From a reliable source who was closely involved from the outset (some names removed to protect the innocent):
Quote:
Was I surprised (wrt the decision to buy Nimrod)- No, and I await my invitation to appear on Panorama to explain why the disaster happened. As OR **, I made it perfectly clear to all, including the then ACDS OR , the MoD PE Team, headed by an RN 1 Star, that a decision to go with BAE would be a disaster. I was strongly backed up by the 2nd ***, Boscombe Down etc. The corruption and fraudulent activity that took place to make it a political win for BAE rather than LM is inexcusable and should be publically investigated. If we recall that the contract value was for £2B for 21 aircraft with an in-service date for the first Sqn of March 2003 the outcome has been unbelievable. I should add that the LM price was £1.85B
Everyone will, of course, have their own view on what was happening at the time. While I didn't work on Nimrod after 1991, I recognise much of the above in general terms.
One must remember there were many components and interdependencies to the N2000 programme, not just a simple "Modify 21 aircraft" contract. In particular, the "2000" bit was always nonsense; for example, a pre-requisite programme's ISD was April 2001. One good reason why the above quote rings true.
My abiding memory of the time was the political interference. On one of the dependent programmes a competition was run and the winner was as clear cut as you could wish for (the wish being that the losers don't complain and delay the programme, which they didn't).
Their senior directors pitched up for the announcement and left crest fallen. We were more gobsmacked than they were. After the dust settled, we were told of the "Industrial Impact Paper" (i.e. Political lobbying) which was utterly laughable in the assumptions it made. One of which was Ferranti (now everyone's heard of them, right?) had no relevant business with MoD, which presumably came as a surprise to their 14,000 employees on MoD contracts. Anyway, the contract was awarded to a company who had never bid in the first place - which hadn't been a surprise to us as they had no track record. (Work that out).
There is not one person in PE/DPA/DE&S who has the clout to overrule such a political decision. And this is where the difference between "procurement" and "acquisition" comes in. The former are left in the lurch by the decision, while those in acquisition who know nothing about procurement move on and up, having satisfied their political masters.