APPENDIX 1
Supplementary memorandum submitted by
the Ministry of Defence
Question 37: Why did changed budgetary priorities
result in the non-achievement of three Key User Requirements referred
to in paragraph 1.28 of the report?
The three KURs missed because of budgetary priorities
were on the Tornado Mid Life Update programme. This variation
was derived from four KURs which were missed because of an equal
combination of budgetary and technical factors (equating to two
KURs), and one which was missed solely due to budgetary factors.
This is set out in the table below.
| Key Requirement | Factor
| |
| Integration of a Terrain Reference Navigation (TRN) System
| Changed Budgetary Priorities and Technical Factors
| |
| Integration of Government Furnished Equipment (GFE) tail-mounted, rear facing Missile Approach Warner (MAW)
| Changed Budgetary Priorities and Technical Factors
| |
| Incorporation of a Terrain Following Radar (TFR)/TRN cross-monitor for terrain following flight
| Changed Budgetary Priorities and Technical Factors
| |
| Integration of a new terrain following display for simultaneous display of TFR returns and the TRN prediction.
| Changed Budgetary Priorities and Technical Factors
| |
| Application of stealth materials to reduce the aircraft's radar cross-section and reflection
| Changed Budgetary Priorities |
|
| | |
Following substantial slippage to the MLU in service date
and significant cost escalation in the early 90s, it was concluded
at the time of the 1994 re-approval that a revised programme,
which struck a better balance between capability, quality and
affordability, offered a more cost effective way forward. The
five requirements identified above were deleted from the programme.
The remaining KURs specific to this re-definition have all been
met. The Tornado MLU project originated in 1984; the KURs detailed
in the MPR were raised retrospectively against the original programme.
Question 78: Delay as a proportion of the total expected length
of the project.
| 
