New BAE destroyer launches today on the Clyde

Fire the man!

When Lewis Page started out on the topic of bomb disposal his pieces were well informed and interesting, however as his horizons have broadened to include defence procurement, we've ended up with uninformed tripe.

Every article about the UK military seems to be pushing a pro army agenda even though the defence budget is fairly evenly spread between the three services. Not to mention the huge number of UORs being pushed through (which incidentally is part of the reason the MoD budget doesn't balance!)

This sums it up for me:

"PAAMS is mostly French and Italian, though BAE electronics is also used. Most of the UK taxpayers' money for the Type 45 project is not going on hiring young Scotsmen (and perhaps a few women) to work steel on the Clyde - it's hiring Frenchies and Italians to build complex electronics and aerospace components, genuine high-added value work which might be viable for rich Westerners in the 21st century. (The UK version of PAAMS is about to undergo its first end-to-end tests. In France, of course.)"

This paragraph is actually just wrong, incorrect, bullshit. This mysterious company of dirty Frenchies and Italians is called Mantra BAe Dynamics Alenia or MBDA. Note the BAe part of that name, yes a quick google reveals 3000 UK employees, spread across 3 sites, only one of which actually makes missiles, the rest designing them.

The whole point of MBDA in the UK and Team Complex Weapons (google it Lewis) is to retain the capability in the UK. It was one of the main points of Lord Drayson's Defence Industrial Strategy... remember him, the guy you slated in this article for cosying up to industry?

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/11/27/brown_mod_finance_treasury_arms_tech_biz_cauldron/

Please let the madeness end El Reg!

Hmmm

Does Lewis Page own any shares in US arms manufacturers? I think we need to know...

PAAMS is actually based on two different missiles, a manouevreable one for short range point defence and a bigger, longer range missile. The AEGIS system put forward by Lewis Page has the second missile type (called Standard) but no point defence missile. You can use Standard missiles in this capacity but they are not designed for it (not as manouevreable). The problems the US navy had with the Silkworm in 1991 underline this.

South Korea is still a pretty cheap country to build ships (there is a huge number of ship yards over there and the cost of labour is lower) so is it a valid comparison? Japan also has ships built around AEGIS radar/missile system and I doubt the cost was the same as the SK ones.

How much of the 6bn quid was spent during the 5-10 years the UK government spent trying to come up with a joint design with the French and Italians (Project Horizon)? Eventually someone with an ounce of sense decided there was never going to be any agreement on a common spec.and each country would insist on building the ships in their own country.

Buying off the shelf is not a home run though, thanks to the Treasury. The UK ordered 8 CH47 Chinooks for delivery in the late 90's. Only the budget wasn't quite enough. So to save the few quid necessary the UK government asked Boeing to rip out the standard digital avionics and fit analog avionics. Despite the fact these still had to interface with digital components. Boeing could not make the now bespoke Chinooks work and they were restricted to flying in sunny conditions only. They have been in store ever since and it will now cost another £250m to put the digital avionics in that should have been there from the beginning!

The US is not a perfect example of how defense procurement should work. Do a search for the Littoral Combat Ship (LCS). These were supposed to be small, kind of cheap (~$250m) ships designed for use close inshore. Contracts were given to Northrop Grumman and General Dynamics to build two ships each. Only the cost per ship is now in the billions, the contracts for the second ships have been canned and I think one of the two companies has been removed completely from the procurement process.

The need for a navy is still there while 75%+ of the goods coming in and out of the UK go by sea. The UK needs balanced armed forces and robbing peter to pay paul is not smart. We are not particularly good at predicting the future when it comes to defence.

After WW2 the UK decided it didn't need any special forces (disbanding them) then spent 12 years in Malaya where it found it actually did need them. In 1981 the UK decided it didn't need amphibious ships and aircraft carriers because the threat was from the Soviet Union, the following year the Falklands were invaded. The defence budget does need to be bigger to pay for it, the MoD keeps putting off all sorts of purchases because there is not enough to go around.

I agree with Lewis Page that big improvements do need to be made the procurement policy but I would suggest the first place to look is European collaborative programmes. I think Eurofighter is very good now that it is being delivered but it was delayed endlessly trying to keep the four partners happy (EAP, the tech demonstrator flew in 1985!). Will the next story from Lewis Page look at the A400M???? The Reg has already got the European version of GPS covered.

I worked on SeaWolf design

in a minor role, many years ago. It was a lovely cost-plus contract for the GWS25 - "Guided Weapons System type 25". I was one of the 200+ technical apprentices who worked on Skolnik based systems. I enjoyed the days of calibrating the radars with a rented RAF fighter, or just using Solar noise (a few dawns in misty east anglian airfields) Then, rounds of defence cuts, overcomplex design requirements from the MOD (one of our radars would have SUNK the destroyer that it was to be mounted on!) , led to a situation with about 12 apprentices. The 188 remainders went on to good jobs, one guy started Amazon.co.uk, one became an accountant at ENRON, several joined spooky services, I left the country hardly to return again.

I did come back for one post-weinstock job interview for the old company. "We want you to manage the Test Department", they said. "What would be my responsibilities?," I said. "Oh, just select the 30% of staff to fire and do *more* testing" they said.

..sigh... I do know people still hacking in the UK defence industry - but I reckon I earn 4 times what they do, and I know I won't be randomly sacked in the next 20 years.

IT angle, er... well the radar development computers in the '70's had Dungeons and Dragons loaded! but we could only play at mid-day. "You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike"

Lions supplied by rats

@Jim Black

Great posting Jim - actually notably better than the original article imho!

The problem with UK defence is, and always has been, politicians. They just can't make up their minds, which has led to past disasters like the cancellation of TSR2 and many, many others.

The more recent problem is a drive to "efficiency", which seems to equate to "privatise" in the minds of our right-wing politico's, (and the recent left-wing ones which are undistinguishable), so we ended up with large scale sell offs of capability and more money for hopeless private companies. My personal experience follows...

I was lucky enough to be able work in the defence research area in the 80's through the 90's and it was a hard, but very rewarding job. Where else could you feel that you were serving your country, working with the best in the field, *and* getting paid for it? (Sorry the SAS wouldn't let me join - :p) Okay, the pay was consistently below the industry norm, but the chance to do all this challenging work and enhance your technical abilities was priceless.

Then the (right-wing) Tory PM John Major and his government came and the area I was in got "agencyised" and a bunch of faceless "experts" with no track record were brought in to run it. Result: more paperwork, more "initiatives" and less productive work. Later, at the behest of a different set of politicians, that agency was later remolded (with more money wasted and a corresponding increase in paperwork/"initiatives" and decrease in useful output) into a slightly different agency, (but no change in management).

Finally, (and by this time I'd bailed out to private industry, so I got this from the diehards who remained), the agency was privatised, still with the same team of woeful inadequates in charge. Result? The timescales and admin costs on every project skyrocketed, (admin costs heading rapidly towards 50% of total project cost). Meanwhile, the folks who'd been at the helm of this defence research "Titanic" were rewarded with honours and obscene bonuses, (tens of millions of US$'s)

The end result of this is that the brains of these outfits, (that's the folks actually *delivering* the projects, not the management), either left to work in other industries, or were pink-slipped to save money. Trouble is that, in research, your people (and their ideas!) are your major asset.

End result of this is that UK Plc has to spend a lot more money to get less capable goods delivered in longer timescales. Or, as Mr Page points out, we have to go cap-in-hand to our defence partners to buy their older gear, (although I'm a big fan or European or UK-US cooperation in defence R&D) It's enough to make you weep ....

My answer? Scrap the agencies and move stuff back into government control, especially R&D. Put new management teams in the newly-nationalised agencies and claw back the bonuses and honours assigned to the current management. Consult the (chiefs of) defence staff over what THEY want - e.g. Stealth suit for soldiers or boot's and body armour for the guys and gals on the ground *now*; an extra Eurofighter (beautiful plane btw) or a repair budget for runways and other facilities, and so on.

Government led defence R&D *can* deliver - the example that most readily comes to mind is the AEW Sea King. Do something similar with Nimrod, but use a modern chassis - I'm sure Airbus would give a good discount! ;) etc, etc. And less PHB's means lower admin, which means the cost-per-unit goes down. :D

Things are never that simple...

Firstly while it may seem strange building a guided missile destroyer at the time when the UK is involved in a land locked war, it has to be remembered that a ship is not just for for Christmas. It wasn't long ago the UK fleet was involved protecting oil supplies in the straits of Hormuz against Iranian launched sea skimming missiles. Is anyone going to suggest that this is a unlikely scenario in the future?

Just as important ships are not like combat vehicles which you just order off the production line when you need them, the Falkland islands proved that you should never second guess what type of conflicts you will be involved in, and ensure you have good all round combat capabilities.

As to the ship itself, compared to the american ship. A ship is more than the sum of its parts and there is nothing to say that the Arleigh burke is any better than the UK ship. In fact the T45 is in a number of ways more advanced, For example it's electric propulsion system is far in advance of the american's and gives the UK an important technical lead.

The article smacks of something like a Duncan Sandy defense review who said in the 1950's that manned aircraft was obsolete and anyway if we need them we could always by American who were obviously better. Both proved to be wrong(TSR2 vs F-111) and caused a decimation of the UK aircraft industry that it never truly recovered from.

Mr Magoo in Control of Sight ... Results in Impaired Vision

"So if Great Britain has problems, it is not because of lack of intelligence or courage - those are available in abundance. So what is the problem?"

Nice post, Jim Black, and I wouldn't argue with it being a case of "Lions supplied by rats".

With a tad more of both of what we is not lacking ... intelligence or courage ..... will the rat be returned to their sewer run without the lion having to share his catch/feed the manufactured vermin. That is the problem?

The solution? .... Oh that is simple, offer new technology further afield into foreign lands if it is treated as alien at home. Very soon immediately they discover that all of a sudden they have a dire need of IT..... which is also enriched exponentially if not having the Technology presented to others is a Consideration.

Then of course, you get into the Mug's Game of Costly Secrets which no one will use...... Madville HQ, Fort Meade?

Of course, IT is even simpler just to Share what you know Spontaneously and Post IT to the Web. That way you wouldn't need to worry about Missing Post and Posts/Spooks and Spy games. At least not until after you have been well enough paid to consider the additional options available to your own free choice.

Until then, I imagine that the rats remain in the sewer and the Lion Hearted Reign in their Virgin Fields of Endeavour in Free Enterprise, and just as nature Intended too...... which is always that which delivers Outrageous Success.

Paying double

Economics of scale apply here too - the original estimate was based on designing once and building a dozen of them. The UK Govt cut the order to six - so of course the portion of the design work in the cost of each ship has gone up.

We're an island. Navy procurement projects can take decades. The idea that the Navy can be run down now presupposes someone has a crystal ball with infallible vision of the next 20-50 years and that simply isn't the case. We should have doubled our original order of these, not halved it!