"In isolation, the questions and answers mean little. When compared with other similar programmes however, they reveal unpalatable and embarrassing truths. I’m sure the monies wasted on Nimrod could have been put to use elsewhere."
So there you are JFZ90 & Headstone, the answer to your questions (at least you got one!) and from a man who knows.
I'm not sure how this was an answer to anything, certainly nothing to "reveal unpalatable and embarrassing truths" has been expanded upon in Tucs answer, unless I'm missing something. Tuc admits freely to know nothing about Nimrod trainer issues yet goes on to imply wrong doing here because of other experiences. I'm afraid this is not useul speculation on this occassion, and rather surprising given Tucs apparent safety anaylsis / certification credentials (I may have read this wrong, but I thought this was his background). Have I missed something Tuc? If so please spell out the "unpalatable and embarrassing truths" regarding the Nimrod trainer capability.
For those of you who wonder why I and others question the integrity and honesty of the MOD/RAF here is an example:
"Sir Nicholas Winterton: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many fuel leaks have been reported on Nimrod MR2 R1 aircraft in the last six months; and if he will make a statement."
"These did not compromise the safety of the aircraft and
were rectified under normal maintenance procedures."
TD : Yet I have proof that in October 2006 XV231 was leaking and could not be repaired in theatre or rectified under normal maintenance procedures and had to return to Kinloss without using AAR.And then was sent to the NSG depth organization for investigation.
Sorry TD, I don't see the contradiction here. Either you mean a) safety was compromised - hence in what way was safety compromised?, or b) normal mtn procs were not used - in what way were normal maintenance procedures not used? You imply it had go to back to Kinloss for a certain level of depth of maintenance, hence perhaps you suggest this therefore isn't normal - there is no reason why this should not be entirely "normal" or consistent for the type of fault diagnosed.