Britain's Ministry of Defence accused of wasting £174M on 'external advice' The UK government has been accused of blowing £174 million ($220 million) on "external advice" for a new radio system for the armed forces that has been beset by delays and cancelled contracts. A new radio tactical communications system is being procured for the British Army under the program name Morpheus. It was planned to …
Tell you what M.O.D. Next year, I'll answer any question you have for 99.99 million in calendar year 2025. You can report a 43% reduction in consultancy fees to the oversight committee and everyone is happy. If you agree to this non-negotiable agreement to take effect, stay silent and say nothing for the next 15 seconds; that implies consent.
Perfect, you agreed.
There will be a 25 million early cancellation fee regardless, but that's petty cash for you guys and gals. So basically, you now owe me 25 mil now or 99.99 million at the end of 2025. This consulting thing is easy.
Nothing said of the billions water on the weapons and equipment that are never and will never be used, the rockets keept ready for nuclear war that wouldn't even involve the UK anyway,
But no, let's get on their case about a comms system. Not the fantastical waste that is almost every aspect of their existence.
I recall there was a 'new' armoured vehicle where the noise was clinically harmful to anyone unfortunate enough to be inside when the engine was running.*
However the current UK battle tank, the Challenger 2, is the envy of the world because it has its very own kettle, and so the crew can have a have their statutory tea break without having to get out. (Though I don't think they have the same range of cakes as Betty's**, it is only a matter of time.) https://www.forces.net/services/army/what-challenger-2s-secret-weapon
* https://www.defensenews.com/global/europe/2021/06/03/the-british-armys-new-ajax-vehicles-ride-too-rough-too-loud-report/
** Bettys: https://www.bettys.co.uk/?gad_source=1&gclid=EAIaIQobChMI35X56Mv0hgMVBJtQBh2agQhdEAAYASAAEgJFTPD_BwE . Note: when the web site refers to cookies, if there isn't a price, it is a computer file
The AFV with the noise issue - Yup, the Ajax programme.
The MoD / General Dynamics took a vehicle design already successfully in service, and modified it to make it unfit for service.
Though supposedly the issues have now been fixed. (Supposedly).
However, I shall take issue with your snark at the Boiling Vessel (BV) (Kettle) on Chally 2. Most AFVs in British Army have a BV, as I understand it, and (not served, so this is book knowledge) they really are the envy of just about everyone else's army.
The ability to have hot food and drink while sitting for a prolonged (many hours) period inside a large metal box does, as I understand it, make the experience less unpleasant, and helps maintain alertness.
EvilDrSmith: "I shall take issue with your snark at the Boiling Vessel (BV) (Kettle) on Chally 2"
It was not a 'snark', young Sir/Madam/Other. It is genuinely the envy of many a military person overseas. Even the latest German Panzer has not got one of those (AFAIK) and they are envious of the Brits' ability to have a nice cuppa (although I expect the USAfolk would rather go for coffee in their Abrams's).
(Sulks at the downvote.)
OoooKaaaay... I heard some fucking ridiculous comments around here, but this is one of the best. So, what are you suggesting here?
That we shouldn't have a defensive stockpile of weapons in this time of unbridled world peace?
That we should be waging war somewhere, rather letting our defensive arsenal lie unused and therefore going to waste?
BTW since UK is part of NATO, any nuclear war involving NATO would involve us, automatically, either as a target or in response. And since the only countries likely to start a nuclear war are fundamentally opposed to NATO, it's likely NATO would be the target.
Nothing said of the billions water on the weapons and equipment that are never and will never be used, the rockets keept ready for nuclear war that wouldn't even involve the UK anyway,
But no, let's get on their case about a comms system. Not the fantastical waste that is almost every aspect of their existence.
Somebody hasn't been keeping up with the rhetoric coming out of Russia recently then. Former President Medvedev said
'Attempts to return Russia to the borders of 1991 will lead to only one thing,' he said. 'Towards a global war with Western countries using the entire strategic arsenal of our state. In Kyiv, Berlin, London, Washington.'
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13097421/kremlin-threatens-Armageddon-west-russia-loses-Ukraine.html
So those of us in London are toast apparently and that's before as mentioned in the previous post we respond as part of NATO.
For those in the know. the MOD IS running smoothly. Every dodgy deal, every missing million is buried under a mountain of cock-ups and incompetence so devilishly orchestrated that no auditor outside of a mental asylum would take on the task of fathoming who's hands have been in the till.
Is it "cheaper" than individual dedicated items?
That's why modularity sells, even when the end product ends up ten times more expensive than keeping individual dedictaed items around
Once sold, it's very hard to walk back - just like failed local government traffic management policies - which in turn results in layering bandaids on top until the original project is unrecognisable
This post has been deleted by its author
> Key point is that nobody from MoD side is any good at understanding the requirements and reading the contract, so when changed it goes through a re-write, and please send me more money.
I'll give you an example.
A certain battlefield-use vehicle was procured, all seemed to be going well until it came to field trials. One of the tests was recovery of a broken down vehicle onto a trailer which it "failed" (in quotes).
Long story short, the MoD hadn't asked for towing points front *and* back - only that it was capable of being recovered onto a trailer in various circumstances. So a vehicle that crashed front first into a ditch could easily be recovered. But if it went backwards into a ditch there was nowhere to attach a tow cable.
This might not have been disastrous if they could have just bolted a towing eye onto the front somewhere. Unfortunately it wasn't that simple - it has to be strong enough to take the whole weight of the vehicle[1] and that meant strengthening subframes at the front which meant re-routing some engine bits.
All very expensive but dozens of pairs of eyes read that spec and saw the submitted designs, from both MoD and the Army, yet it was missed.
[1] or more, so a squaddie can just pull as hard as the bulldozer will allow him without ripping it in two
Working at the MoD? I can't think of many (any) places where this level of cost overrun would be tolerated over so many years. ...... Steve Crook
£174M is peanuts, Steve Crook, compared to what the clowns in government, whom you yourselves elect to lord it over you, can squander/sequester with apparent impunity ....... PPE worth £1.4bn from single Covid deal destroyed or written off
Three cheers for Parliamentary demonocracy. The best that your tax money can buy. :-)
Oh, and that’s a sick joke, by the way. I wouldn’t want anyone to be thinking it was anything other than a dank swamp of festering vipers/a dodgy spiv hangout.
Winston Churchill hit the nail on the head when/if he reportedly said ..... “The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter."
You are expected to purchase something that will:
work in the situations you are encountering now
work in the situations you are encounter now in 20 years time
work in the situations you are expecting to encounter 10 years and 20 years from now
and, in the the eyes of the population, work 10-40 years from now in situations no one could have predicted were likely to happen.
Now, you can to apply military planning as applied by the Allies in WWII - ie provide in excess to cover all eventualities but in wartime the cost is irrelevant
Or you can have American levels of expenditure on your military and not worry about the markup.
And when it goes wrong in some way
If you spent money on external 'experts' then you will be blamed for wasting public money on consultants
If you stuck with only in-house knowledge then you be blamed for not getting a second opinion
Totally all this. And I would add in the difficulty of doing all this on multi year timescales but on annual funding cycles which can come and go on a whim of the treasury. Hence seemingly never ending rounds of project redesigns which have to be done, but which are later rendered pointless (and a waste of time and money) but the next budget rejigs.
For example, the spending freeze announced in February, on top of the one in October, both of which came out of the blue to most people involved. The February one was meant to be only for the remainder of the FY (about 6 weeks) but it's now 4 months later and it's still in place.
https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1866186/defence-ministry-spending-budget
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
