Guest 645- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 4,463
27 January 2011
10:4890380#1
The Ministry of Defence (MoD) is taking £4.1bn worth of new spy planes and smashing them to pieces. Why?
Three of the planes are 90% finished. One is complete and ready to take off.
But these Nimrods will never patrol for submarines. Instead, they will be stripped of their components, sliced up in an industrial shredder, and their aluminium melted.
The MoD has begun sawing the aircraft into pieces. It says it will save £2bn of operation costs by axing the Nimrods and using existing aircraft to perform their duties.
Mothball costs
Another option - popular with campaigners who are trying to save the Nimrod - is to mothball the planes, keeping them in storage until such a time as the MoD can afford to fly them.
But while the ministry is preparing to do this with an aircraft carrier, it will not keep the Nimrods on ice.
"Storage still incurs a lot of the costs associated with the capability," said an MoD spokesman.
"It was therefore not a cost effective option."
Marek
I think therefore I am (not a Tory supporter)
Guest 640- Registered: 21 Apr 2007
- Posts: 7,819
27 January 2011
12:4690383#2
Some high flying military types have written to the papers today Marek saying this whole plan is bonkers, it leaves us undefended on so many levels. It may save money but like so many of these money saving plans, very often afterwards the service you get becomes much lower grade. Ive seen pictures today too of the planes being broken up..shame, but its in the running and operating costs where the savings are made.
Its right up there with having aircraft carriers and no planes for same.
By the way I saw Vince Cable our Business Secretary rambling on on tv today about something or other, his credibility is shot to pieces. He is finished...a dead man walking.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
27 January 2011
13:1190387#3
This is the legacy of Labour's failure to properly fund or plan for the commitments it has made.
The underfunding of Defence is a national disgrace and while I understand the government's difficult position, faced with making spending cuts, because of Brown's incompetence they should bite the bullet and increase Defence spending and, if necessary, cut the NHS to do so. Defence is the most important job of government. The only thing stopping them from doing the right thing is the political outcry that would occur.
Guest 673- Registered: 16 Jun 2008
- Posts: 1,388
27 January 2011
15:3990399#4
Watch and weep. That is £4billion of our money being chopped up for scrap. The wings have already been cut off one Nimrod, presumably the one that was already flying. Won't any more.
As Barry says, one lot spends a fortune building something and the next lot comes in, says it can't afford to run it, and chops it up. Labour did it with the TSR2 back in 1965. The most advanced tactical strike reconaissance aircraft in the world, streets ahead of anything else.
They ordered the planes to be chopped up, machine jigs scrapped, drawings destroyed, so that the other lot could not resuscitate the project if they got back in.
"All modern aircraft have four dimensions: span, length, height and politics. TSR-2 simply got the first three right." - Sir Sydney Camm. (substitute Nimrod for TSR2)
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
27 January 2011
15:4790400#5
Barry, I thought the NHS spending will be cut, that the plans are already being drawn up to do so.
As for Nimrod, a technologically ancient design going back to the '80s, I can't see any country wanting to invade our Shores. We have many allies, and none of these would invade us! We don't invade them either. Gov. is being realistic, as the Cold War, for which Nimrod was designed, has finished.
Our future lies in achieving Prosperity, and many will look to Britannia's Shores to trade with us.
The last words the Romans said before departing from Britain was:
Quickus! Cambelli sunt! (The Cambels are coming), and fled back to Rome.
Guest 673- Registered: 16 Jun 2008
- Posts: 1,388
27 January 2011
16:0890407#6
The original Nimrod airframe goes back further than that, it is a derivative of the Comet. Nimrod MRA4 is a huge advance on that. The much less capable American replacement that is expected to be purchased when it is realised that we cannot do without the broad range of capabilities that the Nimrod contributes is the Boeing 737 P8A Poseidon. This is a derivative of the Boeing 737 and I was flying around in 737's forty years ago.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/telegraph-view/8284697/No-need-to-scrap-Nimrod.htmlGuest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
27 January 2011
17:0490422#7
No Alexander, NHS spending is ring fenced and will increase in fact.
The Nimrod may be an old airframe design but the new aircraft certainly was high tech. They were nothing to do with preventing an 'invasion of our shores' but about keeping open the all important sea-lanes. We still depend on the seas for our lifeblood.
Guest 673- Registered: 16 Jun 2008
- Posts: 1,388
27 January 2011
17:5390423#8
As a maritime patrol aircraft, the earlier incarnations of Nimrod have been invaluable over the years in their search and rescue role. There is no substitute for a big jet aircraft that can get a thousand miles out into the Atlantic quickly and then loiter for hours, acting as on-scene commander for merchant ship rescue operations, dropping liferafts, searching for yachts reported in trouble, etc. Helicopters are too slow and too limited in range.
Hopefully we can ask the Americans or French to do the job for us but there must come a time when they say "Look, you are big boys now. This is your job. You straddle the Atlantic sealanes, you used to be a great maritime nation with the world's biggest navy, the world's biggest merchant fleet, the world's biggest shipbuilding industry, take some responsibility for the position you are in and get on with it."
We even had to call the Belgians in not so long ago to rescue some people trapped by the tide in Langdon Bay. We have a reciprocal arrangement with them if our thin scattering of helicopters are detained elsewhere. Our own SAR helicopter arrangements are to be privatised and the Canadians will in future provide this service around our shores. Here are a couple of photos of the Belgian chopper with blades within inches of the chalk cliffs, hope my old mate Mike Jackson will not mind me copying them here.
Full extraordinary set of photos on Dover Ferry Photos Forum (register if you have not done so):
http://www.doverferryphotosforums.co.uk/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=426&p=2763&hilit=helicopter#p2763Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
27 January 2011
18:0590424#9
Great pics Ed of some very impressive flying... It looks as if you can stand on the cliff, reach out and touch the chopper....
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
27 January 2011
18:3090428#10
These images are worthy of public approval. Help and rescue cooperation between Britain and our neighbours in Western Europe are proof that we have valid friends and allies.
And we can certainly trust the Canadians too to operate helicopters around our shores.
The idea is no doubt that equipment that one country has, can be used to the advantage of another country when needed, so-by reducing the costs.
It is unlikely that Nimrod, which was originally meant to be an early-warning system, would be indispensable in search and rescue operations for ships or yachts out at sea, as sufficient technology to do so exists on other air-craft. Not that many modern-day ships tend to have trouble at sea, and so the existing air-craft that would be used for any such necessity are sufficient in number.
Again, search operations of that kind are usually carried out by various countries together, when the need arises. Satelite tracking-technology is probably also very efficient in such cases.
As for keeping the sea-lanes clear using Nimrods, the question is: against whom? Sea-lanes are international, and the threat from Somali pirates is dealt with by ships from many countries operating together.
The tendency towards international cooperation makes it all the more evident that each individual country does not need an anrsenal of hundreds of very expensive warplanes and many warships based on extremely expensive missile and anti-missile technology.
Also, we can expect that other countries will be - and even have been - making similar provisions as Gov. is doing, reducing their massive war-machinery expenditure. So it is reciprocal, and leads the way to a new era where peoples respect each other and cooperate, rather than arming themselves to the teeth with advanced and most expensive military technology.
This process must continue, we cannot turn back.
Ross Miller
- Location: London Road, Dover
- Registered: 17 Sep 2008
- Posts: 3,709
27 January 2011
20:1590464#11
Wasnt it the last Conservative government that ordered these on a fixed price arrangement - that was breached even before the fell from power
"Dream as if you'll live forever. Live as if you'll die today." - James Dean
"Being deeply loved by someone gives you strength,
While loving someone deeply gives you courage" - Laozi
Guest 658- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 660
28 January 2011
00:2390504#12
I'm afraid if you put all the defense decisions together a pattern begins to emerge, it has been seen many times in history we always try and provide the armed services with the equipment required for current operations only. This has been a fact of life for decades regardless of the party in charge. But now it takes so long to develop new equipment that it is often too late. My personal bugbear is the fact that should we have to mount a seaborne assault on a hostile shore the troops and ships involved have NO air cover. No one expected the need to invade the Falklands. Who knows what awaits us in the future.
beer the food of the gods
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
28 January 2011
00:5990505#13
That is a good point, Guzzler. In the case of the Falklands war, Argentina's generals had been purchasing weapons and had an arsenal of planes and ships that made the invasion possible in the first place. Now there is a standard garrison in the Falklands, so no danger of a repetition.
However, by not selling weapons to all and sundry, Western countries can prevent themselves problems in the future. I think this is probably already a standard policy in the West, not to sell weapons as a means of incrementing the intake of the treasury. Or at least we're on that path, and are getting there.
However, I can't see Britain launching an assault on a hostile shore, we have enough shores of our own. Good strategy consists in not selling or supplying high-tech weaponry in the first place, and western countries should remain in agreement to maintain this policy.
The Government is on the right path here, and needs our full support when it comes to a realistic strategy on reducing hi-tech weapons, which is what we are doing. It's important that we never get the likes of Tony Blair back again!
Well done Gov.
Ross Miller- Location: London Road, Dover
- Registered: 17 Sep 2008
- Posts: 3,709
28 January 2011
01:2190506#14
The brutal truth is that the we have ample anti submarine capability in the Type 23 frigates and Merlin helicoptors, the Nimrod anti submarine planes were an unnecessary expense when Portillo ordered them and when the Labour government continued to fund them. The reality is that these things ended up costing more than a space shuttle each. If we really want long range reconnaissance we can either rely on the AWACS Aircraft we have or buy some Boeing P8s.
"Dream as if you'll live forever. Live as if you'll die today." - James Dean
"Being deeply loved by someone gives you strength,
While loving someone deeply gives you courage" - Laozi
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
28 January 2011
06:0090507#15
Alexander - the Falklands when we landed was hostile but it was OUR shore...
Guest 698- Registered: 28 May 2010
- Posts: 8,664
28 January 2011
09:5090511#16
Relying on our friends and neighbours in times of war is a risky strategy on which to place too much reliance, especially when one remembers that our closest neighbour sold Exocet missiles to both Argentina and Iraq.
And apart from Chile who allowed us use of facilities at Punta Arenas, nobody else offered any help at all, not even the Americans who obviously did not want to upset the Hispanic voters back home.
I'm an optimist. But I'm an optimist who takes my raincoat - Harold Wilson
Guest 658- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 660
28 January 2011
10:1290512#17
Peter i must take issue with you on two points. Firstly if the Americans hadn't been resupplying us with air to air missiles we would have had to pull out. Secondly the South Africans offered unconditional use of Simonstown as a naval base. Also Russia of all people offered logistic support if required.
beer the food of the gods
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
28 January 2011
10:2390514#18
You are right Guzzler but that help from the USA, plus satellite intelligence provided, was not easily gained and was done so only on the personal intervention of Ronald Reagan. There was considerable opposition in his administration to it, Kirkpatrick for one. They offered an old aircraft carrier as welll by the way, but it was not a practical option due to training/manpower/timescales.
In addition the use of Simonstown would have been politically difficult due to aparteid, though if necessary I suspect Mrs T would have ignored that.
Guest 658- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 660
28 January 2011
12:1390516#19
Apartheid was the reason for not using Simonstown indeed,but the most surprising fact was the offer from the Russians, they offered to move two units by sea from Germany but the offer was never taken up.
beer the food of the gods
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
28 January 2011
12:1490517#20
I haven't stated that the Falklands were not our shores, Barry.
What I did write is that the Argentine general had been buying a lot of weapons that made the invasion possible. He couldn't have carried out the invasion otherwise.
Are you trying to say that I do not recognise the Falklands as British shores?
