Ark Royal Scrapped

[aeropilot]

hidetheelephants said:

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!

That's like imagining a cannon without any ammo......

[aeropilot]

PW said:

I'm not particularly anti-defence/anti-war; I'm quite fascinated by military hardware, but the debate regarding cuts has raised the question of whether we really, truly need these capabilities, or whether we have just convinced ourselves we do.

It all depends on the politians though.....and in this country we chop and change between ‘ideological’ beliefs too frequently for the long gestation periods reqd for big funded military projects.
Remember, Gordon Brown who until recently has controlled the purse strings for over a decade, famously said just after Nu-Labia come into office, “Every pound spent on defence, is a pound wasted”…

The problem isn’t with the military, the problem is with our political masters who use the military for their own personal agenda, rather than defence of the realm. Also, most politicos, these days have zero understanding of the military, as the top brass seem to lack the balls to stand up to them..... which doesn't help either.

Our military and its equipment strategy has been ‘cold war’ determined for the past 50 years..... and now we are in a protracted and pointless conflict in the Middle East where none of the kit has been designed to be used, everyone expects miracles. We are now determining out future kit on what’s going on now out there, but we should be focusing on what required in 10-15 years time, but that’s an unknown, which is why, trying to specify kit that suits all purposes, and then the spec changes half way through the development process, because the goal posts have moved again......And so on and so on....

[disco1]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

So why didn't we go alone when pretty early on in the process it was identifyied the thing was going to be hughly protracted and overbudget? If the French can say 'no thanks' why can't we? Just another example of us showing no initiative.

The Typhoon may be better than the Rafale in a 1 on 1 dog fight (airpower report of exercise in middle east says very different!) but the Rafale would do what we need of it very well. It's fully operational, built in large numbers and can operate off carriers. Whilst the French are banging Rafales off the deck on active duty we're still trying to figure out Typhoon set up/operational service requirements. A bit of a shambles.

[hidetheelephants]

disco1 said:

anonymous said:

[redacted]

So why didn't we go alone when pretty early on in the process it was identifyied the thing was going to be hughly protracted and overbudget? If the French can say 'no thanks' why can't we? Just another example of us showing no initiative.

The Typhoon may be better than the Rafale in a 1 on 1 dog fight (airpower report of exercise in middle east says very different!) but the Rafale would do what we need of it very well. It's fully operational, built in large numbers and can operate off carriers. Whilst the French are banging Rafales off the deck on active duty we're still trying to figure out Typhoon set up/operational service requirements. A bit of a shambles.

Lack of confidence and a desire to mitigate risk; there was/is an entrenched belief that single nations/companies cannot develop something as complex as a multirole combat aircraft in a timely or affordable manner. Evidence suggests that being in a multinational group saves no money or time and little risk is actually mitigated. This is not helped when the various defence contractors lie like cheap NAAFI watches about projected costs and schedules.

[Munter]

hidetheelephants said:

This is not helped when the various defence contractors lie like cheap NAAFI watches about projected costs and schedules.

And they do that because of the procurement process. If they don't lie someone else will and will win the business. So they all lie. Possibly less emphasis on price and more on capability to do it at a fixed cost that the procurement has decided it should be capable to be done within, might be a better system.

[aeropilot]

disco1 said:

So why didn't we go alone when pretty early on in the process it was identifyied the thing was going to be hughly protracted and overbudget? If the French can say 'no thanks' why can't we? Just another example of us showing no initiative.

Not exactly.

The French aerospace/shipbuilding industries (as is some of it's motor industry) is very close to a 'nationalised' one, so they can go it alone as it's their Govt's choice. It's closer in operation to how BAC was before the private sell off to it becoming BAe and thus have shareholders etc., to keep happy.

[Mojocvh]

aeropilot said:

disco1 said:

So why didn't we go alone when pretty early on in the process it was identifyied the thing was going to be hughly protracted and overbudget? If the French can say 'no thanks' why can't we? Just another example of us showing no initiative.

Not exactly.

The French aerospace/shipbuilding industries (as is some of it's motor industry) is very close to a 'nationalised' one, so they can go it alone as it's their Govt's choice. It's closer in operation to how BAC was before the private sell off to it becoming BAe and thus have shareholders etc., to keep happy.

^^^this^^^ is correct. Disco you need to understand the way different European countries are governed and ruled, there are GREAT differences to what is perceived and what actually goes on under the skin.

[hidetheelephants]

aeropilot said:

disco1 said:

So why didn't we go alone when pretty early on in the process it was identifyied the thing was going to be hughly protracted and overbudget? If the French can say 'no thanks' why can't we? Just another example of us showing no initiative.

Not exactly.

The French aerospace/shipbuilding industries (as is some of it's motor industry) is very close to a 'nationalised' one, so they can go it alone as it's their Govt's choice. It's closer in operation to how BAC was before the private sell off to it becoming BAe and thus have shareholders etc., to keep happy.

Just like the Nuclear powerstation builder Areva and EDF(who now own British Energy and all of our nuclear powerstations) are majority-owned by the French government. It's a different way of doing things, and in some ways it's better.

[anonymous-user]

Just to make your p155 boil even more.

The RAF apparently lobbied at high level that they needed the MRA4 and the government wouldn't budge.

The rumour is the all 9 MRA4s are still going to be built and delivered as they have been paid for and cancelling the contract early would cause large penalties. So the aircraft will likely get built and then left to rot on an airfield for a couple of years before being pummelled into the ground by JCBs.

Meanwhile we are now having to rely on the US Navy and French Air Force to patrol our waters.

Just WTF is going on with this country??

I thought Cameron and Co. may have brought some common sense back to the government and the UK.
When he announced he was cancelling the MRA4 he made a point of noting the large overspend, what the slimy turd didn't allude to was that the UK tax payer had already paid for it. Funny he didn't mention that!!

If decisions like this are being made (and advice from experts ignored), what hope do we have of them running other parts of the country?

Hugely embarrassing this once proud country has come down to relying on other countries to do our basic defence tasks.

[Dunk76]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

I take it the MRA4 flies on tap water and can go a million hours between maintenance slots?

[anonymous-user]

Dunk76 said:

anonymous said:

[redacted]

I take it the MRA4 flies on tap water and can go a million hours between maintenance slots?

No, but fuel and maintenance costs can be associated with any aircraft, the £3.5 Billion was worded as if it hadn't even left the ground and we still needed to spend considerable amounts to get it. The saving is now only on operational costs.

[tank slapper]

Dunk76 said:

I take it the MRA4 flies on tap water and can go a million hours between maintenance slots?

No of course not, but the project has been paid for resulting in the most capable maritime patrol aircraft available today. Considering its capabilities in other areas, I suspect this will be looked back on as one of the most short sighted decisions to come out of this review.

[Elroy Blue]

Dunk76 said:

anonymous said:

[redacted]

I take it the MRA4 flies on tap water and can go a million hours between maintenance slots?

The cost of operating the MR4a is £200 million over four years. Peanuts in real terms. Especially when they're spending £4 billion on 'renewable' energy. (aka useless windmills)

[MartG]

The Nimrods are up on ebay if anyone wants one

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&am...

[dr_gn]

Anyone read the Times today? Article about Brown signing a 100% watertight deal with BAE systems for the two carriers (obviously to keep Labour votes in the key shipbuilding areas involved?). Effectively meant that even if the carriers were cancelled, the gov. would have paid the shipyards exactly the same money to do absolutely nothing.

[Mojocvh]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

The biggest mistake was retaining the name IMO, Nimrod=liability being directly connected to politicians NOT political policy.

And this lot seem to be just the same, despite the rhetoric.

[Dunk76]

Devil's Advocate.

At the moment we can't afford to maintain a major military capability, and arguably we haven't been really able to since the middle of the 1920s.

So why, when Europe is at peace and has almost no military capability or intent, and we have no Empire to protect or promote, why do we need to maintain a military force at such a level where we require all this kit?

Edited by Dunk76 on Saturday 23 October 13:15

[eharding]

Dunk76 said:

So why, when Europe is at peace and has almost no military capability or intent, and we have no Empire to protect or promote, why do we need to maintain a military force at such a level where we require all this kit?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/wildlife/8080889/Dolphins-walk-on-water.html

Mark my words - it might be just playful flippering-about now, but you'll be laughing on the other side of your face when they're goose-stepping down Whitehall, and we all have to speak in a series of high-pitched squeaks and clicks.

They've been working on this for years - subverting the MRA.4 procurement, moving sandbanks around in the Hebrides, subverting massive financial transactions by hacking undersea cable communications to nobble the economy....oooooh yes.

[aeropilot]

Dunk76 said:

At the moment we can't afford to maintain a major military capability

Not quite true. We can afford it.....

However, our Politicans, in the grand game of vote-chase have chosen to rather spend money on foreign aid, the bottomless pit that the NHS has became, and an obsene social security policy.......and not to mention a whole host of other pointless money wasting policies that have manifested themselves into UK life over the past 40 years or so......

[anonymous-user]

Rumour is the Chief of Air Staff was in with Cameron as late as last Saturday putting a strong case for the need for the Nimrod but Cameron wouldn't change his mind.

So in summary.

The planes have been paid for by the tax payer (£3.5 billion)
2 Prototypes have completed testing, 2 production aircraft have flown, 1 of these was delivered to the RAF and was undergoing some rectification work before being handed back in November. The 3rd production aircraft is nearly complete and the rest are in build.
The taxiways at Kinloss were widened ready for the aircraft and I believe crew training had started.
Liam Fox, in his leaked letter to Cameron was concerned about cancelling Nimrod.
Senior People in the RAF lobbied heavily for it's retention.
Cameron ignores advice and proudly claims he is cancelling the Nimrod MRA4 (not telling us we had already paid for it).
Senior people in RAF still say there is a need for a Maritime Patrol Aircraft.
Construction of the remaining airframes continues at Woodford, as cancelling would cause penalties.
It comes to light that 2 Russian Subs were spotted 70miles outside our waters very recently (last week or so).
It is claimed the French are now providing our long range Search and Rescue/Maritime Patrol.

In 2 years time we will have 9 shiny new world leading aircraft that the RAF need, that you and I have paid for to defend the country, but our clueless leader has cancelled.

Wasn't it Cameron who said we played a "minor part in the Battle of Britain" and in his exchange with a Harrier pilot said we had "Typhoons in Afghanistan"!!

Worrying.