Omega Owners Forum
Chat Area => General Discussion Area => Topic started by: Debs. on 26 January 2011, 19:11:19
-
.......£4,200,000,000 of OUR money!!!!!! >:(
The Nimrod Scrappage Scheme:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12291372
-
That's 4.2 billion.......or four thousand two hundred million pounds.......we are talking big money.... :( :(
-
There is no denying that is a terrible waste of money! >:( >:( >:(
But, those aircraft are based on 50 year old airframes, have been previously grounded over severe safety fears, and have been on borrowed time since the 1980s when buying the American AWACs was being considered.
The contracts signed off by the Labour Government should never have happened. Brand new aircraft (based on the Airbus?) should have been bought, and fitted out instead.
No, typically, the MOD tried to do it on the cheap, and it has wasted £4 billion! >:( >:( >:( >:(
-
I know Deb's...
Not the first time something like this has happened and sadly won't be the last.
I say to everyone don't pay your taxes and when the government says you must, simply say I've thrown it down the drain directly. We pay you, you'll just to do the same damn thing with it later.... >:(
-
In answer to the question posed in your thread title, Debs:
No. >:( >:( >:(
-
Whilst i'm aware of the story i don't know enough to comment but does'nt thi leave our air force defenceless til the new models arrive or is that something altogether different?
Also, why do Americans use the word "Nimrod" as an insult, ie stupid? I've seen it on telly & always wondered.
-
Whilst i'm aware of the story i don't know enough to comment but does'nt thi leave our air force defenceless til the new models arrive or is that something altogether different?
Also, why do Americans use the word "Nimrod" as an insult, ie stupid? I've seen it on telly & always wondered.
Maybe something to do with this?
Since ancient times, Nimrod has traditionally been considered the leader of those who built the Tower of Babel
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nimrod
-
I have been banging on about this for years and mentioned this on the forum a few weeks back. The cost then was "only" £3.9 billion which worked out at about £68 per person in the Uk.
What really gets my goat is that these buffoons are free and easy with our money and none of them ever gets sacked. We either need the defence item or we don't. The government of the day are being advised by the same civil servant or military buffoons.
It has been estimated that inadequate, incorrect ordering of day to day military stuff costs the taxpayer £4billion too. That is just incmpetence on a biblical scale. However it doesn't matter as we can just correct the situation by taxing the drones ( i.e. the workers) a bit more. Job done.
bit of deja vu with the Ark Royal. That is scrapped and they have started on a replacement which will arrive in 2018? We either need an aircraft carrier or we don't. That scrapping order was made by the present incumbent government I believe. They are all as bad as each other.
-
May I point out that the "military" as you call them don't actually order/place contracts for any of this stuff .. especially things like planes and boats ...
The military decide they NEED a piece of equipment, write a specification to cover it and then submit that to a QUANGO called the "Procurement Executive" ... basically a committee made up of, mostly, civil servants, with "advisors" from the military units concerned and rom industry.
THEY write the contracts, and will often amend the specifications in order to obey their political masters.
Example .... C130(K) Hercules transport planes purchased in the 1960's ... all came to the UK with no radios, navigation equipement, radar .. as the Labour Gov of the day wanted to "reduce" the cost by fitting UK equipment ... it only took 9 years before the useless UK stuff was eventually made to work properly.
The "military" wanted a new aircraft to replace Nimrod, the labour government wanted to buy a british one .. which didn't exist .. so they issued a contract to "modify" the existing .... which was doomed to failure .. :(
:(
-
Thanks for the clarification. I still stand by my assertion we either need something or we don't.
Whoever makes the decisions, it is the economics of the madhouse. My simple analogy would be a household deciding that they need an extension. It is nearly complete and they decide they don't need an extension after all but still have to pay for it.
Before someone says it is Joe Public's household not a Celebrity's.
-
Theres an excellent book called 'Lions, Donkeys And Dinosaurs' about 'Waste and Blundering in the Military'
Quite an eye opener about the waste of (our) money on overpriced and often useless military equipment, everything from Nimrod to helicopters, tanks and guns....
-
The biggest "waste" or "cost" in military contracts is the constant changing of specifications by civil servants trying to save a few pence, or someone having a "bright" idea about including something new.
Example; Belfast aircraft 1960's ... specification changed to fit a massively strengthened floor to carry the latest piece of army equipment ... unfortunately this raised the floor so high the kit wouldn't fit .. :( The aircraft was now so heavy it was uneconomical to fly and was eventually "phased out". The aircraft were purchased by a civil company for a pittance (mugs .. they are economical) whose first action was to rip the floor out and put in a "normal" one .. result .. a highly capable and economical aircraft !!!!!
Nimrod AEW ..... after building the aircraft the specification for the radar was changed, it now wouldn't fit in the radar pods :( The pods could not be changed as they were "now" a structual part of the aircraft. Result .. aircraft scrapped just like Nimrod MR4.
-
I have been banging on about this for years and mentioned this on the forum a few weeks back. The cost then was "only" £3.9 billion which worked out at about £68 per person in the Uk.
What really gets my goat is that these buffoons are free and easy with our money and none of them ever gets sacked. We either need the defence item or we don't. The government of the day are being advised by the same civil servant or military buffoons.
It has been estimated that inadequate, incorrect ordering of day to day military stuff costs the taxpayer £4billion too. That is just incmpetence on a biblical scale. However it doesn't matter as we can just correct the situation by taxing the drones ( i.e. the workers) a bit more. Job done.
bit of deja vu with the Ark Royal. That is scrapped and they have started on a replacement which will arrive in 2018? We either need an aircraft carrier or we don't. That scrapping order was made by the present incumbent government I believe. They are all as bad as each other.
Historically the MOD have tried hard not to spend money when really required on new kit, then ended up paying through the nose and wasting billions of pounds to catch up later. Sudden changes in military demands does not help, especially when their political masters commit our forces to unpredicted arenas and types of war.
In modern times that has been The Falklands War, The Gulf War, the Iraqi invasion, and now Afganistan. All have placed specific demands on the inefficient MOD, with panic ensuing, money being wasted, and our brave military going without vital gear!
The hard fact is, as I mentioned before, the MOD put off the politically sensative issue of replacing the then already aging Nimrod with the American AWACs in the 1980s. The Ark Royal and her sister ships were a cheap skate option when built during the 1980s, with the politicians of the time calling them, and forcing the Royal Navy to do so also, a "Through Deck Cruiser", as Britain had previously ruled out having fleet carriers again! These Through Deck Cruisers should have been replaced by full, large, carriers years ago, but this was avoided, and once more the British tax payer has paid dearly for this delay, with the current government needing to scrap what are now old ships which would be highly expensive to maintain or refit, with the result still not being fit for 21st century purpose. Technology moves on quickly, and no more so than with warships!
The question you raise Varche about whether or not we need carriers is a very valid one! Do we need carriers, no more than we once required Dreadnoughts, Super Dreadnoughts, then the last British Battleship HMS Vanguard.
War has moved on. During WW1 the power of the new weapon, the plane, emerged, but mainly for its ship spotting and target ranging ability. So before WW2 battleships were still considered essential, but aircraft were a looming presence as a significant war weapon. It was quickly learnt in the early days of WW2 that indeed aircraft could so often prove deadly to ships, and especially the large bulks of slow moving battleships, with the result that the future was clearly the aircraft carrier and the planes flown from them. The end had come for the battleship and battle cruisers.
By the end of the 20th century any large warship, by then the carrier especially, had become an easy target for very advanced nuclear submarines, long range aircraft, and crucially ship-ship, air to ship, submarine to ship, and land to ship missiles. Even Frigates had become easy pickings for air launch Exocet missiles. Their range has become ever greater, and the computer / satellite technology has made their accuracy deadly.
With this in mind we can ask the question, not of "do we need carriers", but are they now obsolete? Is the future of naval conflict one of huge hidden nuclear driven, ballistic missile firing submarines, land based long range aircraft, or simply long range land based anti-ship missiles?
No doubt these questions are now taxing the minds of the military chiefs, the MOD mandarins, and the political leaders. The bottom line is then that the current carriers being built could be a complete waste of tax payers money yet again. Like HMS Vanguard they will be very obsolete before they are commissioned!;) ;)
-
I have been banging on about this for years and mentioned this on the forum a few weeks back. The cost then was "only" £3.9 billion which worked out at about £68 per person in the Uk.
What really gets my goat is that these buffoons are free and easy with our money and none of them ever gets sacked. We either need the defence item or we don't. The government of the day are being advised by the same civil servant or military buffoons.
It has been estimated that inadequate, incorrect ordering of day to day military stuff costs the taxpayer £4billion too. That is just incmpetence on a biblical scale. However it doesn't matter as we can just correct the situation by taxing the drones ( i.e. the workers) a bit more. Job done.
bit of deja vu with the Ark Royal. That is scrapped and they have started on a replacement which will arrive in 2018? We either need an aircraft carrier or we don't. That scrapping order was made by the present incumbent government I believe. They are all as bad as each other.
Historically the MOD have tried hard not to spend money when really required on new kit, then ended up paying through the nose and wasting billions of pounds to catch up later. Sudden changes in military demands does not help, especially when their political masters commit our forces to unpredicted arenas and types of war.
In modern times that has been The Falklands War, The Gulf War, the Iraqi invasion, and now Afganistan. All have placed specific demands on the inefficient MOD, with panic ensuing, money being wasted, and our brave military going without vital gear!
The hard fact is, as I mentioned before, the MOD put off the politically sensative issue of replacing the then already aging Nimrod with the American AWACs in the 1980s. The Ark Royal and her sister ships were a cheap skate option when built during the 1980s, with the politicians of the time calling them, and forcing the Royal Navy to do so also, a "Through Deck Cruiser", as Britain had previously ruled out having fleet carriers again! These Through Deck Cruisers should have been replaced by full, large, carriers years ago, but this was avoided, and once more the British tax payer has paid dearly for this delay, with the current government needing to scrap what are now old ships which would be highly expensive to maintain or refit, with the result still not being fit for 21st century purpose. Technology moves on quickly, and no more so than with warships!
The question you raise Varche about whether or not we need carriers is a very valid one! Do we need carriers, no more than we once required Dreadnoughts, Super Dreadnoughts, then the last British Battleship HMS Vanguard.
War has moved on. During WW1 the power of the new weapon, the plane, emerged, but mainly for its ship spotting and target ranging ability. So before WW2 battleships were still considered essential, but aircraft were a looming presence as a significant war weapon. It was quickly learnt in the early days of WW2 that indeed aircraft could so often prove deadly to ships, and especially the large bulks of slow moving battleships, with the result that the future was clearly the aircraft carrier and the planes flown from them. The end had come for the battleship and battle cruisers.
By the end of the 20th century any large warship, by then the carrier especially, had become an easy target for very advanced nuclear submarines, long range aircraft, and crucially ship-ship, air to ship, submarine to ship, and land to ship missiles. Even Frigates had become easy pickings for air launch Exocet missiles. Their range has become ever greater, and the computer / satellite technology has made their accuracy deadly.
With this in mind we can ask the question, not of "do we need carriers", but are they now obsolete? Is the future of naval conflict one of huge hidden nuclear driven, ballistic missile firing submarines, land based long range aircraft, or simply long range land based anti-ship missiles?
No doubt these questions are now taxing the minds of the military chiefs, the MOD mandarins, and the political leaders. The bottom line is then that the current carriers being built could be a complete waste of tax payers money yet again. Like HMS Vanguard they will be very obsolete before they are commissioned!;) ;)
Or to precis and using my earlier words: " we either need something or we don't" Note I didn't use want.
-
No doubt these questions are now taxing the minds of the military chiefs, the MOD mandarins, and the political leaders.
May I respectfully suggest that in the highlighted groups you have identified the problem, not the solution?
;)
-
I have been banging on about this for years and mentioned this on the forum a few weeks back. The cost then was "only" £3.9 billion which worked out at about £68 per person in the Uk.
What really gets my goat is that these buffoons are free and easy with our money and none of them ever gets sacked. We either need the defence item or we don't. The government of the day are being advised by the same civil servant or military buffoons.
It has been estimated that inadequate, incorrect ordering of day to day military stuff costs the taxpayer £4billion too. That is just incmpetence on a biblical scale. However it doesn't matter as we can just correct the situation by taxing the drones ( i.e. the workers) a bit more. Job done.
bit of deja vu with the Ark Royal. That is scrapped and they have started on a replacement which will arrive in 2018? We either need an aircraft carrier or we don't. That scrapping order was made by the present incumbent government I believe. They are all as bad as each other.
Historically the MOD have tried hard not to spend money when really required on new kit, then ended up paying through the nose and wasting billions of pounds to catch up later. Sudden changes in military demands does not help, especially when their political masters commit our forces to unpredicted arenas and types of war.
In modern times that has been The Falklands War, The Gulf War, the Iraqi invasion, and now Afganistan. All have placed specific demands on the inefficient MOD, with panic ensuing, money being wasted, and our brave military going without vital gear!
The hard fact is, as I mentioned before, the MOD put off the politically sensative issue of replacing the then already aging Nimrod with the American AWACs in the 1980s. The Ark Royal and her sister ships were a cheap skate option when built during the 1980s, with the politicians of the time calling them, and forcing the Royal Navy to do so also, a "Through Deck Cruiser", as Britain had previously ruled out having fleet carriers again! These Through Deck Cruisers should have been replaced by full, large, carriers years ago, but this was avoided, and once more the British tax payer has paid dearly for this delay, with the current government needing to scrap what are now old ships which would be highly expensive to maintain or refit, with the result still not being fit for 21st century purpose. Technology moves on quickly, and no more so than with warships!
The question you raise Varche about whether or not we need carriers is a very valid one! Do we need carriers, no more than we once required Dreadnoughts, Super Dreadnoughts, then the last British Battleship HMS Vanguard.
War has moved on. During WW1 the power of the new weapon, the plane, emerged, but mainly for its ship spotting and target ranging ability. So before WW2 battleships were still considered essential, but aircraft were a looming presence as a significant war weapon. It was quickly learnt in the early days of WW2 that indeed aircraft could so often prove deadly to ships, and especially the large bulks of slow moving battleships, with the result that the future was clearly the aircraft carrier and the planes flown from them. The end had come for the battleship and battle cruisers.
By the end of the 20th century any large warship, by then the carrier especially, had become an easy target for very advanced nuclear submarines, long range aircraft, and crucially ship-ship, air to ship, submarine to ship, and land to ship missiles. Even Frigates had become easy pickings for air launch Exocet missiles. Their range has become ever greater, and the computer / satellite technology has made their accuracy deadly.
With this in mind we can ask the question, not of "do we need carriers", but are they now obsolete? Is the future of naval conflict one of huge hidden nuclear driven, ballistic missile firing submarines, land based long range aircraft, or simply long range land based anti-ship missiles?
No doubt these questions are now taxing the minds of the military chiefs, the MOD mandarins, and the political leaders. The bottom line is then that the current carriers being built could be a complete waste of tax payers money yet again. Like HMS Vanguard they will be very obsolete before they are commissioned!;) ;)
Or to precis and using my earlier words: " we either need something or we don't" Note I didn't use want.
Fair enough Varche :y :y
The answer is we do not need these carriers, and we do not want them but the contracts are all in place to build them! :D ;)
-
No doubt these questions are now taxing the minds of the military chiefs, the MOD mandarins, and the political leaders.
May I respectfully suggest that in the highlighted groups you have identified the problem, not the solution?
;)
I know that, as we are dealing with fellow humans who cannot precisely predict, and never have, the future nature of conflict and where that could be within the time scale of weapon building and development! ::) ::) ;)