Nimrod MRA.4
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Lincs
Posts: 453
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nimrod MRA 4 could be the best LRMP aircraft; the RAF could field the best crews - it matters not. If the balloon goes up, with a fleet of just nine, you'll be taking a knife to a gunfight.
The UK has regularly gained disproportionate influence (eg access to 'other' capabilities) by offering up small numbers of highly capable assets. Nimrod R1 (of which we have only 3), Sentinel (5) and E-3D (7) are good examples.
ASW is a particularly perishable capability in terms of both skill sets and technology. Many nations who on paper own MPA platforms are realistically limited to ASuW only; this is therefore not something that can be relied upon from a coalition.
Do not therefore discount the disproportionate influence that a handful of MRA4 could bring for the UK.
Regards,
MM
PN,
It leaves us wasting bandwidth discussing a "what if" scenario that will have no impact on the fate of the MRA4 fleet.
Oh, and by the way, the last time I was operating in the Straits of Hormuz region there was a small Japanese task force in the area!!!!
MM,
I would expect that a certain minimum number of MRA4s would be earmarked to stay in the UK for specific roles, e.g 24 SAR cover (probably at least 2 required), etc. In this case only having a fleet of 9 to start with (with one or two no doubt always in deep maintenance at any one time) probably leaves you with very few able to deploy at any time for overseas "influence gaining" purposes
It leaves us wasting bandwidth discussing a "what if" scenario that will have no impact on the fate of the MRA4 fleet.
Oh, and by the way, the last time I was operating in the Straits of Hormuz region there was a small Japanese task force in the area!!!!
MM,
I would expect that a certain minimum number of MRA4s would be earmarked to stay in the UK for specific roles, e.g 24 SAR cover (probably at least 2 required), etc. In this case only having a fleet of 9 to start with (with one or two no doubt always in deep maintenance at any one time) probably leaves you with very few able to deploy at any time for overseas "influence gaining" purposes
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Lincs
Posts: 453
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would expect that a certain minimum number of MRA4s would be earmarked to stay in the UK for specific roles, e.g 24 SAR cover (probably at least 2 required), etc. In this case only having a fleet of 9 to start with (with one or two no doubt always in deep maintenance at any one time) probably leaves you with very few able to deploy at any time for overseas "influence gaining" purposes
Look at the numbers of Reaper, Sentinel and R1 we currently have deployed and then consider the disproportionate influence they provide today. Likewise, RAF E-3Ds provided a third of AWACS cover during Afghanistan (01-03) for 18 months with only 2 jets deployed at any one time.
ISR assets like those mentioned above, no matter how small the numerical contribution is on paper, gains us significant 'favours' within a Coalition. At a time when the USN P-3C fleet is hurting and the P-8A Project is starting to make BP Corporate Comms Strategy look professional, 2 or 3 MRA4 deployed judiciously will do likewise.
Regards,
MM
MM,
I bow to your superior knowledge. I didn't realize there was a requirement to keep a certain minimum number of Reapers and Sentinels in the UK. Indeed I didn't realize we had any Reapers in the UK at the moment....
I bow to your superior knowledge. I didn't realize there was a requirement to keep a certain minimum number of Reapers and Sentinels in the UK. Indeed I didn't realize we had any Reapers in the UK at the moment....
RAAF has had P-3's permanently deployed to ME {Iraq and A/Stan] for the past 7 years....along with a C-130 detachment. Our C-17's are involved supporting the show in A/Stan.
Champagne anyone...?
Completely outwith the scope of this debate, however the comment
is a little rich if your moniker is anything to go by. The RAAF are all the over place in theatre.
As for MPA, no idea, however some would be nice.
Does this mean we may see a bit more of you on ops then?
As for MPA, no idea, however some would be nice.
An outside view
The First Sea Lord does not agree with the anti Nimrod lobby - see here.
Now the new British First Sea Lord reveals that the RAF cuts will have a big effect on the Navy. Admiral Sir Mark Stanhope spoke to Warships International Fleet Review magazine. “Let us be clear about the importance of those RAF cuts in terms of maritime impact,” Stanhope said. He explained that the Nimrod force had provided top cover for the Navy’s ballistic-missile submarines, presumably during transit in and out of port.
Now the Navy will have to take up that task with its Merlin helicopters and frigates equipped with the new Sonar 2087. “It means those frigates we have with Sonar 2087 … may not be deployed to the Gulf or the South Atlantic,” Stanhope pointed out. The loss of the Nimrods effectively also means the loss of at least one deployable frigate.
Now the new British First Sea Lord reveals that the RAF cuts will have a big effect on the Navy. Admiral Sir Mark Stanhope spoke to Warships International Fleet Review magazine. “Let us be clear about the importance of those RAF cuts in terms of maritime impact,” Stanhope said. He explained that the Nimrod force had provided top cover for the Navy’s ballistic-missile submarines, presumably during transit in and out of port.
Now the Navy will have to take up that task with its Merlin helicopters and frigates equipped with the new Sonar 2087. “It means those frigates we have with Sonar 2087 … may not be deployed to the Gulf or the South Atlantic,” Stanhope pointed out. The loss of the Nimrods effectively also means the loss of at least one deployable frigate.
Join Date: May 2006
Location: 2 m South of Radstock VRP
Posts: 2,042
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If only Sir Mark had been selected as CDS.
The loss of the Nimrods doesn't only limit the economical operation of SSBNs. Think in terms of; what did an appearance of a Nimrod at MPA, FI usually coincide with?
The loss of the Nimrods doesn't only limit the economical operation of SSBNs. Think in terms of; what did an appearance of a Nimrod at MPA, FI usually coincide with?
Re other country deployments......The Kiwis have people there that are supported by C130 dont think that their P3's are there though however one of our soldiers did win the Victoria Cross there shows that we really are there!!!!!!
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: SALISBURY
Age: 76
Posts: 706
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Biggus
I totally agree with you. It's just so sad that if BAe had got their act together in the first place the MRA4 would have already been in service for many years. As it is, because of their incompetence they have handed the politicians an easy target for the forthcoming cull.
Let's hope that I'm wrong.
Let's hope that I'm wrong.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Lincs
Posts: 453
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RAAF has had P-3's permanently deployed to ME {Iraq and A/Stan] for the past 7 years....along with a C-130 detachment. Our C-17's are involved supporting the show in A/Stan.
However, aside from bravely defending Diego Garcia and a token appearance during the invasion of Iraq (where a variety of factors limited your FA-18s contribution somewhat) where have your AAR assets, F-111s, FA-18As and new FA-18Fs been during the Iraqi NFZ, Iraq post 2003 and Afghanistan ops?
I appreciate that you have homeland commitments. I appreciate you need to focus public spending on improving the standard of your national cricket team. However, even the Aussies I've served with are a tad embarrassed at that fact. At a time when fast air is at a premium, you'll understand that many in the UK and US wonder why you don't make a more proactive contribution.
The Dutch, Belgians, Norwegians, Italians, Turks, Germans have already contributed. The Singaporeans look like they'll also join the party. Where's RAAF fast air?
Genuine question.
Regards,
MM
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: 45 yards from a tropical beach
Posts: 1,103
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In December 1996, BAE Systems was awarded a £2bn contract for the remanufacturing of 21 Nimrod MR mk2 aircraft to the new Nimrod MRA4
You are right mon vieux. fifteen years to put new donks and systems into existing airframes is preposterous. Then, to come out with only 9 jets instead of 21 just compounds the felony.
Oh well, it will make it that much easier to pick the winning crew for the Aird Whyte Trophy!
Guest
Posts: n/a
Fifteen years to put new donks and systems into existing airframes is preposterous. Then, to come out with only 9 jets instead of 21 just compounds the felony.
Hang on. Before I start I must say I do not or ever have worked for BAE or on the MRA4 project. To put the above is simply not fair.
Yes BAE have had problems however, the customer changed the spec and requirements on numerous occasions, the original aircraft, supplied by the customer, were all different, having being hand built. Ask any Nimrod engineer and they will tell you that dimensions can vary by up to an inch in certain areas, the aircraft were also suffering from far more corrosion than was originally thought and the fact that only 9 have / are been produced is down to the customer – NOT BAE.
Remember everyone said to buy new, it was the customer who wanted a Commercial Off The Shelf (COTS) program as a cost saving measure!
Why can’t we support our industry instead of always criticising them? OK, they aren’t perfect but do we really want to get rid of our indigenous manufacturing capability? Show me another defence manufacturing company that could have done better. 70%+ of the MRA4’s problems have been down to the MOD and their useless procurement and contract system with ever changing specifications.
And the Contract was awarded in 1996, not in the 80's.
I would suspect that the current paperwork delays occurring, and multiple agencies referred to, as stated in posts 181, 273 and 292 are also nothing to do with BAE.
I suspect that the MOD, with its various involved agencies such as IPT and the new MAA, is tying itself in knots trying to ensure that all the airworthiness ticks are in the right box before anything else happens - like the aeroplane flys!!! And who is to say, if this is indeed the case, that this approach is actually wrong? Apart from the fact that they have had quite a few years to get ready for this moment.
Of course I could be wrong, I'm not close to the project, but this seems (to me at least) to be the hints we are getting as to what is going on (e.g the reason for non appearence at RIAT).
If this is the case, given my limited experience of the speed at which MOD wheels turn in peacetime - what are the bets on the first MRA4 not arriving at Kinloss until somewhen in 2011?
I suspect that the MOD, with its various involved agencies such as IPT and the new MAA, is tying itself in knots trying to ensure that all the airworthiness ticks are in the right box before anything else happens - like the aeroplane flys!!! And who is to say, if this is indeed the case, that this approach is actually wrong? Apart from the fact that they have had quite a few years to get ready for this moment.
Of course I could be wrong, I'm not close to the project, but this seems (to me at least) to be the hints we are getting as to what is going on (e.g the reason for non appearence at RIAT).
If this is the case, given my limited experience of the speed at which MOD wheels turn in peacetime - what are the bets on the first MRA4 not arriving at Kinloss until somewhen in 2011?
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Over the rainbow
Posts: 310
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Neptunus Rex
fifteen years to put new donks and systems into existing airframes is preposterous
As rigger 1 states;
the original aircraft, supplied by the customer, were all different, having being hand built. Ask any Nimrod engineer and they will tell you that dimensions can vary by up to an inch in certain areasAs
No! I am not and never have been a BAE employee. Just interested in keeping the facts straight. (Even though this is a rumour network).
Phil.
Quite true about the bespoke nature of the airframes, but this was known about, or should have been, as exactly the same problem was encountered with the AEW some 30 years ago. Should have been allowed for in the MRA4 time frame.