As recent aviaiton military press goes, the RAF BAe Mk 5 program has seen set back after set back, and major cost over runs. The program now finally looks on track with all the development aircraft flying. The Ministry of Defense has an important decision later this year to go ahead with production of 12 aircaft and reworking of 3 test aircraft to production standards. Besides the fact that I heard the project is billions of pounds over budget and the RAF has shut down the other Nimrod base leaving only one to cover the British Isle's.
In my opinion what was the RAF ever thinking of taking a plane designed in the very beginning of jet era and converting it into such a modern aircraft? The Nimrod/Comet is one of the most influential aviaiton designs in history but has long lived past is usefullness. I believe the RAF could have saved much more time and money converting a modern airliner like the Airbus A330 or Boeing 737/767 to the same job. With the RAF's future tanker program in the works, I believe the RAF should cut production of the Mk. 5 and replace their ageing and highly secrective Mk. 1's with those production aircraft. They should then convert A330's to do the task of
Mk. 5. By having a large aircraft fleet with more commonality will save costs in training and maintenance.
In a world of less and less defence spending, many militaries are holding on to legacy aircraft including the U.S. with most notably the B-52 and KC-135. While the B-52 is still soldiering quite well for a design now over 50 years old, the KC-135 has turned into a disaster for the U.S. The aircraft should have been replaced decades ago with a more modern design, now the U.S. is in a different but just as bad mess. The USAF has a outdated, and expensive airplanes almost falling apart. The intial plan to replace them with KC-767 turned into a disaster with Boeing's shady practices and outrageous lease deal with the Pentagon. Hopefully when the future tanker program is put forward again that everything will go smoothly. It will be interesting with Airbus participating with the A330.
I am curious what other individuals think of Nimrod program, will it fall or succeed? Should legacy aircraft like the Nimrod and KC-135 still get life extensions even though their designs are outdated and costly? I am especially keen to hear a British or European perspective since I gather there is much more press there on the subject then what I can find in the U.S.
In my opinion what was the RAF ever thinking of taking a plane designed in the very beginning of jet era and converting it into such a modern aircraft? The Nimrod/Comet is one of the most influential aviaiton designs in history but has long lived past is usefullness. I believe the RAF could have saved much more time and money converting a modern airliner like the Airbus A330 or Boeing 737/767 to the same job. With the RAF's future tanker program in the works, I believe the RAF should cut production of the Mk. 5 and replace their ageing and highly secrective Mk. 1's with those production aircraft. They should then convert A330's to do the task of
Mk. 5. By having a large aircraft fleet with more commonality will save costs in training and maintenance.
In a world of less and less defence spending, many militaries are holding on to legacy aircraft including the U.S. with most notably the B-52 and KC-135. While the B-52 is still soldiering quite well for a design now over 50 years old, the KC-135 has turned into a disaster for the U.S. The aircraft should have been replaced decades ago with a more modern design, now the U.S. is in a different but just as bad mess. The USAF has a outdated, and expensive airplanes almost falling apart. The intial plan to replace them with KC-767 turned into a disaster with Boeing's shady practices and outrageous lease deal with the Pentagon. Hopefully when the future tanker program is put forward again that everything will go smoothly. It will be interesting with Airbus participating with the A330.
I am curious what other individuals think of Nimrod program, will it fall or succeed? Should legacy aircraft like the Nimrod and KC-135 still get life extensions even though their designs are outdated and costly? I am especially keen to hear a British or European perspective since I gather there is much more press there on the subject then what I can find in the U.S.
