Well, we'll not be getting fat from the MRA4's galley any time soon!

mra4eng
 

I wouldn't talk about trolls but I'm not used to seeing RAF personnel abused on this forum. The quote below refers:

Let's get back to discussing the issue at hand, namely the fact that if MRA4 (Nimrod 2000) ever gets into service it will be TWELVE years late!

The old fat one
 

I think that after all you're probably right.:ugh:

Fincastle, correct. I visited the factory twice. Once we saw a Mk 2 being worked on, well shall we say one man working on the ontop aerial and the others in a huddle in the corner of the shed and no visible work or indeed material in evidence.

Next time was to test a particular component in the aircraft -SWC3 - shortly after the jet was delivered to service and we discovered off our own bat, me and an armourer, that the weapons electrics had been completely re-worked but no documentation issued to us mere . Also when the very first jet took off on its first training sortie it would not pressurise; again it was an undocumented change to the weapons system.

Now it may be possible that Handling Sqn missed a trick or two or as likely that the company had not highlighted the changes.

Deliverance

You have me a little confused.
What was the single role of the Tornado at inception, bearing in mind is was
originally called the multi role combat aircraft.
Are you suggesting that the RAF, Italian air force, German air force and navy used
the Tornado for one role only (not even mentioning the middle eastern use)?
If so, I think they would be surprised to hear that!
I may by a little thick, but surely maritime strike, recce, interdiction, CAS,
and defence suppression are not classed as single role

Now you refer to the F15, which was a single role air superiority fighter
(single role for many years), or are you also including the much later Strike Eagle model too?

andrewn,

Reference post 320. Most of the costs incurred are spent in developing the aircraft, whether you buy one or 100. Hence the unit cost of each MRA4 would have been significantly less if we had bought the original 21 planned. Which is not to say that the project isn't grossly over budget!



mra4eng

Where to start?

First of all - what is a troll?

Troll (Internet) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) Defines it, amongst other things, as someone who posts inflammatory messages. On that basis you sir are a troll! But then no doubt many of us here are. What is the definition of inflammatory? What may be inflammatory to one person could be considered harmless to another.

Then there is your put down comment about someone comparing the MRA4 to a Volvo or Ford. I believe it was "airpolice". Well, this is an open forum. Not everyone on here is from the RAF, so what makes you think that "airpolice" is? They might be, they might not, but the username hints at their current job I think. However, I agree with you that the standard of poster on here can be quite low - I mean you got in didn't you?:)


As for RAF people at Warton(?) leaving work at 1530, maybe they do, I wouldn't know. Without trying to defend them there could be several possible explainations in addition to the obvious one. Maybe, having been forced to cram 3 years work into 9 (or is it 12?) as the project has continually slipped to the right, they have finished for the day by then. Maybe they have gone native and are adopting BAE practice? Who knows? Maybe they would rather be working on a successful, on time project?


Finally to BAE itself, this wonderful company you seem so proud of. Here are just a few examples to ponder:

First of all read the Haddon Cave report, especially the section about the BAE involvement in the Safety Case of the MR2. On the basis of what is revealed in the H-C report I think some senior management from BAE should quite simply be in jail, for the fraudulent way they took money from the MOD for work they hadn't done and then tried to gloss over it.

Then there is BAE's dodgy dealing in Saudi to win Typhoon orders. It may well be the way business is done out there, and I'm not saying BAE shouldn't have done it. Such is the grubby way of the world these days, and I'm sure the US and French do it as much, if not more. I'm glad they won valuable export orders. Just don't try and tell me what a knight in shining armour BAE is.... They are no better (or worse?) than the rest.

Finally, BAE engineering standards. If they are so good why is the build quality of PA04 as bad as I have heard rumoured? Why has so much remedial work had to be done, why are there so many engineering concessions on the aircraft, what about issues with the fuel system and undercarriage. Let alone the instability problem that took so long to resolve. All basic engineering issues.

The MOD is inefficient and bureaucratic. The RAF has its share of t*ssers and career animals (read anything from tucumseh on pprune). I'm not defending any of them. But BAE is also far from perfect......

I would be tempted to say that "people who live in glass houses......".

However, I have the sneaking suspicion that you are the sort of person that will keep throwing stones!





Edited to correct some grammar - but I'm sure I still didn't get it all correct!!

Sorry to double post, but I am also finding it hard to accept that BaE is some ultra professional and world beating company.

All companies have good and bad employees, and I guess that is true of all military services too.
BUT BaE is one of the most uncontrolled and corrupt companies in my experience of them.

While working in various BaE sites on differing contracts, I witnessed goings on which would not be believed if made up!

Yes there were lots of employees doing very little, and yes there were 'bedrooms' in stores fitted with dexion bunk beds, and TV/DVD's for the 'workers' to watch while on their 'bunks' during night shifts.

There were lots of fiddles going on, and the funny thing was that if you wanted to steal something, and you asked for it officially, then there were many official hoops to go through only to be turned down. If on the other hand you asked a worker if you could simply steal something (tools, sheet alloys, wood, defence equipment) then they would often say "yes just take it)

If you wanted a new set of hand tools made from titanium or a new trailer for your car, you would be directed to the part of the factory where there was a business making them 'as foreigners'. These were almost full time ongoing concerns too, with money being paid to corrupt workers selling off tax payers resources while being paid twice by BaE too!

The were also two chaps (at one site) running two separate removals businesses.

They would hire in outside contractors to do internal moves, and then sell off BaE desks. cabinets, chairs and dividing screens etc to workers or the general public.....So, they they used Bae money to pay outside contractors to deliver Bae furniture (which was not for sale!) and then keep the money made from the sales, as well as accept their BaE pay check too.
These sales were on a near daily basis, and not one off's.

I only say this as it does annoy for anyone to be on their high horse, when high grade materials meant for defence projects are being turned into car trailers etc, and ultimately being paid for by the tax payer, who in turn are left waiting for new aircraft from this world class company.
There are more examples I could quote, but some of them involve more expensive pieces of kit that went missing, and this is not the place to air them!

A perfect description of quite a few MoD establishments I could name!! I remember an example of the last one well (in AbbeyWood). His boss got suspicious that he (a filing clerk) was head down on the phone all day, every day. She checked his phone calls and he'd made about 3000 to the same number inside 3 months. He was running a Cash and Carry business. Sacked? You jest of course. That project was (is) 10 years late as well, funnily enough.

Phil Silvers deja vu
 

Excuse me for asking, but is this thread about the Phil Silvers Show and the money-making antics of Sergeant Bilko?

No! Gosh, then things haven't changed have they?

What, you're outraged? You say that Bilko was an example of one man milking the system and that that attitude couldn't possibly be practiced by large, commercial and military, organisations.

Strewth, I didn't know that. I've spent decades listening to reports of delays, over-runs, over-payments, shoddy equipment etc., and just thought it was the way-of-the-world and had been since the first Roman soldier discovered that his helmet was sub-standard (unfortunately a fleeting realisation as he died a split second later). The other soldiers, seeing the nasty result of Bunglingus Baronus' latest masterpiece, promptly engaged in a little field unit modification by welding a cross-piece to the top of the helmet.

Nothing much has changed, has it?

Er, Okay, I'll put the wood in the hole on my way out.

P.S. This message has heavy irony throughout (sorry, didn't mean to bring up the Tornado again).

The RAF makes it work despite the manufacturer
 

It's very apparent throughout this discussion that whatever the background of the RAF contributors & the various types they have either operated or serviced, that we have all had to work hard to make up for the manufacturers short comings. That seems to be the common thread. It would be interesting to receive input from any of our colleagues overseas to ascertain whether or not this is a particular UK problem. Particularly, although still in its relative infancy, how's the progress on the BoeingP-8A? Has the first aircraft yet been delivered to Pax River on schedule?

Jetblast anyone?
 

The way this thread has been going lately, it would not surprise me to find it transferred to Jetblast. :ugh:

Come on guys, forget/ignore the troll and let's get back to the original purpose of the thread.

Just watched a fascinating TV program aired on Oz TV about BAE.

I seem to have missed the bit about how good the company was, it was all about Saudi Arabia, Rolls Royces, blackmail, whistle blowers (and the companies upcoming date with the American judicial system.)

It was funny watching the senior BAE management squirming.

Years ago at Vickers Weybridge, a worker decided to pinch some hydraulic fluid to use in his car's brakes. Being exceptionally lazy, he did the fluid change during the afternoon instead of working.

The car's brakes failed before he even made the main gate and he hit sometthing or other. Site security were called - and wondered why the car was sitting in a growing puddle of Skydrol...:\

He was dismissed. then his car's braking system had to be totally replaced as the Skydrol had eaten every seal...:eek:

Served the thieving bugger right!

You sure you're in the right forum? This is the BAE SYSTEMS bashing thread.....

No it isn't. This thread is primarily concerned with the potential permanent and irrevocable removal of a military long, range, land based, fixed wing aviation capability which has been part of our island nation's security and defence since the Second World War.

BAE have contributed, along with many others, to the current state of affairs and therefore - rightly - are drawing some flak. Personally I am more p**sed off with the RAF senior officers (you know who you are) that set in place a "zero criticism of the MRA4" policy in the late nineties, when many knowledgable operators (air and ground) were trying to make themselves heard above the marketing bull.

I echo the post - let's ignore the distractions (which are part and parcel of any internet forum) and stick to the point.

Today's news re Trident is yet another indication that this government means business and the defence chiefs are going to have to work within a tight budget, without the benefit of past smoke and mirrors tactics. Real cuts (capability and people) are coming.

Let's hope the experts who know what matters are having their say and if this thread, in even the most minute way, helps make a case for a continued LRMP capability, let's keep it alive and support the MRA4, which for all its history is now the only game in town.

PS

For the history buffs amongst you I am taking the introduction of the Hudson and Sunderland as the starting point for a meaningful LRMP capability. Arguable I know, but please not here.

Sorry I'll bite. So you'd be happy for these servicemen/women to be made redundent? Post SDSR a smaller defence budget will mean less orders for your precious BAe. There's only so many Middle East clinents you can bribe. As one of those waiting for the arrival of the MRA4, if you'd spent half the time working on it as you do writing b""£$llks on here, we'd have a fleet of 21 in service and on time.

[quote]Well done Boutros, you win the prize for the most useless, presumeably uninformed, first posting on PPruNe.

Three letters .... and an exclamation mark ...Yup! How long did it take you to think up that post?

For what it is worth, I am greatly saddened at the possible demise of the Nimrod, and I really hope that rumours of its demise are greatly exagerated.

Having known many of the RAF guys involved with the development team at Warton, some of the other comments on this thread do not even warrant a reply. All of the team there just want an aircraft that does what it is supposed to do, is that really too much to ask for?

Fortunately I am no longer in the "maritime"game, however I am still being directly affected by the f^$&-ups of BAe; if only they would stick to what they are good at, (whatever that is), rather than sticking their unwanted fingers into anything military that they can.

Have a good weekend everyone

Y_G

posting at 10:22 am? Shouldn't you be working and not surfing the internet?

As a tax payer myself who is therefore funding the aircraft program your world class company is working on, I think you should be devoting your time to it rather than surfing the internet. you'll be eating bacon butties next.

:=

Is it just me or does anyone else feel the urge to re-arrange the sentence....
"mra4eng you and me go! bikesheds...."?