Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Aircrew Forums > Military Aviation
Reload this Page >

Can someone explain why the MRA4 has been cancelled before we screw up big time.

Military Aviation A forum for the professionals who fly military hardware. Also for the backroom boys and girls who support the flying and maintain the equipment, and without whom nothing would ever leave the ground. All armies, navies and air forces of the world equally welcome here.

Can someone explain why the MRA4 has been cancelled before we screw up big time.

Old 31st Jan 2011, 13:21
  #321 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Right here, right now
Posts: 270
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
MOA:
I worked with SFO on this project
What? You worked with the Serious Fraud Office during this BAES project

MFC_Fly is offline  
Old 31st Jan 2011, 15:05
  #322 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Stockport
Posts: 121
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
MOA
As to the so called 'list' it is very poor. I am travelling si don't want to waste time answering all points but here's a few.
With you here , in fact that list is pure fiction dreamed up to dupe the papers and the public into believing the MRA4 was unsafe& to basically justifying its axing, and judging by some of the posts on here that list has met its aim.

Im still gobsmacked that people on these forums still dispute what the people who flew this aircraft & who built this aircraft have said in its defense over some bull**** that non technical people have rolled out to justify its destruction.

Hiding a aircraft while you cut it up speaks volumes.

As for certain people being bullet proof and non accountable is just asking for the same mistakes to be made again and again and again, this culture needs addressing but we all know that wont happen because it will be a admission of mismanagement by the very highest.

While we have these sort of people in power the UK is fooked.
manccowboy is offline  
Old 31st Jan 2011, 15:34
  #323 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: S**T Creek!
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Tappers Dad

"All the faults you have listed in your post I heard about back in October last year via a reliable source. But I have one to add, when someone was attempting to repair a leaking fuel coupling as they undid the coupling the fuel pipes sprang apart approx 9ins. The pipes were too short to join together and had been forced together putting an intolerable strain on the coupling."
I have to ask if you really and honestly believe that to be true. Do you really believe you can stretch a solid double walled fuel pipe by 9 inches on installation? If you do, you have obviously never been near an aircraft which is being built.

Lets suppose some magical situation where whilst on jacks a pipe is fitted and then when lowered onto the landing gear and fuelled some part of the aircraft magically moves 9 inches relative to another. The fuel pipe clamps are good but not infinitely strong and the pipe would snap instantly. No pipe clamp in existence could hold the multiple tons of force which would be required to put a 9 inch deflection in any direction into a pipe!

PotP
Pig Of The Poke is offline  
Old 31st Jan 2011, 16:14
  #324 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Hotel Gypsy
Posts: 2,821
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Is it all in a name? Place yourself in the politician's shoes - got to cut expenditure, lots of it. The military have this thing called Nimrod and you recollect a scandal involving a funny shaped thing with a bulbous nose & tail when you were a teenager. You also have a bit of paper called Haddon-Cave where the same word appears. The military brass come in with their list of big projects and the 'N' word appears again - it looks as if it is running late with a bit of risk. To me, it is a politician's no-brainer.

Of course the real argument is about capability gaps and how to fill these.
Cows getting bigger is offline  
Old 31st Jan 2011, 16:48
  #325 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Here and there, occasionally at home.
Age: 56
Posts: 146
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
MOA

Enjoy the slopes dude.
ShortFatOne is offline  
Old 31st Jan 2011, 17:24
  #326 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 4,333
Received 80 Likes on 32 Posts
Now I've been told the same as Tapper's Dad - fuel unions undone and twang! (not sure about 9 inches though). This was from a couple of officer engineers close to the project at HQ Air and also from someone in DE&S. Also, most of the same issues were explained by these people as iRaven wrote about.

Now either there is the greatest spoof going on from 2 RAF engineers and 1 DE&S engineer to at least 3 unconnected individuals (Tapper's Dad, iRaven and me) and a fake "Restricted" letter from DE&S to the Sunday Times, or something fishy is going on.

Sounds like time for an Public Inquiry to me. We need to know the definative facts so this is settled once and for all; and that we never make the same mistake again with the company/contract/project management (delete as applicable).

LJ
Lima Juliet is offline  
Old 31st Jan 2011, 17:49
  #327 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: UK
Age: 54
Posts: 503
Received 40 Likes on 10 Posts
Well Dr Fox is also part of this "spoof" then...

The decision to scrap the Nimrod MRA4 programme was one of the most difficult we had to take. This capability was conceived to provide the very outermost ring of long-range layered reconnaissance. The original plan conceived in 1996 was for 21 aircraft to be delivered in 2003. By the time the new Government took office in 2010 the programme had already been reduced to just nine aircraft, was almost £800m over budget with the unit cost of each aircraft ballooning by 300 per cent, and the aircraft were still nowhere near ready to enter service. The single MRA4 aircraft that had been delivered to the RAF was so riddled with flaws it could not pass its flight tests, it was simply unsafe to fly. I am not prepared to put our service personnel into any plane that isn’t safe. It would have taken more money and more time to rectify all the problems, if it was possible at all, and the onward cost of sustaining even the reduced fleet over the next ten years was a prohibitive £2bn. So we took the decision not to throw good money after bad. In the final analysis, it had to go.

I recognise the outstanding service given to the nation by the original Nimrod for over 40 years and that MRA4 would have been great to have, if it had worked. But the plain fact is that it didn’t. Because the airframes are based on a 1940s design, there is no realistic demand for them, and storing them would not be cost effective. We are having to pay to dispose of the aircraft but this is dwarfed by the projected cost of continuing to blindly pursue it. Labour had already retired the Nimrod MR2 last year before the MRA4 was ready, so the capability has already been gapped for over a year. We are mitigating the risk incurred by using other capabilities, such as Frigates, Merlin helicopters and Hercules aircraft. Operations in Afghanistan are not affected by this decision and we will continue to cover long-range Search and Rescue around the UK with a number of aircraft that can fulfil this role.

He seems very sure of his facts now, doesn't he?

iRaven

PS - he also reiterated these facts in Defence Oral Questions at about 1500hrs in the House today (31 Jan 11).
iRaven is offline  
Old 31st Jan 2011, 18:12
  #328 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Europe
Posts: 661
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Some alternative emphasis:

The decision to scrap the Nimrod MRA4 programme was one of the most difficult we had to take.
...as it was fundamentally about saving money, and creating a capability gap with no replacement planned....

The single MRA4 aircraft that had been delivered to the RAF was so riddled with flaws it could not pass its flight tests, it was simply unsafe to fly. I am not prepared to put our service personnel into any plane that isn’t safe.
...technically true, but isn't this a temporary issue, not a permanent one - spin...?!

It would have taken more money and more time to rectify all the problems, if it was possible at all, and the onward cost of sustaining even the reduced fleet over the next ten years was a prohibitive £2bn.
...wasn't the £2Bn just the expected running costs ove 10 years?

So we took the decision not to throw good money after bad. In the final analysis, it had to go......We are having to pay to dispose of the aircraft but this is dwarfed by the projected cost of continuing to blindly pursue it.
....blindly pursue it = pay to support it...?

Labour had already retired the Nimrod MR2 last year before the MRA4 was ready, so the capability has already been gapped for over a year.
.....on the basis that the gap would be short when MRA4 came in, not permanent, and skills fade would be manageable? The skill fade now will be irrecoverable.
JFZ90 is offline  
Old 31st Jan 2011, 18:49
  #329 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Kettering
Posts: 122
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Irrecoverable? Makes you wonder how we ever managed to get into maritime patrol and sub hunting in the first place.

The hysterics around the cull of this white elephant get better all the time.
LookingNorth is offline  
Old 31st Jan 2011, 20:09
  #330 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: France 46
Age: 77
Posts: 1,743
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I have been looking through a book (that was bought for me by my late first Wife some 40 years ago) which contains the profile of the Hawker Siddeley 801 Nimrod aircraft. That aircraft was based on the Comet 4C aircraft which had been operated by the RAF since February 1962. The RAF had, however, been operating Comet Mk2s since June 1956. The original Comets entered service with BOAC on 2nd May 1952 but the first flight of the aircraft was 27 July 1949. If the Comet was female it would be drawing its old age pension by now - no matter how many "facelifts" it had been given. The Nimrod variant first flew on the 23 May 1967- nearly 44 years ago whilst I was on my first OCU. In 6 months time I will eligible for the State Old age Pension.

If the RAF had persevered with well proven aircraft types in specialist roles then Coastal Command would have been operating with Consolidated Liberators well into the latter part of the 20th Century.
cazatou is offline  
Old 31st Jan 2011, 20:09
  #331 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Uranus
Posts: 958
Received 11 Likes on 9 Posts
"White Elephant"? More like "White Whale?" Come to think of it the "BAES Moby Dick MRA4" would have made a great name.
The B Word is offline  
Old 31st Jan 2011, 23:23
  #332 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: 2 m South of Radstock VRP
Posts: 2,042
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
cazatou sums this up very well; few people actually understand the Nimrod MK4. How do you argue from such a starting point?

Clearly, if you take the formers and stringers designed for a Comet 4, shortened by 6' 6", the tailplane and fin core, the product must be a Comet. Boeing must agonise over that logic every time they recycle a B707.

Can somebody remind me how old the RR Trent is now?
GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU is offline  
Old 1st Feb 2011, 07:05
  #333 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: W. Scotland
Posts: 649
Received 46 Likes on 23 Posts
From Hansard, 20th Feb 2003

Operational Requirement

Nimrod, Maritime Patrol Aircraft (MPA), with their reach and large area coverage, uniquely provide the long range maritime area surveillance and attack capability necessary to assure secure battlespace in the littoral. Without this assured access, the risk of loss of deployed forces, including CVF, from a continuing surface and sub-surface threat, would severely limit our ability to conduct post SDR joint and expeditionary warfare. MPA provide the bedrock of maritime capability

Can we assume Dr Fox is now prepared to accept these risks?
dervish is offline  
Old 1st Feb 2011, 07:46
  #334 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Uranus
Posts: 958
Received 11 Likes on 9 Posts
Dervish

That Hansard quote is 8 years old from a different Govt that was prepared to live without long range aviation ASW/ASUW from 2009 (when the option to axe MR2 was made).

Plus if you re-read the Dr Fox quote, he acknowledges the current risk and mitigates it with RN 'dippers', Type 23, C130 and I guess what he means is E3D doing long range 'surpic'.

The B Word
The B Word is offline  
Old 1st Feb 2011, 13:20
  #335 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: France 46
Age: 77
Posts: 1,743
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
GBZ

The RB 50 Trent ran for 633 hrs on test before being fitted to a Meteor which first flew on 20 September 1945.

The "New" Trent first ran in August 1990.
cazatou is offline  
Old 1st Feb 2011, 14:44
  #336 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: North of Down There!
Age: 52
Posts: 75
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Liam Fox

September 2010….

“Dear David ,……..

Frankly this process is looking less and less defensible as a proper SDSR (Strategic Defence and Strategy Review) and more like a “super CSR” (Comprehensive Spending Review). If it continues on its current trajectory it is likely to have grave political consequences for us, destroying much of the reputation and capital you, and we, have built up in recent years……..

Deletion of the Nimrod MR4 will limit our ability to deploy maritime forces rapidly into high-threat areas, increase the risk to the Deterrent, compromise maritime CT (counter terrorism), remove long range search and rescue, and delete one element of our Falklands reinforcement plan………..

Even at this stage we should be looking at the strategic and security implications of our decisions. It would be a great pity if, having championed the cause of our Armed Forces and set up the innovation of the NSC, we simply produced a cuts package. Cuts there will have to be. Coherence, we cannot do without, if there is to be any chance of a credible narrative.

Yours
Liam Fox.”

THEN……

The Telegraph - By Liam Fox 28 Jan 2011

“…….The decision to scrap the Nimrod MRA4 programme was one of the most difficult we had to take. This capability was conceived to provide the very outermost ring of long-range layered reconnaissance. The original plan conceived in 1996 was for 21 aircraft to be delivered in 2003. By the time the new Government took office in 2010 the programme had already been reduced to just nine aircraft, was almost £800m over budget with the unit cost of each aircraft ballooning by 300 per cent, and the aircraft were still nowhere near ready to enter service. The single MRA4 aircraft that had been delivered to the RAF was so riddled with flaws it could not pass its flight tests, it was simply unsafe to fly. I am not prepared to put our service personnel into any plane that isn’t safe. It would have taken more money and more time to rectify all the problems, if it was possible at all, and the onward cost of sustaining even the reduced fleet over the next ten years was a prohibitive £2bn. So we took the decision not to throw good money after bad. In the final analysis, it had to go……..”

So Liam why were you championing it a matter of a few short months ago?

Another reason why you should never trust a politician, as the Big Yin says:

"Anyone who wants to become a politician should be excluded from office for that very same reason"

Utter Cnuts the lot of them!
Dave Angel is offline  
Old 1st Feb 2011, 21:02
  #337 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: coventry
Posts: 107
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
If YOU were allowed to construct the requirement for the next MPA what would it be and how do YOU think it would be best achieved ?

(Assuming.... possibly incorrectly..... that some aspects can be debated without breaking the Official Secrets Act!)

Reading the comments of people who were, in the past or recently, involved in this community I am interested to know how you would answer the above. Hypothetically unhindered by miltary, political, or coporate arselicking requirements but definately hindered by financial contraints (not necessarily the present ones but money definately is an object) and a sensible balance between technologically aspirational and technologically achievable within a reasonable time frame.

Please note; Not a Russian Spy, Not a Journo on a fishing trip.. just an interested UK Taxpayer.

Thanks TIM
RansS9 is offline  
Old 1st Feb 2011, 21:09
  #338 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: 4 Civvy Street. Nowhere-near-a-base. The Shires.
Posts: 559
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
new MPA?

Some experienced people to fly it would be a good start so we'd better get the new wonderjet ready before Sep 2012. That's when we the crews follow the MRA4 onto the scapheap...

CS
camelspyyder is offline  
Old 1st Feb 2011, 21:19
  #339 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 4,333
Received 80 Likes on 32 Posts
Camelspyder

That'll be the chaps on exchange around the globe (including those with the RN) and also the chaps at Dam Neck, then.

I also heard of a plan to try and preserve some of the expertise under some type of "seedcorn" affair - basically farming out a few key people to ensure that we can build a capability back up again.

Nothing known about for the short term but, if I were a betting man, we'll be back in the LR ASW/ASuW game before 2020.

LJ
Lima Juliet is offline  
Old 1st Feb 2011, 21:24
  #340 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Waiting to return to the Loire.
Age: 54
Posts: 386
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
If I was a designer...

So as not to repeat the merry go round of having a the only fleet of 10 of a certain type of airframe in the world with all the ****s and giggles of the logistics train which that entails there should be a requirement that the airframe must be based upon an existing craft of which there are at least 200 currently flying in the world.

Couple this with a criterion requiring the base aircraft to been manufactured as a new build since 2000.

That may help a tad.

Last edited by Finnpog; 1st Feb 2011 at 21:25. Reason: Sorry. All thingers and fumbs
Finnpog is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.