Defence Select Committee - Cut Nimrod
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 336
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Defence Select Committee - Cut Nimrod
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/...st/7315686.stm
Whether Nimrod, Type 45, or Astute, why suggest cutting programmes that are basically a hairs breath away from completion, and are increasingly vital to replace ancient kit that is way way past its sell by date? Why not cut something we haven't even started yet and cut capabilities we dont even have, cant afford, yet seem to want to aspire to and are becoming sacred cows??
Even if they do cut those programmes, we'll still need the capability, so where do we get it from, how long does it take, how much more will it cost, and what the hell do we do in the meantime??
Why has everything and everyone become so dangerously and pathetically short sighted?
Whether Nimrod, Type 45, or Astute, why suggest cutting programmes that are basically a hairs breath away from completion, and are increasingly vital to replace ancient kit that is way way past its sell by date? Why not cut something we haven't even started yet and cut capabilities we dont even have, cant afford, yet seem to want to aspire to and are becoming sacred cows??
Even if they do cut those programmes, we'll still need the capability, so where do we get it from, how long does it take, how much more will it cost, and what the hell do we do in the meantime??
Why has everything and everyone become so dangerously and pathetically short sighted?
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: dOHA
Age: 53
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MoD urged to consider scrapping Nimrod
Thu Mar 27, 2008 12:02am GMT
LONDON (Reuters) - The Ministry of Defence must decide whether it should "cut its losses" and abandon the Nimrod programme after a delay of some eight years and a near billion-pound overspend, a group of MPs said on Thursday.
The Nimrod MRA4 maritime patrol aircraft, which has been blighted by development problems, will have racked up a further overrun of 100 million pounds in 2007/8, bringing the total over-budget figure to 800 million pounds.
The aircraft was originally announced in 1992 as a replacement for the Nimrod MR2, but has suffered technical problems.
The Commons Defence Committee said the MoD must "carefully examine whether it should cut its losses and withdraw from this sorry saga".
"The committee calls on the minister for defence equipment and support to assess whether the programme will ever deliver the capability required within the timescale needed and, if not, to withdraw from it," it added in a report.
Nimrod is one of a number of projects criticised by the MPs for overrunning on budget or deadline.
The committee reflected how "disappointing" it was that the first of the Navy's two new aircraft carriers will be without the new Joint Strike Fighter aircraft when they are expected to enter service in 2014 because of delays.
The A400M transport aircraft is also expected to enter service two years late.
The MoD's equipment programme was "unaffordable" and sacrifices needed to be made as part of the Planning Round, the MPs said.
Cutting whole equipment programmes, rather than just delaying orders or making cuts in the number of platforms ordered across a range of equipment programmes, had to be made.
Committee Chairman James Arbuthnot added: "For too long the MoD has had an unaffordable equipment programme and needs to confront the problem rather than giving the usual response of salami-slicing and moving programmes to the right.
"A realistic equipment programme will give confidence to our Armed Forces that the programmes that remain will be delivered in the numbers and to the timescale required, and will also allow industry to make informed investment decisions."
Following the Comprehensive Spending Review, the defence budget in 2008/09 will be about 34 billion pounds.
Baroness Ann Taylor, Minister for Defence Equipment and Support, said in a statement: "We keep spending plans under regular review, as we are doing in the current planning round for both equipment and the wider defence programme, to ensure that we continue to spend money on the right priorities and balance our current commitments with those that may arise in the future."
(Reporting by Avril Ormsby; Editing by Steve Addison)
My thoughts to all still at ISK as they wake up to this.
Thu Mar 27, 2008 12:02am GMT
LONDON (Reuters) - The Ministry of Defence must decide whether it should "cut its losses" and abandon the Nimrod programme after a delay of some eight years and a near billion-pound overspend, a group of MPs said on Thursday.
The Nimrod MRA4 maritime patrol aircraft, which has been blighted by development problems, will have racked up a further overrun of 100 million pounds in 2007/8, bringing the total over-budget figure to 800 million pounds.
The aircraft was originally announced in 1992 as a replacement for the Nimrod MR2, but has suffered technical problems.
The Commons Defence Committee said the MoD must "carefully examine whether it should cut its losses and withdraw from this sorry saga".
"The committee calls on the minister for defence equipment and support to assess whether the programme will ever deliver the capability required within the timescale needed and, if not, to withdraw from it," it added in a report.
Nimrod is one of a number of projects criticised by the MPs for overrunning on budget or deadline.
The committee reflected how "disappointing" it was that the first of the Navy's two new aircraft carriers will be without the new Joint Strike Fighter aircraft when they are expected to enter service in 2014 because of delays.
The A400M transport aircraft is also expected to enter service two years late.
The MoD's equipment programme was "unaffordable" and sacrifices needed to be made as part of the Planning Round, the MPs said.
Cutting whole equipment programmes, rather than just delaying orders or making cuts in the number of platforms ordered across a range of equipment programmes, had to be made.
Committee Chairman James Arbuthnot added: "For too long the MoD has had an unaffordable equipment programme and needs to confront the problem rather than giving the usual response of salami-slicing and moving programmes to the right.
"A realistic equipment programme will give confidence to our Armed Forces that the programmes that remain will be delivered in the numbers and to the timescale required, and will also allow industry to make informed investment decisions."
Following the Comprehensive Spending Review, the defence budget in 2008/09 will be about 34 billion pounds.
Baroness Ann Taylor, Minister for Defence Equipment and Support, said in a statement: "We keep spending plans under regular review, as we are doing in the current planning round for both equipment and the wider defence programme, to ensure that we continue to spend money on the right priorities and balance our current commitments with those that may arise in the future."
(Reporting by Avril Ormsby; Editing by Steve Addison)
My thoughts to all still at ISK as they wake up to this.
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 254
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MoD should ditch key arms projects, say MPs
MoD should ditch key arms projects, say MPs
• Committee says cutbacks needed to make ends meet
• Report questions need to build new aircraft carriers
• Richard Norton-Taylor
• The Guardian,
• Thursday March 27 2008
• Article history
• http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2...fence.military
About this article
This article appeared in the Guardian on Thursday March 27 2008 on p2 of the Top stories section. It was last updated at 00:07 on March 27 2008.
Pressures on the defence budget are so great that ministers should consider sacrificing one of its most prestigious projects - the £4bn replacement of two aircraft carriers - rather than simply delaying or cutting back planned new weapons systems, a powerful scrutiny committee will say today.
In a report critical of how the government procures new weapons, the cross-party Commons defence committee will challenge it to explain "what roles the two future carriers will perform ... and what capabilities these ships will give us that could not be provided in other ways".
Two carriers, the largest ships ever built for the navy, are due to be completed in 2014 and 2016 at an estimated cost of £3.9bn. Delays are likely to increase the costs while separate delays in the US Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) programme mean the first carrier will make do with ageing British Harriers, the committee notes.
Many British companies which will provide steel and other products for the ships, as well as BAE and VT, the two companies that would build them, have welcomed the project. However, the plan is questioned within and outside the MoD. Defence sources say it has become "political" rather than based on Britain's defence priorities. The carriers are due to be assembled at Rosyth dockyard in Scotland.
"The MoD needs to take the difficult decisions which will lead to a realistic and affordable equipment programme", the MPs say. They add: "This may well mean cutting whole programme, rather than just delaying orders or making cuts to the number of platforms ordered across a range of equipment programmes".
In a startling admission, General Sir Kevin O'Donoghue, chief of defence materiel, told the committee earlier this year: "I don't think we've had a properly affordable programme for many years."
However, ministers are expected to ignore the committee's advice as they struggle to make ends meet in this year's spending round. They are expected to delay the navy's shipbuilding programme, cut the RAF's order for Eurofighter/Typhoons and the army's delayed order of a new family of armoured vehicles known as Fres (Future Rapid Effects System).
Defence officials say it would be impossible to go ahead with all planned equipment programmes and pay for the basic needs of British soldiers and their families, including accommodation.
The MPs suggest plans to replace the RAF's Lynx helicopter could be vulnerable. They also urge the MoD to consider whether the time has come to "cut its losses" and abandon the updated Nimrod MRA4 maritime reconnaissance aircraft, which is running eight years behind schedule and nearly £800m over budget.
They say senior MoD officials told them problems with the Nimrod were "predictable". They add: "We are deeply concerned that they nevertheless seem to have come as such a surprise to the MoD."
James Arbuthnot, the committee chairman, said: "For too long the MoD has had an unaffordable equipment programme and needs to confront the problem rather than the usual response of salami-slicing and moving programmes to the right."
Baroness Taylor, the minister for defence equipment, said spending plans were kept "under regular review" to ensure priorities were right.
• Committee says cutbacks needed to make ends meet
• Report questions need to build new aircraft carriers
• Richard Norton-Taylor
• The Guardian,
• Thursday March 27 2008
• Article history
• http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2...fence.military
About this article
This article appeared in the Guardian on Thursday March 27 2008 on p2 of the Top stories section. It was last updated at 00:07 on March 27 2008.
Pressures on the defence budget are so great that ministers should consider sacrificing one of its most prestigious projects - the £4bn replacement of two aircraft carriers - rather than simply delaying or cutting back planned new weapons systems, a powerful scrutiny committee will say today.
In a report critical of how the government procures new weapons, the cross-party Commons defence committee will challenge it to explain "what roles the two future carriers will perform ... and what capabilities these ships will give us that could not be provided in other ways".
Two carriers, the largest ships ever built for the navy, are due to be completed in 2014 and 2016 at an estimated cost of £3.9bn. Delays are likely to increase the costs while separate delays in the US Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) programme mean the first carrier will make do with ageing British Harriers, the committee notes.
Many British companies which will provide steel and other products for the ships, as well as BAE and VT, the two companies that would build them, have welcomed the project. However, the plan is questioned within and outside the MoD. Defence sources say it has become "political" rather than based on Britain's defence priorities. The carriers are due to be assembled at Rosyth dockyard in Scotland.
"The MoD needs to take the difficult decisions which will lead to a realistic and affordable equipment programme", the MPs say. They add: "This may well mean cutting whole programme, rather than just delaying orders or making cuts to the number of platforms ordered across a range of equipment programmes".
In a startling admission, General Sir Kevin O'Donoghue, chief of defence materiel, told the committee earlier this year: "I don't think we've had a properly affordable programme for many years."
However, ministers are expected to ignore the committee's advice as they struggle to make ends meet in this year's spending round. They are expected to delay the navy's shipbuilding programme, cut the RAF's order for Eurofighter/Typhoons and the army's delayed order of a new family of armoured vehicles known as Fres (Future Rapid Effects System).
Defence officials say it would be impossible to go ahead with all planned equipment programmes and pay for the basic needs of British soldiers and their families, including accommodation.
The MPs suggest plans to replace the RAF's Lynx helicopter could be vulnerable. They also urge the MoD to consider whether the time has come to "cut its losses" and abandon the updated Nimrod MRA4 maritime reconnaissance aircraft, which is running eight years behind schedule and nearly £800m over budget.
They say senior MoD officials told them problems with the Nimrod were "predictable". They add: "We are deeply concerned that they nevertheless seem to have come as such a surprise to the MoD."
James Arbuthnot, the committee chairman, said: "For too long the MoD has had an unaffordable equipment programme and needs to confront the problem rather than the usual response of salami-slicing and moving programmes to the right."
Baroness Taylor, the minister for defence equipment, said spending plans were kept "under regular review" to ensure priorities were right.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Colditz young offenders centre
Posts: 220
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Full marks to BAE, they have in Nimrod the perfect product line - through AEW to MRA4 - they get paid but they don't need to deliver anything.
Now if only they could find a way to develop it into an export market...
It does make you wonder what sort of Air Force Britain could have if it didn't have to support BAE in the manner to which it has become accustomed.
MoD needs to decided which is the priority, operational capability - or job creation in NW England
Now if only they could find a way to develop it into an export market...
It does make you wonder what sort of Air Force Britain could have if it didn't have to support BAE in the manner to which it has become accustomed.
MoD needs to decided which is the priority, operational capability - or job creation in NW England
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Ivory Tower
Posts: 37
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cutting Costs Is Easy
1. There are too Many SENIOR OFFICERS within all 3 services, doing next to nothing, earning a fortune and collecting a pension that is crippling upon retirement.
2. Navalise TYPHOON for Tranche 3!! Cancel JSF, that is nothing short of expensive, incapable and retrogressive compared with a fully-supported TYPHOON. The new Carriers are more than capable of taking Typhoon and what a formidable force they would project- If Funded Correctly!
Done.
2. Navalise TYPHOON for Tranche 3!! Cancel JSF, that is nothing short of expensive, incapable and retrogressive compared with a fully-supported TYPHOON. The new Carriers are more than capable of taking Typhoon and what a formidable force they would project- If Funded Correctly!
Done.
Ditch MRA4?!
After listening to successive Defence Ministers proudly proclaiming the Nimrod replacement for (what seems like the last 20) years, it'd be interesting to see how this one would pass muster!
Have they already forgotten what happened in Afghanistan?!
BV
Have they already forgotten what happened in Afghanistan?!
BV
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: The Inner Planets
Posts: 64
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Whether Nimrod, Type 45, or Astute, why suggest cutting programmes that are basically a hairs breath away from completion...
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Wattashame
Posts: 136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The MPs suggest plans to replace the RAF's Lynx helicopter could be vulnerable. 
I wonder if they mean Army Lynx as the RAF don't operate Lynx. If the Army Lynx replacement is vulnerable, what about the Royal Navy Lynx(?) or is the Army and RN Lynx one and the same?
I wonder if they mean Army Lynx as the RAF don't operate Lynx. If the Army Lynx replacement is vulnerable, what about the Royal Navy Lynx(?) or is the Army and RN Lynx one and the same?
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: England
Age: 45
Posts: 71
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
An Island Nation with the worrying prospect of no Maritmie Patrol Aircraft?!? What will it take!?! It's just another sadly obvious outcome of defence spending being the lowest % of GDP since the 1930's!!!
To be fair to the committee, I can't find them referring to an RAF Lynx; it would appear to be the reporter who's got it wrong.
The committee report does make a couple of odd references to a beast called the Nimrod MRA2, though.
The committee report does make a couple of odd references to a beast called the Nimrod MRA2, though.
Jackonory......
Managed to get the knife in on the third post....well done...you are so predictable....there was I thinking I wonder how long it will take him to say "scrap CVF" oh......scroll down...there it is!!!
Managed to get the knife in on the third post....well done...you are so predictable....there was I thinking I wonder how long it will take him to say "scrap CVF" oh......scroll down...there it is!!!
Predictable, yes.
But also obviously (and to some extent regrettably) the right thing to do.
As the Defence Committee are coming to realise.
"Pressures on the defence budget are so great that ministers should consider sacrificing one of its most prestigious projects - the £4bn replacement of two aircraft carriers - rather than simply delaying or cutting back planned new weapons systems, a powerful scrutiny committee will say today.
In a report critical of how the government procures new weapons, the cross-party Commons defence committee will challenge it to explain "what roles the two future carriers will perform ... and what capabilities these ships will give us that could not be provided in other ways".
Two carriers, the largest ships ever built for the navy, are due to be completed in 2014 and 2016 at an estimated cost of £3.9bn. Delays are likely to increase the costs while separate delays in the US Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) programme mean the first carrier will make do with ageing British Harriers, the committee notes."
The carriers and the JSFs they will carry are a massive funding item, which grossly distort, and will continue to distort, the defence budget, making it impossible to afford the bread and butter items we actually NEED, as opposed to being merely nice to have.
Yes, yes, I've read and understood all of the stuff about land-based and sea-based air power being complementary in an ideal world. But this isn't an ideal world and we can't afford it. Land-based air power can be useful on its own, naval air power isn't. We've needed and used land based air power every time we've been on ops, we've seldom NEEDED sea-based. Naval aviation is a luxury we cannot afford, and keeping the Royal Navy as a gold-plated, Cold War leviathan while the other surfaces become cash-starved tinpot jokes should not be allowed to continue.
JSF costs are increasing exponentially, such that the GAO already predicts that the USA will be paying more per aircraft than we paid for Typhoon. It's time to jettison CVF and JSF, and with them the unrealistic aspirations of grandeur which they represent.
But also obviously (and to some extent regrettably) the right thing to do.
As the Defence Committee are coming to realise.
"Pressures on the defence budget are so great that ministers should consider sacrificing one of its most prestigious projects - the £4bn replacement of two aircraft carriers - rather than simply delaying or cutting back planned new weapons systems, a powerful scrutiny committee will say today.
In a report critical of how the government procures new weapons, the cross-party Commons defence committee will challenge it to explain "what roles the two future carriers will perform ... and what capabilities these ships will give us that could not be provided in other ways".
Two carriers, the largest ships ever built for the navy, are due to be completed in 2014 and 2016 at an estimated cost of £3.9bn. Delays are likely to increase the costs while separate delays in the US Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) programme mean the first carrier will make do with ageing British Harriers, the committee notes."
The carriers and the JSFs they will carry are a massive funding item, which grossly distort, and will continue to distort, the defence budget, making it impossible to afford the bread and butter items we actually NEED, as opposed to being merely nice to have.
Yes, yes, I've read and understood all of the stuff about land-based and sea-based air power being complementary in an ideal world. But this isn't an ideal world and we can't afford it. Land-based air power can be useful on its own, naval air power isn't. We've needed and used land based air power every time we've been on ops, we've seldom NEEDED sea-based. Naval aviation is a luxury we cannot afford, and keeping the Royal Navy as a gold-plated, Cold War leviathan while the other surfaces become cash-starved tinpot jokes should not be allowed to continue.
JSF costs are increasing exponentially, such that the GAO already predicts that the USA will be paying more per aircraft than we paid for Typhoon. It's time to jettison CVF and JSF, and with them the unrealistic aspirations of grandeur which they represent.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Europe
Posts: 580
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I wonder if they mean Army Lynx as the RAF don't operate Lynx. If the Army Lynx replacement is vulnerable, what about the Royal Navy Lynx(?) or is the Army and RN Lynx one and the same?
As for differences, RN one has additional Radar and FASGW capability along with only one ste of controls whereas the Green version will have no Radar, no FASGW and a set of duals.
At a stroke, this move would help the procurement and long term budgets. It would also help the manning crisis, particularly across the Eng, GD(P) and NCA problem areas (particularly as many at ISK are eying up NetJets anyway).
It would also help BAE who have effectively squeezed as much as they can out of the project and now should be delivering.
The only people it doesn't help is those requiring the services of a Nimrod, particularly those on the front line- but since did MOD/Nu Labour care about them?
Not an expert (by a long chalk) but could this be linked to recent developments with the King Air?
It would also help BAE who have effectively squeezed as much as they can out of the project and now should be delivering.
The only people it doesn't help is those requiring the services of a Nimrod, particularly those on the front line- but since did MOD/Nu Labour care about them?
Not an expert (by a long chalk) but could this be linked to recent developments with the King Air?
Jacko,
The Royal Navy is not gold plated...far from it and has been decimated over the last decade, much like the other two services. The issu is that the two conflicts the UK is currently involved in, have skewed defence priorities right over to one end of the spectrum. That does not mean that in 10 years time the "swingometer" will go the other way. As I have said in other posts, which you have read, we only have to look at how Russia is exerting it's influence in the Arctic over resources, to see where the world is going over the next 50 years. Some might say that the whole Iraq thing was about resources.
I would personally (my own opinion) say that cancellation of JSF was the most sensible option. Marinate (sic) Typhoon or buy Rafale. Both could operate on CVF and be much more capable than Dave B. This decision would however, upset the light blue who want a Harrier replacement....so a no win situation there then. In the light of Mr Sarkozy's visit, Mr Brown should announce this immediately and in the spirit of co-operation announce new contracts for French Built Nuclear power stations in return for a cheap bulk buy of Rafale, thereby achieving commonality with the French CVF (stores, spares etc.) It is clear that this is what is needed.
Keep up the lobbying old chap........I know it is starting to annoy you....much like that irritating little mossie that flies around your head during your BBQ.
The Royal Navy is not gold plated...far from it and has been decimated over the last decade, much like the other two services. The issu is that the two conflicts the UK is currently involved in, have skewed defence priorities right over to one end of the spectrum. That does not mean that in 10 years time the "swingometer" will go the other way. As I have said in other posts, which you have read, we only have to look at how Russia is exerting it's influence in the Arctic over resources, to see where the world is going over the next 50 years. Some might say that the whole Iraq thing was about resources.
I would personally (my own opinion) say that cancellation of JSF was the most sensible option. Marinate (sic) Typhoon or buy Rafale. Both could operate on CVF and be much more capable than Dave B. This decision would however, upset the light blue who want a Harrier replacement....so a no win situation there then. In the light of Mr Sarkozy's visit, Mr Brown should announce this immediately and in the spirit of co-operation announce new contracts for French Built Nuclear power stations in return for a cheap bulk buy of Rafale, thereby achieving commonality with the French CVF (stores, spares etc.) It is clear that this is what is needed.
Keep up the lobbying old chap........I know it is starting to annoy you....much like that irritating little mossie that flies around your head during your BBQ.
