Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[webby23]

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.....

[webby23]

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


 

 

[Nickbat]

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


 

 

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). 

[webby23]

Totally agree Nickbat

I think my feelings towards this Government have been more than sufficiently expressed this evening.......!!!

 

[BigAl]

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"

[tigers_gonads]

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.

[Martin_1962]

The Nimrod design is actually pretty good. It is the only jet sub hunter.

[Banjax]

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 

[Nickbat]

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.   

[Banjax]

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 

another brutal lesson learned....until the next tragedy

[Field Marshal Dr. Opti]

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.

[webby23]

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

 

[webby23]

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

 

[mantahatch]

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.

[Entwood]

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.