Thread: Nimrods - Flying Bombs

Who are these people who send brave forces personnel to Afghanistan knowing that it is quiet likely to result in death? I bet if either Prince William or Harry were in them they would be grounded until the fault(s) were sorted out.


The father of one of 14 servicemen killed in a Nimrod MR2 surveillance aircraft when it exploded in mid-air over Afghanistan, blamed the RAF yesterday for allowing the ageing plane to fly despite its history of dangerous fuel leaks.Graham Knight, father of Sergeant Ben Knight, 25, revealed that he had been sent internal RAF e-mails that highlighted the technical problems that the Nimrods were suffering before the fatal crash over Kandahar, in southern Afghanistan, in September last year.


One e-mail, dated December 2, 2005, stated: “XV230 [the designated number for the doomed Nimrod] has fuel-leak issues which need to be rectified before the aircraft can be deployed.” Another, in February last year, said: “The age of the airframe, combined with the aggressive tempo with which we are flying the jets in stark temperature shifts, is contributing to our leak headache.”

The same month, a further e-mail said: “Fuel leaks on the Nimrod MR2 aircraft now pose a significant threat to the force being able to meet commitments and operational tasking.” The internal warnings about the safety of the Nimrod, which is being used principally for intelligence gathering in Afghanistan, were surreptitiously passed to Mr Knight, who revealed their contents to Sky News. “I have evidence that a fuel leak caused the crash and the Service was fully aware of the risk months beforehand. I believe the RAF killed my son,” he said.

Mr Knight said that the e-mails had come from high-ranking RAF officers. “There are so many people within the organisation who are not happy with what has been going on,” he said.

The official report, after a board of inquiry into the Nimrod crash, which caused the biggest loss of life from a single incident since the 1982 Falklands conflict, is due to be published in about two weeks. There are strong indications that the investigators will pinpoint a serious fuel leak as the cause of the devastating explosion. The Ministry of Defence has admitted that the fleet of Nimrods has a history of fuel leaks. In January it said that there had been 25 Nimrod fuel leaks in the previous six months.

Defence sources refused to comment on the e-mails but confirmed that the board of inquiry report had been completed and would be published soon. An MoD spokesman said: “RAF Nimrod aircraft are designed and certified to strict airworthiness and safety standards. If we didn’t have confidence in the aircraft, we would not continue to fly them. Nimrod has a good safety record.

After the crash in Afghanistan, the fleet of Nimrods was grounded for safety checks. But they began returning to operations over a phased period and are today flying regular missions in Afghanistan.

The Nimrod MR2 explosion killed the 12 crew members, all from 120 Squadron, based at RAF Kinloss, and also a Royal Marine and a soldier. The loss of so many men from the same base hit Kinloss hard. If the board of inquiry report concludes that a fuel leak was to blame for the crash, there are likely to be serious repercussions for the RAF, which could be accused of risking the lives of the Nimrod crews. A Panorama programme on BBC One claimed this year that a faulty fuel system nearly set fire to a fuel tank on a Nimrod two years ago, although the MoD was unable to confirm the allegation.

“An aircraft should not suddenly burst into a ball of flames in mid-air,” Mr Knight, from Bridgwater, Somerset, said. He has been investigating the crash and acquired documents under the Freedom of Information Act, which indicated that fuel leaks were a common occurrence with Nimrods.

The four-engined Nimrod, which first came into service in 1969, used to have a straightforward antisubmarine warfare role. But in Afghanistan it has been adapted to take on a more specialised ground-surveillance function. The report will not seek to lay blame for the crash, but will highlight the cause and make recommendations to prevent future incidents.