Nimrod Information
Hellbound
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Blighty
Posts: 554
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nige, only makes sense if we could trust our lords and masters with an incremental capability declaration programme to match an incremental procurement of essential equipment. Not commenting over whether that is likely or not, but not seen any evidence of it so far! Makes sense to me that it should come as standard, cheaper to put in during build, but also logic in keeping an open mind for over the horizon capability, as suggested by LO.
Let us just hope they get it right....
Let us just hope they get it right....
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: wilts
Posts: 1,667
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SB, the reality is we were the only customer not to have signed up to fuel tank inerting systems for the A400M from the outset. I have absolutely no faith that the MoD were hoping a better, even more expensive DAS/Inerting sytem would be available down the track.
P3 Orion has had fuel tank protection for years. Now the RAF/MoD are pressing for MRA4 to be brought in on a reduced testing program, without basic ac self-protection.
Nothing I have seen in Ainsworth's pathetic answer suggests anything different.
P3 Orion has had fuel tank protection for years. Now the RAF/MoD are pressing for MRA4 to be brought in on a reduced testing program, without basic ac self-protection.
Nothing I have seen in Ainsworth's pathetic answer suggests anything different.
Hellbound
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Blighty
Posts: 554
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Agreed, I am sure there was no conscious effort on their part, but I live in hope that the efforts you and others have put in have focussed some minds on what is important. Can't comment on MRA4, so won't, but will give the A400M team a chance to get it right, especially as the decisions not to do things were made several years ago and we cannot hang the present incumbants over decisions that seem crass with hindsight. The quote in Orac's quote suggests A400M will come with inerting and DAS capability (undefined), my concern remains over how many sets of DAS they are buying to support the aircraft- PR08 will reveal all.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: wilts
Posts: 1,667
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is a more honest answer than the one provided by Bob.
"they will all come fitted for the OBIGGS as this had to be
agreed and paid for now as it was being done as part of the ac construction.
The additional parts to make it work could be bought at a later date.
The cost cutting is getting pretty daft; we are now down to one sim vice 2
because that will save money - the fact that there won't be enough training
time in the sim means that ac will have to be used for training - at a cost
FFS!!
"they will all come fitted for the OBIGGS as this had to be
agreed and paid for now as it was being done as part of the ac construction.
The additional parts to make it work could be bought at a later date.
The cost cutting is getting pretty daft; we are now down to one sim vice 2
because that will save money - the fact that there won't be enough training
time in the sim means that ac will have to be used for training - at a cost
FFS!!
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Bridgwater Somerset
Posts: 459
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Getting back to Nimrod there is a strong rumour that the BOI will release its findings in the next three weeks.
Does the fact that Nimrods in theatre are now using TS-1 aviation fuel.increase the likelihood of leaks or fire given the lower viscosity and a lower flash point of TS-1 than that of Jet A1 or JP8 ??
Does the fact that Nimrods in theatre are now using TS-1 aviation fuel.increase the likelihood of leaks or fire given the lower viscosity and a lower flash point of TS-1 than that of Jet A1 or JP8 ??
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: N/A
Posts: 143
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Are you sure they're being filled with TS-1 at Seeb? I thought TS-1 was more of an ex-soviet, cold-weather type of fuel... low freezing point to cope with those Siberian winters, and low flash point compared to AVTUR. I'd be surprised if that was the main type of fuel supplied at an international airport in a Middle Eastern country.
"In 1988 DoD changed the payload requirement from 172,200 pounds to 167,000 in order to accommodate the addition of a 4-pallet ramp and OBIGGS that added 5,000 pounds additional weight to the [C-17]"
http://www.dau.mil/pubs/arq/94arq/batte.pdf
Not clear how much was the ramp and how much was OBIGGS (sure and you'll find the man down the pub, with his mate O'Boggs) but OBIGGS is not a trivial piece of equipment on a transport-class aircraft. And by the way if it's onboard it needs to be maintained, and it does have a safety aspect because along with the I it generates O, and you don't want extra O leaking all over the place.
So adding the plumbing is probably smart. Then you can figure out whether none, some or all of your fleet need it.
http://www.dau.mil/pubs/arq/94arq/batte.pdf
Not clear how much was the ramp and how much was OBIGGS (sure and you'll find the man down the pub, with his mate O'Boggs) but OBIGGS is not a trivial piece of equipment on a transport-class aircraft. And by the way if it's onboard it needs to be maintained, and it does have a safety aspect because along with the I it generates O, and you don't want extra O leaking all over the place.
So adding the plumbing is probably smart. Then you can figure out whether none, some or all of your fleet need it.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: wilts
Posts: 1,667
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LO, the type of OBIGGS earmarked for A400M is the latest generation constant breathing gas generating system. This protection is much lighter and easier to use than the gen1 nitrogen sytems. Hence the reason for this kind of protection now being fitted as standard to civil airliners. The shere weight and bulkiness had precluded its use until recently. For P3 Orion, USN went for foam. Lightweight, with a small loss of fuel tank capacity and very little maintenance. Foam was also chosen for C130J in a more recent study. Very latest Hercs have switched to latest generation OBIGGS.
Point is they always have some kind of fuel tank protection.
A400M replaces C130K like for like, same role, same job. The case for fuel tank protection has already been made for C130K; it does not need to be made yet again. This stinks of saving money when a safety case has already been made after the loss of an aircraft and crew.
Different in the case of the MRA4. A counter argument to fitting protection to Nimrod might be, in the case of XV230, the amount of aluminium burning negating the explosive protection offered by foam/OBIGGS. I am unconvinced by this argument. XV230 was very close to Kandahar, just as
XV179 was minutes from the safety of a concrete runway. Besides, more fire protection might have prevented a catastrophic fire from developing. There is absolutely no sign of improved fire protection in MRA4, in fact, it has less fire protection than the ac it replaces.
I am at a complete loss to understand why MRA4 has been stripped of it's AAR probe inerting system. I can only figure it is due to financial pressure. The probe will be charged with fuel, regardless of any requirement for AAR capability.
Obviously we have to wait for the BoI. With regard to Flight Deck Armour, if you could guarantee never having to land/take off in vicinity of hostiles, sure, leave it behind, but we live in the real world.
Point is they always have some kind of fuel tank protection.
A400M replaces C130K like for like, same role, same job. The case for fuel tank protection has already been made for C130K; it does not need to be made yet again. This stinks of saving money when a safety case has already been made after the loss of an aircraft and crew.
Different in the case of the MRA4. A counter argument to fitting protection to Nimrod might be, in the case of XV230, the amount of aluminium burning negating the explosive protection offered by foam/OBIGGS. I am unconvinced by this argument. XV230 was very close to Kandahar, just as
XV179 was minutes from the safety of a concrete runway. Besides, more fire protection might have prevented a catastrophic fire from developing. There is absolutely no sign of improved fire protection in MRA4, in fact, it has less fire protection than the ac it replaces.
I am at a complete loss to understand why MRA4 has been stripped of it's AAR probe inerting system. I can only figure it is due to financial pressure. The probe will be charged with fuel, regardless of any requirement for AAR capability.
Obviously we have to wait for the BoI. With regard to Flight Deck Armour, if you could guarantee never having to land/take off in vicinity of hostiles, sure, leave it behind, but we live in the real world.
Last edited by nigegilb; 16th Oct 2007 at 17:50.
RE TS-1 fuel, if the link works there is some info about half way down the page about the use of TS-1 fuel in Afghanistan:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...00-concept.htm
http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...00-concept.htm
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Bridgwater Somerset
Posts: 459
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
These are two questions I should have asked long ago;
Does anyone know the date in 2006 XV230 flew out to the gulf???
Where on the ac is Rib7 ???
PS. Strong rumour the BOI will report in the next 2-3 weeks
Does anyone know the date in 2006 XV230 flew out to the gulf???
Where on the ac is Rib7 ???
PS. Strong rumour the BOI will report in the next 2-3 weeks
Last edited by Tappers Dad; 21st Oct 2007 at 13:36.
Yes DV, it is a simple question. Thankyou for that. Now, if you'd like ot stop treating this like an exam, or a question and answer session, then maybe someone who both knows the answer and is willing to tell TD, may do so.
Till then stop treating this like your own BOI.
Till then stop treating this like your own BOI.
I'd prefer to give TD et al the benefit of the doubt. If they are asking questions that are getting too close for the MoD's comfort - then good. Let's face it - we've seen enough rubbish in BOI reports these last few years. And BOIs don't try to get to the root of the cause. Nor do they have any power to do anything except make toothless recommendations. They are often treated with contempt by MoD senior staffs, and juniors are actively prevented from giving relevant evidence - or such evidence is withheld. All this means lessons aren't learned.
Hear! Hear!
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: N Scotland
Posts: 85
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The date of the aircraft's deployment and all subsequent flights, will probably be in the full BOI report, which TD will read in due course.
Rib 7 is in the wing, outboard of the engines and landing gear, but inboard of the pod tank. It is not associated with Tank 7, just in case the query is trying to establish an assocation based on the number "7"
Rib 7 is in the wing, outboard of the engines and landing gear, but inboard of the pod tank. It is not associated with Tank 7, just in case the query is trying to establish an assocation based on the number "7"
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Bridgwater Somerset
Posts: 459
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AC
I am sure the date of deployment will be in the BOI but that doesn't appear to be coming out until the end of Nov. As for why I was asking about RIB 7, you may soon know!
The date of the aircraft's deployment and all subsequent flights, will probably be in the full BOI report, which TD will read in due course.
Rib 7 is in the wing, outboard of the engines and landing gear, but inboard of the pod tank. It is not associated with Tank 7, just in case the query is trying to establish an assocation based on the number "7"
Rib 7 is in the wing, outboard of the engines and landing gear, but inboard of the pod tank. It is not associated with Tank 7, just in case the query is trying to establish an assocation based on the number "7"
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: cambridge
Posts: 395
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
morning, tappers dad!!
have seen the sky report this morning.
well done you and bloody well done to all those who have helped.
sadly, i know all to well about the process of trying to find out information while grieving, only to find out that again the MoD and it's bloody penny pinching ways have cost lives of our nearest and dearest. the pressure to have the planes working despite the need obvious fact they are working to the max without the necessary bits supplied or servicing done is criminal and unfeasable. the can do attitiude can only go so far, but again it has been forced to go too far. how on earth are the raf supposed to keep their aircrew safe when the pressures are placed on them from the people behind the desks in whitehall. it should have sunk in when XV179 went down that the cost of ten servicemen lives, replacing them, retraining their predecesors, the invaluable loss of experience, repatriation ceremonies, loss of ac, funerals, bad publicity, pensions, BoI, inquests....need i go on..this costs alot more than the necessary repairs or grounding costs of an ac.
you know...it is okay for those top ranking officers...the chain of command...whoever...to turn around and make a stand and say NO! maybe now we've lost 24 special people the next time the risk is evident and the fact that two grieving relatives have been forced to drag their grief and the issues surrounding it into the public domain, might just mean the next aircrew are safe.
keep the faith
have seen the sky report this morning.
well done you and bloody well done to all those who have helped.
sadly, i know all to well about the process of trying to find out information while grieving, only to find out that again the MoD and it's bloody penny pinching ways have cost lives of our nearest and dearest. the pressure to have the planes working despite the need obvious fact they are working to the max without the necessary bits supplied or servicing done is criminal and unfeasable. the can do attitiude can only go so far, but again it has been forced to go too far. how on earth are the raf supposed to keep their aircrew safe when the pressures are placed on them from the people behind the desks in whitehall. it should have sunk in when XV179 went down that the cost of ten servicemen lives, replacing them, retraining their predecesors, the invaluable loss of experience, repatriation ceremonies, loss of ac, funerals, bad publicity, pensions, BoI, inquests....need i go on..this costs alot more than the necessary repairs or grounding costs of an ac.
you know...it is okay for those top ranking officers...the chain of command...whoever...to turn around and make a stand and say NO! maybe now we've lost 24 special people the next time the risk is evident and the fact that two grieving relatives have been forced to drag their grief and the issues surrounding it into the public domain, might just mean the next aircrew are safe.
keep the faith