Nimrod MRA.4
Join Date: May 2006
Location: 2 m South of Radstock VRP
Posts: 2,042
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Arguably, this concern over names could be similar to the AVRO Lancaster. The 1st protype (BT308) started life as the Manchester MK 3 but received its new name shortly after first flight. Perhaps that was a good move considering the notoriety that the Manch had acquired through persistent engine failures.
Correct me if I'm wrong, though; wouldn't making the Nimrod 4 a new Type require a whole new start to the certification process?
Correct me if I'm wrong, though; wouldn't making the Nimrod 4 a new Type require a whole new start to the certification process?
Quote:
Correct me if I'm wrong, though; wouldn't making the Nimrod 4 a new Type require a whole new start to the certification process?
We're starting to get to the reasons for the obfuscation now aren't we ?
BGG
Correct me if I'm wrong, though; wouldn't making the Nimrod 4 a new Type require a whole new start to the certification process?
We're starting to get to the reasons for the obfuscation now aren't we ?
BGG
I'm not sure how this is obfuscation. It is a simple configuration control requirement. But I refer you to the same DGAS2 and CDP. Configuration Control can be ignored. When advising the PAC in 1998 that, indeed, his aircraft lacked configuration control (and, hence, airworthiness) CDP omitted to tell them he agreed with this omission.
When one's leaders have such an ethos, is it any wonder programmes run into problems? It is why the successful ones, of that era, were the ones that completely ignored DGAS2 and CDP.
TOFO
Yes, absolutely right about maritime operators.
But I contend I'm right about 99.99%. The MRA4 programme had many dependencies and pre-requisites, like most such programmes. When a new technology or equipment is to be used by more than one concurrent programme, one is generally designated the "lead". That is, they make all the mistakes from which others are meant to learn.
There was one such pre-requisite on MRA4 whose ISD was 2001/2. Therefore, by definition, MRA4 could not be earlier. In turn, that other programme had a pre-requiste whose ISD was 2001, which was what set their date. If any one of them was late, there was a domino effect. In the two other cases I mention, the first was 5 months early, the second more or less on time, which meant they didn't keep MRA4 waiting.
The question then becomes - Who was the 0.01% who didn't know 2000 came before 2002?
With a wee nod to the fact that you may have exaggerated just a tad, ditto a large percentage of the maritime operators.
But I contend I'm right about 99.99%. The MRA4 programme had many dependencies and pre-requisites, like most such programmes. When a new technology or equipment is to be used by more than one concurrent programme, one is generally designated the "lead". That is, they make all the mistakes from which others are meant to learn.
There was one such pre-requisite on MRA4 whose ISD was 2001/2. Therefore, by definition, MRA4 could not be earlier. In turn, that other programme had a pre-requiste whose ISD was 2001, which was what set their date. If any one of them was late, there was a domino effect. In the two other cases I mention, the first was 5 months early, the second more or less on time, which meant they didn't keep MRA4 waiting.
The question then becomes - Who was the 0.01% who didn't know 2000 came before 2002?
TOFO,
With a wee nod to the fact that you may have exaggerated just a tad, ditto a large percentage of the maritime operators.
In this instance, I disagree with you and support Tuc. I do not think his 99.99% figure is an exaggeration at all. Moreover, when you say a 'large percentage' of maritime operators thought the programme would turn to rats – this implies that a small percentage of maritime operators thought the programme would run on time! As a maritime operator on the FL back in 96, I cannot remember anyone who thought we would have the MRA4 in service on the originally planned timescale. The vast majority of my fellow operators thought the MRA4 was the best choice for a replacement but in service on time? You had to be kidding…
So I would go with a figure of 99.99% of maritime operators would have bet their life savings on the fact that the Nimrod MRA4 (2000) would have had at least one delay from the totally unrealistic ISD initially dreamt up.
However, if you know of any individual or collective maritime group that believed in the original fairy story – please give us a clue as to where they worked. You don’t have to name names but it would be nice to have a chuckle over a beer tonight thinking about their naivety!
With a wee nod to the fact that you may have exaggerated just a tad, ditto a large percentage of the maritime operators.
In this instance, I disagree with you and support Tuc. I do not think his 99.99% figure is an exaggeration at all. Moreover, when you say a 'large percentage' of maritime operators thought the programme would turn to rats – this implies that a small percentage of maritime operators thought the programme would run on time! As a maritime operator on the FL back in 96, I cannot remember anyone who thought we would have the MRA4 in service on the originally planned timescale. The vast majority of my fellow operators thought the MRA4 was the best choice for a replacement but in service on time? You had to be kidding…
So I would go with a figure of 99.99% of maritime operators would have bet their life savings on the fact that the Nimrod MRA4 (2000) would have had at least one delay from the totally unrealistic ISD initially dreamt up.
However, if you know of any individual or collective maritime group that believed in the original fairy story – please give us a clue as to where they worked. You don’t have to name names but it would be nice to have a chuckle over a beer tonight thinking about their naivety!
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: St Annes
Age: 68
Posts: 638
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In fairness to those of us who have left, and are, therefore, really only killing time/drinking beer/rearranging sandbags while the Grim Reaper gets round to noticing us...it's a bit difficult to see something that LOOKS so much like an MR1/MR2 and accept it is stonkingly different.
However, the engines are different, the wing is different, most of the fuselage is different, and the sensors are different... so actually it is that rare beast, an aircraft that looks the same but is pretty much, ummm, different.
I note that it's now Thales Searchwater something or other rather than Marconi. Presumably this is even better than colour searchwater was, in which case it's bloody good and probably better than anyone else has got. I hope the ESM, also new, makes rather better use of ICT than the abortion with the 8" floppies that some complete a**e accepted into service for the MR2 (sorry, this is a personal bugbear..the crap programming on that P.O.S. offended me mightily). I wish all wet men all the luck in the world meantime, how are the tomatoes doing?
My house is about 800 yards along the 26 approach these days, I look forward to seeing Norman overhead in the near future. (I may, just for fun, phone ops up to complain about the noise, of course).
However, the engines are different, the wing is different, most of the fuselage is different, and the sensors are different... so actually it is that rare beast, an aircraft that looks the same but is pretty much, ummm, different.
I note that it's now Thales Searchwater something or other rather than Marconi. Presumably this is even better than colour searchwater was, in which case it's bloody good and probably better than anyone else has got. I hope the ESM, also new, makes rather better use of ICT than the abortion with the 8" floppies that some complete a**e accepted into service for the MR2 (sorry, this is a personal bugbear..the crap programming on that P.O.S. offended me mightily). I wish all wet men all the luck in the world meantime, how are the tomatoes doing?
My house is about 800 yards along the 26 approach these days, I look forward to seeing Norman overhead in the near future. (I may, just for fun, phone ops up to complain about the noise, of course).
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Europe
Posts: 414
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re calling the MRA4 a Nimrod...........................it doesn't matter, it is just a name!
If they did change the name then what? Would you claim they were trying to hide something or complain about the waste of money in renaming all the publications, etc?
The fact that the MRA4 looks like a bit like the MR2 is a good enough reason to call it a Nimrod to me. No one seems to have an issue with the Hercules C4, C5 (C130J) or Harrier GR5, 7, 9, T10 and even the Spitfire ended up all most entirely changed with different wings, engine, canopy, etc.
The name won't affect its safety, if anything it will remind us of what has happened and help ensure our fleet strives for the highest standards of airworthiness possible.
If they did change the name then what? Would you claim they were trying to hide something or complain about the waste of money in renaming all the publications, etc?
The fact that the MRA4 looks like a bit like the MR2 is a good enough reason to call it a Nimrod to me. No one seems to have an issue with the Hercules C4, C5 (C130J) or Harrier GR5, 7, 9, T10 and even the Spitfire ended up all most entirely changed with different wings, engine, canopy, etc.
The name won't affect its safety, if anything it will remind us of what has happened and help ensure our fleet strives for the highest standards of airworthiness possible.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: The Shed
Posts: 195
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pssst Dave JB,
That'll be the old 26 app, buddy, they moved the r/w last year, (or was it the year before, time flies when you're enjoying a capability holiday!)
Re Swater XP - yes
Re Ygate 2010 - yes also, my boy
Ref the previous ICT issues, you got me worried there, I thought you were talking about the famous wet man excused shorts
- phew, fortunately old enough to remember the fun times re-progging Loral.
Keep up the good work, Dave and best of luck with the Curriculum for New Excellence or whatever educashun is called these days.
My house is about 800 yards along the 26 approach these days
Re Swater XP - yes
Re Ygate 2010 - yes also, my boy
Ref the previous ICT issues, you got me worried there, I thought you were talking about the famous wet man excused shorts
- phew, fortunately old enough to remember the fun times re-progging Loral.Keep up the good work, Dave and best of luck with the Curriculum for New Excellence or whatever educashun is called these days.
This programme is far removed from Shack Mk1 and Mk3. Please, don't cloud the issues.
Now look at the Nimrod; again we wanted a new MPA but along came the Treasury who basically said NO, but you can have an upgrade. Yes there were probably much better and no doubt cheaper and quicker ways we could have replaced the aircraft, but as far as the Treasury is concerned, particularly using the 'same' airframe it is just an upgrade. So now we have a much more expensive and severely cut back (and delayed) programme that MoD get major stick for from just about everyone whilst the Treasury just sits back in the corner and laughs.
Now start looking at a lot of the other major MoD projects (and not just RAF) - see how many other projects to replace equipment with modern, reliable kit have been forced to go along the upgrade path by the dead hand of the Treasury laying down the rules.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
The Future Carrier thread has just taken on a shift as well:
Which suggests that there could be a much greater risk of attrition of MPA than was the case in the 70s and 80s.
Back the question:
How much resilience will a 'force' of 9 aircraft give. This is a combat aircraft in a potentially hostile environment and not a combat support aircraft that will operate in friendly airspace.
I think it would be easier to replace a Frigate than a Nimrod.
The admiral said the Russian Navy needs carrier battle groups.
"If, for example, we do not have an aircraft carrier in the North, the battle capability of the Northern Fleet's guided-missile submarines will be reduced to zero after Day One because the submarines' principal adversary is aviation," he said.
"If, for example, we do not have an aircraft carrier in the North, the battle capability of the Northern Fleet's guided-missile submarines will be reduced to zero after Day One because the submarines' principal adversary is aviation," he said.
Back the question:
How much resilience will a 'force' of 9 aircraft give. This is a combat aircraft in a potentially hostile environment and not a combat support aircraft that will operate in friendly airspace.
I think it would be easier to replace a Frigate than a Nimrod.
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: London
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Replace a Nimrod? No problem.
Britsh Leyland Aerospace has blacksmiths on staff with most of the handicraft skills needed to build additional Comet fuselages.
Britsh Leyland Aerospace has blacksmiths on staff with most of the handicraft skills needed to build additional Comet fuselages.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
Hedgeporker, that is the problem, it is and it isn't. It is based on reuse of a major component. There is only so long that you could keep a few airframes in storage and produce another one.
A new warship is simply ordered off the drawings, either existing drawings or new ones. You can't rustle up one-off airframes in the same way.
A new warship is simply ordered off the drawings, either existing drawings or new ones. You can't rustle up one-off airframes in the same way.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Europe
Posts: 414
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PN not so sure of your Warship example is that simple.
I agree that it is very difficult to restart aircraft production. AFAIK the aviation industry does a line and once finished it is very difficult and costly to restart, especially if the factory closes! I understand some of the reasons, but with computer controlled machinery why hasn't the industry tried to overcome this? Would universal jigs be possible?
Recently saw the program where they built a Wellington in 24 hours, maybe BAE could ask them for some tips
I agree that it is very difficult to restart aircraft production. AFAIK the aviation industry does a line and once finished it is very difficult and costly to restart, especially if the factory closes! I understand some of the reasons, but with computer controlled machinery why hasn't the industry tried to overcome this? Would universal jigs be possible?
Recently saw the program where they built a Wellington in 24 hours, maybe BAE could ask them for some tips
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: London
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hedgeporker, that is the problem, it is and it isn't. It is based on reuse of a major component. There is only so long that you could keep a few airframes in storage and produce another one.
A new warship is simply ordered off the drawings, either existing drawings or new ones. You can't rustle up one-off airframes in the same way.
A new warship is simply ordered off the drawings, either existing drawings or new ones. You can't rustle up one-off airframes in the same way.
Join Date: May 2006
Location: 2 m South of Radstock VRP
Posts: 2,042
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Ivan Rogov
Recently saw the program where they built a Wellington in 24 hours, maybe BAE could ask them for some tips
Join Date: May 2006
Location: 2 m South of Radstock VRP
Posts: 2,042
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Shackman
When Coastal/MoD/Air Ministry decided they needed a replacement for the Shack in the mid to late 50's, despite a number of much better (read modern) airframes offered the Treasury stepped in and vetoed any 'new' aircraft.
Could you remind us what those "better" airframes offered in '55 were?
