1.3VStall
"As an example of just how deluded some senior people were at the time, I actually recall hearing a BWOS director talking about the export potential of the new Nimrod. Er, yes............!
It's just another scandalous waste of taxpayers' money and meanwhile the poor guys at Kinloss have to try and operate and maintain obsolete kit without adequate resources.
What a pity no-one is ever accountable for such fiascos".
Couldn't agree more. So many thought the same thing, you'd think someone would listen.
It's likely the BAeS director didn't truly believe what he said. Export sales potential is a routine ploy to make a bid look more attractive, and it is after all only a (wildly inaccurate) prediction. It must always be addressed and appears in the Industrial Impact Paper. If a competition is too close to call, or if there is a political agenda whereby the contractor has been pre-selected (rendering the competition meaningless and a waste of time and money for other bidders), the industrial paper becomes vital. It is usually highly classified and prepared without input from those doing the main bid assessment. The "facts" it contains are often manipulated to the point of being outright lies, but can be explained away as optimistic or simple error. That's why it, and the bid team, are kept separate.
Not saying it happened on Nimrod 2000/RMPA/MRA4 of course, but it DID happen on a related programme.
Accountability?? Promotability more like. But one can only hope.