There are some on here who still seem to think that grounding the Nimrod is a good idea. I hope to dissuade you.
Let’s start with something that is not contentious.
We would all like to lose the minimum number of our servicemen whilst accomplishing our military aims.
(I accept that some would like us to just leave the war zones immediately, but that is a different issue.)
Moving on from there, let’s give the chance of servicemen in different roles dying in theatre a Total Risk Score. This score is made up of risk from (A). enemy action, (B). role (i.e. low level NVG, paradropping, low level over the sea, small ships operations etc), (C) poorly designed/serviced equipment, plus (D) anything else I have missed.
This Total Risk Score is the important score. Not any individual part, but the total. That is what decides whether you have a 1 in 1,000,000 chance of dying during your tour, or a 1 in 10.
It may be more vastly more obscene to die or have your loved one die of (C) rather than (A) or (B), but at the end of the day, the cause is immaterial.
To ground an aircraft just because it has a design flaw is foolish. That design flaw would only be grounds for grounding if, in combination with the other risks, the Total Risk Score was significantly out of kilter with the average Total Risk Score of other platforms.
Even with the design flaws, the Total Risk Score for Nimrod aircrew is significantly lower than that of many other aircraft types. I am sure one of you has the figures for Nimrod aircrew deaths vs Nimrod hrs flown in the last 30 yrs, and even taking into account the Canadian accident, I am willing to bet that you have more chance of surviving an airborne Nimrod hour than almost any fixed wing aircraft in military service, and don’t even get me started on helicopters!
It is not even as if Nimrod is the only Military Aircraft with serious design flaws. All military aircraft tend to operate close to the margins and have their foibles. Examples off the top of my head:-
Harrier:- Can’t land without all the engines working. Only has one engine. That one engine is working very hard. Doesn’t glide much better than a transit van.
Sea Kings:- The VRS1. If it fails in the dip at night, you ain’t walking away. It fails on occasion.
Merlin:- Slowly working it’s way through it’s own selection of killers.
Lynx:- Where do I start? The flot gear, the unfortunate habit of the engines feeling that if one goes it should take the other with it?
If for arguments sake we say that all platforms and personnel in theatre are of equal importance to the war effort, and of equal value as a life, then it is obvious that it is silly to remove one merely because nearly the whole of its Total Risk Score is made up of (C).
In fact it is worse than that, because by removing the Nimrod, when there is, as yet, no replacement in theatre, you are adding to the Total Risk of the soldiers on the ground.
The troops out there currently have an 11% risk of death or serious injury.
I think they are carrying a high enough Total Risk already, don’t you?