CHAPEL END CHARLIE Posted 3 December, 2009 Share Posted 3 December, 2009 It's at least 7 years late entering service and so enormously over budget that each example is going to cost you and me £400m :mad: , welcome to the latest addition to the RAF's fleet - the Nimrod MRA4 . You can rest assured the MOD civil servants , politicians and RAF top brass that conceived this disastrous project will escape any consequence , indeed some of them are probably holding down lucrative non executive directorships at BAE as we speak - coincidentally the company that builds this gray elephant . We were going to buy over 20 of them to fulfill the maritime patrol mission , now as a result of their incredible cost and in order to protect BAE's profits we're going to get an entirely inadequate 9 to patrol all the worlds oceans and support the Army in Afghanistan . 9 aircraft ! The tax payers suffer - just consider all the social good that could have been done with this money , the Royal Navy will go without adequate air support in future with unknowable consequences and good men have died in the dangerously worn out older versions of this aircraft that have crashed while the RAF waits for this monstrosity to finally enter service . Meanwhile the US Navy is about to field a new Boeing 737 based patrol aircraft just as capable as the MRA4 but at a fraction of the cost . Shame on those responsible for this , if I had my way you'd be facing charges in court . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arizona Posted 3 December, 2009 Share Posted 3 December, 2009 Must admit I was slightly perplexed at the MOD's decision to base their next generation maritime patrol aircraft on a 50 year old airframe. I'm guessing the decision was made to support BAE, but realistically it was a financial disaster. Especially when there is no scope for selling aircraft to foreign countries. P.S. That thing drinks fuel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
View From The Top Posted 3 December, 2009 Share Posted 3 December, 2009 Buy and existing airframe. Shove it full of electronics and bingo, shiny bit of gucci kit that is misson ready. Not hard is it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
St Landrew Posted 3 December, 2009 Share Posted 3 December, 2009 Must admit I was slightly perplexed at the MOD's decision to base their next generation maritime patrol aircraft on a 50 year old airframe. I'm guessing the decision was made to support BAE, but realistically it was a financial disaster. Especially when there is no scope for selling aircraft to foreign countries. P.S. That thing drinks fuel. But doesn't it have the old Nimrod's ability to 'loiter' or just cruise around on one engine..? Agreed. 9 years is several years too late. It was going to be the most advanced thing in the sky, but I'm betting it wouldn't take much to topple it from that perch nowadays. But to put things into a little perspective; I remember seeing a video of US and UK precision low-level bombers competing against each other. There were all the usual high-tech US designs, and the UK turned up with an aging Vulcan and some Buccaneers. Now Buccaneers were purpose designed to do the job, and although the Vulcan did extremely well, in fact, beating many of the much newer US aircraft, the Buccaneers p!ssed over everyone. And that from a plane designed in 1953. Here's hoping that a design that has had so much brain time and money spent on it, turns out to be a world beater. Don't write it off before it gets into service. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Boy Saint Posted 3 December, 2009 Share Posted 3 December, 2009 But doesn't it have the old Nimrod's ability to 'loiter' or just cruise around on one engine..? Agreed. 9 years is several years too late. It was going to be the most advanced thing in the sky, but I'm betting it wouldn't take much to topple it from that perch nowadays. But to put things into a little perspective; I remember seeing a video of US and UK precision low-level bombers competing against each other. There were all the usual high-tech US designs, and the UK turned up with an aging Vulcan and some Buccaneers. Now Buccaneers were purpose designed to do the job, and although the Vulcan did extremely well, in fact, beating many of the much newer US aircraft, the Buccaneers p!ssed over everyone. And that from a plane designed in 1953. Here's hoping that a design that has had so much brain time and money spent on it, turns out to be a world beater. Don't write it off before it gets into service. I met a chap who was a RAF pilot and he said about these low level bombing training sorties, while the Cold War was on, between the US and UK. According to him nearly everyone of these runs saw the Yanks being identified and "killed" whereas the Vulcan proved successful in destroying their target 99% of the time. The Americans asked that we did not mention this failure v our success just in case the Russians got to realise that they were not under threat from the air, the UK ignored this request and were quite happy to "accidently" let it slip that we had the capability to get all the way to Moscow undetected with a Nuclear payload . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arizona Posted 3 December, 2009 Share Posted 3 December, 2009 Buy and existing airframe. Shove it full of electronics and bingo, shiny bit of gucci kit that is misson ready. Not hard is it. You could pick up an A340 dirt cheap from Airbus as the airlines dont want them. Very modern design, 4 engines (an advantage in a combat scenario), more efficient than anything in the RAF, can stay in the air forever and a day without refueling (again a massive opperational advantage and will save tens of millions in opperating costs), spares are readily and cheaply available from Airbus and to top it all the wings (and possibly engines) are made in the UK. I'm sure the Nimrod will be very capable, but f**k me that's a lot of money. Especially when the boys on the front line are desperately under-equiped. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guy Posted 4 December, 2009 Share Posted 4 December, 2009 Buy and existing airframe. Shove it full of electronics and bingo, shiny bit of gucci kit that is misson ready. Not hard is it. That's what they did for the Sentinel ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raytheon_Sentinel ) what's more I think they even leased the base aircraft rather than buy them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stockportsaint Posted 4 December, 2009 Share Posted 4 December, 2009 You could pick up an A340 dirt cheap from Airbus as the airlines dont want them. Very modern design, 4 engines (an advantage in a combat scenario), more efficient than anything in the RAF, can stay in the air forever and a day without refueling (again a massive opperational advantage and will save tens of millions in opperating costs), spares are readily and cheaply available from Airbus and to top it all the wings (and possibly engines) are made in the UK. I'm sure the Nimrod will be very capable, but f**k me that's a lot of money. Especially when the boys on the front line are desperately under-equiped. Why don't the airlines want them, or is that a state secret? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TopGun Posted 4 December, 2009 Share Posted 4 December, 2009 The idea behind the Nimrod upgrades were initially that it would save money as the intention was to use existing airframes (old Comets), gut them and refurb them. This has happened to the same aircraft a few times. The last genuine intention to replace the original planes was discussed in the mid-1990s when a government tender was issued and refurbed Lockheed P-3 Orions were offered by the US along with France's Dassualt Atlantique in addition to upgraded Nimrods. TBF nobody apart from the US no one has spent loads in the area since as there has been no threat from Russia. All those planes were initially designed as cold war maritime radar reconnaissance aircraft rather than checking out the mountains of Afghanistan for ground threats. So a big change in the role of the Nimrod. It might have been the wrong decision but I think it would have been difficult to have foreseen the change in circumstances. In hindsight it might have been better to put new surveillance equipment into newer converted airliners but the decision had been made by then. The same issue exists with the RAF with refuelling tankers to an extent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Verbal Posted 4 December, 2009 Share Posted 4 December, 2009 We're still flying Comets? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
St Landrew Posted 4 December, 2009 Share Posted 4 December, 2009 btw, what's this got to do with Denmark..? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CHAPEL END CHARLIE Posted 4 December, 2009 Author Share Posted 4 December, 2009 (edited) The idea behind the Nimrod upgrades were initially that it would save money as the intention was to use existing airframes (old Comets), gut them and refurb them. This has happened to the same aircraft a few times. The last genuine intention to replace the original planes was discussed in the mid-1990s when a government tender was issued and refurbed Lockheed P-3 Orions were offered by the US along with France's Dassualt Atlantique in addition to upgraded Nimrods. TBF nobody apart from the US no one has spent loads in the area since as there has been no threat from Russia. All those planes were initially designed as cold war maritime radar reconnaissance aircraft rather than checking out the mountains of Afghanistan for ground threats. So a big change in the role of the Nimrod. It might have been the wrong decision but I think it would have been difficult to have foreseen the change in circumstances. In hindsight it might have been better to put new surveillance equipment into newer converted airliners but the decision had been made by then. The same issue exists with the RAF with refuelling tankers to an extent. I agree wholeheartedly with this , Arizona's suggestion of employing ex airline (or even new) Airbus A330/A340's seems suitable and would have almost certainly worked out to be much cheaper for the nation in both the short and long term. The heart of the matter is that many in the defence establishment still cling to the mindset that we are still a major military/industrial power in the world and as a result we should normally develop our own 'bespoke' weapon systems at every feasible opportunity . This is all well and good if the projects we initiate provided the services with world class equipment at a reasonable cost and our industry with an exportable product , but to be frank that happy outcome seems to be the exception to the rule rather than the norm especial in complex air and naval systems . Some examples : Type 45 Destroyer/PAAMS - A vital programme to provide the RN with new air defence ships and their associated missile/Radar systems . A combat proven US destroyer design is readily available (the DDG51 'Burke' Class) but instead of adopting this simple solution as the Japanese and Spanish navy's have done we went ahead (with France and Italian assistance) with our own design - resulting in a late , expensive ship with an (as yet) nonoperational missile system that we can only afford to buy 6 of instead of the planned 12 . Lets hope the Argies don't try to re invade the Falklands . Nimrod AEW - The sorry saga of a 1980's requirement to equip the RAF with new surveillance aircraft . A perfectly good US aircraft (the Boeing E3 AWACS) could have been procured 'off the shelf' but instead in order to support UK industry we tried to graft a unproven Marconi radar system onto aging Nimrod airframes . Naturally it never worked properly and the vast sums spent (c £1000m IIRC) on developing it were entirely wasted . (humiliatingly we had to go back to Boeing and do what we should have done in the first place and buy AWACS) Enfield SA 80 Rifle - A relatively simple new 5.56mm 'bull pup' rifle design for the army . It took decades to develop this gun and we still ended up with a shoddily made piece of kit than melted in the sun and would frequently jam/fall apart on it's unfortunate user . Any number of efficient NATO 5.56 assault rifle designs could have been procured easily (FN/H&K/M16 ..etc) but that would have been far too simple . Now working well after after the Germans showed us how to build it properly ! Our defence budget is always severely limited , we should spend it on buying the best possible / most cost effective equipment for our long suffering armed forces , that is the very least they deserve . If we really want to prop up failing British industry's and provide nice (corrupt) little earners for retiring civil servants and military chiefs than use the industry budget for that folly - not the defence budget . Edited 4 December, 2009 by CHAPEL END CHARLIE Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ericofarabia Posted 4 December, 2009 Share Posted 4 December, 2009 Bring back The Shackletons I say. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avro_Shackleton Pretty sure they were still using them during The Falklands War Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arizona Posted 4 December, 2009 Share Posted 4 December, 2009 Why don't the airlines want them, or is that a state secret? The Boeing 777 only uses two engines and is therefore more efficient. Either of them would sh*t all over a Nimrod in that dept however. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simples Posted 4 December, 2009 Share Posted 4 December, 2009 The Boeing 777 only uses two engines and is therefore more efficient. Either of them would sh*t all over a Nimrod in that dept however. Why do you think the 777 is more efficient than an A340 because it only has two engines? The A340 has a longer range/endurance and passenger carrying capablity. Also, with more than two engines, the A340 would probably have a longer loitering capability by flying on two engines, like the Nimrod has, albeit at a lower flight level than having all four donkeys up and running. I know about fifteen years ago the then current Nimrod had the most advanced electronic equipment in the world onboard, I hope this is still the case with the latest version, but even so, surely there would be a better airframe than it's in now? Probable a version on the Bombardier Global Express, or similar kitted out business jet. Long range, higher flight levels achievable, and an even more considerable cost saving to the tax payer? Simples:cool: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arizona Posted 4 December, 2009 Share Posted 4 December, 2009 Why do you think the 777 is more efficient than an A340 because it only has two engines? The A340 has a longer range/endurance and passenger carrying capablity. Also, with more than two engines, the A340 would probably have a longer loitering capability by flying on two engines, like the Nimrod has, albeit at a lower flight level than having all four donkeys up and running. I know about fifteen years ago the then current Nimrod had the most advanced electronic equipment in the world onboard, I hope this is still the case with the latest version, but even so, surely there would be a better airframe than it's in now? Probable a version on the Bombardier Global Express, or similar kitted out business jet. Long range, higher flight levels achievable, and an even more considerable cost saving to the tax payer? Simples:cool: The extra engines are widely regarded to use between 8 and 12 percent more fuel than the 777. There are also extra maintenance considerations. Having 4 engines is a hinderance in the commercial market, but for combat aircraft it is invaluable. On a twin jet it's pretty much strike one and you're out. You can carry on flying, typically at an altitude of around 25,000ft depending on the aircraft and it's weight, but I sure as heck wouldn't want to loiter over hostile territory on one engine. The original A340's first flew in '91 I think. They can be picked up dirt cheap at the moment. Alternatively you could by a brand new, factory fresh -500 series at a knock down price due to lack of demand. The 340 is a fantastic aircraft, but the 10% extra fuel burn is a real killer in the airline market. There is also the advantage of being able to hang the latest engine technology under the wings in 20 years time. With the Nimrod they've pretty much had to rebuild the inboard wing section to accomodate the new engines. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TopGun Posted 4 December, 2009 Share Posted 4 December, 2009 I met a chap who was a RAF pilot and he said about these low level bombing training sorties, while the Cold War was on, between the US and UK. According to him nearly everyone of these runs saw the Yanks being identified and "killed" whereas the Vulcan proved successful in destroying their target 99% of the time. The Americans asked that we did not mention this failure v our success just in case the Russians got to realise that they were not under threat from the air, the UK ignored this request and were quite happy to "accidently" let it slip that we had the capability to get all the way to Moscow undetected with a Nuclear payload . The book called Vulcan 617 alludes to that although I'm not convinced of its accuracy. If you believe all that is in the book it was an amazing effort to bomb Port Stanley airport from the Ascensions though. A massive effort involving 13 refuelling tankers that refuelled one another as well as the solitary Vulcan to get it all the way to the Falklands, bomb the airstrip and get it back. The book talks about a training exercise in the US where the Vulcans escaped ground-based US radars and interceptors. But it could be a bit of bullsh*t too. I'm pretty sure they wouldn't have flown undetected to Moscow! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 4 December, 2009 Share Posted 4 December, 2009 the whole MOD procurement programme is a joke... the top 20 projects are ten of years late and hundred of millions (if not billions) over budget... anyway...as for the Nimrod, they are regarded as one of the best MPA around (when they work) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 4 December, 2009 Share Posted 4 December, 2009 The book talks about a training exercise in the US where the Vulcans escaped ground-based US radars and interceptors. But it could be a bit of bullsh*t too. I'm pretty sure they wouldn't have flown undetected to Moscow! could well be bollix.... considering the yank stealth bomber could be picked up by UK radar then I cant see how we would have been undetected by the russkies Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arizona Posted 4 December, 2009 Share Posted 4 December, 2009 could well be bollix.... considering the yank stealth bomber could be picked up by UK radar then I cant see how we would have been undetected by the russkies Sounds highly unlikely to me too. I suppose it is hypothetically possible if you were to come in from the North Pole at VERY low altitude. However the dambusters aircraft were detected and shot at flying low down, by much less sophisticated surveillance equipment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 4 December, 2009 Share Posted 4 December, 2009 going back to spending...i have no idea why it takes the uk 10 years to build a new warship (say a destroyer) and it comes in ridiculously over budget and out of date...when the yanks can spit them out and a far less cost... and no one ever becomes accountable... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arizona Posted 4 December, 2009 Share Posted 4 December, 2009 The MOD it top heavy with retards IMO. Anyone remember the TSR2? Would have been the best attack aircraft in the world and was decades ahead of it's time. Could have made a fortune selling that to other countries. I'm sure the Nimrod MRA4 is brilliant, but it could have been a lot better and cheaper on a newer airframe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simples Posted 4 December, 2009 Share Posted 4 December, 2009 The extra engines are widely regarded to use between 8 and 12 percent more fuel than the 777. There are also extra maintenance considerations. Having 4 engines is a hinderance in the commercial market, but for combat aircraft it is invaluable. On a twin jet it's pretty much strike one and you're out. You can carry on flying, typically at an altitude of around 25,000ft depending on the aircraft and it's weight, but I sure as heck wouldn't want to loiter over hostile territory on one engine. The original A340's first flew in '91 I think. They can be picked up dirt cheap at the moment. Alternatively you could by a brand new, factory fresh -500 series at a knock down price due to lack of demand. The 340 is a fantastic aircraft, but the 10% extra fuel burn is a real killer in the airline market. There is also the advantage of being able to hang the latest engine technology under the wings in 20 years time. With the Nimrod they've pretty much had to rebuild the inboard wing section to accomodate the new engines. I must admit to not knowing the official figures with regards to modern, wide bodied airliners, my knowledge is based on my area, business jets. In this area, the Dassault Falcon (three engined varients), are considerably more fuel efficient and have much better endurance than an equivelent sized, traditional, two engined variety, no matter which manufacturer you compare them to. I suppose it all depends on the size of the equipment needed and therefore the size of the aircraft required. Plus, and agreeing with other posts on here, our governments insistance on using old 'British' technology, rather than using 'off the shelve' foreign alternatives. Simples:cool: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 4 December, 2009 Share Posted 4 December, 2009 The MOD it top heavy with retards IMO. Anyone remember the TSR2? Would have been the best attack aircraft in the world and was decades ahead of it's time. Could have made a fortune selling that to other countries. I'm sure the Nimrod MRA4 is brilliant, but it could have been a lot better and cheaper on a newer airframe. the MOD has over 80,000 civillians working within it.... waaaaaaaaaaay too much and (so they say) the tories will take chunks out of that number... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arizona Posted 4 December, 2009 Share Posted 4 December, 2009 I must admit to not knowing the official figures with regards to modern, wide bodied airliners, my knowledge is based on my area, business jets. In this area, the Dassault Falcon (three engined varients), are considerably more fuel efficient and have much better endurance than an equivelent sized, traditional, two engined variety, no matter which manufacturer you compare them to. I suppose it all depends on the size of the equipment needed and therefore the size of the aircraft required. Plus, and agreeing with other posts on here, our governments insistance on using old 'British' technology, rather than using 'off the shelve' foreign alternatives. Simples:cool: I'm guessing that's down to the trijets having a higher service ceiling. What can the 900s do, 50,000ft plus wasn't it? The absolute ceiling of most commercial airliners is restricted by the structural limitations of the pressurisation on the cabin. The actual service ceiling is trypically much lower due to coffin corner. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
View From The Top Posted 5 December, 2009 Share Posted 5 December, 2009 could well be bollix.... considering the yank stealth bomber could be picked up by UK radar then I cant see how we would have been undetected by the russkies When the "new" stealth technology was 1st used during the 1991 Gulf War the US stealth aircraft were tracked all their way to target, and back to Bahrain, by a newly refitted type 42 destoyer, HMS Exeter. The yanks were very miffed at this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CHAPEL END CHARLIE Posted 5 December, 2009 Author Share Posted 5 December, 2009 When the "new" stealth technology was 1st used during the 1991 Gulf War the US stealth aircraft were tracked all their way to target, and back to Bahrain, by a newly refitted type 42 destoyer, HMS Exeter. The yanks were very miffed at this. I understand the aircraft in question (the F117) has been withdrawn from service now but as the US still persists with expensive stealth technology (B2/F22/JSF & even ships) I can only conclude it must work to some extent . The story of the original F117 being susceptible to Radar detection may well be true as one of these aircraft was definitely downed by a relatively unsophisticated Russian made SAM system during the 1990's Yugoslavian conflict . Going back to the RAF's remarkable 'Black Buck' Vulcan attack on Port Stanley airfield during the Falklands War , I understand at the time these were the longest range air attacks ever undertaken - although during the Iraq war he record was broken when USAF bombers launched sorties from their mainland USA bases - flew half way round the world and back again to bomb Saddam ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arizona Posted 5 December, 2009 Share Posted 5 December, 2009 The F117 was shot down because when it opened it's bomb doors, the radar would light up like a Christmas tree. The bomb bay, or Mumbai as it is now know, wasn't stealthy and the Serbs knew this. Also I think the JSF (F35 Lightning as it is now know) is one heck of a lot cheaper than the other two you mentioned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 5 December, 2009 Share Posted 5 December, 2009 I have been in the ****pit of a B1-b...fecking awesome.. I also signed a bomb heading for somewhere in Iraq (wont say where) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CHAPEL END CHARLIE Posted 5 December, 2009 Author Share Posted 5 December, 2009 The F117 was shot down because when it opened it's bomb doors, the radar would light up like a Christmas tree. The bomb bay, or Mumbai as it is now know, wasn't stealthy and the Serbs knew this. This seems a rather serious limitation in stealth technology , and difficult to solve I'd imagine . :-k Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arizona Posted 5 December, 2009 Share Posted 5 December, 2009 This seems a rather serious limitation in stealth technology , and difficult to solve I'd imagine . :-k Apparently they can also be detected by using very long wavelength radar, although that's from Wiki, so it's up to you to believe it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 5 December, 2009 Share Posted 5 December, 2009 Apparently they can also be detected by using very long wavelength radar, although that's from Wiki, so it's up to you to believe it. thing with these things...when you know what to look for then you can track anything...be it atmospherics or electrmagnetic fields.. you would be amazed on how people can track subs without actually detecting the submarine itself Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
View From The Top Posted 5 December, 2009 Share Posted 5 December, 2009 This seems a rather serious limitation in stealth technology , and difficult to solve I'd imagine . :-k They were easy to track and when the yanks were informed that they could be tracked they didn't believe it. Lighting them up with the fire control radars convinced them! The upgrades she'd had in an extensive refit had her the most capable destoyer afloat at that time. This also ensured that the Exeter was tasked with air defence picket for the yank battlewagons in the far north when they were engaging ground targets with their main armaments. Of course, this never happened. :-\" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 5 December, 2009 Share Posted 5 December, 2009 im suuuuure, the exeter was tasked in gulf war 1, with providing air defence for the USS missouri..as well as other things.. the missouri being a massive battle ship...old skool style Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OLYMPIC Posted 5 December, 2009 Share Posted 5 December, 2009 I have been reading the posts on here about the stealth bombers etc that were tracked and i always wondered why the Americans never tryed to fit out the SR-71 to carry any bombs.Now thats a great aircraft can fly at high altitude and go like **** off a shovel,surely that could off got into alot of targets and been gone before you new what happened. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saint boggy Posted 5 December, 2009 Share Posted 5 December, 2009 It's at least 7 years late entering service and so enormously over budget that each example is going to cost you and me £400m :mad: , welcome to the latest addition to the RAF's fleet - the Nimrod MRA4 . You can rest assured the MOD civil servants , politicians and RAF top brass that conceived this disastrous project will escape any consequence , indeed some of them are probably holding down lucrative non executive directorships at BAE as we speak - coincidentally the company that builds this gray elephant . We were going to buy over 20 of them to fulfill the maritime patrol mission , now as a result of their incredible cost and in order to protect BAE's profits we're going to get an entirely inadequate 9 to patrol all the worlds oceans and support the Army in Afghanistan . 9 aircraft ! The tax payers suffer - just consider all the social good that could have been done with this money , the Royal Navy will go without adequate air support in future with unknowable consequences and good men have died in the dangerously worn out older versions of this aircraft that have crashed while the RAF waits for this monstrosity to finally enter service . Meanwhile the US Navy is about to field a new Boeing 737 based patrol aircraft just as capable as the MRA4 but at a fraction of the cost . Shame on those responsible for this , if I had my way you'd be facing charges in court . :shock:........i can't afford that!!!! not right on top of Xmas!!! :smt111 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
St Landrew Posted 5 December, 2009 Share Posted 5 December, 2009 I have been reading the posts on here about the stealth bombers etc that were tracked and i always wondered why the Americans never tryed to fit out the SR-71 to carry any bombs.Now thats a great aircraft can fly at high altitude and go like **** off a shovel,surely that could off got into alot of targets and been gone before you new what happened. Because it was designed to do one thing only - go very fast indeed. It's a whole level of extra complication to fit hard points or internal bays and electrical relays; keep the, unique to aircraft, armaments cool so that they can be carried at sustained high speed, etc... The thing leaked gallons of fuel because it couldn't be sealed at normal temperatures, so do you think they would have managed bombs as well..? The SR-71 was state-of-the-art enough for early 1960's aviation technology without adding extra complication. That's the sort of thing a British Government would ask for when the design was nearly complete, and then scrap it because the manufacturers would want extra money and time for the project. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CHAPEL END CHARLIE Posted 5 December, 2009 Author Share Posted 5 December, 2009 (edited) They were easy to track and when the yanks were informed that they could be tracked they didn't believe it. Lighting them up with the fire control radars convinced them! The upgrades she'd had in an extensive refit had her the most capable destoyer afloat at that time. This also ensured that the Exeter was tasked with air defence picket for the yank battlewagons in the far north when they were engaging ground targets with their main armaments. Of course, this never happened. :-\" I started this thread with a complaint against wasteful MOD overspending but it's equally true the results of underspending can be even more disastrous . Had the RN's Type 42 Destroyers been equipped with modern radars and Phalanx CIWS systems before the Falklands war instead of after it then HMS Coventry might well have been saved and possibly the Sheffield as well . Good ships and fine men were lost because of that little exercise in penny pinching , and I'm sorry to say exactly the same mistakes are being repeated today . Edited 5 December, 2009 by CHAPEL END CHARLIE Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
View From The Top Posted 5 December, 2009 Share Posted 5 December, 2009 (edited) im suuuuure, the exeter was tasked in gulf war 1, with providing air defence for the USS missouri..as well as other things.. the missouri being a massive battle ship...old skool style You are correct. I could also mention a yank OHP class engaging the Missouri with it's phalanx as it had it switched to auto and the 16" shells whistling about confused it. Edited 5 December, 2009 by View From The Top Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arizona Posted 5 December, 2009 Share Posted 5 December, 2009 I have been reading the posts on here about the stealth bombers etc that were tracked and i always wondered why the Americans never tryed to fit out the SR-71 to carry any bombs.Now thats a great aircraft can fly at high altitude and go like **** off a shovel,surely that could off got into alot of targets and been gone before you new what happened. They took a few tentative steps in that direction with the XB-70 prototype. The "Valkyrie" was a bomber designed to fly at 70,000ft at Mach 3. However the development was quickly surpassed by Soviet high altitude anti-aircraft missile technology and the Mig-25 Foxbat interceptor. After a U-2 was shot down over Russia, the yanks pretty much gave up on the project and switched to much harder to counter, low level bombers. It wasn't anywhere near as fast as the Blackbird, but even at Mach three it was pushing the limits for altitude, effective payload and delivery systems, not to mention budget. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redondo Saint Posted 10 December, 2009 Share Posted 10 December, 2009 I don't think BAE are to blamne for this delay and cost over run chaps. Look to the MOD who continually changed specifications and requirements - much the same as the Eurofighter which is also late and over budget. In the US, every tax dollar spent on the military is scrutinised and audited which is why most projects are on time and in budget. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitey Grandad Posted 10 December, 2009 Share Posted 10 December, 2009 It's all costs plus so where's the incentive to keep the costs down? The manufacturers all claim that the MOD keep changing the specification, but they would, wouldn't they? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CHAPEL END CHARLIE Posted 11 December, 2009 Author Share Posted 11 December, 2009 I don't think BAE are to blamne for this delay and cost over run chaps. Look to the MOD who continually changed specifications and requirements - much the same as the Eurofighter which is also late and over budget. In the US, every tax dollar spent on the military is scrutinised and audited which is why most projects are on time and in budget. Oh the US has its share of defence procurement problems I'd say - the KC-X tanker fiasco and the VH-71 helicopter programme (which bares close comparison to the Nimrod MRA4 folly) being just the latest examples . To the outsider it does seem this subject is more of a party political/special interest football in the US than it is in the UK , with the losing bidder for any DOD contract always ready to take to the courts and enrich your vast army of lawyers . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitey Grandad Posted 11 December, 2009 Share Posted 11 December, 2009 Oh the US has its share of defence procurement problems I'd say - the KC-X tanker fiasco and the VH-71 helicopter programme (which bares close comparison to the Nimrod MRA4 folly) being just the latest examples . To the outsider it does seem this subject is more of a party political/special interest football in the US than it is in the UK , with the losing bidder for any DOD contract always ready to take to the courts and enrich your vast army of lawyers . There's also the long-running dispute about subsidies to the civilian airplane industry through military contracts.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OLYMPIC Posted 11 December, 2009 Share Posted 11 December, 2009 Now i know the Eurofighter is service in England but have any actually seen active service in Iraq etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arizona Posted 11 December, 2009 Share Posted 11 December, 2009 I think the first batch of Typhoons were geared more towards air superiority, which isn't an issue in the Middle East at the mo. Couldn't say if any of them have seen service though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitey Grandad Posted 11 December, 2009 Share Posted 11 December, 2009 I think the first batch of Typhoons were geared more towards air superiority, which isn't an issue in the Middle East at the mo. Couldn't say if any of them have seen service though. Sound so much better the 'Eurofighter' doesn't it? What do the Germans call it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 11 December, 2009 Share Posted 11 December, 2009 I started this thread with a complaint against wasteful MOD overspending but it's equally true the results of underspending can be even more disastrous . Had the RN's Type 42 Destroyers been equipped with modern radars and Phalanx CIWS systems before the Falklands war instead of after it then HMS Coventry might well have been saved and possibly the Sheffield as well . Good ships and fine men were lost because of that little exercise in penny pinching , and I'm sorry to say exactly the same mistakes are being repeated today . on the other hand...people moan and say things are not needed when it comes out that (for example) the navy spend billions on massive aircraft carriers...which are utterly vital for us...then say we should not penny pinch.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redondo Saint Posted 11 December, 2009 Share Posted 11 December, 2009 Oh the US has its share of defence procurement problems I'd say - the KC-X tanker fiasco and the VH-71 helicopter programme (which bares close comparison to the Nimrod MRA4 folly) being just the latest examples . To the outsider it does seem this subject is more of a party political/special interest football in the US than it is in the UK , with the losing bidder for any DOD contract always ready to take to the courts and enrich your vast army of lawyers . Actually the tanker fiasco was due to the issues in the bidding process not cost or time over-run. The VH71 programme was cancelled as a result of a new President wanting to reduce defence spending - no cost or time over-run. There are very few occasions when a losing bidder attempts to change a decision through the courts. Coming from West End, I can look at both sides! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 11 December, 2009 Share Posted 11 December, 2009 Actually the tanker fiasco was due to the issues in the bidding process not cost or time over-run. The VH71 programme was cancelled as a result of a new President wanting to reduce defence spending - no cost or time over-run. There are very few occasions when a losing bidder attempts to change a decision through the courts. Coming from West End, I can look at both sides! add the seawolf class subs....only made 3 as they are waay too expensive Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now