AC Ovee,
I'm sorry to inform you that you are wrong my dear chap.
The principles you quote are correct and plausable, but the fact remains that the Nimrod bomb bay could, and should have beeen fitted with a fire extinguishant, especially on the MR4, and thats most people are banging on about now. I hate to say it, but to retro fit the bomb bay on the MR2 is probably not worth it given it's short time left in service.
The Nimrod bomb bay is unique in that it is heated as you say by ducted air from the engines, and MR4 is just the same. That said, the heating can be switched off, and in an emergency (unless SOPs have changed) was regularly switched off. At this point, one of the boys down the back would look down the old periscope and check the bay for a fire, smoke or fumes, and the captain would thereafter decide on the best course of action.
But why do you feel that you could not flood the bomb bay at this point with an extinguishant? lets say some form of inert gas? Reason = Cost £££££££
There is no other reason at all. High pressure inert gas is used throughout avaiation for such an event. I would expect the same to go for civilian jets.
But the simple, blunt, distasteful and disturbing reason is because it will cost money, and thereby lies the problem.
Now Mr Safeware has come up with all this statistical nonesence about reasonable risk, acceptable risk blah, and those at MOD and BWOS will have looked at these figures and gone for them in a big way, saying 'hey, we can save a few quid here chaps' Lets not bother with the bomb bay fire senario, because in all the years of Nimrod, we have only had a handful of incidents, and lost only 2 aircraft (I'm including the St Mawgan jet that was eventually cat 5) so as Safeware says, its an 'acceptable risk' (I say bollox it is!)
What The Winco and others are saying is that MR4 should be made as safe a is humanly possible for todays standards, and I agree entirely with them. If XV230 had been fitted with a bomb bay fire-fighting system, who knows whether it would have survived or not? It might have just bought the guys a few more minutes to get the jet on the ground. If that had been the case (and we will never know) does anyone still think its an 'acceptable risk'??
Safeware, your comments read like those of a polititian. Maybe you are one, I don't know. But I find some of your comments in bad taste, especially given the fact that Nimrod 4 is regarded as a 'new jet' by the those who will fly it. It now appears it will be using old parts and old technology, clearly a move to save on costs, and not using state of the art fire fighting kit. That is a shameful and unacceptable way to conduct things, but I suppose the bean counters will be rubbing their greasy little hands, pleased with themselves at having saved a few extra pounds for the asylum seekers, and not bothered that the lives of RAF aurcrew have been put in danger.
Thank God I'm no longer on the fleet.
KInd regards to all
TSM