The time stamp for the image below is as follows
This photo was taken on January 21, 2012
Those ladders look like the plain old common or garden variety
Back in February 2010 I bemoaned the lack of engineering technical expertise within DE&S, not that it isn’t there but what is there is obviously in short supply which results in the MoD having to buy in technical consultants or contract specific projects. In years gone by, when the MoD was technical skills rich the kinds of projects we are now outsourcing would have been handled in house.
With state sanctioned vandalism that saw the rundown of the government research establishments and the ultimate sale of DERA/QinetiQ the reduction in technical skills, in favour of management skills, resulted in the the MoD becoming a commissioning entity rather than a systems developer or integrator, the costs of this are only starting to become clear now.
There has been much in the papers over the last few days about how much the MoD spends on consultants, it is always an emotive subject.
The arguments for moving to technical consultants and contractors is based on the simple premise that a non MoD employee does not attract pension contributions and are therefore much cheaper, even accounting for the significantly greater day rate. A secondary argument, to the cynic, is that reducing the number of so called ‘fat arsed civil servants’ plays well with the House of Parliament and tabloids.
I hold no truck whatsoever with argument because we should be measuring value in other ways and it is pretty shameless for this government and others, the MoD and even the media to portray MoD civil servants in such a bad light. They should know better and stand on for their people.
Anyway, back to the ladder.
The example I used in the previous post was the humble ladder, much used in Afghanistan for small gap crossing and getting onto a compound roof.
Defense News ran with a story describing how when faced with a requirement from Afghanistan for a portable short gap crossing system (thats a ladder to you and me) instead of calling on the resources of its 22,500 employees it outsourced the job to BMT.
Responding to an urgent operational request from the frontline to come up with a better method of crossing ditches and scaling walls than a conventional ladder the Ministry of Defence turned to BMT Defence Services to provide an answer.
In the space of five weeks this summer the Bath, England-based consultancy conducted a survey of possible solutions and completed a competition involving more than a dozen bidders from the U.K. and overseas.
Eugene Morgan, the director of systems at BMT Defence Services, says the consultancy team running the project spoke to designers ranging from a supplier of ship gangways to a Formula 1 racing team in order to find the best possible solutions.
Morgan said recommendations on the top three or four designs for the 3 metre bridge requirement was submitted to the MoD last month.
I suppose it’s a good thing that the requirement was met in double quick time.
Is this another indicator of something we covered earlier, it’s not the numbers of civil servants that count but the types.
If DE&S doesn’t have the bandwidth to run an acquisition exercise for what is more or less an upgraded ladder, then we need to be concerned.
A year after BMT submitted their recommendations the MoD has released details of the resulting product.
Sorry for the crap picture..
Roger Pidgeon, the DE&S team’s project manager for the short gap crossing, said:
“We received an urgent request for an ultra-lightweight and man-portable short gap crossing capability.
“In the first instance we looked to deliver a commercial off-the-shelf solution, but none was immediately available on the market.
“BMT’s engineering knowledge helped us to reach specialist suppliers in the motorsport and aerospace sectors who have extensive experience in lightweight aluminium, carbon fibre or composite structures.
“Our requirement was turned into a bespoke design solution by BMT in just four weeks.”
The bridges designed by Alpha Composites can be carried by each member of a patrol. Troops can also use the system as a lightweight assault ladder, replacing the bulkier, heavier in-service equipment. Alpha Composites are a market leading company in hi technology materials and I wonder if any of the trials team or IPT managed to blag themselves a gucci briefcase !!
What does this tell us?
First, there is valuable and cutting edge capabilities within the UK manufacturing sector that we absolutely need to exploit so the MoD/Automotive sector partnership that was started a few years ago has to be nurtured and expanded.
Second, whilst BMT are no doubt an excellent organisation, this kind of facilitated access to manufacturers and technical evaluation role should be a core MoD function. If the MoD and DE&S is going to improve its variable record on buying equipment for the armed forces it needs to bring back in house the expertise it hastily discarded and continues to discard.
Finally, here is an excellent example of not buying off the shelf, not going with the 80% or ‘good enough’ solution. However, given the quite staggering loads being carried by infantry soldiers in Afghanistan it is equally an example where insisting on something other than good enough and developing a bespoke solution was absolutely the right thing to do.
Those advocating more of the former might perhaps like to carry those extra kilograms in 40 degree heat.
Of course we don’t know if it is any good or substantially lighter than the traditional alternatives.
Maybe it really is a Short Gap Crossing and definitely not a ladder!
Which brings me back to the question posed in the title of this post.
If they are so fantastic why does the first image above, the one taken last month, not have the Short Gap Crossing system on view.
Is it because they are in short supply?
Is it because they are not needed?
Is it something else?
Perhaps this comment from a TD contributor might have something to do with it.
Ah that ladder. Awesome for crossing ditches. But heavier than a normal ladder and extremely uncomfortable to carry. Know what the SF guys did? Wrapped some hesco frame around the old normal ladder! Voila! Works better too. Oh to answer your questions at the end. No it’s not lighter. And everyone hated it as with the old ladders you could carry them by putting your arm through the rungs. You can’t do that with these ladders which made them heavier and incredibly fatiguing to carry. Yeah it’s good for crossing ditches but as I said the SF just wrapped hesco framing and got the same result but lighter and more comfortable to carry. I emphasise this because it’s such a good example of over engineering and wasted money. Yes folks. They f*cked up a ladder. A ladder! Horrible bit of kit. I shudder.