Nimrod

[Yertis]

Lots of stuff in the press about our needing to call on NATO allies for ASW aircraft given Russia's new more aggressive stance, and the capability gap until the P8s arrive.

Without going into the whole saga about the project itself, does anyone know why the completed airframes broken up, rather than stored until we could afford to finish them?

[Unbusy]

If they were never to fly then at a guess why keep them? Storage costs for all the parts, tooling, etc. would be expensive when 'call me Dave' was on a saving run.
In its day the frame was okay at best. Yes the update would have kept us with a MPA which we all know we need, however a new frame was always the best option imo.
Happy days on 42 (Tiny Bladder) Sqn.

[Ceeejay]

Building them wasn't the problem (well ok a bit considering every fuselage was a bit different) but the forecast support costs were through the roof.

Personally I thought someone could have made some use of the airframes, purely for decorative purposes.

[anonymous-user]

It would have still cost to store them, support contracts etc. BAe Systems were probably quite happy to be rid of them. Then they would have had to have been certified in the post Haddon-Cave world, which might have been more challenging.

The government could cut the capability and make a saving straight away, as "Hercules, Merlins and Frigates" could do the task, apparently!

[Evanivitch]

They couldn't find a Safety Engineer willing to sign the Safety Case.

And at the time, relationships with Russia were good and we didn't face a submarine threat.