Home
RSS Feed
Categories: Analysis and Proposal
Tags: Nimrod, SDSR
I will be covering Nimrod and its roles in a future post but I received this yesterday and thought it worth publishing, despite the media attention of scrapping the Harriers I think not bringing into service the MRA4 is reckless.
I write on behalf of a group of former aerospace workers and supporters in the North West of England, committed to saving the Nimrod MRA4 maritime surveillance and intelligence gathering aircraft from cancellation and scrapping as a consequence of the Strategic Defence and Security Review (SDSR).
The gravity and urgency of the current situation cannot be over-stated. Within a matter of days the circumstances could become irreversible.
If MRA4 is scrapped, £4billion of public money will have been wasted on the programme. Five aircraft have flown comprising of three development aircraft, which have completed a test programme and two production aircraft, one of which has been delivered to the UK Customer. The remainder of the nine aircraft ordered are in various stages of advanced build. Scrapping these existing aircraft will represent waste on a scale that is unprecedented, even for this country. This at a time of recession when the Government claims to be targeting waste as well as cutting spending.
Moreover, the loss of MRA4 as a defence asset will open up a huge gap in the UK’s maritime surveillance and airborne intelligence gathering and co-ordinating capability. This is unacceptable for an island country heavily dependent on free movement along its sea lanes and at the same time vulnerable to the ever-present risk of terrorism. The security of shipping, offshore oil and gas rigs, offshore wind farms and nuclear power stations in remote coastal locations will be compromised.
It is just not good enough for the Government to talk in terms of an alternative, mitigating range of measures including naval ships, helicopters and re-deployed transport aircraft. Such a system would be incapable of operating, communicating and co-ordinating anywhere near as effectively as the MRA4, which provides all the necessary capabilities of surveillance, intelligence gathering, communications and air-sea rescue in a single platform.
The ultimate nonsense would be then at a future date to lease or purchase a far less capable alternative, possibly from the United States, the cost of which would have to be added to the £4billion which would already have been wasted.
In its response to the Commons Defence Select Committee’s First Report on the SDSR, the Government acknowledged and welcomed the Committee’s right to review the SDSR implementation proposals. This has not yet taken place and it appears that disposal of MRA4 is being rushed through before the Committee has had the opportunity to do so.
Therefore, as a matter of the utmost urgency, we call upon the Prime Minister and his Government to immediately suspend the irrevocable scrapping of these unique world class aircraft, pending further detailed review and consideration by the Commons Defence Select Committee.
The Programme: – Badly conceived, late and over budget.
But the Result: – A unique world class aircraft virtually ready for service with the RAF.
Then Cancellation: – A hasty ill judged decision which makes no sense at all.
Disposal: – Scrapping these aircraft would be an act of unparalleled vandalism with taxpayer assets; it would be the most disastrous event in the history of the British Aircraft Industry and will have a significant impact on the RAF and the defence of the UK.
Reconsider: – A final chance for Prime Minister, David Cameron and the Government to reconsider all options to save these aircraft from destruction before they are scrapped in early 2011.
The disastrous destruction of the nine production and three development Nimrod MRA4 aircraft moved a step closer over the last two weeks of November following the rejection by the Ministry of Defence of options proposed by BAE Systems aimed at saving all or some of the aircraft. As a result of the MoD rejection of the options, primarily due to lack of backing from the government, approximately 380 sub contract staff were laid off at BAE Systems Warton on the 24th November 2010, with a further 1400 staff at BAE Systems sites at Warton, Woodford, Chadderton, Prestwick, Farnborough, and RAF Kinloss put on notice on 9th December. The impact on people and the local communities is just one result from PM Cameron’s brief cancellation statement on the 19th October, where he dismissed the aircraft in just a few seconds. This hastily made, ill judged decision is the greatest blunder in the history of the UK Aircraft Industry and will have a significant impact on the RAF and the defence of the UK.
The following identifies why.
The Programme: The Nimrod MRA4 programme has had its well publicised problems and no pride can be taken in its eight year slippage. The original contract was awarded in December 1996 for the supply of 21 aircraft with the expectation of a minimal development programme. Although the MRA4 design uses refurbished MR2 fuselages, the MRA4 is essentially a new and very complex aircraft. The design and manufacturing programme was challenging and it eventually became evident that a specific development programme was required. A controlled stop was therefore applied to the production programme, while the three development aircraft went forward, achieving first flight on 26th August 2004. Initial results from the flight test programme demonstrated the previously unappreciated performance and capabilities of this “new” Nimrod MRA4, compared to Nimrod MR2, and allowed the customer to be comfortable with the reduction in fleet size from 21 to 9. BAE Systems were therefore awarded a realigned contract for 9 production aircraft in July 2006. The three development aircraft completed their design and development flight test programme in March 2010, which was also a momentous month for Nimrod MRA4 flying. On the one hand it saw the final flights of the trials fleet after a five and a half year, 1900 FH, 630 flight test programme with PA1 and PA2 flying into Woodford on 9th & 5th March 2010 respectively in order to be put into storage. On the other hand the second of the production aircraft PA5 made its first flight on 5th March and PA4 (first flight 10th September 2009) had the privilege of impressing the Chief of the Air Staff, ACM Sir Stephen Dalton, and Capability Manager (Information Superiority), AVM Carl Dixon, with a one hour flight on 2nd March. It is almost unheard of for a high tech programme not to suffer some cost growth and Nimrod is no exception. However, with the aircraft exceeding its specification time-on-station and the Customer happy to reduce the fleet size recognising the enormous capability of the aircraft, the overall programme cost has grown by only a modest 28% (from £2.813bn to £3.602bn) as clearly stated in the recently published 2010 Major Projects Report (HC489) from the National Audit Office.
But the Result: It is vital to stress that the Nimrod MRA4 offers a step change in capability in comparison with the previous Nimrod MR2 aircraft. It would have met the UK’s Maritime Patrol, Reconnaissance, Intelligence and Strike requirements well into the 21st Century. The Nimrod MRA4 would have fulfilled a number of roles: anti-submarine and anti-ship warfare and attack; maritime reconnaissance and intelligence collection; search and rescue; counter-terrorism; and protection of the 200nm EEZ and its fisheries, wind farms and gas and oil rigs. Performance data includes the following: -
The Nimrod MR2 aircrew, widely acknowledged for their world-beating maritime patrol expertise, who have flown in the MRA4, have highly praised the aircraft’s capability and its systems and were looking forward to operating the Nimrod MRA4 in RAF service. This view was supported by the Chief of the Air Staff, who said that he expected Nimrod MRA4 to form the centrepiece of the RAF’s long term combat ISTAR fleet. This supports the fact that the aircraft is truly a unique world class product with a performance capability far in excess of the new American P-8, which has less than half the range, endurance and weapon capability of Nimrod MRA4, is heavily dependent on support from an unmanned aircraft known as BAMS (Broad Area Maritime Surveillance) and is still in development.
The Cancellation: There has been an outcry of concern from many informed sources following the cancellation statement by Prime Minister, David Cameron.
These include significant statements from: -
Minister of Defence Equipment, Support & Technology, Peter Luff has identified a number of mitigation measures (use of other assets and closer collaboration with allies) to fill the capability gap resulting from the MRA4 cancellation. However, these measures will be far less effective than the capability that would have been available by the operation of MRA4 by the experienced aircrew at RAF Kinloss. Further, the adoption of such mitigation measures will be at a cost, which has not been defined. Peter Luff has also stated that not bringing MRA4 into RAF service will provide a savings of £2bn over the next 10 years (£200m per year). However, this perceived saving has not been clarified. Did it take into account the costs associated with the adoption of mitigation measures plus the cancellation and disposal costs of the aircraft and other MRA4 assets? The answer must be no, since these costs have not yet been fully defined.
Were other options for the RAF operation of MRA4 in a more cost effective manner ever investigated, for example, operation from RAF Waddington instead of RAF Kinloss, or operation by BAE Systems on a PFI leasing basis?
Nimrod MRA4 could have been cancelled on a number of occasions over the past 14 years, but those responsible in Government and MoD have always seen fit to keep it going due to its essential multi role capability.
So what is different now?
The threats have not changed (in many cases they are greater the aircraft has completed intensive testing and is virtually ready for service. Cancellation would result in an unforgivable waste of money. It makes far more sense to allow the RAF to operate this extremely capable aircraft in the most cost effective manner rather than rely on other far less capable measures. The resulting operating costs would be money well spent ensuring the UK has the best long range maritime patrol aircraft available. It has been stated by Secretary of State for Defence, Dr Liam Fox, that it was a very difficult decision not to bring Nimrod MRA4 into service. It is apparent that this difficult decision was hastily made during the conclusion of the SDSR discussions without the full implications being known.
The resulting cancellation statement by Prime Minister David Cameron was ill judged and left little or no scope for reconsideration.
Disposal: Following the cancellation decision, BAE Systems, received formal notice to terminate the contract, but were also invited to consider any innovative options to save the aircraft from an unjustified demise. The company proposed some options, which all required support and further funding from the MoD. These options were all rejected by MoD since they had no funds from government to consider any such proposals. Therefore, plans are now being formulated which would see the task of scrapping the aircraft commencing early this year, with the intention of completing the disposal as soon as possible.
Reconsider: The Government has made much of the fact that as well as cutting expenditure to meet the budgetary deficit, reductions in waste are also essential. To scrap Nimrod MRA4 at this late stage would constitute a Government-commissioned act of waste on a colossal scale. Does this government want to be responsible for the message and images that would be sent out, following expenditure of £4bn, by the sight of these fine, fully functioning aircraft being sent to the wreckers yard, compounded by the fact that the strategic, military and civilian roles they serve, ever present and remaining just as vital, were no longer able to be met in an adequate manner?
To accept the impact on capability and the colossal financial waste in order to save an estimated £200m per year for the next 10 years cannot be justified. Therefore, even at this late stage, there is a final opportunity for Prime Minister David Cameron and his colleagues in government to reconsider the cancellation and disposal decisions. They must have the courage and integrity to take heed of the outcry of concern from the many informed sources since the cancellation statement, recognise the full impacts of these hastily made decisions towards the end of the SDSR and accept that there is a compelling case for them to be urgently reconsidered before it is too late to save these aircraft from destruction.
#######
This from the MoD today
Ministers and Service Chiefs have made clear that the decision in October’s Strategic Defence and Security Review not to bring the Nimrod MRA4 into service was difficult, but it will not be reversed and the dismantling process is underway.
100 Responses
Del.icio.us
Digg
Technorati
Magnolia
Newsvine
Reddit
Even if we don’t consider the Nimrod, it is ludicrous, if not downright criminal, to deny the UK, an Island Nation with Overseas Territories and Interests, a long-range maritime patrol capability.
Yes, certain observation and surveillance tasks can be performed by smaller, simpler, cheaper and civilian staffed aircraft, but the civilian crews are bound only by (sometimes temporary) contracts which are market sensitive.
This means that good crews may be lured away within weeks if some more lucrative job offers itself.
The Nimrod is also a night/adverse weather aircraft, meaning it can go out during conditions downright fatal for other (smaller) aircraft.
The security of vital assets as named above; windmill parks, GOPLATs, nuclear plants (requiring coastal cooling water) are important, as are the SLOCs, Faslane submarine base approaches, but also the long underwater (data) cables. The tracking and monitoring of foreign ships and submarines overseas is also something that cannot be done by civilian alternatives.
Nimrods high speed allows a rapid response/investigation and even covert, politically sensitive missions if necessary.
Dear Great Britain, as a nation that cut its entire Orion force due to budget cuts, the Netherlands is really hurting for the loss of a vital national capability which cannot be covered by other means, either civilian, allied or other service assets (ships and short-range helicopters).
Do not repeat our mistake.
Savings roughly equate to the cost of a Eurofighter squadron’s air time for one year. (16 airframes, 250 flying hours, £50k per hour.)
Shorter version of this post: “Sunk Cost Fallacy”.
The money already wasted on MRA4 is irrelevant (or should be) to the decision to scrap it or not. The only question is: are we willing to pay at least £200 million a year – and potentially much more – for the next ten years for this capability?
Yes, of course losing MRA4 will mean losing some capability. It wasn’t a completely useless aircraft. But the capability lost is marginal.
Surveillance: is there any overland surveillance that Nimrod does that can’t be duplicated by the mix of UAVs and manned aircraft coming into service now?
SAR: again, how many times over the years has someone been rescued by Nimrod who would have been unreachable by (say) helicopter?
ASW: we also have Trafalgars, Type 23s, Merlin and Lynx; but we need a fifth extremely expensive ASW platform now as well? Not to mention the fact that the Soviet Red Banner Northern Fleet hasn’t been a threat for a wee while now. Given our entirely respectable strength against a threat that doesn’t really exist, I think we can put “increase ASW capacity” fairly far down the priority list.
Anti-ship warfare doesn’t really pass the giggle test, I’m afraid. To think that a reconditioned de Havilland Comet with a couple of Harpoons could play a valuable role in a future high-intensity naval conflict…
There’s also the point that we should be ready to kill terrible projects like this as a matter of principle. If those aerospace workers in the North-West of England had done a proper job, we wouldn’t be having this discussion, because we’d have a flying fleet of 21 MRA4 that would have been coming up to its tenth year in service. Instead, we spent billions, over more than a decade, and what does the RAF actually have now? One aircraft. The world’s most expensive combat aircraft, at a cost of £3.8 billion. Heck of a job, guys.
Still, I suppose now we know that we don’t really need its “essential multi-role capability” since we’ve managed to fight four wars while waiting for MRA4 to come on line, and we don’t seem to have suffered from its absence.
a – How are sunk costs a fallacy exactly ? While I can almost agree with some of your later paragraphs on technical issues, like the value of a few air launched Harpoons, I really would like to know how sunk costs should be so easily ignored. The tax payer has made an investment. It can either get a return on that investment, or it can write it off. Writing it off means that the investment has indeed been completely wasted. Continuing the program means it has not.
This is not the same as arguing that it was a silly idea in the first place and should of been cancelled years ago. Nor is the same as discussing whether there should be no sacred cows, I absolutely agree with you that any project could and should be cut if required. I just disagree with your economic argument.
I also agree that the main issue is whether we want to pay 200 million per year in operating costs – I think compared to completely loosing considerable capabilities that answer should be yes, but thats just my opinion.
By the way, while the Nimrod cannot swoop down on the water and rescue anyone, it is a long endurance “scene of action commander” platform that has been involved in coordinating many SAR operations (the same role for which the USCG buys specially equipped Herc’s – and they can’t land on water either). As to ISR over land – its not about lofting similar sensors onboard UAV’s, its about the aircraft crew, and their utility in a battle space management role. So personally, I really don’t think the capability lost is marginal.
“There’s also the point that we should be ready to kill terrible projects like this as a matter of principle. If those aerospace workers in the North-West of England had done a proper job,” – seems like a very cheap parting shot, although I am sure some project managers and senior people probably should have gone to the wall on this, your just tarring everyone with the same brush.
Sunk costs: these have been paid whether you keep the aircraft or junk them. Doesn’t matter.
What does matter is how much more they are going to cost you from now on, and what benefit you’ll get from them.
It costs £250million to keep the Vanguards at sea for a year.
Admin, I work in comms and marketing. I’ve done fairly high level work for the UK government, firms providing services to the MOD, the Police, and defence contractors. This could be a possible BAE ‘astroturfing’ campaign – astroturf being fake ‘grass roots’ campaigning.
It might all be genuine – but be careful, is all I’m saying. Any multibillion pound enterprise worth its salt will have press office people reading and posting on blogs like TD every week, if not every day.
While I disagree with scrapping the MRA4′s at this point in time and they would be an excellent asset, the project was going to deliver insufficient number of platforms, which would need a certain amount of upgrades fairly quickly and which is totally unique airframe and would have costed us a small fortune to keep it in the air through it’s whole design life.
Arguable what we should do is drop the combat systems, and integrate the decent ISTAR components on a new smaller platform, which is currently in production and is used by at least one other major Western air force, so that we end up with a future proofed, cheap to operate platform which can cover long range maritime surveillance and SAR coordination, and leave ASW to the Merlin’s and our future T26.
mat, yes I agree, it was the same basic story as in the Sunday Times yesterday. It is wise to be cautious and your point is well made but to counter that, I happen to agree with much of the post so thought it worthwhile for people to read and comment on
Hi Mat,
This excellent postEx-Whitehall Warrior
October 29, 2010 at 6:23 pm comes closest to how I see the sage; your assumption would fit in nicely.
Hi Tubby, your proposal makes a lot of sense and will surely come to the market through Boeing, at some stage.
- interesting to note that the Brequet Atlantiques will soon need refurbing!
Hi ArmChairCivvy,
I think we might be asked/politely pushed to join the French programme for a biz jet based SAR/Maritime surveillance programme which is designed to – as always I have read the story several times but when it comes to finding the link so I can at least use the proper name for the programme I cannot find it again
Tubby spoke of T26 and ASW.
Yes for all the talk of ISTAR etc. we mustn’t forget that Nimrod was primarily our MPA and one of its main tasks, if not its primary task, was “defending” the deterrent.
I feel tempted to go to get the figures for how much a T23 costs to run for a year.
I wonder if “they” ever trialled Nimrod against a frigate in a submarine hunting exercise…..
x, doesnt work like that, its a team game, one complimenting the other
“If MRA4 is scrapped, £4billion of public money will have been wasted on the programme.”
That should be ignored because it’s irrelevant for the decision.
The money was spent, not matter cancellation or not.
To think otherwise means to fall prey to the logical fallacy of sunk costs.
@Jed
OK, long form:
Make an equation.
On the left side you add all advantages of having Nimrod and subtract all costs of having Nimrod.
On the left side you add all advantages of not having Nimrod and subtract all costs of not having Nimrod.
In the centre is either a > or a < or a =.
Now if you did this correctly you only need to do the calculation and decide on what symbol in centre is correct.
The calculation will have the old costs on both sides, though. The have no effect on the correct symbol whatsoever. They are irrelevant for the discussion.
They are only relevant insofar as there's a lesson to learn and probably a case that certain careers ought to end or be reversed.
Just realised I missed a bit of text in my last post should read “I think we might be asked/politely pushed to join the French programme for a biz jet based SAR/Maritime surveillance programme which is designed to operate along side the French Atlanques…”
Re: X comments – is the a MPA the best way to protect our nuclear deterrent? Would other platforms be cheaper to procure and cheaper to operate, would coastal ASW corvettes or SSK’s be better screening elements for the deterrent5? Also it could be argued that closing Kinloss to make it available to the Army is a bigger driver than the operating costs of any future MPA’s?
I see the sunk costs is old news argument but I dont think we should just pretend we have lost £4b down the back of the sofa either. Value for money is important
No worries Tubby, these comment windows are impossible to write into (almost; I wasn’t talking about herbs, meant to type “saga”).
RE ” “I think we might be asked/politely pushed to join the French programme” – is there such a programme (v interesting)? Airbus has an MPA concept, ready for invites (and getting it kitted out is the hard part, so the R&D that went into Nimrod’s systems might still “land” on an airframe… not that Boeing and Airbus would be natural partners).
@ TD said “It doesn’t work like that……..”
Thanks. I do know what Nimrod can and can’t do. And I too abhor the waste of a large amount of the defence vote. I am allowed to wonder if the performance of two systems was compared.
@ Tubby
Ignore me. Worrying about whether the Ruskies are tracking our last line of defence is a hobby horse of mine.
Thanks Sven, I have an MBA, I know how to do a Cost Benefit Analysis
The Sunk Costs Fallacy is a model of traditional microeconomic theory, neither I nor everyone else has to assume it is the correct model to use in every situation. Political decisions around programmes of this size often involve many dimensions, which is why HMG are patting themselves on the back for making a “tough decision” (TM). They realize it does not ingratiate them with BAe or local voters. As I have said before, frankly I could not give a monkey’s uncle for the “military industrial complex” factors in this decision, but I am deeply concerned about the miopic view of the “capability holiday” and how much the future the future costs may turn out to be when a different HMG decides it needs those capabilites, and must buy them elsewhere.
TD has a “thing” for commonality – so how about taking the mission system and installing it in a A400M ?
How about taking the mission system, putting as much as possible into ULDs and installing it into the Airbus A330 MRTTs? Operate the A330s in conjunction with with UAVs flying at low altitude when necessary, eg dropping Lindholme gear. Would cost hundreds of millions for development/integration.
@ a yesterday i commented on how i visted woodford in green to do recruiting, the aerospace workers were really good guys, i would like to think you may have meant senior managers, well i hope so.
@ brian It was mentioned earlier that airbus have an MPA airplane based on the A319 complete with bomb bays etc etc they have a good track record supplying aircraftin the MPA role ranging from the dinky 212 up to the 295 and the 319 looks the biz.
oh by the way 2 things made me giggle today one on topic one off. RUSI have told the MOD they have to lose another 1-2 billion per year up to 2015 to stay in line and not overspend this is on top of the SDSR cuts. The other was the inclusion of the C130 as part of the no nimrod solution!
equipment check
1x C130, check
airman, qty 1 for the use of, check
binoculars qty 1 etc etc
notepad,40 page, lined qty 1
pencil, hb qty 1
righty ho off you go chaps!!!
airman
@ a yesterday i commented on how i visted woodford in green to do recruiting, the aerospace workers were really good guys, i would like to think you may have meant senior managers, well i hope so.
@ brian It was mentioned earlier that airbus have an MPA airplane based on the A319 complete with bomb bays etc etc they have a good track record supplying aircraftin the MPA role ranging from the dinky 212 up to the 295 and the 319 looks the biz.
oh by the way 2 things made me giggle today one on topic one off. RUSI have told the MOD they have to lose another 1-2 billion per year up to 2015 to stay in line and not overspend this is on top of the SDSR cuts. The other was the inclusion of the C130 as part of the no nimrod solution!
equipment check
1x C130, check
airman, qty 1 for the use of, check
binoculars qty 1 etc etc
notepad,40 page, lined qty 1
pencil, hb qty 1
righty ho off you go chaps!!!
airman
Jed, you ddin#t write about other factors, but about the sunk costs fallacy at its core.
“The tax payer has made an investment. It can either get a return on that investment, or it can write it off. Writing it off means that the investment has indeed been completely wasted. Continuing the program means it has not.”
You should know with an MBA that “to write off” means to depreciate. That happens in any case, no matter whether you gain any benefit from the thing or not.
Save for a difference in timing of the depreciation, it’s the same thing no matter whether you use the stuff or not.
It’s therefore an irrelevant argument for the decision-making.
Costs that cannot be influenced by a decision are irrelevant costs and have to be ignored, or else you are an incompetent decision-maker because you did a mistake.
As far as ruthless commonality it seems that in the past 15 yrs most of our AWACS, ISTAR, MPA, tankers and medium/large transports were or are old or knackered – it might not have been a perfect solution but buying 40-50 A330s or 767s and fitting them out in various modular ways to meet these roles would have been sensible and resulted in vast cost savings in the long run. They would need some additional C17s and Herc/C295 type for heavy duty and austere airfield/low altitude stuff respectively (which interestingly is useful for both transport and MPA so more commonality possible). But i’m only an amateur with a day job – i’m not paid to think up these things.
The really stupid mistake was not building new airframes. This would have negated the issue with the original airframes all being different and causing massive problems fitting standard wings to non-standard airframes.
By building what would have been a completely new aircraft, it could have been sold to others. With regard to standardisation the all new nimrod could have been used to provide the whole range of different roles viz:
MPA
Ground surveillance (sentinel)
Sigint/elint (nimrod r1)
AWACS (fit with wedgetail or erieye )
Strategic bomber
Even tinkering
To scrap now is shear vandalism. Cutting off ones noes to spite ones face.
paul g, don’t tell the US Coastguard that using C-130s for maritime patrol is daft.
Sven
I understand what your driving at, but your being overly simplistic. Of course there is more than a simple matter of timing, there is the ability to derive added value.
If the depreciation is very rapid, i.e. the airframes are chopped up and turned into razor blades next week, the ‘not’ scenario from your “whether you gain anything or not”.
However if the earlier cost benefit analysis decides that 200 million a year running costs is OK, then the depreciation occurs over the operating life of the aircraft. So yes, the assets ‘book value’ still depreciates. However at the same time the aircraft is providing “added value” (or it least, it is if it all works as advertised !). This added value is of course extremely difficult to quantify, it depends what operational use the aircraft is put to during its life, but this is less of an economic factor and more of an operational capability one. So the key factor here is that this is more than an economic decision, it is also a military operational one.
@ Jan – I had the same thought myself. The US coastguard use C-130′s for long range patrol and AEW, the US airforce uses many variants including ELINT and tanker as well as transport. Another possibility would be the concept of the Transport-Bomber.
http://www.fas.org/man/eprint/benson.htm
Couldn’t we use a common airframe and use modular containers within the cargo-bay and/or add-ons for different missions?
If the A400 ever arrives the C130j Hercules C4/5 are being retired so use half to replace the nimrod and half to replace the shadows/sentinels sounds good to me.
point taken on the US c130′s chaps but the i was trying (sarcastically) that our present heads of sheds, particularly the bean counters would be going for the cheapest option unlike our cousins across the pond, hence the reference to binos,notepad and pencil!
I would love it if we had fully kitted out fat alberts, however i’ve just checked and there’s still a hole in my ar$e!!!
As to ISR over land – its not about lofting similar sensors onboard UAV’s, its about the aircraft crew, and their utility in a battle space management role. So personally, I really don’t think the capability lost is marginal.
Hmm, I see your point – but we’ve already decided to do battlespace management on the ground with the radar take from Sentinel/ASTOR (and all the UAVs of course) and presumably will do the same with the SIGINT take from the Rivet Joints when they come in. It might actually be easier to do the same with the optical take (which is all Nimrod brings to the table in a land warfare context) rather than trying to build up a battle picture in two different places.
The electro-optical turret on a Nimrod MR2 circling over the battlefield may well be a valuable asset to the ground commander. The people on the aircraft, though, could probably be relocated to a Portakabin at an airfield, to watch the same take from the same turret on a UAV or small aircraft, without too much trouble. And Watchkeeper will have ground-scan radar and optical turret – just like Nimrod – and will also have a targeting laser, which Nimrod doesn’t have.
I am deeply concerned about the miopic view of the “capability holiday” and how much the future costs may turn out to be when a different HMG decides it needs those capabilities, and must buy them elsewhere.
This is a good point, but, as I’ve said, I don’t regard fixed-wing MPA/ASW per se as a crucial capacity right now. Further down the line, there are a lot of MPA in production right now – plenty of choice if we decide in ten years’ time that we really need to kill subs again. We don’t now: we’re at war in a landlocked country, and as a side issue we’re trying to stop pirates in speedboats.
Hi a,
When you put it like this “watch the same take from the same turret on a UAV or small aircraft, without too much trouble. And Watchkeeper will have ground-scan radar and optical turret – just like Nimrod – and will also have a targeting laser, which Nimrod doesn’t have.” then the £16m a piece (must have been on one of the ISTAR threads, can’t find it on this one) starts to sound cheap (= good value).
Going forward, though, my concern is that most development seems to be very mission specific, resulting (not only in stove pipes operating them, but also) in
- High development costs + low volume production
=>High acquisition cost & high ownership costs (here the stove pipes come back to bite, even though at the development stage they may have been beneficial for getting the spec right without endless iterations)
@paul 1150
I understand you were being sarcastic…it just seems insane to be on the verge of having a world class airborne manned istar quintet with Sentry/Rivet Joint/Nimrod/Sentinel/Shadow and then biff two thirds of them for what seems to be quite small running costs but massive capability loss.The loss of sentinel and shadow after afghanistan might be justifiable if we’re no longer gonna have standalone expeditionary capabilities but nimrod is kinda important since we’re er an…island.
My thoughts now are that SDSR has happened and its unlikely that many if any decisions are gonna be reversed so how do we move on.
Hi ArmChairCivvy,
Sorry to take so long to respond, it has taken a while for my to find what I was looking for.
“RE: “I think we might be asked/politely pushed to join the French programme” – is there such a programme (v interesting)? Airbus has an MPA concept, ready for invites (and getting it kitted out is the hard part, so the R&D that went into Nimrod’s systems might still “land” on an airframe… not that Boeing and Airbus would be natural partners).”
As I mentioned the French are planning a maritime surveillance/SAR platform under the AVISMAR programme, and which Dassault and Thales are eyeing up, and for which France is a little short on cash, so it strikes me that if France is going to keep helping us out like they have recently with SAR coordination then they are going to ask us to join AVISMAR programme. It would be at least better than nothing.
http://www.military.com/features/0,15240,222714,00.html?ESRC=dodnews.RSS
Thanks Tubby,
The third component of the future fleet, being ship-launched and requiring only a 15 x 15m flight deck was very interesting, too.
- how big could it be e.g. on a 1.5 kt GOWIND vessel?
So:
“The Nimrod MR2 aircrew, widely acknowledged for their world-beating maritime patrol expertise, who have flown in the MRA4, have highly praised the aircraft’s capability and its systems and were looking forward to operating the Nimrod MRA4 in RAF service. This view was supported by the Chief of the Air Staff, who said that he expected Nimrod MRA4 to form the centrepiece of the RAF’s long term combat ISTAR fleet.”
If this is to be believed, then it puts the lie to all the recent talk of the RAF sacrificing any capability in order to get more FJ’s. It seems that they were genuinely happy and proud of the aircraft.
Was anyone consulted on the scrapping of the programme and, if so, did anyone in the Treasury listen?
a said: ” but we’ve already decided to do battlespace management on the ground with the radar take from Sentinel/ASTOR (and all the UAVs of course) and presumably will do the same with the SIGINT take from the Rivet Joints when they come in”
That’s not exactly what I was getting at. That is not ‘battle space management’ per se, its the download of a surveillance feed to a local ground commander. This in turn would be fed to RAF / Coalition ‘Air Command” centre, and to Army / Coalition divisional headquarters level.
What I was getting at, is that with the mountainous terrain of Afghanistan, having a platform overheard with direct line of site communications to “in contact” ground troops, plus shed loads of additional comms channels (HF voice, satcom data and voice, Link 16 etc), lots of warm bodies, and plenty of computing power, the Nimrod has the capacity to swing from “Just another EO turret equipped NT-ISTAR platform” to a airborne tactical battle command post (another thing the USAF uses Herc’s for). Plus Nimrod MRA4 version of SearchWater does have overland SAR/MTI modes as far as I know, and I am sure it would not be that difficult to add a laser designator to its EO turret. Going further, with its power generation capacity and capacious bomb bay, why not add RAPTOR sensors or even GORGON STARE in the bomb bay ? Hell it could even drop remote seismic sensors from its sono-buoy launchers ! So it is simply far a more flexible asset than Watchkeeper or Reaper.
You have to realise that in the RAF pecking order, Coastal Command comes in last.
Jed: yes, _if_ we added lots of other sensors and capabilities to MRA4 that it doesn’t actually have at the moment, it would indeed be a more useful asset. And if I was an old Lithuanian man and could play the violin really, really well, I’d be Jascha Heifetz.
Has Nimrod really been used as an “airborne tactical battle command post” in Afghanistan? I am dubious. They don’t normally fly with Army officers on board – STA specialists aside – and I suspect that a ground callsign in a contact might take umbrage at some RAF voice coming on the net and saying “Right lads, I’ll take it from here”.
If you mean that it can be used as an airborne communications relay, that’s fair enough, but this is a mission that can be conducted by a lot of platforms – Tornado can and has, for example.
ACC: “Going forward, though, my concern is that most development seems to be very mission specific, resulting (not only in stove pipes operating them, but also) in
- High development costs + low volume production
=>High acquisition cost & high ownership costs”
This is a risk, but when you decide to go the other way and build something that can do lots of roles, you get, well, MRA4, or, worse still, LCS. Requirement Bloat.
Hi ArmChairCivvy,
Of the two of the shelf solutions for their UAV platforms the Schiebel Camcopter is quite small, and I think I read the UK had some interest in it (along with the Fire Scout).
What I like to see (and I think you even suggested it) would be for the MoD to buy one of these new hybrid airships such as the UK built SkyPatrol and fit them out with SearchWater and a L3 Wescam and use them to patrol the North Sea http://www.worldskycat.com/markets/skypatrol.html. If World SkyCat was clever they would offer gratis for a couple of years one of their SkyPatrol’s (assuming it is of the drawing board) to the MoD for UK use and then see if they will commit to buying a number of them.
My, what a lot of comments…
In the end we’ll face having to retrain/regain the skills MPA gave us which will be hugely expensive and time comsuming – like we’ll experiance when cat and traps returns – …from sensor operators, to MPA to ship to helicopter interface, to maintainance chain and intelligence to name a few.
Then theres the skills BAe has/will loose too, forever making it costly or near-impossible to re-ignite such a program again.
A huge brain/skill drain will follow and in the end the taxpayer has come worse off – all the money = nothing, the RAF has deffo come worse off, the RN has certainly come worse off – whos to protect their shiney new U-Boats and, in particular, Boomers? Maybe the Army – the intel ghathered. And the home Industry has come of worse off…
Please lets hope it doesnt happen to other areas of defence industry, like ships and electronics – the latter seems to have benefitted though.
Ah well, at least theres no obvious threat atm – I mean, Ivan’s Northern banner fleet isn;tgoing anywhere in a hurry XD
@ tubby 6.20
just wrote a massive comment ref your skycat suggestion, and the laptop had a paddy and spat it out! so to summerise the US have a project called LEMV an airship designed to be on station for 21 days they are aiming for it to be in theatre for trials end of 2011, however my main point is the airship part is being built in bedford by hybrid air vehicles ltd. So your idea is happening, not sure if the concept will work but hey not our funds trying it!!
I’m more interested in the QinetiQ solar aircraft that stayed up for 14 days at a high altitude, looks more promising IMHO
There is nothing more expensive than the Treasury saving Money. Nimrod MRA4 should have been new build, we should have pushed harder licensed build sales in the US & Japan. The RAF should have got the full 21 armed with Storm Shadow.
Other countries back their projects.
We just faff about , waste money, then scrap everything as we lack the will to see it through. Think TSR2, the APT train now copied by the Pendolino/Acela/ICE-T, or the HTGR nuclear reactor mothballed in Britain , but soon to be the centrepiece of the Hydrogen economy in Japan.
It is trendy to mock the old “picking winners” strategy. When we did, we had a trade surplus with the rest of the world in 17 out of 25 years. Since we abandoned it , we have had a trade deficit for 25 out of 25 years.
The pound has lost 90% of its value since the 1970s.
The cry is shut British defence industry & buy everything American. Will the yanks want to sell to us when the pound is on the floor?
Would it have been wise not to build Spitfires & Hurricanes in 1940, but just rely on limited imports of Curtis Hawks?
If we were broke I could understand scrapping the MRA4, but we have money to increase foreign aid £4.5 billion a year. Another £400 million + a year in extra EU contributions, plus money to bail out the Euro even though we are not in the Eurozone.
With a limited defence budget, we need multi role kit. Nimrod MRA4 was anti submarine, long range patrol for SAR & anti terrorism(weapon smuggling), anti pirate, anti ship (why Harpoon, Brahmos would be better), global strike with Storm Shadow, comms relay, intel gathering, battlefield monitoring.
I hope the Nimrod MRA4 can be saved.
I suspect it was lost in RAF brinkmanship. Mainly helped the Royal Navy so no RAF will to fight for it. Foolish, foolish,foolish.
Rather than scrap the short body RAF C-130J, convert them to US Coastguard HC-130J if the Nimrod cannot be saved.
The HC-130J has ELTA EDO EL/M 2022A(V)3 radar & Star Safire111 FLIR for ocean patrol. The C-130J is not credible for maritime roles without them.
What is the next UK aerospace project beyond Typhoon & F-35?
I would replace the Tornado with the US son of 2018 regional bomber. A 10% stake like the F-35?
Then there’s the skills BAe has/will lose too, forever making it costly or near-impossible to re-ignite such a program again.
A huge brain/skill drain will follow
Hmm. Well, sorry if this sounds facetious, but drawing on BAE’s current skill base (the one that’s apparently so valuable) it took fourteen years and £3.6 billion to get the RAF one single MRA4. It’s difficult to see how much worse a brain drain could make things for us.
the RN has certainly come worse off – whos to protect their shiney new U-Boats and, in particular, Boomers?
Well, we do have 44 naval Merlins, at least a squadron of ASW Lynxes, 13 Type 23 anti-submarine frigates, six Trafalgar class SSNs and one Astute class SSN. That’s about seventy sonar mounts and god knows how many torpedo tubes.
I’m sure they’ll manage somehow between them.
Thanks paul g, I have seen a picture of the LERV concept, but not read to much on it, had no idea that there are two companies in the UK doing hybrid airships and aiming for the military market.
I think hybrid airships might make excellent persistent platforms over the sea but I would also imagine their transit speed would limit their ability to provide SAR, but they should be good for more localised ISTAR, and I guess that a hybrid airship could easily fly low enough to deploy a MAD or drop sonar buoys. The question is, would it be less detectable by a submarine than a MPA?
If they worked (and I see no reason to think they would not) the we would likely have a hell of time persuading anyone to fly them. I bet the RN would end having to operate them as I cannot see anyone joining the RAF to fly an airship (join the RAF, see the North Sea at a steady 60 knots, from a dinky plastic cabin under a huge bag of hot air, leave the RAF and get a job flying the Goodyear blimp)!!
Hi Tubby,
My proposal that you earlier referred to was for a “permanently” positioned lighter than air solution, and not just for oil rigs but also over land (gas terminals, nuclear power stations). Pilot problem overcome and one ground station can handle many ( so per monitored location very slight incremental manning cost).
Airships, like cheap simple aircraft for COIN/CAS, have been around for years in discussions like this. They are never adopted and won’t be.
To my mind, you have to keep the threat in mind. The Nimrod was designed to counter the Russian subs in the North Atlantic. These subs are now rusting away in northern Russia. So cancelling the Nimrod was OK.
I find it hard to believe that a country in our geographical position doesn’t need ocean surveillance. The best option would be a dozen C-130J. They wouldn’t need the complex gear required to track subs. They would also resemble the Shackleton’s crews idea of the ideal MPA. Given the importance of weather these days, they could even resurrect the role of the Hastings sqn that once flew out of Belfast. They could carry people and things on their days off.
I bet the RN would end having to operate them as I cannot see anyone joining the RAF to fly an airship
I think you underestimate the power of the steampunk fanbase.
“Join the RAF and fly one of Her Majesty’s War Zeppelins”? They’d be queueing up round the block.
“Join the RAF and fly one of Her Majesty’s War Zeppelins”?
Where do I sign up?!?!
More seriously, I have a soft spot for the unique capabilities of airships/hybrid aircraft and think they would be a valuable addition to the UK armed forces; AEW, ASW, patrol, comm relay, even ISR. The only question would be their survivability in high threat environments. But that argument can be made against many support craft/functions.
P.S. Should be operated by RN – they are “ships” after all
@ Michael (ex-DIS)
What are the barriers to hybrid airships being introduced?
Agree that the best thing they could with the C-130J’s (I assume it would be best to refit the C5′s rather than the C4′s which I am sure have good re-sale value) would be to convert them to HC-130J’s for SAR and maritime surveillance, pretty sure the Selex Seaspray is a good radar, and we could fit a L3 Wescam or Titan 386ES instead of the Star Starfire III. We could sell the 15 C4’s to fund refurbishment of the 10 C5’s to UK approximation of the HC-130J.
“What are the barriers to hybrid airships being introduced?”
First of all – I am quite old. (clue – I joined the RAF in 1954).
There are some topics that I have seen discussed again and again. Airships is one.
I am not saying they are not a good idea, just that no one in power will be interested.
@John Hartley
“What is the next UK aerospace project beyond Typhoon & F-35?”
I think, the basic view of simply having a UK-aerospace sector is fatally flawed. BAE is a globalized company and I expect BAE to be a capable self-sustained contender in any future US-procurement project. Whether they are capable to withstand “buy US”-rants in congress will be the chief question. Same goes for RR.
My concern is that BAE with it’s mentality is incapable of developing an aircraft of it’s own. Virtually all airframes BAE sells were inherited. Including Nimrod.
RE “My concern is that BAE with it’s mentality is incapable of developing an aircraft of it’s own. Virtually all airframes BAE sells were inherited. Including Nimrod.”
- could it be a business strategy (rather than mentality); on the lines like ‘ stay away from big, lumpy investments solely on own account if their profitability depend on future orders’. Putting it like this would except ships because the initial order already guarantees (?) profit
- stock analysts see them (still) over-concentrated on a market that accounts for 4% of defence expenditure but 18% of their revenues. Hence all those acquisitions that keep adding new product ranges, not just geographical markets? Product ranges that can be taken further by integrating solutions from other subsidiaries, rather than through big/ risky investments
@ Michael (ex-DIS)
i hear your thoughts about airships (i’ve been on PPRuNe it’s a general consenus by sky gods). However the US are putting up dollars for this project, so seems someone is interested!!!! As i said if it works, great we have a UK company involved and development costs covered, if it doesn’t no loss for us kerr-ching!!
@ Michael (ex-DIS)
The reason I asked is that I remember reading years ago that the main barriers to airships was that they need expensive ground facilities, and that they we very sensitive to wind conditions, and I was wondering if the hybrid airships had sorted the problem (hence the US interest in them)
BAe may not be lovable, but does that mean we close down British industry?
Over 9 billion people on this planet in a few decades, all fighting over limited resources.
Meanwhile Britain abandons defence & industry , so we can all get diversity outreach jobs.
I see the old airships story has started again must be, oh the 3rd or 4th time in my adult life. Cue: -
1)Local telly reporter standing outside Cardington.
2)Reports in MSM featuring film of Hindenurg and Zepplin
3)Another ‘Chance for British technology to lead the world’,
4)’World skyship industries’ ( Or whatever) based in a short lease office block in Guildford, start issuing press releases about needing govt funds.
5) 20 ft Flying Scale models produced, and lots artists impressions.
Or if US, Cue all of the above + Boeing looking for GBFO DOD Development contract.
Sorry, but seen it, heard it, all before.
It won’t happen.
I had 2 great Uncles who built airships in the 20′s and 30s and they were of the opinion they were useless and dangerous.
Nothing to do with hydrogen, just: -
1) The difficulties of control at low speeds and low level in anything aproaching a high wind, weather avoidance, and the ris of getting caught in big storm systems.
2) There are apparantly big problems with eletrostatic build up inside the envelope.
3) Ice build up on the envelope.
You should have heard their comments about skyships industries plans in the early 80′s shortly before they both died.
AH – Skyship Skycat.
http://www.aerospace-technology.com/projects/skycat/
@ Tubby – I think this link will answer your questions. It also shows that the tech was originally British.
Are there any aircraft manufacturers that don’t do any new designs at all other than present company? LM, Boeing, Northrop do; Canadair do; Dassault, AW, EADS do; Russians do; Mitsubishi do; Taiwanese do; Brazilians do; Chinese do, now; Indians probably will.
Saab do. (missed them)
@ACC
“could it be a business strategy (rather than mentality); on the lines like ‘ stay away from big, lumpy investments solely on own account if their profitability depend on future orders’.”
If so, it would be even worse. If you seed peanuts, you will harvest peanuts. If BAEs current inventory vanishes, it will be a peanut company.
But it would explain the new-found love of some commenters here to buy us the Hawk for the “carrier-strike” mission.
Buying companies to get their skills is showing a mindset that is problematic to me. “oops, we dunno anything about this crap, let’s buy those folks in you-name-it, they make pretty decent stuff”. You create an inefficient conglomerate of under-organisations, then you ‘restructure’, half of the skilled manpower quits. I’ve seen it too often, i’m sick of it.
Good-ole in-house build-up of skilled product teams is the answer.
The decision to can the MRA4 was certainly based on the 200 million pound annual operating cost rather than the cost of building the planes, given that they were nearly paid for and the government undoubtedly had to pay BAE a penalty to stop construction. It’s unlikely the potential scrap value entered into the thinking even if there might be a few pounds that could be recouped by selling the odd engine and wheel after paying the cost of dismantling them.
So given that Treasury would have been satisfied by just not putting the planes into service, it begs the question why are they being broken up with indecent haste?
With two planes completed and paid for, you would think that that no one would object if the RAF took those two and parked them somewhere. If they were in working condition when in a few years time someone dusted them off, and if they are as marvellous as every thinks, then a couple of aircraft such as these may well have been a welcome addition to some operation. Storing two aircraft wouldn’t cost Treasury anything.
The fact that they are being broken up suggests:
- The RAF weren’t bright enough to take up the opportunity to possess two valuable aircraft.
- The government wants to represent dumping them as being because the aircraft is ‘the wrong type’ (rather than to simply save money by not using them) and is prepared to destroy perfectly good and expensive aircraft to avoid any possibility of someone proving later on that actually they are pretty useful.
- The aircraft are flawed and scrapping them is saving everyone the embarrassment of finding that out.
V good, maybe we should take a show of hands between these:
“The fact that they are being broken up suggests:
- The RAF weren’t bright enough to take up the opportunity to possess two valuable aircraft.
- The government wants to represent dumping them as being because the aircraft is ‘the wrong type’ (rather than to simply save money by not using them) and is prepared to destroy perfectly good and expensive aircraft to avoid any possibility of someone proving later on that actually they are pretty useful.
- The aircraft are flawed and scrapping them is saving everyone the embarrassment of finding that out.”
Further, what happened to the systems (have a considerable lead-time, considering how far into the manufacturing process the airframes were)
- somewhere in a shed?
- order cancelled (with penalty or not)?
Don’t forget the three “trials” jets either, which are sitting in a hangar somewhere…
As they were paid for another use could have been found for them. With their large bomb bays they would have made ideal tankers.
Since they were such terrifically good and useful aircraft, surely they could be sold to another customer? There must be lots of air forces who would love to buy them!
*stifles laughter*
You all seem to be disregarding the purely political aspect – they are being scrapped with “indecent haste” purely so that the decision cannot be reversed.
A 3 aircraft tanker sub_fleet would not be much use, however a 3 aircraft SAR / Surveillance capability might have been worth keeping them around for. Add on the two development aircraft, take out all the acoustic / ASW gear and keep the SearchWater and EO and you now have 5 very useful, if severely constrained planes.
No one can defend this incomprehensible decision to scrap 9 almost-complete aircraft. This government has seen Labour’s “capability holiday” strategy (e.g. Sea Harriers)and decided it will extend it to any area it chooses. How many such gaps can you have without the risk of being caught short by one of them?
We should have a high/low MP/SAR mix of Nimrod and the redundant short C130Js (I’m assuming that 2 or 3 of these will become Special Forces aircraft). I don’t get the fixation with Nimrod circling over some 3rd World hellhole in a completely permissive environment. It’s too expensive/too capable/too scarce to pigeonhole like that.
We learnt yesterday that it costs us £460m to “arrange” maintenance payments after couples divorce and the govt. is looking at bringing in a charge for said service. I’d sleep easier with that money funding Nimrod operations (and Harriers afloat).
You all seem to be disregarding the purely political aspect – they are being scrapped with “indecent haste” purely so that the decision cannot be reversed.
That’s not a bad tactic at all when you’re dealing with these people. If the aircraft weren’t scrapped, there’s the risk that in six months’ time the government would have been blackmailed or bribed by BAE into reversing its decision, letting it in for huge costs. Now, there’s no risk of that – the government’s made itself unpersuadable.
And I’m entirely serious about the risk of BAE using blackmail and bribery. Bribing government officials to buy their second-rate products is a standard BAE sales tactic. Blackmail, in the sense of threatening to fire British employees if a HMG procurement decision goes against them, is as well.
a
Why have you got it in for BAe?
The management are hard to love, but why take it out on the engineers/technicians doing the hard work on the shop floor?
Britain cannot recover until we learn to love manufacturing again.
I like the idea of airships in principle, were it not for the fact that even if LEMV can manage 80kts, we routinely get winds of >80kts in UK airspace, in precisely the sorts of places like the North Sea oilfields that we might want this kind of presence. It’s a bit different if you’re wanting presence over continents, where the winds tend to be less of a problem (tornados excepted) than on the downwind end of the North Atlantic.
“You all seem to be disregarding the purely political aspect – they are being scrapped with “indecent haste” purely so that the decision cannot be reversed. ”
I know what you mean – but perhaps (I’m speculating) that is because the government was given a choice of either deploying a fleet of MRA4 at a cost of 200 million pa (400 million pa if you count the cost of buying them) or the RAF volunteering to dispense with maritime patrol capability as a concept to save other capability in other areas. Wasn’t there a position in the middle?
I don’t know how many Russian submarines the RAF would expect to find in a year or what they do with one when they find one, but it’s probably not very many and it is fair enough question to ask whether spending 200 (or 400) million pa to do it is money well spent when there are alternative uses for that money and there are alternative ways of chasing submarines. Much was made of protecting the Vanguard submarines, but given only one Vanguard is deployed every few months that is a fairly weak argument. However, deciding to scrap capability when you have it is entirely different to deciding not have it in the first place (sunk costs etc).
Even if the value of maritime patrol is questionable it would be a pity if it was framed as an all or nothing decision. If someone had said put the bulk of the MRA4 fleet in storage and operate one or two on an adhoc basis to preserve skills you could preserve future capability options without breaking the bank in the meantime.
Hey guys,
Just a few ideas/thoughts and was wondering what you thought of them. This is all assuming that some money can be found somewhere, but for arguements sake lets say a pittance can be found.
Option 1
The USN are looking to reduce their fleet of p-3s to 130 from 150ihsh (Singapore are buying some). Could we do a deal on 8-12 of them abit like we have done with the River Joints and have them in a joint pool with the USN?
Option 2
This one is a bit more costly and is slightly off at a tangent but also improves some capabilities. The French bought 8 c-295 for £190m approx. Now if we bought 24 C-295 for a 12/12 split RAF/FAA we could stand-up 1 RAF tactical lift squadron [8 planes/4spare](since we will be left with a small group of A400m’s and are junking in all our C-130′s earlier than planned). The FAA would then stand up 1 squadron for MPA which would allow: 4 allocated to UK, 1 to FI, 1 to Gib (to help stop the drugs/illegal immigrants/keep an eye on things, etc)and 2 to the indian ocean to help with the anti-piracy mission and still have 4 attrition reserves. That would cost around £570m, which i believ is possible if we scrounge from the MOD budget, UK Border Agency, DfID. If not the MPA only part would cost £285m. I dont know if its poosible but could the C-295 be fitted with the same engines from the a400m improving logistics? Im also not sure what the running costs are for the C-295 but the specs dont look too bad. It can launch: sonar bouys, life rafts, underwing harpoints, able to carry 71 troops or 5 pallets (great for hopping around in theater).
At the end of the day I’d sooner have all 12 MRA4′s but thats not gonna happen.
Or we could convert so of our C-130′s to HC-130′s however i dont know how much that would cost and looking at wikipedia the difference in range/payload etc between a C-130 (K) and a C-295 are hard to tell appart. Based on what i siad above, a C-295 costs about £23.75m, which isnt that much compared to £114m for 1 single A400m.
If it were decided in HMG (that would be the day when their collective brains start working) that we really really need an MPA then we should do a deal with EDAS for 8 C-295′s with parts made in the UK (eg wings) for 2 A400m’s. Seems like an okay trade off.
Hi MCM,
Turkey is a prominent user of the maritime version of 295, so why don’t we pool the maintenance in the underused air base on Cyprus?
More seriously, the Herc K’s are dead (wing fatigue et al). From what I remember the real maritime (HJ-130J a la USCG) version of Herc has a range of 5.500 nm (off the top of my head, must be in a different class to the 295).
Pretty high commonality to Herc J’s that had a life to 2030 until we started flogging them to death,east of here.With no ASW in the design, all the most expensive bits gone.
Started to think of the alphabet… hope I didn’t get the K and J version facts inverted (should not do these posts from memory only).
Why have you got it in for BAe?
…briefly, because they produce kit that is generally late, overpriced and inferior, and then use blackmail and bribery to get people to buy it.
Britain cannot recover until we learn to love manufacturing again.
I do love manufacturing! There are some areas of manufacturing in which Britain absolutely leads the world – we’re great on pharma, and the M4 corridor is full of small, clever companies building small numbers of very expensive things (like F1 cars and superconductive magnets) that routinely outperform the best that the rest of the world can manage. Unfortunately, BAE Systems is not one of the bits of the manufacturing sector that anyone can be particularly proud of.
Returning to the title of this thread – is it too late for the Nimrod? The answer is yes. The Nimrod was designed (?) for a time when we were menaced by the Russian sub fleet. As that fleet is now rusting at its moorings, we can scrap the ASW aircraft.
What I find hard to understand is how we can not have some sort of oceanic surveillance. There is all this stuff round us, called water. Surely we need MPA aircraft to keep on an eye on what the French and our enemies are up to?
My vote is for some sort of modified C-130. Lets buy some nice new ones. We could scrap a carrier to pay for them.
PS. I would let the RN operate them.
@ Michael (ex-DIS)
Accept we cannot scrap the carrier due to the contract that the last government signed (or at least that how it looks on the carefully redacted document released under the Freedom of Information act) – still I agree with the rest of the statement that it is criminal we do not have some sort of oceanic surveillance. However I am not sure, given the concentration of world class experience of Coastal Command that it make sense for the FAA to operate them. Still I live in the hope we do not make a fuss that the Government will quite slip in new capability in this budget cycle if only to stop the oil industry and shipping companies moaning about their increased premiums.
I forgot when I suggested converting C-130s to MPA that even the J versions are knackered. I know someone who services them and he suggested to Lockheed-Martin that we should have had them for nothing as we got them first and tested them to destruction for them!
The Russian Sub fleet may be much reduced but it still exists, and is slowly being renewed. Lots of other countries are looking at/investing in subs.. Nimrod could do a job (better than anything else) in the UK but also in the Gulf and Indian Ocean. The lo-part of the mix could be the C-27 as this has a lot in common with the C-130. I don’t know why we didn’t buy C-27s when we were in Iraq.
BAE are doing their best to get out of manufacturing airframes(tin-bashing) and have been for years. Some of you may find that reassuring.
OK, so as we are into “alternative” MPA land, I guess the main criteria is “cheap to run” – Yes ?
Then I will suggest buying all the S3 Vikings (actually not ALL of them as there are over a hundred !)sat in the desert boneyards. They have plenty of structural life left in them as long as you don’t fling them off a flight deck, and shock them with an arrested landing. Only 4 crew (saves on all those back seaters from the Nimrod), two small turbo-fans – they must be cheap to run surely !! Probe and drogue IFR, and they even have an acoustic processor / ASW capability…….
If we can convince the Yanks to sell them to us for $1 each, based on the “special relationship” would that not be better than them sat there doing nowt ?
can i actually believe my eyes on what i’m reading (no not the above comments) bbc news page “extra £200million to close nimrod project” Now i’m already irked by this headline but as i read part of that 200 million is compensation for BAe!!! Hey guys you were massivily overbudget way off the timescale for the project, but here have some cash. unbelieveable
forgot to put link in..
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-12206044
From the article:
“We will continue joint maritime patrol activities with our allies and will ensure the integrity of UK waters by utilising a range of other military assets, including Type 23 frigates, Merlin anti-submarine warfare helicopters and Hercules C-130 aircraft”.
C-130? Interesting.
Jed: great idea; even if the maintenance costs were pretty high, it wouldn’t matter. At $1 each you could just treat them as expendable. “Oh, your aircraft’s been downchecked? Chuck it and get another one.”
Nimrod was doomed last year when they grounded it for a safety issue. Would it have been the best aircraft in its roll yes it prob would have. Was it looking expensive to run yes compared to P8 it was. Even BAE’s competitors can believe the UK binned this capability with out replacement but government knows best. a I wouldnt read to much into the c130 comment. With not many of them left as the K is almost gone there max capacity doing afghan ops and will be gone soon after depending on a400m ramp up, they most certainly wont have any kit like the US coast guard version fitted. Paul g the contract was re base lined (think that’s the term they use)few years back so then was the time to bin it without compensation. After all fixed price is only fixed price until you want to change specs.
a – for sure, buy 24 or even 36 to run an “upgraded” fleet of say 12. When one runs out of hours move the SeaSpray and MX15 (as examples of “upgrade” kit) to another airframe…..
Yes, I know in real life its not quite that easy, but come on a cheaper to run MPA / ASW platform, to keep the skills in play. As per my suggestion that Canada could buy them, they would also have an overland armed ISTAR role in Afghanistan, armed up with Viper Strike and SDB……
Sorry – forgot to add, if we don’t want to keep ASW kit / skills, rip it out like the USN did. We would still have an MPA able to respond quickly to SAR tasking (I think S3 can carry air-drop life rafts in the bomb bay).
Hi Jed,
RE ” armed ISTAR role in Afghanistan, armed up with Viper Strike and SDB……” they used Hellfires in GW1, before being retired.
a
The BAE board are hard to like, but do not blame the firm when the customer(MoD/Treasury) delays signing leaving workers & plant standing idle, adding cost & time overrun. Then the customer changes numbers/specs halfway through.
If BAE had the power you claim, then the navy would have 10 Astutes, 12 T45, while the RAF had 21 Nimrod Mra4, 232 Typhoon, 25 A400M, 150 RAF/RN F-35. Plus the UK government would have funded HOTOL.
An aircraft like the S-3 would be very useful, I believe. Very versatile, performing roles such as ISR and patrol,carrier-capable (special occasions with old frames) as well as possible combat roles in low-threat areas. However, what about converting some airframes for ELINT, tanker, even transport? Even crazier, what about AEW?
However, what about converting some airframes for ELINT, tanker, even transport? Even crazier, what about AEW?
Sorry, but the one lesson from the whole painful Nimrod saga is that anyone who says “hey, what about converting some of these airframes for AEW?” should not be listened to under any circumstances…
We’ve got the Awacs for AEW, and if we need more we should buy more; I just don’t see the advantage in converting some (moderately clapped-out) airframes to a completely novel configuration in order to operate two separate type fleets of AEW aircraft.
Having a common airframe for tanker/transport and EW aircraft is an interesting idea – it is after all what the US has done with KC-135, Rivet Joint, J-STARS, E-3 and so on. But we need to ask “did they do it because the 707 is the best airframe for EW, or because they had a lot of 707s to use?”
Hear, Hear,
There was (to be) an AEW Nimrod… and what happened is history
I fear that it is too late:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/defence/8269676/Chopped-up-for-scrap-Britains-4-billion-fleet-of-Nimrods.html
This is a disaster. I, for one, will not forget this act of gross stupidity. I’m about to call my MP. I don’t know if it will do any good, but its probably all I can do.
a – I believe Gareth was talking about the S3 – not the Nimrod ?
If so then Gareth, ALL versions of the S3 are tankers, with a single budy refuelling pod under 1 wing. A dedicated tanker version with fuel and hose in bomb bay was prototyped I think.
ELINT – already exists, although it was retired quite a while ago and has been sat in boneyard storage even longer. It would need new mission specific kit.
As for AEW – I am not sure it would be worth the effort to develop this old airframe (even though it has life left in it) into a dedicated AEW variant – BUT – it has a nose big enough for a large SeaSpray antenna, and the new SeaSpray variants do have air-to-air modes……..
I believe Gareth was talking about the S3 – not the Nimrod?
Yes, he was – I was being slightly facetious. But my subsequent points about cost, time, why do you need two fleets of AEW aircraft in any case were serious.
They tried building a transport variant of the S-3 (for carrier work). It could carry six passengers or two tonnes of cargo. Not sure how useful that would be.
They did prototype a KC-3 but didn’t go any further than that.
And thinking about it, we do need some sort of carrier-capable AEW fixed wing aircraft, so maybe it’s not such a silly idea!