Binning Nimrod cost £3.4 billion

[Dr G]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/907...

...for no gain.

I'm sure that's not all of the story but it's a big number. How near was the project to completion when it was canned?

[mattviatura]

I've posted pics before but these two new aircraft spent several months on the tarmac at Woodford before being cut up.



I may have an overly simplistic view but it did seem a terrible waste.

[lost in espace]

I wonder what the running costs would have been though, and are we missing not having Nimrods?

[RobDickinson]

Absolutely barking mad decision. You really have to wonder sometimes.

[Gargamel]

Not one of them was ready to enter service.

BAe wanted a further £1bn before they progress the project (IIRC)

[Streps]

Why did they cut them up?
where they offered to a museum or something?

Just is a terrible waste.

[Nickyboy]

lost in espace said:

I wonder what the running costs would have been though, and are we missing not having Nimrods?

Telegraph said:

Nimrod was cancelled to save £1.9 million in running costs over the next decade

Seems normal for this country, save £2m by spending £3,4bn

[mcdjl]

Nickyboy said:

lost in espace said:

I wonder what the running costs would have been though, and are we missing not having Nimrods?

Telegraph said:

Nimrod was cancelled to save £1.9 million in running costs over the next decade

Seems normal for this country, save £2m by spending £3,4bn

The bbc seems possibly more accurate, the project cost 3.4b up to the point where it was cancelled, not cancelling it cost 3.4b. However i doubt they would have cost 2m to fly....

[davepoth]

£1.9bn sounds a bit more likely. Add to that the £1bn that BAE thought would be needed to finish, and you are at nearly £3bn. And that's assuming everything else went to plan.

[badgers_back]

Streps said:

Why did they cut them up?
where they offered to a museum or something?

Just is a terrible waste.

what museum would want them???

[speedy_thrills]

Why does it seem that UK MOD contracts always seem to have cost overruns and end up being cancelled after a lot of money has been spent? Don’t get me wrong, for the UK manufacturing is important and will be more so in the future probably, but can’t you just buy some nice Russian or U.S. aircraft?

[DamienB]

Streps said:

Why did they cut them up?
where they offered to a museum or something?

They did. Nobody was interested.

To most museums, a large airframe is just a millstone around their neck, needing lots of space and lots of maintenance. It would have been nice for a single prototype to have been kept - it'd have fitted in nicely at Cosford I think - but politically that was probably impossible too.

[ralphrj]

davepoth said:

£1.9bn sounds a bit more likely. Add to that the £1bn that BAE thought would be needed to finish, and you are at nearly £3bn. And that's assuming everything else went to plan.

Having checked the actual Public Accounts Committee report, £1.9bn is the correct figure.

Reading through the evidence presented to the PAC it was claimed by BAE that £200m would be required to complete the aircraft. It was pretty evident that nobody in the MOD thought that was a remotely likely outcome.

[Elroy Blue]

Now utterly devoid of MPA, Cameron's idiots have finally realised that we actually need one. So we'll have to spend a lot more reaquiring the aircraft and skills needed to operate them. I as a mad decision made by clueless idiots.

[cheadle hulme]

DamienB said:

They did. Nobody was interested.

To most museums, a large airframe is just a millstone around their neck, needing lots of space and lots of maintenance. It would have been nice for a single prototype to have been kept - it'd have fitted in nicely at Cosford I think - but politically that was probably impossible too.

It was so politically sensitive that they had to erect screens around them as the they demolished the airframes with diggers. Even posted Police up near the golf club alongside to stop people taking pictures.

[DieselGriff]

speedy_thrills said:

Why does it seem that UK MOD contracts always seem to have cost overruns and end up being cancelled after a lot of money has been spent?

Having some experience of UK Govt contracts (although IT and not MoD related) project creep and scope change may have played a part. Not trying to paint Bae as whiter than white but it seems that contracts start with "how much to supply x?" the contract is awarded then they say they want x,y and z (and these can be contradictory) and immediately the contract is behind schedule and over budget.

No Govt agency, and god forbid, any civil servant or politician will ever have any blame for this. (as far as the public are allowed to know)

[ralphrj]

Elroy Blue said:

Now utterly devoid of MPA, Cameron's idiots have finally realised that we actually need one. So we'll have to spend a lot more reaquiring the aircraft and skills needed to operate them. I as a mad decision made by clueless idiots.

1. The Public Accounts Committee are not "Cameron's idiots" but a cross-party group that scutinise Government performance. Parlimentary committee's are always chaired by a member of the opposition so will always take a critical view.

2. According to the Deputy Defence Chief of Staff who gave evidence to the committee there are no plans to acquire alternative aircraft in the next 10 years.

3. Nimrod was cancelled because the cost of the programme had run so far over budget with no indication that working aircraft would ever be delivered.

Commodore Beverstock Senior Responsible Owner for Astute and Nimrod said:

Even though we cancelled the programme, although we had 95% paid out what was approved on the programme, there were still issues to be resolved with delivering that aircraft into service. Those costs and risks were not quantified.

The £200m figure to complete was only the balance left in the approved budget. Nobody thought aircraft could be delivered by spending this money and nobody knew how much extra it would cost to finish them - or even if they could.

[Elroy Blue]

Nimrod was personally cancelled by Cameron (despite personal pleading from Chief of Defence staff) so he could look 'statesmanlike'. It was completely out of the blue. The chasm this has left has now been recognised, so has the utter folly of the decision

[eccles]

ralphrj said:

Elroy Blue said:

Now utterly devoid of MPA, Cameron's idiots have finally realised that we actually need one. So we'll have to spend a lot more reaquiring the aircraft and skills needed to operate them. I as a mad decision made by clueless idiots.

1. The Public Accounts Committee are not "Cameron's idiots" but a cross-party group that scutinise Government performance. Parlimentary committee's are always chaired by a member of the opposition so will always take a critical view.

2. According to the Deputy Defence Chief of Staff who gave evidence to the committee there are no plans to acquire alternative aircraft in the next 10 years.

3. Nimrod was cancelled because the cost of the programme had run so far over budget with no indication that working aircraft would ever be delivered.

Commodore Beverstock Senior Responsible Owner for Astute and Nimrod said:

Even though we cancelled the programme, although we had 95% paid out what was approved on the programme, there were still issues to be resolved with delivering that aircraft into service. Those costs and risks were not quantified.

The £200m figure to complete was only the balance left in the approved budget. Nobody thought aircraft could be delivered by spending this money and nobody knew how much extra it would cost to finish them - or even if they could.

As you say, It's one thing getting the aircraft to fly, it's quite a different (and somewhat more expensive) kettle of fish to get the aircraft flying and all those complex systems working. It could well have been another 5 years of trying to get things to work properly at god knows what cost.

[Mattt]

speedy_thrills said:

Why does it seem that UK MOD contracts always seem to have cost overruns and end up being cancelled after a lot of money has been spent? Don’t get me wrong, for the UK manufacturing is important and will be more so in the future probably, but can’t you just buy some nice Russian or U.S. aircraft?

My experience of public sector projects is that the original value of the contract was never the true value of the contract. They have been artificially manipulated to bring them in line with the procurement rules in which the Government department operates.

Then, once the project commences the costs are further escalated due to either the indecision or changed decisions by people involved in the project who will bear no responsibility or consequence for the failing of said project. There are many people who 'chip in' from the sidelines adding to the overall dilation of clarity in the project direction.