Nimrod to go by March
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Scotland
Posts: 217
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well just to let you know MRA4 is paid for now, so I think it would be very stupid to can what has been bought outright and then spend another X billion on an aircraft that cannot fullfill a true role as an ASW platform. It is still in testing phase and is having huge vibration issues at low level with underslung engines (BAE get a lot of bad publicity but whoever engineered the P8 appears not have done there homework).
With no spares available and unlikely to get any better I fear that will be the main reason the project will get canx`d. With us being told for many years the Nimrod carries out more tasks than any other asset in the RAF and plays a huge role for the protection of the UK it would appear this was utter bullcrap.
Lies Lies and Lies, no shocks the truths come out now
With no spares available and unlikely to get any better I fear that will be the main reason the project will get canx`d. With us being told for many years the Nimrod carries out more tasks than any other asset in the RAF and plays a huge role for the protection of the UK it would appear this was utter bullcrap.
Lies Lies and Lies, no shocks the truths come out now
We initially signed up for 21 aircraft, we are getting 9. So there are 12 (ish) aircraft sets of spares sat around gathering dust somewhere ready for use!
Mind you, if you are an aircraft parts manufacturer, are you really interested in a long term contract to supply spares for a 9 aircraft fleet. I had heard that the Typhoon world (IPT) has already had to buy a lifetime supply of one particular spare, as they were soon to become no longer available!!!
Mind you, if you are an aircraft parts manufacturer, are you really interested in a long term contract to supply spares for a 9 aircraft fleet. I had heard that the Typhoon world (IPT) has already had to buy a lifetime supply of one particular spare, as they were soon to become no longer available!!!
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: 45 yards from a tropical beach
Posts: 1,103
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh Dear!
Biggus, is that true? Nine aircraft?
When I joined Coastal Command in '66, we had eleven squadrons, plus MOTU and ASWDU. Altogether, that was more than 70 aircraft.
Unbelievable.
Neppie
When I joined Coastal Command in '66, we had eleven squadrons, plus MOTU and ASWDU. Altogether, that was more than 70 aircraft.
Unbelievable.
Neppie
Neppie,
Yes - just 9 aircraft!
But on the plus side, to the best of my knowledge (standing by to be corrected), there will still be 2 Sqns and an OCU!!
That's one outfit too many for 9 a/c in my opinion, 2 Sqns, one of which has an embedded conversion flight, would be more appropriate in my opinion. Maybe someone is being clever, and by keeping 2 Sqns and an OCU it gives you the option to offer one up as a saving in the upcoming defence review?
Yes - just 9 aircraft!
But on the plus side, to the best of my knowledge (standing by to be corrected), there will still be 2 Sqns and an OCU!!
That's one outfit too many for 9 a/c in my opinion, 2 Sqns, one of which has an embedded conversion flight, would be more appropriate in my opinion. Maybe someone is being clever, and by keeping 2 Sqns and an OCU it gives you the option to offer one up as a saving in the upcoming defence review?
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Scotland
Posts: 70
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rum Punch writes
Well just to let you know MRA4 is paid for now, so I think it would be very stupid to can what has been bought outright and then spend another X billion on an aircraft that cannot fullfill a true role as an ASW platform. It is still in testing phase and is having huge vibration issues at low level with underslung engines (BAE get a lot of bad publicity but whoever engineered the P8 appears not have done there homework).
As a 6000 hour MR2 driver, and a current 737 pilot, I would be interested to know why the P8 is suffering vibration issues due to the underslung engines? They don't cause any problems at all on an any of the 6,000 737s in service today, and the engine position has very little bearing on the aircraft's handling qualities. There is an increased pitch/power couple of course, but that is easily dealt with by an efficient auto flight system and/or powerful stabiliser trim in manual flight. the 737 performance envelope is startlingly similar to that of the Nimrod, and Boeing's baby is a thoroughly reliable and robust old bus.
Of course, I don't know what effects the installation of a weapons bay, sensor antennae and other mods has had on the airflow and handling, but I can't personally see why the 737 airframe would not make a perfectly good basis for an ASW platform.
Well just to let you know MRA4 is paid for now, so I think it would be very stupid to can what has been bought outright and then spend another X billion on an aircraft that cannot fullfill a true role as an ASW platform. It is still in testing phase and is having huge vibration issues at low level with underslung engines (BAE get a lot of bad publicity but whoever engineered the P8 appears not have done there homework).
As a 6000 hour MR2 driver, and a current 737 pilot, I would be interested to know why the P8 is suffering vibration issues due to the underslung engines? They don't cause any problems at all on an any of the 6,000 737s in service today, and the engine position has very little bearing on the aircraft's handling qualities. There is an increased pitch/power couple of course, but that is easily dealt with by an efficient auto flight system and/or powerful stabiliser trim in manual flight. the 737 performance envelope is startlingly similar to that of the Nimrod, and Boeing's baby is a thoroughly reliable and robust old bus.
Of course, I don't know what effects the installation of a weapons bay, sensor antennae and other mods has had on the airflow and handling, but I can't personally see why the 737 airframe would not make a perfectly good basis for an ASW platform.
Did we not endure problems with "podded engines" where when one pukes up bits....the other one gulps them down and then suffers indigestion?
Could it be the concern is it ain't British built?
Could it be the concern is it ain't British built?
Retrosgone,
Not sure about the vibration problem but I understand from USN colleagues with similar levels of experience as yourself, that they have a number of concerns with the P8. Notably:
Very poor manouevreability at low level - limited to 30 Deg AOB with a correspondingly huge turning circle and a bumpy ride to match.
Poor range / endurance / payload for a new generation MPA/ISR platform and 2 engines is only 50% of 4.
It's a USAF 'style' aircraft i.e, they will need a bunch of techies to go with them every time they deploy and won't be able to use rough and ready strips that they sometimes have used in the P3.
Allegedly, the first issue will be overcome by not flying at low level (the P8 has also dispensed with the MAD) and the last issue will be familiar to you as a Nimrod mate. Other than that, stand by for a further slip to delivery dates.
On a separarte note - £3.6 Bil for 9 ac = £400 mil each for the MRA4. Is this the worlds second most expensive aircraft?
Best wishes to all at KIS this Christmas and the coming New Year...
Not sure about the vibration problem but I understand from USN colleagues with similar levels of experience as yourself, that they have a number of concerns with the P8. Notably:
Very poor manouevreability at low level - limited to 30 Deg AOB with a correspondingly huge turning circle and a bumpy ride to match.
Poor range / endurance / payload for a new generation MPA/ISR platform and 2 engines is only 50% of 4.
It's a USAF 'style' aircraft i.e, they will need a bunch of techies to go with them every time they deploy and won't be able to use rough and ready strips that they sometimes have used in the P3.
Allegedly, the first issue will be overcome by not flying at low level (the P8 has also dispensed with the MAD) and the last issue will be familiar to you as a Nimrod mate. Other than that, stand by for a further slip to delivery dates.
On a separarte note - £3.6 Bil for 9 ac = £400 mil each for the MRA4. Is this the worlds second most expensive aircraft?
Best wishes to all at KIS this Christmas and the coming New Year...
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: 4 Civvy Street. Nowhere-near-a-base. The Shires.
Posts: 559
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Very poor manouevreability at low level - limited to 30 Deg AOB with a correspondingly huge turning circle and a bumpy ride to match.
P3 always used to beat us on timed ASW attack comps beccause of our lack of manoe...(I cant be bothered trying to spell that)
Merry Xmas
CS
Camelspyder - That will be 30 degrees AOB at 200ft incrementing up to 60 AOB at 500ft. Not quite the limitation you suggest.
How many times did a Nimrod and crew win the Fincastle?
How many times did a Nimrod and crew win the Fincastle?
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: 4 Civvy Street. Nowhere-near-a-base. The Shires.
Posts: 559
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
NLH
I was deliberately as vague on the AOB lim as the quoter of the P8 limitations.
And even though I was on the Fincastle winning crew in '90, we lost the speed event casex, due to P3's getting back on top quicker.
CS
I was deliberately as vague on the AOB lim as the quoter of the P8 limitations.
And even though I was on the Fincastle winning crew in '90, we lost the speed event casex, due to P3's getting back on top quicker.
CS
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: The Shed
Posts: 195
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Spyder - you've changed! And one of your old boys was saying such good things about you in the Muckle Cross this evening! Anyway, Merrie Crimble to you, Mrs S and mini spyders.
Retrosgone -
Get some time in son. With a name like that, you must be a siggy made good, and a very lucky siggy too. Most of my time with the retro was making sure it had gone. 
I have no problem at all with 737 (even with past rudder issues), but personally, at o-dark hours over the N Atlantic, with one donk out, I'm a lot happier with 3 more of Mr R-R's / BMW's finest to get me home for tea and medals.
And one of your old boys was saying such good things about you in the Muckle Cross this evening! Anyway, Merrie Crimble to you, Mrs S and mini spyders.Retrosgone -
As a 6000 hour MR2 driver
but I can't personally see why the 737 airframe would not make a perfectly good basis for an ASW platform.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Scotland
Posts: 70
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Smiter-
No - I was never clever enough to be a siggy. I just always loved having something smoking in the water to look at - until the Nav mafia pinched the giant French revolver to pay for some new-fangled laser gyro thingy.
I can't compare the 737 with the MRA4 or the P3 of course - but compared with the MR2 it has a much better runway performance (great brakes and effective reverse thrust).
As for the limit to bank angle, the manoeuvre margins to stick shaker etc for a given speed are again very similar to those for the MR2 so perhaps they are being a bit cautious with a jet as opposed to the turbo-prop it replaces. There is of course the problem that an annoying American shouts "Bank Angle" at you every time you go past 30 degrees! As I recall, the Nimrod was never originally intended to spend much time at low level. The idea was to loiter at 20,000 feet monitoring the Jezebel field before swooping briefly to despatch the hapless sub with a brace of Mark 44 torpedoes. Unfortunately reality, as often happens, soon intruded. I can certainly agree that the 737 is horrible in turbulence - but then so is the P3.
The two engines versus four argument is well worn - and I can't argue with anyone who expresses a preference for as many engines as possible. Nonetheless, the CFM56 is incredibly reliable and pretty economical too. The P8 which I understand is a "hybrid" 737 7/800 airframe should easily equal the endurance of the MR2, though perhaps not the P3 or MRA4.
I also don't remember deploying anywhere without around 7 groundcrew in the back of a Mark 2, so toting engineers around would not be any change to RAF practice.
No - I was never clever enough to be a siggy. I just always loved having something smoking in the water to look at - until the Nav mafia pinched the giant French revolver to pay for some new-fangled laser gyro thingy.
I can't compare the 737 with the MRA4 or the P3 of course - but compared with the MR2 it has a much better runway performance (great brakes and effective reverse thrust).
As for the limit to bank angle, the manoeuvre margins to stick shaker etc for a given speed are again very similar to those for the MR2 so perhaps they are being a bit cautious with a jet as opposed to the turbo-prop it replaces. There is of course the problem that an annoying American shouts "Bank Angle" at you every time you go past 30 degrees! As I recall, the Nimrod was never originally intended to spend much time at low level. The idea was to loiter at 20,000 feet monitoring the Jezebel field before swooping briefly to despatch the hapless sub with a brace of Mark 44 torpedoes. Unfortunately reality, as often happens, soon intruded. I can certainly agree that the 737 is horrible in turbulence - but then so is the P3.
The two engines versus four argument is well worn - and I can't argue with anyone who expresses a preference for as many engines as possible. Nonetheless, the CFM56 is incredibly reliable and pretty economical too. The P8 which I understand is a "hybrid" 737 7/800 airframe should easily equal the endurance of the MR2, though perhaps not the P3 or MRA4.
I also don't remember deploying anywhere without around 7 groundcrew in the back of a Mark 2, so toting engineers around would not be any change to RAF practice.
Guest
Posts: n/a
At the (very great, knowing Ppruners!) risk of being kicked senseless, has the A400M been mentioned? Dunno if it could be developed into an MPA, just asking a question. Standing by for the 'get-back-in-yer-box'!
(By the way, does the A400 have a name yet?)
(By the way, does the A400 have a name yet?)
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Falmouth
Posts: 1,651
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
es - just 9 aircraft!
But on the plus side, to the best of my knowledge (standing by to be corrected), there will still be 2 Sqns and an OCU!!
That's one outfit too many for 9 a/c in my opinion, 2 Sqns, one of which has an embedded conversion flight, would be more appropriate in my opinion. Maybe someone is being clever, and by keeping 2 Sqns and an OCU it gives you the option to offer one up as a saving in the upcoming defence review?
But on the plus side, to the best of my knowledge (standing by to be corrected), there will still be 2 Sqns and an OCU!!
That's one outfit too many for 9 a/c in my opinion, 2 Sqns, one of which has an embedded conversion flight, would be more appropriate in my opinion. Maybe someone is being clever, and by keeping 2 Sqns and an OCU it gives you the option to offer one up as a saving in the upcoming defence review?
What a great idea.... Very clever
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Worcestershire
Posts: 305
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just a thought, Torpy got rid of maritime AD (SHAR), and now the current management have put MPA on hold for a period before it gets the final chop. Is this the beginning of a plan to push the responsibility for maritime air to the RN?