PDA

View Full Version : Status Of The Nimrod MR4A


fightingchickenplumb
26th May 2006, 10:38
hey

just wondered if anyone new the status of the MR4a program

when do we get them in to service?
whats the cost of the contract?
whats the unit cost per jet then?
what air to ground stores are being intergrated?

Letsby Avenue
26th May 2006, 10:39
Oh.. and what's the point? :}

sense1
26th May 2006, 12:50
Erm, small point, but the aircraft is designated the Nimrod MRA4 - not MR4A. :ok:

rafloo
26th May 2006, 13:05
Why do we need them?
what is their purpose?
Why waste money?

Sandy Parts
26th May 2006, 13:30
:hmm: are you still talking about MRA4, or Typhoon, or the FAA? Hope you don't need anyone dropping you a dinghy outside SAR helo range sometime after 2010...

rafloo
26th May 2006, 13:33
Bugger....Sorry forgot about that role...... Now lets think.... How can we design an aircraft, spend (waste) millions and millions and millions of tax payers money on it and its only role is dropping rubber dingys....

Sandy Parts
26th May 2006, 13:37
:) I bet if it was you needing a dinghy urgently, you'd be thinking differently!

rafloo
26th May 2006, 13:43
Come on fella.....You can do better than that. Whats it really for...I mean "Really". You can't possible tell me that the MRA4 is for dropping rubber dingys....for gawds sake fella, don't tell the public that.


So, what will it do when it enters service shortly (and only 14 years down stream)

Wrathmonk
26th May 2006, 13:44
Rafloo

As you claim to be a tincano driver I can fully understand why you would see the Nimrods SAR role to be a waste of money - after all do training command ever leave the Vale of York?. However, when and if you ever return to the front line (assuming at 46 you're not past it :ok: ) you may discover that the Nimrods do far more than drop dinghys.

And no, I'm not a kipper fleet man - roll on contractorized flying trg and give the savings to the operational command that needs it :}

W

difar69
26th May 2006, 13:46
:ugh:
I am sure the guys and girls who are extremely busy in various (unpleasant) places around the globe on the MR2 fleet, and those they work for and support, would be glad to know that the defence community as a whole is STILL so ignorant and ill informed of the many jobs the Nimrod currently does. Talk to the guys at Kinloss about overstretch, they are feeling it. Quite strange considering they supposedly do f**** all according to many of the posters on here.
Have an opinion by all means, but do them the honour of it being an informed one.

Rant over!!!!!:cool:

Roland Pulfrew
26th May 2006, 13:48
Come on fella.....You can do better than that. Whats it really for...I mean "Really". You can't possible tell me that the MRA4 is for dropping rubber dingys....for gawds sake fella, don't tell the public that.


So, what will it do when it enters service shortly (and only 14 years down stream)

loo

Provacative and pointless as ever. :rolleyes: If you want to know more about the capabilities of this aircraft I suggest you invite some of the project team across from Woodvale to give an Air Power presentation. Then you will understand just what this aircraft will be capable of and in what roles. When it comes it will be monumental step forward in capability but I'm not saying what on these forums. Invite the team and you will be enlightened.

rafloo
26th May 2006, 13:55
Im sure you are correct and I hope for the sake of the RAF that we will eventually see a Nimrod in the shape of an MRA4 variant...but pardon me for being sceptical but unoess this project can get through main gate then Im not holding my breath.


PS - I was at Woodvale 3 weeks ago.....

Roland Pulfrew
26th May 2006, 14:04
PS - I was at Woodvale 3 weeks ago.....

Then you should know what it will be capable of. Unless of course you were just doing a landaway and didn't actually speak to any of the MRA4 project team!! :ugh:

rafloo
26th May 2006, 14:20
I was on a detachment and all I saw were 6 Grobs....no sign of a Nimrod nor an IPT at woodvale....they must be very secretive or hiding...or maybe they were hagning their heads in shame...?

Safety_Helmut
26th May 2006, 14:29
Has the Project Team left Warton then ?

S_H

rafloo
26th May 2006, 14:35
Yep...apparently they are now in Woodvale. S'funny cos I didn't see them there 3 weeks ago

engineer(retard)
26th May 2006, 15:39
"How can we design an aircraft, spend (waste) millions and millions and millions of tax payers money on it and its only role is dropping rubber dingys...."

Merlin Mk1?

Letsby Avenue
26th May 2006, 16:13
So how many subs do Al-Qaeda actually have..? :confused:

The Helpful Stacker
26th May 2006, 16:34
So how many subs do Al-Qaeda actually have..? :confused:

Your lack of knowledge with regards to the capabilities of the current Nimrod and the MRA4 is outstanding. Either you are Army and disgruntled because they could have spent the money on new bearskin hats, FAA and are disgruntled because your air arm is coming to an end, RAF but are even more 'civvy in uniform' than most or are a civvy without a clue what he is talking about other than the fact its tripe.

Well done, you score 10 troll points.

Wrathmonk
26th May 2006, 18:04
THS

Correct with your last guess! A S-76 co-pilot if his profile is correct. Now if he (or she) had asked how many subs the Iranians have ....:hmm:

BossEyed
26th May 2006, 18:11
Woodvale? Or Woodford?

Roland Pulfrew
26th May 2006, 18:49
Woodvale? Or Woodford?

rafloo, BossEyed

B u:mad: er! Bu:mad: er!! Bu:mad: er!!!

Its been a long day, I meant ..........oh bo:mad: cks. Sorry:O

FormerFlake
26th May 2006, 19:04
The briefing I had from the project team a few years ago was quite impressive. If they can get it all to work it will be very good AND have a role for the future.

It is just a shame it has taken so long and wasted so much money.

tucumseh
26th May 2006, 19:41
True Story

27.2.98 1100 approx (I keep a good diary) :ok:

"Ah, Sqn Ldr, your Director reports that RMPA is going very well".

"So the 3 year slippage wasn't mentioned then?"

Biggus
26th May 2006, 20:00
Getting back to the original point about the status of the Nimrod MRA4.....

I thought the contract was due to be signed at ministerial level in Dec 05. To the best of my knowledge it has still not been (and no doubt that nice Mr Browne will be too busy 'reading into his brief' to do so for a while). Presumably this 6+ month delay will result in further overall delays in the project, or are BAe at Warton and Woodford going ahead at full speed at their own risk in 'anticipation' of a contract actually being forthcoming?

Hopefully somebody out there has some actual news, or is it all 'commercial in confidence', etc.....

Letsby Avenue
26th May 2006, 20:05
Helpful Stacker - You seem like top quality 4* material to me. Apart from the fact that the Warsaw Pact folded around 1990 and has subsequently lost interest in its Red Banner submarine fleet since then, one can only wonder why this expensive red herring is still being pursued? Apart from a few unfortunate Sperm Whales, who exactly are you going to blow up? Why aren't our US chums upgrading the somewhat aged P-3 Orions? Is it because there is a lack of credible threat? For a project that was started by our erstwhile Defence Secretary of the day, Mr Miguel Portaloo (who now, obviously, enjoys a non executive seat on the board of BAE) with an in service date of 2003 (err make that 2009 if your lucky) and an estimated cost of 3.5 billion from a projected cost of 2 billion - All for 12 aeroplanes circa 1955.:}

I am not even going to ask why the RAF feel the need for an anti-submarine capability :confused:

Green Flash
26th May 2006, 20:19
You might be surprised how much the Nimrod spends feet wet these days. Or feet dry.

Its's also got a a bomb bay that can carry more (oh, so much more) than bombs; dumb, smart or rubber.

True, the Yanks are not upgrading the P3. They have caught up and are going for jets (the 737 derivative).

Also true, the Red Banner fleet is not what it was. Ivan has gone for the cold, hard, cash option and flogged them to .... just about anyone with cold, hard, cash. Or maybe oil.

FormerFlake
26th May 2006, 20:24
Helpful Stacker - You seem like top quality 4* material to me. Apart from the fact that the Warsaw Pact folded around 1990 and has subsequently lost interest in its Red Banner submarine fleet since then, one can only wonder why this expensive red herring is still being pursued? Apart from a few unfortunate Sperm Whales, who exactly are you going to blow up? Why aren't our US chums upgrading the somewhat aged P-3 Orions? Is it because there is a lack of credible threat? For a project that was started by our erstwhile Defence Secretary of the day, Mr Miguel Portaloo (who now, obviously, enjoys a non executive seat on the board of BAE) with an in service date of 2003 (err make that 2009 if your lucky) and an estimated cost of 3.5 billion from a projected cost of 2 billion - All for 12 aeroplanes circa 1955.:}

I am not even going to ask why the RAF feel the need for an anti-submarine capability :confused:

We are not planning an airframe upgrade or even a replacement for the R1s, does that mean we are going to get rid of the capability?

You are not Lewis Page are you?

wz662
26th May 2006, 20:26
I'm glad that Woodford was finally correctly identified as the current hidyhole for the Nimrod 2000 (remember the original date tag!) instead of Woodvale, I was beginning to think it was going to degrade into another VGS bashing session. :O

Hoots
26th May 2006, 21:47
For those less well informed people amongst you, the following link may be of assistance.

http://www.manw.nato.int/manw/pages/update/envision_2_03/patrol_aviation.htm

Hopefully you will see that that the term MPA is somewhat misleading these days. For the future, MMA (Multi-Mission Aircraft) is a more appropriate term. With the many capabilities mentioned in the official site above maybe those sceptics will stop the blinkered approach and go and find out some information, if they can, before gobbing off so much. Although the MRA 4 is having some troubles and no doubt will have teething troubles when it has entered service, given time it will be a massive step forward. Maybe the fast jet lords and masters will realise the capabilities and have to fight their corner for funding on the small pointy jets.

ps There are plenty of websites giving details of the MRA 4 capabilities and potential capabilities, so no excuse for ignorance folks. The "A" in MRA isnt there for no reason.

Confucius
26th May 2006, 22:40
At close to a projected £1/3Bn / $1/2Bn per frame it'd better be pretty *&%^$£? special. That's a whole p*sspot full of transport a/c and helos (at American, not BAe, prices) that could be bought off the shelf. Oh, and I have little faith in projected capabilities after observing defence matters from the outside and inside over the last 20+ years.

Perhaps the only blinkers are those worn by those who unquestioningly toe the company line.

Charlie Luncher
27th May 2006, 06:07
aaargh!!
It really never fails to amaze me the blind ignorance/stupidity of those that have little or no knowledge of what the kipper fleet and their allied bretheren have been employed with over the years. :ugh:
Maybe they should ask to be assigned to an operational Sqn not a training one for a tour or 2.:mad:
Sorry what am I thinking the airforce is all about blunties with clipboards and the odd fast jet for the summer airshow season:rolleyes:

Hook, line, sinker, rod, game chair and the friggen boat if i can fit it:bored: .
Charlie sends

ORAC
27th May 2006, 06:32
no doubt will have teething troubles when it has entered service, given time it will be a massive step forward. Given the current slippage that has to be sarcasm, right? :}

Cattivo
27th May 2006, 06:48
Anyway, back to VGS bashing.

Biggus
27th May 2006, 08:58
I take it nobody has anything constructive to say in response to my earlier comment on this page........

Ok, thought not. I'll let you all get back to the uninformed/informed should we/shouldn't we arguement about whether it is actually worth while getting the MRA4 (think smaller B-52 for overland options, multi storm shadows with loiter capability, as much firepower as a 4 ship of Tornados with AAR support, NEC hub, etc..... You actually need to have some VISION - which our airships probably won't!!) in the first place!

Sideshow Bob
27th May 2006, 10:01
FormerFlake
There are plans for R1 upgrades

FormerFlake
27th May 2006, 12:12
FormerFlake
There are plans for R1 upgrades

Not set in stone yet though. Anyway my point was just becuase this isn't a contract signed does not mean we will lose the capability. Just like the Spams not upgrading their P3s.

doubledolphins
27th May 2006, 13:41
The septics are not upgrading the P3s because they are being replaced by Boeing 737 MMAs.

Green Flash
27th May 2006, 14:07
FF

http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/2004/photorelease/q2/pr_040614n.html

buoy15
27th May 2006, 23:57
As Oscar Wilde said
"Some people know the price of everything, and the value of nothing"
Nimrod has been, and always will be, the only true multi role ac in the RAF inventory!
Must end with a joke - Tornado MRCA - Ha!

Bertie Thruster
28th May 2006, 08:58
Anybody here want a coffee mug emblazoned with the outline of a Nimrod emanating a rainbow fan of colour and the words "Nimrod AEW Trials Unit" ?

It's in my garage somewhere!

ThomasT
28th May 2006, 09:43
Maybe they sent them to look for Iranian subs, who in turn might fire at the poor zionist warmongers missile sites.