MRA 4, delayed again?
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Back North
Posts: 86
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That's my point, it was primarily designed as a sub hunter and yet there aren't any subs to hunt (that matter anyway, and certainly not for the rediculous price we're paying). I reckon I could find the 4 Iranian subs with a karioke microphone and an ipod headset!
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 154
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I understand at a fairly recent conference an independent think tank type with vast experience, stated that we needed more MPA with the MRA4's capability and less fast jets.
No doubt this will upset our fast jet comrades, which is not intended. Yes the MRA 4 has not came in on time or budget, but then does any major project?
The need for this multi-role aircraft, i believe is still justified. Yes other platforms can do long range SAR searches, but not as efficiently, time is important as im sure you will all appreciate.
Ask anyone who has done a complete search and identification of the Falklands zone. I have done a bit of a search of the zone and a bit of SAR down there in a Herc many years ago and im sorry to have to say the Nimrod can do it in a fraction of the time due to radar and aircraft performance. If it was up to me and we had the airframes and the crews I'd have one down there permanently.
There is the arguement that the US Coast Guard use the Herc for long range SAR, so why not us, well the link below may give you a clue on that and of other types of operation:
http://www.internationalrelations.ho.../utl051105.pdf
Another glowing report for our equipment.
As for ASW, yes the days of the cold war may be over, but with greatest form of stealth being submarines and any potential threat against our or coalitions Navy, can we really afford to be without that capability. The submarine is an affordable piece of hardware, conventional ones that is, especially the smaller ones. What would happen if AQ got one, scary thought. China has already been mentioned, lets hope we never upset them, could be very messy.
I won't go into the overland roles, but the MRA 4 mission suite gives greater flexibility, modern comms and the option for various payloads.
Surely it is more cost effective to have a multi-role Maritime aircraft than many specialist one job types.
For years the Maritime Patrol community has been getting bashed, mainly by the uninformed. The nature of the job, as others have also perhaps, is that we dont go public one many of the things that we do. Maybe we dont have the great PR machine like the RN seems to have, but thats life.
In comparison, how busy is the E3 fleet these days. They worked their backsides off during the balkans, but although quiet now, are you really trying to say they wont be required again. I think not.
No doubt there will still be the doubters and bleaters, whether we get the MRA 4 or not we will always need a capable MPA.
No doubt this will upset our fast jet comrades, which is not intended. Yes the MRA 4 has not came in on time or budget, but then does any major project?
The need for this multi-role aircraft, i believe is still justified. Yes other platforms can do long range SAR searches, but not as efficiently, time is important as im sure you will all appreciate.
Ask anyone who has done a complete search and identification of the Falklands zone. I have done a bit of a search of the zone and a bit of SAR down there in a Herc many years ago and im sorry to have to say the Nimrod can do it in a fraction of the time due to radar and aircraft performance. If it was up to me and we had the airframes and the crews I'd have one down there permanently.
There is the arguement that the US Coast Guard use the Herc for long range SAR, so why not us, well the link below may give you a clue on that and of other types of operation:
http://www.internationalrelations.ho.../utl051105.pdf
Another glowing report for our equipment.
As for ASW, yes the days of the cold war may be over, but with greatest form of stealth being submarines and any potential threat against our or coalitions Navy, can we really afford to be without that capability. The submarine is an affordable piece of hardware, conventional ones that is, especially the smaller ones. What would happen if AQ got one, scary thought. China has already been mentioned, lets hope we never upset them, could be very messy.
I won't go into the overland roles, but the MRA 4 mission suite gives greater flexibility, modern comms and the option for various payloads.
Surely it is more cost effective to have a multi-role Maritime aircraft than many specialist one job types.
For years the Maritime Patrol community has been getting bashed, mainly by the uninformed. The nature of the job, as others have also perhaps, is that we dont go public one many of the things that we do. Maybe we dont have the great PR machine like the RN seems to have, but thats life.
In comparison, how busy is the E3 fleet these days. They worked their backsides off during the balkans, but although quiet now, are you really trying to say they wont be required again. I think not.
No doubt there will still be the doubters and bleaters, whether we get the MRA 4 or not we will always need a capable MPA.
Chicken leg,
"That's my point, it was primarily designed as a sub hunter and yet there aren't any subs to hunt (that matter anyway, and certainly not for the rediculous price we're paying). I reckon I could find the 4 Iranian subs with a karioke microphone and an ipod headset!"
I would guess from your comment above that sub hunting isn`t your strong point, it probably isn`t even your weak point either.
Reading the "whats happening at ISK" suggest that we need the MRA4 more than ever. It will be a large leap in capability and hopefully serviceabilty as well.
Sub hunting has not died, i would suggest the TG commander on his carrier passing through the straits of Hormuz has them very much on his mind as would anyone operating in the northern pacific. The Kipper fleet has evolved as the threat has changed, the MR2 reflects that, as does the MRA4.
If given the stand off weapons that it is designed / wired for, then some of the FJ jockeys maybe looking for a job.
"That's my point, it was primarily designed as a sub hunter and yet there aren't any subs to hunt (that matter anyway, and certainly not for the rediculous price we're paying). I reckon I could find the 4 Iranian subs with a karioke microphone and an ipod headset!"
I would guess from your comment above that sub hunting isn`t your strong point, it probably isn`t even your weak point either.
Reading the "whats happening at ISK" suggest that we need the MRA4 more than ever. It will be a large leap in capability and hopefully serviceabilty as well.
Sub hunting has not died, i would suggest the TG commander on his carrier passing through the straits of Hormuz has them very much on his mind as would anyone operating in the northern pacific. The Kipper fleet has evolved as the threat has changed, the MR2 reflects that, as does the MRA4.
If given the stand off weapons that it is designed / wired for, then some of the FJ jockeys maybe looking for a job.
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 48
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hoots. fine post. Im in the process of applying to OASC at the moment, Im shooting for a WSOp position if Im what they're looking for - hopefully, with the Nimrod.
I visited ISK years ago on a camp with my school's CCF, and I've still got fond memories of my time with the people I met up there. Im just praying that the big hats can realise just how important the MRA4 is, and get it finished already...!
I visited ISK years ago on a camp with my school's CCF, and I've still got fond memories of my time with the people I met up there. Im just praying that the big hats can realise just how important the MRA4 is, and get it finished already...!
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Lowlevel UK
Posts: 316
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tigerfish??
Exrigger. I see what you mean.
I hope they mean Stingray.
The aircraft has a weapons bay with side opening doors at the bottom of the fuselage which can carry fuel tanks, torpedoes (including the Tigerfish torpedo) and sonobuoys.
My main gripe is the amount of money that is being spent on a largely redundant requirment
If you think that the Iranian Kilos could be picked up by a kareoke mike and an iPod headset then you have proven your lack of knowledge and understanding of things ASW. But just to expand upon your knowledge: how noisy is the Gulf and how quiet is a good diesel electric?
And no I am not a Kipper Mate waiting for the new jet. Far from it, I just know a bit (a lot) more about the aircraft and its roles than you appear to.
And out of interest what capability could do what the MRA 4 will be capable of for 2% of the cost? Even if you ONLY include the sub hunting role what aircraft could do it for 2% of the cost? Or is that just another of your unfounded exagerations to make a point? With spin like that I would assume you work in the DPA or Labour Party HQ!
Data-Lynx: I agree, it looks like it might be a typo as Tigerfish was replaced by Spearfish and these are submarine launched only according to google search. Stingray is definately the aircraft launched torpedo.
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Bristol Temple Meads
Posts: 869
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am sorry I agree with Chicken Leg. The main roles specified for the MK2 and MRA 4 (Maritime Reconnaissance & Attack) Nimrods are:
1. Maritime Reconnaissance
2. Anti-sub warfare
3. Anti-surface warfare
4. Search and Rescue
Now, it is all very well complaining that Chicken Leg is not familar with the other "add on" roles now being carried out by Nimrod, but his point is still valid. We have complex and costly weapon system platforms being used for task which could, and should be carried in a more cost effective manner. Why do you think that there are many "limitations" being carried by the current fleet --- because much of the prime task equipment is not required. And it will be the same with the MRA 4 (of which about 6 will enter service).
Sorry guys, but I do not see many prime task operations being carried out over Iraq and Afghanistan, only "add on", for which the aircraft was never designed and tested.
Can anyone tell me what Hot weather trials were carried out on the AAR system?
DV
1. Maritime Reconnaissance
2. Anti-sub warfare
3. Anti-surface warfare
4. Search and Rescue
Now, it is all very well complaining that Chicken Leg is not familar with the other "add on" roles now being carried out by Nimrod, but his point is still valid. We have complex and costly weapon system platforms being used for task which could, and should be carried in a more cost effective manner. Why do you think that there are many "limitations" being carried by the current fleet --- because much of the prime task equipment is not required. And it will be the same with the MRA 4 (of which about 6 will enter service).
Sorry guys, but I do not see many prime task operations being carried out over Iraq and Afghanistan, only "add on", for which the aircraft was never designed and tested.
Can anyone tell me what Hot weather trials were carried out on the AAR system?
DV
Last edited by Distant Voice; 5th Apr 2007 at 15:44. Reason: Additional Info
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: S England
Age: 54
Posts: 320
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And when you consider the cost of each unit it becomes an obscenely expensive mess.
I've taken the advice of the many on this thread and done some research
£3.8 billion for what appears to now be 8 platforms. Greater than £400 million per platform. And it's now knocking on for a decade late (and will be if it arrives in 2009).
I accept that it will be a capable asset, but let's face it, it's main purpose (and the one it was procured for) is to counter a threat that we as a nation don't currently face.
If the MRA4 was available today, it would be employed as the MR2 currently is, ie in the ISTAR role. And to answer Len's point, the MR2 is being used in that role not because it's the best platform, but because it's the only platform! And if it's an ISTAR asset we want, we could spend about
I've taken the advice of the many on this thread and done some research
£3.8 billion for what appears to now be 8 platforms. Greater than £400 million per platform. And it's now knocking on for a decade late (and will be if it arrives in 2009).
I accept that it will be a capable asset, but let's face it, it's main purpose (and the one it was procured for) is to counter a threat that we as a nation don't currently face.
If the MRA4 was available today, it would be employed as the MR2 currently is, ie in the ISTAR role. And to answer Len's point, the MR2 is being used in that role not because it's the best platform, but because it's the only platform! And if it's an ISTAR asset we want, we could spend about
about 2% (yes 2%) of the unit cost per frame of the MRA4
Chicken leg
I tend to agree -re ISTAR. With the formation of DE&S, MoD had the opportunity to move MRA4 into DG ISTAR, along with the likes of UAVs, Sensors and Nav, Air Command & Control, ASTOR. But they didn't, placing it in DG Air Support along with FSTA, A400, C17 etc (and Nimrod, which is a separate IPT, which always struck me as peculiar). To me, that shows the original role has not changed in the eyes of MoD. If ISTAR has become a de facto primary role, I'd allocate responsibility accordingly.
You say 2009 will be a decade. I recall N2000/RMPA/MRA4 originating long before 1999. I read the Cardinal Points Spec for the avionics in 93 and it was old then. Assume you mean a decade LATE!!!
I tend to agree -re ISTAR. With the formation of DE&S, MoD had the opportunity to move MRA4 into DG ISTAR, along with the likes of UAVs, Sensors and Nav, Air Command & Control, ASTOR. But they didn't, placing it in DG Air Support along with FSTA, A400, C17 etc (and Nimrod, which is a separate IPT, which always struck me as peculiar). To me, that shows the original role has not changed in the eyes of MoD. If ISTAR has become a de facto primary role, I'd allocate responsibility accordingly.
You say 2009 will be a decade. I recall N2000/RMPA/MRA4 originating long before 1999. I read the Cardinal Points Spec for the avionics in 93 and it was old then. Assume you mean a decade LATE!!!
£3.8 billion for what appears to now be 8 platforms
it's main purpose
If the MRA4 was available today, it would be employed as the MR2 currently is, ie in the ISTAR role. And to answer Len's point, the MR2 is being used in that role not because it's the best platform, but because it's the only platform! And if it's an ISTAR asset we want, we could spend about
Quote:
about 2% (yes 2%) of the unit cost per frame of the MRA4
Quote:
about 2% (yes 2%) of the unit cost per frame of the MRA4
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
8 aircraft, I thought it was 12 - or are the numbers still shrinking? What sort of ASW fleet is that?
Whilst each individual aircraft may be effective, there is a certain minimum number of aircraft required to provide a sustained on station and area capability. Is that even enough to sustain 2-3 aircraft on station for any period of time more than 200-300 miles from home?
If they are only getting 8, they might as well save their money and get none.
Whilst each individual aircraft may be effective, there is a certain minimum number of aircraft required to provide a sustained on station and area capability. Is that even enough to sustain 2-3 aircraft on station for any period of time more than 200-300 miles from home?
If they are only getting 8, they might as well save their money and get none.
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Bristol Temple Meads
Posts: 869
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
P.R
"How do you know what it's main role is......."
The MRA 4 main roles are those that are specified in my previous post. That is what is being presented to "Joe Public" in order to justify the high cost. Now, stop hidding behind "you don't know" and face reality. If MRA 4 does not fill those main roles as prime tasks, the press will have afield day.
DV
"How do you know what it's main role is......."
The MRA 4 main roles are those that are specified in my previous post. That is what is being presented to "Joe Public" in order to justify the high cost. Now, stop hidding behind "you don't know" and face reality. If MRA 4 does not fill those main roles as prime tasks, the press will have afield day.
DV
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Just down the road from ISK
Posts: 328
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
D1ck Heeed
Originally Posted by Distant Voice
Can anyone tell me what Hot weather trials were carried out on the AAR system?
Even if no hot weather trials were conducted - The system has been proven over the years operating out of hot places like Ascension Island (Falklands 1982), Oman (Gulf War 1 & 2) and Basrah.
Besides, I don't see the relevance of your comment as it's about -40 degrees C at the altitudes where we tank!!
(wanted to be cynical but my nature won't allow it!!)
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Bristol Temple Meads
Posts: 869
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Vage Rot
Yes I am well aware that the temp at the altitudes you refuel at is around -40 degrees C, but that is not the critical factor. Temp differential is the thing we look at on trials ie, +50 (on ground) to -40 (in flight). Temp differentional affects pipe structure, joints and seals.
I would not call the ferry flights for the Falklands and Gulf 1 & 2 controlled flight trials.
DV
Yes I am well aware that the temp at the altitudes you refuel at is around -40 degrees C, but that is not the critical factor. Temp differential is the thing we look at on trials ie, +50 (on ground) to -40 (in flight). Temp differentional affects pipe structure, joints and seals.
I would not call the ferry flights for the Falklands and Gulf 1 & 2 controlled flight trials.
DV
Last edited by Distant Voice; 5th Apr 2007 at 18:57. Reason: Spelling
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Forres, Moray, Scotland
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hoots,
Very well put, and spot on, unfortunately I don't appear to have your capability to suffer fools lightly so.......
Chicken Leg,
You clearly have no idea about the threats this country is facing. If you believe there is no place for a multi role, maritime patrol/ISTAR aircraft you need to change your name from Chicken Leg to Bird Brain!
And as to the comment about a threat we don't face......why then, do we still operate AWACS and why have we purchased all those lovely Typhoons? Last time I looked out of the window I couldn't see the thousands of Soviet bombers and fighters overwhelming our air defences.....maybe they've got some sort of stealthski technology that makes them hard to spot. Or maybe you don't like Nimrods/Kinloss, either way you're an ill informed idiot, so do us a favour and sod off!
Very well put, and spot on, unfortunately I don't appear to have your capability to suffer fools lightly so.......
Chicken Leg,
You clearly have no idea about the threats this country is facing. If you believe there is no place for a multi role, maritime patrol/ISTAR aircraft you need to change your name from Chicken Leg to Bird Brain!
And as to the comment about a threat we don't face......why then, do we still operate AWACS and why have we purchased all those lovely Typhoons? Last time I looked out of the window I couldn't see the thousands of Soviet bombers and fighters overwhelming our air defences.....maybe they've got some sort of stealthski technology that makes them hard to spot. Or maybe you don't like Nimrods/Kinloss, either way you're an ill informed idiot, so do us a favour and sod off!