Nimrod MRA4 In Service Date?
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 56
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hello gents, not sure anyone has actally answered my questions! However; and i don't mean to thread creep but i did read on Parliment questions that a few questions had been asked regarding the three MRA4's that had not been included in the contract for MRA4 to be considered for R1 conversion. Surely someone can see that PA1-3 should go to the RAF as maritime aircraft. 9 aircraft is not enough. Well it might be but how can we continue to justify 3 sqns in the future? BAe need a kick up the arse about this project, it makes me so mad.
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Lake District
Posts: 164
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Biggus...
It is out of date...We have 8 and 23 sqns with about 4 crews each and 54(R) sqn as an ISTAR OCU picking up the training for the Sentry, R1 and Astor...They could probably field a Sentry crew if required but some of the older members would have to be woken up and changed first...
It is out of date...We have 8 and 23 sqns with about 4 crews each and 54(R) sqn as an ISTAR OCU picking up the training for the Sentry, R1 and Astor...They could probably field a Sentry crew if required but some of the older members would have to be woken up and changed first...
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Article on the MRA4 in this week's AW&ST.
Summary is that contract is for 9, there's haggling about converting the other 3 but the money has to be squeezed out of long term costs for the fleet. That, might, end up with enough funds to convert one or perhaps 2.
Handover to the RAF is due for the end of 2010 but the number due at that date has been reduced from 6 to 4.
They looked at using them to replace the R1s but decided the Rivet Joints were a better option.
Summary is that contract is for 9, there's haggling about converting the other 3 but the money has to be squeezed out of long term costs for the fleet. That, might, end up with enough funds to convert one or perhaps 2.
Handover to the RAF is due for the end of 2010 but the number due at that date has been reduced from 6 to 4.
They looked at using them to replace the R1s but decided the Rivet Joints were a better option.
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Shropshire
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
hindsight and all that...
RE item 34 page 2 Padraig Murphy said..
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?
Nearly got it all right there mr,good shout at the time...
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?
Nearly got it all right there mr,good shout at the time...
Last edited by conysbe; 19th Nov 2010 at 15:44. Reason: Missed info
