MRA 4, delayed again? [Archive]

Could be the last?

1st Apr 2007, 06:25

Aplogies for my ignorance, but having just completed a basic project management course recently, there were a few areas that seem to have been overlooked with the MRA4:

1. If a project is no longer sustainable i.e. overbudget and not delivering then the Project Manager should take responsibility and, if required, shut it down.

2. If the end user is not getting what he wants, then the project should be reviewed at a higher level. With a view to shutting it down.

3. If the project has failed before, for whatever reason..... Then it should be shut down!

The cash cow principle can't be sustained. Ultimately, someone should have the courage to stand up and make an informed decision on this. The MRA4, Bowman and numerous other recent projects highlight the conflict of interest with many parties involved.

Getting off my soap box now......

Exrigger

1st Apr 2007, 08:22

Could be the last?: in response I have cut and paste what I put in another thread

When a company is asked to produce a product to do a, b & c, after winning a contract in competition with other manufacturers, build the product and then the customer asks wether said company can all of a sudden re-design the aircraft to do d, e & f as well and you all expect all this additional design, development and testing to be done within the original timescales and cost.

1. The project manager is not in a position to shut the project down, he has to project manage to cater for the weather, spares and a customer who still wants the aircraft, but changes the goal posts.
2. The customer was given what he wanted a while back, but wanted extras added after the project has started and as the customer still wants/needs the aicraft they are not going to cancel either.
3. When has the project failed before?

Having completed the basic project management course I suggest you get some experience or go on an advanced project management course and find out what real project management is all about in the real world.

tucumseh

1st Apr 2007, 08:25

I could write a book. In fact, I am…..

This is too simplistic.

Real story. VERY recent…..

(Boss) “Tuc, I want you to cancel that project. It involves integration. We don’t do integration in this IPT, too risky and can affect your annual report”.

(Tuc) “No chance. It’s going to come in ahead of schedule, under budget and to a performance they can only dream about”.

“Do what you’re told”.

2 weeks later….

“I thought I told you to cancel that project”.

“Sorry, I thought you might want to read the final trials report. Worked out even better than I thought”.

“Cancel it”.

“Put that in writing”

“OK” (He did).

Another 2 weeks….

(Tuc) ”Here’s the Data Pack for approval”.

“I told you to cancel”.

“The kit will be in theatre in a week or so, what’s your problem?”

“I’m not signing”.

“Tell you what, if it goes t*** up, I’ll take the hit; if it’s ok you can take the credit”.

“OK, put it in writing”. (Signs approval). “But I don’t like you making me look a prat”

“Put that in writing”

“OK” (He did)

Many moons later, upon return from sandy places……

(3*) “This kit is the dogs bollix”. (Remainder omitted due to OpSec, although it was said in open forum, with industry present).

Cardinal rules….

Persevere

Listen to the User

Ignore bosses who have never managed a project from start to finish.

As the subject is RMPA/MRA4, the action proposed at the time by those who knew was to declare planning blight. As approvals (and instruction!) to proceed came from way above the project manager or project director, “shutting down” was no longer in the gift of either.

The Swinging Monkey

1st Apr 2007, 08:46

ExRigger
In some circumstances you may have a point, but not here I'm afraid.

When MOD/RAF or whoever, goes out to industry for something new, they put out a specification. Irrespective of what that specification says or requires, the company will ALWAYS say 'Yes, we can do that, and it will cost you £XX' The company will always say that the spec' requested can be achieved, without any hesitation, fact.

It's not until you get further down the road, when things are getting a bit more difficult than the company first thought, that the excuses and requests for more money and more time arise.

It is a little bit more complex than that I accept, but in very simple terms that's pretty much how it works. Just take a look at ASTOR/Sentinel - need I say any more??

The fact is that I cannot remember any BWOS project that has not been horrendously overbudget and way overdue, and STILL not worked as the customer wanted! MRA4 will be no different, infact its already over budget and overdue!

TSM

Chicken Leg

1st Apr 2007, 09:20

Do we still need it at all? Is it not another Cold War relic? (Typhoon:hmm: ).

DEL Mode

1st Apr 2007, 09:27

And I can think of loads of projects that BWoS have not been involved in that have been late and over cost.

Could there be a common mode of failure?

Exrigger

1st Apr 2007, 10:07

DEL Mode: Thank you, but it is an UK institition and right to blame everything on BAES.

The Swinging Monkey:

Accept some of what you say, but am not going to argue the point. Astor/Chinook/Hercules/Apache/Merlin/Lynx/Puma none of these has anything to do with BAES, so it is not just them that 'does the same thing'.

I accept that it is not black and white with any large and changing project and throughout history it has allways been so, the bottom line is that the ones responsible are still placed in the Government/MOD and whoever people want to throw stones at it is not helping the guys that we all want to help at the sharp end they are all that matter.

tucumseh

1st Apr 2007, 10:23

TSW

“Irrespective of what that specification says or requires, the company will ALWAYS say 'Yes, we can do that, and it will cost you £XX' The company will always say that the spec' requested can be achieved, without any hesitation, fact”.

I’m sorry, but I must disagree, although there is much in what you say. I accept that some companies do this, but they only try it once with an experienced project or programme manager, who is knowledgeable in the engineering aspects of the requirement. I also accept that it is not MoD policy to employ or develop such experienced staff, and hasn’t been for over a decade now. (CDP – 1996). The few unscrupulous companies rushed to take advantage. The majority were sympathetic and tried to help. But the capability gap this madness caused was just as difficult to bridge as operational ones; and remains so.

You mentioned one company, and there seems universal suspicion about them. Me? I don’t like dealing with their direct competitor. Their usual tactic is to study the background of each MoD project team member and, if they think anyone is a risk (that is, they know what they’re talking about and won’t roll over), they will institute a campaign to undermine that person, brief against him, demand that he be excluded from key discussions. Weak MoD “leadership” will permit this; in fact encourage it by their compliance. You’ve got to set the standards and rules up front. Failure to do this is, I believe, a key reason for the Nimrod debacle. Many knowledgeable people have commented here that the problems that have been encountered were predicted on Day 1. These experienced people were totally ignored, and when their predictions (statements of fact) materialised ….well, as you say, over budget and overdue. But that is not entirely the contractor’s fault. As ExRigger says, if MoD keep moving the goalposts the contractor is well within his rights to seek renegotiation – especially if they have been screwed down on price and not permitted sufficient tolerance in the programme to cope with the inevitable emergent work. Let’s face it. The vast reduction in a/c numbers (about 30 to 14 was it?) just handed it on a plate to the company. I recall people in the team throwing up their hands in horror and more or less giving up. The MoD acquisition system wears everyone down eventually. Companies just sit back and wait patiently for MoD to periodically implode, and rake in the profits.

Exrigger

1st Apr 2007, 10:39

tucumseh: Thankyou, I think that was a good explanation/amplification of what I was trying to say, I also agree that all the 'companies' involved are not whiter than white, but then I don't believe that the businesses in all other areas are either.

Roland Pulfrew

1st Apr 2007, 10:39

Do we still need it at all? Is it not another Cold War relic? (Typhoon ).

Only someone who has no understanding of what this jet is capable of would ask that question! If we cancelled all of our Cold War relics we would have no equipment left. Although Typhoon is going to be late into service we still need to replace the F3s and Jags. What do we replace it with if we don't get Typhoon? :ugh: :ugh:

And why is the MRA4 a Cold War relic? Do we not still have a maritime patrol requirement? In the UK? In the North Atlantic? Caribbean? Med? Gulf? And if it is a relioc why are the USN so keen to get their hands on the P8?

The MRA4 is a leap in capability, and it will be awesome once it finally gets into service.

TheSmiter

1st Apr 2007, 10:44

Chicken Leg - yes we do need it, and probably more than were ordered (but thats me just thinking long term rather than here and now!) Rather than me tell you why, I suggest you read a bit more on other threads and open source material to understand the roles of this aircraft.

Guys, I haven't got a commercial background and don't understand the complexities of big project management, however I do understand:

Nimrod 2000

Smart procurement

Can someone tell me what I'm missing?

The Swinging Monkey

1st Apr 2007, 11:00

tucumseh, DEL mode & Exrigger.

As we were talking about the MR4 prject, that's why I centred on BWOS!
I wouldn't disagree too much with you about the other a/c, indeed, as I said take a look at ASTOR.

Roland, 'The MRA4 is a leap in capability, and it will be awesome once it finally gets into service' well it might be.....but only if it gets into service!

Regards
TSM

tucumseh

1st Apr 2007, 11:30

Smiter

Nimrod 2000 (nuff said)

Smart procurement Mantra – faster, cheaper, better (time, cost and performance)

A few practicalities…..

If you deliver faster, then the financiers moan because you’ve screwed up the spend profile (as you have to cough up at the wrong time). They actually pressurise you to engineer a complementary slip on another programme. Or if you say you can achieve earlier ISD when submitting, they just delay approval.

If you deliver cheaper (but to the required spec) then you are seen as a menace, as DEC will expect the same from everyone. This leads to dumbing down. However, if you deliver cheaper (but nastier), you get some clown ranting about “always buy COTS” and the User complaining when it doesn’t work in the desert due to heat and sand. If “cheaper” comes about because you’ve identified and achieved a real saving, then beware, because CDP and junior ministers have ruled that’s a punishable offence. You may think everyone benefits, but you’re actually making the scrutineers look foolish.

And it is formal MoD policy to “encourage” DEC to accept lower performance, even if this means not meeting many of the Key User Requirements. (Read any BOWMAN report). If they roll over, everyone gets a good report and moves on/up. Then the successor has the pleasure of staffing an “incremental upgrade” programme (another tenet of Smart Procurement) whose sole aim is to get somewhere remotely close to the original spec. (Read any BOWMAN report!!).

Smart procurement? 1st of April isn’t it?

Exrigger

1st Apr 2007, 14:13

Sorry TSM you are correct it was a bit off topic, but the subject response still applies to MRA4 as well. I was using this thread to answer a few contributors in this thread that had a similiar theme throughout their contributions for other aircraft types.

Chicken Leg

2nd Apr 2007, 11:36

Woah, there chaps, calm down!

Although Typhoon is going to be late into service we still need to replace the F3s and Jags. What do we replace it with if we don't get Typhoon?

Of course we need to replace the F3's and Jags, my point is that there were at least as good options that were available off the shelf for a fraction of the cost of the Typhoon. F15E? We could have equipped a Sqn of F15E's (on time) with the cost of one Typhoon. And as far as replacing the Jags for the CAS role, aren't I right in saying that the Typhoon doesn't have a cannon? That has to at least limit it's capability.

Only someone who has no understanding of what this jet is capable of would ask that question!

Rather than me tell you why, I suggest you read a bit more on other threads and open source material to understand the roles of this aircraft.

I think that I have a fair understanding of what the asset is going to be capable of, but again, that is not my point. Has the MR2 being used in the MP role over the last few years? If not, there are much better platforms for the role. And let's be honest, the cost of the project for the small number of platforms is astronomical, criminal (not literally!) even. Also, for the c.£400 million per platform, why couldn't the capability by mounted on a modern design. If the Comet was so good, why has it not been flying commercially for the last God knows how long?

Although my initial post may have been slightly flippant, it was not without due thought. UK MOD procurement is too slow, too often rewards failure and is incapable of learning from its mistakes. I'm all for awarding contracts to British companies, but only if they can produce a product of equal quality/capability at close to competitive cost.

1.3VStall

3rd Apr 2007, 09:06

Many years ago, when the decision was announced that the Nimrod replacement would be a re-winged, re-engined, re-systemed Nimrod, I turned to my nearest and dearest and said "They must be barking mad! Why would anyone with anything between the ears think that totally re-engineering a 1940s airframe design offers a sensible way ahead? It will be late, over budget, over weight and it won't work!"

It gives me no satisfaction at all that my prophesy turned out to be entirely correct. I am just dismayed that this project has turned into yet another sad indictment of BWOS and the defence procurement system (sic!).

As an example of just how deluded some senior people were at the time, I actually recall hearing a BWOS director talking about the export potential of the new Nimrod. Er, yes............!

It's just another scandalous waste of taxpayers' money and meanwhile the poor guys at Kinloss have to try and operate and maintain obsolete kit without adequate resources.

What a pity no-one is ever accountable for such fiascos.

tucumseh

3rd Apr 2007, 10:17

1.3VStall

"As an example of just how deluded some senior people were at the time, I actually recall hearing a BWOS director talking about the export potential of the new Nimrod. Er, yes............!

It's just another scandalous waste of taxpayers' money and meanwhile the poor guys at Kinloss have to try and operate and maintain obsolete kit without adequate resources.

What a pity no-one is ever accountable for such fiascos".

Couldn't agree more. So many thought the same thing, you'd think someone would listen.

It's likely the BAeS director didn't truly believe what he said. Export sales potential is a routine ploy to make a bid look more attractive, and it is after all only a (wildly inaccurate) prediction. It must always be addressed and appears in the Industrial Impact Paper. If a competition is too close to call, or if there is a political agenda whereby the contractor has been pre-selected (rendering the competition meaningless and a waste of time and money for other bidders), the industrial paper becomes vital. It is usually highly classified and prepared without input from those doing the main bid assessment. The "facts" it contains are often manipulated to the point of being outright lies, but can be explained away as optimistic or simple error. That's why it, and the bid team, are kept separate.

Not saying it happened on Nimrod 2000/RMPA/MRA4 of course, but it DID happen on a related programme.

Accountability?? Promotability more like. But one can only hope.

Roland Pulfrew

3rd Apr 2007, 12:26

We could have equipped a Sqn of F15E's (on time) with the cost of one Typhoon.
Chicken Leg
Now I know you know nothing (too many Ns and Os in that) about Defence. Singapore are just about to buy new F15Es (well new for a 30 year old design) At $1 Billion for 12 aircraft. OK that includes some weapons and some logistics support but a Sqn for the cost of 1 Typhoon - get real. :ugh:
aren't I right in saying that the Typhoon doesn't have a cannon?
No you are wrong (but I will admit there is no guarantee they will ever use it).
Has the MR2 being used in the MP role over the last few years?
Yes, obviously! Even the RAF News still carries stories about it's MP role work. Maybe not the "traditional" sub hunting role, but lost of MP.
Smart procurement Mantra – faster, cheaper, better (time, cost and performance)
Tucumseh - When Smart Procurement was in its infancy I remember talking to a senior chap in (IIRC) Boeing who said "You cannot have faster, cheaper, better. Delivering all 3 is impossible. You can have faster, or cheaper, or better. You might even get faster and cheaper, but not all three". It seems that he was correct!

tucumseh

3rd Apr 2007, 13:24

Roland

“When Smart Procurement was in its infancy I remember talking to a senior chap in (IIRC) Boeing who said "You cannot have faster, cheaper, better. Delivering all 3 is impossible. You can have faster, or cheaper, or better. You might even get faster and cheaper, but not all three". It seems that he was correct!”

I’d say he was pretty close. It can be done. See my post #23. DEC, guided by a contractor who had told them the solution was hugely expensive kit which required development, had written a laughable URD. The solution was actually in service, but with the other two Services. And, of course, they don’t speak to each other. I re-wrote the URD so it made technical sense, and bought off the shelf (mil standard) kit at a fraction of the cost. Faster, cheaper, better.

The problem is that you make enemies. The company DEC and my predecessor had been dealing with, and who had been promised the contract single tender, were fuming. And certain companies have clout at the highest level. That a single tender had been approved meant very senior people in DPA were made to look foolish, as the new strategy was also single tender, but with someone else. Boss was p*****. So there goes your annual report. Similarly, DEC and related IPTs largely withdrew support, as I’d unavoidably highlighted they’d been wasting money for years. In my experience, and given similar circumstances, I’d say 95% of DPA staff would take the easy option, and deliver on time, to budget, and happily ignore the fact that performance was rock bottom. They know the odium they’d be faced with, so it’s largely self preservation. Sorry, that’s an indictment of the way the system works, but far more senior people than I have condoned it.

Users were over the moon though!

Chicken Leg

3rd Apr 2007, 13:49

Now I know you know nothing (too many Ns and Os in that) about Defence. Singapore are just about to buy new F15Es (well new for a 30 year old design) At $1 Billion for 12 aircraft. OK that includes some weapons and some logistics support but a Sqn for the cost of 1 Typhoon - get real.

$1Billion = £500 million (approx) = £40 million per jet (approx and it includes weapons and support? Explain to me exactly which part of that is a bad deal. Of course I was exagerating about the cost benefit, but I think the point is valid. You described the F15 as a 30 year old platform. Not sure that the 'E' has been around quite that long and bear in mind that we should have had our 'new' aircraft operating 10 years ago.

Maybe not the "traditional" sub hunting role, but lost of MP

That's my point, it was primarily designed as a sub hunter and yet there aren't any subs to hunt (that matter anyway, and certainly not for the rediculous price we're paying). I reckon I could find the 4 Iranian subs with a karioke microphone and an ipod headset!

I assume by your very defensive replies, that you are an MR2 Mate who is looking forward to finally getting your hands on this capability. My main gripe is the amount of money that is being spent on a largely redundant requirment and on a 60 year old platform at that (makes the 30 YO F15's look better value all the time!). The platform that the MRA4 will replace is doing some sterling work, but there are much better airframes that the Nimrod for doing that job and at about 2% (yes 2%) of the unit cost per frame of the MRA4.

GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU

3rd Apr 2007, 19:03

That's my point, it was primarily designed as a sub hunter and yet there aren't any subs to hunt (that matter anyway, and certainly not for the rediculous price we're paying).

If in 15-20 years time we are still only worried about stroppy ragheads, I, for one, will be very happy. Look North East and a long way East young man and if that doesnt make you very nervous, your optician will be delighted to see you.

My main gripe is the amount of money that is being spent on a largely redundant requirment and on a 60 year old platform

I think you exagerate the age of the machine, somewhat. We are talking Nimrods from Comets here; not Shackletons from Lincolns (don't let's be silly and pretend Manchesters). The broad GA may fit a Comet but the only commonality is the fuselage, fin and tail plane.

Throughout the latter stages of this Thread, there is no credible indication what the current setback is. Is there any danger of someone with some knowledge providing a clue?

Chicken Leg

3rd Apr 2007, 20:23

Look North East and a long way East young man

Wow, I haven't been patronised like that since I was er.................. a young man!

Strato Q

3rd Apr 2007, 21:22

That's my point, it was primarily designed as a sub hunter and yet there aren't any subs to hunt (that matter anyway, and certainly not for the rediculous price we're paying). I reckon I could find the 4 Iranian subs with a karioke microphone and an ipod headset!

Chicken Leg - don't get hung up on ASW, the MR2 was designed as a Maritime Patrol Aircraft which encompasses more than just ASW. Over the last 10 years the MR2 has expanded its capability and moved away from its traditional core business. Anyway, I would be more worried about the 48 Chinese subs and an expanding blue water navy, than "4 Iranian Subs".

Hoots

3rd Apr 2007, 22:28

I understand at a fairly recent conference an independent think tank type with vast experience, stated that we needed more MPA with the MRA4's capability and less fast jets.
No doubt this will upset our fast jet comrades, which is not intended. Yes the MRA 4 has not came in on time or budget, but then does any major project?
The need for this multi-role aircraft, i believe is still justified. Yes other platforms can do long range SAR searches, but not as efficiently, time is important as im sure you will all appreciate.
Ask anyone who has done a complete search and identification of the Falklands zone. I have done a bit of a search of the zone and a bit of SAR down there in a Herc many years ago and im sorry to have to say the Nimrod can do it in a fraction of the time due to radar and aircraft performance. If it was up to me and we had the airframes and the crews I'd have one down there permanently.
There is the arguement that the US Coast Guard use the Herc for long range SAR, so why not us, well the link below may give you a clue on that and of other types of operation:

http://www.internationalrelations.house.gov/archives/109/utl051105.pdf

Another glowing report for our equipment.
As for ASW, yes the days of the cold war may be over, but with greatest form of stealth being submarines and any potential threat against our or coalitions Navy, can we really afford to be without that capability. The submarine is an affordable piece of hardware, conventional ones that is, especially the smaller ones. What would happen if AQ got one, scary thought. China has already been mentioned, lets hope we never upset them, could be very messy.
I won't go into the overland roles, but the MRA 4 mission suite gives greater flexibility, modern comms and the option for various payloads.
Surely it is more cost effective to have a multi-role Maritime aircraft than many specialist one job types.
For years the Maritime Patrol community has been getting bashed, mainly by the uninformed. The nature of the job, as others have also perhaps, is that we dont go public one many of the things that we do. Maybe we dont have the great PR machine like the RN seems to have, but thats life.
In comparison, how busy is the E3 fleet these days. They worked their backsides off during the balkans, but although quiet now, are you really trying to say they wont be required again. I think not.
No doubt there will still be the doubters and bleaters, whether we get the MRA 4 or not we will always need a capable MPA.

1771 DELETE

3rd Apr 2007, 22:29

Chicken leg,
"That's my point, it was primarily designed as a sub hunter and yet there aren't any subs to hunt (that matter anyway, and certainly not for the rediculous price we're paying). I reckon I could find the 4 Iranian subs with a karioke microphone and an ipod headset!"

I would guess from your comment above that sub hunting isn`t your strong point, it probably isn`t even your weak point either.

Reading the "whats happening at ISK" suggest that we need the MRA4 more than ever. It will be a large leap in capability and hopefully serviceabilty as well.

Sub hunting has not died, i would suggest the TG commander on his carrier passing through the straits of Hormuz has them very much on his mind as would anyone operating in the northern pacific. The Kipper fleet has evolved as the threat has changed, the MR2 reflects that, as does the MRA4.

If given the stand off weapons that it is designed / wired for, then some of the FJ jockeys maybe looking for a job.

MrFlibble

3rd Apr 2007, 22:41

Hoots. fine post. Im in the process of applying to OASC at the moment, Im shooting for a WSOp position if Im what they're looking for - hopefully, with the Nimrod.

I visited ISK years ago on a camp with my school's CCF, and I've still got fond memories of my time with the people I met up there. Im just praying that the big hats can realise just how important the MRA4 is, and get it finished already...!

Exrigger

4th Apr 2007, 09:01

I posted this link on another thread some might be interested in what the MRA4 is being asked to do:

http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/nimrod/

Data-Lynx

4th Apr 2007, 09:53

Exrigger. I see what you mean. The aircraft has a weapons bay with side opening doors at the bottom of the fuselage which can carry fuel tanks, torpedoes (including the Tigerfish torpedo) and sonobuoys. I hope they mean Stingray.

Roland Pulfrew

4th Apr 2007, 12:36

My main gripe is the amount of money that is being spent on a largely redundant requirment

No Chicken Leg that is my point. YOU don't know enough about what the MR2 is capable of, and you don't know enough about what the MRA4 will be capable of. Sub hunting is only a small part of both aircraft's role and mission. The role(s) have moved on significantly since the introduction of the MR1. The other capabilities embeded within the mission system add to the cost. It is not the single role platform that you suggest.

If you think that the Iranian Kilos could be picked up by a kareoke mike and an iPod headset then you have proven your lack of knowledge and understanding of things ASW. But just to expand upon your knowledge: how noisy is the Gulf and how quiet is a good diesel electric?

And no I am not a Kipper Mate waiting for the new jet. Far from it, I just know a bit (a lot) more about the aircraft and its roles than you appear to.

And out of interest what capability could do what the MRA 4 will be capable of for 2% of the cost? Even if you ONLY include the sub hunting role what aircraft could do it for 2% of the cost? Or is that just another of your unfounded exagerations to make a point? With spin like that I would assume you work in the DPA or Labour Party HQ!

Exrigger

4th Apr 2007, 13:50

Data-Lynx: I agree, it looks like it might be a typo as Tigerfish was replaced by Spearfish and these are submarine launched only according to google search. Stingray is definately the aircraft launched torpedo.

Distant Voice

5th Apr 2007, 15:04

I am sorry I agree with Chicken Leg. The main roles specified for the MK2 and MRA 4 (Maritime Reconnaissance & Attack) Nimrods are:

1. Maritime Reconnaissance

2. Anti-sub warfare

3. Anti-surface warfare

4. Search and Rescue

Now, it is all very well complaining that Chicken Leg is not familar with the other "add on" roles now being carried out by Nimrod, but his point is still valid. We have complex and costly weapon system platforms being used for task which could, and should be carried in a more cost effective manner. Why do you think that there are many "limitations" being carried by the current fleet --- because much of the prime task equipment is not required. And it will be the same with the MRA 4 (of which about 6 will enter service).

Sorry guys, but I do not see many prime task operations being carried out over Iraq and Afghanistan, only "add on", for which the aircraft was never designed and tested.

Can anyone tell me what Hot weather trials were carried out on the AAR system?

DV

Chicken Leg

5th Apr 2007, 15:50

And when you consider the cost of each unit it becomes an obscenely expensive mess.

I've taken the advice of the many on this thread and done some research :ok:

£3.8 billion for what appears to now be 8 platforms. Greater than £400 million per platform. And it's now knocking on for a decade late (and will be if it arrives in 2009).

I accept that it will be a capable asset, but let's face it, it's main purpose (and the one it was procured for) is to counter a threat that we as a nation don't currently face.

If the MRA4 was available today, it would be employed as the MR2 currently is, ie in the ISTAR role. And to answer Len's point, the MR2 is being used in that role not because it's the best platform, but because it's the only platform! And if it's an ISTAR asset we want, we could spend about about 2% (yes 2%) of the unit cost per frame of the MRA4

tucumseh

5th Apr 2007, 16:11

Chicken leg
I tend to agree -re ISTAR. With the formation of DE&S, MoD had the opportunity to move MRA4 into DG ISTAR, along with the likes of UAVs, Sensors and Nav, Air Command & Control, ASTOR. But they didn't, placing it in DG Air Support along with FSTA, A400, C17 etc (and Nimrod, which is a separate IPT, which always struck me as peculiar). To me, that shows the original role has not changed in the eyes of MoD. If ISTAR has become a de facto primary role, I'd allocate responsibility accordingly.

You say 2009 will be a decade. I recall N2000/RMPA/MRA4 originating long before 1999. I read the Cardinal Points Spec for the avionics in 93 and it was old then. Assume you mean a decade LATE!!!

Roland Pulfrew

5th Apr 2007, 16:15

£3.8 billion for what appears to now be 8 platforms

CL - Where do you get the number 8 from? That's not what the 'centre' are working on.

it's main purpose

How do you know what it's main role is? Are you that intimately involved in the programme?

If the MRA4 was available today, it would be employed as the MR2 currently is, ie in the ISTAR role. And to answer Len's point, the MR2 is being used in that role not because it's the best platform, but because it's the only platform! And if it's an ISTAR asset we want, we could spend about
Quote:
about 2% (yes 2%) of the unit cost per frame of the MRA4

If you an Len want to play semantics perhaps the ac (past, present and future) should be retitled. Perhaps we could have used MRASR2 and the MRRA4. Just because a designation is there, doesn't mean you have covered the totality of the roles. And I repeat what is capable of doing ISTAR for 2% of the cost? Just to confirm that is a platform capable of doing what the MR2 currently does, and will meet or exceed what the MRA 4 will be capable of, for £8M according to your (potentially flawed) calculations. And do we really want some single use platforms?

ORAC

5th Apr 2007, 16:19

8 aircraft, I thought it was 12 - or are the numbers still shrinking? What sort of ASW fleet is that?

Whilst each individual aircraft may be effective, there is a certain minimum number of aircraft required to provide a sustained on station and area capability. Is that even enough to sustain 2-3 aircraft on station for any period of time more than 200-300 miles from home?

If they are only getting 8, they might as well save their money and get none.

Distant Voice

5th Apr 2007, 16:33

P.R

"How do you know what it's main role is......."

The MRA 4 main roles are those that are specified in my previous post. That is what is being presented to "Joe Public" in order to justify the high cost. Now, stop hidding behind "you don't know" and face reality. If MRA 4 does not fill those main roles as prime tasks, the press will have afield day.

DV

Vage Rot

5th Apr 2007, 17:07

Can anyone tell me what Hot weather trials were carried out on the AAR system?
I'm sure that if you phone the press office at Boscombe Down they will tell yu!!:ugh:
Even if no hot weather trials were conducted - The system has been proven over the years operating out of hot places like Ascension Island (Falklands 1982), Oman (Gulf War 1 & 2) and Basrah.
Besides, I don't see the relevance of your comment as it's about -40 degrees C at the altitudes where we tank!!:rolleyes: (wanted to be cynical but my nature won't allow it!!):=

Distant Voice

5th Apr 2007, 18:55

Vage Rot
Yes I am well aware that the temp at the altitudes you refuel at is around -40 degrees C, but that is not the critical factor. Temp differential is the thing we look at on trials ie, +50 (on ground) to -40 (in flight). Temp differentional affects pipe structure, joints and seals.

I would not call the ferry flights for the Falklands and Gulf 1 & 2 controlled flight trials.

DV

DICKY the PIG

5th Apr 2007, 20:11

Hoots,
Very well put, and spot on, unfortunately I don't appear to have your capability to suffer fools lightly so.......

Chicken Leg,
You clearly have no idea about the threats this country is facing. If you believe there is no place for a multi role, maritime patrol/ISTAR aircraft you need to change your name from Chicken Leg to Bird Brain!
And as to the comment about a threat we don't face......why then, do we still operate AWACS and why have we purchased all those lovely Typhoons? Last time I looked out of the window I couldn't see the thousands of Soviet bombers and fighters overwhelming our air defences.....maybe they've got some sort of stealthski technology that makes them hard to spot. Or maybe you don't like Nimrods/Kinloss, either way you're an ill informed idiot, so do us a favour and sod off!:mad:

Hoots

5th Apr 2007, 21:09

Cheers Dicky,

I like to think I am diplomatic. Probably see you next week dude. Hope you get lots of eggs for easter.

Chicken Leg

6th Apr 2007, 09:10

Bird brain, Ill informed idiot, sod off?

Well that's one way of introducing yourself to the debate I suppose!

Violet Club

6th Apr 2007, 13:29

Here are a few thoughts about the Nimrod MRA4 programme as it stands today. Not what it could be, or might be – but what is actually going on right now...and, more importantly, what has been contracted and funded.

The only contracted level of capability that BAE has to deliver is for an ASW aircraft. That is not BAE's fault – that is what the customer has ordered and paid for. Bizarrely, that requirement has never changed and sooner or later some serious questions are going to have to be answered about the procurement brains behind the MRA4.

There is immense potential within the MRA4's systems to do all the ISTAR and other funky 'new' missions of the MR2 fleet – but none of that has been contracted or funded so it remains entirely notional.

Thanks to the legion of UORs applied to the MR2 fleet that aircraft is today significantly better at the overland role than the MRA4 will be when it's delivered.

The same is true for all of MRA4's potential as a long-range strike platform. When the jets are delivered the ONLY weapon cleared for carriage will be Sting Ray. It is capable of carrying a lot more, but nothing else has been contracted.

BAE and the MoD are now about to start new negotiations over two rather important issues:

1.
The MRA4 needs a stability augmentation system because it doesn't fly in a straight line. Fixing this will incur additional costs and will bring a delay to initial deliveries.

2.
Even though the announced order in 2006 was for 12 aircraft, BAE has only been contracted to supply nine, plus three options. All of BAE's programme costings are based on a production run of 12 aircraft. If, for some reason, it turns out not to be 12 then the price goes up again.

Right now the entire programme from design and development to end of production is costing about £4 billion.

The target ISD for the fleet is still 2010 but confidence is slipping that that will be met. When the MRA4 does enter service it will be as an ASW platform – anything beyond that will have to be newly paid for and implemented.

The growth potential in the aircraft and its systems is enormous but until someone decides to unlock and PAY for that it remains a potential only.

I would ask, who is in charge of this programme and why has it been allowed to carry in a direction set out in 1996 (or earlier) with seemingly no regard for what is really required from the aircraft, and the people who are working hard to make it happen?

VC

Distant Voice

6th Apr 2007, 16:24

VC.

A thousand thanks for that very informed update. It's just as Chicked leg and myself feared -- no, it's worse.

One question on the subject of computer software. If and when MRA enters service, who will be tasked with carrying out updates?

DV

LowObservable

6th Apr 2007, 17:52

VC
With skils like that u ort to B a proffesional riter

LO

ORAC

6th Apr 2007, 17:54

The MRA4 needs a stability augmentation system because it doesn't fly in a straight line. Fixing this will incur additional costs and will bring a delay to initial deliveries. They build an aircraft that can't fly in a straight line and the customer has to pay to fix it? :confused:

Even though the announced order in 2006 was for 12 aircraft, BAE has only been contracted to supply nine, plus three options. This would seem to contradict Hansard (http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmhansrd/cm060718/wmstext/60718m0154.htm)...:

18 July 2006:
The Secretary of State for Defence (Des Browne): I can announce that the contract for foil (sic) production of 12 Nimrod MRA4 aircraft has been placed with BAE Systems. This is the culmination of many years of hard work by BAE Systems and its supply chain, and builds upon the considerable investment already made by the Ministry of Defence and BAE Systems. Nimrod MRA4 has had a troubled and well publicised history of time delays and cost overruns. The contract restructuring introduced since early 2003 has been successful in stabilising costs and with three aircraft participating in the flight trials programme, the design has now reached a level of maturity which permits a commitment to foil production.....

BAe Investors Brief (http://production.investis.com/investors/shareholder/comms/2006comms/2006-08-09/), same month: ..Nimrod Production contract
During Farnborough Airshow, the Secretary of State for Defence, the Rt Hon Des Browne MP announced that the UK Government had signed a production contract for a 12-aircraft fleet of the next-generation Nimrod, the MRA4....

Jackonicko

6th Apr 2007, 18:47

Violet Club,

Isn't the real problem that the 'customer' in this case is DEC Underwater Warfare, who sees the aircraft as his trainset (the money came from his piggy bank), and who would see the addition of land attack (Storm Shadow), ISTAR and other such roles as being a 'diversion'.

Violet Club

9th Apr 2007, 20:25

ORAC

Re: SAS costs
I believe this issue may have been highlighted as a potential risk by the time the 2006 contract was agreed and so the need for possible extra funding may have been flagged up then. Now that the fear has become fact the horse-trading begins.

And perhaps it doesn't fly in a straight line because of something the customer specified...I don't know.

Re: Yes Minister
You have quoted those two statements exactly as they were given at the time.

They do not, however, reflect actual reality – go and check BAE's 2006 Annual Report of December 06 and see what is says there. That's the ultimate bottom line. If anyone can explain to me the rather glaring discrepancy between the Minister's statement and the booked order I'd love to hear it.

Jacko
In a word, yes. And even the prospective maritime missions for the MRA4 seem to be locked in a timewarp...it will only carry Sting Rays for gawd's sake.

LowObz

I would be no good at that rock star lifestyle.

Distant Voice

10th Apr 2007, 10:13

You should know better, ORAC, Hansard simply records misinformation given out by politicians. The BAe 2006 annual report is probably stating the truth

"Flight developement of Nimrod MRA4 programme continues and the formal production contract was received in July for nine aircraft with the option for the conversion of the three aicraft currently in flight developement to production standard."

DV

lokiukuk

10th Apr 2007, 12:12

Supposed to fly twice today but it's still here!!!:ugh:

LowObservable

10th Apr 2007, 16:57

VC

Not that any of us could relate to a rock star lifestyle...

Ian Corrigible

16th Apr 2007, 14:07

Feature in this week's Av Week (http://www.aviationnow.com/publication/awst) on the MRA4's problems, adding to the insight provided by VC. Extracts:

Undesirable handling characteristics are forcing BAE Systems to augment the flight control system on its Nimrod MRA4 maritime reconnaissance and attack aircraft, with first flight of a modified version by year-end.

The U.K. MoD and BAE have yet to formally contract for the work package. According to a company official, discussions are ongoing. One issue is likely to be which organization pays for the cost of the so-called stability augmentation system (SAS).

There was a realization, even before the flight test program began, that there might be an issue with longitudinal stability, according to the company official, although there was "no definitive proof." The concern over longitudinal stability turned out to be valid, with the aircraft having a tendency to "porpoise," given the right conditions.

While the test crews are understood to be at ease dealing with "porpoising" effect, it was decided that the characteristic could not be disregarded.
The augmentation system will use a digital system to interface with the manual flight controls. The BAE official says integrating the package "is not a major issue."

There are indications the in-service date could slip until the end of 2010, or possibly further.

I/C