Nimrod MRA4 Procurement/Capabilities Research assistance

[GrantT]

Have you worked with the Nimrod MRA4 or MR2? Whatever your role this is a chance to speak about your experience with the aircraft and the project.

I am a third year politics student on an one-semester internship in Westminster, London. Part of the internship is writing a 5000 word research paper on a chosen topic of interest. I want to highlight the disastrous procurement of the Nimrod MRA4 and the subsequent capability gap it has created.

The cancellation of the Nimrod MRA4 project in the SDSR was one of the most controversial elements in the whole review. It certainly led to some emotional posts on this forum. The project was marred by delay after delay and a spiralling budget which was quite simply out of control. The sad part of this story is that we would have had an extremely capable aircraft (technically still do) if only the procurement was handled better.

I will set out a number of questions that I would like to be answered. You can answer these however you like; written or phone interview (this can also be done anonymously). If you wish to add more then this would be more than welcome. The information you provide will be used to compliment evidence taken while I am in Westminster and either confirm or disprove my hypothesis. If you feel you have something to contribute on either the procurement of the Nimrod MRA4 or the capability gap caused by its cancellation please message me.

And last but not least, I AM NOT A JOURNALIST in disguise. My credentials can be proved by my course leader at University (he is also a peer in the House of Lords).

Many thanks for taking your time to read this.

[Pontius Navigator]

As a mere graduate may I have the temerity to criticise your statement;

I want to highlight the disastrous procurement of the Nimrod MRA4 and the subsequent capability gap it has created.

These are unsupported statements. It should be the basis of your to establish that the pricurement was disastrous and that this has led to a cpability gap.

The cancellation of the Nimrod MRA4 project in the SDSR was one of the most controversial elements in the whole review. It certainly led to some emotional posts on this forum.

The latter statement is undoubtedly true and the first is probably true but you would need to cover the others as well.

The project was marred by delay after delay and a spiralling budget which was quite simply out of control.

The first is self-evident - Nimrod 2000 - but the latter must be proven. Certainly cutting the buy to 9 aircraft would more than double the unit cost - now who did that?

My credentials can be proved by my course leader at University (he is also a peer in the House of Lords).

Are you apolitical?

[GrantT]

Pontius,

The reason I have included my personal opinions in the post is because this will be my hypothesis for the research paper. I'm sure some people will agree and some disagree that's the whole point of the research. As I said my hypothesis could be disproved.

Let me stress, I don't want this thread to turn into the rights and wrongs of the cancellation. It has been done and that's not the purpose of this thread. My research will be available at the end of January. All my statements will be substantiated with detailed quantitative and qualitative research with supplementary evidence from defence experts in London.

I have no political affiliations of any kind.

Grant.

[tucumseh]

May I suggest your starting point is the PAC report on Chinook HC Mk3. They called it the "Gold Standard Cock-Up". God knows what they would have said had they dug beneath the surface and discovered the truth.

Do that little bit of digging and then substitute Nimrod for Chinook and you are almost there. You kill two birds with one stone and save a rain forest because the names are largely the same.

Or, why not really annoy MoD and look at it the other way round. Write a paper about similar, concurrent programmes that were delivered effortlessly, ahead of time, under cost and to a better spec than requested. Then ask why not Nimrod and Chinook. Your intended approach rather gives the impression all acquisition (not procurement, learn the difference) is inept.

[GrantT]

Thanks for the information and advice, tucumseh.

[Tinribs]

To return to the subject

I spent several years flying the Searchwater radar during the development phase. We had a Viscount at Radar Research Squadron RAE Bedford

For any research project you must describe the state of the preceeding aircraft and the expected benefit from replacement. Only when you describe the expected benefit to the country of obtaining the new equipment can you arrive at some idea of the bargain to be gained by buying. You will have to assess the cost of aquisition and the long term operating costs, then discover if there are any other ways of meeting the military need. It may be that there are other, less obvious, functions the equipment can perform or it may be that the public function is actually a peace time use to train and occupy the force with a completely different purpose in crisis. This means you will need to assess what other situations, the Falklands perhaps, might justify aquiring the euipment as insurance rather the obvious topical need.

As part of the cost benefit of cancelling the project you would have to measure the amount already paid or contracted, the remaining bill and the potential foreign sales of aircraft or electronics. There may be strategic benefits of making our own kit rather than depending on "friends" in time of crisis. They may find it expedient to cease being our friends

You have a long and demanding research project ahead of you. As usual you will find very difficult to say anything of value in 5000 words

Best of luck

[GrantT]

You will have to assess the cost of aquisition and the long term operating costs, then discover if there are any other ways of meeting the military need.

Many thanks Tinribs you raise a lot of points that will need considering. I think the above quote is very significant and something I want to address in the research. Much of what I have compiled already is data from National Audit Office Major Project Reports (1999-2010). Especially focusing on (forecast and actual) expenditure, ISDs, and slippage numbers as well as other data available.

As well as being long and demanding I hope the research will be enjoyable as well!

Grant.

[Pontius Navigator]

GrantT, fine. Just wanted to try and ensure you 'accepted' contrary views as well.

The capability gap could, in itself, merit a 5000 word essay. What is the threat? Where is the threat? What is the scale of the threat? Is there a threat even?

I suspect that your word limit will require you to define many of these questions as assumptions for the purpose of your arguement. A conclusion might be, if there is however no threat then of course there is no capability gap.

[TorqueOfTheDevil]

some idea of the bargain to be gained by buying


Not a term which features heavily in discussions of the MRA4...:(

[tucumseh]

I spent several years flying the Searchwater radar during the development phase. We had a Viscount at Radar Research Squadron RAE Bedford


That point by tinribs is excellent and itself warrants a book! Start with "Could we do that today?". Searchwater's designation is ARI (Airborne Radio Installation) 5980 (and /variants). The "5980" tells you much. Primarily, sourced from an RRE or RSRE specification and MoD get (got?) commercial exploitation rates (mucho dosh) if sold to anyone else (like Spain). We no longer have RSRE. And QQ are shedding jobs by the hundred. You soon get to the heart of the so called Defence Technology and Industrial Strategies published by the last regime.

[Mend em]

GrantT

'The project was marred by delay after delay and a spiralling budget which was quite simply out of control.'

It would appear you have started by swallowing the politically inspired story, which is no basis for an objective assessment - your null hypothesis is flawed.

It is true that the project was very late to the original plan - but the revised plan, agreed in 2002, was on track until the Labour Government chose to delay entry into service to pay for helicopters.

Similarly, the costs were set at £3.602bn at the same time and, as noted by the National Audit Office in its annual report, had not risen since. The numbers of aircraft were cut by the MoD - but all of the kit (enough for 18 in most cases) had long been purchased - hence no real savings for cutting numbers.

That's around 8 years of reasonable programme and cost control, spoilt at the end by a ridiculous decision.

Don't be distracted by the 'it was never safe' conspiracy theorists either. The problems of a brand new, highly complex aircraft were real enough - but not showstoppers. The main reason for the release to service delays was the MAA not knowing how to discharge what it was set up to do - and then demanding rework of design evidence to comply with their new regs.

There are a lot of raw people - in the RAF, the MOD and Industry, many who will be facing Christmas with redundancy hanging over them. Please don't insult them by suggesting this was anything other than a political decision.

By the way - 5,000 words won't scratch the surface.

[Pontius Navigator]

Mend em has put succintly what I was trying to do in my first post. Similarly the word count is very restrictive and again, as I said, you would need to write it around a set of assumptions and then caveat your conclusion that it would only apply if the assumptions were true.

Miss PN had a similarly broad treatise plan which her tutor cut to a fraction of the original.

You could do 5000 words on capability gap (if any) alone.

[GrantT]

I appreciate the information however like I said earlier I don't want this thread to turn into the rights and wrongs of the cancellation. My statements are simply my current understanding of the cancellation (I realise they are basic I am not an expert). If you agree or disagree please PM me.

I would like to thank everyone who have offered their knowledge.

[mick2088]

GrantT I have a politics degree so I kind of know where you are coming from. I have to agree with Pontius Navigator and also drawing on tucumseh's points. However, I think you might actually struggle to write 5,000 words on this subject alone partly because there's only so much you can write without loosing your way in the whole essay especially as a non-expert in the subject. I know I would have had trouble. For example, I did an essay looking at how successful technology was during the first Gulf War, and got more or less everything in there with 2,000-2,500 words, if I recall. That was quite a big topic to cover that could have warranted 5,000+ words, or even a novel, if I'd given a full historical account of the war before diving into the technology side. That wasn't the point of the essay though to do that.

Personally if I was doing it, which I'm not, thankfully, I'd look at some of the programmes in general in recent years, and abandon trying to assess capability gaps in any great detail. At least you'd be able to ask more simple questions and draw conclusions as to whether there were/are options to save money (like buying off-the-shelf) or why these programmes are seen as so important, looking at the kind of political and industrial pressures to carry them out even if it has resulted in rising costs and affected delivery schedules. In this case, there's load of stuff. FRES instantly springs to mind where money has been spent but nothing bought whatsoever. The Lynx Wildcat and the chopping of the rotary-wing budget when British forces have needed more transport helicopters for years. Nimrod MRA4 of course is in there. The CVF programme is an intriguing saga from both political and industrial perspectives. Same with the Eurofighter and the A400M, particularly the political. The Chinook HC3 debacle. You are already using NAO material and there's also Commons Defence Select Committee reports on equipment procurement that make interesting reading.

[lydian]

I have about 13 years direct experience of the MRA4 programme. I have never replied to any of the MRA4 threads on pprune as they are mostly uninformed and emotional. I would be very interested in contributing background information for your thesis, provided, as you say, your credentials can be verified.

Please PM me and I'll give you a personal e-mail address.