What are *immediately* available, cheap, and role-dedicated alternatives to Nimrod?
TWA 800 was a 747, not a 737.
I don't know of any 737s exploding in mid air although China Airlines did have an 800 burn out on the ground not so long ago
I don't know of any 737s exploding in mid air although China Airlines did have an 800 burn out on the ground not so long ago
http://www.ntsb.gov/Pressrel/2006/060629.htm
Since the TWA 800 accident (...in 1996...), there have been two additional airliner fuel tank explosions. On March 3, 2001, a center wing tank explosion destroyed a Thai Airways B-737 at the terminal in Bangkok, Thailand.
Currently under investigation is a left wing fuel tank explosion on a Transmile Airlines B-727 in Bangalore, India on May 4, 2006. At the time of the explosion the airplane was waiting to be towed and only the auxiliary power unit was running. The exact source of the ignition energy for the fuel/vapor mixture has not been determined, but initial examination of the structural damage to the left wing indicates that most likely the wing would have failed had the airplane been in flight at the time of the explosion. Such a structural failure in flight would not be survivable.
Currently under investigation is a left wing fuel tank explosion on a Transmile Airlines B-727 in Bangalore, India on May 4, 2006. At the time of the explosion the airplane was waiting to be towed and only the auxiliary power unit was running. The exact source of the ignition energy for the fuel/vapor mixture has not been determined, but initial examination of the structural damage to the left wing indicates that most likely the wing would have failed had the airplane been in flight at the time of the explosion. Such a structural failure in flight would not be survivable.
The Safety Board concluded that dealing just with ignition sources was not sufficient to ensure safe flight and that fuel tank flammability must be addressed.
On December 13, 1996, the NTSB issued two safety recommendations aimed at reducing flammable fuel/air mixtures on airliners. One suggested short-term measures in airplane operations that could immediately reduce the levels of these flammable mixtures (A-96-175), while the other called for design changes that would necessarily take years to implement (A-96-174).
Both recommendations were placed on the Board's Most Wanted List of Safety Improvements.
The Safety Board is disappointed that the FAA has refused to require air carriers to adopt short-term actions that could be quickly implemented to lessen fuel tank vulnerability. In November 2005, the NTSB classified this recommendation "Closed-Unacceptable Action."
On November 22, 2005, the FAA issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) titled "Reduction of Fuel Tank Flammability in Transport Category Airplanes" which proposes new rules that should greatly reduce the chances of a catastrophic fuel-tank explosion by requiring a flammability reduction system be installed and used in transport category airplanes.
The NTSB strongly supports adoption of this NPRM for both existing and new airplanes, and has urged the fastest possible implementation.
The NPRM, however, will not apply this requirement to airliner wing fuel tanks, nor to cargo aircraft. The Safety Board believes this system should be required for cargo as well as passenger aircraft, and that wing fuel tanks should also be covered. As the recent Bangalore incident illustrates, the potential for ignition of fuel/air vapors can exist in wing tanks as well as center wing tanks.
The Safety Board is concerned that movement on the NPRM has been so slow and that closure of the comment period has been repeatedly postponed, finally closing on May 8, 2006. Airliner fuel tanks are as flammable today as they were ten years ago.
On December 13, 1996, the NTSB issued two safety recommendations aimed at reducing flammable fuel/air mixtures on airliners. One suggested short-term measures in airplane operations that could immediately reduce the levels of these flammable mixtures (A-96-175), while the other called for design changes that would necessarily take years to implement (A-96-174).
Both recommendations were placed on the Board's Most Wanted List of Safety Improvements.
The Safety Board is disappointed that the FAA has refused to require air carriers to adopt short-term actions that could be quickly implemented to lessen fuel tank vulnerability. In November 2005, the NTSB classified this recommendation "Closed-Unacceptable Action."
On November 22, 2005, the FAA issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) titled "Reduction of Fuel Tank Flammability in Transport Category Airplanes" which proposes new rules that should greatly reduce the chances of a catastrophic fuel-tank explosion by requiring a flammability reduction system be installed and used in transport category airplanes.
The NTSB strongly supports adoption of this NPRM for both existing and new airplanes, and has urged the fastest possible implementation.
The NPRM, however, will not apply this requirement to airliner wing fuel tanks, nor to cargo aircraft. The Safety Board believes this system should be required for cargo as well as passenger aircraft, and that wing fuel tanks should also be covered. As the recent Bangalore incident illustrates, the potential for ignition of fuel/air vapors can exist in wing tanks as well as center wing tanks.
The Safety Board is concerned that movement on the NPRM has been so slow and that closure of the comment period has been repeatedly postponed, finally closing on May 8, 2006. Airliner fuel tanks are as flammable today as they were ten years ago.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
TOFO,
I know that the force was 38, then an additional 8 ordered for AFMED but like you, I suspect the tail of the order was diverted to AEW3.
I know that the force was 38, then an additional 8 ordered for AFMED but like you, I suspect the tail of the order was diverted to AEW3.
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
TWA 800 was a 747, not a 737.
I don't know of any 737s exploding in mid air although China Airlines did have an 800 burn out on the ground not so long ago
I don't know of any 737s exploding in mid air although China Airlines did have an 800 burn out on the ground not so long ago
B737s are not known to have been lost in mid-air explosions for certain but in the mid-eighties a B737 broke up in mid air over the Philippines with small pieces of wreckage widely scattered. No definite cause was ever established. Apart from the Thai B737 explosion on the ground, another B737 exploded during taxi at Manila airport.
All the Boeing models share similar design philosophy on centre wing tanks. The air conditioning packs hang beneath the tank and the hot bleed air supply ducts heat up the tank while the aircraft are on the ground. Fuel pumps are mounted within the tanks, with their 115v ac electrical power supply wiring passing through conduits fitted inside the tanks. This is in contrast to many other manufacturers' practice of mounting fuel pumps on the tank bulkheads, with all 115v ac wiring outside the tank.
Although quite a bit longer to make my point slightly clearer, this post is also necessarily brief. The fact is, all aircraft designers have to make difficult compromise judgements in the face of space and weight constraints. (Indeed, so does the FAA; whereas the NTSB need not address the cost of any recommendations they make, the FAA are required to assess the economic impact of any Airworthiness Directives they may issue.) The Nimrods are no more un-airworthy than any other large multi-engined jet and we need such aircraft to provide for the proper defence of our country.
Last edited by Blacksheep; 25th May 2008 at 19:51.
Might as well bring this thread back on topic and then kill it...
There are two roles to consider:
The role the Nimrod aircraft (MR1, MR2 and MRA4) is designed for...ASW
As part of an overall maritime recce package, including sea surveillance and support for search and rescue operations.
Still required for SAR support, which thanks to the comms fit required for the surface roles, allows it the role of rebroadcasting centre, suitable for use over the rough hilly terrain of Afghanistan which plays havoc with radio comms.
(Wasn't going to mention it, but the fact that it does is on the BBC Fact File)
It can act as a large radio system that can pick up messages from troops on the ground and relay them for them. It is also able to scan the ground and send real time video back to commanders at the bases.
Until the next Piper Alpha type incident or other disaster at sea. That Comms fit again, plus it can drop rescue equipment to allow survivors to keep going until ship rescue gets there if that disaster is in the middle of the Atlantic. Sub's still need the practice with MP aircraft as well.
Correct, and if you want quick response, the Nimrod is the fastest at the minute. Plus if you can operate from a secure base away from where your in-country airfields are subject to IDF attack and your fuel supply convoys get taken out by roadside bombs, so much the better.
Whilst you lot are having fun playing "who can find the cheapest Nimrod replacement using the most superficial argument", could I point you back to the point made by Beags, myself and a few others.
There are two roles to consider:
The role the Nimrod aircraft (MR1, MR2 and MRA4) is designed for...ASW
And the role it is now spending it's life doing...overland support.
The reason the aircraft is doing the latter role is because it can and it is needed.
(Wasn't going to mention it, but the fact that it does is on the BBC Fact File)
It can act as a large radio system that can pick up messages from troops on the ground and relay them for them. It is also able to scan the ground and send real time video back to commanders at the bases.
The reason it is not doing much of the former role is because it is not needed to.
Until the next Piper Alpha type incident or other disaster at sea. That Comms fit again, plus it can drop rescue equipment to allow survivors to keep going until ship rescue gets there if that disaster is in the middle of the Atlantic. Sub's still need the practice with MP aircraft as well.
There are very few (none in my view) platforms that can provide the capability of quick response, tactically flexible, long range maritime patrol, other than a large aircraft.
Correct, and if you want quick response, the Nimrod is the fastest at the minute. Plus if you can operate from a secure base away from where your in-country airfields are subject to IDF attack and your fuel supply convoys get taken out by roadside bombs, so much the better.
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: In Hyperspace...
Posts: 395
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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)
As has been pointed out, Nimrod is being used in its current role simply because it's what we've got, not because it's the best choice. If you want an aircraft to go hunt subs, then true, a large platform with lots of payload / Mission Crew space and endurance is what is needed. It is NOT what we need right now for current ops. Plus, Reaper has all the Mission Crew space you could possibly need!
The days of manned recce, particularly with large expensive aircraft, are numbered IMHO.
Last edited by TheInquisitor; 25th May 2008 at 23:09.
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: at the end of the bar
Posts: 484
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bearing in mind the details of the current Nimrod overland role are rightly kept quiet, albeit that a careful reading of the known facts gives some enlightenment, how many green jobs can you carry in the back of a DA42?
Or do you rely on remote viewing?
Or do you rely on remote viewing?
You forgot GBU12.
True, though according to most public sources, the 39 Sqn UAV’s don’t use either at the minute.
As has been pointed out, Nimrod is being used in its current role simply because it's what we've got, not because it's the best choice. If you want an aircraft to go hunt subs, then true, a large platform with lots of payload / Mission Crew space and endurance is what is needed. It is NOT what we need right now for current ops. Plus, Reaper has all the Mission Crew space you could possibly need!
If you require an aircraft to carry a shedload of radios to be used for airborne rebroadcast in places where ground wave comms is Sh!t and line of sight is poor (i.e. it's hot and dusty, and has mountains), you need something a bit bigger than a Reaper or GH. Would be a good idea to fit the MRA4 with GBU-12's though, you could use it to take out the crashed UCAV’s.
The days of manned recce, particularly with large expensive aircraft, are numbered IMHO.
Somebody once said that about manned fighters and bombers, he was wrong too. I could name a number of operational reason's where a manned system scores over a UCAV, some of them due to the laws of physics. but I'm not going to do it on here.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: bored
Posts: 532
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was trying for brevity as this is a thread about Nimrods.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: due south
Posts: 1,332
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cyclone733 mentioned that the makers of the engines of the Diamond DA42 MPP are having a few financial issues.
It could be more serious than that, Thielert, the engine manufacturers, filed for bankruptcy last month.
It could be more serious than that, Thielert, the engine manufacturers, filed for bankruptcy last month.
MAINJAFAD
SAR - Good point, well made. Piper Alpha is not the best example though; the Nimrod role was comms support and co-ordination (and a great job it did too!). However, its absence would in no way have been a show stopper, the rescue would have continued, albeit perhaps not so well organised, and the outcome would have been the same.
A better example is the Fastnet incident, where the duty SAR was scrambled to find a yacht and was the first asset to discover the true size of the tradegy, discovering broken yacht after broken yacht.
Problem you have using SAR as a supporting argument is that the coverage has been slowly watered down over the last decade or so anyway (perhaps not from a PR point of view, but if you're close to the Nimrod force, you will know what I mean). As PN points out, you are going down to 12 MRA4 (well that's the plan anyway), somebody is going to have their thinking caps on if that number of aircraft is going to be able to hold continuous SAR, whilst fulfilling its operational commitments.
SAR - Good point, well made. Piper Alpha is not the best example though; the Nimrod role was comms support and co-ordination (and a great job it did too!). However, its absence would in no way have been a show stopper, the rescue would have continued, albeit perhaps not so well organised, and the outcome would have been the same.
A better example is the Fastnet incident, where the duty SAR was scrambled to find a yacht and was the first asset to discover the true size of the tradegy, discovering broken yacht after broken yacht.
Problem you have using SAR as a supporting argument is that the coverage has been slowly watered down over the last decade or so anyway (perhaps not from a PR point of view, but if you're close to the Nimrod force, you will know what I mean). As PN points out, you are going down to 12 MRA4 (well that's the plan anyway), somebody is going to have their thinking caps on if that number of aircraft is going to be able to hold continuous SAR, whilst fulfilling its operational commitments.
I was just using Piper Alpha as an example, as I've seen the Transcripts of the operation and the role of Rescue 01 (the Nimrod) is plain to see. As you have stated the aircraft did an excellant job was comms support and co-ordination over the sea, which was built into the design from the start and was not just used for SAR, it could be used for attack (the 12 Sqn Buccaneers film shows it in action) and has also been used assist other operations (Read Vulcan 607), the comment about SAR was in there to say that just because the sub's are not there to play with, there is still a requirement for a LPMP platform within the UK armed forces.
What is it being used for now.
Comms support and co-ordination over land, not in the origanal design as it would have been a MSAM and Fighter magnet, though in the current enviroment...almost perfect as long as you can keep of range of any MANPADS threat, which it can.
Pretty good C3I platform,I would say, better than a EC-130 with the other goodies that it can bring along, like a big bomb bay.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
Comms support was not built into the Nimrod from the outset. Indeed the original comms fit was quite basic with no secure voice. The marine band radios were fitted in the late 70s.
In the Fastnet case, a friend of mine was Captain and they dropped both Lindholme sets and 3 pairs of liferafts. Coincidentally 18Gp had just questioned the need to have liferafts as the existing kit was due for renewal.
Finally in the case of comms relay, the Nimrod provided a reactive capability although a friend of mine was contracted to provide comms relay to the west of Bagdad; they used a tethered balloon at 12-15k.
In the Fastnet case, a friend of mine was Captain and they dropped both Lindholme sets and 3 pairs of liferafts. Coincidentally 18Gp had just questioned the need to have liferafts as the existing kit was due for renewal.
Finally in the case of comms relay, the Nimrod provided a reactive capability although a friend of mine was contracted to provide comms relay to the west of Bagdad; they used a tethered balloon at 12-15k.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: bored
Posts: 532
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Further up the thread somebody asked about mission times in a DA42MPP - well they just did a 13 hour flight:
http://www.diamond-air.at/news_detail+M5d078849cf6.html
http://www.diamond-air.at/news_detail+M5d078849cf6.html
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Temporarily missing from the Joe Louis Arena
Posts: 2,131
Received 27 Likes
on
16 Posts
During the 13 hour flight in the DA42 were the crew able to leave their seats and stretch their legs or were they strapped in the whole time and reduced to peeing into little bags when they needed to go?
Now I'm not aircrew admittedly but were I and were I required to be at my best at all times during a 13 hour mission on an aircraft the ability to get up occasionally would be a welcome one.
Having flown on a kipper fleet aircraft with my brother up front doing the pilot thing I can confirm that whilst there isn't masses of room in the back there is enough to allow the crew a chance to stand-up, stretch their legs, grab themselves a coffee (and no doubt a pie too
) and generally keep themselves from getting too uncomfortable and distracted and therefore losing concentration during the long periods of monitoring between the short bursts of activity.
13 hour flights are one thing, 13 hour flights in which the crew are able to respond effectively at all times is quire another.
Now I'm not aircrew admittedly but were I and were I required to be at my best at all times during a 13 hour mission on an aircraft the ability to get up occasionally would be a welcome one.
Having flown on a kipper fleet aircraft with my brother up front doing the pilot thing I can confirm that whilst there isn't masses of room in the back there is enough to allow the crew a chance to stand-up, stretch their legs, grab themselves a coffee (and no doubt a pie too
) and generally keep themselves from getting too uncomfortable and distracted and therefore losing concentration during the long periods of monitoring between the short bursts of activity.13 hour flights are one thing, 13 hour flights in which the crew are able to respond effectively at all times is quire another.
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Between the Sticks
Age: 61
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pontius,
LRMP are not there to find and attack SSBNs, they patrol a long long way away in a place that makes them safe from attack by said aircraft. LRMP can help to defend our own SSBN or they can help to stop somebody sinking our very expensive carriers when we try to "project" UK PLC.
The point has already been made; a large aircraft has the inherent flexibility required to adapt to different roles. It might be over Afghanistan now but where will it be in 5 years time? Can we afford to buy lots of specific types and then throw them away in a few years? If we are on the subject of expensive single-role aircraft then why not discuss Typhoon? Does Terry T have a hidden fleet of high-performance fighters that the Typhoon is ready to engage?
Get away from this "There is no submarine threat" Yes there is, if those people decide to use them! How much will oil cost if Iran decides to use those Kilos of theirs?
As to P8s and Boeing UAVs, take a look at a recent attempt to produce a large multi-purpose system. It was called the P7 and it failed dismally. UAVs for ASW? Try it with such a small FOV; needles in haystacks and then some! We break UAVs when we try to land them in tricky conditions; try flying one at low level whilst dropping sonobuoys and running for MAD. And before you tell me that the P8 will not have MAD that is because it was cut for cost, not because it was not required. That is why we still need manned LRMP.
LRMP are not there to find and attack SSBNs, they patrol a long long way away in a place that makes them safe from attack by said aircraft. LRMP can help to defend our own SSBN or they can help to stop somebody sinking our very expensive carriers when we try to "project" UK PLC.
The point has already been made; a large aircraft has the inherent flexibility required to adapt to different roles. It might be over Afghanistan now but where will it be in 5 years time? Can we afford to buy lots of specific types and then throw them away in a few years? If we are on the subject of expensive single-role aircraft then why not discuss Typhoon? Does Terry T have a hidden fleet of high-performance fighters that the Typhoon is ready to engage?
Get away from this "There is no submarine threat" Yes there is, if those people decide to use them! How much will oil cost if Iran decides to use those Kilos of theirs?
As to P8s and Boeing UAVs, take a look at a recent attempt to produce a large multi-purpose system. It was called the P7 and it failed dismally. UAVs for ASW? Try it with such a small FOV; needles in haystacks and then some! We break UAVs when we try to land them in tricky conditions; try flying one at low level whilst dropping sonobuoys and running for MAD. And before you tell me that the P8 will not have MAD that is because it was cut for cost, not because it was not required. That is why we still need manned LRMP.
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Tullahoma TN
Posts: 482
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What are *immediately* available, cheap, and role-dedicated alternatives to Nimrod?
There aren't any good ASW patforms that are cheap, whether or not they are *immediately* available.
There aren't any good ASW patforms that are cheap, whether or not they are *immediately* available.