Ark Royal Scrapped
Discussion
As with the harrier I can't see the problem with jacking in the Nimrod. As other have mentioned it serves nothing more than an demostration of how to p*** up loads of dosh. In years to come we wont be thinking of Nimrod as another TSR2, we'll be thinking 'what on earth were we doing converting a 50s jetliner into a hideously expensive spy plane that no other country would touch with a barge pole' (if offered!).
I also don't get this supporting of our jobs over defence needs, our armed forces are there to protect the county, not prop up jobs. If our designs, build and on delivery budget/forecasts were any good we'd have an endless queue of countries wanting our stuff, sort of speaks volumes. Who have we exported what to in recent times? SA80 to Jaimcan Defence Force, Challenger to Oman, Tornado to Saudi!!!!
If we can get better elsewhere than we should, examples being:
SA80 > AR15, H&K, Steyr..etc
Westland Apache > American longbow varient
Typhoon > FA18, Rafaele, F35, Gripen.
UK Chinook > American off the peg varient
Challenger 2 > Leopard, Abrams
Nimrod > P3
If we had done the above we'd have a quality service at a fraction of the cost. The money saved could have gone into more troops, sailors, airmen, better training, better accomodation, better support delivering better morale..etc..
I also don't get this supporting of our jobs over defence needs, our armed forces are there to protect the county, not prop up jobs. If our designs, build and on delivery budget/forecasts were any good we'd have an endless queue of countries wanting our stuff, sort of speaks volumes. Who have we exported what to in recent times? SA80 to Jaimcan Defence Force, Challenger to Oman, Tornado to Saudi!!!!
If we can get better elsewhere than we should, examples being:
SA80 > AR15, H&K, Steyr..etc
Westland Apache > American longbow varient
Typhoon > FA18, Rafaele, F35, Gripen.
UK Chinook > American off the peg varient
Challenger 2 > Leopard, Abrams
Nimrod > P3
If we had done the above we'd have a quality service at a fraction of the cost. The money saved could have gone into more troops, sailors, airmen, better training, better accomodation, better support delivering better morale..etc..
Eric Mc said:
Isn't in an intrinsic part of "security" that you do not become too reliant on foreign countries to supply you with your defence equipment?
Well yes, but the fact it takes ten years to design and build anything in this country would suggest that our defence industry probably wouldn't be of much help if the balloon went up.disco1 said:
As with the harrier I can't see the problem with jacking in the Nimrod. As other have mentioned it serves nothing more than an demostration of how to p*** up loads of dosh. In years to come we wont be thinking of Nimrod as another TSR2, we'll be thinking 'what on earth were we doing converting a 50s jetliner into a hideously expensive spy plane that no other country would touch with a barge pole' (if offered!).
I also don't get this supporting of our jobs over defence needs, our armed forces are there to protect the county, not prop up jobs. If our designs, build and on delivery budget/forecasts were any good we'd have an endless queue of countries wanting our stuff, sort of speaks volumes. Who have we exported what to in recent times? SA80 to Jaimcan Defence Force, Challenger to Oman, Tornado to Saudi!!!!
If we can get better elsewhere than we should, examples being:
SA80 > AR15, H&K, Steyr..etc
Westland Apache > American longbow varient
Typhoon > FA18, Rafaele, F35, Gripen.
UK Chinook > American off the peg varient
Challenger 2 > Leopard, Abrams
Nimrod > P3
If we had done the above we'd have a quality service at a fraction of the cost. The money saved could have gone into more troops, sailors, airmen, better training, better accomodation, better support delivering better morale..etc..
I also don't get this supporting of our jobs over defence needs, our armed forces are there to protect the county, not prop up jobs. If our designs, build and on delivery budget/forecasts were any good we'd have an endless queue of countries wanting our stuff, sort of speaks volumes. Who have we exported what to in recent times? SA80 to Jaimcan Defence Force, Challenger to Oman, Tornado to Saudi!!!!
If we can get better elsewhere than we should, examples being:
SA80 > AR15, H&K, Steyr..etc
Westland Apache > American longbow varient
Typhoon > FA18, Rafaele, F35, Gripen.
UK Chinook > American off the peg varient
Challenger 2 > Leopard, Abrams
Nimrod > P3
If we had done the above we'd have a quality service at a fraction of the cost. The money saved could have gone into more troops, sailors, airmen, better training, better accomodation, better support delivering better morale..etc..
with regards to the "cant see the problem jacking in nimrod" you had better ask a submariner to explain because right now they are rather concerned.
as for the other comments about buying cheaper abroad, well we can do that, and plough money into other countries economies but how does that increase UK GDP?!?! what is the point of having more sailors, more airmen, more troops, all with better training, better support delivering better morale if the rest of the country is in the s
t because we bought all their kit abroad?!?!?furthermore, what happens if they decide not to sell us kit in the first place? what happens to us when they decide to withdraw it from service and cease supporting it early? what happens if they charge us astronomical purchase and support amounts because they know we have no defence industry of our own? what happens when their kit does not meet our requirements? what happens if their kit is not akin to our rules of engagement?.... but i guess you htought of all that?
pablo said:
disco1 said:
As with the harrier I can't see the problem with jacking in the Nimrod. As other have mentioned it serves nothing more than an demostration of how to p*** up loads of dosh. In years to come we wont be thinking of Nimrod as another TSR2, we'll be thinking 'what on earth were we doing converting a 50s jetliner into a hideously expensive spy plane that no other country would touch with a barge pole' (if offered!).
I also don't get this supporting of our jobs over defence needs, our armed forces are there to protect the county, not prop up jobs. If our designs, build and on delivery budget/forecasts were any good we'd have an endless queue of countries wanting our stuff, sort of speaks volumes. Who have we exported what to in recent times? SA80 to Jaimcan Defence Force, Challenger to Oman, Tornado to Saudi!!!!
If we can get better elsewhere than we should, examples being:
SA80 > AR15, H&K, Steyr..etc
Westland Apache > American longbow varient
Typhoon > FA18, Rafaele, F35, Gripen.
UK Chinook > American off the peg varient
Challenger 2 > Leopard, Abrams
Nimrod > P3
If we had done the above we'd have a quality service at a fraction of the cost. The money saved could have gone into more troops, sailors, airmen, better training, better accomodation, better support delivering better morale..etc..
I also don't get this supporting of our jobs over defence needs, our armed forces are there to protect the county, not prop up jobs. If our designs, build and on delivery budget/forecasts were any good we'd have an endless queue of countries wanting our stuff, sort of speaks volumes. Who have we exported what to in recent times? SA80 to Jaimcan Defence Force, Challenger to Oman, Tornado to Saudi!!!!
If we can get better elsewhere than we should, examples being:
SA80 > AR15, H&K, Steyr..etc
Westland Apache > American longbow varient
Typhoon > FA18, Rafaele, F35, Gripen.
UK Chinook > American off the peg varient
Challenger 2 > Leopard, Abrams
Nimrod > P3
If we had done the above we'd have a quality service at a fraction of the cost. The money saved could have gone into more troops, sailors, airmen, better training, better accomodation, better support delivering better morale..etc..
with regards to the "cant see the problem jacking in nimrod" you had better ask a submariner to explain because right now they are rather concerned.
as for the other comments about buying cheaper abroad, well we can do that, and plough money into other countries economies but how does that increase UK GDP?!?! what is the point of having more sailors, more airmen, more troops, all with better training, better support delivering better morale if the rest of the country is in the s
t because we bought all their kit abroad?!?!?furthermore, what happens if they decide not to sell us kit in the first place? what happens to us when they decide to withdraw it from service and cease supporting it early? what happens if they charge us astronomical purchase and support amounts because they know we have no defence industry of our own? what happens when their kit does not meet our requirements? what happens if their kit is not akin to our rules of engagement?.... but i guess you htought of all that?
We have tried the self-sufficient approach it's very expensive and doesn't deliver the goods. Time to move to another mind set. You wouldn't want a world where everyone in the UK was forced to drive around in BMC cars would you?
Dunk76 said:
Eric Mc said:
Isn't in an intrinsic part of "security" that you do not become too reliant on foreign countries to supply you with your defence equipment?
Well yes, but the fact it takes ten years to design and build anything in this country would suggest that our defence industry probably wouldn't be of much help if the balloon went up.The US track record on cost and time overruns on their defence projects make the Brits look like they are super efficient.
Defence procurement is a devlishly hard area and hardly anyone really gets it right. The two countries with the best record are probably the French and the Swedish - so if you are happy that we source our equipmebnt from these countries, fair enough.
disco1 said:
As with the harrier I can't see the problem with jacking in the Nimrod. As other have mentioned it serves nothing more than an demostration of how to p*** up loads of dosh. In years to come we wont be thinking of Nimrod as another TSR2, we'll be thinking 'what on earth were we doing converting a 50s jetliner into a hideously expensive spy plane that no other country would touch with a barge pole' (if offered!).
Do you know what the role of the MRA4 is....err was?You cite the P3 but that went out of production long before the MRA4 contract was even let
and as for converting a 1950's airliner.... (not that any Nimrod actually was a converted Comet) remind me what the P3 was based on..?Oh, yes, a 1950's airliner.
And the proposed P3 replacement is being based on a 1960's airliner... the Boeing 737....which certainley won't have the capability of the MRA4.
And citing F35 is a joke too.... that's already 4 years behind programme and currently 3 times over the initial projected budget..... and it's no where near production yet.
Yes, our industry isn't great, but nor is everyone elses.
Edited by aeropilot on Thursday 21st October 16:38
Eric Mc said:
Dunk76 said:
Eric Mc said:
Isn't in an intrinsic part of "security" that you do not become too reliant on foreign countries to supply you with your defence equipment?
Well yes, but the fact it takes ten years to design and build anything in this country would suggest that our defence industry probably wouldn't be of much help if the balloon went up.The US track record on cost and time overruns on their defence projects make the Brits look like they are super efficient.
Defence procurement is a devlishly hard area and hardly anyone really gets it right. The two countries with the best record are probably the French and the Swedish - so if you are happy that we source our equipmebnt from these countries, fair enough.
Inherently good companies?
Or less political interference?
Or more clearly defined strategic objectives for their armed forces?
Which, thinking about it, may actually be the problem with a lot of it. The RAF still has the same operational remit as it did in 1945, with a fraction of the planes and budget. The Army is/was equipped largely for fighting hordes of Russians in Europe, but is now engaged in what is effectively the same colonial policing my Grandfather did in the '30s. The Navy, meanwhile, now without Russian subs to chase or an Empire to sail around, is sort of stuck in between the two.
We British still see ourselves as a military force in the world, one to be reckoned with - a hangover from the Empire - but we're not prepared to pay for it because such fripperies as Schools, Hospitals, Social Welfare, and the Highways Agency, and Agricultural Wages Board, and so on are more important to us (apparently).
So the forces are expected to make an ever-decreasing budget serve an ever-increasing number of roles. Perhaps that's why we squander so much money trying to everything all singing all dancing.
Edited by Dunk76 on Thursday 21st October 16:50
Dunk76 said:
Eric Mc said:
Dunk76 said:
Eric Mc said:
Isn't in an intrinsic part of "security" that you do not become too reliant on foreign countries to supply you with your defence equipment?
Well yes, but the fact it takes ten years to design and build anything in this country would suggest that our defence industry probably wouldn't be of much help if the balloon went up.The US track record on cost and time overruns on their defence projects make the Brits look like they are super efficient.
Defence procurement is a devlishly hard area and hardly anyone really gets it right. The two countries with the best record are probably the French and the Swedish - so if you are happy that we source our equipmebnt from these countries, fair enough.
The Swedes do probably do it best, but, they arn't without problems like anyone else.
More or less spot on.
France in particular still has a strong sense of national identity which means that its populace is still willing to support a realtively well funded defence sector - both operational and manufacturing.
As I keep saying, in the UK we have lost a large element of "oneness of national purpose" so the defence of something that a lot of people don't seem to care about is not going to be high on the agenda of many politicians.
France in particular still has a strong sense of national identity which means that its populace is still willing to support a realtively well funded defence sector - both operational and manufacturing.
As I keep saying, in the UK we have lost a large element of "oneness of national purpose" so the defence of something that a lot of people don't seem to care about is not going to be high on the agenda of many politicians.
disco1 said:
As with the harrier I can't see the problem with jacking in the Nimrod. As other have mentioned it serves nothing more than an demostration of how to p*** up loads of dosh. In years to come we wont be thinking of Nimrod as another TSR2, we'll be thinking 'what on earth were we doing converting a 50s jetliner into a hideously expensive spy plane that no other country would touch with a barge pole' (if offered!).
I also don't get this supporting of our jobs over defence needs, our armed forces are there to protect the county, not prop up jobs. If our designs, build and on delivery budget/forecasts were any good we'd have an endless queue of countries wanting our stuff, sort of speaks volumes. Who have we exported what to in recent times? SA80 to Jaimcan Defence Force, Challenger to Oman, Tornado to Saudi!!!!
If we can get better elsewhere than we should, examples being:
SA80 > AR15, H&K, Steyr..etc
Westland Apache > American longbow varient
Typhoon > FA18, Rafaele, F35, Gripen.
UK Chinook > American off the peg varient
Challenger 2 > Leopard, Abrams
Nimrod > P3
If we had done the above we'd have a quality service at a fraction of the cost. The money saved could have gone into more troops, sailors, airmen, better training, better accomodation, better support delivering better morale..etc..
In terms of "purple" the whole maritime "thing" was a shining example of cross service co-operation and co-ordination to achieve the primary aim of keeping the reds off our bombers backs.I also don't get this supporting of our jobs over defence needs, our armed forces are there to protect the county, not prop up jobs. If our designs, build and on delivery budget/forecasts were any good we'd have an endless queue of countries wanting our stuff, sort of speaks volumes. Who have we exported what to in recent times? SA80 to Jaimcan Defence Force, Challenger to Oman, Tornado to Saudi!!!!
If we can get better elsewhere than we should, examples being:
SA80 > AR15, H&K, Steyr..etc
Westland Apache > American longbow varient
Typhoon > FA18, Rafaele, F35, Gripen.
UK Chinook > American off the peg varient
Challenger 2 > Leopard, Abrams
Nimrod > P3
If we had done the above we'd have a quality service at a fraction of the cost. The money saved could have gone into more troops, sailors, airmen, better training, better accomodation, better support delivering better morale..etc..
As for the rest of your post, it's drivel.
The P3 Orion had nothing like the capability of the Nimrod MR2 (and thus nowhere near MR4A).
For a start it's a turbo-prop which means it makes a lot of noise at low level that can be heard for miles by the submariners. A jet a/c is much more stealthy in this respect.
The Searchwater radar on the Nimrod was so good that if a submarine put up his ESM mast and even got a sniff of Searchwater he'd pull the plug.
The ASW weapon load on the P3 was inferior to Nimrod.
the sonobuoy load was inferior on the P3 and far less flexible in use owing to the nature of the externally loaded fixed launchers.
Where the P3 scores is in superior dash speed and underwing pylons for things like Harpoon in the ASuW role.
For a start it's a turbo-prop which means it makes a lot of noise at low level that can be heard for miles by the submariners. A jet a/c is much more stealthy in this respect.
The Searchwater radar on the Nimrod was so good that if a submarine put up his ESM mast and even got a sniff of Searchwater he'd pull the plug.
The ASW weapon load on the P3 was inferior to Nimrod.
the sonobuoy load was inferior on the P3 and far less flexible in use owing to the nature of the externally loaded fixed launchers.
Where the P3 scores is in superior dash speed and underwing pylons for things like Harpoon in the ASuW role.
The MRA4 was equipped with Underwing hardpoints (4x I believe) which could be equipped with Harpoon Anti Ship Missiles.
The MRA4 ws about 90% new build anyway so all this Comet bashing is nonsense. In a few years time we will be buying 40 year old RC-135s fom the US (based on the Boeing 707)!!
It is worse than the TSR2, because that was replaced (more or less) with the Buccaneer, F-4 and latterly Tornado.
Cancelling the Nimrod leaves us with a massive hole in our capability (ASW, Search and Rescue, ISTAR). People will lose their lives through this decision.
Cameron is really off the mark cancelling at this late stage. I can't work out his reason, apart from him thinking people will think he is a good guy for cancelling this massive overspend (when in fact it has already been paid for).
It doesn't leave me with much confidence in him and the other cuts he is making.
The MRA4 ws about 90% new build anyway so all this Comet bashing is nonsense. In a few years time we will be buying 40 year old RC-135s fom the US (based on the Boeing 707)!!
It is worse than the TSR2, because that was replaced (more or less) with the Buccaneer, F-4 and latterly Tornado.
Cancelling the Nimrod leaves us with a massive hole in our capability (ASW, Search and Rescue, ISTAR). People will lose their lives through this decision.
Cameron is really off the mark cancelling at this late stage. I can't work out his reason, apart from him thinking people will think he is a good guy for cancelling this massive overspend (when in fact it has already been paid for).
It doesn't leave me with much confidence in him and the other cuts he is making.
The P7(Lockheed's programme to replace the P3) got chopped in the mid 90s for cost overruns, and even at specification was significantly inferior to MRA4.
P8 is a notionally similar aircraft, the development programme is in big trouble with a wide variety of endemic problems(most related to using an airliner for something it's not designed for; quart into a pintpot, accelerated fatigue from low altitude buffeting, unforeseen corrosion, lack of volume/weight capacity for growth).
The only other large MPA programme, the Kawasaki PX is not looking very clever either.
Yes the MRA4 has been a rolling clusterfk and there should be an inquiry, but it's paid for and the other offerings make it look good.
P8 is a notionally similar aircraft, the development programme is in big trouble with a wide variety of endemic problems(most related to using an airliner for something it's not designed for; quart into a pintpot, accelerated fatigue from low altitude buffeting, unforeseen corrosion, lack of volume/weight capacity for growth).
The only other large MPA programme, the Kawasaki PX is not looking very clever either.
Yes the MRA4 has been a rolling clusterf
k and there should be an inquiry, but it's paid for and the other offerings make it look good.Look guys, I may not be as informed as some of you lot but for someone 'looking in' the whole idea of proping up money swindling UK defence firms that produce goods that are expensive, late and and not of the highest quality just doesn't make sense. BAE, Quinetic(sp?)..etc... are pulling the British tax payers pants down over the whole thing.
The MOD are just as guilty as the private firms, poor procurement, poor decision making and s*** loads of in-fighting leading to comprimised end products. In the time we'd taken to get the Typhoon/EAP off the drawing board (1971 - 1994) the French had designed, built and tested the Rafale and still brought it in for a cheaper unit cost than the Typhoon.
If you look at the cold hard facts we blow one of the biggest budgets in the world on defence yet our military (in hardware terms) ranks alonside (if not lower than) the likes of Spain, Italy, Turkey..etc. Take a look as the RAF, on reflection it was only when we got the Typhoon that our RAF had anything that was good, before that our Tornados, Jags and Harriers would have been pretty easy prey for at least 15 to 20 other countries operating new Su's, Migs and F series planes. Pilots/training can get you so far but if it had gone 'red' against someone with the pre mentioned planes we'd have been taking knives to a gun fight.
We all want to see our armed forces as the best (and rightly so) but how can they be if we don't give them the best when they need it?
The MOD are just as guilty as the private firms, poor procurement, poor decision making and s*** loads of in-fighting leading to comprimised end products. In the time we'd taken to get the Typhoon/EAP off the drawing board (1971 - 1994) the French had designed, built and tested the Rafale and still brought it in for a cheaper unit cost than the Typhoon.
If you look at the cold hard facts we blow one of the biggest budgets in the world on defence yet our military (in hardware terms) ranks alonside (if not lower than) the likes of Spain, Italy, Turkey..etc. Take a look as the RAF, on reflection it was only when we got the Typhoon that our RAF had anything that was good, before that our Tornados, Jags and Harriers would have been pretty easy prey for at least 15 to 20 other countries operating new Su's, Migs and F series planes. Pilots/training can get you so far but if it had gone 'red' against someone with the pre mentioned planes we'd have been taking knives to a gun fight.
We all want to see our armed forces as the best (and rightly so) but how can they be if we don't give them the best when they need it?
disco1 said:
Look guys, I may not be as informed as some of you
I wouldn't see that as a disadvantage necessarily, sometimes folks can get too close to the wood, etc.I'd be very interested to read arguments against those aired in "Lions, Donkeys, and Dinosaurs".
WRT to MRA4, is it possible that there are new technologies out there which render the aircraft obsolete? (A genuine question because I've no idea.) For example, lots of people couldn't understand the early retirement of SR71, yet we (or rather the US) apparently seem to manage pretty well without it.
hidetheelephants said:
The P7(Lockheed's programme to replace the P3) got chopped in the mid 90s for cost overruns, and even at specification was significantly inferior to MRA4.
P8 is a notionally similar aircraft, the development programme is in big trouble with a wide variety of endemic problems(most related to using an airliner for something it's not designed for; quart into a pintpot, accelerated fatigue from low altitude buffeting, unforeseen corrosion, lack of volume/weight capacity for growth).
Yup, the yanks will be getting an inferior product with the P8 compared to the P3.P8 is a notionally similar aircraft, the development programme is in big trouble with a wide variety of endemic problems(most related to using an airliner for something it's not designed for; quart into a pintpot, accelerated fatigue from low altitude buffeting, unforeseen corrosion, lack of volume/weight capacity for growth).
In fact, the US mil have a very high regard for Nimrod capabilities and did consider a big buy as the P3 replacement, but the UK Govt decision to re-use/re-furb ex fuselages for MRA4 instead of reopenning the production lines put the kybosh on that...which you would have thought they would have been biting off the yanks hand if they really were concerned about UK industry/jobs etc.
The Comet design is way stronger than any current airliner design, and no new airliner design can cope with the low level enviroment that the Nimrod's design can, which is why it's the best product in this role.
For an RMPA, any modern airliner needs a completely new design wing structure to cope with the punishing low level environment.
The RAF also insisted on 4 engines to cope with the probability of sea bird strikes whilst at low level. Back in 1996 a senior RAF officer commented "If we have a twin it just a matter of time before thirteen (crewmen) go for a swim"
Also, MRA4 is almost a V-Bomber in terms of a weapons platform, with it's easy to eject from the Cg bomb bay design.
Anywhere else tricky and weighty, under wing stowage is very,very draggy on a modern supercritical wing. All modern airliner have the main landing gear which folding into and occupy the cg location. Nimrod MLG fold outboard into the wing thus leaving the cg location clear.
It's really a world beater, and UK-PLC in typical fashion has done bugger all to actively promote it as such and win export orders instead of binning the bloody thing
The whole Fixed Price Nimrod contract was a major fk up from day 1, and then the reduction in numbers to placate Bae Systems caused the price per plane to shoot up, leaving us with only 9 aircraft. In hindsight yes it shouldn't have been done, but why cancel it now when most of them have been built or are in build.
The Eurofighter again was a protracted procurement, a problem with partnering nations wanting different numbers of aircraft from originally requested and competing for the share of the work.
The French weren't interested and went it alone, and as a result ended up with the Rafale. This hasn't been an export success like the Typhoon. The Typhoon is a superior plane.
Back in the 80's and 90's we did have old kit, however it did the job as no-one invaded, and we were able to commit in large numbers to conflicts like Iraq 1991.
The Tornado F3 was a bit of a compromise, however was a good weapons platform, and was designed to fly long distances out over the North Sea/ GIUK Gap and take out Russian bombers.
The Tornado GR4 is also a very effective aircraft.
The Canberra PR9 was an old platform but very effective, especially in Afghanistan where the yanks were rather impressed with its flexibilty, especially when compared to the U2. These was retired in 2006 and not replaced.
Again the Nimrod MR2 was highly regarded.
The blame for these cock ups lay with BAE Systems and the MOD.
k up from day 1, and then the reduction in numbers to placate Bae Systems caused the price per plane to shoot up, leaving us with only 9 aircraft. In hindsight yes it shouldn't have been done, but why cancel it now when most of them have been built or are in build.The Eurofighter again was a protracted procurement, a problem with partnering nations wanting different numbers of aircraft from originally requested and competing for the share of the work.
The French weren't interested and went it alone, and as a result ended up with the Rafale. This hasn't been an export success like the Typhoon. The Typhoon is a superior plane.
Back in the 80's and 90's we did have old kit, however it did the job as no-one invaded, and we were able to commit in large numbers to conflicts like Iraq 1991.
The Tornado F3 was a bit of a compromise, however was a good weapons platform, and was designed to fly long distances out over the North Sea/ GIUK Gap and take out Russian bombers.
The Tornado GR4 is also a very effective aircraft.
The Canberra PR9 was an old platform but very effective, especially in Afghanistan where the yanks were rather impressed with its flexibilty, especially when compared to the U2. These was retired in 2006 and not replaced.
Again the Nimrod MR2 was highly regarded.
The blame for these cock ups lay with BAE Systems and the MOD.
anonymous said:
[redacted]
Ooh, ooh, I know this one! There was going to be a special allsinging alldancing photo/IR/ECM/synthetic aperture/mk2eyeball pod for Typhoon, but it's probably vanished in a puff of budgetary restraint. Imagine that!
Quite how a pod attached to Typhoon was going replace Canberra was not explained.
Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff