Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Aircrew Forums > Military Aviation
Reload this Page >

Nimrod MRA4 Being Broken Up

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 MRA4 Being Broken Up

Old 26th Jan 2011, 17:29
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 48
Nimrod MRA4 Being Broken Up

STV News (26 Jan 1810Z) has shown film from the air of MRA4s being broken up at Woodford. They are readily identifiable by the large engine spectacle mounts. The report said that screens had been erected to hide the vandalism.

Last edited by Softie; 26th Jan 2011 at 17:36. Reason: edited title
Softie is offline  
Old 26th Jan 2011, 17:31
  #2 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: N. Spain
Age: 76
Posts: 1,309
Yeah, just seen the same report, vandalism indeed!
Point of no return?
Shack37 is offline  
Old 26th Jan 2011, 17:38
  #3 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Stockport
Posts: 121
BBC News - Nimrod aircraft scrapping starts at Stockport BAE factory

Including aerial shot


Last edited by manccowboy; 26th Jan 2011 at 19:27.
manccowboy is offline  
Old 26th Jan 2011, 17:54
  #4 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Somewhere nice overseas.
Posts: 225
That'll be that then.

I, for one, am reassured that Mr Cameron is a strong leader capable of making hard decisions. I'm particularly pleased he decided to wreck a defence asset, which is currently effectively impossible to replace, to prove this. What an ar$e. I think this really will come back to haunt him in the future.

How very sad.
Scuttled is offline  
Old 26th Jan 2011, 18:10
  #5 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,631
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^+1
glad rag is offline  
Old 26th Jan 2011, 18:16
  #6 (permalink)  
MOA
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Here and there
Posts: 65
'Made a note in my diary on the way here. Simply reads..."Bugger".'
MOA is offline  
Old 26th Jan 2011, 18:21
  #7 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 256
Well, so much for the claims in another thread that there would be no media interest at all in this event.
baffman is offline  
Old 26th Jan 2011, 18:23
  #8 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Southampton
Posts: 730
I can understand that the decision has been made not to operate the aircraft, but why the rush to break them up?

I mean, the scrap value is pennies compared to what has been spent. In fact they will spend more doing up HMS Victory than they will get for the scrap metal.

Even if they were given away FOC to some other air force, BAES would make money on their in-service support. Why scrap them?
Saintsman is offline  
Old 26th Jan 2011, 18:29
  #9 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Stockport
Posts: 121
And video

BBC News - Nimrod scrapping condemned as 'barbaric vandalism'
manccowboy is offline  
Old 26th Jan 2011, 18:30
  #10 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Waiting to return to the Loire.
Age: 51
Posts: 386
Saving face is easier without the airframes hanging around to haunt him, the MOD and BAES.

Also it means no going back.

Giving them away to be useful was never acceptable because it has to prove that they are nothing but tosh to justify the decision.
Finnpog is offline  
Old 26th Jan 2011, 18:30
  #11 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: NW England
Age: 59
Posts: 39


I feel sick
Doptrack is offline  
Old 26th Jan 2011, 18:43
  #12 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: The Roman Empire
Posts: 2,333
baffman,

If you're referring to my comments, I said this....



"...What makes you think the tabloids will be interested?


If they do run anything, it will be for just one day - after that, the latest plot twist in Eastenders or Emmerdale, the Oscar awards, some political event, the 6 nations rugby, world/UK disaster, etc, will ensure that anything about the Nimrod becomes "chip wrappings" (apart from the fact that H&S rules don't allow you to wap fish and chips in newspaper any more)......"


A) Are the tabloids running it, or just the more up market papers? See Tabloid - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia for a definition.

B) Will the story last for more than one day?

The story on Andy Gray will probably last longer and get more attention!!



As for all the people asking "why the rush", well, the answer has been provided on "another thread" as you call it.

Once again, I suspect IT IS ALL ABOUT MONEY!!!

First of all I expect the money for disposing of the aircraft is only allocated in the 2010/11 budget (probably some of the money that was going to be used to bring it into service). Hence it has to be spent this year, and the aircraft have to be disposed of before 31 March 2011. Disposal will consist of more than just chopping the aircraft up and does take some time, hence starting now.


As to the "...lets just keep them in storage..." arguement. Well, a little known fact is that when he was chancellor that nice Mr Brown introduced a scheme where MOD (I think it was all government departments) have to pay to the treasury to store its own equipment - think of it as a tax on storage. No doubt this was a nice way for Mr Brown to claw some money back, and was designed to reduce "waste" in departments by storing stuff they no longer need. I believe the "tax" was a certain percentage of the value of the stored item - no doubt a supplier can help me out.

So what was the rate of tax (I seem to remember 6% was mentioned) and what is the value of 9 MRA4s?

If one figure is 6% and the other is 3.5Bn (hopefully common sense would produce a lower figure - but with bean counters who knows?), that means paying 210 million a year to the Treasury, let alone the actual costs, to store the aircraft......EVERY YEAR!

If anyone wants to offer meaningfull, informed discussion on these points, as opposed to emotional outpourings, feel free. I will almost certainly learn something.



FOR WHAT IT IS WORTH......

My personal view is that not introducing the MRA4 (or some suitable long range MPA) into Uk military service is a big mistake....


But, the MRA4 is being scrapped. Accept it, because it isn't going to change!
Biggus is offline  
Old 26th Jan 2011, 19:17
  #13 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Waiting to return to the Loire.
Age: 51
Posts: 386
Is it just unfortunate coincidence...

... That one of Flight Global's top defence stories today is about the US Navy making their initial Low Rate Initial Production order from a proposed total of 100+ P-8s.

The rights, wrongs & teeth nashing about how good / unsafe the Nimrod was might fade into insignificance if the UK could do a Rivet Joint with the Poseidon and make the best of a bulk buy deal.
Finnpog is offline  
Old 26th Jan 2011, 19:20
  #14 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: I have no idea but the view's great.
Posts: 1,231
Those who spent so many column inches saying the Nimrod was unsafe and should be scrapped will now spend a day or two whining about the scrapping of Nimrods before moving onto something else.

Journalists feed off misery and negativity before moving on rapidly to leech some from their next target.
J.A.F.O. is offline  
Old 26th Jan 2011, 19:21
  #15 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Kettering
Posts: 122
Just another indication of the further pointless waste of taxpayer's money that has characterised this project - screens being erected to hide the scrapping. Result - BBC, using taxpayer's money, hire a helo to video the scrapping from above. Well done to all involved. Muppets.
LookingNorth is offline  
Old 26th Jan 2011, 20:08
  #16 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: with the wife
Posts: 352
Biggus wrote:

As to the "...lets just keep them in storage..." arguement. Well, a little known fact is that when he was chancellor that nice Mr Brown introduced a scheme where MOD (I think it was all government departments) have to pay to the treasury to store its own equipment - think of it as a tax on storage. No doubt this was a nice way for Mr Brown to claw some money back, and was designed to reduce "waste" in departments by storing stuff they no longer need. I believe the "tax" was a certain percentage of the value of the stored item - no doubt a supplier can help me out.

So what was the rate of tax (I seem to remember 6% was mentioned)
I think the %age you mention was about right, although things may (no doubt, will) have changed since I retired. The inception of the beancounters Rescource Accounting and Budgeting (RAB) did cause the massive disposal of kit because of the "tax" imposed on storing the stuff. Engineering colleagues will recall the purges on chiefy's drawer in order to get rid of those useful bit 'n bobs that would come in handy because they were so scarce - it also came under the catch-all umbrella of "QA". SM Branches(as were) went into overdrive to dispose of stuff that didn't have show any transactions within the preceding six months and certain spares disposal companys became very rich spares disposal companys.

The folly of this indecent haste to comply with the beancounters rules meant (a) the engineers found that their spares were vanishing before they could be used causing an increase in robbing and (b) the ultimate obscenity of the RAF having to buy the spares back from the disposal companys at much more inflated prices than the company paid for them. I had personal experience of (b) as I had to drive down to Somerset to recover the very same kit that I had been directed to send there three weeks previous, and for which our aircraft were now 'D' state! MOD wasting money? - nothing new there.
4mastacker is offline  
Old 26th Jan 2011, 20:18
  #17 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Livingston, Scotland
Posts: 146
Is this not simply following the noble and farsighted example of what was done to most of the TSR2 airframes?
Kluseau is offline  
Old 26th Jan 2011, 20:36
  #18 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 932
RAB is, if not actually dead, very nearly dead. It's being eliminated under a new set of accounting proceedures, called IIRC, Single Line of Sight or something (not the world's most interesting subject.)

Anyway, it means that the cost of storing the airframes would have been the cost of heating the sheds and keeping them secure.

Not 210m per annum.

MRA4 was dead as a doorknob as soon as the PM personally announced it - to backtrack would've been too embarrassing, as he is about to find out on his so-called fair fuel tax stabiliser.

Vale, Nimrod and Coastal. You both deserved better.

S41
Squirrel 41 is offline  
Old 26th Jan 2011, 20:45
  #19 (permalink)  
1fm
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Kinross
Age: 47
Posts: 6
I heard today, from someone who was speaking to his high-up relation at Lossiemouth, that the refit(?) of the aircraft was pretty much complete, save for a few finishing touches to each one.

So what they've done is spend a hell of a lot of money on the, then scapped them.

The mentality is incomprehensible!
1fm is offline  
Old 26th Jan 2011, 21:03
  #20 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 19,207
Disgusting...............

so how many are fliers??? Two??

Ok 200,000,000 to scrap 9 Nimrods............ ok take the two fliers, fly one to Cosford and one to Duxford for the museums, grand saving on the scrapping costs of 44,444,444 plus change, even allowing for fuel and prepping them, thats a lot cheaper!!!!!!!

I know there is a lot more to it in that price, just thinking out loud.

Plough that money into new helicopters for the Army........ here are some for them, cheap to run too, and they have experience of using them.

Welcome to Scott's-Bell 47
NutLoose 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 2021 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.