Nimrod design faults highlighted

  Chegs ®™ 05:11 24 May 2008

A coroner has made some damning judgements about the airworthiness of the whole Nimrod fleet, which has been an essential part of the frontline of the Royal Air Force since 1969.

click here

Near the end of the article is words from "Armed Forces Minister Bob Ainsworth " saying the aircraft will continue to fly as there is nothing else suitable.Therefore,these airmen in these planes are flying over Iraq and elsewhere secure in the knowledge that if it blows up,its okay because there were no other planes suitable.

Why not instead,swallow their pride(Armed Forces Seniors) and ask the UN if we can have a little bit of time off fighting in wars until we have a suitable aircraft readied?

  Pine Man 11:49 24 May 2008

You quoted - 'Armed Forces Minister Bob Ainsworth as saying the aircraft will continue to fly as there is nothing else suitable'

From the same article;

"The death of 14 brave servicemen in Afghanistan nearly two years ago was a profound and tragic accident, and my thoughts and sympathies are with their families today.

"The safety and security of our service personnel is an absolute priority for me.

"That is why I have sought the advice of the RAF's most senior officers and have been assured that the changes we have made to the Nimrod mean that it is safe to fly."

Earlier, the RAF's most senior engineer, Air Marshal Sir Barry Thornton, also maintained that serious design failures highlighted by the coroner had now been eradicated.

  jack 12:19 24 May 2008

at the sharp end- the users- identfy faults or improvements - nothing is done
This is not only in this particular aircraft -other military equipment- it seems to be endemic- if to say to the 'squadies - 'Look just get on with it.'
I'm sure in Forces in other countries such in the field/operational feedback it acted upon PDQ

  beeuuem 14:08 24 May 2008

I do believe that we should ,where possible, use British equipment. That said, there are times when common sense dictates that it may be better to use foreign equipment because it is cheaper,better or more readily available.
Nimrod is good example of getting it completely wrong. Buying something such as the Lockheed P3 Orion would have made more sense in every way.

  WhiteTruckMan 14:39 24 May 2008

too often is dictated by political considerations. Things like jobs, especially in marginal constituencies, and who do we currently want to suck up to on the world stage.

Also, its not generally appreciated but even in peacetime, military aviation is riskier than civilian aviation. Mechanical standards were lower, and the things carried on the aircraft (not counting things hung off the airframe) would never be allowed on a civil airliner.

On the nimrods themselves, I have to say that they live a hard life. Long flying hours at low level in a highly corrosive enviroment mean that corrosion takes its toll far faster than on most other aircraft. That, and the not inconsiderable initial purchase price mean that the people operating them will be encouraged to make the most of them, whatever the means.

On this specific incident I dont think I can fully agree with the coroner. There may indeed have been neglect, but if the initial cause of the explosion has been removed (deactivated while in flight, actually) then calls for the entire fleet to be grounded are, in my opinion, excessive.


This thread is now locked and can not be replied to.

Elsewhere on IDG sites

iMac Pro review

See iconic duo Smith and Foulkes' epic animation for the BBC's Winter Olympics coverage

iMac Pro review

Idées cadeaux pour geeks et tech addicts