I'm working from memory now (but I've got a pretty good memory) but I seem to remember that the decision to go for MRA4 as a Nimrod MR2 replacement took place against the following background.
There were 3 big defence procurement decisions being made at around that time, the selection of an attack helicopter for the AAC, a replacement for the C130K, and a replacement for the MR2.
The choice of attack helicopter was between the Eurocopter Tiger, and the Apache. A case of Europe vs USA. The decision was made to go with the Apache. Whatever the benefit to Westlands may have been (indeed the Westlands factor may have swung the decision), the general perception, certainly among the masses, was that this was a US buy.
The choice of C-130K replacement was between the A-400M and the C-130J. Another apparent Europe (with a strong UK input to A-400M at the time) vs USA contest. BAE were lobbying strongly for the A-400M, to the extent that there were full page adverts in such papers as the Telegraph and Times, talking about job, and engineering skill, losses in the UK if the A-400M wasn't chosen. I seem to remember one advert had a picture of a 12 year old boy, saying he wanted a future in aviation engineering in the UK, and he wouldn't have one if the A-400M wasn't selected. The eventual winner was the C-130J, another win for the USA (in this example I have ignored subsequent delays to the A-400M, as they were irrelevant at the time, at least as far as public and political perceptions were concerned).
Finally there was the Nimrod MR2 replacement decision. The two options were MRA4 and refurbished P-3s. Once again an apparent UK vs USA contest. The ironic thing was, the apparent view was almost 180 degrees out. In the case of the MRA4, BAE was in charge of the airframe. So there were 21, subsequently 9, airframes to be converted, with no possible export sales. However, the mission system was built by Americans, IBM to start with I believe, with potentially large worldwide exports in terms of updating P-3s around the world with a new mission system derived from that created for the MRA4. Conversely if the P-3 option was selected the plan was to get UK companies to create the mission system, which might have created export sale options for the UK. However, the general perception to the laymen (for which read career politicIan and member of the public) was UK (MRA4) vs US (P-3). It is my personal belief that having just given (apparently) 2 big orders to the US (Apache and C-130J) that there was intense pressure (albeit possibly self generated) among the politicians to be seen to be giving an order to UK workers - hence a strong bias towards selecting MRA4. However, that is just my personal opinion.
I won't even go into considerations of whether or not some companies are allegedly guilty of putting in a low bid until they have got the contract and then subsequently coming out with the real cost downstream with a "pay up or cancel" comment.
However, at the end of the day it is a fact of life that procurement decisions are not just about buying the best piece of equipment for the task, there are always other political/economic influences (e.g PC-9 (best aircraft for the job but to be built in Switzerland) vs Tucano (license built by Shorts of Belfast, a firm trying to survive in an unemployment blackspot at the time)). It happens just about everywhere I'm afraid!
Last edited by Biggus; 19th Dec 2012 at 10:27.