Foreign procurement fails

News and discussion threads on defence in other parts of the world.
User avatar
Pseudo
Senior Member
Posts: 1732
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 21:37
Tuvalu

Re: Foreign procurement fails

Post by Pseudo »

Lord Jim wrote:To hold up Complex Weapons as the pinnacle of UK procurement shows just what a sorry state the UK is in. Yes it has delivered some world class if not world beating weapon systems but there have been repeated delays an cost over runs in nearly all its programmes, and the resultant systems are usually more expensive to buy that their overseas competitors, which has hurt exports, Brimstone anyone?
I found that this BBC Radio programme about why and how cost overruns and overspends have become the norm provided quite an interesting insight.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b017mtfc

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Foreign procurement fails

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Thx. Haven't listened yet, but it is telling that the analysis from 2012 is still valid
- at the end, there are also suggested solutions...
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

J. Tattersall

Re: Foreign procurement fails

Post by J. Tattersall »

EURO HAWK DRONE
Germany decides at the beginning of the millennium to develop an airborne surveillance drone, based upon the US Global Hawk but called Euro Hawk. After over a decade and €800 million later it confirms that it won't be certifiable to fly in European airspace and is cancelled.https://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/eu ... off-03051/

They try again this time using the US Triton drone and several years later have come to the conclusion that it won't be certifiable to fly in European airspace and is cancelled to be replaced by a manned aircraft.https://www.defensenews.com/breaking-ne ... py-drones/

So what lessons can we draw from this double German procurement fail spread over two decades?

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Foreign procurement fails

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

One of these " Crusader cost about $2 billion, Comanche about $6.9 billion and Future Combat Systems about $19 billion"
must be close to someone's heart?

How times change; the 'boxy' SPG from FMC that I raised on the artillery thread cost $10-25 mln a year to get to the stage when a prototype could have been manufactured... and they were talking about 'huge' money in the commentary back then.
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Foreign procurement fails

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

We've already concluded the L85 discussion and moved on (and this would better sit with the Gurkha Bde thread), but what do you do when your L85 malfunctions (from 3:00) and a list of spares you need to carry (@4:20) to prevail:
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

J. Tattersall

Re: Foreign procurement fails

Post by J. Tattersall »

Just to show that foreign public procurement difficulties aren't necessarily linked to defence, let's look at a German infrastructure project.https://m.dw.com/en/berlins-new-airport ... a-55446329
Berlin's new airport finally opens: A story of failure and embarrassment
Conception to operation has taken 30 years, with seven missed opening dates. Rather than being a symbol of a revitalized German capital, the new airport has been one of the most glaring public scandals in recent memory.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Foreign procurement fails

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

J. Tattersall wrote:failure and embarrassment
Depends. In Bavaria (Munich) they changed over between old and new in 24 hrs - without a hitch
Frankfurt (Germany proper) 2.4 years or more and a terrible mess - started to avoid it altogether, hence the not-so-accurate duration.
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Foreign procurement fails

Post by Lord Jim »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:but what do you do when your L85 malfunctions (from 3:00) and a list of spares you need to carry (@4:20) to prevail:
This was 2010 though, even the L85A2 wasn't fully deployed t all troops by then I believe though could be wrong. The HK revamp sorted the spares issues on the whole and the A3 programme further increased the reliability so that is surpasses the M4 in all capabilities except weight.

As for Berlins Airport there was a very good episode of Engineering Disasters on the Discovery Channel I believe, that showed the problems with the Airport up to that point, and what a mess the programme had become.

J. Tattersall

Re: Foreign procurement fails

Post by J. Tattersall »

An imminent German procurement fail? The Tactical Air Defence System TLVS

https://www.defensenews.com/global/euro ... e-program/

J. Tattersall

Re: Foreign procurement fails

Post by J. Tattersall »

From the German National Audit Office https://www.bundesrechnungshof.de/en/th ... d-security

2019 Annual report No. 18 - PUMA armoured infantry fighting vehicle still without combat simulator

'The Armed Forces incurred avoidable costs of €46 million and time overruns in developing the PUMA combat simulator. Without a simulator, training is only possible in the PUMA vehicle itself. This causes additional wear and tear and maintenance expenses.

As to the former MARDER infantry vehicle, the Armed Forces use simulators that are permanently mounted into containers. Simulators serve to enhance training quality. In addition to that, it is less costly to use simulators instead of large defence vehicles for training. The simulator for the new PUMA vehicle was to be installed in the vehicle itself and not in a container. Costs incurred for developing and procuring the new simulator technology have hit €105.7 million so far.

Since 2006, the army has been profoundly concerned that using the PUMA vehicle as a simulator station is no good and feasible solution. We highlighted already in 2010 that the Armed Forces had not explored the container-based option. Despite such concerns, the Armed Forces stuck to its plan. We again stated our concerns in 2018. Following extensive testing, the army declined to install the simulator in the PUMA vehicle in 2019. The Armed Forces can only partly reuse existing simulator assets. Simulator assets worth €46 million remain unused. Although the Armed Forces have operated the PUMA vehicle since 2015, a training simulator is still not in place. The Armed Forces will now develop and procure a simulator at extra cost and time.'

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Foreign procurement fails

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

That's only a side story. Puma more broadly suffers from being the heftiest IFV (heavy ones, like T-15 and Namer built using tank chasses, not counted in) and still had to be built into the A-400M envelope... v conflicting requirements.

So will we see what was meant to be an export model, Lynx, take over for most PzGrenadiers and only the creme de la creme (those probing ahead of MBTs) riding in the highly protected Pumas?
- that would not count as a failure
- pushing on with the model ordered in quantity (ehmm, the Ajax variant of the wide Ajax family) without considering a more cost effective mix - horses for courses - would lead to a proc. failure, indeed

We will see (in both :idea: cases)
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

J. Tattersall

Re: Foreign procurement fails

Post by J. Tattersall »

ArmChairCivvy wrote: pushing on with the model ordered in quantity (ehmm, the Ajax variant of the wide Ajax family) without considering a more cost effective mix - horses for courses - would lead to a proc. failure, indeed
The UK has many, many operational analysts, mostly within DSTL, who dedicate a good part of their careers to providing objective, scientifically based evidence and analysis of the cost-effectiveness of options. Most aficionados would contend the UK has the West's strongest operational analysis capability outside of the US. So I guess the two questions are a) what do you think the metrics of cost-effectiveness should be (e.g. what are your campaign level measures of effectiveness vs £cost), and b) based on those metrics how cost effective, in quantitative terms, are the UK's existing army plans?

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Foreign procurement fails

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

J. Tattersall wrote:. Most aficionados would contend the UK has the West's strongest operational analysis capability outside of the US. So I guess the[ two] questions
Don't know who those people are; any evidence?

And the fact that I had to ask what you meant with 'OR' was related to the [other] fact that it was part of my degree in the ... 1970s :)
- have not heard anyone use the term this side of the millennium; did you perhaps study the subject, too?

These days it is about dynamic modelling, scenario analyses... and feeding them into simulations.
- can you find anything that you are alluding to in the DSTL work list? https://www.gov.uk/government/publicati ... april-2020
- pls let me know... and we will discuss further
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

J. Tattersall

Re: Foreign procurement fails

Post by J. Tattersall »

ArmChairCivvy wrote: - can you find anything that you are alluding to in the DSTL work list? https://www.gov.uk/government/publicati ... april-2020
Actually that's not the DSTL work list at all it's a list of business critical models that the Macpherson review, into the failure of the East coast mainline franchise failure, recommended that government departments produce. The Macpherson Review of the quality assurance of government models classed a model as business-critical where:

*the modelling drives essential financial and funding decisions
*the model is essential to the achievement of business plan actions and priorities
*errors could engender serious financial, legal, reputational damages or penalties

The totality of the modelling capability used to inform capability planning and procurement is far bigger.

J. Tattersall

Re: Foreign procurement fails

Post by J. Tattersall »

ArmChairCivvy wrote: And the fact that I had to ask what you meant with 'OR' was related to the [other] fact that it was part of my degree in the ... 1970s
Actually I didn't use the term OR I rather used the term operational analysis (OA).
- have not heard anyone use the term this side of the millennium; did you perhaps study the subject, too?
I can't claim to be a world expert by any means. I've a mere decade plus worth of experience in a previous incarnation.
These days it is about dynamic modelling, scenario analyses... and feeding them into simulations.
What you mention here is a subsection of OA, and no it's by no means correct to limit the discipline to dynamic modelling, scenario analysis and simulations. Those are invaluable, as well as being time consuming and expensive, however the real skill is one of developing a deep understanding of the problem at hand, being able to develop meaningful measures of effectiveness, and understanding how these can be used to measure the relative cost effectiveness of options.

J. Tattersall

Re: Foreign procurement fails

Post by J. Tattersall »

U.S. Navy’s priciest carrier ever struggles to get jets on and off deck | The Japan Times

https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2021/ ... -off-deck/

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Foreign procurement fails

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Worse than what had been reported before. Knock-on effects?
- was meant to be on French and Indian carriers
- F-35C will be rolled out (only) starting with the second in class... which to me would point to design changes (being required) in the launch system

We had a 'all excess costs covered' warranty letter from the-then US DefSec; Dodged that bullet!
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

J. Tattersall

Re: Foreign procurement fails

Post by J. Tattersall »

And from Popular Mechanics
America’s Newest Carrier Isn't Very Good at Actually Being a Carrier
https://www.popularmechanics.com/milita ... -problems/

J. Tattersall

Re: Foreign procurement fails

Post by J. Tattersall »

Australia's Attack Class submarine project faces criticism over rising costs and milestone delays
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-01-20/ ... m/13074440

J. Tattersall

Re: Foreign procurement fails

Post by J. Tattersall »

USN Littoral Combat Ship early retirement https://www.popularmechanics.com/milita ... ependence/

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5552
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Foreign procurement fails

Post by Tempest414 »

they should look to give these away to regional players and have them pay for a upgrade

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Foreign procurement fails

Post by Lord Jim »

I think they are too expensive to operate for the capability they provide. The nations that could be interested are looking for more flexible platforms like OPVs and Frigates that still have some life left in them, or new build corvette type platforms. The LCS has been an expensive experiment that time has overtaken. The lack of a Mk41 VLS hurts them and bolting on additional weapons wrecks the low visibility aspect of their design. The Constitution class are a much better bet, though more expensive they are far more capable.

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5552
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Foreign procurement fails

Post by Tempest414 »

In some ways I see what you are saying but these ships are only 11 years old if they were handed over free and then had 8 NSM and a 21 cell RAM system fitted they would be powerful than most of these countries frigates and with a crew of say 60 not that bad to operate.

Hang on maybe the RN should put in a offer to buy 3 of them for 100 million each add 12 CAMM into mission pods and 40mm were the RAM launcher is and use them as a stop gap in the Indo -Pacific

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Foreign procurement fails

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Lord Jim wrote:The LCS has been an expensive experiment that time has overtaken. The lack of a Mk41 VLS hurts them and bolting on additional weapons wrecks the low visibility aspect of their design
All true; but they come from the era when some California kids, in their first job after the Uni, designed a surf board called the 'New Expeditionary Amph. Vehicle' or something like that
- the threats have changed and the Saudis are actually getting a warship, derived from the same LCS base design... mind you, they can afford to pay for the gas :)
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

Post Reply