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

[sense1]

What plans does MOD have to replace its function...?? Well, as sad/shortsighted/insane as it is.... there are no plans to replace the capability mate. Not only the aircraft themselves have been cut, but the base/crews/expertise have been (or are certainly rapidly in the process of being) cut - not gapped, or stalled, or thinking about replacements, but gone. The MOD isn't about to spend £1 on putting maritime radars in Hercs or anything else - think about it dude.... if they wanted an MPA capability they would have kept the one that they had bought and paid for!!!!

Now, I absolutely do not in any way like the decision - it's extremely sad for those at Kinloss, the RAF and UK plc and I desperately hope that we don't have a situation in the world one day where we say 'mmm, could do with some MPA right now'. But, the fact of the matter is that it's gone - one day when (if!) the UK has stacks of cash to spend and defence is lucky enough to get an increase in its budget then the purchase of a fixed wing maritime patrol capability might be on the cards - but that is a long way off - certainly from the perspective of those folks at Kinloss right now. I don't want to sound like a c**t but people need to stop throwing around ideas for continuing the MPA capability when its been cut already - its just drawing out the pain.

[ShortFatOne]

AQA5

I'm a driver airframes, so already seriously out of my depth! However, ISTR that the DC3 setup was designed primarily to test the scanner/tx interface and had a bespoke operator station that bore little resemblance to the production standard wkstn fitted to the production aircraft. As I mentioned in my previous post, patently it could be done, but it would cost.

[DFM]

Was SDSR really about defence strategy for the future?

After reading the many comments to my questioning of the decision to axe the MRA4, I will summarise and respond:

• It’s gone so get over it: If only life were as simple as the people who made these comments

• It was based on a Comet and should never have progressed beyond the drawing board: I think Mr Vettel’s car was based on the same principles as a model T Ford and I thought it performed reasonably well on Sunday

• The idea of a manned aircraft for maritime surveillance is outdated: So every nation that is in the process of procuring replacements for their MPA (albeit in some instances to be supplemented with UAVs) have also misunderstood the requirement for a manned air vehicle; I think not

• We have UAVs aplenty just waiting to spring into the air to do everything the MRA4 could have done and at half the price: Which is why the experts are saying that this future concept is still just that and many years away from reality. However, I suppose we do have time to replace JSF with a UAV? After all; it’s not been fully paid for yet, it’s some years off service, and we must have time to develop an alternative without incurring a capability gap if the technology is already out there. I bet we could save billions.

• It was inevitable with a FJ centric AFB: So why did CAS and the AFB fight against this option, why was the preferred choice to retire more GR4 earlier and why have numerous VSO repeatedly said that this decision is short-sighted, wrong and dangerous…...oh and for good measure, that it will need to be reversed at the next SDSR

• It’s removal will save us £1Bn in 10 years: I think you will find that there are serious concerns about the validity of this statement. I am told that this headline sound bite has already been proven to be very wide of the mark, more to follow when we realise how much we are really going to save

• We can rely on other Nations to provide support to our carriers and the IND: Hmmmm, glad to see that at least the 1SL had the integrity to question this idea as well as to state just how uncomfortable he was with the decision to axe the MRA4

• This decision is primarily driven by politics and has nothing to do with defence strategy: Give the gentleman a cigar!

To all who agreed with my sentiments and gave much in the way of supporting evidence, I give my thanks. To those who disagreed, it's good to debate. And to those who battle on against the stupidity of the decision, good luck. It is interesting to see just how many experts have already started to question the outcome. I also wonder how quickly independence will occur after they decide to close Lossiemouth? Because if they are going to use the same criteria as they did for Kinloss its closure seems somewhat inevitable. But on a plus side for the Govt, I guess it will make their re-election easier when the Scottish question is no longer an issue.

DFM over & out.

[Dave Angel]

Originally Posted by DFM

DFM over & out.

Ooooh it was going so well until then......

[DFM]

Doh

Think about it Dave.

[Pontius Navigator]

DFM, you bit.

It is either Over or Out. Only Hollywood used Over and Out.

Think about it DFM.

[DFM]

doh

Ironic really.

[kiwibrit]

Originally Posted by DFM

It was based on a Comet and should never have progressed beyond the drawing board: I think Mr Vettel’s car was based on the same principals as a model T Ford and I thought it performed reasonably well on Sunday

Vettel's car neither looked like, nor (apart from having four wheels) was it configured like a Model T.

[iRaven]

vice

[DFM]

iRaven,

A bit of banter and humour I appreciate.....nice one....and good pics.

A pity that Kiwibrit doesn't understood Inglish tho.....

Laugh, I nearly cancelled leave for everyone until morale improved.

DFM over & out

[DFM]

PN.....c'mon try harder mate

PN
Don't think it was just Hollywood......I reckon that Ealing studios (was one of many) that used it too.

DFM over & out

[GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU]

Slight thread drift but imagine what a Comet could have done with that MK4 mainplane and those donks.

[sumps]

With the new wave of "Bon-Accord" could this be the governments intended solution – and may be they will allow the French to have Moray area in exchange for protecting the northern approaches (french fishing rights?)

See - HERE

[The B Word]

Can anyone explain why....?

Yes, money! I heard today how much ditching Nimrod saves over 10 years and its 70% of what we have spent already (£ X.XBn). The in year costs after year 1 is far higher than has been stated on here - unfrickinbelievable amounts.

I guess it was a "bin to save" measure after all.

The B Word

[DFM]

av yu bin drinkin?

Nice try BW.......


DFM over & out

[Mend em]

In year costs

BW - I repeat again - the £2bn over 10 years is £200m pa, of which over half was the cost of running RAF Kinloss. What's so 'unbelievable'?

[tucumseh]

I wonder if MoD really knows the true cost of through-life support; of any aircraft.

One of the obvious things to "emerge" post-Haddon-Cave and formation of the MAA is that safety regulations must now be followed, whereas for 20 years it has been deliberate policy not to implement them, in the interests of "saving" money.

The upshot is that expenditure must increase at a time when the Defence Budget is being squeezed. Given it is 20 years since this was properly funded, how many people in MoD can even scope the actual requirement, never mind cost it? The only Def Stan containing the detailed procedures was scrapped 2 years ago. MoD haven't been able to provide a copy of it to staff since 1993 so there is nothing in the archives to look at.

There is a huge wheel to be reinvented. This constitutes a huge variable in the budget. Platform (not just aircraft) and Equipment IPTs are being asked to cost their "new" post-Haddon-Cave workload. Most are struggling, because they haven't a clue what is necessary. MAA audits are revealing crap Safety Cases by the bucketful but, witnessed by the Nimrod case, there is little corporate knowledge on how to resurrect them and the related disciplines. The bean counters will be seeing "TBA" all over these costings and, in their mind, the solution is to get rid of some variables - which means whole fleets.

[Sgt.Slabber]

Tuc,

You have a PM

[kiwibrit]

Originally Posted by DFM

A pity that Kiwibrit doesn't understood Inglish tho.....

I can manage with my English, thanks.

Vettel has a rear mid-engine car with highly sophisticated multi-link suspension all round, and high-tech tyres and braking. It is highly streamlined. It bears almost no resemblance to a Model T - which had a transversely mounted semi-elliptical spring on the front and back axles, wooden wheels with primitive tyres, simple transmission braking, and the aerodynamics of a barn door.

In contrast, mechanically, there is a lot of similarity between the Nimrod and the Comet. When he designed the Model T, Ford would not have recognised what was going on in the Red Bull car, could he have seen it. On the other hand, De Havilland would have seen the relationship between his airliner and the MPA.

To say "I think Mr Vettel’s car was based on the same principals as a model T Ford and I thought it performed reasonably well on Sunday" rather suggests that there is as much similarity between Vettel's car and a Model T as there is between a Nimrod and a Comet. That is not the case. Thus the wisdom of using a tired design with direct provenance the 1940s remains open to question.

[Modern Elmo]

The Comet design with the engines buried in the wings was OK for turbojets or early generation turbofans, because of the low bypass ratios and smaller diameter of those engines.

However, newer turbofans have larger bypass rations, larger diameters, and therefore btter specific fuel consumption. The Comet design cannot accomodate up to date engines for aircraft in the B737 or Airbus A319-20 category.

Compare the engine bypass ratios and advertised unefueled ranges of the P-8 to the NImrod MR-whichever.