Can someone explain why the MRA4 has been cancelled before we screw up big time.
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: home: United Kingdom
Posts: 779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think that the BR-710 engine was pretty good. The MRA4 was not the only ac to use it -or at least the series. And the MRA4 unrefuelled range was pretty good.
BR700 - Rolls-Royce
Duncs
Not that it matters any more.
BR700 - Rolls-Royce
Duncs
Not that it matters any more.
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Lincolnshire
Posts: 106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Problems with buried (as opposed to podded) engines:
- Harder to access for servicing
- Usually harder to change.
- The wing spar has to be designed specifically to accommodate them. Can result in a structure not ideal from stress and fatigue viewpoints. Also can mean that it is difficult to upgrade to a different engine mid-life.
An uncontained failure in one engine can damage its neighbour.
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Scotland
Posts: 217
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well you have to look at the P8 and the problems they are having with stresses on the wing at low level, no jet with podded engines should be down low level over the sea, from an engineering point of view its only going to cause long term effects on the airframe (fatigue cracking)
A donk change on the MRA4 did look a bit daunting mind you
A donk change on the MRA4 did look a bit daunting mind you
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Right here, right Now!
Posts: 59
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Glad to see we are back on thread again
Glad we are at last debating the reasons behind the stupid decision to cancel the MRA4, rather than the use of irony in R/T phraseology!
So we are suggesting the MRA4 was cancelled because of its design similarities to a Comet? Ergo, the Nimrod MR1 was based on the Comet airframe, and as the MR2 was a modified MR1 the MRA4 must also be based on a Comet because it originated from an MR2. Furthermore, it must also share characteristics or design principles from the Shackleton, Neptune, Catalina, until we get back to the Sopwith Pup. Unfortunately in my car analogy I missed out several stages of evolution from Mr Vettel’s car back to the Model T Ford, my mistake.
Whereas the reality is; the Comet didn’t have a bomb bay, sophisticated ASW/ASUW sensors, or regularly flew at 200ft on only 2 engines thrusting. In fact the Nimrod MR1 was quite a leap in technology and capability and bore no resemblance in capability terms to the Comet…..it was actually a different aircraft. Moreover, the differences from MR1 to MR2 were also so significant, albeit within the mission system, that there was another leap in capability. The result from this evolution was a world beating platform that led the way in every facet of Maritime air surveillance, ASW, SAR, and more latterly an essential overland role that was invaluable in TELIC/HERRICK. I think we have also ascertained that it fulfilled more of the Military Tasks than any other single platform in the MOD inventory, right up to its premature demise. Admittedly not all of the MTs as per the MRA4, but still very impressive and all of this from a Comet design apparently. The reasons for the MR2 success were many, but design evolution, improvements in technology and continual adaptation through modification are the principles we are debating in this instance. The same principles of change also applied in the step from MR2 to MRA4 but were far more significant and radical in nature. The massive changes to both the air vehicle and the mission system were indeed a quantum leap and not just a modification process.
Therefore, to suggest we should cancel the MRA4 because it is based on an MR2, or as suggested in response to my original thread, a Comet, would not only be wrong but would also show a fundamental ignorance of the facts. Whereas the people who were in charge of this project; from the AFB, the MOD, IPT and JTT were not ignorant of the facts. Hence one of the many reasons why CAS was campaigning against the loss of this capability; in short, he knew the aircraft would work and work extremely well. He also knew the platform was a true force multiplier and its removal would leave a massive capability gap.
So you will not be surprised to hear that I am still unable to understand why some believe we have removed an Island Nation’s Maritime air capability because it was similar to a Comet. Or even because Mr Vettel’s car has better aerodynamics than a barn door!
Apologies Kiwibrit for my previous slight ref English, it’s been a frustrating few weeks.
DFM over & out
So we are suggesting the MRA4 was cancelled because of its design similarities to a Comet? Ergo, the Nimrod MR1 was based on the Comet airframe, and as the MR2 was a modified MR1 the MRA4 must also be based on a Comet because it originated from an MR2. Furthermore, it must also share characteristics or design principles from the Shackleton, Neptune, Catalina, until we get back to the Sopwith Pup. Unfortunately in my car analogy I missed out several stages of evolution from Mr Vettel’s car back to the Model T Ford, my mistake.
Whereas the reality is; the Comet didn’t have a bomb bay, sophisticated ASW/ASUW sensors, or regularly flew at 200ft on only 2 engines thrusting. In fact the Nimrod MR1 was quite a leap in technology and capability and bore no resemblance in capability terms to the Comet…..it was actually a different aircraft. Moreover, the differences from MR1 to MR2 were also so significant, albeit within the mission system, that there was another leap in capability. The result from this evolution was a world beating platform that led the way in every facet of Maritime air surveillance, ASW, SAR, and more latterly an essential overland role that was invaluable in TELIC/HERRICK. I think we have also ascertained that it fulfilled more of the Military Tasks than any other single platform in the MOD inventory, right up to its premature demise. Admittedly not all of the MTs as per the MRA4, but still very impressive and all of this from a Comet design apparently. The reasons for the MR2 success were many, but design evolution, improvements in technology and continual adaptation through modification are the principles we are debating in this instance. The same principles of change also applied in the step from MR2 to MRA4 but were far more significant and radical in nature. The massive changes to both the air vehicle and the mission system were indeed a quantum leap and not just a modification process.
Therefore, to suggest we should cancel the MRA4 because it is based on an MR2, or as suggested in response to my original thread, a Comet, would not only be wrong but would also show a fundamental ignorance of the facts. Whereas the people who were in charge of this project; from the AFB, the MOD, IPT and JTT were not ignorant of the facts. Hence one of the many reasons why CAS was campaigning against the loss of this capability; in short, he knew the aircraft would work and work extremely well. He also knew the platform was a true force multiplier and its removal would leave a massive capability gap.
So you will not be surprised to hear that I am still unable to understand why some believe we have removed an Island Nation’s Maritime air capability because it was similar to a Comet. Or even because Mr Vettel’s car has better aerodynamics than a barn door!
Apologies Kiwibrit for my previous slight ref English, it’s been a frustrating few weeks.
DFM over & out
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Lincolnshire
Posts: 106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by RumPunch
Well you have to look at the P8 and the problems they are having with stresses on the wing at low level, no jet with podded engines should be down low level over the sea, from an engineering point of view its only going to cause long term effects on the airframe (fatigue cracking)
DFM, I am rather surprised at the abandoning of the role and, given where we were, would have stuck with the Nimrod, even though I doubt whether the Nimrod was the best airframe for the job. Sorry, though, I got tempted into this thread because of the logic of the Vettel comment rather than the overall thrust of real content. I'll probably just lurk, now - as I don't think I have anything more to add personally. Oh, and I've had a heck of a week, too
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: In England
Posts: 371
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have little doubt that we should have continued with the introduction of the MRA4.....the capability gap (much wider than that created by the removal of MR2) the UK now has is a massive risk to our UK defence and homeland protection strategy, never mind what it might mean in the Falklands or any other maritime biased conflict we may well get drawn into in the next decade. Any government that says that, in such a destabilising world environment as we are all now facing, we can cope with such a gap (along with the other caability removals) is blind to the lessons of history...and we are the one nation that can draw on most of those lessons directly!
No, I was almost physically sick today when it was clear that the No10 spin doctors had persuaded the BBC to focus on the PMs visit to his deceased son's school (sad as that was), than show anything of his grilling by the HofCommons committee scrutinising the cuts. Sad to say though, that even if they had, the "distraction" of the removal of our carrier capability always seems to take centre stage...are our MPs that blind to the greater significance of MRA4's demise to our direct security now! Sadly I think they are
No, I was almost physically sick today when it was clear that the No10 spin doctors had persuaded the BBC to focus on the PMs visit to his deceased son's school (sad as that was), than show anything of his grilling by the HofCommons committee scrutinising the cuts. Sad to say though, that even if they had, the "distraction" of the removal of our carrier capability always seems to take centre stage...are our MPs that blind to the greater significance of MRA4's demise to our direct security now! Sadly I think they are
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Scotland
Posts: 217
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
David Cameron hahhahahaah cnut of the biggest
Hate . Hate will not make thingsbetter but at least it will let him know he is the largest stroker since hitlers arse
Cheers
Hate . Hate will not make thingsbetter but at least it will let him know he is the largest stroker since hitlers arse
Cheers
Rum Punch
Bliar and Broon are far biggers cnuts; Cameron did what they should have done years ago when the costs started spiralling!
IMHO Cameron and Clegg accepted the biggest political "hospital pass" from Nu Labour for many a year.
iRaven
Bliar and Broon are far biggers cnuts; Cameron did what they should have done years ago when the costs started spiralling!
IMHO Cameron and Clegg accepted the biggest political "hospital pass" from Nu Labour for many a year.
iRaven
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Right here, right Now!
Posts: 59
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good luck everyone
So here we are weeks later still waiting for someone to explain the real reason why it is, even in these fiscally challenging times, that we are removing our Island Nation’s MPA capability. I did note on another thread that some are claiming that they have apparently seen the figures to support this fiscally sound decision……hmmmmm, oh you think so; just watch this one unfold without the use of smoke and mirrors, unfortunately when it is all too late.
However, it was good to see that the assessment by the First Sea Lord was quite unambiguous, especially when the AFB public response is only notable by its absence. Apparently, unlike the RN and ARMY, they are above all of this. For goodness sake, why would one want to be quoted in public about the grave misgivings you clearly have with this ill-conceived decision. Obviously better to weave stories of the absolute necessity to maintain a small core of personnel so that we will have shoe-in crews for shiny P8s when the topic has to be revisited at the next SDSR.
Who do you think you are kidding………
Off to walk the dog in the snow,
DFM over& out
However, it was good to see that the assessment by the First Sea Lord was quite unambiguous, especially when the AFB public response is only notable by its absence. Apparently, unlike the RN and ARMY, they are above all of this. For goodness sake, why would one want to be quoted in public about the grave misgivings you clearly have with this ill-conceived decision. Obviously better to weave stories of the absolute necessity to maintain a small core of personnel so that we will have shoe-in crews for shiny P8s when the topic has to be revisited at the next SDSR.
Who do you think you are kidding………
Off to walk the dog in the snow,
DFM over& out
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: England
Posts: 908
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I took my kids over to the AVRO golf club at Woodford on Saturday morning. Just over the fence are 2 Nimrods still in primer just sat in the arse end of the field. If i could work out how to put pictures up here i would.
Very sad and a waste. Cummon Ivan do us a favour.
Very sad and a waste. Cummon Ivan do us a favour.
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Sandpit
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Unfortunately, in these frugal times, the RAF has become 'air centric' to protect its core capabilities; Maritime air and Army co-op are on the periphery of that. Hence, JHC retain autonomous control of all heavy-lift rotary, so that's ring-fenced (for now!), and MPA, ASTOR and CAS are relinquished.
Personally, I'm as shocked as the next man and know more than most the sterling work that Kinloss have provided over many decades, much of it secret, vital to defence, and unsung. Not forgetting those who have made the ultimate sacrifice.
Good luck to those across the RAF who have lost their roles.
Personally, I'm as shocked as the next man and know more than most the sterling work that Kinloss have provided over many decades, much of it secret, vital to defence, and unsung. Not forgetting those who have made the ultimate sacrifice.
Good luck to those across the RAF who have lost their roles.
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: S**T Creek!
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
sorry tonker but those two aircraft near the golf course are not in primer! They are PA1 and PA2 (the first and second prototype) and are both in the final paint scheme. Granted they look a little strange as they have got plastic sticky stuff all over them at the moment but it is most definitely top coat that they are covered in.
PotP
PotP
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Kilmarnock,United Kingdom
Age: 68
Posts: 340
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
tridriver states that:-
"Unfortunately, in these frugal times, the RAF has become 'air centric' to protect its core capabilities"
What now are the core capabilities for an Independent Air Force? Hunting down the Taliban leadership using Reaper/Tornado would represent the Strategic use of airpower but is not being done. RAF fast jets simply add to the already significant amount of US tactical airpower available over Afghanistan. We now function under US leadership so is this needed just to have our boys looked after by their comrades? Guess PM Cameron was persuaded it was.
I would argue that core capabilities were chopped to maintain the Tonka in service to 2015 and the next Review. Beyond that it's still going to be down to Politics with a move to a Typhoon only fleet just as likely as pending the F-35C.
The long term question is then be who "owns" the F-35C in 2020. Two services "want it" but one would be just as happy to buy a cheaper more versatile fourth generation aircraft to have the numbers needed to fill the decks of it's carrier(s).
If a fifth generation aircraft is needed it would be but most of the time it would be based ashore.
"Unfortunately, in these frugal times, the RAF has become 'air centric' to protect its core capabilities"
What now are the core capabilities for an Independent Air Force? Hunting down the Taliban leadership using Reaper/Tornado would represent the Strategic use of airpower but is not being done. RAF fast jets simply add to the already significant amount of US tactical airpower available over Afghanistan. We now function under US leadership so is this needed just to have our boys looked after by their comrades? Guess PM Cameron was persuaded it was.
I would argue that core capabilities were chopped to maintain the Tonka in service to 2015 and the next Review. Beyond that it's still going to be down to Politics with a move to a Typhoon only fleet just as likely as pending the F-35C.
The long term question is then be who "owns" the F-35C in 2020. Two services "want it" but one would be just as happy to buy a cheaper more versatile fourth generation aircraft to have the numbers needed to fill the decks of it's carrier(s).
If a fifth generation aircraft is needed it would be but most of the time it would be based ashore.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Right here, right Now!
Posts: 59
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How to hide a £3.5Bn LOSS as quickly as you can
I understand it has been decided that we will indeed scrap all the MRA4 platforms, whether completed or still under construction.
Couldn't find any mothballs that are big enough apparently.
The world has gone mad!
DFM over & out
Couldn't find any mothballs that are big enough apparently.
The world has gone mad!
DFM over & out
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Bonnie Scotland
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If in fact they are all to be made into razor blades, then all the physical evidence will be destroyed by the local scrapyard before the National Audit Office start their probable investigation into a massive waste of public money.
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Scotland
Posts: 217
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No doubt we will find out soon on Wikileaks why it was cancelled but if it was due to the Government saving BAE out of a sticky hole then It would come as no surprise. After all the head of BAE can walk into Number 10 anytime he likes or so they say.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Right here, right Now!
Posts: 59
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The story so far
· MRA4 has been cancelled and has so far cost the country at least £3.5Bn...FACT
· The Govt claims they are saving money by doing this...Facts please
· As a Nation, we have lost a massively important capability…FACT
· The Govt alleges this loss of capability will be taken up by other assets…Facts please
· The AFB advised the Govt to not to take this course of action…FACT
· The Govt decided that the SMEs should be ignored…Facts please
· The decision to axe MRA4 was actually opposed by the RN…FACT
· The RN agreed with the AFB; so why…Facts please
· The loss of LRMPA SAR cover for the United Kingdom has already been missed…FACT
· How many incidents in the last 12mths have the ARCC wanted LRMPA cover…Facts please
· The Decision to scrap the MRA4 air vehicle has been announced…FACT
· If the AFB aspirations for the next SDSR are to be believed, is scrapping the platform the most cost effective answer…Facts please
To be continued:
DFM over & out.
· The Govt claims they are saving money by doing this...Facts please
· As a Nation, we have lost a massively important capability…FACT
· The Govt alleges this loss of capability will be taken up by other assets…Facts please
· The AFB advised the Govt to not to take this course of action…FACT
· The Govt decided that the SMEs should be ignored…Facts please
· The decision to axe MRA4 was actually opposed by the RN…FACT
· The RN agreed with the AFB; so why…Facts please
· The loss of LRMPA SAR cover for the United Kingdom has already been missed…FACT
· How many incidents in the last 12mths have the ARCC wanted LRMPA cover…Facts please
· The Decision to scrap the MRA4 air vehicle has been announced…FACT
· If the AFB aspirations for the next SDSR are to be believed, is scrapping the platform the most cost effective answer…Facts please
To be continued:
DFM over & out.