Foreign procurement fails

News and discussion threads on defence in other parts of the world.
J. Tattersall

Foreign procurement fails

Post by J. Tattersall »

One of the things we're really good at is self criticism. Half truths are rarely scrutinised for their their missing other half of the truth. We tend to accept the assertions of our neighbours at face value and use them as a point of reference for deeper self criticism. There is the assumption that British defence procurement and its people are uniquely incompetent, that any tabloid reader or blogger could do better, however unqualified. The former may of course belong to a group of human beings whose DNA makes them uniquely bad at procuring things, one which also conveys a herding instinct making them all apply to exactly the same employer. Of course one forgets successes: e.g. which government procurement agency procured thousands of ventilators at incredibly short notice for the NHS, or millions of items of PPE?

There could of course be a more rational explanation than one of serial incompetence that no government has ever been apparently able to fix. An explanation founded on the unique conditions of armament procurement and the management of defence. In which case one might expect other industrialised countries to have similar issues in the development of new defence products and capabilities. This topic its dedicated to looking at (apparent) procurement fails in other countries, particularly ones that are also major arms developers.

J. Tattersall

Re: Foreign procurement fails

Post by J. Tattersall »

USS ZUMWALT class destroyers.
https://euro-sd.com/2020/10/news/sea/19 ... ires-sm-2/

Built around an Advanced Gun System whose unique ammunition was later cancelled when its cost reached $ 1 million per round (that's really shelling out). Its guns have never been fired. Over 30 ships were planned but only three were ever built. After four years in service it has a few days ago fired its first missile.

A comparison with the RN's type 45 may be not exactly comparing like with like, however in spite of the RN destroyer's well publicised criticisms its main armaments (Sea Viper, Mk8 gun, Harpoon) do work.

So what lessons can we draw from the USN's Zumwalt class?

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: any tabloid reader
:)
J. Tattersall wrote:A comparison with the RN's type 45 may be not exactly comparing like with like, however
[...]
what lessons can we draw
It looks likely that this
"National Security Advisor Robert O’Brien said -quote from The Diplomat - this week that an array of ships across the fleet will be upgraded to operate hypersonic missiles, starting with the Virginia-class nuclear attack submarines and continuing to the Zumwalt-class destroyers [and then the Arleigh Burke fleet]*. [...] to massively increase the lethality of the U.S. Navy’s surface fleet, offering a critical edge in the Pacific.

[...]*) the existing VLS containers on the Burkes are too small by far to accommodate the Conventional Prompt Strike vehicle."
will happen before all of the T45 class will have their power problems rectified thru a refit prgm
... a parallel to Zumwalt refit as for their major weapon system? So a well chosen example then.

However, the much vaunted (and needed) ABM capability might need to wait for the T4X, in the light of this
"October 21, 20202:28 PM by Reuters,Updated 2 days ago
UK government to consider implications of one-year spending review on defence"

A draw? Both classes have/ will snatch victory out of the claws of defeat/ disaster, despite of having failed with their ambition to be at the cutting edge of innovation, namely
-stealth, and
-all-electric ship.

The score could be a draw again with hyper-velocity antiship weapon vs. state-of-the-art ABM, but that looks less likely.
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)

mr.fred
Senior Member
Posts: 1468
Joined: 06 May 2015, 22:53
United Kingdom

Re: Foreign procurement fails

Post by mr.fred »

One could always look to the US in many areas, but often you have to be following the programmes right through to see it. If you look back all you see is the end point rather than how they got there and frequently a troubled programme is rectified through continued expenditure where in other nations the system in question is bought and used as-is.

Look at the US armoured vehicle programmes, for example. They’ve been through dead-ends that make FRES look like pocket change.

One could cite Comanche, or the Sgt. York as other costly failed programmes.

Germany has had all sorts of problems keeping their equipment serviceable and the export success of the Leopard stems from them buying large quantities during the Cold war and selling them off cheap after the fall of the Soviet Union

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

Re: Foreign procurement fails

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

mr.fred wrote:dead-ends that make FRES look like pocket change.
Absolutely right, the opener teased me to follow down the narrow alley, where there was a street light ' lit at the entrance'.

Though the Main Ground Combatant (Battleship :) ) US Army project followed these same tracks I understand that the Bradley replacement competition is done at industry's expense
- which made it affordable to allow the first go at it to fall apart, and do a restart (with more bidders, and wider constellations gathered around the old ones)
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)

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5657
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Foreign procurement fails

Post by SW1 »

If the defence is that other countries mess up procurement so we’re just like everyone else then it’s not a very good defence. The US has more money than it knows what to do with, the problem is the U.K. thinks it does, but doesn’t.

Countries that have limited budgets and know they have limited budgets tend to do better as there much more focused on whats possible.

mr.fred
Senior Member
Posts: 1468
Joined: 06 May 2015, 22:53
United Kingdom

Re: Foreign procurement fails

Post by mr.fred »

SW1 wrote:If the defence is that other countries mess up procurement so we’re just like everyone else then it’s not a very good defence. The US has more money than it knows what to do with, the problem is the U.K. thinks it does, but doesn’t.

Countries that have limited budgets and know they have limited budgets tend to do better as there much more focused on whats possible.
Do they though?
Or do we only hear about our and the US’ problems because it’s all out there in English?
The Germans had problems with their Frigates
https://spectrum.ieee.org/riskfactor/co ... ails-tests
and the vaunted Puma IFV has had problems of its own:
https://adbr.com.au/german-puma-ifv-pro ... ce-report/
The Spanish had a submarine that needed a redesign because it couldn’t resurface once submerged
https://www.defensenews.com/naval/2018/ ... submarine/

I don’t think we are trying to excuse problems in Defence procurement, but rather highlight that it is not a uniquely British problem.

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

Re: Foreign procurement fails

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

SW1 wrote:know they have limited budgets tend to do better as there much more focused on whats possible.
Like I've said a couple of times, I tend to follow Israel, Singapore and Finland as for getting VFM in their procurement.
- all fairly well to do places
- they all still have 'limited budgets' not just because of their size
BUT because they all have conscription and therefore the 'war machine' that needs to be fed is rather sizable compared to the size of country.

Necessity may be ' the mother of all invention' but it also forces rigour in thinking as to 1. what is the requirement, 2. how does it (when met) contribute to the overall capability of the forces, 3... therefore getting projects rank ordered (the cut off is somewhere there, down the list) is easier to achieve
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)

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5657
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Foreign procurement fails

Post by SW1 »

mr.fred wrote:
SW1 wrote:If the defence is that other countries mess up procurement so we’re just like everyone else then it’s not a very good defence. The US has more money than it knows what to do with, the problem is the U.K. thinks it does, but doesn’t.

Countries that have limited budgets and know they have limited budgets tend to do better as there much more focused on whats possible.
Do they though?
Or do we only hear about our and the US’ problems because it’s all out there in English?
The Germans had problems with their Frigates
https://spectrum.ieee.org/riskfactor/co ... ails-tests
and the vaunted Puma IFV has had problems of its own:
https://adbr.com.au/german-puma-ifv-pro ... ce-report/
The Spanish had a submarine that needed a redesign because it couldn’t resurface once submerged
https://www.defensenews.com/naval/2018/ ... submarine/

I don’t think we are trying to excuse problems in Defence procurement, but rather highlight that it is not a uniquely British problem.
Didn’t say they were perfect said they tend to do better. Look around the Nordic, Singapore, Australia even France, Italy.

Germany selected boxer same as us in 1999 and ours will make it into service in 2025. Think they already have more than 500. Mind you Germany’s problem is it has lurched quite a lot toward a Pacifist nation since the end of the Cold War. Some say Puma is much better than is presented I don’t know.

Submarines are difficult look at astute.

mr.fred
Senior Member
Posts: 1468
Joined: 06 May 2015, 22:53
United Kingdom

Re: Foreign procurement fails

Post by mr.fred »

SW1 wrote:Didn’t say they were perfect said they tend to do better. Look around the Nordic, Singapore, Australia even France, Italy.
If you’re going to mention Australia I’m going to have to mention Seasprite, NH90, Tiger, Collins-class submarines and their artillery programmes. Again, it helps to have their procurement news in English. They do seem to be doing better of late so it might be instructive to look at that and see why that is.

France have had some fairly good bloopers, two that spring to mind are the Charles de Gaulle needing a flight deck lengthening and some problems with their ballistic missiles. There was also a fairly concerning issue with their Rafales where an ejection seat did not work (although fortunately that saved the jet) but I’ve heard little further about it. They do rely on the RAF for air transport more than a fully capable nation would, too.

Italy I’m not familiar with in terms of defence procurement, for good or ill, similarly Scandinavia and Singapore.
Instead of “They good, UK bad”, perhaps you could tell us why, with examples of what goes right and how that could be implemented by the UK?

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

Re: Foreign procurement fails

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

mr.fred wrote:Italy I’m not familiar with in terms of defence procurement, for good or ill, similarly Scandinavia and Singapore.
Italy basks on the sunny side of the street mainly due to their naval proc; their MBT is in the same class with the ex-S tank from Sweden (they had a T-72 or T-80 shoot at it, and the round did not only penetrate, but made a clean hole coming out, too).

Swedish navy & AF proc have been excellent (err, NH90) as has the Danish navy's. But looking at Denmark/ Sweden/ Norway, they have two-tier land forces, so equipping a single bde can't go that badly wrong if you buy what others have proven already - does not apply to Archer, obviously.
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)

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5657
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Foreign procurement fails

Post by SW1 »

mr.fred wrote:
SW1 wrote:Didn’t say they were perfect said they tend to do better. Look around the Nordic, Singapore, Australia even France, Italy.
If you’re going to mention Australia I’m going to have to mention Seasprite, NH90, Tiger, Collins-class submarines and their artillery programmes. Again, it helps to have their procurement news in English. They do seem to be doing better of late so it might be instructive to look at that and see why that is.

France have had some fairly good bloopers, two that spring to mind are the Charles de Gaulle needing a flight deck lengthening and some problems with their ballistic missiles. There was also a fairly concerning issue with their Rafales where an ejection seat did not work (although fortunately that saved the jet) but I’ve heard little further about it. They do rely on the RAF for air transport more than a fully capable nation would, too.

Italy I’m not familiar with in terms of defence procurement, for good or ill, similarly Scandinavia and Singapore.
Instead of “They good, UK bad”, perhaps you could tell us why, with examples of what goes right and how that could be implemented by the UK?
Well if you want to compare bloopers astute program, carrier program, type 23 replacement, nimrod, the entire army vehicle program, nimrod again, chinook mk2 upgrade, chinook mk3, defence housing the awacs fleet. Duplication of weapon types, some might say army radios.

Indeed it might be gd to see what Australia have decided to do differently.
If you want to look at examples of better outcome I would suggest looking at complex weapons in the uk through a clearly defined goal and regular investment and development of R&D teaming with industry and academia that developed a level of trust that has produced results. If you want to look at air systems what Sweden has done with gripen and indeed the erieye system for for its own benefit and the number of sales overseas they have achieved is quite remarkable for a neutral country of 10m people. Same with Finland and patria in the vehicle fleet sector. Danes and Italians with ships through a continue and sustainable drumbeat of design and production I would add Italy’s helicopter industry. Israel with investment in armour and anti air systems and indeed is airborne istar fleet and sensor companies both for its own use and sales and integration for foreign customers to allow further investment. The French vehicle programs.

In general they seem to get programs into service and sooner they seem to learn lessons of what went wrong and at least try to do things differently going fwd we seem to rinse and repeat.

NighthawkNZ
Member
Posts: 186
Joined: 04 Jul 2015, 08:42
New Zealand

Re: Foreign procurement fails

Post by NighthawkNZ »

I'll put my hand up for New Zealand...

HMNZS Charles Upham... and then its replacement HMNZS Canterbury (with a lot of remedial work was able to get it to work)

The armoured version of the Pinzgauer, useless.

Actually I will stop there as the list just goes on and on...

That being said the last (say 5 years) things have changed and gotten a bit better.

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

Re: Foreign procurement fails

Post by Lord Jim »

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?

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:To hold up Complex Weapons as the pinnacle of UK procurement
Howabout for x-border consolidation, to keep the industry viable?
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 »

True, especially MBDA who work very closely with Complex Weapons, but that doesn't really help the programme management, funding and other issues with the UK's procurement as well as how things are shaping up for the future where we appear, with the possible exception of Tempest to not have learnt any of the lessons still.

At the moment we need equipment that is good enough to replace that which is no longer up to the task, but we have adopted the US mantra of "Overmatch" and are also spending too much time looking too far into the future and capabilities that are barely off or still on the drawing board.

At present we have an Army that has to hope the World stays calm for at least a decade before it can consider engaging a peer or near peer adversary, and therefore has little hard deterrent affect, in turn making any stance by the UK Government all the more difficult as it cannot back it up.

We have tried at least half a dozen times over the past few decades to change how we procure equipment for the Military and we still haven't got it right. The blame can be shared out generously but that doesn't help the poor Service Men and Women who may be asked to go into action without adequate kit.

Yes other countries have also had their procurement failures but in the end it is results that matter and looking how the Australian military is shaping up the seem to have learned from their mistakes for the large part.

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

Re: Foreign procurement fails

Post by Tempest414 »

SW1 wrote:Didn’t say they were perfect said they tend to do better. Look around the Nordic, Singapore, Australia even France, Italy.
France has big problems with serviceability of NH-90, MPA's ,Tigers , Rafale and more

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5657
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Foreign procurement fails

Post by SW1 »

Tempest414 wrote:
SW1 wrote:Didn’t say they were perfect said they tend to do better. Look around the Nordic, Singapore, Australia even France, Italy.
France has big problems with serviceability of NH-90, MPA's ,Tigers , Rafale and more
And we don’t have serviceability issues?

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:we have an Army that has to hope the World stays calm for at least a decade before it can consider engaging a peer or near peer adversary
... the ten-year rule has sneaked back in :?:
1991-2008; tick
2008-2014; NOT tick
and not looking like 'sit back and relax' is the right rule for thereafter, either
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
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5552
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Foreign procurement fails

Post by Tempest414 »

SW1 wrote:
Tempest414 wrote:
SW1 wrote:Didn’t say they were perfect said they tend to do better. Look around the Nordic, Singapore, Australia even France, Italy.
France has big problems with serviceability of NH-90, MPA's ,Tigers , Rafale and more
And we don’t have serviceability issues?
My point being you held France up as doing it better there not in fact it was said in a article here to be tres catastrophic

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5657
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Foreign procurement fails

Post by SW1 »

Tempest414 wrote:
SW1 wrote:
Tempest414 wrote:
SW1 wrote:Didn’t say they were perfect said they tend to do better. Look around the Nordic, Singapore, Australia even France, Italy.
France has big problems with serviceability of NH-90, MPA's ,Tigers , Rafale and more
And we don’t have serviceability issues?
My point being you held France up as doing it better there not in fact it was said in a article here to be tres catastrophic
Tempest414 wrote:
SW1 wrote:
Tempest414 wrote:
SW1 wrote:Didn’t say they were perfect said they tend to do better. Look around the Nordic, Singapore, Australia even France, Italy.
France has big problems with serviceability of NH-90, MPA's ,Tigers , Rafale and more
And we don’t have serviceability issues?
My point being you held France up as doing it better there not in fact it was said in a article here to be tres catastrophic
And my point being in terms of procurement in particularly around vehicles and the like they are. They get things into service and don’t wipe out and start again in a completely different direction it also seems more joined up across all domains.


If you wish to talk around serviceability once in service then ok is not a particularly U.K. strong point and would make for an interesting comparison to France across it air fleets if that’s what your wanting to focus on, I’m sure from a spares and training perspective and what levels off resources are allocated. I’ve haven’t noted France having to junk strategic air fleets because it failed to upgrade but perhaps there are examples.

J. Tattersall

Re: Foreign procurement fails

Post by J. Tattersall »

A bit more https://www.pogo.org/analysis/2019/01/t ... m-tin-can/. Long read.
The Pentagon’s latest estimate for the cost of the three ships is $23,492,500,000—which works out to $7,830,833,333.33 each.

J. Tattersall

Re: Foreign procurement fails

Post by J. Tattersall »

SW1 wrote: I’ve haven’t noted France having to junk strategic air fleets because it failed to upgrade
I’ve haven’t noticed the UK having to junk strategic air fleets because it failed to upgrade either.

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5657
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Foreign procurement fails

Post by SW1 »

J. Tattersall wrote:
SW1 wrote: I’ve haven’t noted France having to junk strategic air fleets because it failed to upgrade
I’ve haven’t noticed the UK having to junk strategic air fleets because it failed to upgrade either.
E3 AWACS, sentinel in the latest round

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:$7,830,833,333.33 each
It can earn its keep by sinking two QE-equivalent carriers (regardless of what they cost in local ccy... like the renminbi :) ) and if the air wings sink with the carriers, Pentagon controllers can tally up a 'tidy profit'
- admittedly, the original concept of moving enough mud inland, so that the Marines can move in without a fight, was not costed properly
... but at the time there weren't many OpFor ships around for building a biz case for this 'sinking business' - which also the RN totally put aside for a while
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