Those savings for MMA... think again

H

HIDAS

Guest
Didn't we already buy the PROTECTOR?

Is this "new" money or simply recycled news?
 
I just can't fathom what ISTR capabilities we need to splurge 700 million on - heavens, are our UAVs going to have a role post Afghanistan. Have we not invested shedloads in ISTR already - black hole that might sound good but not sure about the outcomes. Certainly, we need MMA that would be tangible, this just seems, sniff, bull manure.
 
...It dovetailed so well...
no, it didn't.

MMA/LRMPA was never going to be replaced/bought by saving up the pennies you found rattling around the washing machine, it was always going to be something that was decided in the 2015 SDSR.

you might be able to buy the airframes from change, but not the crews, the support contracts, (the base? is Waddington big enough, are any of the active bases big enough to additionally support half a dozen P-3's and the hundreds of people needed to crew/maintain them?), and the political courage needed to get around the (whole) Nimrod debacle.
 
no, it didn't.

MMA/LRMPA was never going to be replaced/bought by saving up the pennies you found rattling around the washing machine, it was always going to be something that was decided in the 2015 SDSR.

you might be able to buy the airframes from change, but not the crews, the support contracts, (the base? is Waddington big enough, are any of the active bases big enough to additionally support half a dozen P-3's and the hundreds of people needed to crew/maintain them?), and the political courage needed to get around the (whole) Nimrod debacle.
BUMP
 

4(T)

LE
no, it didn't.

MMA/LRMPA was never going to be replaced/bought by saving up the pennies you found rattling around the washing machine, it was always going to be something that was decided in the 2015 SDSR.

you might be able to buy the airframes from change, but not the crews, the support contracts, (the base? is Waddington big enough, are any of the active bases big enough to additionally support half a dozen P-3's and the hundreds of people needed to crew/maintain them?), and the political courage needed to get around the (whole) Nimrod debacle.

So what happened to all the cash, real estate, resources and infrastructure freed up from the Nimrod fleet?

Rhetorical question. If there was actually any political interest or intent in having adequate defence forces, none of these "issues" would be issues....
 

S0I

LE
So what happened to all the cash, real estate, resources and infrastructure freed up from the Nimrod fleet?

Rhetorical question. If there was actually any political interest or intent in having adequate defence forces, none of these "issues" would be issues....

Nimrod had to go, it was 100% un-certifiable.

MMA based around P-8's would probably follow the Airseeker model, part of a larger US fleet, so a rather different model to 'owning' and supporting your own planes.
 

4(T)

LE
Nimrod had to go, it was 100% un-certifiable.
.
But thats arguably because successive HMGs have buried defence under the same mountain of rules, regulation & liability as cripples the rest of society. One imagines that, had there been a maritime shooting war on at the time the government was sharpening its axe, we'd now have MRA4s serving perfectly well and without incident.
 
... One imagines that, had there been a maritime shooting war on at the time the government was sharpening its axe, we'd now have MRA4s serving perfectly well and without incident.
thats not my understanding of it, at all...

Nimrod is not, absolutely not, the result of too much red tape and 'elf a saaaaftey gorn maaad', its what happens when you build an aircraft that can't fly, and run out of road to kick the 'well what the hell are we going to do with this lump of shit' can down.
 
H

HIDAS

Guest
But thats arguably because successive HMGs have buried defence under the same mountain of rules, regulation & liability as cripples the rest of society. One imagines that, had there been a maritime shooting war on at the time the government was sharpening its axe, we'd now have MRA4s serving perfectly well and without incident.
MRA4 was a deeply compromised non airworthy mess. Haddon-Cave effectively gave it the last rites. It was a horrible, horrible lashed up compromise.

In an ideal world, we would have completely new built the thing from scratch -rather than try to graft CNC built wings onto a bespoke hand built fuselage. Even then we would have been left with an expensive fleet of unicorns.

We simply don't have the money or manufacturing/sales clout to do things like this any more. Going in with the P-8 operators is a very sensible way ahead.
 

S0I

LE
But thats arguably because successive HMGs have buried defence under the same mountain of rules, regulation & liability as cripples the rest of society. One imagines that, had there been a maritime shooting war on at the time the government was sharpening its axe, we'd now have MRA4s serving perfectly well and without incident.

MRA4 was a death trap with over 200 non compliances when the Minister drove a stake through its heart.
OOTS has already explained the very significant issues with the design re airworthiness.
 

4(T)

LE
MRA4 was a death trap with over 200 non compliances when the Minister drove a stake through its heart.
OOTS has already explained the very significant issues with the design re airworthiness.

Sure, don't want to reopen that thread.

The point I was making is that it was probably usable, until replaced, for the purposes of (a) avoiding putting the country at risk with a huge capability gap; (b) acting as a placeholder to keep in place the funding, bases and resources that would be needed for its replacement.

The problem with slashing capability is that it is a one-way ratchet; when its gone, its gone. Now, to fund P8 or whatever, something else will be axed...
 
The criminay negligent part of the whole MR4 fiasco is not that Camerons lot cancelled it in 2010 thus extending** the capability gap. But that it wasn't recognised as an abortion and culled in 2006 (at the latest)

** Yes I mean extending MR2 had already been retired before the SDSR as it was unfit to fly, and MR4 wasn't ready so the gap existed under labour it was created by the SDSR - a carefully ignored fact
 
...The point I was making is that it was probably usable, until replaced, for the purposes of (a) avoiding putting the country at risk with a huge capability gap; (b) acting as a placeholder to keep in place the funding, bases and resources that would be needed for its replacement....
i felt the same way, then i spoke to a aircraft designer - i went to school with him - his view upon reading the non-complience report was that if you sent 9 Nimrods to Accension Island for a 3 week LRMPA/ASW campaign, you'd be lucky not to pull 6 of the crews out of the water.

it was not just 'compromised', it was non-function junk.
 

4(T)

LE
i felt the same way, then i spoke to a aircraft designer - i went to school with him - his view upon reading the non-complience report was that if you sent 9 Nimrods to Accension Island for a 3 week LRMPA/ASW campaign, you'd be lucky not to pull 6 of the crews out of the water.

it was not just 'compromised', it was non-function junk.

Were they really that bad? Just three attributable losses from the whole fleet in nearly fifty years of service? On the basis of the actual record, they didn't seem significantly worse than many other military types.
 
Nimrod had to go, it was 100% un-certifiable.

MMA based around P-8's would probably follow the Airseeker model, part of a larger US fleet, so a rather different model to 'owning' and supporting your own planes.
And why was that? Did we wake up one morning to find that, oooo sh1t we cant certify Nimrod anymore, something must have happened during the night?

Or was it that there was no forward planning, just a kicking of the can down the road until the inevitable happened and now we need a very large box of sticking plasters?
 

New Posts

Latest Threads

Top