Scrapping RAF Nimrods 'perverse' say military chiefs - HotUKDeals
We use cookie files to improve site functionality and personalisation. By continuing to use HUKD, you accept our cookie and privacy policy.
Get the HUKD app free at Google Play

Search Error

An error occurred when searching, please try again!

Login / Sign UpSubmit

Scrapping RAF Nimrods 'perverse' say military chiefs

JonnyTwoToes Avatar
banned5y, 10m agoPosted 5 years, 10 months ago
I'm fully on board with Cameron's Crusade but I have to say I agree that scrapping Nimrods at this stage is not the right thing to do.

At £445 million each, and most of them close to completion (if not fully completed), it makes no sense to hack them up in an effort to save £2bn over 10 years.

Bad move.
JonnyTwoToes Avatar
banned5y, 10m agoPosted 5 years, 10 months ago
Options

All Comments

(22) Jump to unreadPost a comment
Comments/page:
[helper]#1
Its a question of priorities - I'd rather they spent more money on the right equipment to protect soldiers on the "frontline". I think the politicians have decided the kind of war they want to fight (global terrorism etc) and the military are still planning on conventional warfare.......
banned 1 Like #2
gari189
Its a question of priorities - I'd rather they spent more money on the right equipment to protect soldiers on the "frontline". I think the politicians have decided the kind of war they want to fight (global terrorism etc) and the military are still planning on conventional warfare.......


I do agree with you, but billions have already been spent making these planes. Seems an absolute waste not to even have them leave the ground don't you think?

Edited By: JonnyTwoToes on Jan 27, 2011 13:37
banned#3
Clauses should have been included to fine BAE for overspending, being late but the MoD management were too dumb to include them. China are less than 5 years away from having a stealth fighter, we need new technology to detect them else we'll be at their mercy.

http://pinoytutorial.com/techtorial/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/china-s-j-20-stealth-fighter-aircraft.jpg

Edited By: lumoruk on Jan 27, 2011 14:09
#4
I think it's pointless to bother with much military power these days anyway. We have two enemies, China and the terrorists, and terrorism can only be fought via intelligence and by not being so dickish towards brown people, and if China go for us, then we're pretty much balled anyway since they outnumber us 22 to 1, so could send soldiers in armed with clumps of mud and still take us. War isn't going to be fought via the old-fashioned methods anyway, not now we're in the information age, where you can cripple a country's digital infrastructure with just a team of hackers and a few guys equipped with wirecutters.
banned 1 Like #5
dxx
anyway since they outnumber us 22 to 1


Would love to be sat next to you when they come...not :|

I'll be fighting tooth and nail (when they fall out due to radiation poisoning)
#6
lumoruk
dxx
anyway since they outnumber us 22 to 1


Would love to be sat next to you when they come...not :|

I'll be fighting tooth and nail (when they fall out due to radiation poisoning)


It's fine, I'll be up in a sniper's nest anyway, so I'll get my 22 kills in about a minute. I wish you the best of luck down there on the ground level.
1 Like #7
whatsThePoint
dxx
lumoruk
dxx
anyway since they outnumber us 22 to 1
Would love to be sat next to you when they come...not :|I'll be fighting tooth and nail (when they fall out due to radiation poisoning)
It's fine, I'll be up in a sniper's nest anyway, so I'll get my 22 kills in about a minute. I wish you the best of luck down there on the ground level.


snipers nest's will be the first thing blown over when the nukes drop


Fannies.
banned#8
Fannies.


+1
banned#9
Yep, I second fannies.
#10
My post is kind of off topic, but basically the money that they'd make/save from my comments below, then they'd be able to plow it back into protecting us!!

I know it's quite an old argument but when are they going to put a stop to their allowances? Us normal people have rent/mortgage and council tax to pay out of our measley wages, so why are they allowed to claim for theirs?!

I also had a few ideas, they say you need to spend money to save money (sometimes!) well if they created a proper Royal Mail- and stripped the current Royal Mail of their "royal badge"- their service is terrible anyway, and they dominate the market (thought it was unfair to have one major competition? I know there's couriers but if you wanted to send a letter by another means?) So the profits would be going back into the UK, there'd be a lot of jobs created, although yes I know there'd be a lot of jobs lost from the first Royal Mail.

They should also have a new section in the Government that sends supplies to every council, hospital, government office etc- so they order the stock at the lowest prices as there was a lot of arguing about one office was paying £100 for an ink cartridge and someone else was paying £20 for one. They'd save a lot doing that, and also create a few more jobs.

Also, what about those out of work who haven't found a job in months, they have to volunteer (be police checked) for say hospitals, social services, the police etc and it keeps them in work, it would help out the F ups in these systems- like elderly not being fed in hospitals, the amount of abuse going unnoticed as there's a huge back log of paperwork in social services, the lack of police presence on the streets. They could then increase the benefits of those that are genuinely wanting to work so that it's the equivalent of a wage (until a better job comes along) and those that refuse- then you find the shirkers and you stop their benefits completely.

Also, those on incapacity and DLA who can't go out to work, if they could work from home- like typing up Police paperwork and Social Services paperwork. If they signed the DPA it'd just be like an average worker taking their work home. They'd free up a lot of backlog and again you'd find the shirkers (say those with depression/anxiety attacks who cannot cope in a workplace but are able enough to work from home).
banned#11
^^^^^^
You're essentially talking about privatisation. And I agree with you.
#12
JonnyTwoToes
^^^^^^
You're essentially talking about privatisation. And I agree with you.


Yup, my mom said that in the 80's Margaret Thatcher sold a load of things off, so the best thing is start again, why can't the Government see we need to start making money aswell as saving it?
banned#13
midjet666
JonnyTwoToes
^^^^^^
You're essentially talking about privatisation. And I agree with you.


Yup, my mom said that in the 80's Margaret Thatcher sold a load of things off, so the best thing is start again, why can't the Government see we need to start making money aswell as saving it?


We've got the best party in power for the points you make.
1 Like #14
midjet666
I also had a few ideas, they say you need to spend money to save money (sometimes!) well if they created a proper Royal Mail- and stripped the current Royal Mail of their "royal badge"- their service is terrible anyway, and they dominate the market (thought it was unfair to have one major competition? I know there's couriers but if you wanted to send a letter by another means?) So the profits would be going back into the UK, there'd be a lot of jobs created, although yes I know there'd be a lot of jobs lost from the first Royal Mail.


If I can pick you up on a few of the points there,

1) The RM's service isn't terrible by any stretch. Just out of curiosity, but what makes you say that it is?

2) They don't really dominate the market. They've pretty much got the monopoly on personal letter sending and delivery, but they're one of about half a dozen companies that handle business mail, at which I think they might actually have a relatively small marketshare right now. They have the monopoly on personal mail and deliveries partly because they're obliged to provide those services, and I'm pretty sure they lose money on them.

3) Shutting them down and replacing them with a government-backed or a private organisation would cost billions, and if there are any long-term savings to be made, they'd take a long, long time to pay off.


Personally, I like the idea of the RM, and would prefer if there were more sort-of government-backed companies like it. I'd like to see them getting a tonne more funding and hire a million more employees, too. It could restore the double delivery service and all the other nice things that come with enormous inefficiency, all while replacing JSA and housing benefit cheques with a wage. Wouldn't cost the government much extra, and it'd do various good things for the people involved, and the country as a whole.
banned#15
It's a fair point DXX makes about Royal Mail to be honest.
I do think it is unique it it's nature though and therefore I do think other public bodies should be privatised.
#16
Regarding the original post about the Nimrods I work at one of the sites affected and i'ts a crying shame the amount of scrappage that is now taking place. The planes being cut up instead of either being repurposed or sold is only part of the issue companies like Bae Systems tend to earn a big share of there profits from support contracts for the finished product.

Link of aircrafts being scrapped
#17
i want my £100 back
#18
casparwhite
i want my £100 back

Ehh!
#19
trog0
casparwhite
i want my £100 back


Ehh!


theyve said on the news its cost every man, woman and child a 100 quid
banned#20
the right move - out of date technology and saved £2bn maintenance costs

just wish heads would fall in the civil service for the people who agree these ridiculous NHS/IT/Defence contracts that just seem to be a cash cow for the contract winners
#21
csiman
the right move - out of date technology and saved £2bn maintenance costsjust wish heads would fall in the civil service for the people who agree these ridiculous NHS/IT/Defence contracts that just seem to be a cash cow for the contract winners

Out of date Technology? Is that why the Americans are using the same software developed for the Nimrod in their P-8?
banned 1 Like #22
the right move - out of date technology and saved £2bn maintenance costs

Out of date how exactly? The equipment on board was pretty cutting edge and gave us a very unique ability which the Americans sort to use as what they had just didn't come close. Strangely enough we are now borrowing several rivet planes from the yanks - the RC135, its thought some of the aircraft that have been sat encased in the desert are to be utilised. They don't provide the same ability, but it does make you wonder why, as we work with the Americans ALL of the time now (more of less) that we don't just buy their aircraft for peanuts. The Hercules and Chinook and two of the most successful aircraft to ever enter RAF service and they are of course American. The Globemaster has been another success story yet we still insist on purchasing the A400M. Morale is pretty low in the airforce right now, I do agree the defence contracts have been in the wrong place giving us the wrong capability (The Eurofighter is a good example) and yet we retire our unique ability aircraft such as the Harrier...

Post a Comment

You don't need an account to leave a comment. Just enter your email address. We'll keep it private.

...OR log in with your social account

...OR comment using your social account

Thanks for your comment! Keep it up!
We just need to have a quick look and it will be live soon.
The community is happy to hear your opinion! Keep contributing!