Nimrod MRA.4
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Portsmouth
Posts: 37
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Nimrod Capability Gap
A quick dit from the dark blue side of aviation that certainly made me ponder the (hopefully) temporary loss of MPA recently.
Maritime RW squadron doing what they do best, flying at least a thousand miles from the nearest point of land from a moving tin box. One of the new Pilot's is nominated to deliver a SAR planning brief. He mentions that our "top cover" is provided by the MR2 as a long range SAR asset .......... "Are there any questions?" .........
Aircrewman: "Hasn't the Nimrod stopped flying?"
Briefing chap: "Oh yes, it has actually"
Aircrewman: "So what's our top cover on a long range SAREX?"
Briefing chap: "Errrmmm, I'm not quite sure."
Exec: "Unless the new Nimrod is quick, or a Herc crew are optimistically minded . . . . . the liferaft".
Slightly tongue in cheek perhaps, but it certainly did make me think a lot about some of the tasks we do, in light of MR2's withdrawal and MRA4's withdrawal.
It should come as no surprise that there is a great deal of support for the MRA4 from the dark blue fraternity.
Maritime RW squadron doing what they do best, flying at least a thousand miles from the nearest point of land from a moving tin box. One of the new Pilot's is nominated to deliver a SAR planning brief. He mentions that our "top cover" is provided by the MR2 as a long range SAR asset .......... "Are there any questions?" .........
Aircrewman: "Hasn't the Nimrod stopped flying?"
Briefing chap: "Oh yes, it has actually"
Aircrewman: "So what's our top cover on a long range SAREX?"
Briefing chap: "Errrmmm, I'm not quite sure."
Exec: "Unless the new Nimrod is quick, or a Herc crew are optimistically minded . . . . . the liferaft".
Slightly tongue in cheek perhaps, but it certainly did make me think a lot about some of the tasks we do, in light of MR2's withdrawal and MRA4's withdrawal.
It should come as no surprise that there is a great deal of support for the MRA4 from the dark blue fraternity.
I understood the aircraft tried out for the Shackleton replacement ( Nimrod ) included Britannia, VC10 and Comet. The Comet wing allegedly gave the best ride at low level - hence the route taken.
PN, if only it was that simple to build new warships.
Unfortunately, as an example it would be virtually impossible to build new Type 23s as most of the Jigs have gone & many of the equipment suppliers are out of business. A new "Type 23" would probably need re-drawing & fitting with different machinary & sensors; therefore, like the Nimrod MRA4 looks a bit like an MR2, it might look like a T23 but would be a different beast really.
wrt Sandown & Hunt class MCMVs (mine hunters) then they are impossible to replace as the moulds for the GRP hulls were binned a long time ago. etc.
Unfortunately, as an example it would be virtually impossible to build new Type 23s as most of the Jigs have gone & many of the equipment suppliers are out of business. A new "Type 23" would probably need re-drawing & fitting with different machinary & sensors; therefore, like the Nimrod MRA4 looks a bit like an MR2, it might look like a T23 but would be a different beast really.
wrt Sandown & Hunt class MCMVs (mine hunters) then they are impossible to replace as the moulds for the GRP hulls were binned a long time ago. etc.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
andyy, in so far as those warships built on aircraft style production systems you are right. I would guess that they would not necessarily have to be replaced like-with-like whereas you certainly could not afford to buy in a singleton MPA type.
A ship is a ship and is manned continuously by its crew whereas an aircraft is manned by a succession of crews so commonality is essential; that is the difference I was alluding to. They need to ensure a couple of MR2s in storage to provide essential resilience.
PN
A ship is a ship and is manned continuously by its crew whereas an aircraft is manned by a succession of crews so commonality is essential; that is the difference I was alluding to. They need to ensure a couple of MR2s in storage to provide essential resilience.
PN
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: In the Middle
Posts: 39
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Shack Replacement
HS800 to meet OR357 originally with RR Medway engines but reverted to RR Spey. HS800 was a buble fuselage (as Nimrod) based on the Trident. Then a new OR for Maritime was issued that almost exactly matched the Atlantic. Nimrod MR1 (HS801) was a bid put together in 7 days by HS to meet both the new OR and the Breguet price.
They need to ensure a couple of MR2s in storage to provide essential resilience
Presumably, on the basis of this letter:
Defence cuts: Liam Fox's leaked letter in full - Telegraph
The MRA4 is due to be "deleted" as part of the SDR - and presumably Kinloss along with it?
(Not to mention considerable naval assets specifically mentioned!)
Defence cuts: Liam Fox's leaked letter in full - Telegraph
The MRA4 is due to be "deleted" as part of the SDR - and presumably Kinloss along with it?
(Not to mention considerable naval assets specifically mentioned!)
presumably Kinloss along with it?
Don't need no MPAs for ASW, all you need is ...
You don't need no MPAs for ASW, all you need is this ... VIDEO: Mini bonzai bomber kills sub - The DEW Line
Apologies for thread drift
Apologies for thread drift
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Here and there, occasionally at home.
Age: 56
Posts: 146
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MRA4 for the chop?
It's strange how things are interpreted differently by people. I read Dr Fox's comments viz MRA4 as positive. It appeared to me that he was effectively trying to ringfence those capabilities by pointing out that not only are they multi-role, multi-task platforms/units but also the danger of being unable to re-generate the capabilities if we decided we needed them in the future.
I guess one man's pint half empty is another man's pint half full. Hey ho, fed up of waiting to find out if I'm going to make it to my retirement point before redundancy!
I guess one man's pint half empty is another man's pint half full. Hey ho, fed up of waiting to find out if I'm going to make it to my retirement point before redundancy!
Last edited by ShortFatOne; 30th Sep 2010 at 21:13. Reason: finger trouble!
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 1,797
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I preferred the name "Nimrod 2000"
Wyton used to have their kerb stones painted (white) every day, and a Mk9 fire engine would 'paint' it again (black) every night!
RAF Aldergrove is closed. JHC flying station Aldergrove is hanging on in there.
I can foresee RAF Scotland being limited to Leuchars. RNAS Scotland, should it happen will probably hang on to Lossie, although there are more reasons for Kinloss.
Yes; got to agree with that. We had leaders who earned respect, medical centres who would see you when you were sick rather then the following week, and several Leave Warrants a year 
Wyton used to have their kerb stones painted (white) every day, and a Mk9 fire engine would 'paint' it again (black) every night!
RAF Aldergrove is closed. JHC flying station Aldergrove is hanging on in there.
I can foresee RAF Scotland being limited to Leuchars. RNAS Scotland, should it happen will probably hang on to Lossie, although there are more reasons for Kinloss.
the RAF you joined is massively different organisation from the one of today
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: 45 yards from a tropical beach
Posts: 1,103
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The staggering flaw in the "Big Airfield" argument is that not one of them has a Secondary Instrument Runway. You can bang on all you like about "economies of scale" and "cost savings," but there will be tears before bedtime when, for example, RAF Scotland's one remaining airfield goes Black, and 'n' aircraft have to be diverted to another, already over-utilised airfield.
It could end up with half a dozen fast-jet crews banging out, because there are Transport aircraft, Nimrods, Sentries et al with larger numbers on board holding awaiting recovery. The ejectees, probably with some injured, would then have to wait their turn for the depleted SAR response to rescue them all. It simply doesn't bear thinking about.
It could end up with half a dozen fast-jet crews banging out, because there are Transport aircraft, Nimrods, Sentries et al with larger numbers on board holding awaiting recovery. The ejectees, probably with some injured, would then have to wait their turn for the depleted SAR response to rescue them all. It simply doesn't bear thinking about.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Scotland
Posts: 70
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think that old chestnut about MEDA availability isn't all that relevant in the current era. There simply aren't that many aircraft airborne at one time these days - and in Scotland Glasgow, Edinburgh and Prestwick are all open 24 hours. You can make cases about armed aircraft and handling fast jet types etc, but it can be done. As for the heavies, they can carry fuel for further afield alternates if required.
It may not be ideal, but lack of diversion airfields is not a valid reason for keeping somewhere going, specially given the projected size of the RAF's fleet.
It may not be ideal, but lack of diversion airfields is not a valid reason for keeping somewhere going, specially given the projected size of the RAF's fleet.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: St Annes
Age: 68
Posts: 638
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh great,
we won't need many airfields because we won't have that many aircraft anyway - and it's not as if there'll be a problem with a FJ crew pushing into the landing stack at Heathrow, is it?
SFO - the reason I, for one, am skeptical about Mr Fox is that the comncerns he raised should be blindingly obvious to even a Sun reader, so I wonder why he felt the need to go into print (ie to have it as a matter of record) that he pointed out the blindingly obvious. I doubt that Cameron really needed to have this explained to him, so why did he do it? If Cameron really is thick enough to need to have this explained then there's no hope already, and Fox would presumably know that.
Sir Humphrey to the fore I think...
we won't need many airfields because we won't have that many aircraft anyway - and it's not as if there'll be a problem with a FJ crew pushing into the landing stack at Heathrow, is it?
SFO - the reason I, for one, am skeptical about Mr Fox is that the comncerns he raised should be blindingly obvious to even a Sun reader, so I wonder why he felt the need to go into print (ie to have it as a matter of record) that he pointed out the blindingly obvious. I doubt that Cameron really needed to have this explained to him, so why did he do it? If Cameron really is thick enough to need to have this explained then there's no hope already, and Fox would presumably know that.
Sir Humphrey to the fore I think...
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Kinloss
Posts: 99
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I read Dr Fox's comments viz MRA4 as positive. It appeared to me that he was effectively trying to ringfence those capabilities by pointing out that not only are they multi-role, multi-task platforms/units but also the danger of being unable to re-generate the capabilities if we decided we needed them in the future.
Spot on Edsett
It's not a question of the PM being thick, more that he has umpteen ministers all vying for his attention and support and fighting for a dwindling pot of money - anyone who doesn't make the case for their department will be assumed to be happy to have their budget slashed!
If Cameron really is thick enough to need to have this explained