Royal Navy/Falklands Cost

The number of available airframes is small, even with MRA4 numbers having been slashed. I’ve heard (but can’t confirm – pure hearsay) that examination of the stored airframes has found it would be difficult to find enough airframes with requisite parts sound enough to re-use even for the original MRA4 requirement, & that means just 9 more than now planned. If true, then it would be necessary to make new Nimrod fuselages from scratch. However, that would not be an insuperable problem. They’re already making most of the airframe new. But we’re talking small batch production, hence expensive. Luckily, the additional development cost would be minor, compared to what’s already been spent, & any new-build fuselages wouldn’t suffer from the sloppy tolerances which have caused such difficulties matching up old Nimrod bodies with new, precisely machined by computer, parts. It’s probably the cheapest option, overall.

Just to add to that excellent post, a fews years ago BAe did a study into making new Nimrod fuselages, IIRC it was related the US requirement for a new maritime patrol aircraft (now the P-8). They have already built new wings and studied new fuselages so it all sounds rather feasible and probably not overly expensive, in fact if you chopped out a lot of the Maritime gear you could probably save a fair amount of cash. You would not even have to integrate that many weapons, Storm Shadow for long range stand-off ability and some PGM’s for places like Afghanistan.

To the best of my recollection, the study was done with the help of the a/c manufacturers. What I didn’t make clear was that the study was for Storm Shadow and probably for the UK MoD. The engineer who described the project said it was ‘unaffordable by the customer’ (not customers)….

That makes sense – that a particular product for a particular customer was deemed unaffordable. But you gave the impression – unintentionally, it nw appears – that such modifications are unaffordable in general.

Funny that, since Boeing are doing exactly that with the P-8A, & EADS have proposed it for the A319/A320 MPA. Maybe manufacturers of airliners know something about their own products that others don’t. 😀

To the best of my recollection, the study was done with the help of the a/c manufacturers. What I didn’t make clear was that the study was for Storm Shadow and probably for the UK MoD. The engineer who described the project said it was ‘unaffordable by the customer’ (not customers).

The P-8A is being built in substational numbers (100+?). The A319/320 MPA may have been viable in more modest numbers, but the airframe changes were fairly minimal – it seems to have required only a weapons bay inserted into the forward cargo hold, a 360° search radar in front, and weapons pylons behind the wing – I don’t think that wing-mounted pylons were planned.

How can not supporting the Iraq war be seen as supporting defence cuts?

The quote was

The Government
should not be cutting the size
of the armed forces while at the
same time asking them to take
on ever more difficult tasks

Fair enough, but that does not rule out they do not consider cuts to be acceptable when not taking on these commitments, which, in at least that case they have been clear they would not have. I am not saying they would automatically cut the armed forces, but their own policies suggest a reduced role, which would make cuts all too tempting, especially at the high end.

As for criticising every procurement, where is the evidence? There is criticism of bad procurement which is something the previous Tory government and todays Labour government have been guilty of, how can that be seen as bad?

Two issues here – criticising bad procurement and criticising the system procured. I have no problem with criticising the criminal waste and negligance that goes on in procurement. I just wish all the shouting (you, me, opposition parties, etc.) had more effect, but it still happens. I just cannot wait for the first cost overruns on the CVF programme to be made public 😡

I’m proud of my party membership and it makes me angry when people throw cheap shots without doing any kind of research beyond what the Torygraph says!

Good, stand by what you believe in, but perhaps it indicates that your party is not doing its PR particularly well.

What do most people know about Lib-Dem policies? – pro-Europe (at least more so than the other two)? tax rises (since replaced by magic savings ala the other two?) to fund social services; an inability to stop backstabbing their leader – as if the Tory party hadn’t shown how that doesn’t work.

Wouldn’t knwo about the Torygraph as a research source – gave up on most printed media a long time ago (at least for non-sport items).

How can not supporting the Iraq war be seen as supporting defence cuts?

The fact is people are far to happy to use the throw away line that the Liberal Democrats will be a disaster for defence when there is no evidence that this is true. The parties policy documents back a well maintained armed forces.

As for criticising every procurement, where is the evidence? There is criticism of bad procurement which is something the previous Tory government and todays Labour government have been guilty of, how can that be seen as bad?

I’m proud of my party membership and it makes me angry when people throw cheap shots without doing any kind of research beyond what the Torygraph says!

The Liberal Democrats opposed Trident renewal………..enough said.

Are these commitments which the Lib-Dems would have made? Certainly not on Iraq, which then of course means it could be read that cuts are then okay.

The problem with the Lib-Dems is that, aside from criticising every procurement, what do they actually propose to do? The only recent comments I can recall are vague assertions about supporting UN Peace-keeping operations. If that is what the armed forces are going to shaped for, then to most that will be cuts, in equipment at least.

How can not supporting the Iraq war be seen as supporting defence cuts?

The fact is people are far to happy to use the throw away line that the Liberal Democrats will be a disaster for defence when there is no evidence that this is true. The parties policy documents back a well maintained armed forces.

As for criticising every procurement, where is the evidence? There is criticism of bad procurement which is something the previous Tory government and todays Labour government have been guilty of, how can that be seen as bad?

I’m proud of my party membership and it makes me angry when people throw cheap shots without doing any kind of research beyond what the Torygraph says!

Really, I do not see the customers queing for that. The British example does show it several times. When a contract is signed the price will double afterwards and the signatory can still feel lucky not to be blamed for that too much.

Not many countries want or think they can afford a high-capability MPA like P-8A or A319 MPA at the moment. Still plenty of P-3s (an old airliner modified with a weapons bay . . . 😀 ) around which can be kept up to date with new avionics, e.g. the EADS FITS system proposed for A319 & adopted by Spain & Brazil for P-3 upgrades so far. But those few with a current requirement (e.g Australia & India) & no indigenous programme are looking at one or both of those modified airliners.

And what does the currently limited international market for new high-end MPAs have to do with the technical feasibility & cost of such a modification, which was what I was addressing?

I can’t find any policy statement from the party saying its going to destroy our armed forces but I can find plenty of official statements criticising defence cuts!

This is an exert from the official Liberal Democrat manifesto on defence for the 2005 election:

Britain’s armed forces protect the
country and are a force for good
in the world. But with increasing
overseas commitments, they are
overstretched. The Government
should not be cutting the size
of the armed forces while at the
same time asking them to take
on ever more difficult tasks.

I would think that most people here would agree with that sentiment and I don’t see how it fits in with the idea of the Lib Dems being a disaster for defence!

Are these commitments which the Lib-Dems would have made? Certainly not on Iraq, which then of course means it could be read that cuts are then okay.

The problem with the Lib-Dems is that, aside from criticising every procurement, what do they actually propose to do? The only recent comments I can recall are vague assertions about supporting UN Peace-keeping operations. If that is what the armed forces are going to shaped for, then to most that will be cuts, in equipment at least.

re·pub·lic /rɪˈpʌblɪk/ Pronunciation Key – Show Spelled Pronunciation[ri-puhb-lik] Pronunciation Key – Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun 1. a state in which the supreme power rests in the body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by representatives chosen directly or indirectly by them.
2. any body of persons viewed as a commonwealth.
3. a state in which the head of government is not a monarch or other hereditary head of state.
4. (initial capital letter) any of the five periods of republican government in France. Compare First Republic, Second Republic, Third Republic, Fourth Republic, Fifth Republic.
5. (initial capital letter, italics) a philosophical dialogue (4th century b.c.) by Plato dealing with the composition and structure of the ideal state.

de·moc·ra·cy /dɪˈmɒkrəsi/ Pronunciation Key – Show Spelled Pronunciation[di-mok-ruh-see] Pronunciation Key – Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun, plural -cies. 1. government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system.
2. a state having such a form of government: The United States and Canada are democracies.
3. a state of society characterized by formal equality of rights and privileges.
4. political or social equality; democratic spirit.
5. the common people of a community as distinguished from any privileged class; the common people with respect to their political power.

Interesting. Fact is the United States is a republic.

If we look beyond the medium term issues of supporting the tax base, social security liabilities etc. then personally I think declining fertility is good for the planet. Few environmentalists have the guts to say it, but a big part of the worlds eco problems are the ever growing population and the unsustainability of this population with regards fresh water, food and energy supplies without ruinous affects on the planet. I’m not advocating zero fertility as then we’d end up extinct, but a gradual decline to lower population densities would be good. Here is hoping the developing countries show the same sort of fertility decline.

Shame the US is a republic, not a democracy.

re·pub·lic /rɪˈpʌblɪk/ Pronunciation Key – Show Spelled Pronunciation[ri-puhb-lik] Pronunciation Key – Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun 1. a state in which the supreme power rests in the body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by representatives chosen directly or indirectly by them.
2. any body of persons viewed as a commonwealth.
3. a state in which the head of government is not a monarch or other hereditary head of state.
4. (initial capital letter) any of the five periods of republican government in France. Compare First Republic, Second Republic, Third Republic, Fourth Republic, Fifth Republic.
5. (initial capital letter, italics) a philosophical dialogue (4th century b.c.) by Plato dealing with the composition and structure of the ideal state.

de·moc·ra·cy /dɪˈmɒkrəsi/ Pronunciation Key – Show Spelled Pronunciation[di-mok-ruh-see] Pronunciation Key – Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun, plural -cies. 1. government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system.
2. a state having such a form of government: The United States and Canada are democracies.
3. a state of society characterized by formal equality of rights and privileges.
4. political or social equality; democratic spirit.
5. the common people of a community as distinguished from any privileged class; the common people with respect to their political power.

Funny that, since Boeing are doing exactly that with the P-8A, & EADS have proposed it for the A319/A320 MPA. Maybe manufacturers of airliners know something about their own products that others don’t. 😀

Really, I do not see the customers queing for that. The British example does show it several times. When a contract is signed the price will double afterwards and the signatory can still feel lucky not to be blamed for that too much.

Which brings us back to the Nimrod, now the MRA-4 plans have been slashed there must be some spare airframes available, already has a bomb bay and commonality with the MRA-4?

The number of available airframes is small, even with MRA4 numbers having been slashed. I’ve heard (but can’t confirm – pure hearsay) that examination of the stored airframes has found it would be difficult to find enough airframes with requisite parts sound enough to re-use even for the original MRA4 requirement, & that means just 9 more than now planned. If true, then it would be necessary to make new Nimrod fuselages from scratch. However, that would not be an insuperable problem. They’re already making most of the airframe new. But we’re talking small batch production, hence expensive. Luckily, the additional development cost would be minor, compared to what’s already been spent, & any new-build fuselages wouldn’t suffer from the sloppy tolerances which have caused such difficulties matching up old Nimrod bodies with new, precisely machined by computer, parts. It’s probably the cheapest option, overall.

Several years ago MBDA looked at the possible use of converted civil aircraft as non-penetrating cruise missile carriers, but concluded that the installation of weapons bays into the airframe of an airliner involves such drastic airframe ‘surgery’ that it’s essentially unaffordable.

Funny that, since Boeing are doing exactly that with the P-8A, & EADS have proposed it for the A319/A320 MPA. Maybe manufacturers of airliners know something about their own products that others don’t. 😀

Shame the US is a republic, not a democracy.

Smile.

That is called democracy and what we do wish to see in all countries.

Shame the US is a republic, not a democracy.

Several years ago MBDA looked at the possible use of converted civil aircraft as non-penetrating cruise missile carriers, but concluded that the installation of weapons bays into the airframe of an airliner involves such drastic airframe ‘surgery’ that it’s essentially unaffordable.

Which brings us back to the Nimrod, now the MRA-4 plans have been slashed there must be some spare airframes available, already has a bomb bay and commonality with the MRA-4?

better to go the cheap way, & modify an airliner airframe. The latter would have numerous cost & logistical advantages,

Several years ago MBDA looked at the possible use of converted civil aircraft as non-penetrating cruise missile carriers, but concluded that the installation of weapons bays into the airframe of an airliner involves such drastic airframe ‘surgery’ that it’s essentially unaffordable.

Russia has exactly the same problem.;)

Actually it is even more severe there.
But I don’t regard Russia as threat to Western Europe or the USA. In the near future Russia will be rather tend towards the West as it is too weak to remain strategically isolated (which it actually is). The many former USSR countries are large in area but neglectible in real world power, often Russia rather must stabilize these nations.

Academic think tanks are usually pretty good, the problem is that the UK govt does not listen to them either. They just listen to themselves and their own policy groups. The civil service has a very real lack of expertise, go take a look at the application process and you will see that they do not even look for expertise in any given area.

Hmmm. Yes.
I was asked to apply for the Civil Service by a Senior MoD Officer at Wyton. He told me the salary structure and I had to contain my laughter. Even with the free pension it would require a significant and rapid promotion within 6 months for me to even sniff at it.
And, the bureaucracy would wear me down in weeks I’m sure. Mind you, working with them I suffer the same red tape. Oh, and the two year rule got on my nerves. 6 months settling in, 12 months undoing or repeating what the last incumbant did and 6 months looking for your next post. Great system…not.