We want our Nimrod investment back
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Stockport
Posts: 121
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We want our Nimrod investment back
Like the Government are going to send you a cheque for your share of MRA4.
They will take absolutely no notice of this website petition. Sorry to be blunt but it's time for everyone in Cheshire to wake up and smell the roses and not what you put on them to make them grow.
They will take absolutely no notice of this website petition. Sorry to be blunt but it's time for everyone in Cheshire to wake up and smell the roses and not what you put on them to make them grow.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Stockport
Posts: 121
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
They will take absolutely no notice of this website petition. Sorry to be blunt but it's time for everyone in Cheshire to wake up and smell the roses and not what you put on them to make them grow.
Maybe you should get your sense of smell looked at.
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: north of barlu
Posts: 6,207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wrong target
While agreeing that the end of Nimrod project is a disaster for the defence of the UK it is not the present management of the UK that got us into this situation.
They came to power only to find that the UK was broke, skint, pot less or whatever term you want to use because it all comes to trhe same thing, we just don't have the money!
So the UK cant afford to fly the Nimrod so do you realy want to let BAe put the aircraft into store and charge us yet more £M to do this? I think not the UK PLC has been ripped off to often by BAe, cutting up the Nimrods was the only way to show BAe that the party is over and the UK tax payer has had enough of their antics.
The message is now crystal clear to any defence contractor...........next time come up with the goods that work & on time or UK PLC won't pay.
They came to power only to find that the UK was broke, skint, pot less or whatever term you want to use because it all comes to trhe same thing, we just don't have the money!
So the UK cant afford to fly the Nimrod so do you realy want to let BAe put the aircraft into store and charge us yet more £M to do this? I think not the UK PLC has been ripped off to often by BAe, cutting up the Nimrods was the only way to show BAe that the party is over and the UK tax payer has had enough of their antics.
The message is now crystal clear to any defence contractor...........next time come up with the goods that work & on time or UK PLC won't pay.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Great Britain
Posts: 471
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Forget the petition. I am sure history will show that there was more to the Nimrod decision than just the SDSR. Would it actually have passed the safety case that the MAA was investigating?
The real campaign should be for a replacement MPA - and that probably being a (quite big) UAV as I can see no need for a manned aircraft in that (maritime) role. The manned element is amply provided by the Merlin MPH.
The real campaign should be for a replacement MPA - and that probably being a (quite big) UAV as I can see no need for a manned aircraft in that (maritime) role. The manned element is amply provided by the Merlin MPH.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Stockport
Posts: 121
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The message is now crystal clear to any defense contractor...........next time come up with the goods that work & on time or UK PLC won't pay.
Hangering Nimrod for a couple of years will be far cheaper than replacing it with a P8 or whatever else the MOD will be looking at when times are better.....if the RAF is still around when better times arrive.
Maybe Cameron has already brokered a deal with the French to take over the role the RAF plays......I wouldn't put it past these muppets.
They came to power only to find that the UK was broke, skint, pot less or whatever term you want to use because it all comes to trhe same thing, we just don't have the money!
Isn't the answer to the question posed by this thread that its been invested in overseas aid? Then again, its been invested in BAE Systems!? We should tell them we want our money back.
FB
FB
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 154
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bismark,
If a large UAV was the way forward dont you think as the worlds leading creator of UAV's the USA would be building one. The good thing about LRMPA is that it can go world wide. Do you think UK PLC has satelites available world wide with the sort of bandwidth required, or is able to re direct existing ones for a MPA mission, I think not. There have been a vast amount of times when being on scene with MK1 eyeball proves to provide a successful mission. Would a UAV be able to carry 200+ sonobuoys and weapons, yes maybe so but would they all be pre-programmed or would that me another technological cost to develop such a sonobuoy. Who would rectify a sonobuoy hang-up prior ro flying back overland, particularly as Kinloss will be no more. And what would the CAA or any other aviation authority say about such a large technologically advanced UAV flying in amongst the civvies?
Manned MPA are still the way forward, computers are not the be all and end all in MPA missions, the people are. Although sadly the blinkered bufoon Cameron doesnt get to know this as his advisors and Ministers do not know the subject matter as was proven recently.
This demise of a LRMPA will not be mitigated fully by the standard MOD statement, if it reaches 20% of what the MR2 did then it will be a lucky day. So I will gladly listen to any counter arguement over a UAV, that can be deployed worldwide at short notice, as was the MR2.
If a large UAV was the way forward dont you think as the worlds leading creator of UAV's the USA would be building one. The good thing about LRMPA is that it can go world wide. Do you think UK PLC has satelites available world wide with the sort of bandwidth required, or is able to re direct existing ones for a MPA mission, I think not. There have been a vast amount of times when being on scene with MK1 eyeball proves to provide a successful mission. Would a UAV be able to carry 200+ sonobuoys and weapons, yes maybe so but would they all be pre-programmed or would that me another technological cost to develop such a sonobuoy. Who would rectify a sonobuoy hang-up prior ro flying back overland, particularly as Kinloss will be no more. And what would the CAA or any other aviation authority say about such a large technologically advanced UAV flying in amongst the civvies?
Manned MPA are still the way forward, computers are not the be all and end all in MPA missions, the people are. Although sadly the blinkered bufoon Cameron doesnt get to know this as his advisors and Ministers do not know the subject matter as was proven recently.
This demise of a LRMPA will not be mitigated fully by the standard MOD statement, if it reaches 20% of what the MR2 did then it will be a lucky day. So I will gladly listen to any counter arguement over a UAV, that can be deployed worldwide at short notice, as was the MR2.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Stockport
Posts: 121
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hoots
Your flogging a dead horse mate, the one's your trying to convince are the very people who believe all the ****e the government and tabloids has been saying about the MRA4 being unsafe.
Your flogging a dead horse mate, the one's your trying to convince are the very people who believe all the ****e the government and tabloids has been saying about the MRA4 being unsafe.
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: lincs
Posts: 101
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The real campaign should be for a replacement MPA - and that probably being a (quite big) UAV as I can see no need for a manned aircraft in that (maritime) role. The manned element is amply provided by the Merlin MPH.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Somewhere flat
Age: 68
Posts: 5,563
Likes: 0
Received 45 Likes
on
30 Posts
Your flogging a dead horse mate, the one's your trying to convince are the very people who believe all the ****e the government and tabloids has been saying about the MRA4 being unsafe.
The only outcome comes from modern project management techniques. If the project comes out of tolerence then you seriously look at cutting losses and binning it. If either available funds or time cannot be met, then the writing is on the wall. It may be harsh, but it stops throwing much good money after bad. If the desired capability can be met elsewhere (and I include from Military Coalition partners) then financial constraints must apply - especially after the last totally imprudent 13 years of financial mismanagement. Bottom line - we cannot afford it because we don't know how much it will cost and we don't know when it will be ready.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 154
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The MRA4 is dead, all I am referring to is the arguement regarding a UAV replacing a manned aircraft. Some people automatically think a UAV can do everything without thinking about the cost of satelites etc to enable global reach, plus the fact that there is very little black and white about MPA Ops and a whole lot of grey at times so you need the brain power on the spot for that one. Also consider IR cameras etc and the poor performance during a moist North Atlantic crappy night compared with a dry desert climate, those of you who have been there will know what I mean. So although we heard the term RMPA back in 95-96, that is what we need now, with people on board who make the difference using a multi-sensor suite and the MK1 eyeball. All we need is a govenrment with some cash and a willingness to admit they were wrong. Easier said than done with this lot I'm afraid.
A little less conversation,
a little more aviation...
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Bracknell, UK
Posts: 696
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I wouldn't if I were you - whatever he's drinking, a pint of it would send you blind, incontinent and probably flammable. Unless you want to run your car on it, that is.
For the OP, the good news is that Gordon bought the item in question on a credit card, and under the distance selling regulations you can claim against the credit card guarantor.
For the OP, and the rest of us, the bad news is that the credit card was underwritten by you, me and everyone else who pays UK tax....and Gordon really did go mad with the credit card.
For the OP, the good news is that Gordon bought the item in question on a credit card, and under the distance selling regulations you can claim against the credit card guarantor.
For the OP, and the rest of us, the bad news is that the credit card was underwritten by you, me and everyone else who pays UK tax....and Gordon really did go mad with the credit card.
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Here and there, occasionally at home.
Age: 56
Posts: 146
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MancC
With a little digging into company accounts (freely available under UK law), it is fairly easy to discover that whatever profit BAES had hoped to make from the MRA4 build was swallowed up by the £300Mil + write-down they made against the program in 2000.
About that time, MoD contracts were being re-written such that the Cost plus model was replaced (to prevent unforeseen/unfunded cost overruns). Since then, UK defence contractors have been pegged (by HMTreasury) at target cost type contracts with max profit of around 8% on UK defence contracts. That 8% profit on MRA4 was wiped out in 2000.
I dread to think what it must be like at Woodford, watching perfectly good aircraft being destroyed for no apparent reason other than its name. It was bad enough up here at kinloss watching XV241 being slaughtered last week.
Sad times for all of us, particularly when you have grown up in the service and can see what a bleak future faces everyone.
About that time, MoD contracts were being re-written such that the Cost plus model was replaced (to prevent unforeseen/unfunded cost overruns). Since then, UK defence contractors have been pegged (by HMTreasury) at target cost type contracts with max profit of around 8% on UK defence contracts. That 8% profit on MRA4 was wiped out in 2000.
I dread to think what it must be like at Woodford, watching perfectly good aircraft being destroyed for no apparent reason other than its name. It was bad enough up here at kinloss watching XV241 being slaughtered last week.
Sad times for all of us, particularly when you have grown up in the service and can see what a bleak future faces everyone.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 1,515
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Guys and Girls,
There are two reasons why you all need to let it go and move on.
1. It is over.
(it = coastal, LRMP, Nimrod and the associated layered defence of our SLOC)
2. Every thread started on Nimrod's/MPA's/P8's/whatever incites at least one megatrollgeek to vomit b****cks about UAV's as LRMP aircraft. This is not good for my blood pressure and I have enough trouble with that as it is.
There are two reasons why you all need to let it go and move on.
1. It is over.
(it = coastal, LRMP, Nimrod and the associated layered defence of our SLOC)
2. Every thread started on Nimrod's/MPA's/P8's/whatever incites at least one megatrollgeek to vomit b****cks about UAV's as LRMP aircraft. This is not good for my blood pressure and I have enough trouble with that as it is.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Stockport
Posts: 121
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I dread to think what it must be like at Woodford, watching perfectly good aircraft being destroyed for no apparent reason other than its name.
but anger has replaced that, most of the local people who I have spoke to who live around Woodford are also very angry at the waste.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 932
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Manccowboy
Soul destroying actually but anger has replaced that, most of the local people who I have spoke to who live around Woodford are also very angry at the waste.
I'm sure it is. But if the company had come close to delivering on time and to budget, then it would have been a very different story.
S41
Quote:
I dread to think what it must be like at Woodford, watching perfectly good aircraft being destroyed for no apparent reason other than its name.
I dread to think what it must be like at Woodford, watching perfectly good aircraft being destroyed for no apparent reason other than its name.
S41