pjhydroThat being said, why did Britain need such a large aircraft, and all the rest as well such as P-8, P-3, Atlantic, etc?
Because the Atlantic is the second largest Ocean in the world and patrolling it with an aircraft the size of a S3 would be ludicrous. The biggest problem in the U-boat war during 39-45 was the air-gap. Costal Command used aircraft that were too small to cover the convoys all the way across so the U-boats would strike in the “air-gap” Nimrod is the ultimate evolution in the UK of the aircraft to patrol the Atlantic. As it happens its range came in very handy during the Falklands!
I think Nimrods other issue with sales is timing. Coming after the P3 meant that most commonwealth countries had replaced their older kit with P3s by the time Nimrod entered service. Nimrod would look to be perfect with its speed and range for the RNZAF for instance.
pjhydroBut I’d wager that a C-135 has fewer hours than many ex-airliners.
So the question might be: what’s more critical…age or hours/cycles?
A 135 might still come out ahead.
You could be right but there is still an age factor to an airframe, a parked up airframe still rots. Given that the RAFs future tanker is going to be an Airbus it would seem to be a retrograde step to pick up three C135s that flew before the first Airbus was even designed. Many have said that it will give commonality with Sentry, but I would like to see the detail on that, 40 odd y-o C135s are a little different to the 7 Sentries that were the last B707s off the line in the late 1980s. Long term I think this will be a bad purchase.
pjhydroMajor problem I have with the 57mm is that it has no NGS role, its purely a ‘naval gun’ in the sense of shooting at ships and aircraft.
pjhydroI’m afraid that Nimrod will be unlikely to pick up a strike capability. With 9 airframes doing ASW, ISA, Comms, SAR who is going to spare (or risk!) MRA4s 250-300kms from a hostile target to lob some Stormshadows, let alone LGBs. Can see the CAS arguement in Afghan but it seems very unlikely that Nimrod will ever get there, hence the purchase of King Air 350s and more Reapers.
pjhydroIt paid the price of pioneering. The 707 & other types benefited from the design mistakes made – and corrected – on Comet. Once the fatigue problems were solved, Comet worked very well.
The MR2 failure over Afghanistan wasn’t the result of age, it was the result of inadequate maintenance. Look at the age of the airframes the RAF proposes to replace the R.1s wit. They’re even older! If maintenance spending continues to be skimped on, they’ll be in the same state soon.
Oh you are right about comet, it certainly is the price for being first but the Comet never really got over the image issue and by the time it was built right the 707 had stolen its thunder.
I would disagree about age not being a factor. Yes it was multiple failures by multiple agencies but at the heart of the accident is an aircraft based on the first jet liner that in its current incarnation flew in 1967. It uses old design and safety philosophies, its been overworked in some of the harshest environments an aircraft can be used in and should have been replaced years ago. A generous 30 year life should have seen the Nimrod replaced 10-13 years ago.
The RC135 idea is one of the MODs poorer ones. Totally insane when you consider the number of second hand Airbus airframes you could snaffle up that are at the very least half that age.
pjhydroWe need to debate what our foreign policy objectives are for the next 20/30 years and then align our defence spending to those requirements. Defence policy cannot be decided in isolation. The problem is that it is so easy for governments to cut expenditure but much, much more difficult and much more dangerous to make committments to our global relationships years hence.
It would be lovely were it possible but planning for that timeframe can’t be done. five to ten years is about all you can sensibly do. The world of politics, international relations and technology mean that planning anything for that timeframe would not be in your best interest. Who in 1970s could have seen the end of the cold war, Gulf War, the chaos of the adriatic, September 11th, Afghan and iraq? There is no way that the governments of Heath, Callaghan, wilson and Thatcher could have made strategic spending plans for all of that- They didn’t even see the Falklands coming!! I’m afraid you’re stuck with 5-10 years at best.
pjhydroNimrod has always had problems with image. A timeline…..
First off its based on a Comet, which first flew in 1949 and was frankly a disaster, people have a habit of remembering aircraft pulnging into the Med.
In MR1 guise it was fitted with stuff stripped from Shackletons so was a “new jet” but fitted with ancient tech.
Then 1973 happened and having jet powered anything seemed like a bad option so Nimord lost out there.
By the time it was up to spec in MR2 guise and was finally the best ASW platform, it was out of production.
Then came the AEW3 debacle, a monumental screw up that will forever sully the Nimrods name.
Mark 4 has been so long in the making and so messed around by various problems that even when BAe offered new builds no-body would touch it with a 35m wing spar.
Then to cap it all the MR2 is so old and knackered that one of them blew up over Afghan which has been the straw that broke the camels back as far as government attitude to the aircraft. (despite funding and political mess ups being the route cause of the crash.)
pjhydroA much more sensible choice would be to order the some ships of the Schelde Enforcer type. A limited LSD could be built very cheaply, along the same lines as the British Bay class LSD(A)s. For a more capable LPD option, the sister ships, like the Dutch Rotterdam/Johan de Witt class, could be built, still for low cost compared with the San Antonio class. I think a large part of the problem for the US Navy amphibious shipping fleet has been the insistence on building the most expensive ships possible. If you look at the new LHA and LPD-17 designs, these just scream of excessive spending. By spending so much, on so few ships, they are being forced to cut numbers, which then hurts capability. This can be seen in more than just the amphibious fleet, the USN seems to be trying to buy impossibly expensive ships.
More modest choices might have been better, such as going for amphibious ships more like the Enforcer series (which would have been able to replace all the old LPDs and LSDs). For replacing the Perry class, a relatively low risk option, along the lines of a frigate-sized Sa’ar 5 type, using the SPY-1F could have been a good choice.
Basically, by going for a relatively conservative approach, but going for a better trade-off between capability and cost, things could have been looking a lot better. It is worth noting that the hey-day of the US Navy power, i.e. ’50s-’70s, they relied on a lot of relatively old, cheap and cheerful ships. They relied on extensively modified Essex class carriers, modernised world war two destroyers, small SSNs and SSKs, etc…
The modern trend of sacrificing numbers in the name of a smaller ‘silver bullet’ force is pretty dangerous. The same can be seen in the USAF, with ever reducing numbers, all in the name of the stealth game, pinning their hopes on quality to offset shortfall in quantity.
+++
If only I could make you minister of defence…
The folly of going entirely down the quality route *sigh* People bemoan the shipping losses in the Falklands, but thats why you have lots of cheap and cheerful escorts. If the RN lost a frigate or worse a T45 in action now that would be a significant % of the fleet gone and with all the golden egg toys stuffed into them a sizable chunk of the fleets capability gone too. Lose two type 45s today in the same way we lost two t42s then one third of the detroyer fleet is gone. ouch.
pjhydroAgreed. JB films are a legend, but sometimes the makers clearly overeact. In fact, here’s a quote from Roger Moor on this film:
Source: Bye bye to Ian Fleming’s James Bond?
However, alongside Clancy’s film adaptations, JB films are perhaps the neatest approach to militaristic fiction. But allthesame, they are always movies, not documentaries.
Bourne trilogy?
pjhydroThe Royal Navy is apparently deploying RFA Largs BAy to Haiti to arrive towards the end of the month.
Its been exciting watching the British Government swing into action and do so much so quickly. I haven’t wanted to punch Douglas Alexander everytime he tells a reporter what everyone else is doing while avoiding the question of what the UK was doing, at all….:mad:
pjhydroI thought the alcohol was to enable you to get the sleep despite the children? :p
I thought it was to get your childern to sleep? Did I read that wrong again?
pjhydroAnyway, it’s just a movie.
And a bloody awfull one. Big fan of Bond but Die Another Day was tripe for all sorts of reasons! Now Casino Royale thats a bond film. Personal fave is OHMSS though, I knows its Lazenby, but great film.
pjhydroSome sort of medium lift program will still be needed to replace the Pumas at some point, they may be getting a life extension but that will only take them so far. my money would be on the AW149, especially as somebody else has paid for all the design work
There isn’t going to be a Puma replacement. RAF is going Chinook only, which as was discussed on another thread is actually more wise than it at first appears.
pjhydroAt least it isn’t as bad as the last episode of the new Spooks series, they portray the Pakistani navy using shots of Tico’s/Burkes, and the Indian navy sub they are chasing surfaces and reveals itself to be a Vanguard.
…shocking.
Yeah my wife told me to shut up half way through that episode…can’t think why?
pjhydroBut according to script it was American. When at the HQ in South Korea borders, the American Damian Falco, head of NSA, is asked “What about Icarus?” and replies “Oh, we are taking care of that with a launch in an hour”. Unless I missed smth…
A poisonous remark for the Type 45s :p
Point taken. 😎
Fair enough, not seen the film since I walked out of the cinema in disgust how ever many years ago. I seem to remember they recycled the clip from an earlier bond film where a type 23 fires a cruise missile (!!!) at a chinese arms fair. Damn useful ship the Type 23 is in Bond world, make you wonder why we are even buying T45s. 😀
Sign In
