|
Post by carefreeoufc on Jan 27, 2011 21:57:04 GMT
What are peoples thoughts on the scrapping of the recently built 4bn nimrod fleet? Personally I think it's ridiculous the planes had been built and paid for and are now costing 2mil to strip to scrap.
I also don't like the fact that things like this that are used throughout the world to protect our armed forces and on occasions us have now been thrown to the junk yard. Anyone think it was for the best?
|
|
|
Post by Lone Gunman on Jan 27, 2011 22:11:04 GMT
Trouble with the whole defence cuts issue is that we don't, and won't for the forseeable, know what the real logic was in making them. The media also has a certain way of spinning such decisions. For example, a lot of fuss was raised over the scrapping of the Harrier and HMS Ark royal. In that case however, one decision could not be taken without the other and despite the capability gap the loss of the Harrier represents, the Navy will ultimately be getting the more capable version of the F35 that the Navy chiefs wanted in the first place. This point was not raised in the media at the time.
As for the Nimrod, while it is sad to see it go, and it seems like there will be a significant capability gap there, the Nimrod was a ageing aiframe recently involved in a high profile accident. The MRA4 went several hundred million pounds overbudget and would have been about five years late coming into service. Air-to-air refuelling on the type has been suspended, thus potentially limiting the MRA4's worth as a maritime patrol aircraft anyway. I doubt a decision to cut the fleet would have got through had not the brass hats been confident that they could compensate for the non-arrival of the aircraft.
So is it for the best? It depends on what is being put in place to replace the Nimrod, and what the strategic vision going forward is. Sadly these, especially the latter, are things we are unlikely to be adequately aware of for some time.
|
|
|
Post by alessandro on Jan 27, 2011 23:15:17 GMT
2bn saved in operational costs. They're already out of date because they were commissioned and designed ten years ago.
I genuinely can't see an invasion from the Atlantic any time soon.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 28, 2011 10:46:21 GMT
Can't make an informed comment about what exactly we need and don't need, but in my view the amount we spend on defence seems disproportionate to the risk.
|
|
|
Post by Lone Gunman on Jan 28, 2011 13:32:07 GMT
Just picking up on the argument that 'we probably won't need em so why have 'em,' I think you'd find most forces chiefs highly critical of that view. At the end of the day you need to have the capability to match any scenario which could concievably emerge and is in line with your strategic vision. Letting things slide just because you doubt you will need them in the immediate future is short sighted and can be dangerous.
It seems that the Tories have been banking on there being no real change in the style of conflict Britian will be expected to take part in for at least the next ten or so years given where the defence cuts have fallen.
|
|
|
Post by sheikdjibouti on Jan 28, 2011 13:51:12 GMT
Just picking up on the argument that 'we probably won't need em so why have 'em,' I think you'd find most forces chiefs highly critical of that view. At the end of the day you need to have the capability to match any scenario which could concievably emerge and is in line with your strategic vision. Letting things slide just because you doubt you will need them in the immediate future is short sighted and can be dangerous. It seems that the Tories have been banking on there being no real change in the style of conflict Britian will be expected to take part in for at least the next ten or so years given where the defence cuts have fallen. "A capability to match any scenario" The spitfire and vulcan were also capable aircraft that could match many scenarios in their day . . . There are a rapidly diminishing number of scenarios that the Nimrod could capably match. Can they provide the best capability in counter-terrorist detection? Can they provide the best solution in counter insurgency detection? Is anybody really likely to send subs across the Atlantic/ North Sea to attack us? Most of the technology they employ is already obsolete - hat will only get worse without even more money chucked at them. It is very sad because they have provided very valuable service over a long period, however I really can't see that they are any kind of medium or long term solution and the world has moved on somewhat.
|
|
|
Post by moobs on Jan 28, 2011 14:31:14 GMT
Is Trident still going ahead?
|
|
|
Post by carefreeoufc on Jan 28, 2011 15:57:56 GMT
As far as I'm aware and I am not 100% on this but it I am sure I have heard that the new Trident system is on the scrap heap too and we are keeping what we have.
I am not 100% on that and I am sure someone will know what's going on with it.
Personally I agree with Lone Gunman, in my opinion the Government are gambling on warfare or attacks on our Country not developing into anything that may require the Nimrod Fleet.
The trouble is I don't think it is something we should gamble on. Although I would put a fair wedge on them not being required for an attack on our own soil I think they are imperitave to British operations throughout the world.
A lot has happened between 2000-2010 and with economies being slashed, tensions rising in some areas and the development of enriched uranium in Iran (For peaceful purposes of course) I dont think it is something we should be gambling on.
The Nimrod fleet is not just used to protect our own soil they are used for recon and tactical surveillance of "problem areas". I would be interested to see how much money is spent annually watching you and me walk down the high street and how this compares to costs of monitoring other areas.
There probably is no real comparrison in that but I just hope it's not a gamble that lives to haunt us in the future.
As for saying that the system is already out of date, would that not be the case with all technological advances or developments?
|
|
|
Post by moobs on Jan 28, 2011 16:20:03 GMT
I disagree. The enemy of today are just mad mullahs from the middle east.
We had all the hoo haa of fall out and nuclear attacks in the 70's and 80's, it was all rubbish that we even laugh about today.
All you need is good intelligence and adequate armed forces where neccesary.
Anway, India are on our side and they are nuked up to the eyeballs
|
|
|
Post by carefreeoufc on Jan 28, 2011 16:23:47 GMT
I agree with mad mullah and co being a threat but, Good intelligence will go out of the window when we have to rely on other nations or on the ground intelligence instead of aireal recon.
Saying that it didnt do much good prior to cough cough Iraq.
|
|
|
Post by Lone Gunman on Jan 28, 2011 16:49:52 GMT
As far as I'm aware and I am not 100% on this but it I am sure I have heard that the new Trident system is on the scrap heap too and we are keeping what we have.I am not 100% on that and I am sure someone will know what's going on with it. Personally I agree with Lone Gunman, in my opinion the Government are gambling on warfare or attacks on our Country not developing into anything that may require the Nimrod Fleet. The trouble is I don't think it is something we should gamble on. Although I would put a fair wedge on them not being required for an attack on our own soil I think they are imperitave to British operations throughout the world. A lot has happened between 2000-2010 and with economies being slashed, tensions rising in some areas and the development of enriched uranium in Iran (For peaceful purposes of course) I dont think it is something we should be gambling on. The Nimrod fleet is not just used to protect our own soil they are used for recon and tactical surveillance of "problem areas". I would be interested to see how much money is spent annually watching you and me walk down the high street and how this compares to costs of monitoring other areas. There probably is no real comparrison in that but I just hope it's not a gamble that lives to haunt us in the future. As for saying that the system is already out of date, would that not be the case with all technological advances or developments? I think i can pretty much categorically say that is not the case. Trident may well be on the scrap heap but there is simply no way we could go on with what we have. The trident subs and missiles cannot remain in service forever. In addition they need to be capable of actually hitting a target which they will not be able to without serious expenditure in the near future as ABM defences improve. A nuclear deterrent is useless if it is not credible and obsolete trident boats with little or no penetrative power are not credible. A replacement must, and I think will, be ordered soon. Whether this is a like for like replacement using ballistic missile subs or something else such as SLCM's or some kind of air launched cruise missile system for the RAF remains to be seen. As for the sheikh's comments, I don't understand the allusion to the spitfire and vulcan. They were indeed very capable aircraft in their day. I presume you were trying to suggest the Nimrod is out of date. It's an ageing airframe certainly but that doesn't mean that its on board systems and avionics cannot be improved with time. The US is still operating the B52, an aircraft developed in the early 1950s, and that is with a type of aircraft, a bomber, which is much harder to update and keep effective. The Nimrod MRA4 was effectively a new aircraft with the same fuselage but new wings and engines and a completely new electronic fit. In effect it was a brand new aircraft, rather then a rehash of an old design, which it think undermines your obsolesance point somewhat. Maritime patrol should still be a major part of UK strategy given our comparatively large and complex navy, our island status and a seeming commitment to continued expeditionary operations. The last time we drew down our maritime patrol and AEW capability was in the early 80s, and one of the reasons we lost so many ships during the Falklands war was because of a lack of top cover from patrol and early warning aircraft. Finally to address Moobs 'mad mullah' comment, the term 'mad mullah' was heavily used in the thirties, another decade of economic crisis during which Britain significantly reduced the capability of her armed forces. Sadly an unforseen development involving an austrian corporal in the middle of that decade changed the strategic landscape. Britain went to war unprepared as a result of this short sightedness, and nearly lost the conflict as a result.
|
|
|
Post by Chris1986 on Jan 28, 2011 16:51:05 GMT
These Nimrods aren't actually brand new planes.
They are just MRA3's which were undergoing a major rebuild and overhaul but the basic air frame is an old aircraft.
That is the main problem they have. They've had to bastardise them so much to try and cram everything in and modernise them that they caused all the problems the program has experienced. They would have been better off just using a newer airframe like an airbus a340 or 737 and adapting it to the needs. Most other nations have done this to fill the roll that the Nimrod performs.
It does seem stupid to scrap the MRA4 program now it's well under way but the most stupid decision was to go ahead with it in the first place.
|
|
|
Post by Lone Gunman on Jan 28, 2011 17:10:25 GMT
These Nimrods aren't actually brand new planes. They are just MRA3's which were undergoing a major rebuild and overhaul but the basic air frame is an old aircraft.That is the main problem they have. They've had to bastardise them so much to try and cram everything in and modernise them that they caused all the problems the program has experienced. They would have been better off just using a newer airframe like an airbus a340 or 737 and adapting it to the needs. Most other nations have done this to fill the roll that the Nimrod performs. It does seem stupid to scrap the MRA4 program now it's well under way but the most stupid decision was to go ahead with it in the first place. I'm pretty sure that's not quite right. The MRA4 had the same body as the MR2 but new wings housing new engines, the fuselages were totally stripped out and remodelled and given a new glass cockpit based on the airbus A340. I agree it was probably a mistake to go ahead with the program though. Various other offers were on the table including refurbished P-3 orions from India at very low cost, but all of this would not have retained the skills base in the UK. Although it has to be said that goal seems pretty pointless considering the outcome of the project. Whatever the situation the Tories must be confident the strategic situation will not change and they can get around the loss of the MRA4. This is what the national audit office had to say about the potential cancellation of the aircraft only last year: 'Loss of the capability offered by the Nimrod Maritime Reconnaissance and Attack Mk4 would have an adverse effect on the protection of the strategic nuclear deterrent, the provision of which is one of the Ministry of Defence’s Standing Strategic Tasks. In addition, the maintenance of the integrity of the UK through detection of hostile air and sea craft would be compromised.'
|
|
|
Post by Cobi Jones on Jan 28, 2011 22:52:46 GMT
Is Trident still going ahead? Yes
|
|
|
Post by oldman159 on Jan 29, 2011 22:57:36 GMT
I understand all these issues have led to the RAF itself referring to the next 10 years as a "Capability Holiday" ---- is that spin, or what?
I would be very interested to know how many senior officer posts are going - Not many I bet... Got to keep their "Airships" in jobs, dont cha know?
|
|
|
Post by Lone Gunman on Jan 29, 2011 23:30:07 GMT
I understand all these issues have led to the RAF itself referring to the next 10 years as a "Capability Holiday" ---- is that spin, or what? I would be very interested to know how many senior officer posts are going - Not many I bet... Got to keep their "Airships" in jobs, dont cha know? Actually i thought they were amalgamating some of the top roles into tri-service posts. Not sure though.
|
|