Can someone explain why the MRA4 has been cancelled before we screw up big time.
...As for the special forces coming under threat this is a misnomer, Nimrod MR2s and the R1's (actually a spy plane) are presently being used in Afghanistan and will be unaffected by this decision...
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: 4 Civvy Street. Nowhere-near-a-base. The Shires.
Posts: 559
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Come on Mate
If it wasn't for all the mis-informed sh*te on here, would any of us come back and read it, It's all very entertaining really!!
CS
If it wasn't for all the mis-informed sh*te on here, would any of us come back and read it, It's all very entertaining really!!
CS
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: home: United Kingdom
Posts: 779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LJ posted a quote suggesting that the kit on board the P-8A is better than that in the MRA4. Well, it is now; however, I'm not convinced. I am certain that 'our' acoustic suite was better; not sure about the rest of it.
Duncs
Duncs
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Nr.EGHI, UK
Posts: 97
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ISK to close 31 July 2010 - BBC Scotland
BBC News - RAF Kinloss to close as operational air base after July
I take it that those at Kinloss were told before it was reported by the BBC? 
RAF Kinloss to close as operational air base after July
RAF Kinloss in Moray will cease to exist as an operational air base after 31 July.
The runway will be closed and air traffic controllers, firefighters and some ground staff will be transferred to other facilities after that date.
It is a result of the cancellation of new Nimrod orders last year after a review.
The Ministry of Defence has suggested that Kinloss may still have a future as a military establishment.
This centres on thousands of British troops being withdrawn from bases in Germany, but no decisions have yet been made.
The future of neighbouring RAF Lossiemouth remains uncertain.
A decision on RAF Lossiemouth, and that of RAF Leuchars in Fife, will be announced after the Scottish elections on 5 May.
An MoD spokeswoman said: "The airfield at Kinloss will cease to function on 31 July. The rest of the base will stay open and the gradual drawdown of staff will take place over a few years, completing in 2014.
"There may still be an alternative military use for RAF Kinloss."
'Devastating effect'
Moray MP and SNP defence spokesman Angus Robertson said: "The closure of RAF Kinloss will be a very sad day for the servicemen and women, the civilian staff and the local community.
"Speculation about the future use of the RAF Kinloss, combined with the uncertainty over the future of RAF Lossiemouth, is having a devastating effect on Moray."
A conference aimed at creating new jobs in Moray amid fears over the future of the RAF in the area was held on Wednesday.
It was organised by Moray Chamber of Commerce.
RAF Kinloss in Moray will cease to exist as an operational air base after 31 July.
The runway will be closed and air traffic controllers, firefighters and some ground staff will be transferred to other facilities after that date.
It is a result of the cancellation of new Nimrod orders last year after a review.
The Ministry of Defence has suggested that Kinloss may still have a future as a military establishment.
This centres on thousands of British troops being withdrawn from bases in Germany, but no decisions have yet been made.
The future of neighbouring RAF Lossiemouth remains uncertain.
A decision on RAF Lossiemouth, and that of RAF Leuchars in Fife, will be announced after the Scottish elections on 5 May.
An MoD spokeswoman said: "The airfield at Kinloss will cease to function on 31 July. The rest of the base will stay open and the gradual drawdown of staff will take place over a few years, completing in 2014.
"There may still be an alternative military use for RAF Kinloss."
'Devastating effect'
Moray MP and SNP defence spokesman Angus Robertson said: "The closure of RAF Kinloss will be a very sad day for the servicemen and women, the civilian staff and the local community.
"Speculation about the future use of the RAF Kinloss, combined with the uncertainty over the future of RAF Lossiemouth, is having a devastating effect on Moray."
A conference aimed at creating new jobs in Moray amid fears over the future of the RAF in the area was held on Wednesday.
It was organised by Moray Chamber of Commerce.
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Lossiemouth IV31 6RS
Age: 75
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Open Letter to the Prime Minister - Reply from the MOD
It has been requested that should I receive a reply to my open letter to the Prime Minister, on the cancellation of Nimrod MRA4, that it be posted here.
My original letter was dated October 22nd 2010. It was passed by No 10 to the MOD, for reply, on 22nd November 2010
I post the reply, received today as written and without comment:
Dear ,
Thank you for your letter of 22 October to the Prime Minister, and your subsequent e-mail expressing your concerns about the cancellation of Nimrod MRA4. I have been asked to reply on his behalf, I am sorry for the delay in doing so.
The Strategic Defence and Security Review (SDSR) brought defence plans, commitments and resources into balance. Tough decisions had to be made to provide the Armed Forces with the sound long term policy and financial basis they require, against the background of the severe financial pressures faced by the nation. These decisions had to be made if resources were to be focussed where they are most needed now, to deliver success in Afghanistan, and at the same time be prepared to meet future challenges.
Some of the most difficult of these decisions related to the RAF’s force structure, where it was simply not possible to continue with all the planned programmes. As a consequence, the Government concluded that, amongst other decisions, the Nimrod MRA4 would not be brought into service, owing to the military tasks to which it was designed to contribute, the amount of public money that had been spent on it, and the impact of such a decision on the people who have dedicated their careers to delivering this capability, or who depend on it for their livelihoods. We have had to prioritise those capabilities that we could continue to maintain. The future support costs of the aircraft also contributed to the decision not to bring the aircraft into service, despite the advanced state of the project.
Since the withdrawal of the Nimrod MR2 in March last year, the Ministry of Defence has sought to mitigate the gap in capability through the use of other military assets, including Type 23 Frigates, Merlin Anti Submarine Warfare helicopters and Hercules C-130 aircraft, and by relying, where appropriate, on assistance from allies and partners. We now need to develop a longer-term plan to mitigate the impact of cancellation on our continuing military tasks and capabilities, and we are doing so. In view of the sensitive and classified nature of some of these military tasks, and the implications for the protection of our armed forces, including the nuclear deterrent, it is not possible for us to comment on these measures in detail.
The decisions taken in the SDSR were fundamentally, and necessarily, about military capability, but we are very conscious that there are implications for the local communities where these aircraft, and the people who fly and support them, are based. We are now taking forward work to analyse the basing and estate consequences of the SDSR in their entirety and develop a way forward. You are no doubt aware that the SDSR announced that RAF Kinloss and two other bases will no longer be required by the RAF, but I should emphasise that no decision has been made to close RAF Kinloss. The work now being taken forward goes far beyond those bases: for example, the rebasing in the UK of forces currently in Germany is being accelerated; and greater efficiencies need to be made through broader estate rationalisation. This is inevitably a complex piece of work going beyond the bases directly affected by the SDSR. It means that it is still too early for decisions to be made, including on what will happen to RAF Kinloss. It takes time to perform the necessary analyses and it is unlikely that any decisions on basing will be taken before the purdah period for the elections in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. We are concentrating on reaching the right, rather than a rushed, conclusion.
We do understand the uncertainty and concern this causes in Moray, as it does elsewhere in the country with ties to the Royal Air Force. But these are important decisions and we must get them right to ensure that the UK develops the sustainable forces it will require for the future.
The SDSR said that the armed forces will be continued to be based in a way which is sensitive to economic and social pressures and the needs of Defence, MOD personnel, and their families. We recognise how much the people of Moray have done to support the servicemen and their families who have been based in Moray over the years, and I know this support continues to be appreciated by all who are currently at the two bases. It is the job of Defence Ministers, however, to ensure that our use of the defence estate makes sound military sense and provides value for money to the taxpayer. Final decisions will be objective, based on military advice, detailed investment appraisals and wider impact assessments. If there are any other implications, for example regional economic, employment, or social consequences, then Ministers have said that they will be taken into account by the Government as a whole.
We are being as open as we can be during the process in order to minimise uncertainty both for our own personnel and for the communities affected. We are working with the relevant agencies and the local communities to manage the local impact of our decisions.
I know this is a matter of real concern to you, as well as to others in Moray, and I can assure you it is one we are taking very seriously indeed.
Yours sincerely
********************
My original letter was dated October 22nd 2010. It was passed by No 10 to the MOD, for reply, on 22nd November 2010
I post the reply, received today as written and without comment:
From: Defence Business Improvement Division
***********************
MINISTRY OF DEFENCE
*********************************************
14 February 2011
Dear ,
Thank you for your letter of 22 October to the Prime Minister, and your subsequent e-mail expressing your concerns about the cancellation of Nimrod MRA4. I have been asked to reply on his behalf, I am sorry for the delay in doing so.
The Strategic Defence and Security Review (SDSR) brought defence plans, commitments and resources into balance. Tough decisions had to be made to provide the Armed Forces with the sound long term policy and financial basis they require, against the background of the severe financial pressures faced by the nation. These decisions had to be made if resources were to be focussed where they are most needed now, to deliver success in Afghanistan, and at the same time be prepared to meet future challenges.
Some of the most difficult of these decisions related to the RAF’s force structure, where it was simply not possible to continue with all the planned programmes. As a consequence, the Government concluded that, amongst other decisions, the Nimrod MRA4 would not be brought into service, owing to the military tasks to which it was designed to contribute, the amount of public money that had been spent on it, and the impact of such a decision on the people who have dedicated their careers to delivering this capability, or who depend on it for their livelihoods. We have had to prioritise those capabilities that we could continue to maintain. The future support costs of the aircraft also contributed to the decision not to bring the aircraft into service, despite the advanced state of the project.
Since the withdrawal of the Nimrod MR2 in March last year, the Ministry of Defence has sought to mitigate the gap in capability through the use of other military assets, including Type 23 Frigates, Merlin Anti Submarine Warfare helicopters and Hercules C-130 aircraft, and by relying, where appropriate, on assistance from allies and partners. We now need to develop a longer-term plan to mitigate the impact of cancellation on our continuing military tasks and capabilities, and we are doing so. In view of the sensitive and classified nature of some of these military tasks, and the implications for the protection of our armed forces, including the nuclear deterrent, it is not possible for us to comment on these measures in detail.
The decisions taken in the SDSR were fundamentally, and necessarily, about military capability, but we are very conscious that there are implications for the local communities where these aircraft, and the people who fly and support them, are based. We are now taking forward work to analyse the basing and estate consequences of the SDSR in their entirety and develop a way forward. You are no doubt aware that the SDSR announced that RAF Kinloss and two other bases will no longer be required by the RAF, but I should emphasise that no decision has been made to close RAF Kinloss. The work now being taken forward goes far beyond those bases: for example, the rebasing in the UK of forces currently in Germany is being accelerated; and greater efficiencies need to be made through broader estate rationalisation. This is inevitably a complex piece of work going beyond the bases directly affected by the SDSR. It means that it is still too early for decisions to be made, including on what will happen to RAF Kinloss. It takes time to perform the necessary analyses and it is unlikely that any decisions on basing will be taken before the purdah period for the elections in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. We are concentrating on reaching the right, rather than a rushed, conclusion.
We do understand the uncertainty and concern this causes in Moray, as it does elsewhere in the country with ties to the Royal Air Force. But these are important decisions and we must get them right to ensure that the UK develops the sustainable forces it will require for the future.
The SDSR said that the armed forces will be continued to be based in a way which is sensitive to economic and social pressures and the needs of Defence, MOD personnel, and their families. We recognise how much the people of Moray have done to support the servicemen and their families who have been based in Moray over the years, and I know this support continues to be appreciated by all who are currently at the two bases. It is the job of Defence Ministers, however, to ensure that our use of the defence estate makes sound military sense and provides value for money to the taxpayer. Final decisions will be objective, based on military advice, detailed investment appraisals and wider impact assessments. If there are any other implications, for example regional economic, employment, or social consequences, then Ministers have said that they will be taken into account by the Government as a whole.
We are being as open as we can be during the process in order to minimise uncertainty both for our own personnel and for the communities affected. We are working with the relevant agencies and the local communities to manage the local impact of our decisions.
I know this is a matter of real concern to you, as well as to others in Moray, and I can assure you it is one we are taking very seriously indeed.
Yours sincerely
********************
Well, that contains an admission
"We now need to develop a longer-term plan to mitigate the impact of cancellation on our continuing military tasks and capabilities"
Irrespective of the rights and wrongs of the decision to cull nine airframes without an alternative being immediately available, they confirm the serious capability shortfall. It is interestuing to note the implications for our nuclear deterrent are acknowledged.
What a disgraceful mess.
"We now need to develop a longer-term plan to mitigate the impact of cancellation on our continuing military tasks and capabilities"
Irrespective of the rights and wrongs of the decision to cull nine airframes without an alternative being immediately available, they confirm the serious capability shortfall. It is interestuing to note the implications for our nuclear deterrent are acknowledged.
What a disgraceful mess.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: St Annes
Age: 68
Posts: 638
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Actually I'd say it says nothing of substance whatsoever -
like pretty well everything that comes out from any level of government these days (and to be fair, in the past too) there is nothing of substance in that reply at all... at best it could be described as 'a bit aspirational'.
It was a difficult process (SDSR) where we needed to balance conflicting pressures - no indication of, for example, basing the decisions on defence on anything to actually do with defence.
Quite a lot on Moray - well, I live here and, in the ideal world I'd prefer substantial RAF presence here still as I have a lot of time and money invested locally... on a personal level I'd like to know that my property won't devalue to pauperise me as I approach retirement, as otherwise I might as well have partied rather more in preceding decades. The lack of MPA capability still bothers me, even if Kinloss had closed and St Mawgan was still on the go.
Was there ever a bigger porkie told? At this point the lights are flashing red and the alarm is going 'whup whup'.
Ah, I can't be bothered - this reply is a sop, they haven't even had the decency to register that they are replying to someone who knows about defence, and who should therefore not be fobbed off with inconsequential verbiage. That really annoys me - when 'they' are replying to people who have some knowledge of the subject matter 'they' still give the same reply they'd give to Jordan.
Dave
like pretty well everything that comes out from any level of government these days (and to be fair, in the past too) there is nothing of substance in that reply at all... at best it could be described as 'a bit aspirational'.
It was a difficult process (SDSR) where we needed to balance conflicting pressures - no indication of, for example, basing the decisions on defence on anything to actually do with defence.
Quite a lot on Moray - well, I live here and, in the ideal world I'd prefer substantial RAF presence here still as I have a lot of time and money invested locally... on a personal level I'd like to know that my property won't devalue to pauperise me as I approach retirement, as otherwise I might as well have partied rather more in preceding decades. The lack of MPA capability still bothers me, even if Kinloss had closed and St Mawgan was still on the go.
The decisions taken in the SDSR were fundamentally, and necessarily, about military capability,
Ah, I can't be bothered - this reply is a sop, they haven't even had the decency to register that they are replying to someone who knows about defence, and who should therefore not be fobbed off with inconsequential verbiage. That really annoys me - when 'they' are replying to people who have some knowledge of the subject matter 'they' still give the same reply they'd give to Jordan.
Dave
I take it that those at Kinloss were told before it was reported by the BBC?
RAF Kinloss - RAF Station Homepage
Join Date: May 2004
Location: DEVON
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Air Power
Quote from the RAF Air Power Review Autumn/Winter 2010
"The ability to project power from the air and space to influence the behavior of people or the course of events".
“In today’s world, it is a regrettable fact that there are many conflicts and fragile cease-fires waiting to explode into fighting, not just in the Gulf area but in Asia, Africa, and even within Europe. The RAF must be ready to deliver flexible air power anywhere in the world.”
[/CENTER]AGILE ADAPTABLE CAPABLE
So......no Harriers, no Nimrods, no money
, an aging Transport and SH fleet, the SARF in disarray, people worked to the bone and an announcement on redundancies’; priceless... well to all those many who are contemplating conflicts and those fragile cease-fires waiting to explode into fighting, not just in the Gulf area but in Asia, Africa, and even within Europe, (and let’s not forget the Falkland Islands)
Well at least we still have the Royal Navy
Rule Britannia!
Mr Cameron, Mr Fox and Co. Get a grip and fast
"The ability to project power from the air and space to influence the behavior of people or the course of events".
“In today’s world, it is a regrettable fact that there are many conflicts and fragile cease-fires waiting to explode into fighting, not just in the Gulf area but in Asia, Africa, and even within Europe. The RAF must be ready to deliver flexible air power anywhere in the world.”
[/CENTER]AGILE ADAPTABLE CAPABLE
So......no Harriers, no Nimrods, no money
, an aging Transport and SH fleet, the SARF in disarray, people worked to the bone and an announcement on redundancies’; priceless... well to all those many who are contemplating conflicts and those fragile cease-fires waiting to explode into fighting, not just in the Gulf area but in Asia, Africa, and even within Europe, (and let’s not forget the Falkland Islands) Well at least we still have the Royal Navy
Rule Britannia!
Mr Cameron, Mr Fox and Co. Get a grip and fast
Join Date: May 2006
Location: 2 m South of Radstock VRP
Posts: 2,042
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
hanfimar. In all fairness, it must have taken MoD a fair while to copy and paste that letter together from various Press releases.
Are those the same T23s that will be covering the gaps left by the wirhdrawn T22s? the ASW Merlins that are already overstretched on training and deployment at sea? the Hercs that have excellent radios, MK1 eyeballs and cameras but are already tied up on active Ops?
I have read that sentence several times, juggled the punctuation and tried to second guess any typos and still can't make sense of it. I suppose if you write a sentence of sufficient length, it can mean anything you want.
the Ministry of Defence has sought to mitigate the gap in capability through the use of other military assets, including Type 23 Frigates, Merlin Anti Submarine Warfare helicopters and Hercules C-130 aircraft
the Government concluded that, amongst other decisions, the Nimrod MRA4 would not be brought into service, owing to the military tasks to which it was designed to contribute, the amount of public money that had been spent on it, and the impact of such a decision on the people who have dedicated their careers to delivering this capability, or who depend on it for their livelihoods.
have read that sentence several times, juggled the punctuation and tried to second guess any typos and still can't make sense of it. I suppose if you write a sentence of sufficient length, it can mean anything you want.
the Government concluded that, amongst other decisions, the Nimrod MRA4 would not be brought into service, owing to the military tasks to which it was designed to contribute
the amount of public money that had been spent on it,
and the impact of such a decision on the people who have dedicated their careers to delivering this capability
or who depend on it for their livelihoods.
At least thats how I read it - a slam dunk decision compared with the cancellation of Tornado for example.
If MRA4 were not cancelled, and the RAF had to give up assets to save the equivalent monies, what would people cancel instead ?
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Here and there, occasionally at home.
Age: 56
Posts: 146
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
GrahamO
"too few crew/pilots/groundstaff affected compared to the removal of another platform i.e. its too niche."
If a platform that would have contributed directly to 7 of the re-written Military Tasks and in-directly to the other 2; had the capacity for expansion in pretty much any direction defence wanted to go and was entering service with the RAF this year, as opposed to about 6 or so years for any potential future replacement is too niche, then I would suggest that, on that premise, C130J, Tristar, VC10, GR4, Typhoon and anything else we might have left should have also been axed.
If a platform that would have contributed directly to 7 of the re-written Military Tasks and in-directly to the other 2; had the capacity for expansion in pretty much any direction defence wanted to go and was entering service with the RAF this year, as opposed to about 6 or so years for any potential future replacement is too niche, then I would suggest that, on that premise, C130J, Tristar, VC10, GR4, Typhoon and anything else we might have left should have also been axed.
ShortfatOne - I didn't say I understood the economics of all the statements - merely that the original statement did make sense from the point of view of readable English 
My reference to "niche" refers to the impact of £ per cancellation which I cannot comment on, but all that is needed to save X is one platform then thats all that should be cancelled. The debate is then about which one ......
I'm afraid you are falling towards gamblers logic again - suggesting that if money was continued to be spent on it, it could do anything - but this in only true if it were possible for the MRA4 to actually stick to time and cost and specification, which sadly it has a decade of proving that it is incapable of doing.
Nobody with a cheque book would bet money on the MRA4 ever sticking to a budget. Its a money pit. Nobody on the project has ever made an estimate and stuck to it.
If you took on a builder and 10 years later he still hadn't finished the original building and kept coming back for more money every year to make it the best-est super-est uber house extension, and breaks every cost and time estimate along the way, I submit that you would not give them any money.
Nimrod is no different to a dodgy builder in that regard.
My reference to "niche" refers to the impact of £ per cancellation which I cannot comment on, but all that is needed to save X is one platform then thats all that should be cancelled. The debate is then about which one ......
I'm afraid you are falling towards gamblers logic again - suggesting that if money was continued to be spent on it, it could do anything - but this in only true if it were possible for the MRA4 to actually stick to time and cost and specification, which sadly it has a decade of proving that it is incapable of doing.
Nobody with a cheque book would bet money on the MRA4 ever sticking to a budget. Its a money pit. Nobody on the project has ever made an estimate and stuck to it.
If you took on a builder and 10 years later he still hadn't finished the original building and kept coming back for more money every year to make it the best-est super-est uber house extension, and breaks every cost and time estimate along the way, I submit that you would not give them any money.
Nimrod is no different to a dodgy builder in that regard.
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Scotland
Posts: 217
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
GrahamO nobody batted an eyelid when Typhoon became over budget, in fact Typhoon is the most expensive over budget aircraft the UK has had. A400m, JSF all well over the initial quoted price.
Rum,
While your statement about other projects being over budget may be correct, you have to go beyond that to look at reasons why and the impact resulting...
A400M - result of cost overruns = less aircraft ordered per customer.
JSF - possible result of cost overruns = total cancellation of project or reduced orders per customer.
Typhoon - one major reason for coming in over budget (and late) being that it was a multinational co-operation project, and for several years the Germans said "we have no money this year, cancel the project if you want, otherwise come back and ask agin next year". The project continued on the back burner, producing both time delays and eventual cost overruns...
While your statement about other projects being over budget may be correct, you have to go beyond that to look at reasons why and the impact resulting...
A400M - result of cost overruns = less aircraft ordered per customer.
JSF - possible result of cost overruns = total cancellation of project or reduced orders per customer.
Typhoon - one major reason for coming in over budget (and late) being that it was a multinational co-operation project, and for several years the Germans said "we have no money this year, cancel the project if you want, otherwise come back and ask agin next year". The project continued on the back burner, producing both time delays and eventual cost overruns...
GrahamO nobody batted an eyelid when Typhoon became over budget, in fact Typhoon is the most expensive over budget aircraft the UK has had. A400m, JSF all well over the initial quoted price
As to the point about Puma going first, isn't that used to ferry ground forces who are suffering huge losses if they go by road ?
Cancelling Puma could be interpreted as 'guys on the ground continue to die as RAF opt to keep non-working, massively overbudget, years late project alive rather than save lives'.
Grossly unfair characterisation I am sure, but who would want to explain how essential the MRA4 is to an infantrymans widow, when a Puma could have saved their life, as MRA4 would have had negligible effect on ground movement safety.
Nobody would want to make that call.