Changing security threats and global instability has increased the need for skilled engineers in the defence industry.
Donald Trump vowed during his campaign that he would make the US military so big and powerful that “nobody – absolutely nobody – is going to mess with us”. The shares of global defence companies, including major players in the UK, rallied at his claim. But despite promises to increase military spending, Trump’s unique form of diplomacy has created a volatile landscape for defence companies around the world.
This instability, alongside rapidly changing security threats, has forced firms to innovate and respond to shifting demands faster than ever. British companies are leaders at doing this, and the figures prove it. The UK has the third-largest defence budget globally, which increased for the first time in six years last year to £35.1bn. Overall, the sector employs 142,000 people in the UK and supports a further 111,000 people indirectly. It has seen a 29 per cent growth in productivity, compared to the 2 per cent seen by the overall UK economy.
Major contract wins have increased opportunities across the country. In April 2017, weapons manufacturer MBDA was awarded three contracts worth more than £500m. These contracts will create Meteor air-to-air missiles for Britain’s F-35 stealth fighters; provide maintenance of the Royal Navy’s the Sea Viper weapon; and produce more CAMM defence missiles, which are manufactured at MBDA’s sites in Bolton, Stevenage and Henlow. Together, the deals will sustain
more than 130 jobs in the UK.
In the same month, a £330m defence contract was awarded to a General Dynamics in Oakdale, Caerphilly, to create a next-generation communications system for the Ministry of Defence. The platform will be used on a new fleet of Ajax armoured vehicles that are being assembled and tested in Merthyr Tydfil. In total, the contract is expected to create 125 new jobs. The firm is currently offering engineering technician apprenticeships in Oakdale and manufacturing and mechanical apprenticeships in Merthyr Tydfil.
To continue to win contracts in such a volatile landscape, the UK must invest in the right skills to deliver the technologies needed. According to industry group ADS, areas such as cyber security, research and development (R&D), and design and engineering, are all key employment priorities across the defence industry.
The challenge of cyber security
Cyber security is a particularly challenging area where engineers are highly sought after. A new wave of technologies and an increase in cyber-based attacks are forcing the defence industry to adapt. As a result, advancing technology in defence has become as much about improving communication and information protection as it has about enhancing traditional defence equipment. This demand has seen the development of new long-range surveillance systems, advanced targeting systems and smarter weapons technology.
“Away from combat theatre, intelligence and data is a key commodity both in defence and attack; intel interception and data protection are two examples of cyber technology, which is a large influence on the sector,” said Tim Carling, director of engineering technology at recruitment firm Matchtech. “We’re seeing an increasing demand for personnel in the converging skill space between traditional engineering and IT.
“The demand continues to be for electronics, software, systems and safety engineers. Increasingly, software is becoming less embedded and more application-based, presenting a challenge for the defence sector given the safety-critical nature of the environment. The advances aren’t creating new skills but instead evolving blends of experience…Those engineers with a blend of traditional software engineering skills and higher-level development experience will be particularly well placed to find opportunities in the defence sector.”
Over the next 10 years the equipment procurement plan commits the UK to spending £82bn on buying new ships, submarines, vehicles and complex weapon systems, with a further £92bn earmarked for the equipment support plan. Around £19bn of the equipment plan is being spent on surface warships, including Queen Elizabeth-class aircraft carriers, the Type 26 frigate, new Tide-class fleet tankers and offshore patrol vessels. This will require more traditional skills that can be transferred from parallel industries such as civil aerospace, environment and the IT industry.
Opportunities are global. A large portion of customers in the UK defence industry are international, and that is set to continue post-Brexit given the falling pound. And it’s not just the larger firms where opportunities are ripe. The focus on innovative technology is providing a chance for smaller companies to provide a military edge to governments. This means engineers in SMEs may have more opportunity to innovate. In February, the Ministry of Defence announced the formation of a defence innovation advisory panel, which is backed by an £800m innovation fund.
Production and assembly
Over half of all UK defence apprenticeships and trainees are currently within production and assembly functions, according to ADS. A large number of apprenticeships and trainees work within design and engineering and research and development, which reflects the sector’s focus on innovation. The industry also provides rewarding high-skill, high-value careers – the average salary in the UK defence industry is £39,000, which is 44 per cent more than the national average (approximately £27,000).
“The UK defence industry provides the skills, capabilities and innovation required to sustain our national security in the face of fast-evolving threats,” said Paul Everitt, chief executive of trade group ADS. “It will be involved in some of the most interesting, exciting and intellectually demanding programmes and projects. The defence industry provides long-term, high-value jobs where apprenticeships are encouraged and apprentices rewarded with real career progression. This is a great time to be joining the industry and the range of opportunities has never been greater.
“Whether it is designing and building nuclear submarines, supporting the development of new air capabilities or strengthening our cyber defences, there are rewarding careers available to all.”
It is true that the Government plans to spend £178 billion on new military equipment and its support over the next 10 years, but according to the National Audit Office report HC 914, the affordability of the equipment & support plan is at greater risk than at any time since its inception because of continuing problems associated with delays and cost overruns, which have bedevilled defence procurement programmes for as long anyone can remember.
The share of blame attributed to people at the Ministry of Defence for delays and cost overruns has been documented extensively over the decades. But what is the role of MoD’s other half of the partnership, namely Defence Contractors, in this epic tale of failure?
The risk that new equipment procurement programmes will fall behind schedule is driven by three significant factors – all of them, entirely within the control of the Contractor:
(a) Work allowed to commence without the full complement of Task Performers being assigned to the project performance team, right from the start.
(b) Task Performers arbitrarily (and clandestinely) re-assigned to other priority work during the term of the Contract.
(c) Task Performers, who are typically on one month’s notice corresponding to pay in arrears, abandon their posts for a better paid job elsewhere.
The practice of switching the most capable and smartest people (the ‘A’ Team members) from existing project commitments, to working on other contracts running concurrently which have gone ‘critical’, or to producing bid phase deliverables for ITT responses, is very common within Defence Contractors’ organisations – because the need to continually bring-in money or win new business takes priority over everything else, a foremost characteristic of for-profit organisations.
Indeed, such is their obsession with future income (and Share Price) that, once they have got a new Contract in the bag, their attention immediately shifts onto chasing the next one – at the expense of compromising performance on the Contract they have just won!
This all too familiar scenario is further compounded by the fact that:
(a) Contractors at every tier of the Defence Industry have mandated enforcement of a minimalist staffing policy of being just ‘one man’ deep in many of their specialist core functions, with no slack or succession plan – which unfortunately, also denies defence workers the opportunity to associate with like-minded people in the work environment, severely impeding their professional development.
(b) In their desperation to quickly build-up their project performance teams to full strength following down-selection for the first Contract performance phase, Contractors have been less than honest with new employees (particularly those originating from the Public Sector) about their individual role in the project performance team, the job content and near term prospects – because they are not bound by a ‘Code on Ethical Behaviour in Business’. Consequently, these newcomers have no choice but to align their personal and career goals with those of their new employer on the basis of what they are told. It is the disappointment of discovering a substantial gap between the reality on the ground and what they were led to believe at interview that causes these new starters to leave – creating yet more vacancies and disruption!
(c) Instead of looking upon people on their payroll as human beings with hopes, fears and insecurities, individuals are treated like ‘economic units’ by Contractors – to be bought and sold like commodities, at will, in the free market to serve their own narrow commercial interests.
(d) Recent years has seen the working relationship between Indirect and Direct labour types to be strained beyond breaking point on account of:
i. The latter (who are all Task Performers, adding value by producing deliverables which attract payment from MoD) being compelled by the former to partake in activities which are contrary to their professional, ethical and moral convictions. In turn, this has led to Direct labour types to accuse Indirect labour types of ‘living off their backs’ by charging MoD a ‘tax surcharge’ on their labour – creating even more bitterness and division.
ii. The duplicitous policy enforced by Indirect labour types of making bold pledges in Management Plans, and then promptly rescinding on these work commitments during the follow-on Contract performance phase has had the effect of disenfranchising Direct labour types, because they think this is thoroughly deceitful behaviour.
iii. The burden of responsibility for executing the resultant grossly under-scoped Programme of Work falling on Task Performers, instead of those people on overheads who made the false, exaggerated claims about the maturity of the proposed Technical Solution in the first place.
@JagPatel3 on twitter
I look at all the vast expenditures and am drawn back to Edward de Bono’s approach every time.
If it is costing so much [his assessment in the Viet Nam war was that it was costing the US about $1,000,000 to remove each VC from the battle-field and at that for $50,000 you could have bribed almost anyone in Asia…] a more modern figure -say $500,000 should do the trick. £35 billion per annum for defence, mostly now against the antics of individual lunatics. I am sure they too have a price. So find out what it is and do a deal? We could call it Defexit!
There’s always money for war, but never money for health and care. The biggest threats are now obesity, cancer and environmental damage. That’s where the money should go. That’s where I would work.
” the average salary in the UK defence industry is £39,000″
That’s coming from tax, paid by carers on minimum wage, getting £16000 per annum.