Nimrod MRA.4
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Lincolnshire
Posts: 107
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MRA4 Support Costs
I'm in danger of repeating myself, but the £200m pa quoted for MRA4 includes the RAF costs at RAF Kinloss. Industry's costs were in the £60 - £70m per year range.
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: cardboard box in't middle of t'road
Posts: 745
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
I think that JJ would find it difficult to speak on the following topics at this time.
When the Government's answer to the posed questions seem to be:
1. Too high.
2. Not imperative.
3. Merlin, Skimmers, Trafalgar and Astute.
4. Compulsory redundancy will remove skill fade.
5. It isn't and won't.
AGENDA for DAY 2
1125
What are the cost implications of operating a Maritime Patrol Aircraft fleet?
How imperative are MPAs within an ASW arsenal? – A Nimrod MR4A case study
• Examine the RAF current and future ASW capabilities
• Mitigating skill fade in a land focused environment
• How is the MR4A improving the UK’s ASW capabilities
Group Captain J.J. Johnstone, Station Commander, RAF Kinloss, UK
1125
What are the cost implications of operating a Maritime Patrol Aircraft fleet?
How imperative are MPAs within an ASW arsenal? – A Nimrod MR4A case study
• Examine the RAF current and future ASW capabilities
• Mitigating skill fade in a land focused environment
• How is the MR4A improving the UK’s ASW capabilities
Group Captain J.J. Johnstone, Station Commander, RAF Kinloss, UK
1. Too high.
2. Not imperative.
3. Merlin, Skimmers, Trafalgar and Astute.
4. Compulsory redundancy will remove skill fade.
5. It isn't and won't.
Last edited by Surplus; 5th Nov 2010 at 01:55.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: St Annes
Age: 68
Posts: 638
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Presumably he isn't going,
it would (surely) be absolutely humiliating for the poor chap to have to attend as even an interested spectator, never mind having to stand up and describe the MRA4 now it has been nerfed. Might as well show his holiday slides....
Is it just me, or is the decision to scrap MRA4 looking even less sensible as time passes?
Dave
it would (surely) be absolutely humiliating for the poor chap to have to attend as even an interested spectator, never mind having to stand up and describe the MRA4 now it has been nerfed. Might as well show his holiday slides....
Is it just me, or is the decision to scrap MRA4 looking even less sensible as time passes?
Dave
king stupid when it was made....
Or perhaps he should attend and highlight the error of the government decision by demonstrating what the kipper fleet has done over the years and what the MRA4 could have done in the future.
Or attend, stand up and resign his commission, in public, in protest at the decision.
Alternatively, he could sit back and await his next posting.....
Your bets please ......
PS - only met the chap a couple of times so don't know him that well. Nothing personal against him - its just a sideways dig at those who suggest 'extreme action / protest' in the face of the decision to bin MRA4 (which I don't agree with before you all flame me, nor do I have any real ideas how to balance the books and keep all the toys!
). Options 1 and 2 would be great to watch though .....
Or attend, stand up and resign his commission, in public, in protest at the decision.
Alternatively, he could sit back and await his next posting.....
Your bets please ......
PS - only met the chap a couple of times so don't know him that well. Nothing personal against him - its just a sideways dig at those who suggest 'extreme action / protest' in the face of the decision to bin MRA4 (which I don't agree with before you all flame me, nor do I have any real ideas how to balance the books and keep all the toys!
). Options 1 and 2 would be great to watch though .....
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: St Annes
Age: 68
Posts: 638
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Squirrel,
there is an honest part of me that says letting BWoS build it was a 'courageous' decision (ref: Yes Prime Minister) and that the basic idea of Nim 2000 was likely to lead to a measure of grief... some nice chaps (I think they were from Boeing) spent a while chatting to me a good while back about what Nim 2000 should be like, and back then it all felt a bit wrong.... but we have the aircraft now, and like many folk on here I see a few major points that all seem to point towards MRA4 flying - despite concerns:
1) It is paid for - if we do not have MRA4 and want to have LRMPA then buying off the shelf adds a significant bill to what has been spent already. As I understand it we are talking some £200 million a year to fly MRA4, but this includes lots of 'in place' infrastructure - infrastructure that will need to be rebuilt for (say) P-8.... we HAVE MRA4 sim, for example, if we buy P-8 we will have an extra cost in buying or renting a P-8 sim. I cannot imagine any possible scenario that shows MRA4 to cost more over the next 20-30 years than swapping to another LRMPA.
2) Safety issues - there seems to be a story, not as yet confirmed, that MRA4 is unsafe. You can read between the lines all you like here - one version says there are significant issues (genuine safety issues) that mean MRA4 will never have a clean bill of heath, Another version says MAA have picked up the poisoned chalice called Nimrod and nobody has the balls to state in B/W that the complaints are just niggles and will be sorted. I have no idea which is right, I would happily bet on the area between the two. I'll tell you one thing though, I find it hard to believe that B707 (ie KC135 and E3) and B52 aren't 'legacy systems' that have avoided the spotlight simply because they haven't had a nasty accident recently. I bet Nimrod MR2 was safe as long as you didn't AAR from a system that generated pressures above X PSI.... and that's probably an issue that could have grounded any a/c that got an instant AAR probe in 1982. Nimrod is the poster child for all that went wrong - but it went wrong because we bodged up a necessary capability in wartime, and then allowed it to continue into peacetime.... a bad decision.
3) We have no alternative to offer and LRMPA is essential to an island nation that is supplied by sea. We are quite literally, now incapable of defeating Adm Doenitz's wolf packs of the 1940's, which is a complete abrogation of the first duty of our government, in my opinion.
Point 1 is, I think, what decided Cameron.
Point 2 I have no idea about, knowledge on this score is closely guarded, I think Cameron should speak very plainly on this score if safety was the issue because the silence is deafening otherwise, and it makes him look...
Point 3 like a total tw@t who has no concept of what he ought to be doing. What is the point of having forces in Afghanistan if you can be driven to starvation in mere weeks by anyone who can shove a few SS/SSN into the Atlantic, while drug runners and terrorists can land what they like anywhere they choose along our coastline?
I have flown sorties against drug/arms traffickers (allegedly) in (allegedly) a few bits of the world, and I can only assume that the most benign of our threats - recreational drugs that enslave our kids - are pouring in during the capability holiday. They'll be two for one in Tescos by Christmas.
We should also have a strong Navy by the way. To be honest the Army is only useful during periods when we attack other folk, let's be honest anyone who gets onto the south downs past the RAF and RN has probably already won, it seems bizarre to me that we are concentrating capability on aggression instead of defence...
Dave
there is an honest part of me that says letting BWoS build it was a 'courageous' decision (ref: Yes Prime Minister) and that the basic idea of Nim 2000 was likely to lead to a measure of grief... some nice chaps (I think they were from Boeing) spent a while chatting to me a good while back about what Nim 2000 should be like, and back then it all felt a bit wrong.... but we have the aircraft now, and like many folk on here I see a few major points that all seem to point towards MRA4 flying - despite concerns:
1) It is paid for - if we do not have MRA4 and want to have LRMPA then buying off the shelf adds a significant bill to what has been spent already. As I understand it we are talking some £200 million a year to fly MRA4, but this includes lots of 'in place' infrastructure - infrastructure that will need to be rebuilt for (say) P-8.... we HAVE MRA4 sim, for example, if we buy P-8 we will have an extra cost in buying or renting a P-8 sim. I cannot imagine any possible scenario that shows MRA4 to cost more over the next 20-30 years than swapping to another LRMPA.
2) Safety issues - there seems to be a story, not as yet confirmed, that MRA4 is unsafe. You can read between the lines all you like here - one version says there are significant issues (genuine safety issues) that mean MRA4 will never have a clean bill of heath, Another version says MAA have picked up the poisoned chalice called Nimrod and nobody has the balls to state in B/W that the complaints are just niggles and will be sorted. I have no idea which is right, I would happily bet on the area between the two. I'll tell you one thing though, I find it hard to believe that B707 (ie KC135 and E3) and B52 aren't 'legacy systems' that have avoided the spotlight simply because they haven't had a nasty accident recently. I bet Nimrod MR2 was safe as long as you didn't AAR from a system that generated pressures above X PSI.... and that's probably an issue that could have grounded any a/c that got an instant AAR probe in 1982. Nimrod is the poster child for all that went wrong - but it went wrong because we bodged up a necessary capability in wartime, and then allowed it to continue into peacetime.... a bad decision.
3) We have no alternative to offer and LRMPA is essential to an island nation that is supplied by sea. We are quite literally, now incapable of defeating Adm Doenitz's wolf packs of the 1940's, which is a complete abrogation of the first duty of our government, in my opinion.
Point 1 is, I think, what decided Cameron.
Point 2 I have no idea about, knowledge on this score is closely guarded, I think Cameron should speak very plainly on this score if safety was the issue because the silence is deafening otherwise, and it makes him look...
Point 3 like a total tw@t who has no concept of what he ought to be doing. What is the point of having forces in Afghanistan if you can be driven to starvation in mere weeks by anyone who can shove a few SS/SSN into the Atlantic, while drug runners and terrorists can land what they like anywhere they choose along our coastline?
I have flown sorties against drug/arms traffickers (allegedly) in (allegedly) a few bits of the world, and I can only assume that the most benign of our threats - recreational drugs that enslave our kids - are pouring in during the capability holiday. They'll be two for one in Tescos by Christmas.
We should also have a strong Navy by the way. To be honest the Army is only useful during periods when we attack other folk, let's be honest anyone who gets onto the south downs past the RAF and RN has probably already won, it seems bizarre to me that we are concentrating capability on aggression instead of defence...
Dave
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: St Annes
Age: 68
Posts: 638
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wrathmonk/Incubus...
I don't know JJ, far too young a chap, now if it had been Spanners or Mick Muttit it'd be different (I always felt I ought to bow or something when Spanners arrived, to be honest)....
JJ has, as far as I know, been a thoroughly good egg and should certainly not resign, he should continue up the greasy pole and do one of two things:
1) Stage a coup - this might need some help, I suspect some of the RN might oblige.
2) When civilisation collapses let me in the armoury in time to set up my independent republic of Dave.
I suppose there are other options, but the guy seems to be between the proverbial rock and hard place - for his own peace of mind and future rep he should avoid endorsing the current government stance. Cameron has bitten the bullet, which was needed and he did the right thing in general. In detail it's a complete mish mash - we should have pulled out of Afghanistan and spent the massive savings on building our forces to a level that at least looks moderatley sensible. We simply cannot afford both, and he should have had the sense to realise that....which he plainly hasn't, and I doubt any political party has. Defence of the homeland should always be number one, WELL before offensive ops.
Cameron - muppet.
Dave
I don't know JJ, far too young a chap, now if it had been Spanners or Mick Muttit it'd be different (I always felt I ought to bow or something when Spanners arrived, to be honest)....
JJ has, as far as I know, been a thoroughly good egg and should certainly not resign, he should continue up the greasy pole and do one of two things:
1) Stage a coup - this might need some help, I suspect some of the RN might oblige.
2) When civilisation collapses let me in the armoury in time to set up my independent republic of Dave.
I suppose there are other options, but the guy seems to be between the proverbial rock and hard place - for his own peace of mind and future rep he should avoid endorsing the current government stance. Cameron has bitten the bullet, which was needed and he did the right thing in general. In detail it's a complete mish mash - we should have pulled out of Afghanistan and spent the massive savings on building our forces to a level that at least looks moderatley sensible. We simply cannot afford both, and he should have had the sense to realise that....which he plainly hasn't, and I doubt any political party has. Defence of the homeland should always be number one, WELL before offensive ops.
Cameron - muppet.
Dave
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Lincolnshire
Posts: 107
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dave,
My first chance to say 'I agree whole heartedly' on here.
Economically, the future costs are being overstated; the 'Safety Issue' is somewhere between the two as you say, but closer to the 'niggles' than the 'fundamentals' end of the scale; militarily the decision was plain daft.
IMHO this was politics, pure and simple.
My first chance to say 'I agree whole heartedly' on here.
Economically, the future costs are being overstated; the 'Safety Issue' is somewhere between the two as you say, but closer to the 'niggles' than the 'fundamentals' end of the scale; militarily the decision was plain daft.
IMHO this was politics, pure and simple.
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Lincolnshire
Posts: 107
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MRA4 Support
By the way - just found out that the proposed MRA4 Support Solution, called 'NIPS' - you know, the thing that costs so much the programme was cancelled, has been awarded a CDM Commendation.
Certificate handing over ceremony was set for next week - not sure there'll be anyone left in the IPT to collect.
Certificate handing over ceremony was set for next week - not sure there'll be anyone left in the IPT to collect.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: The World
Posts: 86
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nah, I think that this was about money and not much else. Buying Nimrod from BWoS was a stupid decision, continuing with it in the face of the huge problems that became clear early in the project was another stupid decision and cancelling it after getting it to the point of entering service is yet another stupid decision.
However, if the Government only wants to spend 2% of GDP on Defence, some seemingly stupid decisions are necessary. If anyone knows how to sort out the MOD's budget without a whole range of stupid decisions then they need to arrange an urgent chat with nice Mr Fox before a large consignment of angle grinders arrives at Woodford!
H1
However, if the Government only wants to spend 2% of GDP on Defence, some seemingly stupid decisions are necessary. If anyone knows how to sort out the MOD's budget without a whole range of stupid decisions then they need to arrange an urgent chat with nice Mr Fox before a large consignment of angle grinders arrives at Woodford!
H1
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: St Annes
Age: 68
Posts: 638
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hello1 -agreed 100%, a series of stupid decisions, not improved by continuing to make stupid decisions.
You can't fight wars with a peacetime budget, I can only presume that for the better part of the past 10 years our political leadership has shied away from paying for it, whilst simultaneously refusing to give up 'our place' on the world stage... or, more directly, been too shamefaced to tell the US 'no' and admit we are no longer a major world power.
Dave
You can't fight wars with a peacetime budget, I can only presume that for the better part of the past 10 years our political leadership has shied away from paying for it, whilst simultaneously refusing to give up 'our place' on the world stage... or, more directly, been too shamefaced to tell the US 'no' and admit we are no longer a major world power.
Dave
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Scotland
Posts: 217
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Somebody mentioned an Ex Kinloss Station Commander instrumental in helping the MRA4 come into service has quit after the decision. I am not sure if that 100% but if it is and what I am told then I take my hat of Sir.
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Scotland
Posts: 217
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ok Random thanks, with so many feelings and anger floating about its difficult to know what is correct and what is not. I just heard it off the station grapevine that is all.
dave
Not personally suggesting JJ should resign - I have it on good authority he indeed is a very capable individual. Just poking fun at some of the rather sad calls for officers a, b and c to resign over this issue. You can only fight a battle, even if it is a rear guard action, from within. There are plenty of yes men waiting in the wings prepared to sell their souls for the glory of being top dog and a bigger pension (look at what is happening in the RN ....). Better the devil you know .... and some of those in waiting you really really wouldn't want at the top of the tree (IMHO
)
Not personally suggesting JJ should resign - I have it on good authority he indeed is a very capable individual. Just poking fun at some of the rather sad calls for officers a, b and c to resign over this issue. You can only fight a battle, even if it is a rear guard action, from within. There are plenty of yes men waiting in the wings prepared to sell their souls for the glory of being top dog and a bigger pension (look at what is happening in the RN ....). Better the devil you know .... and some of those in waiting you really really wouldn't want at the top of the tree (IMHO
)
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: St Annes
Age: 68
Posts: 638
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Understood mate,
didn't think it was a call for hara kiri from yourself....
It's all well and good to talk about resigning on principle, when it's not you who will be playing the violin in the underpass a week later - Pprune, like other BBS's, tends to drive people towards histrionics they wouldn't consider for a moment were they the one selected to make the supreme gesture
Anyhow, if all the good guys resign, it doesn't take a genius to work out who'll be left in charge....
didn't think it was a call for hara kiri from yourself....
It's all well and good to talk about resigning on principle, when it's not you who will be playing the violin in the underpass a week later - Pprune, like other BBS's, tends to drive people towards histrionics they wouldn't consider for a moment were they the one selected to make the supreme gesture
Anyhow, if all the good guys resign, it doesn't take a genius to work out who'll be left in charge....
Give us a clue Dave who would be left!!!!!! Some good and not so good stuff coming across here thank you Dave you have had lessons since I knew you!!!!!
Keep at it, who knows where the whole mess will end.
Keep at it, who knows where the whole mess will end.
Random - there's a buzz going around the RN ASW community that the Air Cdre at Dec (as was) in charge of ASW has "retired early" as a direct result of this decision. I hope this is true.....