Nimrods - new-build or rebuilds?
According to this :
http://www.britishaircraft.co.uk/air...age.php?ID=674
only the prototypes were conversions.
http://www.britishaircraft.co.uk/air...age.php?ID=674
only the prototypes were conversions.
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: warwickshire
Posts: 115
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For the MRA4's BAe suggested new builds were a better idea (can't believe they still have the jigs), however the MOD apparently wanted to use the old airframes.
However, they were built more by hand and so the wings and other parts are all different sizes!
Surprised they are not upgrading the R1 fleet too to keep comonality, or have they got far fewer hours on them?
However, they were built more by hand and so the wings and other parts are all different sizes!
Surprised they are not upgrading the R1 fleet too to keep comonality, or have they got far fewer hours on them?
Ah yes.....1950's technology....but an Icon to some. Hand built....non-interchangeable parts? Hmmmmm...very interesting! Fleet? Hows about flotilla maybe and a small one at that.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Where The Sun Sets
Posts: 70
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Once again it was all down to costs per unit. If the MoD could afford a few more airframes then it would have been cost effective to build new ones. However because of the relatively low numbers ordered, the cheapest option was to reuse the old (twisted) airframes.
We even tried to get the Japanese to buy some to replace their P3's in order to boost the numbers.....they just smiled politely, gave us some sushi and beer and asked us to leave.
Good Det though.
We even tried to get the Japanese to buy some to replace their P3's in order to boost the numbers.....they just smiled politely, gave us some sushi and beer and asked us to leave.
Good Det though.
It always stuck me as a ludicrous decision to go with a rebuild. The world and his wife fly P3s or Atlantiques, all of which are coming to the end of their practical lives. Which bit of Major Export Opportunity, either using new-build Nimrod airframes or a modern airliner conversion didn't MoD / BAe understand?
Buy Boeing....the USN is....maybe the Japanese as well which might explain the polite bum's rush you got.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Where The Sun Sets
Posts: 70
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It might have been the Boeing plan or it might have been the 20 personnel on the Nimrod who were on their way home after 3 weeks on the beer during an Aussie Fincastle.
Not sure how professional we all looked with bloodshot eyes and red noses.
Yea, buy one of our planes, it's great ...hic
Not sure how professional we all looked with bloodshot eyes and red noses.
Yea, buy one of our planes, it's great ...hic
Below the Glidepath - not correcting
Just for interest (although you'll be the judge of that, of course) there are a number of countries currently recycling P-3 's out of AMARC at Davis-Monthan AFB with completely refurfished and modernized operational equipment, and these are definitley Nimrod vintage airframes, so somebody, somewhere, has done a cost-benefit analysis that shows it can be worth the trouble.
Link to AMARC:
http://www.dm.af.mil/amarc/index.html
Link to AMARC:
http://www.dm.af.mil/amarc/index.html
As mentioned earlier, all but about 3 of the original Nimrods were purpose built as Nimrods; ie they were not converted Comets. The 3 conversions (XV148 series) were involved in the initial proving trials and never saw front line service.
I worked on the initial stages of the project to choose a successor to the MR2 (in the PE). One of the bids was for refurbished P3s of the "lightweight" variety. Without giving too much away, there were concerns about how the aircraft had been treated in their service life (there was no complete "service history"), and the maintenance costs later in the aircrafts' life would probably have proved prohibitive.
The only parts of the Nimrod MR2 that will be retained for the MRA4 is the pressure hull, and that has been examined in great detail. Effectively they will be new aircraft (like my grandmother's broom that she had kept for 50 years - even though it had had 6 new heads and 5 new handles). The other reason for using existing structure is that the level of requalification is greatly reduced and I understand that it reduces the need to comply with some modern Defstans and other rules.
As for the R1s, I believe there is a plan to interleave refurbishment of these aircraft with the rest of the MRA4 program. The MRA4 production contract has not yet been signed, although it is imminent, so the R1 program is probably still in the discussion stage.
Shadwell
I worked on the initial stages of the project to choose a successor to the MR2 (in the PE). One of the bids was for refurbished P3s of the "lightweight" variety. Without giving too much away, there were concerns about how the aircraft had been treated in their service life (there was no complete "service history"), and the maintenance costs later in the aircrafts' life would probably have proved prohibitive.
The only parts of the Nimrod MR2 that will be retained for the MRA4 is the pressure hull, and that has been examined in great detail. Effectively they will be new aircraft (like my grandmother's broom that she had kept for 50 years - even though it had had 6 new heads and 5 new handles). The other reason for using existing structure is that the level of requalification is greatly reduced and I understand that it reduces the need to comply with some modern Defstans and other rules.
As for the R1s, I believe there is a plan to interleave refurbishment of these aircraft with the rest of the MRA4 program. The MRA4 production contract has not yet been signed, although it is imminent, so the R1 program is probably still in the discussion stage.
Shadwell
