spike7451 Posted June 18, 2010 Share Posted June 18, 2010 Once again!.... After announcing the privatisation of SAR services at HMS Gannet have been suspended,now this.Lets hope the are no disasters at sea that require SAR cover! http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/north_...nd/10347985.stm The deployment of the new Nimrod MR4A to RAF Kinloss will not happen until the end of this year, it has emerged. The delay was confirmed by the Ministry of Defence in a parliamentary answer to local MP and SNP defence spokesman Angus Robertson. The aircraft is due to replace the 30-year-old MR2, grounded in March. Dozens of jobs have already been lost at RAF Kinloss due to the withdrawal of the MR2, which was taken out of service a year early. The MoD had previously said that the new MR4A aircraft would arrive at the Moray airbase during the summer. 'Defence footprint' Fears have also been expressed that the base could be affected in the government's upcoming Strategic Defence and Security Review. The base is a major local employer and generates millions of pounds for the Moray economy. The news comes a day after the UK government announced a £7bn project to privatise search and rescue (SAR) services at HMS Gannet in Prestwick was on hold. Mr Robertson told BBC Scotland's Good Morning Scotland programme that the Nimrods provided enhanced support to search and rescue crews conducting operations far out at sea. He said the delay in deploying the MR4As could undermine future rescues. He added: "Now, with the introduction of the replacement Nimrods being put back, it means that this gap widens and it is literally a life and death issue because we know Nimrods, within recent months, were absolutely vital in ensuring that lives were saved. "It actually makes the case for the retention of Kinloss because it shows and highlights how important the Nimrod aircraft are around the nation's shores and it underlines why this incoming Liberal Conservative government needs to ensure that they do not undermine the defence footprint in Scotland, which has already suffered, under the last Labour government, serious cutbacks and a massive defence underspend." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
XV107 Posted June 19, 2010 Share Posted June 19, 2010 (edited) Far be it for me to suggest that an MP might (a.) have wilfully misinterpreted the answer or (b.) not understand what he's been told, but... The parliamentary written answer he received, and which appears to be the source for his claim of more delays said that the MRA4 would reach IOC in October 2012. IOC is defined for this aircraft as the fleet being able to provide 24hr cover for SAR and MP taskings for a certain number of days (the number being classified) The original plan for the MRA4 was for it to reach IOC in... October 2012, with IOC now defined as the fleet being able to provide 24hr cover for SAR and MP taskings for a certain number of days (the number being classified) The first airframes will now arrive next month, with a gap of 15 months between first aircraft into service and IOC being declared The first airframes were previously planned to arrive... next month, with a gap of 15 months between first aircraft into service and IOC being declared. So I'm a bit puzzled, and suspect that Mr Roberston would appear to be talking tosh, since the information he claims to show further delay in the programme simply isn't there, since the plan now is the same as it was several months ago. Granted, a combination of the budget next week and the SDSR might lead to further delays, but at the moment, Mr Robertson seems to have jumped the gun... Edited June 19, 2010 by XV107 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
amos brierley Posted July 18, 2010 Share Posted July 18, 2010 I think i know why you have miss intrepreted this infomation at hand, but , AM NOT AT LIBERTY TO SAY. I think you realy need to speak to BAe Systems to find out the answer........... you`ll laugh, cry and maybe get v.p****d off about it. I dont think its the minnisters fault. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vtecjack Posted July 18, 2010 Share Posted July 18, 2010 Can Bae systems actually build anything on time and on budget???? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daz greenwood Posted July 18, 2010 Share Posted July 18, 2010 Probably won't ever get the MRA4 now what with all the budget cuts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Julien Posted July 18, 2010 Share Posted July 18, 2010 Thats funny that a SNP member is critising the govt for not keeping an RAF station running. I thought the whole point of the SNP was Scottish devolution, with this all the RAF, Navy & Army will leave! Sorry for the polatics but it makes me laugh! Julien Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4scourge7 Posted July 18, 2010 Share Posted July 18, 2010 By the law of averages, you`d think that at least some big defence projects could be brought in on time and reasonably near budget by UK PLC. Someone, somewhere, is having a laugh at our expense as they light their Havana with a rolled-up fifty. And it isn`t our brave men and women in uniform having to make do because the shrinking defence budget was squandered on cost overruns and/or white elephants, again. Our service personel deserve better, they really bloody do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pilgrim_UK Posted July 18, 2010 Share Posted July 18, 2010 @Julien [extract of urea font on] I like having a say in english matters and you guys not having a say in scottish matters." [/extract of urea font off] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Julien Posted July 19, 2010 Share Posted July 19, 2010 By the law of averages, you`d think that at least some big defence projects could be brought in on time and reasonably near budget by UK PLC.Someone, somewhere, is having a laugh at our expense as they light their Havana with a rolled-up fifty. And it isn`t our brave men and women in uniform having to make do because the shrinking defence budget was squandered on cost overruns and/or white elephants, again. Our service personel deserve better, they really bloody do. I think this has been going on since warfare was invented, the lastest thing is always the best thing I doubt there has ever been a commisioned project which came in on time and budget. I think you have to look for private ventures which then became Projects for ontime and budget. Hurricane anyone? Julien Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TonyT Posted July 19, 2010 Share Posted July 19, 2010 Can Bae systems actually build anything on time and on budget???? That's what you get trying to nail computer manufactured wings onto handbuilt fuselages, OK for the first one, but after that nothing lines up, couple that with the fact you mount four engines that were never designed to be installed in long intake ducts and you have a recipe for disaster........ Odd rumours floating about that the Speckled Trout purchase is possibly off and the R1 may have to stay in service even longer.......... mind you, what plonker decided to replace the R1 with an Airframe that is even older than the ones they have now is beyond me....... Let's face it and I can see the phone call now...... "Hello Pentagon, MOD here, we would like to buy your Speckled Trouts"........... "Hey Mac, we have a Limey on the phone want's a couple of Trouts, which of the fleet are the old dogs?" "oh that'll be xxxx and xxxx"....." Hey MOD, suuuree, we have a couple of top notch Airframes here for you, just write us a blank cheque and they are your's....... commonality? suuure, they will be common to all of our gear, yours you say? suuure it could be made to work"...... "Hey Mac, those Limeys are sure stupid, they just bought em" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Posted July 19, 2010 Share Posted July 19, 2010 By the law of averages, you`d think that at least some big defence projects could be brought in on time and reasonably near budget by UK PLC.Someone, somewhere, is having a laugh at our expense as they light their Havana with a rolled-up fifty. And it isn`t our brave men and women in uniform having to make do because the shrinking defence budget was squandered on cost overruns and/or white elephants, again. Our service personel deserve better, they really bloody do. Whilst I agree with every word, can we nudge this one back away from the political side of things please? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scarlet Posted July 19, 2010 Share Posted July 19, 2010 Speckled Trout What sort of mindbending substance was the person on, who decided on that name??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Howard of Effingham Posted July 19, 2010 Share Posted July 19, 2010 What sort of mindbending substance was the person on, who decided on that name??? i don't know exactly but when i saw it at fairford one year it was a seriously well kept aircraft. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4scourge7 Posted July 19, 2010 Share Posted July 19, 2010 Whilst I agree with every word, can we nudge this one back away from the political side of things please? I lost my head in the heat of whatever heat I was in, apologies. Is `Speckled Trout` a drinking reference of some kind perhaps? (My particular field of expertise) Cheers, Ian Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TonyT Posted July 19, 2010 Share Posted July 19, 2010 (edited) Speckled Trout is the VIP version of the same basic aircraft airframe as the River Joint we are looking at buying, used it as it just sounded more rediculous sounding than the River Joint...... no doubt the UK will Englishise it's name to something like the Mersey Mudflats....... http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2010/...ement-deal.html Edited July 19, 2010 by TonyT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daz greenwood Posted July 19, 2010 Share Posted July 19, 2010 So our RV-135's will we buying them? Or leasing them, as we do our C-17's Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TonyT Posted July 19, 2010 Share Posted July 19, 2010 (edited) See linky daz on last post, believe they are being bought from ex USAF stock overhauled, C17's were bought, we exercised the option I believe, meaning they costs probably about twice what they should have. http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2010/...ement-deal.html though whether it goes through now is another matter...... Edit, looking at other threads they may be leased?? Edited July 19, 2010 by TonyT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyot Posted July 21, 2010 Share Posted July 21, 2010 If they are going to name the new(!) RAF version of the Rivet Joint after a beer why not call it the `Old Fart' , `Black Sheep', `Old Peculiar' or something similar? Stupid idea buying them if you ask me when it would probably have been easier to convert the MRA.4 developement aircraft which are not going into service.....thats if any of the others actually do make it into service. I think that certain people in the MoD have been drinking too much `real ale' lately......hence the names they are coming up with whilst sat in the pub on long liquid lunches paid for on expenses! Cheers Tony O Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pigsty Posted July 21, 2010 Share Posted July 21, 2010 Speckled Trout is the VIP version of the same basic aircraft airframe as the River Joint we are looking at buying, used it as it just sounded more rediculous sounding than the River Joint...... no doubt the UK will Englishise it's name to something like the Mersey Mudflats....... Speckled Trout was so called because one of the key programme monitors in the development of the C-135C staff transport (not one of the EC-135 series) was a woman called Faye Trout, who had a lot of freckles. Honest! And that's Rivet Joint. Obviously much more sensible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete 'o' probe Posted July 21, 2010 Share Posted July 21, 2010 (edited) The MR4 airframes will be stripped down to bare metal and anything that will be environmentally damaging will be removed . The airframes will then be dumped at sea along with the soon to be withdrawn Tornado GR4s to make an artificial reef. I know a mate told me down the pub..................... Edited July 21, 2010 by Pete 'o' probe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blacktjet Posted July 24, 2010 Share Posted July 24, 2010 (edited) Stupid idea buying them if you ask me when it would probably have been easier to convert the MRA.4 developement aircraft which are not going into service.....thats if any of the others actually do make it into service. Err.. According to The Mail - the axe has fallen "In a worrying sign of things to come, the Royal Air Force yesterday said it had been forced to scrap a £3.65bn deal to buy Nimrod aircraft from BAE Systems just weeks before the new generation planes were set for delivery". Edited July 24, 2010 by Blacktjet Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Julien Posted July 24, 2010 Share Posted July 24, 2010 This from the Forres Gazette FRESH concerns have surfaced about the future of RAF Kinloss with claims that air force bosses are preparing to sacrifice the new Nimrod MRA4 aircraft in order to save money. advertising The Ministry of Defence have played down reports which surfaced in Jane's Defence Review at the weekend that the RAF have offered to cut the Nimrod contract and take the Tornado GR4 out of service early in a bid to cut costs as part of the ongoing Strategic Defence Review. It is claimed that a new slimmed-down RAF would see the closure of three bases and a reduction of around 5,000 personnel. It is also believed that cancellation of training crews onto the new Nimrod aircraft would save the MoD hundreds of millions of pounds. Claims that RAF bosses offered to cancel the £3.65 billion contract for the new Nimrod, which RAF Kinloss expects to come into service within weeks, have been dubbed as "pure speculation" by the Ministry of Defence. "The Defence Secretary has made clear that tough decisions will need to be made, but the complex process of a Strategic Defence and Security Review will be concluded in the autumn, and speculation at this stage about its outcome is entirely unfounded," said a MoD spokesman. The suggestion is believed to have surfaced in Phase 2 of the Strategic Defence and Security Review earlier this month. Moray MP Angus Robertson MP said the Nimrod was the only viable option to do a necessary job, and the best place for it was at RAF Kinloss. "I find it hard to believe that any sane planner would wish to throw away £3.6 billion of taxpayers' money," he said. "Undoubtedly the Ministry of Defence is evaluating all options, including some that make little military or economic sense." He said that RAF Kinloss has repeatedly been shown to be the only sensible and capable home of the new Nimrod fleet. "The new MRA4 aircraft are on their way, and nothing matches their capability," he said. "If the Strategic Defence and Security Review does its job properly it will conclude in favour of the Nimrod MRA4 and its stationing at RAF Kinloss." http://www.forres-gazette.co.uk/news/fulls..._contract_.html Julien Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Max Headroom Posted July 24, 2010 Share Posted July 24, 2010 Does this mean that we are stuck with Herks for Bear hunting? MH Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blacktjet Posted July 25, 2010 Share Posted July 25, 2010 This doesn’t make any sense - the a/c are all but paid for. It would surely be better to pay the £200m delivery costs and put them into storage. I wonder if this is an RAF gamble, to try and get the Nimrod moved over to the Navy budget. After all, it’s basically for their use anyway. Does the USAF (or any other air force for that matter) operate a maritime patrol a/c? It will be helicopters next. If we are to get a streamlined RAF, then I would expect them to want to prioritise its spending on fast jets - why should the RAF spend a sizeable lump of its budget, buying assets to move the army around. The Merlins are already going to the Navy, IMHO, we should pass the Chinooks and the Pumas to the Army and protect the Typhoon squadrons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Julien Posted July 25, 2010 Share Posted July 25, 2010 If I remember years ago it was suggested that the Helos move to the Army & Navy respectivley and at the time the RAF fought tooth & nail to keep them! Makes sense to move the helo assets, but the Nimrod? not at this stage I would have thought. Julien Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now