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!

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). :E

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.

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....

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.

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.

Ah yes, accountants....

And I know of airlines that have stripped out inbuilt modern avionics and replaced them

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? :ugh:

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.

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

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.

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#

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.

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!!!!

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. 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.

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.

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.

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.