MoD strikes again

[Nigel Bunker]

I read in todays paper that several MoD projects have been struck by the usual curse of Civil Service project management.

Type 45 Destroyers: 24 months late and £950 million over budget.
Astute submarine: 43 months late and £900 million over budget.

and topping the list:

Nimrod MR.4: 87 months late (yes, that's 7 1/4 years) and £1,000 million over budget.
As we are only getting 16 or so Nimrods, their going to be very expensive beasts. I believe the choice of rebuilding Nimrod was to save money, so I can only assume the extra costs are down to the gold plated taps and heated toilet seats.

Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear!

[elmayerle]

*sigh* Governments seem to never learn.  History is full of demonstrations that beyond a certain point, rebuilding and significantly enhancing existing airframes becomes an exercise in futile overspending.  For example, compare the Nimrod MR.4 experience with what the US Navy went through with the P-7A that was supposed to have major commonality, to save money, with the P-3.  When they got down to the detail design level it didn't work and the US Navy sensibly killed the program.

[Aircav]

May be they should re-think things and go back to the times when things were simple like wood and dope, can you imagine a Mig-29 or a F-22 trying to shoot down a Sopwith Camel    

[MartG]

Don't get me started on government management  I work for a major IT supplier to a number of British Gov't Departments, and it never ceases to amaze ( & dismay ) me with the level of ineptitude displayed when they make decisions ( or rather, don't/delay decisions ).  

[GeorgeC]

Exactly whose project management?  Each of these projects has experienced the majority of delays in design and manufacture which are largely under the control of industry.  Each of these projects has a single prime contractor responsible for the delivery of the project.  On at least 2, Nimrod and Astute, the MoD has had the contractor 'bang to rights' on failure to perform against its contract, reflected in significant losses in share value on the markets, but a political decision was taken to renegotiate the timescales and pay more money in order to prevent a major section of industry going bust.  Each of these projects is run by the same defence contrator...

Regards

GeorgeC

[Nigel Bunker]

Each of these projects is run by the same defence contrator..

Do you mean that by rearranging e, A and B into the correct order we would know who the culprit was?

Whilst not disputing that MoD is not entirely to blame, they let the contract and they're responsible for it. I believe the phrase "The buck stops here" applies.

Also, I understand that we now have more civil servants in MoD than there are members of the armed services. Has commonsense gone out the window?

[MartG]

Also, I understand that we now have more civil servants in MoD than there are members of the armed services..

Wouldn't surprise me in the least. In the Gov't Department I'm involved with, they outsourced about 2000 IT staff in 1995, and another 1000 or so in 2000. In theory there should have been few left as civil servants - but now they are almost back up to pre-outsourcing staffing levels ( with a lot of contractors/consultants in there too ).

Whilst not disputing that MoD is not entirely to blame, they let the contract and they're responsible for it. I believe the phrase "The buck stops here" applies...

Again from my experience, they place contracts for the delivery of services, with all technical & commercial risk to be taken by the supplier. They then insist on having input into the design process, with a veto on anything proposed by the supplier. They delay decisions, delay placing firm orders, delay payment for things already delivered, yet still expect the final project go-live date to be met  And they are surprised when things don't operate as planned, 'cos their development has had to be rushed, and the delays have wiped out the time allocated to testing .... I could go on  

[GeorgeC]

Well I know it was my fault when the builders didn't finish our garden wall in time.  

Total numbers in the MOD are Navy 36 000,  Army 102 000, RAF 48 000 falling to 41 000 by 2009 and Civil Service 110 000 falling to about 95 000 by 2009.  The civil servants number includes the RFA and the MOD Police and people with 30mm CIWS or MP7 machine pistols probably don't count.

Regards

GeorgeC

[Geoff_B]

Its a case of mix n match, the MOD initially with the Ships & Subs as they drew out the procurement process too long the Type 45 dates back to the NFR90 and should have started mid 90's, instead first the NATO project collapsed then the Horizon progam with Italy & France also collapsed leading to the Type 45 hull being knocked together rather quickly and then having halfs its capability removed as cost savings. The Ship builders have done well to get the things built considering the conflicting Naval procurement process.

With the Astute it was intended as a follow on the the Trafalgar & Vanguard clases but again the delayed procurement coupled with BAE taking over and culling senior people at Vickers led to delays, couple this with changing the process over to CAD/CAM without the suitable preperation and training resulted in a nightmare delaying the project by years as the US Electric Boat Division had to come in re-do the design and have the components already assembled rebuilt correctly.

Nimrod was even worse, BAE assigned their 2nd line managers to the probram as their top guns were busy on the Typhoon/JSF programs. As a result it had indifferent and incapable project management from the start. The original Airframes were all hand built and as a result are unique but the new project team insisted on a CAD/CAM produced wing box (despite the draughtsmen and engineers pointing this out) .The fear of reporting any negative news led to the management team covering up the problem and not passing it up to senior managment. The original third party engineers at Hurn discovered that the stripped airframes and new parts didn't fit, plus the build quality was crap thus preventing the work progressing. BAE promptly paid off the third party (Marshalls ?) and relocated the work back to manchester to cover up the problem. Eventually when it was noticed that little progress was being made and in-service date was no longer atainable did BAE finally discover what the problem was and went sobbing to the MOD with cap in hand for mmore money to cover up their own cock ups.

Be interesting to note howmuch capability has been lost by reducing numbers in order to pay for the massive cost overuns.

G

[Jennings]

Nimrod MR.4: 87 months late (yes, that's 7 1/4 years) and £1,000 million over budget.
As we are only getting 16 or so Nimrods, their going to be very expensive beasts. I believe the choice of rebuilding Nimrod was to save money, so I can only assume the extra costs are down to the gold plated taps and heated toilet seats.

So they didn't learn their lesson with the Nimrod AEW twenty years ago?  The Nimrod is a 1940s design for crying out loud.  They could have bought new P-3Cs off the line before it was shut down for a tiny fraction of that cost, and had a much better airplane.  Not home grown, but better none the less.  Proven design, highly efficient, and very, very cost effective.  Instead they get a 60 year old design with Rube-Goldberg tweaks to make something resembling a modern ASW patrol airplane out of it, and here's the result.  I'm glad to know the US government aren't the only ones so incredibly stupid as to defy belief...

Anybody want to put US $1000 down on the table right now that says the RAF *doesn't* end up with the P-8A eventually?

J

[GeorgeC]

The Nimrod saga is very messy.  There was nothing wrong with the propulsion & airframe of the AEW3 apart, perhaps, from it being too small for the mission system being fitted to it!  The MR4 mission system development does not seem to be a problem, but intergating the new wing and airframe certainly is, as Throvic described.  I doubt that the P3 is a superior mission airframe to the original Nimrod MR1/2 - although it certainly is compared to the ones in bits awaiting wing and engine integration!  As for mission systems, I doubt there will never be enough unclassified information for anyone to form an informed opinion.

When the competition was held between 92 and 96, the USN's P-7 project (new wings and engines on a 1950s airliner - sound familiar) had already collapsed, after a lot of money had been spent on it, leaving the Orion 21, Nimrod MR4 and Atlantique 3 - all 50s aircraft needing new engines, wings and mission systems (etc, etc etc).  New-build Nimrod MR4s were actually a competitor, along with the Orion21, in the (later) USN MMA competition, won eventually by the P8.  I don't know what Boeing are planning to do to the 737 airframe to make it stand up to prolongued buffeting at low level which some of the traditional maritime missions have required.

I doubt the UK will give up on the MR4 now given the investment to date.  While the UK has invested a huge sum of money in a very small number of aircraft, the same thing would have happened if we had bought the other competitors, none of which have gone on to a mass market.  No doubt a cancellation would lead to a push by Airbus for the UK to invest even more money as lead customer in the paper aeroplane solutions for A3XX series MPAs.

Regards

GeorgeC  

   

[Svaz]

Also, I understand that we now have more civil servants in MoD than there are members of the armed services.

Rule #1 of a bureaucracy: Protect the bureaucracy
Rule #2 of a bureaucracy: Grow the bureaucracy

Whether or not the bureaucracy actually does anything, let alone anything useful, is completely besides the point ...

[Captain Canada]

But those Nimrods will be worth it. Such an awesome aeroplane. Long live the mighty Nimrod !

 

[monkeyhanger]

It never fails to amaze me how poor humans are at project management, but who else can we get to do it. I've been involved in the software business since the mid 80s and still companies are making the same mistakes, usually to do with people not communicating problems.

The defence sector has always been regarded as a gravy train, but blair doubling the IT budget for the NHS..............

[Stephen]

A good book on British defence procurement is "Lions,Donkeys and Dinosaurs"

http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/0434013...glance&n=266239

Stephen