Can someone explain why the MRA4 has been cancelled before we screw up big time.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@davejb
National Coastwatch Institution | Eyes Along The Coast
they even have co-opted some Welsh wildfowlers into this scheme, all for FREE.
See, there WAS a PLAN!
National Coastwatch Institution | Eyes Along The Coast
they even have co-opted some Welsh wildfowlers into this scheme, all for FREE.
See, there WAS a PLAN!
Join Date: May 2007
Location: North West
Age: 73
Posts: 91
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bad Bear
Minor issues I'm led to believe by those in the know, but since the legal profession went to town on the safety issues connected with XV230, no one will sign off the ac until there are perceived to be no safety issues at all.
And you cannot blame them. In the future all aircraft will be subject to the same scrutiny. Is that how it should be? It will be a brave and pehaps foolhardy person to say otherwise.
Minor issues I'm led to believe by those in the know, but since the legal profession went to town on the safety issues connected with XV230, no one will sign off the ac until there are perceived to be no safety issues at all.
And you cannot blame them. In the future all aircraft will be subject to the same scrutiny. Is that how it should be? It will be a brave and pehaps foolhardy person to say otherwise.
While one or two people have mentioned ongoing safety issues, I think the scenario you describe - making a decision to go/no go with extra funding while risks and uncertainties remain - is one that has cropped up before on this programme. In such circumstances, it is a brave man (sometimes in the Yes Minister sense) who decides to pull the plug.
As a former CDP once said "Cancellation is sometimes good". Of course, many of his staffs promptly interpreted that as "cancel at the first sign of a minor risk", which explains a few capability gaps I can think of, and resultant fatalities. A generation and more in DPA / DE&S have been brought up on that ethos. It makes you wonder how many are left who know how to identify, manage and mitigate minor risks, never mind serious ones. I know some very senior people in DE&S who remain convinced "Risk Management" means opening up a risk register, inserting a few minor issues and then close it and walk away; never to be opened again. In fact, that was the way our Nimrod 2k/RMPA/MRA4 2 Star insisted risk was managed.
With todays announcement of BAeS job losses, there will be many hoping a public inquiry follows.
As a former CDP once said "Cancellation is sometimes good". Of course, many of his staffs promptly interpreted that as "cancel at the first sign of a minor risk", which explains a few capability gaps I can think of, and resultant fatalities. A generation and more in DPA / DE&S have been brought up on that ethos. It makes you wonder how many are left who know how to identify, manage and mitigate minor risks, never mind serious ones. I know some very senior people in DE&S who remain convinced "Risk Management" means opening up a risk register, inserting a few minor issues and then close it and walk away; never to be opened again. In fact, that was the way our Nimrod 2k/RMPA/MRA4 2 Star insisted risk was managed.
With todays announcement of BAeS job losses, there will be many hoping a public inquiry follows.
since the legal profession went to town on the safety issues connected with XV230, no one will sign off the ac until there are perceived to be no safety issues at all
The world has changed. Its not anybodies fault the Nimrod just got zapped by the risk of litigation.
Who could reasonably argue with the logic?
bb
Quote:
since the legal profession went to town on the safety issues connected with XV230, no one will sign off the ac until there are perceived to be no safety issues at all
So I guess that is the problem. Someone had to take a view on how likely it would be signed off in the time scale available, if the answer was " it could take some time" the current government would be left with only one decision. What would be the point in finishing off the whole production run of aeroplanes only to find 3 years later someone cannot sign them off as fit for flight because it is thought that one of the primary systems might have a risk of failure and requires all the planes gutted and refitted?
The world has changed. Its not anybodies fault the Nimrod just got zapped by the risk of litigation.
Who could reasonably argue with the logic?
bb
since the legal profession went to town on the safety issues connected with XV230, no one will sign off the ac until there are perceived to be no safety issues at all
So I guess that is the problem. Someone had to take a view on how likely it would be signed off in the time scale available, if the answer was " it could take some time" the current government would be left with only one decision. What would be the point in finishing off the whole production run of aeroplanes only to find 3 years later someone cannot sign them off as fit for flight because it is thought that one of the primary systems might have a risk of failure and requires all the planes gutted and refitted?
The world has changed. Its not anybodies fault the Nimrod just got zapped by the risk of litigation.
Who could reasonably argue with the logic?
bb
One needs a pragmatic approach to safety management with engineering judgment to the fore. The problem, reiterated by Haddon-Cave, was that the perceived need to save money was allowed to over-ride engineering judgment - contrary to the regulations.
What he did not address was why there was this perceived need. He had a ridiculous pop at AML (General Sam Cowan) for implementing 5% per year savings over 4 years, while ignoring his predecessors who deliberately targeted airworthiness year after year. He did not link the gross waste of public funds reported year after year by auditors, or successive Governments' refusal to take action, to this perceived need.
If you chuck £300M down the drain on the likes of Chinook Mk3 (is it still the "Gold Standard Cock-Up" following Nimrod MRA4?), and the "Air Systems" budget doesn't change, where do you get the money from to compensate? Support mainly, because that is where we are taught up to 80% of Through Life costs occur and it is money that is often not committed years in advance, unlike capital procurement contracts. So, beancounters and other alien life-forms were allowed to slash airworthiness-related contracts to compensate for deliberate waste elsewhere. Haddon-Cave didn't go into this detail.
As I said above, given this ethos has been prevalent since 1988, there are an awful lot of project officers/managers in PE > DPA > DE&S who simply don't understand or have never experienced the concept of engineering judgment being paramount. They too readily accept rulings that it is acceptable to make something physically safe, but not functionally safe. That was a formal ruling by the Nimrod 2 Star and CDP in 1998. I mention that example, because that is what XV230 (and XV179) boiled down to.
Instead of asking what aircraft can we get rid of to compensate for this culture of waste and incompetence, I remain convinced it would be a good idea to target that waste and incompetence in the first place. Then we'd have some funding. Successive Ministers are on record as disagreeing. They are briefed by the same people who condone the waste and incompetence.
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Scotland
Posts: 217
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MRA4 has been canned so quickly , that ties in what BAE staff say .
In just feel sorry for the old girl , typical RAF ******* wankers that think they have respect , everyone hates the RAF and i cant wait for the ARMY to take over as I for one want that as they have courage and fight , RAF is full of yes men that lick balls for a career.
20 years of my life wasted for nothing , Ive licked balls if that makes sense
In just feel sorry for the old girl , typical RAF ******* wankers that think they have respect , everyone hates the RAF and i cant wait for the ARMY to take over as I for one want that as they have courage and fight , RAF is full of yes men that lick balls for a career.
20 years of my life wasted for nothing , Ive licked balls if that makes sense
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Right here, right Now!
Posts: 59
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh to be 17 again
C Profile,
DFM over & out
- £3.5Bn is the figure that both the MOD and BAes acknowledge. Although you will also read figures ranging from 3.2Bn to 3.9Bn as published by the aviation journalists.
- As the MR2 fulfilled more of the (old) MTs than any other platform and the MRA4 would have had a part in every single one of the (new) for SDSR MT 1-7 directives, one must assume there will be a capability gap. This is also supported by the comments of CAS and 1SL.
- Well documented in the wake of the announcement that CAS and AFB opposed the decision. And when he briefed a hangar full of people at RAF Kinloss we did rather assume he wasnt being coerced to say this.
- Read the public comments by the 1SL; and that of course is only the tip of the iceberg.
- Read the press notices on SAR incidents for the last year. I nearly said ring the ARCC, but you will of course only get the line that is intended not to worry the general public; a line that none of them privately agree with. You could also ring any of the SAR Sea King boys n girls for their take.
- Announced quietly last week we are told.
DFM over & out
Last edited by DFM; 11th Dec 2010 at 14:57.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 336
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DFM, what do your bullet points refer to??
I made a poor "assumption" in an earlier post in that this was clearly a capability holiday, not a permanent gap, as it wouldn't make any sense to gap such a capability in a maritume nation. I'm obviously wrong with this "assumption," as you don't get £2Bn in savings removing the Nimrod by tendering for and introducing a new MR(A) aircraft, so they obviously have no intention of introducing any new maritime roled aircraft into the inventory.
Finally the media appear to be grasping and reporting the fact that we have already spent £3.5Bn on the Nimrod, and that all we are going to get for it is a few razor blades. Now all we need is for them to actually twig that this is in fact a bad thing, and a criminal waste of money... give it a few months....
I made a poor "assumption" in an earlier post in that this was clearly a capability holiday, not a permanent gap, as it wouldn't make any sense to gap such a capability in a maritume nation. I'm obviously wrong with this "assumption," as you don't get £2Bn in savings removing the Nimrod by tendering for and introducing a new MR(A) aircraft, so they obviously have no intention of introducing any new maritime roled aircraft into the inventory.
Finally the media appear to be grasping and reporting the fact that we have already spent £3.5Bn on the Nimrod, and that all we are going to get for it is a few razor blades. Now all we need is for them to actually twig that this is in fact a bad thing, and a criminal waste of money... give it a few months....
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Outside the Matz
Posts: 220
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The disposal (destruction) of 9 Airframes and 3.6 billion quid is to be expidited . No concideration of selling on or storage was taken. I smell a rat and some BWOS and MOD arse covering.
I hate to ask, but is there a possibility that someone had built a ticking bomb and needed to get rid quick. Thus preventing BAEs already tarnished reputation becoming one of being a global joke.
I hate to ask, but is there a possibility that someone had built a ticking bomb and needed to get rid quick. Thus preventing BAEs already tarnished reputation becoming one of being a global joke.
Last edited by Bannock; 10th Dec 2010 at 10:34.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 336
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is probably an irrelevant comparison, and to an extent its not supposed to be, but why was it about the TSR2 that resulted in it being so comprehensively scrapped and almost deleted from existance? Was there a need to hide something? Were we so sure that the R&D and work that went into it was irrelevant and would never be needed?
Did we comprehensively dismantle the AEW3's in the same way as we appear to be doing here? I do recall seeing airframes sitting on airfields many many years after the programme died, and arguably it was in a less fit state than the MRA4?
Did we comprehensively dismantle the AEW3's in the same way as we appear to be doing here? I do recall seeing airframes sitting on airfields many many years after the programme died, and arguably it was in a less fit state than the MRA4?
Champagne anyone...?
There was an interesting comment by Caroline Wyatt on the Radio 4 midnight news last night in an article about the job losses at BAeS. She finished with the line:
This could be the usual dreadful MoD PR smoke and mirrors and just be a reference to the RJ/R1 programme. Or are other things afoot?
iPlayer about 18 mins onwards...
"However, the MoD is now looking for alternative aircraft to perform a similar role to the task carried out by the Nimrod"
iPlayer about 18 mins onwards...
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
Do I detect a cluster f*ck?
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: France 46
Age: 77
Posts: 1,743
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PP
Re TSR2
The cancellation of TSR2 was the direct result of a Cabinet Meeting at which a certain Defence Secretary announced that he was sorry to inform the meeting that a TSR2 wing had suffered major structural failure the previous day.
That statement was quite correct - but incomplete. What he forgot to mention was that it was the wing of the Airframe that was being tested to destruction that had failed.
Re TSR2
The cancellation of TSR2 was the direct result of a Cabinet Meeting at which a certain Defence Secretary announced that he was sorry to inform the meeting that a TSR2 wing had suffered major structural failure the previous day.
That statement was quite correct - but incomplete. What he forgot to mention was that it was the wing of the Airframe that was being tested to destruction that had failed.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Right here, right Now!
Posts: 59
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FACTS
P Plod,
I was responding to a comment by CP (that he now appears to have removed) when he questioned the FACTS that I posted on page 9 of this thread dated 7 Dec. My originating post is the background for the ongoing dialogue.
DFM over & out
I was responding to a comment by CP (that he now appears to have removed) when he questioned the FACTS that I posted on page 9 of this thread dated 7 Dec. My originating post is the background for the ongoing dialogue.
DFM over & out
Last edited by DFM; 11th Dec 2010 at 15:02.
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: UK
Posts: 126
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I smell a rat and some BWOS and MOD arse covering.
I hate to ask, but is there a possibility that someone had built a ticking bomb and needed to get rid quick. Thus preventing BAEs already tarnished reputation becoming one of being a global joke.
I hate to ask, but is there a possibility that someone had built a ticking bomb and needed to get rid quick. Thus preventing BAEs already tarnished reputation becoming one of being a global joke.
Scary thought .....BAES actually has a good reputation in some areas!!!!
Originally Posted by bad_bear
So I guess that is the problem. Someone had to take a view on how likely it would be signed off in the time scale available, if the answer was " it could take some time" the current government would be left with only one decision. What would be the point in finishing off the whole production run of aeroplanes only to find 3 years later someone cannot sign them off as fit for flight because it is thought that one of the primary systems might have a risk of failure and requires all the planes gutted and refitted?
The world has changed. Its not anybodies fault the Nimrod just got zapped by the risk of litigation.
Who could reasonably argue with the logic?
bb
The world has changed. Its not anybodies fault the Nimrod just got zapped by the risk of litigation.
Who could reasonably argue with the logic?
bb
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Just down the road from ISK
Posts: 328
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by xv227
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrBernoulli
I'd be interested to know why MoD spent so much money on still using that "pressure shell". Why? It is a piece of ancient de Havilland history. Apart from the politics already mentioned here, is there any good reason why the MoD was still dicking about with a Comet fuselage? An inevitable waste of time and money, surely?
Leaving aside (for now) the issue as to whether or not it was a good idea to use a modified Nimrod design in the first place, the reason for using the 'old' fuselage pressure shell was an attempt to save money.
The techniques used to build it originally are no longer available. So you would have had to redesign the fuselage from scratch - it may externally resembled a Nimrod, but would have had 90s build technology and had to be built with 90s standards as well. And would you design a new aircraft to a 1950s design?
In terms of the cancellation, don't overlook the purely political element - if we are to beleive the press coverage, the decision to cancel we made by Cameron himself. He would have wanted to have a big ticket/cost item to cancel as an example of Labour/MOD waste - and found the carriers were too tightly contracted to do so (word was he would have cancelled CVF2 in a heartbeat).
So he could stand up in the House of Commons and say 'You wasted £XB on this - we're not going to waste a penny more.'
Originally Posted by MrBernoulli
I'd be interested to know why MoD spent so much money on still using that "pressure shell". Why? It is a piece of ancient de Havilland history. Apart from the politics already mentioned here, is there any good reason why the MoD was still dicking about with a Comet fuselage? An inevitable waste of time and money, surely?
Leaving aside (for now) the issue as to whether or not it was a good idea to use a modified Nimrod design in the first place, the reason for using the 'old' fuselage pressure shell was an attempt to save money.
The techniques used to build it originally are no longer available. So you would have had to redesign the fuselage from scratch - it may externally resembled a Nimrod, but would have had 90s build technology and had to be built with 90s standards as well. And would you design a new aircraft to a 1950s design?
In terms of the cancellation, don't overlook the purely political element - if we are to beleive the press coverage, the decision to cancel we made by Cameron himself. He would have wanted to have a big ticket/cost item to cancel as an example of Labour/MOD waste - and found the carriers were too tightly contracted to do so (word was he would have cancelled CVF2 in a heartbeat).
So he could stand up in the House of Commons and say 'You wasted £XB on this - we're not going to waste a penny more.'
Then XV230 happened!