Nimrod MRA4 In Service Date?
Nimrod MRA4 In Service Date?
When is the RAF going to be delivered its first, fully functional (iaw the URD) Nimrod MK4 ?
Are the the aircrew alowed to use the APU?
Simple questions, requires simple (date/yes/no) answers...
Rumour has it (this is pprune) it is so "engineeringly" challenged (still) that it won't (anally challenged ref APU).
Expecting the usual "talk-up" from the ex-kipper fleet backenders at Warton/Woodford/Woodvale who made the poacher-turn-gamekeeper jump, but some insight by those who understand and appreciate the engineering issues at hand would be appreciated.
I do appreciate Comm in Comf before you start ranting, but will take it to the limit.
Are the the aircrew alowed to use the APU?
Simple questions, requires simple (date/yes/no) answers...
Rumour has it (this is pprune) it is so "engineeringly" challenged (still) that it won't (anally challenged ref APU).
Expecting the usual "talk-up" from the ex-kipper fleet backenders at Warton/Woodford/Woodvale who made the poacher-turn-gamekeeper jump, but some insight by those who understand and appreciate the engineering issues at hand would be appreciated.
I do appreciate Comm in Comf before you start ranting, but will take it to the limit.
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Gloucestershire
Posts: 403
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For a Programme that was headlined as the flagship of SMART procurement, it really has had a tough time of it!
I guess it will but I doubt it will be easy or straightforward.
I guess it will but I doubt it will be easy or straightforward.
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Under a Log
Posts: 264
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: North of England
Posts: 78
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Expecting the usual "talk-up" from the ex-kipper fleet backenders at Warton/Woodford/Woodvale who made the poacher-turn-gamekeeper jump, but some insight by those who understand and appreciate the engineering issues at hand would be appreciated.
2010
Yes
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Gloucestershire
Posts: 403
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nimrod MRA4 news
Des Browne, Secretary of State for Defence made the following statement at the SBAC Farnborough airshow on 18 July 2006.
“I am pleased to announce that the Contract for full 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 MOD and BAE Systems......."
First Flight - 2004 ISD - 2010
Last edited by GlosMikeP; 20th Oct 2006 at 10:16. Reason: Add ISD
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Gloucestershire
Posts: 403
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Great news with the confirmed order and good to see the team working hard in Florida. However, one thing that seems to have had little comment on is:
1998 - £2bn order for 21 aircraft = £95mil each
2006 - Cost now £3.2bn for 12 aircraft = £267mil each
Any further creep and they will be approaching the cost of a B2!!
1998 - £2bn order for 21 aircraft = £95mil each
2006 - Cost now £3.2bn for 12 aircraft = £267mil each
Any further creep and they will be approaching the cost of a B2!!
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Gloucestershire
Posts: 403
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BAE clearly under-bid on price when they won, and were, I believe, asked several times if they'd done their sums right. They said they had.
Well funny old thing, within a very brief time of contract signing they asked to re-negotiate....and were given a frosty response. Quite right.
Unfortunately that was in the days when the DPA mantra was 'Pass all risk to the contractor' - which was utter rot, though moving DPA's thinking away from it was impossible at that time. They had to have a hard knock to realise that Technical risk can be passed off but Operational risk, and perhaps also therefore cost risk, remains with the customer.
So, we are where we are! That's the true cost with this airframe. Bad decision? Would the P3 have been a better one? No way of knowing and not worth the discussion now. Pay up and be happy, or at least smile.
Well funny old thing, within a very brief time of contract signing they asked to re-negotiate....and were given a frosty response. Quite right.
Unfortunately that was in the days when the DPA mantra was 'Pass all risk to the contractor' - which was utter rot, though moving DPA's thinking away from it was impossible at that time. They had to have a hard knock to realise that Technical risk can be passed off but Operational risk, and perhaps also therefore cost risk, remains with the customer.
So, we are where we are! That's the true cost with this airframe. Bad decision? Would the P3 have been a better one? No way of knowing and not worth the discussion now. Pay up and be happy, or at least smile.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Lincolnshire
Posts: 477
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's far cheaper to build brand new airframes and tailor them to your requirements rather than 'cut and shut' some old Nim's that have been around a bit! I guess Boeing being involved in this escapade are now well aware of the pitfalls!
About when MRA4 was getting started, I became aware of the headaches NorthGrum were having, getting 707-320Cs modded for Joint STARS - and they had cherry-picked the world's VIP 707 fleets for shiny low-hours, low-cycle, late-production jets.
Tears before bedtime, I thought...
Tears before bedtime, I thought...
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Gloucestershire
Posts: 403
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Nimrods were manufactured to the best standards and practices of their day - erm... circa 1965-70 - which means they were cut with knives and forks and slammed together with hammers and chisels, if judged by modern standards. BAE had forgotten this, and so didn't know that they had in fact got a bespoke fleet of aircraft, every one of which was a unique airframe. So the 'standard' wing produced to best standards and practices circa 2000, simply didn't fit. Lots of re-engineering, cost.....
The second aspect is that the mission system (seriously complex one at that!), in the early days at least, had a lot of the software designed by Boeing, much of it taken from, I believe, the maritime 737. Boeing are as good or as bad at writing software as any other big systems house; indeed I'd say on balance, probably better than most. But they are far from flawless and since it's utterly impossible to write error free software, and that the software delivered/developed would have needed integration with new code....boy, is that a big and tricky job! Mike's rule of thumb: 2-5% code change is manageable; 5-10% is a major change; more than 10% means it might be cheaper to rewrite the entire code from scratch than try and adapt that in place. Now is that a cost driver waiting to happen or what!
and then there have been other problems too....It's no easy job and to be frank, for whatever reasons the aircraft was chosen and however high the hurdles, we shouldn't contemplate ever again a fiasco the likes of the Nimrod AEW/E-3D. It's better to stick at it.
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Gloucestershire
Posts: 403
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think you mean Woodford, near Wilmslow, which is a main BAE manufacturing plant. Woodvale is a small airfield on the coast near Formby flying light ac.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
GMP,
Are you the Mike? I believe there was an issue with the E3 software. Millions of lines of code and consisting of many modules. One team might latch on to a particular module for a particular function that had not originally been intended. The original purpose may have ceased and there would be a temptation to 'clean up' the software but this could not be done because of unknown interdependencies. Was that feasible?
If it was, ultimately you have a massive amount of unknown redundant software hogging storage and processor capacity but performing no useful function.
On the Mk 1 Nimrod it had only 8k of 16-bit storage. Even there, despite their best efforts as squeezing a quart out of a pint pot it was found that some essentially similar routines were duplicated - each weapon type had its own ballistic formula when all it needed was a set of discrete constance and common variables.
Mike's rule of thumb: 2-5% code change is manageable; 5-10% is a major change; more than 10% means it might be cheaper to rewrite the entire code from scratch than try and adapt that in place.
If it was, ultimately you have a massive amount of unknown redundant software hogging storage and processor capacity but performing no useful function.
On the Mk 1 Nimrod it had only 8k of 16-bit storage. Even there, despite their best efforts as squeezing a quart out of a pint pot it was found that some essentially similar routines were duplicated - each weapon type had its own ballistic formula when all it needed was a set of discrete constance and common variables.
Join Date: May 2006
Location: 2 m South of Radstock VRP
Posts: 2,042
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If I remember rightly, the first idiocy was subcontracting the work to FRA/Serco at Hurn. They undercut the BAe Chadderton/Woodford bid, which should have rung alarm bells. Woodford still had a significant workforce experienced in building Nimrods and that had been revalidated during the work done on the MK3. The other advantage they had was that the drawing office was just nextdoor. I think that lost around 23 months of the programme and a lot of expensive kit movement.
The second idiocy, as I see it, was the decision to conduct the flight test programme at Warton. Woodford has been test flying large aeroplanes since the 1930s, has built up considerable expertise and has all the facilities needed. Perhaps it was easier and cheaper for the DPA types to be located in the same place of work. It certainly wasn't easier for the work parties from Woodford to continually drag themselves out to Warton.
We mustn't forget that from SR (Air) 420 emerged a specification for a an aeroplane with 4 fanjet engines (low noise fatigue for the crew, high altitude capability for search range, fast patrol station transit time, etc). Whatever other aeroplane was chosen would have to have been a converted airliner, then. The Treasury, being simple but devious folk, would have found the idea of recycling an existing machine quite attractive (their understanding of a Through-deck Cruiser springs to mind). So here we are.
Something I'm not clear about are the telephone number like costs being attributed to this. If DPA are doing what they were supposed to do, they should be compiling through life costs. Is that quoted £3,200M for 12 aircraft the sum of the initial unit costs or that of the whole programme?
As ever, GlosMikeP has summed up a number of salient points on this programme well. As a minor point, though, I don't think the villagers of Bramhall would appreciate Woodford being placed next to Wilmslow.
The second idiocy, as I see it, was the decision to conduct the flight test programme at Warton. Woodford has been test flying large aeroplanes since the 1930s, has built up considerable expertise and has all the facilities needed. Perhaps it was easier and cheaper for the DPA types to be located in the same place of work. It certainly wasn't easier for the work parties from Woodford to continually drag themselves out to Warton.
We mustn't forget that from SR (Air) 420 emerged a specification for a an aeroplane with 4 fanjet engines (low noise fatigue for the crew, high altitude capability for search range, fast patrol station transit time, etc). Whatever other aeroplane was chosen would have to have been a converted airliner, then. The Treasury, being simple but devious folk, would have found the idea of recycling an existing machine quite attractive (their understanding of a Through-deck Cruiser springs to mind). So here we are.
Something I'm not clear about are the telephone number like costs being attributed to this. If DPA are doing what they were supposed to do, they should be compiling through life costs. Is that quoted £3,200M for 12 aircraft the sum of the initial unit costs or that of the whole programme?
As ever, GlosMikeP has summed up a number of salient points on this programme well. As a minor point, though, I don't think the villagers of Bramhall would appreciate Woodford being placed next to Wilmslow.
Last edited by GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU; 20th Oct 2006 at 16:22. Reason: I could.
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Gloucestershire
Posts: 403
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
GMP,
Are you the Mike? I believe there was an issue with the E3 software. Millions of lines of code and consisting of many modules. One team might latch on to a particular module for a particular function that had not originally been intended. The original purpose may have ceased and there would be a temptation to 'clean up' the software but this could not be done because of unknown interdependencies. Was that feasible?
If it was, ultimately you have a massive amount of unknown redundant software hogging storage and processor capacity but performing no useful function.
Are you the Mike? I believe there was an issue with the E3 software. Millions of lines of code and consisting of many modules. One team might latch on to a particular module for a particular function that had not originally been intended. The original purpose may have ceased and there would be a temptation to 'clean up' the software but this could not be done because of unknown interdependencies. Was that feasible?
If it was, ultimately you have a massive amount of unknown redundant software hogging storage and processor capacity but performing no useful function.