Tag: Peter Luff

Below is the text of the speech made by Peter Luff, the then Minister for Defence Equipment, Support and Technology, at the Defence Academy in Shrivenham on 25 January 2012.

Introduction

Thank you Frances [Chief Executive, Dstl] for that kind introduction, and for inviting me to Dstl’s new starter conference.

I endorse your point about “bothering the boss”, ask obvious questions; ask why; challenge orthodoxy.

After a remarkable five-year tenure, your time as Chief Executive is drawing to a close.

I have greatly enjoyed working with you over the last 20 months, so I want to begin by thanking you for all that you’ve achieved.

Under your leadership, the new centralised headquarters at Porton Down was created, not just a new building and a very impressive one at that, but new systems and new ways of working that make for an altogether more vibrant and engaged Dstl than the one you inherited.

Dstl has also taken the lead role in formulating the MOD’s science and technology programme for the Chief Scientific Adviser.

This requires Dstl to reach out to the widest pool of potential innovators in industry, academia, and other research organisations.

The flagship of this effort is perhaps the Centre for Defence Enterprise.

I’m a very big fan of the CDE; it has the potential to make a major contribution to our armed forces and the economy, not least SMEs.

Crucially, Dstl’s continuing status as a trading fund means you can offer transparency to your customers and gives Dstl every incentive to perform even better, it’s an entirely suitable status for the job in hand.

Of course, your successor, Jonathan Lyle, while receiving a strong inheritance, still has some pretty demanding challenges ahead of him, not least the move from Fort Halstead, a project I’ll be watching closely.

Delivering battle winning technologies to our armed forces during a major period of transformation for defence will be a formidable test of Dstl’s capabilities, and you in this room, as well as Jonathan’s leadership.

But, Frances, you’ve bequeathed Jonathan a fine legacy: both he and Dstl can look to the future with confidence.

Importance of science / new blood

And that future is represented by you, the new starters with us today.

It’s great to see the injection of new talent which is the lifeblood of any effective organisation, and Dstl is no exception.

History is replete with world-changing discoveries by young scientists, often by sheer accident.

Take chemistry.

In 1856, the 18 year old British chemist, William Perkin, made the first ever synthetic dye while trying to produce artificial quinine.

80 years later, the young American chemist, Roy Plunkett, discovered Teflon while working on a new kind of CFC.

And just 10 years ago, I am reliably informed, American student, Jamie Link, discovered smart dust when one of the silicon chips she was working on burst.

Incredible discoveries, and all 3 still have defence and security applications today.

For those of you who’ve joined Dstl further on in your careers, I have some words of encouragement too.

Research and who are we to challenge the value of research, suggests that genius strikes later in life than it used to for those engaged in physics, chemistry, and medicine.

Today the average physicist does his Nobel prize-winning work at age 48.

And for those, like me, who still find that very young, you can be encouraged by Professor Hawking, arguably the world’s most famous scientist and still going great guns at 70.

In fact, I often wish I had opted for a science or engineering degree instead of studying economics, the dismal science.

But one of the great privileges of my work as a minister is that I have the opportunity to engage world-class scientists, engineers, and of course analysts, across the whole of the defence community.

Their collective aim is to ensure that the equipment our armed forces use remains at the cutting edge of technology, that’s what it’s all about.

And Dstl, this unique scientific community of 3,500 talented and creative people, is the heart of that effort.

I’m immensely proud of the work everyone does in Dstl, on your own, collaboratively with the private sector and universities, and internationally with other governments.

Almost every week I see things to celebrate thanks to the scientific endeavours Dstl undertakes.

I want the public to hold defence scientists, engineers, and analysts in the same high regard they hold our armed forces.

I’m also conscious that much of the equipment we have today is based on the defence science and technology of the past.

I’m grateful for the investment made by previous generations in today’s armed forces.

And that should remind us of the responsibility we have for future generations.

That’s why protecting the defence science and technology budget has been probably my critical bottom line since becoming a Minister.

That support should never be unquestioning, however.

As someone who studied economics instead of science, I’m acutely aware that science without practical application is a tough sell in these austere times.

I have to show taxpayers that we are spending their money wisely and providing our armed forces with the equipment and support they need.

And the economic situation we inherited is forcing everyone to prioritise, including Dstl.

I believe Dstl has 3 priorities which I want to talk about this morning: supporting current operations; preparing for future challenges; and making every pound count.

Role of Dstl, supporting current operations

First, current operations.

I am delighted to see that ‘Maximising the impact of science and technology on front-line operations’ is the theme for your conference.

And that’s only right, because the main test of your worth is your ability to translate ingenuity into combat edge in the field.

That might mean helping surveillance in counterpiracy operations off Somalia.

Or countering IEDs in Afghanistan.

Operations in Afghanistan, of course, are particularly dynamic.

The threat is constantly evolving.

Our enemies quickly adjust their tactics.

We have to bring new solutions to the front line at pace.

Thankfully, innovation is the heart of what Dstl does.

More scientists have deployed to the front line in recent years than at any time since the Second World War.

Indeed, some of you new starters may be hoping to deploy there; I’m sure some of you certainly will.

I, and my ministerial colleagues, regularly meet Dstl personnel on our visits to Afghanistan, and what really shines through is their commitment to what they’re doing.

They’re great ambassadors for the organisation.

Above all, military commanders tell me how much they rely on the expert scientific advice, statistical analysis, and on the spot technical solutions which Dstl staff deliver.

That advice, analysis, those solutions, are protecting our people, boosting their capability, and saving lives.

Like Tarian Quickshield which Dstl developed in partnership with Amsafe Bridport in Dorset.

For those of you who don’t know already, it’s a new form of netting which acts as vehicle armour.

It’s incredibly light, and is capable of stopping a lethal RPG attack in its tracks.

On the commercial side, it’s great to see a British SME involved in the product development.

And now that they are in partnership with ‘Singapore Technologies Kinetics’, the makers of the Warthog armoured vehicle, I’m sure that this new technology will do well in the export market.

It’s a textbook example of how our acquisition cycle can work.

Dstl expertise has also been central to the tremendous advances in battle field medicine we’ve seen in Afghanistan.

The management of military trauma patients has been significantly improved by new blood clotting assessment techniques.

That really is saving lives today, including members of the public here at home who are benefiting from these pioneering techniques.

And when a requirement for a new generation of lightweight protected vehicle was identified to replace Snatch Land Rover, Dstl was involved throughout the process, in particular, working with DE&S on a novel specification which would maximise survivability.

Now known as Foxhound, this was a project which incorporated the latest armour research, state of the art technology from the motorsport industry, and underwent rigorous trial including simulating IED explosions.

The whole process from initial concept to production took just 36 months, and again it’s likely to attract significant export interest.

The first vehicles will arrive in Afghanistan fairly soon.

Of course, not every operation is thousands of miles from home.

This year’s Olympic and Paralympic Games will be a busy time for defence to say the least.

We will be making a significant contribution to the safety and security of the games in support of the Home Office and Police.

Dstl will be providing a number of niche capabilities to keep athletes, spectators, and the public safe.

Now, frustratingly, the problem is that the classification of the work you do means we can’t talk about it as freely as we might like.

But your work will always be valued by those ‘in the know’.

And we must be sure we talk about it whenever we can.

Role of Dstl, helping to meet new and emerging challenges
While current operations remain the overriding priority, we’ll be looking to Dstl to help us meet new challenges too.

Wherever you’re based, and whatever your particular role, you will be helping to shape and protect our future in all sorts of ways.

For example, during the Strategic Defence and Security Review, Dstl policy analysts and embedded military personnel ran a series of war games to help defence planners identify the type and size of forces that could be required in the future.

Their work was absolutely crucial in helping Ministers and the Defence Board to make evidence based decisions about the transformation of defence and is precisely the kind of creative work Dstl excels in.

Looking ahead, I think we have several main challenges.

For instance, the benefits of blueskies and longterm research are undoubted.

It balances our focus on the here and now, and is the best guarantee that the here and now of 10 to 20 years’ time can be met with confidence.

But we need to find ways of working with the people who know what potential opportunities and threats will emerge in the next two decades, people in our excellent universities.

That’s why we’ve introduced defence sponsored PhDs, 32 new ones this year.

Candidates will investigate topics of relevance to defence and the wider community, and will hope to bring wider academic thinking to bear more directly onto defence challenges.

And how do we get the balance right between the here and now, and our future needs?

There are many options, not least closer co-operation with partners like the US and France, and I’ll say more about that shortly.

And we must, going back to the theme I’ve mentioned already, become better at communicating the importance of committing scarce resources to invest in defence science and technology, and properly communicate the role of Dstl within the MOD.

We must help people understand why technology which can’t be seen or touched is as vital as tanks, ships, or planes.

I’ll have more to say about these things very soon indeed, when the Defence and Security Equipment white paper is published.

Role of Dstl, helping to make every pound count

The third main priority for Dstl is one that’s also close to my heart as a politician.

You are integral to making every pound we spend on equipment, support, and technology count.

To begin with, your trading fund status gives you a financial edge and flexibility.

It keeps everyone’s eye on the bottom line.

But you must still be very careful not to do what would be more appropriately done in the private sector.

You are not free to compete with private sector or academia, but to do the things for defence which can only be done by and in government.

That’s why I’m pleased that intellectual property can be exploited through Dstl’s subsidiary, Ploughshare Innovations Ltd, which licenses the technology or exploits it through joint ventures.

I strong support that entrepreneurial approach.

I want to see a lot more of it across defence science and technology.

Dstl can also help through innovation and partnership.

Scientific innovation and engineering ingenuity relevant to defence are often found in surprising places.

By reaching out to industry, particularly SMEs and the academic world, the Centre for Defence Enterprise is bringing much needed innovation to defence, and proving that value for money and profitability are far from mutually exclusive.

One of CDE’s particular strengths, I believe, is its accessibility.

The regular surgeries where individuals and companies can get personalised guidance on what MOD is looking for, and how to pitch their ideas.

It’s about widening MOD’s supplier base.

Providing visibility of MOD’s requirements.

Educating and supporting new supply networks.

Giving opportunities for the military to become directly engaged in science and technology.

And helping potential suppliers understand defence, potential suppliers who didn’t understand that they could work with defence or what actually might be required or needed by defence.

The CDE successfully cuts through a lot of the red tape.

What I want now is to see more of those ideas and concepts becoming mature products which contribute to Defence capability.

But perhaps the most important contribution Dstl can make is by helping the MOD to become a more intelligent and demanding customer.

We need solutions which offer cutting edge technology yet are cost effective.

A big ask, but I believe it can be done.

Dstl has the right sort of culture and approach to drive this ethos forward, taking others, industry in particular, with you.

By understanding how integration really works and marshalling open systems, we can access the best of innovation and ensure it delivers the best for our armed forces.

To help this process, as I mentioned earlier, we will very shortly and I mean very shortly, be publishing our white paper which will address several critical defence science and technology issues:

– what should the balance of priorities should be for the science and technology programme over the next five years?

– what are the main elements of being an intelligent customer for capability, equipment and services which depend on science and technology to ensure better value for money?

– how can government encourage and champion greater pull through of innovative ideas into applications and contracts?

Making sure we get the very best out of our budget also means a greater focus on international partnerships.

And, I repeat, by only doing in government what has to be done in government.

Collaboration is the way forward: with the private sector; with industry; with academia; with our allies.

Now, we have long established links with the US, of course.

And now we’re actively looking to work with others, particularly with France and with India.

For example, our work on complex weapons with the French is demonstrating the benefits of mutual dependency, where it makes sense and we are keen to explore other opportunities with industry.

And we’re developing a new collaboration programme with India’s research and development organisation to explore areas like ‘energetic technologies’, ‘horizon scanning’, and ‘human factors’.

I know that CSA came back from India recently and was very impressed by its scale and quality.

There will be more detail in the white paper which will set our future course in science and technology.

Conclusion

One thing is certain.

All of you new starters here today will be underwriting the future of Britain’s security.

Whether as scientists, engineers, or analysts.

And whether it’s force protection capability and operational planning.

Medical research or CBRN analysis.

Or C4ISTAR, which was so crucial in delivering precision weapon effect in our operations in Libya.

You are Dstl new starters at a time of great change across defence.

But you are joining a highly influential organisation with a global reputation.

And you are joining an organisation committed to nurturing your talent and developing your skills.

Please take advantage of the opportunities you will be offered to work in industry or specialist work in universities such as getting chartered status for your profession.

These wider experiences will stand you in good stead.

Because you are the ‘go to’ hub when we need the kind of ‘out of the box’ cost effective ideas and solutions that industry is not always able to research or provide.

Dstl regularly tests the art of the possible.

Finding solutions, for today and tomorrow and working with industry to deliver them.

Dstl has an outstanding reputation for exploring new horizons for defence and science on a tight budget.

It will often be hard with many challenges along the way.

But the work you will be doing will be fascinating and incredibly worthwhile.

And surely few endeavours are as noble as making sure that taxpayers’ money is spent wisely and well, delivering battle winning capability to our armed forces, and ensuring our country’s security.

That is the endeavour you have embarked upon, and I think you have made a very wise choice.

Below is the text of the speech made by the Minister for Defence Equipment, Support and Technology, Peter Luff, made at SS Great Britain in Bristol on Thursday 19th May 2011.

Introduction

Thank you Jonathan for that largely kind introduction, and for inviting me tonight to a totally memorable event.

It is a genuine pleasure to be with you.

Tonight is a celebration of the vital work of the Royal Corps of Naval Constructors.

I’m acutely conscious that you are the experts and that my job is to provide some colour.

Or, to paraphrase a former war-time Director of Naval Construction, Sir Stanley Vernon Goodall, in response to rather a dull draft from his assistant: you provide the facts, and I will impart the enthusiasm!

And I am as enthusiastic about the quality of military and civil service advice.

And the facts speak for themselves: credible and confident professional engineering leadership has been at the heart of major British naval projects since 1883.

In large part, that has come from the Corps of civilian staff represented by the RCNC.

In preparing for tonight, I had my attention drawn to a 1955 debate in the House of Commons on recruitment to the RCNC.

Hansard records that the Civil Lord of the Admiralty, Mr. Simon Digby, accepted MPs’ concerns that more could be done to attract people to the Corps, but noted that only one person had resigned since 1951, “and that was to do the same job in Canada”!

But although smaller in number today, the quality and dedication of RCNC members remains as high as ever.

And so thank you for all that you do to support the Defence of this country, and the effectiveness and safety of those who fight on its behalf.

Brunel / SS Great Britain

Sadly, in the modern age, the truly noble work of the engineer is often confused with the vital craft of the mechanic.

Now it’s in danger of becoming a cliché, but engineering must re-claim its position as an honoured profession in the eyes of the public.

An architect may have designed Sydney Opera House, but it took an engineer to build it.

And just look at the grand surroundings in which we find ourselves in here tonight. And my thanks to everyone involved in organising this event.

Tonight, we celebrate the RCNC on the SS Great Britain – my thanks to everyone involved in giving us this rare treat. It was the first ocean liner to have an iron hull and a propeller, and it was designed of course by the great Isambard Kingdom Brunel.

Brunel is my hero, and in my view the finest civil engineer of all time – and the personification of the Franco-British partnership! For those who don’t know, his father was French.

Now he possessed that rare combination of creativity and innovation, technical brilliance and commercial flair.

And so he changed the world.

As Jeremy Clarkson put it when he nominated Brunel as the Greatest Briton: “Brunel put beauty into the beast of the industrial revolution, which made Britain great.”

His boldness and determination to succeed often led him to actually ignore the risk to his own life.

As another author put it, Brunel was “in love with the impossible.”

It is Brunel whose name is forever linked with the Great Western Railway, connecting Bristol with London – a route on which so many in this room spend so much of their working lives.

And, of course, it was Brunel who built Florence Nightingale’s hospitals and delivered them to the Crimea in record time – the outstanding UOR of the 19th century! And this ship as well served as a troop carrier in that war.

It was Brunel, too, who invented an iceberg-warning device for his ships.

And what ships they were.

Without Brunel – literally and metaphorically – where would we be tonight?

Equally, for all his many triumphs down the years, Brunel experienced failure too.

His atmospheric railway was ultimately unsuccessful, and his infinitely superior broad gauge – the 100% solution – was defeated by the inferior narrow gauge – the 20% solution!

But this evening our subject is ships.

So I’d like to reflect on some lessons from naval construction history which continue to impact, both the Corps today and my role as a Defence Minister.

Lessons From Naval Construction History

Britain has a proud maritime history.

The seas have been – and continue to be – central to our island nation’s influence, prosperity, and security.

As Sir Walter Raleigh put it:

“Whosoever commands the sea commands the trade; whosoever commands the trade of the world commands the riches of the world, and consequently the world itself.”

Britain’s omnipotence has sadly long since passed.

And yet as you rightly emphasise Jonathan, our wealth still relies on international trade with over 90% of that trade, by value and volume, being transported by sea.

The Royal Navy has been at the centre of our national life for centuries. Today it has a unique role in promoting and protecting Britain and its interests – and yes, one of the old and original threat – piracy. The RN is central to our future national security and, to quote the SDSR, to delivering an adaptable posture with flexible forces.

And this means that the proud maritime legacy of this country, and of which I am strong supporter, has a positive and resilient future under this Government.

This also means that the Corps must continue to play its vital role.

Because naval construction – and the seas our vessels sail on or under – test man’s skills as much as ever.

Now, as some of you, I’m sure, know, the Corps itself was founded in the wake of the catastrophic loss of HMS Captain during its acceptance trials due to design faults.

It was a time when the great struggle between the ‘wood floats, iron sinks’ traditionalists and the supporters of ironclad warships was at its height.

It was a time when two hitherto fundamentals of naval warfare – sail power and broadside armament – were being challenged by steam and the turret ship.

‘Turn the gun, not the ship’ was the idea that drove a brilliant young, inventor, Captain Cowper Phipps Coles.

And Coles generated a political, media, and public bandwagon in the face of Admiralty doubts about the Captain being top-heavy.

In the event, the Captain sank along with 500 men, including Coles.

The subsequent court-martial was a case of ‘I told you so’, aimed at presumptuous private designers who might in future seek to challenge the Navy’s monopoly in ship design.

The project had gone ahead despite the advice of the Chief Constructor for the Admiralty, E J Reid, and it had been a failure in almost every respect – save one: Cole’s turrets would feature within 12 months on the newest ironclad – the mastless Devastation – was acknowledged by the Admiralty who paid royalties to Cole’s widow for use of his design.

It was a time of public concern over safety; the efficiency of government’s acquisition processes; and a time of rapid organisational and technological change within the Royal Navy.

Plus ça change.

It’s one of the timeless paradoxes of engineering that success encourages engineers to enhance performance and reduce costs.

Wanting to create more elegant, optimal designs, the engineer moves away from traditional standards sometimes – sometimes – unintentionally eroding safety margins.

Not surprisingly, these innovations, exacerbated by overconfidence, can lead to failures.

Failures in turn lead to increased attention to reliability and safety, pushing the pendulum in the other direction.

Now, as you said Jonathan, today, our work takes place in the shadow of the tragic Nimrod crash in 2006, and the subsequent damning Haddon-Cave report.

It’s entirely proper that safety is our overriding concern, but we must also be mindful of that pendulum.

Our work also takes place in the context of transformation in Defence, including our approach to acquisition.

Now the people at Abbey Wood have not received the praise and thanks they deserve, but they – including many of you here tonight – can among other things take great satisfaction from the numerous lives that have been saved by their work.

Everything we do is based on the legitimacy given to us – or rather entrusted to us – by the British people.

And they’re not listening when we tell them that we deliver the vast majority of our equipment and support projects to performance, time, and cost.

They’re not listening when we say that over 80% are delivered to time, and nearly 90% to budget.

They’re simply not buying our story when the commentators understandably focus their often grossly inaccurate reports on extremes and ‘the things that go wrong’.

So, to win the confidence of the taxpayer, we must be frank about our shortcomings, forthright about our strengths, and fearless about the changes we need to make if we are to support current operations and build the Armed Forces of tomorrow.

Historical Parallels With Acquisition Today

That said, we should remember that many of the challenges we face are no different to those faced by our predecessors.

Long Lead Items

For example – and I think I’m indebted to Admiral Lister for this – there is nothing more established in naval construction than the principle of buying the long lead items in good time.

I’m told the oak for HMS Victory was purchased 15 years before construction began.

Off The Shelf

Or the question of buying off the shelf or modifying off the shelf.

It reminds me of the LST (Landing Ship Tank) Maracaibo Class during the Second World War.

Churchill demanded ships that could land tanks – themselves not yet built – on beaches anywhere in the world.

This was physically difficult because it would require an ocean-going ship of limited draught.

And it was psychologically difficult because it was likely to demand writing off the ships after their first assault.

The solution was the conversion of Maracaibo oilers, because of their shallow draught.

In turn, this required ingenious new bow disembarking gear, as suggested by the Director of Naval Construction’s department.

When launched in Sunderland in July 1941, it became the first ever landing ship designed for tanks – the ingenuity of an urgent operational requirement before we ever invented the UOR.

The chief sacrifice was speed – only 10 knots against the 17 knots which specially designed later ships could sustain.

But the value of an adapted off the shelf purchase was clear.

Modular Construction

And their modular construction, which Bob and I were discussing over dinner.

Still in World War II, the first motor launches – “A” Type MLs – were built after the Fairmile organisation approached the Admiralty. They proposed pre-fabrication by saw-mills and furniture makers in London, and then sending the units to selected yacht builders for assembly.

The scheme was so successful that the subsequent “B” Types were constructed in the same way – and we have learnt the lessons today with the carriers.

80% Solutions – Nothing New

And those B types show that the utility of an 80% solution over a perfect one is nothing new as a classic capability trade was made.

The re-designed boat needed higher speed and was first designed with three engines.

But a shortage of supply from America prompted a reduction to two engines and lower speeds.

However it also meant a 50% increase in the number of boats built.

Innovation

And innovation has been a permanent feature of naval construction.

Writing in 1966, in the introduction to the splendid “British Battleships 1860 to 1950” by Oscar Parkes, Earl Mountbatten of Burma said,

“We are now in an interim age in which the aircraft carrier has already replaced the capital ship and the task force the line of battle. With the advent of the atomic age the guided missile launcher will replace the gun turret and the nuclear reactor the boiler furnace. Ships of the future will thus be different in shape as well as function; and the revolution thus represented will be just as fundamental as the change from sail driven wooden walls to steam driven iron-clads.”

The Value Of Sailors

Now, Mountbatten’s prophecy has not yet been entirely fulfilled, I’m sure he would have agreed that above all, there’s one lesson from history that we forget at our peril – the value of sailors.

Parkes himself captures it well:

“But when the wars were over and we came to size up the eternal value of things, it was not the ships but the men who had won.”

Conclusion

How true.

But it’s not just those who do the fighting who should be counted among the men who had won.

Without the high levels of professional, technical, and managerial competence of Corps members down the ages, the very survival of this country – and its prosperity – would almost certainly been put at too great a risk.

It continues to this day as we build the Royal Navy of the 21st century.

Yet I know that work of the Corps has all too often gone unheralded.

So here, in this great monument to British maritime engineering and architecture, I’m proud to say thank you for all you do on behalf of the nation, and for the men and women of our Armed Forces.

The toast is: “the Royal Corps of Naval Constructors”!