Nimrod MRA.4 [Archive] - PPRuNe Forums

Roland Pulfrew

9th Jun 2009, 18:28

CS & JTO

From the RAF website:

No 1(Fighter) Squadron, Royal Air Force Cottesmore, can trace its history back to 1878 when it was formed at Woolwich as No 1 Balloon Company of the Royal Engineers. It became No 1 Squadron of the Royal Flying Corps on 13 May 1912, still with balloons, but re-equipped with aircraft 2 years later.

Formed at Farnborough on 13 May 1912 as one of the original Squadrons of the RFC, the Squadron quickly gained fame for a number of long distance flights around the UK. At the outbreak of WWI, No 2 Sqn became the first RFC Squadron to cross the Channel, and concentrated on reconnaissance duties. On 26 Apr 1915, 2nd Lt Rhodes-Moorhouse was awarded the first air VC during a raid on Courtrai.

Number 201 Squadron can claim to be one of the oldest British military flying units as it can trace its origins back to the formation of No 1 Squadron, RNAS at Fort Grange on 16 October 1914.

Sorry a bit off topic.:} we now return our viewers to the usual programme.....

fincastle84

9th Jun 2009, 18:55

Camelspyyder:

I bet Soggy still hasn't washed his specs!

moggiee

10th Jun 2009, 16:13

Mogg,
no chance - it's a well known fact that should anyone on Pprune be proved wrong, and admit it, that the Universe will disappear so quickly that the Large Hadron Collider will look like a 1950 Sturmey Archer borne dynamo.

Found him!

"The Gorilla". Here are a few of his top predictions:

“….and I predict will NEVER fly, the same prediction I made a year ago.” (15th October 2002)

“I have been saying for the past 2 years on this forum and I repeat.. It HASN'T flown
and It will NEVER fly!! “ (20th February 2003)

“I said it would never fly and I stand by that prediction!!” (14th December 2003)

“I still say and have said many times on this forum, the MRA4 will never fly” (2nd February 2004)

Mystic Meg, you have competition!

mystic_meg

10th Jun 2009, 16:47

Mystic Meg, you have competition!

Sorry, you've lost me there - competition for what, exactly moggiee?

Charlie Luncher

11th Jun 2009, 02:52

DaveJB
There is no alternative to the Dark Arts.
It is just many nerd herd, antisocial dry filth dont understand!
Yuppie was dry too:eek:
"Best sex ........ Casex"

At least MRA4 is a capability step forward unlike the P8 one forward in airframe at least two back in gear. Now before you knock your cup of tea off your armchair I am not just talking about ASW but all mission profiles. At least it is on time and ahead of schedule .... hang on:ugh:
ahh Samantha wonder if she is still on the circuit:hmm:
Charlie sends

Yeller_Gait

11th Jun 2009, 06:34

Charlie,

At least MRA4 is a capability step forward

Is the sun getting to you out there? Must be nearly time for you to come home if you are coming out with quotes like that.

Best sex ........ Casex

Had a good laugh at that one too.

Fly safe and see you soon

Y_G

The Gorilla

11th Jun 2009, 16:37

I wondered how long it would be before I was tracked down and outed!! :ok: :)

I have checked in every day to see who would do the search and use my own words against me.

Yes I guess I should have said never enter service - still be on with that one eh?

Well done moggy - I also said there was as much chance of the MRA4 flying as my beloved Newcastle United winning the FA cup, well that turned out a joy also didn't it!

Any one want two years of a three year season ticket for the Toon? No?

What about some lottery numbers? Oh please yourselves!!

:}

The Gorilla

11th Jun 2009, 16:39

And yessssss I was wrong!!

Now where's that Hadron Collider..........

:)

Rossian

11th Jun 2009, 18:29

You realise of course, guys, that Samantha will be drawing her old age pension by now!!
The Ancient Mariner

TheSmiter

11th Jun 2009, 18:57

And for that thought Rossian, thank you!:eek:

She (IMHO) was directly responsible for my getting recoursed on the MR1 OCU due to my youthful curiosity for the female form, snakes, and exquisite high heels. Oh, and big thick Nick. Hope you're well pal.

As for the MRA4, well, you lost the flying bet Gorilla, but I reckon you could still get decent odds on the ISD!

Anyway, mate. welcome to the Championship, looking forward to seeing you at No Pride Park after Wimbledon.

Ciao

PS Charlie - I know where you live.:suspect:

fincastle84

11th Jun 2009, 19:59

Who is big, thick Nick? I'm not sure you have the correct person. What is the initial of my surname?:confused:

TheSmiter

11th Jun 2009, 20:28

Fincastle 84

Check PMs

Regards

TS

PingDit

13th Jun 2009, 12:38

Samantha may be a bit 'over the hill' on the snake juggling circuit, but I bet I could still book Jezebel for another evening's entertainment!

ANW

12th Sep 2009, 07:48

The fourth MRA.4 is presently at Norwich being painted. First flight took place on Thu. 10 September 09.
Photos can be found using same link in message #1 at the start of this thread.

GalleyTeapot

12th Sep 2009, 08:08

Quote:
At least MRA4 is a capability step forward

Now then, who has been filling your head with those thoughts?

Charlie Time

12th Sep 2009, 09:13

The MRA4 isn't a capability, it is a platform.

rb199

12th Sep 2009, 12:37

Twas just was wondering what SAR cab is to be based there, as at the moment 202 Sqn are at Lossie with no plan to move????

Jackonicko

12th Sep 2009, 13:18

Charlie Luncher,

"At least MRA4 is a capability step forward unlike the P8 - one forward in airframe at least two back in gear."

Care to elaborate?

The conventional wisdom has always been that 'buying American' is best, and the "scrap MRA4, buy P-8 instead" argument has been trotted out ad nauseam, and seems to be widely (if uncritically) accepted.

Don't the two jets use a VERY similar mission system? Wouldn't that support that conventional wisdom?

Or is it the case that weight/CG considerations mean that the P-8 has had too much useful gear omitted/removed, and that it can't carry anything like the same load of weapons and buoys?

And is the airframe really a step forward? Is it suitable for the kind of low level prosecution of ASW that the Nimrod and P-3 can do? Or is that no longer relevant?

What awkward questions should one be asking of P-8?

anita gofradump

12th Sep 2009, 22:40

The effects of a single engine loss at low level, may be the difference between the two aircraft, for starters.

Has this been done before?

Jackonicko

12th Sep 2009, 22:45

I get the feeling that many more PPRuNers might have had further thoughts about and experience of both types since the subject was last aired.....

Aus_AF

13th Sep 2009, 07:26

What are the Rivet Joint airframes the MoD are buying going to replace then, just 51SQN's bombers? Or is there a new unit going to be raised if the purchase does go ahead?

Pontius Navigator

13th Sep 2009, 12:48

The effects of a single engine loss at low level, may be the difference between the two aircraft, for starters.

Has this been done before?

You mean between losing 50% of your installed power or 25%?

anita gofradump

13th Sep 2009, 12:56

More to do with the more pronounced asymetric change, made potentially more difficult by engines displaced further from the centre of the aircraft on the P-8.

I'm sure it's controllable but I doubt it would be pleasant, if you got away with it, when tooling around at 200 feet.

The overall power loss is probably less of a concern, a 737 specialist would be able to advise on its SEC capability.

The Real Slim Shady

13th Sep 2009, 13:09

Midweight stab ht from driftdown 240 IAS at FL240 - ballpark. To climb from low level prob FL 180 ish. 737-8

blandy1

13th Sep 2009, 17:42

As I recall an A320 based solution was rejected on the ground of only having 2 engines. Was any thought given to hanging 2 engines off each pylon as per B52?

Obviously hindsight is a wonderful thing but it could have saved a lot of grief and provided a marketable product, not a dead end.

Pontius Navigator

13th Sep 2009, 18:27

Was any thought given to hanging 2 engines off each pylon as per B52?

There have been several proposals to re-engine the B52 with one larger engine per pylon. The problem with double pods is always sympathetic failure of both engines - like falling off or blade ingestion.

blandy1

13th Sep 2009, 18:45

Both engines in a pod failing simultaneously is, i would have thought, still less likely than a single engine failure. Could some sort of barrier between them not be engineered to protect one in the event of the other shedding blades/disintegrating.

I thought that B52 re-engining proposals were based more on fuel & maintainance savings - JT8s are not the youngest or most fuel efficient engines out there. I assume a reasonable gain in range would also be achieved. Also the aircraft is still left with 4 engines, giving the sort of redundancy required on military missions.

My hypothetical 4 engined A320 proposal would have had newer engines - Perhaps even BR710s - depends on the best fit for the airframe requirements.

Pontius Navigator

13th Sep 2009, 18:52

blandy, you are right about the B52 in that 4 new engines would be easier to maintain than 8 old ones.

The problem with podded pairs is not only the containment shield needed between each engine but the possibility of blade ingestion in the adjacent engine. Remember the MPA is not operating in a benign regime but for much of its time it is inevitable that it will be in a bird-strike risk zone.

The embedded pairs of engines on Nimrod have the same risk as a podded pylon pair except that they are unlikely to fall off :)

airmail

14th Sep 2009, 14:39

Interesting article in the Register today:

Most expensive RAF aircraft ever takes to the skies ? The Register (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/09/14/nimrod_mra4_prod_variant_first_flight/)

anita gofradump

14th Sep 2009, 15:56

Not really an interesting article, just crap.

Uninformed and, generally, lacking in fact, this must have taken a few hours of trolling and 10 minutes to write.

'F'......see me.

Squirrel 41

14th Sep 2009, 22:13

Mostly ill-informed bollocks from a grumpy ex Lt Cdr (and therefore an expert in these matters). Comparing the cost to the Space Shuttle orbiter is absurd - if indeed it is even accurate. But one thing is right - and rightly outrageous:

<<Rant Mode: On>>

21 MRA4s were contracted for on FIXED PRICE CONTRACT for £2.8bn - and now we're going to get 9 for who knows how much?

So which bit of FIXED PRICE CONTRACT didn't I understand? And before we hear some whining about "It was more difficult than we thought" from BAES, you signed a FIXED PRICE CONTRACT and took some business risk - you should've delivered.

Worse, the MOD let BAES get off the said FIXED PRICE CONTRACT and have paid them more to deliver less. Why?:hmm: BAES is large and profitable - it made a mistake and should've paid for it.

<<Rant Mode: Off>>

S41

Jackonicko

15th Sep 2009, 00:54

If you want to be boring, there were a number of + and - cost variations.

When the number of jets was reduced from 18 to 12, the NAO (bless 'em) calculated that it would produce a saving of £155 m with an associated redction in COCC (Cost of Capital Charge) of £10m....

That's £155 m for six aircraft.

£25.8 m each.

Surely it would have been better taking the six aircraft and selling them on (to India or Oz, perhaps?) or using them for R1 replacements, and even to replace the old BAC One Elevens and Andovers at QinetiQ.

If BAE offered six more for £155 m tomorrow I hope the MoD would bite their ****ing hands off.

If you only save £155 m by cancelling six jets, then cancelling them does not look like a great call, to me.

Flight Detent

15th Sep 2009, 02:33

Quite simple....the P-7 is significantly better than ANY other alternative.

The P-7 is a developed version of the P-3...better engines, avionics, etc.

By far the best option...a proven airframe, can do everything any others can do, and do it better!

Pity lockheed didn't go ahead with it's development, would have been a winner!

Cheers...FD :ok:

anita gofradump

15th Sep 2009, 05:47

By far the best option...a proven airframe, can do everything any others can do, and do it better!

In your opinion FD.

The P-7 program has suffered similar development and financial difficulties, to the point that the USN order for P-7 was cancelled (maybe a lesson for the British Government, who knows?). In fact, I'm pretty sure that the aircraft was mooted as a replacement for MR2 when the need to do so was identified.

To say it is better than anything else is beyond fact and would only be alluded to, rather than proven, if the two aircraft were placed in direct competition, in very similar circumstances.

Also, the performance and ability of the mission crew is a major player in this pissing contest, that cannot be forgotten. You could use any number of recent ASW exercises to demonstrate this point, Fincastle (Nimrod MR2 winners)......etc, etc

:}

Charlie Luncher

15th Sep 2009, 05:52

Jacko
You are correct it is almost the same data mission bus, but it is the sensors that hang off the bus that make the difference. Depends what you are looking for and where :sad:. The height of operations often quoted at the low altitudes are only needed during limited events and crew playtime neither of which is ever allowed due to tree hugging, pinko, commy politicians and restrictive ROEs:(. I do not rate the AIP P3C that high from my own experience and P8 is not going to be much better I fear, I am sure the spiral program will make it better.....expensively..... eventually:ugh:
Charlie sends

tucumseh

15th Sep 2009, 05:59

SquirrelFIXED PRICE CONTRACT

It is one of the quirks of procurement speak that "Fixed is variable, and Firm is Fixed".

And, regardless of the pricing strategy, the price only holds good for the services or goods that the contract calls up. Change something after contract award, and you pay.

MoD doesn't help itself in this respect. For example, CDP and the Nimrod 2 Star in PE/DPA ruled a few years ago that a project manager could, without recourse to the Customer/Sponsors, waive certain contracted requirements yet still pay the full amount. The more obvious ones were minor things like systems integration, Design Reviews - you know, inconvenient airworthiness things. The reasons were various, but usually involved the contractor taking on more than he could chew, or declaring he wasn't making enough profit.

Crucially, they also ruled that when the sh1t hit the fan (for example, through not being able to attain MA Release) the contractor could be paid a second time to do what was waived.

And on one particular subect, notable for it being referred to in a subsequent board of inquiry, they both ruled it ok that the contractor could be paid for not doing it a second time, and 3rd and 4th payments made to the contractors who should have been contracted in the first place - without clawing back the nugatory spend. That is, money was wasted on a grand scale by paying the favoured, rather than competent, contractor.

And no, I don't agree with all this. But I do agree you are right to query the nature of the contracts. 9 (thought that was reducing?) instead of 21, for a greater sum, is gross incompetence. But, whisper it, those responsible were the ones rewarded.

grousehunter

16th Sep 2009, 22:41

Given that PA4 flew for the first time last week (with no fanfare I might add-very strange...)does anyone really think BAE are providing an airframe or a capability? Ok it flys, but could you hand it to an OCU today? Could an OCU crew fly it? Can it perform to the specifications that were contracted? Can it perform all the (core) roles that the MR2 can now?

Is Kinloss ready? Does the station really appreciate that a brand spanking new aircraft, which other than a name and a similar shaped fuselage is going to be operating out of there in a few months? Again I would suggest that only a few people do -or care. Ok ops has some new plasma screens.....:ugh:

I am sad about this project. The MR2 is a fantastic platform but it is being replaced with such an over ambitious replacement that we may end up with a real duffer unless more is done, and quickly. There are many working very very hard from all areas of the RAF on this project, but that does not seem to be replicated at the higher levels, or by BAE. Indeed much of the CONTRACTED work seems to be handed over to the "specialists" within the airforce. We're the customer! The timelines are getting shorter but the apathy continues.

Sorry about the rant but am fed up.

Jackonicko

16th Sep 2009, 23:58

No-one could be happy about the way the programme has gone, nor about the billions of pounds that have been squandered. Less than half as many aircraft for 50% more money is never going to be good news.

Nor am I convinced that the troubles are over. Is there a support contract in place that would allow ISD to be achieved on time, even by the latest much revised schedule?

But, like the A400M, I find myself wondering whether, in spite of all the nonsense, the aircraft isn't going to be a better option than any other alternative.

The overweight, MAD-less P-8, with its critical technologies judged immature, sounds as though it has neither the kit nor the performance nor the range to offer a viable alternative, while it's almost as expensive as the MRA4, and wouldn't be available for UK squadron use for another five or six years - minimum.

AQAfive

17th Sep 2009, 22:58

In 1987, (yes it goes back that far), the MR2 was in line for a mid life update. Alas the quote for the improvement was too much for MODPE and therefore they bought into the P7. All spending on the MR2 would cease as the P7 would be in service in the early 90's.

As for the P7, the only reason we are not flying the P7 now is that it didn't work. When Lockheed started to do some real sums it became apparent that the ac could not meet its spec. Unlike the UK the USN cancelled the project.

Part of the P7 program was a sensor suite known as update 4. The plan was to refit P3C's with this suite as a run up to the P7, to prove the concept. This was continued until the update 4 suite was proved not to work as promised and that too was cancelled.

With the P7 gone, the MOD was forced to go back to the drawing board and look at the replacement of the MR2 again. The result was the MRA4.
In line with many new ac, the MRA4 has the potential to outperform the MR2, but it will take several years to do so. Not just immature equipment but time for the crews to become competent with it. Thats a fact that only time will fix.

As for the P8, well it looks pretty and is a nice colour, sorry color.

Squirrel 41

18th Sep 2009, 06:48

Jacko,

I'm not familiar with the £155m / 6 MRA4s figures; but be careful in bewailing the National Audit Office (NAO). NAO is an auditing organisation - it reviews the decisions made by others, rather than making the decision in the first place - that's MoD's turf. So not quite sure why you're being cynical about the NAO.

To directly answer your question: no, at the moment, I don't think that the hand of BAES would be bitten off - it supposedly wasn't for the £100m to upgrade the three prototype MRA4s to join the operational fleet.

But look at Tuc's point: the MoD have consistently let BAES off the contract. Why? Why on earth would the customer sell itself out by letting a non-performing contractor out of their contract? If I were with a competitor, how pi$$ed off would I be that I lost a contract that was deliverable on price to one that has been a sink-hole for cash and which BAES have consistently run rings around the MoD for?

Perhaps those who would blame the Treasury for all of the MoD's problems would care to explain what happened here, then?

S41

MrEff

18th Sep 2009, 07:58

Grousehunter - don't be sad. The MR2 is a fantastic platform but not just because of the nuts and bolts. The way our crews fly it makes it the best in the world. The MRA4 together with those same crews will do so much more. Just give it a chance. The way it allows the whole crew access to all the sensor/tactical information is a good fit for the way Nimrods have always operated. You are wrong though, about work being handed over to the "specialists". From personal knowledge I can say with certainty that over the past ten years RAF and BAE aircrew have worked together in shaping the design and flight testing the aircraft. If anything the feeling from the RAF JTT lately has been that they don't get enough of the flying particularly since they decided (for good reasons) to ship themselves back to Kinloss. The bottom line for me is that whilst most of the commentators on PPrune have nuggets of truth in what they say about the trials and tribulations of the journey, we find ourselves now with an aeroplane about to be delivered to the people who have the ability to make it great.....Nimrod Aircrew.

I am sad about this project. The MR2 is a fantastic platform but it is being replaced with such an over ambitious replacement that we may end up with a real duffer unless more is done, and quickly. There are many working very very hard from all areas of the RAF on this project, but that does not seem to be replicated at the higher levels, or by BAE. Indeed much of the CONTRACTED work seems to be handed over to the "specialists" within the airforce. We're the customer! The timelines are getting shorter but the apathy continues.

jindabyne

18th Sep 2009, 08:47

Whatever the pros 'n cons, it's sort of good looking -----

http://i205.photobucket.com/albums/bb59/malgrosse/36.jpg

Jabba_TG12

18th Sep 2009, 09:41

So is the ginger one from Girls Aloud.... in a sort of guilty pleasures way..... :}

Mind you, if its meant to be a sub hunter, from that picture you'd get away with using a Bleriot monoplane rather than that overpriced re-winged, re-engined relic of the 1950s... A boomer, in open transit on the surface? Heaven forbid.... :oh:

jindabyne

18th Sep 2009, 10:36

Jabba

Your sub recce prowess is somewhat lacking! Look more closely ---

Jabba_TG12

18th Sep 2009, 11:17

Trying to Jinda, but this wretched browser wont let me zoom in any further. Not a Vanguard, I'll grant you that. Sail too long, aft of sail too short for missile tubes.

Not a Trafalgar, too wide.

Certainly not a Sov: Not Delta, Typhoon, Akula, etc...

Could be an Astute, I guess... does this mean we might see both at the same time? :eek:

Not the best ad for a sub thats meant to be able to go around the world without surfacing - hasnt even got through whats left of the North Sea oil fields yet... :p:}

jindabyne

18th Sep 2009, 11:30

Jabba

'Tis Astute - based on a recent photograph taken at Barrow submersion dock.

Not the best ad for a sub thats meant to be able to go around the world without surfacing - hasnt even got through whats left of the North Sea oil fields yet...

Cut me a little slack for artistic licence old chap! ;)

Jabba_TG12

18th Sep 2009, 11:35

Only a tad Jinda :)

I just hope that considering they both cost the earth that when we do finally get our hands on them that they're bloody good. It would be a real choker to spend that much, wait that long and then find out none of them meet the objectives. :ooh:

thunderbird7

18th Sep 2009, 11:54

That would be an unusual experience, now, wouldn't it. :rolleyes:

Jackonicko

18th Sep 2009, 11:56

NICE painting, Jinda!

betty swallox

18th Sep 2009, 16:30

Jabba....
You need to get out...maybe a visit to ISK?!

RumPunch

20th Sep 2009, 02:47

The MRA4 will be a legend :ok: Just like the MR2 , Just give the aircraft some time , im 100% sure all people that work on new platforms will concur. If you judge something that you have not tried , thats the reason you never made it to ETPS.

betty swallox

20th Sep 2009, 09:58

RumPunch...I concur!!!

1771 DELETE

20th Sep 2009, 20:42

Fincastle84
I had some great photos of Samantha hiding a sonobuoy, i had to look very close to see where she had put it.

PingDit

21st Sep 2009, 12:12

Is that by any chance the same occasion when the photographs were found by the plods of her lying naked across the CO's desk receiving a fistfull of dollars? I remember it well.....(sigh).

1771 DELETE

28th Sep 2009, 20:48

She had photos taken throughout the camp, incuding the CO`s table and the torp ourtside the sqn. They would be real collectors items now, pity i gave them all away when over in Oz for the Fincastle that year.

fincastle84

29th Sep 2009, 05:57

They were the promotional photos for the Fincastle in OZ in '84. Jacko arranged the venue & we all watched. Rumour has it that some one of senior rank got to home base in '90 when a similar shoot took place for Fincastle '90.
She really was amzing. She only just failed to satisfy an 'F' size buoy!
I have a full set of photos for anyone interested. I don't think they'll let me publish them on PPrune!

hello1

29th Sep 2009, 20:17

Gotta be Astute. Only industry produces nice oil paintings of aircraft not yet in service and as they also produce Astute............

Question is whether this nice painting was presented to the RAF as a 'sorry the MRA4 is so late' gift or to the navy as a 'sorry Astute's so late' gift.:rolleyes:

Charlie Luncher

30th Sep 2009, 03:41

Fin 84
Go on post them(or PM to interested parties:ok:) it will bring back memories of a rather dingy lower level bar in the "Great" Western. Good times, and a much simpler time being guided on my career by dodgy geezers as a young "get the beers in sarge".:yuk:
Charlie sends

ORAC

30th Sep 2009, 08:21

The MR2 is a fantastic platform but not just because of the nuts and bolts. The way our crews fly it makes it the best in the world. The MRA4 together with those same crews will do so much more. But with a fleet of 6, what the f*ck's the point?

It might be great for winning a trophy and flying the flag, but the numbers seem totally operationally inadequate as an MRA force. Even as a dedicated recce platform for ops such as Afghanistan it seems inadequate to maintain a 24 hour orbit whilst still having a UK training element plus exercises, deep maintenance etc.

Maybe it would be too embarrassing to admit that, thanks to BAe, we are effectively out of the ASW business - just like we are out of the maritime strike business and the photo recce business. :suspect:

PingDit

30th Sep 2009, 08:23

Yeah Fincastle; Mememememememe!

Ping

anita gofradump

30th Sep 2009, 18:28

But with a fleet of 6, what the f*ck's the point?

It might be great for winning a trophy and flying the flag, but the numbers seem totally operationally inadequate as an MRA force. Even as a dedicated recce platform for ops such as Afghanistan it seems inadequate to maintain a 24 hour orbit whilst still having a UK training element plus exercises, deep maintenance etc.

Maybe it would be too embarrassing to admit that, thanks to BAe, we are effectively out of the ASW business - just like we are out of the maritime strike business and the photo recce business.

To use your own expletive, what the f*ck would you know?

:hmm:

grousehunter

30th Sep 2009, 23:02

Nice one Anita.......

So can you fill us all in on how great the new mighty hunter is going to be?

There is so much "its going to be as good as the MR2" that much of us can take. While i agree that if it all worked as was specified many moons ago it would be (may be still be....) a great weapon system, i do feel that Kinloss are in for a shock. It wont be. Initially. For a good few years........

Feel free to let us know given the vast mission system testing that has taken place (!) you can even make that assumption?

I'm fed up of bashing something close to my heart but you appear to be spouting a corporate line that is misleading at best.

Yeller_Gait

1st Oct 2009, 04:36

I am guessing that Anita is possibly referring to the fact that there may still be 9 MRA4 going to make it to Kinloss, at least I hope so.

I also remain sceptical as to how useful the aircraft really will be, especially in its first few years of service, and no amount of bluster from those that either think they "know", or are directly involved will make me change my mind.

Still, I look forward to its first visit over here in 21??

Y_G

fincastle84

1st Oct 2009, 05:43

It took a while for the MR2 to become settled. It was only after 42s crews converted that the true potential came to fruition. I suggest that Kinloss closes & St Mawgan should reopen & 42 reforms as an operational squadron. Will there be room to stow my Zimmer on the Mk 4:ok:?

anita gofradump

1st Oct 2009, 06:16

No filling in needed. Maybe just a few happy tablets and a bit of deep breathing for the excited folk. In particular, grousehunter, who seems to be ready for a bit of 'internet-milling'. You might want to lay off the sugary foods so close to midnight, it makes you come over all punchy and you look a bit stupid for it.

Any new project will go through a period of 'bedding in', regardless of the amount of time spent in trials. This is not "corporate line" or "misleading", it's a fact that anyone who has been involved with new kit will be able to confirm.

And yes, Y-G, the number of aircraft was the big trigger in my reply. Does ORAC know something that we don't? Something factual, that is?

grousehunter

1st Oct 2009, 09:33

No internet miling required or wanted! It appears we agree. Thanks.

ANW

12th Mar 2010, 07:31

The MRA4 was officially granted Type Acceptance earlier this week. PA04, the first MRA4 delivered to the RAF, will now be working up from its base at BAE Warton.

PA01 and PA02 the two non-standard development aircraft, ended test flying early March, and were flown to BAE Woodford for storage, (http://www.edendale.co.uk/ANW/WFD.801.10.html) their final fate undecided.

circle kay

12th Mar 2010, 12:58

WTN

This link: Nimrod MRA4 Declared 'Ready to Train' - BAE Systems (http://www.baesystems.com/Newsroom/NewsReleases/autoGen_110212113424.html)
is all part of the rumour too then?

Regards to all up north

CK

Biggus

12th Mar 2010, 20:44

WTN

So what exactly did Gp Capt Kessell accept.....??

That BAE "spin" that you refer to are the same words that are coming out of the mouths of RAF senior management on the project....

As of Wed 10 Mar PA04 is an RAF aircraft. I agree there was no great event with CAS being formally handed the F700, against a backdrop of the aircraft in a hangar, dry ice clouds everywhere and suitable music - maybe a deliberately low profile given the history of the project, but it happened.

I think you are well out of the loop mate, and eventually you will have to accept it!!!

MountainMetman

12th Mar 2010, 22:44

I take it there was nothing post worthy or postable from the execs this morning then? Couldn't stay after my bit was done, had ops to brief...

Yeller_Gait

13th Mar 2010, 06:34

From the BAE Systems website ...

Equipped with more than 90 antennae and sensors and containing over six million lines of software code, the MRA4 is able to scan an area the size of the UK every 10 seconds. The aircraft is able to fly 6000 miles or 14 hours without refuelling.

Spin is a wonderful thing, and almost anything can be made to sound possible. Yes you might be able to scan an area the size of UK every 10 seconds, but only if you are in the middle of a 200 mile radius circle that you want to scan. You cannot scan the UK in 10 seconds. I will reserve judgement on whether the aircraft can fly for 14 hours or 6000nm without refuelling.

However

A further milestone was achieved on March 8, with the first flight of the second production aircraft, PA05, which is now being painted in RAF livery before undergoing acceptance flights. The remaining seven production aircraft are all in build and will be delivered on schedule.

What delivery schedule are they working to now? Certainly not the first, most probably not the second, probably not even the third .... but hey, it sounds good news that it is being delivered on schedule. :ok:

The fact that the second production aircraft has only just taken to the air for the first time this month does not bode well for an early IOC date (end of this year I seem to remember reading once upon a time).

Does anyone know when the aircraft are all due to be delivered to Kinloss? Here's hoping that they get delivered soon, before everyone leaves and all experience is lost.

Y_G

RumPunch

14th Mar 2010, 03:40

Positive vibes from WTN and Yeller Gay

The font of all know how and press hungry whores spring to ones mind.

The loosers who cant get a job are bitter , go ram it as you were never good enough to be chosen for the future

Dimmer Switch

14th Mar 2010, 10:14

Hey Old Yeller,

Just in the interests of accuracy; the 2 statements that you derided were not "spun" by BAE Systems. They were actually made (about 8 years ago) by an RAF chappie in response to a request for some "eye-catching" facts about the systems' capabilities. There were several more, similar ones, and all were based on VERY simply sums involving Pi, circle radii, typical heights and so on, and they were "targetted" at the great British public - not "expert" audiences. It's a shame that so few people have ever taken the time to look for the positives with this aeroplane - I guess time will tell.

Headstone

14th Mar 2010, 17:13

YG you say -"I will reserve judgement on whether the aircraft can fly for 14 hours or 6000nm without refuelling."

What a clever and responsible chap you must be to be able to pass judgement on an aircraft limitations.

Presumably this is because of your close association with all the development work, access to trials results, performance data and other MRA4 documentation.

betty swallox

14th Mar 2010, 19:10

Agree strongly.
YG, behave yourself.
I am constantly amazed by the horse that is talked on this thread...perplexing really...

Yeller_Gait

15th Mar 2010, 10:29

OK, I'll bite.

Having now recovered from the internet battering (see above posts), I can only assume that Well Travelled Nav speaks a lot of truth as he seems to have gotten away scot free.

For Headstone, you are right, I do not have intimate knowledge of current MRA4 performance, but knowing the capabilities of the MR2 and what has changed to make it an MRA4, I will still be very surprised to see it fly 6000 nm in one go.

I was only quoting the BAE Systems website "spin", so if some senior RAF officer gave them the quote, what can I say?

For RumPunch, learn some spelling and grammar, and if you are one of the winners working for the future, best of luck to those who have to work with you.

Back to the original question, what is the latest scheduled delivery date for aircraft to Kinloss? You cannot train crews without aircraft, and slowly but surely experience will get taken away from Kinloss without aircraft to fly.

Y_G

berzerker

15th Mar 2010, 13:40

What's all this 6 airframes rubbish?

Squidlord

15th Mar 2010, 16:20

http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?c=AIR&s=TOP&i=4535359 (http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?c=AIR&s=TOP&i=4535359)

RAF Accepts 1st Nimrod MRA4

By andrew chuter
Published: 11 Mar 2010 14:12

LONDON - The first BAE Systems Nimrod MRA4 maritime surveillance aircraft destined for the Royal Air Force has been formally accepted and declared ready for crew training by Britain's Ministry of Defence.

The aircraft is the first of nine MRA4s ordered to fulfill maritime and wider intelligence surveillance, target acquisition and reconnaissance roles for the air force here.

Handover of the first production aircraft may have taken place but it will be 2012 before the machine is introduced into service following a decision by the government late last year to delay its operational debut in order to help cut Britain's defense equipment overspend.
The decision also involved taking the current Nimrod MR2 surveillance aircraft out of service at the end of this month, 12 months earlier than planned. The move leaves Britain with no credible long-range maritime surveillance capability for about two years.
The MR2's exit from service was hurried by a 2006 crash in Afghanistan that killed 14 and raised questions about its safety.
Defense ministers have said the gap between the departure of the MR2 and the arrival of the MRA4 will be covered by helicopters and Lockheed Martin Hercules C-130s.
The first MRA4 has moved from the Woodford, England, production facility to BAE's Warton site for RAF crew training. The machine is scheduled to transfer to its main operating base at Kinloss, Scotland, in late summer once an initial release to service and a support contract are in place.
The second of the nine production standard MRA4s flew earlier this month and deliveries of the nine aircraft are planned to be complete by 2012.
Eight of the aircraft were heavily upgraded MR2 airframes with new engines and missions systems.
The ninth aircraft is one of three pre-production aircraft originally upgraded by BAE for test flying. The remaining two test machines will be placed in storage having already retired from the development program.
Delivery of the final aircraft will see BAE close the Woodford manufacturing site near Manchester later in the year.
The formal acceptance of the first aircraft is a further step toward the conclusion of a program which has been dogged for years by technical issues and cost overruns.
Twenty-one of the aircraft were originally ordered by the MoD with an in-service date of 2003. The number of airframes has been continually reduced: first to 18 and then to 12 before the government finally settled on just nine aircraft.

Aus_AF

20th Mar 2010, 09:47

Yeah Fincastle; Mememememememe!
Ping

You coming to Adelaide this year? :ok:

GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU

20th Mar 2010, 17:54

Eight of the aircraft were heavily upgraded MR2 airframes with new engines and missions systems.

I presume that they dismiss the new mainplanes as simply "upgraded" old ones.

ShortFatOne

20th Mar 2010, 23:24

"........I do not have intimate knowledge of current MRA4 performance, but knowing the capabilities of the MR2 and what has changed to make it an MRA4, I will still be very surprised to see it fly 6000 nm in one go."

Prepare to be surprised, as you appear to have very little understanding of "what has changed to make it an MRA4".

Comparing MRA4 to MR2 is like comparing a Series 1 E-Type to a Series 3. Both E-Type jags but completely different cars.

GalleyTeapot

21st Mar 2010, 01:08

Or like comparing a very capable maritime and overland ISTAR platform with one that isn't?

Strato Q

21st Mar 2010, 08:34

Comparing MRA4 to MR2 is like comparing a Series 1 E-Type to a Series 3. Both E-Type jags but completely different cars.

And how many years did it take the MR2 to get there? The MRA4 will surpass the MR2 in the maritime role very quickly. Overland role? Not our game anymore.

Biggus

21st Mar 2010, 09:56

First of all, I am not "bashing" the MRA4, however, to examine the (companies?) claim of flying 6000nm in one go.....

Looking at it as an academic exerise, in terms of simple maths, and ignoring loss of speed in the climb and descent, if the aircraft has an average groundspeed of 400kts, then it will take it 6000/400 = 15 hours flight time to cover 6000nm. That gives you some idea of what we are looking at.

Questions which now need to be asked to decide if it is feasible include at least:

The max flight time for MRA4?

Groundspeed achieved (at endurance speed?)?

Wind component applicable for route?

We'll ignore such things as diversion fuel, etc....

400kts groundspeed (still air) was a good back-of-a-fag-packet planning figure for the MR2 at range speed, and I believe the MRA4 is slower? If you can find yourself a 6000nm long route with about 50kts plus of tail component then I have no doubt the MRA4 could theoretically fly for 6000nm in one go. Could it do it in still air.....I don't know, I don't have enough information!

Overall, it's rather a mote point, with numerous variables. I just hope nobody is producing pretty maps with 3000nm range circles on them....

GalleyTeapot

22nd Mar 2010, 11:49

Strato Q
"The MRA4 will surpass the MR2 in the maritime role very quickly."

Who has been telling you that? Or have you been reading the spin from BAE? Define "very quickly"

Vage Rot

23rd Mar 2010, 10:08

Good luck to all of you on the Mighty 4! I'm off to pastures new and won't fly her. Ignore the bashings on here, it will need tweaking when you get it but it will come on quickly and you will have an excellent platform on your hands!

Hopefully, someone will see sense, clear the full gambit of weaponry, buy a few more frames and can some of the 50000 Eurofighters we have bought - after all, if they are as good as they keep telling us then we don't need as many do we!!:ok:

Chow fellas and lasses- and no, I'm not available to come in off resettlement to fill that sim slot during operation keep busy!

zedder

23rd Mar 2010, 21:07

How long do you do on the Reserve List Vage? They still might get you back for more 'Sand-in-Your-Toes' action yet!!:O

ShortFatOne

24th Mar 2010, 00:03

Vage,

thank you for the kind words. Those of us with a close association to the program know the potential inherent in the platform, it's just a case of teasing it out at a pace that matches the available funds. It just gets a little depressing at times and occasionally you wonder whether it's worth all the effort just to have it thrown back in your face. Fortunatley most of us know that the years of work will be repaid in full plus interest when the final reckoning is done (in about 25-30 years with luck!).

I hope resettlement works out, keep in touch, any time you need a chaperone at ISK, give me call!

Rgds

SFO

Vage Rot

24th Mar 2010, 22:27

zedder, I have somewhere a bit of paper that says "No reserve committment" . Looking for it right now!!:ok:

DaveyBoy

25th Mar 2010, 00:07

We'll ignore such things as diversion fuel, etc....

Are you ex-201?

vecvechookattack

18th Jun 2010, 15:37

New Nimrod fleet to be delayed | Aberdeen and North | STV News (http://news.stv.tv/scotland/north/183293-new-nimrod-fleet-to-be-delayed/?)

BEagle

18th Jun 2010, 16:18

Couldn't find anything in that Jockistani rag; however, here it is from the BBC:

BBC News - RAF Kinloss Nimrod deployment delayed (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/north_east_orkney_and_shetland/10347985.stm)

Is this delay due to yet another of 't Bungling Baron's bungles?

Another 'capability holiday' gap fast becoming a yawning chasm....:uhoh:

getsometimein

19th Jun 2010, 08:11

Nimrod "deployment" to be delayed....

What deployment is that? They are not "deployed" onto SAR...

I think fridays "board" announcements will be more telling.

GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU

19th Jun 2010, 09:45

Angus Robertson via BBC;
"It actually makes the case for the retention of Kinloss because it shows and highlights how important the Nimrod aircraft are around the nation's shores and it underlines why this incoming Liberal Conservative government needs to ensure that they do not undermine the defence footprint in Scotland, which has already suffered, under the last Labour government, serious cutbacks and a massive defence underspend."

You don't get sentences that long for murder! Anyway, what "massive defence underspend"?

TheSmiter

19th Jun 2010, 10:13

Amazing to see how politicians and the media can conspire to create a non story from so few crumbs.

If I'm not much mistaken, Angus Robertson (SNP Moray) has fed the Scottish press the line about a further MRA4 delay based on the following answer he got to a written question:

RAF Kinloss: 16 Jun 2010: Written answers and statements (TheyWorkForYou.com) (http://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2010-06-16c.2622.h)

Perhaps he's reading a different reply. Admittedly the answer is typical Ministry blandness; however, nowhere does it mention any new delays. Does Angus know something the rest of us don't?

difar69

19th Jun 2010, 12:35

No.....certainly not regarding defence anyway.

Donna K Babbs

19th Jun 2010, 23:12

This is typical Robertson drivel. If he has specific evidence that the MRA4 isn't going to arrive at ISK by later summer then he should release it. Although you cannot always believe what the MoD says, in my experience the SNP very rarely gets things right.

JimmyTAP

20th Jun 2010, 07:04

If the late summer target is to be achieved, a better question to ask might be, how often has PA4 flown at Warton since it was "delivered" in March and how often has PA5 flown since it was painted at Manchester, again in March? Someone involved in the MRA4 project may be able to answer.

QTRZulu

22nd Jun 2010, 14:01

JT

Someone somewhere still thinks that the MRA4 is on track for this summer

BBC News - New Nimrods at RAF Kinloss 'within weeks not months' (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/north_east_orkney_and_shetland/10376417.stm)

Frustrated....

22nd Jun 2010, 16:10

JimmyTAP

If the late summer target is to be achieved, a better question to ask might be, how often has PA4 flown at Warton since it was "delivered" in March and how often has PA5 flown since it was painted at Manchester, again in March? Someone involved in the MRA4 project may be able to answer.

I second those questions. It has been extremely quiet on the MRA4 front - no bragging by BAE about how good their Nimrod 2000 is, or what has been achieved. There also doesn't seem to have been any sightings on the Aircraft Photography front either. TEEJ can you confirm if any of your colleagues have seen one flying around?

Frustrated....

RumPunch

23rd Jun 2010, 21:08

QTRZulu

24th Jun 2010, 09:10

Is it not possible that Mr Robertson could be confusing the aircraft arrival date with the much talked about Convex start dates?

Frustrated, I agree with you, if he does know something then he should give us the facts - then again as a politician why would he want to let the facts get in the way of his 5 minutes in the spotlight?

Biggus

24th Jun 2010, 16:08

There are so many "events" in the timeline, first delivery, first arrival at Kinloss, first formal course of students (as opposed to training the instructors), IOC, FOC, etc...... that anyone who wanted to could probably hide some time delays by just playing with those phrases.

Personally I expect that when the first one arrives at Kinloss there will be a blaze of publicity, RAF News, local papers etc, but as to what it will actually be doing, what clearances it has etc, only a select few will know, and they probably won't be talking.

Still, I think "Frustrated" has made some very valid comments!

TEEEJ

24th Jun 2010, 16:42

Frustrated,
The chaps on the following normally log all the movements.

FighterControl • Home to the Military Aviation Enthusiast • View forum - Northwest England (http://www.fightercontrol.co.uk/forum/viewforum.php?f=69)

TJ

Frustrated....

24th Jun 2010, 16:47

TEEEJ thanks for the link.

However, no mention of MRA4 recently. Does anyone else have any gen?

Frustrated....

Jackonicko

24th Jun 2010, 18:28

They were working on one in a big shed at Warton yesterday. It was parked behind a big display board which had a number of sheets on Mantis, one of which referred to maritime and ISTAR, as though UAVs will soon be a more than adequate replacement.

The noises off from the Mighty Hunter quite drowned out all of the chat about Mantis.

Donna K Babbs

24th Jun 2010, 23:12

Not long to wait for the next MRA4 flight from Warton.

JimmyTAP

25th Jun 2010, 04:11

So how many flights has PA4 carried out from Warton in the 3 months since it was "delivered"? I would imagine it should have been flying 3-4 times a week so around 30-40 flights maybe?

Fatnfast

26th Jun 2010, 10:33

No way MRA4 has flown 30-40 times from Warton, 3 or 4 times would be nearer the mark !

vecvechookattack

26th Jun 2010, 10:48

Does it matter?

JimmyTAP

26th Jun 2010, 12:30

Only in as much as I would thought that more flights were necessary to train crews to reach some sort of operational standard. If it has only flown 3 -4 times in 3 months - why?

vecvechookattack

26th Jun 2010, 13:09

How much flight time V's Sim time did the RAF Ask/pay for ? Those crews will get what they asked for.....not a minute more and not a minute less. Did the crews ask / pay to be trained to an "operational" standard or are they on a train the trainers course?

Frustrated....

27th Jun 2010, 08:50

VecVec

Of course it matters how many times it has flown since the RAF accepted the first MRA4 in March.

If it has not flown much, why? What is wrong?

You would think that the RAF would be busy flying it, developing tactics and procedures and trying to get some sort of capability to reduce the size of the capability gap left by Gordon Brown forcing the early retirement of the MR2.

Frustrated....

Biggus

27th Jun 2010, 18:53

Frustrated.....

Perhaps PA4 hasn't been very "well".....? That would explain why it hasn't been seen flying very much - but maybe there are less sinister explainations?

As I said before, no doubt those that know aren't talking, but the mere fact that no-one is talking is probably an indicator in itself....?

That reminds me, must remember to re-new my subscription to the "grassy knoll society".....

Lima Juliet

27th Jun 2010, 19:44

Perhaps PA4 hasn't been very "well".....? That would explain why it hasn't been seen flying very much - but maybe there are less sinister explainations?

Less sinister if my rumour is correct. I understand that it doesn't have a Release to Service for 'lesser mortals' than Test Pilots to fly her at present. Dunno if it's true, but it would make sense. Otherwise, you would have to fly her under AvP67 which is normally for TPs and Contractors only (although we did do some "jiggery pokery" last time BWOS failed to deliver on time with Typhoon and flew on AvP67 for a little bit :eek:).

Anyone confirm?

LJ

Biggus

27th Jun 2010, 20:20

Leon,

Never let the truth get in the way of a good conspiracy theory......;)

JimmyTAP

27th Jun 2010, 20:50

I don't think there are any conspiracy theories - cock-ups are quite sufficient - there have been plenty of them. If the aircraft is still being flown to AvP 67 by test pilots - why? What "issues" does it still have?

The B Word

27th Jun 2010, 21:16

It's a pretty big "issue" if it hasn't got a RtS!

(Not that sort of Big Issue as well!!)

The B Word

Mad_Mark

27th Jun 2010, 22:19

There is now such an organisation called the Military Aviation Authority (MAA) that is still in its infancy. The MRA4 is the first new aircraft that the MAA has handled and it is therefore still finding its feet with how to do it. When the MAA has got its s#1t in one sock then maybe the RTS will follow shortly thereafter?

Meanwhile, those that need to know what is going on know and those that don't can continue with their conspiracy theories :rolleyes:

MM!!! :mad:

tucumseh

28th Jun 2010, 03:38

Mad Mark

I can think of no greater condemnation of the MoD than what you've just said. They are still finding their feet? Have they found the extant regulations yet, which numerous inquiries, inquest and reports over the last 20 years showed MoD had completely ignored? Something Haddon-Cave simply reiterated. The vast majority of his recommendations could be summed up with "Implement your existing regulations". Nothing but the same old story. 20 years of neglect swept under the carpet and everything is going to be ok; but we're on a learning curve so we may just screw up until things settle down in a few years. Sounds like 1993 all over again, when the need for Safety Cases and repeal of the CPA meant we needed more funding to consolidate and stabilise, but were actually cut.

But there again, I suppose the MAA are struggling with the fact that the only Def Stan dedicated to maintaining airworthiness was declared obsolete half way through the Haddon-Cave Review. (That's the one that has two parts, but D/Stan haven't been able to find a copy of one part for 17 years). Nevertheless, it remains the Bible for those who know how to do the job properly, and all D/Stan had to do was ask...... Those of us with airworthiness delegation at last amendment (1990) were all issued with our own copies.

To be fair, I imagine they are also struggling with the fact that every question on anything remotely connected with airworthiness is now offloaded onto them by IPTs who have now realised the above neglect has denuded them of anything approaching the experience or competence to make robust decisions. Did you know that MoD have taken to answering Freedom of Information requests with "The MAA have no knowledge of....."? Well, they wouldn't, would they?

I'm afraid this doesn't fill me with confidence.

Chugalug2

28th Jun 2010, 11:09

Mad Mark:
There is now such an organisation called the Military Aviation Authority (MAA) that is still in its infancy.
And likely to remain there IMHO. Unless and until it be truly independent of the operators (the MOD and the military services) it will remain compromised. The scandal of Mull happened because Regulation, Operation and Investigation were all controlled by the MOD. The same applies now no matter how many "infant" authorities are produced from the MOD's hat. There needs to be an independent MAA and an independent MAAIB, both of the MOD and of each other. Airworthiness matters and cannot be fudged. That is accepted as a sine qua non by the civvies. Time the military re-learnt that vital lesson. Self Regulation never works, and in Aviation it kills!

Squidlord

28th Jun 2010, 11:29

Notwithstanding tucumseh and Chugalug2's lack of confidence, the MAA is making something of a difference already. They have started auditing aircraft Safety Cases and, without going into detail, they have, in a very short space of time, put a rocket up at least one Project Team's arse becasue their Safety Case was so poor. This has led to a very short time-scale, very intense, heavily scrutized remedial action plan to sort the Safety Case out.

In some sense, this is good news but, as tucumseh says in a slightly different context, you have to wonder why it needed the MAA to do this. Why hadn't the Project Team got its Safety Case in order already?

And Chugalug2 might be wondering ... well, I'm wondering ... if the Safety Case was so bad, how come the MAA didn't ground the aircraft? It's one thing to have the power to make Project Teams sort out a Safety Case quickly. But it's quite a different, greater power to ground the aircraft pending that satisfactory Safety Case. Perhaps it is appropriate to keep the aircraft in question flying but the MAA would look a lot more powerful if it took that ultimate sanction.

tucumseh

28th Jun 2010, 12:33

Why hadn't the Project Team got its Safety Case in order already?

Simple. Numerous senior MoD staffs and Ministers have consistently ruled, over the last 17 years, that it is unnecessary to maintain the Build Standard, which is a mandatory prerequiste to a valid Safety Case. If you're denied funding for the former, it rather follows the latter is difficult to achieve.

The first 2 Star in MoD(PE) to make this ruling (to me) was the very same 2 Star in charge of Nimrod 2000/RMPA/MRA4. That speaks volumes. I retain his letters to me confirming both attaining and maintaining airworthiness is optional and that staff may be instructed to ignore the regs. Despite numerous requests for an overrule over the years, his rulings still stand; although that doesn't necessarily mean they were followed. Sensible people disobeyed his orders and made their kit safe. But some didn't. Faced with that degree of negligence, and top level Ministerial support for that negligence (also in writing), I'm very pleased to hear the MAA has had one little victory. But, like I said above, Haddon-Cave's bottom line was "implement existing regs". 'Tis very simple.

Chugalug2

28th Jun 2010, 17:40

tuc:
... the very same 2 Star in charge of Nimrod 2000/RMPA/MRA4...confirming both attaining and maintaining airworthiness is optional and that staff may be instructed to ignore the regs.
deliverance:
he must be exposed and face the consequences of his actions, or has this already been done?
Well you'd think so wouldn't you? But it doesn't work like that it would seem. Such illegal orders have cost 62 lives IMHO, if you count the cost of airworthiness related accidents listed in this forum. More likely the cost is much greater given the lack of objective military air accident investigation. We know of at least one person who defied such illegal orders, a CS. No doubt there were others as well. How many I wonder were in the Armed Forces, who are duty bound to defy illegal orders?

tucumseh

29th Jun 2010, 05:33

Deliverance

Sorry, both he and the 4 Star who supported him are now retired, gongs in hand. I don't mention the 3 Star who sat between them - when he was advised (in 2000) of the airworthiness failings noted by Haddon-Cave (in 2009) he simply didn't reply, so I have no evidence of his views. Clearly, though, had action been taken then.....

You are right to cite Chinook. When the PAC criticised "failure of management oversight" on Chinook HC Mk3, it was the same individuals they were talking about. This is why I feel very uncomfortable over Haddon-Cave naming 10 individuals, including two serving officers - demonstrably, far more senior people committed far greater offences, and were rewarded. But I'm sure that will come out in the wash.

Ginger Beer

5th Jul 2010, 18:30

Back to MRA4.

I had a conversation with a senior BAE chap from Warton recently and the the MRA4 is now unlikely to be in the hands of the RAF (for crew training purposes) until Oct/Nov 2010 at the earliest. This is due to RTS issues.

Ginge

tucumseh

5th Jul 2010, 19:05

Back to MRA4

Point taken, but what so few seem to grasp is that, for example, the same 2 Star was responsible for delivery of both Nimrod and Chinook - and was warned in great detail about the precise problems that would befall each programme. Same man happily ruled that airworthiness could be ignored if it meant delivering to time and cost (not that either of these programmes achieved that!). MoD is widely condemned for such procurement cock-ups, but actually it is down to the management ethos of a few individuals. Management sets the tone.

Chugalug2

5th Jul 2010, 19:24

Ginger Beer:
the MRA4 is now unlikely to be in the hands of the RAF (for crew training purposes) until Oct/Nov 2010 at the earliest. This is due to RTS issues.

And is no doubt both annoying and irksome for those awaiting postings, training, and operating her. In much the same way as the present Government may expect only brickbats in its necessary work to put right the excesses of its predecessor, so too do those determined to have the UK Military Airworthiness Regulations fully enforced know that they are as welcome as the proverbial by many who post here. So be it. The very Operational Capability of the Royal Air Force has been seriously reduced by the actions of certain RAF Air Officers. It is they who should be held accountable for the illegal orders that were given and of the consequences that followed. Will they be....?

Biggus

5th Jul 2010, 21:04

Chug,

No...they won't.

It's not that they shouldn't be (in my opinion), but I expect there will be no appetite for retrospective investigations uncovering unsavory findings. I hope to be proved wrong - but I doubt it!

RumPunch

5th Jul 2010, 21:20

The delay that Angus Roberston mentioned a few weeks ago yet nobody on the station knew anything about it except laughing at the Scottish MP making a fool of himself. It would appear he is actually quite correct and seems to know more of what going on with MRA4 than the actual company.

One nail left and a delay for October when the SDR gets released. Timely perhaps

Rhys S. Negative

5th Jul 2010, 23:26

A rather different story than told in this press-release from 12-March:

Nimrod MRA4 Declared 'Ready to Train' (http://baesystems.com/Newsroom/NewsReleases/autoGen_110212113424.html)

Squidlord

8th Jul 2010, 09:16

Ginger Beer:

I had a conversation with a senior BAE chap from Warton recently and the the MRA4 is now unlikely to be in the hands of the RAF (for crew training purposes) until Oct/Nov 2010 at the earliest. This is due to RTS issues.

My understanding is that this is because ACAS wants an MAA "tick in the box" before signing off the RTS. Presumably, this will become universal MoD practice and will be planned into the process in future.

Incidentally, tucumseh answered my (meant to be rhetorical) question:

Why hadn't the Project Team got its Safety Case in order already?
Simple. Numerous senior MoD staffs and Ministers have consistently ruled, over the last 17 years, that it is unnecessary to maintain the Build Standard, which is a mandatory prerequiste to a valid Safety Case. If you're denied funding for the former, it rather follows the latter is difficult to achieve.

Not the right answer (in this case).

fincastle84

8th Jul 2010, 12:24

I had a conversation with a senior BAE chap from Warton recently and the the MRA4 is now unlikely to be in the hands of the RAF (for crew training purposes) until Oct/Nov 2010 at the earliest.

I imagine that the broken flap securing bolt which caused the fast heart rates during flight testing won't have helped much either.

tucumseh

8th Jul 2010, 15:32

Squidlord

Not the right answer (in this case).

It may not be the only reason in this case, but what I said is demonstrably true. Perhaps you don't realise what maintaining the build standard entails, and why failing to maintain it progressively compromises the Safety Case and, by definition, the Release to Service. Are you saying the Nimrod and all its equipment were, uniquely, afforded funding from 1990 to maintain this mandated requirement? I can assure you they were most definitely not. In 1990 I was project manager for over 40 equipments fitted to both MR and R and know exactly what warnings were conveyed to the RAF when we were denied funding to maintain airworthiness. And what action they took against us for this insubordination, while instructing us to just sign that everything was ok! I will never forget the staff responsible for maintaining airworthiness being told they were the "rump end of MoD(PE)", by the very officer who initiated the swingeing cuts I speak of.

Chugalug2

8th Jul 2010, 17:21

Squidlord:
ACAS wants an MAA "tick in the box" before signing off the RTS.
"One Staff Officer jumped over another Staff Officer's back, then another Staff Officer jumped over the second Staff Officer's back....
Oh they were only playing leapfrog, they were only playing leapfrog, oh they were only playing leapfrog, when one Staff Officer jumped over another Staff Officer's back!"
And thus the fun begins. We shall shortly see what manner of beast the MAA is. Will they simply do as bid or do their job which, for the reasons given by tuc, is to do no such thing?

Distant Voice

13th Jul 2010, 10:35

Many years ago, when I worked at Boscome Down, I was deeply involved in the RTS trials for the Nimrod aircraft. Before entering service it was issued with a RTS certificate by CA. That, basically said, that the aircraft was safe to fly and operate within certain parameters. In effect it was its "safety case", and remained that way until around 2002.

Can someone explain to me what the difference is, now, between RTS and the Safety Case?

DV

Shell Management

13th Jul 2010, 11:29

Shell invented the safety case as a way to manage major hazards. Other industries are now finally adopting the concept. It is an analytical assessment of hazards and their effects that is far more effective than the old prescriptive testing required for a Release to Service. Your Nimrod RTS failed to identify the problems with the Nimrod fuel system for example.

Distant Voice

13th Jul 2010, 12:41

Shell Management

Many thanks for your reply. It seems that the "safety case" approach missed the fuel problem on the Nimrod as well. In the end it is down to people.

The question that I wanted to ask is, can we now have an RTS without the completion of the safety case? If we can not, then when will the safety case for the MRA 4 be completed?

DV

tucumseh

13th Jul 2010, 15:18

can we now have an RTS without the completion of the safety case? JSP553 - “The aircraft safety case must underpin the totality of the Aircraft Release to Service”.

Before entering service it was issued with a RTS certificate by CA. That, basically said, that the aircraft was safe to fly and operate within certain parameters. In effect it was its "safety case", and remained that way until around 2002. You are speaking pre-GARP, so;

The Controller Aircraft Release was a statement by MoD(PE)’s Controller Aircraft (a 3 Star post) to ACAS (his customer) that the aircraft was airworthy at a given build standard; usually that presented at the Boscombe trials you speak of. Part of the underpinning evidence was the Safety Case or Safety Argument. The term “Safety Case” may be relatively new, but the basic work was still required to be carried out, regardless of what it was called.

Before signing the CAR, CA was obliged under the regulations to seek a firm statement from ACAS that the proposed CAR was acceptable, and that he (ACAS) would incorporate it within his RTS as Part 1. (Part 2 was Service Deviations or, if you like, variations from the presented Build Standard and representative of the In Use Build Standard). If ACAS was unhappy, the CAR was not to be signed, thus avoiding a situation whereby PE delivered an aircraft that could not be put to its intended use, safely. (Despite this regulation, CDP and successive Mins(AF) are on record as saying it is ok to dump an unsafe aircraft on the user and walk away. In my opinion, those who do so are guilty of fraud, maladministration and worse, but I can’t say too much because they are now very senior in DE&S, so I’ll just sit on the fence and say 15 years hard labour would do the trick).

ACAS issued the RTS, which was his statement to the Users that the aircraft was airworthy and, upon Initial Issue, he signed a letter of promulgation which was the authority to fly the aircraft in service.

Our (UK) system is limitations based, so “CA Release trials” were conducted to determine, for example, the installed performance of avionic equipment, from which any limitations were derived. It follows that one needs a performance baseline; for example, when the Nimrod Mk1 was modified to Mk2, the Build Standard, Safety Argument and CAR/RTS of the Mk1 had to be maintained and current otherwise the Mk2 had no baseline from which to work. Similarly, MR2 to MRA4. (I imagine this is where MoD and BAeS are having a lot of trouble, because it is highly unlikely the MR2 pre-requisites are in order). This applies to any such conversion or modification programme – MoD’s most notable failure in this respect was Chinook HC Mk1 > Mk2, where the CAR and RTS were issued before the installed performance of most of the avionics was established, meaning very little of it was actually cleared for use. In fact, far from the Mk2 having a valid Safety Case/Argument, CA and ACAS signed their Releases in the knowledge Boscombe had declared Safety Critical Software “positively dangerous”.

I mention Chinook because, of course, it shared a MoD(PE) 2 Star with Nimrod. If one aircraft was screwed up, it more or less followed that they all were as staff worked under the same directives. Which was precisely the point made by MoD staff prior to the Nimrod accident (when failure to implement airworthiness regs was notified directly to Adam Ingram), and reiterated by ACM Loader in the BoI. And why Haddon-Cave’s conclusions came as no surprise whatsoever.

Faced with that degree of Gross Negligence by MoD, you ask very good questions DV.

Chugalug2

14th Jul 2010, 09:55

tuc:
Faced with that degree of Gross Negligence by MoD..
Just as the MRA4's RTS is the MAA's immediate test of its abilities or lack of them, the same applies to this Government's handling of the Gross Negligence that tuc alludes to above. If it doesn't come up with its own "finding" of that Gross Negligence and of the cowardly cover up of it, then it too will be judged accordingly and will have failed in its responsibilities to the nation.

Squidlord

16th Jul 2010, 05:52

In response to my assertion that build standard issues weren't relevant to the failure of a particular air PT to sort out its Safety Case, tucumseh wrote:

It may not be the only reason in this case, but what I said is demonstrably true.

I'm not doubting the veracity of what you write but it's a bit like me asking what the capital of Poland is, and you replying that the capital of Spain is Madrid. True but irrelevant.

Just to be clear, the PT I was referring to when I wrote about the recent MAA audit is not Nimrod. Just because, several years ago, Nimrod (and many others, for all I know) cocked up its build standard (and of course I realize its importance), it doesn't mean that every air PT currently has a cocked-up build standard. Certainly, the audit report in question made no reference to the build standard.

Distant Voice:

Can someone explain to me what the difference is, now, between RTS and the Safety Case?

Since I'm not an expert on RTSs, I can't really but my guess is that you (DV) do understand RTSs so if you look at the definition of a Safety Case in Def Stan 00-56 or POSMS (both available online), you'll probably get a good idea.

I'm slightly amused by Shell Management's (!) version of Safety Case history. One might almost believe it is a propaganda puff piece written by ... well, Shell management.

The B Word

16th Jul 2010, 07:34

Anyone know if the Company will fly MRA4 at Fairford or Farnborough?

BEagle

16th Jul 2010, 07:55

Nimrod MRA4 is not listed as either a flying or static aircraft at Farnborough.

However, it is listed as a static participant at RIAT.

A pity it isn't going to be at Farnborough - it could have carried on the tradition of "Entering RAF service shortly" propagada read out by the commentator whenever the hideous Nimrod AEW3 appeared..:bored:

tucumseh

16th Jul 2010, 11:51

True but irrelevant

As a maintained Build Standard is a mandatory pre-requisite to (a) a valid Safety Case and, in turn, (b) a valid Release to Service (the Master Airworthiness Reference), may I respectfully suggest that the Build Standard is never irrelevant.

MoD stopped routinely maintaining Build Standards in 1991. There are 17 core components of a BS. I'm pretty sure 95% of DE&S couldn't name 5. Even if they read this and wanted to know more, they'd have difficulty as the only Def Stan that set them out and described how each was to be managed was declared obsolete in 2008. That is my main point - MoD's complete ambivalence to the subject ("a waste of money") and aviation safety in general.

Jabba_TG12

16th Jul 2010, 12:09

Dont know how much traction this story may either have or may gain going forward or whether its just another shot in the dark...

RAF offers to cancel Nimrod MRA.4 programme as part of defence cuts (http://www.janes.com/news/defence/jdw/jdw100716_1_n.shtml)

Wasser

16th Jul 2010, 13:53

Offshore installation safety cases came about from the Cullen inquiry into the Piper Alpha disaster and introduced the offshore installation safety case regulations in 1992. The current version of the regs is SI 2005 No 3117 and can be downloaded free at Statutory Instruments 2005 (http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si200531)

The companies I've done work for, see workforce involvement as a critical element in safety case management. Offshore workers (the people who actually do the work) are involved in reviewing draft material for inclusion in the safety case. Major changes to hazards and risks are roled out to the workforce by means of summaries / posters / presentations etc.

Having been on NAEDIT in the mid 80s, if someone had bothered to ask what we thought were major hazards, each of us trade specialists (the workforce) would have been able to give a list there and then without too much thought, as I'm sure would the NFTC and GSU crews.

But as DV says it's all about people (and knowing the right people to ask).

Lima Juliet

16th Jul 2010, 21:32

I believe it's a "no show" for Fairford?

TorqueOfTheDevil

16th Jul 2010, 23:04

Siggie

16th Jul 2010, 23:05

The previous links about the MR4 being offered up as a saving, might lead the more cynical amongst us to think that this would explain the delay in the RTS until after the SDR.

The fact that most of the money has already been spent on the project, would also lead one to think that any savings are going to be found in manpower cuts, due to the proposed withdrawal.

I suppose that the recent discussions about cuts to redundancy packages, taxation on gratuities and pensions could be seen by some 'glass half empty' types as further indication of what might be about to happen.

I fervently hope that all this is speculation is hogswash.

Archimedes

16th Jul 2010, 23:43

It's not looking good for the MRA4 is it?

I just can't believe that we are going to be left without an MPA. After all, Coastal Command saved our bacon more recently than Fighter Command...why not axe some Typhoons instead?

That's another story in Jane's - selling off (or if necessary scrapping) a third of the force by 2015., which, according to another part of the MRA4 story (if you don't have access to a Jane's subscription) will be when the entire GR4 fleet disappears....

It all brings this chap's catchphrase to mind.
http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2007/12_02/frazerDM1112_228x374.jpg

(Pte Fraser is carrying the only weapon the TA will be left with after SDSR)

RumPunch

17th Jul 2010, 00:05

All this talk of MRA4 being canned is very worrying indeed. Angus Roberston came out a few months ago and said it was delayed till November, the RAF said it was bull**** yet turned out to be true. The RAF told us all we would be on time and jobs are safe blah blah blah yet 2 seperate papers have mentioned the RAF has offered up the MRA4 to be scrapped. I hope there is answers on Monday morning, with PA4 not turning up to RIAT , I fear the worst has been decided already, Its true the SDR plans are in place , its just the legalities side thats being sorted as we speak.

USasBRIEFED

17th Jul 2010, 07:02

Austerity forces defence firms onto the back foot | Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/money/article-1295382/Austerity-forces-defence-firms-foot.html)

From today's Mail on Saturday. Very worrying times.

Biggus

17th Jul 2010, 07:21

I'm not saying that the MRA4 is safe, or should be....however. Given that, in my understanding, nothing apart from Trident was safe in the SDR, are there not going to be a series of internal MOD papers offering, MRA4, GR4, Harrier, FSTA, Chinook, etc up to be cut for savings, i.e. papers on just about everything? Each paper will discuss cost savings from removing a fleet, and the effects such removal will have, and then make a recommendation.

For example there might be a paper saying that axing the Chinook fleet will save £250M, but given it is committed to current operations its withdrawl would be catastrophic and is not recommended. Journalists then get wind of certain papers (perhaps by selected leaking?) and some stories of proposed cuts leak out. It doesn't necessarily mean those cuts will happen, just that they are being considered along with other options.

fincastle84

17th Jul 2010, 08:16

The Mail states that a £3.65 billion contract for Nimrod aircraft has been cancelled. Is this correct? There's no mention in the Telegraph or on the other news sites as far as I can see.

Duncan D'Sorderlee

17th Jul 2010, 09:36

It was mentioned at ISK yesterday that there was likely to be some media interest in MRA4 this weekend. We were informed that the Janes' article was based on the writers personal views. The fact that MRA4 is not at RIAT is due to the fact that post maintenance paperwork has not been completed. No mention of contract cancellation - in fact the first MRA4 conversion (other than the instructors) starts on Monday.

Duncs:ok:

The Old Fat One

17th Jul 2010, 09:46

F84

Speaking personally, my default position on anything in The Mail (in any of its manifestations) is total disbelief - it's a hideous publication.

That said, Biggus is right, there will certainly be a paper proposing its demise somewhere in the MOD and (although you and I would see it otherwise) it is clearly "at risk", along with many other sacred cows.

Aside from the obvious security implications of an island nation removing one the layers of its maritime defence there are a couple of factors in the project's favour, which will be featured in any paper opposing its cut. Specifically, much of the money has been spent and it is an inherently flexible vehicle, especially when tasked as a stand-off weapons carrier.

I'd say it was too close to call and if I was one of the guys or girls whose future was tied up in this project, I would be keeping my options very much open and preparing for the worst whilst hoping for the best.

RumPunch

17th Jul 2010, 18:48

Duncs ,

Your not the first one to say that the journo wrote his own stuff rather than facts, something about pushing the MOD for a release date and getting nowhere decided to make up his own story.

Dunno if there is truth in that ?

BEagle

17th Jul 2010, 18:55

The fact that MRA4 is not at RIAT is due to the fact that post maintenance paperwork has not been completed.

If that's true, then someone needs a severe kick in the dangly bits. It would have been obvious even to the meanest intellect that there would clearly be considerable media interest in MRA4 at RIAT, particularly with SDR just around the corner. So, as ugly as the aeroplane undoubtedly is, those responsible should surely have been working 25/8 to ensure that it would make the show....:*

Joe Black

17th Jul 2010, 19:38

Beagle
I completely agree with you but I believe they were working into overdrive to ensure it made it; at one point it appeared favourable but it just wasn’t to be. The interest and media publicity would have benefited the project hugely but you can just imagine if it were to end up stuck there for some reason, given the RTS/SDR situation.:*
Joe

TheSmiter

18th Jul 2010, 08:49

Beags

As I'm sure you'll remember from your time in the mob, what you see in print is rarely the full story or even (as in this case) the truth. Sadly, we are where we are in this 24hr rolling news world.

As others have said, there will have been a big effort to present the aircraft to the public - however, I'm sure you'd agree it's more important to ensure the aircraft is released to train crews ASAP rather than sit on a static line.

Personally, I can't believe we're having an argument about the need for an MPA. We're an island nation relying very heavily on maintaining SLOC and, whether the public realises it or not, the Nimrod has been carrying out an operational role continuously for the last 40 years (the Shack before that).

It's not just part of the maritime layer of defence, it's one of the major pillars of that defence - in my very humble opinion.

Regrettably, our collective sense has flown out of the window in the last decade, and anything could happen with the MRA4 project. You and I are old enough to remember the Nimwacs fiasco - it's demise became a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Here's hoping MRA4 doesn't follow the same path.

TS

PS Nimrod may not win many pretty aircraft prizes, but it sure scares the bejaysus out of submarines :eek: What would you prefer?

Joe Black

18th Jul 2010, 10:12

Undoubtedly, binning this project could prove to be the biggest mistake the MOD/HMG has ever made for the reasons that have been stated, however, it just would not surprise me one bit. I can totally see us with our pants down in the future relying on our friends from across the Atlantic for ASW or even worse, buying some old P3s :sad:

akula67

18th Jul 2010, 19:21

So who do you believe, the press, our lords and masters or the man down the pub. My money is on the latter. I think all of us at ice station K should start to look for houses down south cause no one is ever going to tell us the truth until it's all over.

I agree that the money is spent but think of us a a sacrifical goat because thats what we are, but we will see. I am starting to look for a small house in lincoln :=

Biggus

18th Jul 2010, 20:00

I don't know what the future holds for the MRA4 any more than anyone else.

However, as someone pointed out to me the other day. As we are as skint as a skint thing, are we really going to keep an RAF airfield open for 9 aircraft - when, for example we are basing 70 aircraft at Brize to save money. I know there would be costs involved if Kinloss were to be closed, clearing up the land, moving aircraft simulators elsewhere, etc. However, if the MRA4 does survive then either it will move elsewhere, or some other aircraft type will have to move into Kinloss (100 Sqn Hawks?) to make continued use of the base more cost effective.

Once again I say, anyone for a "Reds to Kinloss" rumour.......;)

Squirrel 41

18th Jul 2010, 20:19

I too obviously have no idea whether MRA4 will survive or not. But Biggus' comment:

As we are as skint as a skint thing, are we really going to keep an RAF airfield open for 9 aircraft - when, for example we are basing 70 aircraft at Brize to save money.

Is spot on. But I'd be less surprised to see QRA to ISK / Lossie and Leuchars be closed.... after all, LEU has just had the runway redone.... :suspect:

S41

Mad_Mark

19th Jul 2010, 07:13

It would not only be totally idiotic of the Government but a crime against the people of an island nation to cancel the MRA4.

Not only do MPA do SAR, about the only thing the public are aware of, but they have many other important roles for a country surrounded by water... protection of our nuclear deterrent, of our offshore oil and gas platforms, against illegal activities such as drug, arms and people smuggling, protection of our SLOC's - and those are just some of the maritime roles carried out in home waters. Add to those the anti-piracy role in the Middle East and all the non-maritime roles that MPA carry out and you will quickly see that MPA are not simply big glorified SAR and ASW platforms.

Talk to the RN and the Army boys and girls (well those in the Army that are aware of the support that they got from MR2) and they will no doubt back the need to maintain the Nimrod capability!

MadMark!!! :mad:

Double Zero

19th Jul 2010, 10:57

As I suspect Squirrel was inferring, the moment an airfield has a runway relaid it's time to worry; people at Leuchars may need to be on QRA in more ways than one !

getsometimein

19th Jul 2010, 12:22

Well Kinloss had its runway redone around 18 months ago....

TBM-Legend

19th Jul 2010, 15:03

RAF offers to cancel Nimrod MRA.4 programme as part of defence cuts
:eek::eek::eek:

By Tim Ripley
16 July 2010

The RAF's fleet of Panavia Tornado GR.4 strike aircraft would be grounded within five years if the Nimrod programme is cancelled. (IHS Jane's/Patrick Allen)

UK Royal Air Force (RAF) chiefs have offered to cancel the GBP3.65 billion (USD5.57 billion) BAE Systems Nimrod MRA.4 programme just weeks before the first production aircraft are due to be delivered to the service.

The offer, made in the RAF submission to Phase 2 of the Strategic Defence and Security Review (SDSR) earlier this month, also includes the early retirement within five years of all of the service's Panavia Tornado GR.4 strike aircraft and the closure of three main operating air bases.

It is hoped these cuts would allow the RAF to reduce its payroll by 5,000 personnel and cancel long-term support contracts with BAE Systems and Rolls-Royce worth in excess of GBP3 billion, according to UK Ministry of Defence (MoD) officials involved in the SDSR process. Hundreds of millions of pounds would also be saved by reduced aircrew and groundcrew training requirements for the slimmed-down RAF.

The Nimrod cut would not save significant amounts of money from the GBP3.65 billion procurement costs of the aircraft because almost all of this amount has been spent, except for around GBP200 million to cover the final delivery of the nine aircraft during the next two years.

Double Zero

19th Jul 2010, 15:31

I can see this thread getting merged any second...

Pardon my ignorance, but who or what is Tim Ripley, and how likely is it even the RAF chiefs would volunteer cuts, particularly the paid-for and necessary & versatile Nimrod ?!

Kitbag

19th Jul 2010, 15:34

From an outside viewpoint then, based on what I read between the lines in the other threads on here:

Would make it tough to justify any RAF fixed wing fast jets at all- no bombers no need for air superiority, Typhoon can't do it all with reduced numbers.

Harrier is a one trick pony, CAS is all it can bring to the party.

JSF and carriers will be dead in the water.

Two's in

19th Jul 2010, 15:46

and how likely is it even the RAF chiefs would volunteer cuts,

Simple - offer up what you don't care about and keep your bargaining chips for your pet projects. If this is true, Nimrod ops just got a clear vote of no-confidence from somebody.

sisemen

19th Jul 2010, 15:47

Anybody above sqn ldr level that is a party of a decision of this sort needs to go back to Staff College and redo Air Power 101.

And if they're not willing to do so then they can collect their P45.

getsometimein

19th Jul 2010, 16:17

Not again...

Everything the military owns, or is due to own, is being costed. Money vs Product.

The same will be happening to Chinooks... and we know they're not going to be cancelled.

Can you people stop posting this stuff over and over, all you are doing is scaremongering and its not helping the Nimrod fleet and its future.

NWSRG

19th Jul 2010, 17:26

Is the 'offer' to scrap MRA4 a tactic? What would it be replaced with? The need still exists...do we buy off the shelf Poseidons? Surely the costs incurred already make it more sensible to finish the job?

Biggus

19th Jul 2010, 17:32

NWRSG,

If you read the last 20 posts or so on this thread you will see that the discussion is about whether such an "offer" has actually been made, whether it is journo fishing for a story, or whether it is one of many "offers" that form the decision making process of SDR - each/any of which may or may not be taken up.

I realize that a thread this long can be a pain, but if you read back a page or two in long threads many questions have already been answered, often at great length....;)

RumPunch

19th Jul 2010, 21:19

I wrote to Janes for an explanation of this story and got a reply from the them today , I will delete if its too long but this should clear things up

"Thank you very much for your feedback on the JDW article “RAF offers to cancel Nimrod MRA.4 programme as part of defence cuts.” I have spoken to the editor and the author of this piece regarding your comments.
Tim Ripley, the author of the article, posed the question on the cancellation of the MRA.4 programme to the MoD/RAF press office in London and they were unable to issue a denial. In several follow up conversations the RAF press spokeswoman refused to deny the story and instead gave the quote that is contained in the piece.

I am sorry if you feel that our reporting has gone downhill, however, Jane’s is an independent organisation and Jane’s Defence Weekly’s portrayal of the RAF is only based on the information we have received from the MoD press office. "

163627

20th Jul 2010, 11:56

Perhaps if the RAF really wishes to give up the maritime patrol and anti-submarine warfare role, the MRA4s should be offered to their Lordships (in exchange for axing a couple of type 22s?), before the scrap man. After all they are the main “customers” of the capability, 819NAS has a good Scottish ring to it! Anyone know what happened to the HMS Fulmar signs? If they're still about someone could drive them down the road :ok:

Tester_76

20th Jul 2010, 12:24

Its getting quoted in more locations now....

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/industry/defence/7900081/RAF-offer-to-scrap-3.5-billion-Nimrods.html
(http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/industry/defence/7900081/RAF-offer-to-scrap-3.5-billion-Nimrods.html)

RumPunch

20th Jul 2010, 12:52

I laugh at the comment in the Telegraph

"Possible future savings by scrapping the scheme include up to £50 million a year on maintenance and support costs and £100 million for the salaries of 1,800 military and 300 civilian staff at RAF Kinloss. "

What they dont realise is they are just located elsewhere so there is no saving at all! 1300 people I can tell you now there is no room at any other base at present to locate these numbers of people. Benson has just started putting single people in Hotels due to no acomodation.

Saintsman

20th Jul 2010, 13:21

Should they get binned, I wonder if the powers that be will do a TSR2 on them?

As in to make sure that they can never be resurected? Cut the spars up, scrap the test equipment / jigs etc.

Jabba_TG12

20th Jul 2010, 13:33

"Benson has just started putting single people in Hotels due to no accomodation"

So what we feared 12-15 years ago is true. It is perfectly possible to climb to the upper echelons of Her Majesty's Royal Air Force without having a single clue about what you're doing. :(

And get away with it.

Sigh... :ugh:

XR219

20th Jul 2010, 14:13

Should they get binned, I wonder if the powers that be will do a TSR2 on them?

As in to make sure that they can never be resurected? Cut the spars up, scrap the test equipment / jigs etc.
I think the jigs for the MRA4's fuselage were scrapped long ago :hmm:

PPRuNeUser0139

20th Jul 2010, 15:03

I think the jigs for the MRA4's fuselage were scrapped long ago
They were made on jigs..?:E
More like a few chalk marks on the floor..
("Cheaper than jigs tha knows..")

Squirrel 41

20th Jul 2010, 15:18

It's certainly possible that the MRA4s could go across the RN - because the cost of providing a sustained ASW cover that even a comparatively tiny force of MRA4s could with other assets (ie FF/DD, Merlin) would likely be much higher. Similarly, passing the SH to the AAC would give the illusion of RAF savings without actually cutting capability. I don't have the numbers, but I suspect that the small difference in AAC SNCO vs RAF FOFL capitation rates would actually make real saving over the next decade if SH went to the AAC.

S41

Biggus

20th Jul 2010, 15:37

S41,

Given the size of the FAA and the AAC do you seriously believe they could provide enough qualified personnel to absorb the MRA4 and SH fleets - or are you planning on compulsory transfers for the relevant RAF aircrew and groundcrew, many of whom would probably PVR if forced to undergo such a transfer......

500days2do

20th Jul 2010, 16:03

Come and join the real world where people don't live in fantasy land with other people's money...

The Airforce 'top brass' need to be exposed for what they really are...dreamers with not an ounce of credibility between them....

5d2d

Squirrel 41

20th Jul 2010, 16:55

Biggus asked:

Given the size of the FAA and the AAC do you seriously believe they could provide enough qualified personnel to absorb the MRA4 and SH fleets - or are you planning on compulsory transfers for the relevant RAF aircrew and groundcrew, many of whom would probably PVR if forced to undergo such a transfer......

I envisaged that the fleets would transition over a period - two to three years - as the training pipelines adjusted. The RAAF in the 80s demonstrated that it can be done, it's all about managing the transition - and it would save money in the medium term. If people were violently opposed to changing uniforms - and I can see that some would be - then PVRing would be their choice.

S41

Saintsman

20th Jul 2010, 18:10

I think the jigs for the MRA4's fuselage were scrapped long ago :hmm:

So there was nothing supporting the fuselage when the wings were cut off, nothing to hold the paniers together when they were refurbished, the tail was chucked on a couple of old tyres.....?

Or maybe they built new ones.

Neptunus Rex

20th Jul 2010, 18:33

"Stick close to your desk, and never go to sea
and you can be the ruler of the King's Navy."
Gilbert & Sullivan, HMS Pinafore
Depuis yonks!

hulahoop7

20th Jul 2010, 19:40

Could we not just set up a joint squadron with the French. They can then protect both the UK and French SSBNs - and we halve the cost? If they are due an upgrade on their assets, perhaps we could also get them to stump up a portion for the capital costs.

mick2088

20th Jul 2010, 21:03

You should watch it, that's where rumours start. This just in:

Anglo-Franco joint maritime squadron to be formed
By Pip Pipity Pip

An unnamed source on an interwebby thing frequented by military flying people has exclusively revealed to Sheila's War Gazette that talks are underway about the formation of a joint Anglo-French squadron to undertake maritime patrol to provide crucial protection for French and British nuclear submarines.

An official MoD spokesman confirmed the rumours stating, "Stop making stories up and bugger off". An unnamed French navy official laughed at the rumour, replying in French with rude comments about the English .

Under the jointly-funded initiative, it is thought that the UK Royal Air Force's new Nimrod MRA4s will fly over the French coast, providing protection for the country's key strategic naval bases. In return, according to the unnamed French official, the French navy would send a couple of Atlantique maritime patrol aircraft over to England "if they can be arsed to".

The Old Fat One

20th Jul 2010, 21:07

If only!

Night out in Brest versus night out in Forres

Where do I sign???

RumPunch

20th Jul 2010, 21:09

hahahahha nice one :ok:

Vage Rot

20th Jul 2010, 22:45

Brest! Did somebody say Brest!! Tee Hee!!

Surplus

21st Jul 2010, 02:20

AP
Why bother with Jane's when the RAF News is free?

RAF News online, Search Results for Nimrod:

09 April 2010 - It's the end of the road for the Mighty Hunter
(An article about the retirement of the MR2)

RAF News Archive online, Search Results for Nimrod:

Nimrod probe praises Scots RAF station
04 November 2009
(A REPORT into the failures that led to the loss of Nimrod XV230 has praised RAF technicians and station staff at Kinloss for their work keeping the aircraft airworthy.)

Shame the RAF News doesn't always report all of the latest news and we have to rely on the Mod Spokesperson being pressed, by Jane's and the other tabloids, to get the official party line.

Lyneham Lad

21st Jul 2010, 10:01

Night out in Brest versus night out in Forres

Can one buy a pint (or two) of McEwan's Heavy in Brest? ;)

doubledolphins

22nd Jul 2010, 14:11

Look, I know this is all going a bit Fantasy Island. But if MoD was to buy the
P8 off the shelf at least there would be no shortage of pilots. I mean reservists would be able to keep current in their civvy jobs and not have to waste time and money at the tax payers expense. Also it might be possible that airframe and engine hangar maintenence could be contacted out to the civvy maintenence organisations with the relevent type approvals. Put them in a joint RN/RAF squadron as 360 was. (And I guess the harrier ones are, almost.)Then the submariners who retire and then join the RAF to sit in the back would not have to leave. Lets face it the Command organisation is already in place.

Of course there is the much cheaper option. A few years back when the 4's kit was being tested under "operational conditions" it was fitted in to a C47 that had been re engined with PT6s. That aircraft did not miss a serial through out the two weeks of the exercise.

Biggus

22nd Jul 2010, 14:46

DD,

You mean like this.......

Aircraft (http://navy.org.za/pages/SAAF.html)

doubledolphins

22nd Jul 2010, 15:37

Yes, but it had a large chin radome.

Canadian WokkaDoctor

22nd Jul 2010, 16:14

So the new sqn motto could be

............................................................ ......................wait for it.......................................................... ..................................

2 screws are better than 4 blow jobs!

:ok:

Canadian WokkaDoctor

cyrilranch

22nd Jul 2010, 17:07

I think he means this one

http://www.airsceneuk.org.uk/airshow05/airatlantique/thales.jpg

Wingedplumber

22nd Jul 2010, 17:51

Wowzer...

That one looks like a bullfrog!:}

doubledolphins

22nd Jul 2010, 19:18

Nah, not that one. Look at the engines. Just a little upset that no one reacted to my first suggestion about the 737.

GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU

22nd Jul 2010, 19:29

I wonder how many Nimrod 1 drivers could have kept current on a BEA/Dan Air Comet 4 (or Air Force Comet 2)?

Daysleeper

22nd Jul 2010, 20:24

Nah, not that one.

Er yeah would have been that very one with old radial engines.... I flew some (god it was Nimrod 2000 in those days!) development sorties in G-ANAF with Searchwater. Great aircraft never missed a beat. It carried on doing development long after I moved on.

Sideshow Bob

22nd Jul 2010, 20:48

GBZ,

Not sure they could have, there was some major system and airframe differences between the MR1 and the Comet 4.

doubledolphins

22nd Jul 2010, 22:31

The one I'm talking about was borrowed from South Africa, not Coventry. Funnily enough it flew over my house after I got home after the exercise, it had turboprops and as I said before had a "chin radar" not a throat one.

As to licences. Well I know the P8 is a bit of a hybrid, 800 fuselage and 900 wings. Well I've got both of those on my licence. should not be too much of a problem. Should It?

Harley Quinn

23rd Jul 2010, 05:01

Surely with this type of role the major skillsets will be the ones down the back end, loss of which makes the flightdeck crew unnecessary?

Yeller_Gait

23rd Jul 2010, 10:59

doubledolphins

Just a little upset that no one reacted to my first suggestion about the 737.

The P8 might not be so great to start with, but I would suggest that there is a good chance that at inception, the airframe at least, will be far more servicable than the MRA4.

Apologies for the verbose-ness of the reply, but if I just claimed that the P8 would be better than MRA4 I would have everyone on my back :rolleyes:

Squirrel 41

23rd Jul 2010, 11:46

DD,

Speculation only, but presumably most 737 drivers from civvie air land don't routinely practice turning hard over the sea at 200' in rain at night? I can see that the circuit bashing element of P-8 / 737 civ-air could be quite similar, but operational flying?

S41

GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU

23rd Jul 2010, 12:47

Squirrel 41. The point I was trying to lead to, albeit rather clumsily.

RumPunch

24th Jul 2010, 01:36

With MRA4 paid for bar support, would it not be a terrible waste of money to buy the PA8. The SDR is supposed to be about the countries requirement. PA8 have had large problems with the engine pod vibration , it too is having its fair share of issues , in all fairness it has a bigger budget behind it though.

To me would seem silly to scrap a world beating platform that can fullfill mulitroles in the future for an aircraft that has not been tried and trusted yet,Nimrod shape works, Airliner shape I beg to differ in engineering terms.

doubledolphins

24th Jul 2010, 21:32

Oh dear S41 and GBZ. I had not thought of that. I forgot , Airline Pilots are not real pilots. How silly of me to think otherwise. Of course we don't do that sort of thing day in day out. I just meant current on type, not operationally. It would still be quite a saving.
Funny old thing but some times in the past I have had reason to go on Nimrod sorties to witness what was going on down the back. On each time, when the crew found out what I did for the day job I was invited to have a go. I was assured that regs allowed me to fly the aircraft down to 1000' so I flew search patterns at that altitude. On more than one occaison I was left alone at the front with only the eng for company. I rather think that 200' might just be some thing I could be trained for with out too much bother if it was a type I have more than 7000 hours on.

PS. Regulars in all arms of the Services traditionally regard reservists as unable to do their jobs. History usually proves them wrong.;)

(But that's another thread entirely.)

fergineer

24th Jul 2010, 21:41

DD I very much doubt what you have just commented on. Yes you may have had a go at flying the Nimrod from one of the seats but to say on a public forum that you were left on your own at the controls with only the Eng for company is the biggest load of claptrap I have heard on PPRuNE for many a year. Go play with your submarines and leave the profesional flying to those that can. In one sentance you have slighted proffesional aviators. All the people I have served on in all my military career would not allow what you have just said and they are just that profesionals. As an Eng I would not have allowed it but the opportunity for me to have to say that would not have occured.

Brakes to Park

25th Jul 2010, 08:54

Fergi. Spot on. Someone did let a nav land one once though didn't they?

The Old Fat One

25th Jul 2010, 13:51

Fergi,

Nice one..saved me typing it.

Do you get as frustated as I do by the endless tosh that gets posted on here re the mighty hunter & maritime ops in general by posters who seemed to have become LRMP experts on one (in)complete reading of a Tom Clancy novel?

circle kay

25th Jul 2010, 16:05

The one thing that may add to a MRA4 crew:

A 'Tac Eng'

A year in the air on the MR2 and an Eng has saved my neck on many occations... Some of them on the aircraft :ok:

doubledolphins

25th Jul 2010, 18:29

Sorry chaps but it is true. Deal with it.

Pontius Navigator

25th Jul 2010, 18:59

Just curious, what are the Nimrod 2 crews doing now? Ditto all the support staff?

Given the potentially smaller number of MRA4 crews, who will get those slots and what are they doing now?

I was once in the hold for the AEW3 and subsequently allocated an E3 course; managed to avoid the latter however but still 5 years out of my life; a very enjoyable 5 years I might add with visits to every NATO HQ in Europe thrown in.

Donna K Babbs

25th Jul 2010, 19:24

Most of those not required as MRA4 crew have been posted or moved into support roles. 42(R) Sqn has ramped up the training system and has a full compliment of trained Foundation Phase staff, whilst the air instructors eagerly await clearance to fly the aircraft.

The first full aircrew course started training at the beginning of this week and crews waiting to start their conversion are keeping their skills ticking over with a Sqn continuation training package.

ShortFatOne

25th Jul 2010, 20:13

DD,

it isn't really about whether or not your 7000 hrs on the 737 family is suffficient for you to become an overnight expert or not. The real issue is that due to a poor choice of airframe, the USN is now having to re-write most of its ASW manual because the much vaunted P8 is struggling to achieve most of its KURs. The heavily pushed (by Boeing) advantages, such as the large commonality with other members of the 737 family, are beginning to be found somewhat lacking. The original figures talked about 75%+ commonality. Now that they have realised that commercial aircraft aren't built to withstand hours on end at low level, in a salt-laden environment, with additional bits and pieces hanging off every conceivable spare area of real estate, that commonality figure has dropped to 35% and is still decreasing as the P8 gets further and further away from the COTS solution it was originally intended to be. And that's the rub with COTS, it's cheap so long as it does what you want it to and so long as that is what everyone else wants it to do then they get built in huge numbers and are cheap. The moment you take something like the 737, designed to do one thing and try to change it, the costs spiral. The other thing that people seem to forget is that the P8 is only a part of the USN's intended maritime inventory, BAMS is the other bit you need to buy in order to do the areas of the job the P8 can't. So I now have to buy 2 separate systems, or accept that my future ASW is going to have to be done from medium level, if I go down the P8 only route. Finally, just on pure numbers, looking at the published figures for P8 Max Take-off Mass, Max Zero Fuel Mass and likely fuel burn rates, the P8 is going to manage about half the endurance of MRA 4 and none of it will be at low level. The submariners must be wetting themselves!!

Pontius Navigator

25th Jul 2010, 20:45

Thanks Donna, looks like there will not be too much skill fade.

TorqueOfTheDevil

25th Jul 2010, 21:07

profesional

proffesional

profesionals

A bit of drink'n'diatribe on a Saturday night, one hopes...

Squirrel 41

25th Jul 2010, 22:25

DD,

You said that I think:

PS. Regulars in all arms of the Services traditionally regard reservists as unable to do their jobs. History usually proves them wrong.

Well, those on here who know me must have wet themselves; I've never been a regular, and I hold the view that as a reservist, with proper training, I'm fully able to do the job at least as well as my regular counterparts - indeed, on occasion, rather better. So that's that prejudice dealt with.

My point is that whether or not you helmed a Nimrod sans conversion training, supervising crew or type rating about at 1000' as you claim, it's not the same as driving a 737 about - you need to be trained and to practice the combat elements of the engagement to ensure that you and your crew (lucky them! :hmm:) can prosecute the targets across the missions sets.

And I'm not against qualified reservist aircrew from civvie street. I had a friend who went through reserve commissioning and was effective in what he did - as well as being a BA FO on 777 at the time, now a 737 Capt - turned to 216 Sqn with a TriStar type rating from Cathay and 1500 hours as an FO, he was politely turned away as he hadn't done a military wings course. This to me was absurd- he certainly could have taken a TriStar to MPA (back when Timmy did these things) - but he wasn't allowed to fly an RAF airliner that he was qualified on as an airliner (no mention of AAR here) as he wasn't a QSP. I think that in these specific cases there should be an option - but that's not the same as what you're proposing (unless we get some C-40Bs....)

I'm not - and have never claimed to be - aircrew. But I am clear that the amount of training time the UK reserves get at the current time is scarcely sufficient to ensure that I and my team don't suffer skill fade to the extent that we can't make a useful contribution. Unless you've done it - and I'm not aware of any RNR SSN crews - then I suggest that you perhaps need to do a little more research on the UK reserve forces.

S41