Fit for Purpose
Chug,
I totally support your last post. Sure the military of whatever service can expect to get into harms way, but there is all the difference in the world between being killed in action fully trained, competently led and with all the right kit, and being killed because somebody does not buy body armour or ESF or keep your aircraft airworthy because they are trying to save money. As TD said on TV the other day, if his son had been killed by a Taliban missile he would still be grieving but he would accept that this was a price his son was also prepared to pay in his chosen career. To be killed when your aircraft has not been kept fully fit for purpose because your "masters" have decided not to fit the right equipment or maintain an airworthy aircraft is quite different. When it is money and not technology that is lacking there is even less of an excuse.
I do not see anything remotely operational about losing an aircraft and crew because of self-imposed airworthiness or equipment deficiencies - and the RAF has not adopted the Kamikaze role yet! Even though it is the RAF's fault that they have got themselves into this hole I am not saying ground the Nimrod fleet as some people are - I am saying start spending the money needed to implement the recommendations that have already been made and do it fast, and change procedures as needed (which at least seems to have saved the aircraft in the last incident) - thanks to the pressure from the media, and even PPRuNe, this seems to have worked for ESF on the C130. It would appear, if the NAO report is correct that the RAF will be operating MR2s until at least 2012 (R Mk1 until ?), and I wouldn't put money against them being around a lot longer (especialy if the same equipment deficiencies on the MRA4 need fixing) so please don't say the expense is not justified.
JB
Last edited by John Blakeley; 19th Nov 2007 at 15:15.