MoD strikes again

[XV107]

Although you have to watch out for the spectacularly inaccurate bits of the book (classics such as the Tornado F3 *must* have been intended for dogfighting as it has an in-built gun, which means that the Air Staff are lying when they say it was never intended to go head-to-head with the Su-27, for instance...)

The RAF is due to receive 12 Nimrod MRA4. I've heard pretty much the same as Thorvic about the wing/fuselage mis-match, although my source (a Nimrod crew member) suggested that BAE had suggested that fitting CAD wings to handbuilt fuselages was likely to be tricky and that producing new CAD fuselages to get a brand new airframe would be more sensible, only for the MoD to assume that this was a cunning wheeze to charge more money and stretch out the delivery schedule and say a firm 'No'.

[Captain Canada]

Nimrods can never be boring....

 

[nev]

One even cruised over my house the other morning.  Very pleasant surprise.  Probly one of the R1s at Waddington.

[Hobbes]

Although you have to watch out for the spectacularly inaccurate bits of the book (classics such as the Tornado F3 *must* have been intended for dogfighting as it has an in-built gun, which means that the Air Staff are lying when they say it was never intended to go head-to-head with the Su-27, for instance...)

That's jumping to conclusions. Yes, a gun was included. Maybe it was done to have another option in the event the Tornado driver finds himself sucked into a dogfight. But the design as a whole clearly wasn't optimized for dogfighting. It simply lacks the maneuverability and the thrust:weight ratio to keep up with the Su-27 at close range.

IOW, a compromise has been made that allows for some commonality with the IDS version, at the expense of dogfighting ability. This limitation was seen as acceptable in light of its performance at long-range fights (ISTR Sky Flash and the ADV's radar are rather good), and the conflict it was designed for: all-out war with the USSR, defending the UK where you can clearly separate friend from foe so long-range engagements are not a problem.  

[XV107]

My point exactly. If he can't understand the basics, why should the informed reader take him at all seriously?

There are other areas I recall reading (library copy so can't dig them up) where I was left spluttering in incredulity at the assumptions being made.  Although the general thrust of the book is in the right direction, the arguments are often undermined by a lack of understanding of all three services and a clear chip on shoulder about senior ranks and how they can't get anything right. Ever. (Particularly if they're in the RAF).

[SimonR]

The interesting thing is how the only the MoD, never the RAF, takes the AAA for these fiascos. In my experience (RAF officer/flight crew, 11 years) the RAF is just as big a cesspit of incompetence, stupidity and cronyism as the MoD and is just as culpable for the criminal waste of our money.

Can't comment on the Navy or Army, but I imagine they are just as bad but with poorer hygeine and manners respectively.  

[nev]

Can't comment on the Navy or Army, but I imagine they are just as bad but with poorer hygeine and manners respectively.

         

[Aircav]

Sail Army
Fly Navy
Walk side ways
           

[Martin H]

the RAF is just as big a cesspit of incompetence, stupidity and cronyism as the MoD and is just as culpable for the criminal waste of our money.

wow best discription of HQAC (Head Quaters air Cadets) (Spoken as H Qwack) ive heard in a long time.