Nimrod MRA4
What story?
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Hampshire
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Give Nimrod a chance, a lot of very good engineers have and are still working on this aircraft, long hours have been spent by many, the engineers have also worked closer with the customer then anyother platform.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Aberdeen or Santa Barbara
Posts: 92
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Of course we need to give it a chance, it is just I can't help thinking we have seen all this before.
Would an off the shelf (P3/P7) not have been a better choice technically if not politically?
Don't get me wrong, I have a lot of good memories of Normy Nimrod and I am certainly not knocking those working hard to make it work - but was it the correct choice?
Would an off the shelf (P3/P7) not have been a better choice technically if not politically?
Don't get me wrong, I have a lot of good memories of Normy Nimrod and I am certainly not knocking those working hard to make it work - but was it the correct choice?
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Hampshire
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
richlear
You are right "was it the correct choice", it seems that when it comes to British designed and built aircraft there always seem to be the debate should we have brought American aircraft, but should we be buying old US stock!, is it right that we let our own aerospace industry disappear.
I must admit was the replacement of Nimrod the best use of taxpayers money, do we still need this capability or should it be a nato or European capability paid for and operated by Europe.
I do find it hard to believe that we can send the army, navy and air force out to fix other peoples problems with below standard equipment yet spend a lot of money on projects that may have no modern requirements
You are right "was it the correct choice", it seems that when it comes to British designed and built aircraft there always seem to be the debate should we have brought American aircraft, but should we be buying old US stock!, is it right that we let our own aerospace industry disappear.
I must admit was the replacement of Nimrod the best use of taxpayers money, do we still need this capability or should it be a nato or European capability paid for and operated by Europe.
I do find it hard to believe that we can send the army, navy and air force out to fix other peoples problems with below standard equipment yet spend a lot of money on projects that may have no modern requirements
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: UK, sometimes!
Age: 74
Posts: 436
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I must admit was the replacement of Nimrod the best use of taxpayers money, do we still need this capability or should it be a nato or European capability paid for and operated by Europe.
I do find it hard to believe that we can send the army, navy and air force out to fix other peoples problems with below standard equipment yet spend a lot of money on projects that may have no modern requirements
I do find it hard to believe that we can send the army, navy and air force out to fix other peoples problems with below standard equipment yet spend a lot of money on projects that may have no modern requirements
People with no idea about what the Nimrod can, and indeed does, do, talking out of their ar$es 
What the fleet needs least of all now is a reduction in crews and aircraft. The fleet is working harder, and spending far more time away from home than it ever did back in the 'good old' cold war days. With this Governments ridiculous cuts it can only get worse, leading to even lower morale and even more people wishing to vote with their feet. I see few problems of reducing to the Governments target figures for the Kipper Fleet in the next year or 2, in fact I foresee retention bonuses being needed in just a few years time to keep the figure UP to the manning levels they have quoted!!
MadMark!!!
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Preston
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Rich Lear - New to this PPrune malarky Registered to reply to your "come on BAE people". I'm more than happy to answer any questions and debunk B#LL#X of which there seems to be a powerful lot spoken about MRA4. Funny how those that talk the loudest seem to know the least. As a starter.....There is no doubt that MRA4 is now far and away superior to anything else. To have chosen a P3 would have been to settle for something inferior to the MK2 which makes no sense. The Boeing MMA is laughable and will be a big dissappointment to all the US Navy operators who visited the MRA4 Integration Rig and declared that they would give their eye teeth for it. The MRA4 Mission System (which is working very well indeed thankyou) will enable its aircrew to fully utilise their tactical skills and produce world beating results in the many new and varied theatres now and in the future. (Mark is spot on here, of course). There have been problems with the project caused by both sides. However the empty vessels that bang on about them would do well to find out whether or not a solution has been engineered before they preach doom. I expect comments like "well you would say that wouldn't you" -- Those of you who know me know different! My one regret at leaving the airforce is that I won't get the chance to fight this excellent platform but the lads who do will have an aeroplane they can be proud of for years to come. Happy Christmas to all my readers.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: near the squirrel sanctuary
Posts: 192
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Visited Warton recently and had a look round the MRA4 stuff. The boys there seemed very happy. It was always going to be the case that if there was no limit on finances then they would have asked for more. However, that was never going to happen. 'Blue jobs' and civvies seemed to work and, more importantly, talk to each other with the same aim: to get a good bit of kit to the FL.
I'm looking forward to it.
I'm looking forward to it.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Aberdeen or Santa Barbara
Posts: 92
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mr Eff,
My comment was more of a question....I am ex nimrod, now involved in military projects from the civvy side...I know how these things go.
My thoughts are more orientated towards the political situation of ordering an aircraft purely to maintain a british aircraft industry - I was not knocking the aircraft or the team - merely asking the question.
cheers
rich
My comment was more of a question....I am ex nimrod, now involved in military projects from the civvy side...I know how these things go.
My thoughts are more orientated towards the political situation of ordering an aircraft purely to maintain a british aircraft industry - I was not knocking the aircraft or the team - merely asking the question.
cheers
rich
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: sunny england
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A little birdy has told me that the RAF will be looking for a new replacement aircraft soon!
BAe have done a sterling job getting the airframe to fly and save embarrasment all round but we aren't going to get much more!
BAe have done a sterling job getting the airframe to fly and save embarrasment all round but we aren't going to get much more!
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Hunched over a keyboard
Posts: 1,193
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In defence of BAE, when the project commenced we (I was at BAE at the time) told the MoD that it would be cheaper, quicker and easier to build new airframes from scratch rather than try to integrate the old fuselage to new wings.
"oh no, we want to save money by reusing the old fuselage".
"but that will cost more!"
"ah, but it's what we, the customers, want".
Seems like we've heard that one before.
"oh no, we want to save money by reusing the old fuselage".
"but that will cost more!"
"ah, but it's what we, the customers, want".
Seems like we've heard that one before.
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Preston
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quite right. The customer insisted on Rolls Royce engines rather than the ones in the bid. This forced the design and build of the new wing causing extra cost and significant delay.
Quote "A little birdy has told me that the RAF will be looking for a new replacement aircraft soon!" - I wonder at the value of unsubstantiated comments like this. I could say that the same little birdy told me that the MOD had finally wised up and decided to go ahead with eighteen of these superb aircraft but unless I name the 'little bird' it's all just so much tosh!
Hi Rich Lear - sorry I came out all guns blazing. We know each other well, so I hope you'll understand. I really believe it was worth the Government buying British. Having experienced the way Boeing work, you get exactly what you specified. Ie if you didn't say you wanted seats, you don't get any seats. The way BAE and the RAF have worked together has really been an inspiration. Together they have always sought out the best solution and not just the one in the spec. All the best, Ritchie.
Quote "A little birdy has told me that the RAF will be looking for a new replacement aircraft soon!" - I wonder at the value of unsubstantiated comments like this. I could say that the same little birdy told me that the MOD had finally wised up and decided to go ahead with eighteen of these superb aircraft but unless I name the 'little bird' it's all just so much tosh!
Hi Rich Lear - sorry I came out all guns blazing. We know each other well, so I hope you'll understand. I really believe it was worth the Government buying British. Having experienced the way Boeing work, you get exactly what you specified. Ie if you didn't say you wanted seats, you don't get any seats. The way BAE and the RAF have worked together has really been an inspiration. Together they have always sought out the best solution and not just the one in the spec. All the best, Ritchie.
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Canada
Posts: 46
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As a Canadian ex-maritime patrol pilot and aerospace engineer who had some peripheral involvement with RMPA and BAe during the solicitation of interest phase, I wish MRA4 the best.
I also agree that reducing the fleet is a bad decision, just when the project appears to be emerging from its cloud. MPA still have great generalized capability for surveillance, whether subsurface, water surface, or overland in controlled threat environments.
During that early time, i.e. 93-94, the BAe systems engineers I dealt with were quite nervous that MOD would drive them to a new wing, which they believed would blow up the risk, cost and schedule. Clearly they were right.
On the other hand, I don't understand the scathing comment about MMA. The 737 is a good aircraft with reasonable payload/range for the role and reportedly excellent handling. The mission system presumably will take into account lessons learned during MRA4, for which Boeing also produced the mission system.
Bomb bay capacity (an area where Nimrod has no peer) may be one weakness on a 737 solution, but otherwise I believe it would be at least competitive with the MRA4 airframe/engines and in some respect superior. It also has the advantage of starting from newer internal systems (fuel/hydraulics/services etc.) than Nimrod.
A P3 would have been a lower capability solution. The P3 is derived from the '50s Electra, i.e. contemporary with Comet, and is not a modern design. It also has a very stiff and short wing, with consequent poor low altitude ride and limited manoeuvrability. It doesn't even have anti-skid! Canadian Aurora pilots generally try not to use the brakes on landing on slippery runways due to the risk of blown tires. Good thing those large Hamilton Standard paddles are good tools for slowing down.
The two P3 variants proposed for RMPA were:
1. Used/refurbished P3Bs with a new mission system - clearly less capable than MRA4, and
2. New P3s with mission system derived from USN standard. USN standard at that time was an only paritially integrated system with an outmoded architecture and which had limitations in the mission computer. Not nearly as advanced as MRA4.
If either P3 option had been chosen, the RAF would perhaps have had a solution by now, but one with significant shortfalls compared to MMA.
MRA4 has taken too long and cost too much, but there is no point in dwelling on the reasons for that now: It has the potential to be a superior platform.
I also agree that reducing the fleet is a bad decision, just when the project appears to be emerging from its cloud. MPA still have great generalized capability for surveillance, whether subsurface, water surface, or overland in controlled threat environments.
During that early time, i.e. 93-94, the BAe systems engineers I dealt with were quite nervous that MOD would drive them to a new wing, which they believed would blow up the risk, cost and schedule. Clearly they were right.
On the other hand, I don't understand the scathing comment about MMA. The 737 is a good aircraft with reasonable payload/range for the role and reportedly excellent handling. The mission system presumably will take into account lessons learned during MRA4, for which Boeing also produced the mission system.
Bomb bay capacity (an area where Nimrod has no peer) may be one weakness on a 737 solution, but otherwise I believe it would be at least competitive with the MRA4 airframe/engines and in some respect superior. It also has the advantage of starting from newer internal systems (fuel/hydraulics/services etc.) than Nimrod.
A P3 would have been a lower capability solution. The P3 is derived from the '50s Electra, i.e. contemporary with Comet, and is not a modern design. It also has a very stiff and short wing, with consequent poor low altitude ride and limited manoeuvrability. It doesn't even have anti-skid! Canadian Aurora pilots generally try not to use the brakes on landing on slippery runways due to the risk of blown tires. Good thing those large Hamilton Standard paddles are good tools for slowing down.
The two P3 variants proposed for RMPA were:
1. Used/refurbished P3Bs with a new mission system - clearly less capable than MRA4, and
2. New P3s with mission system derived from USN standard. USN standard at that time was an only paritially integrated system with an outmoded architecture and which had limitations in the mission computer. Not nearly as advanced as MRA4.
If either P3 option had been chosen, the RAF would perhaps have had a solution by now, but one with significant shortfalls compared to MMA.
MRA4 has taken too long and cost too much, but there is no point in dwelling on the reasons for that now: It has the potential to be a superior platform.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: A 1/2 World away from Ice Statio Kilo
Posts: 404
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MR EFF
would you also at one time been known as "Paddle Switch"
if so hope the strumming fingers are still agile, and you are slowly transferring the collection to DVD
.
regards to Mrs eff - my bruising has healed
Charlie sends
would you also at one time been known as "Paddle Switch"
if so hope the strumming fingers are still agile, and you are slowly transferring the collection to DVD
.regards to Mrs eff - my bruising has healed
Charlie sends
