|
The problem is that is isn't IN service! When the project was started it was known as Nimrod 2000 because that is when it was due in service. It is thus 10+ years late and counting. The cost has increased massively and the number of aircraft to be supplied for the money paid has been halved, I think. Good money after bad etc.
|
Oh dear lord.
Lets not go here again. Blood was spilt the last time this subject cropped up on here.
|
...Lets not go here again. Blood was spilt the last time this subject cropped up on here...
Typical, there's Pat again, stopping an argument before one has had a chance to start.
|
Sorry probably should have put accepted into service.
Didn't know we'd been around this buoy before.
|
Agreed!
Good money after bad, having a few contacts at BAE Systems I can tell you they thought previous cost/time overuns would be accepted by the ConDems, so fair fell off their seats when this was announced.
However PP is correct, its now 10 years overdue and basically out of date despite wishes of BAE to add up to date extras, to carry out new feasability exercises for the cost, the impact and other scoping works all charged for at more than premium rates.
Sometimes cheaper to throw away and buy new and better and that includes those within BAE who thought this sort of "cost spinning" was acceptable to the public purse.
As always
Last edited by: Mark on Fri 28 Jan 11 at 19:56
|
basically out of date despite
What make you say that?
>>
>> Sometimes cheaper to throw away and buy new and better
Such as?
|
Sooty
Its basically refurbishment and updating of ancient airframes largely to the benefit of BAE Systems using an airframe design that is nearly 60 years old, can you show me one other instance where such an updating of an old airframe has been done successfully elsewhere and that the subsequent product has met it design aims?
Some good information can be found here,
tinyurl.com/6ks2lzh
It shares the view I was given that the project was more for the good of BAE Systems than anyone else.
As always
Mark
|
an airframe design that is nearly 60 years old, can you show me one
>> other instance where such an updating of an old airframe has been done successfully elsewhere
>> and that the subsequent product has met it design aims?
B52?
F4?
|
It's all brand new the only item carried over was the pressure bulkhead. Old airframes updated successfully? the KC-135 B-52 P-3.
and where are these cheaper better alts you speak of?
Last edited by: sooty123 on Fri 28 Jan 11 at 20:20
|
Sooty
I don't think I specifically mentioned the solution for a new purchase in any post I made.....
However, the KC135 is in a similar position to Nimrod, its based on an ancient airframe and the yanks have supposedly been buying up all available 707 spares to keep their fleet going so that probably is not a too good a solution either.
To start with; what exactly are our ELINT needs? there is a debate opening about this now in this thread; from that I suggest you make a reply then we might start to be able to make a list of current alternatives if there are any. Is it Afganistan or Bradford we should be most concerned with?
However I would say for the sort of spends involved and the rapid pace of technological development a very pertinent question to ask early on in this debate would be do you see the replacement as being an manned or unmanned ELINT platform?
Could not a much smaller unmanned platform packed with the same equipment provide the same sort of ELINT collection capability at a fraction of the cost? All the Nirmod could do other than ELINT collection was to drop rubber dinghies to ship survivors when it was used in ASR ops.
As always
Mark
Last edited by: Mark on Fri 28 Jan 11 at 20:56
|
Travesty. Liam Fox describes how it is over budget and we cannot keep pouring good money after bad in any program. How can anything go so catastrophically wrong? Ten years late. Over budget. Not flight tested. Who are the Morons running the Asylum?.
Still...........stuff our defence and give it to Single Mum's and Disability cheats. That way we get more value............don't we.........or am I wrong again?
|
|
BUT.....reading some of the above posts perhaps.................
|
|
Anyone who really knows what's going on with this decision and the alternatives available to maintain the *cover* would be unable to say here or anywhere else. That's all I'm saying.
|
|
Not really we can do and speak out, but like you say the *cover* is like a holed tesco carrier in rocket attack.
|
|
"the cover" is not needed. We dont need long range maritime surveillance or intelligence gathering from aircraft.
|
..."the cover" is not needed. We dont need long range maritime surveillance or intelligence gathering from aircraft...
That's more like it, none of this conciliatory claptrap.
|
>> "the cover" is not needed. We dont need long range maritime surveillance or intelligence gathering
>> from aircraft.
>>
Why don't we need this information or any of the other tasks it could have done?
|
>> Why don't we need this information or any of the other tasks it could have
>> done?
Because its big boys toys, conceived in the days when we thought we were the worlds policemen.
Now look at the threats to this country, its from terrorists. They are in Birmingham, and Bradford and Leeds.
The Nimrod is useless there.
Last edited by: Zero on Fri 28 Jan 11 at 20:16
|
>> The Nimrod is useless there.
>>
Not true.
|
>> Not true.
Ok, how does the nimrod work then flying over Leeds and Bradford?
|
|
It has an overland capibility like the mra2, look at the loss of xv179 over afghanistan, it wasn't looking for subs.
|
>> It has an overland capibility like the mra2, look at the loss of xv179 over
>> afghanistan, it wasn't looking for subs.
Afghanistan is not Leeds or Bradford, there are buildings and other sources of EMI to try and discriminate out, plus it would get mixed up in leeds bradford air traffic.
And what was xv179 doing? falling out the sky mostly It certainly wasnt stopping our troops getting arms and legs blown off by IED's was it.
We aint paying for it. End of.
|
>>
>> Afghanistan is not Leeds or Bradford, there are buildings and other sources of EMI to
>> try and discriminate out, plus it would get mixed up in leeds bradford air traffic.
No it's not but it still can work, it doesn't need to hover over the area like a helicopter, it's not beyond the whit of controllers to deconflict it from traffic flying in and out of Leeds Bradford Airport
>>
>> And what was xv179 doing? falling out the sky mostly It certainly wasnt stopping our
>> troops getting arms and legs blown off by IED's was it.
It was actually plus the other nimrod a/c out there they operating over afghan for quite a while, how much higher would the casualty count been without them is the real question.
>> We aint paying for it. End of.
Can't disagree with that.
>>
>>
>>
Last edited by: sooty123 on Fri 28 Jan 11 at 20:59
|
Sooty,
Just accept it would be useless at Sigint over Leeds and Bradford, because it would. Anyway, you tap domestic phones and internet to get much better intelligence in Leeds and Bradford.
We are not going to be in Afghanistan in two years time anyway, so it wouldn't be needed there.
|
If you want sigint over a large and sparsley populated area then you may need an aircraft. Sigint in the small densely populated area like West Yorks conurbation could be gathered with scanning kit on the surrounding high ground.
Who'd notice a few extra aerials on the Emley Moor and associated transmiters?
|
>> Sooty,
>>
>> Just accept it would be useless at Sigint over Leeds and Bradford, because it would.
>> Anyway, you tap domestic phones and internet to get much better intelligence in Leeds and
>> Bradford.
At Signit yes it wasn't designed for that the R1 was designed for that purpose, but to say it has no overland capacity that wouldn't be of any use in leeds/bradford situation isn't true either.
>>
>> We are not going to be in Afghanistan in two years time anyway, so it
>> wouldn't be needed there.
>>
Longer than that zero more like 5 years. But like I said it could multi role so and would be in service for 30 years so I've no doubt being an Island it would be useful, and pay for it's running costs.
Last edited by: sooty123 on Fri 28 Jan 11 at 21:12
|
"the cover" is not needed. We dont need long range maritime surveillance or intelligence gathering"
We don't need most of the military come to that.
|
£4.1B spent and just one plane airworthy according to this article:
tinyurl.com/4zbs7mm
Kevin...
|
|
Where does "Joint Rivet" fit in, we're supposed to be getting them aren't we ?
|
>> Where does "Joint Rivet" fit in, we're supposed to be getting them aren't we ?
>>
they are replacing the nimrod r1 not the mra2. The are electronic survellance and the such like.
|
It is the airframe of a Comet 4 from what I understand. A lot of people will loose their jobs and it is very sad but I don't know enough about it to say if the nimrod itself is a good idea or not.
To me they are just comets with modern avionics though. I am sure those who worked on them think of it very differently.
|
|
Nimrods, like I said very little was carried over from the original nimrod it just looks the same.
|
|
So the wings and engine housing etc is all new?
|
|
Yes the wings were built by airbus, the engines by BMW/RR. By mass I think it was 5% that was carried over.
|
|
The airframes were zero-houred and largely re-built.
|
>> The airframes were zero-houred and largely re-built.
And were unable to obtain an Air Worthiness Certificate
|
Pasted in from Mark's post because he's thinking along the right lines...
To start with; what exactly are our ELINT needs? there is a debate opening about this now in this thread; from that I suggest you make a reply then we might start to be able to make a list of current alternatives if there are any. Is it Afganistan or Bradford we should be most concerned with?
However I would say for the sort of spends involved and the rapid pace of technological development a very pertinent question to ask early on in this debate would be do you see the replacement as being an manned or unmanned ELINT platform?
Could not a much smaller unmanned platform packed with the same equipment provide the same sort of ELINT collection capability at a fraction of the cost? All the Nirmod could do other than ELINT collection was to drop rubber dinghies to ship survivors when it was used in ASR ops.
As always, Mark
|
That's a good link PU.
Problem with these discussions is that the public (and politicians sometimes) tend to look at these things from a historical perspective... a small improvement based on the previous platform.
But look at this link... all stuff in the public domain... and that's 9yrs ago... think where they might be now! Something that doesn't risk a crew yet can cover 40,000 sq miles in one 24hr flight.
www.spacedaily.com/news/uav-02u.html
|
|
The uk already have something similar to that in service the reaper.
|
One of the major threats to the UK, has actually been unleashed on someone else, but it gives us a really good idea of what they are.
Iran's nuclear program has been put back two to three years by.....A computer Virus. A joint product of the Germans, the Americans and the Israelis. Its considered that the success of this weapon, was more effective than a bombing raid.
A radical rethink of our defence needs is required.
|
THe MOD live in a world where effectively money grew on trees and cost overruns never meant anything else had to be cut.
Most of the former Admirals/Generals complaining were to blame for it.
The real world where money is tight means that cost overruns somewhere mean cuts elsewhere.
As for Afghanistan, anyone who thinks we will make any difference to losing that war belives their own propaganda.
If Nimrod had to be seriously used in a war, it would be shot down in 5 minutes. It depends 100% on air superiority. We cannot dleiver that without the US. So if the US don't support us we don't fight.
Waste of space and a credit to the incompetence of the MOD and the kast 20 years of Defence politicians,,,
|
i think we need be concerned with both at the moment.
Unmanned aircraft aren't really all their cracked up to be, they have lots of restrictions that manned aircraft don't have; weather restrictions, speed, they cost alot more than people think, the supply chain again is longer than for a lot of similar aircraft.
The Nimrod could do more than drop life jackets, it can act as an airborne command and control platform. The fact it had engines in the wing root gave it very long endurance, it could also operate at very low level whilst using little fuel. Look at the us options the P-8; large nacelles hanging under the wing massive amount of drag at low level. It is the same inside as a Nimrod all the command systems are the same.
|
>> command and control platform. The fact it had engines in the wing root gave it
>> very long endurance, it could also operate at very low level whilst using little fuel.
It limits the choice of power plants, its adds hugely to the cost of maintenance. The engines are only there because its a Comet and there was nowhere else to put them. No-one else ever put engines there. For good reasons. Its a 60 year old design.
|
|
.
Last edited by: sooty123 on Fri 28 Jan 11 at 21:30
|
>> It limits the choice of power plants, its adds hugely to the cost of maintenance.
No it doesn't the engines were quite cheap, a gas turbine is a gas turbine the cost aren't high lots of companies could have built the engine req'd.
>> The engines are only there because its a Comet and there was nowhere else to
>> put them. No-one else ever put engines there. For good reasons. Its a 60 year
>> old design.
And a good one for asuw ops. It could shut down 2 engines and extend it's range. You think a modern boeing has a better engine layout for low level stuff?
|
>>
>> >> It limits the choice of power plants, its adds hugely to the cost of
>> maintenance.
>> No it doesn't the engines were quite cheap, a gas turbine is a gas turbine
>> the cost aren't high lots of companies could have built the engine req'd.
Its this thinking that had it 10 years late and billions of pounds over cost. A gas turbine is not a gas turbine. The location of the engine requires exclusive use of the Rolls-Royce BR710, an expensive power plant built in small numbers
>>
>>
>> >> The engines are only there because its a Comet and there was nowhere else
>> to
>> >> put them. No-one else ever put engines there. For good reasons. Its a 60
>> year
>> >> old design.
>> And a good one for asuw ops. It could shut down 2 engines and extend
>> it's range. You think a modern boeing has a better engine layout for low level
>> stuff?
If you were to design long range maritime patrol or ASUW you would design based round a turbo prop. The design of the Nimrod is the way it is because the use of the comet was forced upon the builders. It was a bad choice. It was a bad choice 60 years ago and it still is.
|
Indeed, I think you are on the right lines
I also think there is a lot of sentiment caught up here with those that think we need an airborne ELINT platform with a all theatre maritime capability.
However I do not think the Afganis or any other of those nations we are currently engaging with or will engage with pose much of a maritime threat.
I have seen the what is left of the old Soviet High Seas and Baltic Fleets as I travel extensively in the CEE/CIS and I think most of what is left is not too much worry to the other NATO countries that would undoubtedly see it before us.
Therefore it is time to think from scratch if we are going to spend on an airborne defence platform how much should each one cost? £1bn? £2bn, £4bn (Nimrod projected final cost each) or more?
Should they be manned or unmanned?
Should they have full all task ELINT capability for any theatre anywhere in the world?
Or should they just have UK evesdropping capability?
What are they needed to command and control (given they are not hardened why should such a capability be airborne and not underground somewhere?)
Or are there other options that do not just offer employment to 51 Sqn?
As always
Mark
Last edited by: Mark on Fri 28 Jan 11 at 21:59
|
>> Its this thinking that had it 10 years late and billions of pounds over cost.
>> A gas turbine is not a gas turbine. The location of the engine requires exclusive
>> use of the Rolls-Royce BR710, an expensive power plant built in small numbers
the engines weren't delayed they were built on time. The maker or design of the engines wasn't a problem nor was the location. The 700 series has been built in pretty large numbers.
>> If you were to design long range maritime patrol or ASUW you would design based
>> round a turbo prop. The design of the Nimrod is the way it is because
>> the use of the comet was forced upon the builders. It was a bad choice.
>> It was a bad choice 60 years ago and it still is.
>>
Why would you built it around a turbo prop, they can do the job and are good at it. But don't pretend that there is some inheirted fault with using nimrod, it is an excellent, and would have been, multi role a/c. What marks turboprop a/c out as a better design than the nimrod?
|
Haven't logged in for a while, but the nonsense spouted by Zero boiled my blood. All you're demonstrating is your ignorance of the role the aircraft did.
Firstly Nimrod MR4a is 90% a new aircraft. It was PAID FOR and a few months from service. The cost to scrap it was 200million, which would have operated it for years.
Piper Alpha? Nimrod had high speed transit and was able to loiter on the scene for hours directing the rescue effort. No other aircraft could do that.
Other aircraft. The US have tried to adapt the 737 into the P8. It's late and over-budget. The two underslung engines cannot are totally unsuited to the environment. The aircraft cannot operate at low-level and is suffering sever buffeting problems that they can't solve.
Liam Fox initially stated it would be a catastrophe if the aircraft was lost. He is now toeing the party line and suddenly stating it isn't a problem.
Dave and Liam have stated that SAR cover, Maritime cover and the other roles Nimrod carried out is now done by C130, Merlin helicopters and a Type 23 Frigate. Utter nonsense and a blatant lie. The C130s are all flat out servicing Afghanistan and unsuited to the role anyway. Merlin is to slow and hasn't the range. Type 23? Where?
You can stick your head in the sand, but we do need the ELINT capability of the R1 and MR2. They were supreme at what they did. Rivet Joint replacements are all 45 years old already, good deal that!
MR4a had a few minor issues around the flap hinge that had been reolved a long time ago. It was airworthy and ready to go.
As well as losing the aircraft, we're also losing the expertise that went with it. That's not something that can be replaced overnight. Sadly, we've replaced one criminally incompetent Government, with another, that has totally betrayed the armed forces, preferring to spend the money on ludicrously expensive and useless wind farms and overseas bribes (£10 billion worth)
|
|
I'm outa here. Just remember who started the insults this time as well.
Last edited by: Zero on Fri 28 Jan 11 at 21:55
|
>> I'm outa here. Just remember who started the insults this time as well.
>>
I thought you had thicker skin zero ;-)
|
>> Firstly Nimrod MR4a is 90% a new aircraft. It was PAID FOR and a few
>> months from service. The cost to scrap it was 200million, which would have operated it
>> for years.
I think that was the cost of one years operation.
>>
>> Piper Alpha? Nimrod had high speed transit and was able to loiter on the scene
>> for hours directing the rescue effort. No other aircraft could do that.
>>
Can't disagree with you on that, or pretty much else you wrote, i've no doubt there are people who are alive today thanks to nimrod and her crews throughout the last god knows how long the ARRC and nimrod have been helping people in distress out to sea.
|
>> That's not something that can be replaced overnight. Sadly, we've replaced one criminally incompetent Government,
>> with another, that has totally betrayed the armed forces, preferring to spend the money on
>> ludicrously expensive and useless wind farms and overseas bribes (£10 billion worth)
>>
Very reasoned argument that (NOT)!
More an irrational rant, methinks.
|
I admit to not reading the bulk of the long thread - apologies. But have an opinion based on what I have read.
The old airframes that were to be re-used are from a time when they are basically all unique. So refitting them has been a problem.... how do you manufacture new wings for a batch of planes when they are all slightly differently? Answer - by making bespoke components.
These planes are really old in design terms - need a spare part then it has to be made. And therefore all the personnel needed to maintain them (nine planes) need to be kept on and paid... all expense.
The planes are not spy planes either. They are maritime patrol planes with sub-hunting abilities except:
- We have other means of spotting the subs
- The 'spy plane' bit probably comes from the MRA2's relaying comms for special forces in Afghanistan... which could be done by a drone. And the real Nimrod spy planes are the R2s anyway and they are not part of this discussion.
These were old planes being refitted and there have been delays. Had these entered service 10 years ago then they would be expensive for what they are. The real expense being long term support.
Even if we had continued as a country.... call it £4bn and 10 planes. So £400mn each. Without support costs going forward. The better Boeing P8 is far cheaper.
|
|
Should have added those in military power do not mourn these outdated planes... they want the capability they offered. They were out of date and overpriced. And late.
|
>> Should have added those in military power do not mourn these outdated planes... they want
>> the capability they offered. They were out of date and overpriced. And late.
They were over budget and late, but out of date no chance they were world leading.
|
My reply to myself was worded wrong - they want the capability promised. These planes could not deliver.
Imagine how much airframes this old would cost to maintain over say the next 30 years. They were airworthy but any part would have to be made bespoke for the plane. This programme of works should have been cancelled a long time ago.
|
>> The old airframes that were to be re-used are from a time when they are
>> basically all unique. So refitting them has been a problem.... how do you manufacture new
>> wings for a batch of planes when they are all slightly differently? Answer - by
>> making bespoke components.
Yes, they needed specifically built wings, built by airbus.
- need a spare part then it has to be made. And therefore all the personnel needed to maintain them (nine planes) need to be kept on and paid... all expense.
same as any other a/c really.
>> - We have other means of spotting the subs.
As good as the nimrod? which are?
>>
>> These were old planes being refitted and there have been delays. Had these entered service
>> 10 years ago then they would be expensive for what they are. The real expense
>> being long term support.
Yes the costs were about £200m a year, although saying that the biggest cost for a lot of project were the running costs, rather than the costs to bring in service.
The better Boeing P8 is far cheaper.
Unlikely the important stuff,the mission control centre is the same or weaker than nimrod, the nacelles create a large drag for the a/c in one of it's primary roles asuw, for that it has to be at low level, this will hinder it hugely.
|
>> As good as the nimrod? which are?
We have lots of other sub detection systems for the UK itself. Further afield the Type 23 frigates and our own subs.
>> same as any other a/c really.
So a spare part for the P8 based on a 737 is probably available already. For the sole 9 flying Comets (i.e. the Nimrods) they would not be available. And they couldn't because each part would have to be made to fit a particular plane. The airframes were not identical. A part from one might not and probably would not fit another.
The Nimrod was out of date as was it's electronic/computer systems. Read real reports on this rather than the biased press.
Good riddance Nimrod I say.
Last edited by: rtj70 on Fri 28 Jan 11 at 23:38
|
>> >> As good as the nimrod? which are?
>>
>> We have lots of other sub detection systems for the UK itself. Further afield the
>> Type 23 frigates and our own subs.
Can they track subs as you are suggesting yes, can they do it as well as nimrod they can cover many multipules of the area that a sub and a type 23 could cover.
So a spare part for the P8 based on a 737 is probably available already.
>> For the sole 9 flying Comets (i.e. the Nimrods) they would not be available. And
>> they couldn't because each part would have to be made to fit a particular plane.
>> The airframes were not identical. A part from one might not and probably would not
>> fit another.
Not true say a fuel pump went u/s (or another line component) a replacement would fit the entire fleet.
>>
>> The Nimrod was out of date as was it's electronic/computer systems. Read real reports on this rather than the biased press.
I have and serving I have seen plenty of info about it, the idea that it's out of date is no more than wishful thinking. If accepted into service it was as good as anything on the planet. Don't read into all this nonesense about it 'being as powerful as a ps3' guff.
|
We disagree then. For the lifetime of the plane parts need replacing and not just fuel pumps. It was going to cost a lot of money to have in service and the only one that was airworthy... well wasn't. It highlighted problems.
It's out of date as an airframe. What went into it if it was the same as proposed in the 90s was also out of date in 2011.
Scrap them and lets admit we need to buy something modern. And over the lifetime of their use it will be cheaper.
Even if we take the £4.1bn figure and divide by 9 it was a lot of money. One can fly (but not safe) and maybe 3 others partly built. So the £4.1bn was not even the final figure.
|
>> We disagree then. For the lifetime of the plane parts need replacing and not just
>> fuel pumps. It was going to cost a lot of money to have in service
>> and the only one that was airworthy... well wasn't. It highlighted problems.
Yes more than fuel pumps needed changing, mine was just an example that not everything needing building to a specific airframe as you had suggested. the cost per year was about £200m per year.
It's out of date as an airframe.
'Fraid not as pointed out earlier on it's a new aircraft.
What went into it if it was the same as proposed in the 90s was also out of date in 2011.
That is the nature of electronics as soon as they are built and designed something else on the drawing board is better. But there is long way from having some computer that is faster than the latest design, but is still better than the functionality that the Nimrod was built for.
>> Scrap them and lets admit we need to buy something modern. And over the lifetime
>> of their use it will be cheaper.
Even with P-8 this is unlikely, unless your thinking of something of else, which would be?
>> Even if we take the £4.1bn figure and divide by 9 it was a lot
>> of money. One can fly (but not safe) and maybe 3 others partly built. So
>> the £4.1bn was not even the final figure.
It is a lot but look at the US for cost overuns, they aren't the panacea people pretend. They have massive cost overuns on all sorts of projects. Generally stuff like this costs a lot, you get what you pay for.
|
Mdf said it all for me, the thing would get blown out of the sky if it ever came up against a proper airforce in true wartime conditions... Waste of money.
'Bout time the MOD joined the real world regarding costs instead of living in cloud cuckoo land.
|
>> Mdf said it all for me, the thing would get blown out of the sky
>> if it ever came up against a proper airforce in true wartime conditions... Waste of
>> money.
>>
So what about C130/Sentry/A400/KC135/Orion/ The beloved P8 that doesn't work and all the other large, unarmed aircraft.
In a warzone they don't go out alone. They are part of a 'package' and with four jet engines you can run away faster than you can with four turbo-props.
This thread is a good example of why Governments can get away with perverse decisions such as this and also proves the threory that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.
Just a reminder for those that criticise the Nimrod as a 1950's airliner then sing the praises of Orion. Orion is based on the 1950's Lockheed Electra airliner, which failed as the engines had a habit of falling off. It was converted into an MPA. It is now suffereing serious fatigue problems because of the low level environment it works in . Nimrod MR2 still had many thousands of hours of fatigue life left, but was withdrawn anyway. The airframe was ideal for the environment it worked in.
There is no doubt BAe have taken the proverbial for a long time now. But the failing is succesive Governments for signing contracts with lots of get-out clauses and constatntly changing the specs halfway through build. Then Gormless Gordon chose to delay it and reduce numbers.
Lots of tabloid nonsense on this thread, but facts are often ignored for a good rant.
|
>> Mdf said it all for me, the thing would get blown out of the sky
>> if it ever came up against a proper airforce in true wartime conditions... Waste of
>> money.
>>
>> 'Bout time the MOD joined the real world regarding costs instead of living in cloud
>> cuckoo land.
>>
Yes.
Any country which managed to order and build Challenger tanks after the fall of the Berlin Wall and the collapse of the Soviet threat in Western Europe has a MOD which is living in the past and unable to see beyond its nose.
See also the European Joint Strike Fighter.. and modern stealth destroyers costing over £1 billion each.
I ask you . £1 billion for a destroyer... Crazy. Makes no economic or military sense. As a result we ordered two aircraft carriers and not enough destroyers to defend it.
Whilst I accept the politicians are to blame to an extent, I see no sign of any senior military people resigning over these basic issues.
And I mean basic: the procurement policy ensures we are basically spreading a budget too thinly and achieving nothing.
When you have limited means you concentarte of doing a few things well rather than everything badly. That's simple common sense and elementary thinking. The MOD don't do common sense.
As for anyone attempting to persuade me Nimrod is world beating...!!!!!!!!!
|
>>
>> As for anyone attempting to persuade me Nimrod is world beating...!!!!!!!!!
>>
Why, what part of it's systems isn't, and what MPA is the best in the world in your opinion?
|
|
Don't forget the Typhoons (@£80 million each) designed to repel marauding Soviet bombers and which came into service 10 years after the threat had gone!
|
|
I thought the threat had come back - more incursions of NATO airspace in recent months than in preceding years now that the Russians have re-furbished their "Bears" - unless of course it's RAF propaganda (more than possible) trouble is kit like the Typhoon's lead time was so long that by the time it was specified, designed and built and delivered the threats have changed.
|
They are doing 'probing' flights which enable them to establish what the radar pick up range is and what the reaction time of the alert aircraft is. If we had a means of establishing that they were carrying conventional weapons and the target was the House of Commons we could consider letting then thru - perhaps??!!
Re procurement, time scales and threats it is worth noting that the Hurricane went from first flight to 200 aircraft delivered in just over 2 years. Admittedly, a much simpler aircraft and a much more real threat to meet.
|
Hurricane bares no comparison in fairness !
The option would have been to buy in American kit - but there is a repsonsibility to maintain our own defence industry as well for export (something that we're still pretty good at by the way)
|
>but there is a
>> repsonsibility to maintain our own defence industry as well for export (something that we're still
>> pretty good at by the way)
>>
That's fair enough, PU, but why does the taxpayer have to pay for all the development costs? Because that's in effect what's happening on these overruns the MOD allow... I wonder just how many of these companies would still be in existence if they were made to work to a fixed price contract and forced to deliver at that price like the real world has to...
The Government bodies (not just the MOD) have a truly awful record of price and time over-runs with stuff they buy, its about time it was stopped. If that means we buy stuff developed by others then so be it, we can still insist on construction of the stuff in this country if you want to keep jobs, which is what many countries already do (incl the US with the Harrier!)...
Last edited by: hobby on Sun 30 Jan 11 at 09:45
|
|
You're absolutely right. Think about the SA80 rifle.
|
>>
>> That's fair enough, PU, but why does the taxpayer have to pay for all the
>> development costs? Because that's in effect what's happening on these overruns the MOD allow... I wonder just how many of these companies would still be in existence if they were
>> made to work to a fixed price contract and forced to deliver at that price
>> like the real world has to...
Good point, the gov did that with the new a400m, airbus issured them they weren't like all the other defence companies they mainly sold to private companies which demanded fixed costs and strict timescales. Yet when it overan we gave them the same amount of money for fewer aircraft for political reasons.
>> The Government bodies (not just the MOD) have a truly awful record of price and
>> time over-runs with stuff they buy, its about time it was stopped. If that means
>> we buy stuff developed by others then so be it, we can still insist on
>> construction of the stuff in this country if you want to keep jobs, which is
>> what many countries already do (incl the US with the Harrier!)...
Whatever country we buy from would no doubt suffer the same problems, the US have at least as many similar problems if not more. The main problem is politicians, things get stopped or changed for political reasons and then you get the time and cost problems, all govs suffer from it, to a lesser or greater extent.
|
>> Whatever country we buy from would no doubt suffer the same problems, the US have
>> at least as many similar problems if not more. The main problem is politicians, things
>> get stopped or changed for political reasons and then you get the time and cost
>> problems, all govs suffer from it, to a lesser or greater extent.
>>
I was thinking specifically about those computer "programmes" where money seems to have been spent like water in the NHS and in some cases the whole thing has been abandoned... I know that it happens in Private industry as well, but not to the same extent, it seems that some contractors see Gov-run business as a gravy train to be milked as much as possible... bit of mixed metaphors, but you know what I mean...
Someone has to get a grip on things... If that means buying "off the shelf" stuff rather than developing new then so be it... After all do we really need stuff that is different to what the French, German, US, etc. are using?
Last edited by: hobby on Sun 30 Jan 11 at 12:41
|
>> I was thinking specifically about those computer "programmes" where money seems to have been spent like water in the NHS and in some cases the whole thing has been abandoned...
>> I know that it happens in Private industry as well, but not to the same
>> extent, it seems that some contractors see Gov-run business as a gravy train to be
>> milked as much as possible... bit of mixed metaphors, but you know what I mean...
Yes I think it does happen more often like you say, I don't know much about IT contracts, but I know one contractor how said he always charges 50-100% more on daily rate because it's the such a pain working with any public sector on IT.
>>
>> Someone has to get a grip on things... If that means buying "off the shelf"
>> stuff rather than developing new then so be it... After all do we really need
>> stuff that is different to what the French, German, US, etc. are using?
Quite a difficult one that, it can help us with the exporting things if we make them. The more, typhoons for example, we export the cheaper ours become to maintain in the future. There's also the political angle to think of 'Gov exports jobs to europe!' and the such like headlines.
|
>> Yes I think it does happen more often like you say, I don't know much
>> about IT contracts, but I know one contractor how said he always charges 50-100% more
>> on daily rate because it's the such a pain working with any public sector on
>> IT.
Its mostly because HM gov refuses to act like a customer. Far too many diverse people and departments have their say in what they want to buy, how it should be delivered and what to pay, have little or no concept of commercial reality or time scale, and approval processes are utterly impossible.
The big killer for every Government contact in any field is scope creep. "Oh can we have this, and can it do this instead, we dont really want that any more, but can we have this instead"
I project managed one small contract (£500k) at a defence establishment. Fortunately it was a fixed price deal, but at my first meeting I said to the senior executive "You have two weeks to agree the scope with your departments and then you and agree what I am going to deliver. If it changes in ANY way, and I mean ANY way after that, I will cancel the contract and invoke the penalty clause"
|
>> I project managed one small contract (£500k) at a defence establishment. Fortunately it was a
>> fixed price deal, but at my first meeting I said to the senior executive "You
>> have two weeks to agree the scope with your departments and then you and agree
>> what I am going to deliver. If it changes in ANY way, and I mean
>> ANY way after that, I will cancel the contract and invoke the penalty clause"
>>
Rather proves my point, Z... If someone "takes charge" then things shouldn't get out of hand... Its just that it should be the person spending the money, not the supplier!
|
I have limited experience of government IT contracts but we did have two in my area, both motoring related actually. I leave you to speculate. While all customers can be a pain at time, government agencies excel at it. There is frequent change of management. The new guy always wants to throw his weight around. Everything has to stop and be justified (again) to him. Unfortunately my management usually caved in to all of this, with the remarkable result that, so far as I know, we made very little profit on such contracts. But we kept going after them, then got kicked because profitability was low or non existent.
On one occasion we were expected to provide details of every patch included in a patch set, what it did, what it superseded, what the superseded ones did etc etc etc. Many trees worth. What was he going to do with this information? Was he qualified to understand it? He was just throwing his weight about. We just stopped applying patches becasue the work would have been impossible.
Everything gets tailored to the point where it cannot be upgraded and you have a chain of dependencies such that the application is modded such that it depends upon features in the database & os which possibly work differently in later versions. You cannot upgrade the application becasue of the cost of re-working the tailoring which means that you cannot upgrade the db, nor the os which ultimately measn that you cannot upgrade the hardware. It doesn't take very many years before the whole thing is out of support by the various vendors and when something goes wrong you're somewhere without a paddle. Then the foolish stamp their feet and say "but they must!!".
I'm glad I'm out of it.
John
|
>> Don't forget the Typhoons (@£80 million each) designed to repel marauding Soviet bombers and which came into service 10 years after the threat had gone!
It wasn't designed just for that, it is multi role it can do air to ground as well.
|
|
True, but they weren't initially intended for, or equipped for, ground attack SFAIK. The capability has been added at extra cost. to justify their existence.
|
|
The Pilots love them though ;-)
|
>> True, but they weren't initially intended for, or equipped for, ground attack SFAIK. The capability has been added at extra cost. to justify their existence.
No, it was designed with it mind from the very beginning, the UK wanted it replaced more than one aircraft. Although I can see how people might think that, in most newspapers when mentioning it, you have to write 'cold war fighter' after, possibly on pain of death. ;-)
BTW what's SFAIK mean?
|
>> BTW what's SFAIK mean?
>>
So Far As I Know
|
>> BTW what's SFAIK mean?
So Far As I Know
|
>> >> BTW what's SFAIK mean?
>>
>> So Far As I Know
>>
Copy cat! ;-)
|
Sorry to split hairs here Sooty. The aircraft as designed, may have had the potential for an air to ground role but, as first built, did not have the capability. It did not drop a bomb of any sort until it had been in service for some years and, even now, is not deployed on any task requiring the dropping of bombs.
See also this.
Early RAF Typhoons to be retired
The Royal Air Force is to lose up to 55 of its early ‘Tranche 1’ Eurofighter Typhoons.
Gary Parsons - 13-Jan-2011
Early Typhoons could be retired as early as 2015. Key – Gary Parsons
January 13: The Guardian newspaper reports that the Royal Air Force is to lose up to 55 of its early ‘Tranche 1’ Eurofighter Typhoons by 2015 in further cost-cutting measures.
Introduced in 2005, the early aircraft will be retired as it will be “too expensive” to upgrade them to the latest Tranche 3 standard, says the report.
|
>> Sorry to split hairs here Sooty. The aircraft as designed, may have had the potential
>> for an air to ground role but, as first built, did not have the capability.
Yes the first lot didn't do bombing, as the priority was to replace the F3. Leaving out what the air to ground stuff meant it could replace them quicker.
>> It did not drop a bomb of any sort until it had been in service
>> for some years and, even now, is not deployed on any task requiring the dropping
>> of bombs.
I think it was three years, one reason for it not being used to drop bombs (amounst others) is that the fleet is too small.
>>
>> Early RAF Typhoons to be retired
>>
I've seen that report before and from what I heard in a briefing three weeks ago, I don't think it's that accurate.
|
|
A major problem, which contributed to the delay and escalating costs, was that the original airframes were not 'exactly' the same in terms of dimensions. One airframe was measured, 12 sets of wings were manufactured and they only fitted the airframe which had been measured. The other eleven sets didn't fit and had to be modified to fit each individual airframe
|
An RAF engineer, with an interest in Nimrods, as his son was killed in the one which caught fire and exploded in Afghanistan posts :-
What I know about the MRA4 program over the last year or so:
1. Some bright spark put the main control box for the ailerons at the back of the bomb bay - open the doors and catch a bird and you go for a swim (at the very best!)
2. The company tried to deliver the aircraft to the RAF without a sonobuoy clearance (hence you may as well use Sentry maritime modes)
3. The flap brackets completely failed (on I think 2 out of 3) after just a bit of flying (this one is not mentioned by the ST = Sunday Times))
4. The nose gear had an issue with poor tolerance (just another indicator of shoddiness - see above and below for more)
5. Hot air, fuel and an ignition source inside the same zonal area without a means to extinguish ( - shame on you) and that was in the wing.
6. A rudder that was too small and gave a pitiful amount of authority for VMCA and VMCG issues when asymmetric (I think they have got on top of that one).
7. An aircraft without an icing clearance - not too clever for something based in Scotland and that hunts in the Iceland-Faroes gap!
8. Issues with build quality, where things were not torqued correctly or wire locked off correctly - so much so that the company were asked to go back and look at everything again plus get new signatures for all of the work
|
|
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12707222 - couple of Nimrods get a temporary reprieve.
|
There's still a couple of old shackletons knocking around here. One is still flying.
Bung a few mill our way, and we could have them done up lovely!
They'd do the ASR job!
|
Necessary or disgrace? - Perky Penguin
