Nimrod replacement under threat

The UK's Nimrod fleet is based at RAF Kinloss in Moray

The Ministry of Defence has been urged to cancel an order for a replacement Nimrod fleet because it is eight years late and almost £800m over budget.

The UK's Nimrod reconnaissance aircraft fleet, based at RAF Kinloss in Moray, should have left service in 2003.

Critics claim that lives could be put at risk if the order for eight new MRA4 planes is cancelled.

But MPs on the Commons Defence select committee said it might be worth "cutting its losses".

SNP MP for Moray, Angus Robertson, said that if the order was cancelled, the current fleet at the Scottish RAF base may end up in service for even longer.

The tragic loss of the Nimrod in Afghanistan underlines the need for a replacement system as a priority Angus Robertson MP for Moray

Safety fears about the fleet were raised after a Nimrod MR2 crashed while on duty in Afghanistan in September 2006, killing 14 men, 12 of whom were based at RAF Kinloss.

Mr Robertson said: "There are many legitimate questions about the increasing cost and growing delays in the Nimrod replacement programme.

"We cannot, however, lose sight of the safety dimension and the need to replace the ageing current Nimrod fleet. The tragic loss of the Nimrod in Afghanistan underlines the need for a replacement system as a priority.

"If the MRA4 is no longer the appropriate platform then which should it be, how long will it take to introduce and at what cost?"

Realism needed

The UK Government, which says the current fleet is still fit to fly, has insisted it is still committed to the Nimrod MRA4 order.

But according to the defence committee, it needs to be "realistic" about the equipment programmes it can afford.

The Nimrod MRA4 is one of three major projects, along with the Astute submarine and the Type 45 destroyer, which have jointly accumulated delays totalling almost 14 years and cost overruns of £2.9bn.

"For too long the MoD has had an unaffordable equipment programme and needs to confront the problem rather than giving the usual response of salami-slicing and moving programmes to the right," said committee chairman James Arbuthnot.

"A realistic equipment programme will give confidence to our armed forces that the programmes that remain will be delivered in the numbers and to the timescale required, and will also allow industry to make informed investment decisions."