Nimrod MRA.4
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: lancaster
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One reason we need a LRMPA?
I have cut and paste this from some paperwork I found in the loft recently:
"At 0747 hrs on Sunday 4th January 1998 crew 6 of 206 Squadron were scrambled to assist the Spanish trawler 'Sonia Nancy' which was adrift and apparently liable to sink at any time with 10 souls on board. The vessel was 200 miles south-west of the Scilly Isles and the weather was atrocious with 60 knot winds, a sea state of 11 to 12, a swell of 15 to 17 metres and extensive thunderstorm activity in the area which worsened the conditions markedly on their passing.
After arriving on scene, the crew quickly established that although there were a number of vessels nearby, they were unable to assist due to the weather conditions; furthermore, the crew of the Sonia Nancy had only one 6-man dinghy left on board (the other having been washed away), and that they estimated they would have to abandon ship in less than an hour. Given these conditions and that a large thunderstorm was approaching, the crew elected to drop an Apparatus Sea Rescue in
accordance with Nimrod Standard Operating Procedures. Of note, the Apparatus Sea Rescue is a Multi-Seat 10 man dinghy with 2 equipment containers attached by ropes that is dropped visually by the pilots without the aid of any aiming equipment. Moderate to severe turbulence at low-level caused the aircraft stick shakers to operate frequently at the low airspeed required for the Apparatus Sea Rescue drop and the strong winds made positioning extremely dfficult. However, despite these conditions, the Apparatus Sea Rescue was dropped accurately. Unfortunately, and surprisingly, the vessel drifted downwind even faster than the rescue equipment and it was therefore unreachable by
the fishermen. Whilst positioning to assess this first drop, the aircraft was struck by lightning and coincidentally, the radar failed thus denying the crew an accurate location of other vessels and thunderstorms. After establishing that the aircraft had sustained no significant damage and that the fisherman's position was still critical, the captain elected to drop a pair of dinghies linked by rope.
However, in view of the experience of the first attempt he adapted the technique in order to ensure success. Disappointingly, the first drop was 20 to 30 yards beyond the reach of the vessel and a further
pair were dropped. This time, the dinghy pair bracketed the Sonia Nancy perfectly and the crew were able to reach over and secure the dinghies thus providing essential rescue equipment should it be needed. The captain and his crew remained in company with the Sonia Nancy for a further two hours until relieved and briefed the oncoming crew on the modified techniques used to drop rescue equipment.
The conditions experienced were the worst seen for many years and demanded much of both aircraft and crew. That Flight Lieutenant Hu**es and his crew were able to adapt to these conditions and provide much needed assistance with astonishing accuracy is testimony to their skill, professionalism and fortitude and is in the finest traditions of the Royal Air Force. In recognition of their efforts crew 6 are awarded the personal commendation of the Air Officer Commanding-in-Chief Strike Command"
After arriving on scene, the crew quickly established that although there were a number of vessels nearby, they were unable to assist due to the weather conditions; furthermore, the crew of the Sonia Nancy had only one 6-man dinghy left on board (the other having been washed away), and that they estimated they would have to abandon ship in less than an hour. Given these conditions and that a large thunderstorm was approaching, the crew elected to drop an Apparatus Sea Rescue in
accordance with Nimrod Standard Operating Procedures. Of note, the Apparatus Sea Rescue is a Multi-Seat 10 man dinghy with 2 equipment containers attached by ropes that is dropped visually by the pilots without the aid of any aiming equipment. Moderate to severe turbulence at low-level caused the aircraft stick shakers to operate frequently at the low airspeed required for the Apparatus Sea Rescue drop and the strong winds made positioning extremely dfficult. However, despite these conditions, the Apparatus Sea Rescue was dropped accurately. Unfortunately, and surprisingly, the vessel drifted downwind even faster than the rescue equipment and it was therefore unreachable by
the fishermen. Whilst positioning to assess this first drop, the aircraft was struck by lightning and coincidentally, the radar failed thus denying the crew an accurate location of other vessels and thunderstorms. After establishing that the aircraft had sustained no significant damage and that the fisherman's position was still critical, the captain elected to drop a pair of dinghies linked by rope.
However, in view of the experience of the first attempt he adapted the technique in order to ensure success. Disappointingly, the first drop was 20 to 30 yards beyond the reach of the vessel and a further
pair were dropped. This time, the dinghy pair bracketed the Sonia Nancy perfectly and the crew were able to reach over and secure the dinghies thus providing essential rescue equipment should it be needed. The captain and his crew remained in company with the Sonia Nancy for a further two hours until relieved and briefed the oncoming crew on the modified techniques used to drop rescue equipment.
The conditions experienced were the worst seen for many years and demanded much of both aircraft and crew. That Flight Lieutenant Hu**es and his crew were able to adapt to these conditions and provide much needed assistance with astonishing accuracy is testimony to their skill, professionalism and fortitude and is in the finest traditions of the Royal Air Force. In recognition of their efforts crew 6 are awarded the personal commendation of the Air Officer Commanding-in-Chief Strike Command"
Must be said that the helos boys were outstanding when they were forced to rescue the Sonia Nancys Crew sometime later
Last edited by processor overloads; 29th Oct 2010 at 17:43. Reason: spelling
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Caterham
Age: 64
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nimrods saving lives
I was on a mission provididng top cover for a greek tanker "victory" in 1982 which broke in 2 in rough seas 900 miles from Lands End, The first crew on scene from 42 sqn had dropped the SAR package and half the crew abandoned ship to take to the liferafts. Because of the Victory's location, no helicopter SAR was avaiulable and Nimrods provided 40 hours of continuous top cover until a Dutch navy ship arrived on scene and rescued the survivors.
'Allo. 'Allo (post 1263). For those of us living in France, this story is no surprise! (Incidentally, our amateur theatre group in Vendee and Deux Sevres is presenting 'Allo,'Allo over the next few weeks. If you are this way do PM for details.)
Last edited by Wander00; 30th Oct 2010 at 07:50.
Distant Voice Stop blaming Cameron, and his lot, it was Stirrup that sold you short. And now he goes to the House of Lords.
DV
DV
According to CAS when he spoke at Kinloss this was the PM's decision! If you have evidence to the contrary, care to share it with the rest of us?VVHA
As useful as ever I see w
r
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: SWAPS Inner
Posts: 567
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Alright. How about blaming the school prefect, Osborne instead? 
None of this has been a 'Strategic' review, as we all know. It has been a slash and burn by people with no knowledge of how the military or its equipment fits together as one big package.
You can hardly blame the defence chiefs for defending their corners, although truly visionary defence chiefs would have stood together and not defended their own shiny toys.
As ever, procurement seems to have egg on its face again with cost over-runs being cited as partial reasons for dropping the mighty 'rod.
The real question is;
"Is British Aerospace fit for purpose?"
It seems that politically our hands are tied when it comes to purchasing equipment (buy British) yet the ONLY UK defence conglomerate seems more intent on lining its directors pockets than developing anything in a cost efficient manner. Lets face it, who whooped with joy when they announced just how they were going to redevelop the Nimrod back in '97(?) I certainly felt a collective groan and rolling of eyes with a "its not friggin rocket science" cry going up!
However, having paid for the beasties we really should just get them now.
What's the point of throwing all that money down the drain?
None of this has been a 'Strategic' review, as we all know. It has been a slash and burn by people with no knowledge of how the military or its equipment fits together as one big package.
You can hardly blame the defence chiefs for defending their corners, although truly visionary defence chiefs would have stood together and not defended their own shiny toys.
As ever, procurement seems to have egg on its face again with cost over-runs being cited as partial reasons for dropping the mighty 'rod.
The real question is;
"Is British Aerospace fit for purpose?"
It seems that politically our hands are tied when it comes to purchasing equipment (buy British) yet the ONLY UK defence conglomerate seems more intent on lining its directors pockets than developing anything in a cost efficient manner. Lets face it, who whooped with joy when they announced just how they were going to redevelop the Nimrod back in '97(?) I certainly felt a collective groan and rolling of eyes with a "its not friggin rocket science" cry going up!
However, having paid for the beasties we really should just get them now.
What's the point of throwing all that money down the drain?
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: UK
Age: 53
Posts: 76
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Its all in the timing!
Thanks for trying Russia, but sadly you are about 2 weeks too late to help
Russia successfully tests ballistic missiles - Telegraph
Thanks for trying Russia, but sadly you are about 2 weeks too late to help
Russia successfully tests ballistic missiles - Telegraph
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Cornwall
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I always felt that most of the world's problems took a new perspective in the scruffs and this thread is a kind of cyber scruff bar (remember that superb graffitti on the wall in the original Kinlosss scruffs - "St Mawgan is the patron saint of wankers").
Some great views have come across and I'd urge those that really care to write to Cameron, Fox their local MP, their favourite newspaper and any one else of influence; nothing too rude. Unless something is done quickly to attempt to reverse this appalling decision it will soon be too late.
Some great views have come across and I'd urge those that really care to write to Cameron, Fox their local MP, their favourite newspaper and any one else of influence; nothing too rude. Unless something is done quickly to attempt to reverse this appalling decision it will soon be too late.
(remember that superb graffitti on the wall in the original Kinlosss scruffs - "St Mawgan is the patron saint of wankers").
"Kinloss is the crossroads of ASW - with a cast of similar calibre"
YS
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Lossiemouth IV31 6RS
Age: 75
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Agreed Ubehagligpolitiker. Please feel free to use the following as a focus:
Dear Mr Cameron,
I apologise for the open nature of this letter, but time is of the essence and the subject too important to allow for the luxury of private correspondence.
I refer to the cancellation of Nimrod MRA4 and the closure of Royal Air Force Kinloss to flying operations. The effect of this decision on local jobs, businesses and on the economy of Moray has been well aired, and rightly so. Of even greater concern to me and my family (despite the probable loss of my own job) is the effect this decision will have on the security and well being of the United Kingdom.
We are an island nation with the sea lanes still our main source of supply and trade. We are a nation active in world politics with ambitions for the future, and a long history which has not endeared us to all members of a very mobile world population. In these days of international terrorism, drug running and our reliance on an underwater nuclear deterrent, it is utter folly to end our maritime patrol aircraft (MPA) capability.
We must have an airborne capability, even in these times of financial restraint. The need for long range reconnaissance, anti-submarine operations and a search and rescue capability has barely diminished, and the need for electronic and optical surveillance and intelligence gathering has increased to meet modern threats.
Why on earth then, have we cancelled Nimrod MRA4? Being late and over budget does not equate to being no good, and to summarily cancel without reference to current capability and future potential is unacceptable. MRA4 is a platform with 15 hours unrefueled flight duration, a 2,000 plus mile radius of action, 13 weapon hard points, radar range of 250 miles, is search and rescue capable, has advanced communications, superior electro-optics for surface intelligence gathering and has very capable underwater detection systems. All integrated, working and demonstrated – AND ALREADY PAID FOR. At Royal Air Force Kinloss the training and support infrastructure is already in place and to disband such established facilities that support a very capable MPA is unforgiveable.
Unless this decision is reversed, people will die – as a result of unresolved search and rescue incidents, undetected drug and terrorist imports and missed intelligence. Our nuclear deterrent will be less secure and possibly rendered useless putting our whole nation at risk.
Mr Cameron, please hear these points from someone who has over 30 years military experience both within industry and the RAF. I have 5,000 flying hours as both Navigator and Pilot plus 5,000 hours of instructional experience in the Nimrod flight simulator. Approaching retirement, I have no axe to grind other than the well being of future generations, and of my country.
You say we cannot afford a maritime patrol aircraft capability. Prime Minister, the Nation cannot afford to be without.
Yours sincerely,
etc.
Cancellation of Nimrod MRA4 – An Open Letter to the Prime Minister
Dear Mr Cameron,
I apologise for the open nature of this letter, but time is of the essence and the subject too important to allow for the luxury of private correspondence.
I refer to the cancellation of Nimrod MRA4 and the closure of Royal Air Force Kinloss to flying operations. The effect of this decision on local jobs, businesses and on the economy of Moray has been well aired, and rightly so. Of even greater concern to me and my family (despite the probable loss of my own job) is the effect this decision will have on the security and well being of the United Kingdom.
We are an island nation with the sea lanes still our main source of supply and trade. We are a nation active in world politics with ambitions for the future, and a long history which has not endeared us to all members of a very mobile world population. In these days of international terrorism, drug running and our reliance on an underwater nuclear deterrent, it is utter folly to end our maritime patrol aircraft (MPA) capability.
We must have an airborne capability, even in these times of financial restraint. The need for long range reconnaissance, anti-submarine operations and a search and rescue capability has barely diminished, and the need for electronic and optical surveillance and intelligence gathering has increased to meet modern threats.
Why on earth then, have we cancelled Nimrod MRA4? Being late and over budget does not equate to being no good, and to summarily cancel without reference to current capability and future potential is unacceptable. MRA4 is a platform with 15 hours unrefueled flight duration, a 2,000 plus mile radius of action, 13 weapon hard points, radar range of 250 miles, is search and rescue capable, has advanced communications, superior electro-optics for surface intelligence gathering and has very capable underwater detection systems. All integrated, working and demonstrated – AND ALREADY PAID FOR. At Royal Air Force Kinloss the training and support infrastructure is already in place and to disband such established facilities that support a very capable MPA is unforgiveable.
Unless this decision is reversed, people will die – as a result of unresolved search and rescue incidents, undetected drug and terrorist imports and missed intelligence. Our nuclear deterrent will be less secure and possibly rendered useless putting our whole nation at risk.
Mr Cameron, please hear these points from someone who has over 30 years military experience both within industry and the RAF. I have 5,000 flying hours as both Navigator and Pilot plus 5,000 hours of instructional experience in the Nimrod flight simulator. Approaching retirement, I have no axe to grind other than the well being of future generations, and of my country.
You say we cannot afford a maritime patrol aircraft capability. Prime Minister, the Nation cannot afford to be without.
Yours sincerely,
etc.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: The real world
Posts: 446
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ubehag, reverse the decision? are you for real? do you honestly believe there is even the slightest hope of this decision being reversed? not a cat in hells chance!
I suspect the Government looked into the project and saw more problems in the pipeline, very expensive problems, at some point you have to say enough is enough we are not pouring any more money into something that is still not ready and has more problems yet, coupled with the percieved cold war capability that the platform is primarily designed for and they made their decision, one that WILL NOT be reversed no matter even if it was subsequently proved wrong.
I suspect the Government looked into the project and saw more problems in the pipeline, very expensive problems, at some point you have to say enough is enough we are not pouring any more money into something that is still not ready and has more problems yet, coupled with the percieved cold war capability that the platform is primarily designed for and they made their decision, one that WILL NOT be reversed no matter even if it was subsequently proved wrong.
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: UK
Age: 53
Posts: 76
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jayand,
Its just a shame that our politicians are not bright enough to realise that the similar problems will likely beset the future carriers and JSF.
That way we could save a bucket load of money and heartache in a few years from now!
Its just a shame that our politicians are not bright enough to realise that the similar problems will likely beset the future carriers and JSF.
That way we could save a bucket load of money and heartache in a few years from now!
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: 45 yards from a tropical beach
Posts: 1,103
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Absolutely right YS. It followed an unfortunate remark by the ISK Station Commander to a multi-national audience that "Kinloss is the Crossroads of ASW."
How apposite; there were two senior officers at ISK at the time who could easily have played Benny and Amy Turtle!
How we laughed on 42.
How apposite; there were two senior officers at ISK at the time who could easily have played Benny and Amy Turtle!
How we laughed on 42.
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Where the heart belongs
Age: 55
Posts: 413
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
2 Posts
What a lot of people have not grasped is the MR2 was a ASW/ASUW aircraft that was also quite a good ISTAR platform. The MRA4 was an true ISTAR platform that could also do ASU/ASUW. It was a true all-round versatile aircraft, a big loss (even if it didn't have an Eng).
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 3,399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sideshow
That is interesting. We had a capabilities brief from a MRA4 chap down at Culdrose not that long age that said exactly the oposite.
He said that it was a pure maritime aircraft with none of the UOR bells and whistles its predecessor had. Back to its roots with none of this istar shenanigans.
In fact it was inferior according to him in many ways due to being so long in gestation and overtaken in many ways by the UORs
I remember taking away from the brief surprise and some disbelief that just like our Merlin, the next mark would be inferior in so many ways as it leaves the factory.
The only improvements seemed to be astonishing unrefueled range and radar
So which is it?
Are you talking crap or him?
That is interesting. We had a capabilities brief from a MRA4 chap down at Culdrose not that long age that said exactly the oposite.
He said that it was a pure maritime aircraft with none of the UOR bells and whistles its predecessor had. Back to its roots with none of this istar shenanigans.
In fact it was inferior according to him in many ways due to being so long in gestation and overtaken in many ways by the UORs
I remember taking away from the brief surprise and some disbelief that just like our Merlin, the next mark would be inferior in so many ways as it leaves the factory.
The only improvements seemed to be astonishing unrefueled range and radar
So which is it?
Are you talking crap or him?
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Blighty
Posts: 177
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MRA4 is/was an MPA... It couldn't do overland 'out of the box'...
But it was built to be modular, effectively making it as easy as the MR2 to bolt things on, with the added benefit of making that kit accessable by all crew.
But it was built to be modular, effectively making it as easy as the MR2 to bolt things on, with the added benefit of making that kit accessable by all crew.
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Planet Earth
Posts: 433
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Talking of crossroads the best one I saw was in the St Mawgan station magazine:
Message to motorists finding themselves at the B9089/B9011 junction - bad luck , you're at RAF Kinloss.
Message to motorists finding themselves at the B9089/B9011 junction - bad luck , you're at RAF Kinloss.