Nimrod Scrapping...

Profile picture for user Peter

Member for

19 years 10 months

Posts: 9,997

Won't be long now then... http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-11945811 I thought possibly they could be flown into storage inthe US pending better financial times but then you have to take into account tooling spares etc etc and its not worth it.. Hopefully one of these could be saved...
Original post
Profile picture for user XM172

Member for

13 years 7 months

Posts: 216

Woodfords Nimrods in the snow Woodfords Nimrods in the snow Dec 2010! More of the 'Best of British' waiting to bite the dust!
Attachment Size
Woodford nimrods 2 Dec 10.jpg 321.31 KB
Profile picture for user Peter

Member for

19 years 10 months

Posts: 9,997

Nice picture..

Member for

19 years 10 months

Posts: 3,409

re; what a waste. you would have thought somebody would have the initiative to do somthing with them or even try and find a buyer?

Member for

13 years 1 month

Posts: 9,689

I would have thought that three to five of these airframes would have made an excellent replacement for the two (soon to be retired) Nimrod R1 of 51 Squadron, but it seems that a new British aircraft isn’t as good as a second-hand one from somewhere else. Have the politicians even considered what message this sends out about British aerospace engineering? As usual they know the cost of everything but the value of nothing! :rolleyes:
Profile picture for user TwinOtter23

Member for

13 years 9 months

Posts: 7,742

It is my understanding that some MRA4s have been offered to 17 aviation organisations in the UK!

Member for

13 years 1 month

Posts: 9,689

Really, that does surprise me; I’d have thought that the government would want this 'embarrassment' swept-under-the-carpet, so to speak, and scrapped without trace? Who actually 'owns' these airframes? And how could they be moved (not flown surely) so the expense of transport will likely rule any preservation out.
Profile picture for user Phillip Rhodes

Member for

15 years 2 months

Posts: 1,260

I really have had enough of these [RUDE WORD] politicians who run this country. The [ANOTHER RUDE WORD] are worth more than an entire division in our enemies forces, if you know what I mean. Get this: I can go to Pakistan and learn how to strip down an AK47 and make IEDs. I can then go to Afghanistan and kill one or two British soldiers, and they would call me a terrorist. OR I can get an education to degree level and brown nose myself up the political ladder and gain the power and the influence - sufficient to cancel defence budgets and disband entire squadrons of Harrier GR9s or army regiments and they'd not only give me a ruddy good pension, but they would also give me a knighthood or a seat in the Lords. IT STINKS!!! Oh and if the Forum MODS are worried about the content of this message, I have only one thing to say: SAVE RAF DRIFFIELD!!!
Profile picture for user Peter

Member for

19 years 10 months

Posts: 9,997

Phillip your right as sad as that is.. Way over here on the other side of the pond looking back at our former home it saddens us to think that England now is not what the vets fought for in ww2.. Politicians should be ashamed.. anyways back to the nimrod.

Member for

14 years 8 months

Posts: 651

I would have thought that three to five of these airframes would have made an excellent replacement for the two (soon to be retired) Nimrod R1 of 51 Squadron, but it seems that a new British aircraft isn’t as good as a second-hand one from somewhere else.
New? You mean part second hand... A description that could also be applied to the Rivet Joint, which of course is being bought off the shelf (being converted from a safely stored airframe), proven, and able to do the job it's being bought to do. Look at the mess that MRA4's been - from all sides. Now imagine letting industry loose with a (probably abysmally written) contract for the Nimrod R1 replacment. It might arrive by 2030. If we're lucky. That's about 19 years too late!:)
Profile picture for user TwinOtter23

Member for

13 years 9 months

Posts: 7,742

Really, that does surprise me; I’d have thought that the government would want this 'embarrassment' swept-under-the-carpet, so to speak, and scrapped without trace? Who actually 'owns' these airframes? And how could they be moved (not flown surely) so the expense of transport will likely rule any preservation out.
The 'Not Protectively Marked' letter I have seen is from DE & S and it mentioned 'sectioned aircraft' so one would presume by road! :diablo: The answer to the next question is – no!! :D

Member for

12 years 8 months

Posts: 62

Have the politicians even considered what message this sends out about British aerospace engineering? As usual they know the cost of everything but the value of nothing! :rolleyes:
Its an absolute crying shame! Scrap everything to assist the " Afghan mission" , which they tell us they are pulling out of ASAP. What are their plans then? Scrap whats left as there is no mission on the horizon? ALL politicians can only see as far as the end of their own snooty, self interested noses!

Member for

15 years 5 months

Posts: 271

Won't be long now then... http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-11945811 I thought possibly they could be flown into storage inthe US pending better financial times but then you have to take into account tooling spares etc etc and its not worth it.. Hopefully one of these could be saved...
Your link to the BBC news website was interesting. The photo shows an MR2 of course! IMHO is wasn't worth it once the number of ac being built dwindled to single figures. Also serious lateral stability problems with MR4A so I'm told and anyone who buries a large jet engine in a wing root in the 21st century is asking for trouble. The Nimrod R1 is a very different beast but its still an old design. We really should have built something better but I don't think we really wanted to.

Member for

13 years 1 month

Posts: 9,689

New? You mean part second hand... A description that could also be applied to the Rivet Joint, which of course is being bought off the shelf (being converted from a safely stored airframe), proven, and able to do the job it's being bought to do.
Nimrod MRA4 is a new aircraft (about 95% by weight I think), any suggestion that it is (or was) a rebuild was simply to fool those that didn’t want the expense (:rolleyes:) of building a completely new aircraft. Building all-new airframes would probably have been cheaper. I read on this forum that 70% of the cost of the MRA4 was the mission system onboard computers and I think I’m right in saying that the mission system is based on that used in the Boeing P-8; I wonder how much of the delay and cost-overrun were due to the mission systems rather than the airframe (I don’t know but surely such a big proportion of the cost must bear some responsibility)? As for ‘new’ isn’t every RC-135 Rivet-Joint airframe older than the oldest Nimrod MR2 and the MOD want to hand a contract to Boeing who may (or may not) have been responsible for some of the MRA4 debacle? I don’t know if I’ve got my facts right on this one but it seems to me there is more to this than meets the eye (and more at stake for the British aerospace industry). And how many complex defence aircraft projects don’t cost-overrun these days; F-22, F-35, A400M, Typhoon... ...it doesn’t mean they’re not extremely capable aircraft or that their manufacturer is incompetent does it? :)

Member for

14 years 8 months

Posts: 651

Nimrod MRA4 is a new aircraft (about 95% by weight I think), any suggestion that it is (or was) a rebuild was simply to fool those that didn’t want the expense (:rolleyes:) of building a completely new aircraft. Building all-new airframes would probably have been cheaper.
Still a tiny bit second hand then...;)
As for ‘new’ isn’t every RC-135 Rivet-Joint airframe older than the oldest Nimrod MR2
That may be true, but how much use it has had is far more important. They may have come out of the factory in 1964, but if they've spent 20 years in the desert before conversion to KC135R, they could still be quite new.:) I'm sure it's been published somewhere, but I haven't the time to find it now. Either way, better to have a working system than one that's on paper!:)
Profile picture for user VX927

Member for

13 years 9 months

Posts: 894

This business about rivet joint being older than nimrod just doesn't hold water in my oppinion. It's about how the aircraft have been looked after, maintained and upgraded. The 135's have been well maintained over the years... The nimrods haven't. Google the nimrod report and have a read through it... It's almost unbelievable. Sadly BAe systems have let the nimrod down. I love the aircraft, I grew up with nimrods, but the MR2 became dangerous and the MR4 is too late. I think it may have been different if the MR4 was in service at the time of the defence review but that's just my oppinion. As for BAe selling the aircraft on... I'm not sure if the airframes don't still belong to the RAF, not BAe. Also, a lot of the kit in there is still classified and wouldn't be sold on to any old nation looking foe a sub hunter. I think the whole thing is a real shame. As for seeing the MR4 go to museums... I don't know what museum would want a failed MR4 over a historic MR2 or R1?

Member for

10 years 5 months

Posts: 554

So what is the RAF going to be doing once they have destroyed everything they own that can fly??? Those that beat thier swords into plowshares will soon be plowing for those that did not.
Profile picture for user TwinOtter23

Member for

13 years 9 months

Posts: 7,742

....As for BAe selling the aircraft on... I'm not sure if the airframes don't still belong to the RAF, not BAe. Also, a lot of the kit in there is still classified and wouldn't be sold on to any old nation looking foe a sub hunter. I think the whole thing is a real shame. As for seeing the MR4 go to museums... I don't know what museum would want a failed MR4 over a historic MR2 or R1?
Just to clarify – the MRA4 airframes were being offered by DE & S (Defence Equipment & Support) not BAe. I’m with you about who might be interested, although the letter did try to invoke a comparison with “…interest that continues to be shown with TSR.2.”
Profile picture for user Bruce

Member for

19 years 10 months

Posts: 8,399

TO old chap, could you email me a copy of the letter you had. Might be worth following up. Bruce