Beagle
I completely agree with you but I believe they were working into overdrive to ensure it made it; at one point it appeared favourable but it just wasn’t to be. The interest and media publicity would have benefited the project hugely but you can just imagine if it were to end up stuck there for some reason, given the RTS/SDR situation.:*
Joe

Beags

As I'm sure you'll remember from your time in the mob, what you see in print is rarely the full story or even (as in this case) the truth. Sadly, we are where we are in this 24hr rolling news world.

As others have said, there will have been a big effort to present the aircraft to the public - however, I'm sure you'd agree it's more important to ensure the aircraft is released to train crews ASAP rather than sit on a static line.

Personally, I can't believe we're having an argument about the need for an MPA. We're an island nation relying very heavily on maintaining SLOC and, whether the public realises it or not, the Nimrod has been carrying out an operational role continuously for the last 40 years (the Shack before that).

It's not just part of the maritime layer of defence, it's one of the major pillars of that defence - in my very humble opinion.

Regrettably, our collective sense has flown out of the window in the last decade, and anything could happen with the MRA4 project. You and I are old enough to remember the Nimwacs fiasco - it's demise became a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Here's hoping MRA4 doesn't follow the same path.

TS

PS Nimrod may not win many pretty aircraft prizes, but it sure scares the bejaysus out of submarines :eek: What would you prefer?

Undoubtedly, binning this project could prove to be the biggest mistake the MOD/HMG has ever made for the reasons that have been stated, however, it just would not surprise me one bit. I can totally see us with our pants down in the future relying on our friends from across the Atlantic for ASW or even worse, buying some old P3s :sad:

So who do you believe, the press, our lords and masters or the man down the pub. My money is on the latter. I think all of us at ice station K should start to look for houses down south cause no one is ever going to tell us the truth until it's all over.

I agree that the money is spent but think of us a a sacrifical goat because thats what we are, but we will see. I am starting to look for a small house in lincoln :=

I don't know what the future holds for the MRA4 any more than anyone else.

However, as someone pointed out to me the other day. As we are as skint as a skint thing, are we really going to keep an RAF airfield open for 9 aircraft - when, for example we are basing 70 aircraft at Brize to save money. I know there would be costs involved if Kinloss were to be closed, clearing up the land, moving aircraft simulators elsewhere, etc. However, if the MRA4 does survive then either it will move elsewhere, or some other aircraft type will have to move into Kinloss (100 Sqn Hawks?) to make continued use of the base more cost effective.

Once again I say, anyone for a "Reds to Kinloss" rumour.......;)

I too obviously have no idea whether MRA4 will survive or not. But Biggus' comment:

Is spot on. But I'd be less surprised to see QRA to ISK / Lossie and Leuchars be closed.... after all, LEU has just had the runway redone.... :suspect:


S41

It would not only be totally idiotic of the Government but a crime against the people of an island nation to cancel the MRA4.

Not only do MPA do SAR, about the only thing the public are aware of, but they have many other important roles for a country surrounded by water... protection of our nuclear deterrent, of our offshore oil and gas platforms, against illegal activities such as drug, arms and people smuggling, protection of our SLOC's - and those are just some of the maritime roles carried out in home waters. Add to those the anti-piracy role in the Middle East and all the non-maritime roles that MPA carry out and you will quickly see that MPA are not simply big glorified SAR and ASW platforms.

Talk to the RN and the Army boys and girls (well those in the Army that are aware of the support that they got from MR2) and they will no doubt back the need to maintain the Nimrod capability!

MadMark!!! :mad:

As I suspect Squirrel was inferring, the moment an airfield has a runway relaid it's time to worry; people at Leuchars may need to be on QRA in more ways than one !

Well Kinloss had its runway redone around 18 months ago....

RAF Fish-heads out of business!
 

RAF offers to cancel Nimrod MRA.4 programme as part of defence cuts
:eek::eek::eek:

By Tim Ripley
16 July 2010


The RAF's fleet of Panavia Tornado GR.4 strike aircraft would be grounded within five years if the Nimrod programme is cancelled. (IHS Jane's/Patrick Allen)




UK Royal Air Force (RAF) chiefs have offered to cancel the GBP3.65 billion (USD5.57 billion) BAE Systems Nimrod MRA.4 programme just weeks before the first production aircraft are due to be delivered to the service.

The offer, made in the RAF submission to Phase 2 of the Strategic Defence and Security Review (SDSR) earlier this month, also includes the early retirement within five years of all of the service's Panavia Tornado GR.4 strike aircraft and the closure of three main operating air bases.

It is hoped these cuts would allow the RAF to reduce its payroll by 5,000 personnel and cancel long-term support contracts with BAE Systems and Rolls-Royce worth in excess of GBP3 billion, according to UK Ministry of Defence (MoD) officials involved in the SDSR process. Hundreds of millions of pounds would also be saved by reduced aircrew and groundcrew training requirements for the slimmed-down RAF.

The Nimrod cut would not save significant amounts of money from the GBP3.65 billion procurement costs of the aircraft because almost all of this amount has been spent, except for around GBP200 million to cover the final delivery of the nine aircraft during the next two years.

I can see this thread getting merged any second...

Pardon my ignorance, but who or what is Tim Ripley, and how likely is it even the RAF chiefs would volunteer cuts, particularly the paid-for and necessary & versatile Nimrod ?!

From an outside viewpoint then, based on what I read between the lines in the other threads on here:

Would make it tough to justify any RAF fixed wing fast jets at all- no bombers no need for air superiority, Typhoon can't do it all with reduced numbers.

Harrier is a one trick pony, CAS is all it can bring to the party.

JSF and carriers will be dead in the water.

Simple - offer up what you don't care about and keep your bargaining chips for your pet projects. If this is true, Nimrod ops just got a clear vote of no-confidence from somebody.

Anybody above sqn ldr level that is a party of a decision of this sort needs to go back to Staff College and redo Air Power 101.

And if they're not willing to do so then they can collect their P45.

Not again...

Everything the military owns, or is due to own, is being costed. Money vs Product.

The same will be happening to Chinooks... and we know they're not going to be cancelled.

Can you people stop posting this stuff over and over, all you are doing is scaremongering and its not helping the Nimrod fleet and its future.

Is the 'offer' to scrap MRA4 a tactic? What would it be replaced with? The need still exists...do we buy off the shelf Poseidons? Surely the costs incurred already make it more sensible to finish the job?

NWRSG,

If you read the last 20 posts or so on this thread you will see that the discussion is about whether such an "offer" has actually been made, whether it is journo fishing for a story, or whether it is one of many "offers" that form the decision making process of SDR - each/any of which may or may not be taken up.

I realize that a thread this long can be a pain, but if you read back a page or two in long threads many questions have already been answered, often at great length....;)

I wrote to Janes for an explanation of this story and got a reply from the them today , I will delete if its too long but this should clear things up

"Thank you very much for your feedback on the JDW article “RAF offers to cancel Nimrod MRA.4 programme as part of defence cuts.” I have spoken to the editor and the author of this piece regarding your comments.
Tim Ripley, the author of the article, posed the question on the cancellation of the MRA.4 programme to the MoD/RAF press office in London and they were unable to issue a denial. In several follow up conversations the RAF press spokeswoman refused to deny the story and instead gave the quote that is contained in the piece.

I am sorry if you feel that our reporting has gone downhill, however, Jane’s is an independent organisation and Jane’s Defence Weekly’s portrayal of the RAF is only based on the information we have received from the MoD press office. "

Time for a new FAA squadron?
 

Its getting quoted in more locations now....

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/industry/defence/7900081/RAF-offer-to-scrap-3.5-billion-Nimrods.html