Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

Scaping of Brand New Aircraft

32 replies

C0FFEE · 27/01/2011 10:06

This to me seems such a waste

Here is the another link

OP posts:
pascoe28 · 27/01/2011 10:14

What does scaping mean?

JBellingham · 27/01/2011 10:16

scrapping. Yes it is a total waste.

Original poster
C0FFEE · 27/01/2011 10:33

What is it like to be perfect pascoe28

OP posts:
ApocalypseCheeseToastie · 27/01/2011 10:37

Oh for god sake coffee, don't go looking for a ruck, I had to read it a couple of times before I clicked it was 'scrapping' too

freshmint · 27/01/2011 10:39

coffee you are a bit rude

I didn't have a clue what scaping was either

GetOrfMoiLand · 27/01/2011 10:41

They are pretty much obsolete and were badly designed in the first place.

This was recognised as the things were being designed.

They are much better off getting rid of these things and investing in UAVs built in new materials, rather than keeping on with old technology. Will be cheaper in the long run anyway.

BaroqueAroundTheClock · 27/01/2011 10:42

I knew what it meant

Wink Grin

I don't understand why they're having them shredded. Fine scrap the programme -but just to destroy the things??? Surely there's something better that could be do with them than turning to sccrap metal.

GetOrfMoiLand · 27/01/2011 10:43

There is a hell of a lot of waste in the defence procurement agency to get aerated about, however this is a sensioble decision in my view.

kreecherlivesupstairs · 27/01/2011 10:48

Ha.Pot. Kettle. Freshmint.

Original poster
C0FFEE · 27/01/2011 10:53

Not being rude, I did not spot the typo and it is not my fault you can not go back and edit what I posted.

If anyone really could not make out what I meant they could have clicked the link and found out what the subject is instead of posting comments.

In my view it is pascoe28 who is rude,

OP posts:
pascoe28 · 27/01/2011 10:57

COFFEE - oh dearie me, how will I cope? Some total stranger on a web-site thinks I am rude!

Asteria · 27/01/2011 11:04

Now now children....

pascoe28 · 27/01/2011 11:10

To address the point of the discussion, yes, I think the scrapping of these aircraft is a mistake...but then I would argue for an increase in defence spending and commensurate reductions in other departments!

Asteria · 27/01/2011 11:22

A saving of £2billion over 10 years - that is nothing, especially when compare to the money they will undoubtedly shell out elsewhere! They could save that alone if they took Defence Estates in hand and got them to run their show properly - I have never known a bunch of worse money wasters....
If the Military stopped farming out things to contractors like Sodexo (who are inefficient and expensive) and kept more of the catering/housing within the forces - as it always was - then they would save a fortune.
The Government should stop making these ridiculous grand gestures and actually look at the money that is pouring out through gross mismanagement.

Asteria · 27/01/2011 11:26

Oh lord - just read that back - my mother wasted a FORTUNE on my education - will endeavour to preview and edit in future....

Saltire · 27/01/2011 11:27

I agree with Asteria - especially aobut teh defence sEstates, dear god they could cut billions off the budget if they sorted that lot out. And putting everything out to contract is another waste of money. In 20 years time it wil be contractors out in Basra patrolling with guns becasue they will have put the rols of soldiers sailors and airmen out to contract

Asteria · 27/01/2011 12:15

The army have fantastic cooks and very very good mess managers, who for years were able to organise everything brilliantly. Now Sodexo have a contract that is so tightly binding, if an army family want to use the mess for a private event (like a christening for example) then they are not allowed to provide ANY of their own cooked food - Sodexo provide it all. And their canapés are generally REVOLTING....
I live near Catterick (ex army family) and recently the DE have been reroofing houses, the general consensus was that they DID NOT NEED it at all - perhaps the odd tile fixing, but they were hardly dilapidated. They are now spending thousands blocking up fireplaces to save on chimney sweeps - why not write into the rental contracts that the families in residence are responsible for that? It really gets my goat...

GetOrfMoiLand · 27/01/2011 12:20

I work for a company which has a very lucrative MOD contract for nuts and bolts.

So, we buy the nuts and bolts from Taiwan for, say, £10 a thousand. We repackage them into little bag of 100, label them appropriately and put loads of MOD part numbers all over it, and sell them to the MOD for probably £15 per packet.

I have made those numbers up but the mark up they indicate is realistic.

I have also found out that when those packets of 100 screws are used by technicians etc in teh army, they use say 20 screws and throw the rest away. next time they need the same screw they go and get a new packet.

The waste and inefficiency is appalling.

Niceguy2 · 27/01/2011 12:25

It has been an obscene waste of money. But there does come a point where you have to stop and decide if you want to carry on throwing good money after bad.

MrSpoc · 27/01/2011 12:34

Just like the time when the MOD bougth aload of new chinooks and they could not fly them because the never bought the software.

I was in the army, left 5 years ago and it is a wastful service and yet they fail to give the guys the correct gear to work with.

Also it was clear what Coffee meant, pascoe you were out of order

Saltire · 27/01/2011 13:34

Asteria - and charge a ridiculous amount of money too. I remember the days when you got your mess/section bar free, and gave the barman/woman £20 and provided your own food. It cost neighbours of ours
£80 for hire of sgts mess and bar staff
£12 per platter of canapes - 6 in total
and then £3.75 a head for the rest of the buffet.
Shocking really.

Also the civilian bar staff here just open the bloody mess when they want to, not when the paying Mess members want it open

voiceofnoreason · 27/01/2011 13:40

The point of this is that these aircraft are already very elderly (their airframes are based on the "comet" airliner). They will cost a fortune to maintain and keep airworthy for a very small fleet of aircraft. Further, they don't really do what they ought! It is cheaper to scrap them, buy new aircraft off the shelf from boeing and have units that work with the rest of NATO!

The programme should have been canned long ago! It was only agree to provide jobs. Now that may be a good thing, but it would mean the RAF flying very substandard kit for years! Now of course the RAF want to keep them, turkeys dont vote for xmas!

Original poster
C0FFEE · 27/01/2011 13:48

voiceofnoreason are they not brand new redesigned aircraft?

Even if they are not needed could they not go into a museums or be used for transport?

OP posts:
FindingStuffToChuckOut · 27/01/2011 13:50

all this scrapping about rudeness killed the thread for me Hmm

MrSpoc · 27/01/2011 13:51

Coffee the aircraft were designed years ago and are very out dated compaired to todays standards.

Not sure about other uses for them but the article made it clear that the only countries that would want to buy them are the type of countries who we would not want them to have.