Military Aviation A forum for the professionals who fly military hardware. Also for the backroom boys and girls who support the flying and maintain the equipment, and without whom nothing would ever leave the ground. All armies, navies and air forces of the world equally welcome here.

Nimrod MRA.4

Old 27th Jan 2011, 20:53
  #1641 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 767
Another viewpoint (from Lewis Page of course):

Antique Nimrod subhunters scrapped – THANK GOODNESS!

But so sad for everyone that worked hard to make it a success and were depending on it for their futures. Good luck all.
LFFC is offline  
Old 27th Jan 2011, 22:01
  #1642 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 932
Ah Lewis Page, "These Islands" second greatest strategic thinker after um, some random "loyalist" terrorist mafiosi across the water there?

Or an perhaps after a Dublin banker who's screwed his country over even more than the former HAC of 602 Sqn RAuxAF screwed over the UK?

Isn't Page confirmed as a complete twt?

Not sure the maritime community ever had the call "Twtcert"; perhaps they need one for this individual?

Ugh.

S41
Squirrel 41 is offline  
Old 27th Jan 2011, 22:27
  #1643 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Cloud 9
Posts: 2,949
Having just watched ITN news I am shocked that it is, reportedly, costing a further 200M to scrap these aircraft.

An airfield/airport doesn't pay contractors to come and cut it's grass, it's a case of "I've got all this hay, how much will you pay me to cut/reap it?"

All I can say is that this country, this government, is off it's phucking head and I'm glad I'm emigrating out of it!
Phileas Fogg is offline  
Old 27th Jan 2011, 23:18
  #1644 (permalink)  
Suspicion breeds confidence
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Gibraltar
Posts: 2,319
I'm very saddened to see the end of the Nimrod. The project, sadly, has been doomed for years. It was only ever a matter of time before the plug was pulled.

I took this a few years ago, with the caption "Well done 201". I hope to say it again before too long. Both the big beasts are no longer flying the flag.

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y18...201_edited.jpg
Navaleye is offline  
Old 28th Jan 2011, 09:19
  #1645 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Bristol Temple Meads
Posts: 848
With ref to posting #672 (16th Oct 2010), "A halt in UK, Royal Air Force Nimrod flight operations owing to safety concerns is expected to last at least several weeks". Was this safety issue ever expanded on by MoD?

DV.
Distant Voice is offline  
Old 28th Jan 2011, 13:43
  #1646 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Bristol Temple Meads
Posts: 848
I am hearing "Fuel Tanks"

DV
Distant Voice is offline  
Old 28th Jan 2011, 13:58
  #1647 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: home: United Kingdom
Posts: 780
Mate,

Are you on the correct Nimrod thread? #672 on this thread is from davejb (4 Oct 10) discussing whether or not the PM is thick!

Duncs
Duncan D'Sorderlee is offline  
Old 28th Jan 2011, 15:03
  #1648 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Stockport
Posts: 121
I am hearing "Fuel Tanks"

DV
Correct and a fix was found (no charge to the taxpayer)
manccowboy is offline  
Old 28th Jan 2011, 15:41
  #1649 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Bristol Temple Meads
Posts: 848
Sorry Dunc, it should read #673

DV
Distant Voice is offline  
Old 28th Jan 2011, 18:07
  #1650 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: home: United Kingdom
Posts: 780
I should have employed an expanding square search; I would have found it relatively quickly!

Duncs
Duncan D'Sorderlee is offline  
Old 28th Jan 2011, 21:16
  #1651 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Forres
Age: 65
Posts: 637
...I think my question/point/suggestion has been answered also...
davejb is offline  
Old 29th Jan 2011, 02:55
  #1652 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 256
Labour left us little choice: Nimrod had to go.

The decision to scrap the Nimrod MRA4 programme was difficult but necessary, writes Liam Fox.
Labour left us little choice: Nimrod had to go - Telegraph
baffman is offline  
Old 29th Jan 2011, 07:34
  #1653 (permalink)  
mlc
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Midlands
Age: 52
Posts: 181
Some of you might want to counter the Daily Mail type cooments on this thread.

Necessary or disgrace?: Motoring Non-motoring forum
mlc is offline  
Old 29th Jan 2011, 07:46
  #1654 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Bristol Temple Meads
Posts: 848
So, it is fuel tanks plus ............ Fox should now tell us the full story. Perhaps it will appear in the Telegraph on Sunday.

DV
Distant Voice is offline  
Old 29th Jan 2011, 08:54
  #1655 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: west
Posts: 20
What was the true state of MR4

I have read this thread and news reports with interest.

I suspect that the MR4 has been wisely cancelled - There has been a history of throwing good money after bad with many BAe projects - e.g. Nimrod AEW, with BAE always overinflating the ability of aircraft and undersetimating the complexity of the project.

In my 20 years on the C130K and VC10 I have seen the problems of integration of new technology with old. Whilst it is claimed that the Nimrod MR4 is a 'new' aircraft, you cannot hide the fact that it is based on outdated technology.

It would be interesting to here of unbiased views regarding the project as a whole and whether or not it would have been unsafe to operate
OldNavigator is offline  
Old 29th Jan 2011, 08:59
  #1656 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Age: 54
Posts: 9
Some of you might want to counter the Daily Mail type cooments on this thread.

Necessary or disgrace?: Motoring Non-motoring forum
I have never read such utter rubbish in quite a long time, those muppets obviously know nothing about aircraft let alone a Nimrod MRA4 - Mike
mikealder is offline  
Old 29th Jan 2011, 10:03
  #1657 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: uk
Posts: 15
I do feel that the Government has moved in a direction of deflecting their decision based on cost grounds (a bad one in my mind but if there’s no money there’s no money) to one of slating the product. It does seem that Dr Fox has had a radical change of opinion from his letter sent to the PM before SDSR. He obviously thought his job was more important and once told the PM had made his decision it was better to shut up and fall in to line.

It should be noted that PA4 flew under his watch and therefore if it was unsafe at that time he should be liable for putting the crew and the UK public at risk. However the aircraft was safe and was certified to fly.

If only this government could be open and honest and stick to the hard decision making. They said we could not afford it, don’t suddenly change your tack and say oh its all the suppliers fault the products crap.

The product was not crap, yes it was technically challenging and the choice of reusing the fuselage made it more so. But the engineering teams managed to fit all new systems into the airframe, i.e Fuel, ECS, Hydraulics, EPDGS, Oxygen, Ice and Rain, Mission Avionics, Engines, Radar, landing gear, two man airbus style flight deck etc etc. These systems where all based on latest standards as used in the civil and military markets at the time, these have not moved very far over the last decade.

What Liam Fox and the government are now doing is discrediting the hard work of the many engineers who worked on this project and this could potentially have an effect on their future employment.

Yes blame the company for miss management but don’t blame the engineers because technically the plane worked.
Oz42 is offline  
Old 29th Jan 2011, 10:24
  #1658 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 2,928
Oz42

Quite right. Dr Fox's statement (presumably prepared by someone in MoD) makes a number of astonishing claims.

Particularly that the aircraft is unsafe and has so many "flaws" it is not known if it can be made safe. The implication is that no-one knows how to resolve the problems; yet we are led to believe from other sources that it was within months of ISD.

The only way both can be right is if MoD is in the habit of knowingly accepting unsafe equipment off-contract and making full payment.

Wait a minute......... That's stated policy.
tucumseh is offline  
Old 29th Jan 2011, 12:19
  #1659 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: SALISBURY
Age: 73
Posts: 706
Well a very good friend & ex crew colleague who was VERY closely associated with the MRA4 assures me that there were NO outstanding safety considerations with the project.

He had many hours on the aircraft.

Now who should I believe, an ex RAF pilot or a bl***y politician?
fincastle84 is offline  
Old 29th Jan 2011, 12:24
  #1660 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 1,516
Apologies for repeating myself here, but I have just posted this on another thread (how about we self-regulate the unecessary proliferation of Nimrod/MPA/LRMP threads ?????)

It's not MPA, it's LRMP (as in long range maritime patrol). As in Focke Wolf Condor, Catalina PBY, Sunderland, Shackleton, Argus.......etc etc.

This is not a pedantic point, it is essential. It is the reach, speed, endurance, flexibility, payload and sensor/communications fit that gives the LRMP its totally unique and irreplaceable capability.

Outwith the fertile imagination of the wannabee military geek, this is not a job for airships, unmanned vehicles or any other such non-existent, yet-to-be-invented fantasy. Outwith the agenda of bean-counters, opportunists and contending military vested interests, this is not a job for helicopters, ships or transport aircraft.

Of course we need one and of course we need a public enquiry to find out exactly how we have ended up without one.

I don't know if we will get a public enquiry (I doubt it) but I do know that the aircraft has already gone, and the LRMP capability infrastructure that has been developed since the 1930's will be gone over the course of the next 1-2 years. By the time the politicians that have nailed their colours to the mast over the demise of the LRMP have gone from power, our LRMP capibility will have long since become nothing more than a footnote in history and it will never come back.

Perhaps it is now time to move on?

Moreover, leave out the political blame game. Fox, Brown, Blair whoever - no difference. All you get out of any politician's mouth these days is spin, spin and more spin. The Telegraph article is infantile, fatuous and glib. What else would you expect?

More fool us for voting for any of them.
The Old Fat One is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.