Nimrod MRA.4
Join Date: May 2006
Location: 2 m South of Radstock VRP
Posts: 2,042
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Many, if not all of the former HSA Avro Whitwoth Division people who knew about de Havilland's interesting construction methods would have retired by the time this project started. A few airframe fitters who were probably just out of apprentice training at the time may still have been around but some fitters like to stay that and just do the job.
The MoD's commitment re-profiling exercises can't have helped costs and progress very much.
The MoD's commitment re-profiling exercises can't have helped costs and progress very much.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: SALISBURY
Age: 76
Posts: 706
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Let's not forget that the initial BAe name for the project was 'Nimrod 2000'! I was directly involved in the very early days of the project & the main reason for the initial lengthy delay was because the manufacturer (BAe) FORGOT that the fuselages were all different sizes. That's why they had to pay Cobham nearly £40 million compensation for all of the nugatory work carried out at Bournemouth.
Obviously, the longer a project carries on the greater the likelihood that the customer will want some changes to equipment etc. Had the project been completed on time then the MOD would have paid for any modifications & equipment advancements during the in life service of the Nimrod. BAe would then have made a profit, not a huge loss.
It is totally unfair to blame the MOD for this situation, it's all down to BAe. It gives me no pleasure to say this but sadly it's the truth.
Obviously, the longer a project carries on the greater the likelihood that the customer will want some changes to equipment etc. Had the project been completed on time then the MOD would have paid for any modifications & equipment advancements during the in life service of the Nimrod. BAe would then have made a profit, not a huge loss.
It is totally unfair to blame the MOD for this situation, it's all down to BAe. It gives me no pleasure to say this but sadly it's the truth.
Fincastle84
From what I recall, what you say is spot on, but I disagree with..
BAe may have forgotten (but I know old hands certainly hadn’t), but Risk Management is everyone’s business. The process is simple. If you spot a risk, you notify the Risk Manager, be it the MoD’s or BAe’s (it matters not as policy requires a Joint Risk Register).
MoD staffs duly notified their bosses of precisely what you say (hand built mainplanes etc) and the associated time/cost risks – they were ignored. I know Nimrod 2000 staff did so in 1995 and those who didn't had it hammered into them every time they visited Kinloss; also ex-Nimrod guys who worked on AWACS flagged it up. Within days, that risk notification should have been seen by BAe, so any forgetfulness should have been purely temporary.
Such a risk would be in the top 10, and therefore should have been examined by the MoD(PE) 2 Star once a month, until successfully mitigated. This failure of “management oversight” is precisely the criticism the Public Accounts Committee levelled at the same postholder on Chinook Mk3, so there is a track record.
To give you an idea of this lack of oversight, I once attended a meeting with this 2 Star who said to a Sqn Ldr (one of the guys who notified the risk) “Ah, Sqn Ldr xx, I’ve just spoken to your Director and he tells me Nimrod 2000 is on target”. “Oh, so he didn’t mention the 3 year slippage then?” There followed a career brief on his brief career - a very effective way of getting the whole team to wind their necks in and quietly apply for jobs elsewhere.
Clearly, there was a breakdown of process and procedure in MoD as well as BAe. But, even if the risk notification was assessed and rejected, MoD policy requires that it remain in the Risk Register for all time. I’m sure MoD will be able to produce that Risk Register.
I’m equally sure no committee has the gumption to ask such an awkward question.
From what I recall, what you say is spot on, but I disagree with..
It is totally unfair to blame the MOD for this situation, it's all down to BAe.
MoD staffs duly notified their bosses of precisely what you say (hand built mainplanes etc) and the associated time/cost risks – they were ignored. I know Nimrod 2000 staff did so in 1995 and those who didn't had it hammered into them every time they visited Kinloss; also ex-Nimrod guys who worked on AWACS flagged it up. Within days, that risk notification should have been seen by BAe, so any forgetfulness should have been purely temporary.
Such a risk would be in the top 10, and therefore should have been examined by the MoD(PE) 2 Star once a month, until successfully mitigated. This failure of “management oversight” is precisely the criticism the Public Accounts Committee levelled at the same postholder on Chinook Mk3, so there is a track record.
To give you an idea of this lack of oversight, I once attended a meeting with this 2 Star who said to a Sqn Ldr (one of the guys who notified the risk) “Ah, Sqn Ldr xx, I’ve just spoken to your Director and he tells me Nimrod 2000 is on target”. “Oh, so he didn’t mention the 3 year slippage then?” There followed a career brief on his brief career - a very effective way of getting the whole team to wind their necks in and quietly apply for jobs elsewhere.
Clearly, there was a breakdown of process and procedure in MoD as well as BAe. But, even if the risk notification was assessed and rejected, MoD policy requires that it remain in the Risk Register for all time. I’m sure MoD will be able to produce that Risk Register.
I’m equally sure no committee has the gumption to ask such an awkward question.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: SALISBURY
Age: 76
Posts: 706
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tucumseh
Thanks for filling in the gaps in my knowledge from what was happening in the RAF camp. I therefore withdraw my comments blaming BAe entirely for the f*** up. Unfortunately it doesn't make me feel any better about this whole sorry saga.
Quite true about the bespoke nature of the airframes, but this was known about, or should have been, as exactly the same problem was encountered with the AEW some 30 years ago. Should have been allowed for in the MRA4 time frame.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: SALISBURY
Age: 76
Posts: 706
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Torqueofthedevil
and how can the severe corrosion have come as a surprise?
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 1,515
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Couple of wildly naive posts about BAE ignorance of certain aspects of this project, coupled with some misleading comments about the origins of the project.
BAE did not forget or overlook anything about the state of the existing airframes, they had only one concern - winning the contract. They had intimate knowledge of the aircraft throughout their involvement and history with it in various guises, plus a wealth of Nimrod people (air and ground) working for them on securing the contract.
1996 might be about right for signing the contract (I thought it was earlier) but if you want chapter and verse it is a matter of public record, because it features in the old Defence Estimates White Papers from the mid nineties on (21 aircraft, about 2.1 Billion all in, ISD 2000 or 2001).
This project has been re-baselined that many times it is no wonder people have lost sight of its origins. The aircraft is 10 years late and around 5 times over budget. Of course the customer is as much to blame as the company because the customer should have told the company to stuff it back in 2000 and gone for another option.
As a matter of interest I attended a Nimrod 2000 Introductory Course in May 1998 (that would be 12 years ago). One week on rate ones (remember them) in Lytham St Annes. Aside from the amusement of watching the old 236 OCU lesson one mops package (complete with authentic u-boat footage, and delivered by the same AEO that gave it on the OCU) it was crystal clear to all that this was going to be a grade 1 cluster ****. Not least because everytime we asked any sort of difficult question we were answered with:
"You have to understand this is a whole new concept", like some sort of cult mantra.
That said, it is now all we have and no doubt in the hands of the operators it will be a fantastic platform, so here's hoping that it survives the chop and we get 9 of these beasts into service post haste.
BAE did not forget or overlook anything about the state of the existing airframes, they had only one concern - winning the contract. They had intimate knowledge of the aircraft throughout their involvement and history with it in various guises, plus a wealth of Nimrod people (air and ground) working for them on securing the contract.
1996 might be about right for signing the contract (I thought it was earlier) but if you want chapter and verse it is a matter of public record, because it features in the old Defence Estimates White Papers from the mid nineties on (21 aircraft, about 2.1 Billion all in, ISD 2000 or 2001).
This project has been re-baselined that many times it is no wonder people have lost sight of its origins. The aircraft is 10 years late and around 5 times over budget. Of course the customer is as much to blame as the company because the customer should have told the company to stuff it back in 2000 and gone for another option.
As a matter of interest I attended a Nimrod 2000 Introductory Course in May 1998 (that would be 12 years ago). One week on rate ones (remember them) in Lytham St Annes. Aside from the amusement of watching the old 236 OCU lesson one mops package (complete with authentic u-boat footage, and delivered by the same AEO that gave it on the OCU) it was crystal clear to all that this was going to be a grade 1 cluster ****. Not least because everytime we asked any sort of difficult question we were answered with:
"You have to understand this is a whole new concept", like some sort of cult mantra.
That said, it is now all we have and no doubt in the hands of the operators it will be a fantastic platform, so here's hoping that it survives the chop and we get 9 of these beasts into service post haste.
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Chester, UK
Age: 63
Posts: 67
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The aircraft is 10 years late and around 5 times over budget.
And people on this site absolutely slate Airbus for the A400M programme..............compared to this total disaster that programme is going to be a great success!
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
And BAE should have learnt the lesson from the Victor mk 2 conversion programme which again featured bespoke wings on each aircraft after they had manufactured 21 wing sets based on the first airframe.
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Chester, UK
Age: 63
Posts: 67
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wow, what a scary rant.
And however much your criticisms of individuals that you have clearly observed is valid (I wouldn't know), your readiness to forgive the company the fact that it intentionally and knowingly underbid this contract and spent the next 10 years milking the taxpayer of hundreds of millions of pounds is quite shocking.
BAE systems, and no-one else, is responsible for their total inability to deliver this product on time and on budget, however much changing requirements have complicated the issues.
And however much your criticisms of individuals that you have clearly observed is valid (I wouldn't know), your readiness to forgive the company the fact that it intentionally and knowingly underbid this contract and spent the next 10 years milking the taxpayer of hundreds of millions of pounds is quite shocking.
BAE systems, and no-one else, is responsible for their total inability to deliver this product on time and on budget, however much changing requirements have complicated the issues.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: East Anglia
Posts: 1,873
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That's quite a tirade mra4eng. I suspect that you may have over egged things and lost some support from those who may have understood that no one party is to blame wholly for the Nimrod project.
Last edited by Kitbag; 28th Jul 2010 at 20:35. Reason: stcky kyboard
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: cheshire
Posts: 245
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Exactly as Kitbag says the truth is likely somewhere in the middle. The real issue here is that the taxpayer is paying approx £400m per aircraft (based on a production run of 9 frames).
Particularly in these financially challenging times this is nothing short of a scandal and probably does warrant a public inquiry. There's a lot of unanswered questions on this one, many of which have been raised on this forum over the years. Personally I see no reason why the taxpayer should be kept in the dark and why shouldn't those key individuals responsible be named and shamed? Even better if some lessons could be learned and enshrined in principle for the benefit of all going forwards.
Regards the debate around ISD for MRA4 I think the complete "radio silence" of late (inc. no shows at RIAT and SBAC) speak volumes regards future intentions. I just don't buy the "paperwork delays" piece and I personally believe that the decision to canx has either already been made or is very imminent. Not that this decision would be the right one, for many, many reasons that again have been well documented - not least the complete waste of 4bn quid!!
Feel very sorry for those crews, eng's and others currently in 'limbo land' - can't be a nice place to be.
Particularly in these financially challenging times this is nothing short of a scandal and probably does warrant a public inquiry. There's a lot of unanswered questions on this one, many of which have been raised on this forum over the years. Personally I see no reason why the taxpayer should be kept in the dark and why shouldn't those key individuals responsible be named and shamed? Even better if some lessons could be learned and enshrined in principle for the benefit of all going forwards.
Regards the debate around ISD for MRA4 I think the complete "radio silence" of late (inc. no shows at RIAT and SBAC) speak volumes regards future intentions. I just don't buy the "paperwork delays" piece and I personally believe that the decision to canx has either already been made or is very imminent. Not that this decision would be the right one, for many, many reasons that again have been well documented - not least the complete waste of 4bn quid!!
Feel very sorry for those crews, eng's and others currently in 'limbo land' - can't be a nice place to be.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: SALISBURY
Age: 76
Posts: 706
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
mra4eng
Wow, I do seem to have rufffled a few feathers.
In response to your rant I would ask you a couple of questions.
1.How many RAF personnel were employed building the original Nimrod airframes?
2. How many RAF personnel were employed on the initial MRA4 design team?
As I repeat, the initial HUGE delay was caused because the new wings didn't fit the old MR2 airframes. This had NOTHING to do with RAF personnel consuming bacon sandwiches!
(To save you racking your brain I'll give you the answer to both questions.... ZERO!)
However, the fact remains that like so many others I am deeply saddened that such a magnificent aircraft with so much future potential could possibly suffer such an ignominious end. Let's hope I'm wrong.
'Fortiter in Re'.
In response to your rant I would ask you a couple of questions.
1.How many RAF personnel were employed building the original Nimrod airframes?
2. How many RAF personnel were employed on the initial MRA4 design team?
As I repeat, the initial HUGE delay was caused because the new wings didn't fit the old MR2 airframes. This had NOTHING to do with RAF personnel consuming bacon sandwiches!
(To save you racking your brain I'll give you the answer to both questions.... ZERO!)
However, the fact remains that like so many others I am deeply saddened that such a magnificent aircraft with so much future potential could possibly suffer such an ignominious end. Let's hope I'm wrong.
'Fortiter in Re'.
scandolous
incompetance
occassion
appauled
one of the most technologically advanced company
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Here and there
Posts: 65
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
mra4eng
Whilst your moniker would describe a close relationship with the aircraft, I believe that it is far less than one would believe.
Your inferred description of the blue suiters working on the project has, in all honesty riled me, and that is a very rare reaction.
I worked for 3.5 years on that project (finishing 6 months ago) and my sole focus was to ensure that the RAF received an airframe that could carry out the KURs as safe as possible.
That involved, on numerous occasions, standing up to the company and insisting on changes. These were not unknown to the company, but they took it on risk, hoping that the risk would not be realised. I accept that in the early days of the project, the RAF did not help the company by a continual shift of the goal posts, but for the last 5 years the project has been hampered by risks being realised and the RAF not willing to commit funds to resolve the situation immediately but rather trying to stick plasters over the various problems.
Unfortunately this has resulted in a lot of plasters being stuck onto the solution and when the bottom one falls off, all the others fall off too...
T07
I hope life is treating you well in Europe and you'll be pleased to know that the Class of 2005 is still fighting the system!
Whilst your moniker would describe a close relationship with the aircraft, I believe that it is far less than one would believe.
Your inferred description of the blue suiters working on the project has, in all honesty riled me, and that is a very rare reaction.
I worked for 3.5 years on that project (finishing 6 months ago) and my sole focus was to ensure that the RAF received an airframe that could carry out the KURs as safe as possible.
That involved, on numerous occasions, standing up to the company and insisting on changes. These were not unknown to the company, but they took it on risk, hoping that the risk would not be realised. I accept that in the early days of the project, the RAF did not help the company by a continual shift of the goal posts, but for the last 5 years the project has been hampered by risks being realised and the RAF not willing to commit funds to resolve the situation immediately but rather trying to stick plasters over the various problems.
Unfortunately this has resulted in a lot of plasters being stuck onto the solution and when the bottom one falls off, all the others fall off too...
T07
I hope life is treating you well in Europe and you'll be pleased to know that the Class of 2005 is still fighting the system!
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 56
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
mra4eng
mra4eng,
1. I do not work at Woodford so can not comment.
2. I have worked at Warton for a number of years on MRA4 mission systems.
I have and continue to work with members of the MRA4 JTT, OEF, MSS, Qinetiq, AWC, BAE and industrial partners to the MRA4 project. I have seen nothing but dedication in improving the mission systems and your description of RAF personnel is nothing short of defamatory and is something which i have not been accustomed to.
GH
1. I do not work at Woodford so can not comment.
2. I have worked at Warton for a number of years on MRA4 mission systems.
I have and continue to work with members of the MRA4 JTT, OEF, MSS, Qinetiq, AWC, BAE and industrial partners to the MRA4 project. I have seen nothing but dedication in improving the mission systems and your description of RAF personnel is nothing short of defamatory and is something which i have not been accustomed to.
GH
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: North of Down There!
Age: 52
Posts: 75
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MRA4 Eng,
If you are indeed on the project then I can see why we are in the state we are. Your attitude sir, is a disgrace and the sooner you let the 'grown ups' both BAe and RAF get on with it the better
We are where we are (the blame game serves no purpose) and when we (RAF FL) finally get our hands on it we will carry on with the finest traditions of producing an effective maritime force like those before.
Yes, I'm as frustrated as the next man in the delays but having come this far is it not right to make sure everything is covered (SC, MAA etc) and we get the best we can (for the current budget).
The potential and capability is superb so patience everyone
If you are indeed on the project then I can see why we are in the state we are. Your attitude sir, is a disgrace and the sooner you let the 'grown ups' both BAe and RAF get on with it the better
We are where we are (the blame game serves no purpose) and when we (RAF FL) finally get our hands on it we will carry on with the finest traditions of producing an effective maritime force like those before.
Yes, I'm as frustrated as the next man in the delays but having come this far is it not right to make sure everything is covered (SC, MAA etc) and we get the best we can (for the current budget).
The potential and capability is superb so patience everyone
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Naaaaarrfick
Age: 58
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mods
Please allow this momentary drift from the original topic of the thread, as I find it impossible to sit and read the diatribe spouted by mra4eng without feeling the need to reply and defend MY Service.
From personal experience, it is the gross incompetance of the RAF personnel (throughout the ranks) that is primarily responsible for many of the cost/time over-runs and technical difficulties in any project that they put their amateurish fingers in. The RAF is infested with know-it-alls who wouldn't last a week in a professional organisation such as BAE.
I would hope that from such a scathing comment that the author of this statement has met and "personally experienced" the skills and abilities of ALL 43,000 or so of us that remain in the Royal Air Force, following many years of cuts in manpower but no cuts in committments - with more to come in the forthcoming SDSR. He speaks of "incompetence throughout the ranks", try telling that to the the personnel (throughout the ranks) who are involved in the recovery to the UK and support of the personnel who are being terribly injured in theatre - does he believe that these people are incompetent too, ask the lads/lasses who made it back to the UKand are continuing their recovery. He also states that BAE is a professional organisation, well sir, from MY "personal experience" that is utter hogwash, I speak on behalf of many personnel who are spending hours on end trying to fix the excellent products sold to us by "one of the most technologically advanced companies in the world", when this particular company cannot even supply the relevant SERVICEABLE spares to support the platforms upon which they work.
Offices throughout BAE are riddled with RAF personnel who, in between eating bacon sandwiches and surfing the internet, persist in the sort of idle talk that many of us left behind at school. The amateurish and childish nature of many of them is an embarassment. Only interested in getting away at 15:30 so that they can dump their uniform in their subsidised flats and heading off to the nearest pub where they will remain for most of the night.
I can't comment on the bacon sandwiches element of this statement, as most of the places in which I have been asked to serve, only have that facility in the mess at breakfast and the vast majority of the workstations at which I have sat were and still are restricted, very heavily, as to which sites could be seen. I have even had to gain special permissions to access an official RFU site in order to update my coaching badge progress, (which I do in MY time). With respect to the "idle schoolyard talk", I would invite said person to walk into ANY military crewroom and sit and listen to the BANTER that tends to keep many personnel sane, he would no doubt be just as aggrieved with that situation. The answer to the "amateurish and childish behaviour will be to stop treating them like second class citizens, before any reposte is posted, I have seen service personnel treated like dirt by this particular company and other companies too!!! As for dumping the uniform and heading off from subsidised flats to the nearest pub, well, what else would you do when you are outside sensible commuting distance from your regular home and family in such a salubrious place as Lytham or Blackpool, (I know both places very well, being from a relatively large city within 20 miles of both of these locations), there is not much else to do unless you are "getting on a bit"(Lytham) or completely mad (Blackpool).
And why do they feel the need to get involved in the design/development/implementation of any product or service anyway? They are simply users of the equipment
We, as "simply users of the equipment" feel the need to get involved in the processes mentioned because at some stage - usually quite often with this company's products - us "mere users" have to get into the darned thing and start trying to figure out what has gone wrong and eventually effect repairs, therefore, an input into the design and development could be advantageous, as if an item is going to need maintaining / replacing on a regular basis, then there is no point in burying it in the depths of an aircraft behind or underneath lots of other kit is there?(GR1/GR4 Zone 19?)
many of them are glorified spanner monkeys who barely know how to turn a computer on.
This comment I find is completely out of order and totally inappropriate. There are a great many personnel in the Royal Air Force (throughout the ranks) who, in addition to the often excellent training given by the Service, have gone out and enhanced their own knowledge and education by gaining degrees and other qualifications in their own time, (myself included). The labelling of these personnel as such is defamatory and utterly insulting!!!! Besides, as 95% of our business (including personal admin) is now conducted on these new fangled computermabob thingies, it is totally incorrect and degrading. The rest of the statement I will not even bother with.
They fail to realise that "they" are not paying for the equipment/sevice, but the British taxpayer. And the taxpayer would be appauled if he saw the gross waste of money that are the RAF within BAE.
What an utter and complete load of rubbish, the last time I checked my pay statement I am sure that I noticed two "not so insignificant" amounts in the deductions section that read "Income Tax" and "National Insurance", therefore, in contrast to the originator's statement, ALL Service personnel are indeed contributing towards the purchase and "support" of the equipment as we are all "British taxpayers"!!!!!!! With regard to the wasting of money, there are a great many of us in the Services are actually of the opposing view as to the culprits of this waste!!!!
So, in short. Let one of the most technologically advanced company in the world get on with creating wealth for the country and paying 100's of millions in taxes. And let the RAF bods carry on surfing the net and eating their bacon sandwiches - but tell them not to get involved in grown up business.
Finally, this is the part of the statement that in my mind deserves to be rammed back down the throat of "one of the most technologically advanced companies in the world", who are obviously getting on with "creating wealth for the country", (but not themselves, of course???) and paying 100's of millions in taxes - just like the rest of us "glorified spanner monkeys". In addition, I am pretty darn sure that the preparation and repairing of aircraft, ships and vehicles to carry out missions in support of the Defence of this country, AND all the support operations, (medical support, admin, catering, airfield defence, policing, fire-fighting, et al), that go on behind that work is quite a long way from "schoolyard stuff", as the originator alludes to.
In conclusion, before the originator sets off on any more ill-informed, single-minded, defamatory comments about ANY of our country's Armed Forces, he would do very well to take a good look at his TV set, or any newspaper currently available and see what kind of "GROWN-UP BUSINESS" we are involved in, taking time to remember that before he sleeps soundly in HIS OWN bed at night, under the nice warm blanket of security provided by such incompetent and amateurish spanner monkeys and their colleagues in the other branches of our Forces.
Apologies to all if this has gone on a bit, but I am utterly and completely disgusted by many of the comments, including the latest pathetic dig made at 0859 this morning and feel that a reply had to be made.
Back on topic - it is obvious that throughout this project monumental foo-bars have been made on both sides of the fence, is it not now time to grow up and move on with supplying the RAF with the platform it needs and which the professionalism of its members deserves. (SDSR permitting)
Anyway, back to the boozer - early start today, 2 for 1 on bacon butties!!
FRU
Please allow this momentary drift from the original topic of the thread, as I find it impossible to sit and read the diatribe spouted by mra4eng without feeling the need to reply and defend MY Service.
From personal experience, it is the gross incompetance of the RAF personnel (throughout the ranks) that is primarily responsible for many of the cost/time over-runs and technical difficulties in any project that they put their amateurish fingers in. The RAF is infested with know-it-alls who wouldn't last a week in a professional organisation such as BAE.
I would hope that from such a scathing comment that the author of this statement has met and "personally experienced" the skills and abilities of ALL 43,000 or so of us that remain in the Royal Air Force, following many years of cuts in manpower but no cuts in committments - with more to come in the forthcoming SDSR. He speaks of "incompetence throughout the ranks", try telling that to the the personnel (throughout the ranks) who are involved in the recovery to the UK and support of the personnel who are being terribly injured in theatre - does he believe that these people are incompetent too, ask the lads/lasses who made it back to the UKand are continuing their recovery. He also states that BAE is a professional organisation, well sir, from MY "personal experience" that is utter hogwash, I speak on behalf of many personnel who are spending hours on end trying to fix the excellent products sold to us by "one of the most technologically advanced companies in the world", when this particular company cannot even supply the relevant SERVICEABLE spares to support the platforms upon which they work.
Offices throughout BAE are riddled with RAF personnel who, in between eating bacon sandwiches and surfing the internet, persist in the sort of idle talk that many of us left behind at school. The amateurish and childish nature of many of them is an embarassment. Only interested in getting away at 15:30 so that they can dump their uniform in their subsidised flats and heading off to the nearest pub where they will remain for most of the night.
I can't comment on the bacon sandwiches element of this statement, as most of the places in which I have been asked to serve, only have that facility in the mess at breakfast and the vast majority of the workstations at which I have sat were and still are restricted, very heavily, as to which sites could be seen. I have even had to gain special permissions to access an official RFU site in order to update my coaching badge progress, (which I do in MY time). With respect to the "idle schoolyard talk", I would invite said person to walk into ANY military crewroom and sit and listen to the BANTER that tends to keep many personnel sane, he would no doubt be just as aggrieved with that situation. The answer to the "amateurish and childish behaviour will be to stop treating them like second class citizens, before any reposte is posted, I have seen service personnel treated like dirt by this particular company and other companies too!!! As for dumping the uniform and heading off from subsidised flats to the nearest pub, well, what else would you do when you are outside sensible commuting distance from your regular home and family in such a salubrious place as Lytham or Blackpool, (I know both places very well, being from a relatively large city within 20 miles of both of these locations), there is not much else to do unless you are "getting on a bit"(Lytham) or completely mad (Blackpool).
And why do they feel the need to get involved in the design/development/implementation of any product or service anyway? They are simply users of the equipment
We, as "simply users of the equipment" feel the need to get involved in the processes mentioned because at some stage - usually quite often with this company's products - us "mere users" have to get into the darned thing and start trying to figure out what has gone wrong and eventually effect repairs, therefore, an input into the design and development could be advantageous, as if an item is going to need maintaining / replacing on a regular basis, then there is no point in burying it in the depths of an aircraft behind or underneath lots of other kit is there?(GR1/GR4 Zone 19?)
many of them are glorified spanner monkeys who barely know how to turn a computer on.
This comment I find is completely out of order and totally inappropriate. There are a great many personnel in the Royal Air Force (throughout the ranks) who, in addition to the often excellent training given by the Service, have gone out and enhanced their own knowledge and education by gaining degrees and other qualifications in their own time, (myself included). The labelling of these personnel as such is defamatory and utterly insulting!!!! Besides, as 95% of our business (including personal admin) is now conducted on these new fangled computermabob thingies, it is totally incorrect and degrading. The rest of the statement I will not even bother with.
They fail to realise that "they" are not paying for the equipment/sevice, but the British taxpayer. And the taxpayer would be appauled if he saw the gross waste of money that are the RAF within BAE.
What an utter and complete load of rubbish, the last time I checked my pay statement I am sure that I noticed two "not so insignificant" amounts in the deductions section that read "Income Tax" and "National Insurance", therefore, in contrast to the originator's statement, ALL Service personnel are indeed contributing towards the purchase and "support" of the equipment as we are all "British taxpayers"!!!!!!! With regard to the wasting of money, there are a great many of us in the Services are actually of the opposing view as to the culprits of this waste!!!!
So, in short. Let one of the most technologically advanced company in the world get on with creating wealth for the country and paying 100's of millions in taxes. And let the RAF bods carry on surfing the net and eating their bacon sandwiches - but tell them not to get involved in grown up business.
Finally, this is the part of the statement that in my mind deserves to be rammed back down the throat of "one of the most technologically advanced companies in the world", who are obviously getting on with "creating wealth for the country", (but not themselves, of course???) and paying 100's of millions in taxes - just like the rest of us "glorified spanner monkeys". In addition, I am pretty darn sure that the preparation and repairing of aircraft, ships and vehicles to carry out missions in support of the Defence of this country, AND all the support operations, (medical support, admin, catering, airfield defence, policing, fire-fighting, et al), that go on behind that work is quite a long way from "schoolyard stuff", as the originator alludes to.
In conclusion, before the originator sets off on any more ill-informed, single-minded, defamatory comments about ANY of our country's Armed Forces, he would do very well to take a good look at his TV set, or any newspaper currently available and see what kind of "GROWN-UP BUSINESS" we are involved in, taking time to remember that before he sleeps soundly in HIS OWN bed at night, under the nice warm blanket of security provided by such incompetent and amateurish spanner monkeys and their colleagues in the other branches of our Forces.
Apologies to all if this has gone on a bit, but I am utterly and completely disgusted by many of the comments, including the latest pathetic dig made at 0859 this morning and feel that a reply had to be made.
Back on topic - it is obvious that throughout this project monumental foo-bars have been made on both sides of the fence, is it not now time to grow up and move on with supplying the RAF with the platform it needs and which the professionalism of its members deserves. (SDSR permitting)
Anyway, back to the boozer - early start today, 2 for 1 on bacon butties!!
FRU