Can someone explain why the MRA4 has been cancelled before we screw up big time.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: St Annes
Age: 68
Posts: 638
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Expertise is gained over a fair old length of time, not something that a handful of 'seedcorn' can upload into a few dozen ab initio students x years down the turnpike. Any significant outflow of sqn aircrew from the RAF would be very difficult to replace.... you can't teach experience, and the experience of aircrew on their Xth tour is what we'll be missing.
I'd want an aircraft with Searchwater in it, and a significantly good TAC NAV kit... I expect the wetties would like a darn good processor array too. ... Hmmm, I suspect I'm designing a Nimrod inside a different airframe here...<g>
I'd want an aircraft with Searchwater in it, and a significantly good TAC NAV kit... I expect the wetties would like a darn good processor array too. ... Hmmm, I suspect I'm designing a Nimrod inside a different airframe here...<g>
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Europe
Posts: 414
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RansS9, seeing as you’re asking. From an operators perspective if the idiots realise what they have done then
It has to be an off the shelf design if you want to reduce the "risk" (whatever it is supposed to mean today
) and cost, given what has just happened I would say there would be no appetite for risk at all.
The RJ has opened up new questions about procurement, if it is successful then maybe we should partner another Countries Forces and offer to pool our Crews while maintaining some sovereign control (It will be interesting to see if we can ensure our aims remain compatible, we can have very different policies. e.g.: Rendition flights)
However as has been said on various threads, our temptation to tinker with platforms to theoretically keep cash in the UK is almost impossible to resist. Unless there is total reform of the way we procure equipment then I believe we are doomed to make the same mistakes again.
Anyway
Old P-3s from somewhere, possible but not very sensible, the arguments about 50s era designs, already worn out, out-dated equipment. Some in the desert, Canada not upgrading all its but all old.
New P-8s whenever they can get us on the production line, but the design is operationally unproven and new tactics being devised to cover deficiencies. BAMS would be needed to make it work as envisaged.
The Japanese XP-1 (P-1 I guess) again unproven and possibly risky support. Oh and they will not export it (yet). No doubt the most risky solution, but it does look to have a good MPA configuration, time will tell.
French Atlantique 2s if they would allow us to buy/use up the airframes they are not updating and then possibly put them through the update when we can afford it.
Bear F, only kidding!
These would all more or less cover the capability gap (In all MR2 tasks that I have been involved with) that we have had for nearly a year now.
If you want to trade off some capabilities then there are various smaller platforms that can provide some or lesser capabilities, such as
CN-235 or 295, ATR-72, Fokker 50/60, Dash 8, Do 328, SAAB 340 etc. I'm not sure which of these would be better, the 235/295 and Fokker 50/60 are the only ones I know that are in Military service rather than just an airliner with a radar and camera bolted on. Although the 235/295 looks the part I'd go with which ever has the best speed/endurance/range/capacity etc. The C-27 might work but isn't really an off the shelf MPA.
Personally I think Atlantiques would get us back in the game in maybe 3-5 years, P-8s at least 5-10 years. I was never a fan of the Atlantique but on paper it sounds good, 360 deg radar, fantastic visibility from flt deck, beams and nose! big bombay and floats on water, I've seen the pics
And of course never buy the A model of anything!
It has to be an off the shelf design if you want to reduce the "risk" (whatever it is supposed to mean today
) and cost, given what has just happened I would say there would be no appetite for risk at all. The RJ has opened up new questions about procurement, if it is successful then maybe we should partner another Countries Forces and offer to pool our Crews while maintaining some sovereign control (It will be interesting to see if we can ensure our aims remain compatible, we can have very different policies. e.g.: Rendition flights)
However as has been said on various threads, our temptation to tinker with platforms to theoretically keep cash in the UK is almost impossible to resist. Unless there is total reform of the way we procure equipment then I believe we are doomed to make the same mistakes again.
Anyway
Old P-3s from somewhere, possible but not very sensible, the arguments about 50s era designs, already worn out, out-dated equipment. Some in the desert, Canada not upgrading all its but all old.
New P-8s whenever they can get us on the production line, but the design is operationally unproven and new tactics being devised to cover deficiencies. BAMS would be needed to make it work as envisaged.
The Japanese XP-1 (P-1 I guess) again unproven and possibly risky support. Oh and they will not export it (yet). No doubt the most risky solution, but it does look to have a good MPA configuration, time will tell.
French Atlantique 2s if they would allow us to buy/use up the airframes they are not updating and then possibly put them through the update when we can afford it.
Bear F, only kidding!
These would all more or less cover the capability gap (In all MR2 tasks that I have been involved with) that we have had for nearly a year now.
If you want to trade off some capabilities then there are various smaller platforms that can provide some or lesser capabilities, such as
CN-235 or 295, ATR-72, Fokker 50/60, Dash 8, Do 328, SAAB 340 etc. I'm not sure which of these would be better, the 235/295 and Fokker 50/60 are the only ones I know that are in Military service rather than just an airliner with a radar and camera bolted on. Although the 235/295 looks the part I'd go with which ever has the best speed/endurance/range/capacity etc. The C-27 might work but isn't really an off the shelf MPA.
Personally I think Atlantiques would get us back in the game in maybe 3-5 years, P-8s at least 5-10 years. I was never a fan of the Atlantique but on paper it sounds good, 360 deg radar, fantastic visibility from flt deck, beams and nose! big bombay and floats on water, I've seen the pics
And of course never buy the A model of anything!
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: at the end of the bar
Posts: 484
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Personally I think Atlantiques would get us back in the game in maybe 3-5 years, P-8s at least 5-10 years. I was never a fan of the Atlantique but on paper it sounds good, 360 deg radar, fantastic visibility from flt deck, beams and nose! big bombay and floats on water, I've seen the pics
And of course never buy the A model of anything!
And of course never buy the A model of anything!
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: St Annes
Age: 68
Posts: 638
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bittersweet,
I've just read an article in the 'Forres Gazette and loons chip wrapper' - Plessey trophy awarded to 120 Sqn for an ASW sortie prior to MR2 appearing in 'Autotrader'.
Of interest.... "WTF is Adey doing in that photo?" I asked myself.... crikey, R4 is boss of 120! (well done sunshine, if you are reading this).
Now chuck in S3 who is OC 42 ... various N2's who went on to multi starred rank, and is probably ACM of the RAF Admiral the honourable Lord Andy of Fryer by now - you know, I'm beginning to wonder why I never made Air Commode at least....
Dave
(1 - yes, I do know that's the not the way to spell it, before the grammar nazis pop up, and
2 - Yes, I do know it's because I'm a *** )
I've just read an article in the 'Forres Gazette and loons chip wrapper' - Plessey trophy awarded to 120 Sqn for an ASW sortie prior to MR2 appearing in 'Autotrader'.
Of interest.... "WTF is Adey doing in that photo?" I asked myself.... crikey, R4 is boss of 120! (well done sunshine, if you are reading this).
Now chuck in S3 who is OC 42 ... various N2's who went on to multi starred rank, and is probably ACM of the RAF Admiral the honourable Lord Andy of Fryer by now - you know, I'm beginning to wonder why I never made Air Commode at least....
Dave
(1 - yes, I do know that's the not the way to spell it, before the grammar nazis pop up, and
2 - Yes, I do know it's because I'm a *** )
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: UK, sometimes!
Age: 74
Posts: 436
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
you know, I'm beginning to wonder why I never made Air Commode at least....
Be nice to all those little 'angels' at FA
MadMark!!!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Right here, right Now!
Posts: 59
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dave Angel post, like it.
Two significant comments from Def Sec posted in the Telegraph that I think should be held up to scrutiny so we can establish where the truth ends and the spin starts.
“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.”
Clearly nobody would put an aircraft into service that is unsafe to fly, but that is somewhat different than the situation we actually had. The MRA4 was in a phase of the program designed to secure a RTS; a process that it was near to completing. So let’s not spin it in an attempt to make it look like it would never pass and the Govt was simply protecting us from danger.
“We are mitigating the risk incurred by using other capabilities, such as Frigates, Merlin helicopters and Hercules aircraft.”
As Def Sec I sincerely hope he improves his briefing team if he believes the Frigates, Merlins and Hercules will fill this capability gap……..oh of course that is not what he is saying.“Mitigating the risk” is of course the spin in an attempt to hide the fact that the capability gap the Govt has created is the real danger.
And finally; the capability gap in Dr Fox’s own words in Sept 10:
“The 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."
Lets sincerely hope the Telegraph follow his comments (past and present) up with some incisive journalism and dig a little deeper.
MoD Media report on visit to Kinloss by Min AF and minders last week:
SPIN- Min AF and co were really convincing in the defence of the capability gap they are not responsible for.
UNSPUN- Min AF and co lacked any credibility due to the fact that they were clearly pedalling a party line that they either didn’t believe or didn’t understand.
I will let the readers decide which element of the visiting group was responsible for the lack of belief in the spin and an understanding of the capability gap they have created.
DFM over & out
“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.”
Clearly nobody would put an aircraft into service that is unsafe to fly, but that is somewhat different than the situation we actually had. The MRA4 was in a phase of the program designed to secure a RTS; a process that it was near to completing. So let’s not spin it in an attempt to make it look like it would never pass and the Govt was simply protecting us from danger.
“We are mitigating the risk incurred by using other capabilities, such as Frigates, Merlin helicopters and Hercules aircraft.”
As Def Sec I sincerely hope he improves his briefing team if he believes the Frigates, Merlins and Hercules will fill this capability gap……..oh of course that is not what he is saying.“Mitigating the risk” is of course the spin in an attempt to hide the fact that the capability gap the Govt has created is the real danger.
And finally; the capability gap in Dr Fox’s own words in Sept 10:
“The 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."
Lets sincerely hope the Telegraph follow his comments (past and present) up with some incisive journalism and dig a little deeper.
MoD Media report on visit to Kinloss by Min AF and minders last week:
SPIN- Min AF and co were really convincing in the defence of the capability gap they are not responsible for.
UNSPUN- Min AF and co lacked any credibility due to the fact that they were clearly pedalling a party line that they either didn’t believe or didn’t understand.
I will let the readers decide which element of the visiting group was responsible for the lack of belief in the spin and an understanding of the capability gap they have created.
DFM over & out
DFM
The problem in your argument that the current Govt created this "capability gap" is that it was created by Nu-Labour with the scrapping MR2. The Tories merely extended an existing "gap"; so they never technically created the "gap" in the first place.
As would be suggested by Sir Humphrey...
The problem in your argument that the current Govt created this "capability gap" is that it was created by Nu-Labour with the scrapping MR2. The Tories merely extended an existing "gap"; so they never technically created the "gap" in the first place.
As would be suggested by Sir Humphrey...
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Wellington
Age: 77
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fergineer, XV277
Fergineer: Yes MZ is larger than several European nations but it has a small population.
However, if the RAF were to have as many maritime patrol aricraft per capita as the RNZAF then they would have needed a fleet of around 85 Nimrods!
XV277: My remarks about the Minister of Defence applied to the New Zealand office holder, not his counterpart in Whitehall!
While I am here, three observations on this thread — getting to the facts and the length of the Nimrod's heritage.
First, A lot of people still rely on the general media and the general media both in NZ and the UK is to factual news as a length of seaweed is to weather forecasting.
Most of the media would not know their Nimrod from their AWACS E-3.
They are paid to find sensation ... the truth is a distant objective.
Second, a number of people have looked askance at the long list of things 'wrong' with Nimrod.
This is like finding bacteria on a kitchen table ... the table can be made clean.
Things marked as faulty get fixed, even when there are hundreds of them.
The critical point is less that there were so many faults found but rather that they were found because once found they would be fixed
And, not least some have used the length of the hapless Nimrod's heritage to condemn it.
In a month or two the B-52's lineage will be 59 years long ... obviously it is a hopelessly old aeroplane.
However, if the RAF were to have as many maritime patrol aricraft per capita as the RNZAF then they would have needed a fleet of around 85 Nimrods!
XV277: My remarks about the Minister of Defence applied to the New Zealand office holder, not his counterpart in Whitehall!
While I am here, three observations on this thread — getting to the facts and the length of the Nimrod's heritage.
First, A lot of people still rely on the general media and the general media both in NZ and the UK is to factual news as a length of seaweed is to weather forecasting.
Most of the media would not know their Nimrod from their AWACS E-3.
They are paid to find sensation ... the truth is a distant objective.
Second, a number of people have looked askance at the long list of things 'wrong' with Nimrod.
This is like finding bacteria on a kitchen table ... the table can be made clean.
Things marked as faulty get fixed, even when there are hundreds of them.
The critical point is less that there were so many faults found but rather that they were found because once found they would be fixed
And, not least some have used the length of the hapless Nimrod's heritage to condemn it.
In a month or two the B-52's lineage will be 59 years long ... obviously it is a hopelessly old aeroplane.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Right here, right Now!
Posts: 59
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gap, holiday or total loss?
T B W
I think Sir Humphrey’s term for the early withdrawal of the MR2 prior to the planned introduction of the MRA4 was a “capability holiday”.
Although I suppose you could argue that this is no longer a holiday or gap…….it’s now officially a loss of capability!
DFM over & out
I think Sir Humphrey’s term for the early withdrawal of the MR2 prior to the planned introduction of the MRA4 was a “capability holiday”.
Although I suppose you could argue that this is no longer a holiday or gap…….it’s now officially a loss of capability!
DFM over & out
DFM
Agree, but;
Oh yes they would, and did.
You never forget standing toe to toe with a 2 Star advising him (strongly) that an aircraft fleet should be made safe, and him laughing in your face.
And then your precise words appearing in BoI recommendations after lives have been lost.
Agree, but;
Clearly nobody would put an aircraft into service that is unsafe to fly
Oh yes they would, and did.
You never forget standing toe to toe with a 2 Star advising him (strongly) that an aircraft fleet should be made safe, and him laughing in your face.
And then your precise words appearing in BoI recommendations after lives have been lost.
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Lossiemouth IV31 6RS
Age: 75
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Open Letter to the Prime Minister, dated 22 Oct 2010
For the record, and for those who may still be interested, I received the following letter from No10 today:
Dear (Hanfimar),
I am writing on behalf of the Prime Minister to thank you for contacting him.
Mr Cameron is most grateful for the time and trouble you have taken to get in touch and informing him of your views.
I am sorry that you have not yet had a response from the Ministry of Defence to your letter of 22 October, but I am forwarding your latest correspondence to them so that they are aware of your concerns, and so that they may reply to you directly.
Thank you, once again, for writing.
Yours sincerely,
etc,(Direct Communications Unit)
Good, it's nice to know that everything is in hand, and will be dealt with in a timely and efficient manner.....
Hanfimar.
Dear (Hanfimar),
I am writing on behalf of the Prime Minister to thank you for contacting him.
Mr Cameron is most grateful for the time and trouble you have taken to get in touch and informing him of your views.
I am sorry that you have not yet had a response from the Ministry of Defence to your letter of 22 October, but I am forwarding your latest correspondence to them so that they are aware of your concerns, and so that they may reply to you directly.
Thank you, once again, for writing.
Yours sincerely,
etc,(Direct Communications Unit)
Good, it's nice to know that everything is in hand, and will be dealt with in a timely and efficient manner.....
Hanfimar.
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Stockport
Posts: 121
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
These letters make interesting reading.
The decision to destroy the new Nimrod was based on inaccurate information - Telegraph
The decision to destroy the new Nimrod was based on inaccurate information - Telegraph
....especially the comment by "nesher".....!?
Which was...
I too worked at woodford until recent years. Let's face it the initial decision to convert existing aircraft was bad enough. The decision to do it at Woodford was nothing short of a disaster.
Any talent that was there in the latter years was purged out, deemed by our Dr Summerfield as being too old, if over 50..
The workforce left after the 2002 redundany was ' The Boys'. Many of whom being totally incompetent or damn right bone idle.
Please don't blame the government. you can only blame Woodford for a grossly overspent budget & time slippage, making it outdated before it would have been delivered. It was no good throwing good money after bad, It needed to stop.
I have witnessed the workmanship on aircraft in the later year at Woodford fist hand, it was nothing short of attrocious
Which was...
I too worked at woodford until recent years. Let's face it the initial decision to convert existing aircraft was bad enough. The decision to do it at Woodford was nothing short of a disaster.
Any talent that was there in the latter years was purged out, deemed by our Dr Summerfield as being too old, if over 50..
The workforce left after the 2002 redundany was ' The Boys'. Many of whom being totally incompetent or damn right bone idle.
Please don't blame the government. you can only blame Woodford for a grossly overspent budget & time slippage, making it outdated before it would have been delivered. It was no good throwing good money after bad, It needed to stop.
I have witnessed the workmanship on aircraft in the later year at Woodford fist hand, it was nothing short of attrocious
Last edited by Biggus; 3rd Feb 2011 at 20:26.
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Scotland
Posts: 217
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I read with interest the comments regarding Aircrew being kept in other jobs to keep the experience. I am 100% fully supportive of that but in reality when a new replacement Nimrod turns up in say 2018 or so are we expected to recall these guys who have settled elsewhere, found a great career possibly and do not wish to return to maratime. I fear it is the final chapter on the horizon , I hope not though 
Biggus
Also an interesting thread by "toomanyairmiles"
Also an interesting thread by "toomanyairmiles"
These were 1940's coach built air frames, every single part required for the aircraft would have required designing and hand building for each airframe meaning the running costs would sky-rocket once in service.
The final space shuttle Endeavour would have cost 1.75 billion in today's money - the single serviceable MRA4 cost twice that.
Worse still the craft would come equipped with vastly out of date equipment specified in the 1990's which would soon require updating.
As for the other arguments about the economic benefits of building the aircraft here they appear to be at best slight. The combat computers were by Boeing, the electronic warfare equipment from Israel, weapons American, Rolls Royce engines built in Germany.
As for the special forces coming under threat this is a misnomer, Nimrod MR2s and the R1's (actually a spy plane) are presently being used in Afghanistan and will be unaffected by this decision.
As other commenters have pointed out India is presently buying the Boeing 737 P8 for 160 million each and these have better kit on-board - the real scandal here is that the project wasn't cancelled sooner. Serious questions remain about MOD procurement.
The final space shuttle Endeavour would have cost 1.75 billion in today's money - the single serviceable MRA4 cost twice that.
Worse still the craft would come equipped with vastly out of date equipment specified in the 1990's which would soon require updating.
As for the other arguments about the economic benefits of building the aircraft here they appear to be at best slight. The combat computers were by Boeing, the electronic warfare equipment from Israel, weapons American, Rolls Royce engines built in Germany.
As for the special forces coming under threat this is a misnomer, Nimrod MR2s and the R1's (actually a spy plane) are presently being used in Afghanistan and will be unaffected by this decision.
As other commenters have pointed out India is presently buying the Boeing 737 P8 for 160 million each and these have better kit on-board - the real scandal here is that the project wasn't cancelled sooner. Serious questions remain about MOD procurement.