Your source appears to be inaccurate in regards to the F-35. One F-35 took part in the RAF 100 rehearsal. Since then

One F-35 (Call sign Marham 81) was active over UK on 3rd July
One F-35 (Call sign Marham 83) was active over UK on 3rd July

One F-35 (Call sign Marham 99 was doing approaches to Yeovilton on 5th July
One F-35 (Call sign Marham 88) was noted doing approaches to Coningsby on 5th July
One F-35 (Call sign Marham 84) was noted active over UK on 5th July

So no where near, say, a range then?

Happen to the Pegasus engines in 2011/12 as well; so nothing new.

Its been here barely a month as part of an ongoing introduction to service being run simaltaneously in both the US and the UK by the RN and RAF that has been going on for several years - as seen by this link here - https://www.military.com/daily-news/...iv-weapon.html

This whole thread seems to be a mixture of rumour, conjecture and 'when I was in' served with a puree of bovine excrement.

VR don't be so thick as to conflate Brexit with this decision

Ha! Good point. But I bet the MoD ARE looking at capability scaling and deletion as a result of forward GDP projections and more importantly the effect on FX. I can't see risk money covering the massive dip in FX we have seen alone.

I have no doubt you are correct, especially your last sentence.

In one way I think we can blame Gordon Brown for the policy. I can't remember the fine detail but everything the MOD owned had a notional value and they had to pay a premium on the stock value. Ergo, run down the stock, save money.

A building should be 'full' or its space was wasted, solution, close a building that wasn't full.

PS. Just remembered RAC resource accounting.

Good old Gordon - not. False accounting.

It's nothing new. My late father was a Rolls Royce apprentice. He told me that RR used brand new, crated Merlin Engines as landfill after WW2.

It was the Tory Gov't of '96 that introduced it.

Although the subject is new - unfortunately, the practice isn't! Well before Harriers were scrapped I saw a £6m Harrier PCU test unit sold (in a cupboard) for DM100 to a local farmer...he needed a substantial metal cupboard.

Watched one company go bust after the accountants decided contractors were the cheaper option to work on their aircraft, so the company staff stood around with no work to do and watched on as contactors did the job they would have been doing, the fact they were now paying twice for labour was lost on them.

​​​​​​
But it's not that simple, is it, it never is.

The engines are 'worth' £bignum if you have an operating Tornado fleet in need of them.

If you don't, they are 'worth' whatever they might fetch in an auction.

But you can't dump them on the open market because they might end up being used against you or an ally at a later date.

So they're worth scrap.

But you probably can't 'normally' scrap them either because the scrapyard will end up 'losing' them, or some other shenanigans will occur. Or because the manufacturer's contract stipulates that they're a confidential custom design and can't be sold on.

So a bunch of (surplus) perfect engines get expensively and comprehensively destroyed in a secure facility and when we think about it, we all understand why there is no better option.

Of all the wastes of money to get upset about, Tornado engines seems like an odd one. I'd be surprised if the Tornado fleet wasn't #1 or #2 in terms of (recent) combat utilisation, sorties per airframe or whatever metric is applicable. Anyone know for sure?

Want to get worked up? How many attack submarines have we operated between 1950 and today? How many have fired on a target in combat? Don't say they're protecting the missile boats either, that's not what they do. Enjoy! Consider joining CND too - ranting is much more satisfying with others.

Resource Accounting and Budgeting (or Random Asset Budgeting). In 1996 we were all sent on a course to hear about it. I remember thinking, this is all familiar. Equipment Accounting Centre in Liverpool did most of it anyway, only didn't make an industry out of it. Just a DefCon called up in every contract. Regarding what EAC didn't do, I couldn't really see the point anyway. If it is not MoD policy to know what assets it has, or where they are (and it hasn't been, since 1988), then it's all a bit pointless. Where the random quip came from.

EAC, by the way, were excellent value. They were the first MoD audit branch to jump on the RAF's 'savings at the expense of safety' policy - in January 1988. Not 1999, as claimed by Haddon-Cave. RAB cost a fortune, EAC continued to mop up after it.

Also new and crated does not imply latest and moded.

Seeing as the aircraft re-commenced flying four days after they arrived, that was either the quickest avionics retrofit in history or this comment is complete bolleaux.

I have heard that there are issues with the infrastructure at Marham not being ready (the jets weren't supposed to arrive until late August at the earliest, but the Centenary celebrations caused this to be bought forward with no real planning), and that ALIS is causing some headaches. But that's not quite the same as the hyperbole of 'stripping out' the aircraft's avionics.

I'm afraid that the statement above certainly is "bolleaux" (they arrived 7th June and did not fly again until, I believe, the 2nd of July), but I suspect you are correct about the "avionics refit claim".

So ~26 SSNs, of which 1 has definitely fired on a ship, and at least 4 have fired TLAM at land targets. So about 20% have fired in anger. But of course firing in anger isn't the only thing they're designed to do, so it's hard to see what you're getting worked up about.