Nimrod MRA4 In Service Date?
Of course it is cost and it should always be cost. This, after all is my tax payers money the IPT are spending and I want VFM.
Delivering projects to agreed Performance, Cost and Time criteria.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Europe
Posts: 414
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Spheroid, you mentioned VFM which is where I think the MRA4 project is failing, however the money is already spent, there is no alternative in the timeframe required and the airframe is nearly ready. Using 20/20 hindsight the contract overall has been a disgrace, but the people in place now are not those that set it up so badly on both sides and they are now doing their best to deliver what they can. Hopefully lessons will be drawn from this for future projects, OK maybe not 
Cost is an important consideration, but cheapest is not always best and may well cost much more in the end.
Cost is an important consideration, but cheapest is not always best and may well cost much more in the end.
Hopefully lessons will be drawn from this for future projects, OK maybe not.
Any “lessons learnt” process depends on three things;
- The Post Project Evaluation report (or whatever they call it this week) is a collation of all the interim reports identifying lessons to be learnt, not just a single paper after the event.
- It is written by someone who actually experienced (and preferably anticipated) the problems/risks and successfully solved or mitigated them.
- “Management” has the will to implement recommendations, or give reasons why not.
The real lesson to be learnt is this. While Nimrod was slipping, other far more complex projects in the same Directorate General, with a fraction of Nimrod’s resource, were delivering ahead of schedule, to a better performance than requested and under “cost”. The Director’s reaction? “You are an embarrassment to the Department”. What he meant was, dumb down as your competence merely emphasises incompetence elsewhere. This is the ethos one should bear in mind when seeking reasons for other screw ups, like Chinook Mk3.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Padraig Murphy
ISD for Nimrod?
Newcomer - small point is that MRA4 was doomed from the beginning when it selected the most unlucky aircraft in the fleet as PA01 believe it was 47 landed at its home base post bolthole with all wheels locked also considered by groundcrew as the most unlucky aircraft as all numbers added to 13 and one engineer went down the intake plus numerous other issues. MR2 has been relifed till 2010 maybe now we should consider a new aircraft and new role no point hunting for ruskie subs?
ISD for Nimrod?
Newcomer - small point is that MRA4 was doomed from the beginning when it selected the most unlucky aircraft in the fleet as PA01 believe it was 47 landed at its home base post bolthole with all wheels locked also considered by groundcrew as the most unlucky aircraft as all numbers added to 13 and one engineer went down the intake plus numerous other issues. MR2 has been relifed till 2010 maybe now we should consider a new aircraft and new role no point hunting for ruskie subs?
When you said Bolthole what one are you reffering to and also the guy down the intake was 29 so we are lead to believe but its trivial info , most aircraft I have known in the fleet have had a brakes on landing as some crew forget to take the handbrake off before touchdown
As for in service date i dunno if its information available on the public domain but the first one due to arrive at Kinloss late next year , again we will see when it turns up.
As for in service date i dunno if its information available on the public domain but the first one due to arrive at Kinloss late next year , again we will see when it turns up.
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Kinloss
Posts: 99
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
most aircraft I have known in the fleet have had a brakes on landing as some crew forget to take the handbrake off before touchdown 
247 was the culprit
The aircraft that sucked the engineer down the intake during an engine run was 247 - it happened outside my office window around 1984. The same aircraft, 247, was responsible for the death of an armourer at St Mawgan in the early 70s when an old type bomb bay SUS fell out whilst being loaded, and I also believe it was the aircraft that the engineer on the NMSU caught his neck in the airbrakes during a test.
It is certainly considered the unlukiest or most (ground) accident prone in the fleet. It is now PA1 which was the first MRA4 to fly and was the airframe test aircraft for the project.
Incidentally 256 (total 13) was tragically lost in the woods at Kinloss following a multiple birdstrike around 1980
Shadwell
It is certainly considered the unlukiest or most (ground) accident prone in the fleet. It is now PA1 which was the first MRA4 to fly and was the airframe test aircraft for the project.
Incidentally 256 (total 13) was tragically lost in the woods at Kinloss following a multiple birdstrike around 1980
Shadwell
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: The Fletcher Memorial Home
Age: 59
Posts: 303
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Back in 1994(5?) we were briefed about "Nimrod 2000", a term I still sometimes use with a former colleague who currently works on the project. Needless to say I get a telling off on each occasion!
Two stories from the project that I heard which may or may not be true but seem to say a lot about the assumed skills of the project team, the first was that they were not aware that the length of the longest frame in the fleet was about 18 inches greater than the shortest frame in the fleet. A by-product of bespoke aircraft manufacture!
The second was that serious consideration was given to removing the galley and associated equipment to save weight. You can guess how long that idea lasted when it reached the ears of the future crews!
Two stories from the project that I heard which may or may not be true but seem to say a lot about the assumed skills of the project team, the first was that they were not aware that the length of the longest frame in the fleet was about 18 inches greater than the shortest frame in the fleet. A by-product of bespoke aircraft manufacture!
The second was that serious consideration was given to removing the galley and associated equipment to save weight. You can guess how long that idea lasted when it reached the ears of the future crews!
Don’t know about the galley tale, but there is truth in this;
But, in fairness to the many excellent and experienced engineers on the project at the time, both in Industry and MoD, who did know this, and raised it at every opportunity, the “assumed skills” problem lay in the assumption that the senior managers could actually manage, a large part of which is the ability to listen to your experienced staffs. The trouble was, and remains, MoD confuses experience and competence.
seem to say a lot about the assumed skills of the project team, the first was that they were not aware that the length of the longest frame in the fleet was about 18 inches greater than the shortest frame in the fleet. A by-product of bespoke aircraft manufacture!
But, in fairness to the many excellent and experienced engineers on the project at the time, both in Industry and MoD, who did know this, and raised it at every opportunity, the “assumed skills” problem lay in the assumption that the senior managers could actually manage, a large part of which is the ability to listen to your experienced staffs. The trouble was, and remains, MoD confuses experience and competence.
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Between the Sticks
Age: 61
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Go Pick On Somebody Your Own Size!
I am going to tell my mum about you lot.
My best friend had a pal who lived next-door to a girl who dated a guy who works on it and he said that actually it is a pleasure to fly on it because it does not make you want to throw up in the way that its much older and very distantly related cousin the vomitcomet used to do.
Like most major projects it has suffered from requirement creep and poor management. It will be more capable than the MR2 and the guys will like it.
Those who doubt it should go and have a play with the MRA4 Sim and enjoy!
I had the pleasure of eating a sausage roll on board the MRA4 and as the 1960s chef once said "mmm my sausage roll was lovely, it was better than eating Fanny's"
My best friend had a pal who lived next-door to a girl who dated a guy who works on it and he said that actually it is a pleasure to fly on it because it does not make you want to throw up in the way that its much older and very distantly related cousin the vomitcomet used to do.
Like most major projects it has suffered from requirement creep and poor management. It will be more capable than the MR2 and the guys will like it.
Those who doubt it should go and have a play with the MRA4 Sim and enjoy!
I had the pleasure of eating a sausage roll on board the MRA4 and as the 1960s chef once said "mmm my sausage roll was lovely, it was better than eating Fanny's"
Guest
Posts: n/a
Edd set
OK to official reports the handbrake has never been selected on, we will give a good reason to help out a pilot thats had a bad day
Just for info Brake Control Valves do not stick open, as you know the handbrake is a manual rod that selects 3 settings Green /Red/Red Handbrake , either the rigging was set up wrong which is unlikely as that would have failed big time indies, or the rod just simply moved to select on in flight, it can happen especially when a tray of donuts needs to be placed on the centre pedestal. Either or it dont matter nobody has been hurt and lessons learned.
KIT, to be correct, a Nimrod has never landed with the parking brake selected on. Occasionally the brake selector valve has jammed on with the lever off, or a pilot has inadvertently applied the brakes on one side (while kicking off drift) just before touchdown.
Just for info Brake Control Valves do not stick open, as you know the handbrake is a manual rod that selects 3 settings Green /Red/Red Handbrake , either the rigging was set up wrong which is unlikely as that would have failed big time indies, or the rod just simply moved to select on in flight, it can happen especially when a tray of donuts needs to be placed on the centre pedestal. Either or it dont matter nobody has been hurt and lessons learned.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: 1 Dunghill Mansions, Putney
Posts: 1,797
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Well, there was a pretty depressing article in last week's Av Week suggesting that only nine MRA.4s will now be delivered, with the plan to make three development aircraft operational apparently kaiboshed due to "issues around affordability."
Program cost is now put at GBP3.6 billion for 9 upgraded maritime Comets, versus the original plan of GBP2 billion for 21 mighty hunters, though 't Baron says the December 2010 ISD date (four aircraft delivered) still stands.
I/C
Program cost is now put at GBP3.6 billion for 9 upgraded maritime Comets, versus the original plan of GBP2 billion for 21 mighty hunters, though 't Baron says the December 2010 ISD date (four aircraft delivered) still stands.
I/C
Last edited by Ian Corrigible; 5th Feb 2009 at 18:47. Reason: Edited due to inability to discern 10 from 12. Which, come to think of it, probably explains why the chinky keeps sending the wrong food.
9 seems more and more likely in these cash strapped days, but then the Navy was due to get 12 Type 45s (a one to one replacement for Type 42s), then 8, now 6..... Remind me again how many Astutes they wanted, and how many will the RN actually get?
As for the implications of only 9. How many Sqns for 9 vs 21 aircraft, does it need a dedicated MRA4 OCU, or an embedded training flight within a Sqn (2 VC10 Sqns, 10 and 101, only had a training flight, there was the LTF when we got down to 2 Lightning Sqns, etc). Can the existance of Kinloss be justified for only 9 airframes! How cost effective is that? Don't tell me, move 2 yellow cabs down the road to make it look busier.
As for the date, I think you are quite a way out, and for once it is due to be earlier than you quote. At least I hope so, as the MR2s should be gone well before Dec 2012 from what I have read...
As for the implications of only 9. How many Sqns for 9 vs 21 aircraft, does it need a dedicated MRA4 OCU, or an embedded training flight within a Sqn (2 VC10 Sqns, 10 and 101, only had a training flight, there was the LTF when we got down to 2 Lightning Sqns, etc). Can the existance of Kinloss be justified for only 9 airframes! How cost effective is that? Don't tell me, move 2 yellow cabs down the road to make it look busier.
As for the date, I think you are quite a way out, and for once it is due to be earlier than you quote. At least I hope so, as the MR2s should be gone well before Dec 2012 from what I have read...
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: 1 Dunghill Mansions, Putney
Posts: 1,797
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Originally Posted by Biggus
As for the date, I think you are quite a way out, and for once it is due to be earlier than you quote.
I/C
Guest
Posts: n/a
Biggus thats a good valid point on justifying 9 frames and a large airbase. Im sure a few years back they said the GR4s would move over so the JSF could move into Lossie, somehow I cant see that happening soon or ever tbh.
They are working plans to ensure the first 3 PA aircraft are included in the overall deal at cheapest possible price but I not holding my breath.
They are working plans to ensure the first 3 PA aircraft are included in the overall deal at cheapest possible price but I not holding my breath.
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Not quite where I'd like to be
Age: 65
Posts: 103
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Biggus - what you need is the E-3D model: 7 aircraft, 3 sqns. Of course, if you have trouble justifying it at ISK you may need to employ a few ABMs (FCs in old money)..........
sargs
It's probably out of date, most RAF web site/pages are, but looking at the RAF Waddington website today (Flying Squadrons) it only mentions 8 and 23 with regard to the E-3. Indeed the 23 Sqn individual page even says that it includes the STF (Sentry Training Flight).
However, I seem to remember reading about the formation of some sort of Super OCU, which trains crew members for all the ISTAR assets at Waddington. I must admit that I didn't continue my investigation any further - real life got in the way!
It's probably out of date, most RAF web site/pages are, but looking at the RAF Waddington website today (Flying Squadrons) it only mentions 8 and 23 with regard to the E-3. Indeed the 23 Sqn individual page even says that it includes the STF (Sentry Training Flight).
However, I seem to remember reading about the formation of some sort of Super OCU, which trains crew members for all the ISTAR assets at Waddington. I must admit that I didn't continue my investigation any further - real life got in the way!