Russian subs stalk Trident
Would someone please publish a certain Photo that a previous CAS wanted destroyed because it would threaten the rationale of having so many fast shiny static displays.
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: 45 yards from a tropical beach
Posts: 1,103
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Some years ago, when an Australian politician stated in the House that the F111 was obsolete, useless and should be scrapped, a mission was planned and executed.
The very next day, a courier delivered a set of photos to the polly himself. It showed his office building, in ever increasing detail, with the final shot being his own office window neatly adorned by crosshairs! The F111 soldiered on for many more years.
The very next day, a courier delivered a set of photos to the polly himself. It showed his office building, in ever increasing detail, with the final shot being his own office window neatly adorned by crosshairs! The F111 soldiered on for many more years.
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Too close to the inlaws
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nice one RP. There is another with the whole inventory lined up ready to go in the Bomb bay but this picture does get the message accross in terms of potential. With regards to the "Maritime Mafia" comment, the Nimrod guys I work with are anything but.
Right, thats enough blowing sunshine up the RAFs arse, its about time you started blowing your own trumpet and appreciate whats just round the corner with this NEW platform.
Right, thats enough blowing sunshine up the RAFs arse, its about time you started blowing your own trumpet and appreciate whats just round the corner with this NEW platform.
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Bonnie Scotland
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nice photo but....
Just because an aircraft can bolt a particular weapon under it's wings or in the bomb bay doesn't mean to say it can actually carry it in flight. Although the MR2 could carry harpoon, I understand that weapon clearances on MRA4 have concentrated on the ASW weapon.
Granted, given a large amount of cash you will be able to clear storm shadow, but you will need to jump through a lot of hoops first. These will include:
1. Aerodynamic modelling for carraige and separation.
2. Structural instrumentation to see how the weapon impacts the wing bending moments in flight throughout the flight envelope.
3. Actual separation trials with inert and live weapons.
However, there are a couple of minor hiccups to this option besides the actual expense of the computer modelling and flight trials:
1. PA1 was the only structurally instrumented MRA4 which is no longer flying. Alternatively, you can instrument a production aircraft.
2. Hanging weapons under the wings negatively impacts lateral stability of the aircraft. Historically even the MR1 had to undergo modifications from the Comet namely the fin fillet to improve the lateral stability due to the negative impact of the large bomb bay doors. Looking at MRA4 photos with all the extra fillets added to the tailplane there may not be enough of a postive margin to the lateral stability to be able to carry underwing stores without redesigning the tail assembly.
On the positive side, given enough cash anything is possible.
Frustrated....
Just because an aircraft can bolt a particular weapon under it's wings or in the bomb bay doesn't mean to say it can actually carry it in flight. Although the MR2 could carry harpoon, I understand that weapon clearances on MRA4 have concentrated on the ASW weapon.
Granted, given a large amount of cash you will be able to clear storm shadow, but you will need to jump through a lot of hoops first. These will include:
1. Aerodynamic modelling for carraige and separation.
2. Structural instrumentation to see how the weapon impacts the wing bending moments in flight throughout the flight envelope.
3. Actual separation trials with inert and live weapons.
However, there are a couple of minor hiccups to this option besides the actual expense of the computer modelling and flight trials:
1. PA1 was the only structurally instrumented MRA4 which is no longer flying. Alternatively, you can instrument a production aircraft.
2. Hanging weapons under the wings negatively impacts lateral stability of the aircraft. Historically even the MR1 had to undergo modifications from the Comet namely the fin fillet to improve the lateral stability due to the negative impact of the large bomb bay doors. Looking at MRA4 photos with all the extra fillets added to the tailplane there may not be enough of a postive margin to the lateral stability to be able to carry underwing stores without redesigning the tail assembly.
On the positive side, given enough cash anything is possible.
Frustrated....
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: The real world
Posts: 446
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The idea that CAS was worried about pictures of Nimrod showing potential ordanace fits is laughable!
Are we to believe that the future of fast jet offensive platforms was really being put in jeopardy by a fleet of 9 nimrods (14/16 early on)?
So as well as doing their ASW and ASUW tasks they were going to do their other irreplaceable jobs as well as SAR, air defence, SEAD, deep strike, close air support etc?
Busy lot aren't they????
Nobody can blame the "Kinloss mafia" for fervently fighting their corner but just because you don't want it to happen doesn't mean it shouldn't or wont.
If they keep the new rod what odds on it being based at the home of ISTAR waddo?
Are we to believe that the future of fast jet offensive platforms was really being put in jeopardy by a fleet of 9 nimrods (14/16 early on)?
So as well as doing their ASW and ASUW tasks they were going to do their other irreplaceable jobs as well as SAR, air defence, SEAD, deep strike, close air support etc?
Busy lot aren't they????
Nobody can blame the "Kinloss mafia" for fervently fighting their corner but just because you don't want it to happen doesn't mean it shouldn't or wont.
If they keep the new rod what odds on it being based at the home of ISTAR waddo?
Pious,
The difference being that the MRA4 already has the pylons, wiring and software installed - I believe it is already "capable" of dropping most stores in the NATO inventory. It is thus already much further down the line (especially cost wise) than the C-130 you picture as an alternative. It was designed to do this stuff from the outset....hence the "A" in MRA4.
As has been pointed out, carriage and release trials haven't been done for anything other than ASW weapons (to the best of my limited knowledge?), due to a lack of time, money and probably intended useage by the RAF.....
Jayand,
As I see it, in this era of belt tightening the RAF can't afford to keep an airfield open for 9 aircraft. Therefore either more assets need to be moved to Kinloss (and I don't mean 2 yellow helicopters) or the MRA4 (if we get them) need to move elsewhere. However, that is just my personal opinion. Closing a base also doesn't save money in the short/medium term - try following the discussions on Lyneham closure and the move to Brize on another thread.....
The difference being that the MRA4 already has the pylons, wiring and software installed - I believe it is already "capable" of dropping most stores in the NATO inventory. It is thus already much further down the line (especially cost wise) than the C-130 you picture as an alternative. It was designed to do this stuff from the outset....hence the "A" in MRA4.
As has been pointed out, carriage and release trials haven't been done for anything other than ASW weapons (to the best of my limited knowledge?), due to a lack of time, money and probably intended useage by the RAF.....
Jayand,
As I see it, in this era of belt tightening the RAF can't afford to keep an airfield open for 9 aircraft. Therefore either more assets need to be moved to Kinloss (and I don't mean 2 yellow helicopters) or the MRA4 (if we get them) need to move elsewhere. However, that is just my personal opinion. Closing a base also doesn't save money in the short/medium term - try following the discussions on Lyneham closure and the move to Brize on another thread.....
I guess it has hardpoints, to which pylons can be attached if/when required......? As opposed to permanent pylons?
As I said, my personal knowledge is limited!
As I said, my personal knowledge is limited!
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Europe
Posts: 414
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Regardless of the wings the bomb bay could carry many weapon types without any stability issues. This thread covered it earlier this year
http://www.pprune.org/military-aircr...-platform.html
We do need to replace harpoon though, it's capability against any modern warship must be quite poor when compared to other systems. Joint Strike Missile for example will be multi role, available soon, much more effective and you could probably fit a few in the MRA4 bomb bay if it's designed to fit in the F-35 weapon bay. Anyone know if the Navy are looking to replace ship launched Harpoon, if so with what?
http://www.pprune.org/military-aircr...-platform.html
We do need to replace harpoon though, it's capability against any modern warship must be quite poor when compared to other systems. Joint Strike Missile for example will be multi role, available soon, much more effective and you could probably fit a few in the MRA4 bomb bay if it's designed to fit in the F-35 weapon bay. Anyone know if the Navy are looking to replace ship launched Harpoon, if so with what?
Re MRA4 & weapons carried. All you need to know is here...
RAF - Nimrod MRA4
"...The MRA4 has the potential to carry an extensive range of weapons and equipment in the bomb bay. Weapons management will be conducted via a stores management system, which carries out inventory tracking control, air-to-air and air-to-sea weapon control, and built-in test and fault diagnostic systems."
RAF - Nimrod MRA4
"...The MRA4 has the potential to carry an extensive range of weapons and equipment in the bomb bay. Weapons management will be conducted via a stores management system, which carries out inventory tracking control, air-to-air and air-to-sea weapon control, and built-in test and fault diagnostic systems."
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: 45 yards from a tropical beach
Posts: 1,103
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Nimrod Mk 2 was the first and only aircraft capable of taking on targets air-to-air (Sidewinder) air-to-surface (Harpoon) and air to sub-surface (Homing Torpedoes.) Nothing else comes close.
The MRA4 will have all three, but enhanced, capabilities, should it get to he front line.
We just need more than nine, eh Fin!
The MRA4 will have all three, but enhanced, capabilities, should it get to he front line.
We just need more than nine, eh Fin!
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: SALISBURY
Age: 76
Posts: 706
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Neptunus Rex
Absolutely agree NR. My worry, along with many other loyal fish heads, is that we may finish up with 0 Nimrods. At which time I cancel my long term membership of the Conservative party.
PS You go to bed late!
PS You go to bed late!
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: UK
Age: 53
Posts: 76
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am not the one pushing glossy magazine fantasy propaganda.
Unfortunately the troubled recent history of the Mk2, the desperate cuts needed and the rhetoric about slashing legacy/cold war projects and capability all point towards the Nimrod and the chopping block to me.
If they keep the new rod what odds on it being based at the home of ISTAR waddo?
there are a lot of mushrooms at Kinloss just now and the Farm has been closed for a few years
The bottom line is, both Stations should be looking over their sholders very carefully as neither know what the future holds. I would love to see both come through the next few months unscathed, but sadly from the tone being set by the politicians something big is going to go. We can argue the pros and cons for every platform, but in the end it will do no good as money will more than likely drive the final decisions and not any real capability requirement.