I doubt it’s about profiteering, more likely the fact the pool of nuclear engineers and scientists is rapidly diminishing and will only accelerate over the next decade.ArmChairCivvy wrote:It is the wrong place for profiteering... next: a national fitting out facility for warships; may be?SW1 wrote:intends to effectively renationalise management of the Atomic Weapons Establishment (AWE)
Nuclear Weapons
Re: Nuclear Weapons
- ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: Nuclear Weapons
The submarine service was 36% short at one stage... no wonder they take one year breathers between decommissioning T's and commissioning A's.SW1 wrote: the pool of nuclear engineers
But are gvmnt salary tables an answer to the above? I hear the new EDF power plant could be a 'goer' again
- will that drain the supply that is already short
- or, actually tempt new folks to get the qualifications to enter the industry
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)
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
Re: Nuclear Weapons
ArmChairCivvy wrote:The submarine service was 36% short at one stage... no wonder they take one year breathers between decommissioning T's and commissioning A's.SW1 wrote: the pool of nuclear engineers
But are gvmnt salary tables an answer to the above? I hear the new EDF power plant could be a 'goer' again
- will that drain the supply that is already short
- or, actually tempt new folks to get the qualifications to enter the industry
Gd questions, potentially a strategy alignment on nuclear energy with France could well be in play.
Re: Nuclear Weapons
An observation is that the Government Owned Contractor Operated (GOCO) approach was kicked off in the 1990s at the height of the 'private sector good, public sector bad ' phase (apologies to George Orwell for the paraphrase) whereby public procurement would magically come right if the private sector took it over. A GOCO approach subsequently failed to attract enough bidders to be applied to DE&S.
One lesson to draw might be that managing very high risks of a complex, multidecade, strategic endeavour is a lot more complex than most commentators either make out, or indeed understand.
One lesson to draw might be that managing very high risks of a complex, multidecade, strategic endeavour is a lot more complex than most commentators either make out, or indeed understand.
- ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: Nuclear Weapons
Agreed. Done once (nuclear subs).J. Tattersall wrote:lesson to draw might be that managing very high risks of a complex, multidecade, strategic endeavour
Now again (AWE; don't expect those companies that were in it as shareholders to just disappear from the scene... just that the governance model has been changed).
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)
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
Re: Nuclear Weapons
Thank God for that.J. Tattersall wrote:A GOCO approach subsequently failed to attract enough bidders to be applied to DE&S.