Cut these peoples jobs..
Discussion
Frankeh said:
AshVX220 said:
I'd cut the reporters job, like most media luvvies he's f
king clueless. As evidenced by calling a 65,000 ton aircraft carrier a "boat".
On that error alone I wouldn't trust a thing him or his analyst say.
His use of the word boat is obviously sarcasm. king clueless. As evidenced by calling a 65,000 ton aircraft carrier a "boat".On that error alone I wouldn't trust a thing him or his analyst say.
Ash I think you are picking on the smallest point of what is otherwise a sensible argument.
Those 24k people is bigger than most companies. Coca Cola has only 92000 employees globally.
That many employees working on just one role will never reach quick decisions or do anything without possibly conflicting with another group of procurers. Its a recipe for disaster.
And that disaster seems to happen every time they try and buy anything. Crap rifles, pointless carriers. A nearly 50 year old Maritime patrol aircraft when buying a newer craft from he US or Europe would have been cheaper and better. JSF's in their most expensive form when we could have spent more on the carriers got them nuclear and bigger and bought something cheaper and proven to fly off of them, Rafales even.
24k people could surely have seen that too?
Those 24k people is bigger than most companies. Coca Cola has only 92000 employees globally.
That many employees working on just one role will never reach quick decisions or do anything without possibly conflicting with another group of procurers. Its a recipe for disaster.
And that disaster seems to happen every time they try and buy anything. Crap rifles, pointless carriers. A nearly 50 year old Maritime patrol aircraft when buying a newer craft from he US or Europe would have been cheaper and better. JSF's in their most expensive form when we could have spent more on the carriers got them nuclear and bigger and bought something cheaper and proven to fly off of them, Rafales even.
24k people could surely have seen that too?
Mikeyboy said:
Ash I think you are picking on the smallest point of what is otherwise a sensible argument.
Those 24k people is bigger than most companies. Coca Cola has only 92000 employees globally.
That many employees working on just one role will never reach quick decisions or do anything without possibly conflicting with another group of procurers. Its a recipe for disaster.
And that disaster seems to happen every time they try and buy anything. Crap rifles, pointless carriers. A nearly 50 year old Maritime patrol aircraft when buying a newer craft from he US or Europe would have been cheaper and better. JSF's in their most expensive form when we could have spent more on the carriers got them nuclear and bigger and bought something cheaper and proven to fly off of them, Rafales even.
24k people could surely have seen that too?
Not disagreeing with you Mikeyboy, it's the manner in whcih the media luvvies report such stuff that winds me up. The carrier's are far from pointless. The original Requirement was to take foreign jets of all sorts so would have been Cats/traps. I think the switch to STOVL was because they didn't want a Nuclear Powered ship (for lots of reasons I don't agree with). Also when the F-35 (STOVL) was first considered it wasn't as expensive as it is now.Those 24k people is bigger than most companies. Coca Cola has only 92000 employees globally.
That many employees working on just one role will never reach quick decisions or do anything without possibly conflicting with another group of procurers. Its a recipe for disaster.
And that disaster seems to happen every time they try and buy anything. Crap rifles, pointless carriers. A nearly 50 year old Maritime patrol aircraft when buying a newer craft from he US or Europe would have been cheaper and better. JSF's in their most expensive form when we could have spent more on the carriers got them nuclear and bigger and bought something cheaper and proven to fly off of them, Rafales even.
24k people could surely have seen that too?
I agree about the CV / STOVL argument, I've said all along we should have had a proper carrier. But, with a full complement of JSF these ships will be far from pointless.
AshVX220 said:
Frankeh said:
AshVX220 said:
I'd cut the reporters job, like most media luvvies he's fking clueless. As evidenced by calling a 65,000 ton aircraft carrier a "boat".
On that error alone I wouldn't trust a thing him or his analyst say.
His use of the word boat is obviously sarcasm. king clueless. As evidenced by calling a 65,000 ton aircraft carrier a "boat".On that error alone I wouldn't trust a thing him or his analyst say.
Edited by joe_90 on Thursday 21st October 15:00
joe_90 said:
AshVX220 said:
Frankeh said:
AshVX220 said:
I'd cut the reporters job, like most media luvvies he's fking clueless. As evidenced by calling a 65,000 ton aircraft carrier a "boat".
On that error alone I wouldn't trust a thing him or his analyst say.
His use of the word boat is obviously sarcasm. king clueless. As evidenced by calling a 65,000 ton aircraft carrier a "boat".On that error alone I wouldn't trust a thing him or his analyst say.
Edited by joe_90 on Thursday 21st October 15:00
I work on the project though, and used to live on such "ships" a few years ago.AshVX220 said:
Mikeyboy said:
Ash I think you are picking on the smallest point of what is otherwise a sensible argument.
Those 24k people is bigger than most companies. Coca Cola has only 92000 employees globally.
That many employees working on just one role will never reach quick decisions or do anything without possibly conflicting with another group of procurers. Its a recipe for disaster.
And that disaster seems to happen every time they try and buy anything. Crap rifles, pointless carriers. A nearly 50 year old Maritime patrol aircraft when buying a newer craft from he US or Europe would have been cheaper and better. JSF's in their most expensive form when we could have spent more on the carriers got them nuclear and bigger and bought something cheaper and proven to fly off of them, Rafales even.
24k people could surely have seen that too?
Not disagreeing with you Mikeyboy, it's the manner in whcih the media luvvies report such stuff that winds me up. The carrier's are far from pointless. The original Requirement was to take foreign jets of all sorts so would have been Cats/traps. I think the switch to STOVL was because they didn't want a Nuclear Powered ship (for lots of reasons I don't agree with). Also when the F-35 (STOVL) was first considered it wasn't as expensive as it is now.Those 24k people is bigger than most companies. Coca Cola has only 92000 employees globally.
That many employees working on just one role will never reach quick decisions or do anything without possibly conflicting with another group of procurers. Its a recipe for disaster.
And that disaster seems to happen every time they try and buy anything. Crap rifles, pointless carriers. A nearly 50 year old Maritime patrol aircraft when buying a newer craft from he US or Europe would have been cheaper and better. JSF's in their most expensive form when we could have spent more on the carriers got them nuclear and bigger and bought something cheaper and proven to fly off of them, Rafales even.
24k people could surely have seen that too?
I agree about the CV / STOVL argument, I've said all along we should have had a proper carrier. But, with a full complement of JSF these ships will be far from pointless.
My central point then is that the 24k people in the department are working on projects with no clear objective or sense of what is good purchasing practice. Most importantly they seem oblivious to the MOD's ability to tell the supplier to get lost on cancellation clauses that cost more than the build.
But even I wouldn't blame all those 24k people for doing their jobs. Some of the blame goes on the Top Brass. I think the size of the carriers and the use of STOVL aircraft is brought about as much by fear of change than by a desire to buy the best weapon system.
I would be curious to know if anyone has ever calculated what a British version of the French carries would have cost and if it would have saved money on the F35 project to then allow us to develop a navalised version of the Typhoon (not that that is a good solution either)
Mikeyboy said:
Ah I mean they are only pointless in their present form, i.e. without fixed wing aircraft to fly off them.
My central point then is that the 24k people in the department are working on projects with no clear objective or sense of what is good purchasing practice. Most importantly they seem oblivious to the MOD's ability to tell the supplier to get lost on cancellation clauses that cost more than the build.
But even I wouldn't blame all those 24k people for doing their jobs. Some of the blame goes on the Top Brass. I think the size of the carriers and the use of STOVL aircraft is brought about as much by fear of change than by a desire to buy the best weapon system.
I would be curious to know if anyone has ever calculated what a British version of the French carries would have cost and if it would have saved money on the F35 project to then allow us to develop a navalised version of the Typhoon (not that that is a good solution either)
Except it's not 24,000 people employed in procurement. The Defence Equipment and Support Top Level Budget employs 16,200 civilians. That includes about 2,500 employed in the Joint Supply Chain (nee Defence Storage and Distribution Agency). DE&S itself was formed by the merger of the Defence Procurement Agency and the Defence Logistics Organisation in 2007. The latter was responsible for running the Naval Dockyards and providing other support services (including upgrading equipment).My central point then is that the 24k people in the department are working on projects with no clear objective or sense of what is good purchasing practice. Most importantly they seem oblivious to the MOD's ability to tell the supplier to get lost on cancellation clauses that cost more than the build.
But even I wouldn't blame all those 24k people for doing their jobs. Some of the blame goes on the Top Brass. I think the size of the carriers and the use of STOVL aircraft is brought about as much by fear of change than by a desire to buy the best weapon system.
I would be curious to know if anyone has ever calculated what a British version of the French carries would have cost and if it would have saved money on the F35 project to then allow us to develop a navalised version of the Typhoon (not that that is a good solution either)
At the time of the merger, the two organisations respectively employed about 5,500 and 23,700 civilian and service personnel. That figure has fallen steadily over the past couple of years (partly because of reforms and partly because parts have hived off). But it's fair to say that only a small proportion of the 24,000 figure are actually involved in procurement - the rest providing all sorts of other necessary services. As the MOD organisation chart or DE&S wallchart demonstrate, DE&S is responsible for a rather wide range of equipment - everything from body armour to fast jets and nuclear reactors.
The problem isn't the level of staffing (in some cases the problem is insufficient staff) - it's constantly revolving door of politicians and service personnel on 3 years postings. Some of the latter have no interest in procurement and are simply serving their time while others will change the specifications everytime they see a new capability they like. Meanwhile the organisational culture can discourage sensible management (not being a team player if you won't provide 'acceptable' costings). And where's the attraction to work on MOD procurement on CS payscales when the private sector will pay far more? Gray Review of Acquisition.
Fear of change? STOVL operation would have been significantly cheaper than CATOBAR even if the actual airframes would cost more. The only French aircraft carrier Charles de Gaulle cost €3 billion and suffered major problems during sea trials. At the moment, their plan for their next class of Aircraft Carrier was modify the design of our Queen Elizabeth class slightly! As it stands, the whole project is up in the air at the moment.
So Ninja, the CDG cost about the same as one of our aircraft carriers by the time it put to sea?
Therefore it was a cheaper build process, as ours are almost certain to cost more. And it was more capable of taking a wider and cheaper to develop range of aircraft.
And I really cannot see how the decision for STOVL could be anything but "tried and tested" thinking by top brass, and the Navy has never been known for its desire for change. STOVL is inadequate in so many ways over more conventional aircraft. Loiter time down less load capacity etc.
The rotation of officers and civil service bods is all a part of the problem with the numbers. Why do personnel rotate through such a vital function. Again I have to say that purchasing is a vital part of a business it is not up to amateurs or temps and not something left in a siuation where there is more than one team working on a specific project.
Also though I get very frustrated when people say that staff will go and work in the private sector for more.
With whom exactly? I don't know of Goldman Sachs going out buying 120,000 rifles, designing and implementing new camouflage designs or more specialised still, Ordering aircraft fleets and tanks. And Goldman is about the only company I can think of that has a turnover even close to the MOD's.
Therefore it was a cheaper build process, as ours are almost certain to cost more. And it was more capable of taking a wider and cheaper to develop range of aircraft.
And I really cannot see how the decision for STOVL could be anything but "tried and tested" thinking by top brass, and the Navy has never been known for its desire for change. STOVL is inadequate in so many ways over more conventional aircraft. Loiter time down less load capacity etc.
The rotation of officers and civil service bods is all a part of the problem with the numbers. Why do personnel rotate through such a vital function. Again I have to say that purchasing is a vital part of a business it is not up to amateurs or temps and not something left in a siuation where there is more than one team working on a specific project.
Also though I get very frustrated when people say that staff will go and work in the private sector for more.
With whom exactly? I don't know of Goldman Sachs going out buying 120,000 rifles, designing and implementing new camouflage designs or more specialised still, Ordering aircraft fleets and tanks. And Goldman is about the only company I can think of that has a turnover even close to the MOD's.
Mikeyboy said:
So Ninja, the CDG cost about the same as one of our aircraft carriers by the time it put to sea?
Therefore it was a cheaper build process, as ours are almost certain to cost more. And it was more capable of taking a wider and cheaper to develop range of aircraft.
And I really cannot see how the decision for STOVL could be anything but "tried and tested" thinking by top brass, and the Navy has never been known for its desire for change. STOVL is inadequate in so many ways over more conventional aircraft. Loiter time down less load capacity etc.
The rotation of officers and civil service bods is all a part of the problem with the numbers. Why do personnel rotate through such a vital function. Again I have to say that purchasing is a vital part of a business it is not up to amateurs or temps and not something left in a siuation where there is more than one team working on a specific project.
Also though I get very frustrated when people say that staff will go and work in the private sector for more.
With whom exactly? I don't know of Goldman Sachs going out buying 120,000 rifles, designing and implementing new camouflage designs or more specialised still, Ordering aircraft fleets and tanks. And Goldman is about the only company I can think of that has a turnover even close to the MOD's.
The CdG was a disaster - it's telling that it was originally envisaged to be a class of 2 but they only built one in the end. Had the Government not re-profiled the construction of CVF, increasing costs by £1.5 billion, CVF would have been a significantly cheaper and more capable vessel than CdG (hence why the French bought into the design a few years ago).Therefore it was a cheaper build process, as ours are almost certain to cost more. And it was more capable of taking a wider and cheaper to develop range of aircraft.
And I really cannot see how the decision for STOVL could be anything but "tried and tested" thinking by top brass, and the Navy has never been known for its desire for change. STOVL is inadequate in so many ways over more conventional aircraft. Loiter time down less load capacity etc.
The rotation of officers and civil service bods is all a part of the problem with the numbers. Why do personnel rotate through such a vital function. Again I have to say that purchasing is a vital part of a business it is not up to amateurs or temps and not something left in a siuation where there is more than one team working on a specific project.
Also though I get very frustrated when people say that staff will go and work in the private sector for more.
With whom exactly? I don't know of Goldman Sachs going out buying 120,000 rifles, designing and implementing new camouflage designs or more specialised still, Ordering aircraft fleets and tanks. And Goldman is about the only company I can think of that has a turnover even close to the MOD's.
The FAA was never going to be made up of squadrons of aircraft - hence the requirement for the RAF to be capable of augmenting the FAA when necessary. While range and bomb bay capacity are lower these are not significant issues in UK operations - compared to higher sortie rates, domestic interoperability (it's far more likely that RAF aircraft would be working off the same deck than the USN or Marine National) and lower personnel and training costs.
Rotating military officers is partly to give them wider experience as they climb the pyramid and partly to bring in recent frontline experience. It'd be more effective if the military provided fixed requirements to which procurement experts in the civil service can then work to - but that would also require limits on political interference as well (not just the gerrymandering kind but simply a new man in the top office with a different idea of how things should be done). There's a similar problem in Afghanistan: every six months a new brigade would come along with a different idea of how things should be done, throwing away the relationships and work done by the previous brigade. The solution has been longer tours for senior personnel in key positions - but again you can't keep doing this indefinitely, keeping people away from home and limiting promotion opportunities. On top of that you have three competing services vying for funds - with the politicians and Treasury stoking the flames to Divide and Conquer.
Your Goldman Sachs example looks at the problem the wrong way - the people working in the project teams will be focusing on one area of equipment or services, in which case there are plenty of private sector comparisons: British Airways, for example, deals in the billions when it places an order for new aircraft. Indeed they could even go and work for the Defence contractors on the other side of the contract - Rolls Royce and BAE have large project management teams (dealing with their customers and also their own suppliers) to name two. If you want an insight into procurement, read the Gray review or the Hadden-Cave review.
ninja-lewis said:
Mikeyboy said:
So Ninja, the CDG cost about the same as one of our aircraft carriers by the time it put to sea?
Therefore it was a cheaper build process, as ours are almost certain to cost more. And it was more capable of taking a wider and cheaper to develop range of aircraft.
And I really cannot see how the decision for STOVL could be anything but "tried and tested" thinking by top brass, and the Navy has never been known for its desire for change. STOVL is inadequate in so many ways over more conventional aircraft. Loiter time down less load capacity etc.
The rotation of officers and civil service bods is all a part of the problem with the numbers. Why do personnel rotate through such a vital function. Again I have to say that purchasing is a vital part of a business it is not up to amateurs or temps and not something left in a siuation where there is more than one team working on a specific project.
Also though I get very frustrated when people say that staff will go and work in the private sector for more.
With whom exactly? I don't know of Goldman Sachs going out buying 120,000 rifles, designing and implementing new camouflage designs or more specialised still, Ordering aircraft fleets and tanks. And Goldman is about the only company I can think of that has a turnover even close to the MOD's.
The CdG was a disaster - it's telling that it was originally envisaged to be a class of 2 but they only built one in the end. Had the Government not re-profiled the construction of CVF, increasing costs by £1.5 billion, CVF would have been a significantly cheaper and more capable vessel than CdG (hence why the French bought into the design a few years ago).Therefore it was a cheaper build process, as ours are almost certain to cost more. And it was more capable of taking a wider and cheaper to develop range of aircraft.
And I really cannot see how the decision for STOVL could be anything but "tried and tested" thinking by top brass, and the Navy has never been known for its desire for change. STOVL is inadequate in so many ways over more conventional aircraft. Loiter time down less load capacity etc.
The rotation of officers and civil service bods is all a part of the problem with the numbers. Why do personnel rotate through such a vital function. Again I have to say that purchasing is a vital part of a business it is not up to amateurs or temps and not something left in a siuation where there is more than one team working on a specific project.
Also though I get very frustrated when people say that staff will go and work in the private sector for more.
With whom exactly? I don't know of Goldman Sachs going out buying 120,000 rifles, designing and implementing new camouflage designs or more specialised still, Ordering aircraft fleets and tanks. And Goldman is about the only company I can think of that has a turnover even close to the MOD's.
The FAA was never going to be made up of squadrons of aircraft - hence the requirement for the RAF to be capable of augmenting the FAA when necessary. While range and bomb bay capacity are lower these are not significant issues in UK operations - compared to higher sortie rates, domestic interoperability (it's far more likely that RAF aircraft would be working off the same deck than the USN or Marine National) and lower personnel and training costs.
Rotating military officers is partly to give them wider experience as they climb the pyramid and partly to bring in recent frontline experience. It'd be more effective if the military provided fixed requirements to which procurement experts in the civil service can then work to - but that would also require limits on political interference as well (not just the gerrymandering kind but simply a new man in the top office with a different idea of how things should be done). There's a similar problem in Afghanistan: every six months a new brigade would come along with a different idea of how things should be done, throwing away the relationships and work done by the previous brigade. The solution has been longer tours for senior personnel in key positions - but again you can't keep doing this indefinitely, keeping people away from home and limiting promotion opportunities. On top of that you have three competing services vying for funds - with the politicians and Treasury stoking the flames to Divide and Conquer.
Your Goldman Sachs example looks at the problem the wrong way - the people working in the project teams will be focusing on one area of equipment or services, in which case there are plenty of private sector comparisons: British Airways, for example, deals in the billions when it places an order for new aircraft. Indeed they could even go and work for the Defence contractors on the other side of the contract - Rolls Royce and BAE have large project management teams (dealing with their customers and also their own suppliers) to name two. Just consider the difference in how much both sides spend on lawyers and the implications for contract negotiation (hint large private sector corporations spend far more). If you want an insight into procurement, read the Gray review or the Hadden-Cave review.
ninja-lewis said:
The CdG was a disaster - it's telling that it was originally envisaged to be a class of 2 but they only built one in the end. Had the Government not re-profiled the construction of CVF, increasing costs by £1.5 billion, CVF would have been a significantly cheaper and more capable vessel than CdG (hence why the French bought into the design a few years ago).
It still is a disaster; the thing seems to lurch from one breakdown to another. It's also the slowest fleet carrier built since WWII and the deck isn't big enough, it's frankly a bit rubbish.ninja-lewis said:
Rotating military officers is partly to give them wider experience as they climb the pyramid and partly to bring in recent frontline experience. It'd be more effective if the military provided fixed requirements to which procurement experts in the civil service can then work to - but that would also require limits on political interference as well (not just the gerrymandering kind but simply a new man in the top office with a different idea of how things should be done). There's a similar problem in Afghanistan: every six months a new brigade would come along with a different idea of how things should be done, throwing away the relationships and work done by the previous brigade. The solution has been longer tours for senior personnel in key positions - but again you can't keep doing this indefinitely, keeping people away from home and limiting promotion opportunities. On top of that you have three competing services vying for funds - with the politicians and Treasury stoking the flames to Divide and Conquer.
Your Goldman Sachs example looks at the problem the wrong way - the people working in the project teams will be focusing on one area of equipment or services, in which case there are plenty of private sector comparisons: British Airways, for example, deals in the billions when it places an order for new aircraft. Indeed they could even go and work for the Defence contractors on the other side of the contract - Rolls Royce and BAE have large project management teams (dealing with their customers and also their own suppliers) to name two. If you want an insight into procurement, read the Gray review or the Hadden-Cave review.
The rotation thing is something the MoD have never seriously addressed; it was an issue when my dad was in the MoD(1972-1982 and a 2nd helping 1987-2002) and it was there when I toyed with working there. People don't spend very long in one place, and career advancement was associated with gathering experience in different workplaces and ticking off career boxes; 2-3 years in a Integrated Project Team, then move on to something else and the accumulated knowledge is lost. There is no expectation that IPT members will remain for the life of the project, or in the case of longer projects, longer than 20% of the schedule. This is wrong and needs to change, it should become the norm rather than the exception to stay with a project from beginning to end.Your Goldman Sachs example looks at the problem the wrong way - the people working in the project teams will be focusing on one area of equipment or services, in which case there are plenty of private sector comparisons: British Airways, for example, deals in the billions when it places an order for new aircraft. Indeed they could even go and work for the Defence contractors on the other side of the contract - Rolls Royce and BAE have large project management teams (dealing with their customers and also their own suppliers) to name two. If you want an insight into procurement, read the Gray review or the Hadden-Cave review.
I guess these procurement people must consist of
people that talk to manufacturers about what is required
admin staff
finance people
people that test stuff
experts that actually find out what is needed
lots of other people
I imagine its not like a call to a supplier and the goods are there the next day.
people that talk to manufacturers about what is required
admin staff
finance people
people that test stuff
experts that actually find out what is needed
lots of other people
I imagine its not like a call to a supplier and the goods are there the next day.
AdeTuono said:
Mojooo said:
I imagine its not like a call to a supplier and the goods are there the next day.
I don't suppose many companies keep aircraft carriers on the shelf 
I'd bet most purchasing is for clothing, ammunition, food, building maintenance and such like.
Busa_Rush said:
AdeTuono said:
Mojooo said:
I imagine its not like a call to a supplier and the goods are there the next day.
I don't suppose many companies keep aircraft carriers on the shelf I'd bet most purchasing is for clothing, ammunition, food, building maintenance and such like.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff