Nimrod MRA.4
however its the past and the NIMROD MRA4 doesnt need constant reminding of its history
I'm afraid it is precisely that attitude in MoD that lies at the root of recent tragedies, including XV230.
Everyone needs to be constantly aware of what caused the crash and that the systemic failures confirmed by Haddon-Cave were known and formally notified in advance. And, as postings are seldom more than 2 or so years, everyone needs constant reminding. Too many of the failings were caused by there being no "event" during these 2 year periods, so the incumbents became immune to the risks and did not notify them to successors; thus losing corporate knowledge.
It is to MoD's eternal shame it took Tapper's father to do their job for them. One should always remember - none of this came as a surprise. It was all predictable, predicted and ignored. (As were the Nimrod 2000/RMPA/MRA4 problems).
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Bristol Temple Meads
Posts: 869
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AGE 13, you say;
On the day of the accident, XV230 was allowed to fly with:
(a) Suspect blow offs from No.1 tank
(b) No. 1 tank could not be filled above 15K
(c) Irratic No.5 tank fuel gauge. (one was changed on EQ1)
(d) No.3 tank (port) would not go above 7800 lbs.
(e) SCP tripped off during AAR
All these defects were know about by aircrew and ground crew, but were "carried in the head" rather than the F700.
Much has been said about the No.1 blow off, "it was just doing its job". Correct, it was doing its job because something was probably wrong. Two months after the accident XV232 had a similar problem with blow offs; cause, an incorrectly fitted clack valve in No.1 tank. A valve replaced during a Major servicing, at the same time that XV230 was also undergoing Major servicing. Same tradesmen involved in valve changes on both aircraft.
Finally, one month after the accident, the detachment JEngO was instructed to change a Serious Defect Signal because he "suspected that delivery fuel pressure during AAR may be causing damage to the construction of bag tanks".
If, as you claim, you were not aware of people who were negligent, you do now.
DV
I was never negligent and knew of no one that was
(a) Suspect blow offs from No.1 tank
(b) No. 1 tank could not be filled above 15K
(c) Irratic No.5 tank fuel gauge. (one was changed on EQ1)
(d) No.3 tank (port) would not go above 7800 lbs.
(e) SCP tripped off during AAR
All these defects were know about by aircrew and ground crew, but were "carried in the head" rather than the F700.
Much has been said about the No.1 blow off, "it was just doing its job". Correct, it was doing its job because something was probably wrong. Two months after the accident XV232 had a similar problem with blow offs; cause, an incorrectly fitted clack valve in No.1 tank. A valve replaced during a Major servicing, at the same time that XV230 was also undergoing Major servicing. Same tradesmen involved in valve changes on both aircraft.
Finally, one month after the accident, the detachment JEngO was instructed to change a Serious Defect Signal because he "suspected that delivery fuel pressure during AAR may be causing damage to the construction of bag tanks".
If, as you claim, you were not aware of people who were negligent, you do now.
DV
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Aylesbury
Age: 58
Posts: 378
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Jabba,
I presume with "external" assistance you are hinting at Venezuela under Chavez? A scenario that the US would likely use to put Chavez back in his box"
Actually TEEEJ, it wasnt Chavez that I had in mind with that comment, more Brazil or Uruguay, to be honest. Particularly Uruguay after the recent incident where a Brit T42 wasnt allowed to dock. Historically, I always thought we had good relations with them, but maybe things are starting to change.
I wasnt so much thinking "active assistance" in terms of them actually contributing combat units to the Argentine cause, more a case of us not having the co-operation and good relations that we previously had - I dont think we're going to have any issues with Chile, but the Uruguayans and Brazilians could, if they wanted to be unhelpful make things difficult. Particularly as our global reach is not what it was and sometimes on such long distance expeditionary hikes you need all the friends you can get.
The Argentines simply couldn't assemble an invasion force in secret under the current Argentine civilian government.
I accept that. Hence my "hopefully we'd get plenty of warning at the preparation stage" comment and the ensuing diplomatic rounds that would go on whilst any TF would be being cobbled together.
I'm afraid though, I dont think it is always going to be this way.
And it may, just may, in the not too distant future be a less onerous task on Argentina for them to generate a force capable of taking MPA than it would for us to assemble anything even remotely close to the type of force package we would need to take it back.
Bear in mind though, given the current size and composition of the MPA garrison, what size of invasion force would you actually need?
The Argentines would be reliant on the Falklands airfields for re-supply as their Navy would be, as per 1982, restricted to territorial waters. They still have no solution to RN SSNs.
They were restricted to territorial waters, if I recall correctly once the CORPORATE TF got within sniffing distance. Yes, the SSN was a powerful tool and certainly kept the Argentine capital ships bottled up in port, particularly after the loss of Belgrano.
But, bear in mind, without giving too much away, the SSN cant be everywhere.
And, bear in mind they dont have to have a direct like for like answer to the UK SSN. There is an ambition still to develop an SSN capability for their TR1700's and they've also been looking at AIP as well. It is not beyond the realms of possibility that a Brit SSN may spend more time looking over its proverbial shoulder watching out for P3B's, surface ASW units and AIP'd SSK's than it does hassling any invasion force. And thats not including any intel the Argentines may get from other powers who may be able to locate our SSN force by er... other means, shall we say.
Even if the Argentines re-invaded with Venezuelan assistance it would be the easiest UN enforcement action to stop Argentine/Venezuelan agression with the destruction of the airfields on the Falklands.
I wish I could have the confidence in the UN that you do. Given the abomination that was Srebrenica, I cant say I believe it would happen. It would get bogged down at the UN and possession is nine tenths of the law.
It would be a simple job for B-2 Spirits under UN mandate to render the airfields on the islands unusable.
You think Obama or his successor would actually go that far for little ol' us?? Maybe under Dubya it would have been considered, but those days are over. Look how tight Thatch and Reagan were and the fun and games we had last time. And all we got out of them last time was intel, AIM9L Sidewinders, fuel and grudging use of our own bloody island (Ascension). Direct, US strategic bomber intervention? Under a UN mandate? I think, with all due respect, you seriously overestimate the amount of friends we have in the UN for them to go that far for us. I have very grave doubts it would happen.
Unable to re-supply by sea or air all the Argentines would have done is imprisoned themselves on the Islands.
If any of the others decide to get involved on our behalf beyond diplomatic pressure. After all, regardless of our level of influence in the area, the neighbouring countries have to live next to them all of the time. They have to ask themselves what is in it for them supporting the British over their nearest neighbours. Especially if their nearest neighbour suddenly finds themself with a significant oil find on their doorstep. Do not underestimate the interest the far east (ie China) would take in such a discovery either or the influence they may bring to bear.
The thing that is most likely to prevent it, certainly in the immediate (ie next 3-5 years) is the Major Non NATO Ally status and the closeness of the Argentines to the rest of the international community on UN matters, particularly its near neighbours with whom they have been developing improved relations.
However, I would consider this not a million miles away from the situation in NATO with Greece and Turkey. Common NATO allies they may be, but I can tell you for a fact that best of bedfellows they most certainly are not.
No Argentine civilian government is going to take Argentina down that path again.
I hope you're right. I wouldnt bet my house on it though.
I presume with "external" assistance you are hinting at Venezuela under Chavez? A scenario that the US would likely use to put Chavez back in his box"
Actually TEEEJ, it wasnt Chavez that I had in mind with that comment, more Brazil or Uruguay, to be honest. Particularly Uruguay after the recent incident where a Brit T42 wasnt allowed to dock. Historically, I always thought we had good relations with them, but maybe things are starting to change.
I wasnt so much thinking "active assistance" in terms of them actually contributing combat units to the Argentine cause, more a case of us not having the co-operation and good relations that we previously had - I dont think we're going to have any issues with Chile, but the Uruguayans and Brazilians could, if they wanted to be unhelpful make things difficult. Particularly as our global reach is not what it was and sometimes on such long distance expeditionary hikes you need all the friends you can get.
The Argentines simply couldn't assemble an invasion force in secret under the current Argentine civilian government.
I accept that. Hence my "hopefully we'd get plenty of warning at the preparation stage" comment and the ensuing diplomatic rounds that would go on whilst any TF would be being cobbled together.
I'm afraid though, I dont think it is always going to be this way.
And it may, just may, in the not too distant future be a less onerous task on Argentina for them to generate a force capable of taking MPA than it would for us to assemble anything even remotely close to the type of force package we would need to take it back.
Bear in mind though, given the current size and composition of the MPA garrison, what size of invasion force would you actually need?
The Argentines would be reliant on the Falklands airfields for re-supply as their Navy would be, as per 1982, restricted to territorial waters. They still have no solution to RN SSNs.
They were restricted to territorial waters, if I recall correctly once the CORPORATE TF got within sniffing distance. Yes, the SSN was a powerful tool and certainly kept the Argentine capital ships bottled up in port, particularly after the loss of Belgrano.
But, bear in mind, without giving too much away, the SSN cant be everywhere.
And, bear in mind they dont have to have a direct like for like answer to the UK SSN. There is an ambition still to develop an SSN capability for their TR1700's and they've also been looking at AIP as well. It is not beyond the realms of possibility that a Brit SSN may spend more time looking over its proverbial shoulder watching out for P3B's, surface ASW units and AIP'd SSK's than it does hassling any invasion force. And thats not including any intel the Argentines may get from other powers who may be able to locate our SSN force by er... other means, shall we say.
Even if the Argentines re-invaded with Venezuelan assistance it would be the easiest UN enforcement action to stop Argentine/Venezuelan agression with the destruction of the airfields on the Falklands.
I wish I could have the confidence in the UN that you do. Given the abomination that was Srebrenica, I cant say I believe it would happen. It would get bogged down at the UN and possession is nine tenths of the law.
It would be a simple job for B-2 Spirits under UN mandate to render the airfields on the islands unusable.
You think Obama or his successor would actually go that far for little ol' us?? Maybe under Dubya it would have been considered, but those days are over. Look how tight Thatch and Reagan were and the fun and games we had last time. And all we got out of them last time was intel, AIM9L Sidewinders, fuel and grudging use of our own bloody island (Ascension). Direct, US strategic bomber intervention? Under a UN mandate? I think, with all due respect, you seriously overestimate the amount of friends we have in the UN for them to go that far for us. I have very grave doubts it would happen.
Unable to re-supply by sea or air all the Argentines would have done is imprisoned themselves on the Islands.
If any of the others decide to get involved on our behalf beyond diplomatic pressure. After all, regardless of our level of influence in the area, the neighbouring countries have to live next to them all of the time. They have to ask themselves what is in it for them supporting the British over their nearest neighbours. Especially if their nearest neighbour suddenly finds themself with a significant oil find on their doorstep. Do not underestimate the interest the far east (ie China) would take in such a discovery either or the influence they may bring to bear.
The thing that is most likely to prevent it, certainly in the immediate (ie next 3-5 years) is the Major Non NATO Ally status and the closeness of the Argentines to the rest of the international community on UN matters, particularly its near neighbours with whom they have been developing improved relations.
However, I would consider this not a million miles away from the situation in NATO with Greece and Turkey. Common NATO allies they may be, but I can tell you for a fact that best of bedfellows they most certainly are not.
No Argentine civilian government is going to take Argentina down that path again.
I hope you're right. I wouldnt bet my house on it though.
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Bristol Temple Meads
Posts: 869
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This thread is about MRA4
DV
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Bridgwater Somerset
Posts: 459
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wow!!! What a reaction to me just posting information on here, It's not as though I voiced any opinion. I thought I could post on any thread I didn't realise I am restricted to commenting only on the late MR2. Ben did work at Kinloss and did put in for MRA4 training before he went off to Afghanistan and never returned, and had the MRA4 been bought into service when it should have been he would have still been alive today.
So I do think I have just as much right to post on this thread as anyone if it be my will.
So I do think I have just as much right to post on this thread as anyone if it be my will.
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Kinloss
Posts: 99
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Based on the split timings this afternoon, I would guess that the base with the bad news will be told first: Lossie to close.
Remnants of Tornado fleet required for Afghan to operate from Kinloss while MRA gets its act together.
Speculation, of course, but this is a rumour network, after all....
Ed
Remnants of Tornado fleet required for Afghan to operate from Kinloss while MRA gets its act together.
Speculation, of course, but this is a rumour network, after all....
Ed
Finally, one month after the accident, the detachment JEngO was instructed to change a Serious Defect Signal
I hope the man who issued it isn't working on MRA4 (or anywhere in MoD).
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: SALISBURY
Age: 77
Posts: 706
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The BBC are sounding pretty certain that the MRA 4 will be cancelled. The lunatics have definitely taken over the running of the asylum. Maybe the BBC are wrong for a change!
On a slightly lighter note, glad to see that the Kinloss weather is still cr*p.
On a slightly lighter note, glad to see that the Kinloss weather is still cr*p.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 932
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MRA4 reportedly binned - Guardian 1408
Politics live blog - Tuesday 19 October | Politics | guardian.co.uk
S41
(edited: sorry for repetition)
Politics live blog - Tuesday 19 October | Politics | guardian.co.uk
S41
(edited: sorry for repetition)
Join Date: May 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 34
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MRA4 Binned - BBC
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Banished (twice) to the pointless forest
Posts: 1,558
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So, for all of those who have been saying we can't not have Nimrod MRA4..............
Please tell me when the world will stop turning, because we are indeed going to not have it.
Please tell me when the world will stop turning, because we are indeed going to not have it.