Glad to see we are back on thread again
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