Nimrod Information
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Sheffield
Posts: 927
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was pleased to see that the RAF emerged unscathed from the Panorama programme. At least the BBC managed to avoid any implication that the guys in the RAF are doing anything other than simply trying to do the best they can with very limited resources and too many committments.
Just another classic example of the state that the RAF's in I fear. Having been (until recently) commissioned to produce their 90th Anniversary book for next year, I know from first-hand experience that their public relations set-up is a complete joke, which staggers from one disaster to another and simply pours money away. The air and ground crews have a thankless task. Politicians that expect them to handle every crusade that Blair embarks upon, no money with which to do the job, and a PR machine that is more interested in clothing ranges...
Just another classic example of the state that the RAF's in I fear. Having been (until recently) commissioned to produce their 90th Anniversary book for next year, I know from first-hand experience that their public relations set-up is a complete joke, which staggers from one disaster to another and simply pours money away. The air and ground crews have a thankless task. Politicians that expect them to handle every crusade that Blair embarks upon, no money with which to do the job, and a PR machine that is more interested in clothing ranges...
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Hampshire
Age: 68
Posts: 140
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'd like to know who it was in the RAF that made the policy (no doubt on the grounds of cost) to NOT issue the crews of large aircraft with parachutes.
It is possible that there would have been survivors from both the Nimrod and the Hercules if they had access to the appropriate equipment.
It is possible that there would have been survivors from both the Nimrod and the Hercules if they had access to the appropriate equipment.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: wilts
Posts: 1,667
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Glenn Torpy was happy to send Hercs to Afg without foam and we lost one weeks after he made reassuring noises about Herc safety to the Defence Committee.
Nimrod is allowed to AAR under SD which gives authority from AOC 2Gp to tank when operationally necessary.
Seriously, what is the point in trying to hide the mess that is the RAF? What is he hoping to achieve? Stop hiding behind lousy risk management speak, it impresses nobody.
One of the SDs says that if operationally essential and if no other alternatives exist then the aircraft can tank, albeit with AOC 2 Gp permission. So, we had a jet AARing over Kandahar 4 days after the accident!! Unbelievable.
I can't see how that could ever possibly be considered to be good risk management.
The words of a very experienced Nimrod pilot.
Nimrod is allowed to AAR under SD which gives authority from AOC 2Gp to tank when operationally necessary.
Seriously, what is the point in trying to hide the mess that is the RAF? What is he hoping to achieve? Stop hiding behind lousy risk management speak, it impresses nobody.
One of the SDs says that if operationally essential and if no other alternatives exist then the aircraft can tank, albeit with AOC 2 Gp permission. So, we had a jet AARing over Kandahar 4 days after the accident!! Unbelievable.
I can't see how that could ever possibly be considered to be good risk management.
The words of a very experienced Nimrod pilot.
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: firmly on dry land
Age: 81
Posts: 1,541
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
wz662, the Nimrod and the Shackleton before it did not carry parachutes. As Maritime patrol aircraft it would have been assumed that any emergency would have been over the sea. Crews in a sea survival situation would probably survive better in a multi-seat life raft rather than any number of dinghies scattered far and wide.
Then the operational life was probably largely expected to be at 1000 feet or less with an emergency probably being related to a bird strike. The Nimrod was capable of flight on a single engine and could climb, at weights below 142 000 lbs, at 100 feet per minute. If it could fly and indeed climb then the need to abandon would have been low.
However the Nimrod was also assumed to have a lousy ditching capability. Sliding its tail along the surface it was expected that the nose would then hammer onto the surface at about 25g, kill the flight deck crew, break off, and flood the fuselage. Ergo there would be no need for immersion suits either, besides which they would be uncomfortable and restricting on a 9 hour flight.
After the ditching of the Dutch Atlantic and the saving of the crew, who all had once-only immersion suits, there was a successful reappraisal and once-only suits were provided. The orginal logic about parachutes persisted. I suspect the door positions in relation to the horizonal flying surfaces also suggested that bailout was not an option.
On the E3 of course it does not operate at low level, spends sometime over the sea and some over the land and also has a proper parachute exit (a la KC135). Given its role - combat support, the reliablity of its engines, and the proven airframe, it is obvious that parachutes are not needed in the E3 either. In the Elmsdorf crash parachutes would not have assisted crew survival. In the Nimrod bird strike crash in the 70s they would not have helped either.
In the MR1 at St Mawgan or the R1 at Kinloss parachutes would have given a very useful insurance and reassurance to the crews, provided they had a proper bailout exit.
The forgoing is not gospel, simply supposition on my part.
Then the operational life was probably largely expected to be at 1000 feet or less with an emergency probably being related to a bird strike. The Nimrod was capable of flight on a single engine and could climb, at weights below 142 000 lbs, at 100 feet per minute. If it could fly and indeed climb then the need to abandon would have been low.
However the Nimrod was also assumed to have a lousy ditching capability. Sliding its tail along the surface it was expected that the nose would then hammer onto the surface at about 25g, kill the flight deck crew, break off, and flood the fuselage. Ergo there would be no need for immersion suits either, besides which they would be uncomfortable and restricting on a 9 hour flight.
After the ditching of the Dutch Atlantic and the saving of the crew, who all had once-only immersion suits, there was a successful reappraisal and once-only suits were provided. The orginal logic about parachutes persisted. I suspect the door positions in relation to the horizonal flying surfaces also suggested that bailout was not an option.
On the E3 of course it does not operate at low level, spends sometime over the sea and some over the land and also has a proper parachute exit (a la KC135). Given its role - combat support, the reliablity of its engines, and the proven airframe, it is obvious that parachutes are not needed in the E3 either. In the Elmsdorf crash parachutes would not have assisted crew survival. In the Nimrod bird strike crash in the 70s they would not have helped either.
In the MR1 at St Mawgan or the R1 at Kinloss parachutes would have given a very useful insurance and reassurance to the crews, provided they had a proper bailout exit.
The forgoing is not gospel, simply supposition on my part.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: The Shed
Posts: 195
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Somebody mention parachutes? Is there a course?
Sorry sir, I can't afford to go this month!
Wader I think you're pretty much spot on with your suppositions. The position of the doors, wings, tail assembly and er, jet efflux would seem to prevent a successful egress from the Mighty Hunter - doesn't stop a few pax asking though! And not just spacies.
Sorry sir, I can't afford to go this month!
Wader I think you're pretty much spot on with your suppositions. The position of the doors, wings, tail assembly and er, jet efflux would seem to prevent a successful egress from the Mighty Hunter - doesn't stop a few pax asking though! And not just spacies.
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: A Gaelic Country
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For those who decry the fitting of parachutes - why not let those of us flying the old girl make our minds up - I personally would vote for one. I would rather have at least a shot.........
Or is the real reason cost.........
Or is the real reason cost.........
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Scotland
Age: 59
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Disappointed and disheartened by this programme.
The programme did not get to the root causes by looking at all of the effects and contributors - got the impression that they were afraid to dig too deep in case they would stir up a "hornets nest".
As an ex-Nimrod groundie I was left extremely disappointed and disheartened by the programme; there was no mention of the £1.1Bn NISC and doesn't it have an impact? What are we paying for under NISC?
Robbing has always been necessary to meet operational requirements it will still be done on MRA4 and Predator, unless we have a complete spares set for every aircraft, not cost-effective, and certainly not affordable.
The same AAR system is expected to be fitted to MRA4 after last night's programme another change will be raised with more cost and delay to that project.
More delays equals more PVR's means more unease with the Nimrod safety therefore disband the fleet, buy more Predators or could this be an indirect way by the gov to reduce MRA4 fleet numbers i.e. 12 to 9 less aircrew (possibly 1 Sqn), and no need for lots of groundcrew as most will have already left? Or could it be a way out for the gov to scrap the MRA4 completely like Mk3 as not cost effective? To spend the next ten years on tax-payers money for another solution or not?
I know this will be contentious its not meant to be, but scrap CVF, MARS, FRES and put the money to better use, to maintain existing equipment, personnel and get the projects that are really needed, delivered. Lets get the money to the people that need it before we lose our services altogether.
The programme also appeared to be an advert for MRA4 & Predator, if Predator is so good and can do all that Nimrod can do then why is it that the US is developing P-8A? Panorama needs to research its programmes better with credible input.
http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/...p8a/index.html
RIP CXX/3
As an ex-Nimrod groundie I was left extremely disappointed and disheartened by the programme; there was no mention of the £1.1Bn NISC and doesn't it have an impact? What are we paying for under NISC?
Robbing has always been necessary to meet operational requirements it will still be done on MRA4 and Predator, unless we have a complete spares set for every aircraft, not cost-effective, and certainly not affordable.
The same AAR system is expected to be fitted to MRA4 after last night's programme another change will be raised with more cost and delay to that project.
More delays equals more PVR's means more unease with the Nimrod safety therefore disband the fleet, buy more Predators or could this be an indirect way by the gov to reduce MRA4 fleet numbers i.e. 12 to 9 less aircrew (possibly 1 Sqn), and no need for lots of groundcrew as most will have already left? Or could it be a way out for the gov to scrap the MRA4 completely like Mk3 as not cost effective? To spend the next ten years on tax-payers money for another solution or not?
I know this will be contentious its not meant to be, but scrap CVF, MARS, FRES and put the money to better use, to maintain existing equipment, personnel and get the projects that are really needed, delivered. Lets get the money to the people that need it before we lose our services altogether.
The programme also appeared to be an advert for MRA4 & Predator, if Predator is so good and can do all that Nimrod can do then why is it that the US is developing P-8A? Panorama needs to research its programmes better with credible input.
http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/...p8a/index.html
RIP CXX/3
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: ecosse
Posts: 714
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I wore the Mk10 Immersion Suit on every flight from it's introduction.
In 1984 I was ordered by the Sqn boss to stop wearing and return it to Flying Clothing.
I insisted that (according to Air Clues and the RAF Combat Survival Org) I was entitled to dress for the worst survival conditions I would encounter - ie, January, at night, over the north sea.
He said recent policy over-rode those requirements; the Nimrod was now classified a Category AA aircraft because of it's in-built redundantcy - 4 engines, multi hydraulics and high survivabilty rate - I argued but was told to wind my neck in !
All current aircrew at ISK at that time (circa 566) had a Mk10 hanging up in the locker room - but only about 20 faithfulls wore them - OC Eng did a survey and went to Cmnd about the wearing/servicing schedules for these garments and proved his flying clothing staff could not provide 100% checks for 100% of the stock in the required time scales, when only about 13% were actually being worn
So they were replaced by "Quick-Dons" and this was the real reason for my being denied my "body armour" - not enough staff - too difficult!
The parachute thing is similar - cat AA - no need - good chance of survival - as demonstrated by the lovely Art Stacey AFC in the Moray Firth
In 1984 I was ordered by the Sqn boss to stop wearing and return it to Flying Clothing.
I insisted that (according to Air Clues and the RAF Combat Survival Org) I was entitled to dress for the worst survival conditions I would encounter - ie, January, at night, over the north sea.
He said recent policy over-rode those requirements; the Nimrod was now classified a Category AA aircraft because of it's in-built redundantcy - 4 engines, multi hydraulics and high survivabilty rate - I argued but was told to wind my neck in !
All current aircrew at ISK at that time (circa 566) had a Mk10 hanging up in the locker room - but only about 20 faithfulls wore them - OC Eng did a survey and went to Cmnd about the wearing/servicing schedules for these garments and proved his flying clothing staff could not provide 100% checks for 100% of the stock in the required time scales, when only about 13% were actually being worn
So they were replaced by "Quick-Dons" and this was the real reason for my being denied my "body armour" - not enough staff - too difficult!
The parachute thing is similar - cat AA - no need - good chance of survival - as demonstrated by the lovely Art Stacey AFC in the Moray Firth
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Up North
Posts: 801
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A good programme overall, too much to cram into 30 minutes though, and only a fraction of the story of the Nimrod debacle has been told - whata about the "Nimwacs" which wasted some airframes, and the idiocy behind trying to re-engineer the Nimrod (1960s airframe, individually built rather than machine-built with the accompanying idiosyncracied) rather than buy off-the-shelf.
The most sobering part was the number of kids the poor guys have left behind fatherless. There have now been 2 mass losses of aircrew that perhaps could have been prevented. How many more?
The most sobering part was the number of kids the poor guys have left behind fatherless. There have now been 2 mass losses of aircrew that perhaps could have been prevented. How many more?
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: uk
Posts: 117
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well that 30 minute summed it up perfect, old AC no spares 15 AC only 6 'S' at the best of times...
Replacement 10 years late 2 Billion over spend LOL LOL LOL we only put money into this kite hoping to sell it to the USA as a replacement for their P3 what a joke............
One question I have flown crew on US Air Force over water we all had our stations etc plus a parachute located over head does the Mighty Hunter carry chutes or not? If not why not. It could have been an option after all ....to jump out...... Or did this kite instantly explode?
Replacement 10 years late 2 Billion over spend LOL LOL LOL we only put money into this kite hoping to sell it to the USA as a replacement for their P3 what a joke............
One question I have flown crew on US Air Force over water we all had our stations etc plus a parachute located over head does the Mighty Hunter carry chutes or not? If not why not. It could have been an option after all ....to jump out...... Or did this kite instantly explode?
Never had chutes on the Mk1 - the general assessment was that you would end up wrapped round the tailplane. Can't say it really bothered me...
I do remember ferrying one airframe from Luqa to ISK for a major, and subsequently learning they were seriously considering scrapping it due to the in-wing corrosion
must have been about '75, I'll have to dig me logbook out and see if that one's still around...
I do remember ferrying one airframe from Luqa to ISK for a major, and subsequently learning they were seriously considering scrapping it due to the in-wing corrosion
must have been about '75, I'll have to dig me logbook out and see if that one's still around...
Join Date: May 2007
Location: North West
Age: 73
Posts: 91
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was disappointed with the program. Full of errors and misleading statements.
I started to write my views but it became a rant.
I lost 4 friends on 230, it hurt. There for the grace of God….. RIP
I started to write my views but it became a rant.
I lost 4 friends on 230, it hurt. There for the grace of God….. RIP
Wader2
Having flown on an E-3D I was delighted when I was shown the exit-chute only to be told that some bright spark had taken away the parachutes and blocked it with a large lump of equipment on all of the aircraft - d'oh! 
It almost harps back to the days of WWI when the top-brass didn't want their aviators abandoning their aircraft!
On the E3 of course it does not operate at low level, spends sometime over the sea and some over the land and also has a proper parachute exit (a la KC135). Given its role - combat support, the reliablity of its engines, and the proven airframe, it is obvious that parachutes are not needed in the E3 either.
It almost harps back to the days of WWI when the top-brass didn't want their aviators abandoning their aircraft!
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Hawaii
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flew on Auroras with the CF for 3 years on exchange....they have parachutes. If we are operating in a different environment, ie not 200 ft over the ocean, then if only 1 crew member gets out, the fitting of parachutes is worth any expense.
Temporary thread hi-jack
There's a common theme here, namely, the MoD choosing politically acceptable but ultimately flawed solutions because they're 'cheap' and involve modding existing UK airframes (thus safeguarding UK jobs etc).
The Nimwacs debacle - been done to death here but that was "an austere £450m programme" ([I]at the start![I]). The airframe imposed limitations on the kit (space, weight, growth potential plus zero export sales potential). Result? £1bn down the tubes.
Then Nimrod 2000 - same approach again except this time the airframes were rebuilt too). Who'd buy a car that way? And here we are now - with a £2bn+ cost and rising and still a few years from entering service.
To show the Procurement mindset, when the UK team went out to Seattle to negotiate the buy of E-3s, after establishing the cost of a standard fit E-3 (with 9 consoles) the question was asked of Boeing - "and how much would one be with 6 consoles?"
The final question was, "..and how much would one be with 3 consoles..?"
There must have been much nudging under the Boeing side of the table at that.
As far as MoD(PE) was concerned, they were buying a Shack replacement (which had 3 radar positions)..
Expediency always seems to be the watchword. What price SMART procurement?
The Nimwacs debacle - been done to death here but that was "an austere £450m programme" ([I]at the start![I]). The airframe imposed limitations on the kit (space, weight, growth potential plus zero export sales potential). Result? £1bn down the tubes.
Then Nimrod 2000 - same approach again except this time the airframes were rebuilt too). Who'd buy a car that way? And here we are now - with a £2bn+ cost and rising and still a few years from entering service.
To show the Procurement mindset, when the UK team went out to Seattle to negotiate the buy of E-3s, after establishing the cost of a standard fit E-3 (with 9 consoles) the question was asked of Boeing - "and how much would one be with 6 consoles?"
The final question was, "..and how much would one be with 3 consoles..?"
There must have been much nudging under the Boeing side of the table at that.
As far as MoD(PE) was concerned, they were buying a Shack replacement (which had 3 radar positions)..
Expediency always seems to be the watchword. What price SMART procurement?
Last edited by PPRuNeUser0139; 6th Jun 2007 at 08:39.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
Wader2
Having flown on an E-3D I was delighted when I was shown the exit-chute only to be told that some bright spark had taken away the parachutes and blocked it with a large lump of equipment on all of the aircraft - d'oh!
It almost harps back to the days of WWI when the top-brass didn't want their aviators abandoning their aircraft!
Having flown on an E-3D I was delighted when I was shown the exit-chute only to be told that some bright spark had taken away the parachutes and blocked it with a large lump of equipment on all of the aircraft - d'oh!
It almost harps back to the days of WWI when the top-brass didn't want their aviators abandoning their aircraft!
Now here's a thought.
Use the E3 with special technicians on board. When they have finished their part of their mission they can RTU without any hassle from movers or plods
[quote]I know this will be contentious its not meant to be, but scrap CVF, MARS, FRES and put the money to better use, to maintain existing equipment, personnel and get the projects that are really needed, delivered. Lets get the money to the people that need it before we lose our services altogether[quote]
Padraig, you are damn right it is contentious. Whilst I completely empathise with the situation the Nimbat fleet finds itself in, turning your ferocity on the other two services is not going to help. It is the RAF that has decided how to spend it's money, Nimwacs, IUKADGE, Typhoon, maintenance of a variety of bases etc. You have chosen how to spend your budget. That is why you are short of SH, AAR, transport and PR aircraft.
The projects you mention and important elements of the modernisation of the other two services. Don't allow yourself to get involved in 1970s style inter-service argument because, everyone will be worse off. Scrapping the projects you mention will NOT get your MRA4 or your AAR or SH or transport aircraft.
Before you vent your spleen elsewhere, have a look at your own navel first.
On balance I thought the programme was pretty good in highlighting the issue to "non experts". Programmes like this and others all build up to support a picture that the forces AS A WHOLE are at breaking point. Do not think it is just the light blue feeling the pinch. We will be stronger by sticking together.
Padraig, you are damn right it is contentious. Whilst I completely empathise with the situation the Nimbat fleet finds itself in, turning your ferocity on the other two services is not going to help. It is the RAF that has decided how to spend it's money, Nimwacs, IUKADGE, Typhoon, maintenance of a variety of bases etc. You have chosen how to spend your budget. That is why you are short of SH, AAR, transport and PR aircraft.
The projects you mention and important elements of the modernisation of the other two services. Don't allow yourself to get involved in 1970s style inter-service argument because, everyone will be worse off. Scrapping the projects you mention will NOT get your MRA4 or your AAR or SH or transport aircraft.
Before you vent your spleen elsewhere, have a look at your own navel first.
On balance I thought the programme was pretty good in highlighting the issue to "non experts". Programmes like this and others all build up to support a picture that the forces AS A WHOLE are at breaking point. Do not think it is just the light blue feeling the pinch. We will be stronger by sticking together.
Sidevalve
“To show the Procurement mindset, when the UK team went out to Seattle to negotiate the buy of E-3s, after establishing the cost of a standard fit E-3 (with 9 consoles) the question was asked of Boeing - "and how much would one be with 6 consoles?"
The final question was, "..and how much would one be with 3 consoles..?"”
I agree with what you say, but I’d prefer the above to acknowledge the difference between “procurement” and “acquisition”. The latter is inclusive of all involved, the former are those who must actually buy and deliver, to a Customer/Sponsor endorsed requirement which is usually underfunded. “I want at least 20, @ £1M VAT Ex each – here’s £5M VAT Inc and I’ll let you know the final total sometime in the future. Spend it quick as the budget’s getting cut next week”. (Real example).
I do not doubt the example you speak of, as I know many involved, but I think the questions entirely valid. The Customer presumably wanted 9 consoles. Any experienced procurer (and they were handpicked in 1986 for AWACS after the AEW debacle – a good policy I believe, but seldom used) knows that the beancounters, who wouldn’t know an aircraft if it landed on them, ask daft questions like this when the “Procurement Strategy” is up for approval. They want to see options, which always includes (a) do nothing and (b) buy/spend less. So, the procurer pre-empts them by asking for options, and the Contractor knows very well that the answer must never be less. In this case, I’d be surprised if 6 or 3 consoles were cheaper, due to re-development costs and loss of read across to the US programme. You’d also miss the ISD. It’s part of the game you have to play.
Bean counters are peripheral in procurement, but play God in acquisition. They have inordinate authority and rank/grade, but no commensurate responsibility (as it is the PM who manages his budget, not the BCs). They are invariably hostile to what the PM, Sponsors and Users are trying to achieve.
“To show the Procurement mindset, when the UK team went out to Seattle to negotiate the buy of E-3s, after establishing the cost of a standard fit E-3 (with 9 consoles) the question was asked of Boeing - "and how much would one be with 6 consoles?"
The final question was, "..and how much would one be with 3 consoles..?"”
I agree with what you say, but I’d prefer the above to acknowledge the difference between “procurement” and “acquisition”. The latter is inclusive of all involved, the former are those who must actually buy and deliver, to a Customer/Sponsor endorsed requirement which is usually underfunded. “I want at least 20, @ £1M VAT Ex each – here’s £5M VAT Inc and I’ll let you know the final total sometime in the future. Spend it quick as the budget’s getting cut next week”. (Real example).
I do not doubt the example you speak of, as I know many involved, but I think the questions entirely valid. The Customer presumably wanted 9 consoles. Any experienced procurer (and they were handpicked in 1986 for AWACS after the AEW debacle – a good policy I believe, but seldom used) knows that the beancounters, who wouldn’t know an aircraft if it landed on them, ask daft questions like this when the “Procurement Strategy” is up for approval. They want to see options, which always includes (a) do nothing and (b) buy/spend less. So, the procurer pre-empts them by asking for options, and the Contractor knows very well that the answer must never be less. In this case, I’d be surprised if 6 or 3 consoles were cheaper, due to re-development costs and loss of read across to the US programme. You’d also miss the ISD. It’s part of the game you have to play.
Bean counters are peripheral in procurement, but play God in acquisition. They have inordinate authority and rank/grade, but no commensurate responsibility (as it is the PM who manages his budget, not the BCs). They are invariably hostile to what the PM, Sponsors and Users are trying to achieve.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: wilts
Posts: 1,667
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Torpy has got himself and the RAF in a terrible muddle. By agreeing to fight a war on 2 fronts he has hastened the demise of an already over-stretched organisation I think we understand the reasoning behind the original need for Typhoon. Without doubt it is a leap in capability that will come into its own in the future. However, in order to pay for it, Torpy, due to a lack of resources at hand, is publically ignoring the parlous state of the Royal Air Force. The RAF appears to be reaching some kind of breaking point and the situation at Kinloss is symptomatic of an organisation that is barely functioning due to the extreme demands being placed on its resources. It is no longer acceptable for the Chief of Staff to pretend that everything is OK. If he does nothing other than mouth platitudes and refuses to square up to the Prime Minister and demand more resources, he will be remembered as the man who did nothing as Rome burned.