Scrapping RAF Nimrods 'perverse' say military chiefs
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-12294766

So, it's cost taxpayers £4bn so far, and another £200m to scrap them. What a waste!
I wonder how much more it will cost to complete them? Apparently, three of the planes are 90% finished. One is complete and ready to take off.

Why wouldn't it be possible to store these non-completed aircraft somewhere until such time that the country's finances are in a position to complete building them, or is that just too logical? I'm sure there's a very good reason why they're not doing that, but I can't think of it. Anyone?

It would be logical, save for the fact that apparently the technology they're fitted with is all but obsolete now. Gawd knows how out of date it'll be if the planes were mothballed indefinitely.

It does seem an odd way to save £2bn, when over £4bn has already been spent, but what can you do?

Incidentally, the idea of the aluminium scrap being baked bean tins next week made me chuckle. Drinks cans, maybe, but not food tins.

It looked form the pics as if it was just airframes, not much tech in there yet, but appearances may be decepticve. As they are based on the 1950's comet deisgn, it does seem reasonable to just stuff them in a hanger somewhere rather than breaking them up.


Unless they are being repurposed as part of our secret aerospace fleet.

Frankly it should have been canned years ago.

Governments seems to have a bizarre way of saving money. Well I hope that there is a problem at the Olympics that the Nimrods would have prevented. That will cover the entire coalition with egg. At the rate they are going they will have dismantled the NHS and much of the welfare state before they are removed in a few years time. I doubt that they will win another election at this rate.

Should never have kept throwing money at this project.

Could have and should have purchased the US Awax planes ages ago for better price.

hope they dont scrap the nimrod simulators, uncle works for that and I love having shots in them as its so realistic

I don't understand why we should pay BAE to cancel an order when they are 9 years behind schedule.

Being 9 years behind and billions over budget is tantamount to grand fraud. BAE should surely be compensating us for their massive failure to deliver on the contract?!

What, like hunter-killer submarines in the aquatic centre pool? The Nimrod MR4's are/were subhunters. They wouldn't have got within a couple of hundred miles of the Olympic arenas at any point in their working life, whatever it may have been.

Jon

In order to store a military aircraft you have to:

• Continually train all the crew, engineers and pilots
• Store all the parts
• Keep manufacturing facilities available if new parts are needed
• Keep updating the electronics
• Continually check the airframe for deterioration

That's not a cheap option for any aircraft. Now add in that by March the mothballed aircraft would be the only operable Nimrods in the fleet and the cost skyrockets. There are no aircraft on which the crews, engineers and pilots can train. The cost of keeping plant available is only sensible if there are other aircraft of the same or similar type who can use it (which there wouldn't be). The parts would also be prohibitively expensive because you either keep the plant available to produce them, produce and store a massive quantity of parts or contract out the specialist manufacture of parts for a coach-built aircraft at some point in the future. Then you add in that, because of the already colossal overrun, the electronics for the aircraft are already years out of date so they they would need to be redesigned and re-fitted.

There's also another argument. The operating costs for any brand-new aircraft are typically between 2-3 times the purchase cost over the lifetime of the aircraft. These aircraft aren't brand-new in their design and so the operating costs could conceivably dwarf the purchase costs - they would be an albatross around the RAF's neck for years to come.

Remember also that the Ruperts that signed the letter didn't actually argue that we should keep the Nimrod but rather bemoaned that we are losing our long-range maritime patrol capability.



The P8A is a much better aircraft and costs one hell of a lot less - £160m each. For the same amount of money as we've already spent, we could have bought a Space Shuttle and a Stealth bomber and still had change left over.

Scrapping the MRA4 might flush a lot of money down the toilet but it's nowhere near as much as would be wasted if we actually kept and operated them.

The RAF have said that they would be an integral part of the Olympic security program. How I do not know.

I suspect they don't either but if it would save one of their little sinecures for another year or so, they're damn well going to claim it...

Jon

Exactly correct.

Give the man a golden Gladiolus.

All is explained here:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-12281640

But basically their are 10 years behind the latest technology so the planes are truly unusable...