MoD to buy 5 x P8 from USA - maybe
PA,
Let me get this right, are you saying the total cost of MRA4 was £4Bn for 9 aircraft?
If so, and £4Bn divided by 9 is £444m so it seems to be the case, have you not lumped together both R&D and production costs and spread them evenly over each airframe?
According to the figures provided by Eminence, the costs if only 9 P-8 were produced would be $8Bn R&D + 9 x $275 production = $10.475Bn, approx. £6.38 vs £4Bn for MRA4, or using your preferred method £708m per airframe....
That seems to me to be the true figures in the comparison you were attempting to make?
Of course considerably more than 9 P-8s will be produced, so the R&D cost spread evenly per airframe will reduce considerably with time!
Let me get this right, are you saying the total cost of MRA4 was £4Bn for 9 aircraft?
If so, and £4Bn divided by 9 is £444m so it seems to be the case, have you not lumped together both R&D and production costs and spread them evenly over each airframe?
According to the figures provided by Eminence, the costs if only 9 P-8 were produced would be $8Bn R&D + 9 x $275 production = $10.475Bn, approx. £6.38 vs £4Bn for MRA4, or using your preferred method £708m per airframe....
That seems to me to be the true figures in the comparison you were attempting to make?
Of course considerably more than 9 P-8s will be produced, so the R&D cost spread evenly per airframe will reduce considerably with time!
Ah now fellas.....we all know British is better and thus worth the extra Dosh.
Remembering the figures quoted are only those for the planned purchase and does not consider the real costs such a program would incur as is absolutely typical of your procurements historically.
Some suggest the P-3 nee Electra is a 1950's airliner carcass way beyond its sell by date.....but just skip over the antecedents of the proposed Nimrod thingy.
At least the P-8 is both new build but also new tech.
Remembering the figures quoted are only those for the planned purchase and does not consider the real costs such a program would incur as is absolutely typical of your procurements historically.
Some suggest the P-3 nee Electra is a 1950's airliner carcass way beyond its sell by date.....but just skip over the antecedents of the proposed Nimrod thingy.
At least the P-8 is both new build but also new tech.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 1,515
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Posted this before several times, but once more with feeling...
MRA4 costs...
When the contract was signed in 1996 it was for 21 ac @ c£2 billion (source defence white papers around 95-98)
Smoke and mirrors exercise, the cost was removed from said documents and reappeared in their replacement defence review thingys as...
18 ac @ c£3.4 billion (around 2000, same time as it stopped being Nimrod 2000 and became MRA4)
The original cost then disappeared and the new cost became the new "original" cost. This was handy as when the contract was "re-baselined" to 9 aircraft (2006 ish ??) it only ever referred to the made up "original" cost.
(honestly these cnuts must think we are incapable of doing basic research)
When it was binned, it cost the taxpayer c£3.6 billion (source national audit office). For **** all.
Footnote, when the AEW Nimrod was binned it cost the taxpayer c£1 billion in seventies money (for **** all) and government declared "this must never happen again". The MOD introduced a new procurement system as a result.
It's enough to make a blind shepherd throw away his crook and **** his sheep.
MRA4 costs...
When the contract was signed in 1996 it was for 21 ac @ c£2 billion (source defence white papers around 95-98)
Smoke and mirrors exercise, the cost was removed from said documents and reappeared in their replacement defence review thingys as...
18 ac @ c£3.4 billion (around 2000, same time as it stopped being Nimrod 2000 and became MRA4)
The original cost then disappeared and the new cost became the new "original" cost. This was handy as when the contract was "re-baselined" to 9 aircraft (2006 ish ??) it only ever referred to the made up "original" cost.
(honestly these cnuts must think we are incapable of doing basic research)
When it was binned, it cost the taxpayer c£3.6 billion (source national audit office). For **** all.
Footnote, when the AEW Nimrod was binned it cost the taxpayer c£1 billion in seventies money (for **** all) and government declared "this must never happen again". The MOD introduced a new procurement system as a result.
It's enough to make a blind shepherd throw away his crook and **** his sheep.
Biggus,
If there were only going to be 9 x P-8's ordered, then you would be right. However, knowing there would be at the very least, 120 aircraft built, then worst case would be:
120 x $275m = $33Bn
plus R&D cost of $8Bn
= $41Bn for 120 aircraft
or $341m per aircraft = £214m per aircraft which is less than half of what each MRA4 would cost.
Bottom line is that we can play around with figures in many ways. The reality is that Boeing agreed a cost and delivery programme with the US DoD that was (or is being) achieved. On that very basis alone, the programme should be seen as a model for success.
Conversely, both AEW3 and MRA4 should be seen as models for absolute, utter and total failure, with the single exception that an RAF team of specialists based at Warton was probably a good idea!
If there were only going to be 9 x P-8's ordered, then you would be right. However, knowing there would be at the very least, 120 aircraft built, then worst case would be:
120 x $275m = $33Bn
plus R&D cost of $8Bn
= $41Bn for 120 aircraft
or $341m per aircraft = £214m per aircraft which is less than half of what each MRA4 would cost.
Bottom line is that we can play around with figures in many ways. The reality is that Boeing agreed a cost and delivery programme with the US DoD that was (or is being) achieved. On that very basis alone, the programme should be seen as a model for success.
Conversely, both AEW3 and MRA4 should be seen as models for absolute, utter and total failure, with the single exception that an RAF team of specialists based at Warton was probably a good idea!
TOFO,
and what you missed was that once the contract was 're-baselined' with half the aircraft for twice as much, ten years late - BAES then boasted about how good they were and how they were achieving all their contracted obligations on time and within budget!!!!
at least for a couple of months until the programme slipped again....
The original cost then disappeared and the new cost became the new "original" cost. This was handy as when the contract was "re-baselined" to 9 aircraft (2006 ish ??) it only ever referred to the made up "original" cost.
at least for a couple of months until the programme slipped again....
A gent I served with was later on staff in DC in the program office when LRAACA went belly up. He was a long time P-3 guy. His major takeaway was that LM had made a mess of a good idea, and he was glad to see them get slapped for it, even though that left our P-3 fleet to spend another twenty years trying to meet requirements with an airframe that wasn't getting any younger.
A credit to the whole crowd of Orion professionals, top to bottom, that they did pretty well with what they had to work with.
Good to see P-8 finally arrive, and one hopes our Brits friends can find room for a few since maritime surveillance and similar missions don't ever seem to go away.
A credit to the whole crowd of Orion professionals, top to bottom, that they did pretty well with what they had to work with.
Good to see P-8 finally arrive, and one hopes our Brits friends can find room for a few since maritime surveillance and similar missions don't ever seem to go away.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 1,515
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PA
Indeed I remember it very well. I also remember my comments at the time...I was still in, just. And I remember being told to get back in my box.
Also told to get back in my box in 1996 when I interrupted a presentation (the one often referred to on here) by the handsome ex AEO, with the words..."are you ****ing kidding me"
Back in my box again, when myself and the venerable Air Eng OBE did a presentation in the Icebox OM on why Nimrod 2000 was utterly bananas.
And also enroute Brass Nut when I bet a future member of the MRA4 project team it was 50/50 it would ever see service.
And believe me I was by no means a lone wolf. The idea that the whole of the maritime community was behind the MRA4 is an utter, utter myth. Many of us served through the AEW debacle and were well aware of the myriad of shortcomings with the airframe.
PS
I was also personally in the room at BAE, when a crew chief queried if the enlarged engine nacelles would interfere with the bomb door travel.
"Nope, we've simulated the flight conditions and they are fine", was the confident reply.
Crew chief... "I'm not talking about in flight...I'm talking about when we put them to 'Ground Load'
"Excuse me, the ground what now?"
"Ground Load, so we can get the weapons trolleys in".
Cue white faces, the air of panic and the rather obvious fact that they just didn't **** ing know what they were doing.
Indeed I remember it very well. I also remember my comments at the time...I was still in, just. And I remember being told to get back in my box.
Also told to get back in my box in 1996 when I interrupted a presentation (the one often referred to on here) by the handsome ex AEO, with the words..."are you ****ing kidding me"
Back in my box again, when myself and the venerable Air Eng OBE did a presentation in the Icebox OM on why Nimrod 2000 was utterly bananas.
And also enroute Brass Nut when I bet a future member of the MRA4 project team it was 50/50 it would ever see service.
And believe me I was by no means a lone wolf. The idea that the whole of the maritime community was behind the MRA4 is an utter, utter myth. Many of us served through the AEW debacle and were well aware of the myriad of shortcomings with the airframe.
PS
I was also personally in the room at BAE, when a crew chief queried if the enlarged engine nacelles would interfere with the bomb door travel.
"Nope, we've simulated the flight conditions and they are fine", was the confident reply.
Crew chief... "I'm not talking about in flight...I'm talking about when we put them to 'Ground Load'
"Excuse me, the ground what now?"
"Ground Load, so we can get the weapons trolleys in".
Cue white faces, the air of panic and the rather obvious fact that they just didn't **** ing know what they were doing.
Last edited by The Old Fat One; 8th Jan 2014 at 17:48.
A few thoughts:
I think the debate over the FL 30,000 feet optimized wing is over analyzed. Yes it is most efficient at that altitude and is adopted from a commercial design; but so what? That does not mean it can not fly lower. After all what kind of performance was the Electra wing (P-3 granddad) designed for? What was the Comet wing (Nimrod grandad) designed for? Surely both wings were more efficient at cruise, at higher altitude, but that did not make them terrible down low ASW platforms. Yes fuel flow will be higher down low. No they will not always operate at FL30.
I see 5 as a good entry number. More to follow. Look at the C-17 example the UK went through. Lease a few, then buy, then buy more when money opens up or they prove thier value.
A new platform is unafforadable.
Don't let BAE touch a thing. Go with US kit. Forget the talk of integrating UK equipment from the MR4 or other sources. When has that gone well? Have Marshall install a probe and repaint- that is alll.
I think the debate over the FL 30,000 feet optimized wing is over analyzed. Yes it is most efficient at that altitude and is adopted from a commercial design; but so what? That does not mean it can not fly lower. After all what kind of performance was the Electra wing (P-3 granddad) designed for? What was the Comet wing (Nimrod grandad) designed for? Surely both wings were more efficient at cruise, at higher altitude, but that did not make them terrible down low ASW platforms. Yes fuel flow will be higher down low. No they will not always operate at FL30.
I see 5 as a good entry number. More to follow. Look at the C-17 example the UK went through. Lease a few, then buy, then buy more when money opens up or they prove thier value.
A new platform is unafforadable.
Don't let BAE touch a thing. Go with US kit. Forget the talk of integrating UK equipment from the MR4 or other sources. When has that gone well? Have Marshall install a probe and repaint- that is alll.
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Just down the road from ISK
Posts: 328
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hopefull!!
I was very suspicious when the MRA4's were chopped up within minutes of the announcement of the cancellation. Huge smelly RAT! If the platform was THAT good and it was just surplus to UK requirement then it could have been sold!!
P8's - I hope so....but I doubt it!
P8's - I hope so....but I doubt it!
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Sussex By The Sea
Age: 79
Posts: 264
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TOFO asked
In the late 80's there were a number of 'requirements', I cant remember whether they were at ST or SR or MER status at the time, loosely gathered together as a Nimrod Mid Life Update. They covered things such as Comms, Navigation and Avionics. ST(A)420 was kicked off in 1988, thus IMHO that is when the Nimrod MR2 Replacement saga started. I am not sure when ST(A)420 progressed to become SR(A)420 as I had left by then. It was almost certainly after P7 had been cancelled, hence giving the impression in some quarters that 420 and MRA4 only originated because P7 had been cancelled.
Initially 420 was being drafted with P7 very much in mind, but I think it unlikely that it could have survived in that form for very long. Everyone in the OR chain up to 2* were keen to get an off the shelf solution with as little frigging about as possible. Lessons from the F4 procurement were still fresh in the memory.
Was there perhaps a previous SR for the MR2 replacement?
Initially 420 was being drafted with P7 very much in mind, but I think it unlikely that it could have survived in that form for very long. Everyone in the OR chain up to 2* were keen to get an off the shelf solution with as little frigging about as possible. Lessons from the F4 procurement were still fresh in the memory.
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Lancashire
Age: 75
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SRA 420
The first draft of SRA 420 for industry comment was dated 21st June 1990 and released to industry on 6 July. Presumably there were earlier versions inside MoD. I believe it was written around the P-7. The P-7 contract was cancelled on 20 July 1990.
EG
EG
ST(A)420 was kicked off in 1988, thus IMHO that is when the Nimrod MR2 Replacement saga started.
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: cardboard box in't middle of t'road
Posts: 745
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
TOFO
Unfortunately, in the procurement world, the shepherd's and sheep's' roles seem to get reversed.
It's enough to make a blind shepherd throw away his crook and **** his sheep.
Why install a probe? Does the ac not use boom or is it not rx capable at all?
A rumour doing the rounds a year or few ago was that the USN never knew that large aircraft can use probe and drogue AAR quite happily....
If the UK acquired the P-8A, the extra cost of a probe / trials etc. would be significant. Whereas if the RAF renegotiated the Voyager to include a boom on some aircraft, it could then refuel the Rivet Joint and P-8A...and E-3D should a centreline drogue tanker be unavailable.
Speaking of which, has the KC3 been given clearance to use the FRU yet...
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: in the magical land of beer and chocolates
Age: 52
Posts: 506
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If the UK acquired the P-8A, the extra cost of a probe / trials etc. would be significant. Whereas if the RAF renegotiated the Voyager to include a boom on some aircraft, it could then refuel the Rivet Joint and P-8A...and E-3D should a centreline drogue tanker be unavailable.
Conversely, both AEW3 and MRA4 should be seen as models for absolute, utter and total failure, with the single exception that an RAF team of specialists based at Warton was probably a good idea! 
Unfortunately, they were ignored. As I've said before, on 27th February 1998 at a meeting with our 2 Star (DGAS2): 2 Star - "Ah, Sqn Ldr, I've spoken to your Director this morning and he tells me N2000 is right on target". Sqn Ldr - "So he didn't mention the 4 year slip then?" Never saw the Sqn Ldr again.
Same 2 Star also had management oversight of Chinook Mk3. Same predictions and notifications. Same result. MoD claimed to PAC they did not know who had management oversight. They lied. This was pointed out to PAC and HCDC. They didn't want to know. Why not? Look at who was protected.
I reckon £4Bn is conservative. I don't think another replacement is a foregone conclusion. I'm quite sure there will be Treasury people, with long memories, quite rightly pointing out that MoD came cap in hand many times in the 90s and 00s begging for more money for RMPA/N2000/MRA4. They will, or should be, very rigourous this time. When such events occur, the norm is for the Service involved to wait until the original decision makers have long gone, before someone in DEC has the bottle to put pen to paper reminding everyone that (now) very senior staffs royally screwed up.