Nimrod MRA4 Programme at Risk?
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Shangri-La
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nimrod 2000
The suffix 2000 was adopted as the forecast of how many days the project would be late. Sadly, even this has proved to be an underestimate! The cost of MMA would be a drop in the ocean in comparison to the cost per airframe of the MRA4
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: London UK
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mmm, which alternative would that be? An as yet unflown P-8 or a refurbished 40 year old P-3?
Or start from scratch with another airframe?
Or start from scratch with another airframe?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kawasaki_P-1
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Europe
Posts: 414
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This looks like a good thing to do if you are building a combat aircraft
http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/...71022a_nr.html
Did we do it for the MRA4?
http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/...71022a_nr.html
Did we do it for the MRA4?
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: London
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why
Why why why do we never learn about BAe? They are just one big cash-cow!!!!
Why we never let the Americans (with their mega-bucks) in on the project in the first place when were also looking for a P3 replacement is unbelievable.
Why we never let the Americans (with their mega-bucks) in on the project in the first place when were also looking for a P3 replacement is unbelievable.
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Blighty
Posts: 177
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Blame the people that poorly wrote the contract for MRA4 in the first place. The major cost implications are changes in the contract for which BAE charged the earth.
It would have been cheaper to go elsewhere, but for some reason the government wants to keep jobs in the UK (even though they could buy something else and give every MRA4 employee a million and still save cash).
It would have been cheaper to go elsewhere, but for some reason the government wants to keep jobs in the UK (even though they could buy something else and give every MRA4 employee a million and still save cash).
My knowledge of the programme is only based on what I have seen/read at a distance, so no doubt it has errors. But here are a couple of my impressions....
The MRA4 contract was decided in a year when 3 big military (aviation) contracts were let:
Nimrod MR2 replacement
C-130K replacement
Battlefield assault helicopter.
The C-130K replacement was a straight fight between A-400M and C-130J. BAe lobbied strongly for the A-400M, full page adverts in major newspapers, talk of loss of engineering skills in UK, etc. But it was never going to be ready in time, so C-130J was chosen. CONTRACT 1 to USA.
Battlefield assault helicopter was a straight fight between Apache and Eurocopter Tiger. Apache chosen. CONTRACT 2 to USA.
Nimrod replacement between MRA4 and a couple of US options (refurbished P-3s, P-7(?), new P-3s(??). So I think there was intense pressure on a UK government intent on preserving UK jobs to give one contract to a UK firm. CONTRACT 3 to UK (or was it??).
In terms of the MRA4 project being a UK deal, was it? The 'bending metal' bit went to UK, BAe, but with no prospect of generating any further income for UK plc. The clever bit, the mission system, was designed by a US firm (Lockheed I think), with the potential to be retro-fitted to MPA throughout the world, generating revenue for USA plc. Indeed I believe the mission system of the MRA4 forms the basis of that being installed in the US P-8 or whatever it is called.
As ever, I am more than willing to be corrected/informed by someone with more accurate knowledge!!!
The MRA4 contract was decided in a year when 3 big military (aviation) contracts were let:
Nimrod MR2 replacement
C-130K replacement
Battlefield assault helicopter.
The C-130K replacement was a straight fight between A-400M and C-130J. BAe lobbied strongly for the A-400M, full page adverts in major newspapers, talk of loss of engineering skills in UK, etc. But it was never going to be ready in time, so C-130J was chosen. CONTRACT 1 to USA.
Battlefield assault helicopter was a straight fight between Apache and Eurocopter Tiger. Apache chosen. CONTRACT 2 to USA.
Nimrod replacement between MRA4 and a couple of US options (refurbished P-3s, P-7(?), new P-3s(??). So I think there was intense pressure on a UK government intent on preserving UK jobs to give one contract to a UK firm. CONTRACT 3 to UK (or was it??).
In terms of the MRA4 project being a UK deal, was it? The 'bending metal' bit went to UK, BAe, but with no prospect of generating any further income for UK plc. The clever bit, the mission system, was designed by a US firm (Lockheed I think), with the potential to be retro-fitted to MPA throughout the world, generating revenue for USA plc. Indeed I believe the mission system of the MRA4 forms the basis of that being installed in the US P-8 or whatever it is called.
As ever, I am more than willing to be corrected/informed by someone with more accurate knowledge!!!
Last edited by Biggus; 11th May 2008 at 09:29.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: north
Posts: 158
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm not a BAe-ophile but it strikes me there are obvious advantages to sourcing high value defence hardware from UK sources, where possible.
The income tax, NHI etc paid by the industry employees is recouped by the government; balance of payments/trade is boosted towards the black (particularly if there's export potential); obvious employment benefits; feel good factor in the constituencies involved; lots of intangibles.
However, once a decision to award a domestic contract has been taken, smart procurement really should kick in. It rarely does, though all the above can also apply to the subsequent overspend.
The income tax, NHI etc paid by the industry employees is recouped by the government; balance of payments/trade is boosted towards the black (particularly if there's export potential); obvious employment benefits; feel good factor in the constituencies involved; lots of intangibles.
However, once a decision to award a domestic contract has been taken, smart procurement really should kick in. It rarely does, though all the above can also apply to the subsequent overspend.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Out East
Posts: 124
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rant On - Go
All the present 
government care about is votes. So, using the grossly bloated BAe Systems (operating in Labour areas) makes sense to them. Please don't think these twats give a flying about value for money, the best kit for the job or what do the end-users actually need. All they are bothered about is clinging to office.
Hands up all those who thought the MRA4 would be On Time, On Track and On Target! Hmmmmmmmmmmmm, not many hands up (get your grubby hand down Browne!)
There, I feel much better now!
Pip pip ON
PS. As for ASTOR, 5 Sqn have been flying from Waddo for some time bringing it up to speed.
government care about is votes. So, using the grossly bloated BAe Systems (operating in Labour areas) makes sense to them. Please don't think these twats give a flying about value for money, the best kit for the job or what do the end-users actually need. All they are bothered about is clinging to office.Hands up all those who thought the MRA4 would be On Time, On Track and On Target! Hmmmmmmmmmmmm, not many hands up (get your grubby hand down Browne!)
There, I feel much better now!
Pip pip ON
PS. As for ASTOR, 5 Sqn have been flying from Waddo for some time bringing it up to speed.
