Temporary thread hi-jack
There's a common theme here, namely, the MoD choosing politically acceptable but ultimately flawed solutions because they're 'cheap' and involve modding existing UK airframes (thus safeguarding UK jobs etc).
The Nimwacs debacle - been done to death here but that was "an austere £450m programme" ([I]at the start![I]). The airframe imposed limitations on the kit (space, weight, growth potential plus zero export sales potential). Result? £1bn down the tubes.
Then Nimrod 2000 - same approach again except this time the airframes were rebuilt too). Who'd buy a car that way? And here we are now - with a £2bn+ cost and rising and still a few years from entering service.
To show the Procurement mindset, when the UK team went out to Seattle to negotiate the buy of E-3s, after establishing the cost of a standard fit E-3 (with 9 consoles) the question was asked of Boeing - "and how much would one be with 6 consoles?"
The final question was, "..and how much would one be with 3 consoles..?"
There must have been much nudging under the Boeing side of the table at that.
As far as MoD(PE) was concerned, they were buying a Shack replacement (which had 3 radar positions)..
Expediency always seems to be the watchword. What price SMART procurement?
Last edited by PPRuNeUser0139; 6th June 2007 at 08:39.