Nimrod Information
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
A dark blue example.
You must ask the right questions. How many times at work has someone asked you a question, even here on pprune, and you feel that they really want the answer to something else or they have asked the wrong question? You probe and prompt.
A contractor OTOH will quote for exactly what you ask for else he might not be competitive with another contractor. Now the story.
Years ago the Navy had a temporary range control room at Raasay. In the control room was an ICL PDP 11/40 state of the art computer operating in a clean room environment.
Funding was eventually found for a new building (another story of waste) and they decided that they should have two computers to ensure capability was maintained. They specified a new PDP 11/40 and the transfer of the old PDP to the new build. The work duly went ahead and on time and to budget.
When all was done and dusted, well pleased with the saving they had made, they congratulated ICL on a job well done.
"You know you could have had two new, more modern and more powerful computers for less than the cost of the special build PDP 11/40."
You must ask the right questions. How many times at work has someone asked you a question, even here on pprune, and you feel that they really want the answer to something else or they have asked the wrong question? You probe and prompt.
A contractor OTOH will quote for exactly what you ask for else he might not be competitive with another contractor. Now the story.
Years ago the Navy had a temporary range control room at Raasay. In the control room was an ICL PDP 11/40 state of the art computer operating in a clean room environment.
Funding was eventually found for a new building (another story of waste) and they decided that they should have two computers to ensure capability was maintained. They specified a new PDP 11/40 and the transfer of the old PDP to the new build. The work duly went ahead and on time and to budget.
When all was done and dusted, well pleased with the saving they had made, they congratulated ICL on a job well done.
"You know you could have had two new, more modern and more powerful computers for less than the cost of the special build PDP 11/40."
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
It was our political masters, and Doctor John in particular, who got us involved in Afghanistan. It is not for Torpy to say to CGS, sorry old boy but I don't agree with a 2-war policy, you are on your own and will have to use organic air, count us out.
Simply not his call.
He could have resigned you say, but then so could everyone else, but that is not realistic.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: wilts
Posts: 1,667
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PN, the Chiefs of Staff all signed up to the plan and agreed it was within the capability and resource of UK Armed Forces to do it, when it so clearly was not. Torpy could have said no, we can't do it. He went with the politicos. I have read his statements to the Defence Committee with regard to the Afghanistan deployment. At no stage did he express any misgivings. Now we are in a situation where British troops are only acting as targets in the South of Iraq because they are so thinly stretched and all out war is happening in Afg with no development in sight. CGS is screaming for his troops to be withdrawn from Iraq because he can see the long term damage being done. But the PM wants Brit troops to remain in Basra on hand indefinitely. Doing a deal with this Govt is like signing a pact with the devil. These Ops will be paid for by future projects being cancelled. Torpy and his colleagues should have said no, not without extra resources.
I stand by my comments. It is not a question of resigning. The Dutch were quite specific with what they could bring to the party and for how long. Torpy and his colleagues signed an open ended committment when they could have been a hell of a lot smarter.
I stand by my comments. It is not a question of resigning. The Dutch were quite specific with what they could bring to the party and for how long. Torpy and his colleagues signed an open ended committment when they could have been a hell of a lot smarter.
Last edited by nigegilb; 6th Jun 2007 at 10:40.
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Sheffield
Posts: 927
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To be fair, the Panorama programme was pretty-much as one would have expected - there was no "story" just a re-hash of everything we already knew. I don't think there was ever much hope of a proper appraisal of the reasons why the RAF is in such a mess because it would require journalistic effort and analysis, and a fair amount of political debate. Clearly, the BBC hasn't got the inclination to do anything which requires much more than a throw-away "sound bite" from a twit holding a microphone. It seems to be BBC policy to spend huge sums of license money on this new breed of reporter so that no matter where a story unfolds, a BBC reporter can be stood there (with appropriate background) to repeat the same information that has already been read-out by the newscaster in London. It's lazy journalism but it looks impressive for the average viewer that isn't bright enough to determine that he/she hasn't actually been told anything of any value.
In fairness to Sir Glenn, he couldn't say much because he wasn't actually asked anything of significance. There's not much that one can say to a reporter that asks "do you think this is good enough" other than "yes" or "no" which he did, albeit with a rather uncomfortable look on his face.
If the RAF were determined to do a proper "PR job" on the programme, they ought to have refused a pointless face-to-face interview and simply issued a statement which clearly stated that the RAF accepts that there are many servicability issues with the Nimrod and just about every other aircraft in the RAF's inventory. Whether each issue is connected is another matter (as Sir Glenn mentioned) but I think it would have been better to simply state that every issue is addressed and investigated, and that the RAF's personnel do the very best that they can with the limited resources at their disposal. It wouldn't have been too unreasonable to have also added that the RAF could have a near-100 percent servicability and safety rate if resources, supplies, technical support and training was effectively provided on an unlimited basis as required, rather than having to be pulled from whatever funds that can be spared.
The bizarre aspect of the saga is that the RAF is ultimately blameless; it's not as if the RAF is happy with the notion of any personnel's lives being at risk in any situation, and the programme was a golden opportunity to have simply stated that the RAF is forced to do the best that it can under the impossible circumstances imposed on them by the government. It's just another case of bad "PR" which was wasted. Surely, when you have an opportunity to say "this wasn't our fault" you would take it, instead of giving the impression that you're somehow "on the defensive" - which is how Sir Glenn's appearance came-across to the viewer.
As has already been said on this thread and elsewhere, you'd think that by now we would have reached a stage where the RAF would stop trying to "muddle-through" and start saying that if Blair and his cronies want to embark upon crusades across the world, then they have to find the cash with which to do it. It's not as if the RAF can't do the job. Heaven-knows we've got the best Air Force there is, but you can't do an expensive job on the cheap, and I really don't know why the RAF's chiefs and PR people are so reluctant to point-out this rather obvious fact.
In fairness to Sir Glenn, he couldn't say much because he wasn't actually asked anything of significance. There's not much that one can say to a reporter that asks "do you think this is good enough" other than "yes" or "no" which he did, albeit with a rather uncomfortable look on his face.
If the RAF were determined to do a proper "PR job" on the programme, they ought to have refused a pointless face-to-face interview and simply issued a statement which clearly stated that the RAF accepts that there are many servicability issues with the Nimrod and just about every other aircraft in the RAF's inventory. Whether each issue is connected is another matter (as Sir Glenn mentioned) but I think it would have been better to simply state that every issue is addressed and investigated, and that the RAF's personnel do the very best that they can with the limited resources at their disposal. It wouldn't have been too unreasonable to have also added that the RAF could have a near-100 percent servicability and safety rate if resources, supplies, technical support and training was effectively provided on an unlimited basis as required, rather than having to be pulled from whatever funds that can be spared.
The bizarre aspect of the saga is that the RAF is ultimately blameless; it's not as if the RAF is happy with the notion of any personnel's lives being at risk in any situation, and the programme was a golden opportunity to have simply stated that the RAF is forced to do the best that it can under the impossible circumstances imposed on them by the government. It's just another case of bad "PR" which was wasted. Surely, when you have an opportunity to say "this wasn't our fault" you would take it, instead of giving the impression that you're somehow "on the defensive" - which is how Sir Glenn's appearance came-across to the viewer.
As has already been said on this thread and elsewhere, you'd think that by now we would have reached a stage where the RAF would stop trying to "muddle-through" and start saying that if Blair and his cronies want to embark upon crusades across the world, then they have to find the cash with which to do it. It's not as if the RAF can't do the job. Heaven-knows we've got the best Air Force there is, but you can't do an expensive job on the cheap, and I really don't know why the RAF's chiefs and PR people are so reluctant to point-out this rather obvious fact.
Last edited by Tim McLelland; 6th Jun 2007 at 11:30.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Scotland
Age: 49
Posts: 134
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As someone directly affected by the loss of XV230 I thought the BBC did a pretty good job, that said there wasn't a great deal that I didn't already know and I'm not so naive to think that the general public care a great deal about a handful of fly-boys and an ancient jet. However I think the general public do care whether we as a country have armed forces that are equipped to protect us. If the programme did nothing but add to the growing evidence that our military is going down the pan then it has added to a very relevant debate.
I personally agree with those that say the questioning could have been stronger, but I think there will be a time for that after the BOI has reported.
What appears to be clear is that it was an accident waiting to happen and it would appear that with strong leadership from those in the RAF to put pressure on the MOD it could have been avoided.
The RAF bigwigs need to grow some balls and stand up for their service. Look at the Navy, whatever you think of them at least the First Sea Lord has the balls to say that this government is shafting his service.
I personally agree with those that say the questioning could have been stronger, but I think there will be a time for that after the BOI has reported.
What appears to be clear is that it was an accident waiting to happen and it would appear that with strong leadership from those in the RAF to put pressure on the MOD it could have been avoided.
The RAF bigwigs need to grow some balls and stand up for their service. Look at the Navy, whatever you think of them at least the First Sea Lord has the balls to say that this government is shafting his service.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: The Shed
Posts: 195
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hear hear Tim 
A few months ago I was reading my unit's escapades in WW2 in the vast scrapbooks that we have in our history room. Amongst all the stories of derring do in the U-boat war were pictures of happy crews laughing, joking , drinking. Next month it was reported that Crew X failed to return from a mission - the Sqn drank to their memories and carried on with the war. I marvelled at the resilience of those crews.
The whole focus of the faces that jumped out of those historical pages was to win the war.
Not once did I read that Mission Y was cancelled due to tech reasons, or that the Sqn had run out of flying hours that month, or that there was only one serviceable Sunderland on the slipway.
And not once did I read that money was an issue. It was, of course, but that was a problem for another day.
These people had a war to win.
We've got two now - can someone tell me where we've gone wrong?
A few months ago I was reading my unit's escapades in WW2 in the vast scrapbooks that we have in our history room. Amongst all the stories of derring do in the U-boat war were pictures of happy crews laughing, joking , drinking. Next month it was reported that Crew X failed to return from a mission - the Sqn drank to their memories and carried on with the war. I marvelled at the resilience of those crews.
The whole focus of the faces that jumped out of those historical pages was to win the war.
Not once did I read that Mission Y was cancelled due to tech reasons, or that the Sqn had run out of flying hours that month, or that there was only one serviceable Sunderland on the slipway.
And not once did I read that money was an issue. It was, of course, but that was a problem for another day.
These people had a war to win.
We've got two now - can someone tell me where we've gone wrong?
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Lincs
Posts: 695
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Smiter,
I guess, if you've been reading about Sunderlands, then I was on the same sqn as you, many years ago now. We have gone wrong for a very simple reason, and one which is quite easy to remedy, and its this;
We no longer have any leaders from about Sqn Ldr level upwards, who have the balls to say 'NO'
I remember when I was on 201 Sqn, during a hard winter, OC Eng came into the crewroom and saw a handful of knockers and others sat around doing not a lot. He decided therefore that he would 'order' us all to go out on the pans and start clearing the snow by hand. Understandably, there was quite a lot of moaning and whinging, but after some harsh words from OC Eng, we all wandered out to the pan, only to be met by a certain Wg Cdr PP (OC 201) who aksed where we were all going?? After we told him, he ordered us all back into the Sqn and collared OC Eng on the way back, and proceeded to give him a full scale bollocking, infront of us all, terminating with 'I command 201 Sqn, NOT you, so F%£& off and leave my guys alone' Do you think for a nano-second that would happen today? Not on your life it wouldn't.
The fact is that all senoir officers are now solely concerned with their own ar$es, and take the view that 'if I don't make a decision, then I can't make the wrong one' Sad and pathetic I know, but thats the way it is.
TSM
I guess, if you've been reading about Sunderlands, then I was on the same sqn as you, many years ago now. We have gone wrong for a very simple reason, and one which is quite easy to remedy, and its this;
We no longer have any leaders from about Sqn Ldr level upwards, who have the balls to say 'NO'
I remember when I was on 201 Sqn, during a hard winter, OC Eng came into the crewroom and saw a handful of knockers and others sat around doing not a lot. He decided therefore that he would 'order' us all to go out on the pans and start clearing the snow by hand. Understandably, there was quite a lot of moaning and whinging, but after some harsh words from OC Eng, we all wandered out to the pan, only to be met by a certain Wg Cdr PP (OC 201) who aksed where we were all going?? After we told him, he ordered us all back into the Sqn and collared OC Eng on the way back, and proceeded to give him a full scale bollocking, infront of us all, terminating with 'I command 201 Sqn, NOT you, so F%£& off and leave my guys alone' Do you think for a nano-second that would happen today? Not on your life it wouldn't.
The fact is that all senoir officers are now solely concerned with their own ar$es, and take the view that 'if I don't make a decision, then I can't make the wrong one' Sad and pathetic I know, but thats the way it is.
TSM
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: wilts
Posts: 1,667
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Smiter, it all went wrong with Iraq, but I guess we all know that now.
Apologies for going off thread but failure to say no is at the heart of all this. And one option open to the likes of Torpy is to cut back on training. It is already happening and a lack of training has just been given as one of the main reasons for the puma crash. The best of a bad situation is probably to pull out of Iraq, but it will leave a hell of a mess behind.
I greatly admire General Rose, he was against the Iraq war all along, this is what he said the other day.
"General Rose has stated that there is no way the war in Iraq can be won and has called for the troops to be withdrawn.
The ex- SAS Officer said coalition forces in Iraq were facing an impossible situation.
"There is no way we are going to win the war and (we should) withdraw and accept defeat because we are going to lose on a more important level if we don't,'' he said.
Though the coalition could not simply "cut and run,'' Gen Rose said announcing a withdrawal date would help to dampen down the violence between Sunni, Shia and Kurdish factions.
"Give them a date and it is amazing how people and political parties will stop fighting each other and start working towards a peaceful transfer of power,'' he said.
Gen Rose was speaking at the annual Hay Festival of Literature and the Arts in Hay-on-Wye, on the Welsh border with England.
The retired general who has written a book on the American War of Independence, made comparisons with the 1775-1783 conflict between Britain and the Thirteen Colonies.
He said: "How was it a small and extremely determined body of insurgents, thieves and deserters could inflict such a strategic and potentially disastrous defeat on the most powerful nation in the world?
"The answer will be familiar to anybody who is looking at what is happening in Iraq today.
"Those who don't read history are condemned to repeat the mistakes of the past.''
He said the allies in Iraq should have deployed more troops and not used a conventional war strategy.
"You don't win wars by regime change but by changing attitudes,'' he said.
He said that Iraq should have been low on the priority list compared to Afghanistan, conflicts in Africa and the battle against international terrorists."
Apologies for going off thread but failure to say no is at the heart of all this. And one option open to the likes of Torpy is to cut back on training. It is already happening and a lack of training has just been given as one of the main reasons for the puma crash. The best of a bad situation is probably to pull out of Iraq, but it will leave a hell of a mess behind.
I greatly admire General Rose, he was against the Iraq war all along, this is what he said the other day.
"General Rose has stated that there is no way the war in Iraq can be won and has called for the troops to be withdrawn.
The ex- SAS Officer said coalition forces in Iraq were facing an impossible situation.
"There is no way we are going to win the war and (we should) withdraw and accept defeat because we are going to lose on a more important level if we don't,'' he said.
Though the coalition could not simply "cut and run,'' Gen Rose said announcing a withdrawal date would help to dampen down the violence between Sunni, Shia and Kurdish factions.
"Give them a date and it is amazing how people and political parties will stop fighting each other and start working towards a peaceful transfer of power,'' he said.
Gen Rose was speaking at the annual Hay Festival of Literature and the Arts in Hay-on-Wye, on the Welsh border with England.
The retired general who has written a book on the American War of Independence, made comparisons with the 1775-1783 conflict between Britain and the Thirteen Colonies.
He said: "How was it a small and extremely determined body of insurgents, thieves and deserters could inflict such a strategic and potentially disastrous defeat on the most powerful nation in the world?
"The answer will be familiar to anybody who is looking at what is happening in Iraq today.
"Those who don't read history are condemned to repeat the mistakes of the past.''
He said the allies in Iraq should have deployed more troops and not used a conventional war strategy.
"You don't win wars by regime change but by changing attitudes,'' he said.
He said that Iraq should have been low on the priority list compared to Afghanistan, conflicts in Africa and the battle against international terrorists."
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: firmly on dry land
Age: 81
Posts: 1,541
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gen Rose said announcing a withdrawal date would help to dampen down the violence between Sunni, Shia and Kurdish factions.
"Give them a date and it is amazing how people and political parties will stop fighting each other and start working towards a peaceful transfer of power,'' he said.
"Give them a date and it is amazing how people and political parties will stop fighting each other and start working towards a peaceful transfer of power,'' he said.
When we announced our withdrawal from Aden the 'peaceful ransfer of power' was assisted by thepresence of 5 aircraft carriers off shore.
When the US forces made their peaceful withdrawal from Vietnam they were given a rapturous send off as I recall.
When Bristows left Iran they forgot to say goodbye to their friendly hosts.
When the Ruskies departed Afghanistan I do not believe the Mujahadeen fired their Kalashnikovs into the air for joy.
The Japanese and Germans OTOH did 'stop fighting each other and start working towards a peaceful transfer of power.'
Put it another way, we are
d it we do and if we don't. In fact we are simply .
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Back in civilisation
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have only seen a few clips fronm the progaram but i am sure that if they said that the ex station cmdr pvr'd and now the boss of 201 Sqn has PVR'd along with most/all the senior pilots on the station it has to start ringing alarm bells somewhere?
Does these people at the top have an ostrich disorder, prone to sticking their head in the sand and ignoring what is happening.
Do you think that they themselves have now become resigned to the fact that they,apparently, do not have the power to do c**k all, They realise that they are just puppets for their "highly qualified?" political masters. There seems to be no loyalty coming back down the chain from the top bods.
I suppose it says it all when alll the airships had one jubilee medal on at the memorial service while all the SAC,Chiefs etc and Aircrew had 3 or 4 each.
I just do not see how it is going to get any better for the guys still there. I would say that after talking to friends at ISK there is a mood of complete and utter demoralisation. Even saying that it is not a case of if an accident happens again but when.
Still, my respect goes out to the guys still there putting up with the daily grind of bulls**t.
Does these people at the top have an ostrich disorder, prone to sticking their head in the sand and ignoring what is happening.
Do you think that they themselves have now become resigned to the fact that they,apparently, do not have the power to do c**k all, They realise that they are just puppets for their "highly qualified?" political masters. There seems to be no loyalty coming back down the chain from the top bods.
I suppose it says it all when alll the airships had one jubilee medal on at the memorial service while all the SAC,Chiefs etc and Aircrew had 3 or 4 each.
I just do not see how it is going to get any better for the guys still there. I would say that after talking to friends at ISK there is a mood of complete and utter demoralisation. Even saying that it is not a case of if an accident happens again but when.
Still, my respect goes out to the guys still there putting up with the daily grind of bulls**t.
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Sheffield
Posts: 927
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If we're talking about the wider issues of where and how our forces should become embroiled in conflicts, then I have to ask what seems to be a rather obvious question:-
Given that our armed forces are ultimately tasked with the defence and security of the United Kingdom, on what basis does our government see fit to send them to places like Iraq and Afghanistan?
I don't think anyone buys the government-spin argument that Afghanistan is somehow darkly fostering terrorism any more than any other dodgy state, in the same way that nobody now accepts the ridiculous notion that Iraq is (or ever was) a threat to the United Kingdom. It's all very well showing TV pictures of smiling happy people in Afghan villages after they've supposedly been "liberated" (or whatever else it is that we've supposed to have done for them) but when is so much as one journalist going to step-back and ask what any of this has got to do with the United Kingdom?
As somebody said some time ago, the future of these countries and the people in them might be a subject of international concern, but ultimately they're certainly not worth the life of so much as one British serviceman - it's that simple.
Why is it that it's British forces that are stuck in the most dangerous area of Afghanistan? How come every other country heroically manages to avoid putting their forces in there, and yet we're evidently expected to believe that there's a terrorist risk specific to our country, but presumably no similar risk to any other country, otherwise you'd assume they'd all be struggling to get their forces in there to help us out?
It's complete nonsense. Okay, the armed forces are obliged to do as their potitical masters tell them, but what on earth has happened to independant journalism? Where are the people to say it's time we got ourselves out of all this rubbish and stopped collectively wringing our hands in despair at the fate of nations for which we have no responsibility. Lord knows we've already done more than enough, so I really don't see why the government can't finally accept that we just don't have the resources to fight other people's battles. Fundamentally, the government is failing in its responsibility to defend our own country - we're busy defending other people's countries (under the false impression that this somehow defends us by proxy) meanwhile Putin is busy threatening to cut-off fuel supplies here, there and everywhere, and re-direct nuclear ICBM's at us...
It's a complete joke which would be funny if it wasn't so tragic for all the people who have already lost their lives for absolutely nothing.
Given that our armed forces are ultimately tasked with the defence and security of the United Kingdom, on what basis does our government see fit to send them to places like Iraq and Afghanistan?
I don't think anyone buys the government-spin argument that Afghanistan is somehow darkly fostering terrorism any more than any other dodgy state, in the same way that nobody now accepts the ridiculous notion that Iraq is (or ever was) a threat to the United Kingdom. It's all very well showing TV pictures of smiling happy people in Afghan villages after they've supposedly been "liberated" (or whatever else it is that we've supposed to have done for them) but when is so much as one journalist going to step-back and ask what any of this has got to do with the United Kingdom?
As somebody said some time ago, the future of these countries and the people in them might be a subject of international concern, but ultimately they're certainly not worth the life of so much as one British serviceman - it's that simple.
Why is it that it's British forces that are stuck in the most dangerous area of Afghanistan? How come every other country heroically manages to avoid putting their forces in there, and yet we're evidently expected to believe that there's a terrorist risk specific to our country, but presumably no similar risk to any other country, otherwise you'd assume they'd all be struggling to get their forces in there to help us out?
It's complete nonsense. Okay, the armed forces are obliged to do as their potitical masters tell them, but what on earth has happened to independant journalism? Where are the people to say it's time we got ourselves out of all this rubbish and stopped collectively wringing our hands in despair at the fate of nations for which we have no responsibility. Lord knows we've already done more than enough, so I really don't see why the government can't finally accept that we just don't have the resources to fight other people's battles. Fundamentally, the government is failing in its responsibility to defend our own country - we're busy defending other people's countries (under the false impression that this somehow defends us by proxy) meanwhile Putin is busy threatening to cut-off fuel supplies here, there and everywhere, and re-direct nuclear ICBM's at us...
It's a complete joke which would be funny if it wasn't so tragic for all the people who have already lost their lives for absolutely nothing.
Guest
Posts: n/a
I have just caught up with this entire thread - I know lot of good people are doing what they can to find out the truth about what happened - and they have my full support. I have just read level 28's comment on May 2nd and all i can say is you are an A***hole of the highest order. Should we all just sit and do nothing if we think we are not being taken seriously, listened to or lied to ? We have a democratically elected parliament for a very good reason - so grow up and stop being a pompous little company man who is prepared to say ' yes ' at all costs.
Sorry I am a bit behind the drag curve on this but those comments just made my blood boil !!!!
Sorry I am a bit behind the drag curve on this but those comments just made my blood boil !!!!
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: wilts
Posts: 1,667
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PQs
18 May 07;
Nicholas Winterton (Macclesfield, Conservative) | Hansard source
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans there are to refit the Nimrod MR2 R1 aircraft's wing fuel tanks with foam to prevent explosions.
Adam Ingram (Minister of State (Armed Forces), Ministry of Defence) | Hansard source
We keep under review the requirement for defensive aids, including explosion suppressant foam, in all our aircraft deployed on operations including the Nimrod MR2 and R1 aircraft.
In other words, no, then.
Think we might need to ask that one again when the BoI gets published.
Nicholas Winterton (Macclesfield, Conservative) | Hansard source
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans there are to refit the Nimrod MR2 R1 aircraft's wing fuel tanks with foam to prevent explosions.
Adam Ingram (Minister of State (Armed Forces), Ministry of Defence) | Hansard source
We keep under review the requirement for defensive aids, including explosion suppressant foam, in all our aircraft deployed on operations including the Nimrod MR2 and R1 aircraft.
In other words, no, then.
Think we might need to ask that one again when the BoI gets published.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Bristol Temple Meads
Posts: 869
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I note, from one of the photographs shown on Panorama of the November 2004 incident (XV227, I believe) the super heated air from the ruptured pipe fitting was direct at the fuel tank in the wing. I think those guys were lucky to get back.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: wilts
Posts: 1,667
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DV, you are quite right. I have been told that super-heated air is considered to be the most likely cause of ignition. The fact that this incident in 2004 occurred and was not acted on, is reminiscent of XV196 being holed in a fuel tank by a small calibre round months before XV179 was brought down by a round penetrating the No 4 fuel tank. In the case of XV196, engineers worked out why it had not gone bang. Armed with that knowledge fuel tank protection and a change in tactics, should have been considered before the tragedy of XV179. In the case of XV230, a great deal of work has been done on the venting system, and changes to AAR procedures have been brought in. Once again, after the event. And amazingly, nobody in the CoC is shouting for fuel tank protection.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Lincolnshire
Posts: 477
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tim - I have to disagree with your asessment of the BBC journalism. The programme has a slot of 30 minutes - it needs to get to it's point fairly quickly and I think most would agree that it did. Whilst it would be great to have an hour of Nimrod and disect the crash and indeed the current situation regards the fleet would that achieve any more. The general public probably has an understanding of the role of the Nimrod but not a great deal more.
Is it better to give them a barrage of information which might loose the audience to a large degree or keep it simple and succient?
Undoubtedly military and ex military types can pick holes in the programme but I feel that it hit it's target quite well whilst at the same time showed due respect to the fourteen servicemen lost last year.
Is it better to give them a barrage of information which might loose the audience to a large degree or keep it simple and succient?
Undoubtedly military and ex military types can pick holes in the programme but I feel that it hit it's target quite well whilst at the same time showed due respect to the fourteen servicemen lost last year.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: ISK
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re Procurement, I used to travel regularly to a defence contractor in the West Country for meetings. They had a poster on their wall which read:-
How are we supposed to deal with the Armed Forces when they all speak a different language? For Example:-
If you asked the Royal Navy to secure a building, the last man out would switch off the light and lock the door behind him.
If you asked the Army to secure a building, they would throw up two layers of barbed wire fencing with a guard tower at each corner and dogs patroling 24/7.
If you asked the Marines to secure a building, they would storm it with every weapon in their arsenal and not give in untill they had it secured.
If you ask the Royal Air Force to secure a building, ...... They would take out a fifty year lease with an option to buy !
Says it all really
How are we supposed to deal with the Armed Forces when they all speak a different language? For Example:-
If you asked the Royal Navy to secure a building, the last man out would switch off the light and lock the door behind him.
If you asked the Army to secure a building, they would throw up two layers of barbed wire fencing with a guard tower at each corner and dogs patroling 24/7.
If you asked the Marines to secure a building, they would storm it with every weapon in their arsenal and not give in untill they had it secured.
If you ask the Royal Air Force to secure a building, ...... They would take out a fifty year lease with an option to buy !
Says it all really
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: France
Posts: 289
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm sorry chaps but nothing changes, back in the early 60's because of the post that I was in I became aware of the futility of asking a large proportion of "senior officers" for decisions. You did not have to be a mind reader to see the sequence of thought going through their heads a) what effect will this have on my career? b) If bad, how can I ignore it or c) can I pretend this never happened.
I decided that I could not live with that for another 20+ years and left. Never regretted it. (I missed my mates though!!)
I decided that I could not live with that for another 20+ years and left. Never regretted it. (I missed my mates though!!)