March 15, 2006 7:29 AM PST

U.K. probes costly tech failure for submarines

The British government has again been forced to admit that failures in a computer-aided design program have contributed to the delay of the manufacturing of three nuclear submarines and to the project coming in about $1.57 billion over budget.

Adam Ingram, a minister for the U.K. Ministry of Defence, said on Monday that the CAD system chosen to design the submarines was not up to scratch, after Parliament member Mike Hancock quizzed him over why there had been delays.

"The increase in costs and delay to the delivery of stem primarily from problems that arose from the application of CAD techniques," Ingram said in a statement. "Due to the complexity of the program, the benefits that CAD was envisaged to provide were more difficult to realize than either (the defense department) or the contractor had assumed."

BAE Systems, which is contracted to build the Astute-class nuclear submarines, renegotiated the contract in 2003 when it realized that the CAD system was not suitable for the job.

This is the second time the U.K. defense department has had to answer for overspending on this submarine project, after facing Parliament members on the House of Commons public-accounts committee last year.

A number of factors caused the cost of the project to rise from $4.49 billion (2.57 billion pounds) to $6.1 billion, according to the defense department. "The program ran into problems," a Ministry of Defence representative admitted. "That was because of design issues, poor management and the use of CAD. (We) and the contractor overestimated (computer-aided design) and underestimated the problems it would cause. We had to learn lessons from similar things in the U.S. on subs. We had to renegotiate the contract. Not all of it is down to CAD, but that was an element."

The first of the submarines is set to enter service in 2009, when Swiftsure- and Trafalgar-class submarines will start to be replaced.

BAE said it will take no profit in 2006 for the Astute contract; the company is this year bidding for a contract to build a fourth submarine.

"There are no new delays," a BAE representative told Silicon.com. "We recognized the system should never have been taken on. But it was a large defense contract and a must-win."

Dan Ilett of Silicon.com reported from London.

See more CNET content tagged:
submarine, BAE Systems Plc., CAD, Ingram Micro Inc., contract

4 comments

Join the conversation!
Add your comment
Was it really the CAD system
The name of the CAD system was not mentioned; understandably. But was it really the CAD system? Management of CAD data has always been an issue that separates the average CAD user from the super users.
Was it the integrity of the 3D models? Different from the 2D drawings? Often 3D model standards are not developed or enforced and rarely do companies have a "check cycle" for the 3D models while having long wasteful cycles for 2D drawings.
What was the real issue? Were there tolerance issues perhaps that have nothing to do with the CAD system unless the discussion carries into 3D annotation and the master model concept.
Certainly some CAD systems are better then others but it is hard to accept that the CAD system was at fault without some detail of the root causes for whatever problems were happening on this project.
Posted by NormCrawford (2 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Was it really the CAD system
The name of the CAD system was not mentioned; understandably. But was it really the CAD system? Management of CAD data has always been an issue that separates the average CAD user from the super users.
Was it the integrity of the 3D models? Different from the 2D drawings? Often 3D model standards are not developed or enforced and rarely do companies have a "check cycle" for the 3D models while having long wasteful cycles for 2D drawings.
What was the real issue? Were there tolerance issues perhaps that have nothing to do with the CAD system unless the discussion carries into 3D annotation and the master model concept.
Certainly some CAD systems are better then others but it is hard to accept that the CAD system was at fault without some detail of the root causes for whatever problems were happening on this project.
Posted by NormCrawford (2 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Coincidence??
The CAD system in question is also the one being used on the FCS program in the US which is also the subject of reviews on the inability of the system and its work in progress data manager to fulfill the promises at onset of the program. The Integrated Collaborative Environment (ICE) for the FCS program is at risk and is also subject to review on its inability to provide substantive value. This is the same CAD system that is at question at BAE in the UK. Coincidence?? Not at programs of this scale and with this much at risk.
Posted by paulhayes (2 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Coincidence??
The CAD system in question is also the one being used on the FCS program in the US which is also the subject of reviews on the inability of the system and its work in progress data manager to fulfill the promises at onset of the program. The Integrated Collaborative Environment (ICE) for the FCS program is at risk and is also subject to review on its inability to provide substantive value. This is the same CAD system that is at question at BAE in the UK. Coincidence?? Not at programs of this scale and with this much at risk.
Posted by paulhayes (2 comments )
Reply Link Flag
 

Join the conversation

Add your comment

The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. Click here to review our Terms of Use.

What's Hot

Discussions

Shared

RSS Feeds

Add headlines from CNET News to your homepage or feedreader.