Nimrod MRA4 to be built after all

[Bluetail]

According to the Daily Record 6 Nimrod MRA4 airframes will be built thats 1, because they are already paid for !!, and 2 so Woodford workers can keep there jobs for another 2 years (and thats not a pop at the Woodford guys its not your fault). AND THEN THEY WILL BE SCRAPPED...just how do these people at MOD get these jobs.

[Flyingmonster]

Excuse me? They are going to build them to scrap them? Are they taken the Biscuit? If they build them why not use them!

[GOOSE]

According to the Daily Record 6 Nimrod MRA4 airframes will be built thats 1, because they are already paid for !!, and 2 so Woodford workers can keep there jobs for another 2 years (and thats not a pop at the Woodford guys its not your fault). AND THEN THEY WILL BE SCRAPPED...just how do these people at MOD get these jobs.

Any chance of a link mate? Can't see it on the web?

[romeo bravo]

Happens all the time, they have been paid to build, so they will.

Remember when FR Aviation did work on the old Canberra; last day was announced and a shiney refurbed Canberra was delivered from FRA the day before it was to be taken out of service.

Bet you find the same sort of thing with Harrier!

[Bluetail]

Here you go, http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;



I bet that Akula is not far from Skye after HMS Astute grounded this morning

[GOOSE]

Thanks Bluetail, unfortunate the IT police at work are blocking that

I'll look when I get home.

[Durranhill]

Excuse me? They are going to build them to scrap them? Are they taken the Biscuit? If they build them why not use them!

This reminds me of what an old friend told me , he had just done an overhaul on a Meteor & it was taken up for an airtest , on landing it was signed off as ok & then sent for scrapping .

Stewart .

[Flyingmonster]

It seems such a waste...

Can they not be used as Instructional Airframes? Used for teaching the Engineers stuff? Its got to be better than just scrapping them!!

Will they be build to full operational Standards?

[TankBuster]

If its true that they are going to continue building the Mighty Hunter then why not put them into service? They should cancel the RC-135s on order for the RAF & use some of the Nimrods for the intended role.

This country is a real shambles at the moment .


TankBuster

[SteveS]

"...sometimes carrying nuclear bombs designed to take out Russian subs."

What, really? Seems a tad extreme...

[Doughnut]

If BAE are being paid to complete the airframes then the resale value must have been considered, it has been said elsewhere another country might be interested at the right price.

[TankBuster]

To complete the airframes & sell them to another country would be a real kick in the b@@locks for the RAF!

Maybe BAE could rig them up for carrier operations .


TankBuster

[Bucky P]

The carriers cost too much to cancel so we're getting them with nothing to carry!
The Nimrods are all bought and payed for because they are needed so they are going to be built anyway even though we're not actually going to get them because...........................? I can't actually think of a reason why we're not getting them?
They could save money by sending our troops to Afghanistan with loads of weapons but no ammunition, that makes sense! They could even pay for the ammo up front if they want to and then donate it to some of the third world countries that really need it........ like Somalia, Yemen, Afghanistan, etc! Maybe I'll write to Dave at no. 10 and suggest it!
Just had another thought, instead of scrapping the Nimrods we could give some to North Korea and some to Iran, they would appreciate them!

Rant over!

[Ben Montgomery]

Seen a similar thred on the Nimrod under "HEADS UP OTT"

We we have been talking about the 51 Sqn Nimrod and their airframes, suggesting they are to be retired in March 2011???????

They are.

[TankBuster]

What a waste...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AA4a9mLs ... re=related" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

TankBuster

[dantheman_09]

this takes the , y not donate them to a museum or something , what a waste of time and money

[Sheff]

Bear in mind that this is only a newspaper report. It may well be complete nonsense.

[ythanpythan]

Could be a good bit of Realpolitk from BAE.

If they stop work now the government may look for a refund for the remaining costs. If they press on and complete the airframe's there's the chance of a U-Turn and just think of all that lovely money tied up in servicing and support contracts once it's operational.

Or like a lot of the other 'facts' i've read in papers and on this and other forums over the last few days it's a load of

Ian

[T_J]

"...sometimes carrying nuclear bombs designed to take out Russian subs."

What, really? Seems a tad extreme...

The UK, like the US and Soviets, deployed Nuclear Depth Bombs.

UK usage of Nuclear Depth Bombs

http://www.nuclear-weapons.info/vw.htm#WE.177" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://nuclear-weapons.info/images/tna- ... e25-p2.jpg" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The RN deployed them from helos such as Wasp, Lynx, Sea King and Wessex.

Link to image of Wasp carrying a nuclear depth bomb training round.

http://nuclear-weapons.info/images/we177-wasp.jpg" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

TJ

[NAM Updater]

If you check out the bomb bay of the Shackleton at Newark you'll find that it was modified to carry nuclear depth charges!