PDA

View Full Version : We want our Nimrod investment back


manccowboy
14th Feb 2011, 16:15
If everyone signs this Im sure it will piss someone off :p

We want our money back on the Nimrod MRA4 (http://www.nimrodmoneyback.co.uk/)

Evanelpus
14th Feb 2011, 17:47
Like the Government are going to send you a cheque for your share of MRA4.

They will take absolutely no notice of this website petition. Sorry to be blunt but it's time for everyone in Cheshire to wake up and smell the roses and not what you put on them to make them grow.

manccowboy
14th Feb 2011, 17:57
They will take absolutely no notice of this website petition. Sorry to be blunt but it's time for everyone in Cheshire to wake up and smell the roses and not what you put on them to make them grow.

Don't you think I know that? And we have smelt whats in the air, its called a ****wit government decimating everything except the people who put us in this position.

Maybe you should get your sense of smell looked at.

A and C
14th Feb 2011, 19:15
While agreeing that the end of Nimrod project is a disaster for the defence of the UK it is not the present management of the UK that got us into this situation.

They came to power only to find that the UK was broke, skint, pot less or whatever term you want to use because it all comes to trhe same thing, we just don't have the money!

So the UK cant afford to fly the Nimrod so do you realy want to let BAe put the aircraft into store and charge us yet more £M to do this? I think not the UK PLC has been ripped off to often by BAe, cutting up the Nimrods was the only way to show BAe that the party is over and the UK tax payer has had enough of their antics.

The message is now crystal clear to any defence contractor...........next time come up with the goods that work & on time or UK PLC won't pay.

TorqueOfTheDevil
14th Feb 2011, 19:25
to show BAe that the party is over


...but at what price to capability etc does this petty game of "Let's Teach BAe A Lesson" come?

Bismark
14th Feb 2011, 19:25
Forget the petition. I am sure history will show that there was more to the Nimrod decision than just the SDSR. Would it actually have passed the safety case that the MAA was investigating?

The real campaign should be for a replacement MPA - and that probably being a (quite big) UAV as I can see no need for a manned aircraft in that (maritime) role. The manned element is amply provided by the Merlin MPH.

manccowboy
14th Feb 2011, 19:49
The message is now crystal clear to any defense contractor...........next time come up with the goods that work & on time or UK PLC won't pay.The MRA4 project was already payed for so scrapping it has done nothing to BAE's balance sheet.....if anything closing Woodford 18 months early will only add to the balance sheet when its sold off to private developers.

Hangering Nimrod for a couple of years will be far cheaper than replacing it with a P8 or whatever else the MOD will be looking at when times are better.....if the RAF is still around when better times arrive.

Maybe Cameron has already brokered a deal with the French to take over the role the RAF plays......I wouldn't put it past these muppets.

They came to power only to find that the UK was broke, skint, pot less or whatever term you want to use because it all comes to trhe same thing, we just don't have the money!

But we have the money to give away in foreign aid (4.5billion) to the likes of India who clearly with a space and defence budget of 50 billion doesn't need our cash but we still insist on giving it to them :ugh:

Finningley Boy
14th Feb 2011, 19:54
Isn't the answer to the question posed by this thread that its been invested in overseas aid? Then again, its been invested in BAE Systems!? We should tell them we want our money back.:ok:

FB:)

Hoots
14th Feb 2011, 19:55
Bismark,

If a large UAV was the way forward dont you think as the worlds leading creator of UAV's the USA would be building one. The good thing about LRMPA is that it can go world wide. Do you think UK PLC has satelites available world wide with the sort of bandwidth required, or is able to re direct existing ones for a MPA mission, I think not. There have been a vast amount of times when being on scene with MK1 eyeball proves to provide a successful mission. Would a UAV be able to carry 200+ sonobuoys and weapons, yes maybe so but would they all be pre-programmed or would that me another technological cost to develop such a sonobuoy. Who would rectify a sonobuoy hang-up prior ro flying back overland, particularly as Kinloss will be no more. And what would the CAA or any other aviation authority say about such a large technologically advanced UAV flying in amongst the civvies?

Manned MPA are still the way forward, computers are not the be all and end all in MPA missions, the people are. Although sadly the blinkered bufoon Cameron doesnt get to know this as his advisors and Ministers do not know the subject matter as was proven recently.

This demise of a LRMPA will not be mitigated fully by the standard MOD statement, if it reaches 20% of what the MR2 did then it will be a lucky day. So I will gladly listen to any counter arguement over a UAV, that can be deployed worldwide at short notice, as was the MR2.

manccowboy
14th Feb 2011, 20:02
Hoots

Your flogging a dead horse mate, the one's your trying to convince are the very people who believe all the ****e the government and tabloids has been saying about the MRA4 being unsafe. :ugh:

PFMG
14th Feb 2011, 20:20
The real campaign should be for a replacement MPA - and that probably being a (quite big) UAV as I can see no need for a manned aircraft in that (maritime) role. The manned element is amply provided by the Merlin MPH.


I'll have a pint of whatever you're drinking.

Wensleydale
14th Feb 2011, 20:27
Your flogging a dead horse mate, the one's your trying to convince are the very people who believe all the ****e the government and tabloids has been saying about the MRA4 being unsafe.


Sadly, this comes from lessons identified folowing the Nimrod AEW3 fiasco. Sadly, the Government of the day listened to GEC-Marconni and continued to plough money into a project that had little chance of success. Even the company noticeboards to staff did not tell the truth.

The only outcome comes from modern project management techniques. If the project comes out of tolerence then you seriously look at cutting losses and binning it. If either available funds or time cannot be met, then the writing is on the wall. It may be harsh, but it stops throwing much good money after bad. If the desired capability can be met elsewhere (and I include from Military Coalition partners) then financial constraints must apply - especially after the last totally imprudent 13 years of financial mismanagement. Bottom line - we cannot afford it because we don't know how much it will cost and we don't know when it will be ready.

Hoots
14th Feb 2011, 22:18
The MRA4 is dead, all I am referring to is the arguement regarding a UAV replacing a manned aircraft. Some people automatically think a UAV can do everything without thinking about the cost of satelites etc to enable global reach, plus the fact that there is very little black and white about MPA Ops and a whole lot of grey at times so you need the brain power on the spot for that one. Also consider IR cameras etc and the poor performance during a moist North Atlantic crappy night compared with a dry desert climate, those of you who have been there will know what I mean. So although we heard the term RMPA back in 95-96, that is what we need now, with people on board who make the difference using a multi-sensor suite and the MK1 eyeball. All we need is a govenrment with some cash and a willingness to admit they were wrong. Easier said than done with this lot I'm afraid.

MrBernoulli
14th Feb 2011, 22:34
You can all have my share of the Comet! :rolleyes:

eharding
14th Feb 2011, 22:35
I'll have a pint of whatever you're drinking.

I wouldn't if I were you - whatever he's drinking, a pint of it would send you blind, incontinent and probably flammable. Unless you want to run your car on it, that is.

For the OP, the good news is that Gordon bought the item in question on a credit card, and under the distance selling regulations you can claim against the credit card guarantor.

For the OP, and the rest of us, the bad news is that the credit card was underwritten by you, me and everyone else who pays UK tax....and Gordon really did go mad with the credit card.

ShortFatOne
15th Feb 2011, 10:36
With a little digging into company accounts (freely available under UK law), it is fairly easy to discover that whatever profit BAES had hoped to make from the MRA4 build was swallowed up by the £300Mil + write-down they made against the program in 2000.

About that time, MoD contracts were being re-written such that the Cost plus model was replaced (to prevent unforeseen/unfunded cost overruns). Since then, UK defence contractors have been pegged (by HMTreasury) at target cost type contracts with max profit of around 8% on UK defence contracts. That 8% profit on MRA4 was wiped out in 2000.

I dread to think what it must be like at Woodford, watching perfectly good aircraft being destroyed for no apparent reason other than its name. It was bad enough up here at kinloss watching XV241 being slaughtered last week.

Sad times for all of us, particularly when you have grown up in the service and can see what a bleak future faces everyone.

F3sRBest
15th Feb 2011, 10:53
SFO,

At last someone with some realism on what BAES actually got out of Nimrod!!!

The Old Fat One
15th Feb 2011, 11:15
Guys and Girls,

There are two reasons why you all need to let it go and move on.

1. It is over.

(it = coastal, LRMP, Nimrod and the associated layered defence of our SLOC)

2. Every thread started on Nimrod's/MPA's/P8's/whatever incites at least one megatrollgeek to vomit b****cks about UAV's as LRMP aircraft. This is not good for my blood pressure and I have enough trouble with that as it is.

manccowboy
15th Feb 2011, 11:22
I dread to think what it must be like at Woodford, watching perfectly good aircraft being destroyed for no apparent reason other than its name.

Soul destroying actually :sad: but anger has replaced that, most of the local people who I have spoke to who live around Woodford are also very angry at the waste.

Squirrel 41
15th Feb 2011, 16:12
Manccowboy

Quote:
I dread to think what it must be like at Woodford, watching perfectly good aircraft being destroyed for no apparent reason other than its name.
Soul destroying actually but anger has replaced that, most of the local people who I have spoke to who live around Woodford are also very angry at the waste.

I'm sure it is. But if the company had come close to delivering on time and to budget, then it would have been a very different story.

S41

TorqueOfTheDevil
15th Feb 2011, 16:38
if the company had come close to delivering on time and to budget, then it would have been a very different story.


Very true. But, despite the delays and budget increases, the company did come close to delivering these aircraft. This, to me, is why seeing them destroyed and the capability lost is such a big blow - far more so than, say, cancelling our part in some future pie-in-the-sky programme like JSF/JCA which is still years from service and is essentially an abstract concept.

Jayand
15th Feb 2011, 16:54
"But we have the money to give away in foreign aid (4.5billion) to the likes of India who clearly with a space and defence budget of 50 billion doesn't need our cash but we still insist on giving it to them"

You can argue the rights and wrongs of this one another time but do you honestly believe that if we didn't sent that money we would somehow use it on MPA instead? joe public cares not a jot about some pesky submarines, he wants good education for his kids, good health care and low taxes.

Squirrel 41
15th Feb 2011, 17:13
TOTD wrote:

Very true. But, despite the delays and budget increases, the company did come close to delivering these aircraft. This, to me, is why seeing them destroyed and the capability lost is such a big blow - far more so than, say, cancelling our part in some future pie-in-the-sky programme like JSF/JCA which is still years from service and is essentially an abstract concept.

Indeed, I don't disagree; it will be expensive to reopen Coastal with P-8s in 2020, and an entire generation will be lost, needlessly. My point is merely to Manccowboy that he - if I understand him correctly - is a BAES apologist insisting on blaming the government. The contractor screwed up mightily and was never seriously held to account - the £300m writedown SFO mentioned earlier should have been 8-10 times that amount.

S41

Grimweasel
15th Feb 2011, 17:15
Sunk cost.... get over it. The costs are written off and there is no way of getting them back. HMG has made the decision and has no doubt 'saved' another £6Bn in thru life and project completion costs. Sad, but an accounting fact now; it ain't coming back!

GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU
15th Feb 2011, 19:38
most of the local people who I have spoke to who live around Woodford are also very angry at the waste.

I suspect that the average resident of Woodford, Poynton, and Adlington who maybe you didn't speak to couldn't give a sod, so long as the aerodrome closes and their property price edges up.

A badly briefed, hard of understanding Government has taken a through life operating saving and opened up the option for a bonus Station closure.

You are also up against;

You can all have my share of the Comet! :rolleyes:

RumPunch
15th Feb 2011, 19:47
Did the heads of BAE sell the cancellation to the Government in order to save something else. BAE knew there was not much money in supporting MRA4 and offered it up to save possible JSF/Carrier order perhaps. The Carrier pre SDSR was favourite to get the cancellation, The MRA4 nobody really expected it not even anyone in the MOD.

Cynical , perhaps!! Whatever, its happened now but one day it will come out through Wiki and we will all know .

F3sRBest
15th Feb 2011, 21:09
....................with the Conspiracy theories.......PLEASE!!!!!

Jayand
16th Feb 2011, 09:32
Rumpunch I predicted it, not gloating but I did think it was vulnerable and so it proved.

MrPVRd
16th Feb 2011, 09:37
Why not drag BAE Systems in front of a Parliamentary committee, set up an inquiry to get to the bottom of these inadequacies (including airworthiness) and pass specific legislation to levy a hefty fine?

Ahh, the land of dreams....where bankers pay their share as well.....and taxpayers get a fair deal!

davejb
16th Feb 2011, 17:42
It doesn't really matter - in a strange way,
because nobody can, or will ever, point a finger at one person/organisation and clearly state 'this is the git who caused it to happen'. Without a culprit you can't, really, do anything about fixing it.

BWoS, arguably, were in the wrong because of delays, snags still not sorted, reducing number of airframes for increased cost, ancient working practises (I expect, one day, to find the control wheel was hand carved from Tibetan Mahogany with deep sea free range pearl inlay), and so on.

The RAF, on the other hand, had a meeting every second Tuesday, at which the committee members (all 2* and up) read well preserved copies of 'The Eagle' from the 1950's-60's, paying extra attention to the cutaway drawings and the future predictions, before redrafting the air staff target for the Nim MRA4.

The MAA regularly reviewed the MRA 4 safety case, and found themselves compelled to reject it as 'potentially not safe', becuase it included the word 'Nimrod', in fact the latest such rejection counted up to 378 such occurrences and accused the IPT/BWoS of 'reckless Nimrodism of the worst kind'.

The CS overseers were appalled (a quotation directly attributed to a specific episode of Yes Minister), as there was a brief 'window of inopportunity' during which it was conceivable that the senior staff would have to buy their own lunch.

The PM and his 'homies' simply saw the cost and blanched... unfortunately when you don't apply the screening process (IQ etc) to politicians that the RAF applies to picking its aircrew, tradesmen, and - let's try not to say this offensively - dog handlers, then what do you expect by way of government other than weasely opportunists?

There were sundry objections from gun runners, drug cartels, and the current head of what was once called Northfleet who strenuously objected to unwarranted oversight of perfectly legitimate submarine evolutions west of Faslane, and Tommy Sheridan - whose peace campaign struck a particular note with a group calling themselves 'the old lags of D wing'.

To make up for what has been seen as "a bit of a downer", according to a Downing St analyst, it is strongly rumoured that Mr Cameron is going to announce the opening of a new Spitfire OCU in the summer, as everyone really wants to fly one of them anyway.

Dave

Apologies to dog handlers, but Jack was a good laugh and I meant it with my tongue firmly in my cheek.

TheMightyHunter
16th Feb 2011, 17:55
It should have been renamed. We joked, and actually speculated on good names for a replacement OVER A YEAR AGO (sorry for shouting but its true.) However, it was all laughed off as morale and high-jinks! Would it have mattered? Who cares now! But what if?

Duncan D'Sorderlee
16th Feb 2011, 18:36
A member of this forum - not me, I hasten to add - informed CAS, when he was discussing a proposal to call the MRA4 'Helios', that 'if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck; it's probably a duck.' CAS was speechless!

Duncs:ok:

tucumseh
16th Feb 2011, 19:20
nobody can, or will ever, point a finger at one person/organisation and clearly state 'this is the git who caused it to happen'.


One must always take a wider view with MoD as they always try to compartmentalise problems.

In this instance, try reading the PAC report into Chinook Mk3. It concludes that no individual or group can be blamed, but does say the main blame lies with "lack of management oversight".

List that "management".

Then do the same for Nimrod.

Compare.

Two names stand out in both. One (to my personal knowledge) was told in infinite detail what would happen on both programmes. Also, both were told of serious airworthiness shortcomings; both ruling in writing that aircraft need not be functionally safe when delivered to the Service. In February 1998.

May I suggest they should be first on any witness list at an inquiry.

GrahamO
16th Feb 2011, 22:30
@davejb - would you accept that the excellent crew selection criteria to which you referred earlier, may produce superb pilots, of high moral integrity and skill but fails to select the gene which encourages the ability to stick to time and budget?

I have the highest regard for every member of the Armed Forces I have ever met, but sadly I do not recognise their skills in sticking to a budget and leaving the goalposts where they stand.

And that is the root cause of the whole sorry mess - in many ways there are some sad parallels with the BA cabin crew thread whose volume and hostility speaks volumes.

In that circumstance, poor BA management have allowed the cabin crew to achieve the belief that they run the airline and determine priorities, budgets and paying customers are there to protect their employment terms even as the whole world changes around them, and the airline becomes hugely inefficient and full of obsolete working practices. After a decade of living in an unreal world, a new CEO in Willy Walsh arrives, plays hardball and a decade of necessary change introduced in a very short period of time. The paying public greet this largely with a cheer, and a "about time too" attitude. The union loses all support from the public.

In this circumstance, poor MOD management have allowed the armed forces to achieve the belief that their needs determine government priorities, budgets and the exchequer are there to protect the size and scope of the armed forces even as the whole world changes around them, and the central MOD function becomes hugely inefficient and full of obsolete working practices. After a decade of living in an unreal world, a new Prime Minister in David Cameron arrives, plays hardball and a decade of necessary fiscal proberty is introduced in a very short period of time. The paying public greet this largely with a "shock and awe at the waste", and a "about time too" attitude.

I do not think for one minute that the public will lose faith in the armed forces, but let's not push it shall we ?

tramps
16th Feb 2011, 22:49
feckin persistent, I'll give you that:}

RumPunch
16th Feb 2011, 22:54
cnut springs to mind tramps , but let thee have there fun

pitotheat
17th Feb 2011, 09:22
Strewth guys and gals
How many threads do we have to have knocking about the pros and cons of the Mighty Hunter's demise? It has gone, ceased to be and never to be seen again. It may or may not be replaced by a new platform when the country can afford to support this role again but for now stop your bleating and move on.

davejb
17th Feb 2011, 16:18
Actually Graham,
my post was intended to suggest that the problem originates in a number of factors, and probably cannot be laid at a single door, not that I imagine the powers that be would welcome having the guilty parties identified.

However,

which encourages the ability to stick to time and budget?



is one bit I'd have to disagree with being laid at the door of the uniformed contingent, I'd say sticking to time and budget was an issue that BWoS and MoD should be more accountable for.

I'd also tend to suggest that a major factor in MoD going over budget has probably been the way our forces have been committed repeatedly to act in overseas theatres - Gulf 1 and 2, Bosnia, Afghanistan being the headliners but not the only expensive events since 1990. We've been trying to run the forces on peacetime budgets while our political masters have been most reluctant to ensure they have peacetime roles to fulfill.

Having said that about MoD, I have to admit that the cynic in me believes the budget would have been exceeded year in year out had the forces done nothing more strenuous than attend the annual Scout Jamboree during that same period of time....

Dave

Mad_Mark
17th Feb 2011, 17:20
Strewth guys and gals
How many threads do we have to have knocking about the pros and cons of the Mighty Hunter's demise? It has gone, ceased to be and never to be seen again. It may or may not be replaced by a new platform when the country can afford to support this role again but for now stop your bleating and move on.
Simple....

If these threads are bothering you then don't f**king read them :rolleyes:

Jayand
17th Feb 2011, 17:58
I think point is that just like a nimrod in the Gulf we are going round and round in big circles!!!!

Mad_Mark
17th Feb 2011, 18:18
And if people want to go round and round in circles then just let them and don't read the posts - no one forces anyone to read the Nimrod threads :ugh:

MadMark!!! :mad:

manccowboy
17th Feb 2011, 21:50
pitotheat
Strewth guys and gals
How many threads do we have to have knocking about the pros and cons of the Mighty Hunter's demise? It has gone, ceased to be and never to be seen again. It may or may not be replaced by a new platform when the country can afford to support this role again but for now stop your bleating and move on.

Why don't you move on, you obviously have no interest in this thread so STFU and use your browser's back button.

pitotheat
17th Feb 2011, 22:52
My point is there have been many threads started about MRA4s cancellation all of which descend quickly into a blame game between BAe, MOD and RAF. I spent 15 years at Kinloss and St Mawgan flying the Nimrod and was sad to see the end of all of the skills built up over many years. I left the RAF over 10 years ago and kept an eye and an ear on what was happening, it came as no surprise to hear the program was cancelled. However, there have been many other programs and roles across all 3 services cancelled yet you do not see on PPRuNe the pointless whinging seen from those involved. Why do those involved with the Nimrod think they have been so hard done by in comparison? What do you think you sound like to those from the RAF and other services who have suffered similar cuts and after venting their disappointments and frustrations start looking ahead? As I have said before get over it, stop your bleating and start planning a future not on an MPA.

Scuttled
18th Feb 2011, 03:54
Kind of hear your point pitothead, but there is a difference between choosing one 'fighter' over another, or a type of training aircraft over another, and destroying an entire capability honed over decades (to the envy of most nations) which cannot replaced for many years.

In the former you retrain onto a new platform and crack on. Lovely. Latter, nope. Nothing doing. Especially the case for non pilots.

Most Nimrod mates won't get the retraining option because the excellence they have spent their whole intellect and adult professional life chasing is now worth nothing.

Their RAF future has disappeared along with a hugely under valued capability.

If you don't think they're entitled to a bit of a 'chat' about that, well okay.

Don't read, don't comment, I refer you to Mad_Mark.

The Old Fat One
18th Feb 2011, 07:38
PH

You start off by making a good point - although it has already been made several times.

But then, like a lot of others (including I would suggest those responsible for the security of the UK) you kinda miss the point.

Long Range Maritime Patrol has been the responsibility of the RAF since the the 1930s and the Battle of the Atlantic. In many other nations (such as the USA) the responsibility has resided with their Navy. That capability has been removed...forever. Amongst developed Island nations across the planet, we alone are going in this direction.

That probably merits a discussion, as does the massive waste of taxpayers money (for the second time on this airframe). On a human note, many of those whose dreams have been trashed probably deserve to be cut a little slack as well.

However, you are correct to point out that there are way too many threads on the same subject and great deal of pointless piffle in amongst some of the more informed views.

cazatou
18th Feb 2011, 08:03
TOFO

"Long Range Maritime Patrol has been the responsibility of the RAF since the 1930's and the Battle of the Atlantic".

In 1939/40 the Avro Anson equipped the following Squadrons of Coastal Command.

48,206,217,220,221,224,233,269,275,276,278,279,280,281,282,3 20,321,,500,
502,608 and 612. That aircraft had a maximum range of 790 miles.

The Short Sunderland equipped only 5 Sqns.

WillDAQ
18th Feb 2011, 09:08
Kind of hear your point pitothead, but there is a difference between choosing one 'fighter' over another, or a type of training aircraft over another, and destroying an entire capability honed over decades (to the envy of most nations) which cannot replaced for many years.

That's the point. A stand alone capability costs far more in terms of support infrastructure per unit than a particular aircraft type.

We're loosing 9 aircraft and saving a huge pile of cash which you wouldn't be able to save by loosing 9 fighters.

We'll pick the capability up again at some point (no doubt after some unfortunate event) but for now it's all about cash in the bank.

GrahamO
18th Feb 2011, 09:18
Kind of hear your point pitothead, but there is a difference between choosing one 'fighter' over another, or a type of training aircraft over another, and destroying an entire capability honed over decades (to the envy of most nations) which cannot replaced for many years. Indeed, but no doubt the same argument has been used when anything is taken out of service, but the difference this time is that there is a finite pot of money and the open ended bucket of public money no longer exists.

If MRA4 were allowed to continue, and lets be generous and say its only £500M to finish it (a flying pig just went past the office window) , and say 'only' £200M per annum to run them, what will the RAF give up in short term of savings of £500M and ongoing savings of operational costs of £200M per annum?

And more importantly, would that choice result in no bleating about the loss of whatever is chosen to be lost to keep MRA4 flying.

Its all about the money ......... and its finite.

getsometimein
18th Feb 2011, 09:20
Nimrod was never a stand-alone capability... The number of roles fulfilled by it was massive and it is now taking at least a half dozen (and more) assets to cover what a single Nimrod stood on standby for 24/7/365/~40 years...

pitotheat
18th Feb 2011, 09:48
We seem to be going around in circles again. I take the point that for the AEOps there will be limited options for them to remain flying. For the good ones who have worked hard there will be opportunities elsewhere in the service in other trades. For those who sat back and drifted along well this is where reality will hit. There is no money left to operate a fleet of 9 ac that is 10 years late and countless millions over budget and there is no money to keep SNCO aircrew in jobs other trades can do far cheaper. As an ex service man that is a very harsh thing to write but as a tax payer and someone who has been wearing a suit for the last 10+ years that is the reality. So for the good eggs life will probably have to change for the rest it definitely will change.

The Old Fat One
18th Feb 2011, 14:18
For those who sat back and drifted along well this is where reality will hit


I was an AE Ldr on a Maritime Sqn for three years and this description would fit precisely one AEOp under my command. Halfway through his tour I put a rocket so far up his jacksey he did not sit down again for 18 months.

I leave you with a quote from the Armed Forces Pay Banding Team 2001; the year the AEOp cadre was upbanded in all ranks, against the predictions of just about the entire RAF.

The AEOp cadre is amongst the most professional and dedicated trades and aircrew branches anywhere in the military forces of the UK.

And yes you did yank my chain and yes I am, and always will, proud to be a "plastic".

Jayand
18th Feb 2011, 14:44
The AEOp cadre is amongst the most professional and dedicated trades and aircrew branches anywhere in the military forces of the UK.

That may well be true, but unfortunately they are so specialised that they are of little use to anyone else on any other platforms, Pilots retrain, navs retrain Wsops?

Jayand
18th Feb 2011, 14:46
Don't even ask about AEO'S:confused:

Jayand
18th Feb 2011, 15:41
Kreuger flap do tell the audience how many of the current Wsops are going to get cross trained onto the other fleets with all their spaces?

Kreuger flap
18th Feb 2011, 15:56
That is a totally different issue due to numbers of slots available and not what you said.

davejb
18th Feb 2011, 16:21
We'll pick the capability up again at some point (no doubt after some unfortunate event) but for now it's all about cash in the bank.

...and that is THE point that a great many critics are missing - NO YOU BLOODY WELL WON'T! By the time the RAF gets back into the game (if they ever do), as everyone will have left who knew how to do it, then they'll have to start from scratch again.

Once the capability has been killed off, it will take a decade before the sensor operators will begin to approach the level of the average maritime crew (in a number of fields, not just ASW)....that's a decade after they've exited the OCUs, where they'll spend 6 months on a course best described as 'the blind leading the partially sighted'.

Personally I think this is a mistake, but accept that I might be wrong - but please stop basing 'logical' arguments on the complete fallacy that all you need to regain a capability is the intent to do so.

As for whether we need all thes Nimrod threads - good lord no! By this stage, let's face it, the Nimrod is dead - you couldn't field a squadron now if you wanted to - so the only argument is whether you try to sustain some 'seedcorn' of "corporate knowledge" or not, and if so how many/what type? I suspect the 'seedcorn' idea will not take into account the degradation of skills over time that has already set in, and will focus on too few individuals... a bit like just saving the GSU, and I can't be the only person who remembers the day they taxied past and had to shut down as they'd left the APU running....

Caz - 5 squadrons, (adopts Monty Python* 'Yorkshiremen sketch' voice...."Luxury!")

Dave

(*It was actually on "(at last it's) The 1948 Light Show" originally - shock horror, Monty P nicked one of their most famous sketches! Admittedly most of the 1948 lot went on to form Python...)

QTRZulu
18th Feb 2011, 20:05
they are so specialised that they are of little use to anyone else

As ever inspired (or should that be insipid) insight:=

If these guys are so specialised why are there several who have gone to other fleets and pretty much reached the top on those fleets as well!

If you don't believe me for an example look at Odiham where I know for a fact that an ex Kipper fleet WSOp is now a crewman leader on one of the Chinny Sqns.

Unbelievably, the one fact you do have correct is that there are going to be few if any cross over slots, but this has nothing to do with the individuals, its a Group decision: a terrible one at that that will drive out more good guys than the system can recruit in the next 10 years:confused:

Jayand
19th Feb 2011, 18:10
They are very specialised and as such have no place doing their primary role on any other fleet! yes they can be retrained to do a crewman job on helos or LM on AT and do very well at it too, however when a pilot changes fleets he is still flying a plane, when a Nav moves fleets he is still navigating, a wetman does not hunt many subs in a bloomin chinook!
People are upset that they are not getting to cross over to SH when they have spent 15 years on the kipper fleet, manning has decided that they want fresh blood primarily for their intake on courses for next few years it is tough but you can see why.

minigundiplomat
19th Feb 2011, 18:17
Some of the AEOps that have crossed over in the past have been very good - the example QTR quoted being prime. But he is the exception to the rule.

Equally, some have been the worst helicopter operators I have ever come across. It's not their fault per se, they just do not have the required aptitude. It isnt all firing miniguns and sitting on the ramp.

This is not an anti-AEOp dig, I'd be pretty crap at finding submarines, but being NCA does not make you great at everything.

Horses for causes.

Duncan D'Sorderlee
19th Feb 2011, 18:18
Jayand,

Notwithstanding the Chinook v submarine thing - which I agree with you about; although I would not be surprised to read it in some MOD mitigation! - you obviously have little idea what WSOps on Nimrods were trained to do. Wetmen did more than monitor sonobuoys.

Duncs

camelspyyder
19th Feb 2011, 18:27
Agree strongly - some of them could actually make a reasonable cup of tea:)

CS

Biggus
19th Feb 2011, 18:38
DD,

ITYF that Jayand is an ex MR2 WSOp, maybe even a wetman? No doubt he can inform us himself....?

Jayand
19th Feb 2011, 19:33
ITYF???? Sorry don't know that one.

Mad_Mark
19th Feb 2011, 19:35
If that is the case Biggus then he would know that ...
They are very specialised and as such have no place doing their primary role on any other fleet!
...whilst taken literally is correct, his intent is bollox. Taken literally a SAR winch-man or winch-op can not do their 'primary role' on any other fleet or an R1 back-ender can not do their 'primary role' on any other fleet

A wetty can use some of his skills (e.g. EO) on certain other fleets (manned and un-manned) whilst dry-guys can go to the E3 and use exactly the same piece of kit as they used just forward of the galley on the MR2. Dry-guys are also comms, Radar and DAS specialists - all skills that can be utilised on other fleets after a course on manipulating the particular kit on those other fleets.

MadMark!!! :mad:


Edited to add: Jayand, ITYF = "I think you'll find".

Jayand
19th Feb 2011, 19:53
Ok enough gesticulating, my point was in relation to the other crew members on the nimrod, ie pilots, navs and if you like AEO's.
We all know they have been well trained and can offer plenty on other fleets but still they are being placed on the scrap heap and to the back of the line, why? why are manning prioritising DE's over experience from the kipper fleet for any posn's on SH? IMHO it's because they want young, clean slate aircrew with no previous concepts about how things are.
Ones that have not or are not so specialist trained already.
It's only my opinion and this is after all a forum for expressing just such things.

davejb
19th Feb 2011, 21:31
AEOps include people with degrees in technical and scientific subjects, so whilst the minimum qual was 3 O levels (English, Maths and Physics, basically) the vast majority were better qualified - some very much better qualified. Many had in fact gone for Pilot/Nav, which required 5 O levels, the three AEOps needed plus any other two.... so, RA, your jibe is a typical piece of rubbish - the educational requirements for the top job were little tougher than those for siggie, and I doubt anyone (Pilot/Navg or AEOp) stood that great a chanve of getting in on the bare minima.

The quals got you as far as OASC, where you'd then spend 5 days or so going through a battery of tests, leading to perhaps 1 in 10 succeeding in becoming aircrew. As you are obviously too unbalanced to have made it through OASC I wonder WTF you are doing on Pprune at all?

Some siggies doubtless wouldn't retrain too well, but the majority would, I suspect, have the intelligence and drive required to take on a new role. I imagine there's more of a feeling that by populating the RAF with DE's there'll be nobody around feeling grumpy about being shafted, the 'clean slate' allows you to get away with whatever you want as there's nobody around to point out that the terms of service have just nosedived again.

I spent 23 years in the RAF as aircrew, and I have never since (or before) met a group of people better at adapting, 'sucking it up' when needed, or more motivated to get a job done. To suggest these people are somehow not up to it is bollox - a few might not cut the mustard, but it's plain wrong to assume "nobody will hack it and we might as well start out afresh".

Siggie skills have been outlined above - part of the problem is that those spouting the rubbish have no bloody idea what they are talking about, I sincerely hope these numpties have no input into the future of the ex MPA crews.

Dave

minigundiplomat
19th Feb 2011, 22:25
AEOps include people with degrees in technical and scientific subjects


That covers most rearcrew these days, regardless of specialisation.


As you are obviously too unbalanced to have made it through OASC I wonder WTF you are doing on Pprune at all?




Much as it pains me, I suspect RA has been through OASC. His brain was obviously removed at a later date.


you'd then spend 5 days or so going through a battery of tests,


If you spent 5 days on the aptitude tests at OASC, you must be 'special' in every sense of the word.

Jayand
19th Feb 2011, 22:32
There does seem to be a bit of protectionism here about peoples own trades, the AEOP's understandibly like to think that they are the bees knees however they are a little blinkered, especially considering that the vast majority of them have no experience of being another rank other than SNCO and no RAF experience outside of Cranwell and Kinloss.
20 plus years as a SNCO at one station does not make you an experienced airman, there is a great deal more to the RAF that you have not been exposed too.
I don't doubt the professionalism of many of them and the rigorous selection criteria no doubt weeds out the less desireable but don't kid yourselves that the same can't be said of any other trade within the Airforce.

Jayand
19th Feb 2011, 23:08
They are specialists but they at times like to tell you how so experienced they are after long careers, long careers at one station! it is a very narrow minded perspective.
Outside the maritime community nobody really gives a toss about the loss of capability, the only ones bleating are the ones that are being hit, it's hardly objective is it?
I wasn't the one claiming the Wsop's are more professional than any other trade or more academically qualified, examples of both qualities are found in every trade just as idiots are.
And yes your right I was never a good SNCO

Ivan Rogov
20th Feb 2011, 07:35
Thanks for all the concern and expert advice from an AEOp (WSOp Sensor in new money). Don't worry we will be fine :ok:

Unfortunately 5000 blue suits will lose their jobs in the next few years, we will only be a small portion. We all have until at least Sep 2012 (unless you want to jump) to get ahead of the competition outside by gaining qualifications and new skills, whilst still getting paid! I doubt many civilians will get such an opportunity, don't forget SDSR 2015 will be much worse with 3 months wages, etc. Anyone who is still in a poor position to compete for a new job in Sep 2012 will probably only have themselves to blame.

QSP are being retained because it takes a while to train them and cost lots.
Navs (WSO) are being retained because, I'll let them try and justify keeping so many (yes that is a chip on my shoulder :} as they are taking up roles I could do, so I admit I might be blinkered)
WSOp Sensor (Wet/Dry) are able to adapt to new platforms easily, those given the opportunity are doing so. They are doing the same job as WSO on some with no problem at all and cheaper :D. There are not enough seats left and we know what has to happen :{

Anyway what was this thread about again?
Oh yeah, I want a refund too :E

Edit: Looks like I have gone overboard on the use of smileys :rolleyes: :ugh: :p

The Old Fat One
20th Feb 2011, 08:49
Outside the maritime community nobody really gives a toss about the loss of capability, the only ones bleating are the ones that are being hit, it's hardly objective is it?



You might want to run that by the Senior Service old chap.

Jayand
20th Feb 2011, 08:50
IR thats a a fair summation.
Original thread? the silliest question asked on here for some considerable time, nice idea but we won't see a penny!

Jayand
20th Feb 2011, 08:54
OFO are the senior service not the Maritime community? and to be honest I doubt they are losing much sleep.

xerox25
20th Feb 2011, 12:18
I told you a couple of years ago, you wouldn t get any carriers or any F-35 ! :p:p:p

You should buy the Rafale and do a deal with the French Gvt, to build 2 aircraft carriers, one for the RN and one for la Royale.

It s your unique chance to save your Navy !

davejb
20th Feb 2011, 12:52
AEOps include people with degrees in technical and scientific subjects That covers most rearcrew these days, regardless of specialisation

Yes MGD - I was responding to the dig at WSOps only needing 3 O levels, suggesting that their academic quals weren't that impressive (a post I cannot now see...hmmm...)

In my day (swings lamp) OASC did last something like 5 days - you turned up Saturday, spent all day on IQ tests, next day was medicals and interviews, then a day or two running around a gym playing with oil drums and budgie bars, and a final morning spent woeking on an individual planning task that was designed to have very few (if any) correct answers. Excuse me if my timing is a little off, but that's how I remember it going in July 1977!

Jayand - And yes your right I was never a good SNCO
Is this in reply to my post? If so I was referring to Really Annoyed, not you.

As for AEOps (WSOps) not being exposed to the greater RAF, that's true for many, however quite a number of siggies did ground tours that took them all over the place, including on exchange with the RN, so it's not a universal truth. I would query whether ANY significant proportion of servicemen gain any great degree of knowledge of areas and roles outside their area of expertise.

I wouldn't argue for siggies to take slots from those trained in a particular role, but I would argue against making people redundant who are capable of being re-roled whilst at he same time recruiting D.E.s ....the same goes for any trade currently looking at cuts, out here in civvy street any employer who bins existing staff to take on new staff at lower rates of pay tends to find themselves in hot water.

Dave

cazatou
20th Feb 2011, 13:25
davejb

I forgot to mention that there was also a Sqn (No 98) of Fairy Battles based in Iceland.

minigundiplomat
20th Feb 2011, 14:50
I wouldn't argue for siggies to take slots from those trained in a particular role, but I would argue against making people redundant who are capable of being re-roled whilst at he same time recruiting D.E.s ....the same goes for any trade currently looking at cuts, out here in civvy street any employer who bins existing staff to take on new staff at lower rates of pay tends to find themselves in hot water.



I wouldn't disagree mate. However, it is my experience that for every very capable AEOp that crosses over to SH, there is often someone completely unsuited to the task.
Unfortunately, identifying those unsuitable often takes time and uses up valuable training time and slots on courses that we just don't have. If anything, the problem for AEOp's is the modern selection and training system which is actually very good. With a DE, 99% of the time we get a uniform product capable of the task. The same cannot be said of retreads from other fleets.
As I have said before, I would be a crap wet/dry man so dont take this personally.

Ivan Rogov
20th Feb 2011, 15:46
I don't take it personally as I'm not interested in going SH, but you better tell 22Gp to stop the WSOp Sensor guys (AEOps) it has sent to SH from Cranwell recently. Could it be that you are judging re-treads more critically than DEs on your fleet or is one bad egg giving everyone a bad name?

On the Kipper fleet we were always receptive to guys joining from other fleets, there weren't many but those that came over always had useful knowlwdge and a fresh perspective coming from another type.

Edit: PM from MGD answered question so removed it and accept his point :ok:

minigundiplomat
20th Feb 2011, 15:56
Ivan,

you have a PM.

alfred_the_great
20th Feb 2011, 16:03
OFO - the loss of MRA4 has deprived the RN of a valuable asset in the ASW and ASuW arena. Having visited the squadrons immediately after SDSR was announced, I have extended my frustration to them, and am disappointed I won't be able to work with them.

Roll on the MRA8....

davejb
20th Feb 2011, 20:11
MGD,
As I have said before, I would be a crap wet/dry man so dont take this personally.

I don't take it personally - I've not been offended by your posts, neither do I think you are talking complete bs, but I do suspect that you've encountered somebody who's given you an undeservedly biased view of the whole group. Yes, some guys probably wouldn't fit in were they re-roled as crewmen, but I think there's a fair chance that many would given the opportunity to do so.

In fact I can think of a number of roles that WSOps could be moved into - the problem is that with the RAF contracting it's unlikely that the slots are there to do this... I do think that the RAF should forget about recruiting for a few years and reabsorb as many people as possible, from any trade under threat - not just aircrew.

If I were still in, I'd be looking very hard right now at ways to make a living outside...but I already made that decision 11 years ago....

Dave

Mad_Mark
20th Feb 2011, 21:10
but I already made that decision 11 years ago....
Has it really been that long? :eek: Oh how time flies when you get to the age when you don't want it too :(

MadMark!!! :mad: