Third memorandum from the Ministry of
Defence
POST MAIN GATE PROJECT SUMMARY SHEET
ASUW Littoral Defensive Anti Surface Warfare
Integrated Project Team Responsible: Maritime
Gunnery and Missile Systems IPT (MGMS IPT)
Single Point of Accountability for project capability:
DEC (AWE)—Above Water Effect
SECTION 1: ABOUT
THE PROJECT
1a Project description, progress and key future
events
The change of emphasis from "Blue Water"
sea control operations to power projection demanded by Joint Vision
(JV) and the Future Maritime—Operational Concept (FMOC)
dictates that future operations will be conducted within complex
littoral environments. In addition to the threat posed by traditional
weapon systems, the emerging and proliferating Fast Attack Craft/Fast
Inshore Attack Craft threat will be faced. The traditional methods
of conducting Surface Warfare and current equipment are not well
suited to countering this threat and as such a capability gap
has been identified and endorsed.
The Defensive Anti Surface Warfare (ASuW) strategy
seeks to address this gap by providing a "Close in"
Defensive Capability to counter the Fast Attack Craft/Fast Inshore
Attack Craft threat. Following further investigation in the Assessment
Phase, an open competition was conducted to satisfy the requirement
for the T23 Frigate (an automated small calibre gun (ASCG)) and
a single source procurement was investigated to satisfy the requirement
for the T42 Destroyer and priority Royal Fleet Auxiliary ships
(an upgrade of the Phalanx 1A Close In Weapons System to the 1B
standard).
Following Business Case submission through the
Investment Approvals Board contracts were let with MSI Defence
Systems Limited for the ASCG and with Dockyard Management Limited
in Devonport, subcontracting to Raytheon Missile Systems in the
USA, for the Phalanx 1B upgrade. The programme, which is CAT C,
remains within its approvals for Performance, Cost and Time. Future
key events consist of:
— ASCG Initial Operating Capability
July 2007; and
— Phalanx 1B and ASCG In Service
date July 2008.
1b Associated projects
| Critical to Achievement of ISD
| Critical to Initial Gate Requirement
|
| Project Title | Forecast ISD
| Project Title | Forecast ISD
|
| — | — | —
| — |
1c Procurement strategy
| | | |
| Contractor(s) | Contract Scope
| Contract Type | Procurement Route
|
| MSI Defence Systems Limited for automated Small Calibre Gun
| Demonstration to In-Service | Firm price
| UK competition |
| Devonport Dockyard Management Limited for Phalanx 1B
| Demonstration to In-Service | Firm price
| Non-competitive with international sub-contract elements (Raytheon)
|
| | |
|
SECTION 2: PROJECT
COSTS
2a Performance against approved cost
| £millions (outturn prices) |
Procurement Cost |
| Current Forecast Cost | 63
|
| Approved Cost at Main Gate | 66
|
| Variation | -3
|
| In-year changes |
|
2b Reasons for variation from approved cost
| |
| Date | Variation (£m)
| Factor | Explanation
|
| 1 September 2005 | -3 | Risk Differential
| Difference between the risk allowed for in the most likely (50%) and the approved figures at Main Gate.
|
| Net Variation | -3 |
| |
2c Expenditure to date
|
| | |
| Expenditure to (£m) | 5
|
2d Years of peak procurement expenditure
| |
|
|
2e Unit production cost
| |
| Unit Production Cost (£m)
| Quantities Required |
| at Main Gate | Current
| at Main Gate | Current
|
| Phalanx IB £2.58m | £2.32m
| 16 | 16 |
| ASCG £0.70m | £0.67m
| 26 | 26 |
| | |
|
SECTION 3: PROJECT
TIMESCALE
3a Definition of in-service date
ISD Definition: | The ISD is defined as when one of each selected solution is available to be deployed on RN platforms for operations.
|
3b Performance against approved in-service date
| |
| Date
|
| Current forecast ISD | July 2008
|
| Approved ISD at Main Gate | November 2008
|
| Variation (months) | -4
|
| In-year changes | -4
|
3c Reasons for variation from approved ISD
| |
| Date | Variation (months)
| Factor | Explanation
|
| 6 March 2006 | 2 | Change in associated project
| Limited fitting opportunities for the integration of the Phalanx 1B upgrade to the T42 destroyers.
|
| 1 September 2005 | -6 | Risk Differential
| Difference between the risk allowed for in the most likely (50%) and the approved figures at Main Gate.
|
| Net Variation | -4 |
| |
3d Cost resulting from ISD variation
| | | |
| Type of Cost/Saving | Cost £m
| Saving £m | Explanation
|
| n/a | nil | nil
| No change to procurement |
3e Operational impact of ISD variation
| | | |
| |
| |
SECTION 4: KEY
USER REQUIREMENTS
4a Performance against approved key user requirements
| KUR Name | Key Requirement
| Forecast to be met | At Risk
| Not to be met |
| KUR 1 | Mission Denial The User shall be able to achieve mission denial against individual or multiple elements of the Fast Attack Craft/Fast Inshore Attack Craft Target Set.
| Yes |
| |
| KUR 2 | Reload/Recharge The system shall be capable of two engagement sequences without the requirement for reload/recharge.
| Yes |
| |
| KUR 3 | Manual Engagement The User shall be able to operate the system under manually initiated engagements conditions.
| Yes |
| |
| KUR 4 | Training The User shall be able to use the system in a training mode.
| Yes |
| |
| KUR 5 | Platform constraints The proposed system shall be accommodated within the existing platform constraints.
| Yes |
| |
| KUR 6 | Availability The User shall be able to operate the system such that it performs the required function under the agreed conditions for the stated mission period with an Operational Availability of 90%.
| Yes |
| |
| KUR 7 | Operational Effectiveness The User shall be able to maintain operational effectiveness whilst minimising effect on the operational effectiveness of other systems.
| Yes |
| |
| KUR 8 | Compliance The user shall be able to comply with relevant safety requirements, international laws and conventions.
| Yes |
| |
| KUR 9 | Environmental The user shall maintain operational effectiveness in the following climatic categories and weather conditions.
Maritine Categories:
M1—Marine Hot
M2—Marine Intermediate
M3—Marine Cold
Wind: mean true wind speed of 70 km/hour
Sea state: up to sea state 6
Related Categories:
A1—Extreme Hot Dry
B3—Humid Hot Coastal
Desert
General weather:
Rainfall: up to 4 mm/hour
Electromagnetic: operational in all natural EM environments
Operational under light and dark conditions and cloud cover, up to 8 octas (mist and fog conditions)
|
Yes |
| |
| Percentage currently forecast to be met
| | 100%
| |
| In-year change |
| 0 | |
4b Reasons for variation against approved key requirements
| | |
| |
| Date | Key Requirement
| Factor | Explanation
|
| n/a | |
| |
| |
| |
SECTION 5: HISTORY
UP TO
MAIN GATE
APPROVAL
5a Description of the Assessment Phase
A Concept of Operational Effectiveness and Investment Appraisal
(COEIA) was utilised to determine the preferred mix of system
types to be taken forward to the Demonstration and Manufacture
Phases. The COEIA highlighted that given that more than one platform
type, each with differing constraints, was being addressed by
this project, a single equipment and procurement strategy was
unlikely to satisfy the capability gap. Therefore the procurement
strategy consisted of two elements:
— A single source open book procurement to
satisfy the T42 destroyer/RFA requirement. Contract discussions
took place with DML for the upgrade of the existing Phalanx Block
1A to 1B configuration to satisfy the requirements of the SRD.
The T42's were assessed with respect to their suitability for
this Military Off the Shelf (MOTS) solution, which is an enhancement
to the Phalanx systems already in service with the Royal Navy.
— An open competition to satisfy the T23 frigate
requirement. Following a Pre Qualification Questionnaire and initial
down selection, a competitive Invitation to Tender was issued
for the ASCG to satisfy the T23 requirement, with Industry invited
to propose detailed solutions against a System Requirement Document
(SRD). The open competition tender evaluation took the form of
both a quantitative and qualitative assessment of the proposals,
using lessons learnt from a previous technology demonstrator programme.
Support Strategies were scrutinised and assessed against
the guiding principles of the Support Solutions Envelope (SSE),
and Whole Life Costs for each of the possible solutions were compiled.
A Training Needs Analysis (TNA) was completed to inform the
preferred technical solution. The Maritime Training Systems IPT
was fully involved in the process ensuring a holistic and coherent
approach to individual and team training taking full cognisance
of training policy initiatives and in particular, the Maritime
Composite Training System programme.
5b Cost of the Assessment Phase
| £m (outturn prices) | Assessment Phase cost
| Proportion of total estimated procurement expenditure
|
| Actual cost | 0.281
| 0.45% |
| Approved cost at Initial Gate |
0.320 | 0.51%
|
| Variation | -0.039
| -0.06% |
5c Duration of Assessment Phase
| | |
| Date of Main Gate approval | September 2005
|
| Target date for Main Gate approval at Initial Gate
| April 2005 |
| Variation (months) | +5
|
5d Cost boundaries at Initial Gate and Main Gate Approvals
| |
| £m (outturn prices) |
Lowest
| Budgeted For |
Highest
|
| Cost of Demonstration and Manufacture Phase forecast at Main Gate
| 60 | 63
| 68 |
| Cost of Demonstration and Manufacture Phase forecast at Initial Gate
| 64 | 68
| 80 |
5e ISD boundaries at Initial Gate and Main Gate Approvals
| | |
|
| Earliest
| Budgeted For | Latest Acceptable
|
| Forecast ISD at Main Gate | November 2007
| May 2008 | November 2008
|
| Forecast ISD at Initial Gate | June 2006
| December 2006 | July 2007
|
| March 2006 |
| | |
| 
