What are *immediately* available, cheap, and role-dedicated alternatives to Nimrod?
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Devon, England
Posts: 816
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Typhoon with no legs
Yashin,
Since when did the Typhoon suffer from crap endurance?
The aircraft has really only just come into service, you'll get it when it's ready. I'd like to know where the reference is to that statement about BAe regarding the Typhoon having "No legs". Utter Tosh!
After watching the Typhoon loiter over Salisbury Plain while on CAS training for a long time i suggest you take more interest. It has longer legs than anything else we have to perform that role which is in the same category (Fast Air). And i have never heard any JTAC complaining about the Typhoon performing such training so far. Infact on one occasion a Typhoon pilot complained about the JTAC and asked if he was competent or not!!
Since when did the Typhoon suffer from crap endurance?
The aircraft has really only just come into service, you'll get it when it's ready. I'd like to know where the reference is to that statement about BAe regarding the Typhoon having "No legs". Utter Tosh!
After watching the Typhoon loiter over Salisbury Plain while on CAS training for a long time i suggest you take more interest. It has longer legs than anything else we have to perform that role which is in the same category (Fast Air). And i have never heard any JTAC complaining about the Typhoon performing such training so far. Infact on one occasion a Typhoon pilot complained about the JTAC and asked if he was competent or not!!
Given the amount of time we have been in Iraqistan, and the length of time we are likely to remain there (and I do say this as someone who knows very little about what the MR2 fleet does out there), I am surprised that this hasn't raised its head again.
How many 500 lb or 1000 lb class weapons could an MR2 carry? (Rhetorical - no need for an answer).
Relatively benign air environment.
Endurance.
Capacity.
How many 500 lb or 1000 lb class weapons could an MR2 carry? (Rhetorical - no need for an answer).
Relatively benign air environment.
Endurance.
Capacity.
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Between the Sticks
Age: 61
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The point I am trying to make is the same one that other contributors have made about the Nimrod. There are "immediately available, cheap and role dedicated alternatives" for that theatre. Like any similar ac, strap a weapon load to it and the Typhoon does not have long legs so it needs Tanker support, it is expensive so numbers become a factor. Why not a cheaper ac? It does not have to be super agile or super quick to perform CAS.
Like the Nimrod, the Typhoon was procured for a role which is different now and it is being adapted. That is procurement for you, it takes a chuffing long time and by the time the ac enters service things have moved on. The answer is to buy something with inherent flexibility. So as for the Nimrod I say that cheap, throw away bits of kit are not the answer; the threat and environment may well be different in 5 years and those cheap ac may no longer be suitable. The Nimrod MRA4 has terrific endurance, it has the ability to carry a bomb bay full of guided munitions and it is adaptable.
Endurance, reach and flexibility. Where have I heard those words before?
Like the Nimrod, the Typhoon was procured for a role which is different now and it is being adapted. That is procurement for you, it takes a chuffing long time and by the time the ac enters service things have moved on. The answer is to buy something with inherent flexibility. So as for the Nimrod I say that cheap, throw away bits of kit are not the answer; the threat and environment may well be different in 5 years and those cheap ac may no longer be suitable. The Nimrod MRA4 has terrific endurance, it has the ability to carry a bomb bay full of guided munitions and it is adaptable.
Endurance, reach and flexibility. Where have I heard those words before?
Yashin,
first, the Typhoon had fleixbility designed into it, as I and others have pointed out. From the outset, it was designed to be a multi-role platform. There is, obviously, a major difference between clearing inherent/latent capabilities and introducing them onto the front line and taking an aircraft and adding role capabilities it didn't previously have.
Second, what are the immediately available, cheap and role-dedicated alternatives to Typhoon, please?
first, the Typhoon had fleixbility designed into it, as I and others have pointed out. From the outset, it was designed to be a multi-role platform. There is, obviously, a major difference between clearing inherent/latent capabilities and introducing them onto the front line and taking an aircraft and adding role capabilities it didn't previously have.
Second, what are the immediately available, cheap and role-dedicated alternatives to Typhoon, please?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: bored
Posts: 532
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Don't bother arguing with them MM, some people haven't got a clue 
MadMark!!!
MadMark!!!
Trying to pretend that we are imminently threatened by other nuclear armed countries at the moment is clutching at cold war straws. We are overstretched right now in two theatres and that is where priority lies.
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: UK, sometimes!
Age: 74
Posts: 436
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't think richatom is arguing that ASW is completely irrelevant - but it is a very low priority in MOD budget at the moment. With troops overstretched in current theatres (according to CDS) investing in an expensive ASW Nimrod replacement should be near the bottom of the priority list. What we need right now is helicopters and cheap airborne land surveillance.
Trying to pretend that we are imminently threatened by other nuclear armed countries at the moment is clutching at cold war straws. We are overstretched right now in two theatres and that is where priority lies.
Trying to pretend that we are imminently threatened by other nuclear armed countries at the moment is clutching at cold war straws. We are overstretched right now in two theatres and that is where priority lies.
Also, why do you think that the Nimrod is only designed to be an ASW platform against nuclear armed countries? There are several potentially hostile nations that possess submarine forces right now, let alone any that may appear in the future. And what about the maritime surface forces? Nimrod is not a purely ASW asset, having a major role to play in ASUW against all types of surface maritime units. Add to that the flexibility displayed over the past several years where the MR2 has been involved very successfully in many other operations that it was never designed for, and I'm not just talking about those that make the news. And with the potential to load the bomb-bay with Paveway 4's the Nimrod is a truly flexible multi-role aircraft with a long reach and potential to work autonomously.
All aircraft types and roles have a part to play in the RAF (or RN and Army), whether because they are being utilised right now or as insurance against the future in a rapidly changing world. Think how lucky we were that the Vulcan didn't go out of service just a few months earlier. And without wanting to give WEBF any reason to post in this thread, the SHAR should not have been retired until a suitable replacement was ready, IMHO
MadMark!!!
MadMark
Don't rise to the bait. Cirrusfrance obviously has extensive experience of complex systems D&D and procurement timescales.
May I suggest:
Don't rise to the bait. Cirrusfrance obviously has extensive experience of complex systems D&D and procurement timescales.
May I suggest:
Don't bother arguing with them MM, some people haven't got a clue
MadMark!!!
MadMark!!!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: bored
Posts: 532
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I haven't once suggested that ASW might not have some priority in the future - I completely accept your arguments that it *might* be again important in our lifetimes. But it is certainly low down in priority at the moment. If you read my orginal post, it was orientated towards replacements of Norman in Afghanistan - a role for which it was not ideal. AFAIAC, this thread is still about our greatest priority - ie providing real-time comms relay and video surveillance to troops on the ground. For that we need masses of light aircraft with long loiter times, high res stabilised day and night video, and comms relay, in support of ISTAR ground troops. Indeed, that is what we are likely to need for the forseeable future, given our alliance with USA, and their so far stated plan for unilateral pre-emptive strikes against potentially usurptive countries.
If you want to start another cold war, start another thread.
If you want to start another cold war, start another thread.
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Devon, England
Posts: 816
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I wish our Government would think like this...or for that matter BAe Systems.
Quote: "theres a gap in our capability and it needs to be filled"
Also i never knew the P-8A has a bomb bay... learn something everyday
From Defence News:-
The US Navy has asked Boeing to make good on a four-year-old promise to
accelerate deliveries of P-8A Poseidon long-range maritime patrol and
reconnaissance aircraft, following last December's grounding of around a
quarter of its Lockheed P-3C Orions.
"We're working with the navy right now on a capacity analysis to understand
what the possible rates out of the factory are," says Boeing Integrated
Defense Systems P-8A programme manager Bob Feldmann. "There's a gap in
capability that needs to be filled."
Boeing Commercial Airplanes vice-president P-8A Mo Yahyavi says the
manufacturer believes it can build "18-24 airplanes per year" for the USN
and international customers. The navy has ordered 108 aircraft for
service-entry from 2013, to be delivered at a rate of 13 a year.
Boeing on 9 June achieved the power-on milestone for the first P-8A
development aircraft, which is also the first 737 to be assembled on a
third, ITAR-controlled moving assembly line set up at the company's factory
in Renton, Washington.
In 2004, the P-8A won the USN's multi-mission maritime aircraft contract
based on Boeing's lowest-priced bid, and a promise that the manufacturer
could accelerate the in-service date by up to one year.
Boeing is for the first time attempting to integrate production of a
military airliner derivative with its commercial assembly lines, rather than
roll-out a "green" aircraft for modification. The P-8A combines the fuselage
of the 737-800 with the wing of the longer -900, but its airframe is
strengthened to cope with sustained g-loadings.
"Rather than building a green airplane, flying it someplace, cutting it up
and trying to make it into a military aircraft, our approach is radically
different on this programme," says Feldmann. "We decided to build to the
navy requirements and design-in from the ground up, so that the aircraft is
built with a bomb bay and all the structure, duct work and wiring in it."
The P-8A's bomb bay doors were designed by Boeing IDS in Long Beach,
California, but are manufactured in St Louis and installed by 737
fuselage-supplier Spirit AeroSystems in Wichita, Kansas.
"We've got a complete fuselage here with the bomb bay doors in it," says
Yahyavi. "We're building a fully provisioned military aircraft in the heart
of the Boeing commercial production system."
Assembly of the first test aircraft is expected to take around 90 days,
compared with 10 for a commercial 737, but Boeing expects to reduce this to
45 days for production P-8As. Five development aircraft are being
constructed, two of which will serve as the static- and fatigue-test
articles.
Quote: "theres a gap in our capability and it needs to be filled"
Also i never knew the P-8A has a bomb bay... learn something everyday
From Defence News:-
The US Navy has asked Boeing to make good on a four-year-old promise to
accelerate deliveries of P-8A Poseidon long-range maritime patrol and
reconnaissance aircraft, following last December's grounding of around a
quarter of its Lockheed P-3C Orions.
"We're working with the navy right now on a capacity analysis to understand
what the possible rates out of the factory are," says Boeing Integrated
Defense Systems P-8A programme manager Bob Feldmann. "There's a gap in
capability that needs to be filled."
Boeing Commercial Airplanes vice-president P-8A Mo Yahyavi says the
manufacturer believes it can build "18-24 airplanes per year" for the USN
and international customers. The navy has ordered 108 aircraft for
service-entry from 2013, to be delivered at a rate of 13 a year.
Boeing on 9 June achieved the power-on milestone for the first P-8A
development aircraft, which is also the first 737 to be assembled on a
third, ITAR-controlled moving assembly line set up at the company's factory
in Renton, Washington.
In 2004, the P-8A won the USN's multi-mission maritime aircraft contract
based on Boeing's lowest-priced bid, and a promise that the manufacturer
could accelerate the in-service date by up to one year.
Boeing is for the first time attempting to integrate production of a
military airliner derivative with its commercial assembly lines, rather than
roll-out a "green" aircraft for modification. The P-8A combines the fuselage
of the 737-800 with the wing of the longer -900, but its airframe is
strengthened to cope with sustained g-loadings.
"Rather than building a green airplane, flying it someplace, cutting it up
and trying to make it into a military aircraft, our approach is radically
different on this programme," says Feldmann. "We decided to build to the
navy requirements and design-in from the ground up, so that the aircraft is
built with a bomb bay and all the structure, duct work and wiring in it."
The P-8A's bomb bay doors were designed by Boeing IDS in Long Beach,
California, but are manufactured in St Louis and installed by 737
fuselage-supplier Spirit AeroSystems in Wichita, Kansas.
"We've got a complete fuselage here with the bomb bay doors in it," says
Yahyavi. "We're building a fully provisioned military aircraft in the heart
of the Boeing commercial production system."
Assembly of the first test aircraft is expected to take around 90 days,
compared with 10 for a commercial 737, but Boeing expects to reduce this to
45 days for production P-8As. Five development aircraft are being
constructed, two of which will serve as the static- and fatigue-test
articles.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Lincs
Posts: 453
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But [ASW] is certainly low down in priority at the moment.
If you want to start another cold war, start another thread.
Thankfully, there are people in defence who maintain a wider perspective than others.
Regards,
MM
