Under the Radar

Released on the same day the Green Paper the MoD also published the Defence Equipment and Support Business Strategy 2008-12 and the Blueprint: The Future Operating Model.

This Blueprint sets out the future operating model for DE&S in line with the direction set out by our Business Strategy. It describes how the organisation will ‘look’ and ‘feel’ by or during 2012. It represents an aspirational goal for the organisation to achieve over the next few years.

The Defence Equipment and Support (DE&S) Business Strategy 2008-12 sets out the strategic direction for DE&S, its’ Main Board’s priorities over 2008-12 and explains the areas where the Board will drive particular development. The DE&S Business Strategy and DE&S Blueprint are designed to be read together.

Download both from here

Blueprint

Business Strategy 2008-12

More Bang for the Buck

I absolutely hate that phrase but it seems to have entered common language, Lord Guthrie and Conservative party candidate for Islington South and Finsbury have created a report, published by the Centre for Policy Studies that outlines how the UK can obtain better value for its defence expenditure.

A quick read through reveals some interesting stuff, nothing revolutionary or original but deserves a read.

http://www.cps.org.uk/cps_catalog/more%20bang%20for%20the%20buck2.pdf

Reforming Defence Procurement

This post is from one of our regular commenters, Dominic Johnson.

It is my belief that there are two key issues facing the Armed forces of the United Kingdom.

The First, predictably, is funding

The level of funding for the armed forces is around 2.7% of GDP, this is the least it’s been since, well, any point in history apart from 1929-1934, the worst years of economic crisis the UK has suffered, to date, and at that time, demands on our military were virtually none existent, indeed, most nations were actively disarming themselves.

On that miserly 2.7% of GDP, we expect our armed forces to be able deploy two Divisions, each of three brigades, anywhere in the world, for high intensity combat, simultaneously, have an additional brigade strength force for an amphibious assault, a further Brigade strength force ready to be deployed on a UN peacekeeping mission, along with mundane stuff like providing air defences for the UK and air defence and garrison troops for the overseas territories, and of course, all the logistical support that requires, as per the SDR.

Read more…

An Off the Shelf Lesson

When faced with the incredibly disturbing headlines of £15million light helicopters there is a temptation to automatically assume that a deal is a bad one because it is British. The Defence Industrial Strategy attempts to maintain both sovereign capabilities necessary for our strategic defence and a competitive landscape necessary for value for money.

It was actually a good attempt at balancing these seemingly opposing ideals but in the face of market led manufacturer consolidation and growth combined with short term and falling defence procurement budgets it is crying out for a revision. DIS 2 has long been promised but has now been kicked into the long grass of the next Strategic Defence Review, due, realistically after the next general election.

The difficulties of maintaining strategic sovereign capabilities AND a competitive market are not unique to the UK, looking at the G8 they all have the exactly the same problems to a greater or lesser degree. If one looks at the major equipments of Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Russia or the USA there will be found mostly indigenous produced items. Aircraft, tanks, rifles, ships, helicopters and transport vehicles are typically those categories that have a large proportion of natively designed and produced equipments.

There are of course some variations but the trend is to by ‘home grown’

We should also not forget that after the USA we have the world’s largest defence export industry, earning valuable foreign currency, paying tax and supporting thousands of highly paid jobs, whose occupants also pay tax.

It is very tempting to say the Armed Forces should have the best the world can offer and to hell with the industrial consequences, the emotion of this argument is hard to counter but it is just as important for the status of the nation and in a practical way to own the means of maintaining one’s own defence.

When comparing Defence with other spending departments it should also be noted that other departments simply spend, health and social security for example, only support the economy by supporting a workforce. Defence not only does this but makes a significant contribution to the nation’s wealth by virtue of these exports.

Can we make a special case for defence?

Read more…

Bears Really Do Shit in Woods

There has been much fuss this week over the Gray Report with all the online and traditional media outlets frothing at the mouth because of the rumoured content and delayed publication.

The report was due to be published before the House of Parliament summer recess. John Hutton MP, the former Secretary of State for Defence appointed Bernard Gray to review the self evidently poor performing acquisition of defence equipment, supplies and services.

Bernard Gray has good form in the MoD, he directed the widely respected 1998 Strategic Defence Review and has extensive experience in industry. He also worked as a defence correspondent for the Financial Times.

The MoD and PM announced the report will be delayed until after the recess and that the version in circulation is a draft copy only. Of course the final copy will be a far cry from the first draft, multiple revisions and a careful pouring over every word by officials will see that the final report, instead of being damning, will say…

“We have made some mistakes but things are improving, we have delivered billions of pounds of equipment for Afghanistan and we remain committed blah blah blah.”

It is likely that we will never actually see the report, its recommendations will be rolled into a wider review being carried out by Lord Drayson and this will in turn be rolled into the next defence review and the successor to the Defence Industry Strategy, DIS2, the elusive document that has often been promised but never sighted.

Read more…

Off the Shelf – Part 2

Our earlier post about the dangers of buying off someone else’s shelf has elicited some good responses and criticisms.

One of the main criticisms is that we have conflated the issue of an urgent off the shelf procurement with all its compromises and that of a more considered off the shelf purchase.

Perhaps this is a fair point, a more considered off the shelf purchase might not result in us being at the end of a long supply chain for spares but then again it might. There are examples of equipments that were procured in less fraught times yet still suffer supply chain issues and the consequences of poor contracts. There are also numerous examples of equipment that was developed at significant cost despite off the shelf alternatives being claimed to be available that have subsequently proven both excellent in capability terms but also in value for money terms.

Broadly speaking, we support the general aim of obtaining more equipment off the shelf but the purpose of the post was to highlight that this seemingly simple and consequence free route does have pitfalls.

Not the same pitfalls but pitfalls nevertheless.

What is needed is not a blind faith in the benefits of buying off the shelf or a slavish devotion to maintaining our sovereign manufacturing capabilities but a balance.

The Dangers of ‘Off Someone Else’s Shelf’

One often hears the call for more military equipment to be obtained off the shelf to reduce in service timescales and costs. It is a well trodden path but it is not without its own particular set of issues and is not the panacea that is often supposed.

Read more…