If I remember rightly, the first idiocy was subcontracting the work to FRA/Serco at Hurn. They undercut the BAe Chadderton/Woodford bid, which should have rung alarm bells. Woodford still had a significant workforce experienced in building Nimrods and that had been revalidated during the work done on the MK3. The other advantage they had was that the drawing office was just nextdoor. I think that lost around 23 months of the programme and a lot of expensive kit movement.
The second idiocy, as I see it, was the decision to conduct the flight test programme at Warton. Woodford has been test flying large aeroplanes since the 1930s, has built up considerable expertise and has all the facilities needed. Perhaps it was easier and cheaper for the DPA types to be located in the same place of work. It certainly wasn't easier for the work parties from Woodford to continually drag themselves out to Warton.
We mustn't forget that from SR (Air) 420 emerged a specification for a an aeroplane with 4 fanjet engines (low noise fatigue for the crew, high altitude capability for search range, fast patrol station transit time, etc). Whatever other aeroplane was chosen would have to have been a converted airliner, then. The Treasury, being simple but devious folk, would have found the idea of recycling an existing machine quite attractive (their understanding of a Through-deck Cruiser springs to mind). So here we are.
Something I'm not clear about are the telephone number like costs being attributed to this. If DPA are doing what they were supposed to do, they should be compiling through life costs. Is that quoted £3,200M for 12 aircraft the sum of the initial unit costs or that of the whole programme?
As ever, GlosMikeP has summed up a number of salient points on this programme well. As a minor point, though, I don't think the villagers of Bramhall would appreciate Woodford being placed next to Wilmslow.
Last edited by GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU; 20th Oct 2006 at 16:22.
Reason: I could.