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

Talk about waste.....

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.

Talk about waste.....

Old 7th Jul 2018, 09:56
  #1 (permalink)  

Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: White Waltham, Prestwick & Calgary
Age: 67
Posts: 3,766
Talk about waste.....

A friend in low places tells me the MoD is disposing of new, crated, Tornado engines; tipping them into skips and paying for their disposal rather than receiving payment for the high grade recyclable metals used in their construction - I bet they'd 'sell' their old mobile telephones though!

Thus far, 30+ engines have been disposed of with a unit value of between 5-7 million!

The Tornados replacement, the F35s, have been flown once, in the hover - to satisfy the Brass no doubt - but are uncertain of their participation in the 100 Flypast on the 10th.

They've stripped out all the avionics from the F35s, binned them and are busy around the clock refitting them with new avionics in makeshift tents (hangars not yet finished) - what??

So where are the heads on a plate?

We don't need more taxes - just people in charge who know what they're doing!
paco is offline  
Old 7th Jul 2018, 10:08
  #2 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 2,851
If true, and I've no reason to doubt it, this may be a move to bring Tornado into line with the rest of MoD. In June 1996, Tornado engines was the ONLY section in AML to avoid criticism for consciously wasting money. (Director of Internal Audit report 'Requirement Scrutiny' D/DIA/5/295/10, 27 June 1996).

The avionics bit sounds familiar. The original Apache contract included a raft of obsolescent and even obsolete avionics. It was only amended when spotted by another aircraft office.
tucumseh is offline  
Old 7th Jul 2018, 10:40
  #3 (permalink)  

Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: White Waltham, Prestwick & Calgary
Age: 67
Posts: 3,766
Don't talk to me about the Apache... It would have been cheaper to give everyone in Yeovil a million quid and bought them from the US....
paco is offline  
Old 7th Jul 2018, 11:04
  #4 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 637
Originally Posted by paco View Post
They've stripped out all the avionics from the F35s, binned them and are busy around the clock refitting them with new avionics in makeshift tents (hangars not yet finished) - what??
I do not believe this for one second. An integrated avionics system in a 21st Century jet being stripped out like a radio-cassette from a Mondeo? Not going to happen.
hoodie is offline  
Old 7th Jul 2018, 11:12
  #5 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Germany
Posts: 2,012
The Op needs to Google and understand Resource and account budgeting to understand why it makes sense to get rid rather than hold stock on the shelf hoping to compete for a buyer.
VinRouge is offline  
Old 7th Jul 2018, 11:16
  #6 (permalink)  

Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: White Waltham, Prestwick & Calgary
Age: 67
Posts: 3,766
Ah yes, accountants....

And I know of airlines that have stripped out inbuilt modern avionics and replaced them
paco is offline  
Old 7th Jul 2018, 11:20
  #7 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: England
Posts: 247
Originally Posted by paco View Post
A friend in low places tells me the MoD is disposing of new, crated, Tornado engines; tipping them into skips and paying for their disposal rather than receiving payment for the high grade recyclable metals used in their construction - I bet they'd 'sell' their old mobile telephones though!

Thus far, 30+ engines have been disposed of with a unit value of between 5-7 million!

The Tornados replacement, the F35s, have been flown once, in the hover - to satisfy the Brass no doubt - but are uncertain of their participation in the 100 Flypast on the 10th.

They've stripped out all the avionics from the F35s, binned them and are busy around the clock refitting them with new avionics in makeshift tents (hangars not yet finished) - what??

So where are the heads on a plate?

We don't need more taxes - just people in charge who know what they're doing!
Quite frankly I am appalled but not at all surprised. This is not only an unacceptable waste of public money but it is totally disrespectful to the people at Rolls-Royce Bristol who have worked at making the ROCET engine contact such a success.
Tornado and its RB199 engines have given excellent service to the RAF for almost 40 years (almost 40% of the life of the RAF) and this is no way to show such flagrant disregard to the equipment and people involved.
The MoD should be ashamed of themselves but probably don't care..
Buster15 is offline  
Old 7th Jul 2018, 11:38
  #8 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Germany
Posts: 2,012
Originally Posted by Buster15 View Post
Quite frankly I am appalled but not at all surprised. This is not only an unacceptable waste of public money but it is totally disrespectful to the people at Rolls-Royce Bristol who have worked at making the ROCET engine contact such a success.
Tornado and its RB199 engines have given excellent service to the RAF for almost 40 years (almost 40% of the life of the RAF) and this is no way to show such flagrant disregard to the equipment and people involved.
The MoD should be ashamed of themselves but probably don't care..
Rolls arent paying the treasury cash to hold them in stock though are they?

Someone has calculated it is more cost effective in terms of servicing and budgeting, mindful of the current fleet size, to scrap them. I dare say they will make excellent pieces in a museum or in a company foyer somewhere.
VinRouge is offline  
Old 7th Jul 2018, 12:11
  #9 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: England
Posts: 247
Originally Posted by VinRouge View Post
Rolls arent paying the treasury cash to hold them in stock though are they?

Someone has calculated it is more cost effective in terms of servicing and budgeting, mindful of the current fleet size, to scrap them. I dare say they will make excellent pieces in a museum or in a company foyer somewhere.
​​​​​​
Nothing to do with R-R. They have done their job in repairing them.
​​​​​​There is another post referring to Titanium supply issues. Each RB199 must contain hundreds of kilos of high grade Ti.
Surely it would be possible to get hold of sufficient volunteers with engine strip experience to RTP these engines if for no other reason than to access the Ti components.
To simply dump them has to be an unacceptable solution in this day and age when we are trying to reduce pollution. What kind of example is that to set.
Buster15 is offline  
Old 7th Jul 2018, 12:24
  #10 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: mids
Age: 54
Posts: 0
it may be in the RR contract that they aren't allowed to just scrap them and there has to be a formal disposal paper work trail
tescoapp is offline  
Old 7th Jul 2018, 12:30
  #11 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: England
Posts: 247
Originally Posted by VinRouge View Post
The Op needs to Google and understand Resource and account budgeting to understand why it makes sense to get rid rather than hold stock on the shelf hoping to compete for a buyer.
I am familiar with RAB. This only applies to serviceable stock.Once a part is declared un-serviceable, that part no longer attracts RAB. So what is so difficult about that.
Buster15 is offline  
Old 7th Jul 2018, 12:47
  #12 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Germany
Posts: 2,012
Originally Posted by Buster15 View Post
I am familiar with RAB. This only applies to serviceable stock.Once a part is declared un-serviceable, that part no longer attracts RAB. So what is so difficult about that.
Read the first line of the OP.

A friend in low places tells me the MoD is disposing of new, crated, Tornado engines;
As to lack of Ti, the stuff needs to be reprocessed. It costs a fortune as needs to be done either using electric furnace or dumped in the existing melt and needs an inert atmosphere. It will also have been chemically doped for its particular role. So no quite as simple as you believe. You cant throw reclaimed Ti doped for engine use into a wing spar for example. This is why typically virgin material needs to be used. Reclaiming Ti is a massively expensive operation.

As per always, daily mailesque rants dont usually stand the test of the real world and why there are a load of swivel eyed loons in the conservative cabinet currently scurrying off with their tails between their legs.

I would pay good money to get a first stage fan off of one to convert to a glass topped coffee table though.

http://intrepid-design.co.uk/aviatio...-gallery.html#
VinRouge is offline  
Old 7th Jul 2018, 13:04
  #13 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: England
Posts: 247
Originally Posted by VinRouge View Post
Read the first line of the OP.

As per always, daily mailesque rants dont usually stand the test of the real world and why there are a load of swivel eyed loons in the conservative cabinet currently scurrying off with their tails between their legs.

I would pay good money to get a first stage fan off of one to convert to a glass topped coffee table though.

Intrepid Design - Aircraft furniture picture gallery
Thank you for your slightly convoluted response. I also appreciate your input on re-using Ti although I didn't expect for one second that it was easy.

So, my turn to help you. The Fan (LPC) is a welded drum so very difficult to get a 1st stage Fan Disc. Why not try the whole Fan Drum. Far more impressive.
Buster15 is offline  
Old 7th Jul 2018, 13:15
  #14 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: EGPH
Posts: 120
In the mid 80’s I went with Uni to a centrifugal casting factory in Sheffield.
One of the jobs they did was make a cylindrical casting of about 6” wall thickness. It then went off to RR(?) for final machining into an exhaust pipe for a Tornado jet.
They a fully machined one that ad been rejected because of a crack. You could pick up easily with one Handand had lots of holes along its length for attaching components.

Their Operations Manager used to buy them at scrap value for use as planters in his garden.

I wish I could have bought one.
renard is offline  
Old 7th Jul 2018, 17:33
  #15 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Corinium
Age: 66
Posts: 76
I wouldn't say that the RB199 has given that good a service, most of them have more flying hours in the back of a C130 than in a Tornado!!!!
huge72 is offline  
Old 7th Jul 2018, 17:35
  #16 (permalink)  

Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: White Waltham, Prestwick & Calgary
Age: 67
Posts: 3,766
I get the fact that it may be cheaper to scrap them than recycle, that's simple common sense - but did they have good reasons for buying them in the first place? Is it the same thinking as building aircraft carriers that won't have aircraft that are capable of using them for ten years? And OK, it may be in a contract - but what benighted idiot signed the contract? That's where the dead wood lies. But then, backhanders don't happen, do they?
paco is offline  
Old 7th Jul 2018, 18:09
  #17 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 2,851
Paco. Materiel and provisioning support polices (because that is what we're talking about) have changed innumerable times since Tornado entered service. I doubt if anyone could even describe a few of the changes. But I remember one, in April 1990. Hitherto, RAF suppliers had run a max/min stock level system, the aim being to satisfy demands from units within the timescales set out in the FUD system. (From memory, Priority 1 - 24 hours. Priority 2/3/4 - 48 hours. And so on). Plainly, this required stock on the shelf, based at first on predicted reliability, then fine-tuned with experience. The likes of engines were easy to calculate, because one didn't let them fail before taking them out for overhaul.

In 1990 this policy changed overnight to only initiating procurement when there was an outstanding demand. In other words, a Not In Time policy. The delivery forecast was the production lead time, which was many months or even years. Later, this was improved by the much-maligned Just In Time policy, most people not realising this was a major victory over beancounters, by those who wanted aircraft flying. JIT was actually a minor tweak of the old system NIT had replaced.
tucumseh is offline  
Old 7th Jul 2018, 18:11
  #18 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Germany
Posts: 2,012
Originally Posted by paco View Post
I get the fact that it may be cheaper to scrap them than recycle, that's simple common sense - but did they have good reasons for buying them in the first place? Is it the same thinking as building aircraft carriers that won't have aircraft that are capable of using them for ten years? And OK, it may be in a contract - but what benighted idiot signed the contract? That's where the dead wood lies. But then, backhanders don't happen, do they?
Probably more to do with a bunch of people calling for Brexit, resulting in trashed forward GDP predictions, trashed exchange rate, reduced departmental budgets and the resultant reduction in capability.

When it suggests brand spankers above, it probably means overhauled, ready to use. So will have been around from whenever that mod of engine was procured for a much larger Tonka force.
VinRouge is offline  
Old 7th Jul 2018, 18:50
  #19 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: England
Posts: 247
Originally Posted by huge72 View Post
I wouldn't say that the RB199 has given that good a service, most of them have more flying hours in the back of a C130 than in a Tornado!!!!
Not that good a service. Really that is completely incorrect. The speciation reliability requirement was a Basic Unplanned Removal Rate of 4.0/1000 flying hours. Apart from a few exceptions it achieved that figure. The RAF maintenance policy was primarily for quick engine change to render the aircraft serviceable. Many engines were removed because it was easier to do that than fully diagnose the reported fault.
More recently the RB199 has been twice as reliable as that requirement. Tornado weight has increased and additional stores have made it less aerodynamic.
It was designed to operate in the European environment not a hot and high desert environment.
For its age it has performed remarkably.
Buster15 is offline  
Old 7th Jul 2018, 19:45
  #20 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,633
Originally Posted by VinRouge View Post
Probably more to do with a bunch of people calling for Brexit, resulting in trashed forward GDP predictions, trashed exchange rate, reduced departmental budgets and the resultant reduction in capability.

.
So for how many decades have we , as a nation, been living in a fiscal version of the MATRIX ?
glad rag is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

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