NIMROD "Maritime Revamped Aircraft"

[Mad_Mark]

Originally Posted by vecvechookattack

Why won't anyone admit that this aircraft is a complete and utter waste of time and money. We don't need it, we don't want it and the whole idea should be scrapped now before we waste anymore of my money on it.

So, the fact that about half the MR2 force of aircraft are currently operationally deployed with about 1/3 of operational crews quite clearly shows that there is no use for the Nimrod these days - get a life you friggin retard Far from being a waste of time and money, only 12 airframes are too few for the amount of tasking the current frame receives and a big mistake on behalf of this tight-ar$ed Government
MadMark!!!

[Green Meat]

This thread is starting to sound horribly like the aftermath of the Sandys report in 1957, re the Lightning:"Unfortunately this project has gone too far to stop..." (paraphrasing, anyway). Good job, really.

The trouble with procuring assets only for what is happening right now is that you can't predict what you need. Having said that, of course, I'll now tactfully not mention Typhoon.

Buy Gripen! (Neat thread hi-jack, don't you think? )

[Not_a_boffin]

If the answer to the question "Do we need a long-range MPA with good ASW capability?" is yes (which it should be, given who we are, where we live and operate and who has submarines or could regenerate them quickly) then this project makes sense. Not very cost-effective sense certainly, but sense nonetheless.

There are no other options out there that are close to entering service. When the original competition was run ISTR the options were Nimrod rebuild, P3 rebuild, Atlantique 2 or hang around and wait for the P7 to materialise (it still hasn't). Given the long range & ToS requirements and fuselage volume required, that pretty much left Nimrod & P3 rebuilds. At the time, the P3 rebuild was probably the better bet in terms of export potential, but the decision was made and we have to live with it.

Despite the best efforts of certain people in town, the submarine threat is still there and MIOPS also require a wide area surveillance asset that in the absence of CV-based S3 vikings is best done by Nimrod.

[Jimlad1]

Having seen first hand the value of the MR2 in places warmer than Scotland, I am a firm convert to the value of this program for the whole of the defence community. People are waking up to the fact that MR2 doesnt just do SAR and it is an increasingly mission critical asset in a lot of places.

The only downside of it was the roar it made taking off which kept waking me up

[Gaz ED]

MRA 4 is lots quieter! Jarman engines!

[Mad_Mark]

Originally Posted by Jimlad1

Having seen first hand the value of the MR2 in places warmer than Scotland, I am a firm convert to the value of this program for the whole of the defence community. People are waking up to the fact that MR2 doesnt just do SAR and it is an increasingly mission critical asset in a lot of places.

The only downside of it was the roar it made taking off which kept waking me up

Ahhh, finally - someone that actually uderstands that the MR2 (and the MRA4 when it comes into service) is not isimply a ASW/SAR platform.

MadMark!!!

[ORAC]

So, the fact that about half the MR2 force of aircraft are currently operationally deployed with about 1/3 of operational crews

That would seem to raise the question as too how many crews we need. I mean, if half the aircraft with 1/3 of the CR crews can do the operational task, why does the other half need twice as many crews back at home.....

Rely totally on other countries' "export" variants? Thats' fielding a second team. Look at the JSF, will we ever get access to source codes, so that our industry can tinker with them? Will Congress let us?

Good news is the mission system is supposed to be excellent - but then that was made by Boeing!

So, what, exactly, sort of better arrangement do we have with Boeing, than we have with LM?.....

[Gaz ED]

Our american cousins don't seem so possessive about TCSS software than they do about, say, AMRAAM, and JSF.

Only in my little world, of course.

[Mad_Mark]

Originally Posted by ORAC

So, the fact that about half the MR2 force of aircraft are currently operationally deployed with about 1/3 of operational crews

That would seem to raise the question as too how many crews we need. I mean, if half the aircraft with 1/3 of the CR crews can do the operational task, why does the other half need twice as many crews back at home.....

Maybe because of several reasons:

1. To allow crews that have recently returned from operational deployment to have some leave and refresh their training on the many other roles that the MR2 does.

2. To allow crews about to deploy to carry out specialist pre-deployment training.

3. Because a fleet of 12 a/c and 20 crews gives 0.6 a/c per crew whilst we currently have deployed about 5 a/c (about 1/2 the fleet) and 7 crews (about 1/3 of the fleet) giving 0.7 a/c per crew.

4. So that the crews back home can squeeze in all the other BS that the RAF seem to enforce these days - the number of annual (admin) stats required seems to have trebbled since I joined

You obviously seem to have little concept in these matters

MadMark!!!

[ORAC]

Ohhhhh, bite.....

[Mad_Mark]

Originally Posted by ORAC

Ohhhhh, bite.....

Ahhh, the usual 'get-out clause' when YOU are made to look stoopid

[ORAC]

Nahh. I might point out a lot of people have to manage with 2 tranches, one in theatre and one out, and that places like the Falklands have been manned by gapping posts at home for over 30 years - after the money funded by the treasury for the posts was used to fill gaps elsewhere. We'll take the money for that Mount Kent post and establish another MT driver at xxxx....

To actually see a force which can manage to fill do it so comfortably shows you have an establishment that nobody has been able to nibble away at. But the kipper fleet always was a world onto its own.

In my world it was a total pain doing without not only the body who was away, but a second, to cover pre and post deployment training and leave.

I think a lot of people will be looking at your reasons as valid reasons, but thinking they should be so lucky to have so many people.......

[Biggus]

I thought all the RAF multi engine fleets had a ratio of crews to aircraft of about 1.5 to 1, to allow for 24/7 Ops during war. During my time at Lyneham there were approx 80-90 crews for 60 airfames (all K models then). In which case the numbers Mad Mark quotes for the kipper fleet are not unusual.

Are you telling me that the RAF only has 6 or 7 E-3D crews, is only planning on 5 ASTOR crews, only has 9 Tristar crews, only enough VC-10 crews for one a/c each, etc, etc.

I think not!!

p.s Oh yes, sorry I forgot, and only 4 C-17 crews!!

[frostbite]

Article regarding software/hardware upgrades:-

http://news.zdnet.co.uk/hardware/eme...9279218,00.htm