What are *immediately* available, cheap, and role-dedicated alternatives to Nimrod?
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: St Annes
Age: 68
Posts: 638
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Zeppelins.
Watch Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade - sod just being able to walk round, you get comfy chairs and waiter service! Loiter time - probably days. I'm amazed (amused?) that people consider replacing Nimrod by immediately assuming the replacement should do all the tasks Nimrod can - what's wrong with replacing Nimrod with an effective ASW/ASUW/SAR platform for when the great grandkids of the dire Russian threat FINALLY decides to turn up, and a bunch of smaller, visual/IR surveillance aircraft for all the jobs that norman currently gets joed with despite not really being designed to do?
Nobody, as far as I am aware, sets out to design an overland, battlefield surveillance platform by saying 'the one thing we really need to get right from the off, is a significant ASW capability....'
Watch Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade - sod just being able to walk round, you get comfy chairs and waiter service! Loiter time - probably days. I'm amazed (amused?) that people consider replacing Nimrod by immediately assuming the replacement should do all the tasks Nimrod can - what's wrong with replacing Nimrod with an effective ASW/ASUW/SAR platform for when the great grandkids of the dire Russian threat FINALLY decides to turn up, and a bunch of smaller, visual/IR surveillance aircraft for all the jobs that norman currently gets joed with despite not really being designed to do?
Nobody, as far as I am aware, sets out to design an overland, battlefield surveillance platform by saying 'the one thing we really need to get right from the off, is a significant ASW capability....'
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Belgium
Posts: 254
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So compare the light aircraft to a Reaper - It is slower, doesn't have the ceiling, doesn't have the sensors you really need, doesn't have the connectivity you need, can't stay on task as long, can't deliver weapons and the crew have to be based in theatre (very expensive/bad). Its a no brainer. To be honest it looks like a capability offered by someone who doesn't really know the tasks carried out in theatre and wanting to jump on the band wagon.
Interesting that the army has lost so many UAVs. Maybe they should try using pilots to fly them!!
On the other roles of Nimrod - I have absolutely no idea, although using a 50 year old airframe design doesn't seem the best way ahead.
Interesting that the army has lost so many UAVs. Maybe they should try using pilots to fly them!!
On the other roles of Nimrod - I have absolutely no idea, although using a 50 year old airframe design doesn't seem the best way ahead.
Just a thought, but what about the USN's S-3s. I believe they are being retired next year, but assume some will probably already be available, are probably reasonably cheap and would undoubtedly provide a stop-gap until we can get something else up and running (or when BAe decide to actually stump up the MRA4),
Yes, they aren't new like the P8, but then neither are the P3s! However, the S-3s could easily do everything that the Nimrod can do, either in its original Viking ASW role or in its modified ES-3A Shadow guise with its comms / I&W role. Plus, the S-3 still has an offensive capability - I believe it put a couple of Mavericks into Saddam's yacht in Basrah harbour in the early days of TELIC
Yes, they aren't new like the P8, but then neither are the P3s! However, the S-3s could easily do everything that the Nimrod can do, either in its original Viking ASW role or in its modified ES-3A Shadow guise with its comms / I&W role. Plus, the S-3 still has an offensive capability - I believe it put a couple of Mavericks into Saddam's yacht in Basrah harbour in the early days of TELIC
Guest
Posts: n/a
I thought the Nimrod was the best maratine platform out there, even the yanks wanted some of the new ones. The P3 like the Nimrod is being cut due to age with the US Navy, the Dutch gave theres to the Germans a few years back.
The Atlantique is another alternative but its look ugly and Im sure is just as old as the others.
Dont know what they could use but I suspect as we speak the russinas are sending a few submarines off the waters of the UK just to add a bit of pressure to the Nimrod issue
The Atlantique is another alternative but its look ugly and Im sure is just as old as the others.
Dont know what they could use but I suspect as we speak the russinas are sending a few submarines off the waters of the UK just to add a bit of pressure to the Nimrod issue
richatom, hardly a 'war crime', more correctly wanton vandalism.
In the same vein that other artefacts were reported to have been vandalised by our own 'brave soldiery'.....
Anyway, perhaps the USN thought that the yacht was a Warrior..... or a Blackhawk.....?
In the same vein that other artefacts were reported to have been vandalised by our own 'brave soldiery'.....
Anyway, perhaps the USN thought that the yacht was a Warrior..... or a Blackhawk.....?
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Belgium
Posts: 254
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well obviously Reaper is a more capable platform than light aircraft - it also costs several orders of magnitude more, and is designed for an entirely different role.
I thought the particular role we were discussing was support of troops on the ground in current theatres (as it is part of the Nimrod role)?
Why follow the American example and use a sledgehammer to crack a nut?
And most of all I would rather lose 10 Reapers than 1 manned aircraft.
Plus remember, the Nimrod still has a maritime mission. Hunting Subs was only one of its roles. The fact that it's found a new role post 9-11 shows the reason the RAF was formed in the first place, as in that assets can be used in support of both land and naval operations, and can be chopped and changed to support both as required.
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: In Hyperspace...
Posts: 395
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ISR from light, prop driven aircraft is without doubt the way ahead
As for the £1M aircraft in question, don't look very battleworthly to me
plus can it do over FL 250???
Because in the Stan it would have to.
Thank you Melchett01. Though my picking of the figure was based on seeing Booties in the mountains a while back, and adding some altitude to allow for any nastiness of Terry Taliban with a bit longer poke than an AK or an RPG from hitting any platform in the first place.
Yes Reaper (and Hellfire, if they get around to fitting the beasts) does have a very important role, though Nimrod has the ability to support the troops in a very important way that Reaper cannot (and that’s all I will say on the subject).
Yes Reaper (and Hellfire, if they get around to fitting the beasts) does have a very important role, though Nimrod has the ability to support the troops in a very important way that Reaper cannot (and that’s all I will say on the subject).
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Nomadic
Posts: 1,343
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cunning Artificer
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: The spiritual home of DeHavilland
Age: 76
Posts: 3,127
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Had this been a design flaw in the 737 for instance the SLF of the world would be in uproar. I say scrap the knackered old things now!
We civilian types are dealing with the consequences now under SSFAR 88, but I wouldn't describe public reaction as an "uproar". SLF are for the most part only interested in ever decreasing ticket prices. As taxpayers those self-same SLF are mainly interested in providing you only with the cheapest kit the government can get away with.
DA42 is a great little aircraft, but the engine manufacturer is having a few financial issues according to their website. Not sure I'd want to have to fly it the desert might be a bit too hot.
How about a few cheap Dash 8's?
How about a few cheap Dash 8's?
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
Do we need LRMP? Can we afford LRMP?
From 46 Nimrod 1, down to 38, then 20 odd, then 19 MRA4, then 12 this suggests both answers.
Yes we need LRMP but in far fewer numbers - 2 patrol cycles rather than 5 or 6.
No we can't afford it was we probably need more than 2 patrol cycles.
No matter how good an ASW platform and its technology the remains one indisputable fact. It can only be in one place at one time and whether its target is in the same place is a matter of luck.
12 LRMP is too few to locate, track and destroy number of potential enemy SSBN that might be deployed. It is possibly the wrong platform against an SSK, whose numbers are far fewer, and which might be better hunted with SRMP.
From 46 Nimrod 1, down to 38, then 20 odd, then 19 MRA4, then 12 this suggests both answers.
Yes we need LRMP but in far fewer numbers - 2 patrol cycles rather than 5 or 6.
No we can't afford it was we probably need more than 2 patrol cycles.
No matter how good an ASW platform and its technology the remains one indisputable fact. It can only be in one place at one time and whether its target is in the same place is a matter of luck.
12 LRMP is too few to locate, track and destroy number of potential enemy SSBN that might be deployed. It is possibly the wrong platform against an SSK, whose numbers are far fewer, and which might be better hunted with SRMP.
Cunning Artificer
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: The spiritual home of DeHavilland
Age: 76
Posts: 3,127
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Need 42 Nimrods?
Now that sea levels have fallen and we are no longer an island nation, dependent upon imports for most of our food; and raw materials, we no longer need a navy; nor do we need long range maritime patrol aircraft to provide that navy with intelligence on shipping movements around our shores.
Now that potential enemies are no longer equipped with nuclear submarines able to cut off our supply lines or launch missile attacks, what use is a navy and the maritime patrol aircraft?
Of course we don't need any Nimrods; or am I missing something here?
Now that sea levels have fallen and we are no longer an island nation, dependent upon imports for most of our food; and raw materials, we no longer need a navy; nor do we need long range maritime patrol aircraft to provide that navy with intelligence on shipping movements around our shores.
Now that potential enemies are no longer equipped with nuclear submarines able to cut off our supply lines or launch missile attacks, what use is a navy and the maritime patrol aircraft?
Of course we don't need any Nimrods; or am I missing something here?
Red On, Green On
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Between the woods and the water
Age: 24
Posts: 6,487
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
mileandahalf wrote:
read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irony, and then do twenty press-ups for being a c
ck.
If I wasn't sure, I'd think you were joking here........right?
If you're not kidding, then you are either:
- very, very short of the facts.
or
- just trying to provoke a response.
This is the sort of attitude the put the country firmly in the **** slightly before WWII.
If you're not kidding, then you are either:
- very, very short of the facts.
or
- just trying to provoke a response.
This is the sort of attitude the put the country firmly in the **** slightly before WWII.
ck.
The 737's not escaped entirely from issues, although maybe not as bad as the Comet/Nimrod
http://www.aloha.net/~icarus/index.htm
http://www.aloha.net/~icarus/index.htm
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 81
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
737 Classic had that rudder hardover crash and die problem that has not been solved yet ( at least I don't think it has)
Didn't Northrop Grumman have a plan for a G550 UAV sensor platform - fill it with black boxes and keep the bods on the ground - a massive weight saving!
Didn't Northrop Grumman have a plan for a G550 UAV sensor platform - fill it with black boxes and keep the bods on the ground - a massive weight saving!
MAINJAFAD -
Quite right to think about the where the troops are operating and then the possible threat bands associated with enemy systems being used in the same areas.
In some ways, I can see my reply ref the height of the land might be a little simplistic - possibly even fascetious - but in response to The Inquisitor, it is a very simple answer to his/her question of why a platform needs to get up to FL250. Remember, we can take all the precautions we want eg DAS, TTPs, but I guarantee that the side of a mountain has a PK of 1! And that simple fact is something we should also take into account when looking at platform capability. Can we guarantee that we will always operate in the flat lands of the Helmand desert or might we be called on to provide support to other CF in more mountainous areas?
I have found to my cost on more than one occasion that forgetting the simple stuff can bite you in the arse just as much as forgetting the complicated stuff.
Quite right to think about the where the troops are operating and then the possible threat bands associated with enemy systems being used in the same areas.
In some ways, I can see my reply ref the height of the land might be a little simplistic - possibly even fascetious - but in response to The Inquisitor, it is a very simple answer to his/her question of why a platform needs to get up to FL250. Remember, we can take all the precautions we want eg DAS, TTPs, but I guarantee that the side of a mountain has a PK of 1! And that simple fact is something we should also take into account when looking at platform capability. Can we guarantee that we will always operate in the flat lands of the Helmand desert or might we be called on to provide support to other CF in more mountainous areas?
I have found to my cost on more than one occasion that forgetting the simple stuff can bite you in the arse just as much as forgetting the complicated stuff.
Last edited by Melchett01; 25th May 2008 at 16:35.