Tornado To Be Axed

[Evanivitch]

Krikkit said:

Out of interest, what is it that makes something like a Tornado too complex for a private enterprise to run?

I know the engines would need manufacturer support/refurbishment, but what about the other systems? I assume that the performance pushes the components to their limits, but something like a Tornado can't be that complex, can it?

Assume, of course, that they take on some trained maintenance crews and manage to negotiate the acquisition of the current kit that the operational units will have.

What's not complex about a twin-engine, swing-wing combat aircraft with obsolete and dated electrical and electronic systems with dwindling support and an outdated safety case?

[Mave]

Evanivitch said:

mebe said:

eccles said:

Things like bags of blind rivets that come packaged by the hundred are split open and individually wrapped and charged out at the same price as a bag for each individual rivet!

Do you need a CofC with that rivet? (yes) do you need someone to ensure that the rivet hasn't changed and that it still meets its original design specification (yes) do you need traceability to show exactly where the rivet came from (yes) do you need a DAOS approved organisation with the correct processes and procedures to monitor and sign off the damn rivet if you have to change supplier or material (yes) do you need an approved QA system to show you are doing the necessary things (yes) do you need someone monitoring and tracking changes in the applicable MRAs? and updating process as necessary (yes) the list goes on and on - it is no wonder the rivet is madly expensive.

And who forces all that on the supplier?

The customer.

[LotusOmega375D]

I reckon there's more money to be made in checking what someone else has done than actually doing anything yourself!

[Steve_D]

Mave said:

Evanivitch said:

mebe said:

eccles said:

Things like bags of blind rivets that come packaged by the hundred are split open and individually wrapped and charged out at the same price as a bag for each individual rivet!

Do you need a CofC with that rivet? (yes) do you need someone to ensure that the rivet hasn't changed and that it still meets its original design specification (yes) do you need traceability to show exactly where the rivet came from (yes) do you need a DAOS approved organisation with the correct processes and procedures to monitor and sign off the damn rivet if you have to change supplier or material (yes) do you need an approved QA system to show you are doing the necessary things (yes) do you need someone monitoring and tracking changes in the applicable MRAs? and updating process as necessary (yes) the list goes on and on - it is no wonder the rivet is madly expensive.

And who forces all that on the supplier?

The customer.

Worked for Racal many moons ago. Without a contract they developed a comms radio to suit an MOD requirement. Said to MOD there it is, this is how much (cheap), comes with user handbook, no maintenance manual... if it fails send it back and we will fix it, You don't need spare parts so just keep a few in stock (cos they are cheap), How many do you want.
MOD would not go down that route insisting they wanted fully service and maintainance manuls and modification control etc. etc.

Steve

[Tony1963]

The avionics, hydraulics, wing sweep just for starters just are not easy and cheap to maintain. If you ever see a taileron pcu with the covers off, you'll understand.

[eccles]

mebe said:

eccles said:

Things like bags of blind rivets that come packaged by the hundred are split open and individually wrapped and charged out at the same price as a bag for each individual rivet!

Do you need a CofC with that rivet? (yes) do you need someone to ensure that the rivet hasn't changed and that it still meets its original design specification (yes) do you need traceability to show exactly where the rivet came from (yes) do you need a DAOS approved organisation with the correct processes and procedures to monitor and sign off the damn rivet if you have to change supplier or material (yes) do you need an approved QA system to show you are doing the necessary things (yes) do you need someone monitoring and tracking changes in the applicable MRAs? and updating process as necessary (yes) the list goes on and on - it is no wonder the rivet is madly expensive.

That's just it, you don't need CofC's or batch numbers on fasteners in the military system. It's not set up for it. They keep on about bringing it in, but it's not happened yet. We record things like what cloth and resin is used in composite repairs, what sheet metal and and any treatments to that metal. Serial numbered items etc are all recorded, but fasteners and small components aren't recorded.

The point I was making above is that I can order a bag of Cherry rivets, and one size will come in a bag of a hundred, as they come from the manufacturer, but another size will have the contents broken down to one hundred individual wrapped items, each charged at the same price as a bag, all done by the aircraft manufacturer supported stores 20 yards away!
It's the same with sheet metal. Most of our stuff comes through the military stores system in 4ft by 12ft sheets but anything exotic like stainless or titanium comes from the manufacturer where it's cut into quarters and charged out at the same price as a full sheet.

Everyone involved knows there's rip offs going on, but nobody wants to do anything about it. If it was a commercially aware civilian company they wouldn't last five minutes.

[Tony1963]

In my view, many costs would be reduced by removing officers from contractual negotiations. They think they're the be all and end all, but hard nosed businessmen destroy them every time. Two years later, said officer moves on leaving a trail of devastation behind.

[Evanivitch]

Tony1963 said:

In my view, many costs would be reduced by removing officers from contractual negotiations. They think they're the be all and end all, but hard nosed businessmen destroy them every time. Two years later, said officer moves on leaving a trail of devastation behind.

Which brings up another point, having a fixed 2 year term for all Armed Forces personnel is a really good way to ruin consistency in major projects.

[aeropilot]

Rogue86 said:

Ayahuasca said:

The mission of the BBMF is "is to maintain the priceless artefacts of our national heritage in airworthy condition in order to commemorate those who have fallen in the service of this country, to promote the modern day Air Force and to inspire the future generations."

Not a memorial specific to the BOB now, although that was its original purpose. It does not operate any jets, so I doubt it is going to start with a Tornado.

It was (briefly) renamed the RAFMF (Memorial Flight) in around 2012 or so, but people are so used to calling it 'BBMF' that it caused some confusion and they dropped it.

And it was originally called the RAF Historic Aircraft Flight up until the Lancaster joined the flight in 1973, at which point it was remaned the RAF Battle of Britain Flight
Although officially called the RAF Historic Aircraft flight, a Spit and Hurricane display from the late 50's onwards by the flight had almost always been billed as the Battle of Britain Flight, so it was a logical name change, even with the Lanc joining the flight.

[IanH755]

Tony1963 said:

In my view, many costs would be reduced by removing officers from contractual negotiations. They think they're the be all and end all, but hard nosed businessmen destroy them every time. Two years later, said officer moves on leaving a trail of devastation behind.

Unfortunately Officers aren't trained or experienced in the same way that their contract "opposition" is when it comes to writing/agreeing them.

However when you've currently got 7500 officers (minus around 1800 which are pilots/aircrew) but only 23,000 people for them to lead (roughly 3 airmen for each officer) and lots of jobs where there will only be 1 officer leading dozens of people, you end up with a situation where you are forced to create "jobs for the boys" to justify keeping all these Officers in a job, despite the number of enlisted dropping rapidly.

[jason61c]

IanH755 said:

Unfortunately Officers aren't trained or experienced in the same way that their contract "opposition" is when it comes to writing/agreeing them.

However when you've currently got 7500 officers (minus around 1800 which are pilots/aircrew) but only 23,000 people for them to lead (roughly 3 airmen for each officer) and lots of jobs where there will only be 1 officer leading dozens of people, you end up with a situation where you are forced to create "jobs for the boys" to justify keeping all these Officers in a job, despite the number of enlisted dropping rapidly.

They should just drop the numbers of 'officers'. Also recruit and train them better, work out who the actual leaders are and be allowed to offer contract changes to the others.

[IanH755]

jason61c said:

They should just drop the numbers of 'officers'.

Guess what kind of Rank decides what the manning levels for Officers should be so it very rarely happens.

Just as a point, in 2015 we had over 200 Officers with a rank equivalent to "General" or above (OF-6 to OF-9 in this PDF) so thats 200 "Generals" for about 30k total staff, meaning 1 "General" per 150 people which is a ridiculous amount of upper management.

Just to highlight how ridiculous that number is, the Army had only 200 Generals for 82,000 people in 2015 and the Army has since found that dropping the number of Generals by 40% in the past 5 years (now only 85) has hugely improved the service!

jason61c said:

Also recruit and train them better, work out who the actual leaders are and be allowed to offer contract changes to the others.

I wouldn't want any "non-professional contract writer" i.e. an Officer, anywhere near a contract if I was the MOD but, yet again, it's the services themselves who state that they want their little mitts on a piece of the action (job creation). IMHO contractual negotiation should be farmed out to those already in that industry and those who have a proven track record of excellence, not someone who will spend a maximum of 2 years on the job and arrive with no/little experience.

Edited by IanH755 on Friday 27th April 23:01

[Kccv23highliftcam]

"Yawn".

It is actually the treasury who decides what gets spent on what. Senior officers can offer an opinion only present a case.


And who decided that F35b disaster? [ No it's not a disaster, it's "under development" ]

Oh the then Prime Minister that's who, because he said so!

[Mave]

Kccv23highliftcam said:

"Yawn".

It is actually the treasury who decides what gets spent on what. Senior officers can offer an opinion only present a case

The treasury don't decide the details, and that's where the costs, and success or failure of a programme reside.

[Kccv23highliftcam]

Mave said:

Kccv23highliftcam said:

"Yawn".

It is actually the treasury who decides what gets spent on what. Senior officers can offer an opinion only present a case

The treasury don't decide the details, and that's where the costs, and success or failure of a programme reside.

I think you'll find that they do, manning costs/numbers, amounts of ammunition, capabilities [or not] all down to the treasury civil service to vet and disapprove.

[mebe]

Think you need to provide some evidence for that claim.

[IanH755]

The treasury set the overall amount the MOD can spent as a whole but not on each individual project within the MOD.

[ecsrobin]

aeropilot said:

Rogue86 said:

Ayahuasca said:

The mission of the BBMF is "is to maintain the priceless artefacts of our national heritage in airworthy condition in order to commemorate those who have fallen in the service of this country, to promote the modern day Air Force and to inspire the future generations."

Not a memorial specific to the BOB now, although that was its original purpose. It does not operate any jets, so I doubt it is going to start with a Tornado.

It was (briefly) renamed the RAFMF (Memorial Flight) in around 2012 or so, but people are so used to calling it 'BBMF' that it caused some confusion and they dropped it.

And it was originally called the RAF Historic Aircraft Flight up until the Lancaster joined the flight in 1973, at which point it was remaned the RAF Battle of Britain Flight
Although officially called the RAF Historic Aircraft flight, a Spit and Hurricane display from the late 50's onwards by the flight had almost always been billed as the Battle of Britain Flight, so it was a logical name change, even with the Lanc joining the flight.

I volunteered with the BBMF 2009-2014 and it was always RAFBBMF.

[CharlesdeGaulle]

IanH755 said:

jason61c said:

They should just drop the numbers of 'officers'.

Guess what kind of Rank decides what the manning levels for Officers should be so it very rarely happens.

Just as a point, in 2015 we had over 200 Officers with a rank equivalent to "General" or above (OF-6 to OF-9 in this PDF) so thats 200 "Generals" for about 30k total staff, meaning 1 "General" per 150 people which is a ridiculous amount of upper management.

Both the RN and RAF are 'over-officered' compared to the Army and to historical and wartime norms. That, in part, accounts for the over-representation of those services in the DE&S.

Notwithstanding, to claim, as some here seem to, that the Services are wrong to want their staff involved in contract negotiations or it is in some way a deficiency, seems to me to be flawed. Why on earth wouldn't you want the end-user involved?

The CS and Commercial branches are, by and large, populated by poor quality staff. What makes it worse is that many of them seem to be driven largely by envy of their uniformed colleagues and their T&Cs.

Industry may have the upper hand in many negotiations, but to blame the uniformed personnel is to rather miss the reality.

Edited by CharlesdeGaulle on Saturday 28th April 21:27

[Mave]

Kccv23highliftcam said:

Mave said:

Kccv23highliftcam said:

"Yawn".

It is actually the treasury who decides what gets spent on what. Senior officers can offer an opinion only present a case

The treasury don't decide the details, and that's where the costs, and success or failure of a programme reside.

I think you'll find that they do, manning costs/numbers, amounts of ammunition, capabilities [or not] all down to the treasury civil service to vet and disapprove.

I think you'll find that they don't.
Agreement of what kind of corrosion spec, storage spec, bird strike spec, humidity spec, sand spec, shock spec etc. are not approved by the treasury.