Nuclear Weapons

For everything else UK defence-related that doesn't fit into any of the sections above.
SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5657
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Nuclear Weapons

Post by SW1 »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:
SW1 wrote:intends to effectively renationalise management of the Atomic Weapons Establishment (AWE)
It is the wrong place for profiteering... next: a national fitting out facility for warships; may be?
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.

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

Re: Nuclear Weapons

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

SW1 wrote: the pool of nuclear engineers
The submarine service was 36% short at one stage... no wonder they take one year breathers between decommissioning T's and commissioning A's.

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)

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

Re: Nuclear Weapons

Post by SW1 »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:
SW1 wrote: the pool of nuclear engineers
The submarine service was 36% short at one stage... no wonder they take one year breathers between decommissioning T's and commissioning A's.

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.


J. Tattersall

Re: Nuclear Weapons

Post by J. Tattersall »

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.

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

Re: Nuclear Weapons

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

J. Tattersall wrote:lesson to draw might be that managing very high risks of a complex, multidecade, strategic endeavour
Agreed. Done once (nuclear subs).
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)

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

Re: Nuclear Weapons

Post by Lord Jim »

J. Tattersall wrote:A GOCO approach subsequently failed to attract enough bidders to be applied to DE&S.
Thank God for that.

Post Reply