a pre-determined figure that triggers this. With a Government project funded with tax payers money no such safety mechanism appears to exist. With Future Lynx the budget has ballooned from £1billion to £1.7billion. If it continues upwards, at which point do we call a halt? £2billion? £3billion? Never? The attitude that tax payer will always foot the developement bill whatever the cost is no longer acceptable. Perhaps Government projects should have a pre-determined cut-off cost and an alternative to fall back on in the event of project failure? Perhaps this what is missing from our defence procurement process, if it isn't what is the alternative? More Nimrod AEW.3's? I don’t believe it is a case of assuming that because it’s British its bad, but a case of ensuring that a series of checks and balances are in place to ensure a project doesn’t become another Nimrod AEW.3. The major differences between Government projects and company funded projects is the business model. If a private product costs too much to develope or manufacture then it is shelved, there will be a pre-determined figure that triggers this. With a Government project funded with tax payers money no such safety mechanism appears to exist. With Future Lynx the budget has ballooned from £1billion to £1.7billion. If it continues upwards, at which point do we call a halt? £2billion? £3billion? Never? The attitude that tax payer will always foot the developement bill whatever the cost is no longer acceptable. Perhaps Government projects should have a pre-determined cut-off cost and an alternative to fall back on in the event of project failure? Perhaps this what is missing from our defence procurement process, if it isn’t what is the alternative? More Nimrod AEW.3′s?

]]>