Nimrod MRA.4
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Bridgwater Somerset
Posts: 459
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is not just thread drift it is a complete take over of what was a serious topic. Or perhaps it has been bought about by the lack of a/c to fly in and lack of any news as to when or if the MRA4 will ever see service.
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: 45 yards from a tropical beach
Posts: 1,103
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes, TD, you are right. However, the contributors are all old Nimrod Mates who are trying to keep our spirits up whilst we await the verdict. We all hope that our unique, uber capable and beloved Nimrod will continue to provide sterling service and go on to become the longest serving aircraft in the history of the RAF.
Not a military aviator, but judging by how long the MR4.A has been in development, it seems they might end up being flown directly to various aviation museums from BAe as a showcase for how not to spend taxpayers money! 
Point of order Neptunus Rex, and apologies to TD et al for the continued thread drift and banter....
Back a couple of pages (post 592) Party Animal, in defence of comments made about how the Nimrod is nothing more than a Comet and not as good as the P8 (and also used to seperate it from the MR2 and the associated baggage etc etc) stated
then surely any claim for longest serving aircraft in the RAF, operational service or not, ended when the MR2 (or the MR1) was taken out of Service. The clock is restarted from 'zero' when the MRA4 comes into Service thus requiring it to stay in Service until approximately 2070 to beat the mighty Canberra
Of course, come 2018 the '100 year experiment' will come to an end, the RAF will disband and become part of the Royal Flying Corps again (also incorporating the RNAS (formerly the FAA) and AAC) thus making it impossible for the Nimrod MRA4 to steal the Canberra crown!
Back a couple of pages (post 592) Party Animal, in defence of comments made about how the Nimrod is nothing more than a Comet and not as good as the P8 (and also used to seperate it from the MR2 and the associated baggage etc etc) stated
Regarding the Nimrod MRA4 - which is a brand new aircraft
Of course, come 2018 the '100 year experiment' will come to an end, the RAF will disband and become part of the Royal Flying Corps again (also incorporating the RNAS (formerly the FAA) and AAC) thus making it impossible for the Nimrod MRA4 to steal the Canberra crown!
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
Ah, but remember the R1 is still a goer so we still have continuity.
And before we jump back with the new aircraft bit:
The fuselages are originals, only the wings are new. This is not unique. Victor 2s had their wings refurbished. All Dominie wings were changed in the late 80s. One set was removed and refurb, the next aircraft had its wings removed and the refurbed set fitted etc etc. And the original wings for the BBMF Spitfires are at the RAF Museum at Stafford.
And before we jump back with the new aircraft bit:
The fuselages are originals, only the wings are new. This is not unique. Victor 2s had their wings refurbished. All Dominie wings were changed in the late 80s. One set was removed and refurb, the next aircraft had its wings removed and the refurbed set fitted etc etc. And the original wings for the BBMF Spitfires are at the RAF Museum at Stafford.
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Scotland
Posts: 217
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The fuselage what I have seen has been mostly been re-skinned and zero lifed , many will agree the keel side of the old airframe needed much attention which it has been given. As an Engineer this aircraft will do what it required and so much more. We are getting a great aircraft and we know that , its only the people who wish bad things upon the project who are shouting our downfall.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
O aye, the doomsayers, we're all doomed, we're all doomed ............
I just wish they went for rather more than 9 airframes as there is much more utility in Nimrod than Sentry.
I just wish they went for rather more than 9 airframes as there is much more utility in Nimrod than Sentry.
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Bristol Temple Meads
Posts: 869
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The official line is as follows;
"The MRA4 is a new aircraft which has mostly been designed, from first principles, with modern design features and safety standards for all the main systems and components. Where MR2 design has been retained, mostly the fuselage structure, bomb bay doors and tail assembly; the components have been completely refurbished and re-lifed to meet the expected life of the MRA4.
A number of components have been retained from the MR2 aicraft that have been decommissioned. The Nimrod PT is currently undertaking work to assess which components from this pool could be retained for use on the MRA4 fleet."
DV
"The MRA4 is a new aircraft which has mostly been designed, from first principles, with modern design features and safety standards for all the main systems and components. Where MR2 design has been retained, mostly the fuselage structure, bomb bay doors and tail assembly; the components have been completely refurbished and re-lifed to meet the expected life of the MRA4.
A number of components have been retained from the MR2 aicraft that have been decommissioned. The Nimrod PT is currently undertaking work to assess which components from this pool could be retained for use on the MRA4 fleet."
DV
So please, stop thinking in terms of this being a modified MR2, this is a different aircraft !
But in a programmatic sense (and that is what the Users' concern is over, and the thrust of this thread, because the programme is very late) it is a modification; albeit a honking great modification.
The only fact to consider is that the MRA4 programme had an MoD dependency - the MR2 was a deliverable to BAeS as Government Furnished Equipment on Embodiment Loan terms (as opposed to Ordinary or Contract Loan) which the MRA4 programme required to be at a certain build standard at induction, and demonstrably airworthy with a complete audit trail. MoD therefore did not meet the requirements of MoD. Due to this dependency, and the requirement to be constantly satisfied it could be met, the MRA4 and MR2 offices must share blame.
That dependency was an obvious, and notified, programme risk. In fact, it would have been Number One with a bullet. That risk wasn't mitigated or managed well, which was immediately obvious with the announcement of the notional 2000 ISD. That single statement illustrated to 99.99% of MoD(PE) at the time that the programme was going to turn to rats.
I seem to remember a quote on pprune (maybe even earlier in this very thread) from someone who had been close to the project (difar69?) that 94% of the MRA4 was new.
Now, assuming for a second that the figure of 94% is correct, I don't that if that 94% was in terms of:
Numbers of components
Weight/mass
Cost
etc, etc.....
However, in my opinion a big mistake was keeping the name Nimrod. By doing so many people will merely see it as an upgrade of an exisiting aircraft - rather than a totally new beast.
I suppose the MRA4 looks too much like the original Nimrod to have gotten away with a name change, but for me, a new name means a new start.....
Now, assuming for a second that the figure of 94% is correct, I don't that if that 94% was in terms of:
Numbers of components
Weight/mass
Cost
etc, etc.....
However, in my opinion a big mistake was keeping the name Nimrod. By doing so many people will merely see it as an upgrade of an exisiting aircraft - rather than a totally new beast.
I suppose the MRA4 looks too much like the original Nimrod to have gotten away with a name change, but for me, a new name means a new start.....
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 1,515
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry Tuc, you can play on words, use MoD's obfuscations, I know that's not your way by the way, but this is not a modification.
That single statement illustrated to 99.99% of MoD(PE) at the time that the programme was going to turn to rats.
Yes, Him
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: West Sussex, UK
Posts: 2,689
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Off Thread A Minute
New names are not always a good idea. Nortrop produced a single engine version of the F-5 with uprated systems and called it the F-5G, next in series after the er... F-5F.
"Its an F-5" said prospective customers, "Its old."
So the company had a think and a fanfare and called it the F-20 Tigershark and rolled out the new paintjob, er... jet.
"Its not much for a supposedly new jet said the prospective customers' beancounters, "Looks like our F-5s..."
Northrop went away to build stuff you can't see and therefore can't moan about.
Back to the Multi-Purpose, All-Weather Galley.
New names are not always a good idea. Nortrop produced a single engine version of the F-5 with uprated systems and called it the F-5G, next in series after the er... F-5F.
"Its an F-5" said prospective customers, "Its old."
So the company had a think and a fanfare and called it the F-20 Tigershark and rolled out the new paintjob, er... jet.
"Its not much for a supposedly new jet said the prospective customers' beancounters, "Looks like our F-5s..."
Northrop went away to build stuff you can't see and therefore can't moan about.
Back to the Multi-Purpose, All-Weather Galley.
Just how much 'new wine' ended up in the 'old skins' of the MR2? Is there much of the donor aircraft remaining?
I hope it ends up being a better value for money deal than the VC10K4 programme. Take, for example, ZD230. This was the prototype Super VC10 which first flew in 1964 as G-ASGA, entered service with BOAC in 1965 and was retired in 1980. Then rotted quietly in open storage at RAF Abingdon until 1991 when some brave souls ferried it to Filton for 'refurbishment' - or rather, massive reconstruction.
I collected it from Filton on 15 Dec 1994 and it was very nice indeed. But by the end of 2005, together with others, it had been scrapped at St Athan....
I hope it ends up being a better value for money deal than the VC10K4 programme. Take, for example, ZD230. This was the prototype Super VC10 which first flew in 1964 as G-ASGA, entered service with BOAC in 1965 and was retired in 1980. Then rotted quietly in open storage at RAF Abingdon until 1991 when some brave souls ferried it to Filton for 'refurbishment' - or rather, massive reconstruction.
I collected it from Filton on 15 Dec 1994 and it was very nice indeed. But by the end of 2005, together with others, it had been scrapped at St Athan....
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Bridgwater Somerset
Posts: 459
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote 'The MRA4 is essentially a re-engineered, re-built aircraft that is 93 per cent new'.
Nimrod MRA4 - BAE Systems
As for the name Nimrod MRA4 , it will always be viewed by the general public as a Nimrod no matter what the mark and will be linked to the crash.
Nimrod MRA4 - BAE Systems
As for the name Nimrod MRA4 , it will always be viewed by the general public as a Nimrod no matter what the mark and will be linked to the crash.
BGG
The key phrases I used are “Dependency” and “Government Furnished Equipment”.
At the time (mid-90s), MoD/CDP’s policy was to avoid major dependencies and GFE. So strictly was this applied that Support Authorities for existing equipment that was to be fed in as GFE (e.g. Nimrod MR2) were allowed to withdraw support for the programme entirely; and work on the assumption they would get a new build aircraft, and not necessarily of the same type.
I am not suggesting the MR2 office did this formally, but they demonstrably did not satisfy the requirements of the MRA4 programme. However, and equally demonstrably, the same Director General in MoD(PE) – DGAS2 – ruled in 1997 that it was acceptable for the Service Support Authority (not the front line user) to completely withdraw on another concurrent programme under his leadership; with the PE staffs required to assume responsibility for Engineering/Support/Provisioning Authority tasks. (Which rather assumed they had the skills; which luckily and almost uniquely they had, despite this being a pre-requisite to being promoted the most junior project management grade – therein lies one of MoD’s great problems these days). That is, they had to resurrect the build standard and make the aircraft airworthy, before it could be inducted for conversion. This is why you are allowed to commit about 15% of funding up front to risk reduction, which very few projects do. The reason - the above lack of experience and background means most don’t understand they have such a major risk in the first place, so don’t ask for the advance funding.
Had MRA4 realised they had to do this, I believe the new aircraft would be in service by now; and it would probably be a different platform because the rules effectively militated against using MR2. In short, by following simple, extant regulations, the RAF would have had a new aircraft, of whatever type, some years ago. Haddon-Cave reiterated the same point, as applied to the narrower field of airworthiness.
The key phrases I used are “Dependency” and “Government Furnished Equipment”.
At the time (mid-90s), MoD/CDP’s policy was to avoid major dependencies and GFE. So strictly was this applied that Support Authorities for existing equipment that was to be fed in as GFE (e.g. Nimrod MR2) were allowed to withdraw support for the programme entirely; and work on the assumption they would get a new build aircraft, and not necessarily of the same type.
I am not suggesting the MR2 office did this formally, but they demonstrably did not satisfy the requirements of the MRA4 programme. However, and equally demonstrably, the same Director General in MoD(PE) – DGAS2 – ruled in 1997 that it was acceptable for the Service Support Authority (not the front line user) to completely withdraw on another concurrent programme under his leadership; with the PE staffs required to assume responsibility for Engineering/Support/Provisioning Authority tasks. (Which rather assumed they had the skills; which luckily and almost uniquely they had, despite this being a pre-requisite to being promoted the most junior project management grade – therein lies one of MoD’s great problems these days). That is, they had to resurrect the build standard and make the aircraft airworthy, before it could be inducted for conversion. This is why you are allowed to commit about 15% of funding up front to risk reduction, which very few projects do. The reason - the above lack of experience and background means most don’t understand they have such a major risk in the first place, so don’t ask for the advance funding.
Had MRA4 realised they had to do this, I believe the new aircraft would be in service by now; and it would probably be a different platform because the rules effectively militated against using MR2. In short, by following simple, extant regulations, the RAF would have had a new aircraft, of whatever type, some years ago. Haddon-Cave reiterated the same point, as applied to the narrower field of airworthiness.