One story I heard about the reasons for the cost overruns was that BAE Systems was very proud of their advanced production methods ensuring precision and uniformity of parts... only to discover that each airframe had been virtually built by hand and therefore no two were exactly alike, or at least the differences were far outside their tolerances. Is this true?
I was part of the BAE Systems/Airbus design team producing 3D CAD parts for the MRA.4 wing assemblies and the main issue was that the MRA.4 main assembly parts were designed using CADDS5 so that all parts were identical, whereas the original Nimrods were virtually hand built so each airframe was different. therefore, when the first det of wings were assembled they wouldn't fit the first donor fuselage assembly. This entailed reworking each of the wing assemblies to match each particular fuselage, which in turn added additional time & cost to the programme.

Another issue was that BAe Systems/Airbus decided to use CADDS5 (following BAe Systems acquisition of the Rover Group) which was the CAD package used by Rover for their car design whereas the rest of Airbus was using CATIA.

XVTonka
 
I was part of the BAE Systems/Airbus design team producing 3D CAD parts for the MRA.4 wing assemblies and the main issue was that the MRA.4 main assembly parts were designed using CADDS5 so that all parts were identical, whereas the original Nimrods were virtually hand built so each airframe was different. therefore, when the first det of wings were assembled they wouldn't fit the first donor fuselage assembly. This entailed reworking each of the wing assemblies to match each particular fuselage, which in turn added additional time & cost to the programme.

Another issue was that BAe Systems/Airbus decided to use CADDS5 (following BAe Systems acquisition of the Rover Group) which was the CAD package used by Rover for their car design whereas the rest of Airbus was using CATIA.

XVTonka
Hi XV Tonka
I too was part of the same team (96-02 working for Jenny B, followed by Miles W), I attended the PA1 wing attachment at Woodford on chilly Thursday night and I didn’t see any of the difficulties you described. Yes CADDS5 was awful compared to CATIA ( indeed in many area we ditched it and used CATIA) but it had nothing to do with the program problems and delays. Did you attend the monthly AVERM’s? I still have the slides and have been toying with the idea of putting on here.

Ref my post in this thread number 294, last pic, please kindly remind me of which of the seven wing attachments you believe lead to problem's.
 
Last edited:
1- BAESYSTEMS preferred solution was lost with the do not proceed decision on A400m, but only after MOD has agreed to launch a Nimrod replacement program. The Nimrod re-engine proposal is hastily conceived and grows rapidly without an appropriate depth of pre study.
2 -The RAF/BAE couldn’t see beyond wanting a Nimrod to replace a Nimrod, they concluded that the air vehicle fundamentally had to be 100tons max take off weight and four engines.... that’s pretty bespoke and HMG wouldn’t approve an entirely new design.
2- (not so) Smart Procurement (introduced by political decree;- a ruthless race to the bottom)- this delivered a commercially non feasible contract. It contains excessively optimistic assumptions, known to both parties.
3- the first of these optimistic assumptions to go bad was the required engineering ramp up, it would never have worked, so via Force Majeure , a one year slip was agrees in the exchange for reducing the number of airframes delivered from 21 to 18. The actual engineering ramp up, particularly at Farnborough took two years. (CDR closure scheduled for September 98 slips to Dec 2000, but in real terms was even a bit later than that)
4- A poor decision in wing structure optimisation adds a further 6 months
5 - the production lull prior to Typhoon ramp up, vital to securing parts delivery to Woodford was missed.At the same time it was realised many parts expected to be retained would require new fabrication thus further overload the production organisation.
6 - The build of the first 3 prototypes now experiences part shortages which turn an 18 month planned build into 48 months
7- the original fixed price contract was maxed out in 2002 having delivered nothing but it’s now politically too big to fall. It’s replaced by a more traditional contract but now only nine aircraft, well below a viable fleet size.
8 - when PA1 flys (Aug 2004) it’s ailerons control forces are unacceptable, as is its yaw stability. These issues take 3 years to resolve and much of the flight testing can only be completed with the final control system design standard. A flight test program originally scheduled at 24 months, takes nearly 60 months. The aileron issue was due to the insistence on old technology but newly designed cable operated control system installed inside a new wing structure. Poor decision making (Both BAE and MOD) on the technology choices forced a lengthy re-learning of old design methods. FBW ailerons might have had greater upfront cost but could have saved 36months and the massive cost incurred by this delay.
9 - Due to delays on MR4 the MR2 has now been pushed too hard, too much, ref Hadden Cave.
10 - it’s discovered that part of MRA4 safety case for Air to Air refuelling is based on the flawed case of MR2 which would lead to yet more delays.
11 - a cash strapped government finally pulls the plug
With regard to item 8, you are probably aware that the approach to resolving the excessive aileron control force issue was to remove 1 of the 2 parallel aileron control systems thus making the ailerons lighter to operate. In removing one system of cables, etc it meant that there was no longer redundancy available in the event of a cable break. In such circumstances the aileron would have moved to maximum extension causing the aircraft to roll. According to the associated risk assessment, the pilot would have had a maximum of 2 seconds to appply appropriate manual control otherwise the aicraft would crash while flying at the low altitudes necessary for hunting submarines.
 
And with the bomb bay doors open the ailerons control cable pulleys could be subject to direct line of sight bird strike.

In early 1997 I attended the meeting that ratified the reversion away from FBW ailerons back to tug by wire. I was attending to present the parallel subject for the reversion of Nose wheel steering again back to a tug by wire system. The Nose wheel steering cable was only about 2m long with a handful of pulleys and I went through my study;- new proposed layout, cable loads, dwell times, steering rates, control torques, safety case, estimate development time, equipment supplier etc. The aileron control system was a Farnborough responsibility, their representative simply apologised for not having done any study due to lack of available suitable engineers. The Warton seniors in the room then decided it was going to be tug by wire and the MoD representative signaled his approval.
 
Last edited:
No surprise then that it ended up a complete mess. What I found most concerning was that the seniors in the MOD Project Team were willing to defend the single cable solution and were willing to accept the associated risks. Even though the risk presented was greater than that allowed for the entire aircraft. My arguments to my bosses and others with an interest fell on deaf ears for over 2 years and I ended up being chastised for continuing to press the issue. It was only when I managed to discuss the issue with an Air Vice Marshall who had just joined the Military Aviation Authority (MAA) that people started to take notice. Having been pilloried by many, they all apologised to me after action was taken and I was the first ever civilian to be awarded a MAA Commendation for my tenacity and for having gone above and beyond that expected of my post. To add insult to injury, one of the seniors in the MOD Project Team who had strongly refuted my claims ended up getting promoted and eventually became the MAA Tech Director. Even the 2 Star Head of Large Aircraft got himself a top job with OCCAR after the Nimrod debacle. Personally, I'd have sacked them both.
 
Got to love the old pals gig, especially when you don't.
 
Back
Top Bottom