Can someone explain why the MRA4 has been cancelled before we screw up big time.

[DFM]

This was previously posted in the "Nimrod MRA4" thread but got lost amongst the impassioned debate. All I ask for is reasoned discussion about a decision by the Govt that is fundamentally flawed, both in terms of the defence of the UK and the cost to the budget. Please do not get sidetracked by emotion or hyperbole, this is a decision that has to be challenged properly:

I would contend that agreeing to the removal of the Nimrod MRA4 is an act of stupidity and an abrogation of responsibily by the Govt, the MOD and the AFB. Irrespective of the impact this decision will have on the good people of RAF Kinloss and the local populace in Moray, the impact it will have with respect to the defence and safety of this country in the long term is clearly the more significant and one that cannot be ignored. As a maritime nation how is it possible to defend the fact that we will no longer have an airborne platform capable of essential support to the independent nuclear deterrent, maritime surveillance, long range SAR, maritime interdiction and strike, rapid and adaptable intelligence gathering, maritime force projection and long range focused intervention.

The threats posed towards the interests of the UK in 2010 and beyond are well known; there are others around the corner that we can only make reasoned assessments on. This defence review obviously had to have a focus on the immediate plans that we have in support of OP HERRICK. At the same time we were led to believe that it was also looking beyond Afghanistan; this decision clearly shows that either the Govt have their heads in the sand or there are ulterior political reasons behind it.

Having listened to the AFB message since the current CAS took charge it was clear that Combat ISTAR was central to the future of the RAF. And I do not hold with the parochial view that the FJ centric AFB would not give full support to the MRA4. There is no single platform in the RAF inventory, let alone one that is so ISTAR specific that fulfils more of the UK Military Tasks than the MR variant of the Nimrod, either MR2 past or MRA4 future; so how can the Govt and AFB concede we can do without it? Or, does the Govt not understand what this platform actually provides, what ability will be lost; or are they quite simply afraid of the bad publicity that the name “Nimrod” seems to generate with a section of the general public. I am just not convinced this is about pure cost saving, and I can only hope that many people in the know will now come forward with the real facts about the supposed savings to be had as a result of this decision. Already there is significant doubt as to whether or not we will actually get the £200m year on year saving over the next 10years. I for one will be surprised if it is proportionally any more cost efficient than the reasons given behind not cancelling an aircraft carrier; a carrier that will be without strike aircraft for the foreseeable future or any LRMPA surveillance and protection at all.

We have just reached a crossroads in defence. When CAS publicly commented at RAF Kinloss on how he had reiterated to the NSC and the PM why this capability should not be lost, everyone summoned to listen understood why, but it appears the Govt clearly does not understand the magnitude of the risk they have accepted. Therefore, I wonder if anyone within the AFB, MOD, or even the Govt front bench, namely the Secretary of State for Defence, will now have the integrity or the will power to look again at ways in which this ridiculous decision can be reversed. Or, if this is deemed impossible, that they indicate how strongly they believed in the advice and direction they brought to bear and simply do the honourable thing. Because if they do not, I believe all that they have said privately and in public on the run up to SDSR is hollow, meaningless and undermines their position. This is not just about being principled, this is about refusing to publicly support a policy that is downright reckless and dangerous in the extreme. I do not want to wait for a time in the future (and it will happen) when someone is wheeled out to explain how they opposed the decision but were powerless to act. A Govt understands all about presentation, and if significant sections of the great and good made their feelings more public we might even get the Govt and MOD to rethink.

Here are the Military Tasks from 2009 that I believe the Nimrod MR2 has contributed towards over the last 10 years and what the MRA4 is capable of contributing to in the future. Some would argue it does not tally, others may think it falls short:

MT 1.2—Nuclear deterrence
MT 2.1—Military aid to the civil authorities (MACA)
MT 2.2—Integrity of the UK
MT 3.1—Defence and security of the Overseas Territories
MT 3.3—Security co-operation: support to current and future contingent operations
MT 3.4—Security co-operation: strengthen international peace and stability and support wider British interests.
MT 4.1—Humanitarian assistance and disaster relief
MT 4.2—Evacuation of British citizens overseas
MT 4.6—Power projection
MT 4.7—Focused intervention


As a total aside, let's just wait and see what impact this decision has on the (behind closed doors) special relationship.


A sad day indeed…………DFM, over & out. :ugh:

[Double Zero]

The 'over & out' being ironic of course ?

[Seldomfitforpurpose]

A sad day indeed…………DFM, over & out. :ugh:

Like the TSR2 we cannot afford it, get over it and move on :ok:

[getsometimein]

Because Gordon Brown ensured his own survival by creating a carrier contract that we can't afford to get out of.

Now get over it we'll never get the bloody things.

[Abbey Road]

Can someone explain why the MRA4 has been cancelled before we screw up big time.Because it is a bloody Comet, and shouldn't be here in this day and age?:rolleyes:

[getsometimein]

BTW, those military tasks dont exist anymore....

The list of 18 MT's has been reduced to around 7, which makes it easier to assign platforms to, and not miss the Nimrod element.

[Lima Juliet]

DFM

As others have already told you, your MTs are out of date. These are the ones we are working to these days (and were also the assumption for SDSR):

MT1 Defending the UK and its Overseas Territories
MT2 Providing strategic intelligence
MT3 Providing nuclear deterrence
MT4 Supporting civil emergency organisations in times of crisis
MT5 Defending our interests by projecting power strategically and through expeditionary interventions
MT6 Providing a defence contribution to UK influence
MT7 Providing security for stabilisation

I know that MRA4 could provide to all of those in the maritime role, but take a look at what is left in the RAF inventory post SDSR and you could fit all of those left in a similar way. Look at how the old priority of MT1.2 has been usurped by the new MT1 and MT2.

Why has MRA4 been canned, well IMHO these are the main reasons (and put together they make a convincing case):

1. Cost, the whole project was spiralling in cost and showed further potential to continue. Not only the aircraft themselves but also the support contract. The company would have dearly liked us to say "thank you" and just got on with flying it, but the Senior Officers were right to question and delay the RAF taking it on, because of...
2. Build quality. To quote an engineer working on the program "Every time we fix one issue, we find another two...". There were so many issues they had to reject all of the previous work on the Safety Case and start again with some re-work - that is why the main reason why the first aircraft was delivered in March and was still not flying on a UK RTS by October (last estimates were for a UK RTS in Feb 11 - 11 months late).
3. The MRA4 did not have all the extra UOR "bells and whistles" that MR2 had attracted. That was also going to add costs for modification. For example the Northrop Grumman Nighthunter EO/IR turret fitted to the MRA4 was worse than MX-15 and therefore was not suited to the overland role that MR2 had done well. So read extra cost and also it was a one-trick pony MPA at delivery.

Now for the political bits (RAF vs Navy vs Army)
4. Seeing as there was so much "back biting" going on between the 3 services, why would we, the RAF, want to protect something that effectively supports the Royal Navy? Conjecture, but a possibility? The support that the RAF provide the Army in AFG is essential and seen as "main effort" within the SDSR; maritime patrol, I suspect is not.
5. Swing towards unmanned ISTAR. There is a long term aspiration to use RPAS/UAS for all ISTAR. The main driver is cost, platform endurance and manpower savings. Again, conjecture, but why introduce a manned system with 30-40years life when it doesn't fit with the strategic vision?

Were they right to canx MRA4 - in a perfect world, No. However, as we're totally skint at present, I believe it was a tough decision but probably right in the medium term if we replace the capability with something different (ie. within 5 years).

LJ:ok:

[ColinB]

I am not well informed on this topic but do I recall there were major software development problems with this project which ran on for years.
Were they ever resolved?

[vecvechookattack]

Why was MRA4 cancelled..? Simples .... to save money. It was too expensive and in these times of economic restraint we need to save money. Same as the Harrier / Tornado debate. One had to go because we couldn't afford both of them....The Tornado has RAPTOR and the Harrier does not...therefore the Tornado stays.

[Sideshow Bob]

Because it is a bloody Comet, and shouldn't be here in this day and age?

Does it have Comet Wings?
Does it have Comet Engines?
Does it have Comet Systems?
The only commonality is the pressure shell.

[DFM]

LJ,

Many thanks for your points as well as the update on the latest iteration of MTs. I had previously been made aware of the list used for SDSR, hence my 09 timeline, but agree with you that the MRA4 could indeed fill all of the new ones in the maritime role. It is also interesting about the reprioritisation of tasks but I have to disagree that all the aircraft left in our depleted inventory are similarly capable of providing towards MT 2,3 and 4. And with the greying of definitions, if everything in the UK Armed forces cannot contribute to MT1,5,6 and 7 then clearly they shouldn’t be a part of it.

In response to the points you make: Your reasoning behind its cancellation due to cost is undoubtedly the most obvious, but after spending close on £4Bn already I am still not convinced the cancellation option is a more cost effective answer. And that is even before we start to unravel the true extent of the cancellation costs. The RTS issue is also quite emotive and all those close to the project know that this has undoubtedly been unduly influenced by the fall-out from the “Nimrod” handle as well as being the first in-production aircraft post the advent of MAA and so close to RTS. I could also find engineers who will give you a different take on the one forward and two back analogy. When goalposts are moved in mid-task then a reworking of estimates is the invariable result.

Your point about the camera not being as good as the MX-15 is correct; however, this platform was built for specific roles and overland was not one of them. Whilst the MR2 did a superb job in Iraq and Afghanistan, it was never the most cost effective or long term operationally sensible; hence it was only seen as an essential stop-gap until we could get something like Shadow to carry it forward. So to plan to place an MRA4 into this kind of overland operational environment from the outset would make no sense whatsoever. And I just don’t understand the one-trick pony MPA comment, especially when we have agreed it will fulfil all of the MTs in a maritime role.

I totally agree with your comment about HERRICK focus maybe impacting on the decision making process. However, I thought it was well understood that the MRA4 was never intended to participate in an overland OP that will end during this Govt’s term in office. SDSR was also supposed to look to the future protection of our Island Nation, so how does this decision stand up to inspection for the MTs 1 thru 7 in a maritime context? I have to admit that your last point is one I had not considered and is something that would have to be thrown into the strategic planning melting pot, but I would be amazed if the PM used this as the lever to cancel MRA4.

Yes we are skint but I am convinced that when CAS presented his options and analysis of risk to the MOD and Cabinet that the AFB cost-saving estimates must have added up. Furthermore, as CAS repeatedly tried to convince the PM that cancelling the MRA4 would be wrong then he must have had another preferred option on the table, what was it? Indeed this does appear to have been a very tough decision but I still maintain an incorrect and dangerous one that will be challenged in the future when this capability gap comes home to bite us.

Finally, thank you for your constructive criticism to my question and the interesting points you have raised.

Regards, DFM.

[Lima Juliet]

(If you read this post please note I have got ASW and ASuW the wrong way around, but I can't change it because my iPhone can't scroll down in edit mode!)

DFM

I suspect that not one thing cancelled the project - it was everything added up as whole that did it. I hear (rumour) that on top of £3.5Bn we were looking at a whopping £200M per year in support costs for just 9 aircraft - I think that the Camel's back finally gave way! That's £390M each plus £22M per year to support each aircraft.

Out of interest the Boeing P-8 MMA is approx $20Bn for 122 aircraft, that's $160M each or £100M in UK money.

Now to get really simple (I'm good at that) take a 4 year capability gap and in support costs alone you are now in the market for 8x P-8s and I bet their support is cheaper, with less risk of further increases and doesn't have the "Nimrod stink" about it (I use that term light heartedly).

Now if we look at something like Predator B "GUARDIAN", then you could buy half a dozen aircraft and all the supporting paraphernalia for 1 year's worth of MRA4 support. The aircraft can fly for 20hrs at a time or more, has a cracking EO/IR turret and a great surface search radar. You could adapt an ASRA payload for it as well. No good for ASuW though, so we would have to rely on RN T22/23, Merlin/SK ASW and SSNs. But you could run 3x 20hr ASW/LRSAR sorties a day with about 15% of the manpower currently at KIS.

Here's some info on it: http://www.cbp.gov/linkhandler/cgov/border_security/air_marine/uas_program/guardian_uas.ctt/guardian_uas.pdf

So, my friend, I suspect the difficult decision was thought through with all the options laid out by Joint Capability and DUW/CapISTAR.

LJ

[general all rounder]

I completely agree. If there is one thing we should learn from the debacle of procurement in the last 20 years it is that in future the UK should buy off the shelf every time. Whilst we might not get cutting edge equipment we will get what we need to do the job faster and cheaper than hitherto. In any case if the assumption that there will not be a territorial threat against the UK for at least 30 years is correct why do we need to protect our Defence Industry. Furthermore it is not even as if companies like BAe are even British any more - they are international companies whose main business lies in the US, a Country which spends more than the next 20 big military spenders combined.

Let's stop pretending that we can build our own stuff any more and we will be much better off.

[vecvechookattack]

I completely agree. If there is one thing we should learn from the debacle of procurement in the last 20 years it is that in future the UK should buy off the shelf every time. Whilst we might not get cutting edge equipment we will get what we need to do the job faster and cheaper than hitherto. In any case if the assumption that there will not be a territorial threat against the UK for at least 30 years is correct why do we need to protect our Defence Industry. Furthermore it is not even as if companies like BAe are even British any more - they are international companies whose main business lies in the US, a Country which spends more than the next 20 big military spenders combined.

Let's stop pretending that we can build our own stuff any more and we will be much better off.

You are making the fatal error in believing that defence procurement is for buying kit and equipment for our Armed Forces.

Sadly, that is not the case.

Defence procurement is all about votes and jobs and in many respects that is how it should be.

[Duncan D'Sorderlee]

Incidentally, there is nothing 'off the shelf' about the P8; they just have a better PR department.

The only 'off the shelf' MPA that I can think of (I am sure that I will be advised accordingly) are the Atlantique and the Japanese P1.

Duncs:ok:

[Softie]

The main reason for the cancellation of the MRA4 is money. Despite all the money and effort expended on this late and costly project, BWoS would not provide a support contract that MOD could afford. These discussions have been going on for years and BWoS still wanted blood and more profit. They thought the project was too big for the Government to pull the plug on. Wrong! It is the future costs that broke the bank.

PS. There were no issues or delays with the mission system software. This was delivered some years ago to specification by Boeing. It just didn't have a working airframe to fly in.

[Mend em]

LJ

A well argued piece as with most of your posts.

One topic that seriously affected the date of the military release to service was the new MAA not being really clear on their remit - and for a number of months, neither the MAA (which turns out in practice to be advisory not an 'Authority'), nor the 'Duty Holder' in 2Group - who was given some authority but was not informed of how he was to assure himself, nor the IPT (bar one or two class acts who worked round the clock to find a way of saying 'yes' when there was a whole range of 'my processes are not quite mature enough' stakeholders too worried about something this serious called a 'Nimrod' in the post HC world to say anything other then 'not yet') had much of an idea how to complete a release to servie.

Incidentally, I look forward to the first time the MAA ask a US supplier if they wouldn't mind reworking their design evidence, for free, in line with a newly introduced set of UK Def Standards, a decade into a programme.

[gareth1946]

i agree.
we wouldnt have been able to track boats carrying arms to ireland without it.and boats carrying drugs.i remember a nimrod being used on surveillanve of a boat carrying drugs to north wales,without the minrod we would most likely have lost the boat.and top cover for long distance sar comms.

[F3sRBest]

still wanted blood and more profit

Ah that old chestnut again.... Argh

[Pontius Navigator]

The only 'off the shelf' MPA that I can think of (I am sure that I will be advised accordingly) are the Atlantique and the Japanese P1.

Duncs:ok:

Surely the Atlantic, and then Atlantique, were bespoke MPA and not off the shelf.

The Nepture was also a bespoke design.

The Shackleton was also bespoke although based on the Lancaster.

The P3 and Nimrod OTOH were both extensively modified from commercial aircraft and therefore nearer off the shelf (some shelf).

[gpn01]

Surely the Atlantic, and then Atlantique, were bespoke MPA and not off the shelf.

The Nepture was also a bespoke design.

The Shackleton was also bespoke although based on the Lancaster.

The P3 and Nimrod OTOH were both extensively modified from commercial aircraft and therefore nearer off the shelf (some shelf).

Does this count...
Ilyushin Il-38 Maritime Patrol / ASW Aircraft - Naval Technology (http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/ilyushinll-38/)

[Pontius Navigator]

Does this count...
Ilyushin Il-38 Maritime Patrol / ASW Aircraft - Naval Technology (http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/ilyushinll-38/)

As . . . ?

The IL38 was an Electra/Orionski.

[RumPunch]

It was cancelled as all the top brass seemed it would be far more important to have fast jets than see something as good as the MRA4 come into service. With potential upgrades to be used to drop bombs and be of a high signifigance in the war in afghanistan the CAS or whatever he is called now seen that as a threat to the fast jet community and hence it was canned. When he came to Kinloss to deliver his speach you can tell something from a face, he was scared and way out of his league. I just hope we have a public enquiry over this situation as he needs to walk now. Spineless very typical of fast jet command these days

[Party Animal]

LJ,

"But you could run 3x 20hr ASW/LRSAR sorties a day with about 15% of the manpower currently at KIS".

No you couldn't and here's why. ASW requires the extensive dropping of sonobuoys and no unmanned platform currently has that capability or payload option. Added to that is the huge bandwidth requirements of passing acoustic data back to homeplate. Two options therefore would be a huge UAV (Nimrod sized) or lots and lots of Pred B sized platforms that had been suitably modded. Aircraft like the S3 Viking could only carry a small percentage of buoys required in this day and age, so you should be able to see the enormity of the problem. I agree that UAV's have a part to play in routine surface search, which is why the USN is bringing in BAMS to complement the P8. But ASW? - that must be at least 40 years off...

[Mend em]

Softie,

The MRA4 support contract had been under discussion for well over 6 years. The company has provided 5 proposals in the last 4 years, all within the target cost set by DE&S, only for the target to be changed each time before a contract could be agreed. The final proposal was for around £70m per year - the rest of the £200m quoted are the RAF's costs (including RAF Kinloss costs I would think). That is what has been saved - b:mad:er all.

[MrBernoulli]

Does it have Comet Wings?
Does it have Comet Engines?
Does it have Comet Systems?
The only commonality is the pressure shell.I'd be interested to know why MoD spent so much money on still using that "pressure shell". Why? It is a piece of ancient de Havilland history. Apart from the politics already mentioned here, is there any good reason why the MoD was still dicking about with a Comet fuselage? An inevitable waste of time and money, surely?

[Lima Juliet]

Party Animal

Apologies for getting ASW and ASuW mixed up - d'oh!

But I stand by my post on something like the Pred B "GUARDIAN" would make a good surface search MPA and LRSAR asset - as it already does for the US Coastguard and Border Protection Agency.

I also am dubious of your bandwidth argument for sonobuoys - full motion video is far more data hungry than acoustic waveforms, even at high sampling rates.

Point accepted on my scr3w up on ASW vs ASuW though.

LJ

[XV277]

I'd be interested to know why MoD spent so much money on still using that "pressure shell". Why? It is a piece of ancient de Havilland history. Apart from the politics already mentioned here, is there any good reason why the MoD was still dicking about with a Comet fuselage? An inevitable waste of time and money, surely?

Leaving aside (for now) the issue as to whether or not it was a good idea to use a modified Nimrod design in the first place, the reason for using the 'old' fuselage pressure shell was an attempt to save money.

The techniques used to build it originally are no longer available. So you would have had to redesign the fuselage from scratch - it may externally resembled a Nimrod, but would have had 90s build technology and had to be built with 90s standards as well. And would you design a new aircraft to a 1950s design?

In terms of the cancellation, don't overlook the purely political element - if we are to beleive the press coverage, the decision to cancel we made by Cameron himself. He would have wanted to have a big ticket/cost item to cancel as an example of Labour/MOD waste - and found the carriers were too tightly contracted to do so (word was he would have cancelled CVF2 in a heartbeat).

So he could stand up in the House of Commons and say 'You wasted £XB on this - we're not going to waste a penny more.'

[robin]

...bit like TSR2, really

[VinRouge]

But seriously, who would take a 60s panel beat stressed skin fuselage and expect to mate modern CNC milled wings onto it without a hitch?

Surely someone must have seen the problems with accomplishing this from the start?

They should have got a modern aircraft and converted it. Absolute dullards trying to save pennies then ending up costing them $$$ later. :ugh:

[Modern Elmo]

The P-8 taking off:

JetPhotos.Net Photo » N541BA (CN: 34394) United States - US Navy (USN) Boeing P-8A Poseidon by Jeremy Lindgren (http://jetphotos.net/viewphoto.php?id=6545133&nseq=4)

I'd suggest that the Navy buy fewer than 122 P-8's and more Global Hawks and other UAV's.

Don't see any technological barrier to equipping a UAV to dispense and "listen" to sonobuoys.

[TBM-Legend]

Time for a NATO MPA "Wing"...

Been done with E-3 so why not MPA/Tankers/Airlift..

The United States of Europe!

[Modern Elmo]

Time for a NATO MPA "Wing"...

Is this NATO MPA wing going to patrol the South China Sea and the Yellow Sea?

[Pontius Navigator]

Time for a NATO MPA "Wing"...
Is this NATO MPA wing going to patrol the South China Sea and the Yellow Sea?

Or be confined to the NATO area like Afghanistan or Iraq you mean? With the Naval forces unable to deploy into the Indian Ocean?

OK, not exactly like-for-like but not unrealistic. Anyway, the UK LRMP never went in to that part of Asia so what is new? The Asian TOO was divided at 105 deg East. That would remain a natural dividing line.

[ShuftyScope]

There is a petition going here if you are interested:

Nimrod MRA4 to be brought into service (http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/mra4/)

[davejb]

Elmo,
Don't see any technological barrier to equipping a UAV to dispense and "listen" to sonobuoys.

'Listening' to sonobuoys involves rather more than you'd think - you get a lot of different sounds that you then need to analyse/identify, at which point IF one of the sounds is the guy you are looking for you then need to decide target speed, depth, heading, position from what you hear - this involves comparing info from several buoys usually, and whilst aided by a sound knowledge of geometry there's still a touch of an art to it... basically several people working out possible combinations that make sense, whilst rejecting a number of combinations that would match most of the data but don't make sense.

Then there's the number of sonobuoys required - on two consecutive sorties I flew on we dropped 99 buoys each day, it'd be one hell of a UAV that could get airborned with that load aboard, never mind the acoustic processing equipment etc as well.

No, there's no technical barrier to dropping the odd buoy and recieving what it transmits - but you won't find any submarines by doing that.

Dave

[Lima Juliet]

Dave

If the average A-size sonobuoy weighs 15kgs then a MALE RPAS like Pred B can carry 1,500kgs then that's 100 sonobuoys. IIRC, Pred B has 7 hard points with a potential for a pod carrying 13 sonobuoys each.

I don't see that in the realms of Science Fiction? Don't forget that Pred B is bigger than an A-10 to look at, so it's a big old bird.

LJ

[Biggus]

LJ,

I'm sure you're a pretty clever guy, so you work it out....

AN/AQS-970/971 sonobuoy processor (Canada) - Jane's Avionics (http://www.janes.com/articles/Janes-Avionics/AN-AQS-970-971-sonobuoy-processor-Canada.html)

The AQS 970, as fitted to the MRA4, is capable of monitoring 64 sonobuoys at once. Given that fact, do you really think the aircraft was only expected to drop a maximum of 99 in a single sortie?

[Pontius Navigator]

And having got off with fulload of sonobuoys, detected, tracked, pinpointed and gone for the kill with . . .

Oh sh1t no torps.

[iRaven]

Now here's a question. Why are we still putting so much insistence on sonobuoys when things are moving along quickly with new technology. See link:

Asia Times Online :: China News, China Business News, Taiwan and Hong Kong News and Business. (http://www.atimes.com/atimes/China/LE13Ad01.html)

Is it just possible that we cancelled MRA4 because the sonobuoy is about to be rendered obsolete? It might also explain why the US were happy to take MAD off of their P8s?

I'm no ASW expert, but sonobuoys are a pretty old idea and surely we have been a little more inventive in recent years.

iRaven

[davejb]

I'm not just talking about the weight of buoys, I'd still be quite surprised to see it take off with 100 bouys strapped to it. That still leaves the acoustics processing equipment and either a data feed that can be sent in real time back to acoustic analysis operators or a very small crew of wet men.

Then, as has already been pointed out, you still need to kill it. So you'd better hang a few torpedoes on it.

Congratulations, you now have something that can do part of the LRMPA job.

Nothing against UAV, shove a good radar on it, feed the data back to a comfy desk for a dry man to sit at and you've got the ASUW side of things going quite well - add a couple of ASM's and the ability to feed targetting info to some FJ's and you are in business. I just don't see it replacing the wet team for ASW any time soon, not effectively that is.

Satellite detection still appears to be (you never quite know, we've had the odd surprise over the years after all) a 'wouldn't it be nice' idea rather than practical. Ideas like spotting the disturbance on the surface as a sub passes below are fairly old hat and I don't know but I'll bet nobody has got that idea to work. All the stuff about radar is of course cobblers against subs, to get radar to find a sub under water you first have to remove the water.

MAD is of course nothing to do with acoustics at all, so Iraven that's a complete non-sequitur, it might well have been removed for any of a number of reasons, but it wasn't due to a perception that acoustics was dead. As an ex dry man I'll freely admit that acoustics is still (probably) the only game in town v subs, unless somebody has got something going out of left field that they've kept very quiet about. It is bloody difficult though, which explains why people keep trying to find alternative methods to detect and localise subs.

Acoustics can refine your datum accurately enough to drop a weapon. I have no intention of giving away capabilities on this site but nothing in that article suggests to me that the supposed alternatives would refine the datum to the point that a weapon could be released., other than the acoustic sensors on ships/subs etc that are mentioned as possibly being used in conjunction.

Some/much of the stuff mentioned there will provide detection, but not localisation.

Dave

[Lima Juliet]

Dave

How about more than 1x RPAS then? There is such a thing called Multi Aircraft Control (MAC) where you can control up to 3 RPAS from one cabin - 2 dropping sonobuoys and 1 with weapons to finish the job (you could even have it engines running on the runway).

Three Pred B sized RPAS and all the Gnd Ctl Stns with associated support would still cost about 1/5th of an MRA4.

By the way, the processing would be done offboard the aircraft through digitally multiplexed datalinks - listening to multiples of them from the Gnd Ctl Stn would not be too problematic.

I would wager that we'll see ASW RPAS capabilities before 2020 from some nations.

LJ

PS. Enjoying this debate as it stimulates new ideas.

[Modern Elmo]

Satellite detection still appears to be (you never quite know, we've had the odd surprise over the years after all) a 'wouldn't it be nice' idea rather than practical. Ideas like spotting the disturbance on the surface as a sub passes below are fairly old hat and I don't know but I'll bet nobody has got that idea to work.

http://www.sarusersmanual.com/ManualPDF/NOAASARManual_CH10_pg245-262.pdf


[PDF] Chapter 10. Underwater Topography

10.2 Principle of radar imaging of underwater bottom topography. It has been known for more than thirty years that, under certain conditions, underwater ...

If you scrolll down into that PDF file, there are some synthetic aperture radar images of sea surfaces and of bottom topography beneath the surface. The SAR devices were mounted on satellites.

The little white specks in some of the images are surface ships.

No, no mention of submarines in this paper. "NOAA" is National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Admin. Not military.

http://www.sarusersmanual.com/ManualPDF/NOAASARManual_CH10_pg245-262.pdf

[Winco]

Leon & IRaven

Without giving too much away about this highly classified topic, anyone who knows anything about submarine detection, location and prosecution will tell you that you need more than just a couple of sonobuoys to achieve your goal. You very often need large numbers of buoys;

Fields and barriers are a typical example of the need for more than a couple of these devices, and next to the human eye ball and seeing the darned thing, the only other way of identifying your prey is by listening to it (assuming of course that he isn't going to stick a mast up and use his radar)

It is for these reasons alone that MPA are used for ASW. Detect, locate, prosecute.

Satellites are great for watching ships and subs leave port, but I fail to understand how they can detect a submarine submerged. Lets face it, it won't be the first time a whale has been mis ID's as a sub has it? So something quite big, under the surface, moving at say 5kts, would the wave movement and water dispacement be that much different to a small nuke?? I'm not so sure. However, stick a buoy next to it, and the sonics team will have an ident on it in seconds, literally.

As Davejb has explained it's all about being flexible and having the expertise 'on the spot' to make the right decisions. Your UAV, while a great bit of kit I'm certain, is no where near as good, capable or flexible as having a manned MPA.

Apart from the very basics, I don't understand sonics at all. It is indeed a 'kind of magic' to many of us. I have listened in while the wet team are tracking a contact and I have heard all of the squeeks, farts and burps, but it is truly an art to hear the lead wet or whoever in the team explain 'well that's a shrimp' thats a merchant ship, or thats the sub. That skill was achieved after many years and to loose it would be a disgrace and a huge loss.

I genuingly hope that something can be salvalged from this fiasco and that Nimrod can be brought into service. IMHO only a fool would argue that we don't need an MPA.

Winco

[Jabba_TG12]

Re the Il38 May.

Based on the Il-18 Coot. So, no different in that respect to the Orion, or in retrospect, Nimrod...

All initially commercial airliner designs adapted for MPA.

[ShuftyScope]

Leon

2 dropping sonobuoys and 1 with weapons to finish the job (you could even have it engines running on the runway).


How fast do you think these UAVs fly? Sat on the ground with engines running waiting for an attack solution? I really don't think that is a workable solution as the submarine has gone before the third UAV arrives.

[XR219]

...bit like TSR2, really

Except that, when that was cancelled, the government announced an option on F-111Ks instead (which eventually turned into F-4s and Buccs of course). They didn't say "Tactical strike and reconnaissance? We'll just have to do without that", like they have this time.

[VinRouge]

Assuming that you have line of sight of course. That type of bandwidth over a sat link would cost serious money.

What, an audio downlink occupying 30 times less bandwidth than the pred video feed that is routinely sent across satlink? :ugh:

[Pontius Navigator]

It might also explain why the US were happy to take MAD off of their P8s?

MAD is a very short range sensor. In WW2 Catalina with MAD had a range of about 400 feet. In the Straits of Gibraltar submarines entering the Med had to be no deeper than 330 feet. To detect submarines such submarines the aircraft had to fly at 50 feet.

MAD has improved but even so its range is still very limited. A fast moving submarine might be detected by MAD but move rapidly out of the detection zone.

Submarines can also hear aircraft so an aircraft conducting a MAD sweep can be avoided or evaded.

[cornish-stormrider]

So combine the Ucav drop platforms to a line of sight a/c like the E3 or summat and bolt in a few new desks.

The low and dirty does by remote, your ears are left in a pie shop and you could have a pod made so a fast jet could deploy a set of dinghys.


Sheesh. it's not rocket science is it.?

We need to get a/c that can role between many differnt fits, so big, fast, comfortable, long fatigue life and lots of spare wiggly amps and slots to plug gear in.

all in the nice "new" std of cable etc and scrap old gear and replace with newer and cheaper as it goes lifex

[Pontius Navigator]

It might also explain why the US were happy to take MAD off of their P8s?

MAD is a very short range sensor. In WW2 Catalina with MAD had a range of about 400 feet. In the Straits of Gibraltar submarines entering the Med had to be no deeper than 330 feet. To detect submarines such submarines the aircraft had to fly at 50 feet.

MAD has improved but even so its range is still very limited in the order of approximately 1,200 metres. A fast moving submarine might be detected by MAD but move rapidly out of the detection zone.

Submarines can also hear aircraft so an aircraft conducting a MAD sweep can be avoided or evaded.

[davejb]

Elmo,
I think you're being a deliberate wind up merchant frankly, but just on the off chance you really aren't -

your article on underwater topography clearly states in the intro that 'Under favourable conditions...' SAR has the ability to determine what the sea bed is like, in shallow waters, by observing the effect on the surface. Further that this requires a strong current to be present. None of this, in any way shape or form, suggests for one tiny moment that a submarine under the surface will produce a noticeable surface effect that can then be detected by a satellite. Even if it did, the sub would have to be in shallow water.

Mutiple UAVs - yes, although I'm far from convinced by it ... I think the costs, once you added the need for a satellite data link and a ground station for operators to man would probably get pretty big, all for a system that at the end of the day was less flexible when compared to an airborne tac team on an MPA. Considering that the MPA and crew can change role in minutes to SAR, ASUW, anti drug and all the other roles the Ninrod has performed I just don't see multiple UAVs as the answer.

(Unless of course you paint them red, and perhaps fly 9 of them at a time? After all, you can shove a dummy cockpit and pilot on to make folk think they're manned....)

I still think we need an LRMPA.
Dave

[Doptrack]

What, an audio downlink occupying 30 times less bandwidth than the pred video feed that is routinely sent across satlink

This shows just how dangerous a little knowledge is - Base assumption - Sonobuoys are analogue ie "only" need "audio downlink".

Wrong - most buoys are now digital and directional so you need a lot more bandwidth than you think.

OK I've no idea what bandwidth you need for the "pred video feed" but for 64 buoys you need one heck of a lot

[iRaven]

OK, I'm no sonobuoy expert but looking up DIFAR Sonobuoy Uplink on Google reveals an uplink data rate of 1200 bits per second; Full Motion Video from a RPAS currently in service is between 1000000 to 3000000 bits per second. Therefore, you could fit over 1000 digitally multiplexed sonobuoys on a single frequency within the same bandwidth of a 1st generation Predator!

The bandwidth argument doesn't stack up...

[MFC_Fly]

DIFAR, wot's that? Oh yeah, it's what was used before HIDAR, I remember :ugh:

At least reading some of these ASW 'experts' must be bring a few smiles to those that really know what they are talking about, in these dark days :rolleyes:

[Winco]

iRaven,

Sir, might I suggest that you stop posting on here because you are making a complete fool of yourself and displaying a total lack of knowledge as far as ASW is concerned.

Just for the record and to give you something else to look up on google on these cold, dark nights:

1. How many buoys do you believe a predator could carry?
2. What would be the total weight of that kind of payload?
3. Given that payload, what would be a reasonable length of 'on station' time?
4. How many of your predators do you feel would be required to track a soviet nuke from say the gaps down to the bay of Biscay?
5. How many predators in total do you think the RAF will need, to achieve that one single task?
6. What would the total cost be to the British public?

I guess that bringing 8 Nimrod MR4's into service, that have already been paid for and for which we already have the crews and infrastrucure in place looks a pretty good solution, wouldn't you agree?

For the record, we were using DIFAR buoys when I was on the fleet (infact we were still using Mk1C buoys (God forbid!!) when I joined the fleet) And I know nothing about HIDAR at all! You really do need to get more up-to-date with things mate.

Winco

[Mad_Mark]

iRaven, please don't listen to Winco - your posts are so enlightening :E Do tell where you are getting your vast maritime knowledge from? Is it the 1990's edition of "ASW For Dummies"?

MadMark!!! :mad:

[davejb]

Mmm,
according to RECEPTION OF UPLINK DATA FROM SONOBUOYS - US 2010/0110828 A1 - IP.com (http://ip.com/patapp/US20100110828) digital sonobuoy datarate max is 256k, so it rather depends on which buoys you are using.... and, of course, how many you are trying to monitor at a time.

As I've said before, I'm an ex Dry man, so the technical bits of sonobuoys aren't exactly at the forefront of my brain, but I think it would probably be a good idea not to downplay the hardware necessary to replace an airborne Tac team. Could they be replaced by UAV? Yes, of course, throw enough money and kit at the problem and eventually you'll manage it - but I think some on here believe you can do it by just buying a bunch of UAVs and strapping a few extra pylons bulging with sonobuoys under the wings. I really don't think it would be anything like that in reality, I also think it would cost an arm and a leg to accomplish....to end up with a less capable ASW platform.

Dave

[Lima Juliet]

AN/SSQ-53F DIFAR Sonobuoy

The AN/SSQ-53F is a NATO A-size sonobuoy manufactured for the U.S.
Navy which combines a passive directional and calibrated wide band
omni capability into a single multi-functional sonobuoy. This advanced
sonobuoy combines the capabilities of both the AN/SSQ-53D and AN/
SSQ-57 sonobuoys.

http://www.sonobuoytechsystems.com/pdfs/Q53F2-2-10.pdf

Sonobuoy and Advancing Underwater Technologies (http://www.sonobuoytechsystems.com/products.htm)

The 1.2kbps data rate suggested by iRAVEN is a drop in the ocean (excuse the pun!) compared to video feed. If this is representative, then he is right that 100 sonobuoys is achievable within extant datalinks and 25 sonobuoys in a pod under 4 underwing hardpoints is also achievable.

I have heard nothing but bleating about "RPAS not being able to LRMPA" but I have seen no well reasoned argument to say why it is not possible. Let's look at what's in open source on General Atomics Predator B then:

http://www.ga-asi.com/products/aircraft/pdf/Predator_B.pdf

Ability to fly over 240KTAS - CHECK
Endurance over 30hrs - CHECK
External Payload of 1361kgs (100 odd sonobuoys or 4x Stingray Torpedo) - CHECK
Multimode Maritime RADAR vice Lynx SAR/GMTI - CHECK
Comms Relay - CHECK
Over 3 mega bits per second Beyond Line Of Sight Datalink - CHECK
22" EO/IR turret (vice 15" MX15 on MR2) - CHECK
Range over 3,000nm - CHECK

On Jan 3/08, the US DSCA announced the United Kingdom’s official request for:

“10 MQ-9 Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) aircraft, 5 Ground Control Stations, 9 Multi-Spectral Targeting Systems (MTS-B/AAS-52), 9 AN/APY-8 Lynx Synthetic Aperture Radar/Ground Moving Target Indicator (SAR/GMTI) systems, 3 Satellite Earth Terminal Sub Stations (SETSS), 30 H764 Embedded Global Positioning System Inertial Navigation Systems, Lynx SAR and MTS-B spares, engineering support, test equipment, ground support, operational flight test support, communications equipment, technical assistance, personnel training/equipment, spare and repair parts, and other related elements of logistics support. The estimated cost is $1.071 billion.”


Affordability (the cost of 2x MRA4) - CHECK

Standing by for incoming from, to quote MFC_Fly, "those that really know what they are talking about, in these dark days"

LJ :ok:

[Grimweasel]

All sorted now - we will be using the French MPA resources - P3 Orion anyone?

[iRaven]

Davejb

Thanks for the link, but even at 256kbps (256000) then if digitally multiplexed you could get 12 sonobuoys back to a ground station within existing architecture for a single aircraft. Also, I notice that this is the maximum data rate in the article so I'm surmising that if a string of 50 or so is dropped not every buoy would be tx'g at 256kpbs (don't know...).

For the rest of you SOBs, what don't you understand by...

OK, I'm no sonobuoy expert

Unlike "Dave" on Sky, PPrune really is "the home of witty banter", eh? :ok:

iRaven

[iRaven]

Grimweasel

we will be using the French MPA resources - P3 Orion anyone?

Got to be a "Waaagh!" as the French use one of Breguet's finest, the Atlantique. Or are you saying "no thanks" and want to fly P3s down-under on a transfer instead?

iRaven

[Pontius Navigator]

Ability to fly over 240KTAS - CHECK
Endurance over 30hrs - CHECK
External Payload of 1361kgs (100 odd sonobuoys or 4x Stingray Torpedo) - CHECK
Multimode Maritime RADAR vice Lynx SAR/GMTI - CHECK
Comms Relay - CHECK
Over 3 mega bits per second Beyond Line Of Sight Datalink - CHECK
22" EO/IR turret (vice 15" MX15 on MR2) - CHECK
Range over 3,000nm - CHECK

100 sonobuoys - 30 hours endurance

Tracking a submarine with expendable air dropped sonobouys, as opposed to a dipping sonor, requires a number of bouys to be dropped around the submarine. As the submarine moves so more sonobouys must dropped around the submarine. Now I am well out of date on detection ability (just as well) but in the past we would need a minimum of 6 buoys per hour but against a quiet submarine in poor conditions this was at least 10 per hour. If the submarine was sneakier than many some of these 10 would be malplaced so more would need to be dropped raising the consumption to 15 per hour.

On the Mk 1 with 63 buoys we frequently dropped a full load in 5-6 hours.

With a 30 hours endurance, say 20 hours on task, a load of 200-300 buoys would be needed. Put another way, if you can't increase the load to match the endurance then you would need many more UAV.

Then there is the balance between Art and Science. The equipment used in ASW and SSW is incredibility advanced but it is employed by humans. Humans can do unpredictable things (as far as the machine is concerned) but can be predicted by experienced opponents. To double guess one's opponent is the art.

[VinRouge]

And with more than 1 UAV you hold the ability to drop multiple sonoboys in patterns, simultaneously, with hight accuracy based on software.

The "wets" could still be in the loop; they just would be away from the aircraft.

[ShortFatOne]

Does this Satelitte uplink/downlink thingy drop out as frequently as my Sky does everytime a dirty big cloud sits over ma hoose?

[Strato Q]

If ASW was easy from a UAV why aren't the Americans doing it?

I've dropped more than 200 buoys in 5 hours on task - but that might say more about my ability!

[iRaven]

SFO

Does this Satelitte uplink/downlink thingy drop out as frequently as my Sky does everytime a dirty big cloud sits over ma hoose?

It depends on your frequency of your satellite transponder up/downlink. Ku band can suffer from "rain fade" when precipitation approaches >4 inches per hour. However, Sky are too tight to turn the power output from their transponders to correct for this effect. Also, the lower end of Ku is less affected compared to the upper end. Finally, if you use X-band then the effect is even less but sadly your dish has to get bigger!

So if you aren't doing everything on the cheap like Sky (cheap dishes and LNBs as well) then you cannot compare your satellite TV experiences to RPAS flying; apart from the physics of the techniques involved.

iRaven

[ShortFatOne]

Wrong, the estimated cost is the figure quoted + the wasted £3.6 Bn by cancelling MRA4 + the cancellation and disposal costs + the additional, as yet unquantified, cost of another manned platform (+ training costs + support costs).

Why do you think the USA have gone for a twin pronged approach? The study the DOD commissioned on replacement of the P3 concluded that, whilst RPAS platforms could bring something to the party, you still needed a manned platform (just not so many).

So either Uncle Sam has got it wrong, or we know better.

Wanna take any bets?

[Lima Juliet]

StratoQ

If ASW was easy from a UAV why aren't the Americans doing it?


Well, there's BAMS to start:

Northrop Grumman "Lays the Keel" for U.S. Navy's First BAMS UAS Fuselage
MOSS POINT, Miss., Sept. 1, 2010 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Northrop Grumman Corporation (NYSE:NOC) and U.S. Navy officials celebrated the start of the first MQ-4 Broad Area Maritime Surveillance Unmanned Aircraft System (BAMS UAS) fuselage at the company's Moss Point, Miss. manufacturing facility today.

Construction of the first BAMS UAS aircraft introduces another variant of Northrop Grumman's RQ-4 Global Hawk High Altitude, Long Endurance (HALE) unmanned aircraft system platform.

"We are no longer a paper tiger as we begin construction on the jig load today," said Capt. Bob Dishman, BAMS UAS program manager, during the event. "As we continue with the airframe critical design review, we will be focusing on the production of this hardware. Our goal is to continue making early design decisions that will allow us to maintain schedule and deliver this capability to the warfighter as quickly as possible."

"With the start of this first BAMS UAS fuselage, Northrop Grumman renews its ongoing commitment to the U.S. Navy to provide our sailors with an unprecedented capability to deliver world-wide, wide-area, persistent, maritime ISR data in real-time," said Steve Enewold, Northrop Grumman vice president for BAMS UAS.

"The strong relationship we've enjoyed with the Navy on this program has been instrumental in its successes," said Enewold. "Facing our challenges openly as a team continues to be critical as we move the program forward."

The Northrop Grumman BAMS UAS is a multi-mission maritime intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) system that will support a variety of missions while operating independently or in direct collaboration with fleet assets. The BAMS UAS will be able to provide a continuous on-station presence while conducting open-ocean and littoral surveillance of targets. When operational, BAMS will play a key role in providing commanders with a persistent, reliable picture of surface threats, covering vast areas of open-ocean and littoral regions, minimizing the need to utilize other manned assets to execute surveillance and reconnaissance tasks.

The BAMS UAS program is managed by the U.S. Navy's Program Executive Office, Unmanned Aviation and Strike Weapons' (PEO U&W) Persistent Maritime Unmanned Aircraft Systems Program Office (PMA-262), located at Naval Air Station Patuxent River, Md.

BAMS UAS is the latest addition to a growing family of unmanned systems developed by Northrop Grumman. The BAMS UAS system builds on the company's extensive experience with autonomous flight control that includes thousands of flight hours by the combat-proven RQ-4 Global Hawk, the MQ-5B Hunter, the MQ-8 Fire Scout vertical takeoff and landing (VTOL) tactical unmanned system ─ the first completely autonomous VTOL aircraft to land aboard a Navy vessel underway ─ and the X-47B Unmanned Combat Air System, the first unmanned air vehicle scheduled to perform carrier landings.

Northrop Grumman Corporation is a leading global security company whose 120,000 employees provide innovative systems, products, and solutions in aerospace, electronics, information systems, shipbuilding and technical services to government and commercial customers worldwide. Please visit Northrop Grumman Corporation - A Leader in Global Security (http://www.northropgrumman.com) for more information.

CONTACT: Jim Stratford
Northrop Grumman Aerospace Systems
(321) 726-7526
[email protected]



And they're just starting on the finer detail now:


UAV For ASW

Oct 7, 2010

Posted by John Keller

LAKEHURST NAS, N.J., 7 Oct. 2010. Unmanned aircraft specialist AAI Corp. in Hunt Valley, Md., will design airborne sensor technology that may enable unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) to detect and attack submerged enemy submarines and surface warships, as well as attack ground targets and participate in electronic warfare operations, as part of a $30.2 million U.S. Navy research contract awarded Wednesday.

For these kinds of missions, AAI Corp. researchers are seeking to improve acoustic, electro-optical, radar, magnetics, and other sensors primarily for manned and unmanned aircraft, but which also could be applicable to ground, surface, and undersea deployable uses, as well as to anti-submarine warfare (ASW). Awarding the contract are officials of the Naval Air Systems Command, Naval Air Warfare Center Aircraft Division at Lakehurst Naval Air Station, Md.

AAI will develop sensor technology to support Navy undersea warfare, airborne strike, air warfare, counter-air warfare, close-air support and interdiction, defense suppression, electronic attack, naval warfare and amphibious, strike, and anti-surface warfare as part of the Navy research contract.

AAI Corp. specializes in unmanned aircraft and ground-control technologies; high-fidelity training and simulation systems; automated aerospace test and maintenance equipment; armament systems; and logistical support, and is an operating unit of Textron Systems in Providence, R.I. In recent years AAI has enhanced its capabilities in electronic warfare of ESL Defence Limited of the United Kingdom.



We can dwell on the past manned programs or catch the wave that is building fast for an ASW RPAS...the time is now.

LJ

[Lima Juliet]

SFO

Why do you think the USA have gone for a twin pronged approach? The study the DOD commissioned on replacement of the P3 concluded that, whilst RPAS platforms could bring something to the party, you still needed a manned platform (just not so many).

So either Uncle Sam has got it wrong, or we know better.

If you're still at Preston/Warton then get a visit to the hangars/buildings on the south side and ask them whether they think it is possible. The study you talk about for P3 replacement happened a few years back and things are advancing fast since then. Have a chat with the UAS team and I'm sure you'll see a different perspective.

LJ

[ShortFatOne]

Thanks for the informative response. What I am driving at is that, by definition, a LRMPA tends to spend a lot of its time flying around in some pretty grotty weather, in the North Atlantic, in the middle of winter.

The potential RPAS solution will need to be able to cope with cloud depths of 20000ft or greater, hostile weather conditions including turbulence and icing, amongst other things.

We would also have to work out new methods of setting buoys electronically (currently done manually by a crew member), not insurmounatble I guess but adds to the cost.

Finally, on the back of LJ's obvious enthusiasm to spend his RAF career sitting in a tin box playing with his joystick;), MRA4 with a full rack fit could carry in excess of 200 buoys, plus additional buoys boxed up if required. I could do that and carry 9 torpedoes in the Bomb-bay and I haven't even used the 4 wing hard points yet.

[Lima Juliet]

SFO

Mate, the days of "drivers airframe" in aircraft will slowly get limited and load carrying by RPAS/UAS are getting bigger and bigger. Here's one you might see if you go "southside":

http://www.satnews.com/cgi-bin/display_image.cgi?69863265

And if you're really hung up about having a bomb-bay then there's this that will even operate of a carrier:

http://i674.photobucket.com/albums/vv108/junglejunky123/predator_c_avenger_small.jpg

Times are changing, take a look at SDSR and the direction towards RPAS/UAS is clear.

LJ

[iRaven]

ShortFatOne

The potential RPAS solution will need to be able to cope with cloud depths of 20000ft or greater, hostile weather conditions including turbulence and icing, amongst other things.


Yup, it's all possible.


As part of the technology demonstration phase of the programme, the services put a Predator B in the environmental testing chambers at Eglin Air Force Base (http://www.eglin.af.mil/) in Florida for one month in March 2008 to detemine the effects of humdity, moisture, ice and snow on the aircraft. Upgrades to the aircraft as a result of testing include gaps and seals for the airframe. To handle the power needs for the de-icing system, General Atomics will upgrade the aircaft's 10kV alternator to 45kV.


Source: Guardian leads Predator B modernisation push (http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2009/12/14/336046/guardian-leads-predator-b-modernisation-push.html)

[grousehunter]

LJ -

I take it you are up to speed with maritime procedures and have spent many years on the MR2/4 or equivalent.

If the answer is yes, could you confirm that operating one of your new fangled UAV's is basically the same as being in the sim? I take it we would just replicate the MRA4 (go with me here) mission system and just make sure that all the sensors had the appropriate inputs. That would be brill! I take it you know what i mean? Its all very well operating a UAV at medium/high altitude doing orbits and then targeting a benign environment to one which is hostile (weather, sea state) at low level and takes multiple sensor inputs/human inputs to search, track and prosecute an enemy submarine.

A pred B uses a camera (whooooooo), radios (whooooo) some form of targeting, a weapon system and thats about it. UK Reaper consists of what 3 operators per crew? (yes i am sure there are all sorts of sneaky beaky sensor pods but this is unclass)

I know that some day this will be possible. But is that the right solution today? You quote google/BAE etc but I don't really feel you understand the human aspect of maritime operations and lack the knowledge to back up your persistence that it was a) right to cancel MRA4 and b) we have the capability now and soon to replace it. (my views on the project put to one side)

[Lima Juliet]

Grousehunter

No, I am not current or ex-Kipper, but the arguments being thrown back seem a little on the weak side to me. To be quite honest they are they same type (save for the actual capability) as those thrown up by the FJ community and other manned ISTAR assets. I agree that a force mix of manned and unmanned is what we need to field for now for the more dynamic tasks. But let's face it, if the MPA mission involved dynamic manoeuvring then we wouldn't have chosen a converted Comet airliner to do it, would we? Flying a Beyond Line Of Sight RPAS at low-level is simples because the satellite signal reaches down to sea level anywhere within the transponder's very big footprint. Why do we fly them at medium altitude right now in Afghanistan - simples, so the bad men with big beards can't hear us watching them! :ugh:

You have to stop thinking about 1x RPAS servicing a single sub; you could use 10x RPAS and all the support for the cost of single MRA4 targetting that same sub. How's that for coverage? You have to stop thinking about how we operate MALE UAS in Afghanistan versus how we would operate in a MPA UAS role. Also, there are way more than 3 crew operating a single RPAS when you consider all the exploit task done on the SAR/GMTI and EO/IR (keeping it unclass) - all you do is swap out the IAs for "wet and dry" men.

Ever heard of General Ludd or the George Corrie Society? Try Google and see what it means to progress. Plus remember that "One person’s technological outrage is another’s miraculous salvation".

LJ :ok:

PS. Pontius, I'm not ignoring you but VinRouge answered your point for me!

[glad rag]

Ladidadida....

Chinese Anti-Satellite Capabilities (http://www.globalsecurity.org/space/world/china/asat.htm)

so how long is your uplink going to last?:cool:

[The B Word]

Glad Rag

That was a near-earth orbit ASAT shot (865km away), the Ku sats are in geo-stationary (35,000km away). To shoot down a geo-stationary you would need to perform a Hohmann Transfer Orbit - that would give the defending satellite about 1/2 a days' notice that it's coming. You then just manoeuvre the satellite after the ASAT missile is on its way and it misses by miles.

By the way, most ASAT missions will commit fraticide of one's own capability as well. Also, if you go for an exo-atmospheric nuke then it would probably quickly escalate to about 20-30 minutes of "exchanges" and then the Cockroaches would inherit the Earth. :ugh:

ASAT against anything above LEO just isn't a viable tactic in my opinion without risking all-out war.

The B Word

[VinRouge]

Not to mention you will pretty quickly frag everything at geostationary altitude with the resulting debris field.

That includes the bad guys sats too...

[Winco]

Leon, iRaven

Are you both aware that the 8 MRA4 aircraft have already been paid for by you and I??

I fail to understand why you are so hell bent on just throwing away the thick end of £3 billion and starting a fresh with UAVs.

I can perhaps see a role for the UAV in future ASW/MAROPS perhaps, but we don't have them yet, we don't have any money to buy them yet, however we do have 8 MRA4's ready to go now.

As for all this about You have to stop thinking about 1x RPAS servicing a single sub; you could use 10x RPAS and all the support for the cost of single MRA4 targetting that same sub What are we going to do when we have more than a single sub to prosecute Leon?? call up more RPAS?

WE DON'T HAVE ANY MONEY TO BUY RPAS, don't you get it? What we do have are a bunch of MPAs that are probably going to be scrapped, at a ridiculous cost to us all. It is stupidity beyond belief, and all of your drum-banging about RPAS is great, but we can't afford them now.

[TBM-Legend]

Don't worry you can now share a few Atlantic MPA's with your new best friend from across the channel....:\

[ORAC]

WE DON'T HAVE ANY MONEY TO BUY RPAS, don't you get it?

Ares: More About Landmark 50-year Anglo-French Defense Treaties (http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&newspaperUserId=27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7&plckPostId=Blog%3a27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3a8b92e30e-27b1-4489-a295-03e2f735bf6b&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest)

Adding detail to Bill's post Entente Cordiale, Meet Special Relationship here, in a nutshell, are the main elements of the “Declaration on Defense and Security Co-operation” signed today by British Prime Minister David Cameron and French President Nicolas Sarkozy.

There are 17 points of agreement which include:......

UAVs - Joint development of a new Medium Altitude Long Endurance combat unmanned air vehicle to come into service between 2015-2020 and longer term research into the next generation of such vehicles.......

[Willard Whyte]

One wonders whether development of a new MALE UAV is stricly necessary, given that there are several suitable frame types available, and that capability is, by and large, dictated by the sensor fit.

Still, more cash for BAES/Dassault. What could possibly go wrong with the former's track record.

[davejb]

As well as the natural distrust of Brit Aerospace, should they fetaure in the propsed new UAV... in which case they'll first have to find an old UAV to reuse the fuselage...that quote re the new UAV being in service 2015-20 should ring alarm bells. At the very least, even if the new UAV could conduct ASW from the word go, that's several years of capability gap that I still don't believe we can afford.

Other UAV based solutions fall at the same fence in my view - their in service date would be similarly far off, and the cost would be high. Not as high as the cost of developing Nimrod from scratch, but then it's already paid for and whilst I'll admit I'm no expert on the cost side of thing I doubt you'll get a fleet of UAV ASW platforms for anything you could consider non eye watering.... You need:

UAVs with a sizeable sonobuoy load, there is no point in a loing loiter time if you have no stores to drop, subs tend to move out of buoy patterns fairly quickly.

The ability to take the data uplink, fire it reliably to a geostationary satellite, which can retransmit to land where suitably analysis equipment and operators are colocated with tactical staff, ie replicating the Nimrod tac area. This replication makes sense because Nim crews proved repeatedly they were extremely good at this difficult role, only an idiot plays with a effective system. The bandwidth would be quite large, you want to be able to monitor several dozen buoys simultaneously.

These two requirements suggest to me multiple UAVs per target, you'd have to look at the buoy load and dispensing capabilities to decide how many buoys you could fly per UAV, buoy setting would need to be dealt with but if you can get the rest to work then I doubt that'd be a problem.

You would probably also want a radar, you'd feel really stupid if the acoustics guys suggested the target had surfaced to fire or something and you had no way to check that.

You'd probably also want a torpedo capability, as that's the final leg of the game and there's no point having a peacetime only system.

Buoy loads, torpedo load etc - I'd be guessing, but my guess would be that you'd need several UAV's per contact, allowing for turnround etc I think the fleet would have to be a couple of dozen to replace the MRA4 on ASW.

Now we need to design and develop it, get the sensors to work on it as advertised etc.... that sounds like a long job to me. On the other hand MRA4 would (allegedly) be flying by Feb 2011, and buying a different MPA if you are allergic to Nimrod would, I think, give us our capability back rather faster than developing an ASW UAV would.

My main gripe about UAVs is that people are describing as yet imaginary systems as if they exist and are proven.... and I have yet to read any of the linked 'adverts' about UAVs that describe HAVING a capability - they all say 'are hoping to develop' or 'intend to develop' etc.

Dave

[Modern Elmo]

That was a near-earth orbit ASAT shot (865km away), the Ku sats are in geo-stationary (35,000km away). To shoot down a geo-stationary you would need to perform a Hohmann Transfer Orbit ...

A Hohmann trajectory is the minimum energy path needed to attain a higher orbit. It's not the necessary path.

... that would give the defending satellite about 1/2 a days' notice that it's coming. You then just manoeuvre the satellite after the ASAT missile is on its way and it misses by miles.

Only if the target satellite can maneuver, and the anti-satellite device cannot. And only if the operators of the target satellite know that something is coming.

By the way, most ASAT missions will commit fraticide of one's own capability as well. Also, if you go for an exo-atmospheric nuke then it would probably quickly escalate to about 20-30 minutes of "exchanges" and then the Cockroaches would inherit the Earth. :ugh:

Neither the USA nor its likely opponents in space would have to use nukes to attack each other's orbital platforms.

ASAT against anything above LEO just isn't a viable tactic in my opinion without risking all-out war.

You think that shooting down an opponent's low Earth orbit satellites would merit only a diplomatic protest, or what?

[Modern Elmo]

Worth reading:

Technology Opens Military Space


Nov 2, 2010

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story.jsp?channel=defense&id=news/dti/2010/11/01/DT_11_01_2010_p34-262431.xml&headline=null&next=10 (http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story.jsp?channel=defense&id=news/dti/2010/11/01/DT_11_01_2010_p34-262431.xml&headline=null&next=10)

"The only known hardware to emerge from this effort is the Boeing X-37B, which is still on orbit as this issue goes to press (DTI October, p. 30), and which Cheng said is causing “conniptions” among Chinese space bloggers."

[ShortFatOne]

You make the point far more elegantly than I could.

I have no doubt that RPAS is a significant part of the future, it is inevitable. But they are largely unproven in the MPA roles and whilst I am sure they will prove their worth one day, we simply do not have the resources at the moment to develop that capability.
LJ.

I have been southside often, I also know several of the team rather well. We are still some way from any sort of capability.

[Pontius Navigator]

Now we need to design and develop it, get the sensors to work on it as advertised etc....

Theoretical physics is one thing, practical application another. None of the Nimrods worked out of the box. They worked but it took the ingenuity of the crews get them to work in an optimal manner.

Besides the crews there was another essential feature - the ocean and targets. You need to get your sensors into the working environment and you need submarines so that you can prove they work. To do that you need an airframe. Unless you have some form of trials platform then you are limited to sequential development which would stretch the timeframe even more.

Now where could we get a suitable trials platform at a low cost and short timescale?

[Small Spinner]

The effects that summer and winter operations can have on the expenditure of sonobuoys is quite dramatic.
The presence of a temperature decrease (thermocline) during the summertime in the top 300ft can make the cat and mouse localisation and tracking of a submarine very difficult. The subsequent increased expenditure in sonobuoys would be a major problem for UAVs.

Working in industry, it really is pie in the sky to make bold statements about capability, which only exists on a bit of paper. If the managers say 5 years for a system, you can double it and add a bit, unless of course, you throw vast amounts of money at it, as the US have done in the past.
Not sure whether they will be doing that soon, as their budget deficit is just about to hit industry over there as well.

PS It feels that my time spent on Nimrods was sort of wasted, by a decision to scrap the capability. Something in me feels empty, in the decision to close Kinloss, and I wish all the best to the folks up there. Sad sad times.

[sargs]

Small Spinner:
PS It feels that my time spent on Nimrods was sort of wasted, by a decision to scrap the capability. Something in me feels empty, in the decision to close Kinloss, and I wish all the best to the folks up there. Sad sad times.

Exactly how I feel. Even those of us who have seen ISK in our rear-view mirrors for the last time feel a deep affinity for a place and time which set the foundations of what we subsequently became. A couple of tours on Maritime were essential to knock the rough edges off a newly-qualified AEOp, and it's pretty obvious that those who haven't done it, or weren't very good at it, didn't develop as professionally as their compatriots in the rear-crew world (no offence, Shep!).

[VinRouge]

Winco,

we didnt have Jack until MRA4 had a release to service.

until that point, we had a parly proven experimental aircraft.

BAE ahould hang their heads in shame over the entire project.

[F3sRBest]

BAE ahould hang their heads in shame over the entire project.

Interested to hear why you think that...?

[VinRouge]

Starters for 10:

"Nimrod 2000"

Original project cost vs what we have paid up to now?

Why did it not have a release to service?

Why did we bolt modern wings on a 50 year old fuselage?

[4mastacker]

Interesting listening to the House of Commons debate on the SDSR today. Without exception, none of the MPs taking part in the debate supported the Governments decision to remove the capability. They were all united in the desire to see the capability maintained and they were all aware of the risks that were being taken through that bad decision. The Government's man - Nick Harvey - said the decisions were 'coherent': but he would say that wouldn't he? He also forgot to add the 'in' prefix.

[sumps]

Would its swift endung have some thing to do with this:

Safety Issue Suspends MR4A... (http://www.janes.com/news/defence/systems/jdw/jdw101011_1_n.shtml)

S

[F3sRBest]

Original project cost vs what we have paid up to now?

Why did it not have a release to service?

Why did we bolt modern wings on a 50 year old fuselage?

Sometimes you get what you ask for... much of the problem lies with the Defence procurement and funding systems and an inability to set a requirement and stick to it!

[VinRouge]

Or perhaps BAE were more than happy to take valuable defence expenditure on a project they botched.

[F3sRBest]

I don't think Nimrod has been a 'cash cow' somehow.

[Lima Juliet]

Sumps

The writer of your article is Tim Ripley, who I believe was at the Press Day at the Air Combat Power Visit at RAF Waddington for Advanced Staff College students this October. I suspect that his story has come from that event due to the timing of the article and the date of the Press event. There were lots of questions about "where is MRA4?" which was conspicuous by its absence!

From what I read, he looks like he is "on the money" and that is similar to what I've heard.

LJ

[grousehunter]

F3 said - "Sometimes you get what you ask for... much of the problem lies with the Defence procurement and funding systems and an inability to set a requirement and stick to it!"


Which is fine, and i agree that the MOD and Defence procurement tend to inflate the specification as time goes on. But did BAE actually deliver to spec? All there appeared to be was an attitude of continually taking the easy option and a lack of any real commitment to the project. The complete lack of interest towards mission system testing in particular. How did we get into such a mess with the build quality of the aircraft? If PA4 had been built to spec and correctly i am sure it would have been at Kinloss and we wouldn't be reading this here now. Luckily the MAA guys were all over it; but uncovered a multitude of mistakes.

BAE SHOULD hang their heads in shame, because it is they that have royally screwed this up.

[Mend em]

Sumps

No.

[tucumseh]

The complete lack of interest towards mission system testing in particular. Did the contract include this? Of course, it should. But, the MoD(PE) / DPA senior staffs of the day (96-on), especially the 2 Star, were quite adamant – such “nice to haves” should be ditched if they compromised cost and time. The likes of AMSO/AML had already decided this in about 1990 and set about dismantling the infrastructure to facilitate it. This left many MoD(PE) projects high and dry, requiring years of Risk Reduction to stabilise projects, when costings and the approval to proceed had been based on the assumption that AMSO/AML would do their job. (Never assume, never believe what you’re told, always confirm first hand; especially on a programme dependency to be delivered by MoD. MRA4 is a classic example. It required AML to deliver an airworthy MR2. Why assume they would when it was policy not to?).



The fact that not integrating and testing precluded the establishment of an installed performance and, hence, Release to Service, didn’t bother them in the slightest. If the contract did include this, it wouldn’t be the first time the contractor chanced their arm and asked for it to be waived, and came up trumps when some dipstick agreed. That is like handing over a blank cheque – again, something said 2 Star more or less insisted on (in fact, he placed this in writing in 1998 and was supported by his 4 Star, CDP). Not saying it happened exactly this way on MRA4 but this is precisely the ethos described by Haddon-Cave and umpteen audits before him.

How did we get into such a mess with the build quality of the aircraft? That’s what MoD’s Director General Defence Quality Assurance is there to help prevent. Oh, wait a minute.

Not as simple as blaming MoD, “Procurement” or BAeS. The cancellation and the way it is being “sold” is quite clearly a device to deflect attention away from those responsible. If the Government came out and said it is down to serial incompetence and maladministration a public inquiry would be warranted. After all, we had a Public Accounts Committee report into Chinook HC Mk3, which wasted a pittance compared to MRA4. Perhaps that should be re-opened and Nimrod added to the agenda as an efficiency measure. After all, it would be the same 2/4 Stars who had to answer questions (not that they ever will). The protected species. They are not solely to blame, but interviewing them would certainly expose more detail about what happened than we’ll ever know through pprune posts.

[Duncan D'Sorderlee]

Fear over decision to scrap RAF Nimrod fleet as Ministers admit to 'capability gap' | Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1326704/Fear-decision-scrap-RAF-Nimrod-fleet-Ministers-admit-capability-gap.html)

Duncs:ok:

[getsometimein]

Not that it matters...

The PM himself has taken it on risk, there's no going back against a decision like that...

Regardless of whether or not he knows what the risk actually is!

[davejb]

I think Tuc's post,
not for the first time, probably nails a significant factor in the progress from Powerpoint to flying shell to scrapyard for the MRA4.

It is very easy to criticise BWoS for milking a contract (although that doesn't really stand up to scrutiny...they'd LIKE to milk it I'm sure, but intent and 'what happened' don't really coincide here).

Until MoD and RAF accept that the only way to manage a project is to have somebody in charge from start to finish, rather than imagining (for some stupid reason) that it's more important to 'groom' people by passing them at 2 year intervals throuhg a major defence project, then we'll never get anything decent done on time, on budget.

It would also help if we didn't select items for the defence budget based on parliamentary boundaries and majorities.

We'd do better to buy off the shelf from Denmark - I don't care what it is, tanks, fighter jets, frigates or hot air balloons...

This is not a capbility gap taken on risk - that's just buzzword bingo - we have currently removed our own ability to protect our coastline, a situation that prevails right this instant, the reality is we would currently be pushed to deter the Vikings.

Dave

[Small Spinner]

One thing that seriously hampers any progress is the MOD PTs inability to coordinate their own efforts. Each are in their own little stovepiped areas, unable to coordinate overall improvements. The exact same is true in the defence industry, and individual SMEs, working their own little area.
Very few managers out there, are able to manage complex systems like the MRA4, both from the MOD PT, or Defence industry. IMO of course, and I have some good evidence to back it up.

[ShortFatOne]

What you correctly identify was as a direct result of the 'Smart Procurement' (oxymoron surely) process introduced over a period of time from 1999 onwards. There was nothing smart about it. It encouraged individual PTs to go off and do their own thing (an idea borrowed from industry) in an attempt to find better ways of working. That part was all well and good, quite a few PTs came up with some really good ideas. The problem was that, in order for the other PTs to benefit from the good ideas, they had to talk to each other.

Ah.

The situation was highlighted to me a few years back when a particular ageny, one of the few that remained responsible for centrally managing a particular service to the front line, pointed out that they had found in excess of a dozen contracts, from various PTs, all for the same thing. The suppliers must have been laughing their collective t*ts off.

[tucumseh]

SFP


What you correctly identify was as a direct result of the 'Smart Procurement' (oxymoron surely) process introduced over a period of time from 1999 onwards. There was nothing smart about it. It encouraged individual PTs to go off and do their own thing (an idea borrowed from industry) in an attempt to find better ways of working. That part was all well and good, quite a few PTs came up with some really good ideas. The problem was that, in order for the other PTs to benefit from the good ideas, they had to talk to each other.


What you say is very true except don’t be fooled by Haddon-Cave’s assertion that all this started with the formation of “IPTs” and “Smart Procurement” in the late 90s.
It has to be remembered what the SMART procurement “rules” were intended to replace. The ill-fated and ludicrous “Chief of Defence Procurement Instructions” (CDPIs). Lots of bright young things were recruited to work on them in the early 90s, the common denominator being a 5 year old could see the authors had seldom worked on or near a procurement project. It was thoroughly dispiriting being told to dumb down, delay projects, dilute specs and waste money. Many of the “good ideas” you speak of fell squarely in the “ignore the bosses and revert to pre-CDPI mandated regulations” category.




The situation was highlighted to me a few years back when a particular ageny, one of the few that remained responsible for centrally managing a particular service to the front line, pointed out that they had found in excess of a dozen contracts, from various PTs, all for the same thing. The suppliers must have been laughing their collective t*ts off.

Absolutely right, but (in the context of aircraft support and airworthiness) this was a policy first introduced in January 1988 by RAF suppliers (AMSO) and continued by their successors, AML and DLO. MoD(PE) railed against it but by the time they morphed into DPA the CDPI kids were in charge of the asylum and the official line was supine appeasement (of Industry and Beancounters). The waste and inefficiency it caused, never mind the safety implications, was formally notified to PUS (the Chief Accounting Officer) in June 1996. He did nothing. A paper was submitted to DPA’s Deputy CE (3 Star) in January 2000 recommending how to fix the problems (i.e. implement regulations) but he didn’t reply either.

To be fair to many suppliers, while they did laugh their tits off they also complained bitterly about the waste, because they knew the MoD budget was finite. If they had multiple contracts to administer on the same subject, it meant there was less to pay for the real, direct labour – like manufacturing, design and so on. Instead of attending Quarterly technical meetings on one contract, they had to employ professional-attenders-of-quarterly-meetings on, as you say, often a dozen contracts which simply regurgitated the same stuff. I can date this precisely, because I left that post in 1993.

As I said, fully agree, but substitute 1999 with 1988. BTW, the first Integrated Project team was formed in 1989 specifically to avoid the above problems which were causing severe operational IN-effectiveness due to AMSO’s wholesale and criminal waste of funding.

[Small Spinner]

Just spoke to a marine engineer contractor, who despairs at the project managers he has to work with. He is making money hand over fist, purely because the PM insists on doing things he has little concept of. He then has to fix the problems, incurring massive extra costs.
His main point is that most of these PMs have never really seen a job done properly, and therefore make, and insist on following, decisions that are often crass in the extreme.
Had a PM promise the customer that the job would be done in 4 days, and when the engineer found out had to inform him that it was a 2 week job. Isn't that page 1 of the project managers handbook? i.e. Ask your engineers before opening you mouth. Beyond belief.:ugh:

[Pontius Navigator]

project managers handbook? i.e. Ask your engineers before opening you mouth. Beyond belief.:ugh:

Can't remember exactly what but it was in th elast couple of months in the civilian arena, but work had been sought, contracts put out and agreed then turned over to the implementers.

The engineers went spare as what had been agreed bore no resemblance to their capabilities.

It make come to me what it was.

I know there was a similar issue on the Apprentice with an agreement to provide 1000 breadrolls and only baking 16!

[tucumseh]

Small Spinner

Again, you are right.

The problem is actually worse. MoD staffs are granted delegated authority on various matters; e.g. airworthiness, technical approval, financial approval.

Those 3 examples can only be given to engineers. (Financiers merely endorse the availability of the correct funding profile, they don’t approve commitment).

The problem is that the RAF (in1989) and MoD(PE) (a few years later), the latter’s Nimrod 2 Star in particular, regularly ruled that non-engineers could make and/or over-rule airworthiness, engineering and financial decisions. I have only ever known one IPTL (RN aircraft engineer) to jump on this, but he soon backed off when the 2 and 4 Star backed the non-engineer’s decisions. (The subsequent Boards of Inquiry (plural) made pointed references to the problems but, as usual, no action was taken).

An MoD “project manager” who is not an engineer is actually quite toothless. (Same applies to a Requirements Manager). Neither can carry out about 90% of their job. They sit twiddling thumbs because they have no real authority on the project. What does such a PM sign his name to? Where is the manifestation of his supposed authority? That, I believe, is what persuades many to leap in and demonstrate their “authority” by interfering in matters they know nothing about. A classic example I once experienced was the waiving of systems integration, EMC testing and Critical Design Review on an aircraft. Funny old thing, the BoI mentioned that as well, implying they hadn’t been implemented properly; not thinking for one moment they had been waived altogether.

My main point is that Nimrod is not an isolated case (MR2 or MRA4). It has been systemic since the late 80s.

[vecvechookattack]

The problem is actually worse. MoD staffs are granted delegated authority on various matters; e.g. airworthiness, technical approval, financial approval.

Those 3 examples can only be given to engineers. (Financiers merely endorse the availability of the correct funding profile, they don’t approve commitment).

Surely the Squadron CO is responsible for the airworthiness of his Squadron aircraft? Is that not the case?

[Pontius Navigator]

vec, not really.

On the merry-go-round of ideas the RAF went to centralised servicing which took responsibility for the aircraft away from the sqn commanders. Then sqn servicing came back in with HAS as the more convenient way of managing dispersed assets.

For the larger aircraft types they remained under a separate engineering regime with aircraft pooled between sqns or in the case of a single sqn allocated for mission to mission.

[vecvechookattack]

I'll have to check but I think that in the RN that privilege remains with the CO.... Can anyone correct me?

[tucumseh]

In the case of the MRA4, a consideration is the currency of aircrew, the level of which is set when constructing the safety case.

The decision to withdraw the MR2 early immediately invalidated this baseline assumption, requiring the evolving MRA4 safety case to be re-baselined and re-validated. If the RAF have gone from being able to confirm the crews fly x hours per month to "Nowt", then one cannot sign to say the safety case is valid. This dilemma faced by both BAeS and the MRA project office (with the RTSA packing his bags in the wings) would immediately become the critical path to meeting the ISD. The decision to stop flying the MR2 therefore, by definition, delayed MRA4.


Vec - My comments were based on my part of the world where delegation comes down through a different path. Yours is through Service Chiefs. The simple answer is to ask to see your CO's Letter of Delegation. I imagine one of his responsibilities relates to the above and requires him to ensure currency (including maintainers) and immediately inform his boss if, for whatever reason, he can't. That is, the requirement for ensuring constant feedback is probably his most imporant role in safety management because, of course, he has no control whatsoever over 99.9% of "airworthiness" but, like everyone, plays a vital part.

[Pontius Navigator]

Tuc, you remind me, there is a QR(RAF) about 1260 IIRC that refers to the authorised engineer or some such.

As my unit was contractorised and essentially Army centric, having been an RAF unit, the need for an authorised engineer was novel. Our contract manager spotted the anomaly and volunteered to undertake the role, he was an ex-RAF SEngO. Oh, and at no cost.

[Small Spinner]

The only areas that really seems to get a clean bill of health (or as much as can be assured) is the car, and commercial aviation industry, where competition ensures that work carried out is based on good practice engineering standards and quality.

As soon as you start going down the bespoke, low volume specialist projects (defence!) the lower the standard of management. Good engineers, of which there are many, are sidelined, over worked and pressurised into cutting corners. We then become totally reliant on their professionalism and integrity, to do the right thing, but there is a greater risk in working in this environment, as well as a greater risk of errors, mistakes and worse.

[cyrilranch]

Now that the MR4 is gone.
What plans has the MOD got to replace it function's with other aircraft or did not this occur to them when they cut the nimrod.
I understand that the C130K or J will take some of this roles,But how can it when they are been run down at a fair rates of Knots,Plus they will put out service by 2020.
Is there a plan to re-life a few C130J and convert then to MPA role once the A400 is fully in service?
You could fit the new seachwater 2000 system to be fitted to MR4( you will have at least 12 off system paid for siting in a store unless Bae system have got first dib's on them) on a palett and fit it as a roll on off system to what ever aircraft is avaiable. I would think this would not cost to much to do,plus you can have dual role aircraft.

what do you guys think?

[davejb]

I'm not an engineer, but I'd be surprised to find you could fit Searchwater to a C130 quite as easily as you imply, I'd have thought it would involve significant surgery. That'd still leave you looking for an acoustics fit, as ASW is very much in the acoustics baliwick.

Then you probably already needed your C130 as a transport aircraft - which I suspect is why all the talk about C130 covering the SAR duties of the suddenly retired MR2's didn't seem to turn into actual SAR sorties by C130s.... I am aware that C130 might well have done some SAR that I haven't heard about, but that SAR job in SWAPPS the other week required a French aircraft to go on task as I recall....

[ShortFatOne]

Cyril

It wouldn't just be aircraft design mods, the MRA4 Searchwater, like the rest of the sensors (excepting acoustics), was an extension of the Mission System. No Mission System, no radar.

You could redesign the workstation perhaps but it will cost money we don't have. If we can't afford what we've already paid for, how can we justify spending more money on an untried concept?

[AQAfive]

SFO
Not that I doubt you, but what about the DC3 trials ac? Just how different was that set up?

[sense1]

What plans does MOD have to replace its function...?? Well, as sad/shortsighted/insane as it is.... there are no plans to replace the capability mate. Not only the aircraft themselves have been cut, but the base/crews/expertise have been (or are certainly rapidly in the process of being) cut - not gapped, or stalled, or thinking about replacements, but gone. The MOD isn't about to spend £1 on putting maritime radars in Hercs or anything else - think about it dude.... if they wanted an MPA capability they would have kept the one that they had bought and paid for!!!!

Now, I absolutely do not in any way like the decision - it's extremely sad for those at Kinloss, the RAF and UK plc and I desperately hope that we don't have a situation in the world one day where we say 'mmm, could do with some MPA right now'. But, the fact of the matter is that it's gone - one day when (if!) the UK has stacks of cash to spend and defence is lucky enough to get an increase in its budget then the purchase of a fixed wing maritime patrol capability might be on the cards - but that is a long way off - certainly from the perspective of those folks at Kinloss right now. I don't want to sound like a c**t but people need to stop throwing around ideas for continuing the MPA capability when its been cut already - its just drawing out the pain.

[ShortFatOne]

I'm a driver airframes, so already seriously out of my depth! However, ISTR that the DC3 setup was designed primarily to test the scanner/tx interface and had a bespoke operator station that bore little resemblance to the production standard wkstn fitted to the production aircraft. As I mentioned in my previous post, patently it could be done, but it would cost.

[DFM]

After reading the many comments to my questioning of the decision to axe the MRA4, I will summarise and respond:

It’s gone so get over it: If only life were as simple as the people who made these comments :=
It was based on a Comet and should never have progressed beyond the drawing board: I think Mr Vettel’s car was based on the same principles as a model T Ford and I thought it performed reasonably well on Sunday
The idea of a manned aircraft for maritime surveillance is outdated: So every nation that is in the process of procuring replacements for their MPA (albeit in some instances to be supplemented with UAVs) have also misunderstood the requirement for a manned air vehicle; I think not
We have UAVs aplenty just waiting to spring into the air to do everything the MRA4 could have done and at half the price: Which is why the experts are saying that this future concept is still just that and many years away from reality. However, I suppose we do have time to replace JSF with a UAV? After all; it’s not been fully paid for yet, it’s some years off service, and we must have time to develop an alternative without incurring a capability gap if the technology is already out there. I bet we could save billions.
It was inevitable with a FJ centric AFB: So why did CAS and the AFB fight against this option, why was the preferred choice to retire more GR4 earlier and why have numerous VSO repeatedly said that this decision is short-sighted, wrong and dangerous…...oh and for good measure, that it will need to be reversed at the next SDSR
It’s removal will save us £1Bn in 10 years: I think you will find that there are serious concerns about the validity of this statement. I am told that this headline sound bite has already been proven to be very wide of the mark, more to follow when we realise how much we are really going to save
We can rely on other Nations to provide support to our carriers and the IND: Hmmmm, glad to see that at least the 1SL had the integrity to question this idea as well as to state just how uncomfortable he was with the decision to axe the MRA4
This decision is primarily driven by politics and has nothing to do with defence strategy: Give the gentleman a cigar! :DTo all who agreed with my sentiments and gave much in the way of supporting evidence, I give my thanks. To those who disagreed, it's good to debate. And to those who battle on against the stupidity of the decision, good luck. It is interesting to see just how many experts have already started to question the outcome. I also wonder how quickly independence will occur after they decide to close Lossiemouth? Because if they are going to use the same criteria as they did for Kinloss its closure seems somewhat inevitable. But on a plus side for the Govt, I guess it will make their re-election easier when the Scottish question is no longer an issue. :ugh:

DFM over & out.

[Dave Angel]

DFM over & out.


Ooooh :oh: it was going so well until then......:E

[DFM]

Think about it Dave. ;)

[Pontius Navigator]

DFM, you bit.

It is either Over or Out. Only Hollywood used Over and Out.

Think about it DFM.

[DFM]

Ironic really. :cool:

[kiwibrit]

It was based on a Comet and should never have progressed beyond the drawing board: I think Mr Vettel’s car was based on the same principals as a model T Ford and I thought it performed reasonably well on Sunday

Vettel's car neither looked like, nor (apart from having four wheels) was it configured like a Model T.

[iRaven]

:confused::confused::confused:

http://www.musclecarclub.com/other-cars/classic/ford-model-t/images/ford-model-t-1a.jpg
http://media2.blackfalconmedia.com/2009/3/medium/red-bull-rb5_16.jpg

vice

http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/graham-warwick/NimrodMRA4.jpg
http://www.alex.dhawan.me.uk/images/Comet.gif

[DFM]

iRaven,

A bit of banter and humour I appreciate.....nice one....and good pics.

A pity that Kiwibrit doesn't understood Inglish tho.....:confused:

Laugh, I nearly cancelled leave for everyone until morale improved.

DFM over & out

[DFM]

PN
Don't think it was just Hollywood......I reckon that Ealing studios (was one of many) that used it too. :{

DFM over & out

[GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU]

Slight thread drift but imagine what a Comet could have done with that MK4 mainplane and those donks.

[sumps]

With the new wave of "Bon-Accord" could this be the governments intended solution – and may be they will allow the French to have Moray area in exchange for protecting the northern approaches (french fishing rights?)

See - HERE (http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=defense&id=news/awst/2010/11/01/AW_11_01_2010_p0100-265684.xml&headline=France%20Eyes%20Maritime%20Surveillance%20Upgrades)

[The B Word]

Can anyone explain why....?

Yes, money! I heard today how much ditching Nimrod saves over 10 years and its 70% of what we have spent already (£ X.XBn). The in year costs after year 1 is far higher than has been stated on here - unfrickinbelievable amounts.

I guess it was a "bin to save" measure after all.

The B Word

[DFM]

Nice try BW.......;)


DFM over & out

[Mend em]

BW - I repeat again - the £2bn over 10 years is £200m pa, of which over half was the cost of running RAF Kinloss. What's so 'unbelievable'?

[tucumseh]

I wonder if MoD really knows the true cost of through-life support; of any aircraft.

One of the obvious things to "emerge" post-Haddon-Cave and formation of the MAA is that safety regulations must now be followed, whereas for 20 years it has been deliberate policy not to implement them, in the interests of "saving" money.

The upshot is that expenditure must increase at a time when the Defence Budget is being squeezed. Given it is 20 years since this was properly funded, how many people in MoD can even scope the actual requirement, never mind cost it? The only Def Stan containing the detailed procedures was scrapped 2 years ago. MoD haven't been able to provide a copy of it to staff since 1993 so there is nothing in the archives to look at.

There is a huge wheel to be reinvented. This constitutes a huge variable in the budget. Platform (not just aircraft) and Equipment IPTs are being asked to cost their "new" post-Haddon-Cave workload. Most are struggling, because they haven't a clue what is necessary. MAA audits are revealing crap Safety Cases by the bucketful but, witnessed by the Nimrod case, there is little corporate knowledge on how to resurrect them and the related disciplines. The bean counters will be seeing "TBA" all over these costings and, in their mind, the solution is to get rid of some variables - which means whole fleets.

[Sgt.Slabber]

Tuc,

You have a PM

[kiwibrit]

A pity that Kiwibrit doesn't understood Inglish tho.....http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/confused.gif
I can manage with my English, thanks.

Vettel has a rear mid-engine car with highly sophisticated multi-link suspension all round, and high-tech tyres and braking. It is highly streamlined. It bears almost no resemblance to a Model T - which had a transversely mounted semi-elliptical spring on the front and back axles, wooden wheels with primitive tyres, simple transmission braking, and the aerodynamics of a barn door.

In contrast, mechanically, there is a lot of similarity between the Nimrod and the Comet. When he designed the Model T, Ford would not have recognised what was going on in the Red Bull car, could he have seen it. On the other hand, De Havilland would have seen the relationship between his airliner and the MPA.

To say "I think Mr Vettel’s car was based on the same principals as a model T Ford and I thought it performed reasonably well on Sunday" rather suggests that there is as much similarity between Vettel's car and a Model T as there is between a Nimrod and a Comet. That is not the case. Thus the wisdom of using a tired design with direct provenance the 1940s remains open to question.

[Modern Elmo]

The Comet design with the engines buried in the wings was OK for turbojets or early generation turbofans, because of the low bypass ratios and smaller diameter of those engines.

However, newer turbofans have larger bypass rations, larger diameters, and therefore btter specific fuel consumption. The Comet design cannot accomodate up to date engines for aircraft in the B737 or Airbus A319-20 category.

Compare the engine bypass ratios and advertised unefueled ranges of the P-8 to the NImrod MR-whichever.

[Duncan D'Sorderlee]

I think that the BR-710 engine was pretty good. The MRA4 was not the only ac to use it -or at least the series. And the MRA4 unrefuelled range was pretty good.

BR700 - Rolls-Royce (http://www.rolls-royce.com/civil/products/smallaircraft/br700/)

Duncs:ok:

Not that it matters any more.:{

[kiwibrit]

Problems with buried (as opposed to podded) engines:
Harder to access for servicing
Usually harder to change.
The wing spar has to be designed specifically to accommodate them. Can result in a structure not ideal from stress and fatigue viewpoints. Also can mean that it is difficult to upgrade to a different engine mid-life.Potential problem with adjacent engines:An uncontained failure in one engine can damage its neighbour.

[RumPunch]

Well you have to look at the P8 and the problems they are having with stresses on the wing at low level, no jet with podded engines should be down low level over the sea, from an engineering point of view its only going to cause long term effects on the airframe (fatigue cracking)

A donk change on the MRA4 did look a bit daunting mind you :E

[DFM]

Glad we are at last debating the reasons behind the stupid decision to cancel the MRA4, rather than the use of irony in R/T phraseology!

So we are suggesting the MRA4 was cancelled because of its design similarities to a Comet? Ergo, the Nimrod MR1 was based on the Comet airframe, and as the MR2 was a modified MR1 the MRA4 must also be based on a Comet because it originated from an MR2. Furthermore, it must also share characteristics or design principles from the Shackleton, Neptune, Catalina, until we get back to the Sopwith Pup. Unfortunately in my car analogy I missed out several stages of evolution from Mr Vettel’s car back to the Model T Ford, my mistake.

Whereas the reality is; the Comet didn’t have a bomb bay, sophisticated ASW/ASUW sensors, or regularly flew at 200ft on only 2 engines thrusting. In fact the Nimrod MR1 was quite a leap in technology and capability and bore no resemblance in capability terms to the Comet…..it was actually a different aircraft. Moreover, the differences from MR1 to MR2 were also so significant, albeit within the mission system, that there was another leap in capability. The result from this evolution was a world beating platform that led the way in every facet of Maritime air surveillance, ASW, SAR, and more latterly an essential overland role that was invaluable in TELIC/HERRICK. I think we have also ascertained that it fulfilled more of the Military Tasks than any other single platform in the MOD inventory, right up to its premature demise. Admittedly not all of the MTs as per the MRA4, but still very impressive and all of this from a Comet design apparently. The reasons for the MR2 success were many, but design evolution, improvements in technology and continual adaptation through modification are the principles we are debating in this instance. The same principles of change also applied in the step from MR2 to MRA4 but were far more significant and radical in nature. The massive changes to both the air vehicle and the mission system were indeed a quantum leap and not just a modification process.

Therefore, to suggest we should cancel the MRA4 because it is based on an MR2, or as suggested in response to my original thread, a Comet, would not only be wrong but would also show a fundamental ignorance of the facts. Whereas the people who were in charge of this project; from the AFB, the MOD, IPT and JTT were not ignorant of the facts. Hence one of the many reasons why CAS was campaigning against the loss of this capability; in short, he knew the aircraft would work and work extremely well. He also knew the platform was a true force multiplier and its removal would leave a massive capability gap.

So you will not be surprised to hear that I am still unable to understand why some believe we have removed an Island Nation’s Maritime air capability because it was similar to a Comet. Or even because Mr Vettel’s car has better aerodynamics than a barn door!

Apologies Kiwibrit for my previous slight ref English, it’s been a frustrating few weeks.

DFM over & out

[kiwibrit]

Well you have to look at the P8 and the problems they are having with stresses on the wing at low level, no jet with podded engines should be down low level over the sea, from an engineering point of view its only going to cause long term effects on the airframe (fatigue cracking)

IIRC the Buccaneer Mk2 suffered from fatigue around the wing spar 'spectacles'.

DFM, I am rather surprised at the abandoning of the role and, given where we were, would have stuck with the Nimrod, even though I doubt whether the Nimrod was the best airframe for the job. Sorry, though, I got tempted into this thread because of the logic of the Vettel comment rather than the overall thrust of real content. I'll probably just lurk, now - as I don't think I have anything more to add personally. Oh, and I've had a heck of a week, too ;)

[Tallsar]

I have little doubt that we should have continued with the introduction of the MRA4.....the capability gap (much wider than that created by the removal of MR2) the UK now has is a massive risk to our UK defence and homeland protection strategy, never mind what it might mean in the Falklands or any other maritime biased conflict we may well get drawn into in the next decade. Any government that says that, in such a destabilising world environment as we are all now facing, we can cope with such a gap (along with the other caability removals) is blind to the lessons of history...and we are the one nation that can draw on most of those lessons directly!
No, I was almost physically sick today when it was clear that the No10 spin doctors had persuaded the BBC to focus on the PMs visit to his deceased son's school (sad as that was), than show anything of his grilling by the HofCommons committee scrutinising the cuts. Sad to say though, that even if they had, the "distraction" of the removal of our carrier capability always seems to take centre stage...are our MPs that blind to the greater significance of MRA4's demise to our direct security now! Sadly I think they are:ugh::{

[RumPunch]

David Cameron hahhahahaah cnut of the biggest

Hate . Hate will not make thingsbetter but at least it will let him know he is the largest stroker since hitlers arse

Cheers

[iRaven]

Rum Punch

Bliar and Broon are far biggers cnuts; Cameron did what they should have done years ago when the costs started spiralling!

IMHO Cameron and Clegg accepted the biggest political "hospital pass" from Nu Labour for many a year.

iRaven

[DFM]

So here we are weeks later still waiting for someone to explain the real reason why it is, even in these fiscally challenging times, that we are removing our Island Nation’s MPA capability. I did note on another thread that some are claiming that they have apparently seen the figures to support this fiscally sound decision……hmmmmm, oh you think so; just watch this one unfold without the use of smoke and mirrors, unfortunately when it is all too late.

However, it was good to see that the assessment by the First Sea Lord was quite unambiguous, especially when the AFB public response is only notable by its absence. Apparently, unlike the RN and ARMY, they are above all of this. For goodness sake, why would one want to be quoted in public about the grave misgivings you clearly have with this ill-conceived decision. Obviously better to weave stories of the absolute necessity to maintain a small core of personnel so that we will have shoe-in crews for shiny P8s when the topic has to be revisited at the next SDSR.

Who do you think you are kidding………

Off to walk the dog in the snow,

DFM over& out :sad:

[tonker]

I took my kids over to the AVRO golf club at Woodford on Saturday morning. Just over the fence are 2 Nimrods still in primer just sat in the arse end of the field. If i could work out how to put pictures up here i would.

Very sad and a waste. Cummon Ivan do us a favour.

[tridriver]

Unfortunately, in these frugal times, the RAF has become 'air centric' to protect its core capabilities; Maritime air and Army co-op are on the periphery of that. Hence, JHC retain autonomous control of all heavy-lift rotary, so that's ring-fenced (for now!), and MPA, ASTOR and CAS are relinquished.

Personally, I'm as shocked as the next man and know more than most the sterling work that Kinloss have provided over many decades, much of it secret, vital to defence, and unsung. Not forgetting those who have made the ultimate sacrifice.

Good luck to those across the RAF who have lost their roles.

[Pig Of The Poke]

sorry tonker but those two aircraft near the golf course are not in primer! They are PA1 and PA2 (the first and second prototype) and are both in the final paint scheme. Granted they look a little strange as they have got plastic sticky stuff all over them at the moment but it is most definitely top coat that they are covered in.

PotP

[GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU]

Just over the fence are 2 Nimrods still in primer just sat in the arse end of the field.

You mean here?


http://i111.photobucket.com/albums/n131/Golf_Bravo_Zulu/DSCF0004.jpg

:}

[Army Mover]

Mmm, that road looks a bit dangerous. :=

[Roadster280]

Caption Competition time!

"Nimrods my ar$e!"

[draken55]

tridriver states that:-

"Unfortunately, in these frugal times, the RAF has become 'air centric' to protect its core capabilities"

What now are the core capabilities for an Independent Air Force? Hunting down the Taliban leadership using Reaper/Tornado would represent the Strategic use of airpower but is not being done. RAF fast jets simply add to the already significant amount of US tactical airpower available over Afghanistan. We now function under US leadership so is this needed just to have our boys looked after by their comrades? Guess PM Cameron was persuaded it was.

I would argue that core capabilities were chopped to maintain the Tonka in service to 2015 and the next Review. Beyond that it's still going to be down to Politics with a move to a Typhoon only fleet just as likely as pending the F-35C.

The long term question is then be who "owns" the F-35C in 2020. Two services "want it" but one would be just as happy to buy a cheaper more versatile fourth generation aircraft to have the numbers needed to fill the decks of it's carrier(s).

If a fifth generation aircraft is needed it would be but most of the time it would be based ashore.:ok:

[DFM]

I understand it has been decided that we will indeed scrap all the MRA4 platforms, whether completed or still under construction.

Couldn't find any mothballs that are big enough apparently.

The world has gone mad! :mad:

DFM over & out

[Frustrated....]

If in fact they are all to be made into razor blades, then all the physical evidence will be destroyed by the local scrapyard before the National Audit Office start their probable investigation into a massive waste of public money.

[RumPunch]

No doubt we will find out soon on Wikileaks why it was cancelled but if it was due to the Government saving BAE out of a sticky hole then It would come as no surprise. After all the head of BAE can walk into Number 10 anytime he likes or so they say.

[DFM]

· MRA4 has been cancelled and has so far cost the country at least £3.5Bn...FACT
· The Govt claims they are saving money by doing this...Facts please

· As a Nation, we have lost a massively important capability…FACT
· The Govt alleges this loss of capability will be taken up by other assets…Facts please

· The AFB advised the Govt to not to take this course of action…FACT
· The Govt decided that the SMEs should be ignored…Facts please

· The decision to axe MRA4 was actually opposed by the RN…FACT
· The RN agreed with the AFB; so why…Facts please

· The loss of LRMPA SAR cover for the United Kingdom has already been missed…FACT
· How many incidents in the last 12mths have the ARCC wanted LRMPA cover…Facts please

· The Decision to scrap the MRA4 air vehicle has been announced…FACT
· If the AFB aspirations for the next SDSR are to be believed, is scrapping the platform the most cost effective answer…Facts please


To be continued: :ok:

DFM over & out.

[hanfimar]

Yes DFM, and I still await a reply to my Open Letter to the Prime Minister.

From the acknowledgement received 24 November:

Because the Ministry of Defence is best placed to respond to the matters you raise, he has asked me (a member of the Direct Communications Unit) to forward your letter to the Department so that they may reply to your concerns directly.

I am still waiting for the reply. Hopefully, that is a good sign.....

[Postman Plod]

Given that the only sensible response is that this is a capability holiday, and will not become a permanent gap, then what are we going to replace it with (P8?), when, at what cost, and what capabilities are we still potentially going to be missing?

[F3sRBest]

but if it was due to the Government saving BAE out of a sticky hole then It would come as no surprise.

Think the exact opposite... esp given the amount invested into MRA4 so far.

[Neptunus Rex]

When the P8 Poseidon has flown for three years in operational service, I think that the USN will be very disappointed. Despite more modern kit, it will never be able to fill the Orion's shoes. It needs at least one more engine and it cannot be thrown around a sonobuoy pattern like an Orion or a Nimrod.

The only advantage that I can see is that P8 pilots will all be experienced on a current commercial type when they choose to retire. They are not all Annapolis career wallahs.

[davejb]

will all be experienced on a current commercial type

Oooh,
to be honest I tend to get nervous flying on something that's been around as long as a 737... yes, I know it's illogical, but having flown for a living for a while in my youth I was frightened often enough to ensure I never go through check in without my lucky rabbits feet (one is never enough), various holy medals (I figure everyone becomes religious when falling from 40,000 ft) and balloon (one lungful at height will inflate it to mega size, my master plan is to blow into balloon, grip end, float down gently).

Flapping arms on the way down, if all else fails, is not to be sneezed at - after all, have you anything better to be spending your time and energy on?

Surely even Boeing will be too embarrassed to be selling a version of 737 by the time prospective P-8 pilots are finished?

As for inability to lay a tight pattern etc - what we need is something a bit like LGBs, ie steerable sonobuoys (ta DAAAH)...whizz over at a steady height, direction and speed dispensing buoys, then steer them during descent to exactly where you want them. Then, of course, spend the next hour or more scratching your head about the geometry you are trying to interpret without being aware of how they all immediately drifted in different directions at varying speed.
(Except for the one hooked over the sub's comms mast, which is doing 6 knots south).

Dave

[F3sRBest]

to be honest I tend to get nervous flying on something that's been around as long as a 737


Something like a Comet you mean........!!!! ;)

[Jayand]

Honestly, how many of you are concerned about the loss of capability and what it means supposedly for the UK and how many are really caring cos it's their backyard that is getting shat on?
Am not playing down the personal impact as it is **** but an honest question?

[Rossian]

..I've got glass of nice red by my left elbow but I WANT a pint of what davejb is drinkin' right now.

The Ancient Mariner

[Biggus]

Jayand,

Who is "you"?

The great British, X-factor watching, public?

The people posting on this thread? Which covers a wide spread including:

Non maritime people not living in Moray.
Ex-maritime people living anywhere from Moray to Lincoln to Australia.
Current maritime people living in Moray still......

[Postman Plod]

Not maritime, not anywhere near Moray or in fact ANY RAF base, and genuinely concerned about loss of capability.

[Green Flash]

A thought; the USCG Herc that was at EGQK earlier this year looked the biz. Could/is that be an option? (given that we allready have in-house experience of the J?).

[Jayand]

Biggus you can get anal about grammar all you like but what about answering the question?

[Biggus]

Jayand,

I wasn't being anal about grammar, or having a "pop" at you - you're the one who is starting to become offensive....

All I was pointing out is that many people reading/posting on this thread have little appreciation of maritme avaiation, and a lot live many miles from Moray, therefore for many it is not their "backyard that is getting shat on" as you refer to it... Your question will therefore not apply to them.

Grow up and make some sensible comments there's a good chap.

[Pontius Navigator]

As others have, or will, point out, the Nimrod, as an ASW platform, worked largely out of sight of both the public and, we hoped, the potential enemy.

The submarine slipping silently steadily through UK waters was never that silent nor did it slip. Always a P3 or Nimrod or Atlantique was there sniffing his presence.

We flew a 365 day mission when most in the UK went about their normal Monday to Friday toil. Often we would work a normal week only for the weekend to be a hectic one with a continuous cycle of sorties. Sometimes we even continued south as far as the Azores.

If asked what we were doing the answer was always 'nothing', where were you going, 'nowhere'. When are you coming home, 'don't know.'

[davejb]

John,
sober (then <g>)

Capability AND concern for old friends who stayed in after I left, as I am aware of the degree of commitment they maintained right up to the moment of shafting and the quite amazing amount of skill and experience built up in the fleet. That experience will not be regained in a very long time, in my view, retaining a core of top blokes will only mitigate the damage.

As I live on an island, like everyone else in the UK (including Cameron) I cannot see the sense in maintaining an ability to go to the middle east to fight people if it is at the cost of losing the ability to defend our own shoreline.

It's easy to imagine that current and past maritime aircrew are fighting for their patch, but the reality is that we're the folk who best know what is being discarded and we're appalled.

Dave

[fergineer]

Good reply Dave.......from one Island now to another we still need the capability to defend our own shores before getting into a mix with others in a far off land. From the sun in NZ to all the Maritime guys with an unknown future seasons greetings.
Fergi

[bad bear]

Im not shure where the Nimrod 4 project got to. Did they actually fly one and had it fully shaken down and sorted? Or, are there still problems to sort out and a possibility of further slipage and cost rises?
If the latter, might it be that there is something seriously wrong with it and it might never work as intended?
I guess it is unlikely that a government would chop something like this the day before delivery of a fully sorted project.
What are the remaining problems that are preventing the Nimrod from being handed over?
bb

[GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU]

The short but bone answer is;

a. the money to operate it

b. the money to base it (part of a)

c. the money to own it (anyone remember RAB?)


In the long term, we wll pay for this several times over.

[AQAfive]

Hanfimar

In answer to your question I'm afraid the decision is done and dusted. I wrote to my MP and to my surprise he actually phoned me up to discuss the matter. He had been shown around the finished article and was impressed with it even if he really didn't understand what it's capabilities meant. He called me again the other day to say that he and several of his MP colleagues had to report that sadly no change had been made; the MRA4 was dead, something I knew from personal contacts.


If the AFB, the Navy and the defence secretary did not want the aircraft cancelled, then that means that only one person could have made the decision – Dave, or his fuzzy thinking liberal co-hort. But then when the top man is only experienced in Politics, economics and spreadsheets, what else can you expect?

[bad bear]

Did I hear that the Nimrod mk4 has not flown since march and has some "safety issues". I guess after something like a 10 year delay and still no functioning aeroplane might be the reason that the government eventually had to give up. If the Nimrod is only a few £££ and weeks away from being a success it would be completed. Clearly it is not! Should we spend another £1B and wait another x years? There would still a gap in the role the Nimrod should have filled, just more money spent in the hope of the project coming good. Or am I missing something?
How much more did we need to spend and how much longer would we have had to wait ? What would people say if we blew another £1B and 3 years from now someone finds that it is still not ready for service?
bb

[glad rag]

@davejb

National Coastwatch Institution | Eyes Along The Coast (http://www.nci.org.uk/)

they even have co-opted some Welsh wildfowlers into this scheme, all for FREE.

See, there WAS a PLAN!:E

[AQAfive]

Bad Bear

Minor issues I'm led to believe by those in the know, but since the legal profession went to town on the safety issues connected with XV230, no one will sign off the ac until there are perceived to be no safety issues at all.

And you cannot blame them. In the future all aircraft will be subject to the same scrutiny. Is that how it should be? It will be a brave and pehaps foolhardy person to say otherwise.

[tucumseh]

While one or two people have mentioned ongoing safety issues, I think the scenario you describe - making a decision to go/no go with extra funding while risks and uncertainties remain - is one that has cropped up before on this programme. In such circumstances, it is a brave man (sometimes in the Yes Minister sense) who decides to pull the plug.

As a former CDP once said "Cancellation is sometimes good". Of course, many of his staffs promptly interpreted that as "cancel at the first sign of a minor risk", which explains a few capability gaps I can think of, and resultant fatalities. A generation and more in DPA / DE&S have been brought up on that ethos. It makes you wonder how many are left who know how to identify, manage and mitigate minor risks, never mind serious ones. I know some very senior people in DE&S who remain convinced "Risk Management" means opening up a risk register, inserting a few minor issues and then close it and walk away; never to be opened again. In fact, that was the way our Nimrod 2k/RMPA/MRA4 2 Star insisted risk was managed.

With todays announcement of BAeS job losses, there will be many hoping a public inquiry follows.

[AQAfive]

Tucumseh

For once I totally agree with you!

[bad bear]

since the legal profession went to town on the safety issues connected with XV230, no one will sign off the ac until there are perceived to be no safety issues at all
So I guess that is the problem. Someone had to take a view on how likely it would be signed off in the time scale available, if the answer was " it could take some time" the current government would be left with only one decision. What would be the point in finishing off the whole production run of aeroplanes only to find 3 years later someone cannot sign them off as fit for flight because it is thought that one of the primary systems might have a risk of failure and requires all the planes gutted and refitted?
The world has changed. Its not anybodies fault the Nimrod just got zapped by the risk of litigation.

Who could reasonably argue with the logic?
bb

[tucumseh]

Quote:
since the legal profession went to town on the safety issues connected with XV230, no one will sign off the ac until there are perceived to be no safety issues at all
So I guess that is the problem. Someone had to take a view on how likely it would be signed off in the time scale available, if the answer was " it could take some time" the current government would be left with only one decision. What would be the point in finishing off the whole production run of aeroplanes only to find 3 years later someone cannot sign them off as fit for flight because it is thought that one of the primary systems might have a risk of failure and requires all the planes gutted and refitted?
The world has changed. Its not anybodies fault the Nimrod just got zapped by the risk of litigation.

Who could reasonably argue with the logic?
bb
I think if you followed that logic we wouldn't have any aircraft flying.

One needs a pragmatic approach to safety management with engineering judgment to the fore. The problem, reiterated by Haddon-Cave, was that the perceived need to save money was allowed to over-ride engineering judgment - contrary to the regulations.

What he did not address was why there was this perceived need. He had a ridiculous pop at AML (General Sam Cowan) for implementing 5% per year savings over 4 years, while ignoring his predecessors who deliberately targeted airworthiness year after year. He did not link the gross waste of public funds reported year after year by auditors, or successive Governments' refusal to take action, to this perceived need.

If you chuck £300M down the drain on the likes of Chinook Mk3 (is it still the "Gold Standard Cock-Up" following Nimrod MRA4?), and the "Air Systems" budget doesn't change, where do you get the money from to compensate? Support mainly, because that is where we are taught up to 80% of Through Life costs occur and it is money that is often not committed years in advance, unlike capital procurement contracts. So, beancounters and other alien life-forms were allowed to slash airworthiness-related contracts to compensate for deliberate waste elsewhere. Haddon-Cave didn't go into this detail.

As I said above, given this ethos has been prevalent since 1988, there are an awful lot of project officers/managers in PE > DPA > DE&S who simply don't understand or have never experienced the concept of engineering judgment being paramount. They too readily accept rulings that it is acceptable to make something physically safe, but not functionally safe. That was a formal ruling by the Nimrod 2 Star and CDP in 1998. I mention that example, because that is what XV230 (and XV179) boiled down to.

Instead of asking what aircraft can we get rid of to compensate for this culture of waste and incompetence, I remain convinced it would be a good idea to target that waste and incompetence in the first place. Then we'd have some funding. Successive Ministers are on record as disagreeing. They are briefed by the same people who condone the waste and incompetence.

[RumPunch]

MRA4 has been canned so quickly , that ties in what BAE staff say .

In just feel sorry for the old girl , typical RAF ******* wankers that think they have respect , everyone hates the RAF and i cant wait for the ARMY to take over as I for one want that as they have courage and fight , RAF is full of yes men that lick balls for a career.

20 years of my life wasted for nothing , Ive licked balls if that makes sense :ok:

[DFM]

C Profile,

£3.5Bn is the figure that both the MOD and BAes acknowledge. Although you will also read figures ranging from 3.2Bn to 3.9Bn as published by the aviation journalists.
As the MR2 fulfilled more of the (old) MTs than any other platform and the MRA4 would have had a part in every single one of the (new) for SDSR MT 1-7 directives, one must assume there will be a capability gap. This is also supported by the comments of CAS and 1SL.
Well documented in the wake of the announcement that CAS and AFB opposed the decision. And when he briefed a hangar full of people at RAF Kinloss we did rather assume he wasn’t being coerced to say this.
Read the public comments by the 1SL; and that of course is only the tip of the iceberg.
Read the press notices on SAR incidents for the last year. I nearly said ring the ARCC, but you will of course only get the line that is intended not to worry the general public; a line that none of them privately agree with. You could also ring any of the SAR Sea King boys n girls for their take.
Announced quietly last week we are told. Oh to be 17 again…….:)

DFM over & out

[Postman Plod]

DFM, what do your bullet points refer to??

I made a poor "assumption" in an earlier post in that this was clearly a capability holiday, not a permanent gap, as it wouldn't make any sense to gap such a capability in a maritume nation. I'm obviously wrong with this "assumption," as you don't get £2Bn in savings removing the Nimrod by tendering for and introducing a new MR(A) aircraft, so they obviously have no intention of introducing any new maritime roled aircraft into the inventory.

Finally the media appear to be grasping and reporting the fact that we have already spent £3.5Bn on the Nimrod, and that all we are going to get for it is a few razor blades. Now all we need is for them to actually twig that this is in fact a bad thing, and a criminal waste of money... give it a few months....

[Bannock]

The disposal (destruction) of 9 Airframes and 3.6 billion quid is to be expidited . No concideration of selling on or storage was taken. I smell a rat and some BWOS and MOD arse covering.
I hate to ask, but is there a possibility that someone had built a ticking bomb and needed to get rid quick. Thus preventing BAEs already tarnished reputation becoming one of being a global joke.

[Postman Plod]

This is probably an irrelevant comparison, and to an extent its not supposed to be, but why was it about the TSR2 that resulted in it being so comprehensively scrapped and almost deleted from existance? Was there a need to hide something? Were we so sure that the R&D and work that went into it was irrelevant and would never be needed?

Did we comprehensively dismantle the AEW3's in the same way as we appear to be doing here? I do recall seeing airframes sitting on airfields many many years after the programme died, and arguably it was in a less fit state than the MRA4?

[StopStart]

There was an interesting comment by Caroline Wyatt on the Radio 4 midnight news last night in an article about the job losses at BAeS. She finished with the line:
"However, the MoD is now looking for alternative aircraft to perform a similar role to the task carried out by the Nimrod"

This could be the usual dreadful MoD PR smoke and mirrors and just be a reference to the RJ/R1 programme. Or are other things afoot?

iPlayer (http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00wbtdv/Midnight_News_10_12_2010/) about 18 mins onwards...

[Pontius Navigator]

This could be the usual dreadful MoD PR smoke and mirrors and just be a reference to the RJ/R1 programme. Or are other things afoot?

The Telegraph said we would use French and American assets to cover the requirement, for free? Are the obvious costs factored in to the £2bn? Will they use ISK with its martime infrastructure or will they be required to use a non-specific base with additional infrastructure costs/

Do I detect a cluster f*ck?

[cazatou]

PP

Re TSR2

The cancellation of TSR2 was the direct result of a Cabinet Meeting at which a certain Defence Secretary announced that he was sorry to inform the meeting that a TSR2 wing had suffered major structural failure the previous day.

That statement was quite correct - but incomplete. What he forgot to mention was that it was the wing of the Airframe that was being tested to destruction that had failed.

[DFM]

P Plod,
I was responding to a comment by CP (that he now appears to have removed) when he questioned the FACTS that I posted on page 9 of this thread dated 7 Dec. My originating post is the background for the ongoing dialogue.

DFM over & out

[F3sRBest]

I smell a rat and some BWOS and MOD arse covering.
I hate to ask, but is there a possibility that someone had built a ticking bomb and needed to get rid quick. Thus preventing BAEs already tarnished reputation becoming one of being a global joke.

OH give it a rest with the conspiracy theories.. sometimes sh*t just happens! You really think all this is in BAES' interests?

Scary thought .....BAES actually has a good reputation in some areas!!!!

[canard68]

Are the engines usable in any other types? I bet we have bought loads of spares in addition to the 36 in the aircraft to be scrapped.

[iRaven]

Bannock

http://wwwdelivery.superstock.com/WI/223/1439/PreviewComp/SuperStock_1439R-1007451.jpg

[baffman]

So I guess that is the problem. Someone had to take a view on how likely it would be signed off in the time scale available, if the answer was " it could take some time" the current government would be left with only one decision. What would be the point in finishing off the whole production run of aeroplanes only to find 3 years later someone cannot sign them off as fit for flight because it is thought that one of the primary systems might have a risk of failure and requires all the planes gutted and refitted?
The world has changed. Its not anybodies fault the Nimrod just got zapped by the risk of litigation.

Who could reasonably argue with the logic?
bb

Further to Tucumseh's reply, it is always satisfying to blame the legal profession, but I wonder how much the risk of litigation was really a problem. Litigation by who? Is the risk of payouts to some of a lost crew's families a la XV230 really that significant in relation to the programme's total costs?

[Vage Rot]

Quote:
Originally Posted by MrBernoulli
I'd be interested to know why MoD spent so much money on still using that "pressure shell". Why? It is a piece of ancient de Havilland history. Apart from the politics already mentioned here, is there any good reason why the MoD was still dicking about with a Comet fuselage? An inevitable waste of time and money, surely?

Leaving aside (for now) the issue as to whether or not it was a good idea to use a modified Nimrod design in the first place, the reason for using the 'old' fuselage pressure shell was an attempt to save money.

The techniques used to build it originally are no longer available. So you would have had to redesign the fuselage from scratch - it may externally resembled a Nimrod, but would have had 90s build technology and had to be built with 90s standards as well. And would you design a new aircraft to a 1950s design?

In terms of the cancellation, don't overlook the purely political element - if we are to beleive the press coverage, the decision to cancel we made by Cameron himself. He would have wanted to have a big ticket/cost item to cancel as an example of Labour/MOD waste - and found the carriers were too tightly contracted to do so (word was he would have cancelled CVF2 in a heartbeat).

So he could stand up in the House of Commons and say 'You wasted £XB on this - we're not going to waste a penny more.'

They used the fuselage because they hoped it would be enough for the new aircraft to retain 'Grandfather rights' when it came to T&E or MAR (CofE)

Then XV230 happened!

[Mend em]

Bannock

Sorry mate, but a whole range of options were put forward to be considered, but none were acceptable to MoD who seem to be under strict instructions to 'get rid' as soon as possible.

[The B Word]

Bannock

I hate to ask, but is there a possibility that someone had built a ticking bomb and needed to get rid quick. Thus preventing BAEs already tarnished reputation becoming one of being a global joke.

Plausable? When you read this...


BAE Systems PLC – Business Update

21 Oct 2010 | Ref. 242/2010
BAE Systems plc has today issued its interim management statement for the period from 1 July 2010 to 20 October 2010...

...Strategic Defence and Security Review (SDSR)

• The business is planned on conservative assumptions and although the detail behind the changes identified by the SDSR will take some time to refine, the removal of a number of uncertainties with regard to our UK business is welcomed.


See here BAE Systems PLC ? Business Update - BAE Systems (http://www.baesystems.com/Newsroom/NewsReleases/autoGen_11092184827.html)

The B Word

[DFM]

Hanfimar,
Any chance of letting us know what MOD say by way of reply? :ok:

DFM over & out

[hanfimar]

Yes DFM, as the letter was open, as soon as I receive a reply I will post it here.

[F3sRBest]

the removal of a number of uncertainties with regard to our UK business is welcomed.

Wake-up and realise this is City-speak for...

"Now we know that we have to make 1400 people (at least) redundant... gee thanks!"

[DFM]

Interesting comments attributed to AOC 1 Gp in the press this weekend.
Just a thought, but wouldn’t it be appropriate if we now had something from AOC 2 Gp as well, just to show solidarity.

Maybe he could bemoan the loss of the MRA4 and an entire operational capability and explain why he is also rightly worried as hell........just so long as he doesn’t scare the public with the truth mind! :=

DFM over & out

[Joe Black]

Still shocked by this decision and just re-read this; paid particular attention to the last 3 paragraphs :
BAe Nimrod MRA4 (http://www.spyflight.co.uk/MR4A.htm)

[DFM]

Here’s to a Happy Hogmanay at RAF Kinloss:D

I sincerely hope everyone at ISK has a Hootenanny Hogmanay and that 2011 brings a settlement that suits the majority…I for one want out of this circus… and it really, really upsets me to say that.

To all of the many good people that it has been my good fortune to work with: my best wishes to the most professional, honest, humorous and caring people you could ever wish to meet; quite simply the best! Take care and remember the good times.

We all know that a crime has been committed and only time will expose the culprits.........but thanks to the 1SL for making honest comment on this travesty...and how ironic.

DFM over & out.

[manccowboy]

I'm gutted the MRA4 is getting the chop and as a maritime nation its got to be the stupidest decision ever made. If the public were only aware of the true cost of this I'm sure there would be an outcry.

Anyway my reason for posting in this thread is to confirm scrapping has started and all the airframes will be gone by the end of February and Woodford will close almost immediately. The airframes are being cut up into chunks that can fit on low loaders and trucked out of Woodford and disposed of at a MOD designated recycling plant. I dont know whats happening to the frames at Warton.

There are also 120 BMW Rolls-Royce BR710 engines sitting at Woodford which no doubt will go back to the manufacturers at a give away price (its only tax payers money :mad: ) to be recycled for BizJet use.

I'll post anymore info as I get it.

[Modern Elmo]

The old MR2 wings and fuselages were constructed before the days of CAD / CAM and were built in jigs and then mated by tradesmen hammering & filing the metal to fit as necessary – as a result each fuselage was slightly different, in some cases by up to 4 inches.

Golly, 4 inches? That was a lot of hammering and filing.

[tucumseh]

It is not the fact that there were dimensional differences that was a problem. That is a minor technical and programme risk common to many aircraft that, as long as you recognise it, can be dealt with easily. The initial problem is recognising it. MoD and BAeS got over that on Day 1.

The real problem (in this case) was no-one listened to the experts, primarily RAF and civvy engineers in MoD(PE) whose wailing and nashing of teeth could be heard throughout St Giles Court.

Importantly, you have to take a broader view. What else was happening in that particular area of MoD(PE) at the time? Under the same 2 Star the other cock-up of the century, Chinook HC Mk3, was taking root. Same problem. Experienced (i.e. junior) RAF and civvy staffs saying "This is madness" and being ignored.

This is not a coincidence.

MoD claim these events to be isolated and unrelated. There should be a joint inquiry. Same people involved after all. Then we'll see if they are unrelated.

[Dave Angel]

I'm gutted the MRA4 is getting the chop and as a maritime nation its got to be the stupidest decision ever made. If the public were only aware of the true cost of this I'm sure there would be an outcry.

Anyway my reason for posting in this thread is to confirm scrapping has started and all the airframes will be gone by the end of February and Woodford will close almost immediately. The airframes are being cut up into chunks that can fit on low loaders and trucked out of Woodford and disposed of at a MOD designated recycling plant. I dont know whats happening to the frames at Warton.

There are also 120 BMW Rolls-Royce BR710 engines sitting at Woodford which no doubt will go back to the manufacturers at a give away price (its only tax payers money :mad: ) to be recycled for BizJet use.

I'll post anymore info as I get it.

Absolutely heartbreaking :(

[TorqueOfTheDevil]

Is any of the aircraft still parked outside at Woodford? Thought I might take a detour past Woodford to take some pics if it's not already too late.

What a wretched start to the New Year (scrapping the jets, I mean, rather than me being a sad spotter, but you could argue it either way!).

[manccowboy]

There's 2 parked near the paint sheds, they are not due to start cutting for another couple of weeks yet as they are concentrating on taking hardware, engines etc etc out of the nearly finished frames (maybe hoping for a last minute reprieve from this madness)

Most of the guys are nearly in tears :sad:

[Mad_Mark]

IT'S A FUC#ING DISGRACE!!!

Cameron should be ashamed of himself :ugh: UKIP get my X from now on!

MadMark!!! :mad:


[Sorry for the language, but this REALLY annoys me]

[betty swallox]

Agree strongly!!!

[davejb]

BAe got paid a lot to do stuff, and have got to the point where BAe will have had most of the dosh for a failed system. You can't really blame BAe for that, nor the CS type who doubtless chaired the meetings - the RAF should have had competent engineers (and, dare I suggest, the odd aircrew type) onboard to ensure BAe stayed honest.

Having seen a project managed by a senior (ish) CS type, ably supported by a senior (ish) RAF officer or two, it used to completely do my head in to see various small parties take advantage of the setup to score themselves paltry gains whilst letting the contractor away with whatever they wanted. Put competent bums on seats, preferably slightly awkward ones who will ask awkward questions and insist on awkward standards being met, and rubbish like this wouldn#t happen in the first place.

FWIW Cameron is probably no worse than anyone else - he's trimming fat that doesn't exist, and personally I think there are many areas of fat still to be trimmed before defence, but he's no worse than any other politician. They're all scum, of course, but Cameron's no worse than the rest... I'd rather be a pimp than an MP!

Dave

[DFM]

MCB,

You said:

“The airframes are being cut up into chunks that can fit on low loaders and trucked out of Woodford and disposed of at a MOD designated recycling plant. I dont know whats happening to the frames at Warton.

There are also 120 BMW Rolls-Royce BR710 engines sitting at Woodford which no doubt will go back to the manufacturers at a give away price (its only tax payers money) to be recycled for BizJet use.”

Any chance of getting some photographs for the coroner’s report?

I sincerely hope we have all available evidence to present to the public when this crime comes back to bite us! :=

DFM over & out

[manccowboy]

Any chance of getting some photographs for the coroner’s report?There's a lot of men in black about but I will see what I can do ;)

There's some pictures of PA1 & PA2 outside the paint shop here (http://forums.airshows.co.uk/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=29581) , these will have to be de-fueled and likely to be the first for the chop.

[fergineer]

Let me know when they start chopping cos untill then surely someone can bang some sense into DC and let them cme into service....ever the optomist thats me.

[NURSE]

RAF grounds new Nimrods as safety fears hit £3.6bn project - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/defence/8070019/RAF-grounds-new-Nimrods-as-safety-fears-hit-3.6bn-project.html)


Maybe this is why?



also savings needed to save Tonka fleet from scrapheap when it gets another expensive refit

[F3sRBest]

NURSE,

when it gets another expensive refit

Which one would that be........!!!????

[DFM]

Telegraph report,

On Monday private contractors hired by the Ministry of Defence will chop off the wings of the first of nine Nimrod MRA4 aircraft.
The Government claims that the decision to scrap the Nimrods will save £2 billion in operating costs over the next decade
To avoid government embarrassment each £400 million aircraft will be draped in tarpaulin and dragged to a remote corner of an airfield where they will be “brutally” dismantled.


What a stupid, criminal and sad act of vandalism. :(
Anyone in the vicinity........photos please for the coroners report.

DFM over & out

[betty swallox]

Disgusting
Short sighted
Poor
Stupid
Stupid
Stupid

[Al R]

BBC News - London 2012 Olympics fears over Nimrod plane scrapping (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12248424)

The decision to scrap the new Nimrod MRA4 surveillance aircraft has prompted fears that it may leave a gap in security at the 2012 Olympic Games.

[GIATT]

I would imagine that a considerable part of the costs so far have fallen under the development column.

Who retains the IP rights to these developments? I assume it's not the MOD.

[DFM]

London 2012 Olympics fears over Nimrod plane scrapping

I am afraid that this is just scratching the surface when we talk about the entire loss of a capability. Maybe Angus Robertson could also ask about the Government's reason for ignoring the advice of CAS on this entire subject. :ok:


On another point, is it just me or does anyone else think there is something strange about how quickly we aim to scrap these aircraft? :confused:


DFM over & out

[manccowboy]

On another point, is it just me or does anyone else think there is something strange about how quickly we aim to scrap these aircraft? http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/confused.gif

Yeah lots of people been commenting on this, funny how their NOT cutting Harriers up or Invincible.

Its almost...lets get it done before people realize...........:=

[Roadster280]

Invincible IS being cut up. Already up for sale for recycling, and that's all she's fit for after being stripped. Ark Royal is another matter, but you said Vince.

Harriers MAY be saleable, so why cut them up?

An interesting thought just came into my head while writing this.

If the already-converted MRA4 frames are cut up, but the yet-to-be-converted MR2s are held off for a while, does this not SCREAM that political embarrassment is the only reason to destroy these frames?

[Mad_Mark]

If the already-converted MRA4 frames are cut up, but the yet-to-be-converted MR2s are held off for a while, does this not SCREAM that political embarrassment is the only reason to destroy these frames?

YES!!

Once they are destroyed then there is definitely no way to reverse this idiotic, moronic, stupid and DANGEROUS decision!!! :ugh:

[grandfer]

Isn't it strange that this country can still find nothing wrong in throwing away over £13bn for 2 weeks of "Sports"(?) in 2012 yet can't really justify spending money on the defence & security of our country !!!!!!!!:mad::mad::mad:

[Out Of Trim]

Isn't it strange that this country can still find nothing wrong in throwing away over £13bn for 2 weeks of "Sports"(?) in 2012 yet can't really justify spending money on the defence & security of our country !!!!!!!!http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/censored.gifhttp://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/censored.gifhttp://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/censored.gif


Indeed, I'd much rather cancel the Olympic Games in 2012...

Seems pretty straight forward to me!

comon Dave Cameron - Get A F:mad:king Grip! :ugh::ugh::ugh:

[The Gorilla]

You all need to understand something which is quite basic really and it applies to all the other threads re allowance cuts, redundancies and Post SDSR et al.
Simply put the country has changed beyond ALL recognition since the early 90's. Go in to any of the big five cities and the language spoken on the streets is not English. Soon if not now, the predominant religion in the country will not be Christian. A massive number of the indigenous population do not support our core values and aims of old and the so called “Y” generation have no idea of duty, service or community spirit. A large proportion of them, thanks to our dysfunctional education system cannot even read or write!

So we all have to accept and embrace the changes I am afraid or else appear dinosaur-esk in a rapidly changing multi cultural world. Let’s also be frank, our cold war Armed Forces have been misused big style over the last 15 years or so in order to further political aims that are at best highly dubious and at worst war crimes illegal.

I have huge regrets at the changes that are happening and the loss of capability but we need to get real. All we require are minimal defence forces as a part of a super United States of Europe which we are well and truly stuck with.

Even if some enemy were to appear on the horizon and threaten our homeland all would be lost anyway. We don’t have the heavy engineering to produce war machines and we have a population that doesn’t have the ability or the appetite to resist.

:uhoh:

[davejb]

Dunno,
I'm not sure it's down to the ethnicity of the population - it's not uncommon to find those who do not appear overly British hued to be more British than the native British. I think it's more general than that - we are training our population, via TV, to have an ever decreasing ability to concentrate and think things through, which makes it easier for each successive government to pull a fast one as less and less of the population is capable of spotting the bit when they start dealing seconds.

Which kind of leads into the bit I'll bite on, as an ex-aircrew type now firmly esconced in a second career in teaching....

thanks to our dysfunctional education system

It's not the teachers, per se, who keep messing things up - it's (a) politicians, who decide that what we really need is some 'new initiative', and (b) all the people who got out of classrooms as fast as they could, and became minor functionaries empowered to direct education, I would contend that the people best suited to decide 'what works' are those who have decided to stay in the classroom doing the job. Considering how long schools have been around it's amazing that every ten years or so the whole system is deemed to require a complete overhaul.

Anyhow....

else appear dinosaur-esk

should be 'dinosauresque' ... so write out 100 times

'I wil spel things corektli in fyewchair, or wot hope iz thur four mankynd?'

Cutting up MRA4 - it's hard to argue about something that cannot be changed, pure, simple, and typically devious.

Dave

(Edited, of course, for spelling!)

[manccowboy]

Go in to any of the big five cities and the language spoken on the streets is not English. Soon if not now, the predominant religion in the country will not be Christian. A massive number of the indigenous population do not support our core values and aims of old and the so called “Y” generation have no idea of duty, service or community spirit. A large proportion of them, thanks to our dysfunctional education system cannot even read or write!

Thats easily solved.......we ship em all back from where they come from and the money we save in benefits etc etc will easily pay for the defence of OUR country :ok:

[Party Animal]

On another point, is it just me or does anyone else think there is something strange about how quickly we aim to scrap these aircraft?


Almost like BAES and Dave came up with a secret plan behind closed dooors. One side saves a few bob and the other side saves face for future projects. Get rid of the problem quickly so that no-one can change their minds, or face potential exposure of another 5 years with BAES trying to make them safe and serviceable at the cost of another 2Bn quid demanded?

[peter272]

IIRC George Edwards made the point years ago at the time of the TSR2 that in cases like this it is better to get the destruction done early.

"It's no good leaving the corpse lying about for everyone to grieve over"

But the UK aerospace industry has had quite a history on this. From the Miles M52 via the TSR2. You'd have thought we've had learned something by now.

[Modern Elmo]

So we all have to accept and embrace the changes I am afraid or else appear dinosaur-esk in a rapidly changing multi cultural world.

Are those really the only the alternatives, or are you being a cowardly defeatist, a man who is is too concerned with being "respectable" to do what his ancestors would do about invaders in England?

[hanoijane]

*rolls eyes*

Anyone can design a world beater. The skill lies in making it work and operational at a reasonable cost. A skill the UK currently lacks.

Give up the whining and accept reality, huh? Bitter retrospection and blaming-the-immigrant is something your nation is becoming rather good at. And, as a national characteristic, it stinks.

[Scuttled]

Hanoijane.

Agreed, I don't think the views expressed in a couple of flippant posts here were representative. One of the 2 protagonists is an American anyway, but I am sure they were just fishing for a reaction.

There is a growing rejection of the 1970s multicultural ideal as it doesn't really seem to work in practice. Most of the posters here are, by definition of our employment, proud Brits. But that doesn't mean most of us exclude anyone who wants to join and contribute to our country and play the game our way. We're a bastard nation even pre 1066 anyway and good for it.

I have no time for casual racism at all against immigrants to the UK. Who knows, we may get one or two new citizens at some point in the future who can design and build a useful aircraft on time and in budget for us........ Someone out there must be capable, surely.

[thunderbird7]

What an earth has racism got to do with scrapping the mighty 'Rod?

Political incompetence, yes but lets keep the BNP of this thread please.

[Bannock]

'Bitter retrospection and blaming-the-immigrant is something your nation is becoming rather good at. And, as a national characteristic, it stinks'

Hanoijane',

Please enlighten us as to how your nation is managing the 10s of thousands of immigrants who arrive on your doorstep. Specifically how you manage to house,provide world-class healthcare for free,provide education for free and provide a whole range of welfare benefits. And whilst doing that contribute Billions in overseas development aid to countries whose mission is to purchase state of the art defence products.

Reacting to individual comments and classing them as a 'national characteristic' is nothing but petty and immature.


P.S What does $10 get me these days in Hanoi ?

[Sgt.Slabber]

From Aviation Week...


Jan 21, 2011

By Robert Wall
YEOVIL, England — Concerns are mounting in the U.K. that anti-submarine warfare (ASW) skills are beginning to erode because of competing operational demands and equipment decisions.

The fear, voiced by government and industry officials, goes beyond the decision last year to cancel the Nimrod MRA4 maritime patrol aircraft project. Some high-end skills to hunt submarines are no longer getting adequate training, warns an industry official.



A case of "stating the fekkin obvious"?

...the rest of the article is here:

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story.jsp?id=news/asd/2011/01/21/01.xml&headline=British Anti-Submarine Warfare Force In Flux&channel=defense

Off topic, but very interesting, is this snippet:

Cameron welcomes RAF's last C-17 to Brize Norton


...The RAF and Boeing had planned to host a general media facility to welcome the aircraft at Brize Norton, but this was abandoned within less than 24h of the event to allow only local press to attend. The service's transport super-base falls within Cameron's parliamentary constituency of Witney, Oxfordshire.


Any one out there care to explain why the planned "general media facility" was abandoned - guardroom didn't have enough visitor car passes, perhaps?

Boeing 747 and Airbus A380 Aircraft News from Flightglobal (http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2011/01/21/352196/pictures-cameron-welcomes-rafs-last-c-17-to-brize.html)

[hanoijane]

Totally off-topic, but for the sake of ****s, giggles and East-West harmony, I'll answer you.


Please enlighten us as to how your nation is managing the 10s of thousands of immigrants who arrive on your doorstep.. etc....etc....

Ah, you're unhappy being born on the downwards slope of an ex-colonial power which has shown a marked tendency over the past 20 years to make unfortunate economic and political alignments (can you say EU?)? I can see why that would hurt.

Reacting to individual comments and classing them as a 'national characteristic' is nothing but petty and immature

But pretty accurate nevertheless. I'm just back from a month in your fine land. Not very comforting.

What does $10 get me these days in Hanoi ?

If you're alluding to what most of our 40+ year-old overweight and balding male visitors from the US and UK are trying to 'get' in Ha Noi, you'll find yourself a few hundred $'s short. Times have changed, my friend.


The ultimate fate of the 'mighty rod' to those of us in any way linked with aviation was never in doubt. I think we're simply surprised it took you so long to get there.

[manccowboy]

Give up the whining and accept reality, huh? Bitter retrospection and blaming-the-immigrant is something your nation is becoming rather good at. And, as a national characteristic, it stinks.

Simple fact is the UK is very attractive to immigrants, free healthcare, free housing, free handouts if you cannot find work.

How do you think this is paid for?

I think the British have every right to complain at being taken for a ride, we are tolerant to a point but that point is long past, and when you see British service men and women being put on the dole after putting their lives on the line to fund it they will quite rightly be pissed off.

[barnstormer1968]

Totally off thread, but something has just become a bit obvious to me.

This comment:
If you're alluding to what most of our 40+ year-old overweight and balding male visitors from the US and UK are trying to 'get' in Ha Noi, you'll find yourself a few hundred $'s short. Times have changed, my friend.

So, if many tourists come to the UK to see royalty, or stately houses, I guess they see this as being what our country has to offer, and in return we strive to provide it, as heritage and monarchy reflect a lot of what Britain is about. What does the above comment referring to the sex trade say about the country that supports. runs and offers it?

I suppose its horses for courses. Whatever is offered to tourists, then I guess that will be reflected in the tourism of that area. Luckily I have no interest in the sex trade (and especially in a country where underage girls are offered) or visiting palaces, which is why when I am backpacking (my interest), I tend to run into fit and healthy folks (of all ages). Oh, as for the price of someone 'getting' something, I wouldn't have a clue, as I have nothing to do with anything like that!

Back to the Nimrod. Many folks have 20/20 hindsight vision, which is fine by me....It's just so much better if the person had stated their knowledge in advance, and with good reasons.

Just a few thoughts

[hanoijane]

What does the above comment referring to the sex trade say about the country that supports. runs and offers it?

What you may - or may not - expect to find on your visit to Ha Noi depends on your tastes. But basic economic theory tells us that price increases when demand (from our visitors) is high and supply (from our local ladies of the night) is highly limited. What does that tell you about the Viet Nam of today?

And before you tell me such things don't occur in the UK, I could name three 'highly respectable' hotels in London where I was propositioned over Christmas IN THE BAR. Though I am rather handsome, so it's entirely understandable...

It's just so much better if the person had stated their knowledge in advance, and with good reasons.

Hmmm. Ok. Next to go down? F35. Reason? Too little aeroplane for the $'s.

[Mad_Mark]

And before you tell me such things don't occur in the UK, I could name three 'highly respectable' hotels in London where I was propositioned over Christmas IN THE BAR.

Probably by Eastern European immigrants (many of which are conned into going to the UK for a real job and then forced into the 'business' by slave-masters - normally from their own country!!) :ooh:

[TorqueOfTheDevil]

why the planned "general media facility" was abandoned


Not enough parking?

[Mend em]

Please please please let's keep this thread on track. This 'racism' diversion doesn't belong here - try face:mad:book or twit:mad:ter:=