Omega Owners Forum

Chat Area => General Discussion Area => Topic started by: Nickbat on 09 December 2010, 22:08:41

Title: Bye, bye, Nimrod
Post by: Nickbat on 09 December 2010, 22:08:41
Nine brand new Nimrod surveillance aircraft, which cost taxpayers £3.6 billion, will be dismantled and scrapped without ever having flown.

The aircraft can provide vital support for Vanguard submarines carrying Trident nuclear missiles, by detecting Russian hunter-killer subs trying to follow them. Without the Nimrods, Britain is likely to ask the US and France to provide such anti-submarine warfare capabilities in future.

Admiral Sir Mark Stanhope, the head of the Royal Navy has said he is “very uncomfortable” about the situation.

Yes, but he's not a bean-counter is he?

Sums-up the UK's superb defence procurement programme rather succinctly, methinks. :( >:(  ::)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/defence/8191690/3.6-billion-Nimrods-dismantled-for-scrap.html
Title: Re: Bye, bye, Nimrod
Post by: Mr Skrunts on 09 December 2010, 22:27:30
and sadly thats whats it's resulted to, all the forces are controlled by pen pushers with calculators. :-X
Title: Re: Bye, bye, Nimrod
Post by: albitz on 09 December 2010, 22:34:47
I am worried about the apparently cavalier attitude that this govt. has to the nations defence. I have long believed that we should stop assuming we are the worlds policeman, and that we should think a lot longer and harder before jumping on the bandwagon of everyone elses wars, but we must retain the capability to defend ourselves.If we have reached the point where we are relying on the French to defend us god help us :(
Title: Re: Bye, bye, Nimrod
Post by: Broomies Mate on 09 December 2010, 22:42:15
The Nimrods are unneccesary and just a waste of money.  I'm glad they are being stripped.  Just hope the bloke running the weighbridge pays a fair price.

Detection of any Nuclear Sub can only be made when it is near or on the surface.... it's a visual detection.  You can do that with a £50,000 Cessna.

I cant say I'm happy about all the 'defence' cuts, but this one makes sense.
Title: Re: Bye, bye, Nimrod
Post by: Jusme on 09 December 2010, 22:43:00
Spot on Albs....  :y
Title: Re: Bye, bye, Nimrod
Post by: Nickbat on 09 December 2010, 22:47:13
Quote
The Nimrods are unneccesary and just a waste of money.  I'm glad they are being stripped.  Just hope the bloke running the weighbridge pays a fair price.

Detection of any Nuclear Sub can only be made when it is near or on the surface.... it's a visual detection.  You can do that with a £50,000 Cessna.

I cant say I'm happy about all the 'defence' cuts, but this one makes sense.

Quote from article: Nimrods, which fly from RAF Kinloss in Scotland, are equipped with long-range surveillance equipment for eavesdropping on communications and detecting movement.

Don't think this capability is mentioned in the Cessna brochure.  ::)
Title: Re: Bye, bye, Nimrod
Post by: Shackeng on 09 December 2010, 22:47:54
Having flown Nimrod MR1s for several thousand hours, I am amazed that this Government believes that Great Britain no longer needs an airborne maritime surveillance capability, particularly in view of a resurgent Russian submarine force. I believe that, while recognising the dire economic position bequeathed us by Gordon Brown and merry men, the Government has either been extremely badly advised on this particular issue, or is completely ignorant as to what being an island nation means, or perhaps both. The development and construction costs for Nimrod MRA4 have already been spent. The decision is utter madness on all levels.
Title: Re: Bye, bye, Nimrod
Post by: Broomies Mate on 09 December 2010, 22:50:04
Quote
Quote
The Nimrods are unneccesary and just a waste of money.  I'm glad they are being stripped.  Just hope the bloke running the weighbridge pays a fair price.

Detection of any Nuclear Sub can only be made when it is near or on the surface.... it's a visual detection.  You can do that with a £50,000 Cessna.

I cant say I'm happy about all the 'defence' cuts, but this one makes sense.

Quote from article: Nimrods, which fly from RAF Kinloss in Scotland, are equipped with long-range surveillance equipment for eavesdropping on communications and detecting movement.

Don't think this capability is mentioned in the Cessna brochure.  ::)

Eavesdropping on communications eh?  Well, try to do that on an attack sub which is in it's 'stealth mode'.  No comms on-board, let alone to the outer world.

Check up on your facts before posting crap.
Title: Re: Bye, bye, Nimrod
Post by: Nickbat on 09 December 2010, 22:51:21
Quote
Having flown Nimrod MR1s for several thousand hours, I am amazed that this Government believes that Great Britain no longer needs an airborne maritime surveillance capability, particularly in view of a resurgent Russian submarine force. I believe that, while recognising the dire economic position bequeathed us by Gordon Brown and merry men, the Government has either been extremely badly advised on this particular issue, or is completely ignorant as to what being an island nation means, or perhaps both. The development and construction costs for Nimrod MRA4 have already been spent. The decision is utter madness on all levels.

Thanks, Shakeng. Not speculation, but from the horse's mouth, as they say. Totally agree!  :y :y :y
Title: Re: Bye, bye, Nimrod
Post by: albitz on 09 December 2010, 22:58:06
Calm down Broomie ffs, we can have differing points of view without giving the admins a headache. ;)
Title: Re: Bye, bye, Nimrod
Post by: Broomies Mate on 09 December 2010, 23:01:45
Quote
Calm down Broomie ffs, we can have differing points of view without giving the admins a headache. ;)

Sorry.   I dont want to offend anyone.  Dont want to piss anyone off, but it really aggravates me how people will read a paper and think they know everything.  I'd happily educate the likes of BattyNick (or whatever his name is) on detection of Nuclear Subs (or the general impossibility of it) but I'm sure he is too busy in his office job, or whatever he does, to be interested.... unless it suits him of course.
Title: Re: Bye, bye, Nimrod
Post by: Kevin Wood on 09 December 2010, 23:05:05
Let's by all means have a debate, but please don't get abusive. Thanks. :y

Kevin
Title: Re:
Post by: Dodger on 09 December 2010, 23:05:36
Quote

Have also worked on & flown in Nimrods, BUT.. just because I don't agree/disagree with someone, there's no real need too lay into someone just because YOU THINK you know better !!!

I think you need to learn a little RESPECT....and quickly.....
Title: Re: Bye, bye, Nimrod
Post by: albitz on 09 December 2010, 23:06:48
A lot of assumptions about Nick there Broomy, and although I dont know him well, I do know that at least several of those assumptions are wrong. ;)
Title: Re: Bye, bye, Nimrod
Post by: Broomies Mate on 09 December 2010, 23:11:52
As said, if I have offended anyone then I apologise!

This is a subject I am particularly passionate about.
Title: Re: Re:
Post by: Broomies Mate on 09 December 2010, 23:15:20
Quote
Quote

Have also worked on & flown in Nimrods, BUT.. just because I don't agree/disagree with someone, there's no real need too lay into someone just because YOU THINK you know better !!!

I think you need to learn a little RESPECT....and quickly.....

I THINK I know better?  I was right in what I said, and I claim the newspaper got it wrongt.  How could I possibly be wrong?  You worked on them, you know the score.

Dont type RESPECT in caps and try to condescend me.  It wont work.  :)

I have apologised to those I possibly offended, but I stand by my statements.
Title: Re: Bye, bye, Nimrod
Post by: Shackeng on 10 December 2010, 09:25:09
Quote
The Nimrods are unneccesary and just a waste of money.  I'm glad they are being stripped.  Just hope the bloke running the weighbridge pays a fair price.

Detection of any Nuclear Sub can only be made when it is near or on the surface.... it's a visual detection.  You can do that with a £50,000 Cessna.

I cant say I'm happy about all the 'defence' cuts, but this one makes sense.

Unfortunately this appears to be what the Government also believes. Not true incidentally.
Title: Re: Bye, bye, Nimrod
Post by: Shackeng on 10 December 2010, 09:35:41
Quote
As said, if I have offended anyone then I apologise!

This is a subject I am particularly passionate about.

Then, with respect, I suggest you inform yourself a little better. The statement regarding 'eavesdropping' is entirely correct. However as you point out, this is difficult with submerged submarines. The MR4A is (was) equipped with state of the art ISTAR (Intelligence, Surveillance, Target Acquisition, and Reconnaissance) capability also, which is not solely, or indeed even primarily, designed for use against submarines. Why do you think Nimrod was deployed in the current conflict?:y
Title: Re: Bye, bye, Nimrod
Post by: Varche on 10 December 2010, 12:55:29
What gets my goat is the vast sums of money involved. Either we need the weapons/kit or whatever or we don't. The people responsible for such profligate waste from poor decisions ought to be shot at dawn.

Next we will commit to £25billion (actually it will turn out to be £50billion) for Trident replacement then scrap that half way through BUT have to pay the full £50billion because of poorly drawn up contracts.

Personally I think it is high time we acted like an equal in our EU Partnership. If there is a problem we will send our share of men and machines. Nothing more and nothing less. Just who do we think we are?
Title: Re: Bye, bye, Nimrod
Post by: Marks DTM Calib on 10 December 2010, 13:01:02
The inside info I got from certain members of the design team (former collegues) is that it is not fully functional.
Title: Re: Bye, bye, Nimrod
Post by: Shackeng on 10 December 2010, 13:59:48
Quote
The inside info I got from certain members of the design team (former collegues) is that it is not fully functional.

Neither was all the kit in the MR1's initially, but it became a superb maritime platform. The 4A, because of its huge capabilities, had some bugs to be sorted, but you don't scrap your Omega because the radio fails to work.