Nimrod MRA.4

[Modern Elmo]

The obvious solution is to re-open the coal pits and put people laid off from the Nimrod program back to work.

[Postman Plod]

Closures and cancellations are a fact of life. When Maggie Thatcher decimated the coal industry, she destroyed the way of life and employemt oppertunities of several towns and villages thoughout, Wales, Scotland and England. The people affected by her decision had to a pick up the pieces and build new lives. The same applies now to those affected by the cancellation of the Nimrod Mk4. Take it on the chin and move on.

Slightly off topic perhaps but...

Yes, IT, financial service, service industries and retail replaced the decimated heavy industry, and rapidly shrinking and outsourced / offshored manufacturing industries. Despite what you might think, many of those communities have never recovered. Now the IT, finance and service industries are struggling and offshoring / outsourcing.

So exactly what are they going to be replaced with? I don't see anything on the horizon like there was 20 years ago. We aren't as diverse a country any more. We can't make anything. We can't mine anything (well not in this country anyway). We can't answer telephone calls cos we're too expensive. Bankers are despised, and besides make money for themselves so can do it anywhere - most likely somewhere warmer and tax free. IT can be (and is) done anywhere, and we are an expensive country to do business with. Most of our key domestic utilities are foreign owned and benefit only the shareholder. We can't afford to invest in large infrastructure projects cos they're too damn expensive and will most likely get cancelled before they finish. Many of the "future tech" companies can't get any investment and have closed down. The public sector is shedding jobs like there is no tomorrow, to be repalced with "volunteers" (or those who find themselves out of work, and won't even get benefits unless they do the full time job of someone who used to earn £20-30K for nothing). Once the public sector job cuts really bite, and its found the private sector aren't employing, retail will plummet.

Yes, we'll pick ourselves up, take it on the chin, and move on.... (China anyone?) Just like the Irish will as they move across the Irish Sea in the false belief that we are the green and pleasant land of prosperity (who, whilst broke, generously borrowed £7bn to help bail them out (on top of the £85bn Europe have provided), safe in the knowledge that with a population of only 4.5 million, the Irish loans will never be paid back.)

[Scuttled]

IRAVEN

Thanks iRaven, a good and well reasoned position argued - especially since it was typed on a smart phone.

I am, personally, more interested in the capability gap than the negative social and financial impact on a small-ish demographic of the military community. I am being completely objective here; on a personal level it concerns me greatly, I am involved. But it's always good to hear somebody arguing a different view.

And also, you have definitely earned the right to employ extreme banter now....... standing by for flippant pictures of coal mines with MRA4s circling overhead and a suitably sarcastic reply.

Cheers.

[VinRouge]

safe in the knowledge that with a population of only 4.5 million, the Irish loans will never be paid back.)

They will. But "paid back" in the sense that we have only managed to recently "Pay back" loans post WW2...

The problem is, the cost to the UK, in terms of state owned bank asset writedowns, would cause a serious contagion and the whole eurozone could collapse.

What amazes me, we have politicians arguing business shouldnt be allowed to become "too big to fail", yet they have created a political construct and a single currency that is exactly that.

The Eurozone quite simply is going to have to change their constitution to allow for QE, rather than loans. Its the only way out. Getting all romantic about post WW2 hyperinflation isnt going to stop the PIIGS defaulting and brining the whole sorry mess down with it.

Niggel Farage had a good innings the other day in brussels:

YouTube - Nigel Farage - 'The Euro Game Is Up! Who the hell do you think you are ?'

Interesting to see the sorts of advertising that is prevailing in the us at the mo....

YouTube - US national debt commercial

[Modern Elmo]

We aren't as diverse a country any more.

Huh??? UK needs more Gypsies! And some Mexicans, too!

We can't make anything.

Why not?

I am, personally, more interested in the capability gap than the ...

Have you, personally, ever entertained the thought that UK has military gaps because Britain has technology and industry and consequent wealth gaps?

[SCAFLounger]

Hi

I served with Supply Sqn at St Mawgan 1979-1982.

I was there when Nimrods helped save lives during the Fastnet Boat Race disaster. What's going to do the job in future?

The depleted Navy doesn't have the airborne 'lookdown' view, has fewer vessels/capability to respond, and the Lifeboat service is being cut back..........

Or is it "We will have full capability in year xxxx" type of political garbage?

Thanks
SCAFLounger

[Bannock]

An extract from JDW. Could someone please explain the logic given that there are aspirations to regenerate the maritime capability in 4-5 years?
The arguments that so many have stated with regard to, not being able to afford it, holds no water.



Ambitious plans by the UK Ministry of Defence (MoD) to save more than GBP3 billion (USD4.8 billion) over the next decade by cancelling equipment procurement projects are under threat from termination charges.
A month on from the publication of the UK coalition government's Strategic Defence and Security Review (SDSR), MoD officials are still locked in negotiations with major defence companies over compensation for terminating their contracts. These include cancelling the manufacturing and support contracts for the BAE Systems Nimrod MRA.4 maritime patrol aircraft, as well as ending support contracts for the BAE Systems Harrier GR.9 attack aircraft and its engines eight years early and reducing the number of Panavia Tornado GR.4 strike aircraft and engines to be serviced under the Availability Transformation: Tornado Aircraft Contract (ATTAC) and RB199 Operational Contract for Engine Transformation (ROCET2) support contract with BAE Systems and Rolls-Royce.
An MoD spokesman told Jane's that it was hoped that GBP2 billion would be saved over the next decade by not taking the Nimrod MRA.4 into service, while taking Harrier out of service would save about GBP450 million over the next four years and around GBP900 million in total. A further GBP500 million is expected to be saved by withdrawing the Raytheon Sentinel R.1 Airborne Stand-Off Radar aircraft.
Like the ministry, the defence companies contacted by Jane's refused to comment in detail on the progress of talks. "We can confirm that the company has received a letter from the UK Ministry of Defence terminating the contract for the provision of nine Nimrod MRA.4 aircraft," a spokesman for BAE Systems told Jane's . "We are now considering the implications of the letter for the company, our employees and our suppliers."
An MoD source said that achieving the savings targets were dependent on securing beneficial terms with suppliers, some of whom might now be slow to co-operate with the coalition government. "The financial saving targets set in the SDSR were very much 'big hand', 'ballpark' or 'in the region of' figures and we will not know the final cost until our negotiations with the contractors are complete," said the source.
The Harrier GR.9 and Nimrod MRA.4 projects carry the biggest risk to the MoD, he said. BAE Systems and Rolls-Royce signed support contracts worth GBP574 million and GBP198 million respectively for the RAF/Royal Navy Harrier force only last year. Both contracts have eight years left to run, so the MoD will likely face a substantial bill to compensate the companies for their termination.
Sources close to the ministry's Nimrod integrated project team have told Jane's that the cost of winding up the MRA.4 programme could well run to "several hundred million pounds" over the next five years, making it unlikely that the ministry will achieve any savings from the cancellation in the first half of the decade. In October the UK National Audit Office in its annual MoD major projects report revealed that BAE Systems was still due to be paid GBP254 million on the MRA.4 development and production contract.
Significant additional sums will be required to wind up MRA.4 activities, including cancelling contracts to run simulators, electronic warfare test rigs, stress test rigs, design authority operations and operational test and evaluation activity. The ministry will also have to fund storage of the sole Nimrod MRA.4 that has been delivered, three aircraft over 90 per cent complete and the remaining five aircraft that are more than 40 per cent complete, as well as an extensive spares pool held at BAE Systems' Woodford site, and the dismantling of a simulator complex at RAF Kinloss in Moray.

[Lyneham Lad]

Ambitious plans by the UK Ministry of Defence (MoD) to save more than GBP3 billion (USD4.8 billion) over the next decade by cancelling equipment procurement projects are under threat from termination charges.

I do not have a MoD or Treasury phone directory to hand but presumably somewhere in there is someone called Baldrick.

[Ken Scott]

Ambitious plans by the UK Ministry of Defence (MoD) to save more than GBP3 billion (USD4.8 billion) over the next decade by cancelling equipment procurement projects are under threat from termination charges.

Perhaps people in the MOD have been watching too much Top Gear and copied their mantra - 'ambitious but rubbish'.

Too often 'defence cuts' save little or no money whilst eroding capabilities. The aircraft carriers were deemed too costly to cancel because of contract termination charges, did they not even consider the same might be true of the MRA4 & Harrier?

I don't think Baldrick works at the MOD, he must be running it....

[Mend em]

IRaven

I presume you have a list of favourite places from where you'd like to see UK kit sourced. I'd like to offer a selection of ace products from beyond our shores (and don't give us any crud about UK involvement, these are foreign aircraft) - F35, now there's a schedule and cost success story in the making; A400M, bang on time; FSTA - TWICE the annual in-service cost of the MRA4, for a bl**dy railway carriage with wings; P8 (a derivative of the hugely successful P7 programme) - already cost more in development than the MRA4's now famous £3.8bn even with a mission system developed for them. We could go on. I think you'll find that in the UK the common thread is the organisation buying the kit not the source of supply.

I'm all for a bit of banter, and black humour is definitely something the UK does well, but from where I sit I'm finding your comments increasingly insensitive and at times downright offensive.

[iRaven]

Au contraire, BG Gilbert

Mend Em, agreed, FSTA is a c0ck up (it does involve EADS, Rolls Royce, Cobham, Thales and VT Group - all with UK interest?), F-35B was the wrong choice from the start (with bigger weight problems than Vanessa Feltz! But does have BAES and RR partnership), A400M as Airbus's first Mil venture (and probably last? Plenty of UK involvement) but P-8 is on track to deliver (yes, it has used MRA4 kit to get it back on track, but a P-8 is 1/3rd the cost of an MRA4 ($230M)). I agree that MoD procurement is scr3w3d up; we pay peanuts, we employ monkeys and then UK defence companies rip them off! (Usually Northern Monkeys at that ).

Now back to the point of my post...

Here's an interesting analysis of another procurement program that could draw parallels with the MRA4:

Can We Save the RAF? Or Does Unilateral Disarmament Have To Be So Expensive?

An interesting paper examining the procurement of EuroFighter Typhoon.

Here's the abstract "This paper demonstrates that the United Kingdom's Royal Air Force could have significantly more usable capability if it were to terminate the remaining intended production of the Eurofighter Typhoon and scrap Typhoons already purchased (a total of 232), replacing them with an F-16 force structure with combined procurement and operating costs that had the same discounted cash flow. The conclusions are very robust across a wide range of exchange rates, even when all intended 232 Typhoons are first purchased and then scrapped."

Sound familiar?

Read the link above on the paper from a Doctorate, Master of Business Administration and Master of Public Accountancy - so I offer that Dr Kenneth Freeman MBA MPA has the academic accumen to argue such things...I do not. But I get the feeling that he has a good point when the country is having to make tough financial choices.

iRaven

[The Old Fat One]

Last geezer with all those business qualifications to run a war/military operation was Robert Macnamara.

He came rank last in the subsequent arse kicking competition.

[BossEyed]

Oh, very well skewered, TOFO.

11 minutes, too - that's well within the 3 Second Rule as modified for t'internet.

[Lima Juliet]

Robert MacNamara - the US Def Sec who in 1967 recommended freezing troop levels, stop the bombing of North Vietnam and for the US to hand over ground fighting to South Vietnam. Rejected outright by President Lyndon B. Johnson (who was an @-hole IMHO). McNamara's recommendations amounted to his saying that the strategy of the United States in Vietnam which had been pursued to date had failed (which was correct). Nearly 40,000 US servicemen died after this date!

Was he so wrong? I don't think so. Plus he had the dignity to fall on his sword when no one would listen to him!

He also ran 2 successful ventures - The Ford Motor Company (and opposed the dreadful Edzel) before he became Sec Def and also the World Bank until the 80s.

I just don't see him as your model for disaster.

LJ

[The B Word]

TOFO

"In the book In Retrospect: The Tragedy and Lessons of Vietnam (1995), MacNamara claimed that, from as early as 1965, after the dispatch of US ground forces and the start of massive bombing, he thought the war "impossible" to win "short of genocidal destruction". By late 1967 he believed that America would suffer "a major national disaster" if the war did not stop and wrote a memorandum to President Johnson urging the case for complete withdrawal. Within weeks he had been forced to resign, albeit with the consolation prize of the World Bank presidency and a Presidential Medal of Freedom.
McNamara's claims were borne out by declassified secret tapes of cabinet discussions at the time which seemed to support his contention that he was a restraining influence. He could be heard urging President Kennedy to get out of Vietnam as early as October 1963, and in a telephone conversation in 1964 Johnson could be heard chastising McNamara for giving Kennedy that advice. "

Best find another example, eh?

The B Word

[The Old Fat One]

Well done for knowing the facts but not so hot on application of them.

Did I have a pop at Macnamara the businessman (or human being)??

No indeed.

i had a pop at the concept of warfare/military ops being run by a speadsheet mentality (Macnamara himself was among the first to coin the term "metrics" in relation to enemy casualities). Whilst he (aided by the likes of Westmoreland who was of a similar persuasion) was busy managing the war, the North Vietnamese were busy fighting it. The fact the he foresaw the problem (but not the outcome) makes the point all the more relevant. As for the hindsight (errr check the title of his book) well, we all have the gift of that don't we?

However, let's not die in a ditch over it...my point was simply this:

In military terms, if I wanted advice on how much I had to spend I would ask an accountant. If I wanted adviice on how to spend it I would ask a General.

[davejb]

TOFO's point is a good one in my opinion,
however you care to look at it Mc Namara was pretty near the top (LBJ) and you can take it one of two ways - McN counselled against the war and was ignored (at which he should have resigned) or he continued to support the accountants' approach to war that LBJ seemed to favour.

That LBJ should take the lion's share of the blame is, I think, reasonable - the US point of view of warfare was skewed from the top down - but McN is still far from being a poster boy for the "beancounters should be in charge" argument.

TOFO's final point is spot on - the political leadership should appoint the best fighting general they can in wartime, then stand back and let them get on with it, unless extreme circumstances arise. (I'm thinking of McArthur's idea to nuke the Chinese here).

Dave

[Jig Peter]

Best general

Is "the best fighting general" really likely to be "en poste" when a war arrives after politicians and diplomats have been unable to control a situation? Finding him and replacing the good peacetime generals takes time, which you may not have when the winds of change from the Big Fan are blowing storms of brown stuff.

[glad rag]

What I still find staggering is the decisions to stop programs that are already mature and delivering, I mean was there not already a bloody good reason (in terms of national defence) for them in the first place.

IT'S ALL A LOAD OF FACE SAVING BOLLOX.

[Fafner shim]

Much respect to the history lesson guys but when I read stuff like below, I want to rip the throat out of someone. Enough is enough, how low are we going to stoop? As a matelot it shames me to think that if I was to ground my sub off Skye, I can rely on the French to assist when only 100 metres from my own shore.


As the Nimrod MRA4 maritime surveillance aircraft has been painfully scrapped under the Strategic Defense Review, numerous observers suggest that the British MoD may have passed a deal with France to share this capability. Indeed, French weekly Air & Cosmos suggests this week that Atlantique 2 ASW aircraft might return patrolling Scottish seas around Faslane…. British Defence Forum Think Defence says: One of the reasons we decided to get rid was because we could rely on our allies. In the news today were details of France’s ambitious plans to update and expand its own maritime capabilities. So it looks increasingly likely that we are outsourcing maritime patrol to the French(Think Defence, Aviation Week)


A new low in the RAFs brief history ?