DARA St. Athan to be sold off
The Maintainer......
Spot On. Many moons ago the Defence Budget, or at least the equipment procurement part of it, was tied to DTI Indices. For example, if the aerospace industry was running at 12% increase per annum, that is what relevant MoD projects got if their projects weren't firm price. A simplification, but you get the drift. Additionally, project managers had "CB Tolerance" i.e. they could exceed budget by 20% without re-endorsement, to pay for unforeseens. Neither exists now. The former because, in theory all contracts are firm (not), the latter because "smart procurement" is meant to eliminate unforeseens. (But first you must employ people with the experience to avoid the avoidable and manage the unavoidable and that hasn't been MoD policy for nearly 10 years).
Remember. Projects may be over BUDGET but they are seldom over a fair and reasonable COST for the ACTUAL requirement. PMs despair of what comes out of MB. I've lost count of the times a URD has said "Here's £xM and this is the capability we want. We'll tell you later how many we want but there'll be no more money regardless of unit cost. And no, we don't want pubs, spares, repairs, training, simulators, integration rigs". It's not unusual for budgets to be less than 20% of actual cost. And you wonder why there's kit shortages?
So, please don't berate PMs until you know the facts. (Or tried it yourself).
Spot On. Many moons ago the Defence Budget, or at least the equipment procurement part of it, was tied to DTI Indices. For example, if the aerospace industry was running at 12% increase per annum, that is what relevant MoD projects got if their projects weren't firm price. A simplification, but you get the drift. Additionally, project managers had "CB Tolerance" i.e. they could exceed budget by 20% without re-endorsement, to pay for unforeseens. Neither exists now. The former because, in theory all contracts are firm (not), the latter because "smart procurement" is meant to eliminate unforeseens. (But first you must employ people with the experience to avoid the avoidable and manage the unavoidable and that hasn't been MoD policy for nearly 10 years).
Remember. Projects may be over BUDGET but they are seldom over a fair and reasonable COST for the ACTUAL requirement. PMs despair of what comes out of MB. I've lost count of the times a URD has said "Here's £xM and this is the capability we want. We'll tell you later how many we want but there'll be no more money regardless of unit cost. And no, we don't want pubs, spares, repairs, training, simulators, integration rigs". It's not unusual for budgets to be less than 20% of actual cost. And you wonder why there's kit shortages?
So, please don't berate PMs until you know the facts. (Or tried it yourself).
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: earth
Posts: 1,398
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Of course they're collecting record taxes, Pr00ne, but still not enough to cover the money they're wasting and they are almost up to their planned borrowing ceiling with a whole quarter of the financial year left.
Of course they'll get re-elected, Pr00ne, because they will cut and run to the polls early before their black hole becomes obvious and they have to raise taxes some more. In a similar underhand manner they are trying to avoid the civil unrest from their cocked piece of anti-foxhunting legislation by a deal with the Countryside Alliance legal beavers.
Meanwhile the sell-off will continue. No piece of MOD real estate will be safe and eventually the RAF will be down to just a few runways for their few squadrons.
Apart from all that, Pr00ne, Happy Christmas!
Of course they'll get re-elected, Pr00ne, because they will cut and run to the polls early before their black hole becomes obvious and they have to raise taxes some more. In a similar underhand manner they are trying to avoid the civil unrest from their cocked piece of anti-foxhunting legislation by a deal with the Countryside Alliance legal beavers.
Meanwhile the sell-off will continue. No piece of MOD real estate will be safe and eventually the RAF will be down to just a few runways for their few squadrons.
Apart from all that, Pr00ne, Happy Christmas!
Guest
Posts: n/a
Meanwhile the sell-off will continue. No piece of MOD real estate will be safe and eventually the RAF will be down to just a few runways for their few squadrons
Airfield Review
Red On, Green On
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Between the woods and the water
Age: 24
Posts: 6,487
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
A friend of mine (RW) was taken aback when I suggested to him that airfield may have to operate both Fixed and Rotary at the same time, but I think thats what the future holds.
Suspicion breeds confidence
Thread Starter
The simple fact of the matter is that the MoD is effectively bankrupt in much the same way as Marconi was and is now selling assets to fund its day to day existence. Increases in defence spending? Lies. Re-equipping our forces for future needs? Lies. I'm afraid St. Athan is paying the price for incompetence and mis-management in London.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Very true J AEO.. I dont think for a minute there has been
Those of you who have been to St A will have realised that its a large airfied with not much happening. Last time I was in there as I landed a bunch of tumbleweed rolled down the main. I think it simply isn't required and sadly therev are a few other airfields going to follow it.
incompetence and mis-management in London
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: 6 miles 14
Posts: 641
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
St A is/was a heavy maintenance base ergo long term mainenance where an aircraft arrives and leaves about a year later. So tumble weed on a particular day would not be too surprising. As for "maybe we don't need it" I 'd have to disagree here.
Take for example the Harrier, nine lines carrying out Majors plus modifications. Where is the maintenance being carried out now? Answer it's not. All heavy maintenance work is to be carried out at Cottesmore but there is not the infrastructure there. The HMF hangar is busy doing the GR9 upgrade with all lines full either with the last stand alone Minor/MinorStars or GR9 upgrades. The fleet is running out of hours as a result and some ac are already grounded out of hours.
Answer?
Either build more hangars to do the stand alone Minors/Majors but where do we get the money/manpower? Money is V Tight and manpower is about to be massively chopped to save money. Bit of a circle here!
Other option buy in stand alone Minors/Majors. Being looked at but costs money and the old cheapest bidder was DARA not BAE and weve got rid of them!
Probabble solution?
Extend time between maintenance, been done before and resulted in much more heavy type maintenance being carried out by the front line squadrons and as a result reduced availability. Sadly this is the probabble outcome and at at time when any spare capacity at first line is long gone and further engineering manpower cuts take effect from April. The doubleing of time between maintenanace from the origional timings will result in a lot of very tired jets trying to be kept serviceable by fewer engineers with fewer spares working longer hours than they are allready.
Result?
Less flying in less well maintained jets and a less than happy Squadron as a whole.
Hope not but I can see it happening sadly!
Take for example the Harrier, nine lines carrying out Majors plus modifications. Where is the maintenance being carried out now? Answer it's not. All heavy maintenance work is to be carried out at Cottesmore but there is not the infrastructure there. The HMF hangar is busy doing the GR9 upgrade with all lines full either with the last stand alone Minor/MinorStars or GR9 upgrades. The fleet is running out of hours as a result and some ac are already grounded out of hours.
Answer?
Either build more hangars to do the stand alone Minors/Majors but where do we get the money/manpower? Money is V Tight and manpower is about to be massively chopped to save money. Bit of a circle here!
Other option buy in stand alone Minors/Majors. Being looked at but costs money and the old cheapest bidder was DARA not BAE and weve got rid of them!
Probabble solution?
Extend time between maintenance, been done before and resulted in much more heavy type maintenance being carried out by the front line squadrons and as a result reduced availability. Sadly this is the probabble outcome and at at time when any spare capacity at first line is long gone and further engineering manpower cuts take effect from April. The doubleing of time between maintenanace from the origional timings will result in a lot of very tired jets trying to be kept serviceable by fewer engineers with fewer spares working longer hours than they are allready.
Result?
Less flying in less well maintained jets and a less than happy Squadron as a whole.
Hope not but I can see it happening sadly!
Crossbow,
The RAF does NOT have 75 stations!
Even if you count places such as Mona and Weston on the Green you are still over by more than 20 in the UK.
The DART team are looking at MOD owned airfields, of which there are 73 when you include Gliding sites and relief landing grounds like Chetwynd, Halton and Kirknewton. These are not RAF stations but Army, RN AND RAF.
There are undoubtedly too many MOD airfields but I doubt if silly calculations like 62 Squadrons to 75 stations, palatable nonsense as those numbers are, is any part of the review.
DARA was a non starter from the time it was established, in the current industrial/commercial climate no stand alone maintenance outfit is going to stand a chance when it has to compete with the likes of Lockheed Martin and BAES.
The RAF does NOT have 75 stations!
Even if you count places such as Mona and Weston on the Green you are still over by more than 20 in the UK.
The DART team are looking at MOD owned airfields, of which there are 73 when you include Gliding sites and relief landing grounds like Chetwynd, Halton and Kirknewton. These are not RAF stations but Army, RN AND RAF.
There are undoubtedly too many MOD airfields but I doubt if silly calculations like 62 Squadrons to 75 stations, palatable nonsense as those numbers are, is any part of the review.
DARA was a non starter from the time it was established, in the current industrial/commercial climate no stand alone maintenance outfit is going to stand a chance when it has to compete with the likes of Lockheed Martin and BAES.
Gentleman Aviator
And of course St A is no longer owned by the RAF, but by the Welsh Development Agency (well, they've got it on a125 year lease) and the RAF have nothing to do with the running of the airfield either - that's done by DARA - who are a part of MoD - and it continues to be run under military regulations.
The last Harrier left a coupla weeks ago - so I hope that Witt/Cott have got themselves sorted out! At least they must be better sorted than Marham seems to be for taking on the GR4 task.....
The last Harrier left a coupla weeks ago - so I hope that Witt/Cott have got themselves sorted out! At least they must be better sorted than Marham seems to be for taking on the GR4 task.....
Guest
Posts: n/a
Pr00ne,
Do you want to tell us what the actual change in real terms the defence budget has undergone once the 3 billion savings we have to make to recieve the recent extra funding, combined with the cost of the introduction of Resource Account Budgeting has made? We may be recieving a REAL terms increase of next to sod all, but we are also incurring an increased cost to the treasury before we can even spend the money.
I think you will find that once you look through the traditional new Labour spin, you will find we are being firmly shafted.
Do you want to tell us what the actual change in real terms the defence budget has undergone once the 3 billion savings we have to make to recieve the recent extra funding, combined with the cost of the introduction of Resource Account Budgeting has made? We may be recieving a REAL terms increase of next to sod all, but we are also incurring an increased cost to the treasury before we can even spend the money.
I think you will find that once you look through the traditional new Labour spin, you will find we are being firmly shafted.
Last edited by mbga9pgf; 23rd Jan 2005 at 17:34.
mbga9pgf,
A little off topic aren’t we? What is a “budjet?”
Whichever way you look at it a real terms increase is just that, an increase after adjusting for inflation. As for RAB, accounting for something when the expense is incurred and not when it is invoiced is just sound financial practice, as is the practice of not accounting for asset depreciation annually, as was the case pre RAB, but spreading it over a year in normal departmental expenditure. You are talking about £86 Billion in assets after all!
As for savings incurred, every single £ saved is reallocated in the Defence budget and is NOT a part of the increase.
Not sure what your point is………………….
A little off topic aren’t we? What is a “budjet?”
Whichever way you look at it a real terms increase is just that, an increase after adjusting for inflation. As for RAB, accounting for something when the expense is incurred and not when it is invoiced is just sound financial practice, as is the practice of not accounting for asset depreciation annually, as was the case pre RAB, but spreading it over a year in normal departmental expenditure. You are talking about £86 Billion in assets after all!
As for savings incurred, every single £ saved is reallocated in the Defence budget and is NOT a part of the increase.
Not sure what your point is………………….
Guest
Posts: n/a
Whether RAB is sound financial practice or not is not my point; RAB has conveniently saved the governent millons in defence expenditure as a result of the costs inccured under adopting RAB within the armed forces accounting system.
With regards the savings, it was my understanding that we were to recieve 4 bn increase only if we established savings of 3 bn before hand; in other words only a 1 bn increase advertised as a 4 Bn increase, hence my allegations of spin.
As for my shocking spelling, I apologise
With regards the savings, it was my understanding that we were to recieve 4 bn increase only if we established savings of 3 bn before hand; in other words only a 1 bn increase advertised as a 4 Bn increase, hence my allegations of spin.
As for my shocking spelling, I apologise
mbga9pgf,
Afraid you are totally wrong on spin, if what you allege were to be true then it would have been presented as a £7bn increase in the defence budget, which it wasn’t.
Yes those savings are targeted and have to be delivered, but the defence vote has now been passed and approved and is now set in stone at the figure presented to parliament.
A £4bn increase is what you have.
RAB is an accounting tool and hasn’t “saved” anyone anything.
I see you edited your spelling, good luck in the spelling B.
Afraid you are totally wrong on spin, if what you allege were to be true then it would have been presented as a £7bn increase in the defence budget, which it wasn’t.
Yes those savings are targeted and have to be delivered, but the defence vote has now been passed and approved and is now set in stone at the figure presented to parliament.
A £4bn increase is what you have.
RAB is an accounting tool and hasn’t “saved” anyone anything.
I see you edited your spelling, good luck in the spelling B.
Last edited by pr00ne; 23rd Jan 2005 at 23:44.
"RAB is an accounting tool and hasn’t “saved” anyone anything".
What RAB did, in common with other administrative initiatives, was employ rafts of "experts" who saw it as a chance to advance without actually having to make decisions. So even more had authority without responsibility. Created the ideal recruitment base for senior management though.
This thread is about DARA. In a previous life they had a very simple test of efficiency. Identify Direct and Indirect labour. The former contribute directly to the output (i.e. serviceable kit). A ratio had to be maintained - any reversal meant Indirects were becoming too much of an overhead and a hindrance to efficiency. RAB employs Indirect labour and so Direct labour must work harder and longer to stand still. As RAB was "staff neutral", Direct labour actually reduced to accommodate it.
On a lighter note, as part of the same initiative CDP issued a directive that Government Furnished Equipment in contracts was taboo, which theoretically would make asset accounting easier. (A daft solution to a non-existant problem and one which wholly contradicted the policy of incremental acquisition). The RN pounced and on one aircraft upgrade program they cited CDP, saying "No, we're not releasing the aircraft as they would be GFE. You must buy new ones. Merlins will do, thanks". Good try.
What RAB did, in common with other administrative initiatives, was employ rafts of "experts" who saw it as a chance to advance without actually having to make decisions. So even more had authority without responsibility. Created the ideal recruitment base for senior management though.
This thread is about DARA. In a previous life they had a very simple test of efficiency. Identify Direct and Indirect labour. The former contribute directly to the output (i.e. serviceable kit). A ratio had to be maintained - any reversal meant Indirects were becoming too much of an overhead and a hindrance to efficiency. RAB employs Indirect labour and so Direct labour must work harder and longer to stand still. As RAB was "staff neutral", Direct labour actually reduced to accommodate it.
On a lighter note, as part of the same initiative CDP issued a directive that Government Furnished Equipment in contracts was taboo, which theoretically would make asset accounting easier. (A daft solution to a non-existant problem and one which wholly contradicted the policy of incremental acquisition). The RN pounced and on one aircraft upgrade program they cited CDP, saying "No, we're not releasing the aircraft as they would be GFE. You must buy new ones. Merlins will do, thanks". Good try.
