BEagle I almost fell off my seat when I read that, thats the funniest thing I've heard for ages. Are you the bloke who writes the parish newsletter in
Private Eye?
On a more serious note, who
is the villan here? Is it...
a. BAE Systems?
b. Other contractors (Rolls Royce, Ultra Electronics etc)?
c. The DPA?
d. The MOD(Air)?
e. The Treasury?
f. Combinations of the above?
I know BAE Systems is much maligned on PPRuNe, but (based on knowing people who have worked in MOD projects and having a brief skirmish with the defence industry myself (nothing to do with aircraft)) I would say that, in my opinion, many (if not most) of the problems with defence procurement are down to interference by politicians and ill informed civil servants (usually trying to penny pinch). Penny wise, pound foolish?
In design and development work, there is the concept of the "quality lever". Generally design alterations follow what is known as the "Ten Times Rule", that is that the cost of implementing design changes increases tenfold at each subsequent stage of the project. If the penny pinchers comprimise the engineering (by limiting the amount of work done on a particular subsystem, for example) at an early stage it tends to lead to expensive and time consuming modifications.
Another consequence of the quality lever and the ten times rule is that projects are liable to be delayed if the specifications get changed. This might not be relevent to the Nimrod MRA4 delays, but if new sensors/communications/navigation gear (for example) get added in the development (instead of design) phase it will invariably lead to delays and extra costs.
The above two points are not exclusive to aircraft, or MOD projects, they are proven (not to the bean counters and beaurocrats though
) facts. I'd just though I would add my two pennies' worth, I don't think we should heap
all the blame on BAE Systems. Remember, other nations have problems with defence procurement too.
BTW, I am not, nor have I ever been, an employee of BAE Systems.