Nimrod enquiry due to report...

[Osem]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7126172.stm

I wonder if the NAO will soon be reporting a dramatic surge in Whitehall authorised expenditure on Whitewash.....

Just out of interest, do MoD enquiries ever turn up serious (some claim endemic) internal failings or are the servicemen and women always to blame?

[Taf]

I'm ex-RAF, and I saw servicing, maintenance and modifications carried out to the letter on all occasions, but when work was done by outside contractors, the equipment often needed repair afterwards by service personnel!

Any work done is recorded and reported to a central point where (for aircraft at least) any failings were quickly acted-upon to hopefully prevent damage or failure in the future.... but not always.... some glaring faults were reported time-and-again, only to be marked as "in progress".

The crews that keep the Nimrods flying, or any military hardware working, often do so with reduced manpower, low stocks of parts but always with 100% dedication to keep the old kit working as best as possible, and as safe as possible.

Nimrod, and many other ancient pieces of kit, NEED replacement for the safety of all who use them in our defence.

---------- Post added at 14:53 ---------- Previous post was at 14:47 ----------

IMHO the aircraft was designed to be refuelled directly into the wing tanks, so the attachment of an in-flight dorsal fuel probe meant pipelines from the proble, through the aircraft fuselage to the wing tanks. These pipelines and their joints are obviously not sufficient to accept the high flow rate on in-flight refuelling.. hence lethal leaks.

Leaks which were apparently common, and reported regularly.

[Osem]

You seem to be saying that our forces have and are being run on the cheap. Sadly it wouldn't be the first time I've heard that claimed..... When are the MOD going to learn?

[jkat]

its manslaughter, and it aint the raf's fault!

[Taf]

Originally Posted by Osem

You seem to be saying that our forces have and are being run on the cheap.

Cutbacks, reduced manning and overstretched resources will always have an effect... and can be fatal.

Posturing politicians send our military guys and gals all over the globe, but fail to equip them with the best possible equipment, leading to death, injury and handicap... then seem to ignore them when they come home (perhaps Victory/Homecoming Parades aren't PC?).

You know when it has all gone tits-up... when the Territorials are called into battle... and their job was HOME defence!

In my time I remember it being very difficult, if not impossible, to get uniform replacements as all the new kit was going to the kids in the Air Training Corps!!

---------- Post added at 17:57 ---------- Previous post was at 17:52 ----------

A good read about why these aircraft are still flying

http://www.spyflight.co.uk/MR4A.htm

[Osem]

Yes I'd heard about the delays to the MR4A - typical! By the time that plane gets into service it'll be obsolete and the unfortunate crews will be facing the same issues that their predecessors did!

Does anyone keep count of all the military programmes which have gone pear shaped, how many lives have been lost and how much money has been wasted?

[BBKing]

By gum.

http://yorkshire-ranter.blogspot.com...rt-is-out.html

TYR, who often does aviation related stuff and knows his stuff (I've met him, in fact), has pulled out the interesting (i.e. the bits the press will miss because they don't understand aviation) bits from the report. Catastrophic stuff, a mixture of cuts and reorganisations - all the problems with the aircraft seem to have been known at some point, but not in the right place at the right time. This is what rule by bean counters does to engineering:

"Changes to RAF Kinloss' management structure as a result of Project Trenchard removed the SO1 Engineer/OC Engineering Wing from the station structure. Engineering personnel are now distributed between the station's 2 remaining Wings under non-specialist leadership..."

"Service training courses were perceived by a number of witnesses no longer to impart the skill of hand or depth of knowledge necessary to maintain an aircraft built around a design philosophy now some 40 years old."

[Osem]

Wasn't the Nimrod involved in a costly debacle some years back when despite having ££££££££'s poured into it, HMG eventually chose AWACS?

[BBKing]

Yes, the AEW Mk 3. It's not like the Boeing E-3 we got instead has been a barrel of reliable laughs, either.

Part of the problem is that the Nimrod is irreplaceable for any given value of 'how much money do we want to throw at this?' - the aircraft industry just doesn't work like that any more. I can't think of a viable platform that exists that you could stick enough fuel in to loiter that long, fly that fast and have a proper bomb bay. Naturally, faced with an insoluble problem, the Civil Service answer is to pretend it doesn't exist.

[Taf]

Originally Posted by Osem

Wasn't the Nimrod involved in a costly debacle some years back when despite having ££££££££'s poured into it, HMG eventually chose AWACS?

A bit of a problem that one... radomes fore and aft... and if they were both switched on the aircraft fishtailed through the air...

http://www.aeroflight.co.uk/types/uk...rod_aew3_1.jpg

[Osem]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/...st/7385653.stm

Has anyone noticed the similarities in the emergency chaff deployment techniques of the MOD and HMG?

The standard technique seems to be:

a) cynically deny everything in spite of all the evidence,
b) only admit anything if/when you're proved to be lying and/or totally inept, in which case you should...
c) apologise profusley with a fake tear in your eye and
d) claim that the lessons have been learned, you're doing everything possible to put it all right and it'll never happen again.....

The entire Nimrod fleet was grounded early in 2007 but I wonder how many are back operational despite having such a big questionmark over their airworthiness.

[slowcoach]

Originally Posted by Taf

A bit of a problem that one... radomes fore and aft... and if they were both switched on the aircraft fishtailed through the air...

http://www.aeroflight.co.uk/types/uk...rod_aew3_1.jpg

Looks remarkably like a De Havilland Comet.

[Kevin T]

Originally Posted by slowcoach

Looks remarkably like a De Havilland Comet.

That's because the Comet was the airframe it was based on...

Link

[Jon T]

Originally Posted by Cobbydaler

That's because the Comet was the airframe it was based on...

Link

Yep, based on a Comet 4(which had round windows), and would have been a succesfull airliner if everybody hadn't gone for the Boeing 707(which BTW is the airframe that the E3D AWACS is based on).

[Maggy J]

Coggy tries very hard not let her eyes glaze over...


However she will ask if this comment is true and even fair considering the length of service the Nimrod has given.

"The Nimrod has an appalling safety record,