Nimrod
28 January 2011, 05:35 PM
#32
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 10,329
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The RAF are squirming at the moment because we have a Cold War Fighter after the Cold War ended. If it was so popular why doesn't it sell in big numbers like the F-16? The E-3 came in before time and under budget a few years ago.
As stated on the TV the other night, did Airborne Early warning stop 9/11- no. Did it stop 7/7 - no. Did it warn us about Kosovo, Iraq or N Korea.
We have leased/bought the C-17 can it carry much more than a Tristar further? You may be surprised. 230000kg/5,200 nm Tristar vs 265000kg/2,420 nm C-17.
28 January 2011, 05:37 PM
#33
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 10,329
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
28 January 2011, 05:42 PM
#34
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 10,329
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BAeS have a lot to answer for, as do the MOD Procurement monkeys.
J4CKO - Sub hunting was the main job of the Nimrod but it did so much more, some of which can't be talked about on here. When XV230 blew up over Afghanistan it wasn't hunting for taliban subs!
Sub hunting, search and rescue, command and control, comms platform, surveliance.... and more.
For what it did the aircraft design was the best. Engines tucked away in the wing root and not hung off a pylon under the wing. Thats why the yanks are having problems with the P8 - Poseidon. The aircraft design doesn't take to being thrown around a couple of hundred feet aboved the sea. Nimrod was stable at low level and was quite chuckable for a big jet. P8 is having to do things from 'medium level' and all the buoys and weapons it will drop are being redesigned to be dropped from the the dizzy heights it will be flying at.
MRa4 was a 93% new aircraft. New wings, engines, control surfaces, digital flight controls, glass cockpit and all the stuff down the back was 'new'. Flight and ground crews were trained and waiting on the jets, one had been delivered to the RAF and 'loaned' back to BAeS for the trials and so they could train crews before Kinloss took over. That one and the second jet would have been at Kinloss before christmas with 4 more following this year.
Honestly it's a barking mad decision. I can see all the arguments about old aircraft, outdated, etc. BUT... it was the best at what it did and so were the crews. When the muppets in charge decide we need something to do it's job - which they are already talking about, the problem we will have is that all the decades of experience will have gone.
That doesn't come back over night!
J4CKO - Sub hunting was the main job of the Nimrod but it did so much more, some of which can't be talked about on here. When XV230 blew up over Afghanistan it wasn't hunting for taliban subs!
Sub hunting, search and rescue, command and control, comms platform, surveliance.... and more.
For what it did the aircraft design was the best. Engines tucked away in the wing root and not hung off a pylon under the wing. Thats why the yanks are having problems with the P8 - Poseidon. The aircraft design doesn't take to being thrown around a couple of hundred feet aboved the sea. Nimrod was stable at low level and was quite chuckable for a big jet. P8 is having to do things from 'medium level' and all the buoys and weapons it will drop are being redesigned to be dropped from the the dizzy heights it will be flying at.
MRa4 was a 93% new aircraft. New wings, engines, control surfaces, digital flight controls, glass cockpit and all the stuff down the back was 'new'. Flight and ground crews were trained and waiting on the jets, one had been delivered to the RAF and 'loaned' back to BAeS for the trials and so they could train crews before Kinloss took over. That one and the second jet would have been at Kinloss before christmas with 4 more following this year.
Honestly it's a barking mad decision. I can see all the arguments about old aircraft, outdated, etc. BUT... it was the best at what it did and so were the crews. When the muppets in charge decide we need something to do it's job - which they are already talking about, the problem we will have is that all the decades of experience will have gone.
That doesn't come back over night!
28 January 2011, 05:59 PM
#35
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Westhill, Aberdeenshire
Posts: 389
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
UAV's....... 
Don't think so. Uav's might be able to fly for hours and and cover lots of ground.
BUT...... and it's bigger than JLo's
The primary role of Nimrod is given away by it's name.. MRA4 - Maritime Reconniscence Aircraft. Sub Hunting. The aircraft's primary role is to defend our subs on their way in and out of our waters and patrol for 'enemy' subs in our waters.
There isn't a UAV anywhere in existence or on a drawing board that can fly for 14+ hours, carry all the kit you need to find and track a sub (including 100+ sono buoys) plus weapons to destroy the sub once found or an enemy ship. Let alone defend it's self with sidewinders - MRA4 and MR2 could do that as well - they were called the largest figher planes!
MRA4 was also able to carry brimstone and stormshadow cruise missiles. Not bad for old, outdated, dangerous waste of cash!!!!
Don't think so. Uav's might be able to fly for hours and and cover lots of ground.
BUT...... and it's bigger than JLo's
The primary role of Nimrod is given away by it's name.. MRA4 - Maritime Reconniscence Aircraft. Sub Hunting. The aircraft's primary role is to defend our subs on their way in and out of our waters and patrol for 'enemy' subs in our waters.
There isn't a UAV anywhere in existence or on a drawing board that can fly for 14+ hours, carry all the kit you need to find and track a sub (including 100+ sono buoys) plus weapons to destroy the sub once found or an enemy ship. Let alone defend it's self with sidewinders - MRA4 and MR2 could do that as well - they were called the largest figher planes!
MRA4 was also able to carry brimstone and stormshadow cruise missiles. Not bad for old, outdated, dangerous waste of cash!!!!
28 January 2011, 06:11 PM
#36
Guest
Posts: n/a
Dave
28 January 2011, 06:16 PM
#37
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Westhill, Aberdeenshire
Posts: 389
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fair enough. But my point was that the aircraft really were being a telecommunications hub which can be done much more cheaply. Unless you're saying that they were doing something much more hush hush ....
It was doing alot more than be a radio hub!
You're right. I think the fact we have 29,000 (ish) in defense procurement and Israel has about 400 (similar spends) says a loot!
Dave
It was doing alot more than be a radio hub!
You're right. I think the fact we have 29,000 (ish) in defense procurement and Israel has about 400 (similar spends) says a loot!
Dave
I've seen officers (of various ranks) slag BAeS and Rolls Royce off all day long. Then get a job in procurement, sign a nice big juicy contract and 2 years later guess where they work?
28 January 2011, 06:23 PM
#38
Scooby Senior
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: RIP - Tam the bam & Andy the Jock
Posts: 14,333
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BAE did not lay anyone off, it's issues an HR1 for those platforms which means that the people are "at risk". Work is going on to minimise the impact across the wider business (which is a global one that employs 150,000 people). There is no cost to the MOD (DE&S) over and above the development work already undertaken as part of this decision.
You clearly know the technical aspects of the aircraft but I can tell you have no insight to the IPT/industry related business/platform ones.
28 January 2011, 06:42 PM
#39
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Westhill, Aberdeenshire
Posts: 389
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wrong.
BAE did not lay anyone off, it's issues an HR1 for those platforms which means that the people are "at risk". Work is going on to minimise the impact across the wider business (which is a global one that employs 150,000 people). There is no cost to the MOD (DE&S) over and above the development work already undertaken as part of this decision.
You clearly know the technical aspects of the aircraft but I can tell you have no insight to the IPT/industry related business/platform ones.
BAE did not lay anyone off, it's issues an HR1 for those platforms which means that the people are "at risk". Work is going on to minimise the impact across the wider business (which is a global one that employs 150,000 people). There is no cost to the MOD (DE&S) over and above the development work already undertaken as part of this decision.
You clearly know the technical aspects of the aircraft but I can tell you have no insight to the IPT/industry related business/platform ones.
Not what i've been told and heard...
29 January 2011, 01:16 PM
#41
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 39,877
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Nimrod has a very wide and valuable role and it did that job extremely well indeed. Like the Harriers we can ill afford to lose its capabilities. Our defence capabilities are being thrown to the wall and the impression given is that they have a combined Euro force in mind to go with a federated Europe. They won't of course admit to that until they have succeeded in pushing all that through without telling us and then reaping the rewards which will be on their horizons.
Les
Les
04 February 2011, 03:34 PM
#42
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 1999
Posts: 779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
05 February 2011, 12:04 PM
#45
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 39,877
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Apart from its SAR capabilities, we simply cannot afford to lose the intelligence that the aircraft was able to amass.
That included information on terrorist activities.
Very short sighted decision believe me!
Les
That included information on terrorist activities.
Very short sighted decision believe me!
Les
05 February 2011, 01:18 PM
#46
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Muppetising life
Posts: 15,449
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I wonder why we don't just give up and more or less scrap the armed forces. We have so few, and can achieve so little with them without support, what is the point in trying to pretend that we are some sort of global power?
With no aircraft carriers, and no aircraft to fly from them, we have no sort of force projection. We might as well just go and sit at home and save an awful lot of money.
With no aircraft carriers, and no aircraft to fly from them, we have no sort of force projection. We might as well just go and sit at home and save an awful lot of money.
05 February 2011, 01:25 PM
#47
I wonder why we don't just give up and more or less scrap the armed forces. We have so few, and can achieve so little with them without support, what is the point in trying to pretend that we are some sort of global power?
With no aircraft carriers, and no aircraft to fly from them, we have no sort of force projection. We might as well just go and sit at home and save an awful lot of money.
With no aircraft carriers, and no aircraft to fly from them, we have no sort of force projection. We might as well just go and sit at home and save an awful lot of money.
Seeing we are a member of NATO, I would like to see the % proportion of our funds used in their activities in comparison to that of other members.
I think that we use our military alot more because we already have a lot of it already at our disposal, and other states are more dependant on us because of that. If we have less military, then we will be more resourceful with what we do have.
In theory at least; it depends if other NATO members pay us to use our own military in lieu of their own.
05 February 2011, 02:51 PM
#48
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Muppetising life
Posts: 15,449
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Seeing we are a member of NATO, I would like to see the % proportion of our funds used in their activities in comparison to that of other members.
I think that we use our military alot more because we already have a lot of it already at our disposal, and other states are more dependant on us because of that. If we have less military, then we will be more resourceful with what we do have.
In theory at least; it depends if other NATO members pay us to use our own military in lieu of their own.
I think that we use our military alot more because we already have a lot of it already at our disposal, and other states are more dependant on us because of that. If we have less military, then we will be more resourceful with what we do have.
In theory at least; it depends if other NATO members pay us to use our own military in lieu of their own.
I think we will end up with some sort of United Forces of Europe that will simply sit there and only do something in the event that we are attacked. I cannot see it doing anything like going into Iraq or Afghanistan, which is perhaps a good thing.
I just think its time we stepped back from trying to be a leading power in the world. We are too small, and just do not have enough resources to be a major military player. We would be better off minding our own business a lot more and having good be limited kit that is focused on defence only.
06 February 2011, 01:10 PM
#49
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 39,877
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yeah, that is a valid point, but I cannot ever see it happening. We cannot manage to agree on just about anything, having joint defence arrangements where we all have to agree before we can do anything is not likely to happen. Although I do believe it is the direction we are heading.
I think we will end up with some sort of United Forces of Europe that will simply sit there and only do something in the event that we are attacked. I cannot see it doing anything like going into Iraq or Afghanistan, which is perhaps a good thing.
I just think its time we stepped back from trying to be a leading power in the world. We are too small, and just do not have enough resources to be a major military player. We would be better off minding our own business a lot more and having good be limited kit that is focused on defence only.
I think we will end up with some sort of United Forces of Europe that will simply sit there and only do something in the event that we are attacked. I cannot see it doing anything like going into Iraq or Afghanistan, which is perhaps a good thing.
I just think its time we stepped back from trying to be a leading power in the world. We are too small, and just do not have enough resources to be a major military player. We would be better off minding our own business a lot more and having good be limited kit that is focused on defence only.
We should indeed maintain an effective defence force of our own.
Les
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
tony de wonderful
Non Scooby Related
27
05 August 2011 09:43 PM