Guest 653- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,540
28 January 2011
19:0990557Is the breaking up of these Nimrods due to extreme short-sightedness of the Conservative Government, or a realisation that Labour had wasted far too much money that we could ill afford, on a pointless set of aircraft ?
I couldn't believe what I was reading when I first read in it the Telegraph.
Roger
Brian Dixon
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 23 Sep 2008
- Posts: 23,940
28 January 2011
20:2190576why stop there,might as well scrap the rest of the rafs planes then scrap the rn fleet and the armys tanks etc.close the mod down that would save a few billion.
Guest 653- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,540
29 January 2011
07:5290622But these planes could have been leased, sold or even mothballed, not broken up - I can't believe it, I reallty can't.
And yet overseas aid is ring-fenced or increased, words fail me.
Roger
Brian Dixon- Location: Dover
- Registered: 23 Sep 2008
- Posts: 23,940
29 January 2011
07:5390623roger,i agree with you here,but do you expect from inbreds.
Guest 653- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,540
29 January 2011
07:5690625Brian, that's just a crass remark, not worthy of the importance of this subject.
They're not inbreds anyway, they're supposed to be intelligent politicians, with the responsibility of keeping the people of Britain safe.
Roger
Brian Dixon- Location: Dover
- Registered: 23 Sep 2008
- Posts: 23,940
29 January 2011
08:0490627roger,you may call it crass but only an inbred would do this sort of thing.it would as you said lease,sell,or mothball would have been better.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
29 January 2011
11:0390638i must admit i am bemused by the whole issue, surely another country would buy them at a knock down price?
anything is better than turning them into scrap.
Ross Miller
- Location: London Road, Dover
- Registered: 17 Sep 2008
- Posts: 3,706
29 January 2011
11:4190642What you seem to forget is that the airframes of these aircraft is a veritable antique, the Nimrod uses the Comet airframe - one that failed as a commercial airliner. The first prototype flew in 1949 and the plane was withdrawn from commercial service in 1964 - so these airframes are at best 46 years old. Therefore they are expensive to maintain as all parts are custom made etc. no one is going to buy these and mothballing will cost almost as much as using them. To be honest the MR$ should never have been ordered it was Portillo's folly for doing that and every subsequent defence ministers for not stopping the project.
"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 671- Registered: 4 May 2008
- Posts: 2,095
29 January 2011
12:1690643Million's are being spent on scrapping the Nimrod at a time when millions are needed to run this country. Where is the logic in that?
Ed's #4.
Very interesting, do you think this is a bit of dummy spitting, you scrap mine, I'll scrap yours?
"My New Year's Resolution, is to try and emulate Marek's level of chilled out, thoughtfulness and humour towards other forumites and not lose my decorum"
Guest 671- Registered: 4 May 2008
- Posts: 2,095
29 January 2011
12:2190644Sorry Ross our threads crossed.
So it was the conservatives that ordered the Nimrod, I thought Labour was being blamed for this one?
"My New Year's Resolution, is to try and emulate Marek's level of chilled out, thoughtfulness and humour towards other forumites and not lose my decorum"
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
29 January 2011
12:5690647gary
the reds will get the blame from barry if it started to rain heavily.
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
29 January 2011
14:0890652The Nomrod took decades to develop, and even just this process crippled the Treasury, particularly when combined with the costs in developing so many other kinds of weapons.
Then comes the cost of producing and operating.
It is probable that devoloping new kinds of technically advanced war-machinery has reached its peak world-wide. Other countries have also spent fortunes on developing modern war equipment. Adding up the sums spent, and also on producing and operating it all, worldwide, the figures spent have been far too high!
The action taken by the Government to scrap the Nimrod planes is no-doubt a decisive measure to change this situation, and I would imagine that future development efforts will be concentrated on peaceful projects. We can be sure that the Government has every intention of persuing good relations with our allies in the world, and is following a realistic line that will help bring futurte economic prosperity to the world. Other countries will be doing the same, and concentrating their efforts on peaceful progress and development in the fields of science and technology.
In this sense, Britain is making real-time history! We cannot turn back, and must go forward.
Guest 653- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,540
29 January 2011
16:5590664I hope it is a case of peaceful projects, not appeasement Alexander, because we don't have the firepower/warfare to do otherwise.
Roger
Brian Dixon- Location: Dover
- Registered: 23 Sep 2008
- Posts: 23,940
29 January 2011
17:0190667to put it bluntly we as country are a third rate outfit,at one time we had the most feard force in the world.due to cut backs over the last 40 years or so we have droped down to the likes of the usa france,germany and india.god help us if there is another world war.
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
30 January 2011
00:1790709Roger, I can see that you are somewhat worried, as we are talking of national defence.
But there is no need to worry on this issue.
The scrapping of Nimrod is not appeasement, as we have no quarrel with our allies, with any country in Europe, and have allies in North America. Most countries in the world are on friendly terms with Britain, and no country threatens us with war.
The fact that there is no Cold War has changed enormously the situation in respect to the recent past. I'll give you an example.
The Russian Army, when parading in Red Square, uses Church symbols of the Orthodox Church.
Russian ministers attend Church, and believe openly in God. Believing in greater ideals of Christianity, these people will not turn back to the past. The same can be said for Eastern European countries in general: their leaders believe openly in Christianity and profess Faith.
We cannot linger on with out-dated strategies that cost so much money and can only be cause of distrust. It is and will be reciprocal, and has nothing to do with appeasement. Surely we do not want future generations inheriting a cycle of nuclear missiles and the need to build every twenty years hundreds of new warplanes and what not all that belonged to arsenals of recent military history on the Norhtern Hemisphere.
People in many other countries want the same: a future of peace and prosperity, and the cycle of technological progress in building new weapons had to be broken. The days of atom-tests for more destructive nuclear missiles - a spate of which broke out in the '90s - has to come to an end, and also this constant development of high-tech weapons in general.
The Government has decided to break this cycle, it is happening now, and this is one issue for whcih I give my whole and full-hearted support! We must never turn back from this.
Guest 645- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 4,463
As I forecasted the govt are having to backtrack on their plans to scrap the Nimrod or at least delay its departure as it may be required to patrol a no flly zone over Libya should it be implemented....Well well well....
Marek
I think therefore I am (not a Tory supporter)
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
would be a disaster to operate a non fly zone as they would have to take out the old soviet ground to air missiles.
once that is done the arab world would be up in arms, plus the libyan people would see that as a declaration of war on them.
they know that the west only cares about the oil, they are not silly.
