What are *immediately* available, cheap, and role-dedicated alternatives to Nimrod?

[CirrusF]

If we have to move on from the Nimrod arguments and retributions discussed in other threads, what are the immediate and cheap alternatives?

It seems to me that the Nimrod was, in any case, operating in an adapted role for which it was not really designed (to put it mildly!)

So what immediately available and cost-effective solutions are available off the shelf, which are directly relevant to the roles currently needed? The current role for airborne surveillance is not terribly sophisticated compared to the Cold War role (for which the Nimrod was belatedly adapted about forty years ago but I digress..). I expect to be corrected but it seems to me that the current role is mostly direct real-time visual surveillance and signal relay via high speed satellite relay, long loiter times, low airspeed, medium altitude capability, common fuel policy, low acquisition costs, low running costs.

You could buy a couple of hundred of these (http://www.diamond-sensing.com/da42mpp+M52087573ab0.html) for the price of a singe Nimrod and give every foot patrol their own dedicated round the clock overhead lead scout. Just a thought...

[bondo]

The King Air could do the over land role or even Predators?

[Flight Detent]

Errr....in the recent Fincastle Trophy competition fly-offs....what were ALL the other maritime operators flying... and have been doing most successfully for many years.

Though Boeing is developing a 737-800 deritive as the P-8A, I do believe that the Lockheed varients of the P3C are far superior.
My main problem with the P8 surrounds the fact that is to small (flight deck and cabin) and it's a turbojet.
Would you like to fly in a 737 size flight deck for multiple 10+ hours flights, I know I would prefer the much larger P3C flight deck AND have a flight engineer!

There are quite a few immediately available, their capabilities are well know, and the traditional operators are very happy with their overall performance and reliability.

Yes, I know they are out of production, and some of the high-time airframes may need wing replacement, but that just reinforces my point that these airplanes are so reliable and resiliant, that they infact need this work!

I have nearly 6,000 hours operating the P3, and I couldn't have been more happy with their performance and capabilities.
Though I haven't seen the inside of one for some years now .....

Just as an aside...I'm off to the 40 year celebrations of the RAAF's introduction of their first P3Bs, a fleet of BunoNo 156s in 1968, being held at RAAF Edinburgh on the 30th of May. They still operate a fleet of around 20 P3Cs and will continue to do so for some years to come.
Should be a good day!

Cheers...FD...:ok:

[0497]

The P-3 is probably the best bet. Combine it with some more Reapers off the production line and you've got a pretty reasonable interim capability until a dedicated replacement decision is made.

http://www.airliners.net/photo/USA---Navy/Lockheed-P-3...-Orion/0691998/M/

[L J R]

That light aircraft thingy with all the specs as stated look like a sound alternative - except for one thing.....The crew are IN the aircraft....

[Winco]

I too would agree that for the interim we should use the P-3. I had the great pleasure of flying several during detachments to Kef' during the 70's and 80's and they were a delight to fly.

I wouldn't say they are/were as capable as the MR2 was (avionics and sonics wise) but the airframe was extremely nice to fly. I'm sure the Brown(e) brothers could do a deal with their good friend George W and get some of the ones from DM up and running soon.

[ChristopherRobin]

Global hawk (http://www.northropgrumman.com/unmanned/globalhawk/gallery/HI.RES.A089.jpg)with a suitable ELINT fit. It's got +24 hrs endurance. Kit it out with a modular payload for the Afghan mission. Develop a maritime modular payload. Stop trying to buy one size fits all manned aircraft to last for 40 years. Buy modular to last 5 years tops mounted on a platform that could cover British interests from hugely long range.

Operate it from Kinloss, if the satellite geometry allows that (and the blinkered hierarchy of course!) with in-theatre troops/int specialists on a collaborative network.

[fumes]

Have flown both.

1. Nimrod nicer to fly.

2. Some P-3 variants now surpassing Nimrod in capability.

3. P-3 an obvious interim acquisition if the RAF can get them.

4. Have to be careful on the variant and exact avionics or you'll be in the same spot as the Nimrod with spares....

5. Cockpit size is no factor, the seats are the same size.....if you get up and walk around, you're not confined to the Fight Deck!!

Bring on the P8 I say...and all operators should get some!!!

[BEagle]

Some confusion here.

2 distinct needs:

1. ASW with all the sub-hunting and killing systems associated with the role.

2. Strategic reconnaissance. These days that can be 'smart sensor, dumb platform', so if flexibility is needed, any airliner-type platform with adequate electrical power supplies and endurance would suffice. Which tends to favour an ETOPS twin, largely gutted then fitted with the relevant sensors and as many pie-eaters as necessary to operate them.

A300B4, perhaps?

[Arthur's Wizard]

I agree with cirrusfrance!

There's no doubt that the MR2, P3, Globalhawk etc are extremely capable platforms, but they're also extremely expensive and probably as importantly, are not available right now.

I think the Diamond to which Cirrus refers, is available for significantly less than a £million a pop, would have a crew 85% smaller than the MR2 and would be available now!

Don't forget that Defence is completely broke. It's surprising to me that the several £billion contract for the MRA4 has not been questioned more fully. I don't doubt that it will be a capable beast, but there are alternatives for a fraction of the cost.

ISR from light, prop driven aircraft is without doubt the way ahead. UK PLC has already recognised this. Let's forget the politics and get what we need, for a price we can afford.

[Hueymeister]

Is the MRA4 still likely to hit the streets? It is a rumour network after all, but I heard some sniffings that it may be canned due to cost ad money being needed elsewhere???

[Pontius Navigator]

Sentinel perhaps?

Not sure exactly what its role is but it is certainly designed for an overland role which is what we are using the Nimrod for at the moment.

E3 perhaps?

Then if we decide we need an immediate and interim ASW platform, lease P3.

Given that we only 'need' 12 MRA4, which would allow for through life attrition, this suggests that in the interim we would need only 5-6 platforms.

Even a C130 modification programme a la AAR post-FI, might suffice.

Apart from the pure ASW role I suggest we have enough suitable airframes.

[mr ripley]

seven hours

single pilot

Well that would be interesting:ugh:

[Willard Whyte]

5. Cockpit size is no factor, the seats are the same size.....if you get up and walk around, you're not confined to the Fight Deck!!

Bring on the P8 I say...and all operators should get some!!!

Well, flight deck size is a factor, the P-8's will be the same size as an E-3, which is very cramped. In no way does seat size make a flight deck seem spacious or a comfortable working environment. I wouldn't fancy tooling about on 2 widely spaced engines at low level over the sea either.

[Monty77]

And if you've a slack handful, the time on mission could be 3-4 hours before your relay mate gets airborne to relieve you. And you don't need a massive runway, meaning you can forward base off a rough strip closer to where you're needed. And you don't require a highly trained pilot who can do aeros/weapons/evasion/nvg/aar etc.

[Duncan D'Sorderlee]

In the recent Fincastle competition, what were all the losing Nations flying?

I forget...:}

Duncs:ok:

[TOPBUNKER]

Gentlefolk, the problem with all these fanciful suggestions is that they don't fulfill the prime directive of UK Defence spending.

That is; to transfer money from the taxpayers pockets into the coffers of redundant UK military manufacturers such as British Waste of Space (and thus via tax to the Treasury) without going through any value or quality judgment on the way.

Sadly it has to be admitted that the Comet was a disastrous design and the Nimrod has also been shown to be. No number of successful Fincastle trophy wins by great crews or other successes can excuse an aircraft design that allows it to explode in mid-air.

Had this been a design flaw in the 737 for instance the SLF of the world would be in uproar. I say scrap the knackered old things now!

[StopStart]

Hercs with palletised mission cabins. Hang all sorts of gubbins off the outside of one of them.

Take old K model that doesn't have the life left etc etc to thrash around the desert, bouncing off dirt strips. Reduce fleet to 3 or 4, rewing those, rest used as a source of spares. Mount cameras, sensors etc etc on the outside. Roll on mission pallets as and when required. Yanks do it with their EC130s and we used to do it with Snoopy. ISO container type thing, full of sensor ops away you go. No performance issues - main base operations and AAR capable. Surplus K crews and techies convert to J. U/s J's sitting around can then be serviced and manned.

Genius. Do I win a bun?

[TOPBUNKER]

The answer is surely UAVs - bought off the USA shelf. Oops though, no dosh to British Waste of Space, Marshalls of Wastebridge or cream to the Treasury.

P.S. Are we all aware that the UAVs that have been acquired were moved directly in to the operational theatre (i.e. not via mainland UK) purely to avoid being ripped off by the taxman - i.e. the Brown moron! (VAT/ and duty would have been charged if they had been landed here.)

[MAINJAFAD]

UAV's are great, but how much do they cost?

Lots, because they have a horrendous loss ratio (http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2007/06/06/214485/uk-mod-reveals-uav-losses-in-iraq-afghanistan.html) compared with manned aircraft on operations. :ouch: Thus they have to be replaced, plus of course the risks in finding it (http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23447410-details/Father+of+soldier+killed+in+Afghanistan+accuses+MoD+of+using +Harry+as+'propaganda+tool+to+glorify+war'/article.dohttp://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23447410-details/Father+of+soldier+killed+in+Afghanistan+accuses+MoD+of+using +Harry+as+'propaganda+tool+to+glorify+war'/article.do) after it has crashed and recovering items on the thing that we would rather not let fall into the hands of the wrong people...:ugh::ugh::ugh:Opps what no demolition charges.:ugh::ugh::ugh:

As for the £1M aircraft in question, don't look very battleworthly to me, plus can it do over FL 250??? Because in the Stan it would have to.

[davejb]

Zeppelins.
Watch Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade - sod just being able to walk round, you get comfy chairs and waiter service! Loiter time - probably days. I'm amazed (amused?) that people consider replacing Nimrod by immediately assuming the replacement should do all the tasks Nimrod can - what's wrong with replacing Nimrod with an effective ASW/ASUW/SAR platform for when the great grandkids of the dire Russian threat FINALLY decides to turn up, and a bunch of smaller, visual/IR surveillance aircraft for all the jobs that norman currently gets joed with despite not really being designed to do?

Nobody, as far as I am aware, sets out to design an overland, battlefield surveillance platform by saying 'the one thing we really need to get right from the off, is a significant ASW capability....'

[Backwards PLT]

So compare the light aircraft to a Reaper - It is slower, doesn't have the ceiling, doesn't have the sensors you really need, doesn't have the connectivity you need, can't stay on task as long, can't deliver weapons and the crew have to be based in theatre (very expensive/bad). Its a no brainer. To be honest it looks like a capability offered by someone who doesn't really know the tasks carried out in theatre and wanting to jump on the band wagon.

Interesting that the army has lost so many UAVs. Maybe they should try using pilots to fly them!!:E

On the other roles of Nimrod - I have absolutely no idea, although using a 50 year old airframe design doesn't seem the best way ahead.

[Melchett01]

Just a thought, but what about the USN's S-3s. I believe they are being retired next year, but assume some will probably already be available, are probably reasonably cheap and would undoubtedly provide a stop-gap until we can get something else up and running (or when BAe decide to actually stump up the MRA4),

Yes, they aren't new like the P8, but then neither are the P3s! However, the S-3s could easily do everything that the Nimrod can do, either in its original Viking ASW role or in its modified ES-3A Shadow guise with its comms / I&W role. Plus, the S-3 still has an offensive capability - I believe it put a couple of Mavericks into Saddam's yacht in Basrah harbour in the early days of TELIC

[KeepItTidy]

I thought the Nimrod was the best maratine platform out there, even the yanks wanted some of the new ones. The P3 like the Nimrod is being cut due to age with the US Navy, the Dutch gave theres to the Germans a few years back.
The Atlantique is another alternative but its look ugly and Im sure is just as old as the others.

Dont know what they could use but I suspect as we speak the russinas are sending a few submarines off the waters of the UK just to add a bit of pressure to the Nimrod issue

[BEagle]

richatom, hardly a 'war crime', more correctly wanton vandalism.

In the same vein that other artefacts were reported to have been vandalised by our own 'brave soldiery'.....:hmm:

Anyway, perhaps the USN thought that the yacht was a Warrior..... or a Blackhawk.....?

[Backwards PLT]

Well obviously Reaper is a more capable platform than light aircraft - it also costs several orders of magnitude more, and is designed for an entirely different role.



Reapers do not cost several orders of magnitude more. In fact to cover the same task they are almost certainly cheaper as you need much less numbers. The cost is all in the payload.

I thought the particular role we were discussing was support of troops on the ground in current theatres (as it is part of the Nimrod role)?


Why follow the American example and use a sledgehammer to crack a nut?


I think if you offer the troops on the ground the choice, they want the capable platform with weapons on, not some half-arsed light aircraft. And I really hope that the UK aspires to provide a better capability than the Iraqi air force.

And most of all I would rather lose 10 Reapers than 1 manned aircraft.

[MAINJAFAD]

Plus remember, the Nimrod still has a maritime mission. Hunting Subs was only one of its roles. The fact that it's found a new role post 9-11 shows the reason the RAF was formed in the first place, as in that assets can be used in support of both land and naval operations, and can be chopped and changed to support both as required.

[TheInquisitor]

ISR from light, prop driven aircraft is without doubt the way ahead

You forgot to add "remotely piloted".

As for the £1M aircraft in question, don't look very battleworthly to me

They don't have to be if they are out of harm's way.

plus can it do over FL 250???

Yes, and then some.

Because in the Stan it would have to.

Why?

[Melchett01]

Quote:
Because in the Stan it would have to.

Why?

Because the highest peak (Noshaq) is around FL 245!

[MAINJAFAD]

Thank you Melchett01. Though my picking of the figure was based on seeing Booties in the mountains a while back, and adding some altitude to allow for any nastiness of Terry Taliban with a bit longer poke than an AK or an RPG from hitting any platform in the first place.

Yes Reaper (and Hellfire, if they get around to fitting the beasts) does have a very important role, though Nimrod has the ability to support the troops in a very important way that Reaper cannot (and that’s all I will say on the subject).

[L J R]

Why not ask the dudes who fly them???

http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123097792

[Blacksheep]

Had this been a design flaw in the 737 for instance the SLF of the world would be in uproar. I say scrap the knackered old things now!Several B737s have exploded, either in mid-air or on the ground, along with examples of other Boeing types that share similar design shortcomings related to fuel tank/hot air duct juxta-position and internal wiring provisions - TWA800 being the best known example.

We civilian types are dealing with the consequences now under SSFAR 88, but I wouldn't describe public reaction as an "uproar". SLF are for the most part only interested in ever decreasing ticket prices. As taxpayers those self-same SLF are mainly interested in providing you only with the cheapest kit the government can get away with.

[Cyclone733]

DA42 is a great little aircraft, but the engine manufacturer is having a few financial issues according to their website. Not sure I'd want to have to fly it the desert might be a bit too hot.

How about a few cheap Dash 8's?

[Pontius Navigator]

Do we need LRMP? Can we afford LRMP?

From 46 Nimrod 1, down to 38, then 20 odd, then 19 MRA4, then 12 this suggests both answers.

Yes we need LRMP but in far fewer numbers - 2 patrol cycles rather than 5 or 6.

No we can't afford it was we probably need more than 2 patrol cycles.

No matter how good an ASW platform and its technology the remains one indisputable fact. It can only be in one place at one time and whether its target is in the same place is a matter of luck.

12 LRMP is too few to locate, track and destroy number of potential enemy SSBN that might be deployed. It is possibly the wrong platform against an SSK, whose numbers are far fewer, and which might be better hunted with SRMP.

[Blacksheep]

Need 42 Nimrods?

Now that sea levels have fallen and we are no longer an island nation, dependent upon imports for most of our food; and raw materials, we no longer need a navy; nor do we need long range maritime patrol aircraft to provide that navy with intelligence on shipping movements around our shores.

Now that potential enemies are no longer equipped with nuclear submarines able to cut off our supply lines or launch missile attacks, what use is a navy and the maritime patrol aircraft?

Of course we don't need any Nimrods; or am I missing something here?

[airborne_artist]

mileandahalf wrote:

If I wasn't sure, I'd think you were joking here........right?

If you're not kidding, then you are either:

- very, very short of the facts.

or

- just trying to provoke a response.

This is the sort of attitude the put the country firmly in the **** slightly before WWII.

read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irony, and then do twenty press-ups for being a c:mad:ck.

[The Real Slim Shady]

TWA 800 was a 747, not a 737.

I don't know of any 737s exploding in mid air although China Airlines did have an 800 burn out on the ground not so long ago

[Cyclone733]

The 737's not escaped entirely from issues, although maybe not as bad as the Comet/Nimrod

http://www.aloha.net/~icarus/243a.jpg

http://www.aloha.net/~icarus/index.htm

[MSF]

737 Classic had that rudder hardover crash and die problem that has not been solved yet ( at least I don't think it has)

Didn't Northrop Grumman have a plan for a G550 UAV sensor platform - fill it with black boxes and keep the bods on the ground - a massive weight saving!

[Melchett01]

MAINJAFAD -

Quite right to think about the where the troops are operating and then the possible threat bands associated with enemy systems being used in the same areas.

In some ways, I can see my reply ref the height of the land might be a little simplistic - possibly even fascetious - but in response to The Inquisitor, it is a very simple answer to his/her question of why a platform needs to get up to FL250. Remember, we can take all the precautions we want eg DAS, TTPs, but I guarantee that the side of a mountain has a PK of 1! And that simple fact is something we should also take into account when looking at platform capability. Can we guarantee that we will always operate in the flat lands of the Helmand desert or might we be called on to provide support to other CF in more mountainous areas?

I have found to my cost on more than one occasion that forgetting the simple stuff can bite you in the arse just as much as forgetting the complicated stuff.

[JFZ90]

TWA 800 was a 747, not a 737.

I don't know of any 737s exploding in mid air although China Airlines did have an 800 burn out on the ground not so long ago

I think his point is still valid though. Look at this:

http://www.ntsb.gov/Pressrel/2006/060629.htm

Since the TWA 800 accident (...in 1996...), there have been two additional airliner fuel tank explosions. On March 3, 2001, a center wing tank explosion destroyed a Thai Airways B-737 at the terminal in Bangkok, Thailand.

Currently under investigation is a left wing fuel tank explosion on a Transmile Airlines B-727 in Bangalore, India on May 4, 2006. At the time of the explosion the airplane was waiting to be towed and only the auxiliary power unit was running. The exact source of the ignition energy for the fuel/vapor mixture has not been determined, but initial examination of the structural damage to the left wing indicates that most likely the wing would have failed had the airplane been in flight at the time of the explosion. Such a structural failure in flight would not be survivable.

Theres more...


The Safety Board concluded that dealing just with ignition sources was not sufficient to ensure safe flight and that fuel tank flammability must be addressed.

On December 13, 1996, the NTSB issued two safety recommendations aimed at reducing flammable fuel/air mixtures on airliners. One suggested short-term measures in airplane operations that could immediately reduce the levels of these flammable mixtures (A-96-175), while the other called for design changes that would necessarily take years to implement (A-96-174).

Both recommendations were placed on the Board's Most Wanted List of Safety Improvements.

The Safety Board is disappointed that the FAA has refused to require air carriers to adopt short-term actions that could be quickly implemented to lessen fuel tank vulnerability. In November 2005, the NTSB classified this recommendation "Closed-Unacceptable Action."

On November 22, 2005, the FAA issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) titled "Reduction of Fuel Tank Flammability in Transport Category Airplanes" which proposes new rules that should greatly reduce the chances of a catastrophic fuel-tank explosion by requiring a flammability reduction system be installed and used in transport category airplanes.

The NTSB strongly supports adoption of this NPRM for both existing and new airplanes, and has urged the fastest possible implementation.

The NPRM, however, will not apply this requirement to airliner wing fuel tanks, nor to cargo aircraft. The Safety Board believes this system should be required for cargo as well as passenger aircraft, and that wing fuel tanks should also be covered. As the recent Bangalore incident illustrates, the potential for ignition of fuel/air vapors can exist in wing tanks as well as center wing tanks.

The Safety Board is concerned that movement on the NPRM has been so slow and that closure of the comment period has been repeatedly postponed, finally closing on May 8, 2006. Airliner fuel tanks are as flammable today as they were ten years ago.

[BigBusDriver]

Not really relevant here, but the 737 hardover issue is resolved, though Boeing still seem to claim it couldnt have happened in the first place.

[Pontius Navigator]

TOFO,

I know that the force was 38, then an additional 8 ordered for AFMED but like you, I suspect the tail of the order was diverted to AEW3.

[Blacksheep]

TWA 800 was a 747, not a 737.

I don't know of any 737s exploding in mid air although China Airlines did have an 800 burn out on the ground not so long agoI was trying for brevity as this is a thread about Nimrods. Someone stated that if airliners were prone to exploding in mid air, SLF would be up in arms about it. Airliners DO explode -either on the ground or in the air. We are well aware of it and the root cause has been established. Those of us in the civilian technical world are dealing with the SFAR 88 requirements on a daily basis and all or nearly all AMPs have been revised to include the additional inspection and maintenance requirements. Expensive fuel tank inerting modifications are also in the offing. SLF have not so far not displayed any aversion to climbing aboard these aircraft and flying hither and thither in them.

B737s are not known to have been lost in mid-air explosions for certain but in the mid-eighties a B737 broke up in mid air over the Philippines with small pieces of wreckage widely scattered. No definite cause was ever established. Apart from the Thai B737 explosion on the ground, another B737 exploded during taxi at Manila airport.

All the Boeing models share similar design philosophy on centre wing tanks. The air conditioning packs hang beneath the tank and the hot bleed air supply ducts heat up the tank while the aircraft are on the ground. Fuel pumps are mounted within the tanks, with their 115v ac electrical power supply wiring passing through conduits fitted inside the tanks. This is in contrast to many other manufacturers' practice of mounting fuel pumps on the tank bulkheads, with all 115v ac wiring outside the tank.

Although quite a bit longer to make my point slightly clearer, this post is also necessarily brief. The fact is, all aircraft designers have to make difficult compromise judgements in the face of space and weight constraints. (Indeed, so does the FAA; whereas the NTSB need not address the cost of any recommendations they make, the FAA are required to assess the economic impact of any Airworthiness Directives they may issue.) The Nimrods are no more un-airworthy than any other large multi-engined jet and we need such aircraft to provide for the proper defence of our country.

[MAINJAFAD]

Might as well bring this thread back on topic and then kill it...
Whilst you lot are having fun playing "who can find the cheapest Nimrod replacement using the most superficial argument", could I point you back to the point made by Beags, myself and a few others.

There are two roles to consider:

The role the Nimrod aircraft (MR1, MR2 and MRA4) is designed for...ASW
As part of an overall maritime recce package, including sea surveillance and support for search and rescue operations.
And the role it is now spending it's life doing...overland support.
The reason the aircraft is doing the latter role is because it can and it is needed.
Still required for SAR support, which thanks to the comms fit required for the surface roles, allows it the role of rebroadcasting centre, suitable for use over the rough hilly terrain of Afghanistan which plays havoc with radio comms.

(Wasn't going to mention it, but the fact that it does is on the BBC Fact File)

It can act as a large radio system that can pick up messages from troops on the ground and relay them for them. It is also able to scan the ground and send real time video back to commanders at the bases.
The reason it is not doing much of the former role is because it is not needed to.
Until the next Piper Alpha type incident or other disaster at sea. That Comms fit again, plus it can drop rescue equipment to allow survivors to keep going until ship rescue gets there if that disaster is in the middle of the Atlantic. Sub's still need the practice with MP aircraft as well.
There are very few (none in my view) platforms that can provide the capability of quick response, tactically flexible, long range maritime patrol, other than a large aircraft.
Correct, and if you want quick response, the Nimrod is the fastest at the minute. Plus if you can operate from a secure base away from where your in-country airfields are subject to IDF attack and your fuel supply convoys get taken out by roadside bombs, so much the better.

[TheInquisitor]

Yes Reaper (and Hellfire, if they get around to fitting the beasts) does have a very important role
You forgot GBU12.
though Nimrod has the ability to support the troops in a very important way that Reaper cannot (and that’s all I will say on the subject)
Reaper is much more capable than the wider Air Force seems to be giving it credit for at the moment. It can easily exceed FL250 if required, is MUCH faster than any similar RPA, and is capable of carrying a wide variety of mission payloads.

As has been pointed out, Nimrod is being used in its current role simply because it's what we've got, not because it's the best choice. If you want an aircraft to go hunt subs, then true, a large platform with lots of payload / Mission Crew space and endurance is what is needed. It is NOT what we need right now for current ops. Plus, Reaper has all the Mission Crew space you could possibly need!

The days of manned recce, particularly with large expensive aircraft, are numbered IMHO.

[reynoldsno1]

USN's S-3s
...once described as the most perfectly designed aircraft for working four men to total exhaustion in 7 hours....:rolleyes:

[XV277]

Bearing in mind the details of the current Nimrod overland role are rightly kept quiet, albeit that a careful reading of the known facts gives some enlightenment, how many green jobs can you carry in the back of a DA42?


Or do you rely on remote viewing?

[MAINJAFAD]

You forgot GBU12.

True, though according to most public sources, the 39 Sqn UAV’s don’t use either at the minute.

As has been pointed out, Nimrod is being used in its current role simply because it's what we've got, not because it's the best choice. If you want an aircraft to go hunt subs, then true, a large platform with lots of payload / Mission Crew space and endurance is what is needed. It is NOT what we need right now for current ops. Plus, Reaper has all the Mission Crew space you could possibly need!

If you require an aircraft to carry a shedload of radios to be used for airborne rebroadcast in places where ground wave comms is Sh!t and line of sight is poor (i.e. it's hot and dusty, and has mountains), you need something a bit bigger than a Reaper or GH. Would be a good idea to fit the MRA4 with GBU-12's though, you could use it to take out the crashed UCAV’s (http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=3487241&c=MID&s=ALL).

The days of manned recce, particularly with large expensive aircraft, are numbered IMHO.

Somebody once said that about manned fighters and bombers, he was wrong too. I could name a number of operational reason's where a manned system scores over a UCAV, some of them due to the laws of physics. but I'm not going to do it on here.

[delta96]

Topbunker:

The Comet fatigue problems were not unique. You mentioned the 737....


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/53/Alohaairlinesdisaster.jpg

[canard68]

Would a Nimrod land after battle damage like that?

[CirrusF]

I was trying for brevity as this is a thread about Nimrods.


No this thread is not about Nimrods - read my original post. It is about what alternatives there are for the current overland role in Afghanistan that is currently being performed by Nimrods.

[henry crun]

Cyclone733 mentioned that the makers of the engines of the Diamond DA42 MPP are having a few financial issues.

It could be more serious than that, Thielert, the engine manufacturers, filed for bankruptcy last month.

[MAINJAFAD]

MAINJAFAD

SAR - Good point, well made. Piper Alpha is not the best example though; the Nimrod role was comms support and co-ordination (and a great job it did too!). However, its absence would in no way have been a show stopper, the rescue would have continued, albeit perhaps not so well organised, and the outcome would have been the same.

A better example is the Fastnet incident, where the duty SAR was scrambled to find a yacht and was the first asset to discover the true size of the tradegy, discovering broken yacht after broken yacht.

Problem you have using SAR as a supporting argument is that the coverage has been slowly watered down over the last decade or so anyway (perhaps not from a PR point of view, but if you're close to the Nimrod force, you will know what I mean). As PN points out, you are going down to 12 MRA4 (well that's the plan anyway), somebody is going to have their thinking caps on if that number of aircraft is going to be able to hold continuous SAR, whilst fulfilling its operational commitments.

The Old Fat One

I was just using Piper Alpha as an example, as I've seen the Transcripts of the operation and the role of Rescue 01 (the Nimrod) is plain to see. As you have stated the aircraft did an excellant job was comms support and co-ordination over the sea, which was built into the design from the start and was not just used for SAR, it could be used for attack (the 12 Sqn Buccaneers film shows it in action) and has also been used assist other operations (Read Vulcan 607), the comment about SAR was in there to say that just because the sub's are not there to play with, there is still a requirement for a LPMP platform within the UK armed forces.

What is it being used for now.

Comms support and co-ordination over land, not in the origanal design as it would have been a MSAM and Fighter magnet, though in the current enviroment...almost perfect as long as you can keep of range of any MANPADS threat, which it can.

Pretty good C3I platform,I would say, better than a EC-130 with the other goodies that it can bring along, like a big bomb bay.

[Pontius Navigator]

Comms support was not built into the Nimrod from the outset. Indeed the original comms fit was quite basic with no secure voice. The marine band radios were fitted in the late 70s.

In the Fastnet case, a friend of mine was Captain and they dropped both Lindholme sets and 3 pairs of liferafts. Coincidentally 18Gp had just questioned the need to have liferafts as the existing kit was due for renewal.

Finally in the case of comms relay, the Nimrod provided a reactive capability although a friend of mine was contracted to provide comms relay to the west of Bagdad; they used a tethered balloon at 12-15k.

[OilCan]

Would a Nimrod land after battle damage like that?

Depends if the pies had gone overboard of not. :cool:

[CirrusF]

Further up the thread somebody asked about mission times in a DA42MPP - well they just did a 13 hour flight:

http://www.diamond-air.at/news_detail+M5d078849cf6.html

[The Helpful Stacker]

During the 13 hour flight in the DA42 were the crew able to leave their seats and stretch their legs or were they strapped in the whole time and reduced to peeing into little bags when they needed to go?

Now I'm not aircrew admittedly but were I and were I required to be at my best at all times during a 13 hour mission on an aircraft the ability to get up occasionally would be a welcome one.

Having flown on a kipper fleet aircraft with my brother up front doing the pilot thing I can confirm that whilst there isn't masses of room in the back there is enough to allow the crew a chance to stand-up, stretch their legs, grab themselves a coffee (and no doubt a pie too;)) and generally keep themselves from getting too uncomfortable and distracted and therefore losing concentration during the long periods of monitoring between the short bursts of activity.

13 hour flights are one thing, 13 hour flights in which the crew are able to respond effectively at all times is quire another.

[Yashin]

Pontius,

LRMP are not there to find and attack SSBNs, they patrol a long long way away in a place that makes them safe from attack by said aircraft. LRMP can help to defend our own SSBN or they can help to stop somebody sinking our very expensive carriers when we try to "project" UK PLC.

The point has already been made; a large aircraft has the inherent flexibility required to adapt to different roles. It might be over Afghanistan now but where will it be in 5 years time? Can we afford to buy lots of specific types and then throw them away in a few years? If we are on the subject of expensive single-role aircraft then why not discuss Typhoon? Does Terry T have a hidden fleet of high-performance fighters that the Typhoon is ready to engage?

Get away from this "There is no submarine threat" Yes there is, if those people decide to use them! How much will oil cost if Iran decides to use those Kilos of theirs?

As to P8s and Boeing UAVs, take a look at a recent attempt to produce a large multi-purpose system. It was called the P7 and it failed dismally. UAVs for ASW? Try it with such a small FOV; needles in haystacks and then some! We break UAVs when we try to land them in tricky conditions; try flying one at low level whilst dropping sonobuoys and running for MAD. And before you tell me that the P8 will not have MAD that is because it was cut for cost, not because it was not required. That is why we still need manned LRMP.

[Modern Elmo]

What are *immediately* available, cheap, and role-dedicated alternatives to Nimrod?

There aren't any good ASW patforms that are cheap, whether or not they are *immediately* available.

[Archimedes]

If we are on the subject of expensive single-role aircraft then why not discuss Typhoon?

Because it isn't a single role aircraft, perhaps? :confused:

[KeepItTidy]

Adding to Piper Alpha , you have the Hercules incident overland in Blair Atholl , Crazy people floating round the world in Balloons and falling into the water. The X amount of SAR shouts for foreign fisherman and the recent London bombings.

You have to have an aircraft with many capabilities and such diverse scenarios but agree training crews (if you have a multi crew AC for such specialised jobs)

I dont think there is anything that can at moment :{

[Magic Mushroom]

We don't need ASW at the moment.

Oh really?!:rolleyes:

[NutLoose]

Bring back the Dak........


Diamonds are in the poo at the moment and have shut down production of the aircraft mentioned due to Thierlets on going problems, the engine is pants and has major life and reliablity issues they actually used to replace it with another engine at 1000 hrs under warranty because it would not reach its 2000 life..... I know of some with the engines changed at under 300 hrs, that's going back to the Mig 29 days for reliability.

Diamond were so concerned they have produced their own engine for them that should hit the market towards the end of the year, that reduces the payload a bit but ups the top end. All warranties on pre bankruptcy engines have had there warranties cancelled by Thierlet apparently............ not a good time to own a DA 42...... and as for the poor owners of the Cessna 340 twins that did the mods to go over to Thierlet diesels, well they had to saw off the engine bearers to fit the new engine, so no going back for those poor sods.......:ugh:

P.S There is a Serviceable Shack that requires its spars doing, currently languishing in a Museum in the USA that has just reflown of late...... :8

[laterron55]

Did anyone look at what the Japanese currently have proposed.

Google: Japan's P-X Maritime Patrol Aircraft

You might be suprised!

[Yashin]

If we are on the subject of expensive single-role aircraft then why not discuss Typhoon? Because it isn't a single role aircraft, perhaps? :confused:

Of course it is! It was procured for AD and now we are spending a fortune trying to turn it into a CAS and ground attack aircraft when there are better platforms out there already. It looks good at air shows though!

[philrigger]

;)

Yashin

Thats the MOD for you. If it needs a dog it buys a cat and modifies it !








'We knew how to whinge but we kept it in the NAAFI bar.'

[Magic Mushroom]

...Of course it is! [Typhoon] was procured for AD and now we are spending a fortune trying to turn it into a CAS and ground attack aircraft when there are better platforms out there already.

No it wasn't. It was originally procured to replace RAF F-4s and F3s in the AD role, and Jags in the CAS/strike role. The UK was the only nation to specifiy an A-G capability in EF.

The money being spent now is to bring that capability into service earlier than planned together with a Litening pod.

Finaly, you may wish to speak to some of the Army FACs regarding their views of how effective it is in the CAS role.:rolleyes:

Regards,
MM

[Archimedes]

Yashin,

As MM says, way before the name Typhoon was chosen (in fact, it was before 'Eurofighter 2000' was in use) it was clear that the aircraft was to be a multi-role type. Our partners were not entirely happy with this (wanting a fighter), but we inisisted, and it was written into the contract.

The supposed ' costly conversion' to an AG platform, bandied around by the likes of Max Hastings, Page, Tim Collins et al is based on a complete failure (perhaps willful) to accept/understand that the AD capability was due on line first, to be followed (originally with Tranche 2 airframes) by the AG capability. Circumstances mean that the RAF brought forward the implementation of the AG capability, although in what I'd argue was a PR blunder the term 'austere' was employed to describe this - an odd way of describing a four/six EPWII and targeting pod fit, but there you go...

[airsound]

Surely not a PR blunder, Archimedes - from the RAF??

Erm, like flying the Nimrod in the Queen's Birthday Flypast??

Incidentally, I hear that the Senior Scrambled Egg Nebby who was due to be on The Balcony with HM was concerned about what he should say if HM mentioned the Nimrod.

The general consensus was 'Duck, Ma'am'

Hat, bicycle clips, I know.....

[CirrusF]

Quote:
We don't need ASW at the moment.
Oh really?!:rolleyes:


Yes, really we don't. Unless you happen to have a vested interest in airborne ASW platforms of course.

Where is the threat? Airborne ASW can make no realistic dent in offensive capabilities of other states armed with a submarine launched nuclear deterrent - and in any case you can't really consider them a priority threat now anyway. Iran? Well a minor threat to oil supplies from the Gulf at worst - you can bet the US will leap at any chance to nobble them if they ever even remotely threaten oil supplies - and what interest to Iran in doing that anyway?

The need we have right now is for overland surveillance and comms relay.

[CirrusF]

Nutloose:


Diamonds are in the poo at the moment


Yes, the Thielerts are finished. But the Austro-Engine AE-300 is now flying, giving 20% more performance for the same fuel consumption as the Thielert. EASA certification due in August, first production deliveries for October. Anyway, EASA certification irrelevant for military use. We could get ten DA42M at least for the price of one fancy KingAir and have fleets of them flying round the clock - every ISTAR patrol could have their own dedicated forward video surveillance and comms relay platform, with loiter time far longer than KingAir at a fraction of the cost. Once the current emergency is over, there is a healthy second-hand market for them for border patrols etc and in any case they are cheap enough just to mothball as a last resort. These planes are so cheap (in military budgeting terms) that they have to be worth some consideration as a stop gap solution.

[Magic Mushroom]

Where is the threat?

Oh dear. Clearly you're not well read in this subject cirrusfrance.:ugh:

Airborne ASW can make no realistic dent in offensive capabilities of other states armed with a submarine launched nuclear deterrent...

Ever considered that there may be a defensive reason for ASW? Especially for a nation whose national deterrent is based solely upon SSBNs?

Regards,
MM

[Magic Mushroom]

The deterrent of SSBNs is dependent on concealing their location - wherever that may be worldwide. Airborne "defensive" ASW would just reveal their location. And anyway, there is no way that UK can afford to project ASW globally.

Why would airborne defensive ASW need to be on top of a nation's SSBNs?:ugh:

Whichever way you look at it, at the moment ASW is about as high priority as UFO defensive measures...

Visited Kinloss lately?:rolleyes:

[Mad_Mark]

Don't bother arguing with them MM, some people haven't got a clue :ugh:

MadMark!!! :mad:

[lokiukuk]

Yes the MRA4 will need the bolt ons

[Roland Pulfrew]

[OFF TOPIC]

Airsound

Surely not a PR blunder... like flying the Nimrod in the Queen's Birthday Flypast??


I know this is a rumour network but stop perpetuating a MYTH!! Only a tiny minority think it was a PR blunder. :hmm: From where I stood lots of people were praise worthy of the ENTIRE flypast and NO-ONE even commented on the fact that a Nimrod was in it.

I do not wish to reignite the Nimrod debate (as there is already a topic for that) but it is time to see the involvement of the Nimrod as a tribute to those who continue to fly an operational aircraft supporting TIC in operational theatres (and if it's safe to fly there, it is safe to fly in a simple* flypast) and those who died doing the job, and those who have died before them!!!

* - by simple I don't mean that the entire QBF was simple, just that the Nimrod element was not a difficult or dangerous task.

[ON TOPIC]

[JFZ90]

Surely not a PR blunder, Archimedes - from the RAF??

As hinted at above, the playing down of EF AS capability was not really a PR blunder - other nations, notably Germany, were nervous of too much emphasis being put on its AS capabilities. The Germans were out to get a AD capability, and had an approval for only that - hence its Govt could have run into criticism (e.g. within its parliament) if EF was touted as an AS platform too. To spell it out, opponents of EF in Germany could potentially have used this to say that EF reqts & design had gone beyond its AD remit, and hence it should be cancelled etc. This was all above board as collaboration is always about compromise, but presentational issues are sometimes more complex, and more important, than they can appear - what may not be important to the UK as a nation may infact be very important to some of her partners and it is usually in the UKs interests to recognise & respect that.

[Yashin]

What is it with the Typhoon protectionists? Have a go at every other platform and suggest that there are cheaper alternatives with better endurance and weapon carrying capability but god forbid if anybody ever has a go at that RAF's AirShow asset.

Ask the Army FAC about the Typhoon? When the hell have they seen it in a genuine environment. BAE Systems engineers call it the Lightning Mk2 because it has no legs, make a lot of noise and it is good for airshows.

Can I have a good weapon platform with the ability to loiter and the ability to "fully" integrate into the battlespace please!

[sprucemoose]

Yashin; the British Army FACs who worked with the Typhoon at Nellis earlier this month apparently thought it was quite good (using Litening III with Rover integration), and there didn't seem to be any problem with aircraft endurance out there either - 2h sorties without tanker support. A way to go yet, but good results.
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2008/06/23/224826/eurofighter-typhoon-proves-close-air-support-credentials-for-raf.html

[Razor61]

Yashin,
Since when did the Typhoon suffer from crap endurance?
The aircraft has really only just come into service, you'll get it when it's ready. I'd like to know where the reference is to that statement about BAe regarding the Typhoon having "No legs". Utter Tosh!

After watching the Typhoon loiter over Salisbury Plain while on CAS training for a long time i suggest you take more interest. It has longer legs than anything else we have to perform that role which is in the same category (Fast Air). And i have never heard any JTAC complaining about the Typhoon performing such training so far. Infact on one occasion a Typhoon pilot complained about the JTAC and asked if he was competent or not!!

[Roland Pulfrew]

Given the amount of time we have been in Iraqistan, and the length of time we are likely to remain there (and I do say this as someone who knows very little about what the MR2 fleet does out there), I am surprised that this (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=178250) hasn't raised its head again.

How many 500 lb or 1000 lb class weapons could an MR2 carry? (Rhetorical - no need for an answer).

Relatively benign air environment.
Endurance.
Capacity. :E

[Yashin]

The point I am trying to make is the same one that other contributors have made about the Nimrod. There are "immediately available, cheap and role dedicated alternatives" for that theatre. Like any similar ac, strap a weapon load to it and the Typhoon does not have long legs so it needs Tanker support, it is expensive so numbers become a factor. Why not a cheaper ac? It does not have to be super agile or super quick to perform CAS.

Like the Nimrod, the Typhoon was procured for a role which is different now and it is being adapted. That is procurement for you, it takes a chuffing long time and by the time the ac enters service things have moved on. The answer is to buy something with inherent flexibility. So as for the Nimrod I say that cheap, throw away bits of kit are not the answer; the threat and environment may well be different in 5 years and those cheap ac may no longer be suitable. The Nimrod MRA4 has terrific endurance, it has the ability to carry a bomb bay full of guided munitions and it is adaptable.

Endurance, reach and flexibility. Where have I heard those words before?

[Archimedes]

Yashin,

first, the Typhoon had fleixbility designed into it, as I and others have pointed out. From the outset, it was designed to be a multi-role platform. There is, obviously, a major difference between clearing inherent/latent capabilities and introducing them onto the front line and taking an aircraft and adding role capabilities it didn't previously have.

Second, what are the immediately available, cheap and role-dedicated alternatives to Typhoon, please?

[CirrusF]

Don't bother arguing with them MM, some people haven't got a clue :ugh:

MadMark!!! :mad:


I don't think richatom is arguing that ASW is completely irrelevant - but it is a very low priority in MOD budget at the moment. With troops overstretched in current theatres (according to CDS) investing in an expensive ASW Nimrod replacement should be near the bottom of the priority list. What we need right now is helicopters and cheap airborne land surveillance.

Trying to pretend that we are imminently threatened by other nuclear armed countries at the moment is clutching at cold war straws. We are overstretched right now in two theatres and that is where priority lies.

[Mad_Mark]

I don't think richatom is arguing that ASW is completely irrelevant - but it is a very low priority in MOD budget at the moment. With troops overstretched in current theatres (according to CDS) investing in an expensive ASW Nimrod replacement should be near the bottom of the priority list. What we need right now is helicopters and cheap airborne land surveillance.

Trying to pretend that we are imminently threatened by other nuclear armed countries at the moment is clutching at cold war straws. We are overstretched right now in two theatres and that is where priority lies.

Look how fast the Soviet Union collapsed. Who would have thought it only a few short years before it happened? As has been seen by the development of Nimrod 2000/MRA4, the design, development and introduction to service of such complex platforms does not, and can not, happen overnight. Just because there is no perceived major threat right now doesn't mean that there will not be in a couple of years time. As the Scouts say, 'Be Prepared'!

Also, why do you think that the Nimrod is only designed to be an ASW platform against nuclear armed countries? There are several potentially hostile nations that possess submarine forces right now, let alone any that may appear in the future. And what about the maritime surface forces? Nimrod is not a purely ASW asset, having a major role to play in ASUW against all types of surface maritime units. Add to that the flexibility displayed over the past several years where the MR2 has been involved very successfully in many other operations that it was never designed for, and I'm not just talking about those that make the news. And with the potential to load the bomb-bay with Paveway 4's the Nimrod is a truly flexible multi-role aircraft with a long reach and potential to work autonomously.

All aircraft types and roles have a part to play in the RAF (or RN and Army), whether because they are being utilised right now or as insurance against the future in a rapidly changing world. Think how lucky we were that the Vulcan didn't go out of service just a few months earlier. And without wanting to give WEBF any reason to post in this thread, the SHAR should not have been retired until a suitable replacement was ready, IMHO :cool:

MadMark!!! :mad:

[Roland Pulfrew]

MadMark

Don't rise to the bait. Cirrusfrance obviously has extensive experience of complex systems D&D and procurement timescales.

May I suggest:

Don't bother arguing with them MM, some people haven't got a clue

MadMark!!!

[Mad_Mark]

Thanks Rolly, yes I should have followed my own advice :(

MadMark!!! :mad:

[CirrusF]

I haven't once suggested that ASW might not have some priority in the future - I completely accept your arguments that it *might* be again important in our lifetimes. But it is certainly low down in priority at the moment. If you read my orginal post, it was orientated towards replacements of Norman in Afghanistan - a role for which it was not ideal. AFAIAC, this thread is still about our greatest priority - ie providing real-time comms relay and video surveillance to troops on the ground. For that we need masses of light aircraft with long loiter times, high res stabilised day and night video, and comms relay, in support of ISTAR ground troops. Indeed, that is what we are likely to need for the forseeable future, given our alliance with USA, and their so far stated plan for unilateral pre-emptive strikes against potentially usurptive countries.


If you want to start another cold war, start another thread.

[Razor61]

I wish our Government would think like this...or for that matter BAe Systems.
Quote: "theres a gap in our capability and it needs to be filled"

Also i never knew the P-8A has a bomb bay... learn something everyday :ok:

From Defence News:-
The US Navy has asked Boeing to make good on a four-year-old promise to
accelerate deliveries of P-8A Poseidon long-range maritime patrol and
reconnaissance aircraft, following last December's grounding of around a
quarter of its Lockheed P-3C Orions.
"We're working with the navy right now on a capacity analysis to understand
what the possible rates out of the factory are," says Boeing Integrated
Defense Systems P-8A programme manager Bob Feldmann. "There's a gap in
capability that needs to be filled."
Boeing Commercial Airplanes vice-president P-8A Mo Yahyavi says the
manufacturer believes it can build "18-24 airplanes per year" for the USN
and international customers. The navy has ordered 108 aircraft for
service-entry from 2013, to be delivered at a rate of 13 a year.
Boeing on 9 June achieved the power-on milestone for the first P-8A
development aircraft, which is also the first 737 to be assembled on a
third, ITAR-controlled moving assembly line set up at the company's factory
in Renton, Washington.
In 2004, the P-8A won the USN's multi-mission maritime aircraft contract
based on Boeing's lowest-priced bid, and a promise that the manufacturer
could accelerate the in-service date by up to one year.

Boeing is for the first time attempting to integrate production of a
military airliner derivative with its commercial assembly lines, rather than
roll-out a "green" aircraft for modification. The P-8A combines the fuselage
of the 737-800 with the wing of the longer -900, but its airframe is
strengthened to cope with sustained g-loadings.
"Rather than building a green airplane, flying it someplace, cutting it up
and trying to make it into a military aircraft, our approach is radically
different on this programme," says Feldmann. "We decided to build to the
navy requirements and design-in from the ground up, so that the aircraft is
built with a bomb bay and all the structure, duct work and wiring in it."
The P-8A's bomb bay doors were designed by Boeing IDS in Long Beach,
California, but are manufactured in St Louis and installed by 737
fuselage-supplier Spirit AeroSystems in Wichita, Kansas.
"We've got a complete fuselage here with the bomb bay doors in it," says
Yahyavi. "We're building a fully provisioned military aircraft in the heart
of the Boeing commercial production system."
Assembly of the first test aircraft is expected to take around 90 days,
compared with 10 for a commercial 737, but Boeing expects to reduce this to
45 days for production P-8As. Five development aircraft are being
constructed, two of which will serve as the static- and fatigue-test
articles.

[Magic Mushroom]

But [ASW] is certainly low down in priority at the moment.

Not as low as you clearly believe.

If you want to start another cold war, start another thread.

And why pray tell is ASW merely a Cold War skill? Or are you one of these chaps who thinks submarines and destroyers do not contribute to current ops?:rolleyes:

Thankfully, there are people in defence who maintain a wider perspective than others.:hmm:

Regards,
MM