StoleIt Posted February 3, 2011 Share Posted February 3, 2011 The British are way worse. The UK press is bursting with indignation today as the process of scrapping the Nimrod MRA4 submarine-hunting aircraft begins. But in fact the four planes now being broken up were a financial and engineering disaster. Had they gone into service they would have become a terrible, cripplingly expensive millstone around the neck of the Ministry of Defence. We are much, much better off without them. This plane cost us more than two Space Shuttles – and would have cost a lot, lot more if we'd kept it. Certainly not everyone agrees. We can forget leader-writers fulminating idiotically about Russian submarines and world-beating British engineering: some more serious people have entered the fray. A group of former senior officers writes to the nation that "a massive gap in British security has opened". But one should note that the signatories – including the air marshals one would naturally expect to find condemning cuts to the RAF, but also the admiral and general who won the Falklands war – don't actually state that they think the Nimrod itself should have been saved. They write: The vulnerability of sea lanes, unpredictable overseas crises and traditional surface and submarine opposition will continue to demand versatile, responsive aircraft ... Other countries are actually seeking to reinforce their maritime patrol capacity, with the new Boeing 737 P8A a strong contender ... It is not perverse to suggest that the gap left by broken Nimrods should be readdressed. What the ex-brasshats are bemoaning is the UK's loss of long-range maritime patrol aircraft in general, not the Nimrod MRA4 in particular. They're wise to draw this distinction, as the MRA4 project has now achieved the unwelcome distinction of producing the most expensive aircraft ever made: with a reported £4.1bn spent, just one is airworthy. By comparison, a new Space Shuttle would cost about £1.75bn at current rates if it were built today<small>1</small>. Even the staggeringly expensive B-2 nuclear Stealth bombers only cost £1.3bn apiece. Our sole flying Nimrod MRA4 (pictured above) has wound up costing us no less than £4.1bn – and it is not even a new aircraft. All the MRA4s are refurbished and re-equipped Nimrod MR2s, which had already been purchased by the RAF long ago at inflated prices. Even if the project had continued as planned, we would have received just nine refurbished Nimrods in total for our £4bn-odd – each of them would have cost almost half a billion pounds plus what was paid for it in the first place. One should note that this would have represented a more-than-quadrupling of the original "fixed price" agreed per plane by the last Tory government when it kicked off the programme back in the 1990s. Given the project's disastrous history of cost and time overruns, there's no reason to believe than the latest estimates would be any more accurate that the ones which preceded them - we'd probably have wound up spending at least the purchase price of a new fleet of NASA space shuttles to get our nine antisubmarine planes. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/01/27/nimrod_scrappage/ OUCH! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prosuper Posted February 3, 2011 Share Posted February 3, 2011 The base Comet airframes were all differant from each other making each MRA4 handmade, worse that what we went through with the JStars with different 707-300's all being built to their original owners specifications. They tryed the same thing with the Nimrod for AEW platform which was a disaster which they ended up buying the E-3D. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlyinGrunt Posted February 4, 2011 Share Posted February 4, 2011 That is one UGLY airplane for a billion pounds or whatever. Makes the Hawg and Herc look like svelte supermodels in comparison. At least when we spend that much money on a plane we get a crazy UFO (B-2.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zrooster99 Posted February 4, 2011 Share Posted February 4, 2011 Hard to believe you could buy 3 B-2s for the cost of one of those... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StoleIt Posted February 4, 2011 Author Share Posted February 4, 2011 Hard to believe you could buy 3 B-2s for the cost of one of those... Buy 3 B-2's for the cost of modernizing one of those. That price didn't even include a brand new airplane. This was just an upgrade. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MKopack Posted February 4, 2011 Share Posted February 4, 2011 I'm not sure that the costs quoted are accurate, but certainly a program that was WAY out of line as far as expenses go. Almost hate to see the Nimrods go from a historical perspective - as they were based on the Comet, they are the last flying link to the world's first commercial jet airliner to reach production. I'll never forget my 'ride along' flight on Nimrod MR2 XV239. Sadly XV239 and her crew were lost a year later in 1995 during the Canadian International Airshow in Toronto. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Napoleon_Tanerite Posted February 4, 2011 Share Posted February 4, 2011 Buying old, used up airframes and putting new equipment is DEFINITELY a tried and true method of producing reliable, modern airplanes that are in no way operationally restricted by their century old technology. I see no problem calling them new airplanes, just like going to the used car lot and buying that 72 Pacer is like buying a new car.... new to you that is. Hmm.... there appears to not be a sarcasm emoticon... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MKopack Posted February 4, 2011 Share Posted February 4, 2011 Buying old, used up airframes and putting new equipment is DEFINITELY a tried and true method of producing reliable, modern airplanes that are in no way operationally restricted by their century old technology. I see no problem calling them new airplanes, just like going to the used car lot and buying that 72 Pacer is like buying a new car.... new to you that is. Hmm.... there appears to not be a sarcasm emoticon... You're right. I worked for a company that was subcontracted to do mods on several of the future E-8 J-Stars. Two of the aircraft, the former Canadian CC-137 tankers, were in beautiful condition, two of the others, sourced from African airlines were - let's just say, "not". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clark Griswold Posted December 19, 2014 Share Posted December 19, 2014 (edited) Thread restart on a related procurement/acquisition/corruption fiasco, forced on the US Army by Congress. Not a new system but definitely not wanted. Congress Again Buys Abrams Tanks the Army Doesn't Want From the article: "Turner's office did not respond to several requests for comment on why Congress went against the recommendation of Gen. Ray Odierno, the Army chief of staff, to suspend tank production." The CSUSA tells you he doesn't want them, don't buy them. Edited December 19, 2014 by Clark Griswold Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeloDude Posted December 19, 2014 Share Posted December 19, 2014 Thread restart on a related procurement/acquisition/corruption fiasco, forced on the US Army by Congress. Not a new system but definitely not wanted.] It's Christmas time--people buy me crap all the time that I don't want. Maybe we can re-gift these tanks to someone else. I'm sure ISIS would gladly take some more of our equipment. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clark Griswold Posted December 19, 2014 Share Posted December 19, 2014 (edited) It's Christmas time--people buy me crap all the time that I don't want. Maybe we can re-gift these tanks to someone else. I'm sure ISIS would gladly take some more of our equipment. Lets gift them as many JDAMS, Hellfires, and 30mm via Air Express Delivery as we can, got clear the shelves now and then But that article was little slice of the shit sandwich that Congress makes occasionally for the DoD to take a big bite, I get fighting for your district and jobs there (to a point) but at some point it's just too much parochialism and you have to let it go. Edited December 19, 2014 by Clark Griswold Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clark Griswold Posted April 6, 2018 Share Posted April 6, 2018 (edited) Thread revival FAILURES OF IMAGINATION: THE MILITARY’S BIGGEST ACQUISITION CHALLENGE How we define requirements, select solutions and buy them, the ultimate Rube Goldberg machine... Edited April 6, 2018 by Clark Griswold Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SurelySerious Posted April 6, 2018 Share Posted April 6, 2018 2 hours ago, Clark Griswold said: Thread revival FAILURES OF IMAGINATION: THE MILITARY’S BIGGEST ACQUISITION CHALLENGE How we define requirements, select solutions and buy them, the ultimate Rube Goldberg machine... It really is infuriating every time our POM guy from MAJCOM tells us why we’re waiting 6-9 years just to start new programs on our jet. So the Army and Navy can say why we don’t need X, Y, or Z in step 3/64. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gimmeaplane Posted April 8, 2018 Share Posted April 8, 2018 DoD spends $220M/yr on those charts and associated courses. One might wonder if all those student course evaluations (at least midrange because you must take time to explain any low score) accurately represent the value of these training programs... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FourFans Posted April 16, 2018 Share Posted April 16, 2018 (edited) That's is just a standard US Army overview slide. Nothing out of the ordinary here. Edited April 16, 2018 by FourFans130 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now