What are *immediately* available, cheap, and role-dedicated alternatives to Nimrod?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: bored
Posts: 532
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What are *immediately* available, cheap, and role-dedicated alternatives to Nimrod?
If we have to move on from the Nimrod arguments and retributions discussed in other threads, what are the immediate and cheap alternatives?
It seems to me that the Nimrod was, in any case, operating in an adapted role for which it was not really designed (to put it mildly!)
So what immediately available and cost-effective solutions are available off the shelf, which are directly relevant to the roles currently needed? The current role for airborne surveillance is not terribly sophisticated compared to the Cold War role (for which the Nimrod was belatedly adapted about forty years ago but I digress..). I expect to be corrected but it seems to me that the current role is mostly direct real-time visual surveillance and signal relay via high speed satellite relay, long loiter times, low airspeed, medium altitude capability, common fuel policy, low acquisition costs, low running costs.
You could buy a couple of hundred of these for the price of a singe Nimrod and give every foot patrol their own dedicated round the clock overhead lead scout. Just a thought...
It seems to me that the Nimrod was, in any case, operating in an adapted role for which it was not really designed (to put it mildly!)
So what immediately available and cost-effective solutions are available off the shelf, which are directly relevant to the roles currently needed? The current role for airborne surveillance is not terribly sophisticated compared to the Cold War role (for which the Nimrod was belatedly adapted about forty years ago but I digress..). I expect to be corrected but it seems to me that the current role is mostly direct real-time visual surveillance and signal relay via high speed satellite relay, long loiter times, low airspeed, medium altitude capability, common fuel policy, low acquisition costs, low running costs.
You could buy a couple of hundred of these for the price of a singe Nimrod and give every foot patrol their own dedicated round the clock overhead lead scout. Just a thought...
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 960
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Errr....in the recent Fincastle Trophy competition fly-offs....what were ALL the other maritime operators flying... and have been doing most successfully for many years.
Though Boeing is developing a 737-800 deritive as the P-8A, I do believe that the Lockheed varients of the P3C are far superior.
My main problem with the P8 surrounds the fact that is to small (flight deck and cabin) and it's a turbojet.
Would you like to fly in a 737 size flight deck for multiple 10+ hours flights, I know I would prefer the much larger P3C flight deck AND have a flight engineer!
There are quite a few immediately available, their capabilities are well know, and the traditional operators are very happy with their overall performance and reliability.
Yes, I know they are out of production, and some of the high-time airframes may need wing replacement, but that just reinforces my point that these airplanes are so reliable and resiliant, that they infact need this work!
I have nearly 6,000 hours operating the P3, and I couldn't have been more happy with their performance and capabilities.
Though I haven't seen the inside of one for some years now .....
Just as an aside...I'm off to the 40 year celebrations of the RAAF's introduction of their first P3Bs, a fleet of BunoNo 156s in 1968, being held at RAAF Edinburgh on the 30th of May. They still operate a fleet of around 20 P3Cs and will continue to do so for some years to come.
Should be a good day!
Cheers...FD...
Though Boeing is developing a 737-800 deritive as the P-8A, I do believe that the Lockheed varients of the P3C are far superior.
My main problem with the P8 surrounds the fact that is to small (flight deck and cabin) and it's a turbojet.
Would you like to fly in a 737 size flight deck for multiple 10+ hours flights, I know I would prefer the much larger P3C flight deck AND have a flight engineer!
There are quite a few immediately available, their capabilities are well know, and the traditional operators are very happy with their overall performance and reliability.
Yes, I know they are out of production, and some of the high-time airframes may need wing replacement, but that just reinforces my point that these airplanes are so reliable and resiliant, that they infact need this work!
I have nearly 6,000 hours operating the P3, and I couldn't have been more happy with their performance and capabilities.
Though I haven't seen the inside of one for some years now .....
Just as an aside...I'm off to the 40 year celebrations of the RAAF's introduction of their first P3Bs, a fleet of BunoNo 156s in 1968, being held at RAAF Edinburgh on the 30th of May. They still operate a fleet of around 20 P3Cs and will continue to do so for some years to come.
Should be a good day!
Cheers...FD...
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Sydney, AU
Posts: 117
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The P-3 is probably the best bet. Combine it with some more Reapers off the production line and you've got a pretty reasonable interim capability until a dedicated replacement decision is made.
http://www.airliners.net/photo/USA--...ion/0691998/M/
http://www.airliners.net/photo/USA--...ion/0691998/M/
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Back in Geordie Land
Posts: 492
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I too would agree that for the interim we should use the P-3. I had the great pleasure of flying several during detachments to Kef' during the 70's and 80's and they were a delight to fly.
I wouldn't say they are/were as capable as the MR2 was (avionics and sonics wise) but the airframe was extremely nice to fly. I'm sure the Brown(e) brothers could do a deal with their good friend George W and get some of the ones from DM up and running soon.
I wouldn't say they are/were as capable as the MR2 was (avionics and sonics wise) but the airframe was extremely nice to fly. I'm sure the Brown(e) brothers could do a deal with their good friend George W and get some of the ones from DM up and running soon.
Global hawk with a suitable ELINT fit. It's got +24 hrs endurance. Kit it out with a modular payload for the Afghan mission. Develop a maritime modular payload. Stop trying to buy one size fits all manned aircraft to last for 40 years. Buy modular to last 5 years tops mounted on a platform that could cover British interests from hugely long range.
Operate it from Kinloss, if the satellite geometry allows that (and the blinkered hierarchy of course!) with in-theatre troops/int specialists on a collaborative network.
Operate it from Kinloss, if the satellite geometry allows that (and the blinkered hierarchy of course!) with in-theatre troops/int specialists on a collaborative network.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Have flown both.
1. Nimrod nicer to fly.
2. Some P-3 variants now surpassing Nimrod in capability.
3. P-3 an obvious interim acquisition if the RAF can get them.
4. Have to be careful on the variant and exact avionics or you'll be in the same spot as the Nimrod with spares....
5. Cockpit size is no factor, the seats are the same size.....if you get up and walk around, you're not confined to the Fight Deck!!
Bring on the P8 I say...and all operators should get some!!!
1. Nimrod nicer to fly.
2. Some P-3 variants now surpassing Nimrod in capability.
3. P-3 an obvious interim acquisition if the RAF can get them.
4. Have to be careful on the variant and exact avionics or you'll be in the same spot as the Nimrod with spares....
5. Cockpit size is no factor, the seats are the same size.....if you get up and walk around, you're not confined to the Fight Deck!!
Bring on the P8 I say...and all operators should get some!!!
Some confusion here.
2 distinct needs:
1. ASW with all the sub-hunting and killing systems associated with the role.
2. Strategic reconnaissance. These days that can be 'smart sensor, dumb platform', so if flexibility is needed, any airliner-type platform with adequate electrical power supplies and endurance would suffice. Which tends to favour an ETOPS twin, largely gutted then fitted with the relevant sensors and as many pie-eaters as necessary to operate them.
A300B4, perhaps?
2 distinct needs:
1. ASW with all the sub-hunting and killing systems associated with the role.
2. Strategic reconnaissance. These days that can be 'smart sensor, dumb platform', so if flexibility is needed, any airliner-type platform with adequate electrical power supplies and endurance would suffice. Which tends to favour an ETOPS twin, largely gutted then fitted with the relevant sensors and as many pie-eaters as necessary to operate them.
A300B4, perhaps?
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: England
Posts: 76
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree with cirrusfrance!
There's no doubt that the MR2, P3, Globalhawk etc are extremely capable platforms, but they're also extremely expensive and probably as importantly, are not available right now.
I think the Diamond to which Cirrus refers, is available for significantly less than a £million a pop, would have a crew 85% smaller than the MR2 and would be available now!
Don't forget that Defence is completely broke. It's surprising to me that the several £billion contract for the MRA4 has not been questioned more fully. I don't doubt that it will be a capable beast, but there are alternatives for a fraction of the cost.
ISR from light, prop driven aircraft is without doubt the way ahead. UK PLC has already recognised this. Let's forget the politics and get what we need, for a price we can afford.
There's no doubt that the MR2, P3, Globalhawk etc are extremely capable platforms, but they're also extremely expensive and probably as importantly, are not available right now.
I think the Diamond to which Cirrus refers, is available for significantly less than a £million a pop, would have a crew 85% smaller than the MR2 and would be available now!
Don't forget that Defence is completely broke. It's surprising to me that the several £billion contract for the MRA4 has not been questioned more fully. I don't doubt that it will be a capable beast, but there are alternatives for a fraction of the cost.
ISR from light, prop driven aircraft is without doubt the way ahead. UK PLC has already recognised this. Let's forget the politics and get what we need, for a price we can afford.
Is the MRA4 still likely to hit the streets? It is a rumour network after all, but I heard some sniffings that it may be canned due to cost ad money being needed elsewhere???
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
Sentinel perhaps?
Not sure exactly what its role is but it is certainly designed for an overland role which is what we are using the Nimrod for at the moment.
E3 perhaps?
Then if we decide we need an immediate and interim ASW platform, lease P3.
Given that we only 'need' 12 MRA4, which would allow for through life attrition, this suggests that in the interim we would need only 5-6 platforms.
Even a C130 modification programme a la AAR post-FI, might suffice.
Apart from the pure ASW role I suggest we have enough suitable airframes.
Not sure exactly what its role is but it is certainly designed for an overland role which is what we are using the Nimrod for at the moment.
E3 perhaps?
Then if we decide we need an immediate and interim ASW platform, lease P3.
Given that we only 'need' 12 MRA4, which would allow for through life attrition, this suggests that in the interim we would need only 5-6 platforms.
Even a C130 modification programme a la AAR post-FI, might suffice.
Apart from the pure ASW role I suggest we have enough suitable airframes.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: The Whyte House
Age: 95
Posts: 1,966
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
5. Cockpit size is no factor, the seats are the same size.....if you get up and walk around, you're not confined to the Fight Deck!!
Bring on the P8 I say...and all operators should get some!!!
Bring on the P8 I say...and all operators should get some!!!
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: England
Posts: 362
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And if you've a slack handful, the time on mission could be 3-4 hours before your relay mate gets airborne to relieve you. And you don't need a massive runway, meaning you can forward base off a rough strip closer to where you're needed. And you don't require a highly trained pilot who can do aeros/weapons/evasion/nvg/aar etc.
Join Date: May 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 128
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gentlefolk, the problem with all these fanciful suggestions is that they don't fulfill the prime directive of UK Defence spending.
That is; to transfer money from the taxpayers pockets into the coffers of redundant UK military manufacturers such as British Waste of Space (and thus via tax to the Treasury) without going through any value or quality judgment on the way.
Sadly it has to be admitted that the Comet was a disastrous design and the Nimrod has also been shown to be. No number of successful Fincastle trophy wins by great crews or other successes can excuse an aircraft design that allows it to explode in mid-air.
Had this been a design flaw in the 737 for instance the SLF of the world would be in uproar. I say scrap the knackered old things now!
That is; to transfer money from the taxpayers pockets into the coffers of redundant UK military manufacturers such as British Waste of Space (and thus via tax to the Treasury) without going through any value or quality judgment on the way.
Sadly it has to be admitted that the Comet was a disastrous design and the Nimrod has also been shown to be. No number of successful Fincastle trophy wins by great crews or other successes can excuse an aircraft design that allows it to explode in mid-air.
Had this been a design flaw in the 737 for instance the SLF of the world would be in uproar. I say scrap the knackered old things now!
Champagne anyone...?
Hercs with palletised mission cabins. Hang all sorts of gubbins off the outside of one of them.
Take old K model that doesn't have the life left etc etc to thrash around the desert, bouncing off dirt strips. Reduce fleet to 3 or 4, rewing those, rest used as a source of spares. Mount cameras, sensors etc etc on the outside. Roll on mission pallets as and when required. Yanks do it with their EC130s and we used to do it with Snoopy. ISO container type thing, full of sensor ops away you go. No performance issues - main base operations and AAR capable. Surplus K crews and techies convert to J. U/s J's sitting around can then be serviced and manned.
Genius. Do I win a bun?
Take old K model that doesn't have the life left etc etc to thrash around the desert, bouncing off dirt strips. Reduce fleet to 3 or 4, rewing those, rest used as a source of spares. Mount cameras, sensors etc etc on the outside. Roll on mission pallets as and when required. Yanks do it with their EC130s and we used to do it with Snoopy. ISO container type thing, full of sensor ops away you go. No performance issues - main base operations and AAR capable. Surplus K crews and techies convert to J. U/s J's sitting around can then be serviced and manned.
Genius. Do I win a bun?
Join Date: May 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 128
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The answer is surely UAVs - bought off the USA shelf. Oops though, no dosh to British Waste of Space, Marshalls of Wastebridge or cream to the Treasury.
P.S. Are we all aware that the UAVs that have been acquired were moved directly in to the operational theatre (i.e. not via mainland UK) purely to avoid being ripped off by the taxman - i.e. the Brown moron! (VAT/ and duty would have been charged if they had been landed here.)
P.S. Are we all aware that the UAVs that have been acquired were moved directly in to the operational theatre (i.e. not via mainland UK) purely to avoid being ripped off by the taxman - i.e. the Brown moron! (VAT/ and duty would have been charged if they had been landed here.)
UAV's are great, but how much do they cost?
Thus they have to be replaced, plus of course the risks in finding it after it has crashed and recovering items on the thing that we would rather not let fall into the hands of the wrong people...
Opps what no demolition charges. As for the £1M aircraft in question, don't look very battleworthly to me, plus can it do over FL 250??? Because in the Stan it would have to.