Nimrod R1s replaced by even older aircraft!!!

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by spike7451, Jan 14, 2010.

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. spike7451

    spike7451 RIP

    Ahh...more millions squandered by the government who cares...

    (apologies if already done,could'nt find it)

  2. I'll reserve judgment on whether money's being squandered based on two things.

    1. Do we need Nimrod?
    2. Will the 1970's airframe do the job?

    If the answer to both is yes, then money's not been squandered... hell, it might even have been saved (now, theres a thought).
  3. spike7451

    spike7451 RIP

    This is the R1,NOT the MR2 which has seen the controversy over the mid-air explosion ect.This one's an entirely different role than the MR2.
    Magic Mushroom'll be the one with the insight on this one.
  4. I thought this was going to be a story about re-introducing Shackletons.....
  5. Yes on both counts - Its not so much the airframe, but the kit inside that matters in this case.

    Its an essential capability, and this was pretty much the only option that the MOD had under the circumstances it had.
  6. Given the long standing UKUSA Sigint agreement, surely it can only be a good thing that the RAF and USAF are using a common collection platform? (I'm assuming that RAF RJs will have a similar fit to USAF ones).

  7. Yep I was hoping.
  8. Nimrods from the 70's?

    More like the 60's and based on a 40's design!
  9. Someone somewhere has to be taking backhanders for such a farce of a deal.

    These RC-135s are in US parlance FY64 airframes(or older).

    Clear logic would dictate new airframes with independance from the spams.
  10. So given the chance to actually improve ties to the US in part of the defence/security world where there are still vestiges of the special relationship, clear logic demands we actually do the opposite??

  11. Fantastic! as I'm a FY65 product myself can I rejoin for the SigInt role?
  12. msr

    msr LE

    So no doubt it was priced accordingly?
  13. I doubt that there was a cheaper version.
  14. I don't know the details of this deal, however, I expect the following are true:

    The airframes will be rebuilt to as new condition.

    All the things that make modern aircraft better will be replaced with new components (the article tells us that the engines will be replaced).

    The USA is the only place we can buy mission electronics of that capability. So we either have a very long and expensive development programme or we buy US.

    If we did buy US equipment and a new airframe, then we would have to waste time and money integrating the 2.
  15. We really are going to end up as a 4th world air force. Even Togo's presidential jet (a 707-320) is probably "younger" than what is being procured. Surely there must be some spare A330/A340's lying around doing nothing, so why not procure some of them, then we will have a fairly modern fleet with a fair degree of commonality with the incoming (although delayed) A330 MRTT. If its what is on the inside that matters, does it matter what carries it?

    As for bringing back the Shack - why not??...the only mod it would need is a half decent microwave to heat the pies.. and while we on about buying geriatric jets, can we buy back the Vulcan and the the Victors as well.. oh yes and the Brunty Lightnings.....

    Nurse ....I need me pills.