manccowboy,
You stated "..The original Nimrod was built by Hawker Siddeley in a different era using a different CAD system and each airframe was individual, how was BAE, a different company in another era supposed to know that? They took one frame and used that for the new CAD, any other manufacturer would have done the same since the original jigs and blueprints were long gone..."
A couple of points in response.
First of all I somehow doubt that CAD was in use when the original Nimrod (MR1) was designed, as it happened somewhen before 1967...but that is almost the least important point.
If you read back through this thread you will find someone stating that BAE were told that the aircraft were different sizes very early (at the very beginning, I'm not sure?) in the project.
This issue was also highlighted when FRA/Serco starting stripping down 3 fuselages at Bournmouth in 1997!
The fact that older generation aircraft were different sizes is not exactly news to anyone who has been in the aircraft industry more than 5 minutes, I believe that Buccaneers were well known for it...
HOWEVER - THE BIGGEST POINT TO MAKE IS THAT BAE WERE THE DESIGN AUTHORITY (or whatever phrase they use these days) FOR THE MR2 AIRFRAME.
THEY WERE PAID, YES PAID, EVERY YEAR BY THE MOD FOR THEIR INPUT TO THE MR2, WHICH INCLUDED KEEPING DESIGNS AND SPECIFICATIONS ARCHIVED FOR ANY REQUIRED USE!
To claim, as you appear to be doing, that BAE knew nothing of the aircrafts specifications and buildstate either means you are very naive as to what was going on in terms of maintaining the MR2, or means you are saying that BAE was committing fraud for years, by not doing work it was being paid for annually.
I suggest you read the Haddon Cave report from cover to cover before you start saying what paragons of virtue BAE were/are...
BAE may not be alone in the world in terms of problems building new aircraft (see the F-35 thread), but in many cases they didn't help themselves either...