The Shar Decision - Questioning "Their Lordships"`
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: UK, sometimes!
Age: 74
Posts: 436
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Alpha, wot an a-hole! 
First I will state that I agree with you that the SHAR should not be scrapped. The RN needs an independent force fighter protection. The GR7/9 is also required in mud-moving role. Both aircraft have their particular role and both aircraft are needed.
However you speak out of your ar$e when it comes to the Nimrod (and probably when it comes to the other RAF aircraft you seem so quick to put down). "My basic criticism comes from an occasion in the mid-eighties" which was written about the Nimrod and its capabilities in the early 80's.
The Nimrod in the early 80's was a completely different machine to the one flying today, let alone the MRA4 (which incidentally stands for Maritime Reconnaissance and ATTACK - not Aircraft). The MR2 was just coming into service, and since that time has seen several major systems upgrades.
I will not comment on the role of the Nimrod during the Falklands Campaign, except to say that we were there flying far more operational sorties than is commonly publicised.
The Nimrod, as has already been mentioned, is not only an ASW platform. Neither is it concerned purely with "SAR (and perhaps, local fisheries protection)", but has many roles, several of which can not be mentioned. So get your facts straight.
Yes, the RN has ASW helos in the screen, but you have obviously never looked at the way the ASW screen operates. If you really do wear dark blue try popping along and having a chat with the PWO or ASWAC.
Your earlier quotes from SDR and the DP2001 Statement whilst accurate are also misleading. Yes the "agreed submarine threat against the UK mainland is now low" as is the current air threat to the RN in UK waters, but like you we also deploy OOA. Yes, "The Nimrod is a land based aircraft with limited range and can not therefore support Fleet/JTF operations away from the UK base “without prepositioning”", like the SHAR is also land based and also has to preposition to the carriers, otherwise it's range is even less than ours ;-) We do prepossition, and operate very effectively when we do.
"But we never see you guys around the Fleet when we are deployed – en route to or at a trouble spot – so much for the ease of deployability". Oh dear, showing your lack of awareness again. Try looking at the air picture and you will probably see us. Just because we aren't buzzing your boats, doesn't mean we are not there ;-) (And yes I do know what a boat is, just looking for the usual RN bites <bg>)
Finally, before posting utter $#!t about something you obviously know gnats cock about, try getting your facts right. It is so obvious that you know sweet FA about what the Nimrod MR2 does and where. By the majority of the other posts it appears your vastly substandard knowledge extends to other aircraft types too. The fight to save the SHAR is an extremely important one, but you are doing it no favours at all. All aircraft types from the Grob up to the Tornado, Jag, GR7/9, SHAR, Nimrod, helicopters, etc, etc have their role to play and their place in our Armed Forces, so wind your neck in will you!
Mad Mark!!
First I will state that I agree with you that the SHAR should not be scrapped. The RN needs an independent force fighter protection. The GR7/9 is also required in mud-moving role. Both aircraft have their particular role and both aircraft are needed.
However you speak out of your ar$e when it comes to the Nimrod (and probably when it comes to the other RAF aircraft you seem so quick to put down). "My basic criticism comes from an occasion in the mid-eighties" which was written about the Nimrod and its capabilities in the early 80's.
The Nimrod in the early 80's was a completely different machine to the one flying today, let alone the MRA4 (which incidentally stands for Maritime Reconnaissance and ATTACK - not Aircraft). The MR2 was just coming into service, and since that time has seen several major systems upgrades.
I will not comment on the role of the Nimrod during the Falklands Campaign, except to say that we were there flying far more operational sorties than is commonly publicised.
The Nimrod, as has already been mentioned, is not only an ASW platform. Neither is it concerned purely with "SAR (and perhaps, local fisheries protection)", but has many roles, several of which can not be mentioned. So get your facts straight.
Yes, the RN has ASW helos in the screen, but you have obviously never looked at the way the ASW screen operates. If you really do wear dark blue try popping along and having a chat with the PWO or ASWAC.
Your earlier quotes from SDR and the DP2001 Statement whilst accurate are also misleading. Yes the "agreed submarine threat against the UK mainland is now low" as is the current air threat to the RN in UK waters, but like you we also deploy OOA. Yes, "The Nimrod is a land based aircraft with limited range and can not therefore support Fleet/JTF operations away from the UK base “without prepositioning”", like the SHAR is also land based and also has to preposition to the carriers, otherwise it's range is even less than ours ;-) We do prepossition, and operate very effectively when we do.
"But we never see you guys around the Fleet when we are deployed – en route to or at a trouble spot – so much for the ease of deployability". Oh dear, showing your lack of awareness again. Try looking at the air picture and you will probably see us. Just because we aren't buzzing your boats, doesn't mean we are not there ;-) (And yes I do know what a boat is, just looking for the usual RN bites <bg>)
Finally, before posting utter $#!t about something you obviously know gnats cock about, try getting your facts right. It is so obvious that you know sweet FA about what the Nimrod MR2 does and where. By the majority of the other posts it appears your vastly substandard knowledge extends to other aircraft types too. The fight to save the SHAR is an extremely important one, but you are doing it no favours at all. All aircraft types from the Grob up to the Tornado, Jag, GR7/9, SHAR, Nimrod, helicopters, etc, etc have their role to play and their place in our Armed Forces, so wind your neck in will you!
Mad Mark!!
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Everywhere
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Defence Budget
The Defence Budget
The Defence Budget for 2000/2001 in £23.03Bn, represents 2.5% UK GDP. This compares with 5.3% UK GDP in 1984 which would be £47Bn today.
Budget allocations for other Government Departments include Health 4.8%, Social Security 10.5% and Education 2.0%. Spending by other nations on defence (% GDP in 99) include France 2.8%, Germany 1.5%, USA 3.2% and Greece 4.9%.
The Royal Navy receives £1.899Bn - 8.28% of the Defence Budget. In comparison, the Army receives £5.657Bn and the RAF £2.641Bn (24.56% and 11.47% of the Defence Budget respectively).
The remainder of the Defence Budget is allocated to Research, Logistics and the Ministry of Defence.
The Defence Budget for 2000/2001 in £23.03Bn, represents 2.5% UK GDP. This compares with 5.3% UK GDP in 1984 which would be £47Bn today.
Budget allocations for other Government Departments include Health 4.8%, Social Security 10.5% and Education 2.0%. Spending by other nations on defence (% GDP in 99) include France 2.8%, Germany 1.5%, USA 3.2% and Greece 4.9%.
The Royal Navy receives £1.899Bn - 8.28% of the Defence Budget. In comparison, the Army receives £5.657Bn and the RAF £2.641Bn (24.56% and 11.47% of the Defence Budget respectively).
The remainder of the Defence Budget is allocated to Research, Logistics and the Ministry of Defence.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Not too sure but it's damn cold
Posts: 179
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Webf fella,
When are you going to pull your head out of your hole and read and digest some of the seemingly watertight stats you spout as hard evidence for the superiority of the RN.
Quote
As for cost effectiveness, in 1981 Keith Speed MP got sacked for pointing out that the Royal Navy and maritime elements of the RAF provided 70% of NATO forces in the Eastern Atlantic for approx 23% of the defence budget, but BAOR and RAF Germany provided 10% of NATO forces in central Europe for 40% of the defence budget.
So the fact that when the might of the free worlds armed forces were deployed to Battlefield Germany it surprises you that our contribution was in relative hardware terms small?? And yet your savvy enough to reinforce that the RN, whose primary resposibility was ASW in the GIUK gap, contributed a large proportion of the total deployed forces....
I have no real desire to get involved in a slanging match but there is a serious case at the heart of the argument.
Unless public opinion changes, ie We go to war and lots of people die, we aren't going to get anymore money. Ipso facto we can't afford everything and hard decisions have to be made, now I've yet to be convinced that scrapping the SHar is the right decision but clouding the argument with half arsed statements and barrack room lawyer bravado is demeaning to the force you wish to serve.
You have a point, make it succinctly and accurately and you may find people have the tendency to agree.
As for you alpha, don't make me laugh.
When are you going to pull your head out of your hole and read and digest some of the seemingly watertight stats you spout as hard evidence for the superiority of the RN.
Quote
As for cost effectiveness, in 1981 Keith Speed MP got sacked for pointing out that the Royal Navy and maritime elements of the RAF provided 70% of NATO forces in the Eastern Atlantic for approx 23% of the defence budget, but BAOR and RAF Germany provided 10% of NATO forces in central Europe for 40% of the defence budget.
So the fact that when the might of the free worlds armed forces were deployed to Battlefield Germany it surprises you that our contribution was in relative hardware terms small?? And yet your savvy enough to reinforce that the RN, whose primary resposibility was ASW in the GIUK gap, contributed a large proportion of the total deployed forces....
I have no real desire to get involved in a slanging match but there is a serious case at the heart of the argument.
Unless public opinion changes, ie We go to war and lots of people die, we aren't going to get anymore money. Ipso facto we can't afford everything and hard decisions have to be made, now I've yet to be convinced that scrapping the SHar is the right decision but clouding the argument with half arsed statements and barrack room lawyer bravado is demeaning to the force you wish to serve.
You have a point, make it succinctly and accurately and you may find people have the tendency to agree.
As for you alpha, don't make me laugh.
Sorry Arty, it wasn't meant to be bravado, I was simply responding to Jackonicko's assertion that the RN consumes (and has consumed) a disproportionate share of the defence budget.
Also I was making the point that for the same amount of money we can make more of a contribution to multinational operations by conributing naval forces that we could by adding more aircraft (compared to x hundred from the USAF/USN/SSMC).
I just saying that there is no "one size fits all" solution, we need different tools for different jobs. Therefore we need airpower AND landpower AND seapower.
Thats all.
As for my point about enforcing emargoes, I was simply pointing out that FJs and MPAs cannot put boarding parties aboard merchant vessels. I accept I could have worded it better. No offence intended to anyone!
Jacko, please explain your assesrtion that losing organic air defence will save lives? What about the guys and girls aboard the ships that are hit?
Also I was making the point that for the same amount of money we can make more of a contribution to multinational operations by conributing naval forces that we could by adding more aircraft (compared to x hundred from the USAF/USN/SSMC).
I just saying that there is no "one size fits all" solution, we need different tools for different jobs. Therefore we need airpower AND landpower AND seapower.
Thats all.
As for my point about enforcing emargoes, I was simply pointing out that FJs and MPAs cannot put boarding parties aboard merchant vessels. I accept I could have worded it better. No offence intended to anyone!
Jacko, please explain your assesrtion that losing organic air defence will save lives? What about the guys and girls aboard the ships that are hit?
Last edited by WE Branch Fanatic; 25th May 2002 at 15:32.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Not too sure but it's damn cold
Posts: 179
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No Webf
'for the same amount of money we can make more of a contribution to multinational operations NOT by contributing naval forces than we could by adding more aircraft (compared to x hundred from the USAF/USN/SSMC).'
But by contributing what is needed in that particular case its not a contest, its supposed to be about ensuring the rights of all mankind.
I really didn't want to get to this but,
Eastern Atlantic, cold war, primary responsibilty of RN (plus USN obvs) hence proportionately high contribution of forces.
Plains of West Germany, cold war, primary responsibility of the whole friggin free world hence proportionately lower contribution of forces.
See?
Remember 99% of stats are complete BS made up by lying two faced politicians, or something like that...
'for the same amount of money we can make more of a contribution to multinational operations NOT by contributing naval forces than we could by adding more aircraft (compared to x hundred from the USAF/USN/SSMC).'
But by contributing what is needed in that particular case its not a contest, its supposed to be about ensuring the rights of all mankind.
I really didn't want to get to this but,
Eastern Atlantic, cold war, primary responsibilty of RN (plus USN obvs) hence proportionately high contribution of forces.
Plains of West Germany, cold war, primary responsibility of the whole friggin free world hence proportionately lower contribution of forces.
See?
Remember 99% of stats are complete BS made up by lying two faced politicians, or something like that...
Arty I'm sorry. Don't take it the wrong way.
"But by contributing what is needed in that particular case its not a contest, its supposed to be about ensuring the rights of all mankind."
Actiually, thats what I was trying to say. Sort of!
"But by contributing what is needed in that particular case its not a contest, its supposed to be about ensuring the rights of all mankind."
Actiually, thats what I was trying to say. Sort of!
Well...I don't have the knowledge or the inclination to get involved in a spat about Nimrods, but I will make some response to Jackonicko's comments about the Navy. We do need a blue water capability. In fact, I can't see why we would need a "Euro navy" - to blockade French ports? to intercept a possible Norwegian invasion fleet? If our defence policy is based totally on Northwest Europe, then I'd argue we don't need a navy at all. If, on the other hand, we are "expeditionary in nature" and committed to peacekeeping, crisis intervention etc., we do, and a frigate navy for guarding Pompey would be as good as useless. We can't rely on the ERRF in this connection, because it relies on our current shipbuilding programme for its transport and carrier support! If as Jackonicko says, the advocates of heavy armour are as foolish as "cavalry enthusiasts", it is not very coherent to argue that the Army should move away from defending the North German Plain with massed tanks whilst at the same time saying the Navy should confine itself to home waters!
WE has a point when he says that certain posters don't understand the role of the navy - it's not just to launch aircraft. I think we need to restate aims here. The point of sea power (to quote Mahan) is sea control, and (quoting Mahan again) "control of the sea means the freedom to use the sea and to deny that use to others". As well as providing a base for aeroplanes, a task force also offers control of the sea, protection for logistical shipping (and aircraft), support helicopter basing, Special Forces insertion and support, headquarters facilities, casualty receiving and amphibious transport. To take Sierra Leone as an example, a squadron of Jaguars might indeed have reached Dakar faster than the navy task group did, but the intervention did not take the form only of aircraft. There were troops, and support helicopter transport. The arrival of the ships brought: a. GR7 Harriers. b. More choppers. c. Logistical support. d. Reserves - the Marine battle group. e. Medical help on board ship. f. The possibility of NGS around Freetown. g. Psychological presence. (I admit the last one is weak.) I would query whether letting off bangs in the hinterland would have had the same effect - especially given the eruption of "Blair Bombs Babies" propaganda which would have followed. There seems to be a lot of interservice incomprehension here.
On a lighter note...has anyone else thought Jacko should change his handle to Jag-onicko?
WE has a point when he says that certain posters don't understand the role of the navy - it's not just to launch aircraft. I think we need to restate aims here. The point of sea power (to quote Mahan) is sea control, and (quoting Mahan again) "control of the sea means the freedom to use the sea and to deny that use to others". As well as providing a base for aeroplanes, a task force also offers control of the sea, protection for logistical shipping (and aircraft), support helicopter basing, Special Forces insertion and support, headquarters facilities, casualty receiving and amphibious transport. To take Sierra Leone as an example, a squadron of Jaguars might indeed have reached Dakar faster than the navy task group did, but the intervention did not take the form only of aircraft. There were troops, and support helicopter transport. The arrival of the ships brought: a. GR7 Harriers. b. More choppers. c. Logistical support. d. Reserves - the Marine battle group. e. Medical help on board ship. f. The possibility of NGS around Freetown. g. Psychological presence. (I admit the last one is weak.) I would query whether letting off bangs in the hinterland would have had the same effect - especially given the eruption of "Blair Bombs Babies" propaganda which would have followed. There seems to be a lot of interservice incomprehension here.
On a lighter note...has anyone else thought Jacko should change his handle to Jag-onicko?
Excellent Steamchicken, you understand my point exactly.
I pointed out a number of possible RN operation on (in?) my various postings on the SHAR Wars thread. Many of those missions may involve the deployment of the CVS and Sea Harrier in support of the rest of the fleet.
I pointed out a number of possible RN operation on (in?) my various postings on the SHAR Wars thread. Many of those missions may involve the deployment of the CVS and Sea Harrier in support of the rest of the fleet.
Last edited by WE Branch Fanatic; 25th May 2002 at 17:09.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Scotland
Posts: 99
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
alphaleader - aka Big Chief Talking Bo!!@c&$
Alpha you really do know how to wind up people. I can only think that you do it on purpose. as to not seeing the Nimrod around when you deploy, maybe that was because all you were doing was sailing around the oceans waving your flag and enjoying your Pink gins in yet another foreign port with no threat to you what so ever, except for the local groupies. Hopefully you caught some unimaginable disease from one of the local girls brought on board for your cocktail parties.
Speak to the boys that deployed to the Gulf just after Sept 11 and ask who was operating around Cyprus giving them a much needed heads up of any small craft coming their way. We managed to give them a nice warm feeling when they were approaching the Suez Canal. I think most of the navy will agree that the skimmer is not a place to be when faced with fanatical terrorists in small boats armed to teath with RPG's or just packed with explosives. The USS Cole incident highlighted your vulnerabilities.
I think everyone can see from the sudden rush of posts from Nimrod guys that you have stirred up a hornets nest from up north by talking such drivel. As has been said the current nimrod is not just an ASW platform and not all its roles can be advertised widely. As for MRA4 well that will be a whole new ball game. Just look at what the US can do with its new P3s. The MRA 4 will be even better there won't be the problem of loiter times or getting sensor information to the shooter because it can be the shooter. The way ahead is highly equipped larger aircraft with good payloads.
Nuff said I think....................
Speak to the boys that deployed to the Gulf just after Sept 11 and ask who was operating around Cyprus giving them a much needed heads up of any small craft coming their way. We managed to give them a nice warm feeling when they were approaching the Suez Canal. I think most of the navy will agree that the skimmer is not a place to be when faced with fanatical terrorists in small boats armed to teath with RPG's or just packed with explosives. The USS Cole incident highlighted your vulnerabilities.
I think everyone can see from the sudden rush of posts from Nimrod guys that you have stirred up a hornets nest from up north by talking such drivel. As has been said the current nimrod is not just an ASW platform and not all its roles can be advertised widely. As for MRA4 well that will be a whole new ball game. Just look at what the US can do with its new P3s. The MRA 4 will be even better there won't be the problem of loiter times or getting sensor information to the shooter because it can be the shooter. The way ahead is highly equipped larger aircraft with good payloads.
Nuff said I think....................
Last edited by nav attacking; 25th May 2002 at 18:39.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: desert mostly
Posts: 85
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Alphaleaderuk!
Methinks you should not present yourself as the font of all Aviation knowledge until you get your facts right. I would not have the ill manners/disrespect to wax lyrical about the SHAR, having never flown in one. You should consider doing the same regarding other specialisations i.e MPA, Airwarfare Instructor or not, unless you know what you are talking about, and you clearly don't.
Nuff said.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Here and there
Posts: 65
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Alpha,
You still don't get it. If you are a wind up merchant, then congratulations you have got me good. However, relying on papers published in the 80's is no basis for an argument about todays military procurements.
I agree that ASW is extremely hard and cannot be carried out by a Nimrod on its own. It has been pointed out by others that it is very much a team game with a good result relying on all players bringing their own unique abilities to bare.
As for not being able to preposition is total @rse. We deploy on a regular basis, taking minimal support with us. Aircraft are still on OOA ops as we speak.
As for not wanting to wait whislt we turn up.....Ever heard of 24 hour coverage. Aircraft being on station providing direct support or others providing ASuW but being on associated support and therefore able to help if a FFCH picks anything up on the towed array.
It also has been pointed out that the Nimrod provides copious more abilities than ASW, but you fail to acknowledge that fact. You instead rely on outdated articles which seem to expound your lack of MPA understaning.
Our armed forces and the MOD is becoming more increasing reliant on the capabilities of the Nimrod not only as an MPA but an incredibly flexible airborne asset, able to provide unique skills to any situatuion. With the new aircraft, extra opportunities will open up, and when utilized will prove the that the MRA4 is excellent value for money.
You still don't get it. If you are a wind up merchant, then congratulations you have got me good. However, relying on papers published in the 80's is no basis for an argument about todays military procurements.
I agree that ASW is extremely hard and cannot be carried out by a Nimrod on its own. It has been pointed out by others that it is very much a team game with a good result relying on all players bringing their own unique abilities to bare.
As for not being able to preposition is total @rse. We deploy on a regular basis, taking minimal support with us. Aircraft are still on OOA ops as we speak.
As for not wanting to wait whislt we turn up.....Ever heard of 24 hour coverage. Aircraft being on station providing direct support or others providing ASuW but being on associated support and therefore able to help if a FFCH picks anything up on the towed array.
It also has been pointed out that the Nimrod provides copious more abilities than ASW, but you fail to acknowledge that fact. You instead rely on outdated articles which seem to expound your lack of MPA understaning.
Our armed forces and the MOD is becoming more increasing reliant on the capabilities of the Nimrod not only as an MPA but an incredibly flexible airborne asset, able to provide unique skills to any situatuion. With the new aircraft, extra opportunities will open up, and when utilized will prove the that the MRA4 is excellent value for money.
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: UK
Age: 46
Posts: 642
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was "stunned" to hear of the decision to scrap the FA2 earlier this year. Alphaleaderuk makes all the points in an informative post.
It seems very strange that less than 2 years after a retention initiative to retain FA2 pilots, the aircraft is then to be removed from service.
Just as the GR7 community say "we didnt join the RAF to go to sea" those in the FA2 world are going to say "I didnt join the Navy to fly out of the east coast".
I feel once again the need for short term financial savings have taken priority of long term planning. Looking to future, ie the time JSF arrives with CVF, given how little time the GR7 community spends embarked in the CVS, there is going to be a severe shortage of maritime experience to introduce JSF to service at sea.
Also a whole generation of PWO/AAWO's are going to have no experience conducting fixed wing aviation and air defence. And it is this generation that will go on to be the first CO's of the CVF.
Many painful lessons are going to have to be relearnt I imagine.
I feel it is extremely unlikely a reversal on the decision is going to come, u-turns went out of fashion in the 90's. It is good to see that the FA2 community is still fighting though, as ever, for some common sense regarding the future of their most capable multi role aircraft.
Regards to all at 801/800/899, "Limp". (Any off you wanting to get in touch can e-mail me at [email protected])
It seems very strange that less than 2 years after a retention initiative to retain FA2 pilots, the aircraft is then to be removed from service.
Just as the GR7 community say "we didnt join the RAF to go to sea" those in the FA2 world are going to say "I didnt join the Navy to fly out of the east coast".
I feel once again the need for short term financial savings have taken priority of long term planning. Looking to future, ie the time JSF arrives with CVF, given how little time the GR7 community spends embarked in the CVS, there is going to be a severe shortage of maritime experience to introduce JSF to service at sea.
Also a whole generation of PWO/AAWO's are going to have no experience conducting fixed wing aviation and air defence. And it is this generation that will go on to be the first CO's of the CVF.
Many painful lessons are going to have to be relearnt I imagine.
I feel it is extremely unlikely a reversal on the decision is going to come, u-turns went out of fashion in the 90's. It is good to see that the FA2 community is still fighting though, as ever, for some common sense regarding the future of their most capable multi role aircraft.
Regards to all at 801/800/899, "Limp". (Any off you wanting to get in touch can e-mail me at [email protected])
Lupus Domesticus
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: NZ
Posts: 520
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Some years ago I recall Griff Rhys-Jones doing a skit on "Not The Nine O'Clock News" in which he was the Green Party's Defence SpokesHuman.
"Our defence policy is to grow a very high hedge..." was the line.
Who'd have thought it would actually come to that? SHar is going and Nimrod is under threat. It's happened to us already, and your El Tone is of the same mind as our own idiot pinko pacifist PM.
Watch carefully for departmental memos concerning base gardens, or window boxes on ships. They may be serious.
"Our defence policy is to grow a very high hedge..." was the line.
Who'd have thought it would actually come to that? SHar is going and Nimrod is under threat. It's happened to us already, and your El Tone is of the same mind as our own idiot pinko pacifist PM.
Watch carefully for departmental memos concerning base gardens, or window boxes on ships. They may be serious.
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: UK, sometimes!
Age: 74
Posts: 436
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SteamChicken,
This thread would not have turned into a 'row' about the Nimrod had arsebandituk known what he was talking about and then accepted that fact when the replies rolled in.
It started with the following in one of his earlier posts...
"Final Comment: “What Mr Ingram should have said concerning the FA2 decision.”"...
..."f. The Nimrod is not an effective Anti-Submarine Warfare vehicle. Even with better avionic systems that may allow it to detect and prosecute a submarine threat, this will be of limited use to the Nation because:
i. The agreed submarine threat against the UK mainland is now low (Strategic Defence Review);
ii The Nimrod is a land based aircraft with limited range and can not therefore support Fleet/JTF operations away from the UK base “without prepositioning” (Defence Policy 2001 Statement).
The £3 billion (US$4.3 billion) being spent on the Nimrod upgrade would therefore be better spent on maintaining an effective first line of air defence for the Fleet and on upgrading the already proven Fleet Anti-Submarine Warfare systems."
And was later followed by...
"It is very clear that the Nimrod has an important role to play in SAR (and perhaps, local fisheries protection). But £2.8 billion for an upgrade? We could do the same task for less than half the price by buying and using new civil aircraft."
With the subject of this thread being maritime related it is hardly surprising that many in the Nimrod fleet will read it.
As I have said before, the base line of alphaleaderdrunks argument is very valid, it is incredible that the SHAR is for the chop and all should be done to save this vital fleet asset. Where alphacluelessuk went wrong was to start to slag off other aircraft types where his knowledge seems to extend no further than the names of the aircraft. He was just unfortunate (or was it planned?) to slag off Nimrods in a thread that we read with interest (after all, the SHAR CAP also protects us, unless alphaleadsnoone is around as he doesn't even know we are there!!). If we started to slag off the SHAR, getting our facts wrong about its roles and capabilities, I am sure there would be a massive response putting us right. That is all we are doing, giving the facts (as far as permissible) on the capabilities and roles of the Nimrod.
Answer your question?
Mad Mark!!!
This thread would not have turned into a 'row' about the Nimrod had arsebandituk known what he was talking about and then accepted that fact when the replies rolled in.
It started with the following in one of his earlier posts...
"Final Comment: “What Mr Ingram should have said concerning the FA2 decision.”"...
..."f. The Nimrod is not an effective Anti-Submarine Warfare vehicle. Even with better avionic systems that may allow it to detect and prosecute a submarine threat, this will be of limited use to the Nation because:
i. The agreed submarine threat against the UK mainland is now low (Strategic Defence Review);
ii The Nimrod is a land based aircraft with limited range and can not therefore support Fleet/JTF operations away from the UK base “without prepositioning” (Defence Policy 2001 Statement).
The £3 billion (US$4.3 billion) being spent on the Nimrod upgrade would therefore be better spent on maintaining an effective first line of air defence for the Fleet and on upgrading the already proven Fleet Anti-Submarine Warfare systems."
And was later followed by...
"It is very clear that the Nimrod has an important role to play in SAR (and perhaps, local fisheries protection). But £2.8 billion for an upgrade? We could do the same task for less than half the price by buying and using new civil aircraft."
With the subject of this thread being maritime related it is hardly surprising that many in the Nimrod fleet will read it.
As I have said before, the base line of alphaleaderdrunks argument is very valid, it is incredible that the SHAR is for the chop and all should be done to save this vital fleet asset. Where alphacluelessuk went wrong was to start to slag off other aircraft types where his knowledge seems to extend no further than the names of the aircraft. He was just unfortunate (or was it planned?) to slag off Nimrods in a thread that we read with interest (after all, the SHAR CAP also protects us, unless alphaleadsnoone is around as he doesn't even know we are there!!). If we started to slag off the SHAR, getting our facts wrong about its roles and capabilities, I am sure there would be a massive response putting us right. That is all we are doing, giving the facts (as far as permissible) on the capabilities and roles of the Nimrod.
Answer your question?
Mad Mark!!!
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 73
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have been reading this VERY long but entertaining thread with interest. Instead of having a pop at Alphaleader about what he is saying about various bits of kit, just think about venting your anger in other directions. At the end of the day most of us are on the same side.
The Nimrod guys are understandably getting wound up about comments here, but don't forget the order for MRA4 has been cut, and the worry must surely be, when all the signals from the MoD have been that the ASW threat is not to be worried about (eg cut in SSN nos. etc, oh and more frigate and destroyer cuts to come post CSR)(oh and the ASuW threat too, let's just take that Exocet off Sheffield shall we?), that even more cuts or a binning is in order.
Now THAT's what you should be getting mad about!
The Nimrod guys are understandably getting wound up about comments here, but don't forget the order for MRA4 has been cut, and the worry must surely be, when all the signals from the MoD have been that the ASW threat is not to be worried about (eg cut in SSN nos. etc, oh and more frigate and destroyer cuts to come post CSR)(oh and the ASuW threat too, let's just take that Exocet off Sheffield shall we?), that even more cuts or a binning is in order.
Now THAT's what you should be getting mad about!
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Puken
Posts: 358
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A L K....
Mate, I think you are spot on.
However, more importantly, I would like to congratulate you on the recent addition to your genome project. Saw the said experiment recently, and he looks like he has more than safe levels of ALK genes!
In case you wonder who I am, I'm the driver of a large 'Transport aircraft' in Dimble-terms, who was also your driver back from No. 1's wedding from VLN. My nickname implies I have an elastic molecular structure.......
Best wishes from the middle east!
Interestingly, if we 'can't afford' to run SHAR and Illustrius, why on earth are India interested?????
Any spelling mistakes are a result of alcohol intolerance!
Mate, I think you are spot on.
However, more importantly, I would like to congratulate you on the recent addition to your genome project. Saw the said experiment recently, and he looks like he has more than safe levels of ALK genes!
In case you wonder who I am, I'm the driver of a large 'Transport aircraft' in Dimble-terms, who was also your driver back from No. 1's wedding from VLN. My nickname implies I have an elastic molecular structure.......
Best wishes from the middle east!
Interestingly, if we 'can't afford' to run SHAR and Illustrius, why on earth are India interested?????
Any spelling mistakes are a result of alcohol intolerance!