Nimrod R1 replacement

[microlight AV8R]

Pardon me, but I can't find the thread that was discussing the impending purchase of ex USAF KC-135s for the above role.

After the debacle of Chinook HC3, MRA4 etc, I can't help being cynical. I expect some plonker in Whitehall reckons it will be a cheap option, but suspect that the s/hand airframes will become sink holes for money whilst being anglicised?

As it has been decided to only operate nine MRA.4 Nimrods and not make the three development airframes operational, why not use them? After all, the UK taxpayer effectively owns the damn things many times over. Or perhaps they are destined to be stripped for spares to keep the nine going?

Whilst our colonial cousins have an extremely large and capable airforce,
I don't think anyone will disagree that they get their moneys worth out of their airframes before they are cast aside. when was the last C-135 variant completed?

For those of you operating tired, old kit, you have my deepest respect. Stay safe:ok:

[NutLoose]

New version in testing, lighter and smarter than the old Nimrod and they have gone back to having the main smart sensor in the nose as in the AEW.....

:ok:


http://www.warbirdconference.com/images/mayday.jpg

[microlight AV8R]

Ah, looks promising. I'm a fan of low tech for reliability. Most reassuring :ok:

[sluf goat]

one of the better looking 51 squadron members ? :p

[Nimrodhasbeen]

Since when has it been decided that there will be only 9 MRA4s?

[Green Flash]

Will the R1's be 'recycled' back to ISK (to 42 Sqn sans mission kit or robbed for spares?) or will they end up in Williamsons yard?

[microlight AV8R]

Yes, that's right. this great maritime nation will have nine dedicated aircraft to patrol the sea lanes upon which we depend so much.

Take a look on the other thread.. Nimrod MRA4 In Service Date ?

I find the banter very entertaining on here, but in a moment of seriousness I felt this question should be addressed.

There are to be nine MRA4 airframes put into operational service. The three existing development airframes will not be made operational,
hence my question. Why on earth don't they put them to good use as an R1 replacement? Goodness knows that they've cost the taxpayer a few bob ! So far as C135 airframes are concerned, why replace one very old aircraft with another equally old one, when we can have a (nearly) new one instead.

Bring on the BWoS Nimrod R5 :ok:

[exscribbler]

The real and very compelling reason that the three development airframes will not become operational is that the MRA4 will be so capable that they won't be needed. Look out for a reduction to six operational airframes for the same reason.

They did it with the T45 and the carriers (what do you mean they haven't said so?) so why not the MRA4?

[microlight AV8R]

Well maybe so, but that still leaves PA01 - PA03 development airframes looking for a good home. It seems a stupid waste.

Six aircraft for maritime patrol ? no matter how effcient/capable, they can only be in one place at a time :ugh:

[Room40]

:ooh:Can I suggest that the roles of R1 and MR have absolutely nothing in common, except for the requirment to have a big aeroplane with lots of back seats ? So lets not have a discussion about apples and lumps of coal.

Can I go on to suggest that the absolutely convincing arguement for the UK buying into RJ is that we then have a tactical collector (in one particular niche segment of the ISTAR spectrum) that is pretty much the same as that used by our principal current and future ally? If you cannot work out why this is a good idea then I can't help you.

Can I finally sugget this this is a Good Thing? If you do not not believe this then I sugget you talk to the RN, who made the commonsensical decision some decades ago to buy a US sensor, and have benefited hugely since.

IMHO (as a useless civvie who is not worthy even to be used as a standby sex toy by the two or even one-winged gods of the RAF) over the three decades I've known what they do, 51 Sqn have done a great job with sometimes marginal kit, RJ should put them into a whole new game.


SO stop w@nking about airframe numbers, think what the sensor is for, and be happy.

Room40

[Jackonicko]

The Nimrod R doesn't NEED replacing. Before XV230, the plan was an OSD of 2025, and the IPT were sanguine that the R1s, at least, could make that.

There are all sorts of compelling reasons why you might want to put the new Helix kit on a new airframe - not least because the R1s are, at best, 'cosy'. But while hosting the kit on an A300/310 (preferably with cargo door to ease conversion/installation) would mark an obvious step forward, a development MRA4 is still a Nimrod, with a Nimrod fuselage cross section, and the same cabin length. It therefore doesn't offer the one thing you'd really want in an R1 replacement, which is a bit more space - crew rest areas, a proper galley and toilet, etc.

The RC-135Vs that are supposedly to be procured are to be new conversions of KC-135Rs delivered to Block 10 standard. They will not be equipped with the existing Nimrod Sigint suite (Star Window) nor with the planned Helix. They will be USAF standard aircraft.

I know 'nothing', so all of this is open source, and much of it may be wrong, but I'm told that the RC-135V is more biased towards Comint than the Nimrod, with a little tactical Elint (the latter using the largely automated AEELS) and as such is better suited to the kind of ops we're seeing 'right now', but that the R1 is significantly better for the more traditional Sigint role (what the Yanks called PARPRO) against a 'formed state' enemy with formed forces and a structured air defence system, for example - as was required in the run up to Granby and Op Iraqi Freedom.

There are some concerns that replacement of R1 by RC-135 would necessarily result in some loss of capability (albeit with relevant gains in other areas) and especially a loss of the particular type of Elint expertise that 51 has built up over the past few decades - which emphasises highly experienced operators using their experience and manual tuning, etc.

There are a couple of niggling worries in my mind, apart from the possibility of a loss of national expertise and capability in this key area.

When we all thought that the Yanks were going to simply give us three -135s (they have a job crewing all theirs), it was hard to look a gift horse in the mouth. It now looks as though the RC-135V procurement will actually cost more than pressing ahead with R1/Helix would have done. Are we getting rid of the R1 for the right reasons, or because retaining a gen 1 Nimrod is politically untenable, or because after XV230, airworthiness is hanging by a thread.

The USAF is really hurting for tankers - and especially KC-135Rs. If there are three spare R models, sitting in the desert, god alone knows what sort of state they might be in.

The previous threads on this were at:


http://www.pprune.org/military-aircrew/313207-raf-borrow-usaf-aircraft.html

http://www.pprune.org/military-aircrew/346000-uk-applies-purchase-rivet-joint-aircraft.html

http://www.pprune.org/military-aircrew/309239-uk-considers-alternatives-nimrod-r-1-upgrade.html

[microlight AV8R]

Who said R1 and MR were in the same role?

Don't known anything about the kit to be used in a future platform. However, neither was I aware that it might only be able to be used in a C135?

No problem with the idea of using same kit as an ally if we are actually wanting to do exactly the same thing.

IMHO as an equally useles civvy, I've read in the past that our colonial brethren have specifically asked for the support of 51 sqn in situations where their systems have provided additional capabilities. So, maybe having exactly the same system is not the answer for working with the US.

Advice taken, saves the keyboard. Airframe numbers... In a perfect (non noo-labour) world those 3 'new' Nimrod airframes would be made operational in the MR role as oiginally intended.

[Jackonicko]

The USAF also has RC-135U and a bewildering array of other platforms to provide a spectrum of Sigint capability.

Going down the RC-135V route might give us a better tailored solution for Afghanistan in its current phase (might), but at the expense of losing a wider, more broadly useful capability.

[WolvoWill]

Just wondering - how similar is the RC-135 to the RAFs E-3 fleet, in supportability terms? Is this potential buy going to help things at Waddo as both the Sentry and Rivet Joint fleets can share maintainance resources and manpower? :)

[Tappers Dad]

Just recieved information about the fire in the pannier bay onboard Nimrod R1 XV249 in Jan this year.The fire was caused when AVTUR from fuel leaks came into direct contact with the cross feed duct.

All sounds very familiar to me.!!!

[Sideshow Bob]

Though both the 135 and the 707 (E-3) were developed from the same aircraft (the Dash 80) they are quite different airframes, also the E-3's are mostly funded by NATO, so there would be the problem of who is paying for what.

[davejb]

As a complete sidetrack, based on TD's post, when did 249 change to R1?
From my logbook it was an MR2 Jun 12th '91 ('cos I flew on it).... not doubting TD here, I guess I just wasn't very observant back then.
(An observation the GSU shared).

Dave


While I'm at it (edit) is Stumpy Clay on here?

[lonsdale2]

Dave

You never really were with it back then were you?:)

Have a look here - even if not totally accurate it gives a good idea.

Target Lock: Nimrod : Production (http://www.targetlock.org.uk/nimrod/production.html)

[grousehunter]

As has been asked above; who exactly has said we are only going to get 9? Can you provide a link? I suspect (and hope) we shall buy all 12. We need em!

[Magic Mushroom]

...the E-3's are mostly funded by NATO...

No they're not. They are the UK's contribution to the NATO AEWCF and costs lie with the UK.

Regarding XV249, it was converted to R1 configuration via 'Project Anneka' (remember the TV programme 'Challenge Anneka'?!) following the loss of 'Damian' (aka XW666) in the Moray Firth on 16 May 96. According to open sources, the conversion of 249 began on 27 Dec 96 and it first flew as an R1 on 11 Apr 97.

Regards,
MM

[Lyneham Lad]

As has been asked above; who exactly has said we are only going to get 9? Can you provide a link? I suspect (and hope) we shall buy all 12. We need em!

See Nimrod MRA4 In Service Date? (http://www.pprune.org/military-aircrew/248710-nimrod-mra4-service-date.html) post #37. The Flight International article seems to have disappeared but did state:-

"The Royal Air Force is now expected to field nine MRA4s, with the programme's three development aircraft not under contract to be converted for operational use."

[davejb]

Cheers MM,
had a few friends on 666, I said 'see you later' to a them one minute, barely 15 minutes passed and they were riding home in a yellow cab... all far too hurried for a proper Nimrod sortie....

[Magic Mushroom]

But a brilliant piece of airmanship by Art and the crew. A thoroughly deserved AFC!

[Re-Heat]

Since when has it been decided that there will be only 9 MRA4s?
Why are we pi$$ing money up the wall, when we could buuy a P-8A off the shelf?

Sorry, stupid question, and thread drift. Just frustration.


So back to the KC-135 conversions - I know some boys with metal saws up near Manchester who are reputed to do a good job - buy 5 airframes, get 2 working...

[lokiukuk]

Since the contract was signed.Still looking for the money tp productionise PA1, 2 and 3

[justone26]

What shelf with this be then. The one that will not even get a full production decision till 2013 (at the earliest!). MRA4 is far from perfect but an aircraft that has never flown and could be worse (if that is possible). If we did get the P8a when would we actually get the 1st aircraft considering the USN P3 replacement need?

[Magic Mushroom]

Why are we pi$$ing money up the wall, when we could buuy a P-8A off the shelf?

Clearly Re-Heat, you are unaware of the problems with the P-8A. An aircraft with which the USN are seemingly having to modify the ASW/ASuW mission to meet rather than the other way around.:hmm:

Regards,
MM

[Re-Heat]

Clearly you missed the fact I was being highly facetious. I am quite aware of the problems, but it does not change the reality of spreading huge development costs over 9 airframes as opposed to the 108 + export orders that is the advantage the P-8 programme.

[Magic Mushroom]

Only time will tell. However, I suspect that we may be better off sticking with the Nimrod MRA4.

Regards,
MM

[Jackonicko]

Some VERY capable and VERY highly motivated folk have been kicking the folk who make things happen on MRA4, and the programme seems to be making headway (doesn't it?). There's no denying that there have been horrendous problems, but there's every reason to believe that P-8A's problems will be at least as severe, and several years later in being solved.

Too late to change horses now.

But in view of MM's support for MRA4, I wonder what he'd think of a dusted off R5, now?

[BombayDuck]

This is the best thread I found for this topic:

India Buys 8 P-8s for maritime patrol at a cost of $2.1 billion (http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/India/India_inks_largest-ever_defence_deal_with_US/articleshow/3934357.cms)

In terms of the contract size, the P-8I deal supplants the $962 million deal signed with US in 2007 for six C-130J `Super Hercules' aircraft for Indian special forces.

India will get the first P-8I towards end-2012 or early-2013, with the other seven following in a phased manner by 2015-2016. The contract also provides an option for India to order four to eight more such planes.

Armed with torpedoes, depth bombs and Harpoon anti-ship missiles, the P-8I will also be capable of anti-submarine warfare and anti-surface warfare. They will replace the eight ageing and fuel-guzzling Russian Tupolev-142M turboprops currently being operated by Navy.

The P-8I planes will help in plugging the existing voids in Navy's maritime snooping capabilities, having as they will an operating range of over 600 nautical miles, with `5.5 hours on station'.

Customised for India and based on the Boeing 737 commercial airliner, the P-8I will actually be a variant of the P-8A Poseidon multi-mission maritime aircraft currently being developed for US Navy, which has ordered 108 of them to replace its P-3C Orion fleet. India, of course, remains unhappy over the US decision to sell more P-3C Orions, armed with Harpoon missiles, to Pakistan.

At present, the Navy uses the TU-142Ms, IL-38SDs and Dorniers for surveillance operations in the Indian Ocean region. It is also now in the hunt for six advanced medium-range maritime reconnaissance planes, for around Rs 1,600 crore, to further boost its snooping capabilities.

For innermost layer surveillance, up to 200 nautical miles, Navy is going in for two more Israeli Heron UAVs (unmanned aerial vehicles), with three ground control stations and two ship control stations, for Rs 386 crore after successfully deploying eight Searcher-II and four Heron UAVs. There is also the Rs 1,163 crore joint Indo-Israeli project for developing rotary-wing UAVs for use from warships.

Of course this does not mention that the Tu-142 does low-and-slow quite well, and that it has a time of 16 hours on station and can fly to Johannesburg from Bombay without refuelling!

That said, they (and even the upgraded Il-38 Mays) are getting seriously long in the tooth and are (like any Russian system from that time) maintenance-heavy. I love the Bear (and am not really convinced about the Poseidon) but it is way too old.

(Note: 1 'crore' or 'karod' is a subcontinent number that equals 10 million, one 'lakh' or lac is 100,000. Also, As of today 70 Rupees = 1 British Pound while 48 Rupees = 1 US Dollar)

[Modern Elmo]

What are these problems with the P-8 that some of you fellows are muttering about?

I'm guessing that some at NAVAIR are wishing they had chosen a bigger tube-and-wing with a wider cabin and more unrefueled endurance. Maybe that's what's wrong with the P-8. Because of advances in platform stabilized electro-optics and acoustic homing torpedoes that can be released from 20k ft., there's less need for descent to low altitudes, which ye olde Comet airliner with a nose extension probably isn't that efficient at, either.

Why don't you gents develop a maritime patrol/ASW version of the A320 to compete with the P-8?

[Modern Elmo]

Boeing Navy P-8 Jet Faces $900 Million Budget Cut
Friday, Dec 26, 2008

Boeing Co. new Navy P-8 patrol aircraft for spotting enemy submarines and ships faces a cut of more than $900 million in the Defense Departmentes proposed fiscal 2010 budget in order to pay for a new warship, according to budget documents, Bloomberg reported.

Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon England, in an Oct. 31 budget memo, approved shifting away as much as $940 million to complete payment for a new DDG-1000 destroyer that Congress partially funded this fiscal year. The ship is the last of three the service says it will buy from Northrop Grumman Corp. and General Dynamics Corp.

The proposal is an indication the Navy is willing to cut new aviation programs -- even one designed to replace P-3 maritime patrol craft in operation since the 1950s -- to sustain its long- range shipbuilding goal. The Navy wants to have 313 vessels in the fleet by 2020, including new ships added as others retire, up from 283 deployable vessels today.

http://www.yourdefencenews.com/boeing+navy+p-8+jet+faces+$900+million+budget+cut_19555.html

That's certainly a problem FOR the P-8 program, but that is not a problem OF or WITH the P-8.

Sez here:



Boeing’s P-8 gets its wings

By Curt Epstein
July 14, 2008
Aircraft

...

According to Boeing, despite the Poseidon’s outward differences from its airliner cousin–including a bomb bay, raked wing tips, underwing and fuselage centerline weapons stations and nearly 100 antennas–the P-8 shares 60 percent commonality by part number with its airliner cousin and could be built on the same assembly lines.

The fuselage is supplied by Spirit Aerosystems in Wichita, Kansas, the same subcontractor that supplies the 737 bodies, and is based on the latest -800 model. ...

For a 737, a typical trip through the final assembly line takes 10 days. Boeing has allotted nine times as much time for each of the five test aircraft in the system development and demonstration contract, as the airframer is expecting a steep learning curve. Keeping the P-8s from clogging Boeing’s finely tuned 737 production system was a major motivation behind the establishment of a separate line (the former 757 wing to fuselage assembly line), which could also be used to manufacture derivative EP-8s.

Perry Moore, Boeing’s director of P-8A manufacturing operations, said he would be satisfied to see the line process a Poseidon in 45 days as the procedures are refined. Once the aircraft’s stay in Renton is complete, it will then move to the integrated defense systems division for a similar length stay in final completion. First flight of the aircraft is expected next year.


Military Characteristics
One of the features on the P-8 that hints at its future service in antisubmarine work is its wingtips. Unlike the popular performance-enhancing winglets found on many commercial and business aircraft today, the wingtips on the Poseidon are a continuation of the wing, raked backward to better shed ice, given the adverse weather and altitudes the aircraft will be expected to patrol.

According to Boeing, the wingtips–not offered to commercial customers because of the additional length they add to the wingspan–give about the same level of performance as the winglet-equipped airplane. The wing also includes additional de-icing equipment. To accommodate the new design and the four under-wing weapons pylons, each of which has a 3,000-pound weight limit, the internal wing structure has been specially strengthened. The aircraft is expected to easily meet the Navy requirement for 2.2-g sustained flight, along with certification for operations down to 200 feet.

Another departure from the standard 737 configuration is the bomb bay, which has five weapons stations, each with a 1,450-pound weight limit. While the bomb bay can handle the current stores, it was designed with some growth capabilities in mind. Boeing’s engineers said they based their dimensions on the weapons bay in the Joint Strike Fighter so the P-8 could accommodate the same munitions.

Internally, the P-8 features three times more wiring and ECS ducts than a standard 737 because of the electronics suite. The aircraft features Raytheon’s APY-10 radar, which includes several improvements over the APS-137, with network enabling to allow different users to access the same information at the same time.

...

Once an operator selects a pattern for the distribution of sonobuoys–the Poseidon carries 126 per mission, double the capacity of a P-3 Orion–it is routed to the flight management where it can be considered. If approved, the autopilot can then adjust the flight to match the pattern, basically allowing the aircraft to be flown “from the back of the plane.” As one Navy requirement was for simultaneous sonobuoy drop capability, the Poseidon features three rotary launchers, each holding 30 of the marine sensors at a time. Through the operator stations, sonobuoy inventory can be managed and loading orders can be sent to the ordnance specialist working the launchers.

With a mission profile calling for an outbound trip of 1,200 miles, four hours on station and a 1,200-mile return flight, the P-8 has a fuel capacity of more than 10,500 gallons, distributed between three main and seven auxiliary tanks. Overall, the aircraft has a 5,000-nm range unrefueled and a 22-hour duration with midair refueling capabilities.

...

The P-8I will be similar to the Navy aircraft, but will include the magnetic anomaly detector (MAD) boom, which was removed from the U.S. requirements late last year. Given that the aircraft was initially designed with the MAD boom, it will be simple to accommodate customers who want to include it, according to Boeing.

Boeing’s P-8 gets its wings: AINonline (http://www.ainonline.com/news/single-news-page/article/boeings-p-8-gets-its-wings/)

What's wrong with that?

[BombayDuck]

Modern Elmo, the IN evaluated both the P-8 and an A319 proposal, and chose the former. I suppose the latter will take some time coming.

[olddog]

Lots of thread drift here we've wandered into a discussion on MR2 replacement. P8A has nothing to do with RI replacement.

The Role of the R1 and the Nimrod MR2/4 are (still) significantly different but I guess that a P8 airframe (or any other wide body jet) could be useful for a future R1 replacement.

Incidently, anyone else out there got XV249 in their log book in all 3 of it's guises, MR1, MR2 and R1?

[Terminal Grant]

I know of 2 for certain. One still on the Sqn and Ppruner 'Phoney Tony' who is currently enjoying an OOA holiday.
Hope its going well Phoney

[Magic Mushroom]

What's wrong with that?

The data was provided by Boeing!:rolleyes:

Regards,
MM

[Riskman]

Quote:
"The Royal Air Force is now expected to field nine MRA4s, with the programme's three development aircraft not under contract to be converted for operational use."

Don't know whose expectation this journo was writing about but a more accurate statement would be "....the programme's three development aircraft not under contract to be converted for operational use yet."

[sprucemoose]

Pointless semantics, Riskman. The article says the three development aircraft are not under contract, and by definitition that means that they are not under contract "yet".
To my mind this is a no-brainer. More than £3 billion has now been spent on the MRA4 project, so it can't be cancelled, and there are three good airframes sitting there that could very sensibly be converted as R1 replacements, ensuring fleet commonality where possible.
The "let's buy the P-8" lobby are wrong on this one - it's a maritime patrol aircraft, and there's currently no funded programme to develop the 737 for SIGINT or any other special mission, so wait for it and lose another valuable capability.

[Jackonicko]

Apart from EP-X, you mean?

[PingDit]

Olddog: 'Incidently, anyone else out there got XV249 in their log book in all 3 of it's guises, MR1, MR2 and R1?'

Nope, only managed MR1 & 2 - but I remember it being one of the most reliable airframes!

[Daf Hucker]

Tag, got all 3 marks :)



Bu%$er....bang goes my cover story!

[Riskman]

sprucemoose Pointless semantics, Riskman. The article says the three development aircraft are not under contract, and by definitition that means that they are not under contract "yet". and implies that they won't be on contract, ever!

Not pointless semantics. It was speculation which was wrong when it was written and is still wrong now.

[AQAfive]

For those who missed the event. 249 was one of 4 ac stored in the woods at ISK. When 666 had a swim, 249 was taken out of the woods refurbished and flown to Marshalls of Cambridge for conversion to R1. The project was named 'Anneka', after Anneka Rice.

The remaining 3 ac were cut up and put in the back of an Antanov and flown to Hurn for conversion to MRA4.

I have another story about de-humidifiers and the 4 ac but I'll leave that for another day.

[JimmyTAP]

Just to correct a small point, XV249 was converted to R1 airframe standard at Woodford and fitted out at Waddington.

[sprucemoose]

I think you misread the article, Riskman, as I know for a fact that it was in no way meant to imply that the aircraft won't be converted ever. And if you read the new NAO report it shows that they got the sums wrong on what that will cost also!

Sorry Jacko, is EP-X in any way funded or contracted yet then? Don't think so mate.

[Jackonicko]

Study contracts let long ago

[sprucemoose]

Ah yes, small, six-year study contracts at that - hardly makes it viable as an R1 replacement though, does it?
Hope the new motor's still starting in this weather :}

[Jackonicko]

At a more advanced stage than any Nimrod R.Mk 5, though, Mr Moose.

And the motor is going very well, thanks.

[XV277]

To my mind this is a no-brainer. More than £3 billion has now been spent on the MRA4 project, so it can't be cancelled, and there are three good airframes sitting there that could very sensibly be converted as R1 replacements, ensuring fleet commonality where possible.


Only problem is they would have to go through a similar conversion process as XV249 did, as the underfloor panniers on the R are different to the bomb-bay on the MR/MRA - same external shape, but that's about all.

[OilCan]

same external shape, but that's about all.

except maybe the hydraulics, the main electrical distribution, the engines, 98% of the fuel system, 90% of the conditioning systems, ice protection systems, flying controls, undercarriage, brakes.....etc...

but other than that, yeah, completely different.

Oh, and no commonality whatsoever with training Air & Ground, maintenance support or Flt crew sim currency. Yeah deffo, completely different. :rolleyes::p

[bong-bing]

All,

Esp the last post, please don't post on something you know nothing about.....:ugh:

Sorry to be so short its the Stella ya know....:ok:

Apart from Jacko- you seem better informed than most others on this forum:D