Guys, at the risk of stirring the hornets nest...
1. After being nearly a decade late, the posts which say 'it was almost complete' are being disingenuous to say the least. I was consulted in a very very peripheral way about five years ago at Boscombe and it was 'almost ready for test' then. Five years later, 'its still almost ready for test. Who is to say with any reasonable certainty that we wouldn't be having the same conversation in another five years ? More succinctly, would you bet your mortgage on it ? The current govenrment won't.
2. The RAF are intimately involved in every stage of the procurement process. The DPA and the DLO (and MOD-PE in its earlier guise) do not arbitrarily change the specification for the platform, and give the contractor a get out excuse. The services play an integral part n the OR definition and its translation through Assessment and Design. It is the services who have the track record in changing the requirements, daily, weekly and monthly. Many changes are completely necessary but the mantra on aircraft release has always been "better late and over budget, than what we asked for and on time". Suggestions that the services are not to blame are again, misleading.
3. Its is not a logical statement to suggest that if £4 billion has been wasted or spent to date, we should just keep spending to finish the job and that is a sensible thing to do. thats gamblers logic - because I have lost £4 billion on the ponies, I must keep gambling to make it all turn out better.
4. Putting all emotion, excuses, blame, personalities, politics to one side, the defence industry in its widest definition has had £4 billion of taxpayers cash and failed to deliver either what was originally planned or what was latterly agreed. If a builder gave you a quote and ten years later still hadn't finished, and was unable to even give you a 100% guarateed completion date for half the job originally contracted, I would suggest you wouldn't want to give the builder any more money, at all, ever again. the RAF have had their money, blown it and the kitty is dry. All the Merchant *ankers did in relation to this, was cause the issue to drop into stark relief and make people realise the MOD was utterly out of control. Maybe thats the only good thing they did for the UK.
Why is Nimrod any different ?
It isn't.
(just another jockey - 'being a tad expensive' is a unnecessarily highly priced TV. Being billions over budget with someone elses money is not. You appear to have no idea how much money 'billions' is and how its a problem. Us public did not give you a blank cheque and leave you to waste it as you will - your attitude towards good use of us taxpayers money is disappointing. I know a lot more about procurement in MOD and its interaction with the RAF than you might believe - since 1985 in fact.