|
rhinochopig
16,139 posts
68 months
|
Scuffers said: rhinochopig said: I can offer some reasons why the costs are very different based on my experiences when we were designing (parts of) Astute. - Defence contractors have massively higher overheads than their civ equivalents. IT costs a bomb due to restricted networks, etc. Security vetting costs lots, wages are higher due to the specialist nature and lack of SQEP people.
- DEFSTANs are much harder to meet than their equivalent civil standards. EMC and g-loading requirements are higher. SIL levels for software are higher. etc. etc.
- The MoD are not averse to changing their mind mid-way through a project which can introduce massive costs if your design is predicated on an agreed assumption that is later changed.
- Much of the kit is not COTS so needs to be developed and tested from scratch by companies who all defence contractors so have the associated costs described above.
- Generally the skills are lost between designs because the workforce does not see the throughput to remain SQEP so each new project has a massive training and learning cost.
And these are just the things I can think of off the top of my head in a two minute post. I'm sure Doogz can add some BAE specific reasons too. Having worked on defence projects (for both UK and US interests), I recognise all of the above, and appreciate that there are cost penalties with defence stuff, however, getting back to the land of reality, how can a catapult system (that's already being designed and proven) possibly cost £1Bn? I mean, GET REAL. to put this in context, the Thameslink Cross-rail contract was only £1.4Bn to build and maintain 1,200 carriages. if this was private commercial money you think it would cost that much? (as well as it would have been finished and in service some years ago) I agree it is a monumental amount of money and I can't - or won't justify it - but if I was to make an educated guess, this would be where the costs lie. - New technology that the design team thought would work and then reality hit and it proved much much harder than anticipated.
- Recruitment of design team
- Building test and modelling rigs
- However many years of getting the thing working and then proving reliability. Reliability testing and subsequent safety case will have cost a bomb I suspect.
- Design changes based on vague assumptions concerning the aircraft that will use it and the aero team being ubable to provide tech details of things like how much g can the landing gear be accelerated at.
- Changing assumptions of how much space they would have on the carrier to play with WRT packaging.
And don't forget the fantastic and well known project management skills of DefCons 
|
|
|
AshVX220
1,817 posts
60 months
|
Scuffers said: Having worked on defence projects (for both UK and US interests), I recognise all of the above, and appreciate that there are cost penalties with defence stuff, however, getting back to the land of reality, how can a catapult system (that's already being designed and proven) possibly cost £1Bn?
I mean, GET REAL.
to put this in context, the Thameslink Cross-rail contract was only £1.4Bn to build and maintain 1,200 carriages.
if this was private commercial money you think it would cost that much? (as well as it would have been finished and in service some years ago)
The Cat System is brand new, it only fired it's first shot last year. It's far from proven and the design is still being adjusted. A merchant ship doesn't have the requirement to be able to survive in combat, it doesn't have the requirement to have a large number of seperate networks for various classifications and real-time/non-real-time etc. It doesn't carry a large number of weapons for self defence or a large number of weapons for the aircraft that it carries and must operate. QEC has full ATC facilities (a first for a UK aircraft carrier believe it or not). As Doogz said, it's like comparing two totally different cars, and if you want to focus on the volume, then think of it as a VX against a 458, both very similar, but the costs and capability are totally different.
|
|
|
doogz
19,304 posts
57 months
|
The project is clearly over-budget because we're all sat on PH at work!
|
|
|
Gazzas86
766 posts
41 months
|
doogz said: The project is clearly over-budget because we're all sat on PH at work! i know, i've got to reply to a few emails regarding QE class etc etc, pahh its lunch, i'll reply at 1.30 
|
|
|
AshVX220
1,817 posts
60 months
|
Gazzas86 said: doogz said: The project is clearly over-budget because we're all sat on PH at work! i know, i've got to reply to a few emails regarding QE class etc etc, pahh its lunch, i'll reply at 1.30 LOL
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
hidetheelephants
5,713 posts
63 months
|
There's also the nebulously round figure of £1bn to contend with; I'm always deeply suspicious when things like this come out as having budget overruns of convenient round figures.
It smacks of people in a late afternoon meeting approaching the point of no return, oxygen levels dropping as fast as the common sense, biscuit supply fading have finally got past the important decision making/buckpassing actions/agenda points and need to come up with a number for the redesign work budget. No-one cares, fatigued to hell and hypoglycemic the plucky minute-taker scribbles down a guess and nudges the chairman out his torpor to call for AOCB and let's adjourn to the pub 'cos it's beer o'clock.
If the £1bn includes life costs of the EMALS, bear in mind that's 30 years of service for a system which isn't in service on any carriers at all yet(putting whizzbang technology on the front line always costs stupid amounts of money) it's not that stupid a figure. I don't think there will be any extra generators required; the CVF is all electric anyway and the EMALS just takes power from the ship's systems and charges up some honkin' big capacitors/batteries, like the biggest flash gun in the world.
|
|
|
Bedazzled
4,308 posts
91 months
|
s  t we forgot biscuits... revised quote £1.1B 
|
|
|
Simpo Two
54,616 posts
135 months
|
I had the Environment Agency down as the biggest eaters of publicly-paid-for biscuits, but on reflection the MoD must knock them into a cocked hat.
I can with alarming ease envisage a Civil Service Biscuit Eating Sweepstake...
The final: Favourites MoD versus underdogs EA. First team to the bottom of the tin wins the coveted AJ Blenkinsop Trophy.
'On your marks... GO!' 'Om-nom-hobnobs-nom'.
|
|
|
tank slapper
7,759 posts
153 months
|
|
|
Scuffers
10,505 posts
144 months
|
tank slapper said: exactly, but then again, never underestimate the MOD's ability to try and re-invent the wheel.
|
|
|
aeropilot
7,076 posts
97 months
|
hidetheelephants said: If the £1bn includes life costs of the EMALS, bear in mind that's 30 years of service for a system which isn't in service on any carriers at all yet(putting whizzbang technology on the front line always costs stupid amounts of money) it's not that stupid a figure. I don't think there will be any extra generators required; the CVF is all electric anyway and the EMALS just takes power from the ship's systems and charges up some honkin' big capacitors/batteries, like the biggest flash gun in the world. Exactly..... and it's that latter aspect which I think might be swallowing a chunk of that £1bn, from what I've read. It's not so much the cost of the EMALS, as the integration of this 'off the shelf' system into the CVF, especially regarding power. The first delivered EMALS is being fitted to the new USS Gerald Ford, with the 2nd set made already agreed to be fitted to HMS QE. The 3rd set is destined for the 2nd Ford class carrier, and the 4th for HMS PoW.
|
|
|
egor110
2,171 posts
73 months
|
Why couldn't we of just got the same design the american's or french used just the exact same boat which would be cheaper, as somebodys already paid for all the designing.
|
|
|
Scuffers
10,505 posts
144 months
|
aeropilot said: hidetheelephants said: If the £1bn includes life costs of the EMALS, bear in mind that's 30 years of service for a system which isn't in service on any carriers at all yet(putting whizzbang technology on the front line always costs stupid amounts of money) it's not that stupid a figure. I don't think there will be any extra generators required; the CVF is all electric anyway and the EMALS just takes power from the ship's systems and charges up some honkin' big capacitors/batteries, like the biggest flash gun in the world. Exactly..... and it's that latter aspect which I think might be swallowing a chunk of that £1bn, from what I've read. It's not so much the cost of the EMALS, as the integration of this 'off the shelf' system into the CVF, especially regarding power. The first delivered EMALS is being fitted to the new USS Gerald Ford, with the 2nd set made already agreed to be fitted to HMS QE. The 3rd set is destined for the 2nd Ford class carrier, and the 4th for HMS PoW. http://www.navytimes.com/news/2010/07/navy_emals_071910w/ so, they committed to the project for $676.2M, ie. less than half the £1B touted here oh, and it only needs an average power required of 6.35 MVA (from the ships powers grid), ie. naff all relatively.
|
|
|
aeropilot
7,076 posts
97 months
|
egor110 said: Why couldn't we of just got the same design the american's or french used just the exact same boat which would be cheaper, as somebodys already paid for all the designing. Because the yanks ones are too damn big..... and nuclear powered. And, the French one is also nuc powered, and they had an enormous amount of problems with it anyway. Indeed there keeps on being the odd rumour floating around that they might have one of ours or indeed have a 3rd one of ours made to be their 2nd carrier.
|
|
|
MBBlat
70 posts
19 months
|
egor110 said: Why couldn't we of just got the same design the american's or french used just the exact same boat which would be cheaper, as somebodys already paid for all the designing. Well the French liked their Charles de Gaul design so much that they brought the CVF design to use for their proposed second carrier. Plus the design kept me employed and busy for six years.
|
|
|
dnb
3,050 posts
112 months
|
Before you lot all blame the likes of BAE Systems for the totality of the increased spend, here's a couple of stories. The names are removed to protect the guilty.
We were asked to supply an additional "fixing kit" for an LRU one of the forces uses in one of its systems. This kit comprised 3 M8 bolts and some spring washers - nothing at all out of the ordinary.
I suggested to the MOD representative that they should send someone over to a local bolt supplier and buy a box of them (exact spec supplied by us) for a couple of pounds and keep it in the stores. I was told that this would not be acceptable because they had a contract with us to supply spares and we should damned well honour it. Now it turns out we aren't prime, so their bolts get our markup added, and the prime contractor markup, plus additional expense of supplying them 3 at a time and generating a part number, all the overheads of stock control etc...
So it seems we can't help the MOD save money at times since they can be their own worst enemies.
Another item of fun is some of the project review meetings I have attended. At times, there appear to be at least 3 government "experts" to each industry engineer who is actually doing the work. The usual claim is to ensure value for money out of industry. It has to be said that this has got better in the last couple of years. And I firmly believe we do a LOT better than the US does at controlling defence spending.
Another interesting cost that the UK needs to consider comes from ITAR. (Google it if you don't know what it means) Essentially, it limits the desirability of using some US COTS parts in defence equipment. This can mean that you end up designing at significant expense things you could buy and modify cheaply in order to maintain control over who can see and use the equipment.
|
|
|
hidetheelephants
5,713 posts
63 months
|
dnb said: We were asked to supply an additional "fixing kit" for an LRU one of the forces uses in one of its systems. This kit comprised 3 M8 bolts and some spring washers - nothing at all out of the ordinary.
I suggested to the MOD representative that they should send someone over to a local bolt supplier and buy a box of them (exact spec supplied by us) for a couple of pounds and keep it in the stores. I was told that this would not be acceptable because they had a contract with us to supply spares and we should damned well honour it. Now it turns out we aren't prime, so their bolts get our markup added, and the prime contractor markup, plus additional expense of supplying them 3 at a time and generating a part number, all the overheads of stock control etc...
So it seems we can't help the MOD save money at times since they can be their own worst enemies. Troubling indeed; M8 spring washers(or indeed the whole gamut of M8 fasteners and related paraphernalia in every material from 8.8 phosphated with a natty matt green coating all the way to finest unobtanium) are already present in the system complete with NATO stock number, a BS standard and maybe even a defstan, DIN or milspec. If the argument was that they wanted a complete kit with all the bolts and washers in it wrapped up in a bow with its own NSN(instead of just a list of what's needed and a pictogram for the grunts who'll have to screw it together between cups of tea and breaks for banjos) the bawheid in charge deserves a dry slap. The little experience I have of fixing kits is that stores wonks just raid them for odd bits and they're never there when you need them anyway(IKEA syndrome).
|
|
|
rhinochopig
16,139 posts
68 months
|
dnb said: Before you lot all blame the likes of BAE Systems for the totality of the increased spend, here's a couple of stories. The names are removed to protect the guilty.
We were asked to supply an additional "fixing kit" for an LRU one of the forces uses in one of its systems. This kit comprised 3 M8 bolts and some spring washers - nothing at all out of the ordinary.
I suggested to the MOD representative that they should send someone over to a local bolt supplier and buy a box of them (exact spec supplied by us) for a couple of pounds and keep it in the stores. I was told that this would not be acceptable because they had a contract with us to supply spares and we should damned well honour it. Now it turns out we aren't prime, so their bolts get our markup added, and the prime contractor markup, plus additional expense of supplying them 3 at a time and generating a part number, all the overheads of stock control etc...
So it seems we can't help the MOD save money at times since they can be their own worst enemies.
Another item of fun is some of the project review meetings I have attended. At times, there appear to be at least 3 government "experts" to each industry engineer who is actually doing the work. The usual claim is to ensure value for money out of industry. It has to be said that this has got better in the last couple of years. And I firmly believe we do a LOT better than the US does at controlling defence spending.
Another interesting cost that the UK needs to consider comes from ITAR. (Google it if you don't know what it means) Essentially, it limits the desirability of using some US COTS parts in defence equipment. This can mean that you end up designing at significant expense things you could buy and modify cheaply in order to maintain control over who can see and use the equipment. I can remember having to re quote for a job never tried before so there was a lot of uncertanty. The mod projects person felt it was over priced. It wasn't as i'd done similar jobs in the civvie word which had cost a lot more. It cost mod more in bid costs than it did in job savings. Crazy. And as for would could should. Bonkers.
|
|
|
Ian Lancs
578 posts
36 months
|
dnb said: Another interesting cost that the UK needs to consider comes from ITAR. (Google it if you don't know what it means) Essentially, it limits the desirability of using some US COTS parts in defence equipment. This can mean that you end up designing at significant expense things you could buy and modify cheaply in order to maintain control over who can see and use the equipment. It goes much further than that - I'm currently working on a piece of British developed equipment. One circuit board is from France, the rest are British. The cooling fan for the French card is American. We're trying to export this equipment to a friendly nation. Or at least we were! The ITAR lords have come in and said that this fan (which you could probably buy for your PC from a friendly hardware shop) is ITAR restricted, therefore we are currently not allowed to export it. Nothing at all to do with the fact the US make a similar product.... BTW the MoD don't do anything about ITAR - they believe (or at least did last week) that a a sovereign force they don't need to worry about it; its for industry to sort out.
|
|
|
Scuffers
10,505 posts
144 months
|
just illustrates the issue of Chris Tappin about to be royally shafted for supposedly selling battiers?
|
|
