Post Nimrod

Author
Discussion

Ryan T

11 posts

117 months

Thursday 11th December 2014
quotequote all
Kuroblack350 said:
Ginetta G15 Girl said:
I have no doubt British WasteofSpace reamed the Government over MRA4.
Wow, bit broad brush isn't it smile

The real crime with Nimrod for me was seeing something that was so far gone turned into the MRA4, arguably the most capable aircraft of its type in the world. Then came the Strategic Defence Review and Nimrod (and a stack of other projects) was scrapped overnight. The brand new, effectively hand made airframes (minus kit) were bulldozed to shreds on a sunny day in Cheshire. Then lots of really talented people lost their jobs and Woodford ceased to exist. So yeah, reamed I guess...

I'm not going to defend BAE Systems too much, but I'm curious as to that hate - both institutions have learned a great deal and if you look to something like the Typhoon availability work and upgrade programmes they're world class with very happy customers.

And as for this cracker, not sure where to start...

Ryan T said:
I was gutted Nimrod was scrapped, but unfortunately it was, can't go back now. BAE Have a hell of a lot to answer for that.
Why is it a cracker? it was overbudget, and had missed most of its project objectives and deadlines, with no real plan to get it back on track and back on budget. so what do you do. continue to pour money down the drain? whilst you are promoting austerity to the rest of the country, and particularly the rest of the armed forces? yep that would go down a treat.

you speak of the strategic defence review, I hasten to add here that the carriers weren't scrapped. amongst other projects.

Eric Mc

121,779 posts

264 months

Thursday 11th December 2014
quotequote all
saaby93 said:
Can someone tell me how 60 years ago we managed to have 3 separate design teams pull victor valiant and vulcan out of the bag, yet today we can't even...
switch off the light
getmecoat
A much higher proportion of our GDP was allocated to defence matters back then.

wildcat45

8,056 posts

188 months

Thursday 11th December 2014
quotequote all
This article is a bit old, but it makes some interesting points.

http://www.danentwisle.com/blog/2011/03/08/rn-mpa-...

uncinqsix

3,239 posts

209 months

Thursday 11th December 2014
quotequote all
eccles said:
I'm not sure knackered old P3's will be up to much. I dare say many of the ones being retired will be at the end of their life and will probably need updating or structural work to even make them a viable option.
RNZAF has just rewinged and upgraded their P3s, and expects to be using them for the next 20 years. They work, and work well. With one of the world's largest EEZs to patrol, they have to.

jamieduff1981

8,022 posts

139 months

Thursday 11th December 2014
quotequote all
It's amusing to see how many engineering and project management experts there are whenever these topics are discussed.

Most who are critical of contractors like BAE Systems wouldn't know which way round to hold a pencil in an engineering environment (and I mean true design engineering, not spannering). Their minds would explode if asked to develop a systems capability constrained by legacy protocols already in use which must remain compatible. They'd have a nervous breakdown when a microchip somewhere in the design became obsolete late in the design. They'd be murderous when someone changed the functional requirements during testing phases.

All this going on whilst trying to adapt handbuild airframes because someone who had influence yet didn't understand what they were talking about perceived reuse to be cheaper than a new design (common sense, innit?).

Those designing military aeroplanes are unlikely to be expert in operating them. Those who operate them are mostly ignorant to what's involved in design projects. I find it difficult to comprehend how people, even devoid of any engineering design experience, cannot appreciate the total inevitability of iteration and design recycling when a technical issue is discovered which impacts other aspects of a design. This happens as part of any design evolution naturally even if the basis of design remains unchanged. Add in design basis changes and you add a whole new layer of difficulty.

If one considers a design office of 200 personnel, working 37.5 staff hours per week for argument's sake, then even a sthot project management team who can identify a change immediately and are able to quantify the impact of the requested change via emergency meetings with all the lead discipline engineers and revert to the change originator (e.g. MOD in this case) with the damage will have burned 200 manweeks / 7,500 manhours or around £375,000 assuming a nominal £50/hr cost to employ people in that time.

Even someone with zero engineering appreciation must surely be able to appreciate how inevitable it is that projects end up more expensive than first calculated. Few people understand the difference between a deterministic cost estimate and schedule and the probablistic outcomes either. The deterministic numbers get cast in stone and achieving the p50 outcome is regarded as failure by many.

wildcat45

8,056 posts

188 months

Thursday 11th December 2014
quotequote all

I feel your pain, though you are right I have no clue about engineering.

MoD decision making is the root of much of the problems. Also economies of scale. Solutions to problems must arise quicker, or fixes evolve when you are building 140of something rather than 14.

Most of the problem lies in the UK wanting tiny numbers of UK spec bits of kit. It is very rare for us to just buy an aircraft for example straight off the production line from abroad. Perhaps the C17?

You Only have to look at the Type 45 programme. If the UK had stayed in Horizon we would not have got as good a ship. We would have probably got more than 6 though. Silly decisions like using WR21 engines which no one uses instead of LM2500 engines which are cheaper and used by everyone.

The kipper fleet should have gone from Shacleton to Orion, back when Orion was new. Not as good as Nimrod, but had we done the same as many maritime nations from Norway to New Zealand we'd probably be running a fleet of P3s now.

Gold plated is great if you can afford it. If you can afford to mess designers around . We can't afford gold plated.

jamieduff1981

8,022 posts

139 months

Thursday 11th December 2014
quotequote all
This is all true. There's certainly a degree of indecision and meddling in all projects.

In many cases though there are influences that nobody can control (in defense projects for example the threat can evolve quickly and therefore the military capability needs to be adapted mid-way through design). My own industry is just energy, but even then things can change.

People can do all the desk exercises they want to identify stakeholders, produce risk registers etc but the reality is that often things just happen which completely derail your plans. Some are foreseeable, but you're not in control of them so they just happen. Others can come out of the blue.

Engineering projects are far more predictable in terms of quality, cost and schedule when the technology is well proven and understood. Doing a largely conventional project involving one unusual or less-well understood piece of equipment can be challenging, but the team should know that most of the risk lies with the impact the high-risk piece of kit has on everything else. When you're at the cutting edge of technology though, everything is high risk and everything that doesn't go well has serious consequences.

To cite an extreme example, if someone decided to contract an engineering company to design and build the starship Enterprise, one should expect very poor project performance because the technology simply doesn't exist at the moment and nobody can predict how long it will take to develop any of it, let alone all of it.

TSR2 is an example of this in the past. An ambitious engineering project to build a cutting edge aeroplane developing the technology along the way. Is it really any surprise that it was much harder than anyone could predict?

andy97

4,691 posts

221 months

Thursday 11th December 2014
quotequote all
wildcat45 said:
MoD decision making is the root of much of the problems........
Most of the problem lies in the UK wanting tiny numbers of UK spec bits of kit. It is very rare for us to just buy an aircraft for example straight off the production line from abroad. Perhaps the C17?

You Only have to look at the Type 45 programme. If the UK had stayed in Horizon we would not have got as good a ship. We would have probably got more than 6 though. Silly decisions like using WR21 engines which no one uses instead of LM2500 engines which are cheaper and used by everyone.

The kipper fleet should have gone from Shacleton to Orion, back when Orion was new. Not as good as Nimrod, but had we done the same as many maritime nations from Norway to New Zealand we'd probably be running a fleet of P3s now.....
I agree with much of what Jamieduff1981 has said, and also the above, but do not underestimate the influence that british industry has on the decisions that are made.

WR21 was specified because of Rolls Royce pressure, we would never have bought Orion at a time when the UK aerospace industry needed orders for self produced aircraft.

It's why we have ordered the VSTOL variant of the F35 rather than the CTOL version. The RN and RAF both wanted a version capable of using cats and traps, and it is the most capable for the UK needs, but BAE and RR put a lot of pressure on the Govt to go down the route we went because of the UK content.

We bought Merlin rather than Black/ Seahawk to keep Westlands open, and so it goes on.

Remember that politicians are not expert at project management or at understanding military capability, they are expert at understanding what wins and loses votes and that is their main interest. Make a procurement decision that threatens british jobs and you can bet they will resist if possible, no matter what the military logic, and industry knows that.




Edited by andy97 on Thursday 11th December 09:46

jamieduff1981

8,022 posts

139 months

Thursday 11th December 2014
quotequote all
andy97 said:
wildcat45 said:
MoD decision making is the root of much of the problems........
Most of the problem lies in the UK wanting tiny numbers of UK spec bits of kit. It is very rare for us to just buy an aircraft for example straight off the production line from abroad. Perhaps the C17?

You Only have to look at the Type 45 programme. If the UK had stayed in Horizon we would not have got as good a ship. We would have probably got more than 6 though. Silly decisions like using WR21 engines which no one uses instead of LM2500 engines which are cheaper and used by everyone.

The kipper fleet should have gone from Shacleton to Orion, back when Orion was new. Not as good as Nimrod, but had we done the same as many maritime nations from Norway to New Zealand we'd probably be running a fleet of P3s now.....
I agree with much of what Jamieduff1981 has said, and also the above, but do not underestimate the influence that british industry has on the decisions that are made.

WR21 was specified because of Rolls Royce pressure, we would never have bought Orion at a time when the UK aerospace industry needed orders for self produced aircraft.

It's why we have ordered the VSTOL variant of the F35 rather than the CTOL version. The RN and RAF both wanted a version capable of using cats and traps, and it is the most capable for the UK needs, but BAE and RR put a lot of pressure on the Govt to go down the route we went because of the UK content.

We bought Merlin rather than Black/ Seahawk to keep Westlands open, and so it goes on.

Remember that politicians are not expert at project management or at understanding military capability, they are expert at understanding what wins and loses votes and that is their main interest. Make a procurement decision that threatens british jobs and you can bet they will resist if possible, no matter what the military logic, and industry knows that.




Edited by andy97 on Thursday 11th December 09:46
Very good points!

wildcat45

8,056 posts

188 months

Thursday 11th December 2014
quotequote all
So true. And that means we are fked then!

I really would live defence to be a job creation scheme, if we had multiple defence firms. What makes me angry, and I am going OT is that BAe is getting stop gap orders (three OPVs) just to keep the lights on. Air enough but where we're those stop gap orders when for example Swan Hunter back in 1994 just needed a single frigate order to keep them busy? Frigates that were being ordered anyway.

Rover was allowed to go tits up. I know that was a slightly different situation.

The only bit of BAe that is a national "asset" is Barrrow. If a company like BAe need hand out orders to survive in the UK then there is something wrong with their business. Should that be the concern of a free market government?

Handing out prop up orders is a form of nationalisation without any potential profit going back to the government.

Just imagine if Swans and Camjel Laird still did shipbuilding. The MoD has a Type 26 frigate class to build. You get three prices, and firms bid for the work. Where is the sense in Bae as a private firm knowing it has the job come what may.

A ocombination of politics, MoD dithering inter service bickering politics and the absence of choice.

Simpo Two

85,149 posts

264 months

Thursday 11th December 2014
quotequote all
Unfortunately the politicians have to out-rank the military; it's one of the principles of a democracy.

stevesingo

4,848 posts

221 months

Thursday 11th December 2014
quotequote all
wildcat45 said:
So true. And that means we are fked then!

I really would live defence to be a job creation scheme, if we had multiple defence firms. What makes me angry, and I am going OT is that BAe is getting stop gap orders (three OPVs) just to keep the lights on. Air enough but where we're those stop gap orders when for example Swan Hunter back in 1994 just needed a single frigate order to keep them busy? Frigates that were being ordered anyway.

Rover was allowed to go tits up. I know that was a slightly different situation.

The only bit of BAe that is a national "asset" is Barrrow. If a company like BAe need hand out orders to survive in the UK then there is something wrong with their business. Should that be the concern of a free market government?

Handing out prop up orders is a form of nationalisation without any potential profit going back to the government.

Just imagine if Swans and Camjel Laird still did shipbuilding. The MoD has a Type 26 frigate class to build. You get three prices, and firms bid for the work. Where is the sense in Bae as a private firm knowing it has the job come what may.

A ocombination of politics, MoD dithering inter service bickering politics and the absence of choice.
And that is the biggest problem in Barrow, a culture of entitlement that breeds mediocrity and complacency.

BAE have been allowed to become too powerful in British defence. The politicians in their desire to keep British jobs have allowed BAE to buy up all British defence firms. Having such a large global umbrella is seen as better for stability than small independents fighting for business in a limited market which for UK defence contractors for the most part does not include the US. Aside from M777 what of any value have the US bought from a UK defence contractor?
This BAE monopoly is beginning to bite on UK jobs though. The T26 will have a US Mk45 5” gun which was originally a United Defence product, latterly purchased by BAE. BAE in the UK have proof fired the Mk8 with a 155mm barrel and ammunition (imagine the cost savings for the UK MOD in using a common ammunition across land and sea). BAE did not offer the Mk8 155 as an option when tendering for the navel gun system for T26. Why? I suspect that the US market would be easier using an existing in service NGS and therefore the UK will have to just suck it up at the cost of UK jobs.

eccles

13,720 posts

221 months

Thursday 11th December 2014
quotequote all
uncinqsix said:
eccles said:
I'm not sure knackered old P3's will be up to much. I dare say many of the ones being retired will be at the end of their life and will probably need updating or structural work to even make them a viable option.
RNZAF has just rewinged and upgraded their P3s, and expects to be using them for the next 20 years. They work, and work well. With one of the world's largest EEZs to patrol, they have to.
I'm quite aware of that, but it's not really relevant when the post I was referring to was about Yanks or Aussies getting rid of old ones which I doubt will have much life left in them without the significant structural work or systems upgrades I mentioned.

uncinqsix

3,239 posts

209 months

Thursday 11th December 2014
quotequote all
eccles said:
I'm quite aware of that, but it's not really relevant when the post I was referring to was about Yanks or Aussies getting rid of old ones which I doubt will have much life left in them without the significant structural work or systems upgrades I mentioned.
You're quite right of course. I was just pointing out that the idea of upgrading old P3s isn't quite as silly as it may seem, particularly as there is an inexpensive and proven structural upgrade available. Probably considerably cheaper than P8s, but I suspect it would still take too long to be considered an interim solution.

hidetheelephants

23,772 posts

192 months

Friday 12th December 2014
quotequote all
Apologies for the monster post, I'm feeling verbose
wildcat45 said:
You Only have to look at the Type 45 programme. If the UK had stayed in Horizon we would not have got as good a ship. We would have probably got more than 6 though. Silly decisions like using WR21 engines which no one uses instead of LM2500 engines which are cheaper and used by everyone.

The kipper fleet should have gone from Shacleton to Orion, back when Orion was new. Not as good as Nimrod, but had we done the same as many maritime nations from Norway to New Zealand we'd probably be running a fleet of P3s now.

Gold plated is great if you can afford it. If you can afford to mess designers around . We can't afford gold plated.
BAE share the blame; they appeared to promise that reusing manky old airframes for Nimrod 2000/MRA4 would save money and the MoD believed them, despite anyone with knowledge of the Nimrod fleet pointing out what the possible difficulties would be. Had any commonsense been applied, or any weight attributed to possible commercial sales(P7 had been cancelled and P3 production wasn't likely to be restarted, many P3s and the Atlantiques were coming to the end of their lives) jigs for new fuselages was a no-brainer, and would have eliminated the huge time and cost escalation due to fiddling with 40 year old airframes and made sales to 3rd parties a good bet given there were no competitors at all, with consequent lower costs all round. R1 replacements would also have permitted lower airframe costs through increased numbers.

The original MR1 was quite numerous with ~50 built, it's surprising more effort wasn't made to sell some to either SA or Australia. The P3 has similar roots, a commercial flop airliner which threatened the wellbeing of the manufacturer, bailed out by a fairly fat contract for the same aircraft modified for LRMP.

T45 is powered by RR because WR21 is much more fuel efficient than the LM2500 'jet-in-a-box', indeed in some power settings it's better than some high speed diesel installations. Add in the value of keeping the work in Derby, or wherever the marine turbines are screwed together, over General Electric in Ohio, and it makes good sense to me.

jamieduff1981 said:
TSR2 is an example of this in the past. An ambitious engineering project to build a cutting edge aeroplane developing the technology along the way. Is it really any surprise that it was much harder than anyone could predict?
It was and it wasn't; George Edwards told them at the beginning it would take twice as long as predicted because of a) the endless committees b) the design creep. The airframe as tested worked and probably could have been in limited service by 1968, but without some/all of the whizzbang electronics, which might not have been ready until ~1970. They might even have persuaded the Aussies to change their minds.

wildcat45 said:
So true. And that means we are fked then!

I really would live defence to be a job creation scheme, if we had multiple defence firms. What makes me angry, and I am going OT is that BAe is getting stop gap orders (three OPVs) just to keep the lights on. Air enough but where we're those stop gap orders when for example Swan Hunter back in 1994 just needed a single frigate order to keep them busy? Frigates that were being ordered anyway.

Rover was allowed to go tits up. I know that was a slightly different situation.

The only bit of BAe that is a national "asset" is Barrrow. If a company like BAe need hand out orders to survive in the UK then there is something wrong with their business. Should that be the concern of a free market government?

Handing out prop up orders is a form of nationalisation without any potential profit going back to the government.

Just imagine if Swans and Camjel Laird still did shipbuilding. The MoD has a Type 26 frigate class to build. You get three prices, and firms bid for the work. Where is the sense in Bae as a private firm knowing it has the job come what may.

A ocombination of politics, MoD dithering inter service bickering politics and the absence of choice.
The RN isn't big enough to keep 1 builder afloat, how are 3 going to manage? As it is Barrow and to a lesser extent the Clyde yards get paid to stay open and keep a core of staff busy, the OPVs are a sop to keep the media(and the SNP) at bay.

stevesingo said:
The T26 will have a US Mk45 5” gun which was originally a United Defence product, latterly purchased by BAE. BAE in the UK have proof fired the Mk8 with a 155mm barrel and ammunition (imagine the cost savings for the UK MOD in using a common ammunition across land and sea). BAE did not offer the Mk8 155 as an option when tendering for the navel gun system for T26. Why? I suspect that the US market would be easier using an existing in service NGS and therefore the UK will have to just suck it up at the cost of UK jobs.
I would hazard a guess that, aside from the small cost saving obtained by cancelling it, the RN may have been a bit sniffy about getting a 6" gun without much extra range compared to the whizzo AGS thing on the Zumwalts; the 5" may end up with an extended range guided round if the US find a development budget. There may be fingers being crossed that Qinetiq get their arse into gear and produce a functioning rail gun instead.

wildcat45

8,056 posts

188 months

Friday 12th December 2014
quotequote all
I know the WRs are great engines (now the intercooler thing has been sorted) but the point I was making was flexibility. The T45 is the only user. There are only about 14 engines in existence and swapping them out is not like a swap out in older generation warships. It's fine for now but what about when the ships get older?

LM2500s drawbacks are plenty but ease of supply outweighs that.

Re guns, I'm surprised BAe are not pushing that Swedish gun they now own for OPVs and perhaps as a secondary armament on T26. It's the 57mm jobbie MK10? Visby Class ships have them. It's a clever little gun. No good for NGFS but a cracking bit of kit to take in an Iranian swarm with.

It's odd how the UK stuck with 4.5 guns. A decision made in the 1930s I think. Think of the economies and compatibility had we gone 5 inch with the Darings (the old ones) then the Counties etc.....

This is where the UK can get things so wrong. Why develop a bespoke gun at cost when you only want a few and you can get better in a box from Anither supplier. Even license build them here if jobs are such a priority.

Re:shipyards, that was the problem with Swans business model. They basically relied on MOD work rather than looking for other stuff. I know they built the odd specialist ship, but they ignored stuff like the North Sea oil boom which could have kept them afloat building modules, barges support ships etc.

ralphrj

3,508 posts

190 months

Friday 12th December 2014
quotequote all
hidetheelephants said:
BAE share the blame; they appeared to promise that reusing manky old airframes for Nimrod 2000/MRA4 would save money and the MoD believed them, despite anyone with knowledge of the Nimrod fleet pointing out what the possible difficulties would be. Had any commonsense been applied, or any weight attributed to possible commercial sales(P7 had been cancelled and P3 production wasn't likely to be restarted, many P3s and the Atlantiques were coming to the end of their lives) jigs for new fuselages was a no-brainer, and would have eliminated the huge time and cost escalation due to fiddling with 40 year old airframes and made sales to 3rd parties a good bet given there were no competitors at all, with consequent lower costs all round. R1 replacements would also have permitted lower airframe costs through increased numbers
^This. I think someone (Ginetta?) has mentioned before that the 'inboard' engines of the Nimrod had certain advantages over the modern 'underwing' engines for a maritime reconnaissance aircraft. In hindsight was there really anything to be gained keeping the original fuselages when virtually everything else was being replaced?

Mave

8,208 posts

214 months

Friday 12th December 2014
quotequote all
wildcat45 said:
The only bit of BAe that is a national "asset" is Barrrow. If a company like BAe need hand out orders to survive in the UK then there is something wrong with their business. Should that be the concern of a free market government?

Handing out prop up orders is a form of nationalisation without any potential profit going back to the government.

Just imagine if Swans and Camjel Laird still did shipbuilding. The MoD has a Type 26 frigate class to build. You get three prices, and firms bid for the work. Where is the sense in Bae as a private firm knowing it has the job come what may.

A ocombination of politics, MoD dithering inter service bickering politics and the absence of choice.
Not sure what the answer is; there isn't enough UK specific work (or £££) to keep 3 competing companies in business. The UK is traditionally very reluctant to relax its specifications to make the product more exportable, and when it buys from the US it finds itself unable to have the freedom to use the produce in the way it wants (aka UK owned F35s stuck in USA...)

Mave

8,208 posts

214 months

Friday 12th December 2014
quotequote all
wildcat45 said:
I know the WRs are great engines (now the intercooler thing has been sorted) but the point I was making was flexibility. The T45 is the only user. There are only about 14 engines in existence and swapping them out is not like a swap out in older generation warships.
So you're not just talking about swapping out WR21s for LM2500s, you're talking about changing the installation as well?

CrutyRammers

13,735 posts

197 months

Friday 12th December 2014
quotequote all
stevesingo said:
BAE have been allowed to become too powerful in British defence. The politicians in their desire to keep British jobs have allowed BAE to buy up all British defence firms.
As I understood it, the politicians encouraged, nay forced this? Pressurising all of the individual companies like EE, Vickers, Hawker, Avro etc to merge, until only Bae is left.