Nimrod MRA.4
I'd personally like to wring Camerons & Foxes neck at their total indifference to the money wasted and the many 1000s of people this little episode has put on the dole.
While understanding your view, I'd suggest that its a little warped given the 1000's of people referenced in your post are broadly the same people who have not delivered over the last decade, and have been rather well paid to deliver ..... nothing. Don't blame the guy who turns the tap off, blame those who left it on.
They seem to have taken no account of the overall effect on the morale of an industry that employs the cream of our science and technology, the gift it represents to our overseas competitors, and the degradation of our security and SAR capability.
As a UK taxpayer, it is completely unclear to me whether the cancellation of MRA4 will save any money at all; whether in the short, medium, or long term. My guess is that it will cost us dearly, sooner or later.
Meanwhile, we will continue to provide £295m a year in aid to a dysfunctional country of wealth and extreme poverty, that indulges in a space programme costing two or three times as much.
Perhaps some of our redundant engineers might find employment there.
As a UK taxpayer, it is completely unclear to me whether the cancellation of MRA4 will save any money at all; whether in the short, medium, or long term. My guess is that it will cost us dearly, sooner or later.
Meanwhile, we will continue to provide £295m a year in aid to a dysfunctional country of wealth and extreme poverty, that indulges in a space programme costing two or three times as much.
Perhaps some of our redundant engineers might find employment there.
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Stockport
Posts: 121
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'd suggest that its a little warped given the 1000's of people referenced in your post are broadly the same people who have not delivered over the last decade, and have been rather well paid to deliver ..... nothing. Don't blame the guy who turns the tap off, blame those who left it on.
Believe it or not most of the early build flaws were pointed out by Joe Blogs on the shop floor with decades of engineering experience only to be ignored by management with little or no engineering background, sadly this scenario is not limited to BAE in general but is rife in British industry
A genuine question, and I don't want to start a flaming war, but who exactly are these 1,000s of people going to be put on the dole because of the cancellation of the MRA4?
The aircraft, as people continually point out, was close to being delivered. It was going to be based at Kinloss, where it would be serviced. Because the RAF couldn't afford the cost quoted by BAE, much of the support for the aircraft was going to be RAF guys in blue suits. Woodford was going to close, with subsequent job losses, whether the MRA4 airframes were delivered or not, so cannot be part of the "job loss" equation.
As far as I can make out, the people put "on the dole" because of the cancellation of the MRA4 include:
Approx. 150 RAF WSOps at Kinloss
Approx. 50 RAF WSOs at Kinloss
Approx. 250 RAF engineering staff at Kinloss (probably re-employed internally)
Approx. 500 RAF support staff at Kinloss, ATC, Ops, admin, MT, etc, etc (probably re-employed internally)
Approx. 100 civil servants at Kinloss
Approx. 50 BAE personnel at Kinloss (Sim, engineering support, etc)
Approx. 50+ RAF personnel in MOD, HQ Air, 2 Gp, etc (probably re-employed internally)
Approx. 250? BAE personnel at Warton (MRA4 support), who could potentially be employed by the company elsewhere.
It seems to me mancowboy, that if anyone has a right to moan about job losses as a result of the MRA4 cancellation it should be RAF personel, not BAE staff at Woodford (read Stockport).
Standing by to be informed/re-educated/agreed with/flamed/insulted/ignored as appropriate.
The aircraft, as people continually point out, was close to being delivered. It was going to be based at Kinloss, where it would be serviced. Because the RAF couldn't afford the cost quoted by BAE, much of the support for the aircraft was going to be RAF guys in blue suits. Woodford was going to close, with subsequent job losses, whether the MRA4 airframes were delivered or not, so cannot be part of the "job loss" equation.
As far as I can make out, the people put "on the dole" because of the cancellation of the MRA4 include:
Approx. 150 RAF WSOps at Kinloss
Approx. 50 RAF WSOs at Kinloss
Approx. 250 RAF engineering staff at Kinloss (probably re-employed internally)
Approx. 500 RAF support staff at Kinloss, ATC, Ops, admin, MT, etc, etc (probably re-employed internally)
Approx. 100 civil servants at Kinloss
Approx. 50 BAE personnel at Kinloss (Sim, engineering support, etc)
Approx. 50+ RAF personnel in MOD, HQ Air, 2 Gp, etc (probably re-employed internally)
Approx. 250? BAE personnel at Warton (MRA4 support), who could potentially be employed by the company elsewhere.
It seems to me mancowboy, that if anyone has a right to moan about job losses as a result of the MRA4 cancellation it should be RAF personel, not BAE staff at Woodford (read Stockport).
Standing by to be informed/re-educated/agreed with/flamed/insulted/ignored as appropriate.
Last edited by Biggus; 21st Mar 2011 at 20:41.
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Stockport
Posts: 121
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It seems to me mancowboy, that if anyone has a right to moan about job losses as a result of the MRA4 cancellation it should be RAF personel, not BAE staff at Woodford (read Stockport).
And if I knock the "s" off the 1000 I wasn't too far off the mark 
We haven't taken into account the various systems people who would have serviced electronics, engines (RR) etc, not being a RAF type I wouldn't know whats done internally.
As for Woodford staff it was always going to be painful whether the MRA4 was delivered or not as you pointed out, but with 2012/13 being the finishing date anything work wise could have come to Woodford (longshot I know).
If BAE (quite foolishly IMHO) hadn't sold its share in Airbus/EADS I'm pretty sure Woodford would have carried on, maybe not as a aircraft assembly line but maybe as a component manufacturer........all conjecture on my part, but we will never know now
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Next door
Posts: 74
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote: Believe it or not most of the early build flaws were pointed out by Joe Blogs on the shop floor with decades of engineering experience only to be ignored by management with little or no engineering background, sadly this scenario is not limited to BAE in general but is rife in British industry
Can't disagree with that. An accurate description of both BAE and my current employer.
Short term, reactive management is very much the order of the day, and much of the blame must go to the PMs, who are spreadsheet driven.
Which comes first? Providing a quality service, which people want to buy, or making money in the current quarter, and satisfying the bean counters. I know which one the PMs will always pick. The first option is not mutually exclusive from the second, but the you won't get the quality if you pick the short term 'we're here to make money' approach.
Can't disagree with that. An accurate description of both BAE and my current employer.
Short term, reactive management is very much the order of the day, and much of the blame must go to the PMs, who are spreadsheet driven.
Which comes first? Providing a quality service, which people want to buy, or making money in the current quarter, and satisfying the bean counters. I know which one the PMs will always pick. The first option is not mutually exclusive from the second, but the you won't get the quality if you pick the short term 'we're here to make money' approach.
Which comes first? Providing a quality service, which people want to buy, or making money in the current quarter, and satisfying the bean counters. I know which one the PMs will always pick. The first option is not mutually exclusive from the second, but the you won't get the quality if you pick the short term 'we're here to make money' approach.
Its just that the MOD and Supply chain can't get their act in gear, and however it shapes up, if the MOD want something, be it capability, retention of skills, or a box of mints, they have to pay the market price. It is genuinely sad when anyone loses their jobs but lets be clear, the MOD are not blameless in this and BAE and the like are not going to keep staff on just ion case MOD ever gets its act in gear.
No pay, no get.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 113
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Biggus
You need to also factor in BAE staff not only at Woodford, but also Chadderton (Oldham), Warton/Samlesbury. Easily over 1,000. Then there are other employees from the likes of the engine manufacturer; Thales and many hundreds (?) of small sub-contractors and suppliers, who have a limited portfolio of customers and will thus be amongst those hardest hit, if recent local news media is anything to go by. So putting an 's' on the end of the number 1,000 just might be correct, in the grand scheme of number crunching.
From a hazy memory (don't hold me to the precise numbers) I recall initial mention of 600 at Warton, 450 at Woodford and possibly around 100 at Chadderton (though that figure will likely include the Brough factory in East Yorkshire, where Nimrod structural testing takes (took) place. On top of Nimrod specific job loses there are an additional 200 at the Brough factory. I forget the number for Farnborough.
Which ever way we look at it people have already lost their jobs and those are just the tip of the iceberg, with the majority of redundancies coming very soon after the statutory notice period expires.
Just a quick trawl of the Manchester Evening News recent stories on the Nimrod job scene has brought up the following:-
Planned cuts at BAE seen as a ‘devastating’ blow to economy
The proposed cuts affect 79 jobs at Chadderton in Oldham, 209 at Samlesbury and 668 at Warton, both in Lancashire.
Planned cuts at BAE seen as a ?devastating? blow to economy | Manchester Evening News - menmedia.co.uk
Jobs blow BAE plant 'will shut next year' November 25, 2010
Yesterday 320 subcontractors were let go and the remaining 450 permanent staff are expected to take over their work.
Jobs blow BAE plant 'will shut next year' | Manchester Evening News - menmedia.co.uk
320 jobs lost at BAE Systems after government cuts November 24, 2010
More than 300 people who worked on the Nimrod aircraft project at BAE Systems in Woodford have lost their jobs after the government scrapped the project. (note this refers to sub-contractor staff, and not the 450 permanent staff remaining until March 31, 2011)
320 jobs lost at BAE Systems after government cuts | Manchester Evening News - menmedia.co.uk
BAE cuts are 'tip of the iceberg' September 09, 2010
This story seems to be more 'general', though it does specfically mention 'reduction in workload in the large aircraft business'. Eitherway, it is dated September 2010, and much has changed since.
BAE cuts are 'tip of the iceberg' | Manchester Evening News - menmedia.co.uk
You need to also factor in BAE staff not only at Woodford, but also Chadderton (Oldham), Warton/Samlesbury. Easily over 1,000. Then there are other employees from the likes of the engine manufacturer; Thales and many hundreds (?) of small sub-contractors and suppliers, who have a limited portfolio of customers and will thus be amongst those hardest hit, if recent local news media is anything to go by. So putting an 's' on the end of the number 1,000 just might be correct, in the grand scheme of number crunching.
From a hazy memory (don't hold me to the precise numbers) I recall initial mention of 600 at Warton, 450 at Woodford and possibly around 100 at Chadderton (though that figure will likely include the Brough factory in East Yorkshire, where Nimrod structural testing takes (took) place. On top of Nimrod specific job loses there are an additional 200 at the Brough factory. I forget the number for Farnborough.
Which ever way we look at it people have already lost their jobs and those are just the tip of the iceberg, with the majority of redundancies coming very soon after the statutory notice period expires.
Just a quick trawl of the Manchester Evening News recent stories on the Nimrod job scene has brought up the following:-
Planned cuts at BAE seen as a ‘devastating’ blow to economy
The proposed cuts affect 79 jobs at Chadderton in Oldham, 209 at Samlesbury and 668 at Warton, both in Lancashire.
Planned cuts at BAE seen as a ?devastating? blow to economy | Manchester Evening News - menmedia.co.uk
Jobs blow BAE plant 'will shut next year' November 25, 2010
Yesterday 320 subcontractors were let go and the remaining 450 permanent staff are expected to take over their work.
Jobs blow BAE plant 'will shut next year' | Manchester Evening News - menmedia.co.uk
320 jobs lost at BAE Systems after government cuts November 24, 2010
More than 300 people who worked on the Nimrod aircraft project at BAE Systems in Woodford have lost their jobs after the government scrapped the project. (note this refers to sub-contractor staff, and not the 450 permanent staff remaining until March 31, 2011)
320 jobs lost at BAE Systems after government cuts | Manchester Evening News - menmedia.co.uk
BAE cuts are 'tip of the iceberg' September 09, 2010
This story seems to be more 'general', though it does specfically mention 'reduction in workload in the large aircraft business'. Eitherway, it is dated September 2010, and much has changed since.
BAE cuts are 'tip of the iceberg' | Manchester Evening News - menmedia.co.uk
As opposed to : Pay, pay again, pay even more and still not get?
Pay,
Change Spec,
pay again,
Change Spec,
pay even more
Change Spec,
and still not get?
Yup.
People who change the spec less, get what they contracted for in less time and less cost - to the cost (quite rightly) of many contractors who find out the hard way.
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Lincolnshire
Posts: 107
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Numbers affected
Biggus,
When in service, it was estimated that around 1,000-1,200 'equivalent heads' would be involved in operating and supporting the MRA4 - RAF, MOD, Industry (BAES as prime plus lots of OEMs and smaller suppliers). In the first years the RAF were covering some of the training and 'depth' maintenance - but only until operational routine and 'forward' demand had built up, with the full fleet in service. In any case, as you say, the pain is definitely shared out.
Down the chain you can easily double or treble the number of people involved part-time. It is difficult to know how many of these supply chain 'part-timers' will be badly hit, but to take away part of an organisation's throughput, yet leave all of the costs, generally means that someone goes, particularly against the overall backdrop of the other defence cuts. This is illustrated by the cross-platform support (e.g. engineers supporting say, MRA4, VC10, Sentry and R1) which is no longer viable without the other platforms say doubling their costs for the same throughput - or, more likley, leaving costs the same, making half the engineers redundant, and suffering the drop in support performance. Hence a further set of secondary staff are affected.
At time of cancellation, there was still the residual design, development and production teams, which added anothr 600 ish, destined to drop away, but progressively rather than in one fell swoop.
Hope this is of interest.
When in service, it was estimated that around 1,000-1,200 'equivalent heads' would be involved in operating and supporting the MRA4 - RAF, MOD, Industry (BAES as prime plus lots of OEMs and smaller suppliers). In the first years the RAF were covering some of the training and 'depth' maintenance - but only until operational routine and 'forward' demand had built up, with the full fleet in service. In any case, as you say, the pain is definitely shared out.
Down the chain you can easily double or treble the number of people involved part-time. It is difficult to know how many of these supply chain 'part-timers' will be badly hit, but to take away part of an organisation's throughput, yet leave all of the costs, generally means that someone goes, particularly against the overall backdrop of the other defence cuts. This is illustrated by the cross-platform support (e.g. engineers supporting say, MRA4, VC10, Sentry and R1) which is no longer viable without the other platforms say doubling their costs for the same throughput - or, more likley, leaving costs the same, making half the engineers redundant, and suffering the drop in support performance. Hence a further set of secondary staff are affected.
At time of cancellation, there was still the residual design, development and production teams, which added anothr 600 ish, destined to drop away, but progressively rather than in one fell swoop.
Hope this is of interest.
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Stockport
Posts: 121
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You wouldn't believe how many times the specs were changed, a small percent were down to BAE but the lions share were down to the MOD changing the mission profile. Very early on in the project a number of Joe Blogs who had worked on the early Nimrods had warned management and the MOD that all the frames were different...... and they were ignored......shock horror when the first wingbox turned up.
Those wingboxes were not cheap either being mostly Titanium
Those wingboxes were not cheap either being mostly Titanium
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: gla
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Obvious question from an outsider
I note from the comments on some of the pictures that PA1 has been flying for six years. I'm a Control Engineer by trade but these days just a taxpayer so my question is fairly simple:
How can an aircraft fly for six years but not be "fit to fly"?
If I asked Ron Dennis to build me a car I'd be a bit miffed if someone had been driving it for six years with only the occasional stop to send me a another bill but I'd still not been handed the keys.
How can an aircraft fly for six years but not be "fit to fly"?
If I asked Ron Dennis to build me a car I'd be a bit miffed if someone had been driving it for six years with only the occasional stop to send me a another bill but I'd still not been handed the keys.
Join Date: May 2007
Location: England - Now
Posts: 69
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not Fit To Fly?
For goodness sake!!!!!!!!!!!
How many times will someone say - How can an aircraft fly for six years but not be "fit to fly"?
Who said it was "Not fit to fly" and when?
A decision was made to not continue with the aircraft. Did the RAF hierarchy fight for it - did anyone stand up and say that this was a capability that was desperately needed and they would use their "Red Card"? Well we all know the answer and so our lords and masters decided, for whatever reason be it it cost or capability or whatever, to tell Big Dave and his mates to go ahead.
The RAF has lost a capability it can never replace. The P8 WILL NOT do what the MRA4 could and does anyone else think that now the US order for the P8 has effectively been halved that the unit cost per aircraft will prob be more than MAR4 would have been?
Can't prove it will be more expensive of course but that has never stopped the unproven anti-MRA4 crap being posted on PPRUNE.
Go back and read SFOs posts. Poor chap seems to be the man with the most experience of actually flying the blasted machine and knows the machinations and culpability of BAE/MOD but of course unlike the well informed posters here he didn't realise it was NOT FIT TO FLY!
How many times will someone say - How can an aircraft fly for six years but not be "fit to fly"?
Who said it was "Not fit to fly" and when?
A decision was made to not continue with the aircraft. Did the RAF hierarchy fight for it - did anyone stand up and say that this was a capability that was desperately needed and they would use their "Red Card"? Well we all know the answer and so our lords and masters decided, for whatever reason be it it cost or capability or whatever, to tell Big Dave and his mates to go ahead.
The RAF has lost a capability it can never replace. The P8 WILL NOT do what the MRA4 could and does anyone else think that now the US order for the P8 has effectively been halved that the unit cost per aircraft will prob be more than MAR4 would have been?
Can't prove it will be more expensive of course but that has never stopped the unproven anti-MRA4 crap being posted on PPRUNE.
Go back and read SFOs posts. Poor chap seems to be the man with the most experience of actually flying the blasted machine and knows the machinations and culpability of BAE/MOD but of course unlike the well informed posters here he didn't realise it was NOT FIT TO FLY!
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Stockport
Posts: 121
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'll say it one more time, If the Nimrod MRA4 had been called anything but Nimrod it would be in service now. After the accident in Afghanistan it was a tarnished name and certain people looked at all Nimrods as deathtraps.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: St Annes
Age: 68
Posts: 638
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think you're being a little unfair there Manccowboy,
naturally, calling it Nimrod was always going to be a 'no go item', but a small part of the reason why it was going to be no good is because it's a spy plane and has that big dish on top they could never manage to get working. Oh, almost forgot our European critics for a moment - also because it was simply going to be for a variety of search and surveillance tasks rather than being a multi role aircraft like the C130 and F16.
Headstone, get over it mate, if there was an IQ test for humanity there'd be precious few of us, 'cos if there's this level of cobblers on a thread you know a lot about, imagine how much cobblers there probably is on all the threads you are less well informed about.... now stop and ask yourself 'is the average Ppruner more intelligent than the great unwashed ' or not...
I'm surprised most of the planet manages to get a leg down each trouser leg of a morning.
Dave
naturally, calling it Nimrod was always going to be a 'no go item', but a small part of the reason why it was going to be no good is because it's a spy plane and has that big dish on top they could never manage to get working. Oh, almost forgot our European critics for a moment - also because it was simply going to be for a variety of search and surveillance tasks rather than being a multi role aircraft like the C130 and F16.
Headstone, get over it mate, if there was an IQ test for humanity there'd be precious few of us, 'cos if there's this level of cobblers on a thread you know a lot about, imagine how much cobblers there probably is on all the threads you are less well informed about.... now stop and ask yourself 'is the average Ppruner more intelligent than the great unwashed ' or not...
I'm surprised most of the planet manages to get a leg down each trouser leg of a morning.
Dave
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: France 46
Age: 77
Posts: 1,743
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
davejb
You forgot one important point:-
The original Nimrod was basically a Comet airframe and the Comet first flew on 27 July 1949.
The name killed the concept!!
You forgot one important point:-
The original Nimrod was basically a Comet airframe and the Comet first flew on 27 July 1949.
The name killed the concept!!
Join Date: May 2006
Location: 2 m South of Radstock VRP
Posts: 2,042
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by davejb
but a small part of the reason why it was going to be no good is because it's a spy plane and has that big dish on top they could never manage to get working.
Cazatou, I think you will find that the only 'Nimrod' that was using a Comet airframe was the 'Canopus' currently enjoying life at Bruntingthorpe with the occasional run down the runway and this I believe from memory was to trial/demonstrate the feasability of using the comet design for an RAF aircraft, the Nimrods were completely new builds to start with.