Omega Owners Forum
Chat Area => General Discussion Area => Topic started by: Nickbat on 28 October 2009, 22:43:21
-
To have someone close "die in action" must be awful, but one's grief may be tempered by the fact that he or she died valiantly in battle against a foe.
However, to find out that the loss was down to bean counters at the MoD must make it a million times worse. I really feel saddened by the loss of those poor souls on the Nimrod.
Just read this:
"Mr Haddon-Cave condemned the change of organisational culture within the MoD between 1998 and 2006, when financial targets came to distract from safety.
He quoted a former senior RAF officer who told his inquiry: "There was no doubt that the culture of the time had switched.
"In the days of the RAF chief engineer in the 1990s, you had to be on top of airworthiness.
"By 2004 you had to be on top of your budget if you wanted to get ahead."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8329117.stm
>:( >:( >:( :'(
-
Yep, terrible story.
XV230 was actually the very first Nimrod delivered to the RAF, back in 1969....
Even then it was a compromised design, with many significant failings....
Cant believe the RAF are still using it 40 yrs on.....
:(
-
The very sad truth is that the Nimrod is using a Comet airframe that is about 50 years old, and a basic design for the rebuild that dates from the late sixties. It is life expired.
I remember the great row over should Britain buy American AWAC aircraft, or develop our own using a rebuilt Comet. And to think they are old enough to have replaced the Avro Shackleton!
Bloody Whithall penny pinchers have done it again! >:( >:( >:( >:( >:( >:( >:( >:(
-
Nimrods have always used a Comet airframe Lizzie, hence my comment previously about the design flaws, and as quoted, this particular airframe was handed over to the RAF in 1969..........
:y
-
Watched this story on the news tonight,it made my blood boil.If politicians send service personell to war it is the very least they can do to ensure that they have the very best of equipment that can be supplied,not aeroplanes which havent even been properly maintained. >:(
-
Politicians these days dont give a monkeys about the average soldier/airman.
What they care about now is losing their expenses, and how they are going to fill the resulting gap in their finances.....
How can the Government justify RAF cost cutting when the same Government gives the OK for a minister to claim for a new house on his duck pond......
It is totally utterly, completely......disgraceful
>:( >:( >:( >:(
-
So sad that the British goverment still expect our brave forces personnel to not only go to WAR but to do there jobs with substandard equipment .
British soldier fighting in Afganistan "can i have a new pair of boots "
Goverment "no theres no money"
Afganistan family in Britain "what can we have"
Goverment "house , money , education oh and heres a pair of boots"
Where is health and safety ie H S E
-
Nimrods have always used a Comet airframe Lizzie, hence my comment previously about the design flaws, and as quoted, this particular airframe was handed over to the RAF in 1969..........
:y
Exactly, but as you made no mention of the Comet and only about the existing flaws (with the Nimrod) I thought you may have missed that point ;) ;)
You will probably know then that the original Comet's had a fatal problem with metal fatigue, that they never overcame from a commercial point of view as the Boeing 707 took the lead and limelight ;) ;)
-
I would reitterate that these planes should have been replaced years ago with modern, up to the minute, designs.
Then 14 military personnel would not have been killed by Whitehall penny pinchers! >:( >:( >:( >:(
-
Nimrods have always used a Comet airframe Lizzie, hence my comment previously about the design flaws, and as quoted, this particular airframe was handed over to the RAF in 1969..........
:y
Exactly, but as you made no mention of the Comet and only about the existing flaws (with the Nimrod) I thought you may have missed that point ;) ;)
You will probably know then that the original Comet's had a fatal problem with metal fatigue, that they never overcame from a commercial point of view as the Boeing 707 took the lead and limelight ;) ;)
Errr....yes Lizzie !!!
For more information go back to my initial posting......
:y :y :y
-
Yep, terrible story.
XV230 was actually the very first Nimrod delivered to the RAF, back in 1969....
Even then it was a compromised design, with many significant failings....
Cant believe the RAF are still using it 40 yrs on.....
:(
Ok Webby, not making a big deal out of this, but where do you mention "Comet" and that the Nimrod, that was flawed, is using a 50 year old air frame? ;) ;) ;)
No need to answer, just leave it there and concentrate on the 14 killed by an obsolete flawed design :'( :'( :'(
-
Yep, terrible story.
XV230 was actually the very first Nimrod delivered to the RAF, back in 1969....
Even then it was a compromised design, with many significant failings....
Cant believe the RAF are still using it 40 yrs on.....
:(
Ok Webby, not making a big deal out of this, but where do you mention "Comet" and that the Nimrod, that was flawed, is using a 50 year old air frame? ;) ;) ;)
No need to answer, just leave it there and concentrate on the 14 killed by an obsolete flawed design :'( :'( :'(
"Even then it was a compromised design, with many significant failings......"
Agreed......!!!
:y
-
We should have ordered AWACs (E-3 Sentry) as soon as they became available, but I feel that politics led to the decision to modify the Comet.
Politics and defence decisions don't mix. Remember the the TSR2? >:(
-
Yep, TSR2 was a gorgeous plane.....and a lesson learnt about politics and the military and the drawbacks of combining the two......
:(
-
Yep, TSR2 was a gorgeous plane.....and a lesson learnt about politics and the military and the drawbacks of combining the two......
:(
Yes indeed it was a superb plane, but the lesson was NOT learned. If it had been, these crew members may still have been alive today. >:(
-
We should have ordered AWACs (E-3 Sentry) as soon as they became available, but I feel that politics led to the decision to modify the Comet.
Politics and defence decisions don't mix. Remember the the TSR2? >:(
I think the problem was that the Comet/Nimrod package became an option about 7-8 years before the Sentry entered full production.....
-
Yep, TSR2 was a gorgeous plane.....and a lesson learnt about politics and the military and the drawbacks of combining the two......
:(
Yes indeed it was a superb plane, but the lesson was NOT learned. If it had been, these crew members may still have been alive today. >:(
Different set of circumstances though in many ways, not least the current total lack of interest shown by this Government in the welfare of its front line staff
>:(
:y
-
Yep, TSR2 was a gorgeous plane.....and a lesson learnt about politics and the military and the drawbacks of combining the two......
:(
Yes indeed it was a superb plane, but the lesson was NOT learned. If it had been, these crew members may still have been alive today. >:(
Different set of circumstances though in many ways, not least the current total lack of interest shown by this Government in the welfare of its front line staff
>:(
:y
Yes, true, it was different. But the fact remains that the military should be left to the military, not to MPs (who have usually just graduated from being a council leader without any knowledge or experience of the real world). :(
-
Totally agree Nickbat
I think my feelings towards this Government have been more than sufficiently expressed this evening.......!!!
:y
-
Yep, terrible story.
XV230 was actually the very first Nimrod delivered to the RAF, back in 1969....
Even then it was a compromised design, with many significant failings....
Cant believe the RAF are still using it 40 yrs on.....
:(
they have just rolled out a few new one's.....
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/09/14/nimrod_mra4_prod_variant_first_flight/
to quote :- "The most expensive aircraft ever built for the British armed forces, a painstakingly-restored De Havilland Comet airliner outfitted as an anti-submarine patrol plane, has made its first flight"
-
the air to air refuling set up on the nimrod was a wartime quick fix going back too 1982.
i believe it was put together in around 10 days.
the refueling probe its self was "borowed" from the vulcan and victor's stock so the nimrod could operate out of the assention islands for use in the south atlantic.
initially, the fuel pipe was run through the cockpit the down threw the weapon / equipment bay to a valve which could transfare fuel across the airframe.
the problem was that the equipment bay gets rather hot and the cooling system was never upgraded to take into account the fuel pipe.
even though the setup might have been "refined" slightly over the years ............ it was never fixed properly due to good old saying " if it ain't broken, don't fix it "
some of the things i have done too keep aircraft flying is incredible.
when you are serving in the forces, health and safety pretty much goes out of the window wether they admit it or not !!
you get the order to make a aircraft serviceable and that is what you do ........ by any means !! as long as the pilot sign's the 700 ( aircraft version of the logbook) then the aircraft is classed as serviceable.
the above details was given to me from somebody who based at kinloss at the time.
-
The Nimrod design is actually pretty good. It is the only jet sub hunter.
-
BAE Systems and QinetiQ are private companies who care about nothing other than profit. why would you privatise the servicing and maintenance of an aircraft unless it was to save money by cutting corners? there must have been a calculation done by the MoD, they must have known that inherently risks would be taken in pursuit of profit :(
-
BAE Systems and QinetiQ are private companies who care about nothing other than profit. why would you privatise the servicing and maintenance of an aircraft unless it was to save money by cutting corners? there must have been a calculation done by the MoD, they must have known that inherently risks would be taken in pursuit of profit :(
There were ten individuals involved: five at the MoD, three at BAE Systems and two at defence technology firm QinetiQ. You're quite wrong to imply that private companies necessarily put profit above safety. Whilst profit is a motivational force, most companies realise that safety is paramount and that oversights can not only kill people, but also kill the company involved.
Besides which, tell me one public sector institution that builds aircraft. It is the private companies that teach the armed forces how to service aircraft. It is the private companies that build the aircraft and systems, and write the service manuals.
-
BAE Systems and QinetiQ are private companies who care about nothing other than profit. why would you privatise the servicing and maintenance of an aircraft unless it was to save money by cutting corners? there must have been a calculation done by the MoD, they must have known that inherently risks would be taken in pursuit of profit :(
There were ten individuals involved: five at the MoD, three at BAE Systems and two at defence technology firm QinetiQ. You're quite wrong to imply that private companies necessarily put profit above safety. Whilst profit is a motivational force, most companies realise that safety is paramount and that oversights can not only kill people, but also kill the company involved.
Besides which, tell me one public sector institution that builds aircraft. It is the private companies that teach the armed forces how to service aircraft. It is the private companies that build the aircraft and systems, and write the service manuals.
unless or until a tragedy happens, they will, sorry Nickbat but its a hard fact that cost cutting cost lives and the MoD must have known that would be the case, but figured the savings were worth it. in the past, RAF personnel would service the planes and replace parts regardless of cost, when this servicing and maintenance was put in the hands of private firms they are not in the same position, cost becomes a factor.
of course military planes are built by private companies, but they're built to military spec and designed in conjunction with MoD surely?
all i'm saying is time and time again, when cost becomes the primary factor it endangers people in certain environments whether road, rail or air travel or military equipment :o
another brutal lesson learned....until the next tragedy
-
BAE Systems and QinetiQ are private companies who care about nothing other than profit. why would you privatise the servicing and maintenance of an aircraft unless it was to save money by cutting corners? there must have been a calculation done by the MoD, they must have known that inherently risks would be taken in pursuit of profit :(
There were ten individuals involved: five at the MoD, three at BAE Systems and two at defence technology firm QinetiQ. You're quite wrong to imply that private companies necessarily put profit above safety. Whilst profit is a motivational force, most companies realise that safety is paramount and that oversights can not only kill people, but also kill the company involved.
Besides which, tell me one public sector institution that builds aircraft. It is the private companies that teach the armed forces how to service aircraft. It is the private companies that build the aircraft and systems, and write the service manuals.
Profit..........is God in a private company ....Nickbat...
Nothing else even comes close......
They would like their safety record to be excellent.....but not if it gets in the way of profit.....Safety is of secondary importance ............although no private company ......would openly admit ......such a thing.
It is inevitable ......that corners will be cut.....so long as human nature..............and making a quick buck............ are involved. :) :) ;)
-
The Nimrod design is actually pretty good. It is the only jet sub hunter.
I think there are at least 14 families who would disagree vehemently with that though Martin
:y
-
the air to air refuling set up on the nimrod was a wartime quick fix going back too 1982.
i believe it was put together in around 10 days.
the refueling probe its self was "borowed" from the vulcan and victor's stock so the nimrod could operate out of the assention islands for use in the south atlantic.
initially, the fuel pipe was run through the cockpit the down threw the weapon / equipment bay to a valve which could transfare fuel across the airframe.
the problem was that the equipment bay gets rather hot and the cooling system was never upgraded to take into account the fuel pipe.
even though the setup might have been "refined" slightly over the years ............ it was never fixed properly due to good old saying " if it ain't broken, don't fix it "
some of the things i have done too keep aircraft flying is incredible.
when you are serving in the forces, health and safety pretty much goes out of the window wether they admit it or not !!
you get the order to make a aircraft serviceable and that is what you do ........ by any means !! as long as the pilot sign's the 700 ( aircraft version of the logbook) then the aircraft is classed as serviceable.
the above details was given to me from somebody who based at kinloss at the time.
Hmmmmm......interesting post
:y
-
Come on people, if we where to spend money on our armed forces, the government would no longer be able to splash the cash for all these poor countries like China and India.
And our government like to look the part when it comes to being flashy with our friends abroad.
Please I am being sarcastic here, I totally believe our forces should be the best equipped that it is humanly possible to be.
-
I'm afraid there is a lot of waffle, half truths and conjecture, let alone rumours and down right untruths in this thread.
If you wish to read the FULL report ... all 587 pages of it ... it is here
http://www.official-documents.gov.uk/document/hc0809/hc10/1025/1025.pdf
There is/was nothing inherently wrong with the Nimrod airframe, and old age does NOT make an an aircraft unsafe.
The basic problem is that 3 times in its life it had major modifications done, and those responsible never looked at the interaction of those modifications between the original aircraft and the other modifications.
When the opportunity arose to look at these problems .. the work done (Nimrod Safety Case Review) was shoddy and incomplete.
THAT is what caused the loss of some of my mates, not a "bad" or "old" aircraft.
And for those that don't know me I spent 38 years flying multi-engine military aircraft.
-
I'm afraid there is a lot of waffle, half truths and conjecture, let alone rumours and down right untruths in this thread.
If you wish to read the FULL report ... all 587 pages of it ... it is here
http://www.official-documents.gov.uk/document/hc0809/hc10/1025/1025.pdf
There is/was nothing inherently wrong with the Nimrod airframe, and old age does NOT make an an aircraft unsafe.
The basic problem is that 3 times in its life it had major modifications done, and those responsible never looked at the interaction of those modifications between the original aircraft and the other modifications.
When the opportunity arose to look at these problems .. the work done (Nimrod Safety Case Review) was shoddy and incomplete.
THAT is what caused the loss of some of my mates, not a "bad" or "old" aircraft.
And for those that don't know me I spent 38 years flying multi-engine military aircraft.
As always, Entwood, I respect your views. Even more so on this occasion, given your experience. :y
In view of that experience, I would seek ask your opinion on whether it may have been a better judgment to have gone with the Sentry, given the far longer "in service" record of the 707 on which it is based.
-
The Nimrod was planned as a long range, low level maritime reconnasance aircraft, and did the job superbly during the cold war, and still does as a long range search and rescue aircraft... there is nothing to match it for speed to area, followed by time in area. It is now used as a medium level surveilance/communications platform.
The Sentry was designed as a high level fighter control/command and control platform.
The comparisons are apples and pears.
The Nimrod is comparible with the P3 Orion (which it knocks spots off in every way)
The Sentry has no comparable platform .. which is why all NATO contribute to its operation.
-
The Nimrod was planned as a long range, low level maritime reconnasance aircraft, and did the job superbly during the cold war, and still does as a long range search and rescue aircraft... there is nothing to match it for speed to area, followed by time in area. It is now used as a medium level surveilance/communications platform.
The Sentry was designed as a high level fighter control/command and control platform.
The comparisons are apples and pears.
The Nimrod is comparible with the P3 Orion (which it knocks spots off in every way)
The Sentry has no comparable platform .. which is why all NATO contribute to its operation.
Thanks for that informed response, Entwood. :y
-
The Nimrod was planned as a long range, low level maritime reconnasance aircraft, and did the job superbly during the cold war, and still does as a long range search and rescue aircraft... there is nothing to match it for speed to area, followed by time in area. It is now used as a medium level surveilance/communications platform.
The Sentry was designed as a high level fighter control/command and control platform.
The comparisons are apples and pears.
The Nimrod is comparible with the P3 Orion (which it knocks spots off in every way)
The Sentry has no comparable platform .. which is why all NATO contribute to its operation.
Very interesting - what did you do in the RAF then Entwood?