Nimrod MRA.4
With care, a low loader will just about get across the hump back bridge, it has been done before, you just need a tractor unit with a bit of grunt, and some tarmac to fill the scrape holes with.
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Scotland
Posts: 217
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fincastle84
Your words are being echoed around the station, the project appears to have been safe but something happened the week before to make Mr Cameron change his mind.
Its done now but would be nice to find out why
Your words are being echoed around the station, the project appears to have been safe but something happened the week before to make Mr Cameron change his mind.
Its done now but would be nice to find out why
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Lossiemouth IV31 6RS
Age: 75
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rum Punch, Fincastle 84
Yes Rum Punch, and it would be nice, even polite, to receive a reply to my letter sent 22nd October which ...
'Because the Ministry of Defence is best placed to respond to the matters you raise, he (the PM) has asked me to forward your letter to the Department so that they may reply to your concerns directly'.
Still no reply. The Conspiracy of Silence continues.
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.
Hanfimar.
'Because the Ministry of Defence is best placed to respond to the matters you raise, he (the PM) has asked me to forward your letter to the Department so that they may reply to your concerns directly'.
Still no reply. The Conspiracy of Silence continues.
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.
Hanfimar.
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Bonnie Scotland
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Your words are being echoed around the station, the project appears to have been safe but something happened the week before to make Mr Cameron change his mind.
Its done now but would be nice to find out why
Its done now but would be nice to find out why
- Design and safety issues discovered since the RAF accepted the aircraft in March.
- Mission systems that were obsolete and unreliable.
- An aircraft that could not achieve the quoted range and endurance due to design issues.
- No stores cleance except for sonobuoys.
- A rubbish self defence system (same as Sentinel)
- Wing hardpoints that would probably never be used due to lateral stability issues and that capability was traded away in 2006.
The only thing that could come close to replacing the capability of the MR2 was the AQS970 that in the guise of the 971 had already been flying on MR2.
To scrap the MRA4 was the right decision, but to cut the capability was nuts. That is way the Airships are already looking to hopefully replace the capability by 2020.
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Stockport
Posts: 121
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A good deal of the delays were down to the MOD/RAF who kept moving the goal posts on the MRA4's mission, BAE is being used as the kicking boy/sacrificial lamb for the MRA4's demise.
In a nutshell if the MOD had actually let BAE build from scratch this project would have been finished years ago and on budget.
In a nutshell if the MOD had actually let BAE build from scratch this project would have been finished years ago and on budget.
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Stockport
Posts: 121
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why?
Less than 25% of the original frame was used, each frame was different. Each frame had to be backward engineered to a common spec to take the new wingbox. By the time the reverse engineering was completed a good part of the pressure shell had been replaced.
Remember, the original order was for 21 frame's, 3 test & 18 production, as the requirements decreased the cost's went up. The cost of making jigs for 21 frames was significantly cheaper than making 9 individual frames and has been said before BAE could have marketed the MRA4 to other NATO countries......not going thru with this option was madness in its own right
The madness was trying to use scrap to build a new frame.
Less than 25% of the original frame was used, each frame was different. Each frame had to be backward engineered to a common spec to take the new wingbox. By the time the reverse engineering was completed a good part of the pressure shell had been replaced.
Remember, the original order was for 21 frame's, 3 test & 18 production, as the requirements decreased the cost's went up. The cost of making jigs for 21 frames was significantly cheaper than making 9 individual frames and has been said before BAE could have marketed the MRA4 to other NATO countries......not going thru with this option was madness in its own right
The madness was trying to use scrap to build a new frame.
)
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Here and there, occasionally at home.
Age: 56
Posts: 146
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dear Frustrated:
"He probably discovered the true state of the aircraft:
- Design and safety issues discovered since the RAF accepted the aircraft in March.
- Mission systems that were obsolete and unreliable.
- An aircraft that could not achieve the quoted range and endurance due to design issues.
- No stores cleance except for sonobuoys.
- A rubbish self defence system (same as Sentinel)
- Wing hardpoints that would probably never be used due to lateral stability issues and that capability was traded away in 2006."
Yes, there were design and safety issues. Some were identified as genuine and were being addressed. Some were identified as a difference of opinion in the way regulations and requirements (changing more frequently than the Lib Dem election manifesto) were being interpreted between supplier and customer. These were subject to further discussion involving QQ, MAA et al, not being swept under the carpet and ignored. This is a fairly normal process in the life of an aircraft, see the A380/B787.
Obselescence is a fact of life. The iPhone4 was obselete the day it went on sale. Reliability had been an issue in the early days of the programme but again had largely been addressed by an ongoing series of upgrades.
The Initial RTS had some temporary limitations that prevented full envelope usage on Day 1. The available envelope was more than sufficient to allow training to commence and provided a range and endurance equating to that of the outgoing MR2. The incremental approach to the RTS had always planned to have a full performance envelope by mid 2012, as agreed with the DEC.
Stores clearance was part of the incremental approach to the RTS. All planned stores had been successfully dropped during flight trials, the RTS clearances were scheduled as part of the Incremental RTS (agreed with the DEC).
Say what you like about the DASS, it's the one the Customer asked for!
Several of the wing hardpoints were used successfully during the flight trials process. There was no indication that the use of wing hardpoints would cause any undue aerodynamic effects. The purchase of the carriers and any formal RTS clearance requirement was removed from the contract but the weapons system wiring and connections out to the hardpoints were all fitted.
Most of your statements are symptomatic of the ill-informed half-truths and mis-interpretations that have been the bane of those of us who expended a huge amount of personal commitment to the project. I am not surprised however. There were plenty of people within the project who preferred to believe half-truths and mis-information because it was easier than finding out the answers for themselves. This ultimately led to confidence in the product be called into question and from there it was one-way traffic.
Was I confident in the product? Absolutely, because I understood the process and talked to the people that mattered at the time. I would have happily flown MRA4 for the remaining 12 years of my career, as I had for the last 5 years, content in the knowledge that the RAF would have had the best all-round multi-role capable manned platform in the world. It actually had that much potential, I know, I experienced it first hand.
- Design and safety issues discovered since the RAF accepted the aircraft in March.
- Mission systems that were obsolete and unreliable.
- An aircraft that could not achieve the quoted range and endurance due to design issues.
- No stores cleance except for sonobuoys.
- A rubbish self defence system (same as Sentinel)
- Wing hardpoints that would probably never be used due to lateral stability issues and that capability was traded away in 2006."
Yes, there were design and safety issues. Some were identified as genuine and were being addressed. Some were identified as a difference of opinion in the way regulations and requirements (changing more frequently than the Lib Dem election manifesto) were being interpreted between supplier and customer. These were subject to further discussion involving QQ, MAA et al, not being swept under the carpet and ignored. This is a fairly normal process in the life of an aircraft, see the A380/B787.
Obselescence is a fact of life. The iPhone4 was obselete the day it went on sale. Reliability had been an issue in the early days of the programme but again had largely been addressed by an ongoing series of upgrades.
The Initial RTS had some temporary limitations that prevented full envelope usage on Day 1. The available envelope was more than sufficient to allow training to commence and provided a range and endurance equating to that of the outgoing MR2. The incremental approach to the RTS had always planned to have a full performance envelope by mid 2012, as agreed with the DEC.
Stores clearance was part of the incremental approach to the RTS. All planned stores had been successfully dropped during flight trials, the RTS clearances were scheduled as part of the Incremental RTS (agreed with the DEC).
Say what you like about the DASS, it's the one the Customer asked for!
Several of the wing hardpoints were used successfully during the flight trials process. There was no indication that the use of wing hardpoints would cause any undue aerodynamic effects. The purchase of the carriers and any formal RTS clearance requirement was removed from the contract but the weapons system wiring and connections out to the hardpoints were all fitted.
Most of your statements are symptomatic of the ill-informed half-truths and mis-interpretations that have been the bane of those of us who expended a huge amount of personal commitment to the project. I am not surprised however. There were plenty of people within the project who preferred to believe half-truths and mis-information because it was easier than finding out the answers for themselves. This ultimately led to confidence in the product be called into question and from there it was one-way traffic.
Was I confident in the product? Absolutely, because I understood the process and talked to the people that mattered at the time. I would have happily flown MRA4 for the remaining 12 years of my career, as I had for the last 5 years, content in the knowledge that the RAF would have had the best all-round multi-role capable manned platform in the world. It actually had that much potential, I know, I experienced it first hand.
Last edited by ShortFatOne; 2nd Jan 2011 at 15:22. Reason: Smelling pistakes!
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Stockport
Posts: 121
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Was I confident in the product? Absolutely, because I understood the process and talked to the people that mattered at the time. I would have happily flown MRA4 for the remaining 12 years of my career, as I had for the last 5 years, content in the knowledge that the RAF would have had the best all-round multi-role capable manned platform in the world. It actually had that much potential, I know, I experienced it first hand.
The people at Woodford had every confidence in the MRA4, its a pity that desk jockeys with NO engineering or flying background were allowed any input into the project because they had the voice and they ultimately killed it.
I hope they are brought to account very soon and pay for their actions with their jobs and IMHO lose their golden pensions too. We are not just dealing with metal here, but people's livelihoods and the effect that has on whole communities as well as the skills loss.
People are not just seething about this.......
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
its a pity that desk jockeys with NO engineering or flying background were allowed any input into the project because they had the voice and they ultimately killed it.
You may be right in every respect concerning all the remaining issues above being solvable and on track and budget.
But at the end of the day, the government just didn't believe what they were told and promised any more and walked away.
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Stockport
Posts: 121
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No MCB, what killed it was the never ending series of delays and requests for more money and more time coming up against a new government with no more money and no more patience.
Perhaps it should have been pointed out to the safety review board that the MRA4 is a completely different aircraft.
I'm pretty certain the MRA4 if it had dropped the name Nimrod would be entering service rather than getting killed off.
Funny how they bent the safety rules to get the VC10's flying pax again though.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: The Shed
Posts: 195
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There must be a lot of Prune readers who wonder why a cancelled aircraft can still elicit so much bitterness from so many. It is this statement from the PM on Oct 19th during the SDSR announcement.
In that one short paragraph, he dismissed 40 years of sterling service by the Nimrod force in the maritime and overland role, and consigned a vital maritime capability to the bin. He sounded almost proud to be the one canning it!
I believe that DC, apparently against the advice of his Def Sec and senior air commander, had already decided that MRA4 did not fit in with his plans for an increasingly Euro-centric vision of Defence, in particular, an Anglo-French cost saving alliance. The project budget overrun, and apparently continuing safety issues simply gave him a convenient hook on which to hang this decision. That, and the ability to attach Nimrod 'bad news' onto the previous Labour administration, made it a neat judgement for him. Nice politics, Dave.
Trouble is, he's just thrown away a vast pool of talent which made the Nimrod force probably the world's best MPA practitioners - as evidenced by Fincastle and Noble Manta results. I have no idea what maritime capability we may regenerate in the future, but a lot can happen in 10 years and I hope that Mr Cameron does not live to regret this decision.
Hanfimar, yes it would be nice for you to receive a reply to your eloquent and incisive letter, and if you do I hope you share it with us. A shame that the PM didn't feel able to reply himself - he alone knows why he cancelled MRA4. Failing that, a wee visit to Moray to explain this tough decision over a few drams? That would be good also.
Getting to grips with procurement is vital. The Nimrod programme, for example, has cost the British taxpayer more than £3 billion; the number of aircraft to be procured has fallen from 21 to nine; the cost per aircraft has increased by more than 200%; and it is more than eight years late. Today, we are announcing its cancellation.
I believe that DC, apparently against the advice of his Def Sec and senior air commander, had already decided that MRA4 did not fit in with his plans for an increasingly Euro-centric vision of Defence, in particular, an Anglo-French cost saving alliance. The project budget overrun, and apparently continuing safety issues simply gave him a convenient hook on which to hang this decision. That, and the ability to attach Nimrod 'bad news' onto the previous Labour administration, made it a neat judgement for him. Nice politics, Dave.
Trouble is, he's just thrown away a vast pool of talent which made the Nimrod force probably the world's best MPA practitioners - as evidenced by Fincastle and Noble Manta results. I have no idea what maritime capability we may regenerate in the future, but a lot can happen in 10 years and I hope that Mr Cameron does not live to regret this decision.
Hanfimar, yes it would be nice for you to receive a reply to your eloquent and incisive letter, and if you do I hope you share it with us. A shame that the PM didn't feel able to reply himself - he alone knows why he cancelled MRA4. Failing that, a wee visit to Moray to explain this tough decision over a few drams? That would be good also.
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Next door
Posts: 74
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One thing that shocked me was being asked by an engineer whether there were any situations where the a/c could land with a full or partial load of torpedoes
This was when they were running around concerned that the C of G was too far aft, and was about 5 months before the supposed first flight, which incidentally happened only 20 months later!!??
IIRC it was known that the Iron Bird rig would have to shake an airframe, virtually to destruction, before being able to do first flight, but it wasn't even built when they were quoting 3-5 months to first flight? Someone will correct me on this one possibly, but even so!
It seemed to be the usual case of senior management and IPT unable to ask the right question, or unwilling to hear the answer (normally the case), and being only concerned with the fire in the buffet car, when the train was heading towards the broken bridge!!
I must work on my analogies, there must be one about aeroplanes
This was when they were running around concerned that the C of G was too far aft, and was about 5 months before the supposed first flight, which incidentally happened only 20 months later!!??
IIRC it was known that the Iron Bird rig would have to shake an airframe, virtually to destruction, before being able to do first flight, but it wasn't even built when they were quoting 3-5 months to first flight? Someone will correct me on this one possibly, but even so!
It seemed to be the usual case of senior management and IPT unable to ask the right question, or unwilling to hear the answer (normally the case), and being only concerned with the fire in the buffet car, when the train was heading towards the broken bridge!!
I must work on my analogies, there must be one about aeroplanes
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Stockport
Posts: 121
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There must be a lot of Prune readers who wonder why a cancelled aircraft can still elicit so much bitterness from so many.
BAE had already started planning on Woodfords closure years ago and 2012 was earmarked, BAE have even held negotiations with a well known holiday company for the sale of the offices at Woodford.
The employees knew where they stood pre review day.
What has enraged people is that its just been thrown away for no reason whatsoever, the money was already spent and they know its just bull**** about the savings.
The government also has to settle the final bill for 20 or so years of contracts for the upkeep of the program with BAE, Rolls Royce etc etc
You can bet your life the final bill will be kept quite
Savings my arse
, the whole things is nothing more than a publicity stunt and a dangerous one at that.
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: UK
Age: 53
Posts: 76
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mr Smiter
There is no probably about it, we are/were the best with skills built up over the last 60+ years.
Its such a crying shame that we were so easy to throw out with the rubbish when we were so close to the prize
Trouble is, he's just thrown away a vast pool of talent which made the Nimrod force probably the world's best MPA practitioners
Its such a crying shame that we were so easy to throw out with the rubbish when we were so close to the prize
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: 45 yards from a tropical beach
Posts: 1,103
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From today's Grauniad
One cannot help but wonder how much of this will be down to Woodford and Kinloss.
Welfare bill soars as austerity drive bites
Rising unemployment will cost the government £1.5bn more than expected in welfare benefits
Rising unemployment will cost the government £1.5bn more than expected in welfare benefits
