It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Another UK classic mistake

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:
RAB

posted on Mar, 20 2005 @ 06:06 AM
link   
Sorry I love the U.K and it's values of freedom and rights for all but when it comes to defese and projects of value it always makes me chuckle!

the latest example : www.janes.com...

Other stuff rounds for the Typhoon, Jag withdrawn but keeping the aged Camberra, the nightmare that will become the MR4A (Nimrod)

I'm sure other can add to a massive list of UK MOD mistakes

RAB




posted on Mar, 20 2005 @ 07:28 AM
link   
The mod are useless at procurement and many other things too, just a bunch of toffs really.



posted on Mar, 20 2005 @ 07:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by RAB

Other stuff rounds for the Typhoon


Whats wrong with the Typhoon? Its a great aircraft, sure maybe it was concieved during the coldwar but that doesnt mean its any less of an aircraft. The 'fake gun' thing was blown out of all proportions, and Tranche-1 RAF Typhoons will have the weapon fitted in a fully functional capability, while Tranche-2 and -3 aircraft will not have the weapn fitted at all, not even as a 'ballast' item. This was decided as far back as 2000 by the ECO.



Jag withdrawn


Nice aircraft but definately showing its age and its been outclassed so many times.



but keeping the aged Camberra


The Camberra is being withdrawn in 2006, but with its retirement there will be a hole in the capability of the RAF that hasnt yet been filled with alternative aircraft. So what if an aircraft is 'aged', if it outclasses all other aircraft in its role, then why moan?



the nightmare that will become the MR4A (Nimrod)


Interesting, why do you say that? The Nimrod has been one of the formost maritime aircraft in the world (if not THE formost maritime aircraft - its a lot better than propeller driven aircraft for hunting submarines), and has taken on a multirole capability (its payload is extremely impressive, something like 20 torpedoes, bombs, sidewinders and more) and the MR4A upgrade is a much overdue upgrade to bring the airframe up to modern capabilities.

In no means is the MR4A a 'nightmare' or a waste of money, it increases the capability of the Nimrod for actually what amounts to a lot less for a complete replacement.


Yeah the Chinook procurement is a big screwup, as is the fact that we have a couple dozen Apache AH-64s in storage because we have no crews trained for them, but I really see no issue with half of the aircraft you mentioned in your post.


RAB

posted on Mar, 20 2005 @ 08:50 AM
link   
Typhoon I'll agre excellent but the gun thing is pointless in the extreme for the amount of money saved.

The canberra very old and no real replacement It may be better to keep a few jags to help the Tornado GR4A in the recce role.

My shot at the MR4A not really a go at the plane IF it all works then just like the MR2 before it, IT will be a world lead in ASW and SAR. Just like the GR4 is a world leader in low level strike.

Just remember the Nimrod AEW the UK never really learns lessons from past mistakes.

Just remember I'm not having a go at the RAF or the Planes, more the dodgy MOD project management or lack there of! :-)

[edit on 20-3-2005 by RAB]



posted on Mar, 20 2005 @ 11:02 AM
link   
Question: how many times are guns used in modern combat? for either ground support or dog fights? I know it's a last-resort weapon, but it's still a formidable weapon since AAMs can be spoofed, bullets can NOT



posted on Mar, 20 2005 @ 11:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by GrOuNd_ZeRo
Question: how many times are guns used in modern combat? for either ground support or dog fights? I know it's a last-resort weapon, but it's still a formidable weapon since AAMs can be spoofed, bullets can NOT


The arguement was that you cant fire a warning shot with a AAM, you cant strafe a ground target using a AAM, and a AAM really isnt any good at ranges of like 50 yards in a dogfight.



posted on Mar, 20 2005 @ 11:13 AM
link   
The MR4A's better work, they are costing us the same as our new carriers!!!!!



posted on Mar, 20 2005 @ 11:54 AM
link   
Isn't the whole procurement business driven more by political favour, bribes and backhanders anyway?


I stumbled upon a story by chance a couple of days ago in an IT magazine, stating that EDS has won a bid for a $7.7Billion USD contract to supply MOD systems. Given the company's track record with supplying/tailoring other systems for branches of the British government over the last few years, involving huge cost overruns and late delivery/implementation, I was very surprised that they should win such a huge deal. As a taxpayer, I find it smells a bit when some companies win contract after contract whilst having a track record of soooooooo many failures



posted on Mar, 20 2005 @ 12:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Britguy
Isn't the whole procurement business driven more by political favour, bribes and backhanders anyway?


I stumbled upon a story by chance a couple of days ago in an IT magazine, stating that EDS has won a bid for a $7.7Billion USD contract to supply MOD systems. Given the company's track record with supplying/tailoring other systems for branches of the British government over the last few years, involving huge cost overruns and late delivery/implementation, I was very surprised that they should win such a huge deal. As a taxpayer, I find it smells a bit when some companies win contract after contract whilst having a track record of soooooooo many failures



Sorry, were you talking about Boeing, Northrop or Lockheed?
I know you were having a underhanded dig at the European defence market there, but dont think the US alternatives are any better at all.



posted on Mar, 20 2005 @ 12:01 PM
link   
The 27mm gun is pretty fancy isn't it? any info on it? what was the reason again they didn't want a gun in the eurofighter?



posted on Mar, 22 2005 @ 10:30 AM
link   
the nimrod AEW was over 20 years ago......



posted on Mar, 22 2005 @ 11:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by Harlequin
the nimrod AEW was over 20 years ago......


The new upgraded version is just coming into service now



posted on Mar, 22 2005 @ 11:47 AM
link   
I think that whomever decided not to put a cannon in a fighter aircraft needs to have his head examined. I agree with the fact that the cannon is a weapon for strafing ground targets or as a defence weapon of last resort
but one thing has been forgotten. You cannot fly a missile armed fighter anywhere you want. Under international law you need special permission of any country whose airspace that you enter to have your aircraft armed with missiles or bombs. The same law allows fighter aircraft to carry a cannon and ammunition supposedly for defensive purposes only. The way things are in the world right now I'd feel better with a cannon than with nothing.



posted on Mar, 22 2005 @ 01:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by paperplane_uk

Originally posted by Harlequin
the nimrod AEW was over 20 years ago......


The new upgraded version is just coming into service now


No it isn't, we bought the Sentry AEW.1 (Boeing E-3D) in its place, whats coming into service soon is the replacement for the Nimrod MR.2, utterly different.



posted on Mar, 22 2005 @ 01:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by paperplane_uk

Originally posted by Harlequin
the nimrod AEW was over 20 years ago......


The new upgraded version is just coming into service now


the nimrod AEW qas scrapped because the government were told it didn`t work and couldn`t be fixed - well it was fixed , but it was scrapped anyway. The sentry entered RAF service in 1991


RAB

posted on Mar, 22 2005 @ 01:54 PM
link   
my point is STILL the UK has crap project management, main dur to the lack of project fixing (Finding a point and saying that's it that'll do) BUT no we add stuff and requirements to things and then KILL the project



posted on Mar, 22 2005 @ 03:02 PM
link   
To a degree I agree with that RAB, the problem with several UK procurement programmes is a 'jam tomorrow' attitude by which we always want whats coming next at the expense of what we ought to have now.

For example the UK had a sound equivalent to the F-100 Super Sabre which would have sold extrememly well on the export market, the Hawker P.1083 supersonic Hunter development but it was canned in 1953 because of the performance promised by the Lightning, which didn't see service until 1960.

Similarly the proposed productionised version of the EAP with off the shelf avionics would have now been clocking up its 15th year in RAF service but instead we waited for Typhoon, and waited and waited. As Bill Gunston said, a paper plane has yet to win a war.



posted on Mar, 23 2005 @ 04:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by RAB
my point is STILL the UK has crap project management, main dur to the lack of project fixing (Finding a point and saying that's it that'll do)


- The UK has tried all sorts of methods and contracts over the years to try to keep defence procurement sensible and reasonable, but when the manufacturers say a job just cannot be done for £X what are they meant to do?

Do you really imagine it is only the UK that experences things late, over budget or not up to the agreed required spec?




BUT no we add stuff and requirements to things and then KILL the project


- What is this? Since when has the customers specific requirements not been a legitimate matter in buying this seriously expensive kit?

(.....and since when has it always resulted in "killing the project"?)

Where has this dumb idea come from?

Since when have customers ever had to stick to a single spec and not attempt to 'tailor' a particular plane or helicopter (or ship, missile system etc etc) to their own individual specific needs?

Since when has the scope and ability to actually do this not been part of the sales pitch of foreign manufacturers for just about every defence project ever?

Since when has that not been the case, hmmm?

[edit on 23-3-2005 by sminkeypinkey]



posted on Mar, 23 2005 @ 04:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by RichardPrice
Sorry, were you talking about Boeing, Northrop or Lockheed?
I know you were having a underhanded dig at the European defence market there, but dont think the US alternatives are any better at all.


The new multi mission craft will be a pretty good ASW platform in addition to maritime recce.

Just curious, why do you think that a jet powered versus prop is better for the ASW role? Sure they may be able to get on station faster but beyond that?????



posted on Mar, 23 2005 @ 05:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by FredT

Just curious, why do you think that a jet powered versus prop is better for the ASW role? Sure they may be able to get on station faster but beyond that?????


Prop driven aircraft have a subtone harmonic produced by the props which are very easy to detect underwater, whereas jet powered aircraft are higher in frequency which doesnt penetrate the water boundry which makes jet aircraft much harder to detect underwater.




top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join