Nirmrod Decision coming back to haunt the Government?
Discussion
eharding said:
Mojocvh said:
eharding said:
anonymous said:
[redacted]
Oh, FFS.It was paid for 20 times over, and was still a piece of crap.
BAe humped the taxpayer dry, and was looking for more, but didn't have a clue if they could make it work.
It was a happy gravy-train-till-retirement for a hell of a lot of people, but sadly we can't afford that sort of feckwittery now.
You really think any examples would have had a bearing on the Libya campaign?
Dream on.
What's one of those, grandad?
Elroy Blue said:
No they weren't. Both the RAF and thh Navy virtually begged Cameron to keep Nimrod. He saw it as a 'look at me I'm the leader' chance to show he was the Prime Minister. The first indication that he was just another Politician.
I can guarantee there is a report written by senior officers, not politicians, wherein the option of binning Nimrod MRA4 is offered up. That's how these things work.http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/in...
DamienB said:
I can guarantee there is a report written by senior officers, not politicians, wherein the option of binning Nimrod MRA4 is offered up. That's how these things work.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/in...
The Telegraph has been led up the proverbial garden path by certain ex officers and [allegedly] their ex-officer associations political lobbyists. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/in...
I wouldn't put one bit of credence to ANYTHING the telegraph says re-defence tbh.
Mojocvh said:
"Galileo" It's not just for road usage taxation you know..
Ain't that a REALLY annoying logo...It's taken them some 700 plus years to come the full circle from building the chapels on the high ground of the Languedoc.....
It is a weird logo isn't it, it makes my eyes spin.Ain't that a REALLY annoying logo...It's taken them some 700 plus years to come the full circle from building the chapels on the high ground of the Languedoc.....
Edited by Mojocvh on Tuesday 7th June 17:41
Mojocvh said:
DamienB said:
I can guarantee there is a report written by senior officers, not politicians, wherein the option of binning Nimrod MRA4 is offered up. That's how these things work.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/in...
The Telegraph has been led up the proverbial garden path by certain ex officers and [allegedly] their ex-officer associations political lobbyists. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/in...
I wouldn't put one bit of credence to ANYTHING the telegraph says re-defence tbh.
But, it was Call Me Dave, in his “I’m PM mode” that made the individual decision to axe Nimrod from the RAF list – despite the Chiefs case pleading not to pick it.
Mojocvh said:
The Telegraph has been led up the proverbial garden path by certain ex officers and [allegedly] their ex-officer associations political lobbyists.
I wouldn't put one bit of credence to ANYTHING the telegraph says re-defence tbh.
Did you bother reading the story? First sentence: I wouldn't put one bit of credence to ANYTHING the telegraph says re-defence tbh.
Telegraph said:
"Jane's Defence Weekly, the respected military magazine, said the offer was submitted by air force chiefs to the Strategic Defence and Security Review being conducted by the Coalition Government."
But hey if you think Jane's aren't any cop either go ahead and believe what you like.Fact: The one system (amongst Harrier GR9, Surface ships etc) that MILITARY defence chiefs pleaded for at the eleventh hour was Nimrod. Liam Fox the Defence sec wanted it. Cameron personally chose to cut it to look like a 'leader'. Navy and RAF were aghast.
It was a crass and stupid decision, with a TSR2 style slash and burn of all the airframes and jigs.
It was a crass and stupid decision, with a TSR2 style slash and burn of all the airframes and jigs.
Elroy Blue said:
TSR2 style slash and burn of all the airframes and jigs.
1966 was well before my time - whilst I can understand cutting the TSR2 programme, I could never believe that the destruction of the hardware to make the decision irreversible regardless of how the state of the world might be at some point in the future, was anything less than criminal - I just couldn't believe it could have been allowed to happen.Now I see how it can be.
Apparently the 1966 cuts also involved the destruction of the catapult and arrestor gear that has been removed from Bulwark/Albion which had been stored after their conversion to the Commando role to prevent their conversion back to CTOL carriers.
Elroy Blue said:
Fact: The one system (amongst Harrier GR9, Surface ships etc) that MILITARY defence chiefs pleaded for at the eleventh hour was Nimrod. Liam Fox the Defence sec wanted it. Cameron personally chose to cut it to look like a 'leader'. Navy and RAF were aghast.
It was a crass and stupid decision, with a TSR2 style slash and burn of all the airframes and jigs.
That doesn't align with the Jane's report though, does it?It was a crass and stupid decision, with a TSR2 style slash and burn of all the airframes and jigs.
I suspect there was more than one group of senior military figures lobbying on the issue, and those lobbying against prevailed.
Whether the lobbying from the military had any real effect is arguable.
The simple situation was that the contractor had lost the confidence of the people signing the cheques that an operational system could finally be delivered on a hard timescale and budget.
You can point the finger at various involved parties as to how over the history of the project the whole thing turned into such a goat, but that was how it ended.
Precisely.
As for TSR2 style slash and burning - well I'd advise a read of my TSR2 book before you believe all the stories on the TSR2; and what precisely do you expect anybody to do with a pile of useless Nimrod airframes - give them away to museums (none interested)? Or break them up and sell the metal for reprocessing and actually make a few quid back? It's a no-brainer.
As for TSR2 style slash and burning - well I'd advise a read of my TSR2 book before you believe all the stories on the TSR2; and what precisely do you expect anybody to do with a pile of useless Nimrod airframes - give them away to museums (none interested)? Or break them up and sell the metal for reprocessing and actually make a few quid back? It's a no-brainer.
DamienB said:
Precisely.
As for TSR2 style slash and burning - well I'd advise a read of my TSR2 book before you believe all the stories on the TSR2; and what precisely do you expect anybody to do with a pile of useless Nimrod airframes - give them away to museums (none interested)? Or break them up and sell the metal for reprocessing and actually make a few quid back? It's a no-brainer.
It cost £200 million to scrap nimrod and dispose of them. They don't just ask the residents of the local caravan site to nip the stuff to the scrappy. The haste it was done with was obscene and for no other reason than to prevent them being brought into service when it was realised that we NEEDED the capability (thus embarrasing Cameron). They had to do a quick U-turn on the R1s when they realised that the capability was vital.As for TSR2 style slash and burning - well I'd advise a read of my TSR2 book before you believe all the stories on the TSR2; and what precisely do you expect anybody to do with a pile of useless Nimrod airframes - give them away to museums (none interested)? Or break them up and sell the metal for reprocessing and actually make a few quid back? It's a no-brainer.
The thing is, it has called into question Camerons ability to make a reasoned and informed decision.
If it is true, and I have no reason to disbelieve it, the Chief of Air Staff was fighting for Nimrod, in Face to Face meetings with Cameron just a few days before the review. He chose to ignore the advice and requests of the people who defend the country, and proudly do his boasting of "Labour Waste" in Parliament.
He cannot make a correct decision or listen to people, and will just go piling into a situations regardless.
The personal decision against the wishes of the Chief of Air Staff and his own Defence Secretary to kill off the Nimrod.
The massive and embarrasing U-Turn over the Forest sell off (should this not have been consulted before)?
The U-Turn or partial U-Turn over sports funding I believe was another one.
The U-Turn today over the Prison rules (should this not have been considered before announcing the reforms)?
The Embarrasement, backlash and subsequent re-consulatation over the NHS Reforms (should this not have been consulted before)?
Buls
tting the public under the cover of No Fly zone/protection of civilians in Libya, whilst in fact it is regime change. Even the politicians and senior military were not sure. Being hoodwinked into a war under false pretences rings bells of Blair and Iraq.
Then whilst hacking away at everything, gives extra money to "Nuclear Powers" to make the country look good!!
The Nimrod was not the finished article and would have needed the rough edges rounded off when it got into service, but like the MR2 in it's final years, it would have been a cracking piece of kit and hugely capable. It was a bespoke bit of kit, which sadly had been mismanged by BAe Systems and subsequent Governments.Ideally a smaller engine should have been used, but politics intervened that Rolls Royce BR710s be used. This then caused the wing to be majorly redesigned right at the start of the project.
A big problem was the wings, and I gathered many years ago that this was because each plane was hand built and varied in size. When the contract was awarded I think it was a company in Hurn (FR Aviation??) that measured up an airframe and had a batch of wings built. The story goes when they tried to fit the wings to another plane they wouldn't fit. Another part of the problem was the measurements and design had been done on two different CAD Packages.
Once the wings were fitted by BAe Systems, I gather it was found that the rudder was less effective due to the increase in wingspan. The plane was also heavier, which again meant further rectification work to get the thing flying properly.
Really it should have been a completely new build aircraft, which could have had the potential to sell overseas, but it was decided to save money to shunt it through the process using "Grandfather Rights" basically as a refurbshed aircraft than a brand new build.
The problems encountered recently I think were mainly to do with a flap bracket which came loose, but was rectified quite easily. The RAF/MOD chucked the plane back at BAe systems to re-work a number of issues in early 2010, and the aircraft was having a lot of those issues ironed out, and the subsequent production aircraft which were built were having the work done.
So basically it was a BAe systems balls up, they should really have envisaged the problems before starting.
It was also a complete mess, the Governments Fixed Price for x-number of aircraft.
The loss of XV230 brought huge media scrutiny of the "unsafe" MR2s.
I got the feeling BAe Systems were losing interest in it, they wanted an extra £100-£200 million to complete it.
It was an expensive plane once the number was cut from 21 to 18 to 12 to 9, it only became a complete waste when Cameron killed it off.
A desire to use it as an example or labour waste, an opportunity to bin the toxic/nasty Nimrod name once and for all, and to save a few quid in the short term, meant the Nimrod was scrapped against the more sensible recommendations by the military that it was needed.
I think we can safely say no-one fought for Ark Royal or the Harriers so publically, and behind closed doors as they did the Nimrod.
If it is true, and I have no reason to disbelieve it, the Chief of Air Staff was fighting for Nimrod, in Face to Face meetings with Cameron just a few days before the review. He chose to ignore the advice and requests of the people who defend the country, and proudly do his boasting of "Labour Waste" in Parliament.
He cannot make a correct decision or listen to people, and will just go piling into a situations regardless.
The personal decision against the wishes of the Chief of Air Staff and his own Defence Secretary to kill off the Nimrod.
The massive and embarrasing U-Turn over the Forest sell off (should this not have been consulted before)?
The U-Turn or partial U-Turn over sports funding I believe was another one.
The U-Turn today over the Prison rules (should this not have been considered before announcing the reforms)?
The Embarrasement, backlash and subsequent re-consulatation over the NHS Reforms (should this not have been consulted before)?
Buls
tting the public under the cover of No Fly zone/protection of civilians in Libya, whilst in fact it is regime change. Even the politicians and senior military were not sure. Being hoodwinked into a war under false pretences rings bells of Blair and Iraq.Then whilst hacking away at everything, gives extra money to "Nuclear Powers" to make the country look good!!
The Nimrod was not the finished article and would have needed the rough edges rounded off when it got into service, but like the MR2 in it's final years, it would have been a cracking piece of kit and hugely capable. It was a bespoke bit of kit, which sadly had been mismanged by BAe Systems and subsequent Governments.Ideally a smaller engine should have been used, but politics intervened that Rolls Royce BR710s be used. This then caused the wing to be majorly redesigned right at the start of the project.
A big problem was the wings, and I gathered many years ago that this was because each plane was hand built and varied in size. When the contract was awarded I think it was a company in Hurn (FR Aviation??) that measured up an airframe and had a batch of wings built. The story goes when they tried to fit the wings to another plane they wouldn't fit. Another part of the problem was the measurements and design had been done on two different CAD Packages.
Once the wings were fitted by BAe Systems, I gather it was found that the rudder was less effective due to the increase in wingspan. The plane was also heavier, which again meant further rectification work to get the thing flying properly.
Really it should have been a completely new build aircraft, which could have had the potential to sell overseas, but it was decided to save money to shunt it through the process using "Grandfather Rights" basically as a refurbshed aircraft than a brand new build.
The problems encountered recently I think were mainly to do with a flap bracket which came loose, but was rectified quite easily. The RAF/MOD chucked the plane back at BAe systems to re-work a number of issues in early 2010, and the aircraft was having a lot of those issues ironed out, and the subsequent production aircraft which were built were having the work done.
So basically it was a BAe systems balls up, they should really have envisaged the problems before starting.
It was also a complete mess, the Governments Fixed Price for x-number of aircraft.
The loss of XV230 brought huge media scrutiny of the "unsafe" MR2s.
I got the feeling BAe Systems were losing interest in it, they wanted an extra £100-£200 million to complete it.
It was an expensive plane once the number was cut from 21 to 18 to 12 to 9, it only became a complete waste when Cameron killed it off.
A desire to use it as an example or labour waste, an opportunity to bin the toxic/nasty Nimrod name once and for all, and to save a few quid in the short term, meant the Nimrod was scrapped against the more sensible recommendations by the military that it was needed.
I think we can safely say no-one fought for Ark Royal or the Harriers so publically, and behind closed doors as they did the Nimrod.
DamienB said:
Mojocvh said:
The Telegraph has been led up the proverbial garden path by certain ex officers and [allegedly] their ex-officer associations political lobbyists.
I wouldn't put one bit of credence to ANYTHING the telegraph says re-defence tbh.
Did you bother reading the story? First sentence: I wouldn't put one bit of credence to ANYTHING the telegraph says re-defence tbh.
Telegraph said:
"Jane's Defence Weekly, the respected military magazine, said the offer was submitted by air force chiefs to the Strategic Defence and Security Review being conducted by the Coalition Government."
But hey if you think Jane's aren't any cop either go ahead and believe what you like.To be honest, I got as far as the header and instinctively dismissed it as FAAOA paid lobbyist spin.
Edited by Mojocvh on Thursday 9th June 15:36
Elroy Blue said:
It cost £200 million to scrap nimrod and dispose of them. They don't just ask the residents of the local caravan site to nip the stuff to the scrappy. The haste it was done with was obscene and for no other reason than to prevent them being brought into service when it was realised that we NEEDED the capability (thus embarrasing Cameron). They had to do a quick U-turn on the R1s when they realised that the capability was vital.
No, it cost 200m to close the project down - outstanding bills for materials etc., the actual work involved in shutting it all down. Consolidating documentation, disposing of duplicates (bear in mind much of it is classified and has to be disposed of correctly), laying off workers, and so on. The scrapping itself was probably carried out by the company that bought the metal and therefore would have cost nothing and instead raised a small amount. Either way you don't just leave everything lying around - can you imagine how big a site a company would need just to store all the jigs and materials from dead ends and completed projects?At the end of the day you don't leave your dead granny festering in a bedroom in case she gets better, you cremate or bury her and move on.
Elroy Blue said:
Nimrod wasn't dead, it was killed by Cameron.
See above. There was no confidence - among the people that actually make the decisions - that the contractor could deliver.Sooner or later, you have to stop throwing good money after bad.
You might not like the decision, but there you go.
Edited: I'm sure we're getting into repost territory now...
Edited by eharding on Wednesday 8th June 17:57
anonymous said:
[redacted]
Yes, they wouldn't fit because the sub-contract built wings were wrong, not because there was a problem with the fuselages, which were all jig built and did not vary in size beyond acceptable tolerances (part of the smoke n mirrors of the MRA4 project)anonymous said:
[redacted]
I've heard that's a myth (again part of the smoke n mirrors of the Nimrod project)
Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff