I can't agree with the constant drone of "the sky will fall in if we don't have Nimrod"; quite frankly it won't.

The loss of MRA4 started with the ill-conceived idea of refurbing a 1st generation large jet aircraft and not realising what was involved. Secondly, at the turn of the millenium, when the knives were out to reduce the numbers the half-witted idea of putting an MX15 on it was devised for the overland role (fully supported by an ex kipper man who was now CinC - nepotism in the same way as you are all accusing the FJ 3 & 4 stars). The amount of money we spent putting the Nimrod over Iraq and Afg, we could have procured about half a dozen Predator sqns (and prevented a tragic accident).

If we hadn't selected the MRA4 and if we hadn't invented a job for an MPA that it wasn't designed for then I suspect we would still have a MPA capability right now.

And finally, I'm pretty sure that most airline pilots don't give it a second thought that there is no LRSAR cover in the UK, so stop getting all mawkish and move on.

iRaven

IRaven. Don't be niaive. That's not what's being said here. If you have nothing positive to add to the debate, I suggest you don't post. Please have a look at this...

Russian nuclear submarine plays cat and mouse off British coast | The Sun |News

iRaven,

I am sorry but it is not about AFG. Your comments about using Reaper are not valid and fail to acknowledge the broad range of tasks that MRA4 would have been able to conduct. I for one, am concerned about its loss where other less capable or versatile platforms have been retained.

Since they are going into storage, presumably in an airworthy state, they could therefore be brought into service later on.
So could this just be a sneaky way of closing Kinloss, then a year down the line issue a statement that threat situation has changed and we now need them and base them somewhere like Waddington?

Now this might sound like a stupid question, but back in the day when BAE realised that all the Nimrods were "slightly" different. How difficult would it have been to as it were clone one Nimrod? Seeing as you would have to strip each one back and mate it to new wings?

GG, storage is not free. Now it is conceivable that BAE might seek permission to sell them to an overseas buyer.

... to sell them to an overseas buyer.

And the obvious is, with crews and support - cost sharing between UAE, Oman and Bahrein. Any other offers? :hmm:

GG:
I understand that RTS has been withheld on safety grounds. Am I wrong? If not then I cannot see how you arrive at your presumption. Generations of incompetent, self serving and myopic VSO's have reduced the RAF to the parlous state we find it in now. All they had to do was to do their job, ie to ensure that the RAF be equipped with airworthy and capable aircraft. They have failed their service and their country totally and should be investigated, not least for having allegedly issued illegal orders in doing so. Now they have cost us all the loss of not only yet another aircraft fleet, but an entire capability essential to the security of a maritime nation. If they had any honour they would resign and/or hand back their honours, which they have dishonoured. They haven't of course, so they won't of course.
Well said Wingco, you sum it all up much better than I, and I sympathise and empathise with those who have honed their professional skills and capabilities over generations of service to have it all junked by this metrosexual CONDEMn government. Shame on them all!

Hello iRaven, it's nice to see some alternative views even if they rub against the grain.

In response to your recent posts, it wasn't our (UKs) idea to send MPA on overland ISR. The US had been doing it for nearly 10 years and it was very successful. We (RAF Maritime) eventually got some investment from some people who know what they want (not the RAF, and they asked repeatedly for weapons which was resisted by the RAF for some reason!) a spin off was it also provided more utility to the rest of the regular forces (read multi-role, value for money, etc.) of a predominantly maritime platform, at the time no other platform was available with the range, flexibility or capacity.

Australia, New Zealand, Canada, France and others thought it was such a bad idea that they have/are trying to develop the role we were doing overland for thier MPAs, the US who can buy whatever they want to do the roles think it's so flawed and achievable by a UAV (RPAS) that it is by far the largest part of their P-3s tasking (despite the myriad of other ISTAR platforms available) and will be a core role of the replacement P-8.

While I can accept the Governments choice to ditch Nimrod if they consider it tainted (I know it worked BTW), we still need it's ISR, and Above Water/Under Water Warfare capabilities and that is what I heard from CAS on Wednesday. Given the train set he has just been left with, is he prepared to readjust it to save a vital capability quickly (i.e.: Order some P-8) or does he want to leave the RAF open to more cuts, like it or not we still don't need that many FJ. 2015 could easily see the FJ force halved and cancelation of the JSF if the CVs are cancelled once the MOD has paid to employ a large part of the UK workforce for 5 more years , especially as they do not fit into the plan outlined in NSS, however one platform seemed quite useful for most of the tasks :ugh:

Anyone outside our community couldn't understand that just because we were an MPA and did ASW we could do other things from the air. Submarine = Cold War and Maritime = Ocean. We should have used LRPA, Long Range Patrol Aircraft, and I know we didn't like the name but UWW, Under Water Warfare solved the other issue and it was better than Under Water ISTAR!

Chugalug2 and Pontius Navigator as I understood it, they were, as they would have been paid for, to be delivered to the RAF who would then store them in the same way as the Chinooks have been, in which case they would have to be airworthy. Apologies if I've got the wrong end of the stick.

I think we are getting somewhere now.

If the MRa4 was fit for purpose, then surely they could be sold to someone.......anyone..... even with the best of the secret gear removed......any offers....anyone.......no.....I wonder why.

The US seem to be able to sell a refurbed 707 so why are the Comets so hard to sell?

If the MOD have paid for them, and are not going to use them, then why not sell them, unless of course, there is a problem that makes them unsafe, in which case why are the mod not getting their money back?

On another note, can anyone tell me how to get into this way of working where the customer agrees to a deal with such fantastic penalty clauses where it costs more to abort the job than to complete it?

This is madness
 

I would contend that agreeing to the removal of the Nimrod MRA4 is an act of stupidity and an abrogation of responsibility by the Govt, the MOD and the AFB. Irrespective of the impact this decision will have on the good people of RAF Kinloss and the local populace in Morayshire, the impact it will have with respect to the defence and safety of this country in the long term is clearly the more significant and one that cannot be ignored. As a maritime nation how is it possible to defend the fact that we will no longer have an airborne platform capable of essential support to the independent nuclear deterrent, maritime surveillance, long range SAR, maritime interdiction and strike, rapid and adaptable intelligence gathering, maritime force projection and long range focused intervention.

The threats posed towards the interests of the UK in 2010 and beyond are well known; there are others around the corner that we can only make reasoned assessments on. This defence review obviously had to have a focus on the immediate plans that we have in support of OP HERRICK. At the same time we were led to believe that it was also looking beyond Afghanistan; this decision clearly shows that either the Govt have their heads in the sand, or there are ulterior political reasons behind it.

Having listened to the AFB message since the current CAS took charge, it was clear that Combat ISTAR was central to the future of the RAF. And I do not hold with the parochial view that the FJ centric AFB would not give full support to the MRA4. There is no single platform in the RAF inventory, let alone one that is ISTAR specific that fulfils more of the current UK Military Tasks than the MR variant of the Nimrod, either MR2 past or MRA4 future; so how can the Govt and AFB concede we can do without it? Or, does the Govt not understand what this platform actually provides, what ability will be lost, or are they quite simply afraid of the bad publicity that the name “Nimrod” seems to generate with a section of the general public. I am just not convinced this is about pure cost saving, and I can only hope that many people in the know will now come forward with the real facts about the supposed savings to be had as a result of this decision. Already there is significant doubt as to whether or not we will actually get the £200m year on year saving over the next 10years. I for one will be surprised if it is proportionally any more cost efficient than the reasons given behind not cancelling an aircraft carrier, a carrier that will be without strike aircraft for the foreseeable future or any LRMPA surveillance and protection at all.

We have just reached a crossroads in defence. At RAF Kinloss this week when CAS commented on how he had repeatedly reiterated to the NSC and the PM why this capability should not be lost, everyone in the hangar understood why; but it appears the Govt clearly does not understand the magnitude of the risk they have accepted. Therefore, I wonder if anyone within the AFB, MOD, or even the Govt front bench, namely the Secretary of State for Defence, will now have the integrity or the will power to look again at ways in which this ridiculous decision can be reversed. Or, if only a few days on this is deemed impossible, that they indicate how strongly they believed in the advice and direction they brought to bear and simply do the honourable thing. Because if they do not, I believe all that they have said privately and in public on the run up to SDSR is hollow, meaningless and undermines their position. This is not just about being principled, this is about refusing to publicly support a policy that is downright reckless and dangerous in the extreme. I do not want to wait for a time in the future (and it will happen) when someone is wheeled out to explain how they opposed the decision but were powerless to act. A Govt understands all about presentation and if significant sections of the great and good made their feelings more public, we might even get the Govt and MOD to rethink.

I have added the Military Tasks that I believe the Nimrod MR2 has contributed towards over the last 10 years and what the MRA4 is capable of contributing to in the future. Some would argue it does not tally, others may think it falls short, see what you think:

MT 1.2—Nuclear deterrence
MT 2.1—Military aid to the civil authorities (MACA)
MT 2.2—Integrity of the UK
MT 3.1—Defence and security of the Overseas Territories
MT 3.3—Security co-operation: support to current and future contingent operations
MT 3.4—Security co-operation: strengthen international peace and stability and support wider British interests.
MT 4.1—Humanitarian assistance and disaster relief
MT 4.2—Evacuation of British citizens overseas
MT 4.6—Power projection
MT 4.7—Focused intervention


As a total aside, let's just wait and see what impact this decision has on the (behind closed doors) special relationship.


A sad day indeed…………DFM, over & out. :ugh:

Green Granite,

Could you let us know the location of your source, DE&S or MoD? As it would be nice to know the aircraft would be completed and not sold to the local scrap metal dealers.

If they were going into storage, they would have to be flown there since Woodford will close and be turned into a housing estate.

One would also assume that the issues which caused it to be grounded would have to be remedied before the aircraft could possibly fly again. I imaging that BAE are still working on the project because DE&S have yet to formally cancel the contract. With the massive cuts in civil servants at DE&S they probably have their own self interests in mind like finding a new job rather than pushin through contact paperwork.

Frustated....Too right, not with Cameron, but with BAE for not being able to build an aircraft that they said they could to get the contract in the first place.

GG, there is a world of difference between storing the Chinook in a shed, they would probably all fit in one, and the Nimrod. The MRA4 would not fit in a standard hangar. The obvious hangars in to which it would fit would be at Kinloss however the Army will need those to store their snatch Land Rovers :cool:

You could get probably a maximum of 3 in a shed therefore 3 sheds. BAE has sheds but they would charge a rental too. The cost of ownership therefore is a significant factor and is one reason why so much military kit arrives on the surplus market at one end of the country when people elsewhere are crying out for kit.

Simple example, I needed a paint locker - if stores (sorry Supply) could provide one then it would cost £500. I bought one at my local surplus store for £35. At the time I bought it we actually owned it even! Mad.

I fail to see how the present CAS, ACAS and AOC can stay on in their posts.

Obviously I wasn't at KSS, but if what Mad Mark and others are clearly saying is true, then those resposible for fighting the RAF and Nimrod cause must stand up and be counted, for the following prime reason

If, as has been stated here, the CAS did have a face-to-face meeting with the PM and others and argued the case for Nimrod in the manner he claims he did and he was ignored, then clearly his position as head of the RAF counts for nothing, and he should go public and quit. He should stand up and say 'my position as CAS has been ignored and undermined by this government and I can no longer stay in the post'

Now, if he (or any of the VSO's) did that, then they would be hailed as heroes. People would have sympathy for them and their cause and would have huge respect for them. However, what have we seen or heard from any RAF VSO's?? NOTHING WHATSOEVER

Which leads me to believe frankly, that the argument was not faught in the way as described by CAS and IMHO CAS simply 'traded off' the Nimrod against the probable threat from the Gov't of losing a whole bunch of Typhoons.

iRaven
I'm not sure if you have a military background or whether you are even involved in aviation, but your comments are somewhat rude, offensive and crass. I don't give a toss about what you think most airline pilots think. I'm telling you what I THINK and what I FELT when travelling back to the UK. Do you think for one second that LRSAR cover in say northern Russia, Siberia, mid Pacific or indeed most other hostile areas is anything like the LRSAR cover that USED to be provided by UK forces? The answer (if you're stuck) is NO. It is acknowledged that UK SAR covewr was second to none and the primary platform for that was Nimrod. Try to take a look back in history and you will see for yourself the huge contribution this single aircraft alone has provided and the huge numbers of people who are safe and well as a direct result of Nimrod.

Winco

DFM

Hear hear fella :D

Articulate, cogent defence of the capability and platform. Now, can you translate it into Sun speak for the wider population cc'd David Cameron.

I too heard what CAS said at ISK. I believe he was quite candid about the meeting he had with the PM a week ago today, more candid than I would expect a politician to be. Quite a dangerous stance to take with a 200+ audience of passionate people about to lose their jobs.

And for all those who think this issue is dead and buried and will just fade away with time, forget it. I'm not naive enough to believe that MRA4 will be resurrected anytime soon, CAS.

Any Nimrod Officers who've been on the receiving end of a tea-bag sandwich or a Baldrick Cappucino will know how tiresome those pesky siggies are. (Airmen in green bags, a one eyed ex Jag jock once said!)

Just imagine what they're like if you really annoy them :E

PN, I think I may have missed a page somewhere.....


Is this fine example of the MPA fleet that can fly at 200 feet over the North Sea, unable to be left out in the rain?

Do you really think that the new, smaller, lighter, agile, fit for purpose RAF will not have parking space for some Nimrods? How small do think the air farce will be by the end of next year?


The airframes could be spread around the RAF and used for Fire Practice or as situational trainers for the SF guys to practice storming aircraft. Better that than being scrapped or left with BAE unless the MoD get a huge refund.

Winco

I fail to see why you think that CAS, ACAS and the AOC should resign, nor do I begin to understand why you think it acceptable to effectively accuse CAS of having lied to his audience at KSS -as you do by suggesting the argument was not fought as CAS stated.

The AOC has only been in post a month and can hardly be held accountable for a decision taken in MOD by other people. Please tell me how his leaving post will help matters apart from handing the job to the runner-up in the selection process?

CAS and ACAS (and their AFB colleagues) have spent the last few months fighting an existential battle for the RAF. I don't suppose either gentleman is particularly thrilled with the outcome and they would probably have preferred the status quo ante, but it was not their call. The big decisions were taken, following advice from the joint level and the service heads, by the politicians, who are after all supposed to be in charge of the military in our democracy. It's called cabinet government. You can't simply deduce that CAS' position must have been ignored by the PM/Govt because the decision went the other way - most difficult political decisions end up trying to balance strong but conflicting arguments. It is certainly not a reason for people to resign in a fit of pique.

At a time when we are facing restructuring, redundancies and other changes TBD under the Defence Reform banner, your apparent desire to see the entire RAF senior leadership fall on its collective sword makes no sense at all. I presume that you are making similar demands of the Navy leadership for their failure to fully protect the current and planned surface fleet? Do you suppose the RN was happy to see MRA4 go by the wayside? And no doubt CGS ought to resign too, because he certainly would not have been advocating 7000 redundancies, withdrawal from Germany and the halving of his heavy armour capability.

For the record, I do not agree with the decision to bin the MRA4, nor the with the loss of the Harrier fleet. And I don't agree with your unworthy slurs on the integrity of CAS - if he can stand in front of the KSS audience, look people in the eye and tell them what happened, then that is good enough for me. If you have firm evidence to the contrary please bring it on. If all you have is your own supposition or some wild conspiracy theory, best keep it to yourself.

Winco

It would seem that "nepotism" and "mawkishness" are your middle name, then? Still, I THINK and I FEEL that enough was enough with MRA4 and I do give a to$$ where my tax from my frozen military salary goes!

Ivan Rogov

Thank you for the more constructive reply. I am well aware of "some investment from some people who know what they want", but "they" now have something else much better to that job - I guess this was another reason for the demise?

Betty Swallox

I'm sorry if I came over niaive; I was, and am, well aware of what was recently reported in The Sun and what has been going on. But there are RN SSNs (exlcuding Astute!), type 22/23s and helo pingers (plus some other stuff) that will do a fair proportion of the "cat and mouse" for us. Let's face it, even if MRA4 was coming into service it wouldn't be ready for at least 18-24 months to contribute to the sub-surface piece - so what is happening right now is irrelevant to the current argument.

DFM

Your military tasks are out of date, here are the new ones from SDSR 2010:

The seven Military Tasks are:

• defending the UK and its Overseas Territories
• providing strategic intelligence
• providing nuclear deterrence
• supporting civil emergency organisations in times of crisis
• defending our interests by projecting power strategically and through expeditionary interventions
• providing a defence contribution to UK influence
• providing security for stabilisation

Chug2

"I understand that RTS has been withheld on safety grounds. Am I wrong?" - you are correct, Sir.

All

If it's any consolation, I hope that we run options to buy P-8s in the future - maybe a joint manning program before that like we are doing for RJ. Then all the development of the back-end kit on MRA4 will not have been wasted and we will get aircraft at a 1/5th the cost of a MRA4 that:

1. Works
2. Is safe
3. Is interoperable with our main Atlantic peer (the US)
4. Is affordable

If this can't be done, then a RPAS/UAS solution should be found.

iRaven

iRaven

Welcome and I believe you have hit the nail on the head in certain areas.

On the saving of fast jets, I can only conclude that MRA4 would be next to useless in a contested environment without FJs to provide localised air supremacy/superiority - so I guess a "chicken and egg" decision had to be made?

BTW, I'm guessing from your nome-de-plume that you are something to do with Electronic Warfare?

The B Word

PS. I also feel that some of the outbursts from the KIS fraternity mirror that of Sharkey Ward's son on the Harrier thread - a lot about "me" and not really about the better good for what's left of the 3 services. We can do without MPAs for now, IMHO.