General Procurement

Contains threads on equipment developed by the UK defence and aerospace industry, but not in service with the British Armed Forces.
jimthelad
Member
Posts: 455
Joined: 14 May 2015, 20:16
Has liked: 1 time
Been liked: 0
United Kingdom

General Procurement

Post by jimthelad »

A thread for general discussion strategies for future contracts

jimthelad
Member
Posts: 455
Joined: 14 May 2015, 20:16
Has liked: 1 time
Been liked: 0
United Kingdom

Re: General Procurement

Post by jimthelad »

http://www.army-technology.com/news/new ... id=DN_News

Nice to see Parliament finally getting it's act together.

arfah
Senior Member
Posts: 2293
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 19:02
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0
Contact:
Niue

Re: General Procurement

Post by arfah »

..........................
-<>-<>-<>-

Forum signature removed. - Miss Armchair Soldier

arfah
Senior Member
Posts: 2293
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 19:02
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0
Contact:
Niue

Re: General Procurement

Post by arfah »

...................
-<>-<>-<>-

Forum signature removed. - Miss Armchair Soldier

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 15912
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0
United Kingdom

Re: General Procurement

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

What happened to the previous Chief of DE&S?
- cough, cough (expenses?)
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: 15912
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0
United Kingdom

Re: General Procurement

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

This is an old naval-technology piece, but it caught my eye as it puts a number on the scrapped CEC prgrm (10% was spent... and it would be cheaper now, with fewer T26s and even those few constantly shiftin to the right on the time axis):

"The £500m CEC programme is aimed to provide fire control quality sensor data integration into a single composite data source for use by multiple CEC ships and airborne units for direct and remote missile engagements.
"With the coastal environment being the one more likely to operate in during future conflicts, you need to have as much reaction time as possible if you're putting £1bn ships in harm's way."

The programme, which has already spent £45m, would further reduce the UK Navy's ability to operate alongside US ships.

A MoD spokesman said following a 'comprehensive assessment of CEC' it was 'not necessary to commit to purchasing the capability at this stage'.

"As the Defence Secretary made clear earlier this week, the MoD budget has headroom of £8 billion over the next ten years for potential new programmes," the spokesman added.

UK defence equipment minister Peter Luff had told Parliament in January 2012 that the £1bn Type 45 destroyers would be fitted with CEC in 2018, valued at £24m for each ship, and followed with estimated 13 future Type 26 global combat ships."
- btw, is there any of that mentioned headroom left? E.g. are the Poseidons coming out of it, or the ISTAR slice of the 10-yr prgrm
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)

marktigger
Senior Member
Posts: 4630
Joined: 01 May 2015, 10:22
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0
United Kingdom

Re: General Procurement

Post by marktigger »

with /brexit and an end of EU car building standard we could bring defender production back to the UK

arfah
Senior Member
Posts: 2293
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 19:02
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0
Contact:
Niue

Re: General Procurement

Post by arfah »

.................
-<>-<>-<>-

Forum signature removed. - Miss Armchair Soldier

marktigger
Senior Member
Posts: 4630
Joined: 01 May 2015, 10:22
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0
United Kingdom

Re: General Procurement

Post by marktigger »

but we can still export it across the world instead of the indians doing it

arfah
Senior Member
Posts: 2293
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 19:02
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0
Contact:
Niue

Re: General Procurement

Post by arfah »

.......................
-<>-<>-<>-

Forum signature removed. - Miss Armchair Soldier

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 15912
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0
United Kingdom

Re: General Procurement

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Instead of rewarming the FOAS story it is good that the French are proud of their projects and we get to know more about the projects which are jointly with us; FCAS
http://www.uasvision.com/2015/07/02/fre ... ir-system/

the “Future Combat Air System” or FCAS. Inspired by its French and British precursors — the nEUROn, developed by Dassault Aviation [ehmm, and many others], which first took flight in December 2012, and the Taranis, developed by BAE Systems and first launched in August 2013
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: 15912
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0
United Kingdom

Re: General Procurement

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

So where is the gap; is there one? [As Jim was thinking that this thread could have some more strategic ruminations, ie. vague and stretching far into the future; See: Rumination is the focused attention on the symptoms of distress, and on its possible causes and consequences, as opposed to its solutions - rumination and worry are associated states of mind]

We know that the bomb truck, Tornado, will bow out in 2019. By 2013 we will have enough of JSFs to field 24 - wow!

There is a strategy of gradual build up, though. Not announced, but inferred.
- Tranche 1 Tiffies are filling the gap, but will drop off well ahead of the 2s and 3s; was it 2040 for those?

So, if FCAS can produce something, it will still not be ready this side of 2030; call 2035 (out of the thin air) the ISD for it
- it is that same decade when the Typhoon replacement will become urgent
- I postulate - just to invite discussion - that there will be no direct replacement. Having said that, the fast jet fleet will probably (due to its small-ish size) be two types only
>> any other types than JSF and FCAS on the horizon?
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)

cky7
Member
Posts: 173
Joined: 13 Dec 2015, 20:19
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0

Re: General Procurement

Post by cky7 »

ACC,

was it you who mentioned in another thread that we have our eyes on the us next gen air dominance program? Really hope we do as I'd hoped FCAS would be kept as a replacement for the role the tornado has performed, but in a far more capable and expanded mission set. Trying to make it into a typhoon replacement would really worry me. Doing so could end up making it inferior in both roles and too expensive to ever see service. Whilst I like the f35, the us never originally intended it to do air superiority and won't in the future despite what the marketing videos say. It will be able to look after itself yes, but isn't the right design to guarantee the air superiority we've enjoyed for so long. So IMO we really should be looking at a separate design for the typhoon replacement, at least that part of its duty.

jonas
Member
Posts: 993
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 19:20
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 2 times
United Kingdom

Re: General Procurement

Post by jonas »

Parliament TV. The Defence Equipment Plan - Enquiry

http://parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/55 ... 072895d451

bobp
Senior Member
Posts: 2362
Joined: 06 May 2015, 07:52
Has liked: 2 times
Been liked: 3 times
United Kingdom

Re: General Procurement

Post by bobp »

Interesting discussion, and a bit long winded. However was heartened when the general said weapons would be ordered nearer the time to fit the T26 Mk 41 launchers. He also mentioned we have already Tomahawks that can be fired from them. Also he said the Helicopters cwould also be equipped with a anti ship missile though he didn't go to any specifics.

LordJim
Member
Posts: 454
Joined: 28 Apr 2016, 00:39
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0
United Kingdom

Re: General Procurement

Post by LordJim »

Interesting when the General stated that the Army has flexibility over how many Ajax, MIV and MRV(P) it actually buys. In theory this means it can cut Ajax numbers to free up funding for the MIV to ensure we actually purchase enough.

bobp
Senior Member
Posts: 2362
Joined: 06 May 2015, 07:52
Has liked: 2 times
Been liked: 3 times
United Kingdom

Re: General Procurement

Post by bobp »

In other words no extra money. But also makes no sense because then you have to ask the question , Why order so many AJAX in the first place, either you want them or you don't. Why not cut back on the Warrior upgrade instead? Situation stinks.

LordJim
Member
Posts: 454
Joined: 28 Apr 2016, 00:39
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0
United Kingdom

Re: General Procurement

Post by LordJim »

The Ajax programme has been overtaken by changes in priorities, and why it is seen by some as a square peg the MoD is trying to force into a round hole with the planned "Strike" Brigades. The fact that is appears they can reduce the number of Ajax is very positive.

What worries me about the Equipment Plan is its reliance on efficiencies and even then it is only just affordable. Also the delays in actual orders being placed than seem to be increasing in number and the slow rate of delivery. All of these are going to eat into the overall budget due to the need to maintain in year balance of spending seeming to be the Treasury dictated priority for the MoD rather then delivering what the front line needs..

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 15912
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0
United Kingdom

Re: General Procurement

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

LordJim wrote:Interesting when the General stated that the Army has flexibility over how many Ajax, MIV and MRV(P) it actually buys. In theory this means it can cut Ajax numbers to free up funding for the MIV to ensure we actually purchase enough.
This is the first year the Commands have got that delegated to them. Of course it is in-year, but you could use it in a rolling way, to insert a balance into the AFV delievery schedules, in a simplified way like this:
1. Get the recce in two AI bdes kitted out
2. Get enough of MIV/ extra AJAX to fit out one Strike Bde (form and train two)
- Holy Moly, we forgot that a bde needs to have some arty... order some plenty quick! Btw, something on wheels, to fit in with the concept
3. Get the 2nd Strike Bde kitted out
4. Study the formation strengths and signed contracts carefully, side by side... by the time we get to 4. it will be another SDSR Coming Round the Bend, delivering the "get out of jail cards"
- and formations and their strengths again Moving Around Mysteriously
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)

bobp
Senior Member
Posts: 2362
Joined: 06 May 2015, 07:52
Has liked: 2 times
Been liked: 3 times
United Kingdom

Re: General Procurement

Post by bobp »

Perfectly valid points and I am in full agreement. We are already seeing the orders being stretched out, and the delays placed in ordering. Also as you pointed out the focus is now on Strike Brigades. What worries me is the lack of protection against heavy armour should any of these vehicles come across them.

LordJim
Member
Posts: 454
Joined: 28 Apr 2016, 00:39
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0
United Kingdom

Re: General Procurement

Post by LordJim »

It is the time it takes to get the things the Army needs in to service that hacks me off. Designing and building ships and airplanes I can understand, but when we are basically buying a foreign platforms already in service why is it so drawn out. It should have been like this;
2015 - Planned Strike Brigades announced.
2016 - Organisation for first two Strike Brigades formalised and contenders chosen for core platform.
2017 - Platform chosen and contract signed for first batch of MIV to equip first brigade to be delivered by end of year.
2018 - First Brigade becomes operational whilst conducting trials on future changes to organisations. Order placed to equip second Brigade based on these results and for at additional vehicles to bring the first up to revised structure. Any capability holes are to be identified in this period and Ajax are transferred to the Armoured Infantry Brigades and as Divisional level assets.
2020 - Both Strike Brigades are declared operations in the final form, being balanced and bringing a full suite of abilities allowing them to operate autonomously or part of larger formation.
The organisation of the US Army's units should be our starting point. Square formation of four Mechanised Infantry Battalions each with integral indirect/direct Fire support, ATGW over watch and engineering support. An artillery Regiment, logistical support and a Headquarters component should round out each Brigade.

Instead we are dithering about what the formations should look like and do as if we are the first nation to attempt it. We are trying to shoe horn in platforms not suited to the role intended for the Brigades, whilst not including platforms that provide essential capabilities such Brigades need to function effectively on operations.

If the MoD cannot do it right it would have been better to re organise the three Armoured Infantry Brigades with 1 Challenger 2 Regiment, 2 Armoured Infantry Regiments, 1 Recce Regiment, 2 Mechanised Infantry Regiment and 1 Artillery Regiment. That allows each infantry regiment to have a squadron of MBT attached forming 4 battlegroups or any number of combinations.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 15912
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0
United Kingdom

Re: General Procurement

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Fully agree.

I think Gaby was able to patch together all the major units to be allocated to the first bde?

Then came the big surprise: the bdes will be targeting kit/ manning heavy, but with no organic fires (as in 155, Himars and that kind of thing that can match the reach of any OpFor).

And that crazy - almost a decade - time frame for fielding them.

Let us not forget, though, that if you add assets from 16X (one of the Apache rgmnts, maroon-bereted Gurkhas for air assault) the two bdes will be quite a force to field.
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)

jonas
Member
Posts: 993
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 19:20
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 2 times
United Kingdom

Re: General Procurement

Post by jonas »


User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 15912
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0
United Kingdom

Re: General Procurement

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

BAES gets my full sympathy for this one:

" all the way along we have had to try to maintain that momentum with the supply chain. Trying to keep suppliers on board when you are working in an ever-changing environment has been an interesting challenge for us."
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: 15912
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0
United Kingdom

Re: General Procurement

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Found a good contibution by Das Abteilung on MIV (about why it is so difficult) on another blog, so Achtung! here it comes (only in part; the bolding has been added):
"We didn't buy a FRES Utility Vehicle largely - stand fast the idiotic procurement method - because nothing out there was considered sufficiently survivable for us. We had some very scathing things to say about the ease of an M Kill on VBCI, for example, and lack of protection or the means to grow to carry it was the Achilles Heel of AMV. Yes, we got hung up on things like turning circle and rear-axle steering. VBCI solved that with skid steering for tight turns, but we didn't like that idea either ....... There are also things like support philosophy to consider. We like our AFVs to be capable of field power pack change, but for all the FRES UV contenders that was a workshop job involving recovering dead vehicles to the rear, not fixing them forward. So that would have meant more ARVs, although less ARRVs, more REME Field Workshop and LAD capacity and personnel and ultimately more vehicles out of the line for longer. Oh, and it would be too heavy for the Light Equipment Transporter to carry when dead so we'd need a new fleet of those too or sweat the HETS more. Or you just redesign the product. As I said in the related thread on another forum on this site, modern warfighting and its equipment is complex and it gets ever more difficult to acquire kit that gives you the edge and keeps you safe, especially without adequate funding. I've been doing it for over 30 years now and it has never got any easier. But it would help enormously if the goalposts were not still on wheels. We had Strategic Direction 2013. Before that settled we have the 2016 version. We had Army 2020, now everyone is looking at Future Force 2025. The return to an expeditionary posture requires a wider range of more broadly capable kit that works in conventional and asymmetric conflict"
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