Nimrod MRA4 In Service Date?

[Avtur]

When is the RAF going to be delivered its first, fully functional (iaw the URD) Nimrod MK4 ?

Are the the aircrew alowed to use the APU?

Simple questions, requires simple (date/yes/no) answers...

Rumour has it (this is pprune) it is so "engineeringly" challenged (still) that it won't (anally challenged ref APU).

Expecting the usual "talk-up" from the ex-kipper fleet backenders at Warton/Woodford/Woodvale who made the poacher-turn-gamekeeper jump, but some insight by those who understand and appreciate the engineering issues at hand would be appreciated.

I do appreciate Comm in Comf before you start ranting, but will take it to the limit.

[MrBernoulli]

Probably never!

[GlosMikeP]

For a Programme that was headlined as the flagship of SMART procurement, it really has had a tough time of it!

I guess it will but I doubt it will be easy or straightforward.

[mary_hinge]

2010 If you believe this :ugh:

http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/nimrod/

[vecvechookattack]

How many airframes are BAe providing to achieve the ISD ? Anyone know?

[RileyDove]

Not the answer but hopefully either (a) before the world runs out of oil
or (b) straight from Warton to desert storage in exchange for some Maritime 737's !

[Dimmer Switch]

Expecting the usual "talk-up" from the ex-kipper fleet backenders at Warton/Woodford/Woodvale who made the poacher-turn-gamekeeper jump, but some insight by those who understand and appreciate the engineering issues at hand would be appreciated.

As I'm in that category, you'll probably ignore/trash/disregard this but, as requested:

2010
Yes

[GlosMikeP]

How many airframes are BAe providing to achieve the ISD ? Anyone know?

From the MRA4 IPT site:

Nimrod MRA4 news

Des Browne, Secretary of State for Defence made the following statement at the SBAC Farnborough airshow on 18 July 2006.

“I am pleased to announce that the Contract for full production of 12 Nimrod MRA4 aircraft has been placed with BAE Systems. This is the culmination of many years of hard work by BAE Systems and its supply chain, and builds upon the considerable investment already made by the MOD and BAE Systems......."

First Flight - 2004 ISD - 2010

[GlosMikeP]

...or (b) straight from Warton to desert storage in exchange for some Maritime 737's !
Erm, much more in common than you might at first think. Boeing involved in both, and they're just as likely to make a mess of something as BAE so don't get your hopes up too high, too early:eek:

[Party Animal]

Great news with the confirmed order and good to see the team working hard in Florida. However, one thing that seems to have had little comment on is:

1998 - £2bn order for 21 aircraft = £95mil each

2006 - Cost now £3.2bn for 12 aircraft = £267mil each

Any further creep and they will be approaching the cost of a B2!!

[GlosMikeP]

BAE clearly under-bid on price when they won, and were, I believe, asked several times if they'd done their sums right. They said they had.:eek:

Well funny old thing, within a very brief time of contract signing they asked to re-negotiate....and were given a frosty response. Quite right.:*

Unfortunately that was in the days when the DPA mantra was 'Pass all risk to the contractor' - which was utter rot, though moving DPA's thinking away from it was impossible at that time. They had to have a hard knock to realise that Technical risk can be passed off but Operational risk, and perhaps also therefore cost risk, remains with the customer.:(

So, we are where we are! That's the true cost with this airframe. Bad decision? Would the P3 have been a better one? No way of knowing and not worth the discussion now. Pay up and be happy, or at least smile.:}

[RileyDove]

It's far cheaper to build brand new airframes and tailor them to your requirements rather than 'cut and shut' some old Nim's that have been around a bit! I guess Boeing being involved in this escapade are now well aware of the pitfalls!

[LowObservable]

About when MRA4 was getting started, I became aware of the headaches NorthGrum were having, getting 707-320Cs modded for Joint STARS - and they had cherry-picked the world's VIP 707 fleets for shiny low-hours, low-cycle, late-production jets.
Tears before bedtime, I thought...

[Duncan D'Sorderlee]

Hey! The are no ex-kipper back enders at Woodvale! It is the pround home of 2 UAS and a VGS. Everyone flying there has a window!

Duncs:ok:

[Pontius Navigator]

Pay up and be happy, or at least smile.:}

Don't you mean bendover, be happy and smile?:(

[GlosMikeP]

It's far cheaper to build brand new airframes and tailor them to your requirements rather than 'cut and shut' some old Nim's that have been around a bit! I guess Boeing being involved in this escapade are now well aware of the pitfalls!
Two different aspects here.

The Nimrods were manufactured to the best standards and practices of their day - erm... circa 1965-70 - which means they were cut with knives and forks and slammed together with hammers and chisels, if judged by modern standards. BAE had forgotten this, and so didn't know that they had in fact got a bespoke fleet of aircraft, every one of which was a unique airframe. So the 'standard' wing produced to best standards and practices circa 2000, simply didn't fit. Lots of re-engineering, cost.....

The second aspect is that the mission system (seriously complex one at that!), in the early days at least, had a lot of the software designed by Boeing, much of it taken from, I believe, the maritime 737. Boeing are as good or as bad at writing software as any other big systems house; indeed I'd say on balance, probably better than most. But they are far from flawless and since it's utterly impossible to write error free software, and that the software delivered/developed would have needed integration with new code....boy, is that a big and tricky job! Mike's rule of thumb: 2-5% code change is manageable; 5-10% is a major change; more than 10% means it might be cheaper to rewrite the entire code from scratch than try and adapt that in place. Now is that a cost driver waiting to happen or what!

and then there have been other problems too....It's no easy job and to be frank, for whatever reasons the aircraft was chosen and however high the hurdles, we shouldn't contemplate ever again a fiasco the likes of the Nimrod AEW/E-3D. It's better to stick at it.

[GlosMikeP]

Hey! The are no ex-kipper back enders at Woodvale! It is the pround home of 2 UAS and a VGS. Everyone flying there has a window!

Duncs:ok:
I think you mean Woodford, near Wilmslow, which is a main BAE manufacturing plant. Woodvale is a small airfield on the coast near Formby flying light ac.

[Pontius Navigator]

GMP,

Mike's rule of thumb: 2-5% code change is manageable; 5-10% is a major change; more than 10% means it might be cheaper to rewrite the entire code from scratch than try and adapt that in place.

Are you the Mike? I believe there was an issue with the E3 software. Millions of lines of code and consisting of many modules. One team might latch on to a particular module for a particular function that had not originally been intended. The original purpose may have ceased and there would be a temptation to 'clean up' the software but this could not be done because of unknown interdependencies. Was that feasible?

If it was, ultimately you have a massive amount of unknown redundant software hogging storage and processor capacity but performing no useful function.

On the Mk 1 Nimrod it had only 8k of 16-bit storage. Even there, despite their best efforts as squeezing a quart out of a pint pot it was found that some essentially similar routines were duplicated - each weapon type had its own ballistic formula when all it needed was a set of discrete constance and common variables.

[GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU]

If I remember rightly, the first idiocy was subcontracting the work to FRA/Serco at Hurn. They undercut the BAe Chadderton/Woodford bid, which should have rung alarm bells. Woodford still had a significant workforce experienced in building Nimrods and that had been revalidated during the work done on the MK3. The other advantage they had was that the drawing office was just nextdoor. I think that lost around 23 months of the programme and a lot of expensive kit movement.

The second idiocy, as I see it, was the decision to conduct the flight test programme at Warton. Woodford has been test flying large aeroplanes since the 1930s, has built up considerable expertise and has all the facilities needed. Perhaps it was easier and cheaper for the DPA types to be located in the same place of work. It certainly wasn't easier for the work parties from Woodford to continually drag themselves out to Warton.

We mustn't forget that from SR (Air) 420 emerged a specification for a an aeroplane with 4 fanjet engines (low noise fatigue for the crew, high altitude capability for search range, fast patrol station transit time, etc). Whatever other aeroplane was chosen would have to have been a converted airliner, then. The Treasury, being simple but devious folk, would have found the idea of recycling an existing machine quite attractive (their understanding of a Through-deck Cruiser springs to mind). So here we are.

Something I'm not clear about are the telephone number like costs being attributed to this. If DPA are doing what they were supposed to do, they should be compiling through life costs. Is that quoted £3,200M for 12 aircraft the sum of the initial unit costs or that of the whole programme?

As ever, GlosMikeP has summed up a number of salient points on this programme well. As a minor point, though, I don't think the villagers of Bramhall would appreciate Woodford being placed next to Wilmslow.

[GlosMikeP]

GMP,



Are you the Mike? I believe there was an issue with the E3 software. Millions of lines of code and consisting of many modules. One team might latch on to a particular module for a particular function that had not originally been intended. The original purpose may have ceased and there would be a temptation to 'clean up' the software but this could not be done because of unknown interdependencies. Was that feasible?

If it was, ultimately you have a massive amount of unknown redundant software hogging storage and processor capacity but performing no useful function.

Yes there was loads of redundant code - it was deemed less risky to leave it in than remove it. So it got 'blocked off'..or so everyone hoped. Fortunately it seems to have worked out roughly OK, but you'd know better than me I think.

[GlosMikeP]

It's far cheaper to build brand new airframes and tailor them to your requirements rather than 'cut and shut' some old Nim's that have been around a bit! I guess Boeing being involved in this escapade are now well aware of the pitfalls!
That's actually quite difficult to prove one way or the other.

New Nimrod airframes...only if the jigs and machine tools and plans were still intact and available. There was talk of getting rid of them in the mid 80s, but I don't know what actually happened.

New P3? One of the plans was to reverse engineer a P3. Utterly bizarre! Another to take redundant P3 airframes; not sure how this would in truth be better than old Nimrods.

It's not a clear cut argument. Pros and cons each way.

[GlosMikeP]

We mustn't forget that from SR (Air) 420 emerged a specification for a an aeroplane with 4 fanjet engines (low noise fatigue for the crew, high altitude capability for search range, fast patrol station transit time, etc). Whatever other aeroplane was chosen would have to have been a converted airliner, then. The Treasury, being simple but devious folk, would have found the idea of recycling an existing machine quite attractive (their understanding of a Through-deck Cruiser springs to mind). So here we are.

......As a minor point, though, I don't think the villagers of Bramhall would appreciate Woodford being placed next to Wilmslow.

Oh I'd forgotten all about the ASR. Words fail me.....for a moment. If it was as beautifully written:rolleyes: as ASR400 was for the Nimrod AEW, no wonder it got off to a bad start. ASR 400 was the most comprehensively useless document I've ever read with an engineering purpose in mind. Utterly vaccuous. Perhaps the poorest piece of staff work to float off the old OR desks.

However, unlike the Nimrod AEW, the MRA4 did actually have much promise of getting off to a half way decent start. The requirements were well and widely advised by good technical and ops folk; it's just that the advice didn't all come through into the spec as it should. I could hardly believe the advice I'd given - on performance characteristics, isolation needs of some data, and standards management - had been almost totally omitted. That was DPA's fault, not BAE's; and it took quite an argument to put it back on track, plus severe budget.

In the end with all the lost requirements it's a miracle we didn't get a biplane Hudson with turboprops, two observer platforms, semaphore and morse comms and no bomb bay.:eek:

But - rant over - that's life acquiring big and complex systems. Bear in mind that no one (whoever they are, whatever their loyalties) comes to work with the intention of doing a bad job. No one gets everything right and in the end it comes down to what you can argue against a contract (where you will never win every last point) compared to what you 'must' have - and horse trade the rest. DPA knows it and so does BAE and every other supplier. And I'm sorry to have to say it guys, the military is/are the world's worst at stating requirements and sticking to them - and that bu:mad: ers up everyone on all sides.:{

On the serious point re Woodford's location. Nuts! I like Wilmslow and remember it from the time it was a quaint old town where I lived in the 60s (at the RAF camp...long lost). And anyway I knew and regularly visited every pub within a 10 mile radius of Woodford - to ensure community relations were maintained to best modern standards and practices of course - so the good burghers (no, not Wimpy or McD's!) of Bramhall can jolly well be grateful I kept the pubs profitable and open for them.:p

[thunderbird7]

So, lets take a Comet, with all those 1940's design interconnected hydraulic servodynes and a minute circumference fuselage and make a 21st century jet? The only thing more stupid would be the Atlantique. Fond as I am of the old beastie, its like Ford putting a Cosworth engine in the Anglia and expecting... now hang on a minute:ok:

[GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU]

GlosMikeP

You will be familiar with the Thieves' Neck, then, opposite Woodford Church. Reputedly, many a design problem has been solved in there.

Alas, the name has become the Davenport Arms, yet again. PC did take a short holiday, though.

Digressing to the AEW3, do you remember how the specification grew like Topsy after the airframes had been modified? How the computer power and cooling requirements exceded the size of the aeroplane?

[GlosMikeP]

GlosMikeP

You will be familiar with the Thieves' Neck, then, opposite Woodford Church. Reputedly, many a design problem has been solved in there.

Alas, the name has become the Davenport Arms, yet again. PC did take a short holiday, though.

Digressing to the AEW3, do you remember how the specification grew like Topsy after the airframes had been modified? How the computer power and cooling requirements exceded the size of the aeroplane?

Yes, further indicative proof of the lack of a well defined set of User and System requirements before design took hold. I'mnot sure it was ever designed; it just evolved! Fortunately at least the MRA4 didn't go that 'unbounded' way, so some lessons were learnt.

I recall having lunch in the pub on many occasions before an afternoon or evening flight - better than the Woodford diner! It was there that someone bought me a lager "I can't drink that you plonker! I'm flying later." To hear "Oh yes you can, you plonker - it's non alcoholic". My first introduction to beer with no %.

We digress.

[Wensleydale]

Nimrod AEW did just evolve - it was not meant to be built. As I understand, when the decision to split from the NATO AEW Component was taken in the early seventies (24 E-3A at Brize or Fairford) and we decided to go it alone, everybody in the know accepted that the UK would buy 6 x E-3A as our contribution to the NAEWF. However union power was rife at the time, so a small amount of money was dangled in front of the UK manufacturers to come up with a home-built solution before we bought the American system. GEC pocketed their share of the money, rolled out a Comet fitted with a bulbous nose radar used to test the "Blue Circle" FMICW radar which was being developed for the (then) F2, and stated that this was the best AEW platform in the world. This Sop to Union power was fine until a change of Government brought Harold Wilson to power. The result was "we are not buying from abroad - we will buy British". GEC was left with a contract, no solution and egg on their faces - hence the AEW radar with absolutely no performance. Any Sqn Sh*g on day 2 of a radar course would realise that the parameters chosen for the radar would not be suitable (Low PRF, inappropriate clutter notch etc).

Those of use who flew both AEW3 and E-3 certainly know which we would rather have had. A very sad and state of affairs for our aerospace industry!!

[Shackman]

Re Nimwacs - when the various options were shown to 8 Squadron S**gs the elements of disbelief were quite interesting:

Option 1 - A bastardised Andover (just being withdrawn from service so plenty of airframes) with bigger wings, extra jet under each wing (think Shack MR3) and tons of extra fuel - and requiring an 11000ft runway!!!!

Option 2 - An updated Hawkeye. The Gannet guys loved the idea but would probably have needed a carrier to go anywhere

Option 3 - Nimrod with the radar developed for (but never flown) a Blackburn design to go on the new RN super carrier (which had been cancelled). On the face of it a good idea but unproven

Option 4 - E3

Needless to say the Sqn (almost to a man) said go for E3, but the decisions were being taken by the OR lot at MoD, which (if I remember) didn't have any AEW guys in it at the time, or if they did he was too far down the pecking order to have any real input.

I was only surprised we didn't get the Andover variant!

It was a shame they ended up destroying so many good Nimrod airframes which would have been available much sooner (and with fewer hours) for MR4A.

[GlosMikeP]

Nimrod AEW did just evolve - it was not meant to be built. .....decision to split from the NATO AEW Component was taken in the early seventies (24 E-3A at Brize or Fairford) and we decided to go it alone, everybody in the know accepted that the UK would buy 6 x E-3A as our contribution to the NAEWF.

Pretty much correct, but it did evolve and wasn't really designed as a system would be now under 'Systems Engineering' principles, driven by Requirements Engineering - which is how, to all intents and purposes the MRA4 has been designed. Actually that's also how the E-3 was designed, too.

The Nimrod decision was driven by indecision at NATO over what they wanted to do. UK decided we couldn't wait any longer because of the time it takes to develop new systems - then 10 years, now about the same or longer. When NATO did finally make its mind up, we'd gone for Nimrod so it was too late to do anything about it without massive embarrassment and cash penalties. Oh dear!

.... rolled out a Comet fitted with a bulbous nose radar used to test the "Blue Circle" FMICW radar which was being developed for the (then) F2, and stated that this was the best AEW platform in the world.

Not as I understand it. The P model had little capability and was a proof of concept for the new transmitter system. The F3 radar was and is nothing like the old AEWs in power, waveform or any other reasonable characteristic.

.... hence the AEW radar with absolutely no performance. Any Sqn Sh*g on day 2 of a radar course would realise that the parameters chosen for the radar would not be suitable (Low PRF, inappropriate clutter notch etc).

It wasn't a low PRF radar; it was a Medium PRF system, with range and velocity ambiguities with multiple PRFs that were used to resolve them.

High clutter levels were driven by the poor decision to use the twist cassegrain antennas - brilliant idea on paper, less so in practical use - that gave a massive height line coupled with typical N Sea ops being within LOS of land, where vehicles - valid targets to a radar - swamped the system. These were not helped, however, by the decision to go for a very low design value for the minimum velocity notch - which in fact was and would remain today extremely important, to prevent loss of valid targets as their radial velocity (R Dot) towards the AEW reduces. Remember radial vel isn't a linear relationship - it's a Sine curve. After that it comes down to computing power, and there were some issues there too.

Tracking was in fact excellent for the periods before a range/velocity hole was encountered. At least it was wholly truthful by not misleading operators into believing it was tracking something when it wasn't: when it said TQ=0, it meant it and dropped the track straight away.

After the offset parabolic antennas were fitted the height line fell massively, so range and vel ambiguities improved accordingly; but of course by then so little development had been achieved and so many tempers had frayed, the end result was all but inevitable.

I wonder if, had we spent as much on the radar development as we did on the airframes, the result would have been different. Moot point now, no point worrying about it.

What is important however is we learnt a lot of lessons that got fed into the MRA4 procurement, difficult though it has been....and with more lessons learnt I suspect.

Without a clear and unambiguous set of User and System Requirements for the AEW, the PE didn't know what to buy and the contractor didn't know what to deliver - and everyone on all sides got a bad deal. This is why it's so absolutely important to get the Requirements right at the beginning, and not leave them to chance and evolution. Hopefuilly the MRA4 will come through in the end.

[Wensleydale]

GMP,

Reason for NATO delay in go-ahead for NAEWF was caused by MONEY - who should pay for what. The result was RN pressure for UK to go alone because of the decision to scrap the big carriers and the loss of the AEW Gannet (Falklands showed the wisdom of that decision). The base was to be in the UK - either Brize or Fairford - although I am not sure if that decision was taken. Needless to say, if we pulled out then the base had to go elsewhere. The only possible location was in West germany (Benelux not wanting high value targets on their soil and the rest either too north or south for operations. Therefore, once the UK had stated that it would pull out if costs could not be agreed then the Germans knew that they would get the base and the financial benefits that that bought. Once we pulled out, the germans tactfully waited for a couple of months then signed up for what was to become the NAEWF at Geilenkirchen. (The cash for which, under German law has to go through a German bank - I wonder who got the interest. Rumour has it that the TCAs were allegedly funded by the "fine" levied once the rest of NATO found out how much the Germans were raking in).

My statement of "low PRF" is of course relative - I don't want to go into the current system in this forum. However I must take issue with you about the performance of the "Offset Pair of Bo****cks" - sorry Parabolics. You have fallen for the GEC line about road traffic. If this is the case then the Shetland Islands have a huge number of articulated trucks driving over them. The problem was the very large first sidelobe which painted land as moving targets due to the too small clutter notch. Hence the UK coastline and oil rigs being tracked as huge formations of aircraft doing 47 Kts. This is the reason that we could not directly illuminate the coastline within 120 nmi without crashing the computer.

I also disagree about the tracker which gave appaulingly short track life if the aircraft turned. I refer the Gentleman to the results of the final trial before the decision to scrap where the AEW 3 was trialled against a common datum (E-3A flown the day after). The results are classified so I cannot say too much, however the results were damning.

There is a book waiting to be writen about the whole episode - as you rightly say, we learned a lot from the whole mess.

[GlosMikeP]

GMP,

....
My statement of "low PRF" is of course relative - I don't want to go into the current system in this forum. However I must take issue with you about the performance of the "Offset Pair of Bo****cks" - sorry Parabolics. You have fallen for the GEC line about road traffic. If this is the case then the Shetland Islands have a huge number of articulated trucks driving over them. The problem was the very large first sidelobe which painted land as moving targets due to the too small clutter notch. Hence the UK coastline and oil rigs being tracked as huge formations of aircraft doing 47 Kts. This is the reason that we could not directly illuminate the coastline within 120 nmi without crashing the computer.

I also disagree about the tracker which gave appaulingly short track life if the aircraft turned. I refer the Gentleman to the results of the final trial before the decision to scrap where the AEW 3 was trialled against a common datum (E-3A flown the day after). The results are classified so I cannot say too much, however the results were damning.

We're a bit off thread here but let's close it off.

PRF rating isn't relative, it's absolute. There are clear definitions for what constitutes a low, medium or high PRF system. No ifs ands or buts. Low is range and velocity unambiguous; medium is both range and velocity ambiguous; high is range ambiguous velocity unambiguous.

MPRF resolution in range is achieved by examining the modulo of PRF event. If you haven't an engineering degree you won't have come across modulo - it's a part of mathematical number theory. (Stay away from it unless you're an insomniac).

I saw first hand the results of the offset parabolics compared to the cassegrains, in design and test reports, independent assessments, and from my own observations in flight. They made a huge difference. If we'd started with them, as GEC was advised at the outset to do, the outcome might well have been completely different. The lessening of the height line was not large - it was utterly immense, measured in tens of dB.

I'm afraid the rest of your analysis is simply wrong, save for the fact that there were massive numbers of vehicles on UK roads that were picked up by the radar in main and sidelobes. I flew a number of overnight flights using the TWT drivers only (not using main power) and the road map of UK emerged from 2am and by 6am the whole of the landmass was alive and the radar unusable.

Back to the MRA4 please.

[Saintsman]

One of the development aircraft is undergoing cold weather trials at the moment http://www.flightglobal.com/Articles/2006/11/01/Navigation/332/210350/Picture+BAE+Systems+MRA4+Nimrod+undergoes+extreme+cold%2c+pl unging+to+40+below+zero+in.html

Apparently, according to the article, BAES are hoping to freeze the design. Well thats one way of getting it into service....

[GlosMikeP]

I hope that wasn't a pun!:p

[cynicalint]

Didn't the MRA4 project used to be called Nimrod 2000? - Is it running six years late or do they consider that they still have 94 years left before it has to be called Nimrod 2100?

[Padraig Murphy]

Newcomer - small point is that MRA4 was doomed from the beginning when it selected the most unlucky aircraft in the fleet as PA01 believe it was 47 landed at its home base post bolthole with all wheels locked also considered by groundcrew as the most unlucky aircraft as all numbers added to 13 and one engineer went down the intake plus numerous other issues. MR2 has been relifed till 2010 maybe now we should consider a new aircraft and new role no point hunting for ruskie subs?

[GlosMikeP]

It was and you could wonder. But banter apart guys, is there any real news?

[Kev Nurse]

The linked article about the extreme temperature tests at Eglin referred to a max temp of +44°C. Assuming that the aircraft will pass those tests, I hope it isn't then going to be operationally limited to +44°C at sea level.

[Lyneham Lad]

Of the many Nimrod & MR4A threads, the title of this one seemed most appropriate for the Flight International update (http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2008/12/01/319579/bae-systems-powers-up-first-production-nimrod-mra4.html) on what seems to be real progress.

BAE Systems has achieved the power-on milestone for the first of nine Nimrod MRA4s on firm order for the UK Royal Air Force, and says the surveillance platform is on track to enter service in 2010.

Aircraft PA4 is now 93% complete at BAE's Woodford site in Cheshire, and is expected to make its first flight early next year, following the installation of mission system equipment, the company says. The power-on test was performed "without a glitch", it adds.

The article also contains information on the flight test programme (hadn't I read somewhere that there had been issues with longitudinal stability?)

[microlight AV8R]

That Flight International report is encouraging, until you read this bit...

"The Royal Air Force (http://www.raf.mod.uk/) is now expected to field nine MRA4s, with the programme's three development aircraft not under contract to be converted for operational use."

Still, look on the bright side chaps. In the past it has been rumoured that aircraft have been bought without an adequate spares package for through life support. This has now been solved by buying nine airframes for ops and a further three can be for spares:eek:

I thought it was bad that a maritime nation was only going to have 12. Does this mean that it might be realistic to only plan on having six immediately available after allowing for various levels of mainrtenance?

A very sorry state of affairs, almost on a par with the Chinook debacle.

[Ivan Rogov]

Don't worry the MRA4 will have increased endurance and greater serviceability, therefore we don't need to replace the MR2 one for one.

Well that was the excuse a few years ago when 21 erm, 15 oh no, 12 were on order. Great spin until one goes u/s and leaves a bigger gap in cover, and it can't be in 2 places at once.

It now seems that the only driving force for numbers is cost, but how many do we really need? Why did they need 3 prototypes for 9 production aircraft, seems rather a lot?

Still good news that it's progressing, looks like we will see the MRA4 in a museum and as a gate guard before the MR2!

[spheroid]

It now seems that the only driving force for numbers is cost,

Of course it is cost and it should always be cost. This, after all is my tax payers money the IPT are spending and I want VFM.

[Roland Pulfrew]

Of course it is cost and it should always be cost. This, after all is my tax payers money the IPT are spending and I want VFM.

Excellent! You must work for HMT and, as usual, you are wrong :rolleyes:

Delivering projects to agreed Performance, Cost and Time criteria.


This is taken from the Acquisition Operating Framework, you will note that performance comes first!! It is also my tax payers money and I want performance first.

[Ivan Rogov]

Spheroid, you mentioned VFM which is where I think the MRA4 project is failing, however the money is already spent, there is no alternative in the timeframe required and the airframe is nearly ready. Using 20/20 hindsight the contract overall has been a disgrace, but the people in place now are not those that set it up so badly on both sides and they are now doing their best to deliver what they can. Hopefully lessons will be drawn from this for future projects, OK maybe not :{

Cost is an important consideration, but cheapest is not always best and may well cost much more in the end.

[tucumseh]

Hopefully lessons will be drawn from this for future projects, OK maybe not.


Any “lessons learnt” process depends on three things;


The Post Project Evaluation report (or whatever they call it this week) is a collation of all the interim reports identifying lessons to be learnt, not just a single paper after the event.
It is written by someone who actually experienced (and preferably anticipated) the problems/risks and successfully solved or mitigated them.
“Management” has the will to implement recommendations, or give reasons why not.
MoD does none of this, not least because the PPE is (or was) only required 2 years after ISD, by which time the “procurement” officers are long gone and applying their skills (?) to new projects. I have written many PPEs, but not once has anyone spoken to me, asked a question or even commented. Not once. The only acknowledgement I’ve ever had was one boss who threw a PPE back at me telling me, if I’m still in post in 2 years, try again – knowing very well that I wouldn’t be and neither would he. (Try forwarding a PPE to your old IPT 2 years after you’ve left, asking them to elevate it – they’d bin it). Funnily enough, that PPE mentioned Nimrod as a potential beneficiary.

The real lesson to be learnt is this. While Nimrod was slipping, other far more complex projects in the same Directorate General, with a fraction of Nimrod’s resource, were delivering ahead of schedule, to a better performance than requested and under “cost”. The Director’s reaction? “You are an embarrassment to the Department”. What he meant was, dumb down as your competence merely emphasises incompetence elsewhere. This is the ethos one should bear in mind when seeking reasons for other screw ups, like Chinook Mk3.

[KeepItTidy]

Padraig Murphy

ISD for Nimrod?
Newcomer - small point is that MRA4 was doomed from the beginning when it selected the most unlucky aircraft in the fleet as PA01 believe it was 47 landed at its home base post bolthole with all wheels locked also considered by groundcrew as the most unlucky aircraft as all numbers added to 13 and one engineer went down the intake plus numerous other issues. MR2 has been relifed till 2010 maybe now we should consider a new aircraft and new role no point hunting for ruskie subs?

I think you are getting mixed up with XV229 being the unlucky haunted aircraft also reffered to as the Bahama Mamma.
When you said Bolthole what one are you reffering to and also the guy down the intake was 29 so we are lead to believe but its trivial info , most aircraft I have known in the fleet have had a brakes on landing as some crew forget to take the handbrake off before touchdown :)
As for in service date i dunno if its information available on the public domain but the first one due to arrive at Kinloss late next year , again we will see when it turns up.

[Lyneham Lad]

As for in service date i dunno if its information available on the public domain but the first one due to arrive at Kinloss late next year , again we will see when it turns up.

Well, if it wasn't, it is now :cool:

[EdSett100]

most aircraft I have known in the fleet have had a brakes on landing as some crew forget to take the handbrake off before touchdown http://static.pprune.org/images/smilies/smile.gif

KIT, to be correct, a Nimrod has never landed with the parking brake selected on. Occasionally the brake selector valve has jammed on with the lever off, or a pilot has inadvertently applied the brakes on one side (while kicking off drift) just before touchdown.

[Shadwell the old]

The aircraft that sucked the engineer down the intake during an engine run was 247 - it happened outside my office window around 1984. The same aircraft, 247, was responsible for the death of an armourer at St Mawgan in the early 70s when an old type bomb bay SUS fell out whilst being loaded, and I also believe it was the aircraft that the engineer on the NMSU caught his neck in the airbrakes during a test.

It is certainly considered the unlukiest or most (ground) accident prone in the fleet. It is now PA1 which was the first MRA4 to fly and was the airframe test aircraft for the project.

Incidentally 256 (total 13) was tragically lost in the woods at Kinloss following a multiple birdstrike around 1980

Shadwell

[Ogre]

Back in 1994(5?) we were briefed about "Nimrod 2000", a term I still sometimes use with a former colleague who currently works on the project. Needless to say I get a telling off on each occasion!

Two stories from the project that I heard which may or may not be true but seem to say a lot about the assumed skills of the project team, the first was that they were not aware that the length of the longest frame in the fleet was about 18 inches greater than the shortest frame in the fleet. A by-product of bespoke aircraft manufacture!

The second was that serious consideration was given to removing the galley and associated equipment to save weight. You can guess how long that idea lasted when it reached the ears of the future crews!

[tucumseh]

Don’t know about the galley tale, but there is truth in this;


seem to say a lot about the assumed skills of the project team, the first was that they were not aware that the length of the longest frame in the fleet was about 18 inches greater than the shortest frame in the fleet. A by-product of bespoke aircraft manufacture!


But, in fairness to the many excellent and experienced engineers on the project at the time, both in Industry and MoD, who did know this, and raised it at every opportunity, the “assumed skills” problem lay in the assumption that the senior managers could actually manage, a large part of which is the ability to listen to your experienced staffs. The trouble was, and remains, MoD confuses experience and competence.

[Yashin]

I am going to tell my mum about you lot.


My best friend had a pal who lived next-door to a girl who dated a guy who works on it and he said that actually it is a pleasure to fly on it because it does not make you want to throw up in the way that its much older and very distantly related cousin the vomitcomet used to do.

Like most major projects it has suffered from requirement creep and poor management. It will be more capable than the MR2 and the guys will like it.

Those who doubt it should go and have a play with the MRA4 Sim and enjoy!

I had the pleasure of eating a sausage roll on board the MRA4 and as the 1960s chef once said "mmm my sausage roll was lovely, it was better than eating Fanny's"

:rolleyes:

[KeepItTidy]

Edd set

KIT, to be correct, a Nimrod has never landed with the parking brake selected on. Occasionally the brake selector valve has jammed on with the lever off, or a pilot has inadvertently applied the brakes on one side (while kicking off drift) just before touchdown.

OK to official reports the handbrake has never been selected on, we will give a good reason to help out a pilot thats had a bad day :)
Just for info Brake Control Valves do not stick open, as you know the handbrake is a manual rod that selects 3 settings Green /Red/Red Handbrake , either the rigging was set up wrong which is unlikely as that would have failed big time indies, or the rod just simply moved to select on in flight, it can happen especially when a tray of donuts needs to be placed on the centre pedestal. Either or it dont matter nobody has been hurt and lessons learned.

[enginesuck]

And indeed if the rigging was wrong the aircraft wouldnt be able to taxi off the bay in the first place....:ok:

[lokiukuk]

Doesn't make you feel sick 'cos it doesn't go low level

[grousehunter]

Anyone get any updates? Hows the project going? What do people think, will it be in by the ISD? Low level......has it? Have the stability problems been fixed?

[Ian Corrigible]

Well, there was a pretty depressing article in last week's Av Week suggesting that only nine MRA.4s will now be delivered, with the plan to make three development aircraft operational apparently kaiboshed due to "issues around affordability."

Program cost is now put at GBP3.6 billion for 9 upgraded maritime Comets, versus the original plan of GBP2 billion for 21 mighty hunters, though 't Baron says the December 2010 ISD date (four aircraft delivered) still stands.

I/C

[Biggus]

9 seems more and more likely in these cash strapped days, but then the Navy was due to get 12 Type 45s (a one to one replacement for Type 42s), then 8, now 6..... Remind me again how many Astutes they wanted, and how many will the RN actually get?

As for the implications of only 9. How many Sqns for 9 vs 21 aircraft, does it need a dedicated MRA4 OCU, or an embedded training flight within a Sqn (2 VC10 Sqns, 10 and 101, only had a training flight, there was the LTF when we got down to 2 Lightning Sqns, etc). Can the existance of Kinloss be justified for only 9 airframes! How cost effective is that? Don't tell me, move 2 yellow cabs down the road to make it look busier.

As for the date, I think you are quite a way out, and for once it is due to be earlier than you quote. At least I hope so, as the MR2s should be gone well before Dec 2012 from what I have read...

[Ian Corrigible]

As for the date, I think you are quite a way out, and for once it is due to be earlier than you quote.
Foul-up on my part - the actual ISD date stated was Dec 2010, not 2012.

I/C

[KeepItTidy]

Biggus thats a good valid point on justifying 9 frames and a large airbase. Im sure a few years back they said the GR4s would move over so the JSF could move into Lossie, somehow I cant see that happening soon or ever tbh.
They are working plans to ensure the first 3 PA aircraft are included in the overall deal at cheapest possible price but I not holding my breath.

[sargs]

Biggus - what you need is the E-3D model: 7 aircraft, 3 sqns. Of course, if you have trouble justifying it at ISK you may need to employ a few ABMs (FCs in old money)..........

[Biggus]

sargs

It's probably out of date, most RAF web site/pages are, but looking at the RAF Waddington website today (Flying Squadrons) it only mentions 8 and 23 with regard to the E-3. Indeed the 23 Sqn individual page even says that it includes the STF (Sentry Training Flight).

However, I seem to remember reading about the formation of some sort of Super OCU, which trains crew members for all the ISTAR assets at Waddington. I must admit that I didn't continue my investigation any further - real life got in the way!

[grousehunter]

Hello gents, not sure anyone has actally answered my questions! However; and i don't mean to thread creep but i did read on Parliment questions that a few questions had been asked regarding the three MRA4's that had not been included in the contract for MRA4 to be considered for R1 conversion. Surely someone can see that PA1-3 should go to the RAF as maritime aircraft. 9 aircraft is not enough. Well it might be but how can we continue to justify 3 sqns in the future? BAe need a kick up the arse about this project, it makes me so mad.:ugh:

[Vim_Fuego]

Biggus...

It is out of date...We have 8 and 23 sqns with about 4 crews each and 54(R) sqn as an ISTAR OCU picking up the training for the Sentry, R1 and Astor...They could probably field a Sentry crew if required but some of the older members would have to be woken up and changed first...

[ORAC]

Article on the MRA4 in this week's AW&ST.

Summary is that contract is for 9, there's haggling about converting the other 3 but the money has to be squeezed out of long term costs for the fleet. That, might, end up with enough funds to convert one or perhaps 2.

Handover to the RAF is due for the end of 2010 but the number due at that date has been reduced from 6 to 4.

They looked at using them to replace the R1s but decided the Rivet Joints were a better option.

[conysbe]

RE item 34 page 2 Padraig Murphy said..

Newcomer - small point is that MRA4 was doomed from the beginning when it selected the most unlucky aircraft in the fleet as PA01 believe it was 47 landed at its home base post bolthole with all wheels locked also considered by groundcrew as the most unlucky aircraft as all numbers added to 13 and one engineer went down the intake plus numerous other issues. MR2 has been relifed till 2010 maybe now we should consider a new aircraft and new role no point hunting for ruskie subs?

Nearly got it all right there mr,good shout at the time...

[stbd beam]

so very sad when folk drink gin in such large quantities...

[Willard Whyte]

Mega Gin was a badge of honour when I went through training. Not sobered up yet.