BAE Systems & MRA4
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: France 46
Age: 77
Posts: 1,743
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
iRaven
The Jet Provost was originally built by Hunting Aircraft Ltd and operated in its TMk3 and TMk4 variants - the T Mk 3 entering Service in June 1959 whilst the T Mk 4 entered Service in November 1961. The radically redesigned BAe Jet Provost Mk5 entered Service in 1969.
The HS 125 was the original designation of that type but later variants were BAe 125's - both were operated by 32 Sqn.
The HS 146 became the BAe 146 prior to production commencing and as such entered RAF Service on 20 June 1983 according to my Log Book (ZD 696). I collected the first aircraft from BAe.
PS Before the Pedants leap in - 10 Jet Provost Mk1 Aircraft did comparative trials at 2 FTS Hullavington in 1955 - the first Student to go solo on a Jet Provost was Plt Off RT Foster on 17 October 1955.
The Jet Provost was originally built by Hunting Aircraft Ltd and operated in its TMk3 and TMk4 variants - the T Mk 3 entering Service in June 1959 whilst the T Mk 4 entered Service in November 1961. The radically redesigned BAe Jet Provost Mk5 entered Service in 1969.
The HS 125 was the original designation of that type but later variants were BAe 125's - both were operated by 32 Sqn.
The HS 146 became the BAe 146 prior to production commencing and as such entered RAF Service on 20 June 1983 according to my Log Book (ZD 696). I collected the first aircraft from BAe.
PS Before the Pedants leap in - 10 Jet Provost Mk1 Aircraft did comparative trials at 2 FTS Hullavington in 1955 - the first Student to go solo on a Jet Provost was Plt Off RT Foster on 17 October 1955.
Last edited by cazatou; 4th Sep 2011 at 08:13.
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Scotland
Posts: 217
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Had the good fortune to work with BAE till the last, great guys but I think the blame lies in design not nothing to do with the fact it took them 3 hours a day to remove a panel due to stupid work practises that if somebody capable of using a screwdriver and undoing 5 fasteners would ensure a walk out from the unions. BAE have there own self to blame and there work practices are shocking . Good riddance they have screwed the UK to far the lazy bastards
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Lake District
Posts: 164
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In post #1 it lays the blame for MRA4 failure at the feet of the project manager...I'm a project manager for the company in question although nothing to do with that particular programme...It's not the job of the project manager to ultimately decide if a project should continue...My job is one akin to a conductor keeping the various parts of my orchestra in tune and on time...At various times in any of my projects I present a snapshot of where I am to people a deal higher than me up the food chain (review board/steering group) to decide if what we are doing still holds benefit, still meets the requirement, isn't being achieved by another project elsewhere (not likely in MR4 scenario!) and should it continue...as a PM it's not my decision to proceed and I abide by the boards decisions and react to their advice...it should be noted that the customer has representation at these reviews and must sign off on the results...So the MOD could at any time decide that the project isn't worth it anymore and close it with justification. Outside of these boards there are built in 'go/no-go' gates on the larger projects where in smaller reviews failures will show up...The production of the data for all of these reviews is produced by various people so it's not a case of one person being able to draw up the figures and hide damaging facts...
The detailed requirements for a complex project like the MRA4 must have been difficult to tie down...The devil is in this area and once you think you've got them they move around again...Once baselined they become configured and controlled items so it would be easy to see who was changing them and where the overspend was coming from if you had access to the change control documentation...
The detailed requirements for a complex project like the MRA4 must have been difficult to tie down...The devil is in this area and once you think you've got them they move around again...Once baselined they become configured and controlled items so it would be easy to see who was changing them and where the overspend was coming from if you had access to the change control documentation...
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Erehwon
Posts: 1,146
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
18 years on and still posting on a military forum, I sense a little bit of denial here
There's not a lot of entertainment around and the TV is full of repeats. So taking the opportunity of pointing out that the view is much better when the head is extracted from the @rse is good fun (for me anyway, and it's only my opinion I'm responsible for).
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: The Fletcher Memorial Home
Age: 59
Posts: 303
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ExRAFRadar,
Your call, if what you really want is a Pilot only forum.
However it won't make engineering any better! As I have often said in my career as a "lowly oik",when you get two pilots you always get three opinions!
Your call, if what you really want is a Pilot only forum.
However it won't make engineering any better! As I have often said in my career as a "lowly oik",when you get two pilots you always get three opinions!
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oxon
Age: 66
Posts: 1,942
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think I spend time here because I enjoy the wit and repartee . . . I also quite enjoyed my time in the RAF, the people, the aircraft and what we did with them. Nostalgia's not what it was.
There's not a lot of entertainment around and the TV is full of repeats. So taking the opportunity of pointing out that the view is much better when the head is extracted from the @rse is good fun (for me anyway, and it's only my opinion I'm responsible for).
There's not a lot of entertainment around and the TV is full of repeats. So taking the opportunity of pointing out that the view is much better when the head is extracted from the @rse is good fun (for me anyway, and it's only my opinion I'm responsible for).
Could almost understand the quiet night in thing if you were still serving but 18 years on, **** me I know for sure there is better in store for me come next year
Last edited by Seldomfitforpurpose; 4th Sep 2011 at 00:10.
And another one SFFP...... People can take advice or leave it, it is their choice so dont worry about what us oldies have to say if you dont want to listen but we like others before us can help.I for one have given advice to people on life here in nz they took it or left it
Vim Fuego
Excellent post. I have no feelings one way or another for BAeS, but you articulate well the problems any project manager has, especially the moving feast, decision points and who sticks their oar in. Very often the project is effectively frozen for years awaiting a relatively simple decision.
On MRA4, I'd like to hear the opinion of an MoD project manager on the NART report of 1998. Reading it, it is patently obvious that the project needed immediate re-endorsement on both slippage and cost escalation grounds. And that the problems it listed had been well known for at least 6 years. One assumes that approval was given - a number of times! That decision making process must be recorded.
Is it not time for a searching public inquiry? Every time something like this happens, the MoD's line is "It is in the past, we've improved and moved on". But, invariably, the moving on involves promotions for those who screwed up and its the same old faces in charge of the asylum. Why not kill two birds with one stone and have a joint MRA4 / Chinook Mk3 inquiry? After all, the management oversight on both programmes was provided by exactly the same people and they demonstrably knew of the problems at the start of the programmes.
Excellent post. I have no feelings one way or another for BAeS, but you articulate well the problems any project manager has, especially the moving feast, decision points and who sticks their oar in. Very often the project is effectively frozen for years awaiting a relatively simple decision.
On MRA4, I'd like to hear the opinion of an MoD project manager on the NART report of 1998. Reading it, it is patently obvious that the project needed immediate re-endorsement on both slippage and cost escalation grounds. And that the problems it listed had been well known for at least 6 years. One assumes that approval was given - a number of times! That decision making process must be recorded.
Is it not time for a searching public inquiry? Every time something like this happens, the MoD's line is "It is in the past, we've improved and moved on". But, invariably, the moving on involves promotions for those who screwed up and its the same old faces in charge of the asylum. Why not kill two birds with one stone and have a joint MRA4 / Chinook Mk3 inquiry? After all, the management oversight on both programmes was provided by exactly the same people and they demonstrably knew of the problems at the start of the programmes.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oxon
Age: 66
Posts: 1,942
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oxon
Age: 66
Posts: 1,942
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: A Gaelic Country
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Vim Fuego
That was a good post.
But surely over a 10 year period, 120 months (hence my "simplified" comment about Gantt Charts!) someone must surely to God have asked about the over-run. The chart must have gone three times around the room - a veritable "elephant-in-the-room" situation! It's there but no bu**er wants to acknowledge it.
I have some minor Project Management experience: Moral Courage to tell "The Board" what they do not want to hear is one desirable pre-requisite - in my opinion - of a Project Manager (PM) - or whoever ultimately represents the collective viewpoint of all the PMs invlolved to the Board.
Unless of course, and this is a commercial reality in the West I guess, there is a strong, strong pressure, to keep things "moving along", bringing in the cash and keeping the shareholders (& other stakeholders) happy.
If the posts are forcibly moved, then the customer pays - in more ways than one ultimately e.g. R Day!
I posted this after seeing the reactions of some of my colleagues - I felt so, so sorry for them. And angry on their behalf. As I am sure BAe employees felt too.
For me - nearly three decades served - I am happy to go.
But I would have stayed for an MRA4 post.
That was a good post.
But surely over a 10 year period, 120 months (hence my "simplified" comment about Gantt Charts!) someone must surely to God have asked about the over-run. The chart must have gone three times around the room - a veritable "elephant-in-the-room" situation! It's there but no bu**er wants to acknowledge it.
I have some minor Project Management experience: Moral Courage to tell "The Board" what they do not want to hear is one desirable pre-requisite - in my opinion - of a Project Manager (PM) - or whoever ultimately represents the collective viewpoint of all the PMs invlolved to the Board.
Unless of course, and this is a commercial reality in the West I guess, there is a strong, strong pressure, to keep things "moving along", bringing in the cash and keeping the shareholders (& other stakeholders) happy.
If the posts are forcibly moved, then the customer pays - in more ways than one ultimately e.g. R Day!
I posted this after seeing the reactions of some of my colleagues - I felt so, so sorry for them. And angry on their behalf. As I am sure BAe employees felt too.
For me - nearly three decades served - I am happy to go.
But I would have stayed for an MRA4 post.
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Lake District
Posts: 164
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It would have been interesting to sit in on some of the reviews to see what was being said...However as I said earlier the customer would have been well represented on those boards and if anything didn't agree with them then they would have been in a strong position to find that the programme would not have been meeting at least the time line element of the requirements...
Impossible to say without the documentation, minutes etc in front of you...I have to say I was flying on Nims when it began and was still flying, albeit on another type, when it was cancelled and it beggered belief that it had the legs, with the spending taken into consideration, that it did in my opinion from my position then...
Impossible to say without the documentation, minutes etc in front of you...I have to say I was flying on Nims when it began and was still flying, albeit on another type, when it was cancelled and it beggered belief that it had the legs, with the spending taken into consideration, that it did in my opinion from my position then...
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: The World
Posts: 86
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If we're honest then the MRA4 should have been cancelled years ago and well before we spent $4Bn on it. Yes the MOD probably tooled around with the specifications but flying in a straight line is probably not one of the things that they got wrong.
The decision to purchase MRA4 was primarily political - by the last Conservative government. The decision to continue with the farce was Noo Labour. Overall then, this had little to do with military capability and everything to do with greasing the palms of contractors and the workforce.
The point I think is that the UK could probably get away with this nonsense when the government was prepared to spend a reasonable amount on Defence. The current bunch are not (perhaps they could bail out BAES from the International Development slush fund), still want to use the armed forces and labour under the utter illusion that British Industry automatically builds the best equipment in the world. In some cases they do but we need to buy what we need on the basis of its merits.
The decision to purchase MRA4 was primarily political - by the last Conservative government. The decision to continue with the farce was Noo Labour. Overall then, this had little to do with military capability and everything to do with greasing the palms of contractors and the workforce.
The point I think is that the UK could probably get away with this nonsense when the government was prepared to spend a reasonable amount on Defence. The current bunch are not (perhaps they could bail out BAES from the International Development slush fund), still want to use the armed forces and labour under the utter illusion that British Industry automatically builds the best equipment in the world. In some cases they do but we need to buy what we need on the basis of its merits.
covec said:
"Moral Courage to tell "The Board" what they do not want to hear is one desirable pre-requisite - in my opinion - of a Project Manager (PM) - or whoever ultimately represents the collective viewpoint of all the PMs invlolved to the Board."
As a (seasoned) Quality Manager I have had to state the unwanted news many times and endured the ignorance of my advice by several company Boards.
In the end, for the more important items, I have the luxury or resorting to feeding External auditors and Regulators (note the capital "R") to "repeat" my findings and support my internal reports. (How I manage my managers)
I feel, and obviously without first-hand knowledge, that RAF "Project Managers" seem to have very little experience of what to do if a Project slips and are likely to sit back (Numb-struck?) and misguidedly wait to see what happens as they expect the civilian Contractor to "sort it". (perhaps often without adequate direction from their "customer" bosses?)
What I call "the Numbnut effect" (it happens outside too) is likely to happen more and more often now that the Customer has less and less effective managers in post or even in training. This lack of project expertise is further compounded by the regular movement of these semi-experienced staff between projects/posts.
I feel they (in which I mean all MOD) are on a spiralling course of terminal decline due to their current financial starvation, dozens of years of perpetual mis-management and so-called "business ethics" training (to prepare officers fo the outside world?) which cannot mix well with military ethics, training and purpose.
I would say this amplifies the need for permanent civilian or permanent staff Project Officers as the way forward on all projects.
...and No. It's not always BAe's fault!
"Moral Courage to tell "The Board" what they do not want to hear is one desirable pre-requisite - in my opinion - of a Project Manager (PM) - or whoever ultimately represents the collective viewpoint of all the PMs invlolved to the Board."
As a (seasoned) Quality Manager I have had to state the unwanted news many times and endured the ignorance of my advice by several company Boards.
In the end, for the more important items, I have the luxury or resorting to feeding External auditors and Regulators (note the capital "R") to "repeat" my findings and support my internal reports. (How I manage my managers)
I feel, and obviously without first-hand knowledge, that RAF "Project Managers" seem to have very little experience of what to do if a Project slips and are likely to sit back (Numb-struck?) and misguidedly wait to see what happens as they expect the civilian Contractor to "sort it". (perhaps often without adequate direction from their "customer" bosses?)
What I call "the Numbnut effect" (it happens outside too) is likely to happen more and more often now that the Customer has less and less effective managers in post or even in training. This lack of project expertise is further compounded by the regular movement of these semi-experienced staff between projects/posts.
I feel they (in which I mean all MOD) are on a spiralling course of terminal decline due to their current financial starvation, dozens of years of perpetual mis-management and so-called "business ethics" training (to prepare officers fo the outside world?) which cannot mix well with military ethics, training and purpose.
I would say this amplifies the need for permanent civilian or permanent staff Project Officers as the way forward on all projects.
...and No. It's not always BAe's fault!
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Back to the fold in the map
Posts: 382
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
1 Post
The Bad News
Gents
Reading this thread with interest. A few years ago I was posted to the Ministry of Daftness as a Sqn Ldr and ended up as Customer 1 for 3 programmes - all of which were "in trouble". Very early on I had to attend a meeting at Wyton - which was a bunch of civil servants (some very senior) chaired by a RN 3 star. I sat "on the sidelines" for about 3 hours until one of the senior civil servants stood up and briefed one of my projects as "in the green" (using that bloody awful traffic light system). At that point I felt compelled to stand up and tell the Admiral that the previous speaker had, at the very least, been disingenuous! Wow, how unpopular was I - but it needed to be said. Interestingly enough, I had not seen that civil servant - or his minions at any meeting I had with the company (EDS) responsible since I had taken over as Customer 1 (sorry Bob B). So, it's not always the Service blokes that are responsible!
Reading this thread with interest. A few years ago I was posted to the Ministry of Daftness as a Sqn Ldr and ended up as Customer 1 for 3 programmes - all of which were "in trouble". Very early on I had to attend a meeting at Wyton - which was a bunch of civil servants (some very senior) chaired by a RN 3 star. I sat "on the sidelines" for about 3 hours until one of the senior civil servants stood up and briefed one of my projects as "in the green" (using that bloody awful traffic light system). At that point I felt compelled to stand up and tell the Admiral that the previous speaker had, at the very least, been disingenuous! Wow, how unpopular was I - but it needed to be said. Interestingly enough, I had not seen that civil servant - or his minions at any meeting I had with the company (EDS) responsible since I had taken over as Customer 1 (sorry Bob B). So, it's not always the Service blokes that are responsible!
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oxon
Age: 66
Posts: 1,942
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
37 years in and I cannot recall an instance where we ever purchased anything that came in on time, on budget and did exactly what it said on the tin.
The common denominator in all of this is the Officer cadre, no chips here guys none at all but we ask those folk to go and do something that they are out of their depth attempting.
If I go to buy a TV, computer, camera, car etc etc I KNOW before I go that the salesman is going to try and hoop me into buying the stuff he wants to unload and make the most money on.
It's no accident that the Internet is awash with websites to help the unsuspecting navigate their way through some of these major purchases, clucking bell Which Magazine has been going for years for precisely that reason.
Is in any bloody wonder when we send Flt Lt's and Sqn Ldr's etc to take on the piranhas of big business that we get hooped.
Is it any bloody wonder that when we then post said officers every 2 years because it's good for their career paths we get hooped.
None of this is rocket science and we can try and blame any manufacturer we like but the plain and honest truth is that we do it all on our own all of the time.
Until we can face up that then the process will continue and big business will rub it's hands with glee every time some poor unsuspecting sap in light blue/dark blue/green walks through the door.
The common denominator in all of this is the Officer cadre, no chips here guys none at all but we ask those folk to go and do something that they are out of their depth attempting.
If I go to buy a TV, computer, camera, car etc etc I KNOW before I go that the salesman is going to try and hoop me into buying the stuff he wants to unload and make the most money on.
It's no accident that the Internet is awash with websites to help the unsuspecting navigate their way through some of these major purchases, clucking bell Which Magazine has been going for years for precisely that reason.
Is in any bloody wonder when we send Flt Lt's and Sqn Ldr's etc to take on the piranhas of big business that we get hooped.
Is it any bloody wonder that when we then post said officers every 2 years because it's good for their career paths we get hooped.
None of this is rocket science and we can try and blame any manufacturer we like but the plain and honest truth is that we do it all on our own all of the time.
Until we can face up that then the process will continue and big business will rub it's hands with glee every time some poor unsuspecting sap in light blue/dark blue/green walks through the door.