. A report in the Sunday Times says that the Nimrod was cancelled "because it had several hundred design faults". These included: The bomb bay doors could not open in flight, and no solution had been found for this. A single birdstrike could disable both ailerons, and bring the aircraft down. The nose gear gets stuck in the bay and will not deploy. The wings had fatigue issues (not sure how, as they are supposed to be new. Perhaps this refers to the wing-fuselage join.) The deicing system did not work. The engine bay overheated. There were holes in the engine bay that could spread a fire. They were upset that Bae had denied this. The fuel pipes were susceptible to the same fault as the Kandahar crash. Most of the faults were, they said, "due to legacy design issues". In other words, the Nimrod was an ancient old dog of an aircraft, that did not conform to any modern certification requirements, and trying to make it into a modern aircraft was doomed to failure. The aileron circuit, for example HAS to be seperable, port from stbd, in all modern aircraft - thus one fault cannot disable both wings. In fact, if you had a modern A320 as an airframe, you can separate the ailerons and spoilers, so you have four separate systems you can use to give roll control, just incase you have battle-damage. In fact, the A320 can fly on engines alone, as pseudo flight controls, so you don't need any controls at all, if you have battle-damage. The conclusion of a MoD source was that: " There are serious concerns about the safety of the aircraft. The project has been a disaster, and should have been cancelled years ago. " As I said before in another post, the Nimrod was a stupid idea. A maritime surveilance aircraft simply requires an airframe, of no particular shape or design, and many aircraft from business jets to passenger turbines have been used. I suggested the A320, simply because it was a modern off-the-shelf aircraft that can fly without any of its controls, if you have battle damage. An A320 Nimrod would have been airborne nine years ago, for half the cost. I would therefore suggest that the architects of this absurd debacle should contribute all their earnings from the last ten years, as a symbol of their abject contrition. (Sorry, the Sunday Times report is behind a pay-wall.) .