but a problem with BAe not understanding the foibles of the design and contruction and then not addressing them in the contract, nor in the build.
I think it's only fair to point out that in 1996 BAe's suggested mitigation was to re-design Nimrod using current standards, to get round (e.g.) the problem of hand-built mainplanes. Both they and MoD's engineers had pointed this out.
One could argue the company should have rejected the offer of contract that included a spec that they could not meet. MoD should not have made the offer.
Two separate issues as far as BAe and MoD employees are concerned. One is engineering, one is Board level. The former did their best on both sides, but were doomed from the start. The latter, in MoD at the time, were responsible for some appalling decisions, such as Chinook Mk3. No surprise that the same names crop up. It is that link which makes matters infinitely worse, and MoD sought to conceal.