New Safety Fears for RAF Nimrods

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by londontown, Nov 9, 2007.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. And the in-service date for the Nimrod replacement is still 2011??
     
  2. spike7451

    spike7451 RIP

    all military aircraft leak! I remember a Bucanner that returned to Lossimouth on t state two. The pilot opened the bomb bay while taxying & nearly a ton of fuel pished out all over the runway!
     
  3. BBC are quite rightly leading with this news story this evening.

    No-one should underestimate the cold courage of those who continue climbing into these aircraft, only too well aware of what happened to XV230.

    No-one should underestimate the strain month after month on the families of Nimrod crews.

    The damning Qinetiq report, given to the RAF six months before the XV230 catastrophe, should remind us once again of the importance of retention: it mentioned "considerable loss of expertise and experience as [ground crew] trade specialists have left the team".

    D.Y.
     
  4. spike7451

    spike7451 RIP

    My first posting was Nimrods at Kinloss. Xv23 0 was a hanger queen if l remember right.
     
  5. The RAF flew me all over the world from 1961 to 1997. They never killed me, they never 'dumped' in a 'funny place' without giving me something to eat and somewhere to sleep.

    (However, they treated me like sh*t in:
    Brize, Lyneham, Northolt, Aldergrove, Gutersloh, Hannover, Changi, Kai Tak, Bander Seri Begawan, Washington DC, Athens, Istanbul, Nairobi, Oman, Abbis Abbaba, Belize City, Colombo, Calcutta, St Athan - yes, honestly, Gibraltar, Malta (Luqa), Akrotiri, Dekhelia (St George's Field!), Gander, Nassau, Masira, Muharraq, and, probably other places).

    My points:

    1. They should NOT have to fly ancient aircraft (VC10 - Nimrod - TriStar)
    2. They should NOT have to fly aircraft that are POSSIBLY UNSAFE.

    Can anyone imagine our revolting government supporting an airline proposing to go on flying 'dodgy' aircraft?

    Penalties for the guys on the ground, but would a majority of our soldiers tell the RAF to go on flying the sodding old Nimrod? In jest, of course they would; but in reality most of the 'Tommies' I know would 'see to' the men ordering the sagging old beast to fly on.

    Thanks Bliar, you cnut; thanks also to you 'Bottler' - will you take your next 'long-haul' journies in Nimrods? No, I thought not, you disgusting sh1t !
     
  6. If you pay peanuts, you get aircraft that leak. The BBC rightly emphasised the Qinetiq report's lauditory comments regarding the efforts of the ground staff keeping these crates in the air. In common with the rest of the RAF, the Nimrod fleet is suffering from big retention problems.

    Perhaps we shoukd offer Lord Drayson a farewell trip in a Nimrod over Helmand!
     
  7. Just in case there is any doubt - I have nothing but praise and gratitude to the RAF; except the fact that soldiers in transit were, and, possibly still are, regarded as a 'pain' that disturbed an otherwise rather comfy life.
     
  8. OK, some military aircraft leak fuel

    But which one

    dates from 1969, based on an airliner built in 1949 "when aircraft were neither intended nor expected to remain in service for this length of time"?

    leaks because it is so damn old and so overused that the primary sealants on the internal tanks are rapidly breaking down in locations where that cannot be effectively repaired?

    has leaks that can result in fuel spraying around near heating pipes carrying hot air way above the ignition point of the fuel?

    has leaks that cannot always be replicated on the ground and as a result are not being fixed?

    when a leak is found, is denied air testing to confirm it is actually fixed because of "time constraints"?

    had a civilian contractor carrying out servicing which somehow resulted in less than full details of fuel leaks passing to senior officers for way too long?

    I can think of only one.
     
  9. oldbaldy

    oldbaldy LE Moderator Good Egg (charities)
    1. Battlefield Tours

    And still more stories of leaks:
    http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,2216540,00.html
     

  10. 8O

    Might not want to get too close to the rig...
     
  11. So why if all these problems have been known, have the Mod done nothing about it, O that's right, they don't give a damn, as they don't have to fly these aircraft.
    Why have they not done the modification on the fuel tanks, lining them with the fire retardant foam, O that's right the civvies don't have to fly these aircraft, only the RAF!
    So what is wrong with AWACs? And scrap the Nimrod some 20 years after they should have been withdrawn?
     
  12. So, can someone explain to me why we are paying BAE systems a few billion to re-engineer the Nimrod into the MRA4 variant, when the yanks are plumping for a Modified 737?
     
  13. Well on the one hand the P8A leverages off an in=production, modern airliner with a massive worldwide installed base and support infrastructure, making possible huge savings in development, production and support costs and massively simplifying logistics compared with Nimrod MRA4. And on the other hand, there are no profits for BAE in the P8A.

    The P8A also saves money in the development of its combat system - an updated and further developed varient of the Boeing combat system in the MRA4 and paid for by the British taxpayer!
     
  14. The BoI report is coming out in few days, I have taken a big interest since the crash and I am very concerned about the airworthiness of MR2 and the combat survivability of the MRA4, the aircraft that will replace it.

    I would be interested to get an Army perspective on the possibility of MR2 being unable to AAR or even grounded.

    Is the role of Nimrod so important that it should be flown at any cost/risk?

    Please don't post anything operationally sensitive, just trying to guage opinion.