- Defence policy
- Equipment and support
- Modernising defence
- Aviation
- Marine
- Land vehicles
- Security
- HR and training
- Defence estates (DIO)
News updates
Twitter updates
Facebook
Email
Print
Nimrod scrapping netted MoD £500,000
15 June 2012
In a written parliamentary answer to MP Angus Robertson, Defence Equipment Support and Technology Minister Peter Luff said that the MoD paid £500,000 to have the aircraft scrapped and made £1m from their scrap value.
"The Nimrod MRA4 airframes were dismantled on the Ministry of Defence's behalf by Metal and Waste Recycling Ltd at a cost of around £500,000," said Luff. "As part of the contractual arrangements with the company, the MoD received receipts from the sale of the dismantled airframes to the value of just over £1 million.
"We expect to save around £2bn by not bringing Nimrod MRA4 into service."
The cancellation of the £3.6bn project proved controversial when it was announced as part of the Strategic Defence and Security Review in October 2010, with senior defence figures admitting that the move created risks by removing a capability almost entirely. Maritime surveillance in future would be carried out by a "layered" combination of other existing assets, they insisted.
The £3.6bn of expenditure written off by the MoD when the aircraft were scrapped represented more than half of the £6.3bn total expenditure written off as a result of the SDSR's cuts.
Scottish National Party MP Robertson later said the "paltry" scrap value recouped by the MoD added "insult to injury".
"It has become obvious that the decision to scrap Nimrod was based on cost-cutting rather than strategic needs," he told The Scotsman. "Whether it is national events like the Olympics or everyday missions such as maritime reconnaissance and rescues, there is now a mammoth capability gap and lives are at risk."
An MoD spokesman told the newspaper: "Long overdue and over cost, only one Nimrod aircraft had been delivered. Significant technical difficulties remained and they had not passed airworthiness tests."
"Tough decisions like these have enabled the MoD to balance the budget for the first time in decades and invest in new capabilities to ensure our forces are well equipped for the future."
The House of Commons Defence Select Committee is currently holding a review of the UK's Maritime Surveillance capability and is due to report later this year.
HAVE YOUR SAY
15 June 2012
How have they netted £500,000 when they spent more than £3billion on the project.
It's like telling a 5yr old that 2+2 = 10,000.
Where did the accountants and officals go to college?
JC - UK
15 June 2012
"Tough decisions like these have enabled the MoD to balance the budget for the first time in decades and invest in new capabilities to ensure our forces are well equipped for the future."
This comment is cropping up again and again. Has balancing the books in the short term increased costs in the long term though? Have we been really short sighted.
Anthony - Bristol, United Kingdom
15 June 2012
The House of Commons Defence Select Committee is currently holding a review of the UK's Maritime Surveillance capability and is due to report later this year.
There is no doubting that the cancellation of Nimrod has left the UK with a glaring gap in defence and a not insignificant impact on maritime safety issues, the question is now, with no indigenous manufacturer what are the options?
Having wasted £3.6Bn already and allegedly 'saving £2Bn' by not operating Nimrod, this sounds more like 'cooking the books' rather than balancing them!! So assuming only the airframes were scrapped, what became of the aircraft systems, radars, engines etc? With the scandalous disposal of Harrier and the bargain basement sale of 'Larg's Bay' how does HMG argue their point about reducing waste at the MOD?
If indeed they do intend to 'invest in new capabilities to ensure our forces are well equipped for the future' then it's about time they announced them and not keep referring to ongoing and pre-planned projects that have been in the pipeline for years already!!
Hereman - Wirral, England
15 June 2012
"We expect to save around £2bn by not bringing Nimrod MRA4 into service." - Same could be said for any project. In this instance, the planes had been built (despite endless meddling by Labour to reduce the size of the fleet - hmm, bit like the T45s).
Are we now to understand that all government policy is to be centred on job creation rather than strategic need? In which case let's fund the building of 200 hospitals and never use them, or 200 schools.
In one fell swoop the "strategic" defence review diminished British sea power. Who is coming up with this "strategy"? Oh, wait a minute, I almost forgot the PM's advice: you do the fighting and I'll do the talking.
And here's the rub. We WILL eventually replace Nimrod I am sure. The running costs almost certainly will be the same as for running Nimrod (crew salaries, maintenance etc). There is no saving here - just waste from beginning to end. Plus we lose an elegant looking British plane into the bargain.
Michael - Hertfordshire
15 June 2012
Creative accounting but isn't that the way our country is run? At least the money was spent in the UK and not lost from the economy as it will be when they inevitably choose the inferior US Boeing.
Ian Nelson - Forres, Morayshire.
15 June 2012
Unfortunately, money already spent is 'dead' money and of no interest to the treasury!!!!
Norman - UK
15 June 2012
It also means the UK has lost its large aircraft air framing capability for ever. Probabaly mission accomplished for the treasury.
Martin Bayliss - Stroud
15 June 2012
What happened to the radar & EO turrets? If we need to lash together a MPA capability out of short body C-130J then those bits would be handy.
John Hartley - Woking/Surrey/UK
15 June 2012
Well that will pay for their xmas party.
Hamish - GB
15 June 2012
The future money 'saved' comes from the capital charges the MoD pays back to the government each and every year. This is based on the value of the assets it holds such as planes , ships tanks etc as well as bases and buldings.
dukeofurl
17 June 2012
'They have not passed airworthiness tests'??? Funny thing, four protptypes had been flying for sometime...... The scrapping of the Nimrod MR4A left the UK - an island nation, with no Maritime Surveillance Capability!! Presumably someone will wake and realise this and authorise a purchase of the Boeing P8 Posiedon??
Paul Courtenay - UK
18 June 2012
Yes we need maritime / ASW capability but Nimrod MR4 was an absurd project from the start. Re-engining a 40 year old plane was always a nonsense.
John Walkley - Budapest Hungary