mrmadcap

Is there some kind of conspiracy to undermine the UK's defence capability by scrapping the Nimrod, even though the money has been paid to complete.
They couldn't even wait to break them up for scrap, i always thought that aircraft of this type were mothballed, similar to what the Yanks do with their serplus aircraft in the desert.

Reminds me of when they knock a building down of historical interest as quickly as possible despite public protests. Then the site remains a wasteland for years or becomes a car park.

tony de wonderful

Totally insane decision. They will have to buy an off the shelf replacement in a few years and the money spend so far on the Nimrod will have just been pissed down the plughole.

Wish

iTrader: (2)

Shocking .....

I really despair with the way this county has gone and going.

boomer

Antique Nimrod subhunters scrapped – THANK GOODNESS! - interesting?

mb

Adrian F

This lot running the country couldnt organise a p*ss up in a brewery

CrisPDuk

Amen, The question we should be asking is why the hell has the MOD already p!ssed so much of our money away on the bloody things

I suspect more serious savings could be made scrapping our defence procurement systems

tony de wonderful

The article is pure opinion and I love the way in the last paragraph the author concedes that the P-8 is inferior at dealing with submarines.

ALi-B

iTrader: (1)

The nimrod upgrades/rebuild/re manufacture (whatever you want to call it) was a farce from start to finish. BAE do not deserve the contracts and the ones who gave the orders and let it run out of control should not be in office (well, technically some aren't; but they haven't been held fully accountable either).

In fairness, the newer upstarts that probably did the proposals didn't know that each plane was different and differed from the blueprints, but maybe that's their cocky ignorance or eagerness to get the contracts. Should they have consorted in depth with the people who originally built them knowing its 1960's design and build methods as part the the feasibility study? They should know that changes/bodges were done "on the fly" during production which was common place at the time. Seeing that Hawker Siddeley are BAE, they should have known this, or be able to trace those who do (even if they are retired) at the very least they should have made more physical checks to ensure every aircraft was of identical spec before quoting the MOD the costs for the project - and giving more realistic forecasts. In the end it failed, BAE underquoted massively, costing the tax payer alot more that what was budgeted for.

If this was any other sector there would have be lawsuits and liability cases, heads would roll, companies would fold. But here, despite this monumental **** up, not one head has rolled, be it from the MOD or from BAE (with exception to redundancies due to the cancellations), and don't forget the politicians directly involved..

For that, the Nimrod and this costs of putting right further bodges made on it should not burden the tax payer any further - enough is enough.

Its a shame to see an icon to go in the way it has, but the project was a bodge from start to finish. And it would have cost us even more money if it carried on to completion, be it putting right further "unforeseen" problems, or just to keeping them maintained and flying. And what if one crashed again and it was found to be another "bodge"? Another lawsuit and compensation claims from the families involved - just like last time.

Sorry, but scrap them.

Adrian F

The problem with buying off the shelf is that means buying American in most cases and then we lose the knowledge base and skill sets to ever be able to build this type of hi-tech product again.

These MOD projects fund a lot of Hi-Tech research and the trickle down knowledge and skills benefits the economy as a whole, very much like F1 features eventually appearing on family hatch backs. My Father worked as an engineer in this industry for many years before he went contracting due to the reduction in our UK based defence manufacturing and it was the skills and knowledge he got working on MOD projects through the 70' and 80's that made him so employable by non-defence companies for the next 18 years.

I totally agree that the Nimrod was the wrong airframe but as we have skimped on the project from day one there was never enough funds to buy in a new airframe.

The other problem is when will the alternative be in service? Obviously if this is being managed properly the new will come into service as the Nimrod is scrapped.

If the farce of the Harriers and Carriers is anything to go by there will be a gapping hole for many years if it is ever filled..................as I said they couldn't organise a p*ss up in a brewery

Adrian F

Ali-B the point is providing this type of air craft there is no point scrapping them just because the contracts allow for development costs to be charged to the client if that then leaves the country with no suitable aircraft in place.

By all means find an alternative at a better price if you can and buy that but to end up with no suitable aircraft at the end is just foolish

BOB.T

Isn't all government spending a total **** up?

J4CKO

iTrader: (1)

That Register article is very compelling, 4.1 Billion pounds for some planes to spot submarines when we are on our **** does now seem very extravagent, especially as they are crap old things anyway by all accounts that can be replaced by an Ex Easyjet 737 with the seats ripped out and replaced by some radar stuff. The Comet was a brilliant piece of British engineering with a major flaw but developing a forties design that nobody actually uses anymore doesnt seem like a good platform.

I am being a bit facetious but I cant get my head around the planes costing that much, a few million but Billions ? I think a gravy train just came to an end for a lot of people, I sympathise with the Bae Woodford workforce which is just up the road but I know there are people that have been earning huge ammounts as contractors on it for decades, canning it sounds like the right decision, its a huge money pit.

It sounds like a 737 (Or preferably an Airbus 320, at least in part that is Bristish) could be bought for a fraction of the cost and be maintened on the basis that low cost airlines work on, they arent daft but in those kind of circumstances you tend to find that it becomes like a bloody holiday camp, they forget they are trying to acheive something on a cost basis and cost goes out the window, they forget its the taxpayer funding it, its their baby, like an overindulged hobby, Ferranti got like that, a lot of big organisations do but we have no money left to keep the flying club in business.

Buy the commodity airliner and adapt it with the best of breed off the shelf Radars, let other people find the pitfalls, set a scope of what it NEEDS to acheive, set deadlines and make people accountable, dont let the scope creep and get the ******* in the air.

J4CKO

iTrader: (1)

It is reallty sad that as a country we dont lead in areas like that any more, the glory days have gone but what is sadder is spunking billions on an old plane that can be much better used elsewhere.

I don think scrapping them is the way to go, surely they should be given to museums but I wonder if there is an element of taking temptation away for if Labout get back into power and start it back up ? or potentially to avoid secrets getting into foreign hands, though god knows what they would want with a sixty year old plane that doesnt fly.

David Lock

Portillo made a good point on TV last night saying how crazy it was to allow the media to film the aircraft being destroyed - tearing off the wings et al. Just emphasising the money wasted.

On balance it seems a sensible call. IMHO I can't see the point about our trying to be at the "Top Table" any more. The Empire has long gone and we just make ourselves the bulls-eye for terrorist attacks. Let the yanks manage it and forget Trident for a start. When the Chinese take over the place in a few decades nukes aren't going to stop them.

dl

stilover

£4.1bn for Nimrod that isn't finished and 10 years late.

£1.75bn to build a Space Shuttle.

Just goes to show just how much the Labour Government wasted. We also have 2 Air cragft carriers, yet no planes to stick on them.

I see it with buildings (In the trade). The amount of money spent on 1 University with Copper & Zinc on the walls, would actually pay for 3 Universities.

Davey L

iTrader: (3)

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!

ALi-B

iTrader: (1)

Personally, I'd like to see the most complete examples mothballed. Certainly the one that is actually airworthy. The scrapped ones should be stripped of useful parts. You never know, we "may" find a uses for a few in the future. We should also keep a few R1s going spare, just incase.

Like the AN-225. The only complete flying version was mothballed, only to be demothballed later on and put to good use as a civilian cargo plane. They even made attempts at completeing a second example, although I think the current global recesssion has put an end to that.

The Trooper 1815

iTrader: (31)

Why did XV230 blow up?

Because it was not adapted correctly,an inherant design fault on a 60 years old aircraft being used for something it was not designed for. But, it was not doing ASW. Being in Forres (Deadloss) you probably have a bias, but before you start crowing I have been in Grimrods doing MR and it was a bit scarey to say the least (best mate was an AEng, B Cat, done E-3 and Tankers and is now on Tristars). Jubilee clips holding the In Flight Fuelling hose together and who in their right mind puts a fuel line down the middle of an aircraft full of electronics and personnel to engines next to the fuselage must be barking!

1993 the MRa4 project started It was the same in the late 70' early 80's with the Grimrod when the good old HMG got shafted by the contractors. Do a bit of digging round and you'll find it.

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.

The Trooper 1815

iTrader: (31)

It was signed off for £2.8 billion. It was then Fecked up for the next ten years by the Government. Who would that be then?

Davey L

iTrader: (3)

[quote
But what was it doing? See the reg. article for answers ... seems it was a glorified telecommunications hub which was better done, and more cheaply, by other means.

Dave[/quote]

Don't need to see the reg article. I know exactly what it was doing out there. I looked after it on the way out when it went through Cyprus and knew some of the crew.

The fact that we were initially supposed to get 21 of them then it was decided that we only need 18.... no 12. Sorry make it 9.
But we'll still pay the same price as would have for 21. The procurement agency needs to be replaced with a professional group of lawyers and contract writers. Not officers who are looking for jobs after they leave the RAF.

BAeS signed the aircraft up as safe..... Wrong...
Powers that be in the RAF.... Believed them and didn't listen wehn told otherwise!

MRA4 was by all means a new jet. Problem was it was still called Nimrod!
That helped kill it off, no one wanted to sign it off as safe to fly.

E3 came in early cos we bought them off the shelf from the USAF.

Don't get me started on C17. Leased them then bought them, with penalties. We basically bought them at 2.5 X the basic price.

J4CKO

iTrader: (1)

Davey, that very interesting stuff, thanks, but was all the stuff it was doing essential to national security, what do we lose as a nation in not having them around, are we more open to attack, in reality did/does the people of this country who payed for them get four billion plus pounds of value, I suppose that is a little unfair as now we are against a different financial backdrop but to my mind keeping a very problematic and expensive spy plane going versus keeping public services going is a no brainer. We are in Nato, we have a nuclear deterrent and the attacks we are subject to are coming from the inside, I dont think a Nimod is much use against a suicide bomber.


Ok, I am not party to most of what they did and may be missing something vital but it still seems like a pragmatic decision, though smashing them up seems stupid.

Davey L

iTrader: (3)

Thats the main point! For a country that's broke we're currently destroying nearly £4 billion. Ok i'm connected to it all but even i know that much for 9 jets is stupid money and good value for the tax payer. But it was the governments of the day that adjusted the contract - always in favour of BAeS not the tax payers.

We've already spent 3.9 billion building them. 1 was delivered, 1 was due last december. 4 more this year and the last 3 next year.

The government said it costs 200 million a year to run them..... they've just spent that to cut them up. Where's the sense in that!

They still haven't 'compensated' Rolls Royce and BAeS for the job losses and loss of earnings for the maintenance contracts that would have been signed. Woodford was due to close after the MRA4's were all built... not our problem. As soon as the government cancelled the programme, BAeS basically laid the workers off and it's up to the tax payer to compensate them and BAeS for the lack of earnings. I'm not expecting the government to shout about how much more this will cost. But trust me it would have easily funded the MRA4 for a good few years.

Davey L

iTrader: (3)

[quote=J4CKO;9848123] We are in Nato, we have a nuclear deterrent and the attacks we are subject to are coming from the inside, I dont think a Nimod is much use against a suicide bomber.
quote]

Sorry forgot this bit...... No it's not much use against a suicide bomber. (neither was the entire US military on Sep 11th 2001 and they've spent a load more than we have)

But neither is a tank, MLRS, one of the new super Aircraft carrier's, Type 42 Destroyer or most military kit. Unless the spooks have done their job and the attack is expected and it's location known.

Thats a differnt kind of conflict entirely.

And not an argument that would stand up.

joz8968

iTrader: (13)

“Jules, if you give that fvckin' nimrod fifteen hundred dollars, I'm gonna shoot him on general principles.”

ScoobyWon't

Try asking someone on 51 Squadron what they do.

The Trooper 1815

iTrader: (31)

UAV's cheaper. Real time, stay up for days (fenar fenar) and very difficult to shot down.