Mra4?
Ombit
I agree with you that the Nimrod's role is misunderstood. I have some good friends on the kipper fleet who get frustrated that, because almost everything they do is classified, they don't get much PR and have an almost non existant profile with the rest of the RAF (being geographically isolated doesn't help in spreading the words). Most people think all they do is Anti Submarine Warfare (ASW), hence all the 'Russian submarines rusting in port so do we need Nimrods' type comments. Well, even ignoring the fact that ASW will continue to be important as more and more third world countries buy conventional submarines, my friends have been busier over the last couple of years than anywhen else in the last ten. They never seem to be in the UK, and THEY ARE NOT AWAY DOING ASW!!
I would suggest the Nimrod fleet is maybe a bit like the submarine fleet in the navy, they don't talk about what they are doing, but it doesn't mean they aren't busy or they are not achieving results!
I agree with you that the Nimrod's role is misunderstood. I have some good friends on the kipper fleet who get frustrated that, because almost everything they do is classified, they don't get much PR and have an almost non existant profile with the rest of the RAF (being geographically isolated doesn't help in spreading the words). Most people think all they do is Anti Submarine Warfare (ASW), hence all the 'Russian submarines rusting in port so do we need Nimrods' type comments. Well, even ignoring the fact that ASW will continue to be important as more and more third world countries buy conventional submarines, my friends have been busier over the last couple of years than anywhen else in the last ten. They never seem to be in the UK, and THEY ARE NOT AWAY DOING ASW!!
I would suggest the Nimrod fleet is maybe a bit like the submarine fleet in the navy, they don't talk about what they are doing, but it doesn't mean they aren't busy or they are not achieving results!
UAVs - even the Spams have lost a huge number through take-off and landing accidents. Suitable only for very few applications - and in any case, who the hell wants to be a member of the Royal Aeromodel Force...
Only idiots like Duncan Sandys really thought that 'push button warfare' was the way ahead. That's what started the RAF's downward spiral in 1957.
Only idiots like Duncan Sandys really thought that 'push button warfare' was the way ahead. That's what started the RAF's downward spiral in 1957.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Recaptured & serving time @ ISK
Posts: 69
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MR2 with MRA4 kit, err NO!
I've heard this great idea about putting the MRA4 mission kit into the MR2 before but there's one tiny problem, it can't be done.
Unless of course you strip the MR2 down to the bare fuselage, replace the wings and engines........err hang on this sounds familiar.
The biggest mistake they made with MRA4 was to use any part of the current 'Rod. You just know that some scrot of a bean counter trying to save a couple of million quid would have been involved in that thought process. Using the MR2 fuselage has caused so many problems and knackers any real potential for an export market.
Having only escaped ISK less than a year ago I know how much the MR2 needs to be replaced and if the MRA4 was scrapped what else is there? What would be the time frame for a replacement a/c then? MRA4 has to, and in my eyes will, work.
MMA has already been delayed and the front runner, 737, is 2 engines short of the required minimum IMHO.
Though I do agree with some of the comments about BWoS, some of their work ethics and intransigent mind-sets has my blood boiling on occasion.
Still could be worse.....
PS
E3D do the job of a 'Rod, I expect such comments from punters at airshows who know F' All, M2 you should know better.
Unless of course you strip the MR2 down to the bare fuselage, replace the wings and engines........err hang on this sounds familiar.
The biggest mistake they made with MRA4 was to use any part of the current 'Rod. You just know that some scrot of a bean counter trying to save a couple of million quid would have been involved in that thought process. Using the MR2 fuselage has caused so many problems and knackers any real potential for an export market.
Having only escaped ISK less than a year ago I know how much the MR2 needs to be replaced and if the MRA4 was scrapped what else is there? What would be the time frame for a replacement a/c then? MRA4 has to, and in my eyes will, work.
MMA has already been delayed and the front runner, 737, is 2 engines short of the required minimum IMHO.
Though I do agree with some of the comments about BWoS, some of their work ethics and intransigent mind-sets has my blood boiling on occasion.
Still could be worse.....
PS
E3D do the job of a 'Rod, I expect such comments from punters at airshows who know F' All, M2 you should know better.
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 102
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I hope the MRA4 does come to fruition. The whole project reeks of 'putting all your eggs in one basket'. If the project were to be cancelled I think there'd be a lot of worried people up at Kinloss. There is no plan B and I wonder how long the MR2 will last?
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Lincs
Posts: 453
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh FFS, why can't people read posts properly before flying off the handle?!!!
Phoney Tony, Ombit, etc,
I DID NOT suggest that the E-3D, Sentinel or UAVs could supplant the Nimrod in its traditional maritime role!!! Therefore, comments about an E-3D down at 200ft over the sea, its manoeuverability, or the deterrent factor of a large manned MPA verses a UAV in a similar environment are irrelevant. The USN are looking increasingly likely to employ Global Hawk to supplant some of the the Orion's maritime tasks, and the USCG have also purchased UAVs for the maritime environment (albeit in a very different role to the Nimrod is used). However, I remain convinced that a jet powered, manned platform such as the Nimrod or proposed MMA is the way forward due to their speed and reduced acoustic signature.
As stated, my comments regarding alternatives to the Nimrod referred PURELY to its overland tasks. This is not the forum in which to discuss what those roles specifically are. However, just for the record, I would suggest that the E-3D could adopt only one or 2 of these. We may have a maritime radar capability, and we may have loads of space on board. But an E-3D could never replace an MPA, nor 'do everything'.
Biggus is absolutely correct to point out the fact that assets such as E-3's can only be in one place at a time. Likewise, commanders would indeed be very wary of increasing the risks to their limited numbers of AWACS, SIGINT and JSTARS/Sentinels. However, will these argument hold with the Treasury with the huge financial challenges that lie ahead over the next 18 months? Likewise, whilst the Sentinel could be viewed as a very specialised platform, I guarantee that it's role will expand very rapidly once it's in service, just as the JSTARS did. Sentinel's main problem about such task expansion is weight management.
The argument regarding risk arguably lends more weight to the UAV option. Phoney Tony raises some valid points about UAV ops in European airspace, and bandwidth issues. I would agree that much work has yet to be done regarding the legal issues. Were we to purchase UAVs, it may be that we have to maintain a sqn in the States for trg (just as the Singaporean AF and Luftwaffe do with manned ac). Bear in mind however, that assets such as Predator can be and are flown remotely from anywhere in the world. However, the technical challenges (whilst still present) are rapidly being overcome. Shooting down a UAV may well be seen as a risk worth taking during TTW to an enemy. Similarly however, I would suggest that a commander would be more comfortable employing UAVs at a similar time rather than risking the loss of a dozen + aircrew at a sensitive period. UAVs are arguably also more covert and 'deniable' in such circumstances.
Beagle,
I am impressed by your Jurassic vision regarding the future of Air Power. Did your forefathers also argue strongly that 'the only use for the aeroplane in the military is in reconnaissance'?!!
Yes US have had a high loss rate in their early UAV ops. However, this is because such ops presented major technological challenges and were often done in deployed, combat conditions. US Gnat, Predator, and Global Hawk ops over the last 10 years in Croatia, Bosnia, Albania, Kosovo, Serbia, Afghanistan and Iraq have proved the reliability and utility of such assets.
Ombit,
I wonder if the family of the Al Queda leader who died in a Predator Hellfire strike in Yemen last year, or the other targets of armed UAVs in Afghanistan and Iraq would agree? Clearly, Predator's payload is small. However, Global Hawk and the next generation of UCAVs will pack considerably more punch. The advent of the US Small Diameter Bomb programme reinforces this.
As Maniac55 suggests, the MRA4 could be a superbly versatile piece of equipment if it works, which promises to augment other ISTAR assets well, and also offer an impressive strike capability. However, unless it does work, and does so PDQ, I can only see some of its sensors and systems being integrated into the MR2. The question if that, were this to be considered, how many spare MR2 airframes are there which have not been cut up ready for conversion to MRA4? If the programme does get the chop, I would imagine that you cannot convert an MRA4 shell back into an MR2. Shades of the AEW3 airframe waste! The only other option would be to lease some second hand P-3Cs, Atlantiques or S-3B's. Given the problems with the MRA4, I often wonder if Shorts should have been allowed to develop a westernised Beriev A40 Albatross amphibian...then again, let's take another look at the MRA4!
And if we think we've got problems, look at the state of the USN P-3C fleet! Basically both the USN and our own MPA programmes have been in trouble ever since the P-7 got chopped.
Regards,
M2
Phoney Tony, Ombit, etc,
I DID NOT suggest that the E-3D, Sentinel or UAVs could supplant the Nimrod in its traditional maritime role!!! Therefore, comments about an E-3D down at 200ft over the sea, its manoeuverability, or the deterrent factor of a large manned MPA verses a UAV in a similar environment are irrelevant. The USN are looking increasingly likely to employ Global Hawk to supplant some of the the Orion's maritime tasks, and the USCG have also purchased UAVs for the maritime environment (albeit in a very different role to the Nimrod is used). However, I remain convinced that a jet powered, manned platform such as the Nimrod or proposed MMA is the way forward due to their speed and reduced acoustic signature.
As stated, my comments regarding alternatives to the Nimrod referred PURELY to its overland tasks. This is not the forum in which to discuss what those roles specifically are. However, just for the record, I would suggest that the E-3D could adopt only one or 2 of these. We may have a maritime radar capability, and we may have loads of space on board. But an E-3D could never replace an MPA, nor 'do everything'.
Biggus is absolutely correct to point out the fact that assets such as E-3's can only be in one place at a time. Likewise, commanders would indeed be very wary of increasing the risks to their limited numbers of AWACS, SIGINT and JSTARS/Sentinels. However, will these argument hold with the Treasury with the huge financial challenges that lie ahead over the next 18 months? Likewise, whilst the Sentinel could be viewed as a very specialised platform, I guarantee that it's role will expand very rapidly once it's in service, just as the JSTARS did. Sentinel's main problem about such task expansion is weight management.
The argument regarding risk arguably lends more weight to the UAV option. Phoney Tony raises some valid points about UAV ops in European airspace, and bandwidth issues. I would agree that much work has yet to be done regarding the legal issues. Were we to purchase UAVs, it may be that we have to maintain a sqn in the States for trg (just as the Singaporean AF and Luftwaffe do with manned ac). Bear in mind however, that assets such as Predator can be and are flown remotely from anywhere in the world. However, the technical challenges (whilst still present) are rapidly being overcome. Shooting down a UAV may well be seen as a risk worth taking during TTW to an enemy. Similarly however, I would suggest that a commander would be more comfortable employing UAVs at a similar time rather than risking the loss of a dozen + aircrew at a sensitive period. UAVs are arguably also more covert and 'deniable' in such circumstances.
Beagle,
Suitable only for very few applications
Yes US have had a high loss rate in their early UAV ops. However, this is because such ops presented major technological challenges and were often done in deployed, combat conditions. US Gnat, Predator, and Global Hawk ops over the last 10 years in Croatia, Bosnia, Albania, Kosovo, Serbia, Afghanistan and Iraq have proved the reliability and utility of such assets.
Ombit,
a UAV is no more threatening than a remote control aeroplane.
As Maniac55 suggests, the MRA4 could be a superbly versatile piece of equipment if it works, which promises to augment other ISTAR assets well, and also offer an impressive strike capability. However, unless it does work, and does so PDQ, I can only see some of its sensors and systems being integrated into the MR2. The question if that, were this to be considered, how many spare MR2 airframes are there which have not been cut up ready for conversion to MRA4? If the programme does get the chop, I would imagine that you cannot convert an MRA4 shell back into an MR2. Shades of the AEW3 airframe waste! The only other option would be to lease some second hand P-3Cs, Atlantiques or S-3B's. Given the problems with the MRA4, I often wonder if Shorts should have been allowed to develop a westernised Beriev A40 Albatross amphibian...then again, let's take another look at the MRA4!
And if we think we've got problems, look at the state of the USN P-3C fleet! Basically both the USN and our own MPA programmes have been in trouble ever since the P-7 got chopped.
Regards,
M2
Last edited by Magic Mushroom; 2nd Feb 2004 at 07:56.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: A 1/2 World away from Ice Statio Kilo
Posts: 404
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
M2
Once again we dance
Firstly I dont think there are enough rubber pants for your crews as I am sure they will fill them up just descending to 10,000ft let alone low level over sea or land.
Secondly the old fella sitting in your comms seat is usually deaf as a post due to too many Shack hours so that role is out.
Thirdly you fly a support aircraft and cannot provide offensive weaponry, and Im not talking just about the knockers or the rations on the kipper.
Fourthly me thinks you have been to too many powerpoint briefs where the words: netcentric warfare, force multiplier and jointery have been used by very blunt egg heads or staff college graduates.
I admire what you do in your role for those of us in the combat aircraft and think you are good at it, stick to what you know
.
As for ASW it no longer exists but UBM is a new and emerging field
.
Now I will be here once you come back to earth after this little post but putting on my flak jacket (issued to combat crews) just in case
Charlie sends
Once again we dance
Firstly I dont think there are enough rubber pants for your crews as I am sure they will fill them up just descending to 10,000ft let alone low level over sea or land.
Secondly the old fella sitting in your comms seat is usually deaf as a post due to too many Shack hours so that role is out.
Thirdly you fly a support aircraft and cannot provide offensive weaponry, and Im not talking just about the knockers or the rations on the kipper.
Fourthly me thinks you have been to too many powerpoint briefs where the words: netcentric warfare, force multiplier and jointery have been used by very blunt egg heads or staff college graduates.
I admire what you do in your role for those of us in the combat aircraft and think you are good at it, stick to what you know
.As for ASW it no longer exists but UBM is a new and emerging field
.Now I will be here once you come back to earth after this little post but putting on my flak jacket (issued to combat crews) just in case
Charlie sends
Yes US have had a high loss rate in their early UAV ops. However, this is because such ops presented major technological challenges and were often done in deployed, combat conditions. US Gnat, Predator, and Global Hawk ops over the last 10 years in Croatia, Bosnia, Albania, Kosovo, Serbia, Afghanistan and Iraq have proved the reliability and utility of such assets.
Inter Arma Enim Silentius Lex Legis
Join Date: May 2000
Location: England
Posts: 733
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Steamchix
You may be cynical about the prospect but I strongly suspect your worst night mare is the MOD's current sweetest dream!
Charlie L
MM's comments are most valid and I have to agree with him, it seems that a lot of what he says on here is being taken (deliberately?) out of context.
Yes the Nimrod MR2 is an anti sub anti shipping platform and it is a combat aircraft. No the E3 doesn't fly at 200 feet over the sea and can't do the nimrods speciality acts. There is a point though, at which both have cross over capabilities i.e. surveillance.
I still say and have said many times on this forum, the MRA4 will never fly. Even in the unlikely event they find a test crew with suicidal tendencies and the prototypes do fly, the Nimrod MRA4 will never enter a production run.
The Defence budget is about to be cut big time. The disposal of the MRA4 project would suit all 3 parties concerned. The MOD because it can horse trade with the Treasury over other projects. BWoS because they will stop being bled dry by a project that was doomed from the outset (Portillos baby on the cheap) and finally HM Treasury who, as always when it comes to Defence matters, win hands down!!
As for the Nimrod being misunderstood, well it's full of AEops isn't it? They are the most misunderstood chimps on the planet!!
You may be cynical about the prospect but I strongly suspect your worst night mare is the MOD's current sweetest dream!
Charlie L
MM's comments are most valid and I have to agree with him, it seems that a lot of what he says on here is being taken (deliberately?) out of context.
Yes the Nimrod MR2 is an anti sub anti shipping platform and it is a combat aircraft. No the E3 doesn't fly at 200 feet over the sea and can't do the nimrods speciality acts. There is a point though, at which both have cross over capabilities i.e. surveillance.
I still say and have said many times on this forum, the MRA4 will never fly. Even in the unlikely event they find a test crew with suicidal tendencies and the prototypes do fly, the Nimrod MRA4 will never enter a production run.
The Defence budget is about to be cut big time. The disposal of the MRA4 project would suit all 3 parties concerned. The MOD because it can horse trade with the Treasury over other projects. BWoS because they will stop being bled dry by a project that was doomed from the outset (Portillos baby on the cheap) and finally HM Treasury who, as always when it comes to Defence matters, win hands down!!
As for the Nimrod being misunderstood, well it's full of AEops isn't it? They are the most misunderstood chimps on the planet!!
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: UK - sometimes
Posts: 47
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Charlie Luncher wrote:
...Now I will be here once you come back to earth after this little post but putting on my flak jacket (issued to combat crews) just in case.
Of course, you won't be allowed to wear your flak jacket on the flight deck... not cleared for use on a MR2 unless you sit aft of the bog!
...Now I will be here once you come back to earth after this little post but putting on my flak jacket (issued to combat crews) just in case.
Of course, you won't be allowed to wear your flak jacket on the flight deck... not cleared for use on a MR2 unless you sit aft of the bog!
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Lincs
Posts: 453
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mr Lurcher,
Where, have I suggested that an E-3D descend to 10 000ft?
Where have I suggested the E-3D flies at low level over land or sea?
Where have I suggested that the E-3D should carry offensive weaponry?
If you cannot contribute to intelligent debate other than by twisting the comments of others, may I suggest that you do not bother.
The Nimrod MR2 does several overland tasks at medium-high altitude. Indeed, some of those roles could be enhanced by additional altitude. Once again, I will state that it is only these roles which an E-3D could (and on occasion has) assume from a Nimrod.
The overland activities at 10 000ft to which you refer are the ones which I am suggesting that UAVs such as Predator or Predator B could accomplish. Moreover, an asset such as Predator requires far reduced logistics support and infrastructure (and is therefore far cheaper) in comparison to Nimrod MR2 ops.
Steamchicken,
You question the relevancy of my argument that UAVs have proved successful despite deployed ops conditions. Presumably, you are therefore unaware that the Gnat (Croatia, Bosnia), Predator (Bosnia) and Global Hawk (Afghanistan, TELIC) were operated in prototype form during these conflicts, prior to service release. Indeed, the Global Hawk is still not in full service with the USAF, yet proved one of the most significant ISTAR assets over Iraq.
Regards,
M2
Where, have I suggested that an E-3D descend to 10 000ft?
Where have I suggested the E-3D flies at low level over land or sea?
Where have I suggested that the E-3D should carry offensive weaponry?
If you cannot contribute to intelligent debate other than by twisting the comments of others, may I suggest that you do not bother.
The Nimrod MR2 does several overland tasks at medium-high altitude. Indeed, some of those roles could be enhanced by additional altitude. Once again, I will state that it is only these roles which an E-3D could (and on occasion has) assume from a Nimrod.
The overland activities at 10 000ft to which you refer are the ones which I am suggesting that UAVs such as Predator or Predator B could accomplish. Moreover, an asset such as Predator requires far reduced logistics support and infrastructure (and is therefore far cheaper) in comparison to Nimrod MR2 ops.
Steamchicken,
You question the relevancy of my argument that UAVs have proved successful despite deployed ops conditions. Presumably, you are therefore unaware that the Gnat (Croatia, Bosnia), Predator (Bosnia) and Global Hawk (Afghanistan, TELIC) were operated in prototype form during these conflicts, prior to service release. Indeed, the Global Hawk is still not in full service with the USAF, yet proved one of the most significant ISTAR assets over Iraq.
Regards,
M2
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: A 1/2 World away from Ice Statio Kilo
Posts: 404
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gorilla old chap
"There is a point though, at which both have cross over capabilities i.e. surveillance."
Yes you are right most MPA can do an IFF check as well, hardly surveillance old boy.
Charlie sends
"There is a point though, at which both have cross over capabilities i.e. surveillance."
Yes you are right most MPA can do an IFF check as well, hardly surveillance old boy.
Charlie sends
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Where the heart belongs
Age: 55
Posts: 413
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
2 Posts
SwitchMonkey
Best you check the RTS (service deviation 111). I certainly wear one on the flight deck. They did have to go and find a more spacious comfy fit one for me though. Time to go back on the diet!!
Best you check the RTS (service deviation 111). I certainly wear one on the flight deck. They did have to go and find a more spacious comfy fit one for me though. Time to go back on the diet!!
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: England
Posts: 45
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Magic Mushroom
Even though no one likes you at work or on pprune I think you're great.
However, as a representative of your life insurance company it's probably best if you don't visit ISK for a while!!!
regards
R&R
Even though no one likes you at work or on pprune I think you're great.
However, as a representative of your life insurance company it's probably best if you don't visit ISK for a while!!!
regards
R&R
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: A 1/2 World away from Ice Statio Kilo
Posts: 404
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
M2
So let me get this straight - the E3D could only do one of the tasks of the MPA. May I refer you to note 2 of my original post also height is not always an advantage depending what you are using and where, but support staff would probably not know that.
I have a cunning plan why dont we modify our RADAR only slightly and replace the armchair flyers .
Now who can say that is not a contribution, you may also want to find out really what goes on in the MPA community not rely on rumours and old warries, and I'm not talking about those parties at ISK on a cold wintery night
So let me get this straight - the E3D could only do one of the tasks of the MPA. May I refer you to note 2 of my original post also height is not always an advantage depending what you are using and where, but support staff would probably not know that.
I have a cunning plan why dont we modify our RADAR only slightly and replace the armchair flyers
.Now who can say that is not a contribution, you may also want to find out really what goes on in the MPA community not rely on rumours and old warries, and I'm not talking about those parties at ISK on a cold wintery night
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Lincs
Posts: 453
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mr Lurcher,
With regards to altitude, several succesful E-3D trials have proved otherwise for the particular task I had in mind.
With regards to the capabilities of Searchwater, I have always been very impressed whenever I've flown on the MR2 even in it's air - air capabilities. However, it's lack of a decent IFF capability, relatively limited range and the gap in coverage is a bit of a hindrance. Last time I flew on an MR2 was during TELIC. Very interesting mission, and well hosted by the crew, although it confirmed several of the opinions I express here regarding UAVs augmenting Nimrod.
Regards,
M2
With regards to altitude, several succesful E-3D trials have proved otherwise for the particular task I had in mind.
With regards to the capabilities of Searchwater, I have always been very impressed whenever I've flown on the MR2 even in it's air - air capabilities. However, it's lack of a decent IFF capability, relatively limited range and the gap in coverage is a bit of a hindrance. Last time I flew on an MR2 was during TELIC. Very interesting mission, and well hosted by the crew, although it confirmed several of the opinions I express here regarding UAVs augmenting Nimrod.
Regards,
M2
Last edited by Magic Mushroom; 4th Feb 2004 at 05:54.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: A 1/2 World away from Ice Statio Kilo
Posts: 404
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
M2
You missed the subtle point where I mentioned MPA not just the old workhorse Nimrod MR2.
But I am sure your combat experience in that one trip will form your opinion for years to come, you may have admired the flexibilty of a manned aircraft that cannot be acheived by a UAV even those with a limited radar capability. I am sure that all the briefs will say how good they were as they can do all these tasks, they want more money and see a pot of money in MRA4 as I am sure do you.
Ask those whom we work with and they ask for MPA over UAVs or even those filled with armchair warriors.
(last comment was interfleet banter)
Charlie sends
You missed the subtle point where I mentioned MPA not just the old workhorse Nimrod MR2.
But I am sure your combat experience in that one trip will form your opinion for years to come, you may have admired the flexibilty of a manned aircraft that cannot be acheived by a UAV even those with a limited radar capability. I am sure that all the briefs will say how good they were as they can do all these tasks, they want more money and see a pot of money in MRA4 as I am sure do you.
Ask those whom we work with and they ask for MPA over UAVs or even those filled with armchair warriors.
(last comment was interfleet banter)
Charlie sends
