MRA 4, delayed again?
Could be the last?: in response I have cut and paste what I put in another thread
When a company is asked to produce a product to do a, b & c, after winning a contract in competition with other manufacturers, build the product and then the customer asks wether said company can all of a sudden re-design the aircraft to do d, e & f as well and you all expect all this additional design, development and testing to be done within the original timescales and cost.
1. The project manager is not in a position to shut the project down, he has to project manage to cater for the weather, spares and a customer who still wants the aircraft, but changes the goal posts.
2. The customer was given what he wanted a while back, but wanted extras added after the project has started and as the customer still wants/needs the aicraft they are not going to cancel either.
3. When has the project failed before?
Having completed the basic project management course I suggest you get some experience or go on an advanced project management course and find out what real project management is all about in the real world.
When a company is asked to produce a product to do a, b & c, after winning a contract in competition with other manufacturers, build the product and then the customer asks wether said company can all of a sudden re-design the aircraft to do d, e & f as well and you all expect all this additional design, development and testing to be done within the original timescales and cost.
1. The project manager is not in a position to shut the project down, he has to project manage to cater for the weather, spares and a customer who still wants the aircraft, but changes the goal posts.
2. The customer was given what he wanted a while back, but wanted extras added after the project has started and as the customer still wants/needs the aicraft they are not going to cancel either.
3. When has the project failed before?
Having completed the basic project management course I suggest you get some experience or go on an advanced project management course and find out what real project management is all about in the real world.
I could write a book. In fact, I am…..
This is too simplistic.
Real story. VERY recent…..
(Boss) “Tuc, I want you to cancel that project. It involves integration. We don’t do integration in this IPT, too risky and can affect your annual report”.
(Tuc) “No chance. It’s going to come in ahead of schedule, under budget and to a performance they can only dream about”.
“Do what you’re told”.
2 weeks later….
“I thought I told you to cancel that project”.
“Sorry, I thought you might want to read the final trials report. Worked out even better than I thought”.
“Cancel it”.
“Put that in writing”
“OK” (He did).
Another 2 weeks….
(Tuc) ”Here’s the Data Pack for approval”.
“I told you to cancel”.
“The kit will be in theatre in a week or so, what’s your problem?”
“I’m not signing”.
“Tell you what, if it goes t*** up, I’ll take the hit; if it’s ok you can take the credit”.
“OK, put it in writing”. (Signs approval). “But I don’t like you making me look a prat”
“Put that in writing”
“OK” (He did)
Many moons later, upon return from sandy places……
(3*) “This kit is the dogs bollix”. (Remainder omitted due to OpSec, although it was said in open forum, with industry present).
Cardinal rules….
Persevere
Listen to the User
Ignore bosses who have never managed a project from start to finish.
As the subject is RMPA/MRA4, the action proposed at the time by those who knew was to declare planning blight. As approvals (and instruction!) to proceed came from way above the project manager or project director, “shutting down” was no longer in the gift of either.
This is too simplistic.
Real story. VERY recent…..
(Boss) “Tuc, I want you to cancel that project. It involves integration. We don’t do integration in this IPT, too risky and can affect your annual report”.
(Tuc) “No chance. It’s going to come in ahead of schedule, under budget and to a performance they can only dream about”.
“Do what you’re told”.
2 weeks later….
“I thought I told you to cancel that project”.
“Sorry, I thought you might want to read the final trials report. Worked out even better than I thought”.
“Cancel it”.
“Put that in writing”
“OK” (He did).
Another 2 weeks….
(Tuc) ”Here’s the Data Pack for approval”.
“I told you to cancel”.
“The kit will be in theatre in a week or so, what’s your problem?”
“I’m not signing”.
“Tell you what, if it goes t*** up, I’ll take the hit; if it’s ok you can take the credit”.
“OK, put it in writing”. (Signs approval). “But I don’t like you making me look a prat”
“Put that in writing”
“OK” (He did)
Many moons later, upon return from sandy places……
(3*) “This kit is the dogs bollix”. (Remainder omitted due to OpSec, although it was said in open forum, with industry present).
Cardinal rules….
Persevere
Listen to the User
Ignore bosses who have never managed a project from start to finish.
As the subject is RMPA/MRA4, the action proposed at the time by those who knew was to declare planning blight. As approvals (and instruction!) to proceed came from way above the project manager or project director, “shutting down” was no longer in the gift of either.
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Lincs
Posts: 695
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ExRigger
In some circumstances you may have a point, but not here I'm afraid.
When MOD/RAF or whoever, goes out to industry for something new, they put out a specification. Irrespective of what that specification says or requires, the company will ALWAYS say 'Yes, we can do that, and it will cost you £XX' The company will always say that the spec' requested can be achieved, without any hesitation, fact.
It's not until you get further down the road, when things are getting a bit more difficult than the company first thought, that the excuses and requests for more money and more time arise.
It is a little bit more complex than that I accept, but in very simple terms that's pretty much how it works. Just take a look at ASTOR/Sentinel - need I say any more??
The fact is that I cannot remember any BWOS project that has not been horrendously overbudget and way overdue, and STILL not worked as the customer wanted! MRA4 will be no different, infact its already over budget and overdue!
TSM
In some circumstances you may have a point, but not here I'm afraid.
When MOD/RAF or whoever, goes out to industry for something new, they put out a specification. Irrespective of what that specification says or requires, the company will ALWAYS say 'Yes, we can do that, and it will cost you £XX' The company will always say that the spec' requested can be achieved, without any hesitation, fact.
It's not until you get further down the road, when things are getting a bit more difficult than the company first thought, that the excuses and requests for more money and more time arise.
It is a little bit more complex than that I accept, but in very simple terms that's pretty much how it works. Just take a look at ASTOR/Sentinel - need I say any more??
The fact is that I cannot remember any BWOS project that has not been horrendously overbudget and way overdue, and STILL not worked as the customer wanted! MRA4 will be no different, infact its already over budget and overdue!
TSM
).
DEL Mode: Thank you, but it is an UK institition and right to blame everything on BAES.
The Swinging Monkey:
Accept some of what you say, but am not going to argue the point. Astor/Chinook/Hercules/Apache/Merlin/Lynx/Puma none of these has anything to do with BAES, so it is not just them that 'does the same thing'.
I accept that it is not black and white with any large and changing project and throughout history it has allways been so, the bottom line is that the ones responsible are still placed in the Government/MOD and whoever people want to throw stones at it is not helping the guys that we all want to help at the sharp end they are all that matter.
The Swinging Monkey:
Accept some of what you say, but am not going to argue the point. Astor/Chinook/Hercules/Apache/Merlin/Lynx/Puma none of these has anything to do with BAES, so it is not just them that 'does the same thing'.
I accept that it is not black and white with any large and changing project and throughout history it has allways been so, the bottom line is that the ones responsible are still placed in the Government/MOD and whoever people want to throw stones at it is not helping the guys that we all want to help at the sharp end they are all that matter.
TSW
“Irrespective of what that specification says or requires, the company will ALWAYS say 'Yes, we can do that, and it will cost you £XX' The company will always say that the spec' requested can be achieved, without any hesitation, fact”.
I’m sorry, but I must disagree, although there is much in what you say. I accept that some companies do this, but they only try it once with an experienced project or programme manager, who is knowledgeable in the engineering aspects of the requirement. I also accept that it is not MoD policy to employ or develop such experienced staff, and hasn’t been for over a decade now. (CDP – 1996). The few unscrupulous companies rushed to take advantage. The majority were sympathetic and tried to help. But the capability gap this madness caused was just as difficult to bridge as operational ones; and remains so.
You mentioned one company, and there seems universal suspicion about them. Me? I don’t like dealing with their direct competitor. Their usual tactic is to study the background of each MoD project team member and, if they think anyone is a risk (that is, they know what they’re talking about and won’t roll over), they will institute a campaign to undermine that person, brief against him, demand that he be excluded from key discussions. Weak MoD “leadership” will permit this; in fact encourage it by their compliance. You’ve got to set the standards and rules up front. Failure to do this is, I believe, a key reason for the Nimrod debacle. Many knowledgeable people have commented here that the problems that have been encountered were predicted on Day 1. These experienced people were totally ignored, and when their predictions (statements of fact) materialised ….well, as you say, over budget and overdue. But that is not entirely the contractor’s fault. As ExRigger says, if MoD keep moving the goalposts the contractor is well within his rights to seek renegotiation – especially if they have been screwed down on price and not permitted sufficient tolerance in the programme to cope with the inevitable emergent work. Let’s face it. The vast reduction in a/c numbers (about 30 to 14 was it?) just handed it on a plate to the company. I recall people in the team throwing up their hands in horror and more or less giving up. The MoD acquisition system wears everyone down eventually. Companies just sit back and wait patiently for MoD to periodically implode, and rake in the profits.
“Irrespective of what that specification says or requires, the company will ALWAYS say 'Yes, we can do that, and it will cost you £XX' The company will always say that the spec' requested can be achieved, without any hesitation, fact”.
I’m sorry, but I must disagree, although there is much in what you say. I accept that some companies do this, but they only try it once with an experienced project or programme manager, who is knowledgeable in the engineering aspects of the requirement. I also accept that it is not MoD policy to employ or develop such experienced staff, and hasn’t been for over a decade now. (CDP – 1996). The few unscrupulous companies rushed to take advantage. The majority were sympathetic and tried to help. But the capability gap this madness caused was just as difficult to bridge as operational ones; and remains so.
You mentioned one company, and there seems universal suspicion about them. Me? I don’t like dealing with their direct competitor. Their usual tactic is to study the background of each MoD project team member and, if they think anyone is a risk (that is, they know what they’re talking about and won’t roll over), they will institute a campaign to undermine that person, brief against him, demand that he be excluded from key discussions. Weak MoD “leadership” will permit this; in fact encourage it by their compliance. You’ve got to set the standards and rules up front. Failure to do this is, I believe, a key reason for the Nimrod debacle. Many knowledgeable people have commented here that the problems that have been encountered were predicted on Day 1. These experienced people were totally ignored, and when their predictions (statements of fact) materialised ….well, as you say, over budget and overdue. But that is not entirely the contractor’s fault. As ExRigger says, if MoD keep moving the goalposts the contractor is well within his rights to seek renegotiation – especially if they have been screwed down on price and not permitted sufficient tolerance in the programme to cope with the inevitable emergent work. Let’s face it. The vast reduction in a/c numbers (about 30 to 14 was it?) just handed it on a plate to the company. I recall people in the team throwing up their hands in horror and more or less giving up. The MoD acquisition system wears everyone down eventually. Companies just sit back and wait patiently for MoD to periodically implode, and rake in the profits.
tucumseh: Thankyou, I think that was a good explanation/amplification of what I was trying to say, I also agree that all the 'companies' involved are not whiter than white, but then I don't believe that the businesses in all other areas are either.
Do we still need it at all? Is it not another Cold War relic? (Typhoon ).
And why is the MRA4 a Cold War relic? Do we not still have a maritime patrol requirement? In the UK? In the North Atlantic? Caribbean? Med? Gulf? And if it is a relioc why are the USN so keen to get their hands on the P8?
The MRA4 is a leap in capability, and it will be awesome once it finally gets into service.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: The Shed
Posts: 195
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chicken Leg - yes we do need it, and probably more than were ordered (but thats me just thinking long term rather than here and now!) Rather than me tell you why, I suggest you read a bit more on other threads and open source material to understand the roles of this aircraft.
Guys, I haven't got a commercial background and don't understand the complexities of big project management, however I do understand:
Nimrod 2000
Smart procurement
Can someone tell me what I'm missing?
Guys, I haven't got a commercial background and don't understand the complexities of big project management, however I do understand:
Nimrod 2000
Smart procurement
Can someone tell me what I'm missing?
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Lincs
Posts: 695
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
tucumseh, DEL mode & Exrigger.
As we were talking about the MR4 prject, that's why I centred on BWOS!
I wouldn't disagree too much with you about the other a/c, indeed, as I said take a look at ASTOR.
Roland, 'The MRA4 is a leap in capability, and it will be awesome once it finally gets into service' well it might be.....but only if it gets into service!
Regards
TSM
As we were talking about the MR4 prject, that's why I centred on BWOS!
I wouldn't disagree too much with you about the other a/c, indeed, as I said take a look at ASTOR.
Roland, 'The MRA4 is a leap in capability, and it will be awesome once it finally gets into service' well it might be.....but only if it gets into service!
Regards
TSM
Smiter
Nimrod 2000 (nuff said)
Smart procurement Mantra – faster, cheaper, better (time, cost and performance)
A few practicalities…..
If you deliver faster, then the financiers moan because you’ve screwed up the spend profile (as you have to cough up at the wrong time). They actually pressurise you to engineer a complementary slip on another programme. Or if you say you can achieve earlier ISD when submitting, they just delay approval.
If you deliver cheaper (but to the required spec) then you are seen as a menace, as DEC will expect the same from everyone. This leads to dumbing down. However, if you deliver cheaper (but nastier), you get some clown ranting about “always buy COTS” and the User complaining when it doesn’t work in the desert due to heat and sand. If “cheaper” comes about because you’ve identified and achieved a real saving, then beware, because CDP and junior ministers have ruled that’s a punishable offence. You may think everyone benefits, but you’re actually making the scrutineers look foolish.
And it is formal MoD policy to “encourage” DEC to accept lower performance, even if this means not meeting many of the Key User Requirements. (Read any BOWMAN report). If they roll over, everyone gets a good report and moves on/up. Then the successor has the pleasure of staffing an “incremental upgrade” programme (another tenet of Smart Procurement) whose sole aim is to get somewhere remotely close to the original spec. (Read any BOWMAN report!!).
Smart procurement? 1st of April isn’t it?
Nimrod 2000 (nuff said)
Smart procurement Mantra – faster, cheaper, better (time, cost and performance)
A few practicalities…..
If you deliver faster, then the financiers moan because you’ve screwed up the spend profile (as you have to cough up at the wrong time). They actually pressurise you to engineer a complementary slip on another programme. Or if you say you can achieve earlier ISD when submitting, they just delay approval.
If you deliver cheaper (but to the required spec) then you are seen as a menace, as DEC will expect the same from everyone. This leads to dumbing down. However, if you deliver cheaper (but nastier), you get some clown ranting about “always buy COTS” and the User complaining when it doesn’t work in the desert due to heat and sand. If “cheaper” comes about because you’ve identified and achieved a real saving, then beware, because CDP and junior ministers have ruled that’s a punishable offence. You may think everyone benefits, but you’re actually making the scrutineers look foolish.
And it is formal MoD policy to “encourage” DEC to accept lower performance, even if this means not meeting many of the Key User Requirements. (Read any BOWMAN report). If they roll over, everyone gets a good report and moves on/up. Then the successor has the pleasure of staffing an “incremental upgrade” programme (another tenet of Smart Procurement) whose sole aim is to get somewhere remotely close to the original spec. (Read any BOWMAN report!!).
Smart procurement? 1st of April isn’t it?
Sorry TSM you are correct it was a bit off topic, but the subject response still applies to MRA4 as well. I was using this thread to answer a few contributors in this thread that had a similiar theme throughout their contributions for other aircraft types.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: S England
Age: 54
Posts: 320
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Woah, there chaps, calm down!
Of course we need to replace the F3's and Jags, my point is that there were at least as good options that were available off the shelf for a fraction of the cost of the Typhoon. F15E? We could have equipped a Sqn of F15E's (on time) with the cost of one Typhoon. And as far as replacing the Jags for the CAS role, aren't I right in saying that the Typhoon doesn't have a cannon? That has to at least limit it's capability.
I think that I have a fair understanding of what the asset is going to be capable of, but again, that is not my point. Has the MR2 being used in the MP role over the last few years? If not, there are much better platforms for the role. And let's be honest, the cost of the project for the small number of platforms is astronomical, criminal (not literally!) even. Also, for the c.£400 million per platform, why couldn't the capability by mounted on a modern design. If the Comet was so good, why has it not been flying commercially for the last God knows how long?
Although my initial post may have been slightly flippant, it was not without due thought. UK MOD procurement is too slow, too often rewards failure and is incapable of learning from its mistakes. I'm all for awarding contracts to British companies, but only if they can produce a product of equal quality/capability at close to competitive cost.
Although Typhoon is going to be late into service we still need to replace the F3s and Jags. What do we replace it with if we don't get Typhoon?
Only someone who has no understanding of what this jet is capable of would ask that question!
Rather than me tell you why, I suggest you read a bit more on other threads and open source material to understand the roles of this aircraft.
Although my initial post may have been slightly flippant, it was not without due thought. UK MOD procurement is too slow, too often rewards failure and is incapable of learning from its mistakes. I'm all for awarding contracts to British companies, but only if they can produce a product of equal quality/capability at close to competitive cost.
Many years ago, when the decision was announced that the Nimrod replacement would be a re-winged, re-engined, re-systemed Nimrod, I turned to my nearest and dearest and said "They must be barking mad! Why would anyone with anything between the ears think that totally re-engineering a 1940s airframe design offers a sensible way ahead? It will be late, over budget, over weight and it won't work!"
It gives me no satisfaction at all that my prophesy turned out to be entirely correct. I am just dismayed that this project has turned into yet another sad indictment of BWOS and the defence procurement system (sic!).
As an example of just how deluded some senior people were at the time, I actually recall hearing a BWOS director talking about the export potential of the new Nimrod. Er, yes............!
It's just another scandalous waste of taxpayers' money and meanwhile the poor guys at Kinloss have to try and operate and maintain obsolete kit without adequate resources.
What a pity no-one is ever accountable for such fiascos.
It gives me no satisfaction at all that my prophesy turned out to be entirely correct. I am just dismayed that this project has turned into yet another sad indictment of BWOS and the defence procurement system (sic!).
As an example of just how deluded some senior people were at the time, I actually recall hearing a BWOS director talking about the export potential of the new Nimrod. Er, yes............!
It's just another scandalous waste of taxpayers' money and meanwhile the poor guys at Kinloss have to try and operate and maintain obsolete kit without adequate resources.
What a pity no-one is ever accountable for such fiascos.
1.3VStall
"As an example of just how deluded some senior people were at the time, I actually recall hearing a BWOS director talking about the export potential of the new Nimrod. Er, yes............!
It's just another scandalous waste of taxpayers' money and meanwhile the poor guys at Kinloss have to try and operate and maintain obsolete kit without adequate resources.
What a pity no-one is ever accountable for such fiascos".
Couldn't agree more. So many thought the same thing, you'd think someone would listen.
It's likely the BAeS director didn't truly believe what he said. Export sales potential is a routine ploy to make a bid look more attractive, and it is after all only a (wildly inaccurate) prediction. It must always be addressed and appears in the Industrial Impact Paper. If a competition is too close to call, or if there is a political agenda whereby the contractor has been pre-selected (rendering the competition meaningless and a waste of time and money for other bidders), the industrial paper becomes vital. It is usually highly classified and prepared without input from those doing the main bid assessment. The "facts" it contains are often manipulated to the point of being outright lies, but can be explained away as optimistic or simple error. That's why it, and the bid team, are kept separate.
Not saying it happened on Nimrod 2000/RMPA/MRA4 of course, but it DID happen on a related programme.
Accountability?? Promotability more like. But one can only hope.
"As an example of just how deluded some senior people were at the time, I actually recall hearing a BWOS director talking about the export potential of the new Nimrod. Er, yes............!
It's just another scandalous waste of taxpayers' money and meanwhile the poor guys at Kinloss have to try and operate and maintain obsolete kit without adequate resources.
What a pity no-one is ever accountable for such fiascos".
Couldn't agree more. So many thought the same thing, you'd think someone would listen.
It's likely the BAeS director didn't truly believe what he said. Export sales potential is a routine ploy to make a bid look more attractive, and it is after all only a (wildly inaccurate) prediction. It must always be addressed and appears in the Industrial Impact Paper. If a competition is too close to call, or if there is a political agenda whereby the contractor has been pre-selected (rendering the competition meaningless and a waste of time and money for other bidders), the industrial paper becomes vital. It is usually highly classified and prepared without input from those doing the main bid assessment. The "facts" it contains are often manipulated to the point of being outright lies, but can be explained away as optimistic or simple error. That's why it, and the bid team, are kept separate.
Not saying it happened on Nimrod 2000/RMPA/MRA4 of course, but it DID happen on a related programme.
Accountability?? Promotability more like. But one can only hope.
We could have equipped a Sqn of F15E's (on time) with the cost of one Typhoon.
Now I know you know nothing (too many Ns and Os in that) about Defence. Singapore are just about to buy new F15Es (well new for a 30 year old design) At $1 Billion for 12 aircraft. OK that includes some weapons and some logistics support but a Sqn for the cost of 1 Typhoon - get real.
aren't I right in saying that the Typhoon doesn't have a cannon?
Has the MR2 being used in the MP role over the last few years?
Smart procurement Mantra – faster, cheaper, better (time, cost and performance)
Roland
“When Smart Procurement was in its infancy I remember talking to a senior chap in (IIRC) Boeing who said "You cannot have faster, cheaper, better. Delivering all 3 is impossible. You can have faster, or cheaper, or better. You might even get faster and cheaper, but not all three". It seems that he was correct!”
I’d say he was pretty close. It can be done. See my post #23. DEC, guided by a contractor who had told them the solution was hugely expensive kit which required development, had written a laughable URD. The solution was actually in service, but with the other two Services. And, of course, they don’t speak to each other. I re-wrote the URD so it made technical sense, and bought off the shelf (mil standard) kit at a fraction of the cost. Faster, cheaper, better.
The problem is that you make enemies. The company DEC and my predecessor had been dealing with, and who had been promised the contract single tender, were fuming. And certain companies have clout at the highest level. That a single tender had been approved meant very senior people in DPA were made to look foolish, as the new strategy was also single tender, but with someone else. Boss was p*****. So there goes your annual report. Similarly, DEC and related IPTs largely withdrew support, as I’d unavoidably highlighted they’d been wasting money for years. In my experience, and given similar circumstances, I’d say 95% of DPA staff would take the easy option, and deliver on time, to budget, and happily ignore the fact that performance was rock bottom. They know the odium they’d be faced with, so it’s largely self preservation. Sorry, that’s an indictment of the way the system works, but far more senior people than I have condoned it.
Users were over the moon though!
“When Smart Procurement was in its infancy I remember talking to a senior chap in (IIRC) Boeing who said "You cannot have faster, cheaper, better. Delivering all 3 is impossible. You can have faster, or cheaper, or better. You might even get faster and cheaper, but not all three". It seems that he was correct!”
I’d say he was pretty close. It can be done. See my post #23. DEC, guided by a contractor who had told them the solution was hugely expensive kit which required development, had written a laughable URD. The solution was actually in service, but with the other two Services. And, of course, they don’t speak to each other. I re-wrote the URD so it made technical sense, and bought off the shelf (mil standard) kit at a fraction of the cost. Faster, cheaper, better.
The problem is that you make enemies. The company DEC and my predecessor had been dealing with, and who had been promised the contract single tender, were fuming. And certain companies have clout at the highest level. That a single tender had been approved meant very senior people in DPA were made to look foolish, as the new strategy was also single tender, but with someone else. Boss was p*****. So there goes your annual report. Similarly, DEC and related IPTs largely withdrew support, as I’d unavoidably highlighted they’d been wasting money for years. In my experience, and given similar circumstances, I’d say 95% of DPA staff would take the easy option, and deliver on time, to budget, and happily ignore the fact that performance was rock bottom. They know the odium they’d be faced with, so it’s largely self preservation. Sorry, that’s an indictment of the way the system works, but far more senior people than I have condoned it.
Users were over the moon though!
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: S England
Age: 54
Posts: 320
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Now I know you know nothing (too many Ns and Os in that) about Defence. Singapore are just about to buy new F15Es (well new for a 30 year old design) At $1 Billion for 12 aircraft. OK that includes some weapons and some logistics support but a Sqn for the cost of 1 Typhoon - get real.
Maybe not the "traditional" sub hunting role, but lost of MP
I assume by your very defensive replies, that you are an MR2 Mate who is looking forward to finally getting your hands on this capability. My main gripe is the amount of money that is being spent on a largely redundant requirment and on a 60 year old platform at that (makes the 30 YO F15's look better value all the time!). The platform that the MRA4 will replace is doing some sterling work, but there are much better airframes that the Nimrod for doing that job and at about 2% (yes 2%) of the unit cost per frame of the MRA4.
Join Date: May 2006
Location: 2 m South of Radstock VRP
Posts: 2,042
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Chicken Leg
That's my point, it was primarily designed as a sub hunter and yet there aren't any subs to hunt (that matter anyway, and certainly not for the rediculous price we're paying).
Originally Posted by Chicken Leg
My main gripe is the amount of money that is being spent on a largely redundant requirment and on a 60 year old platform
Throughout the latter stages of this Thread, there is no credible indication what the current setback is. Is there any danger of someone with some knowledge providing a clue?