Whereas the Ministry of Defence will not come out and say so publicly, it is clear that MoD’s preference for looking at the off-the-shelf solution as its first option, when deciding on which military equipment to buy, has been the determining factor in its choice of the Protector UAV (Certifiable Predator B) for its next generation, armed drone capability that can be operated in UK civilian airspace.
After being misled by UK-based defence equipment manufacturers with false promises and lies for several decades, this generation of elite politicians, senior civil servants, military top brass and front-line procurement officials have been so badly scarred that, there remains little appetite to consider any alternatives that may be put forward.
Of course, MoD would favour an off-the-shelf equipment because it corresponds to a fully engineered and supported technical solution which satisfies the totality of the technical specification requirement, at no additional cost or risk to MoD, that is to say, it does not require UK-specific modifications or related development work laden with risk, to be performed upon it.
Accordingly, it is entirely understandable that MoD has opted for this US-designed and manufactured product. It has done so for the following reasons:
(a) MoD will have had the benefit of evaluating the hardware configuration of the technical solution to assure itself that the Protector UAV satisfies the technical specification requirement set by the military customer, in particular the key user requirements, before placing an order.
(b) Acknowledging the fact that the cost of acquiring and re-provisioning Support Assets associated with military equipment over the whole life cycle can be in the order of four to five times the prime equipment costs, MoD will have sought and obtained firm selling prices, not only for the Protector UAV weapons platform itself, but also its Support Assets needed to sustain it for the full period of its service life – enabling it to maintain a fixed, through-life budget without any risk of it being breached.
(c) MoD will be able to verify that there exists a fully functioning production line for the Protector UAV, before taking the main investment decision.
(d) Commonality and interoperability with US armed forces, on any likely future operations brings with it the certainty that replacement spare parts for this platform will be made available, via a common logistics supply chain – thereby reducing in-service support costs considerably.
The decision to go for the off-the-shelf solution is entirely justified because the Protector UAV is a mature and stable design standard devoid of any hidden financial, technical or schedule risks which have dogged the so-called, minimal development solutions proposed by UK-based defence equipment manufacturers.
Another beneficial side-effect to be derived from MoD shifting its attention onto the off-the-shelf buy is that those UK-based defence equipment manufacturers who are left high and dry by this subtle policy adjustment, most notably the Select Few, will have no choice but to increase their competitiveness substantially, by first selling their products in the international marketplace – on price, superior technical performance & timely delivery – and then re-entering the domestic market with renewed confidence and fully developed products, rebranded as off-the-shelf offerings, just as the Americans have done!
@JagPatel3 on twitter
I’m all in favor of buying off-the-shelf, but then why is the UK MoD giving General Atomics a “£100M contract to develop cutting-edge Protector RPAS”? Let General Atomics spend their own money (they have plenty) and present a real off-the-shelf product for purchase.
Whereas the Ministry of Defence will not come out and say so publicly, it is clear that MoD’s preference for looking at the off-the-shelf solution as its first option, when deciding on which military equipment to buy, has been the determining factor in its choice of the Protector UAV (Certifiable Predator B) for its next generation, armed drone capability that can be operated in UK civilian airspace.
After being misled by UK-based defence equipment manufacturers with false promises and lies for several decades, this generation of elite politicians, senior civil servants, military top brass and front-line procurement officials have been so badly scarred that, there remains little appetite to consider any alternatives that may be put forward.
Of course, MoD would favour an off-the-shelf equipment because it corresponds to a fully engineered and supported technical solution which satisfies the totality of the technical specification requirement, at no additional cost or risk to MoD, that is to say, it does not require UK-specific modifications or related development work laden with risk, to be performed upon it.
Accordingly, it is entirely understandable that MoD has opted for this US-designed and manufactured product. It has done so for the following reasons:
(a) MoD will have had the benefit of evaluating the hardware configuration of the technical solution to assure itself that the Protector UAV satisfies the technical specification requirement set by the military customer, in particular the key user requirements, before placing an order.
(b) Acknowledging the fact that the cost of acquiring and re-provisioning Support Assets associated with military equipment over the whole life cycle can be in the order of four to five times the prime equipment costs, MoD will have sought and obtained firm selling prices, not only for the Protector UAV weapons platform itself, but also its Support Assets needed to sustain it for the full period of its service life – enabling it to maintain a fixed, through-life budget without any risk of it being breached.
(c) MoD will be able to verify that there exists a fully functioning production line for the Protector UAV, before taking the main investment decision.
(d) Commonality and interoperability with US armed forces, on any likely future operations brings with it the certainty that replacement spare parts for this platform will be made available, via a common logistics supply chain – thereby reducing in-service support costs considerably.
The decision to go for the off-the-shelf solution is entirely justified because the Protector UAV is a mature and stable design standard devoid of any hidden financial, technical or schedule risks which have dogged the so-called, minimal development solutions proposed by UK-based defence equipment manufacturers.
Another beneficial side-effect to be derived from MoD shifting its attention onto the off-the-shelf buy is that those UK-based defence equipment manufacturers who are left high and dry by this subtle policy adjustment, most notably the Select Few, will have no choice but to increase their competitiveness substantially, by first selling their products in the international marketplace – on price, superior technical performance & timely delivery – and then re-entering the domestic market with renewed confidence and fully developed products, rebranded as off-the-shelf offerings, just as the Americans have done!
@JagPatel3 on twitter
I’m all in favor of buying off-the-shelf, but then why is the UK MoD giving General Atomics a “£100M contract to develop cutting-edge Protector RPAS”? Let General Atomics spend their own money (they have plenty) and present a real off-the-shelf product for purchase.