Response to the Nimrod boys et al
Ppruners all and “light blue” proponents in particular!
It would appear that, on the face of some of your reactions, a number amongst you believe that the ongoing £2.4 billion update for the Nimrod is money well spent. Privately, I can only surmise that, at over £100 million per aircraft, there must have been serious operational problems to overcome – otherwise the update could not have been justified. (QED)
In the light of past erroneous claims by the Air Staff concerning the warfighting effectiveness of various AFD air weapons systems, I remain hard to convince. Please allow me to explain my doubts with a couple of anecdotal remarks.
1. In the late seventies/early eighties, the JP233 weapon system cost the nation in excess of £10 billion (R & D). Why it was approved is because the AFD stated that it was going to be a viable weapon system against the Warsaw Pact. To some of us professionals, it was clear then and it is clear now that the proposed low-level delivery profile against WP airfields would have spelt certain death for the Tornado GA boys – and for supporting tanker crews – probably well before they had reached their targets. This view was, in the main, substantiated when JP233 was used in anger for the first time against the very much less capable Iraqis who had far less sophisticated ground-to-air defences than those of the WP. The weapon proved a miserable failure – leading to the downing, capture and degradation of several “caterpillar club” aircrew. All in all, it must be seen as an ill-advised weapon system that was approved by Ministers on the very strong but blatantly misguided assurances of the Air Staff.
2. The Nimrod MR1 was unquestionably ineffective as an ASW weapons platform at least up to the mid eighties. During this era of its early operational impotency, the Air Staff continued to proclaim it as “an effective ASW weapons system”; so “good” was it that they were actually telling Ministers that the Fleet no longer needed ASW frigates or helicopters – “the MR1 could do the job instead”. Now, unless a magic wand had been waved to make the MR1 effective (and there is no such wand available), one may only class this as a dangerously ill-advised deception by those at the top. One might even describe it as a very large “porky”.
3. . The Minister for the Armed Forces recently stated in the House that the Tornado F3 is fully operational and is fitted with AMRAAM – implying that the F3/AMRAAM system is fully operationally effective. The House also heard from Ingram that F3 update costs were not yet available – then in almost the same breath, it was admitted that the present update would cost about £120 million. (Which one do we believe?) By chance, this figure approximates to “what will be saved by withdrawing the Sea Harrier FA2 from service early”. What is the logic behind losing the best BVR capable fighter in Britain’s inventory, the FA2, and basing one’s hopes on “a song and a prayer” that will not be easily deployable? On the face of it, and in the light of the Government’s stated Defence Policy (expeditionary force operations without prepositioning; minimal air threat to the UK; minimal submarine threat in UK waters), we appear to have a few ultra expensive “white elephants” here that consume a large share of the Defence Budget without either,
a. having a significant operational role under the new DP, or,
b. without having the capability to meet that role if it was pertinent to the DP task”.
What of the next British expeditionary force that has to act independently of US Naval Air Power (do note the word, ‘Naval’)? Who will provide air defence for the Task Force ships, amphibious forces or our Land Forces ashore?
Certainly not the land-based Tornado F3 with its many limitations!
Certainly not the land-based Eurofighter with its yet to be developed BVRAAM weapon system!
And certainly not the land-based Nimrod! Supporting the Fleet for just a fraction of its transit time to a trouble spot is just not acceptable – when you guys go back to your digs, the front line carries on with the war.
There is no magic expertise being applied here – just common sense, physics, aerodynamics and a recognition of Government Defence Policy.
“Come back” if you wish – but don’t expect a reply if you revert to emotional and rather uncalled for outbursts/personal attack – that only convinces me that I have a point!
(And, yes! If the New York Police Department can hide its failures/shortfalls using the infamous “code of silence”, why not the RAF?)
AWI.
Edited upon advisement from a reliable source for legal reasons. Admin.
Last edited by Capt PPRuNe; 15th June 2002 at 00:08.