Nimrod MRA.4

[simflea404]

You could see the floor "buckle" in flight on the MR1 & MR2

Eh? Are you sure?

Yes! quite sure...whilst playing cards in the galley (MR2 or MR1) in the air take a look at the fuselage floor and you will see it looks like a small version of corrugated iron. Now look at it when you have landed. you won't see it up front...but you will where the wings meet.

[sargs]

it looks like a small version of corrugated iron


Half a lifetime on ARAR/ARAX and never noticed that......

[simflea404]

As a "Fairey" with many boring flights on MR1's and MR2's, I never noticed it either until it was pointed out to me when a "Dry" and Rigger were talking about it over steak and chips out of Lajes one day. I admit it depends on wing loading but I don't remember a flight afterwards without seeing it...I used to hate some of the MAD manoeuvres afterwards. Not that they are liked anyway....

[The Old Fat One]

ARAR ARAX, uckers, steaks out of Lajes, cards in the galley, submarines...

The maritime youth on here will not have a clue what we are on about.

PS

Forgot to mention, we were first on the stripper count too....by a country mile!!!

[sargs]

TOFO:


we were first on the stripper count too....by a country mile!!!


Now that I can't argue with! Mind you, you had the lovely Samantha (remember C***n W**d getting more than his money's worth?) whereas we had......well, we had people who deep-fried Mars bars....

[fincastle84]

I know you're old, Fin84, but did you really beat 210 Sqn in '83? They had Mk2s (Shacks though!) and disbanded in '71!

I know, I was the adjutant on the disbandment parade in Sharjah! It's just that I can't bring myself to either write or say 2:mad: Sqn!

C***n W**d didn't get as much as a certain officer a lot more senior to him (& ME)! By the way, I have a full set of photos of the said lady which I am sometimes willing to share with friendly, polite ex Nimrod folk.

[davejb]

Samantha....
Okay, there will be some folk who don't agree that she had the personal kudos of an 'A' cat with 10,000 hrs maritime.... but I doubt there are many folk who knew the lady who would prefer to share a desert island with, say, an 'A' cat wet man with 10,000 hrs.....

Airde-Whyte (and let's be honest, what an odd way to settle on naming your new sprog), Fincastle.... the competitions were okay when it was level playing field, but became a bit pants when MR1/MR2 changover came round - for a start, as every dry man knows, the initial big improvement was changing from ASV21 to Searchwater, so radar detections of the target immediately gave you a £200 fine and a trip to jail.

Both comps were wet oriented so even though the dry kit went 500% better MR1 to MR2 it didn't matter. Then the dry team got colour, which was a huge improvement, and the comps still pandered to the 'can't make a decision until we've all voted' brigade* finished the third chorus....

All the comps ever proved was that nobody knew what WW3 would look like. Just to keep things fair they allowed a complete retard to specify the MR2 ESM kit, which didn't work worth **** and made full use of modern improvements in PC technology by focussing on the ability to make people memorise a phone directory.
(ARAR/ARAX was better, at least it didn't tell porkies).


Dave

* Okay, I admit it, this is an unjust dig - it's not an exact science and that's maybe the quickest way to average out opinion...but it still made the average dry guy chuckle to see a wet man canvassing how many sugars to put in his tea....**

** Dammit, okay, I admit this was just a wind up as well.....but I wouldn't let my daughter marry one....

[getsometimein]

Talk about thread-hijack by the old and probably not so bold...

On a more thread-worthy note... good to see a decent turnout on the pan for Alphas fly through/past at Kinloss... Although a few remarks of "Pansy, call that a wing-over" could be heard :P

[sargs]

Talk about thread-hijack by the old and probably not so bold...

Not so much "hijacking" as merely marking time until the MRA4 has been delivered - or are you advocating a few months of daily "No, it hasn't turned up yet" comments? Do you want the rest of us to stop posting just to allow you room to pontificate on whether or not it was a wingover? It's probably escaped your notice that what you are about to be delivered is a maritime patrol aircraft, not perhaps what you young (I'm making an assumption) and not-so-bold overland operators remember. So, listening to a few old timers reminiscing (in the crew room at least, if not PPRUNE) might not do you any harm.

There, I've always wanted to sound like my Dad.......

[fincastle84]

Both comps were wet oriented so even though the dry kit went 500% better MR1 to MR2 it didn't matter. I can assure you that Chris Mcassey's (RIP) Mad Marks were most definitely Dry orientated & we always got a final MM as we ran in to attack, but then again, that's what you'd expect from Cornwall's finest!!!!

[Neptunus Rex]

C***n W**d didn't get as much as a certain officer a lot more senior to him (& ME)!Fin, does (&ME) refer to your difference in rank, or 'Time on Task' ?
I think we should be told!

[ShortFatOne]

All aircraft are designed to flex, otherwise they would crack and fall apart shortly after you got airborne Concorde used to strecthc something ridiculous and the effects, allegedly, could be seen in the rear toilet). The wings on the MR1/MR2/MRA4 do not meet (sic). They are each bolted (fwd and rear spar each side) to the frame of the No1 Tank. In the case of the finlets on MRA4, don't matter whether you are convinced or not, they work for the aircraft. Only time will tell if MRA4 is going to be a stayer or not as you put it but I can tell you if given a choice between MRA4 and Mr Boeing's effort of an MPA, I'll take MRA4 every single time, no question.

[Neptunus Rex]

SFO
Totally agree. For MPA, four engines should come under "essential criteria." The proponents of two engines can bang on all they like about performance, but the inescapable fact is, that if you lose one of the two, you cannot continue "on task."

[Yeller_Gait]

Totally agree. For MPA, four engines should come under "essential criteria." The proponents of two engines can bang on all they like about performance, but the inescapable fact is, that if you lose one of the two, you cannot continue "on task."

So how often, after losing an engine, did a Nimrod stay on task? Not in my time can I ever remember it happening. I cannot even remember any 3 engine ferry take-off's being auth'd.

Not saying I disagree with you that four is not better than two, however weigh up running costs etc, and there are good reasons that two reliable engines can do the job.

Y_G

[Jetex_Jim]

I can tell you if given a choice between MRA4 and Mr Boeing's effort of an MPA, I'll take MRA4 every single time, no question.

Even if, interestingly enough, all the MRA4 mission avionics is straight out of Mr Boeing's (much cheaper) effort.

[fincastle84]

Neptunus Rex:
I can assure you that as far as Sam is concerned my virginity is firmly intact!

Pontius N.:
Looking for a 3rd mad mark is taking attack criteria to a ridiculous extent. Mine were quite straight forward in that if a mark was achieved along the assessed track-attack! Maybe they were trying to impress the GSU!
Did we ever fly together?

Getsometimein:
Thanks for allowing we old f***s to borrow your thread, most enjoyable

[Neptunus Rex]

I have flown a 3-engined ferry - from Kinloss to St Mawgan. It is no big deal, especially with close-coupled engines. With the rules in force at the time, the Thrust-to-Weight ratio was huge; far better than most op or training take-offs, as you would expect. Why didn't we change the engine at ISK? They had none to spare that day.
Losing one on task is also fairly straightforward. The captain on the spot would consider all inputs and decide whether to continue on task or not. The twin-engined crew would simply not have that option.

[ShortFatOne]

Even if, interestingly enough, all the MRA4 mission avionics is straight out of Mr Boeing's (much cheaper) effort.

You are correct that the the core of the mission system was developed from a Boeing product,, just not one designed for the MPA role. Significant work has gone into adapting it, not just for the traditional maritime role but as a proper multi-role ISTAR asset. I would not be surprised to find much of what we have done over the years finding its way back into the P8. However, as good as the 737 platform is, if you look closely at the few pieces of info coming out of Boeing/USN wrt P8, you will begin to notice that the trad maritime role is being down played, not least because they have realised that the fatigue life and wing loading will take a huge hit at low level. There is also an issue with time on station, again looking at the scant data available, and assuming it is not wildly inaccurate, then the P8 is probably only going to manage about 7-8 hours sortie duration.

[Jetex_Jim]

I would not be surprised to find much of what we have done over the years finding its way back into the P8.

Interesting, so having funded some P8 development, does that mean the UK taxpayer eventually gets a refund on MRA4 costs :rolleyes:

(I take it that the we you reference here is, 'we the Boeing company' rather than 'we BAE')

[simflea404]

SFO

The term "where the wings meet" was meant purely as a term of reference (the galley) and not a technical description....just for the record. Yes all aircraft flex...but using the same fuselage with wings having much more lift? I was simply asking if the new engine weight catered for this sufficiently.

I take it the finlets (sic) are to compensate for the dutch roll that the Comet/Nimrod is renowned for and no doubt is worse on the MR4 without them.

I was always under the impression that it was too expensive for companies to design a bomb bay on other aircraft rather than anything else. However, the Nimrod bomb bay is hardly brilliant...has it been improved for the MR4?

Whilst it is assumed that I was preferring the B-737, this is not true...the undercarriage height on these aircraft make ground clearance as low as with the Nimrod. I would like to see effort made into an A320/A330 modification to a Maritime role. I wonder if it is also possible to make them 4-engined?

Yes it would cost money...but it would definitely be an aircraft for the future and have "staying power". It has been my experience that it is not the airframe modifications that costs in these projects, but the avionics that is added.

[Neptunus Rex]

I would like to see effort made into an A320/A330 modification to a Maritime role. I wonder if it is also possible to make them 4-engined?It's already there, the A340. It has the same wing and fuselage as the A330, with four engines, more fuel tanks and a fuel jettison system. The electrics are also different, but essentially it is the same airframe. Use the short fuselage version, with the bigger donks and you have a good start. Add a decent bomb bay and you would have a ball-tearer.
I've flown both Nimrod and A330 and loved them both. However, you'd have to modify the software to allow more aggressive bank angles in Normal Law!

[Ivan Rogov]

A330/340 are far to large. Flew with a bofin once who was convinced we should have brought some more Tristars to use as MPA, on paper it could fly further, longer, higher, faster, carry much more, etc. 4 hours at low level on HISS and ASW finally convinced him that maybe his plan was flawed :ugh:
For a long range MPA 4 engines please, 75% is much better than 50% in the event of loosing a donk although I'm sure someone will argue that 4 engines gives twice the probability of a failure compared to 2 engines :\

[fincastle84]

Didn't you use to reside on the Malin Head?

[Ivan Rogov]

Not for a long time now ;)

[Tester07]

All this banter about 2 engines and 4 engines sounds so familiar when I think back to when the contract was being put out to tender.

In the meantime, we are about to get..................nothing, and be without a maritime patrol fleet.

Doesn't this say anything about sensible pragmatism and living in the real world, and doesn't anyone think that we could have had a fleet of Atlantique IIs in service years ago (probably for half of the money which we have already spent!), which would probably have survived the cuts?

[The Old Fat One]

Doesn't this say anything about sensible pragmatism and living in the real world, and doesn't anyone think that we could have had a fleet of Atlantique IIs in service years ago (probably for half of the money which we have already spent!), which would probably have survived the cuts?

A point that was being made a lot in the mid nineties.

PS "half of the money".....a lot less than that I suggest!

[Phoney Tony]

Does it matter if bits that should be made of steel are made of aluminium?

[FATTER GATOR]

"In the meantime, we are about to get..................nothing, and be without a maritime patrol fleet."

Do you know that for sure??? Should I start talking to my deskie?

[Party Animal]

FG,

Ignore Tester - Switzerland is well known for it's maritime expertise, on a par with Slovakia and the Czech Republic!

I'm willing to put my ba*ls on the line and make a clear and unequivocal statement that regardless of what happens with SDSR, the MRA4 WILL come into service with the RAF and remain so for at least 25 years. Anyone who absolutely disagrees with me can say so and eat humble pie in 4 months time.

If by the remotest chance, I am wrong, then i will post the photo's on here of me eating my 27 year old 5,000 hrs chip-bag!

Over to the rest of this thread readers to get off the fence....

[Biggus]

PA,

".....Ignore Tester - Switzerland is well known for it's maritime expertise, on a par with Slovakia and the Czech Republic!"

I thought the Swiss had considerable maritime expertise.


After all, they must have a fairly large SSN fleet, given the amount of time the MR2 fleet spent tracking "Swiss nukes"!

[Neptunus Rex]

Biggus
I must have missed something. Please explain your reference to 'Swiss nukes.'

[Biggus]

Nep,

take your pick from.......

"If you don't know, you don't......."

or

"I could tell you but then I'd have........"



Then again maybe the memory is fading as I get older!


Even now the Langley(sp?) computers must be humming! ;)

[Jayand]

Party animal we won't have to wait four months to find out! and you might as well eat your chip hat as you won't be needing that again, unless you intend keeping loose change in it whilst you play the accordian on a street corner.

[Party Animal]

Jayand,

You sound as confident as I am but at the opposite end of the scale. What's your offering when proved wrong. Suitable donation to H4H perhaps?

P.S. Good banter by PN and Biggus. If you aint tracked a Swiss nuc - you haven't spent time on the MR2...

[Miles Magister]

Going back a page, I have seen 3 engine ferries and have stayed on task after an engine failure (more than once). But we also used to stay on task after a lightning strike so long as the airborne compass swing against the IN was OK, my record was 6 strikes in one flight without leaving (although these were far north strikes, not tropical strikes).

This may seem cavalier to the younger guys but I am still happy we were safe and I did attract flak for not taking aircraft when others did.

I always felt happy that if you cut every piece of electric string in the beast it would still fly quite happily.

MM

[Party Animal]

Bugger - airpolice, you got me:ooh:. In a moment of passion for the MRA4, my heart ruled my head and I failed to check the full meaning of my comment..

How is (was) life as an ISS tutor?

[Distant Voice]

Lets get back to the main thread. I think you may find that MRA4 never happens. Despite all the money having been spent on the programme, it is still deemed cheaper to get rid of it and shut Kinloss and the entire programme down. The Predator Bs, Sentinels and the King Airs do the Afghanistan job anyway and the long-range submarine hunting isnt deemed enough to keep the aircraft going.

And as far as Trident goes, who in their right mind believes that we (UK) will ever use our independent deterrent, independently. So there is no need for a sophisticated delivery system, just the weapon that allows us to sit at the "nuclear table".

DV

[Roland Pulfrew]

I think you may find that MRA4 never happens

long-range submarine hunting isnt deemed enough to keep the aircraft going

And your evidence for this is what exactly? :rolleyes:

it is still deemed cheaper to get rid of it and shut Kinloss and the entire programme down

Cheaper than what exactly? Obviously if you scrap a system and close a base that will always make things "cheaper". You might just as well have said "its still deemed cheaper to scrap [insert programme here] and shut [insert stn/base here] and the entire programme down".:hmm:

[Distant Voice]

It's cheaper to use Preditor Bs etc.

DV

[Roland Pulfrew]

It's cheaper to use Preditor Bs etc.


Yes but Pred B can't do ASW, ASuW, MCT, SAR, Elint etc etc

[Dave Angel]

The Predator Bs, Sentinels and the King Airs do the Afghanistan job anyway and the long-range submarine hunting isnt deemed enough to keep the aircraft going.
DV

From the outset the MRA4 has only ever been required/designed to operate in the core maritime roles and not overland like those platforms you mention, so I'm afraid DV your comments are misguided :ugh:

Lets all wait till after October and see where the chips fall and in the mean time stop spouting b:mad:x

Regards to all :ok:

[davejb]

As MRA4 is pretty well about to be delivered, depending on how you want to describe the current situation, there's presumably little money to be saved by cancelling the aircraft itself, althought here are bound to be potential savings - I'd guess fairly paltry ones however compared to cancelling any of the big budget items - by shutting RAF Kinloss.

As RP says, Predator (etc) can't do all the MRA4 will do, it's not necessarily a bright idea to tailor your forces exclusively to conflict in Afghanistan anyway. It's also a bit pointless to have an SSBN based deterrent without MPA as unless you can be sure that the SSBN can deploy unhindered then you face the prospect of dealing with 'our deterrent just got sunk' taking the biggest chip you possess off the table.

I think it's essential that our political masters sit down and think very hard about the roles we need to be able to cover - what is most important to us as a nation? They must then decide what we can afford, then arrange to do it - protection of the UK itself is number one, power projection is another role, and one we should consider important...but not at the expense of number one, there is no role for our armed forces that is more important than protection of the UK itself. What we might claim in the Antarctic is certainly worth thinking about, but there's little point in grabbing 'potential resources' elsewhere if the UK has been conquered by a lightning raid from the Isle of Man that we hadn't the forces to beat off...

[Hedgeporker]

Davejb - not to mention skills fade.

How long will it take to work up ASW and AEW again when the Chinese are nudging our shores?

[Distant Voice]

Dave Angel

I agree with you, but because the "core maritime roles" have diminished, the overland Afghanistan type of role (an add-on) is being pushed by many in order to justify the introduction of the Mk 4.

DV

[FATTER GATOR]

The 'core maritime role' has certainly not diminished, we are still an island surrounded by water who relies on the seas for our bulk trade.

Also I'm not aware of 'an overland Afghanistan type role' being pushed by anyone for MRA4 and I'm waiting to start the OCU (whenever that will be).

No one knows what the defence review will leave behind, especially you.
I would love to know where you get your information from..or are you just guessing to fill space?

FG

[Roland Pulfrew]

because the "core maritime roles" have diminished

Come on DV you can't just keep using throw-away lines like that without the evidence to back it up.

ASW - Still valid and nothing else to do it.
ASuW - Still valid (and arguably in the anti-piracy requirement, growing) and nothing else to do it (despite what the E3 might claim).
MCT - Still valid and nothing else to do it.
LR SAR - Still valid and nothing else to do it (unless we re-role some C130Js, paint them orange and white and give them to the MCA when they are withdrawn from RAF service in 20.....).

And if we accept that multi-role for all types in the future to ensure we have flexibility and VFM (:yuk:) then MRA4 is one of the few true multi-role platforms coming. And of course it can do overland combat ISTAR - if that is what it is tasked to do - it might not be a "core role" but just like the MR2 it will be capable of doing it - if it is tasked to do so.

[Shack37]

And as far as Trident goes, who in their right mind believes that we (UK) will ever use our independent deterrent, independently. So there is no need for a sophisticated delivery system, just the weapon that allows us to sit at the "nuclear table".



If it has to be used it's no longer a "deterrent" If we don't have it......no deterrent.

[Jayand]

Agreed but we all really know that we wouldn't.

[Jetex_Jim]

If it has to be used it's no longer a "deterrent" If we don't have it......no deterrent.

As a deterrent how much use is it?

It didn't deter Argentina from invading the Falklands.

In what current scenarios might it prove useful?

[Modern Elmo]

As a deterrent how much use is it?

It didn't deter Argentina from invading the Falklands.

In what current scenarios might it prove useful?


But "it" sure did stop the former USSR from advancing any further west after spring 1945.

If you're talking about the present and future, you need to be more specific about this "it."

Is "it" a large fusion bomb detonated over a city, or a deep earth penetrator with a lower yield warhead and a delayed action fuse, or a mini-nuke that can destroy a hostile warship or a land-based military concenetration with small collateral damage?

[Jetex_Jim]

If you're talking about the present and future, you need to be more specific about this "it."

Is "it" a large fusion bomb detonated over a city, or a deep earth penetrator with a lower yield warhead and a delayed action fuse, or a mini-nuke that can destroy a hostile warship or a land-based military concenetration with small collateral damage?
http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/statusicon/user_online.gif http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/buttons/report.gif (http://www.pprune.org/report.php?p=5937397)
The 'it' here is Trident.

[Modern Elmo]

What do you think about this follow on to Trident? Below I think "conventional" means non-nu-clear fish-un, as I would tend to pronounce the words.

[I]" ... Both conventional and nuclear payloads to be considered ..."


Submarine Launched Intermediate Range Ballistic Missile (SLIRBM)

Submarine Launched Global Strike Missile (SLGSM)

A new SLBM would be needed in about 2029 to match the schedule for a follow-on SSBN. The Navy has begun studies to examine range-payload requirements and missile size, but no specific plans for a follow-on SLBM at this point other than extending the service life of the Trident D-5.

...

The Trident II (D5) system is currently undergoing a life-extension (LE) program to extend the service life of the weapon system until 2042, to match the hull life of the Ohio-class submarine.

...

On 25 August 2003 the Department of the Navy, Strategic Systems Programs [SSP] issued a Request for Information (RFI) to determine the latest plans and programs including technology challenges and proposed solutions for affordable Submarine Launched Intermediate Range Ballistic Missiles (SLIRBMs), including launch considerations and potential payloads. ...

The SLIRBM requirements include: 1. System must be affordable 2. Range - IRBM 3. Missile diameter - 32.5 inches maximum 4. Both conventional and nuclear payloads to be considered 5. Payload weights, diameters and length to be consistent with missile dimensions and range 6. Conventional payload system to have GPS accuracy 7. Missile subsystem hardened to Space Grade 8. Control of collateral damage to be considered (e.g., stage debris control) 9. Intermediate range ballistic missiles, including their payloads, and all of the launcher subsystem except for electronics, are to be contained within the 86 inch diameter TRIDENT missile launch tube 10. Usable missile tube length (for missile, payload and launcher) of 36 feet maximum.

...

On 12 July 2005 Alliant Techsystems and Lockheed Martin were awarded a $9.2 million contract by the U.S. Navy’s Strategic Systems Program (SSP) office to demonstrate and validate solid rocket motor technologies suitable for a Submarine Launched Intermediate Range Ballistic Missile (SLIRBM).

SLIRBM is a conventional missile concept that builds on the heritage the two companies share in US Navy strategic missile development. Lockheed Martin and ATK provide the US Navy with the submarine-launched Trident D5 nuclear ballistic missile.

SLIRBM is designed to precisely deliver a conventional payload on target at ranges in excess of 1100 miles within 10-15 minutes of launch.

.Submarine Launched Intermediate Range Ballistic Missile (SLIRBM) / Submarine Launched Global Strike Missile (SLGSM) (http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/systems/slirbm.htm)

[Jetex_Jim]

What do you think about this follow on to Trident?
...SLIRBM is designed to precisely deliver a conventional payload on target at ranges in excess of 1100 miles within 10-15 minutes of launch.


...an expensive way of building a conventional weapon systems that cannot be used for fear of a 'Launch on Warning' reaction.

[Neptunus Rex]

If Trident gets the axe, why not use them before we lose them. I can think of a few deserving recipients.

[Jabba_TG12]

"If Trident gets the axe, why not use them before we lose them. I can think of a few deserving recipients"

Hmmmm..............

Turning the Nuclear Free Socialist Republic Of Islington and the Kingdom of Kirkcaldy & Cowdenbeath into an uninhabitable radioactive wasteland does have a certain appeal.... :E

[davejb]

I thought Kirkcaldy was already a blighted wasteland though?

[Distant Voice]

Topic to be covered on CH4 Dispatches, Monday 20th Sept at 8pm. Programme to cover Nimrod Mk4 introduction.

DV

[Chugalug2]

PN:
thus causing the Argentinians to hold air defence forces round Rio.
In which case they missed their chances I would suggest. Is it possible that they placed them around Buenos Aires instead, Nav? :E

[Biggus]

Better allowances at Rio! :ok:

[Jetex_Jim]

What both these show is that you must be able to trump the opposition at any level with an appropriate response - a nuclear club alone is a dangerous defence.

And even the might of the US, who have all shapes and sizes of clubs, could not deter a 911 style attack.

It's neccessary, it seems, that we choose our enemies very carefully. In order that they will compliment our limited capabilities. (which I suppose could explain the long standing antipathy towards the French...)

[Postman Plod]

Am I missing something here?? This has been bugging me for a while, and I know this is probably the wrong thread, but...

The Vanguard class was introduced in 1994, and is expected to be replaced in the mid-2020s, so you're looking at around 30 years service per boat.

The Ohio class was commissioned between 1981 and 1997, with the first in its class due to be decommissioned in 2029, so potentially averaging at least 40 years service, and one of the options for replacement being considered is a refurbishment of the existing hulls. (I know its slightly more complicated than this, but I'm not sure the SSGN conversion complication is relevant?)

So how come there is such a significant difference in service life between the US SSBN and the UK SSBN? Do we really need to decommission our submarines that early? Therefore do we really need to be making decisions about replacements now? Or is this purely to ensure there is a continuous workstream through Barrow once the Astute class have been completed?

[althenick]

The SLBM was no deterrent to the Argentines as they correctly assessed that their actions did not merit a nuclear response. Nuclear deterrence is predominantly to deter a major agression such as a nuclear strike.

The SSNs however proved a highly successful like for like deterrent even when not deployed.

The Vulcan demonstrated its deterrent capability with a clear demonstration of both intent and capability thus causing the Argentinians to hold air defence forces round BA. Again a successful like-for like deterrence.

What both these show is that you must be able to trump the opposition at any level with an appropriate response - a nuclear club alone is a dangerous defence.

Well put PN and if I may add to this the fact that our last conventional carrier had been scrapped and the Argentines rightly assessed our Air defence at sea was lacking.

Am I missing something here?? This has been bugging me for a while, and I know this is probably the wrong thread, but...

The Vanguard class was introduced in 1994, and is expected to be replaced in the mid-2020s, so you're looking at around 30 years service per boat.

The Ohio class was commissioned between 1981 and 1997, with the first in its class due to be decommissioned in 2029, so potentially averaging at least 40 years service, and one of the options for replacement being considered is a refurbishment of the existing hulls. (I know its slightly more complicated than this, but I'm not sure the SSGN conversion complication is relevant?)

So how come there is such a significant difference in service life between the US SSBN and the UK SSBN? Do we really need to decommission our submarines that early? Therefore do we really need to be making decisions about replacements now? Or is this purely to ensure there is a continuous workstream through Barrow once the Astute class have been completed?

PP - the only thing you've missed here is that they have far more SSBNs than we do, therefore they are not deployed as often or as long as ours. Therefore less wear and tear.
:ok:

[Neptunus Rex]

Sadly, once those terrorists had taken over each cockpit, they had already won. Suppose that Air Defence had been scrambled in time, and shot the airliners down. The meeja would have gone ballistic! If you think the 'popcorn eaters' on PPRuNe are bad, imagine the howling predators of the American press after three own goals like that.

[GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU]

Fully cognisant of the Thread drift angle, I find it odd that fanatical terrs are grasped as the "new threat". Yes, they are a new threat but it is additional to the existing State on State one. The State on State threat hasn't mysteriously gone away, as inconvenient as that might be.

Of course a bloody nuke isn't going to deter individual but organised fanatics. It may hold the attention of a future Russia, China, North Korea and whoever else acquires the sunshine generators in the future, though. Once we've given it up, we sure as hell will never get it back.

Incidentally; we need Nimrod 4s and the "alternatives" don't even come close.

[betty swallox]

I'm sure I read at the start of this thread, Nimrod MRA4. Not Independent Nuclear Deterrent. Or Trident. Or Vanguard. Oh, for PPRuNe 10 years ago, when the site was keen, interesting and RELEVANT. "Thread-drift"? What a great internet cliche...Oh, get a life, and stop namby-pambying about. If you all must talk about MRA4, go for it. If not, just make every thread on PPRuNe as wide and borderless as a very wide and borderless thing........

[Biggus]

PN,

I'm pretty sure that betty knows exactly what the roles of the MRA4 will be.....

I also have to say that I entirely agree with his comments reference thread drift!

[Jetex_Jim]

PN,

I'm pretty sure that betty knows exactly what the roles of the MRA4 will be.....

I also have to say that I entirely agree with his comments reference thread drift!

Good job guys, it really wouldn't do to let the thread get into anything really interesting, would it?

[Modern Elmo]

And even the might of the US, who have all shapes and sizes of clubs, could not deter a 911 style attack.


So. you agree that Israel ought to make a pre-emptive first strike on Iran before Iran has The Bomb? Following your logic, deterrence of Iran will fail.


If you all must talk about MRA4, go for it. If not, just make every thread on PPRuNe as wide and borderless as a very wide and borderless thing........

Back to topic, don't you agree that the dear old Comet airliner is hopelessly outdated, and that Britain ought to be sensible and buy some 737/P-8's and some Global Hawks?

[Party Animal]

Modern Elmo,

Back to topic, don't you agree that the dear old Comet airliner is hopelessly outdated, and that Britain ought to be sensible and buy some 737/P-8's and some Global Hawks?

Okay - where to start?

As far as I know, the Comet is no longer in service. If it was, then yes, as an airliner, it would be hopelessly outdated. Although, it should always be remembered as the worlds first jet airliner. However, whilst the 737 is both a fine and popular aircraft - it isn't that much younger (relatively) than the dear old Comet.

Regarding the Nimrod MRA4 - which is a brand new aircraft, the performance is far superior to the P8 at absolutely every level - with the exception of sourcing cheap spare parts from around the world. For the USN, P8 and BAMS together will provide a just acceptable level of maritime capability but for other nations seeking to replace their ageing P3's with a few P8 alone, they will be sorely dissapointed.

And furthermore - the UK has not got the money right now to buy any new hardware, whether air, land or sea. So any suggestions to just go out and buy something else is a non starter at any level.

[Hedgeporker]

I've heard tell on ARRSE that Nimrod is absolutely the dog's bollocks at what it does, and that the alternatives don't even come close, despite it's age : it's just one of those 'Golden' designs.

Can someone knowledgeable explain why, please?

[Pontius Navigator]

Because it has sh1t hot crews.

[berzerker]

sh1t hot crews?
Realy? What ASW ASuW have they done in recent years?

[Joe Black]

Numerous ASW Ex's over the last few years where we have been light years ahead of everyone else.....Germans and Norwegians are good but still can't compete - won't go into detail for the obvious reasons but rest assured the crews are still extremely capable. ASW is the hardest skill/task which we conduct, therefore if we can do that we can sure as hell do ASuW to a shiit hot std too!:ok:

[QTRZulu]

Of the ASW exercises that JB mentions, the last major one in Feb this year saw crews from 201 and 120 Sqn notch up more ASW detections and 'kills' than the rest of the competing nations put together. No other nation comes close other than Canada who were the nearest competitor.

As PN puts it 'sh1t hot crews' which boils down to how well the crews gel and how hard they trained. Given that most other NATO countries have upgraded their fleets over the years - the US in particular and they still can't get close tells a story.

Bottom line is that the guys and gals at ISK are simply the best in the world at what they do - fact!:ok:

[fincastle84]

Bottom line is that the guys and gals at ISK are simply the best in the world at what they do - fact!:ok:

Only because 42 disbanded in 1992!:ok:

[ExAscoteer]

Only because 42 disbanded in 1992!:ok:Indeed!

Fortiter In Re :ok:

[The Old Fat One]

The submarine is the master of its element, always has been, always will be, ergo ASW = 'kin hard.

ASUW was a piece of wee, wee even before they invented s/water. Most difficult surface surveillance task was Tapestry (fishery protection) in a mark one in Area 3 (bottom half of the north sea), otherwise known as a "dry bennie".

God I'm old.

[Biggus]

F84

42 is alive and well, and currently based at ISK..........!



Don't tell me, it is now 42R, not the 42 of old.....

[zedder]

Hope there's an MRA4 available to help solve the litte problem they are having on Spooks!

[The Old Fat One]

F84

42 is alive and well, and currently based at ISK..........!

Right about now F84 is choking on his single malt, whilst smashing his keyboard as he thumps out a suitable riposte.

[ExAscoteer]

42 is alive and well, and currently based at ISK..........!So it's really 38 Sqn :p

[Biggus]

TOFO,

A single malt is a Scottish drink......

Shouldn't F84 be drinking scrumpy, or some such cornish beverage.... :ok:

[betty swallox]

Berzerker.
If you don't know, then you really ought not to know! The end.

[ExAscoteer]

I would have thought that 'Scrumpy' is a Somerset thing.

From memory Cornwall had 'Newquay Steam' - bloody execreble stuff!

I think that's why I got addicted to Laphroig!

[Biggus]

I know scrumpy isn't Cornish - Somerset more readily springs to mind, but it was the closest to a Cornish drink I could come up with!

Anyway, I knew someone would correct me! :)

[The Old Fat One]

Single Malt is what the jocks export...

The national drink of Scotland is Buckfast. :E

[zedder]

40kt submersibles - it could have been some co-pilots moment of glory, but I bet they wouldn't have thought of it;)

[Pontius Navigator]

Talk about thread drift.

[Jetex_Jim]

Thank goodness the thread got back on track.

Normal service has been resumed. - 20 posts of inane BS

Well done everyone.

[fincastle84]

Most difficult surface surveillance task was Tapestry (fishery protection) in a mark one in Area 3

That was before the EU stole all of the fish stocks!

Yes, you are old!

Right about now F84 is choking on his single malt,

You're quite correct. The one good thing to come out of my loooooong 3 years at EGQK, apart from the A9 south, was my taste for Glenmorangie. This has served to help me through many crises ever since & is sometimes aided & abetted by a pint of London Pride.

Is 42(R) a real Sqn? Discuss.

[Neptunus Rex]

Most difficult surface surveillance task was Tapestry (fishery protection) in a mark one in Area 3 Which was once enlivened by a MR1 being bounced by an F4, pulling a scissors, forcing the fly-through and getting on the Phantoms tail! 42 Sqn and 111 Sqn respectively, mid '83 post Sidewinder fit.

[shack]

I see your Tapestry and raise you-------The Cod Wars off Iceland. I know before your time!!!

[Neptunus Rex]

If you mean the Second Cod War in 1972, yes, I missed it - because I was on an exchange tour flying Neptunes in tropical North Queensland.

I was still at school during the first Cod War in the '50s.

[fincastle84]

The Cod Wars off Iceland

They didn't have the contact density of Tap Area 3.

I once had to do a Cod War sortie as the maritime 'expert' on a Brit. That was really boring, circa '74?

[Neptunus Rex]

That must have been boring. Were they flying Transport Rules, or Coastal Rules; how low could they go?

[Pontius Navigator]

Acknowledging severe thread drift, but I flew Operation Heliotrope sorties between Feb and May 1976.

[Neptunus Rex]

PN
In '76, the nearest I got to Maritime Patrol was flying aeros in a JP off Whitby.
Mind you, we had the best ever cod from our local chippie in Easingwold, so you must have been winning the war for us!

[fincastle84]

Were they flying Transport Rules, or Coastal Rules; how low could they go?

Truckie rules with no radalt so we didn't get below 1000 ft. The allowances were good though!

[fincastle84]

severe thread drift

Is 'thread drift' in anyway related to 'three drift' wind?

[Neptunus Rex]

Don't tell me, another overnight in an hotel, with a "Spock Was Here" sticker left as a memento.

[fincastle84]

with a "Spock Was Here" sticker left as a memento.

No, that was on the ceiling of the teacher's accommodation in Lajes!

[Tappers Dad]

This is not just thread drift it is a complete take over of what was a serious topic. Or perhaps it has been bought about by the lack of a/c to fly in and lack of any news as to when or if the MRA4 will ever see service.

[Neptunus Rex]

Yes, TD, you are right. However, the contributors are all old Nimrod Mates who are trying to keep our spirits up whilst we await the verdict. We all hope that our unique, uber capable and beloved Nimrod will continue to provide sterling service and go on to become the longest serving aircraft in the history of the RAF.

[Pontius Navigator]

Don't forget the Lancaster has a 20 year head start.

[Neptunus Rex]

OK, you got me there.
Let's redefine it as 'operational service.'

[betty swallox]

Neptunus Rex

Well said on the "keeping up spirits". Nice one!!

Jetex Jim, hopefully not too inane for you.

[oceancrosser]

Not a military aviator, but judging by how long the MR4.A has been in development, it seems they might end up being flown directly to various aviation museums from BAe as a showcase for how not to spend taxpayers money! :rolleyes:

[KonfusedofKinloss]

Now we know why Duxford didn't want an MR2....:p

One-upmanship, ours is better than yours....

[Wrathmonk]

Point of order Neptunus Rex, and apologies to TD et al for the continued thread drift and banter....

Back a couple of pages (post 592) Party Animal, in defence of comments made about how the Nimrod is nothing more than a Comet and not as good as the P8 (and also used to seperate it from the MR2 and the associated baggage etc etc) stated

Regarding the Nimrod MRA4 - which is a brand new aircraft

then surely any claim for longest serving aircraft in the RAF, operational service or not, ended when the MR2 (or the MR1) was taken out of Service. The clock is restarted from 'zero' when the MRA4 comes into Service thus requiring it to stay in Service until approximately 2070 to beat the mighty Canberra:E

Of course, come 2018 the '100 year experiment' will come to an end, the RAF will disband and become part of the Royal Flying Corps again (also incorporating the RNAS (formerly the FAA) and AAC) thus making it impossible for the Nimrod MRA4 to steal the Canberra crown!;):ok:

[Pontius Navigator]

Ah, but remember the R1 is still a goer so we still have continuity.

And before we jump back with the new aircraft bit:
The fuselages are originals, only the wings are new. This is not unique. Victor 2s had their wings refurbished. All Dominie wings were changed in the late 80s. One set was removed and refurb, the next aircraft had its wings removed and the refurbed set fitted etc etc. And the original wings for the BBMF Spitfires are at the RAF Museum at Stafford.

[RumPunch]

The fuselage what I have seen has been mostly been re-skinned and zero lifed , many will agree the keel side of the old airframe needed much attention which it has been given. As an Engineer this aircraft will do what it required and so much more. We are getting a great aircraft and we know that , its only the people who wish bad things upon the project who are shouting our downfall.

[Pontius Navigator]

O aye, the doomsayers, we're all doomed, we're all doomed ............

I just wish they went for rather more than 9 airframes as there is much more utility in Nimrod than Sentry.

[Distant Voice]

The official line is as follows;

"The MRA4 is a new aircraft which has mostly been designed, from first principles, with modern design features and safety standards for all the main systems and components. Where MR2 design has been retained, mostly the fuselage structure, bomb bay doors and tail assembly; the components have been completely refurbished and re-lifed to meet the expected life of the MRA4.

A number of components have been retained from the MR2 aicraft that have been decommissioned. The Nimrod PT is currently undertaking work to assess which components from this pool could be retained for use on the MRA4 fleet."

DV

[tucumseh]

So please, stop thinking in terms of this being a modified MR2, this is a different aircraft !

In opertating terms it is, indeed, a very different aircraft.

But in a programmatic sense (and that is what the Users' concern is over, and the thrust of this thread, because the programme is very late) it is a modification; albeit a honking great modification.

The only fact to consider is that the MRA4 programme had an MoD dependency - the MR2 was a deliverable to BAeS as Government Furnished Equipment on Embodiment Loan terms (as opposed to Ordinary or Contract Loan) which the MRA4 programme required to be at a certain build standard at induction, and demonstrably airworthy with a complete audit trail. MoD therefore did not meet the requirements of MoD. Due to this dependency, and the requirement to be constantly satisfied it could be met, the MRA4 and MR2 offices must share blame.


That dependency was an obvious, and notified, programme risk. In fact, it would have been Number One with a bullet. That risk wasn't mitigated or managed well, which was immediately obvious with the announcement of the notional 2000 ISD. That single statement illustrated to 99.99% of MoD(PE) at the time that the programme was going to turn to rats.

[Biggus]

I seem to remember a quote on pprune (maybe even earlier in this very thread) from someone who had been close to the project (difar69?) that 94% of the MRA4 was new.

Now, assuming for a second that the figure of 94% is correct, I don't that if that 94% was in terms of:

Numbers of components

Weight/mass

Cost

etc, etc.....


However, in my opinion a big mistake was keeping the name Nimrod. By doing so many people will merely see it as an upgrade of an exisiting aircraft - rather than a totally new beast.

I suppose the MRA4 looks too much like the original Nimrod to have gotten away with a name change, but for me, a new name means a new start.....

[The Old Fat One]

Sorry Tuc, you can play on words, use MoD's obfuscations, I know that's not your way by the way, but this is not a modification.

No play on words, not obfuscation, but a clear amplification of the context of the programme. It's not Tucs fault if you don't understand it or don't like the message.


That single statement illustrated to 99.99% of MoD(PE) at the time that the programme was going to turn to rats.


With a wee nod to the fact that you may have exaggerated just a tad, ditto a large percentage of the maritime operators.

[Gainesy]

Off Thread A Minute


New names are not always a good idea. Nortrop produced a single engine version of the F-5 with uprated systems and called it the F-5G, next in series after the er... F-5F.
"Its an F-5" said prospective customers, "Its old."

So the company had a think and a fanfare and called it the F-20 Tigershark and rolled out the new paintjob, er... jet.

"Its not much for a supposedly new jet said the prospective customers' beancounters, "Looks like our F-5s..."
:ugh:
Northrop went away to build stuff you can't see and therefore can't moan about.


Back to the Multi-Purpose, All-Weather Galley.

[BEagle]

Just how much 'new wine' ended up in the 'old skins' of the MR2? Is there much of the donor aircraft remaining?

I hope it ends up being a better value for money deal than the VC10K4 programme. Take, for example, ZD230. This was the prototype Super VC10 which first flew in 1964 as G-ASGA, entered service with BOAC in 1965 and was retired in 1980. Then rotted quietly in open storage at RAF Abingdon until 1991 when some brave souls ferried it to Filton for 'refurbishment' - or rather, massive reconstruction.

I collected it from Filton on 15 Dec 1994 and it was very nice indeed. But by the end of 2005, together with others, it had been scrapped at St Athan....:(

[Tappers Dad]

Quote 'The MRA4 is essentially a re-engineered, re-built aircraft that is 93 per cent new'.
Nimrod MRA4 - BAE Systems (http://www.baesystems.com/ProductsServices/nimrod_mra4.html)

As for the name Nimrod MRA4 , it will always be viewed by the general public as a Nimrod no matter what the mark and will be linked to the crash.

[tucumseh]

BGG

The key phrases I used are “Dependency” and “Government Furnished Equipment”.

At the time (mid-90s), MoD/CDP’s policy was to avoid major dependencies and GFE. So strictly was this applied that Support Authorities for existing equipment that was to be fed in as GFE (e.g. Nimrod MR2) were allowed to withdraw support for the programme entirely; and work on the assumption they would get a new build aircraft, and not necessarily of the same type.

I am not suggesting the MR2 office did this formally, but they demonstrably did not satisfy the requirements of the MRA4 programme. However, and equally demonstrably, the same Director General in MoD(PE) – DGAS2 – ruled in 1997 that it was acceptable for the Service Support Authority (not the front line user) to completely withdraw on another concurrent programme under his leadership; with the PE staffs required to assume responsibility for Engineering/Support/Provisioning Authority tasks. (Which rather assumed they had the skills; which luckily and almost uniquely they had, despite this being a pre-requisite to being promoted the most junior project management grade – therein lies one of MoD’s great problems these days). That is, they had to resurrect the build standard and make the aircraft airworthy, before it could be inducted for conversion. This is why you are allowed to commit about 15% of funding up front to risk reduction, which very few projects do. The reason - the above lack of experience and background means most don’t understand they have such a major risk in the first place, so don’t ask for the advance funding.

Had MRA4 realised they had to do this, I believe the new aircraft would be in service by now; and it would probably be a different platform because the rules effectively militated against using MR2. In short, by following simple, extant regulations, the RAF would have had a new aircraft, of whatever type, some years ago. Haddon-Cave reiterated the same point, as applied to the narrower field of airworthiness.

[GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU]

Arguably, this concern over names could be similar to the AVRO Lancaster. The 1st protype (BT308) started life as the Manchester MK 3 but received its new name shortly after first flight. Perhaps that was a good move considering the notoriety that the Manch had acquired through persistent engine failures.

Correct me if I'm wrong, though; wouldn't making the Nimrod 4 a new Type require a whole new start to the certification process?

[tucumseh]

Quote:
Correct me if I'm wrong, though; wouldn't making the Nimrod 4 a new Type require a whole new start to the certification process?
We're starting to get to the reasons for the obfuscation now aren't we ?

BGG


I'm not sure how this is obfuscation. It is a simple configuration control requirement. But I refer you to the same DGAS2 and CDP. Configuration Control can be ignored. When advising the PAC in 1998 that, indeed, his aircraft lacked configuration control (and, hence, airworthiness) CDP omitted to tell them he agreed with this omission.

When one's leaders have such an ethos, is it any wonder programmes run into problems? It is why the successful ones, of that era, were the ones that completely ignored DGAS2 and CDP.

[tucumseh]

TOFO

With a wee nod to the fact that you may have exaggerated just a tad, ditto a large percentage of the maritime operators.

Yes, absolutely right about maritime operators.

But I contend I'm right about 99.99%. The MRA4 programme had many dependencies and pre-requisites, like most such programmes. When a new technology or equipment is to be used by more than one concurrent programme, one is generally designated the "lead". That is, they make all the mistakes from which others are meant to learn.

There was one such pre-requisite on MRA4 whose ISD was 2001/2. Therefore, by definition, MRA4 could not be earlier. In turn, that other programme had a pre-requiste whose ISD was 2001, which was what set their date. If any one of them was late, there was a domino effect. In the two other cases I mention, the first was 5 months early, the second more or less on time, which meant they didn't keep MRA4 waiting.

The question then becomes - Who was the 0.01% who didn't know 2000 came before 2002? :ugh:

[Party Animal]

TOFO,

With a wee nod to the fact that you may have exaggerated just a tad, ditto a large percentage of the maritime operators.

In this instance, I disagree with you and support Tuc. I do not think his 99.99% figure is an exaggeration at all. Moreover, when you say a 'large percentage' of maritime operators thought the programme would turn to rats – this implies that a small percentage of maritime operators thought the programme would run on time! As a maritime operator on the FL back in 96, I cannot remember anyone who thought we would have the MRA4 in service on the originally planned timescale. The vast majority of my fellow operators thought the MRA4 was the best choice for a replacement but in service on time? You had to be kidding…
So I would go with a figure of 99.99% of maritime operators would have bet their life savings on the fact that the Nimrod MRA4 (2000) would have had at least one delay from the totally unrealistic ISD initially dreamt up.
However, if you know of any individual or collective maritime group that believed in the original fairy story – please give us a clue as to where they worked. You don’t have to name names but it would be nice to have a chuckle over a beer tonight thinking about their naivety!
:O

[davejb]

In fairness to those of us who have left, and are, therefore, really only killing time/drinking beer/rearranging sandbags while the Grim Reaper gets round to noticing us...it's a bit difficult to see something that LOOKS so much like an MR1/MR2 and accept it is stonkingly different.

However, the engines are different, the wing is different, most of the fuselage is different, and the sensors are different... so actually it is that rare beast, an aircraft that looks the same but is pretty much, ummm, different.

I note that it's now Thales Searchwater something or other rather than Marconi. Presumably this is even better than colour searchwater was, in which case it's bloody good and probably better than anyone else has got. I hope the ESM, also new, makes rather better use of ICT than the abortion with the 8" floppies that some complete a**e accepted into service for the MR2 (sorry, this is a personal bugbear..the crap programming on that P.O.S. offended me mightily). I wish all wet men all the luck in the world meantime, how are the tomatoes doing?

My house is about 800 yards along the 26 approach these days, I look forward to seeing Norman overhead in the near future. (I may, just for fun, phone ops up to complain about the noise, of course).

[Ivan Rogov]

Re calling the MRA4 a Nimrod...........................it doesn't matter, it is just a name!

If they did change the name then what? Would you claim they were trying to hide something or complain about the waste of money in renaming all the publications, etc?

The fact that the MRA4 looks like a bit like the MR2 is a good enough reason to call it a Nimrod to me. No one seems to have an issue with the Hercules C4, C5 (C130J) or Harrier GR5, 7, 9, T10 and even the Spitfire ended up all most entirely changed with different wings, engine, canopy, etc.

The name won't affect its safety, if anything it will remind us of what has happened and help ensure our fleet strives for the highest standards of airworthiness possible.

[Siggie]

The tomatoes are fine, the lemons come in handy for the GnT's.

[engineer(retard)]

How about renaming it as Triggers Broom?

regards

retard

[Pontius Navigator]

How about renaming it as Triggers Broom?

regards

retard

Careful you will have Big Gilbert after you.

[TheSmiter]

Pssst Dave JB,


My house is about 800 yards along the 26 approach these days


That'll be the old 26 app, buddy, they moved the r/w last year, (or was it the year before, time flies when you're enjoying a capability holiday!)

Re Swater XP - yes
Re Ygate 2010 - yes also, my boy

Ref the previous ICT issues, you got me worried there, I thought you were talking about the famous wet man excused shorts :ooh: - phew, fortunately old enough to remember the fun times re-progging Loral.

Keep up the good work, Dave and best of luck with the Curriculum for New Excellence or whatever educashun is called these days. :ok:

[Shackman]

This programme is far removed from Shack Mk1 and Mk3. Please, don't cloud the issues.

Actually this is not that far removed from the Mk1/2 Shack and the Mark 3 programme. When Coastal/MoD/Air Ministry decided they needed a replacement for the Shack in the mid to late 50's, despite a number of much better (read modern) airframes offered the Treasury stepped in and vetoed any 'new' aircraft. However, they were happy (as happy as the Treasury ever is) to pay for an 'upgraded' aircraft. And so the Mk 3 was born - new wings, avionics and very nearly new engines - however to retain the 'upgrade' philosophy the original fuselage with only a few modifications such as the nosewheel, electrics and hydraulics was retained (and a lot of the equipment upgrades were retrospectively applied to the Mk 2).

Now look at the Nimrod; again we wanted a new MPA but along came the Treasury who basically said NO, but you can have an upgrade. Yes there were probably much better and no doubt cheaper and quicker ways we could have replaced the aircraft, but as far as the Treasury is concerned, particularly using the 'same' airframe it is just an upgrade. So now we have a much more expensive and severely cut back (and delayed) programme that MoD get major stick for from just about everyone whilst the Treasury just sits back in the corner and laughs.

Now start looking at a lot of the other major MoD projects (and not just RAF) - see how many other projects to replace equipment with modern, reliable kit have been forced to go along the upgrade path by the dead hand of the Treasury laying down the rules.

[Pontius Navigator]

The Future Carrier thread has just taken on a shift as well:

The admiral said the Russian Navy needs carrier battle groups.

"If, for example, we do not have an aircraft carrier in the North, the battle capability of the Northern Fleet's guided-missile submarines will be reduced to zero after Day One because the submarines' principal adversary is aviation," he said.

Which suggests that there could be a much greater risk of attrition of MPA than was the case in the 70s and 80s.

Back the question:

How much resilience will a 'force' of 9 aircraft give. This is a combat aircraft in a potentially hostile environment and not a combat support aircraft that will operate in friendly airspace.

I think it would be easier to replace a Frigate than a Nimrod.

[Modern Elmo]

Replace a Nimrod? No problem.

Britsh Leyland Aerospace has blacksmiths on staff with most of the handicraft skills needed to build additional Comet fuselages.

[Hedgeporker]

Replace a Nimrod? No problem.

Britsh Leyland Aerospace has blacksmiths on staff with most of the handicraft skills needed to build additional Comet fuselages.

As I understand MRA4 is new-build with up to date fabrication methods.

[Pontius Navigator]

Hedgeporker, that is the problem, it is and it isn't. It is based on reuse of a major component. There is only so long that you could keep a few airframes in storage and produce another one.

A new warship is simply ordered off the drawings, either existing drawings or new ones. You can't rustle up one-off airframes in the same way.

[Ivan Rogov]

PN not so sure of your Warship example is that simple.

I agree that it is very difficult to restart aircraft production. AFAIK the aviation industry does a line and once finished it is very difficult and costly to restart, especially if the factory closes! I understand some of the reasons, but with computer controlled machinery why hasn't the industry tried to overcome this? Would universal jigs be possible?

Recently saw the program where they built a Wellington in 24 hours, maybe BAE could ask them for some tips :E

[Hedgeporker]

Hedgeporker, that is the problem, it is and it isn't. It is based on reuse of a major component. There is only so long that you could keep a few airframes in storage and produce another one.

A new warship is simply ordered off the drawings, either existing drawings or new ones. You can't rustle up one-off airframes in the same way.

You mean that after all that lolly BAE still haven't refreshed the design and fabrication 100%? :ugh:

[GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU]

Recently saw the program where they built a Wellington in 24 hours, maybe BAE could ask them for some tips

You will find that the people at Hawarden only assembled a Wimpy in that time. Still impressive, though.

[GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU]

When Coastal/MoD/Air Ministry decided they needed a replacement for the Shack in the mid to late 50's, despite a number of much better (read modern) airframes offered the Treasury stepped in and vetoed any 'new' aircraft.

Could you remind us what those "better" airframes offered in '55 were?

[Roland Pulfrew]

Could you remind us what those "better" airframes offered in '55 were?

Well one of them was the Maritime version of the VC10 wasn't it?!? Not convinced it would have been better more "modern" undoubtedly :suspect:

[GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU]

That's interesting. In '55 Vickers seemed to be still buggering about with the V1000/VC7.

[proudfishead]

A quick dit from the dark blue side of aviation that certainly made me ponder the (hopefully) temporary loss of MPA recently.

Maritime RW squadron doing what they do best, flying at least a thousand miles from the nearest point of land from a moving tin box. One of the new Pilot's is nominated to deliver a SAR planning brief. He mentions that our "top cover" is provided by the MR2 as a long range SAR asset .......... "Are there any questions?" .........

Aircrewman: "Hasn't the Nimrod stopped flying?"
Briefing chap: "Oh yes, it has actually"
Aircrewman: "So what's our top cover on a long range SAREX?"
Briefing chap: "Errrmmm, I'm not quite sure."
Exec: "Unless the new Nimrod is quick, or a Herc crew are optimistically minded . . . . . the liferaft".

Slightly tongue in cheek perhaps, but it certainly did make me think a lot about some of the tasks we do, in light of MR2's withdrawal and MRA4's withdrawal.

It should come as no surprise that there is a great deal of support for the MRA4 from the dark blue fraternity.

[betty swallox]

proudfishead

well said!! But MRA4 hasn't been withdrawn!

[JagRigger]

I understood the aircraft tried out for the Shackleton replacement ( Nimrod ) included Britannia, VC10 and Comet. The Comet wing allegedly gave the best ride at low level - hence the route taken.

[andyy]

PN, if only it was that simple to build new warships.

Unfortunately, as an example it would be virtually impossible to build new Type 23s as most of the Jigs have gone & many of the equipment suppliers are out of business. A new "Type 23" would probably need re-drawing & fitting with different machinary & sensors; therefore, like the Nimrod MRA4 looks a bit like an MR2, it might look like a T23 but would be a different beast really.

wrt Sandown & Hunt class MCMVs (mine hunters) then they are impossible to replace as the moulds for the GRP hulls were binned a long time ago. etc.

[Pontius Navigator]

andyy, in so far as those warships built on aircraft style production systems you are right. I would guess that they would not necessarily have to be replaced like-with-like whereas you certainly could not afford to buy in a singleton MPA type.

A ship is a ship and is manned continuously by its crew whereas an aircraft is manned by a succession of crews so commonality is essential; that is the difference I was alluding to. They need to ensure a couple of MR2s in storage to provide essential resilience.

PN

[WarmandDry]

HS800 to meet OR357 originally with RR Medway engines but reverted to RR Spey. HS800 was a buble fuselage (as Nimrod) based on the Trident. Then a new OR for Maritime was issued that almost exactly matched the Atlantic. Nimrod MR1 (HS801) was a bid put together in 7 days by HS to meet both the new OR and the Breguet price.

[Roland Pulfrew]

They need to ensure a couple of MR2s in storage to provide essential resilience

Well there is one at Manchester, one at Elvington, one at Bruntingthorpe, one at.............. ;):E

[Biggus]

Presumably, on the basis of this letter:

Defence cuts: Liam Fox's leaked letter in full - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/defence/8031385/Defence-cuts-Liam-Foxs-leaked-letter-in-full.html)

The MRA4 is due to be "deleted" as part of the SDR - and presumably Kinloss along with it?

(Not to mention considerable naval assets specifically mentioned!)

[TorqueOfTheDevil]

presumably Kinloss along with it?


Sadly you're probably right, and Lossie will also go with the demise of the GR4. But I be the Stn Cdr at Leuchars will still be an Air Cdre long after Kinloss and Lossie have gone!

[kiwi grey]

You don't need no MPAs for ASW, all you need is this ... VIDEO: Mini bonzai bomber kills sub - The DEW Line (http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2010/09/video-mini-bonzai-bomber-kills.html :E)

Apologies for thread drift

[ShortFatOne]

It's strange how things are interpreted differently by people. I read Dr Fox's comments viz MRA4 as positive. It appeared to me that he was effectively trying to ringfence those capabilities by pointing out that not only are they multi-role, multi-task platforms/units but also the danger of being unable to re-generate the capabilities if we decided we needed them in the future.

I guess one man's pint half empty is another man's pint half full. Hey ho, fed up of waiting to find out if I'm going to make it to my retirement point before redundancy!

[Tiger_mate]

I preferred the name "Nimrod 2000" :E

Wyton used to have their kerb stones painted (white) every day, and a Mk9 fire engine would 'paint' it again (black) every night!

RAF Aldergrove is closed. JHC flying station Aldergrove is hanging on in there.

I can foresee RAF Scotland being limited to Leuchars. RNAS Scotland, should it happen will probably hang on to Lossie, although there are more reasons for Kinloss.
the RAF you joined is massively different organisation from the one of today

Yes; got to agree with that. We had leaders who earned respect, medical centres who would see you when you were sick rather then the following week, and several Leave Warrants a year :ok:

[simflea404]

Is multi-role management speak for excusing not being able to do quite what you want in any role?....not that this applies to MR4 of course....

[Neptunus Rex]

The staggering flaw in the "Big Airfield" argument is that not one of them has a Secondary Instrument Runway. You can bang on all you like about "economies of scale" and "cost savings," but there will be tears before bedtime when, for example, RAF Scotland's one remaining airfield goes Black, and 'n' aircraft have to be diverted to another, already over-utilised airfield.

It could end up with half a dozen fast-jet crews banging out, because there are Transport aircraft, Nimrods, Sentries et al with larger numbers on board holding awaiting recovery. The ejectees, probably with some injured, would then have to wait their turn for the depleted SAR response to rescue them all. It simply doesn't bear thinking about.

[retrosgone]

I think that old chestnut about MEDA availability isn't all that relevant in the current era. There simply aren't that many aircraft airborne at one time these days - and in Scotland Glasgow, Edinburgh and Prestwick are all open 24 hours. You can make cases about armed aircraft and handling fast jet types etc, but it can be done. As for the heavies, they can carry fuel for further afield alternates if required.

It may not be ideal, but lack of diversion airfields is not a valid reason for keeping somewhere going, specially given the projected size of the RAF's fleet.

[davejb]

Oh great,
we won't need many airfields because we won't have that many aircraft anyway - and it's not as if there'll be a problem with a FJ crew pushing into the landing stack at Heathrow, is it?

SFO - the reason I, for one, am skeptical about Mr Fox is that the comncerns he raised should be blindingly obvious to even a Sun reader, so I wonder why he felt the need to go into print (ie to have it as a matter of record) that he pointed out the blindingly obvious. I doubt that Cameron really needed to have this explained to him, so why did he do it? If Cameron really is thick enough to need to have this explained then there's no hope already, and Fox would presumably know that.

Sir Humphrey to the fore I think...

[EdSett100]

I read Dr Fox's comments viz MRA4 as positive. It appeared to me that he was effectively trying to ringfence those capabilities by pointing out that not only are they multi-role, multi-task platforms/units but also the danger of being unable to re-generate the capabilities if we decided we needed them in the future.

And that is exactly why he allowed it to be leaked. Why on earth would he write a letter to the PM on such a fundamental level? The answer is that he wants to be seen as a minister representing his department and one who cares for his troops. IMHO the PM approved the letter and knew that it would be leaked. Everything in that letter is a done deal and the PM is happy to be seen as the bad guy.

[TorqueOfTheDevil]

Spot on Edsett


If Cameron really is thick enough to need to have this explained


It's not a question of the PM being thick, more that he has umpteen ministers all vying for his attention and support and fighting for a dwindling pot of money - anyone who doesn't make the case for their department will be assumed to be happy to have their budget slashed!

[davejb]

It's not a question of the PM being thick

- my point being that Cameron couldn't possibly be that thick, therefore it's a put up job...it's all been scripted.

[Ian Corrigible]

Av Leak must have used a grasshopper to break Private Pike. :E

Safety Grounding
Aviation Week & Space Technology (http://www.aviationweek.com) Oct 18, 2010

A halt in U.K. Royal Air Force Nimrod MRA4 flight operations owing to safety concerns is expected to last at least several more weeks. The project team and type airworthiness authority of the Defense Ministry identified a “potential safety issue” with the aircraft that is expected to take at least four weeks to rectify. The issue, which the ministry will not further identify, was recognized during its assessment of the MRA4 before being released into service.

I/C

[RumPunch]

Beadwindow :=

[airpolice]

Gosh, this is exciting stuff. Who would have thought that after such a long time in development, there might still be something that the engineers don't know about the Nimrod?


Maybe this safety issue would not have come up at the last minute if the people at Warton had taken their time instead of rushing the Nimrod 2000 into service....err...or something like that.

Or.....is this just a way for HMG to say it is crap and we are not buying it, give us our money back, oh and by the way, we don't want a replacement as, in a strange coincidence, we have decided we don't need / can't afford one

[Joe Black]

Only time will tell if we don't need the capability, but I suspect that the time will be when something is compromised or lost as a result of no LRMP. There's no doubt that the capability gap we have had, and are enduring, along with the small number of frames on order have made the Bean counters' decision somewhat easier but the thought of having no "real" ASW/MCT/ASuW/SAR capability completely bamboozles me.

[davejb]

instead of rushing the Nimrod 2000 into service

That raised a chuckle. Part of the problem is probably that they tried to make so darned many of them at the same time....

Here's hoping the saftey issue is relatively easily dealt with - and I don't mean by cut and pasting this time round. Still looking forward to being woken up as MRA4 rattles my roof tiles.

BTW - If Andy Lawson is on here, I was in a local toyshop (Elgin) an hour ago and saw an add-on for the Airfix Nimrod model, a set of transfers (for a modest £13.50) that included the decals for 46 as per the Fincastle comp back in 81 (?) Your CXX/6 Falcon tailbadge looks good, even in 1/72 scale.

[Duncan D'Sorderlee]

Dave,

The MRA4 doesn't have Spey 250s! You won't hear it when it whispers over your house. But I'll give it a go if you want.:ok:

Hopefully sometime soon!

Duncs:ok:

[Frustrated....]

Well, the leaking has started.

BBC Scotland

BBC News - Concern over defence cuts impact on RAF bases (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-11558112?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter)

The BBC also understands that the Nimrod MRA4, the replacement for the ageing Nimrod, may not go ahead - which would cast a serious cloud over RAF Kinloss.

Oh well, I'm out of a job then. Wonder where I will be posted since I have less than 2 years to my exit date?

Frustrated.... If not now then i'm sure I soon will be.

[getsometimein]

If you READ the article, it doesn't actually say anything... MRA4 MAY be binned, and the Harrier force MIGHT be scrapped, some tornadoes COULD be saved...

Entire article of guess work.

[The Old Fat One]

Oh well, I'm out of a job then. Wonder where I will be posted since I have less than 2 years to my exit date?

Frustrated.... If not now then i'm sure I soon will be.


Now there's a post that makes no sense to me.

Surely if you have less than two years to do you are into the resettlement process and planning your next career. What difference does it make to you personally if the MRA4 comes in or not - you'd not be on it anyway if you are out in that timescale. As to your final tour...two years gardening leave should aid the resettlement shouldn't it?

[Frustrated....]

Well, a posting may thake me away from the area I want to settle in thereby denying the networking to find a new job. It may also take me away from the family as there is no point in moving them for less than 2 years etc

You see my train of thought?

Frustrated....

[Tourist]

Joe Black

"but the thought of having no "real" ASW/MCT/ASuW/SAR capability completely bamboozles me."

Erm....
ASW - Merlin may not have the range/speed, but it certainly has the capabilities.
MCT - You are having a laugh. loads of superior platforms for all Nimrod MCT tasks.
ASuW - Just remind me how many warships have been sunk by Nimrod. Now how many by the little Lynx?
SAR - No, you do "S". The SeaKing does all the SAR

[Roland Pulfrew]

Tourist

For once you seem to to be the one having a laugh:

ASW - Merlin may not have the range/speed, but it certainly has the capabilities.

Just as long as you have a ship close by to do it from and you don't want to track anything say in the Shetland Faroes Gap!!

MCT - You are having a laugh. loads of superior platforms for all Nimrod MCT tasks.

Name one! You blatantly don't know what you are talking about.

SAR - No, you do "S". The SeaKing does all the SAR

Wrong again. Sea King does all the SAR within 200 nms of the coastline. Nimrod did all the SAR at anything beyond that (except tanked Jolly green Giants and we don't have any of them).

[Lima Juliet]

Tourist

You're having a laugh fella!

ASW - if you want a long-range SurPic with an ability to ID without AIS cooperation (transponders for ships in simple terms), then there isn't much else. Stingray torpedos help with the warfare bit as well!

MCT - so just how do terrorists get guns, explosives and ammo into the UK from abroad then? How do you vector and monitor the good guys actioning the bad guys that are doing stuff like this? Who is going to provide the over-the-horizon comms and C2?

ASuW - you may not have noticed but our independent deterrent is carried in submarines that need protecting from hostile "hunter-killer" submarines. These need 24/7 protection and all the bad guys need tracking as soon as they become a threat. Depth charges and torpedos are pretty handy if their needed in a hurry.

SAR - Yes they do the 'AR' as well as the 'S'. Here is why: "An aircraft is kept available for search and rescue tasks, primarily for downed military aircrew and military maritime incidents, although Nimrods are tasked by the Air Rescue Co-ordination Centre to attend many civil incidents. In this role the aircraft has a selection of multi-seat dinghies and survival packs that can be delivered from the air. The Nimrod routinely operates over the sea down to 200ft, but is limited to 300ft at night or in bad weather." - I would very much welcome a rescue of this kind from a Nimrod if I was bobbing around in the og-splosh outside of the range of a helicopter.

By the way, I'm not a Nimrod mate, never have been, but even a blinkered fast jet mate like me can see the value of the Nimrod (or another MPA like the P-8, which has the MRA4 kit inside it).

LJ :ok:

[Lima Juliet]

Roland, you beat me to it! :ok:

[Shell Management]

Nimrod was a vital part of the response to Piper Alpha.

[RumPunch]

Nimrod done a lot of stuff that was never ever mentioned in the press. I know we are not allowed to say things due to Opsec and stuff but if the positive press side had been more before 2/9/06 then I think things might be so different today. Either way the stigma is attatched to whatever MRA4 does now.

I just feel the Nimrod has been let down by the powers above , very similar to many who serve today.

[Phileas Fogg]

Just to chip in ....

The British military can provide the means to rescue Russian military personnel from a mini submarine off Vladivostok somewhere, half a world away, yet it is being suggested that the British military only provide helichopter support for our own, or, people nearer to home?

Correct me if I am wrong, I did get a looksie inside a Nimrod 'bomb bay' back in the 1970's, regardless of 'search' does it not also carry 'rescue' equipment to be dropped if need be?

[Siggie]

SASS? (Search And Survivor Supply) rather than Rescue. Nimrod supplied survival and location aids that enabled survival until rescue. No less an important job.

[Phileas Fogg]

It frightens me somewhat, accidents happen, that a British airliner, at some stage, will come down, let's say, mid Atlantic, the Yanks, Icelandic's etc. will be launching their search aircraft, what are the Brits going to launch, a Bristows Chopper?

Bring back the Shackleton, that's wot I say. :)

[muppetofthenorth]

Correct me if I am wrong, I did get a looksie inside a Nimrod 'bomb bay' back in the 1970's, regardless of 'search' does it not also carry 'rescue' equipment to be dropped if need be?
I always remember being told it carried at least one inflatable 8 or 10man liferaft that could be dropped if required. Was my chain being yanked?

[Phileas Fogg]

Muppet,

I couldn't possibly say, Official Secrets Act and all that, but the Nimrod did/does carry 'survival and location' (rescue) aids aswell as many other things in it's belly.

Put it this way, there way a day when St. Mawgan was having a practice emergency, apparently it was a ship/boat that had notified a Nimrod that it's 'belly' was on fire thus rather than a practice St. Mawgan had a full emergency ..... but I can't suggest what might have been in the Nimrod's belly that ignited!

[RumPunch]

Nimrods always carried a pack up that contained at least 3 floaty things , SAR jet carried a lot more. SAR call outs , when everyone got behind the team and scrambled a jet , ******* miss that days , the horn would call and everyone would launch the jet , get number 2 on take over duty.

[Mad_Mark]

Have you sobered up yet RP? You really shouldn't drink and type you know fella :ok:

The MR2 did indeed carry an ASR pack on every sortie (except displays) which consisted of a MS10 (multi-seat, 10 person) dinghy and 2 packs full of survival equipment linked together with floating rope. This could be used to provide shelter, food, water and location aids, amongst others, until another unit could pick the survivors up. If no helo was available, usually due to range, then the Nimrod would alert other vessels in the area and vector them in. In my books this counts as rescue, after the search that located the survivors, hence the Nimrod was/is indeed a SAR asset.

MadMark!!! :mad:

[Mad_Mark]

Tourist...
ASuW - Just remind me how many warships have been sunk by Nimrod. Now how many by the little Lynx?

Well, many of those Lynx targets in GW1 at the northern end of the Gulf were located, tracked and then passed to the Lynx to be taken, as they were the ones with the right weapon at that time for that job. It was a joint effort, the Lynx may have done the actual sinking but the Nimrod found the targets to be sunk.

If you were there, or indeed knew WTF you were talking about, you would of course know that.

MadMark!!! :mad:

[Ivan Rogov]

The RN name it's carriers QE and PoW hoping that we won't chop them as it would be a huge insult to Madge and Chaz. Also they subliminally influence us PPRuNers to nickname the JSF as Dave (No doubt an FAA plot to bin the RAF because we moved Australia and don't have to live on a boat for months). Genius, now the PM will be insulted if it is cancelled!

Here's an idea-
Goodbye Nimrod MRA4, hello........................ the Liam

Quick we only have a couple of days, spread the word :}


Whatever happens next week, good luck to all and make sure your sense of humour is fully serviceable :ok:

[Phileas Fogg]

As I see it UK, namely Maggie, has made this mistake before that resulted in the taking of The Falkland's.

A few years previously to 1982, circa 1977, the Argies had considered invading FI, the Brits (Labour) got wind of it and despatched military atleast as far as Ascension Island, the Argies backed off, years later Maggie gets to power, helped, by promising the Armed Forces significant salary increases and PDQ announces the withdrawal from service of HMS Hermes and Endurance etc. etc. etc. and the rest is history.

Now, just recently, oil & gas has been confirmed off FI, the Argies are up in arms about it, the previous battle for the islands included, but not limited to, a significant Naval force, Marines, Army, FAA and RAF Harriers, In-Flight Refuellers, Vulcan Bombers, Nimrods, Transport Aircraft, Chinooks etc. etc. etc.

So, with the exploration of oil & gas in the region, what position might the UK military be in again to react to an invasion of The Falkland Islands?

[Squirrel 41]

Mr Fogg

Presumably the point is that (i) we have much larger force down there at any time now than we did in '82, (ii) have air defence of FI which didn't exist in '82 and (iii) can reinforce the Falklands PDQ if it was required - and have you looked at the Argentine ORBAT since 1982?

Tourist

I'm not from the Kipper fleet, but may I suggest that if you feel safer in the UK SAR area of responsibility following the withdrawal of the MR2 without replacement rather than before, you're an idiot.

S41

[Phileas Fogg]

Squirrel,

The Argies military wasn't that great in 1982, a C130 'bomber', second hand warships etc, but they pulled one over on the Brits despite such substandard equipments.

So how many times would a Tornado need to be in-flight refuelled to make it Ascension-FI-Ascension, what reconnaisance aircraft would the Brit military use?

So a handful of aircraft in Mount Pleasant is going to thwart any invasion that may be planned?

[Joe Black]

Erm....
ASW - Merlin may not have the range/speed, but it certainly has the capabilities.
MCT - You are having a laugh. loads of superior platforms for all Nimrod MCT tasks.
ASuW - Just remind me how many warships have been sunk by Nimrod. Now how many by the little Lynx?
SAR - No, you do "S". The SeaKing does all the SAR

Tourist,

I'm not by any means knocking the Merlin in terms of it's capability but it's not quite the same is what a Nimrod can provide - to be able to fulfil the ASW role fully and successfully it requires both, in my opinion.

MCT? I think you'll find that there is no other platform that can get close to an MPA's capability.

ASuW - how does a rotary asset go about detecting warships at ranges greater than 150nm?

SAR - that's been answered pretty well by the other guys on the forum.

[Biggus]

Joe,

In at least one of your last comments you are in danger of believing your own propoganda!

[berzerker]

:D MM well said

[Tourist]

Joe and all the other people

"but the thought of having no "real" ASW/MCT/ASuW/SAR capability completely bamboozles me.

That was the origional statement made by Joe. Just think about it for a second.
A ridiculous and unbelievably solipsistic statement.
Nimrod is a great aircraft, and I hope we keep them (ideally given to the RN) but lets not treat it like the second coming.



"to be able to fulfil the ASW role fully and successfully it requires both, in my opinion."

As an ex ASW warrior, I Concur that both is best, but we have a "real" ASW capability all over the world without Nimrod.

"MCT? I think you'll find that there is no other platform that can get close to an MPA's capability"

As an ex MCT pilot, I Disagree. One of your own assets superior in many ways, and ours can do the rest. On an MCT, nobody says "best we all go home, the Nimrod is tits" In fact its loss doesn't even change the plan.

"ASuW - how does a rotary asset go about detecting warships at ranges greater than 150nm?"

Not easily. But there is a lot more to ASuw than finding it, and you don't have to find it beyond 150nm to kill it. ASuw is something the RN has been about for hundreds of years. The idea that we might as well give up now that Nimrod is gone is farcical.

And as an ex SAR boy with tours in Prestwick and 771 don't get me wrong. It was always nice to have the warm feeling on a long ranger of a Nimrod above you. But to suggest that Nimrod is the most important SAR asset is silly. No Helicopters equals no SAR. No Nimrod means a reduced capability in one small area of SAR.

[Lima Juliet]

As a fast jet mate I can tell you that "no Nimrod" meant no tanker trail - helicopters or no helicopters!

[Tourist]

Mad Mark

"Well, many of those Lynx targets in GW1 at the northern end of the Gulf were located, tracked and then passed to the Lynx to be taken, as they were the ones with the right weapon at that time for that job. It was a joint effort, the Lynx may have done the actual sinking but the Nimrod found the targets to be sunk."

I am not the one saying that the loss of a particular asset will leave us with no "real" capability.
To call finding things the "real capability" is silly. The Lynx AH is good at "finding things" for apache, but it is not the daddy.

[Mad_Mark]

No Helicopters equals no SAR. No Nimrod means a reduced capability in one small area of SAR.
Utter horse-dung :rolleyes: I have done several Nimrod SAR missions when there has been no helo (range, availability, etc).

We all agree that ASW, ASuW, MCT, SAR, ISTAR, erc, are ALL joint ops. It is your comments, like the above quote, that people have issues with you over.

MadMark!!! :mad:

[Tourist]

Mad Mark

"I have done several Nimrod SAR missions when there has been no helo"

Either our definitions of "rescue" are vastly different, or your secret winchmen have my ultimate respect.........

Leon

Who mentioned tanker trails?

[getsometimein]

So you're bleeting because all of these tasks are going to be hit because we lose a platform...

Tourist, you mentioned all the various aircraft and flights you've worked on...

But have failed to mention that Nimrod does sar AND mct AND asuw AND asw AND istar AND anti-terrorist warfare AND about another dozen ops that most people are not privvy to...

Do use a favour and tell us how many UK assets can do all of those jobs, most simultaneously, and have the capability and range to do 3 different ops, in a single mission, from the bay or biscay all the way to the Orkney's...

Simple fact of the matter is that we need around 5 different assets to accomplish what the MRA4 is capable of in one airframe. The only thing it lacks is (except coming into service) clearance to fire weapons.

Do us a favour and remove the saddle from your high horse of "helicopters are better than everything else", and accept that Nimrods are a vital asset, whether or not the government agrees.

[Mad_Mark]

Either our definitions of "rescue" are vastly different, or your secret winchmen have my ultimate respect.........
Now you really are being a tw@ :ooh:

Yes, helos are used for most jobs for their ability to quickly access many locations and equally quickly transport any casualties to hospital. But, I can assure you that I have been involved in RESCUES without helo involvement, without even having to deploy our secret winchman :D

Read my earlier post, you CAN do the 'rescue' part of SAR without a helo or winchman when in open ocean (use other shipping), coastal waters (RNLI, fishers, etc), cliffs (HMCG) and even in the mountains (MRT's). Just because casualties are not brought aboard the aircraft does not mean that our involvement had no part to play in the actual rescue. On one occasion it was OUR attracting the attention of a fisher through the use of visual signals, leading to comms on 16, that enabled the casualty to be taken out of the water. Yes a helo had been scrambled but was still en-route when the casualty was taken aboard the fisher.



MadMark!!! :mad:

[Tourist]

Mad Mark

My god man, next you will be calling yourself a CAS asset because you queued someone on.

You are not Rescue capable.

You are a SAR support asset and it is time you poured yourself a large glass of man-the-Fxxx-up and dealt with it!

[Mad_Mark]

So are you saying that a FAC is not a CAS asset?

I have never said that we are 'rescue capable' in your words, but that we DO conduct SAR, we search and FACILITATE the rescue using whatever assets are available. You are taking the 'R' part of 'SAR' fat too literally!

[airpolice]

Here's some potential for a right larf.....


A wrinkly old Warrant at manning decides to look up various service sources and trawls pprune messages to identify Tourist and Mad Mark.

On the forthcoming cancellation of Nimrod and ALL SAR assets coming under the control of the new combined RN/HMCG, the wrinkly puts them both on the same squadron.

How funy would that be?

[Tourist]

getsome

You are not listening.

I will say it again.

I am not saying that we would not like to keep Nimrod.

My issue was with Joe's silly statement which is totally unjustifiable

[Tourist]

Mad Mark.

Yes, I am quite categorically saying that Nimrod, whether FACing or not is not a CAS asset.

[Mad_Mark]

AirPolice, trust me, that wont happen :ok: Just because I defend a particular type now does not indicate that I am still on said fleet, or even still taking the Queens shilling

MadMark!!! :mad:

[Mad_Mark]

Tourist, where did I mention Nimrod and FAC in the same sentence???

I was talking about FAC in general, and I do see a FAC (ground based or otherwise) as an ASSET that IS a part of CAS.

I suppose you are the sort that feels that the chefs, suppliers, adminers, etc, have no part to play in flying? About time you accepted that all assets are a part of the team... 'For want of a nail' and all that!

Anyway, I realise that you are a total troll, so this is the end of this tit-for-tat from me.

MadMark!!! :mad:

[getsometimein]

How many people have been "rescued" by a dingy dropped from a Nimrod, that would otherwise have perished had they not had that store?

How many people have been "rescued" due to being spotted by Nimrods after falling overboard?

Definition of SAR?

Search and rescue (SAR) is the search for and provision of aid to people who are in distress or imminent danger.

I think the Nimrod force did that on countless occasions...

If Nimrods never did SAR, I want all that time back I spent in the mess on standby...

[Lima Juliet]

Getsome

I agree, dropping a dinghy pack to someone in the sea is going to "rescue" them from certain death from hypothermia - as long as they can get in the dinghy! Then vectoring a vessel to pick them up later will also "rescue" them.

No helicopters required...

LJ

[Joe Black]

but the thought of having no "real" ASW/MCT/ASuW/SAR capability completely bamboozles me

My issue was with Joe's silly statement which is totally unjustifiable

I stand by my "silly" statement completely. Take the asset away and those 4 capabilities are dramatically reduced.

[Tourist]

Joe

Ok then lets take an easily checkable example

Show me how many more people died since the Nimrod has not been flying because the SAR cover was "dramatically reduced"

[Joe Black]

That's exactly the viewpoint/opinion that worries me............lets agree to disagree. :ugh:

I hope I have not come across as anti Merlin because that is certainly not the case - excellent aircraft, very good at ASW, but limited in comparison to MPA.

[Phileas Fogg]

Regarding the MM/Tourist difference of opinion, like so many tasks 'SAR' is teamwork and, more often than not, involves more than one person, one unit, to achieve the end result.

If Nimrod's are not involved in 'rescue' then neither are the coastguards that sit in their coordination centres launching lifeboats etc, indeed neither would SAR helicopter pilots be considered 'rescue', they're merely the drivers that deliver the 'rescue' personnel to the scene of incident!

[Joe Black]

Well said Mr Fogg!

[Tourist]

Joe

Don't try to turn this thing around.
You made a statement about other assets not being "really" capable of performing roles that the Nimrod is involved in.
You were not being inclusive and huggy then, so its a bit cheap to join the lets all be friends and admit that we need each other now club.

[Farfrompuken]

L-J:

As a fast jet mate I can tell you that "no Nimrod" meant no tanker trail - helicopters or no helicopters!

I'm certain there have been a fair few trails conducted since the demise of the MR2......

[Lima Juliet]

FFP

The last transatlantic trail I did was in 2001 - those were the rules then or you had to go via Lajes, something to do with sea temps and survivability times.

LJ

[Vim_Fuego]

Our presence on trails tailed off when money to pay for our participation and scarcity of frames became an issue...From meeting and briefing the trail in Goose or similar pushing them across the pond it degraded down to us positioning ourselves in the Azores then when the trail departed the Eastern seaboard we would sit onboard with a couple of engines at least turning until the trail was happy to turn us off. Then it degraded further as the beancounters appetite for risk grew in relation to the potential savings to be made to the point that we just brought a crew into the mess at ISK and sat them on RS30 again until the trail were far enough across to call 'happy'.

Many a debate was had by the crew of the survival prospects of a Harrier mate who'd had the bad luck to lose his donk at 30W and would have to wait at least 3-4 hours to get to him, then find him in his rubber bathtub, drop him something a bit more comfortable, possibly find he was too cold by this time to transfer himself across etc etc...We were just lucky that during this period no incidents occurred.

[howiehowie93]

More trouble for the Mighty Hunter:
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)

[TorqueOfTheDevil]

how many more people died since the Nimrod has not been flying


Like this is a reliable measure of how effective the Nimrod is at SAR! It's only been gone just over 6 months...hardly long enough to establish whether or not it has a vital role to play:ugh:

[Pontius Navigator]

Not long before the Fastnet race disaster a similar question was asked. The Nimrod carried 2 ASR and 2 sets of dinghy pairs. The kit was becoming life-ex and considerable savings would accrue if the load were reduced.

"how many times have . . . "

The answer of course was about zero. Within days Norman Tench had cleared his bombay dropping dinghies hither and thither to all the distress yachts.

A similar question arises with road safety and only after a number of deaths is something done. Do you take the risk?

Another Nimrod load was CLE - Containers Land Equipment. Like dinghies, on inventory, never used for many a year. Come HMQ's visit to Africa I ordered up two loads of CLE for the 2 Nimrods - turned out there was only one set in the whole RAF. The insurance policy had expired and no one renewed it. Imagine the headlines.

[WarmandDry]

Pontius,
It was not Norman Tench's crew first on the Fastnet call out. Definitely 201 Sqn though.

[Roadster280]

The Argies military wasn't that great in 1982, a C130 'bomber', second hand warships etc, but they pulled one over on the Brits despite such substandard equipments.

So how many times would a Tornado need to be in-flight refuelled to make it Ascension-FI-Ascension, what reconnaisance aircraft would the Brit military use?

So a handful of aircraft in Mount Pleasant is going to thwart any invasion that may be planned?

All Argentinian major airfields could be rendered useless in a few hours by TLAM. No air supremacy=no land ops.

Argentine Navy no match for RN subs, as proved the last time. No Maritime ops.

I see no credible threat to the FI from Argentina, so long as we retain these assets.

[fincastle84]

Definitely 201 Sqn though.

The first crew on scene was 42/3, skippered by Bob Manser. We were briefing for an early morning CT & were scrambled onto SAR. The 201 crew was the official SAR standby crew but they obviously had to undertake the transit to the SWAPPS.

We operated to the east of the 201 crew.

[Jabba_TG12]

"I see no credible threat to the FI from Argentina, so long as we retain these assets"

And therein lies the rub.

I wish I could share your confidence, but I cannot. I do not think it would be as difficult for Argentina to launch a credible attack on the Islands as you. Particularly if they have any kind of "external" assistance.

We just have to hope that in the meantime, if they do get up to anything that we manage to smell it coming first during the preparation stages. If we do not, or if there is an intelligence "failure" (as was with 9/11). there is going to be an awful lot of les ouefs sur les bonce, so to speak.

Not sure thats the kind of "hope" I'd like to sell to the islanders, but...

[Pontius Navigator]

Norman still cleared his bombay, first on the scene or not.

[TorqueOfTheDevil]

bombay


Presumably it's known as a 'mumbai' on the MRA4?

I'll get my coat...

[ORAC]

Not so much the mighty Hunter as the mighty Sikher then..... :\

[TheChitterneFlyer]

You won't 'curry' any favours from BAe with that sort of statement.

TCF

[Biggus]

Unfounded rumour, or a leak before tomorrows formal announcement...?

BBC News - Future for RAF bases in Moray looks 'grim' (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-north-east-orkney-shetland-11565829)

[Tappers Dad]

I hear there is a big meeting to be held at Kinloss tomorrow afternoon prior to the annoucement.

[Biggus]

Tappers Dad,

There are "big meetings" at virtually every RAF base tomorrow afternoon - an attempt to brief the troops by the system rather than from the BBC news and the cleaner.

The fact that there is a briefing at Kinloss is not in itself indictative...

[Ivan Rogov]

Ministry of Defence | Defence News | Military Operations | HMS Manchester catches Caribbean drug runners (http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/DefenceNews/MilitaryOperations/HmsManchesterCatchesCaribbeanDrugRunners.htm)

The Royal Navy warship HMS Manchester stalked a trio of drug traffickers through the Caribbean night and literally caught them napping!



Well done Manchester!............

The operation began when a US maritime patrol aircraft spotted the suspicious-looking fishing vessel in daylight in the Colombian Basin, an area of the Caribbean bounded to the south by Colombia and to the south west by Panama. The aircraft alerted HMS Manchester which at the time was 80 miles (130km) to the west.



without the MPA they would not find it, without the Ship they would not catch it, you need both to be effective :ok:

[Joe Black]

What a surprise! If only the Nimrod force had had their successes broadcast to Joe Public over the years, they would realise what they could potentially be losing!

[sooty497]

'Big meeting' at Kinloss tomorrow 1530
'Big meeting' at Lossiemouth tomorrow 1500

Any conspiracies theories regarding timings Tappers Dad lol.

[airpolice]

Joe,

Even if the great unwashed knew how important the mighty hunter is to the defence of the nation, how do you suppose they would make the bean counters take any notice?

AP

[Fafner shim]

Big meeting at Kinloss tomorrow !

Also at Army bases and Navy Establishments and ships around the globe.
If any one trips on the way to the meeting or falls off there seat and bumps there head or God forbid faints with shock, rest assured only TD will mention it if it involves ISK.

[TEEEJ]

Jabba,
I presume with "external" assistance you are hinting at Venezuela under Chavez? A scenario that the US would likely use to put Chavez back in his box?

The Argentines simply couldn't assemble an invasion force in secret under the current Argentine civilian government. This isn't 1982 Argentina under a military junta! It would take investment and time for Argentina to assemble such an invasion Task Force. It would be political suicide for any civilian Argentine government to even consider such a venture. There are far too many trigger factors against Argentina that would only result in MPA being re-enforced.

Argentine forces are starved of funding. It would take massive investment and training in order to get Argentine forces prepared for a re-invasion. It would't just be the UK monitoring Argentine forces, but also Chile. For Argentine forces to train and mobilise for such a venture would have to be carried out under large scale military exercises and that wouldn't go un-noticed. A large proportion of their fighter and fighter-bomber fleet is in storage due to funding restrictions.

The Argentines would be reliant on the Falklands airfields for re-supply as their Navy would be, as per 1982, restricted to territorial waters. They still have no solution to RN SSNs. Even if the Argentines re-invaded with Venezuelan assistance it would be the easiest UN enforcement action to stop Argentine/Venezuelan agression with the destruction of the airfields on the Falklands. It would be a simple job for B-2 Spirits under UN mandate to render the airfields on the islands unusable. Unable to re-supply by sea or air all the Argentines/Venezuelans would have done is imprisoned themselves on the Islands.

No Argentine civilian government is going to take Argentina down that path again. It would take a military coup and extensive military preparation in order for such a venture to be even considered. I agree with Roadster on the threat.

TJ

[Biggus]

Fafner,

I'm sure TD can fight his own corner.......however.


Was your son killed in an aircraft that was unsafe largely due to negligence and incompetence on behalf of the MOD and the constructor?

If you can say yes to the question then:

a) You have my sympathy

b) You have the right to criticise TD.

If the answer to the question is no, then in my personal opinion you should STFU! :=




P.S. - It's also "their" not "there" as used in your last post.....

[AGE 13]

Biggus,

Much as i hate to butt in but.....

This is an MRA4 thread, Tapper died on an MR2 so his dad has no reason to be in here and hijacking threads, that aside, fafner didnt need the bollocking.

And please, refrain from spouting that the MR2 crash was a consequence of neglect by the MOD, i work for the MOD and i take umbridge at that remark. I was groundcrew on the glorious MR2, i flew as groundcrew and was an AGE to the end, i was never negligent and knew of no one that was. After the HC report it was the safest aircraft that (largely because of political cowardice) was never allowd to fly again. so (in your words ) STFU !!!

I have respect for tappers dad before you jump in my box, however its the past and the NIMROD MRA4 doesnt need constant reminding of its history (at least on this point) so please refrain from bollocking peeps for having the audacity to speak freely in a free world. In my humble PERSONAL opinion.

I await your sarcasm forthwith... xxxxx

[TorqueOfTheDevil]

Whatever your thoughts on TD's contributions (and let's face it, there are many far more provocative and irrelevant posts on this site), noone covers themselves in glory by having a go at him. And frankly, the precarious state of the MRA4 programme is in large part due to what happened, fairly recently, to the MR2.


please refrain from bollocking peeps for having the audacity to speak freely in a free world


Errr, isn't this what Biggus was doing? Because it looks awfully like he's getting a bollocking from you...

[DFM]

A13

It had to be said :D

[AGE 13]

Torque of the devil, and for that i apologise but not for the rest.

[tucumseh]

however its the past and the NIMROD MRA4 doesnt need constant reminding of its history


I'm afraid it is precisely that attitude in MoD that lies at the root of recent tragedies, including XV230.

Everyone needs to be constantly aware of what caused the crash and that the systemic failures confirmed by Haddon-Cave were known and formally notified in advance. And, as postings are seldom more than 2 or so years, everyone needs constant reminding. Too many of the failings were caused by there being no "event" during these 2 year periods, so the incumbents became immune to the risks and did not notify them to successors; thus losing corporate knowledge.

It is to MoD's eternal shame it took Tapper's father to do their job for them. One should always remember - none of this came as a surprise. It was all predictable, predicted and ignored. (As were the Nimrod 2000/RMPA/MRA4 problems).

[Distant Voice]

AGE 13, you say;

I was never negligent and knew of no one that was

On the day of the accident, XV230 was allowed to fly with:

(a) Suspect blow offs from No.1 tank
(b) No. 1 tank could not be filled above 15K
(c) Irratic No.5 tank fuel gauge. (one was changed on EQ1)
(d) No.3 tank (port) would not go above 7800 lbs.
(e) SCP tripped off during AAR

All these defects were know about by aircrew and ground crew, but were "carried in the head" rather than the F700.

Much has been said about the No.1 blow off, "it was just doing its job". Correct, it was doing its job because something was probably wrong. Two months after the accident XV232 had a similar problem with blow offs; cause, an incorrectly fitted clack valve in No.1 tank. A valve replaced during a Major servicing, at the same time that XV230 was also undergoing Major servicing. Same tradesmen involved in valve changes on both aircraft.

Finally, one month after the accident, the detachment JEngO was instructed to change a Serious Defect Signal because he "suspected that delivery fuel pressure during AAR may be causing damage to the construction of bag tanks".

If, as you claim, you were not aware of people who were negligent, you do now.

DV

[andgo]

Gents

This thread is about MRA4. :ugh:

[Jabba_TG12]

"Jabba,
I presume with "external" assistance you are hinting at Venezuela under Chavez? A scenario that the US would likely use to put Chavez back in his box"

Actually TEEEJ, it wasnt Chavez that I had in mind with that comment, more Brazil or Uruguay, to be honest. Particularly Uruguay after the recent incident where a Brit T42 wasnt allowed to dock. Historically, I always thought we had good relations with them, but maybe things are starting to change.

I wasnt so much thinking "active assistance" in terms of them actually contributing combat units to the Argentine cause, more a case of us not having the co-operation and good relations that we previously had - I dont think we're going to have any issues with Chile, but the Uruguayans and Brazilians could, if they wanted to be unhelpful make things difficult. Particularly as our global reach is not what it was and sometimes on such long distance expeditionary hikes you need all the friends you can get.

The Argentines simply couldn't assemble an invasion force in secret under the current Argentine civilian government.

I accept that. Hence my "hopefully we'd get plenty of warning at the preparation stage" comment and the ensuing diplomatic rounds that would go on whilst any TF would be being cobbled together.

I'm afraid though, I dont think it is always going to be this way.

And it may, just may, in the not too distant future be a less onerous task on Argentina for them to generate a force capable of taking MPA than it would for us to assemble anything even remotely close to the type of force package we would need to take it back.

Bear in mind though, given the current size and composition of the MPA garrison, what size of invasion force would you actually need?

The Argentines would be reliant on the Falklands airfields for re-supply as their Navy would be, as per 1982, restricted to territorial waters. They still have no solution to RN SSNs.

They were restricted to territorial waters, if I recall correctly once the CORPORATE TF got within sniffing distance. Yes, the SSN was a powerful tool and certainly kept the Argentine capital ships bottled up in port, particularly after the loss of Belgrano.

But, bear in mind, without giving too much away, the SSN cant be everywhere.

And, bear in mind they dont have to have a direct like for like answer to the UK SSN. There is an ambition still to develop an SSN capability for their TR1700's and they've also been looking at AIP as well. It is not beyond the realms of possibility that a Brit SSN may spend more time looking over its proverbial shoulder watching out for P3B's, surface ASW units and AIP'd SSK's than it does hassling any invasion force. And thats not including any intel the Argentines may get from other powers who may be able to locate our SSN force by er... other means, shall we say.

Even if the Argentines re-invaded with Venezuelan assistance it would be the easiest UN enforcement action to stop Argentine/Venezuelan agression with the destruction of the airfields on the Falklands.

I wish I could have the confidence in the UN that you do. Given the abomination that was Srebrenica, I cant say I believe it would happen. It would get bogged down at the UN and possession is nine tenths of the law.

It would be a simple job for B-2 Spirits under UN mandate to render the airfields on the islands unusable.

You think Obama or his successor would actually go that far for little ol' us?? Maybe under Dubya it would have been considered, but those days are over. Look how tight Thatch and Reagan were and the fun and games we had last time. And all we got out of them last time was intel, AIM9L Sidewinders, fuel and grudging use of our own bloody island (Ascension). Direct, US strategic bomber intervention? Under a UN mandate? I think, with all due respect, you seriously overestimate the amount of friends we have in the UN for them to go that far for us. I have very grave doubts it would happen.

Unable to re-supply by sea or air all the Argentines would have done is imprisoned themselves on the Islands.

If any of the others decide to get involved on our behalf beyond diplomatic pressure. After all, regardless of our level of influence in the area, the neighbouring countries have to live next to them all of the time. They have to ask themselves what is in it for them supporting the British over their nearest neighbours. Especially if their nearest neighbour suddenly finds themself with a significant oil find on their doorstep. Do not underestimate the interest the far east (ie China) would take in such a discovery either or the influence they may bring to bear.

The thing that is most likely to prevent it, certainly in the immediate (ie next 3-5 years) is the Major Non NATO Ally status and the closeness of the Argentines to the rest of the international community on UN matters, particularly its near neighbours with whom they have been developing improved relations.

However, I would consider this not a million miles away from the situation in NATO with Greece and Turkey. Common NATO allies they may be, but I can tell you for a fact that best of bedfellows they most certainly are not.

No Argentine civilian government is going to take Argentina down that path again.

I hope you're right. I wouldnt bet my house on it though.

[Distant Voice]

This thread is about MRA4

andgo, you are correct, but I felt that AGE 13 had to be answered. The point I make is that no matter how good you make the safety system, for any aircraft, if the folks at the "coal face" do not follow the rules then everything is negated.

DV

[Tappers Dad]

Wow!!! What a reaction to me just posting information on here, It's not as though I voiced any opinion. I thought I could post on any thread I didn't realise I am restricted to commenting only on the late MR2. Ben did work at Kinloss and did put in for MRA4 training before he went off to Afghanistan and never returned, and had the MRA4 been bought into service when it should have been he would have still been alive today.

So I do think I have just as much right to post on this thread as anyone if it be my will.

[EdSett100]

Based on the split timings this afternoon, I would guess that the base with the bad news will be told first: Lossie to close.

Remnants of Tornado fleet required for Afghan to operate from Kinloss while MRA gets its act together.

Speculation, of course, but this is a rumour network, after all....

Ed

[tucumseh]

Finally, one month after the accident, the detachment JEngO was instructed to change a Serious Defect Signal

Noting that if a civilian disobeys such an order to make a false declaration about airworthiness (by omission or commission) he is subject to disciplinary action, did this order reflect an improvement in safety management post-crash or just business as usual?

I hope the man who issued it isn't working on MRA4 (or anywhere in MoD).

[Willard Whyte]

TD, it's fine, y'all just keep on posting whenever you feel like it.