Nimrod MRA4 Programme at Risk?
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Thread Starter
Nimrod MRA4 Programme at Risk?
Shades of the AEW3 perhaps? Just a snippet from House of Commons Defence Select Committee report (mainly slagging Astute and the T45)
Taxpayers face £500m bill for BAE projects
............The select committee also criticised delays on the Nimrod project, which has risen in cost from £2.8 billion to £3.5 billion and is running about six years behind schedule. The MPs have asked the MoD to review Nimrod and consider whether an alternative to the BAE-built aircraft could be bought...........
MOD Annual Report and Accounts 2006-07
Paragraph 57: ....The Autumn Performance Report also states that the “major programme showing cost growth at present continues to be Nimrod”....
Paragraph 60: .....On the cost increase on the Nimrod MRA4 aircraft programme, Mr Jeffrey said that it was “certainly giving rise to in-year pressure this year”. He told us that it was the “one significant area that we are having to attend to now”. We asked whether, given the problems on the Nimrod MRA4 programmes, consideration should be given to an alternative solution. Mr Jeffrey considered that “the current programme is seen as a more forward looking one than the question would imply”.....
Taxpayers face £500m bill for BAE projects
............The select committee also criticised delays on the Nimrod project, which has risen in cost from £2.8 billion to £3.5 billion and is running about six years behind schedule. The MPs have asked the MoD to review Nimrod and consider whether an alternative to the BAE-built aircraft could be bought...........
MOD Annual Report and Accounts 2006-07
Paragraph 57: ....The Autumn Performance Report also states that the “major programme showing cost growth at present continues to be Nimrod”....
Paragraph 60: .....On the cost increase on the Nimrod MRA4 aircraft programme, Mr Jeffrey said that it was “certainly giving rise to in-year pressure this year”. He told us that it was the “one significant area that we are having to attend to now”. We asked whether, given the problems on the Nimrod MRA4 programmes, consideration should be given to an alternative solution. Mr Jeffrey considered that “the current programme is seen as a more forward looking one than the question would imply”.....
Last edited by ORAC; 29th Jan 2008 at 07:13.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Sydney, AU
Posts: 117
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The MoD has to make a definite decision. They can't just keep dithering about then cancel or delay (don't worry 18 more mths .... 18 more mths) the MR4 at the last minute - wasted monies and the MR2 might not make it.
If it's P-8 (~2013/4), an interim aircraft might the way to go or, just reduce operations. However, the P-3 Orions aren't looking too flash either.
If it's P-8 (~2013/4), an interim aircraft might the way to go or, just reduce operations. However, the P-3 Orions aren't looking too flash either.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: S England
Age: 54
Posts: 320
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nimrod MRA4 Programme at Risk
Nimrod
Interesting to see what will be made of this in the commons.
Bearing in mind how many times successive S of S's for D trumpeted this as the wonderful replacement for the MR2 both before and after the Afghanistan accident. I'd love to see how they can wriggle out of getting the MRA4 operational.
It would appear this government will stop at nothing to save a few quid.
BV
Bearing in mind how many times successive S of S's for D trumpeted this as the wonderful replacement for the MR2 both before and after the Afghanistan accident. I'd love to see how they can wriggle out of getting the MRA4 operational.
It would appear this government will stop at nothing to save a few quid.
BV
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: .
Posts: 126
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It will cost more in trade penalties for primary construction and service life support, to cancel the project than it would to put 8 MRA4's into service for 15 years.
All that money spent and nothing to show for it except another huge bill, scandal!!
In fairness to the select committee report (as mentioned) it showed a similar theme for Astute, Sentinel and Type 45. I wonder if any of them are going to be for the chop.
Of course the new carriers are safe, being built in GB's back garden.
FG sends
All that money spent and nothing to show for it except another huge bill, scandal!!
In fairness to the select committee report (as mentioned) it showed a similar theme for Astute, Sentinel and Type 45. I wonder if any of them are going to be for the chop.
Of course the new carriers are safe, being built in GB's back garden.
FG sends
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: La Belle Province
Posts: 2,179
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
... it showed a similar theme for Astute, Sentinel and Type 45...
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Devon, England
Posts: 816
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Atleast the Sentinel is in service now...
P-8 Poseidon seems the logical way to go in regards to being a brand new airframe with ample spares available off standard B737.
Buy a few more and use them for replacements of the Nimrod R1 also.
Commonality between two variants as seen already with the Nimrod albeit less of a maintenance issue and a brand new start.
Or, it will go the same way as the Tankers, end up leasing said aircraft from an airline or consortium and being even more delayed.
P-8 Poseidon seems the logical way to go in regards to being a brand new airframe with ample spares available off standard B737.
Buy a few more and use them for replacements of the Nimrod R1 also.
Commonality between two variants as seen already with the Nimrod albeit less of a maintenance issue and a brand new start.
Or, it will go the same way as the Tankers, end up leasing said aircraft from an airline or consortium and being even more delayed.
Didn't see this coming......Honest.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: La Belle Province
Posts: 2,179
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Whilst we're on it, what's occurring with ASTOR? Seems like another decent size project that Industry can't deliver
To be honest, reading that summary it doesn't sound like there are any more significant technical hurdles, so maybe the end 08 ISD is actually going to be achieved?
I'm sure we've all been misled. The article states;
"Mike Turner, BAE’s chief executive, said last year that all the company’s contracts had been brought back on time and on budget".
Surely that means all the MR4s were retrospectively delivered in 2000 and Broon got our £1Bn back? They spin a better tale than the MoD. I wonder who taught who?
I'm afraid RMPA/N2k/MR4 was at risk from day 1, precisely because they (MoD(PE) and RAF staffs) ignored the inescapable fact that the devil is ALWAYS in the detail. The notional ISD was always laughable and I never come across anyone who genuinely thought it would be before 2005. Ask yourself where the phrase "2000" first appeared. Was it when the radar was termed "Searchwater 2000". The airframe? Just a minor mod mate. The engineers in the project team, some of whom had worked on MR1 and MR2 with tools, not from an office, knew precisely what was needed, but as I've said before this was in a period when CDP was getting rid of such people and they were totally ignored. And the programme made the ludicrous assumption that the build standard had been maintained on MR2 which, as XV230 has shown, it was not - again a well known fact. This can cost an upgrade programme years and often makes replacement a better option (but no-one wants to admit this in an investment appraisal). It means there is an automatic funding shortfall of huge proportions and the tendency is to ignore it. But it always bites you. And on a hand built airframe like Nimrod, you don't have the usual TI > PI > routine conversion process; each tail number is an individual project. None of this is being wise after the event because the same risks were successfully mitigated on concurrent programmes under the same 2*. I'd like to see the original risk register, as I suspect a sanitised version was trotted out to spread the good news (which often precedes promotion). This was also a common practice under that regime.
"Mike Turner, BAE’s chief executive, said last year that all the company’s contracts had been brought back on time and on budget".
Surely that means all the MR4s were retrospectively delivered in 2000 and Broon got our £1Bn back? They spin a better tale than the MoD. I wonder who taught who?
I'm afraid RMPA/N2k/MR4 was at risk from day 1, precisely because they (MoD(PE) and RAF staffs) ignored the inescapable fact that the devil is ALWAYS in the detail. The notional ISD was always laughable and I never come across anyone who genuinely thought it would be before 2005. Ask yourself where the phrase "2000" first appeared. Was it when the radar was termed "Searchwater 2000". The airframe? Just a minor mod mate. The engineers in the project team, some of whom had worked on MR1 and MR2 with tools, not from an office, knew precisely what was needed, but as I've said before this was in a period when CDP was getting rid of such people and they were totally ignored. And the programme made the ludicrous assumption that the build standard had been maintained on MR2 which, as XV230 has shown, it was not - again a well known fact. This can cost an upgrade programme years and often makes replacement a better option (but no-one wants to admit this in an investment appraisal). It means there is an automatic funding shortfall of huge proportions and the tendency is to ignore it. But it always bites you. And on a hand built airframe like Nimrod, you don't have the usual TI > PI > routine conversion process; each tail number is an individual project. None of this is being wise after the event because the same risks were successfully mitigated on concurrent programmes under the same 2*. I'd like to see the original risk register, as I suspect a sanitised version was trotted out to spread the good news (which often precedes promotion). This was also a common practice under that regime.
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Somerset
Posts: 196
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To be honest, reading that summary it doesn't sound like there are any more significant technical hurdles, so maybe the end 08 ISD is actually going to be achieved?
"Mike Turner, BAE’s chief executive, said last year that all the company’s contracts had been brought back on time and on budget".
Predictable self-justification! The words of Miss Mandy Rice-Davies spring to mind!*
*and no, I don't mean "Cor, Lord Astor, wot a little willy".
Predictable self-justification! The words of Miss Mandy Rice-Davies spring to mind!*
*and no, I don't mean "Cor, Lord Astor, wot a little willy".