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.

 

Nimrod replacement under threat

page: 1
2

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 27 2008 @ 03:57 AM
link   
BBC



The Ministry of Defence has been urged to cancel an order for a replacement Nimrod fleet because it is eight years late and almost £800m over budget.


What are the RAF supposed to use if this aircraft is canceled then? will they be made to continue to fly the same aircraft they have at the moment until they kill even more aircrews?




posted on Mar, 27 2008 @ 04:40 AM
link   
reply to post by solidshot
 


Yes, it is late and overbudget, like everything else we have ever bought, but heres another way the Govt might like to look at it;

Now that the development work is virtually done and aircraft are actually flying, shall we throw away all the money we have already spent by cancelling and starting all over again from scratch? Or maybe wait until Boeing is is a position to supply P-8's?

The obvious and common sense answer has to be NO. The finishing line may have moved, but at least it is now in sight. Cancelling Nimrod without a ready replacement would be stupidity of the highest order.



posted on Mar, 27 2008 @ 04:59 AM
link   
Waynos, since when has a labour British government stopped stupidity of the highest order from making them cut a aircraft programme, that has had billions spent on it, all the bugs nearly ironed out and is a possible world beating platform ( TSR2, Nimrod AEW to name but two ), for an American system which might or might not be bought!!!!!

Some things never change....!

Sv........Out!



posted on Mar, 27 2008 @ 05:24 AM
link   
I expect the A400M airframe could be developed into a handy platform.



posted on Mar, 27 2008 @ 05:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by sy.gunson
I expect the A400M airframe could be developed into a handy platform.



Trouble is that would take time, and the nimrod surely can't be used for much longer with the problems it has?



posted on Mar, 27 2008 @ 05:50 AM
link   
Guy's, it's only a Commons Committee that has made this "recommendation". They don't have any power to enforce it.

The MoD will not want this cancelled and I doubt Brown will want the Billions spent developing it to have been wasted. There may even be the possibility of foreign sales which might make the project a little more attractive.



posted on Mar, 27 2008 @ 07:12 AM
link   
From my understanding the naval end of the Nimrod fleets work load has been off loaded to the new global express platform and this has taken some of the load off the nimrod crews. So if need I'm sure it could expand its coverage but the plane isn't suited to take over the recon and sniffing missions of the nimrod at this point.



posted on Mar, 27 2008 @ 10:59 AM
link   
reply to post by Silentvulcan
 


The Nimrod AEW was nearly bug free? I don't think so. Before we go off on a Daily Mail rant about 'Labour' Governments, a cool analysis of previous Tory Governments track record is sobering. The facts are the cost of major Defence items has become almost prohibitive, The MOD still can't manage major procurement projects and BAE are completely unable to deliver anything on time or on budget. Which is why the Carriers, Tranche three Typhoons, FRES, JSF, Nimrod and the number of Astutes and Type 45's (even the Super Lynx!) are all now being looked at. Meanwhile many service families live in slums and the poor bloody infantry still suffers shortages of even the most basic items.

What odds on another Defence Review?



posted on Mar, 27 2008 @ 11:20 AM
link   
reply to post by Fang
 


If just a fraction of the estimated £100 Billion spent on the Northern Rock fiasco was allocated to the MoD, then they wouldn't have this problem.

If we weren't spending nigh on £3 billion a year on overseas wars that don't concern us and, in fact, have made our country more prone to attack, we wouldn't have this problem.

The money is there, but, as always, the politicians want the Military to do their bidding on a shoestring.

Even at the height of the Empire, Parliament tried to run the military on a shoestring. Hence why we had to appease Hitler for 4 years prior to eventually declaring war.

Between WW1 and WW2, the Royal Navy and the Army (won't mention the RAF as that was in an even worse state...) was utterly gutted, even though it was vital to the defence of the Empire. Shows what politicians know....



posted on Mar, 27 2008 @ 11:28 AM
link   
reply to post by Silentvulcan
 


I know, I even had the TSR 2 in my thoughts as I typed that.

Canada, I'm not sure what you mean by 'the naval end' of Nimrod duties?

If you meant the maritime role then that cannot be passed on to the Sentinel R.1, it is the Nimrods speciality. As far as I know the Sentinel has its own mission plus a small part of the Nimrod R.1's recce and elint duties, not the Nimrod fleet in general.

[edit on 27-3-2008 by waynos]



posted on Mar, 27 2008 @ 12:00 PM
link   
reply to post by waynos
 


I wasn't aware that the Sentinel had that limited of a role in Maritime and naval recon.
Sorta makes me wonder then if your claiming its so limited then its not an option to replace the Aurora and Nimrod or Orion for any navies out there.



posted on Mar, 27 2008 @ 01:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Fang
Before we go off on a Daily Mail rant about 'Labour' Governments, a cool analysis of previous Tory Governments track record is sobering.


- Indeed.

A few actual facts of the matter might be worthwhile here if the party-political element of this is to be brought up.

Including the fact that Nimrod AEW was axed in Dec 1986, over 6 1/2 years into Mrs Thatch's tory Gov.

It was originally discussed by the then Labour Gov in 1974 and formally ordered in Nov 1977. That Labour Gov left office in mid 1979, so it was a period of less than 2 years.

So, the bulk of the program ran under a tory Gov, not the Labour.


[edit on 27-3-2008 by sminkeypinkey]



posted on Mar, 27 2008 @ 01:44 PM
link   
reply to post by sminkeypinkey
 


Smink, do you get paid for hunting down posts critical of Labour (whether rightly or wrongly..)?

You always seem to turn up to offer a rebuttal



posted on Mar, 27 2008 @ 01:48 PM
link   
Have to admit I've wondered how long sminky has been on the Labour payroll considering the amount of spin against any other party apart from them, have you ever praised anything any other party has said or done sminky?



posted on Mar, 27 2008 @ 01:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by stumason
[Smink, do you get paid for hunting down posts critical of Labour (whether rightly or wrongly..)?

You always seem to turn up to offer a rebuttal


- I wish stu!


It's just a gift.


.....and what would you rather, myths and inaccurate tales or the facts of the matter?

(oh and btw stu, that £100 billion and Northern Rock?

This current Gov arranged a couple of short-term loans through the BoE & it 'guaranteed' NR savers funds (set against NR assets/properties).

But that is not the same thing, it did not 'find' or 'spend' £100 billion on NR at all.

Just to be accurate.
)

[edit on 27-3-2008 by sminkeypinkey]



posted on Mar, 27 2008 @ 05:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Canada_EH
 


Canada, the Sentinel has no naval or maritime application, the ASTOR programme was for a battlefield surveillance aircraft in support of the army, here's a link with more info;

RAF web



posted on Mar, 27 2008 @ 05:27 PM
link   
All credit to the Smink. I do think it's time that people moved on from believing that Conservative Governments lavished funds on Defence whilst Labour Governments always cut the budget to the bone. Those in doubt should try Googling the names 'Pym' and 'Knott' in conjunction with the phrase 'Defence Cuts'. Better still The musings of the Rt Hon. Duncan "The era of the manned fighter is over" Sandys, is also of Historical (late 50's) interest.
All of which doesn't detract from the fact that the current Defence budget is in deep poo.



posted on Mar, 28 2008 @ 06:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by stumason
If we weren't spending nigh on £3 billion a year on overseas wars that don't concern us and, in fact, have made our country more prone to attack, we wouldn't have this problem.


Whilst you might have a point about Iraq, I don't think you've characterised the conflict in Afghanistan correctly. It does concern us directly. Because of the Taliban allowing al Qaeda to train in Afghanistan they plowed two planes into the WTC, one into the Pentagon and one crashed in a field. 67 British citizens were killed on that day (more than those who were murdered on July 7th 2005). Our citizens were killed, as were the citizens of our closest ally and those of many other countries, and I think we had a duty to remove the Taliban and stabilise Afghanistan. I am deeply concerned at the way Afghanistan has been lumped in with Iraq in recent months - they are two totally separate conflicts. Let us not confuse the them.

Back on topic, I agree it would be a silly thing to do to cancel the Nimrod upgrades at this point. Yes, a lot of money has been spent on them (and yes it is unfair to think defence project overspend is a Labour phenomena - it isn't. It's been happening for decades.) and yes the MoD and BAE have a lot to learn, but these planes are important. We can't afford to scrimp on our security.

This 'Defence' Committee also had the gall to suggest scrapping the carriers. How, pray tell, are we supposed to defend our Overseas Territories without them?




top topics



 
2

log in

join