Michael Evans, Defence Editor
Download 'Too Hot', an exclusive Specials track from iTunes
Read Michael Smith's blog on the Nimrod crash
Read the Board of Inquiry report in full
Abject apologies were offered by the Defence Secretary and the RAF yesterday after an inquiry into the death of 14 servicemen in a Nimrod surveillance aircraft that exploded in midair found that the air force had failed to ensure that the plane was safe.
After a history of fuel leaks and bad judgments about the potential risks of fire, the Nimrod MR2 fell victim to a series of avoidable mishaps that resulted in a huge “red-tinged explosion” about 3,000ft above the province of Kandahar in southern Afghanistan last September. The 12 crew members and two passengers, one from the Army, the other from the Royal Marines, were killed instantly.
Des Browne, the Defence Secretary, in an extraordinarily contrite statement to the Commons, said: “On behalf of the MoD and the Royal Air Force, I would like to apologise to the House of Commons, and most of all to those who lost their lives, and to their families. I am sorry.”
Gordon Brown sat next to him as he revealed the shortcomings that were at the heart of the worst fatal incident to be suffered by the Armed Forces in either Afghanistan or Iraq. The families of the victims are now due to receive substantial compensation.
Coming after attacks on the Government by five former defence chiefs who complained that the MoD’s budget was inadequate, the Nimrod affair was seized on as another illustration of the Forces having to depend on ageing and unreliable equipment.
Other shortcomings include: the lack of body armour during the invasion of Iraq, the use of armoured Land Rovers in Iraq that proved vulnerable to roadside bombs and the delay in supplying electronic countermeasures to warn of bombs.
The basic cause of the Nimrod crash was a substantial leak of fuel that burst into flames after coming into contact with pipes as hot as 400C.
One of the possible sources of the leak was through poor seals around fuel pipe couplings that had become damaged and distorted because they had not been replaced for years. Some of them were 38 years old.
The other possible source of the leak was from an overspill during air-to-air refuelling. There was no fire-sup-pressant equipment on board.
The board of inquiry investigators could not be absolutely sure of their findings because it was too dangerous to recover the wrecked Nimrod, which was based at RAF Kinloss.
However, the board of inquiry report published yesterday said the age of the Nimrod, based on the old Comet, was a “possible contributing factor”, although this was denied by a senior RAF commander.The Nimrod came into service in 1969 and was up-graded to Nimrod MR2 in the 1970s. It should have left service in 2003, but its replacement, the Nimrod MRA4, will not be delivered until 2010.
Mr Browne said lessons had been learnt and he had been assured by Air Chief Marshal Sir Glenn Torpy, Chief of the Air Staff, that the Nimrods were safe to fly. However, last month another Nimrod flying over Afghanistan suffered a fuel leak in the bomb bay after an air-to-air refuelling operation and the pilot had to make an emergency landing. Sir Glenn said that an investigation had failed to discover the cause, so he had ordered all midair refuelling of Nimrods to be suspended.
Sir Glenn said: “I want to publicly apologise for the loss of 14 lives.” He announced that a QC was to be appointed to carry out a full review of the plane’s safety; he had the power to demand a public inquiry if necessary. Compensation to the families would also be handled “expeditiously”.
Sir Glenn said that after the crash a thorough safety check had been carried out on all Nimrods, and the recommendations made by the board had been implemented.
The most damning condemnation of what had gone wrong in the general maintenance of the Nimrod fleet came from Air Chief Marshal Sir Clive Loader, Commander-in-Chief Air Command. Sir Clive said: “I conclude that the loss of XV230 and, far more importantly, of the 14 Service personnel who were aboard, resulted from shortcomings in the application of the processes for assuring airworthiness and safe operation of the Nimrod.”
Win a luxury weekend to Newcastle and its neighbour Gateshead, find out more here
Risk, resilience and embracing new technology
Industry sectors news at a glance. Interactive heatmap, video and podcast
Discover the power of collective thinking. Submit a solution and be in with a chance to win a Media Hub Home Entertainment System
The inside track on current trends in the charity, not for profit and social enterprise sectors
Everything the Business Traveller needs to know to make a better trip
Make the most of the summer and enter our fabulous photographic competition, you could win a £5000 holiday
Corsica is an island of beauty and contrast, an ideal holiday destination
Enjoy further reading from Travel to Fashion, Business to Sport, discover more
Shortcuts to help you find sections and articles
The clever way to lease a new car is with Car leasing made simple™
2009
per month on 36-month
Personal Contract Hire (PCH)
2008
42850
Car Insurance
£24,250 - £30,346
MI5
London
£60,000
The Environment Agency
Bristol
Up to £90K
Boots
Midlands
OTE £85k
Credit Protection Association
Nationwide Opportunities
Completely London
Luxury Condo's in Manhattan with NYC views
The best new homes in Wimbledon?
Nationwide
Fabulous Cruise And Cruise & Stay Offers Including Virgin Atlantic Flights Prices Start From Only £699pp!
Last Minute Cruise And Cruise & Stay Offers. Med From £499pp, Caribbean From £699pp!
5 star quality at a 3 star price.
8 fabulous Canadian cities ...you won’t find cheaper
Contact our advertising team for advertising and sponsorship in Times Online, The Times and The Sunday Times, or place your advertisement.
Times Online Services: Dating | Jobs | Property Search | Used Cars | Holidays | Births, Marriages, Deaths | Subscriptions | E-paper
News International associated websites: Globrix Property Search | Property Finder | Milkround
Copyright 2009 Times Newspapers Ltd.
This service is provided on Times Newspapers' standard Terms and Conditions. Please read our Privacy Policy.To inquire about a licence to reproduce material from Times Online, The Times or The Sunday Times, click here.This website is published by a member of the News International Group. News International Limited, 1 Virginia St, London E98 1XY, is the holding company for the News International group and is registered in England No 81701. VAT number GB 243 8054 69.
In other words Brown(e) .. it is our Servicemen that are paying....with their lives. It would be nice to see you both resign as poor leaders amongst men. But what is needed is a STRONG commitment and NOT words. You both have a chance now to justify your leadership. Give the Armed Forces what they need. Money and equipment. Stop playing with their lives.
kirk, Rotherham, UK
I naively thought at first that the new MRA4 due in service in 2010 was just that, a new aircraft. In fact it is a refurbished Nimrod which is based on the early fifties Comet.
Would it not be possible to base a new aircraft on a version of a modern airbus or would that just be too expensive? Surely it would be better.
Tom, London,
As a former supervisory propulsion technician involved in deep maintenance of the Nimrod fleet and its fuel systems I have my own view of potential procedural contributory factors to the loss of this aircraft, but not for publication on this or any other website. Neverthless, the constant accusations about the age of the aircraft are red herrings. Age has little to do with the maintenance of a sophisticated aircraft platform other than the cost of spares and resources. It should be noted that the "new" Nimrod for 2010 and beyond are anything but. Many new components, including engines and wings, however, the fuselages will be the same fuselages as the current aircraft as they belong to the current aircraft. So, will the ageing aircraft excuse be applied to the new aircraft - I think not despite the fact that the fuselage will be as old as ever.
jimd, Norwich, uk
So Iraqi lives meant nothing to Blair and British lives meant nothing (and probably mean nothing to Brown) - what else is new?
This from a nation that fought unproked aggression in 1914 and in 1939 - your relatives and mine acted honourably then - what changed?
We know the answer, but we're terrified of saying it - we've been hi-jacked by the thuggish supporters of Israel. The experiment is failing, and 100's of millions now have to die in a doomed attempt to save it.
Andy Dyer, london,