Nimrod Information
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 91
Likes: 0
From: North West
Just to clarify, the A in MRA 4 is to emphasise the attack capability of the ac using Harpoon AGM 84 in a maritime role. It was, and is, designed as a maritime platform. That the present MR2 platform undertakes other duties at present will have to will need to be addressed after the ac enters service. To add capability during development is called requirements creep and cannot be undertaken without incurring cost and time delays.
I was once told by a crew chief that ASW stood for Any Sort of Warfare, I guess he was right.
I was once told by a crew chief that ASW stood for Any Sort of Warfare, I guess he was right.
Thread Starter
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 869
Likes: 0
From: Bristol Temple Meads
Hi! Ase Engineer. Better late than never. I believe A/C should be made safe; and can fly. Safe means (DEF STAN 00-56) " Risk has been demonstated to have been reduceed to a level that is broadly acceptable, or tolerable and ALARP, and relevant prescriptive safety requirements have been met, for a system in a given application in a given application in a given operating environment"
And ALARP means; "A risk is ALARP when it has been demonstrated that the cost of any further risk reduction, where cost includes the loss of defence capability as well as finacial or other resource costs, is grossly disproportionate to the benefit obtained from that risk reduction."
But DEF STAN 00-56 also implies that a/c can be flown that are "unacceptable". Because MOD's definition of "unacceptable" is " A level of risk that is tolerable only under exception circumstances" And that, they will claim is where we are today in Iraq and Afghanistan.
But, at the end of the day, I would say to Tapper's Dad and the families of the lost ones, forget the BOI; believe in the inquest. There the truth will be revealed. BOI report will be just part of the evidence.
DV
And ALARP means; "A risk is ALARP when it has been demonstrated that the cost of any further risk reduction, where cost includes the loss of defence capability as well as finacial or other resource costs, is grossly disproportionate to the benefit obtained from that risk reduction."
But DEF STAN 00-56 also implies that a/c can be flown that are "unacceptable". Because MOD's definition of "unacceptable" is " A level of risk that is tolerable only under exception circumstances" And that, they will claim is where we are today in Iraq and Afghanistan.
But, at the end of the day, I would say to Tapper's Dad and the families of the lost ones, forget the BOI; believe in the inquest. There the truth will be revealed. BOI report will be just part of the evidence.
DV
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 542
Likes: 0
From: On the outside looking in
DV,
The problem then comes when "exceptional circumstances" become the norm. The norm is then perpetuated and the management forget about the level of risk because everyone is now used to it.
Strapping yourself to the side of an Apache to go get your mate is "exceptional", continuing AAR in a leaky fleet isn't.
sw
The problem then comes when "exceptional circumstances" become the norm. The norm is then perpetuated and the management forget about the level of risk because everyone is now used to it.
Strapping yourself to the side of an Apache to go get your mate is "exceptional", continuing AAR in a leaky fleet isn't.
sw
Thread Starter
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 869
Likes: 0
From: Bristol Temple Meads
Betty; No, I did not ask about the "A". I know what the "A" stands for. I suppose the point that I am making is that we are funding a £4 billion program to develove a MRA a/c when the MRA is no longer the prime task. Everyone believes that the tasks in Iraq and Afgahnistan will get easier with the MRA 4, but the truth is the a/c does not have the kit for those type of tasks. We are producing an a/c for the "cold war", that has long gone. And, please please, do not come back with a "It could return" statement. Because that I will know that you are out of touch with the political situation, which drives all these events.
DV
DV
Thread Starter
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 869
Likes: 0
From: Bristol Temple Meads
Safeware: I agree with you. I do not support the definitions in the DEF STAN, I am just quoting them. I believe "unacceptable" means what any normal person would take it to mean. I also believe that that is the way the inquest will view it.
DV
DV
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,667
Likes: 0
From: wilts
DV. But DEF STAN 00-56 also implies that a/c can be flown that are "unacceptable". Because MOD's definition of "unacceptable" is " A level of risk that is tolerable only under exception circumstances"
Exceptional circumstances including continued Ops in Asia and an AAR course at Kinloss days after the crash. I am very experienced at Senior Officers taking risk calls on my behalf. Those AAR sorties were carried out on orders by AOC 2 Gp. It is called military risk, and it is used as a handy management tool.
Nimrod could be made very much safer by protecting the bomb bay and fuel tanks. There is no excuse.
Exceptional circumstances including continued Ops in Asia and an AAR course at Kinloss days after the crash. I am very experienced at Senior Officers taking risk calls on my behalf. Those AAR sorties were carried out on orders by AOC 2 Gp. It is called military risk, and it is used as a handy management tool.
Nimrod could be made very much safer by protecting the bomb bay and fuel tanks. There is no excuse.
Last edited by nigegilb; 19th June 2007 at 22:20.
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 91
Likes: 0
From: North West
DV
Whilst your point is accurate accept this, the MR2 carries out whatever tasks it carries out and is overdue for replacement. If you don’t replace it with a similar platform capable of development, what do you do – keep it flying?
Now we can start talking about UAV’s and other platforms for Afghanistan and the like, however, we are an island nation that relies on sea trade for our survival, not to have a maritime capability is short sighted and irresponsible.
Whether the MRA4 is the right platform, is another debate.
Time for my cocoa again
Whilst your point is accurate accept this, the MR2 carries out whatever tasks it carries out and is overdue for replacement. If you don’t replace it with a similar platform capable of development, what do you do – keep it flying?
Now we can start talking about UAV’s and other platforms for Afghanistan and the like, however, we are an island nation that relies on sea trade for our survival, not to have a maritime capability is short sighted and irresponsible.
Whether the MRA4 is the right platform, is another debate.
Time for my cocoa again
Joined: Jun 2000
Posts: 99
Likes: 0
From: Scotland
DV
You are obviously unaware of the types of missions the current MR2 is undertaking in both Iraq and Afghanistan. The only thing the current aircraft is missing is a weapons system although I am sure the aircraft could have been retro fitted for 500lb SDB if required.
As for the MRA4 it will not lack that as it is already setup with the required weapons databus to allow it (subject to clearances etc) to carry ANY of the RAFs current weapons systems. It will very easily be able to carry out attacks in the theatres you refer to, if we are still there... You obviously haven't heard of the term "Sensor to shooter", MRA4 will take out the need for the link to the shooter as it would be able to loiter for nearly twice as long as the current aircraft and have the ability to self designate and take out any targets detected. OK the EO needs to be upgraded to latest spec as it is still the old spec and is taking so long to come into service. Given upgraded sensors and weapons
I personally think it would be the platform of choice for any commander involved in either of the theatres you mention...PROVIDED IT GETS THE FUNDING AND SUPPORT!!!
Forget an expensive armed UAV which has its own limitations even compared to the current MR2 and just how 3 will ever be enough god only knows. The current need is for multi-role platforms that can deliver a long loiter ISTAR and attack capability.
You are obviously unaware of the types of missions the current MR2 is undertaking in both Iraq and Afghanistan. The only thing the current aircraft is missing is a weapons system although I am sure the aircraft could have been retro fitted for 500lb SDB if required.
As for the MRA4 it will not lack that as it is already setup with the required weapons databus to allow it (subject to clearances etc) to carry ANY of the RAFs current weapons systems. It will very easily be able to carry out attacks in the theatres you refer to, if we are still there... You obviously haven't heard of the term "Sensor to shooter", MRA4 will take out the need for the link to the shooter as it would be able to loiter for nearly twice as long as the current aircraft and have the ability to self designate and take out any targets detected. OK the EO needs to be upgraded to latest spec as it is still the old spec and is taking so long to come into service. Given upgraded sensors and weapons
I personally think it would be the platform of choice for any commander involved in either of the theatres you mention...PROVIDED IT GETS THE FUNDING AND SUPPORT!!!
Forget an expensive armed UAV which has its own limitations even compared to the current MR2 and just how 3 will ever be enough god only knows. The current need is for multi-role platforms that can deliver a long loiter ISTAR and attack capability.
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 85
Likes: 0
From: N Scotland
Any here actually KNOW if you could put effective fire supressant technology into a hugh drafty space like the nimrod bomb bay and what it would take? Intuitively it sounds totally impractical to me, though it would be interesting to know how it could be done (if at all).
Just to add to my comments about the ability of the bay to leak vast amounts of air air with the doors shut, approx one third of the cabin pressurization air is exhausted into the bay as well, and it still will not pressurize.
I'm convinced that it cannot be done with an empty bay, even with modern gasses, but thats only my opinion. I'm content and have nothing to prove because I have no argument against the status quo. Those who want to challenge the status quo should contact Graviner and get some qualified information. Otherwise I believe we will simply go around in circles.
The MRA4 has 2 independant bomb bays, so the problem is more than halved. Again, it would only be a guess as to how much extinguishant would be needed. I hope it can be achieved and, if so, I hope it will be given consideration.
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 39
Likes: 0
From: somewhere, under the rainbow
JF asks
"Any here actually KNOW if you could put effective fire supressant technology into a hugh drafty space like the nimrod bomb bay and what it would take?"
Well, yes. It is. Much larger volumes such as the insides of flour mills (i.e. buildings) are routinely protected against dust explosions by such systems.
Typically will detect an explosion shortly after ignition occurs.It will then discharge an agent to extinguish the explosion flame, typically using a detonator to release Halon or inert powder although pressurised water can also be used. You would need several detectors to ensure that you could see the explosion starting and lots of extinguishers to get the extinguishant to the right places in the right time.
"Any here actually KNOW if you could put effective fire supressant technology into a hugh drafty space like the nimrod bomb bay and what it would take?"
Well, yes. It is. Much larger volumes such as the insides of flour mills (i.e. buildings) are routinely protected against dust explosions by such systems.
Typically will detect an explosion shortly after ignition occurs.It will then discharge an agent to extinguish the explosion flame, typically using a detonator to release Halon or inert powder although pressurised water can also be used. You would need several detectors to ensure that you could see the explosion starting and lots of extinguishers to get the extinguishant to the right places in the right time.
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 85
Likes: 0
From: N Scotland
But, are these building moving at 200 kts, or more, having all that extinguishant sucked out at the same time?
"Lots". Thats not a qualified answer. I'm sure that a fire extinguisher company in the avaition field will have computer models that will take into account the volume, the atmospheric pressure, the class of fire and the unavoidable rate of leakage of the extinguishant from the container, etc.
and lots of extinguishers to get the extinguishant to the right places in the right time.
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 492
Likes: 0
From: Back in Geordie Land
I regret that this thread is simply going round in circles.
On the one hand we have safeware, who I am assured is a highly qualified chap, who can read to us 'chapter and verse' the various levels or degrees of risk and goodness what else. We have AC Ovee who claims that the Nimrod bomb-bay cannot have a fire suppressant system because it is too big and leaks a lot and then when he has things explained to him, questions whether or not grain silos fly through the air at 200 kts!
The fact remains, whoever you listen too, that we lost an aircraft and its crew, to an accident which almost certainly could have been avoided or prevented.
Since then, there have been a number of almost identical incidents, involving Nimrod aircraft where the crews are very lucky to be with us still.
Now, how much more evidence do you guys want? How many more aircraft do we need to lose, before you stand up and say 'just a minute, this is NOT acceptable'??
Nimrod 4 (who cares if its MR/MRA/Mk ??) is going to enter service with the same inherited problems as the MR2, FACT.
The AAR system is going to be the same as the MR2, FACT.
It will NOT have any form of bomb bay fire fighting kit , FACT
Do you not, any of you, given the facts that we have lost an aircarft and crew, and come very close to losing several more, feel the time has not come when those of us who fly these machines, should simply say NO ??
Would you be happy to fly in them?
Let me leave you with one final question........... The next time you get on board one of Mr Boeings finest with your wife and kids, if the captain came down the back and said to you all something along the lines of 'its ok, the aircraft is as safe as it needs to be' (as Mr Torpey quoted the other night) how many of you would get off? Quite a few I would suggest.
This is a problem of money, simple as that, and I have little doubt that the coroners verdict will crucify the RAF. It will show the families and the nation that this governments lack of investment in the Armed Forces is costing lives uneccesarily.
Just off to the Far East for a few days, in an aircraft that is as safe as it is possible to make!
The Winco
On the one hand we have safeware, who I am assured is a highly qualified chap, who can read to us 'chapter and verse' the various levels or degrees of risk and goodness what else. We have AC Ovee who claims that the Nimrod bomb-bay cannot have a fire suppressant system because it is too big and leaks a lot and then when he has things explained to him, questions whether or not grain silos fly through the air at 200 kts!
The fact remains, whoever you listen too, that we lost an aircraft and its crew, to an accident which almost certainly could have been avoided or prevented.
Since then, there have been a number of almost identical incidents, involving Nimrod aircraft where the crews are very lucky to be with us still.
Now, how much more evidence do you guys want? How many more aircraft do we need to lose, before you stand up and say 'just a minute, this is NOT acceptable'??
Nimrod 4 (who cares if its MR/MRA/Mk ??) is going to enter service with the same inherited problems as the MR2, FACT.
The AAR system is going to be the same as the MR2, FACT.
It will NOT have any form of bomb bay fire fighting kit , FACT
Do you not, any of you, given the facts that we have lost an aircarft and crew, and come very close to losing several more, feel the time has not come when those of us who fly these machines, should simply say NO ??
Would you be happy to fly in them?
Let me leave you with one final question........... The next time you get on board one of Mr Boeings finest with your wife and kids, if the captain came down the back and said to you all something along the lines of 'its ok, the aircraft is as safe as it needs to be' (as Mr Torpey quoted the other night) how many of you would get off? Quite a few I would suggest.
This is a problem of money, simple as that, and I have little doubt that the coroners verdict will crucify the RAF. It will show the families and the nation that this governments lack of investment in the Armed Forces is costing lives uneccesarily.
Just off to the Far East for a few days, in an aircraft that is as safe as it is possible to make!
The Winco
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
Joined: Dec 2002
Aviation Qualifications: Military (Retired)
Posts: 16,700
Likes: 54
From: Lincolnshire
Just some thoughts on sealing a bomb bay.
If it was not planned to seal the bomb bay then it would be reasonable to make them ventable.
The bomb bay is outside the pressure hull. The aircraft was designed to begin a patrol at 20000 feet and descend rapidly to low level to prosecute a contact. Once low it might open its bomb doors or not and then return to a higher altitude. Bomb bay pressurisation or even a sealed bomb bay would have been an unnecessary techical addition.
If, OTOH, it was desired to create an enclosed space with minimal venting and the ability to contain an extinguishant gas then I am sure doors without vents and with better seals could be fitted or retro fitted. They could be designed in such a way not to be pressurised but to maintain atmospheric pressure. As they have the aforementioned hot air bleeds they would obviously need vents. It follows that it would then need vent closures and well as bleed closures.
Extra additional weight and complication but it does not seem an impossible task. It would of course also need inlet vents to prevent underpressurisation in descent and exhaust vents to prevent overpressure in the climb.
If it was not planned to seal the bomb bay then it would be reasonable to make them ventable.
The bomb bay is outside the pressure hull. The aircraft was designed to begin a patrol at 20000 feet and descend rapidly to low level to prosecute a contact. Once low it might open its bomb doors or not and then return to a higher altitude. Bomb bay pressurisation or even a sealed bomb bay would have been an unnecessary techical addition.
If, OTOH, it was desired to create an enclosed space with minimal venting and the ability to contain an extinguishant gas then I am sure doors without vents and with better seals could be fitted or retro fitted. They could be designed in such a way not to be pressurised but to maintain atmospheric pressure. As they have the aforementioned hot air bleeds they would obviously need vents. It follows that it would then need vent closures and well as bleed closures.
Extra additional weight and complication but it does not seem an impossible task. It would of course also need inlet vents to prevent underpressurisation in descent and exhaust vents to prevent overpressure in the climb.
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,667
Likes: 0
From: wilts
Amongst all the bluster a consensus of what actually happened appears to be emerging.
Following/during AAR a large fuel migration occurred, leading to a serious fire in the bomb bay. This fire/heating may have damaged fuel seals/tank 7 leading to a fire/ fuel tank explosion in the wing root area.
Undisputed on this thread are continuing concerns about the safety of AAR, the lack of fire protection in the bomb bay and in the fuel tanks.
CAS, Torpy, is content with the safety of Nimrod. How so? Is it because he doesn't fly in it?
I have it on very good authority that fire extinguishant could be provided in MRA4 and that fire/explosion protection could easily be provided in the fuel tanks.
It isn't, because the likes of CAS and AOC 2Gp and the Defence Ministers have put a price on the cost of a life. Bloody disgraceful.
Following/during AAR a large fuel migration occurred, leading to a serious fire in the bomb bay. This fire/heating may have damaged fuel seals/tank 7 leading to a fire/ fuel tank explosion in the wing root area.
Undisputed on this thread are continuing concerns about the safety of AAR, the lack of fire protection in the bomb bay and in the fuel tanks.
CAS, Torpy, is content with the safety of Nimrod. How so? Is it because he doesn't fly in it?
I have it on very good authority that fire extinguishant could be provided in MRA4 and that fire/explosion protection could easily be provided in the fuel tanks.
It isn't, because the likes of CAS and AOC 2Gp and the Defence Ministers have put a price on the cost of a life. Bloody disgraceful.
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 459
Likes: 0
From: Bridgwater Somerset
Winco
Couldn't agree with you more.
"The fact remains, whoever you listen too, that we lost an aircraft and its crew, to an accident which almost certainly could have been avoided or prevented".
nigegib
Couldn't agree with you more either.
"Undisputed on this thread are continuing concerns about the safety of AAR, the lack of fire protection in the bomb bay and in the fuel tanks".
AC Ovee
"I'm sure that a fire extinguisher company in the avaition field will have computer models that will take into account the volume, the atmospheric pressure, the class of fire and the unavoidable rate of leakage of the extinguishant from the container, etc".
I agree
As we all appear to be singing from the same Hymn Book perhaps the sound of our voices will be heared in the corridors of Whitehall.
Its time they woke up and smelt the Aviation Fuel.
Couldn't agree with you more.
"The fact remains, whoever you listen too, that we lost an aircraft and its crew, to an accident which almost certainly could have been avoided or prevented".
nigegib
Couldn't agree with you more either.
"Undisputed on this thread are continuing concerns about the safety of AAR, the lack of fire protection in the bomb bay and in the fuel tanks".
AC Ovee
"I'm sure that a fire extinguisher company in the avaition field will have computer models that will take into account the volume, the atmospheric pressure, the class of fire and the unavoidable rate of leakage of the extinguishant from the container, etc".
I agree
As we all appear to be singing from the same Hymn Book perhaps the sound of our voices will be heared in the corridors of Whitehall.
Its time they woke up and smelt the Aviation Fuel.
Last edited by Tappers Dad; 20th June 2007 at 08:49.
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 459
Likes: 0
From: Bridgwater Somerset
Just what is going on at Kinloss?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/...st/6767259.stm
Nimrod and helicopter's near miss
The Nimrod crew were practising overshooting the runway
A Nimrod aircraft and a helicopter came within 200ft of colliding at RAF Kinloss, it has emerged.
An official report into the incident last October gave it a category A rating - meaning there was a serious risk of collision.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/...st/6767259.stm
Nimrod and helicopter's near miss
The Nimrod crew were practising overshooting the runway
A Nimrod aircraft and a helicopter came within 200ft of colliding at RAF Kinloss, it has emerged.
An official report into the incident last October gave it a category A rating - meaning there was a serious risk of collision.