Not my Headline (I wish it was), but from a Daily Telegraph Article by Con Coughlin.
Not only is it an interesting Article in its own right, but the comments from readers struck me as both pertinent and interesting. To give you a sample the following is that last paragraph of Con Couglin's Article:
Quote:
Des Browne, the Defence Secretary, seemingly so underemployed at the Ministry of Defence that he also finds time to be Scottish Secretary, has admitted that two thirds of the Nimrods are “not fit for purpose”, but has done little to rectify the situation. He should hang his head in shame.
Unquote
In another time perhaps the last sentence would have read: He should Hang.
Now one of the Comments from a reader - It is long, but worth reading:
Quote:
The MOD have always possessed an accountant driven mentality instead of an operational requirement ethos towards military kit.
I was in the services when the Nimrod started to replace the Shackleton, back in the late 60’s, and the general consensus then, was that it was an extensively modified cobbled up Comet, with Spey engines. That it is still in service today as further modified variants are wheeled out, is a remarkable achievement in cost cutting, but not much else.
After the MR2 exploded over Kandahar, with the cause known to be related to in flight refuelling operations, remarkably a second incident took place on 5th November 2007 to a second MR2, (XV235), also over Afghanistan, while the investigation into the loss of XV230 was ongoing. This incident also occurred during in-flight refuelling when the crew called a Mayday after observing leaking fuel. They managed to land the aircraft. It was only after the second incident, that in flight refuelling was suspended for this type, and it was only due to providence that a second aircraft was not lost.
The board of Inquiry into XV235 deduced that the most probable cause, was escaped fuel contacting an air pipe at 400 degrees Celcius, after penetrating between two layers of insulation. Contributory factors were listed as:Age of the aircraft; Maintenance policy; Failure of hazard analysis and lack of a fire detection and suppression system; and, not identifying the full implications of successive changes to the fuel system and associated procedures.
Back in 1992 a program for replacement for the MR2 was started, the Nimrod MRA4
(New engines in refurbished airframes) was selected in 1996. This was delayed because the airframes supplied to BAe systems were non standard. ‘In service’ date had slipped from 2003 to 2009, and by 2005 the cost jumped from £2.8 billion to £3.5 billion, meaning the RAF would get fewer planes.
Sadly, the Nimrod is not alone in the tragedy of errors
The Hercules shot down over Baghdad was operating without self sealing fuel tanks in a war zone. Another cost saving?
link
I think the British owe their aircrews better than this.
The MOD and successive governments, have treated the military as nothing more than a cost cutting exercises for decades. This government in particular goes down in history with a part-time defence secretary, to emphasize the low priority which Labour assigns to the military. With soldiers still being sent out in ‘snatch’ Land Rovers, it is little wonder that the RAF is flying antique junk.
Posted as a comment to the Telegraph Article by Michael Barningham on May 23, 2008 10:13 PM
Unquote
Not only is it an interesting Article in its own right, but the comments from readers struck me as both pertinent and interesting. To give you a sample the following is that last paragraph of Con Couglin's Article:
Quote:
Des Browne, the Defence Secretary, seemingly so underemployed at the Ministry of Defence that he also finds time to be Scottish Secretary, has admitted that two thirds of the Nimrods are “not fit for purpose”, but has done little to rectify the situation. He should hang his head in shame.
Unquote
In another time perhaps the last sentence would have read: He should Hang.
Now one of the Comments from a reader - It is long, but worth reading:
Quote:
The MOD have always possessed an accountant driven mentality instead of an operational requirement ethos towards military kit.
I was in the services when the Nimrod started to replace the Shackleton, back in the late 60’s, and the general consensus then, was that it was an extensively modified cobbled up Comet, with Spey engines. That it is still in service today as further modified variants are wheeled out, is a remarkable achievement in cost cutting, but not much else.
After the MR2 exploded over Kandahar, with the cause known to be related to in flight refuelling operations, remarkably a second incident took place on 5th November 2007 to a second MR2, (XV235), also over Afghanistan, while the investigation into the loss of XV230 was ongoing. This incident also occurred during in-flight refuelling when the crew called a Mayday after observing leaking fuel. They managed to land the aircraft. It was only after the second incident, that in flight refuelling was suspended for this type, and it was only due to providence that a second aircraft was not lost.
The board of Inquiry into XV235 deduced that the most probable cause, was escaped fuel contacting an air pipe at 400 degrees Celcius, after penetrating between two layers of insulation. Contributory factors were listed as:Age of the aircraft; Maintenance policy; Failure of hazard analysis and lack of a fire detection and suppression system; and, not identifying the full implications of successive changes to the fuel system and associated procedures.
Back in 1992 a program for replacement for the MR2 was started, the Nimrod MRA4
(New engines in refurbished airframes) was selected in 1996. This was delayed because the airframes supplied to BAe systems were non standard. ‘In service’ date had slipped from 2003 to 2009, and by 2005 the cost jumped from £2.8 billion to £3.5 billion, meaning the RAF would get fewer planes.
Sadly, the Nimrod is not alone in the tragedy of errors
The Hercules shot down over Baghdad was operating without self sealing fuel tanks in a war zone. Another cost saving?
link
I think the British owe their aircrews better than this.
The MOD and successive governments, have treated the military as nothing more than a cost cutting exercises for decades. This government in particular goes down in history with a part-time defence secretary, to emphasize the low priority which Labour assigns to the military. With soldiers still being sent out in ‘snatch’ Land Rovers, it is little wonder that the RAF is flying antique junk.
Posted as a comment to the Telegraph Article by Michael Barningham on May 23, 2008 10:13 PM
Unquote
No comments:
Post a Comment