Nimrod MRA4 Being Broken Up

[Softie]

STV News (26 Jan 1810Z) has shown film from the air of MRA4s being broken up at Woodford. They are readily identifiable by the large engine spectacle mounts. The report said that screens had been erected to hide the vandalism.

[Shack37]

Yeah, just seen the same report, vandalism indeed!
Point of no return?

[manccowboy]

BBC News - Nimrod aircraft scrapping starts at Stockport BAE factory (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-12292390)

Including aerial shot :mad:

http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/50969000/jpg/_50969549_nimrod_240211_lya_1830mr.jpg

[Scuttled]

That'll be that then.

I, for one, am reassured that Mr Cameron is a strong leader capable of making hard decisions. I'm particularly pleased he decided to wreck a defence asset, which is currently effectively impossible to replace, to prove this. What an ar$e. I think this really will come back to haunt him in the future.

How very sad.

[glad rag]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^+1 :(:(:(

[MOA]

'Made a note in my diary on the way here. Simply reads..."Bugger".'

[baffman]

Well, so much for the claims in another thread that there would be no media interest at all in this event.

[Saintsman]

I can understand that the decision has been made not to operate the aircraft, but why the rush to break them up?

I mean, the scrap value is pennies compared to what has been spent. In fact they will spend more doing up HMS Victory than they will get for the scrap metal.

Even if they were given away FOC to some other air force, BAES would make money on their in-service support. Why scrap them?

[manccowboy]

And video :{

BBC News - Nimrod scrapping condemned as 'barbaric vandalism' (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12291372)

[Finnpog]

Saving face is easier without the airframes hanging around to haunt him, the MOD and BAES.

Also it means no going back.

Giving them away to be useful was never acceptable because it has to prove that they are nothing but tosh to justify the decision.

[Doptrack]

:{:{:{:{:{

I feel sick

[Biggus]

baffman,

If you're referring to my comments, I said this....



"...What makes you think the tabloids will be interested?


If they do run anything, it will be for just one day - after that, the latest plot twist in Eastenders or Emmerdale, the Oscar awards, some political event, the 6 nations rugby, world/UK disaster, etc, will ensure that anything about the Nimrod becomes "chip wrappings" (apart from the fact that H&S rules don't allow you to wap fish and chips in newspaper any more)......"

A) Are the tabloids running it, or just the more up market papers? See Tabloid - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tabloid) for a definition.

B) Will the story last for more than one day?

The story on Andy Gray will probably last longer and get more attention!!



As for all the people asking "why the rush", well, the answer has been provided on "another thread" as you call it.

Once again, I suspect IT IS ALL ABOUT MONEY!!!

First of all I expect the money for disposing of the aircraft is only allocated in the 2010/11 budget (probably some of the money that was going to be used to bring it into service). Hence it has to be spent this year, and the aircraft have to be disposed of before 31 March 2011. Disposal will consist of more than just chopping the aircraft up and does take some time, hence starting now.


As to the "...lets just keep them in storage..." arguement. Well, a little known fact is that when he was chancellor that nice Mr Brown introduced a scheme where MOD (I think it was all government departments) have to pay to the treasury to store its own equipment - think of it as a tax on storage. No doubt this was a nice way for Mr Brown to claw some money back, and was designed to reduce "waste" in departments by storing stuff they no longer need. I believe the "tax" was a certain percentage of the value of the stored item - no doubt a supplier can help me out.

So what was the rate of tax (I seem to remember 6% was mentioned) and what is the value of 9 MRA4s?

If one figure is 6% and the other is £3.5Bn (hopefully common sense would produce a lower figure - but with bean counters who knows?), that means paying £210 million a year to the Treasury, let alone the actual costs, to store the aircraft......EVERY YEAR!

If anyone wants to offer meaningfull, informed discussion on these points, as opposed to emotional outpourings, feel free. I will almost certainly learn something.



FOR WHAT IT IS WORTH......

My personal view is that not introducing the MRA4 (or some suitable long range MPA) into Uk military service is a big mistake....


But, the MRA4 is being scrapped. Accept it, because it isn't going to change!

[Finnpog]

... That one of Flight Global's top defence stories today is about the US Navy making their initial Low Rate Initial Production order from a proposed total of 100+ P-8s.

The rights, wrongs & teeth nashing about how good / unsafe the Nimrod was might fade into insignificance if the UK could do a Rivet Joint with the Poseidon and make the best of a bulk buy deal.

[J.A.F.O.]

Those who spent so many column inches saying the Nimrod was unsafe and should be scrapped will now spend a day or two whining about the scrapping of Nimrods before moving onto something else.

Journalists feed off misery and negativity before moving on rapidly to leech some from their next target.

[LookingNorth]

Just another indication of the further pointless waste of taxpayer's money that has characterised this project - screens being erected to hide the scrapping. Result - BBC, using taxpayer's money, hire a helo to video the scrapping from above. Well done to all involved. Muppets.

[4mastacker]

Biggus wrote:

As to the "...lets just keep them in storage..." arguement. Well, a little known fact is that when he was chancellor that nice Mr Brown introduced a scheme where MOD (I think it was all government departments) have to pay to the treasury to store its own equipment - think of it as a tax on storage. No doubt this was a nice way for Mr Brown to claw some money back, and was designed to reduce "waste" in departments by storing stuff they no longer need. I believe the "tax" was a certain percentage of the value of the stored item - no doubt a supplier can help me out.

So what was the rate of tax (I seem to remember 6% was mentioned)

I think the %age you mention was about right, although things may (no doubt, will) have changed since I retired. The inception of the beancounters Rescource Accounting and Budgeting (RAB) did cause the massive disposal of kit because of the "tax" imposed on storing the stuff. Engineering colleagues will recall the purges on chiefy's drawer in order to get rid of those useful bit 'n bobs that would come in handy because they were so scarce - it also came under the catch-all umbrella of "QA". SM Branches(as were) went into overdrive to dispose of stuff that didn't have show any transactions within the preceding six months and certain spares disposal companys became very rich spares disposal companys.

The folly of this indecent haste to comply with the beancounters rules meant (a) the engineers found that their spares were vanishing before they could be used causing an increase in robbing and (b) the ultimate obscenity of the RAF having to buy the spares back from the disposal companys at much more inflated prices than the company paid for them. I had personal experience of (b) as I had to drive down to Somerset to recover the very same kit that I had been directed to send there three weeks previous, and for which our aircraft were now 'D' state! MOD wasting money? - nothing new there. :mad:

[Kluseau]

Is this not simply following the noble and farsighted example of what was done to most of the TSR2 airframes?

[Squirrel 41]

RAB is, if not actually dead, very nearly dead. It's being eliminated under a new set of accounting proceedures, called IIRC, Single Line of Sight or something (not the world's most interesting subject.)

Anyway, it means that the cost of storing the airframes would have been the cost of heating the sheds and keeping them secure.

Not £210m per annum.

MRA4 was dead as a doorknob as soon as the PM personally announced it - to backtrack would've been too embarrassing, as he is about to find out on his so-called fair fuel tax stabiliser.

Vale, Nimrod and Coastal. You both deserved better.

S41

[1fm]

I heard today, from someone who was speaking to his high-up relation at Lossiemouth, that the refit(?) of the aircraft was pretty much complete, save for a few finishing touches to each one.

So what they've done is spend a hell of a lot of money on the, then scapped them.

The mentality is incomprehensible! :ugh:

[NutLoose]

Disgusting...............:mad::mad::mad:

so how many are fliers??? Two??

Ok £200,000,000 to scrap 9 Nimrods............ ok take the two fliers, fly one to Cosford and one to Duxford for the museums, grand saving on the scrapping costs of £44,444,444 plus change, even allowing for fuel and prepping them, thats a lot cheaper!!!!!!!

I know there is a lot more to it in that price, just thinking out loud.:8

Plough that money into new helicopters for the Army........ here are some for them, cheap to run too, and they have experience of using them.

Welcome to Scott's-Bell 47 (http://www.scottsbell47.com/default.htm)

[baffman]

Ah the old I heard it form a bloke who was talking to some other bloke line.
Fellas, its gone, get over it, move on.
No amount of whinging and whining on PPRuNe is going to bring it back.

True, but maybe people can be allowed to talk about it if that's OK with you.

[stbd beam]

Disgusted
Sickened
Nauseated
Gutted
Failed
Angry
Outraged
Incredulous
Numb
Numb
Numb
Numb

An asset we can't afford - more like an asset we can't NOT afford....

[EODFelix]

So how is maritime photo recce/tasking going to be done now? C130 with a guy and a camera hanging off the ramp?

[Roland Pulfrew]

Too little, too late

http://http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/defence/8284935/Scrapping-the-RAFs-4bn-Nimrod-fleet-risks-UK-security.html

Cracking quote from CDS :hmm:

[Finnpog]

Knowing that it is completely too late, that they are totally safe to raise this without embarrassing one of the other grown-ups.

Writing an open letter AFTER the scrapping started? :ugh: At least they have booked the front seats on the strategic I-told-you-so bus.

[GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU]

Roland Pulfrew. Was this your intended link?

Scrapping the RAF's £4bn Nimrod fleet 'risks UK security' - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/defence/8284935/Scrapping-the-RAFs-4bn-Nimrod-fleet-risks-UK-security.html)

It hasn't taken the brown head shed long to toe the political line, has it. Is it of immediate use in the 'Stan? no; gash it.

I must remember to buy some shares in Boeing.

[cargosales]

''Machine tools have been destroyed"

"Telegraph has also learnt that very senior military chiefs have written privately to defence industry figures to begin looking at replacing the Nimrods in three years’ time. A likely replacement would probably be an inferior American aircraft."

TSR-2 all over again ?? :ugh:

On the other hand, if BAE Systems had actually done their job on time, rather than relentlessly milking the 'revised spec' cash cow that is the ineffective MoD, then it would already be in service :ugh: :ugh:

[RumPunch]

Devastated , Fast jet world as predicted with Army support made the PM change his mind. Loyalty and Morale , there is very little now but as long as we have that then the forces will carry on.

:ugh::ugh::ugh: like 20,000 people lets hope redundency is good

[aviate1138]

The Government Stupids could have saved many more billions and thereby not trashing the Nimrod by simply stopping the subsidies to the worse than useless wind power generators which don't generate power when it is needed, use power to try to maintain serviceability and are never more than about 24% efficient and require fossil fuelled back up on permanent standby!

How clever is that? :rolleyes:

[spannermonkey]

A bonkers decision by a present gov backed up by a former who had little in the way of supporting vertical boneage!

Yes it’s a shame the MR2 has gone, but it was past its best and way past retirement. As are/were many of those retired over the past few years. As for the MRA4 – it was supposed to have replaced the MR2 in 2000 originally remember, so lets not forget its was both ridiculously over budget, so far behind schedule and plagued by problems still, but yes at this stage to simply scrap is ….. is…. Is……as mad as a bottle of chips - :ugh: but its done.

All in all utter ball hooks from BAE for milking the never ending cash cow (again), for the different Gov’s for not actually reigning the fools in, backed up by a senior staff who only see fit to ‘make a noise’ when it safe for them to do so - spineless gits – result even more money now being spent on another cut n shut to get over a previous cut n shut goof up.

I am ashamed of the UK Gov, the Senior Staff and BAE, as should they be
At the end of the day we all know these are groups of self-serving types who will do whatever hey can if it is in their own best interests and be dammed with the consequences or impact as the latest spat on East Enders will soon be far more important to the media and those will little effective intelligence.

[4015]

So, the United Kingdom, consisting of the British Isles and Ireland (which is so phonetically close to 'island' as makes no difference), now has no chance at all of a half decent maritime capability.

A set of islands.... surrounded by water.... don't got a plane wot can luk foar fings in water (poor spelling intentional).
:ugh:

Also, I'd like to draw some attention to the BBC news frontpage this morning. Two stories of interest:

1. "Cost of UK fraud £38bn a year"
BBC News - Fraud costs UK economy '£38bn a year' (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12294381)

2. "Scrapping Nimrod fleet 'perverse'
Leading military figures warn that scrapping the £4bn fleet of new RAF Nimrods will create a "massive gap" in British security"
BBC News - Scrapping RAF Nimrods 'perverse' say military chiefs (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-12294766)

The Nimrod, a fundamental asset, is being scrapped after £4bn has been spent, in order to save £2bn over the next 10 years.

Whilst UK fraud costs £38bn. Per year. There is absolutely no way it can be argued as logical. It will save half of what it has already cost, leaving a huge gap in security (And let's remember the SAR capability, so it will probably cost lives). And then in comparison, it will save 0.52% of what fraud will cost over the same time frame. :D

(Edit: added links)

[The Old Fat One]

Spanner Monkey

Here, here. Good speech.

You guys and girls that are being shafted...there is a valuable life lesson in all of this, if you are clear thinking enough to see it. I know you to be quality through and through and there will be plenty of opportunities for those with the drive and imagination to find them.

It's over...move on.

(But hopefully not before a couple of no-holds-barred-you-can't-sack-us-twice-mother-of-all-parties)

[641st]

It’s only a matter of time before the mil gets shafted again…. & believe me it will, for it just doesn’t get it…

The military, with military mindsets, want it & want it now (but can’t quite get its head round the ‘what, when & how’ bit).

Civilian companies (BWoS, Boing, EADS, Airbus et al..) do what they are legally required to do & that is think with a different mindset, a commercial mindset – Profit. They are not charities.

If the ‘customer’ knew what he wanted & stuck to it, he’d get what he ordered & probably on time & to price (& yes there ARE examples of this being so) or penalties would be paid.

Yet here we have a ‘customer’ who has been in the procurement game for getting on for 100 years (in the case of the RAF), yet it still can’t get its act together. It gets ‘shafted’ almost every time… Hellloooo.

With some of the more recent procurement fiasco’s bordering on the ‘Gross Incompetence’/’Criminal Negligence’ is it no wonder that the ‘Arfur Daly’s’ of the commercial world see the military coming…? You can’t blame xxx (insert company name) for getting a gold plated contract which makes money for it’s shareholders (& let’s not forget that BOTH sides have legal departments who scour these contracts and advise senior management before they are signed).
If the contract has to be re-negotiated/changed at the behest of the ‘customer’ is the supplier expected to pick up the bill? If you were having a house built to your agreed specification & halfway through the (contracted) build you decided to swap out ‘x’ for ‘y’ & change the wiring spec, who would you expect to pay for the additional work?

My advice would be to buy shares in companies like BWoS & share in the vast profits resulting from ‘Customer’ incompetence. At least you’ll get some of yer hard earned tax back…. LOT’s of profits = Very happy shareholders. Simples.

The Mil are not alone in their wandering in the lost world of procurement… The NHS, Foreign Office & any number of gov depts. seem to be equally inept.

‘fools’? spannermonkey... I think not. You may not like it but they are certainly not fools.

[Cows getting bigger]

Sky News are reporting that Labour MPs were involved in a last-ditch reprieve attempt. :rolleyes: :ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh:

[old-timer]

Words fail me.........virtually a repeat of TSR 2, :ugh::ugh::mad::ugh::uhoh:

[NURSE]

so we've spent £4bn on the Nimrod MR4 its still wasn't operational so how much was it going to cost?
Could we have ended up spending another £4bn to make it operational and would this have been acceptable?

The MR4 program has been a rerun of AEW3 by the looks of things. But then when you have 1 supplier they have you over a barrel.

Hopefully lessons have been learnt though I remember statements of a similar nature being made about AEW3

[DarkSide24]

I find it quite disturbing how little those making the decisions seem to listen. One only has to glance at this forum (mostly) composed of professional military aircrew to see what the people who actually do the job think. One only has to flick the telly on to see the devestation of those who threw years of their civilian careers at a cancelled project.

Human stories aside, however, the ratio of money considerations vs. genuine defence and security considerations in the SDSR is mind blowingly off kilter. This is a brilliantly tragic example of 'shoot first, ask questions later'...we can (allegedly) save two billion over two years by scrapping it. OK. Do it.

On the human side I hope all the military personnel involved, or hoping to be involved when the MRA4 came into service, can crack on and have successes elsewhere; same to the civilians involved.

Bad times.

[JimNich]

Now then, let's have a look at what you could have won.

A Nimrod's just flown over my house......look, there it goes again.

Has anyone ever wondered how many modern aircraft would actually have entered service had they been put under the same scrutiny as this one?

[EdSett100]

Yes it’s a shame the MR2 has gone, but it was past its best and way past retirement.
You're right it is a shame, but you are completely wrong about it being past its best and past its retirement.

Did you know that BAES had a Nimrod MR2 airframe on a fatigue rig so that they could flex and stress it whenever they wanted to and thereby calculate the fatigue life of the fleet that were thousands of hrs behind it? The average MR2 had only 17,000 fg hrs of careful handling at the end of its life; many thousands of hrs short of a full life. It also had brand new fuel seals and hot pipes (inoperative in flight) throughout. Only the Spey engines had a logistical issue, but when I last looked at the "replace by date" on each engine in the F700 on a typical MR2 in March last year, none were due to be changed any time soon.

The MR2 was at its best at the the end, and it certainly was not past retirement age. The loss of XV230 and its crew was made even more wasteful and tragic by not taking the product of the huge effort to make it safe, folllowing that accident, forward into this decade.

The MR2 was forced out of service by the plan to replace it. The idiots didn't wait for the replacement to come in before disposing of it.

With very little money and manpower, the MOD could "buy back" a few the MR2s, inspect/service them as required and then maintain an adequate LRMPA capability for a few years pending the procurement of an off the shelf capability.

It just needs someone with the balls to do it.

Ed

[mmitch]

Who ever is to blame I just wonder how much damage BAE has done them selves for future business.
Would you buy a second hand car from them?
mmitch.

[641st]

mmitch

Yes, I would buy a car (or anything else from them if it came to it) from BAE.. But I would know exactly what spec it was that I was buying, what they were contracted to deliver, what it was costing me, when they were delivering it etc… If it was not fit for purpose or they tried to up the price or whatever. I wouldn’t accept it & see them in court.

As Alexander (but apparently not the MoD) would say… Simples!

Get it?

[Postman Plod]

Yes, because I'd make damn sure that it was clear up front that if they didn't deliver the thing on time, to spec and on budget, they'd get sod all money out of me!

[TorqueOfTheDevil]

its [sic] still wasn't operational so how much was it going to cost?


It wasn't operational yet because the previous Govt decided in 2009 to slow its entry into service. From the statements by people who claim to know about these things, in the short term, scrapping the aircraft will cost more than it would have cost to introduce them and operate them. And let's not forget the cost of using the various alternatives to provide some of the Nimrod's capabilities...

[MAN777]

The cynic in me sees this as a long term job creation scheme for hundreds of Bae staff, I dont think any of us here can begin to understand the sheer frustration and disappointment that these workers must be feeling.

I have an idea, why not turn Woodford into a "Hill"

Tip millions of tons of sand at the Poynton end of the runway then employ all the staff to shovel and wheelbarrow it all to the wilmslow end, when finished turn around and take it all back to the start point and so on.

Absolutely pointless and soul destroying I know but not really any difference to what has happened, probably a lot cheaper as well.

And what about this 200 million for scrapping !!! Why cant I get contracts like that ? A couple of jcbs, chainsaws and some trucks and there you go instant millionaire !! :ugh:

[MAN777]

Header says it all.

What aircraft can do what the nimrod did ?

[manccowboy]

Yes, because I'd make damn sure that it was clear up front that if they didn't deliver the thing on time, to spec and on budget, they'd get sod all money out of me!

MRA4 was due to enter service 2003, first flight was 2004. Compare that with Boeing 787 & Airbus A380 delays and these are far bigger manufacturers, I'd say up to that point BAE did rather well considering the **** they were trying to convert. Both sides were responsible for the delays thereafter.

The biggest losers are the poor sods who are losing their jobs over this and of course the tax payer who foots the bill. The BAE fat cats & the MOD consistently ignored those who knew how to build aircraft (the guys on the shop floor), changing specs, changing mission needs and generally moving the goal posts at a whim.

It's a sad state of affairs and the crux is we wont have learned a damned thing......history shows this.

[Postman Plod]

What I should also have added was that if I changed the spec of the car I was buying, I'd expect it to be delayed and cost more!

[The Old Fat One]

MRA4 was due to enter service 2003, first flight was 2004.


Wrong. Not a bit wrong...flat wrong.

At the time the contract was signed in 1996 the Nimrod was due to enter service (and certainly be flying in 2000).

Very soon after the contract was signed the whole thing was re-baselined to the dates you suggest.

If you read all the defence white papers from 1995 thru to 2003 you can unravel the early smoke and mirrors associated with this project.

PS as mysekf and many other posters have stated, this is not primarily the fault of BAE, so no need for more robust defence of them. The fault lies primarily with the interfering politicians (buy british, even when the bid is evidently b**llocks) and the MOD procurment process that has always been a CF of biblical proportions.

PS

Much more media interest than I was expecting. If a frontline investigative journalist were to run with this we might get an enquiry on this whole sorry project after all. Journo's...the research is going to be a piece of p**s because there are going to be hundreds of unemployed BAE, RAF and MOD engineers and aircrew with a story to tell, a voice to be heard and a cause to fight.

[snagged1]

Sad day indeed.. but lets not forget why it has happened - 13 years of a labour government to thank for that. Spend spend spend and now we are broke.:ugh:

As sad as the retirement is (and the scrapping of the Harrier as well) UK Plc is broke due to Bliar and Clown, and we have to save money so the cuts are needed.

[GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU]

Can someone remind me please; was centraliased flight testing at Warton a BAe requirement or a MoD one? Also, was a lot of that work previously carried out by AAEE?

[Roadster280]

Manccowboy,

It's all very sorry, but I think you have added 2 and 2 and come up with 5.

The "****" that was trying to be converted was built in the very same factory, was it not? Even so, I think its a bit of a red herring to suggest that all the woes stem from the decision to reuse Nimrod fuselages.

The poor sods who are losing their jobs had been warned that Woodford would close on completion of the MRA4 program, so the writing was on the wall, and should have been even more apparent when the delays came in.

The biggest losers will be those who die as a result of the UK not having the capability. It is a very real prospect that people will die because of this. A tad more serious than employment issues.

I recognise that you are very close to this, but equally, the MOD does not exist to provide employment. At all. It exists to perform military functions. Something it needs the right kit to do.

[orgASMic]

Just been watching JCBs being used to break the aircraft up at Woodford on the BBC News channel. Very sad.

The fence was a nice try at discretion but not tv-camera-in-a-helicopter proof. Idiots.

[XN593]

Will the Harriers be butchered in the same fashion?

[manccowboy]

Sad day indeed.. but lets not forget why it has happened - 13 years of a labour government to thank for that. Spend spend spend and now we are broke.:ugh:

Actually it was the Conservatives who ordered the MRA4 (Nimrod2000) in the first place.

The "****" that was trying to be converted was built in the very same factory, was it not? Even so, I think its a bit of a red herring to suggest that all the woes stem from the decision to reuse Nimrod fuselages.

The term "****" was meant to highlight the state of the frames that came in for conversion, most were that badly corroded they were rebuilt from scratch a few were just scrapped. I believe a feasibility study was made to replace the whole fuse with a off the shelf A320 fuse which would have been cheaper but the MOD was having non of it.

The poor sods who are losing their jobs had been warned that Woodford would close on completion of the MRA4 program, so the writing was on the wall, and should have been even more apparent when the delays came in.

Nothing new there, but people fully expected the program to run its course.

At this stage of the game only a fvcking idiot would cancel.

[Jig Peter]

Among all the froth about BAES and MoD and their respective responsibilities for the Nimrod cancellation, little has been said about the pervasive influence of the Treasury and what I once saw described as "its unconventional ways of accounting" .
Can anyone on Pprune say anything factual about this?
Rattling on about "beancounters" isn't helpful, but an insight into how the expensively educated and "fratefley respectable" gentlemen operate, both overtly and covertly, would be instructive - I remember from the past well-coordinated attacks on other programmes via "chums" in "respectable" weekly and daily newspapers giving figures that could hardly have come from MoD ... Someone in high(ish) places has an agenda and no qualms about "slipping" a nugget or two to a friendly scribe (or MP).

[snagged1]

@ manccowboy
"Actually it was the Conservatives who ordered the MRA4 (Nimrod2000) in the first place."

I was referring to the chronic govt overspend on everything, not the nimrod specifically...
Had they kept a bit saved up - not created 100,000's of useless jobs and enlarged "the state" to the obese money swallowing state it is, and not sold most of our gold at its lowest price for the past 1000 years, then we might not be in such an awful state!

[Squirrel 41]

JigP asked,

Among all the froth about BAES and MoD and their respective responsibilities for the Nimrod cancellation, little has been said about the pervasive influence of the Treasury and what I once saw described as "its unconventional ways of accounting". Can anyone on Pprune say anything factual about this?

Possibly - let me have a go.

From my stand point, HMT are, believe it or not, more sinned against than sinning in defence spending. HMT's basic point is that MoD gets a fixed budget and has - like all the other Departments - to live within its means. MoD has spectacularly failed to do so at least since SDR 98 and wasn't doing terribly well even when the defence budget was 5% of GDP and 10-12% of public spending (mid-60s to mid-80s).

However, HMT gets blamed by the MoD because everyone (wrongly, in my experience) assumes that "Treasury" are long-screwdrivering every decision (they're not, not least because the Treasury defence team is surprisingly small - like the other Treasury spending teams), and that the answer to all of the MoD's problems is a bigger budget. If more cash were simply the answer - and I accept that there is a cash crunch - then the US forces wouldn't have anything to worry about, except that they do.

A large part of the MoD's consistent inability to live within its means centres on the MoD's unwillingness to scale back its objectives to meet anything approaching a likely budget level - senior officers and CS were breifing the Defence Select Committee 12 months ago that they were planning on a 1% real budget growth to 2015 and that anything else was so inconceivable that they wouldn't bother planning for it. This, AFTER Alistair Darling (remember him?) had shown that all of Government was going to take spending cuts. With their heads so far into the sand, the MoD have only got themselves to blame when unpleasant surprises come and bite them in the arse.

There are things MoD cannot easily do. MoD cannot set the foreign policy goals, and they do not easily turn around and say "No, Prime Minister. It cannot be done, because we don't have the resources." MoD should more often.

MoD needs to sort out the Equipment Programme - if you get a programme launched, it very rarely ever gets binned, irrespective of delays and increased costs; FRES is an excellent current example. MoD is also an abysmal customer for industry, where every Planning Round fudge is akin to a contract renegotiation, and industry has the whip hand every time.

Hence it is no surprise to me that MoD never held BAES' feet to the fire over Nimrod MRA 4, which let's remember was cancelled when it was 10 years late and more than twice the budget for less than half the airframes. Manccowboy can try and defend the company, but the way the company has dealt with fixed price contracts is nothing short of shambolic. They should be ashamed; instead, they get a payoff and get off scot-free. Again.

So what is Treasury responsible for? One thing that didn't help was pushing Trident's successor back into the MoD budget. IMHO it was absolutely the right thing to do, as it forced MoD to decide whether it was more or less valuable than other capabilities - if it was essentially free, then of course you'd have it, but this should've started a sensible discussion over Trident which may have happened, but it wasn't public.

Paradoxically, the other thing Treasury could've done was to be more intrusive in with MoD, not less. If they had been more intrusive, earlier, then perhaps they could've forced MoD to confront some of the problems in the budget before now, when it would've been less painful.

MoD need to get a grip of their finances. This is likely to mean more, more painful cuts because it has come to the party late.

So, Jig P, does this help?

S41

[Jig Peter]

Yes indeed it does, thanks ...
Another thought about BAES - when the company went for initials and added "S" for Systems, it was, at least partly, becasue by then hardware (like airframes) was for them no longer the things to be in (and who can blame them?). Also, I saw recently that BAES actually earns more from the US DoD through its US offshoots, to the extent that I wondered if it shouldn't change to a more mid-Atlantic name and forget the "British" bit - but maybe it has privately already done so ...
Back to Nimrod: Another report had it that the aircraft's electronic task-fit was no longer up to much, given that it took no (or little) account of technological advances in electronics during the elephantine gestation time. This could have been one of those "whispers" I referred to in my earlier post (like the one about the TSR2's wing breaking on test -which it was meant to, but the whisperer in the PM's ear didn't mention that).

[ian176]

Back to Nimrod: Another report had it that the aircraft's electronic task-fit was no longer up to much, given that it took no (or little) account of technological advances in electronics during the elephantine gestation time. This could have been one of those "whispers" I referred to in my earlier post (like the one about the TSR2's wing breaking on test -which it was meant to, but the whisperer in the PM's ear didn't mention that).

The electronic kit onboard was Boeing developed? Isn't it basically the same kit in the P-8?

[RumPunch]

I cannot believe that only now 6 former defence cheifs have condemed this decision. Who is running this Air Force if 6 senior officials are now telling us the country is in serious trouble with capability gaps. 1) Why speak now when they have started destroying the Aircraft and 2) Who is actually in charge of the Air Force, the Armed Forces Minister stated it was what the Defence Chiefs that wanted to axe MRA4, yet the Primie Minister said It will save money.

Yet again the spinless leaders that fail time and time again passing on the information what the country actually needs, not saving there own precious fast jet fleet to keep there egos happy.

[europaflyer]

Five Nimrod-sized hangars at Cosford, and all empty last time I was there. Ditto many RAF airfields all over the place. In spite of what is spouted at us flying the completed airframes there would have cost nothing, and they could have been left there for as long as needed. What on earth the Americans would say about this I don't know - all their airframes are stored in the desert until museum keepers start hunting them in packs.

I'm absolutely a Conservative to the core but I am afraid that in my eyes Cameron is now a complete t--t. What the hell sort of country builds a fleet of aircraft for £4bn then scraps them because some damn politicians decides we don't have the money to run them!

What about the Sentinel? Came in under budget, world leading aircraft, but being sold (or on current form, turned in to beer cans) by 2015, after seven years. Incredible.

Seeing Cameron repeating again and again about "Cats and traps" for the new QE class carriers during PMQs was the only time I have actually confronted the TV with physical violence. Thinks he can make himself look like an expert by spouting some slang he's picked up from the Yanks, probably thinks he's Tom-bloody-Cruise. To me, he has proved himself completely unfit to lead.

[Doptrack]

The electronic kit onboard was Boeing developed? Isn't it basically the same kit in the P-8?

No this is a myth caused by Boeing developing the Mission System on MRA4 and developing the P8. However, the sensor suites are completely different. The TACCO stations will undoubtedly feel similar as that was where the main Boeing development was. Even so, the requirements and needs have drifted apart

[manccowboy]

I'm absolutely a Conservative to the core but I am afraid that in my eyes Cameron is now a complete t--t. What the hell sort of country builds a fleet of aircraft for £4bn then scraps them because some damn politicians decides we don't have the money to run them!

If he's so sure of his convictions he should hold a televised question time with the workers from Woodford & RAF personnel from Kinloss at Woodford itself, with the MRA4 carcasses in the background.

Come on David you claim to be the listening party :ok:

[fincastle84]

To me, he has proved himself completely unfit to lead

I totally agree. I resigned my 40 year membership of the Conservative party immediately after he announced the scrapping of the Nimrods. I'm still receiving invites to various functions & requests for monetary support.:ugh:

The final straw was Liam Fox spouting total boll*cks on the news this evening.

I've copied across a post I placed on another thread earlier today.

End of an Era





We gather in these hallowed halls and remember times now past.
The laughs we shared, and the gallant deeds; but now the die is cast.
For the MOD and Air Command and a government coalition,
Has axed our fleet and closed our base, but will rue this daft decision.



For it makes no sense to us at all, for on this island nation.
No long range airborne maritime force is a military abomination.
But we should not lie and lick our wounds, and fade into the night.
For what Kinloss now needs of us, that we may serve her right.



Is to celebrate her glorious past, and all that we’ve endured.
For overland, and over seas we kept this land secured.
And remember all of those who came, and ran with us this course,
All those who served and those who died, with honour on this force.



Though politics and budgets cuts have torn this fleet asunder,
We’ll fondly bid farewell Kinloss, and to the mighty hunter.
And tirelessly we’ll work away, with emotional reserves.
To close her down with dignity; it’s the least that she deserves.



The die is cast; the decision made; twas others who sealed our fate.
They’ll come to rue their big mistake, but sadly all too late.
So we’ll say to those in their ivory towers, who presided o’er this farce.
Ye can take yer Strategic Defence Review and shove it up yer *rse.

[MSAW_CFIT]

GB Govt likes an overspend, look at Concorde.

Eurofighter Typhoon was another good one. A product of the Cold War era that entered service many years behind schedule.

Jobs at BAe seem to be the main reason these projects endured.

Think of the billions that could have been saved by buying military hardware from the USA from the outset.

We seemed to get stuck in the post war mentality that Britain led the World in jet aviation (we gave all our research info to the US for free after WWII). I'm sorry but the Boeing 707 changed all that after the Comet failed.

Oh, isn't the Nimrod a Comet clone?

QED.

[Mend em]

Come on folks - the reason for the senior outburst now is clear - this is capitalising on the emotional reaction of seeing beautiful jets being shredded to fire the first shots of the 'Buy us some P8s soon' campaign.

And dont worry airborne boys and girls, the P8s will be exactly to spec (as the spec will be 'I want one of those'), exactly on time, and very very cheap to buy and operate, being from the good ol US of A from where everything that flies is perfect.

(By the way, despite some touchiness above - those pictures and some of the allegations are hard to take from my side of the table - I do believe that if the RAF does get some, within a couple of years the performance will knock the spots off anything that the Yanks can deliver, given my experience of the UK maritime community)

[JFZ90]

Very very sad.

An embarrassing day for the UK.

Somehow the link below compliments it. Is this the future?

Canadian woman is world's first Beatles graduate | Music | guardian.co.uk (http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2011/jan/27/worlds-first-beatles-graduate)

[europaflyer]

fincastle84 - Nice work!

[hulahoop7]

Cameron showed his credibility when he said that Typhoons were doing a great job in Stan

[jayc530]

If we can't afford MRA4 which protects our seas then why are we fighting a war in Afghanistan?

[The Old Fat One]

If we can't afford MRA4 which protects our seas then why are we fighting a war in Afghanistan?


That my friend, is the 3.8 billion pound question.

[GIATT]

I cannot believe that only now 6 former defence cheifs have condemed this decision.

Especially as they would have been in charge when the various decisions to delay/extend/modify the program which led to the current situation were made. Perhaps the next CDS when asked to make some savings by fiddling will have the backbone to say no. IIRC MRA4 was supposed to be complete seven years ago and in that respect the project shares the same sunk cost fallacies as Bowman, DII, and Typhoon.

They also manage to agree to scrap newer (brand new in this case) airframes and keep the older knackered ones in service way beyond the ideal. I remember war stock Landrovers and trucks being dumped on the market when units were struggling with ancient Series IIIs.

Next time a requirement for a new aircraft, ship, or vehicle comes along perhaps it will not have a million and one other requirements drafted on the side and in so doing dooming the project to failure. If you have a requirement and the other chap's project won't fit then get your own project and if we can't afford both then cut one completely.

It's not nice, but until a CDS mans up enough to force some common sense then nothing is going to change. Perhaps a poster could be made up with the wreckage of the MRA4s surrounded by the mug shots of the magnificent six and distributed to all IPTs.

[GrahamO]

Question

What the hell sort of country builds a fleet of aircraft for £4bn then scraps them because some damn politicians decides we don't have the money to run them!

Answer

Probably the same people who have to work day to day with a bunch of service personnel who think the taxpayer is a bottomless pit for their decades late, billions over budget glory projects ?

1. the aircraft has yet to fly effectively - its removal is not creating a gap, its failing to fill one which the service appears to be quite happy having for the last decade while ir prevaricates and messes around.

2. It was a project based upon reuse of failed bits, adding more unproven bits and generally wasting billions by building upon failure after failure. By scrapping it fully, we prevent the future creation of the next failure, the Nimrod 5 which would the RAF's next late project.

3. the RAF should look to itself for the failure. If they had delivered to time and budget and not kept messing around, they would have had their toys by now. Its difficult to justify billions and billions of overspend money being wasted to keep Nimrod going when history suggest that the RAF cannot be trusted to get the project off the ground. Meanwhile soldiers on the ground are dying due to lack of appropriate vehicles. Which do you spend money on - vehicles which will clearly save lives, or spend it on more delays on Nimrod. Its a no brainer.

Sorry RAF chaps, we taxpayers are now holding you to account and are taking away the chequebook. Like a naughty child who gorges himself on sweets until sick, you are going on a diet and are going to have to live within our means. That means you don't get 100% of your desired capability for an extra 10 years delay and billions over budget. Learn to live within your means.

[Ivan Rogov]

GrahamO......... sod it I can't be arsed!

Maybe you have a big chip on your shoulder for the RAF, you are a wind up merchant or that Page fella. I don't care; any conversation on the topic is irrelevant now anyway.

[pmills575]

PLEASE do not feed the Troll!!!!!!!
Ignore it, you never know, it may go away!

[GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU]

Is this an opportune time to ask what plans the prudent taxpayers have for their safe and cosy world when that nice Mr Putin takes over our great friend Russia again? Third of Russians want Vladimir Putin to return as president - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/russia/8260881/Third-of-Russians-want-Vladimir-Putin-to-return-as-president.html)
Is it also a good time to ask them what their plans are for when China starts calling in the debts and has cornered the World market for essential minerals?

Being a generous chap, I shan't mention South America.

[dc9-32]

Cameron will be scrapping AWACS next, then the VC10 fleet so may as well outsource the whole Air Force.

This bloke is worse than Blair and he takes some beating......:ugh:

Seperately, the Head of the Bank of England at a fancy banquet in his speech said "....some families will be much worse off over the next few months due to price rises around the country....."

Yar, pass the brandy old chap !! Hypocrites all of them.

[LookingNorth]

Another report had it that the aircraft's electronic task-fit was no longer up to much, given that it took no (or little) account of technological advances in electronics during the elephantine gestation time. This could have been one of those "whispers" I referred to in my earlier post (like the one about the TSR2's wing breaking on test -which it was meant to, but the whisperer in the PM's ear didn't mention that).

So are you saying the MRA4's electronic systems were meant to be obsolete?

On the TSR2 wing thing, I've read recently that it failed much earlier than it should have done, a strengthened wing had to be designed, and even then BAC never knew exactly why the first wing had failed. That doesn't sound like "it was meant to" to me. I think TSR2 gets as much vociferous defence as MRA4 does, purely because those who know all the really serious faults aren't in a position to be laying out the details on a public forum. Perhaps in 30 years!

[manccowboy]

GrahamO (http://www.pprune.org/members/313960-grahamo)

Woodford Aerodrome
Chester Road
Woodford
Cheshire
SK7 1QR
United Kingdom

Here's the address for Woodford, take along your soap box and preach that to the guys when they finish shift. Just across the road from the security point should be OK, Stepping Hill A&E is around 12 minutes by ambulance........I could book you one in advance......drop me a PM with a time :ouch:

[GrahamO]

Sure, I'll do that as soon as you turn up in every home in the country and explain why you and your colleagues have burned billions of pounds of investment to no gain.

FWIW I worked with the RAF on another white elephant called UNITER for about 10 years..... another project only worth half as billion, that was not quite ready before the UK didn't need it.

You cannot avoid the fact that Nimrod is 10 years late, billions over budget. Even Ford motor cars and the UAW are not that bad.

Claiming that the UK's interests are being damaged by a cancellation is understandable, but how much was our national interest damaged by the inability to get the platform working over a decade ?

Defining and purchasing stuff isn't really the strongpoint of any of the services.

[manccowboy]

You seem to be missing a key fact here, MRA4 was months away from service and would have cost the tax payer nothing more, scrapping it cost another £200 million....how is that cost effective? Its not only about the airframe either, vital skills will be lost not only in aircraft manufacturing but more importantly MPA experience.

Anyway your a troll so go peddle your **** somewhere else.

[LookingNorth]

"We are now reaching a position where, to put it brutally, the British aircraft industry is destroying our military air power"

- Julian Amery, Minister of Aviation, January 1964.

Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose... perhaps we should cooperate with the French on building a new MPA.

[engineer(retard)]

Graham O

The services do not purchase any equipment, nor do they decide what is cancelled. Perhaps you should invite the previous government and the bankers round to every house first. :ugh:

[My T Hunter]

GrahamO,

Possibly against my better judgement, I'll take on your arguments, for whatever reason I can't sit back and let them go without reply.

1. the aircraft has yet to fly effectively - its removal is not creating a gap, its failing to fill one which the service appears to be quite happy having for the last decade while ir prevaricates and messes around.

No real problem with the first part (although much of this depends upon your definition of effective), although it has certainly demonstrated much of its capability. However it is fundamentally incorrect to say that we have been without the capability for the last ten years. It is only in the last twelve months that the Nimrod MR2 was removed from service. We have now created a permanent hole in our capability.

2. It was a project based upon reuse of failed bits, adding more unproven bits and generally wasting billions by building upon failure after failure. By scrapping it fully, we prevent the future creation of the next failure, the Nimrod 5 which would the RAF's next late project.

Any evidence to back up this sweeping statement? The reused MR2 fuselages had never failed. As to the adding of "unproven" bits, where possible proven airliner technology was used in MRA4. However you can not build a new military aircraft, years ahead of what any other nation currently operates by using totally proven technology in its sensor and tactical suite. Yes there were issues, but it worked, and improvements were constantly being made. This is no different to any other military project.

3. the RAF should look to itself for the failure. If they had delivered to time and budget and not kept messing around, they would have had their toys by now. Its difficult to justify billions and billions of overspend money being wasted to keep Nimrod going when history suggest that the RAF cannot be trusted to get the project off the ground. Meanwhile soldiers on the ground are dying due to lack of appropriate vehicles. Which do you spend money on - vehicles which will clearly save lives, or spend it on more delays on Nimrod. Its a no brainer.

I'll happily concede that there have been major issues within this project, and that I don't know enough about what went on to discuss it. It is interesting though that no-one in government/MoD has yet countered the argument that these aircraft were paid for, and therefore the savings, if any, are minimal. WRT your point about the vehicles, I don't have a problem with that requirement, but it sums up the entire SDSR. We have traded our overall military capability in order to support this particular conflict. Whilst this may be fine in the short time, the issue is that capabilities such as this can not be resurrected in short order in terms of either hardware or trained personnel.

Whilst requirement is a subjective argument I still can not get my head around that we should get rid of the only asset that could investigate anything in our vast maritime area of responsibility in a matter of minutes/hours.

[just another jocky]

You seem to be missing a key fact here, MRA4 was months away from service and would have cost the tax payer nothing more, scrapping it cost another £200 million....how is that cost effective?

I believe the savings quoted are the through-life operating costs.

BTW, I'm not agreeing with GrahamO, his type of ill-informed opinion is of no relevance as his knowledge of the facts is at error and his tainted opinions of the MoD (RAF) procurement process are clear, though I do tend to agree that it was a tad expensive. Doesn't take away from the illogicality of cutting it just as all that investment was coming to fruition.

[Red Line Entry]

The issue that has vexed so many observers is that MRA4 was cut just as it was about (there may be various views on what 'about' means) to become operational.

However, to my mind, where the jet was in the procurement cycle is completely irrelevant. The fact was that an MPA capability was going to cost the country £2Bn over the next 10 years. The question for SDSR was: Is an MPA capability for the next decade worth £2Bn? The answer, ultimately, was 'No'.

Now we can debate whether 'No' was the right answer, but if for a second we assume it WAS the right answer, then whether the jet was brand new or 10, 20 or 30 years old, then scrapping it was the correct thing to do. The only follow up question is then: Why the hell didn't we scrap it years ago????

Or else 'No', isn't the right answer....

[PingDit]

So, our service chiefs have written a letter explaining that the scrapping of the MRA4 leaves a major gap in capability. Wow! a newsflash indeed. How very strange that this should be released when they knew when the airframes were due to be cut up. I can only assume that it's a last-ditch attempt to regain respect from anyone who still cares. Spineless.

[A4scooter]

The Nimrod fiasco is the result of a series of bad decisions made over a number of years by the MOD, RAF?, Labour and Conservative governments and BAE.
Was it the right decision to rebuild a 40 year old aircraft based on an aircraft designed in the 1940s? - no
Did BAE make promises on the time scale, costs etc. which could not be fulfilled? - yes
Were the Labour party / MOD right to believe BAE when they signed a contract to build these aircraft? - no
Were the Labour party wrong in reducing the order from 21 to 9 aircraft making the project even less cost effective - yes
Was the Conservative party wrong to allow Britain to lose such a vital asset and cancel the aircraft just before they were to enter service - yes.
Was scrapping the aircraft so quickly for £200m a mistake - yes
I'm only an armchair expert who never supported the Nimrod re-build who thought it was madness to build aircraft with absolutely no chance of been exported when a MPA based on the A320? would have been a better proposal but the Nimrod is better than nothing.
The people who I feel are the biggest losers are the people who have lost their jobs because of so many people in Government and BAE management letting them down.:confused:

[Finnpog]

Were theTories right in signing the original contract in 1996 and not ensuring that it was sufficiently and legally watertight that it left this monstrous fiasco hapen in the first place?

Not wishing to defend ZNL, but credit where credit is due.

Kinda makes you wonder why the Tories want this gone now as well?

[Finnpog]

I have just been Googling to see what was in the press about the competition in 1996.

It seems that there was more than an odd bit of political motivation involved in the decision.

Race for pounds 2bn Nimrod contract enters last lap - News - The Independent (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/race-for-pounds-2bn-nimrod-contract-enters-last-lap-1326867.html)

[TorqueOfTheDevil]

while ir [sic] prevaricates [sic] and messes around


Oh dear. Someone else who uses long words without knowing what they mean. Such a shame because the thrust of your argument was sooo convincing...T:mad:r

[BEagle]

One hears that the reason for the indecent haste to destroy the Nimrod 2000 was "The Americans not wanting a non-NATO country to get hold of all the kit inside"....:mad:

Of course, any such American pressure (which frankly I do not believe) would simply be smoke and mirrors. Knowing that Tory Boy might one day realise what an utter ar$e he's been listening to moaning sandaholic pongos and that we actually do need an MPA capability, they know that, without any Nimrod 2000s in mothballs, the only realistic option would be Boeing's P-8A Poseidon:

http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a341/nw969/P-8A.jpg

Incidentally, I was told this week that the US Navy 'didn't know' that large aircraft can happily use probe and drogue refuelling - hence the P-8A will need a boom-equipped tanker. Which is a capability the UK doesn't have.

[davejb]

What I don't understand is this,
Cameron is PM, he's meant to deal with broad brush strategies, passing these on to those below to implement and work out the details. Binning specific platforms is like the boss of Ford motors popping down to the assembly line to bang roof linings in for a morning... not what he is paid for.

PM says 'I want to be able to do this', service chiefs outline what is needed, CS and services hash over cash to manage it, if it can't be done PM is told he must reduce policy requirements (for example "let's not invade Iraq" and suchlike) or stump up more cash. The PM simply ought not to be concerned with the nitty gritty of the kit supplied to the forces - not least because, like all other MPs, he has no specialist knowledge to allow him to make a good decision (even if he had a decent brain, which mostly they don't). I mean, I wouldn't let him fit a new kitchen, change my car's oil filter, or replace a tap... so why let him fiddle with things he is equally uneducated on?

Dave

[Mend em]

US drive to get rid quickly - naah.

As I've suggested before, DE&S have money this FY to pay for disposal, and nothing next. PR11 is a mess already, and if MRA4 is not 'cleared' this FY, then something else would have to be cut to pay for it.

Also as I said before, 'you could not make this up'.

[stumpey]

Time to bring back the Elizabethan Beacon Lighters!
Always on watch from our shores searching for any attacking Armada, ready to light the fire and raise a Hew and cry.:ok:










Not that we have anything much to fight them with any more but still.
Dad's Army stopped Hitler invading, just think what effect an Army of Victor Meldrews and Ann Widdecombes could have defending our shores!:eek:
Whats that you say, were not interested in defending OUR shores any more, only getting involved in other peoples battles. Oh sorry, my mistake. I got it wrong, again. Hat.........Coat........

[Finnpog]

The P8s are so much cheaper, can we order twice as many and rename the Kipper Fleet the Arbroath Smokies?:ok:

[Jackonicko]

Was any attempt made to find a buyer for the aircraft (Saudi, perhaps?)

Was any consideration given to providing aircraft to Boscombe to replace their BAC One Elevens and other large aircraft types?

Was any consideration given (at this late stage) to migrating the R.Mk 1 kit over to three of the airframes, which would surely have been cheaper than the RC-135 scheme, and would have given an autonomous national capability 'no worse' that R.Mk 1?

Why wasn't an MPA capability felt to be worth the uncommitted money?

[Northern Skeptic]

My commiserations to all who have been kicked in the teeth by the cancellation of the MRA4, but it has irreversibly gone now and we have to look forward to when our ill-informed masters realise what a cock up they have made.

That's a great picture of the P8 :ok:, but would it be able to perform all the roles that the MRA4 was planned to do?

Those long thin wings say great at high altitude and high Mach Number cruise, not so good when having to manoeuvre at low level in foul weather with ice building up on the external stores and the high lift devices that have to be deployed.

I wonder if it doesn't have a MAD stinger because it can't fly low enough to effectively use one and what would severe aerodynamic and structural limitations on low level operation mean for its ability to drop life rafts, sonobuoys and torpedoes?

Have you seen any pictures showing the size and position of the bomb bay, as Boeing seem to be remarkably coy about this. It makes you wonder whether the design also suffers from CG problems.

The only modern design that looks half decent is the Japanese XP-1 (which also has four engines!), but I hate to say it, the only option we may have is zero lifed P3s with updated avionics.

[Squirrel 41]

Jacko

Was any attempt made to find a buyer for the aircraft (Saudi, perhaps?)

Without a domestic user, it'll be near impossible to sell the MRA4s to anyone.

Was any consideration given to providing aircraft to Boscombe to replace their BAC One Elevens and other large aircraft types?

No idea on this one. But without an MAR or CAA certification, what could Boscombe do with it? And why would MRA4 be a better platform than the 1-11s? And if the 1-11s are to be replaced, is MRA4 the correct platform? The fact they're being chopped up suggests that the answer is "No".

Was any consideration given (at this late stage) to migrating the R.Mk 1 kit over to three of the airframes, which would surely have been cheaper than the RC-135 scheme, and would have given an autonomous national capability 'no worse' that R.Mk 1?

Jacko, give it up. People who know far more about this than either of us are convinced that the RJ option is the right one. Let it go!

Why wasn't an MPA capability felt to be worth the uncommitted money?

What uncommitted money? MoD would be fascinated to hear about this!

S41

[WE Branch Fanatic]

I wonder how much current decision making is based on experience and knowledge, and how much is based on ignorance and a certain defence advisor who seems to disregard things outside his field of expertise?

[Jackonicko]

Squirrel

1) No domestic user may be problematic, but perhaps not at the price that these could be offered for. I suspect that ITAR would be the stumbling block.

2) Are you seriously suggesting that MRA4 was incapable of getting a MAR? I suspect the MRA4 would have made a decent replacement for the now very old 1-11s.

3) The RJ may be the right option. An R5 may well have been MUCH cheaper, especially when we already own airframes that will otherwise cost money to scrap. In any case, the question isn't "Why isn't it being done", it's has it been properly examined. I suspect that the scrapping of MRA4 is being done with indecent haste and without proper examination of the alternatives.

4) A great deal of MRA4 money has been spent. The cost of using them above and beyond what has already been saved (and that cannot be recovered) is, in this context, the uncommitted money.

[GrahamO]

Guys, at the risk of stirring the hornets nest...

1. After being nearly a decade late, the posts which say 'it was almost complete' are being disingenuous to say the least. I was consulted in a very very peripheral way about five years ago at Boscombe and it was 'almost ready for test' then. Five years later, 'its still almost ready for test. Who is to say with any reasonable certainty that we wouldn't be having the same conversation in another five years ? More succinctly, would you bet your mortgage on it ? The current govenrment won't.

2. The RAF are intimately involved in every stage of the procurement process. The DPA and the DLO (and MOD-PE in its earlier guise) do not arbitrarily change the specification for the platform, and give the contractor a get out excuse. The services play an integral part n the OR definition and its translation through Assessment and Design. It is the services who have the track record in changing the requirements, daily, weekly and monthly. Many changes are completely necessary but the mantra on aircraft release has always been "better late and over budget, than what we asked for and on time". Suggestions that the services are not to blame are again, misleading.

3. Its is not a logical statement to suggest that if £4 billion has been wasted or spent to date, we should just keep spending to finish the job and that is a sensible thing to do. thats gamblers logic - because I have lost £4 billion on the ponies, I must keep gambling to make it all turn out better.

4. Putting all emotion, excuses, blame, personalities, politics to one side, the defence industry in its widest definition has had £4 billion of taxpayers cash and failed to deliver either what was originally planned or what was latterly agreed. If a builder gave you a quote and ten years later still hadn't finished, and was unable to even give you a 100% guarateed completion date for half the job originally contracted, I would suggest you wouldn't want to give the builder any more money, at all, ever again. the RAF have had their money, blown it and the kitty is dry. All the Merchant *ankers did in relation to this, was cause the issue to drop into stark relief and make people realise the MOD was utterly out of control. Maybe thats the only good thing they did for the UK.

Why is Nimrod any different ?

It isn't.

(just another jockey - 'being a tad expensive' is a unnecessarily highly priced TV. Being billions over budget with someone elses money is not. You appear to have no idea how much money 'billions' is and how its a problem. Us public did not give you a blank cheque and leave you to waste it as you will - your attitude towards good use of us taxpayers money is disappointing. I know a lot more about procurement in MOD and its interaction with the RAF than you might believe - since 1985 in fact.

[Modern Elmo]

The Indians are geeting MAD's on their P-8I's, correct?

13-02-10 01:37 AM #4
Mercator
Member Join Date
Feb 2010
Posts
49

It's a tactics thing. MAD isn't really a search sensor, it's a tracking sensor, so you don't really spend hours combing the ocean at 300 feet hoping for a hit (although it has been done). Instead, you generally use it in the final stages of your tracking so that you can precisely deploy a weapon. Now in the good old days you could do that at 300 feet and there probably wouldn't be any consequences. But these days, submarines have a habit of fighting back with things like surface-to-air missiles that can be tethered in some sort of bouy or perhaps even autonomous, so the trend in the future will be for weapons that are deployed from high-level or with some serious stand-off. If you are using MAD you will probably have to do the same (stand-off) and use a UAV. If you look around you'll see that there are UAVs in development with MAD sensors that can be launched like a sonobouy from maritime patrol aircraft, like the P-3 and the P-8, and that's the future for the sensor.

The P-8 Programme (http://www.w54.biz/showthread.php?136-The-P-8-Programme)



(Source: Naval Air Systems Command; issued January 21, 2011)

NAVAL AIR SYSTEMS COMMAND, PATUXENT RIVER, Md. --- The U.S. Navy announced today the award of a $1.6 billion contract to Boeing for P-8A Poseidon aircraft Low-Rate Initial Production (LRIP) of six aircraft.

This first LRIP contract also includes spares, logistics and training devices. Production of the first LRIP aircraft will begin this summer at Boeing’s Renton, Wash. facility.

“In 2004, the U.S. Navy and the Boeing Company made a commitment to deliver the next generation maritime patrol and reconnaissance aircraft to support a 2013 Initial Operational Capability (IOC),” said Capt. Mike Moran, PMA 290 Program Manager. “This contract and these aircraft keep that commitment on track.”

Three of the six flight test aircraft, built as part of the System Development and Demonstration contract awarded to Boeing in 2004, are in various stages of testing at Naval Air Station Patuxent River, Md. The Integrated Test Team has conducted sonobuoy releases and counter measures deployments.

Recently, one of two static test planes completed full scale testing on the P-8A airframe. The first static test aircraft underwent 154 different tests with no failure of the primary structure. The second aircraft will begin fatigue testing this year.

The U.S. Navy plans to purchase 117 production P-8A aircraft to replace its P-3 Fleet. IOC is planned for 2013 at NAS Jacksonville, Fla.

[AQAfive]

GrahamO

I fear sir that that is the problem within defence procurement, everyone knows a lot about the procurement process, but very little about the product being procured. At least that was my experience.

BEagle

The reason for lack of AAR of USN P3's was not that it couldn't be done, but that the cost of training all the pilots was the stumbling block. That was the reason given to AOC 18 Gp in 1987. (He often confided in me ---well we spoke on an ac once or twice during deployment). Remember, the USN had 100's of P3's to chose from and the P3 could go a bit further than the MR2, albeit somewhat slower.

The MRA4 had such long legs it was considered unnecessary to qualify the AAR facility until needed, to save money.

[Flarkey]

An interesting point of view from the Register - admittedly as reactionary and sensationalist as the National Enquirer - but at least it is an optimistic view..

Antique Nimrod subhunters scrapped ? THANK GOODNESS! ? The Register (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/01/27/nimrod_scrappage/)


Antique Nimrod subhunters scrapped – THANK GOODNESS!
World's biggest vintage aircraft club finally shut down
By Lewis Page

Comment The UK press is bursting with indignation today as the process of scrapping the Nimrod MRA4 submarine-hunting aircraft begins. But in fact the four planes now being broken up were a financial and engineering disaster. Had they gone into service they would have become a terrible, cripplingly expensive millstone around the neck of the Ministry of Defence. We are much, much better off without them.

This plane cost us more than two Space Shuttles – and would have cost a lot, lot more if we'd kept it.
Certainly not everyone agrees. We can forget leader-writers fulminating idiotically about Russian submarines and world-beating British engineering: some more serious people have entered the fray. A group of former senior officers writes to the nation that "a massive gap in British security has opened".

But one should note that the signatories – including the air marshals one would naturally expect to find condemning cuts to the RAF, but also the admiral and general who won the Falklands war – don't actually state that they think the Nimrod itself should have been saved. They write:

The vulnerability of sea lanes, unpredictable overseas crises and traditional surface and submarine opposition will continue to demand versatile, responsive aircraft ...
Other countries are actually seeking to reinforce their maritime patrol capacity, with the new Boeing 737 P8A a strong contender ...

It is not perverse to suggest that the gap left by broken Nimrods should be readdressed.

What the ex-brasshats are bemoaning is the UK's loss of long-range maritime patrol aircraft in general, not the Nimrod MRA4 in particular. They're wise to draw this distinction, as the MRA4 project has now achieved the unwelcome distinction of producing the most expensive aircraft ever made: with a reported £4.1bn spent, just one is airworthy.

By comparison, a new Space Shuttle would cost about £1.75bn at current rates if it were built today1. Even the staggeringly expensive B-2 nuclear Stealth bombers only cost £1.3bn apiece.

Our sole flying Nimrod MRA4 (pictured above) has wound up costing us no less than £4.1bn – and it is not even a new aircraft. All the MRA4s are refurbished and re-equipped Nimrod MR2s, which had already been purchased by the RAF long ago at inflated prices.

Even if the project had continued as planned, we would have received just nine refurbished Nimrods in total for our £4bn-odd – each of them would have cost almost half a billion pounds plus what was paid for it in the first place. One should note that this would have represented a more-than-quadrupling of the original "fixed price" agreed per plane by the last Tory government when it kicked off the programme back in the 1990s. Given the project's disastrous history of cost and time overruns, there's no reason to believe than the latest estimates would be any more accurate that the ones which preceded them - we'd probably have wound up spending at least the purchase price of a new fleet of NASA space shuttles to get our nine antisubmarine planes.

The air marshals and generals do well to mention the Boeing P-8, as it shows what an antisubmarine plane of the Nimrod type ought to cost: India is buying P-8s for £160m each at the moment, well under one-third of what we were set to pay for our MRA4s. And the P-8, using sensors, computers and so on selected recently rather than back in the 1990s will be much more capable as well.

"These planes [the Nimrods] are no longer state of the art. Cheaper alternatives are emerging," says Keith Hayward, head of research at the Royal Aeronautical Society, talking to the BBC.

And make no mistake, scrapping the Nimrods will save money – a lot of money. Support and maintenance of a normal military aircraft can be expected to cost two to three times the acquisition price over its service life – and the Nimrod was far from normal.

In fact, the MRA4s would have been the last nine De Havilland Comet airliner airframes left flying in the world. The Comet, designed in the 1940s, failed commercially and went out of airline service many decades ago – and since then large aircraft have no longer been made in the UK.

The Nimrod/Comet is so old that it belongs to a lost era of manufacturing: this is the main reason why the MRA4 project was so horrifically late and over budget. The planes supplied for upgrading by the RAF had significant differences in size and shape – they had been essentially coach-built, bodged together with the blueprints used more as a guide than followed with any accuracy in the modern sense. Trying to rebuild, re-equip and re-engine them, with no real idea what the physical dimensions and internal layout of any given plane actually were, was a technical nightmare.

The previous Nimrod was doing frightfully hush-hush stuff in Afghanistan – but 'hush-hush' isn't the same as 'appropriate' or 'cost effective'
The MRA4 fleet, had it ever gone operational, would have been the world's biggest and most expensive vintage aircraft enthusiasts' club. Every time a spare part was needed it would have had to be custom made. Thousands of esoteric experts would have had to be kept on staff. Support costs would have been well outside the ordinary two-to-three-times-acquisition range: we would have spent many more billions keeping the last nine Comets flying in decades to come.

Still, at least it provided a chance for British high-tech equipment to be used – a bit of a boost for Blighty's industry?

Not so much. The planes' combat computer architecture was by Boeing. Their electronic-warfare fit was from Israel. Most of the MRA4's weapons were to be made in America. Its engines had "Rolls Royce" stamped proudly upon them, but were in fact made in Germany. The only British industry to get much of a boost from the project was that of restoring old aeroplanes.

So if we actually need or needed maritime patrol planes, we should definitely buy P-8s at a third of the upfront cost and much less than a third running cost (the P-8 is based on the 737 airliner, in service round the world in large numbers: parts for it will mostly be as cheap as chips).

The former generals and air-marshals quoted above think we definitely do need maritime-patrol planes. It's not a totally foolish point of view: patrol planes are probably a good bit more valuable than Tornado low-level-penetration bombers, which we have bizarrely decided to keep.

But you have to remember that what a maritime patrol plane is mainly for is hunting submarines. And in fact, predictions of disaster to the contrary, the British armed forces have an almost unbelievably large armoury of almost-brand-new submarine hunting kit remaining once Nimrod is gone.

Most of the Royal Navy's surface fleet right now is made up of Type 23 anti-submarine frigates, delivery of which completed only in 2002 – and these ships have since been expensively upgraded with low-frequency active sonar and other new tools since. The navy also has the latest Merlin anti-submarine helicopters, which have only been fully operational for a few years and which can also operate from land bases or fleet auxiliaries. Perhaps an even better answer than these to enemy submarines are our own fleet of nuclear powered fast-attack subs, even now being joined by the very latest and arse-kickingest Astute class boats. The RAF's long-ranging AWACS planes can also do much of the Nimrod's job.

When you also reflect that the Russian submarine fleet is now no more than a pale shadow of its mighty Cold War self, and even so it remains far and away the most dangerous non-allied sub force on the planet ... well. If our boys and girls can't stave off this much diminished threat with all the many, many billions of poundsworth of antisubmarine gear they still possess, that's a bloody poor show.

Hey, but hold on! The Nimrod also did load of other great stuff. Why, the BBC call it a "spy plane" – it was hard at work doing super top-secret stuff in the war against the Taliban.

This too is fallacy. A lot of the confusion results from the existence of the three seldom-mentioned Nimrod R1s, which actually were spy planes - they didn't carry subhunting kit like the mainstream Nimrod MR2s and new MRA4s, they were packed with electronic-intelligence gear. But they are to be replaced by US-made "Rivet Joint" planes: the MoD couldn't afford to pay British industry to import or reinvent all the Yanks' new trickery, and are very glad to simply buy it off the shelf.

But it's also true that the old Nimrod MR2s were flying above Afghanistan alongside the infinitely more useful R1s. The subhunter planes were typically employed on secret missions, too, perhaps adding to the media's understandable confusion.

But in fact the MR2s weren't doing anything which would justify the vast expense – in money and lives – of having them there. They were mainly relaying radio communications between units on the ground, which would otherwise struggle to get a signal past intervening mountains. A few of them had been fitted with basic optical spy-eye kit, allowing them to offer the same sort of observational capability as an enormously cheaper unmanned Hermes 450 (but not as good as an unmanned, still cheap Reaper, which also has man-tracker radar).

The secrecy regarding this work typically came from the fact that the Nimrods were acting in support of special-forces units - nothing more. But they were not doing anything or providing any help which couldn't have been supplied by much, much cheaper aircraft.

The only reason you would bother having Nimrods or something like them on the strength really is hunting submarines. And that task genuinely isn't very important right now: and we have a lot of other tools for the job anyway. If the world changes and submarines become a big issue again for some reason, we can easily buy some better, cheaper P-8s in years to come – the production line for those will be running for a good long time and prices will only fall.

And in the mean time we can applaud the MoD and the Tories – if not for the cretinous decision to order the Nimrod MRA4s in the first place (thanks, Michael Portillo), if not for the myriad things they got wrong in the recent defence review – then at least for axing Nimrod now and saving us from having to pay for the most expensive vintage aircraft club in the world. ®

[Small Spinner]

AQA5

Not sure that you are right about knowing about the procurement process. Engineers don't know about it, and PTs don't know about engineering, however each try to do both, and that's where financial constraints get into the mix.

The result is a complete muddle. Second guessing engineers under the guise of 'we don't want to think about that now, as it will cost money' is the main problem. Things get missed, delay sets in, through lack of proper forward planning. If safety gets compromised then it really gets messy.

I can't believe that British engineers are worse than others throughout the world, and many believe we have the best, so where do the problems lie??
Management?? Answers on a postcard!!

[Modern Elmo]

The only reason you would bother having Nimrods or something like them on the strength really is hunting submarines. And that task genuinely isn't very important right now: and we have a lot of other tools for the job anyway.

Say what?

This Lewis Page is right about some things and very wrong about other things.

[Mend em]

Graham O,

I trust you are already chomping at the bit to see the cancellation of the A400M, and the F35, both 'a bit late' and 'a bit' over budget or the FSTA which is actually TWICE the anticipated in-service cost of MRA4, and is 'a bit late' and 'a bit over budget', plus I assume you'd turn your nose up at a few F22's, which have in effect nearly doubled in unit cost to the US as the number ordered has been slashed.

[AQAfive]

Lets see if I can put this another way.


Many years ago I worked on a computer system that used magnetic tape as a programming medium. The equipment was also used by another team (Commonwealth) who decided that magnetic tape was too slow and mechanically inefficient. So they designed and built a solid state programming device that worked well.


The magnetic tape device became an engineering maintenance headache and so it was decided to adopt a new programming device.


The team, you and I and in fact most people would have chosen the existing system used by the other team because it worked and therefore the risks were low if indeed not negligible and costs accordingly so.


But no, the projected cost was above a certain limit and therefore under the rules it had to go through the competitive tendering process. This added 18 months at least to the project and of course increased costs. The device ended up with was the solid state device used by the other team with, of course, an on shore UK company producing it.


Whilst the process of competitive tendering is there for good reason, it seems that no one is able to sign it off when the need is clearly not there.


That is a simple example, when the project is more complex, the costs are amplified.


If I seem to criticise individuals, then I apologise. I have to admit it took me a long while to realise that it is the system that is at fault, not individuals.

[Mend em]

AQAfive - bob on; and the main developers of the 'system' in the UK are the Treasury who put rules in place to minimise spend, in year, ultimately putting up overall costs.

[Small Spinner]

AQA5
the self licking lollipop that is project management, kicks in, and what gets me is that no one quantifies how much they actually cost, and the delays that accrue.
The MOD have adopted the process for all contractors, sometimes when it is totally inappropriate, either on their part, or the contractors part.

Don't get me wrong decent project management can be worth it's weight in gold, but there are many poor examples out there.

[davejb]

This is a very personal opinion,
and I can't really support it with data, other than rather a lot of 'stories', but, the biggest stumbiling block, in my opinion, is management.

In my (not very humble) opinion the major problem with virtually anything that goes wrong is management - specifically giving the decision making process, and final say, to people who simply do not understand the task, or how the proposed solution(s), work.

There's actually a sort of tenet still in place that says management skills are management skills, and it's almost harmful to know too much about what you are managing - that (perhaps) holds good provided the management stay out of the nuts and bolts decisions, and restrict themselves to overall strategy... in the UK we seem to be devoted to ensuring management delve into the tactical level.

MPs, in my view, are the ultimate evolution of 'know **** all, have limitelss power' management. With all due respect to John Prescott (as one recent example) how the **** do you get to be (ostensibly) the second most important decision taker in the country based firmly on a career as a ship's steward?


(Or take Tony Blair - number one, apparently based on a solid career as a ... dunno, sponge?)

Still, as long as there's a decent bottle of port at the end, who cares?

Dave

[Small Spinner]

Spot on davejb

I used to think it was because the project managers did not know enough about engineering, but actually they are too close, and too involved in the engineering decisions, regardless of their past experience.
PMs should keep to their spreadsheets, and project plans, and leave the engineering decisions to the engineers. Put them in physically different locations to make sure they don't interfere.
Management by exception is the PMs mantra, but I see little evidence of it

[Ivan Rogov]

Lewis Page is funny!

I will be looking for a new job soon, looks like being an Ex forces expert is easy. Just write even less informed drivel than half my Pprune posts :ok:
The only point he is right about (accidently I'm sure!) is that we did not specifically need the Nimrod MRA4 as our future LRMPA, however it was the cheapest and quickest option to bring in from September 2010. All other options from that date would have cost more and take much longer.

All this hindsight is wonderful, but it is the tool of tools :mad:

[davejb]

Thankyou Spinner,
and I think Ivan Rogov is spot on (I presume you too are ex MPA, or somewhere within that world?) How hard can it be to become the 'defence expert' for a paper or news channel, considering the absolute drivel that is promulgated these days?

Should any national,.... hey, international, news outlet require 2000 words on pretty much any subject under the Sun, feel free to PM me.

'How the chariot dangerously undermines the cavalry - phalanx balance in modern warfare, a 2500 year old retrospective analysis of the bloody obvious, by our defence correspondent Lunchtime O' Booze.....*

Dave

* Apologies to Private Eye, I Hislop, Lord Gnome and co...

[GrahamO]

"I trust you are already chomping at the bit to see the cancellation of the A400M, and the F35, both 'a bit late' and 'a bit' over budget or the FSTA which is actually TWICE the anticipated in-service cost of MRA4, and is 'a bit late' and 'a bit over budget', plus I assume you'd turn your nose up at a few F22's, which have in effect nearly doubled in unit cost to the US as the number ordered has been slashed."

Yes, as I am sure there are alternatives out there which are less likely to be an issue. Don;t kid yourself that the A400M isn't going to be cancelled yet .... at least cancelling MRA4 makes this less likely.

No to the F35, as we have no practical alternative.

No and yes to the F22, as the taxpayer isn't paying anything at the moment, so cost overruns are irrelevant until we find out the final price and can decide then. If the unit price trebles, then we order less as thats all we can afford, simples.

No would be if an F22 came on the market (unlikely IMO) , our jolly RAF chums would want to modify the best aircraft in its field, "as it doesn't meet our standards". Thats where UK arrogance comes in.

Yes would be, if we bought it as is, with full US certification, weapons platforms and subsystems and with our pilots trained using US systems and in effect swapping a US pilot for a UK pilot. Just buy them and use them the as the US does and stop fecking around with something that is already proven to work 'as is'.

The UK sadly has a track record of taking something that works, and buggering about with it until it is masively overspent - as a colleague once told me about software development "if it aint broke, we haven't added enough features yet".

Punching above your weight is fine but if it costs massively more than the overweight punch delivers, then its at best a zero sum game.

[Diablo Rouge]

If the world changes and submarines become a big issue again for some reason, we can easily buy some better, cheaper P-8s in years to come – the production line for those will be running for a good long time and prices will only fall.

I wonder if the same airframe sales room will have off-the-shelf AEOps for sale. There is no doubting that alternative and probably better airframes exist, and it appears that the UK industries are no longer 'world beating' at providing the mission kit, but once experience amongst the human part of this scenario is lost, it will be difficult to replace.

Of course there may have been an improvement in fixed underwater detection assets that mere mortals are blissfully unaware of that make this entire thread dead in the water (pardon the pun:-accidental ones are usually the best) or indeed redundant (I'm on a role now!). Of course detection is one thing; delivering depth charges and torpedoes is a differant story.

http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/aircraft-pictures/assets_c/2010/03/P-8%20based%20on%20737-thumb-450x291-65701.jpg
Boeing P-8. If I was an ASW crewmember (and I am not nor ever will be) then I feel four engines would be nice when operating mid Atlantic. I know Nimrod often closed down two, but at least they were there if needed. Or is salt ingestion not a factor on bypass turbofans?

[engineer(retard)]

GrahamO

For someone who has been in the system since 1985, you've missed out on a lot. UK defence standards are not written by the RAF, they are produced by the DStan Agency under the direction of the MOD. The direction to fit national products is not provided by the services but is usually more to do with political directive or security of supply. Also whilst the user gererates most of the URD, they have a limited input into the SRD and in the majority of the project do not have day to day control, that tends to be CS. There is also no requirement for a uniform to sign off contract changes at the SRD level unless it compromises a URD requirement.

Having sat on both sides of the fence, you do not see many uniforms at meetings unless it is directly related to service use. I suspect that many people who post here have voiced their opinions at programme meetings and have often been ignored.

The procurement process is a behmoth that is so layered with regulation that very few can understand it in its entirety. Trying to point the finger at an individual failing is a waste of time. The system has been built up over several hundred years and has been progressively added to, without sufficient housekeeping to keep it manageable. The result is a beast of such complexity that blame is abrogated across the entire structure and that is why it never gets better.

SS

Being a good PM is as much of a skill as being a good engineer. Unfortunately, design decisions are not cost or time independant and someone has to be responsible for both. The discipline was invented to provide project control, it is in the implementation that it falls over. Looking across industry, you will see organisations that get is consistently right as well as wrong.

regards

retard

[Small Spinner]

it is in the implementation that it falls over.

Absolutely. Where that implementation goes wrong is where PTs or PMs make decisions about airworthiness, when they don't have the knowledge, training or background, and on a financial basis.

[engineer(retard)]

SS


It may be just personnel experience but I have never seen that happen as design changes can only be signed off by the chief engineer where I have worked. However, if it is significant cost or risk then I imagine it is done in the boardroom.

regards

retard

[herkman]

Is there a good chance that the RAF will buy the P8.

I presume there is nothing else the RAF can draw out of storage to do the job.

Regards

Col

[pitotheat]

This was an inevitable consequence of the wrong decision being made in the late 80s to replace the MR2 with MRA4 rather than a new build P3/8. The decision was made in part by arrogant and misguided Air Officers who wanted to continue the tradition of a jet MPA rather than a TP. It also meant the high tech internals would be sourced from US/Canadian companies whilst the low tech panel beating done by the Brits. If we had gone for the P3/8 option a lot of the internals would have been British and with further possibilities of exports for P3 upgrades worldwide. Shame on the Air Officers whose decisions have led to the sight of our MPA force being destroyed. As for BWoS will they ever get it right?
Good luck to all of my former colleagues on maritime.

[servodyne]

One option that might be considered is becoming involved with the Atlantique 3 program.

Several threads have referred to the increased desire (from some) for a European Corps or an increased co operation between our friends across the Channel.

The French have shown an interest in the MRTT platform and the UK needs to offset costs as much as possible. Maybe a bit of negotiation on the use of (some of) these assets by the French may be a step towards the UK
becoming involved in the 'Euro LRMPA'
Potentially a lease to buy agreement using the MRTT as a financial chip could be negotiated to give the UK (as part of the overall package) a few ATL 2 as an interim measure to ensure a token LRMP capability is maintained before converting to an ATL 3 option.

[camelspyyder]

Oh really?

Would this be the same RAF which ordered turboprop P-7 aircraft in the early 90's only for the USN to cancell it on cost grounds.

CS

[XV277]

Don't think we ever actually ordered the P-7, but we were definitely interested/involved with it.

In hindsight, it's interesting to compare how the USN cancelled it with what happened to Nimrod (Cost over-runs, a desire to cut defence spending)

[GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU]

The decision was made in part by arrogant and misguided Air Officers who wanted to continue the tradition of a jet MPA rather than a TP
Is that the tradition of spending flying hours on patrol rather than transiting to and from it?


It also meant the high tech internals would be sourced from US/Canadian companies whilst the low tech panel beating done by the Britsh

Please forgive the bone question from someone without FRAeS after his name; how does an aeroplane bought from North America have British "high tech internals" whereas one bought in Britain has "internals" from America? Is it some Newtonian law that I'm ignorant of?

I also wonder if you'd like to explain to the people at Hawarden and Filton how they are "low tech". Clearly any car mechanic can build an airframe. I'm sure they might be skilled enough to dab wires with a soldering iron.

[manccowboy]

whilst the low tech panel beating done by the Britsh

Ive never seen "panel beating" applied to a pressure vessel which is what an airframe is. Maybe some people have visions of aircraft manufacturers popping out to the local blacksmith to get a part altered.......mind boggling what goes on in some peoples heads.

[Vick Van Guard]

Please forgive the bone question from someone without FRAeS after his name; how does an aeroplane bought from North America have British "high tech internals" whereas one bought in Britain has "internals" from America? Is it some Newtonian law that I'm ignorant of?

The Orion 2000, which was up against the MR4, was to have a GEC -Marconi internal fit. The proposal was to build the aircraft in America, fly it over 'green' and fit it out at Hunting's, East Midlands Airport, who were to be the design authority. IIRC.

[Vick Van Guard]

And with a small twist of irony, which I derive absolutely no pleasure from; my Orion 2000 mouse mat is still going strong.

http://i108.photobucket.com/albums/n18/JohnManson/P1010885.jpg

[Wrathmonk]

Anybody else find it quite amusing that one of the more vociferous supporters of the MRA4 and BAE SYSTEMS has the word 'cowboy' in his nom de PPRuNe?:E

And as said individual is clearly non-mil I should add this is just a bit of light hearted banter!

[Northern Skeptic]

Looking at the picture posted by Diabolo Rouge, note how far aft the bomb bay is - surely most other designs try to get it as close to the CG as possible!

It is also noticeable how small the internal carriage is compared to the MRA4 - it looks (ahem) considerably less than 1/2 the length.

I would also bet that the P8 design isn't capable of carring a full weapon load, sonobuoys and full fuel all at the same time, without having some sort of active fuel management system to maintain CG limits.

As a final observation, why does it need a torpedo that can be dropped from higher altitude, with guidance during descent to ensure splash point accuracy - is this actually because the aircraft hasn't got good enough handling to operate at low level?

[manccowboy]

And as said individual is clearly non-mil I should add this is just a bit of light hearted banter!And taken in the same light hearted way :O

My username by choice is already taken on these forums & Manccowboy was given to me eons ago on a visit to the US.

[GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU]

Wrathmonk. Perhaps our septic friends were sufficiently cultured to have heard of the Rochdale Cowboy.
Rochdale Cowboy (http://www.mikeharding.co.uk/archives/1455)
Naturally, as is the way of things, nothing smaller than Manchester would register. At least, from Stockport, he would have had decent spurs and the best hat in the world. :ok:

[pitotheat]

GBZ
I hope VVG brief but accurate explanation answers part of your question. As for speed it really only matters if you are operating a truly reactive scenario. In the case of most MPA ops the transit times just alters the take off and landing times it is the on/off task times that are important. Furthermore, the TP has a better endurance thereby reducing the number of aircraft required to maintain coverage. As for the dash speed it had such an impact on PLE to open the thrust levers on the MR2 that the jets full speed advantage was rarely used on task.
I did not mean to cause offense about the panel bashing but we can not compete against emerging markets on these basic engineering skills. Look at the commercial sector where a lot of the low end fabrication is done in the far east. Western industry can only have the advantage in high end, cutting edge technology such as the weapons, sensors and avionics that were required in the Nimrod replacement. With MRA4 this was mainly imported from Canadian and US companies. If the alternate P3/7 was chosen much of the high tech squiggly amps stuff would have been from UK companies.

[Not Long Here]

If my memory serves me correctly there were three offerings to replace the MR2-

First the ill fated MRA 4

Second was a Loral bid using Orion 2000 new build P-3s

Last was a GEC/Marconi bid utilising refurbished P-3 airframes

The Marconi bid had massive UK input in terms of the sensors and UK PLC would have made a lot of money. Unfortunately, the BWoS Nimrod appeared to be more British but wasn't.

The wish at EGQK at the time was for the GEC solution even given our affection for the MR2 airframe.

Regards from a country with LRMP assets :E

[Modern Elmo]

Looking at the picture posted by Diabolo Rouge, note how far aft the bomb bay is - surely most other designs try to get it as close to the CG as possible!

The CG is where it needs to be. See (a) below .

It is also noticeable how small the internal carriage is compared to the MRA4 - it looks (ahem) considerably less than 1/2 the length.

That Nimrod weapons bay was never going to be filled with weapons. It was a clumsy snoot British Leyland Aerospace stuck under and on to the Comet fuselage, needlessly adding to the dry weight and drag of the aircraft, instead of making a proper weapons bay for the Nimrod. ... The Nimrod underbelly snoot .. something like the heavy, ugly, awkward rubber bumpers bolted on the last few model years of MGB roadsters.

I would also bet that the P8 design isn't capable of carring a full weapon load, sonobuoys and full fuel all at the same time, without having some sort of active fuel management system to maintain CG limits.

(a) Is there supposed to be something wrong with an active fuel management and aircraft trim system, which will, among other things, empty the fuel tank aft of the weapons bay first?


As a final observation, why does it need a torpedo that can be dropped from higher altitude, with guidance during descent to ensure splash point accuracy - is this actually because the aircraft hasn't got good enough handling to operate at low level?
[/COLOR]

In the near feature, submarines sensing a hostile aircraft overhead may deploy antiaircraft missiles -- something like a MANPAD and a video camera in a buoy, with a wire back to das Boot.

Even if the submarine doesn't have such weapons, why not take the submerged target by surprise instead of giving it a chance to take evasive action and release decoys? Submariners can hear a large aircraft nearby and a low altitude, you know.

is this actually because the aircraft hasn't got good enough handling to operate at low level?

The Indian Navy's P-8I's will have MAD booms installed. Ask them if they expect their P-8's to have low altitude handling problems.

[Modern Elmo]

If the 737 had low altitude handling problems, don't you think someone would have noticed by now?


Wikipedia:

The 737 is operated by more than 500 airlines, flying to 1,200 destinations in 190 countries. With over 8,000 aircraft ordered, over 6,000 delivered, and over 4,500 still in service, at any given time there are on average 1,250 airborne worldwide. On average, somewhere in the world, a 737 takes off or lands every five seconds.[7] Since entering service in 1968, the 737 has carried over 12 billion passengers over 120 billion km (65 billion nm), and has accumulated more than 296 million hours in the air. The 737 represents more than 25% of the worldwide fleet of large commercial jet airliners.[7][107]

[Mad_Mark]

And your point, Modern Elmo, is?

How many of those airlines flying the B737 spend hours and hours throwing their aircraft around at 200' in bad weather?

MadMark!!! :mad:

[Vick Van Guard]

If my memory serves me correctly there were three offerings to replace the MR2-

First the ill fated MRA 4

Second was a Loral bid using Orion 2000 new build P-3s

Last was a GEC/Marconi bid utilising refurbished P-3 airframes



You have it the wrong way round. The Orion was new build, the consortium consisting of Lockheed Martin, GEC - Marconi and Hunting.

The Loral bid was to use refurbished P-3's.

[Duncan D'Sorderlee]

And don't forget the Atlantic 3.

Duncs:ok:

[Winco]

The problems are really quite straightforward here.......

The people within the RAF who MAKE the decisions (ie those at the very top, the airships) know very little about what is NEEDED by those on the Sqns. They think they do however and that is the First mistake.

The interface for all this is a bunch of civil serpents, who know even less about operational aircraft and flying, but are out to make a name for themselves in whatever way they can (I have seen it! I have actuially heard a very young CS boasting aboout how he was responsible for getting this widgett changed to that widgett) Second mistake.

This government (any UK government probably) is ALWAYS going to select BWOS over any other builder. Enough said.....Third mistake.

Yes, MRA4 was late and over budget. Who's fault? Probably a combination of all those above, but primarily BWOS, the Airships and CS's.

This constant ethos at MOD that CHEAPNESS = Value for Money has got to stop, once and for all. It was evident on the E-3D, when some bright spark decided that 'they' could purchase lower lobe fans from 'Bodgit and Co' for half the cost of those from Mr Boeing, and indeed they did!! The problem was however that the new fans failed probably 5 times more often than Mr Boeings! Was that VFM? I think not.

Nimrod is gone, I'm ashamed, disgusted and astonished. What will replace it? I'm not sure, but I have little doubt that over the next few years, this appalling decision will come back to haunt those responsible when the number of lives lost, that could have been saved, begins to mount.

Shame on all those responsible, but especially the Airships who between them, couldn't sort out all this ****. Perhaps if they had spent less time stuffing their faces with BWOS hospitality and got off their arses and sorted things out, we wouldn't be in this awful position right now.

Winco

[pitotheat]

For those worrying about the handling qualities of the 737 with several thousand hours on the aircraft i can vouch it handles very nicely including at low level

[Wrathmonk]

Winco

You make some very valid points but I fear the 'rot' sets in far earlier than you suggest. Perhaps with career orientated sqn cdrs (and to some extent flt cdrs) who have the "not on my watch" mentality for it is they who feed the information to the CS and the airships. On my first GR1 tour I watched the colour drain out of the sqn cdrs face when the AOC ordered him, and his execs, out of the crew room so that he could have an honest chat with the sqn junta on what was good and what was bad. Of course, whether the AOC actually took any of it on board or was just undertaking a PR exercise who knows!

And then there are those who say one thing to those below them but report something completely different up the chain of command. Bit like the days of the truly confidential report when the verbal debrief and the written report may be at opposite ends of the spectrum!

[Winco]

Wrathmonk

I would agree with your comments, but do you really think that Sqn Cdrs are concerned about 'their' career enough to continue with the sharade of (mis) informing the airships about things?

You may be a lot more current than I am so you may well be correct, but I would have felt that, a Sqn Cdr, would have had enough gumption to tell it 'as it is'. Certainly, in the Maritime world that was the way I believed things were done.

The other major 'problem' area I see is this stupidity of posting Officers after 3 years or so. As has been pointed out here, a new guy comes in and everythihg changes. Not literally, but it would appear that the changes are somewhat significant and lead to extra costs and delays. The RAF must learn to put someone in place at the begining of a project and leave them there until the end of it, or at least close to the end.

We have this culture of posting people to 'broaden' their careers and 'enlightening' them to other apsects of service life etc. But it is a disaster for major projects such as aircraft procurement. There becomes no accountability when things go wrong and overrun and should be stopped IMHO.

Likewise, I think there is an argument NOT to allow anyone to be involved in a project such as Nimrod, who has NOT come from a Maritime background and understands what is trying to be achieved. Time after I have seen people come from the FJ world into significant positions with the Maritime world or the AT world or whatever. They are all very nice people, but are out of their depth frankly. It happened all the time on the AEW fleet; you would get some ex FJ Pilot or Nav come because there was nowhere else to go! Simple as that.

But despite all of that, I still put the majority of the blame onto the airships. After all, they were once Flt Cdrs and Sqn cdrs and probably Stn cdrs and should have known better. the problem is however, that when you get up to the star ranks, the appeal for a position on the board of BWOS and other defence companies starts to glow!!

Very sad days indeed

Winco

edited because of rubbish grammar!

[LookingNorth]

How many of those airlines flying the B737 spend hours and hours throwing their aircraft around at 200' in bad weather?

That's why I stopped flying with Ryanair.

[Small Spinner]

Winco

The RAF must learn to put someone in place at the begining of a project and leave them there until the end of it, or at least close to the end.

There becomes no accountability when things go wrong and overrun and should be stopped IMHO

Classic mistake there Winco, they should never be relieved from their position until delivery is achieved plus 1 year, as the expectation that they will be able to slide away into the long grass, is the reason we can never pin the :mad: to their catastrophic decisions. :ok:

[Party Animal]

Not Long Here


The wish at EGQK at the time was for the GEC solution even given our affection for the MR2 airframe.




Disagree with you fella. Nobody wanted a refurbished MR2 but when the BAe team rolled out the MRA4 model at Fincastle 95, I think it was sufficiently impressive to change opinions. Effectively a brand new Nimrod with fantastic (relatively) range and endurance and bags of potential as a weapons carrier. Great internal layout and the best sensors available, including a neat EO design. Certainly from where I stood, this was by far and away the best option and preferred choice amongst fellow operators. 21ac for 2Bn was also a very good deal.

Had it been achieved, I have no doubt that it would have been streets ahead of any other option including the P8 - just as the MR2 was way ahead of any other opposition, although I accept that the costs of operating a Rolls Royce are far more than a Ford Fiesta. Sadly, we will never know now will we?

[Charlie Luncher]

Mod Elmo
Submariners can hear a large aircraft nearby and at low altitude, you know.
Not strictly true in all cases old fella but heh there is a lot of that on here just now:rolleyes::ugh:
Charlie sends

[kapton]

What party animal wrote in post 148 encapsulates the problem entirely. If BAE had presented their plan to a room full of engineers of Corporals and below, they would have been laughed out of the room. To take a British vintage aircraft, replace the wings and engines, upgrade the electronics, and turn it into a 21st century MPA was an utterly preposterous idea.
Anyone who has even minimal experience of maintaining British aircraft, and, especially vintage British aircraft such as the Comet, knows that even the simplest of jobs can, and often does, turn into a task of epic proportions. So to believe that BAE could deliver the product, you would have to be on extremely strong mind altering drugs, or be totally ignorant.
The problem was that BAE pitched to aircrew, and as aircrew run the show, anything that is shiny and has bright lights on it, and lots of wup wup noises coming from the flightdeck is possible.
BAE knew its audience well, and the only audience it could sell a polished turd to was a group of RAF aircrew. Something BAE has done with amazing regularity and success over the years. Whatever the merits of the re-engineered comet, it was the wrong aircraft, chosen by the wrong people, and yet again the RAF is now paying the price for being suckered into buying one of BAE's polished turds.

[4mastacker]

davejb wrote:

MPs, in my view, are the ultimate evolution of 'know **** all, have limitelss power' management. With all due respect to John Prescott (as one recent example) how the **** do you get to be (ostensibly) the second most important decision taker in the country based firmly on a career as a ship's steward?He's got the negatives!!! :E

[davejb]

Yep,
I'd have to agree with you there - John Prescott had lots of negatives...

(Slight change of emphasis <g>)

Oh well, it's just cynical old me - as I've aged I've gone from disliking politicians to thinking they should have big, floodlit targets on them as a matter of course. Reminds me of that joke about 'what do you call a busload of lawyers at the bottom of the sea? A good start....'

Dave

[The Old Fat One]

Party Animal

Speak for yourself matey. Plenty of aircrew there present in 95 would find a great deal of sympathy with Kapton's view.

Kapton,

Harshly put, but a great deal of truth in what you say.

PS

I personally showed a senior Lockeed engineer around a MR2 circa 95. His comment, in a suitably Southern drawl...

"Ain't seen engineering like this since I last stripped down a tractor..."

[Party Animal]

TOFO

Despite 2 weeks of relentless drinking during Fincastle, I well remember the many crewroom/VPI bar/scruffs bar discussions that took place during that time on the merits of the 4 options available. From my peer group, the Atlantique was a non starter closely followed by the old P3 from the Arizona desert. I think a brand new P3 was the general favourite as the Nimrod offering was perceived as 'just an upgrade'. However, when the BAe team (Bob n Harry) unveiled the MRA4 model at Industry Day and pitched it as a brand new aircraft, many of my sqn colleagues were suitably impressed and this seemed to become the favoured choice.

Clearly, we all have our own opinions. Mine was this one:

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1012/929818128_abb01c4dd5.jpg

Sadly it was never one of the options!

Kapton is right that anything that is shiny and bright and goes wup wup will appeal to most aircrew but how did the decision making process reach it's conclusion in those days? Was it a beancounter call or did aircrew actually make the decision?

[GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU]

If BAE had presented their plan to a room full of engineers of Corporals and below, they would have been laughed out of the room.

Fair comment. How many of those made it past Chief?

[reynoldsno1]

From a reliable source who was closely involved from the outset (some names removed to protect the innocent):

Was I surprised (wrt the decision to buy Nimrod)- No, and I await my invitation to appear on Panorama to explain why the disaster happened. As OR **, I made it perfectly clear to all, including the then ACDS OR , the MoD PE Team, headed by an RN 1 Star, that a decision to go with BAE would be a disaster. I was strongly backed up by the 2nd ***, Boscombe Down etc. The corruption and fraudulent activity that took place to make it a political win for BAE rather than LM is inexcusable and should be publically investigated. If we recall that the contract value was for £2B for 21 aircraft with an in-service date for the first Sqn of March 2003 the outcome has been unbelievable. I should add that the LM price was £1.85B

[Modern Elmo]

Clearly, we all have our own opinions. Mine was this one ...

Please explain why that Ekranoplane thing was supposed to be a good choice.

[Scuttled]

GBZ

Ummmm that, on first look, seems quite insulting. I know/knew quite a lot of lineys who are of sgt rank and below who were the only reason we got airborne on many an occasion. The rank held was pretty irrelevant to the skill set they owned. Back bone of the RAF what was.

Sadly many of the good ones are off now as they perceive themselves as undervalued (?!) and with their expertise can earn good money elsewhere.

I'd swap a shift of old school techies for a large swath of high ranking policy makers and, ahem, managers at Air Command in a jiffy.

Pretty condescending comment really, reference the Chief bit, however if it was humour that has gone right over my head my apologies.

[tucumseh]

From a reliable source who was closely involved from the outset (some names removed to protect the innocent):

Quote:
Was I surprised (wrt the decision to buy Nimrod)- No, and I await my invitation to appear on Panorama to explain why the disaster happened. As OR **, I made it perfectly clear to all, including the then ACDS OR , the MoD PE Team, headed by an RN 1 Star, that a decision to go with BAE would be a disaster. I was strongly backed up by the 2nd ***, Boscombe Down etc. The corruption and fraudulent activity that took place to make it a political win for BAE rather than LM is inexcusable and should be publically investigated. If we recall that the contract value was for £2B for 21 aircraft with an in-service date for the first Sqn of March 2003 the outcome has been unbelievable. I should add that the LM price was £1.85B



Everyone will, of course, have their own view on what was happening at the time. While I didn't work on Nimrod after 1991, I recognise much of the above in general terms.


One must remember there were many components and interdependencies to the N2000 programme, not just a simple "Modify 21 aircraft" contract. In particular, the "2000" bit was always nonsense; for example, a pre-requisite programme's ISD was April 2001. One good reason why the above quote rings true.


My abiding memory of the time was the political interference. On one of the dependent programmes a competition was run and the winner was as clear cut as you could wish for (the wish being that the losers don't complain and delay the programme, which they didn't).


Their senior directors pitched up for the announcement and left crest fallen. We were more gobsmacked than they were. After the dust settled, we were told of the "Industrial Impact Paper" (i.e. Political lobbying) which was utterly laughable in the assumptions it made. One of which was Ferranti (now everyone's heard of them, right?) had no relevant business with MoD, which presumably came as a surprise to their 14,000 employees on MoD contracts. Anyway, the contract was awarded to a company who had never bid in the first place - which hadn't been a surprise to us as they had no track record. (Work that out).


There is not one person in PE/DPA/DE&S who has the clout to overrule such a political decision. And this is where the difference between "procurement" and "acquisition" comes in. The former are left in the lurch by the decision, while those in acquisition who know nothing about procurement move on and up, having satisfied their political masters.

[Mad_Mark]

Well, back to the thread title...

Anyone near Woodford/Warton know if the act of wanton vandalism is complete yet? Have they ALL gone now? :(

MadMark!!! :mad:

[JimmyTAP]

PA1 and PA2 are still intact on the apron. There is a constant stream of trucks passing by full of bits of the other aircraft I suspect.

[Party Animal]

Modern Elmo


Please explain why that Ekranoplane thing was supposed to be a good choice.


British Humour old boy....

[manccowboy]

All the other frames have to be de-fueled and part stripped so other than the frames in the scrapping area not much is happening.

[Scuttled]

Is any of this making it into the media in the UK at all, or was it just one or two days of hand wringing and then back to X Factor celebrity bullsh&t? Any more photos in the newspapers etc?

[baffman]

Is any of this making it into the media in the UK at all, or was it just one or two days of hand wringing and then back to X Factor celebrity bullsh&t? Any more photos in the newspapers etc?The photographs of MRA4s being scrapped are no longer prominent (see manccowboy's post), but related news continues. Google (News) is your friend. Try a news search for Nimrod.

[641st]

PA 6 – 13 will be the first to be scrapped…(not necesarily in that order) PA1-5 will be the last..

[RumPunch]

Well at least they are keeping the completed frames till the last in case a museum wants one. I hope one is kept like TSR2 as a lasting memory for everyone to go , ahhh look what the conservatives finished

[TEEEJ]

Mad Mark,

See following post by 'fat_controller'

FighterControl &bull; Home to the Military Aviation Enthusiast &bull; View topic - News regarding Nimrods (http://www.fightercontrol.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?f=71&t=25899)

As of 1500 today, the scrapping area was cleared of all debris from the first four frames.

By 1600, both PA06 and PA10 had been wheeled into the area, and the screens closed up again.
PA06 was stripped of engines flaps and tail before towing in, PA10 was reasonably complete, although the tail modifications were only part finished and the engines had been removed.

RIP the next two.

[TEEEJ]

Rum Punch,

They were offered up to museums as far back as 22 November. See post by 'NAM updater'

FighterControl &bull; Home to the Military Aviation Enthusiast &bull; View topic - Nimrod Scrapping..BBC News (http://www.fightercontrol.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?f=287&t=26264)

Just to be clear on 22nd November 2010 a “Not Protectively Marked” document entitled “Nimrod MRA4 Aircraft – Preservation Opportunities” was circulated to 17 UK locations.

[Mad_Mark]

Thank Teeej, et al :(

MadMark!!! :mad:

[RumPunch]

Cheers Teej , I heard a rumour one place (unsure where) was interested in taking one but heard nothing on here. At the base up North they have what appears to have pulled out a jet between the hangars I will find out if its going for the chop soon too. So much history gone I keep trying to convince myself its only a lump of metal :(

[TEEEJ]

No problem, Mad Mark & RumPunch.

TJ

[NURSE]

How many officers involved at the top end of procurement/descision making are comming from the Fleets concerned or are Fast Jet pilots doing a desk tour?

Seams there are alo of elementry things being missed from programs like Nimrod,FSTA,Helecopter procurement etc

[XV490]

Woodford, 1968 (http://www.britishpathe.com/record.php?id=45434). "It's enough to make you weep."

[manccowboy]

Scrapped frames so far.

Scrapped 26 January 2011
PA-09
PA-13
2 bare fuses

Scrapped 3 February 2011
PA-06
PA-10

Scrapped 10 February 2011
PA-08
PA-07

A pictorial can be found here (http://www.edendale.co.uk/ANW/WFD.801.1.html) :sad:

Most of the tooling and jigs have gone now, along with parts in progress.

[RumPunch]

Quite ironic they are chopping up the last few MR2s as we speak. I just have the sinking feeling the Government wanted rid of anything Nimrod ASAP, it wants to close the story as soon as possible.

I would not mind taking one of them large crane things to the Houses of Parliment, might be wrong but I sure would feel so much better.

[Tappers Dad]

RumPunch
I just have the sinking feeling the Government wanted rid of anything Nimrod ASAP, it wants to close the story as soon as possible.

The story is not over yet :=

[Duncan D'Sorderlee]

TD,

Unfortunately, for some of us in the far north, the story is over!

Duncs:ok:

[Bannock]

Christina Schmid sums it up perfectly.

"I feel betrayed - but I should have learned by now that the MoD is nothing more than an institution which covers its back and does what's easiest."

Bomb hero widow claims MoD cover-up - Yahoo! News UK (http://uk.news.yahoo.com/21/20110212/tuk-bomb-hero-widow-claims-mod-cover-up-6323e80.html)

[Jayand]

Keep digging TD and good luck.:ok:

[manccowboy]

PA1 and PA2 are still intact on the apron. There is a constant stream of trucks passing by full of bits of the other aircraft I suspect.

PA-01 has been de-fueled and towed indoors to be stripped of engines etc.
PA-04 is being scrapped at Wharton.

There are now only 5 MRA4's left

[peter272]

Nice idea

But the politicos won't let that happen. They wouldn't want the evidence left around of a cr*p decision.

They'll wait a bit longer and then say it was too late to do anything

[manccowboy]

I forgot to add PA-02 has been de-fueled and towed indoors to be stripped of engines etc.

[Roland Pulfrew]

Mancowboy

May I suggest that as Oldsarboy states his location as Forres, that he might not be referring to an MRA4 ;)

[CT HOMER]

Ex Nimrod Groundcrew of over 20 years experience on type also available if required, no longer required by RAF apparently so employment terminated. Also undertaken MR4 courses but never used on type.

[RTC]

As a magazine Private Eye can be relied upon to expose hypocracy within so called squeeky clean organisations or individuals. The RAF would seem to be no different. From the Feb 17th edition, below a cartoon of a son telling his father that his broken model of a Nimrod is actually finished, is the following article:

REVOLVING DOORS: The £200m compensation paid to BAE Systems for scrapping the Nimrod MRA4 programme should cover the salary of its latest Ministry of Defence recruit for a few years. Air Chief Marshall Sir Glen Torpy, who has been made "senior advisor" to BAE, was in charge of the Air Force from April 2006(shortly before the latest "unaffordable" Nimrod contract was signed), until July 2009. His parting shot, in June 2009, was to endorse the controversial Eurofighter Typhoon, which came through the recent Strategic Defence Review at the expense of the Harrier.
"There is no other aircraft better than the Typhoon except for a US F22 Raptor, and an F22 is significantly more expensive" he drooled. "Typhoon is truly multi-role - it is a world-class aeroplane. It is absolute rubbish to call it a Cold War relic and that just demonstrates that people do not understand what the aircraft does."
The holder of the multi-billion-pound contract to make the Typhoon? BAE Systems.
:ugh:

[F3sRBest]

Pity Private Eye can't spell Marshal ;)

....or that people don't realise how little influence CAS has over things like contracts!

[XV277]

REVOLVING DOORS: The £200m compensation paid to BAE Systems for scrapping the Nimrod MRA4 programme should cover the salary of its latest Ministry of Defence recruit for a few years. Air Chief Marshall Sir Glen Torpy, who has been made "senior advisor" to BAE, was in charge of the Air Force from April 2006(shortly before the latest "unaffordable" Nimrod contract was signed), until July 2009. His parting shot, in June 2009, was to endorse the controversial Eurofighter Typhoon, which came through the recent Strategic Defence Review at the expense of the Harrier.
"There is no other aircraft better than the Typhoon except for a US F22 Raptor, and an F22 is significantly more expensive" he drooled. "Typhoon is truly multi-role - it is a world-class aeroplane. It is absolute rubbish to call it a Cold War relic and that just demonstrates that people do not understand what the aircraft does."
The holder of the multi-billion-pound contract to make the Typhoon? BAE Systems.
[FONT=Arial]:ugh:


Is that another one of "Squarebasher"s informed pieces about air matters?

I have long suspected he is in fact:

Richard A. E. North - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_A._E._North)

[manccowboy]

There's also a rumour going round that Vulcan XM603 is going to be scrapped when the Nimrods are done, BAE is expected to vacate Woodford by September this year.

AVIATION NORTH-WEST - WOODFORD AERODROME - VULCAN XM603 (http://www.edendale.co.uk/ANW/WFD.XM603.1.html)

[vulcanxl426]

Well i have some information on this and all i can say is yes sadly she
is gonna be scrapped by another company and hopefully the bits are going to be put to good use on another airframe and no not 558 . Like i said thats all i can say at this very early stage. And yes bae do want shot of her very sadly . A meeting date is being set up asap to disscuss it

If i get anymore informtion then i will tell more.

[Doptrack]

PA4 was disposed of at Warton today

No flowers

[manccowboy]

PA4 was disposed of at Warton today

That leaves 3 left at Woodford, come weekend they will be gone.

RIP Nimrod :\

[stbd beam]

leaves a hole in my heart boys ....

[Tallsar]

And an effing big hole in the Nation's defences, credibilty, prestige and a whole lot of the UK's best sort of world class people with job seeker's allowance (if they're qualify!!)

Shame on this poor excuse for a patriotic government that knows how to prioritise (NOT)!!:ugh::{:ooh::mad:

[BEagle]

I see that the Torygraph reported today that Iranian warships were due to pass through the Suez Canal into the Mediterranean....Iran warships 'sailing into Mediterranean' - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iran/8328966/Iran-warships-sailing-into-Mediterranean.html)

No doubt they'd tell us if they planned to sail anywhere near Cyprus or Gibraltar.

No long range maritime patrol to keep an eye on them any more. Well done, Cameron - those whining, sandaholic pongos and their 'boots on the ground' $hite really led you up the garden path.

[Roadster280]

Well done, Cameron - those whining, sandaholic pongos and their 'boots on the ground' $hite really led you up the garden path.

Oh the irony! If you are laying the blame for the loss of MPA at the door of the Army, you are whining up the wrong tree.

Surely loss of the Nimrod is down to Air elements of the MOD, whether RAF or those in Abbey Wood, together with BAES. Between them, for over a decade, they couldn't get their $hit together. That would be a sad enough state of affairs, but to have squandered $4bn in the process is downright criminal. If not intentional, then criminally negligent.

How extraordinary to blame the loss of an RAF capability that has been royally screwed up by those involved on the Army. Been drinking?

[getsometimein]

Oh the irony! If you are laying the blame for the loss of MPA at the door of the Army, you are whining up the wrong tree.

Surely loss of the Nimrod is down to Air elements of the MOD, whether RAF or those in Abbey Wood, together with BAES. Between them, for over a decade, they couldn't get their $hit together. That would be a sad enough state of affairs, but to have squandered $4bn in the process is downright criminal. If not intentional, then criminally negligent.

How extraordinary to blame the loss of an RAF capability that has been royally screwed up by those involved on the Army. Been drinking?
The Nimrod force has never provided output to the RAF.

Its fate would only have been saved if the high brass from the Army and Navy had fought for it. CAS didn't care about the loss of the capability because it doesn't effect him at all!

[Roadster280]

Ergo loss of the Nimrod was at the hands of the RAF!

Surely the RN were the biggest customer of Nimrod. Up to them to fight for MPA. I would understand chagrin towards the Army if say the SH fleet was decimated, but it wasn't.

At the end of the day, the biggest criminal is Gordon Brown and his decade of financial and political stupidity. Cameron is merely picking up the pieces, which are all covered in $hit.

[GrahamO]

Sorry Roadster, but the biggest criminal(s) are those who have allowed through requirement creep and continual changes to the operational requirement that have ultimately caused the endless delays and increased costs.

If all those involved had finished the job on time, it would have been in service before Gordon Brown ad any authority (well, almost).

I am no fan of GB and think he can be blamed for a huge number of problems, but Nimrod blame lies squarely in another camp.

[Roadster280]

My main bone of contention is the assertion that the Nimrod is dead because of the Army. Bull$hit. Look closer to home, and if blame must be spread, look at DPA, the Treasury and the RN before the Army.

[ShortFatOne]

A description of PA04's final moments from a guy I have known and respected, as a man and boy in maritime, for more years than I care to remember..:{

"We assembled to carry out the deed before dawn so that no prying eyes could see what was about to happen and to clear the apron for other company aircraft activities.
The hangar doors were open and the sky was lightening in the east.
The growl of the tug's engine and the tell-tale slight bounce of the towing arm showed that ZJ514 - formerly XV251 in it's MR1 and MR2 guise was starting its final journey.
Last in the air on 9th September 2010, it was now a mere hulk. Its engines and any useful recoverable equipped had been stripped out.
Although bereft of of its radome, MAD boom, SATCOM canoe and wing tip 'rugby balls', there was still enough of it left to be recognisable as an MRA4 Nimrod.
There must have been something of the Nimrod left in it though because as it moved from being pulled to pushed by the tug on its final journey, from somewhere deep within its DNA it managed to chuck a few gallons of fuel onto the pan.
Thanks to that gesture it was definitely a Nimrod then, and at that moment it suddenly got just dusty enough out there to make your eyes water.
It was a beautiful if poignant sunrise."

[tramps]

really annoyed,........you are one of the finest, no the finest %anking orifacer on the blog. Go and stand where you belong, outside the school gate!:E

[hanoijane]

*big sigh*

All this angst over an MPA to defend you from what, precisely?.

C'mon guys. Just WHY would anyone want to threaten the UK? You're currently disintegrating from the inside out. In 20 years time you'll be begging for Asian investment. We'll own you without lifting a finger...

[Red Line Entry]

Why is it that all of hanoijane's posts remind me of that scene in 'Cabaret' where the young boy starts singing in the crowded Biergarten?

All together now...

"Tomorrow belongs, tomorrow belongs, tomorrow belongs to me!"