Nimrod MRA4 Being Broken Up
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: South of Watford
Posts: 896
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This was an inevitable consequence of the wrong decision being made in the late 80s to replace the MR2 with MRA4 rather than a new build P3/8. The decision was made in part by arrogant and misguided Air Officers who wanted to continue the tradition of a jet MPA rather than a TP. It also meant the high tech internals would be sourced from US/Canadian companies whilst the low tech panel beating done by the Brits. If we had gone for the P3/8 option a lot of the internals would have been British and with further possibilities of exports for P3 upgrades worldwide. Shame on the Air Officers whose decisions have led to the sight of our MPA force being destroyed. As for BWoS will they ever get it right?
Good luck to all of my former colleagues on maritime.
Good luck to all of my former colleagues on maritime.
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Brisbane Queensland
Age: 65
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One option that might be considered is becoming involved with the Atlantique 3 program.
Several threads have referred to the increased desire (from some) for a European Corps or an increased co operation between our friends across the Channel.
The French have shown an interest in the MRTT platform and the UK needs to offset costs as much as possible. Maybe a bit of negotiation on the use of (some of) these assets by the French may be a step towards the UK
becoming involved in the 'Euro LRMPA'
Potentially a lease to buy agreement using the MRTT as a financial chip could be negotiated to give the UK (as part of the overall package) a few ATL 2 as an interim measure to ensure a token LRMP capability is maintained before converting to an ATL 3 option.
Several threads have referred to the increased desire (from some) for a European Corps or an increased co operation between our friends across the Channel.
The French have shown an interest in the MRTT platform and the UK needs to offset costs as much as possible. Maybe a bit of negotiation on the use of (some of) these assets by the French may be a step towards the UK
becoming involved in the 'Euro LRMPA'
Potentially a lease to buy agreement using the MRTT as a financial chip could be negotiated to give the UK (as part of the overall package) a few ATL 2 as an interim measure to ensure a token LRMP capability is maintained before converting to an ATL 3 option.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: 4 Civvy Street. Nowhere-near-a-base. The Shires.
Posts: 559
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Oh really?
Would this be the same RAF which ordered turboprop P-7 aircraft in the early 90's only for the USN to cancell it on cost grounds.
CS
Would this be the same RAF which ordered turboprop P-7 aircraft in the early 90's only for the USN to cancell it on cost grounds.
CS
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: at the end of the bar
Posts: 484
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Don't think we ever actually ordered the P-7, but we were definitely interested/involved with it.
In hindsight, it's interesting to compare how the USN cancelled it with what happened to Nimrod (Cost over-runs, a desire to cut defence spending)
In hindsight, it's interesting to compare how the USN cancelled it with what happened to Nimrod (Cost over-runs, a desire to cut defence spending)
Join Date: May 2006
Location: 2 m South of Radstock VRP
Posts: 2,042
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by pitotheat
The decision was made in part by arrogant and misguided Air Officers who wanted to continue the tradition of a jet MPA rather than a TP
Originally Posted by pitotheat
It also meant the high tech internals would be sourced from US/Canadian companies whilst the low tech panel beating done by the Britsh
I also wonder if you'd like to explain to the people at Hawarden and Filton how they are "low tech". Clearly any car mechanic can build an airframe. I'm sure they might be skilled enough to dab wires with a soldering iron.
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Stockport
Posts: 121
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
whilst the low tech panel beating done by the Britsh
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: 100 Group Country
Posts: 187
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Please forgive the bone question from someone without FRAeS after his name; how does an aeroplane bought from North America have British "high tech internals" whereas one bought in Britain has "internals" from America? Is it some Newtonian law that I'm ignorant of?
Anybody else find it quite amusing that one of the more vociferous supporters of the MRA4 and BAE SYSTEMS has the word 'cowboy' in his nom de PPRuNe?
And as said individual is clearly non-mil I should add this is just a bit of light hearted banter!
And as said individual is clearly non-mil I should add this is just a bit of light hearted banter!
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Blackpool
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Underneath view of the P8
Looking at the picture posted by Diabolo Rouge, note how far aft the bomb bay is - surely most other designs try to get it as close to the CG as possible!
It is also noticeable how small the internal carriage is compared to the MRA4 - it looks (ahem) considerably less than 1/2 the length.
I would also bet that the P8 design isn't capable of carring a full weapon load, sonobuoys and full fuel all at the same time, without having some sort of active fuel management system to maintain CG limits.
As a final observation, why does it need a torpedo that can be dropped from higher altitude, with guidance during descent to ensure splash point accuracy - is this actually because the aircraft hasn't got good enough handling to operate at low level?
It is also noticeable how small the internal carriage is compared to the MRA4 - it looks (ahem) considerably less than 1/2 the length.
I would also bet that the P8 design isn't capable of carring a full weapon load, sonobuoys and full fuel all at the same time, without having some sort of active fuel management system to maintain CG limits.
As a final observation, why does it need a torpedo that can be dropped from higher altitude, with guidance during descent to ensure splash point accuracy - is this actually because the aircraft hasn't got good enough handling to operate at low level?
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Stockport
Posts: 121
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And as said individual is clearly non-mil I should add this is just a bit of light hearted banter!
My username by choice is already taken on these forums & Manccowboy was given to me eons ago on a visit to the US.
Join Date: May 2006
Location: 2 m South of Radstock VRP
Posts: 2,042
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wrathmonk. Perhaps our septic friends were sufficiently cultured to have heard of the Rochdale Cowboy.
Rochdale Cowboy
Naturally, as is the way of things, nothing smaller than Manchester would register. At least, from Stockport, he would have had decent spurs and the best hat in the world.
Rochdale Cowboy
Naturally, as is the way of things, nothing smaller than Manchester would register. At least, from Stockport, he would have had decent spurs and the best hat in the world.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: South of Watford
Posts: 896
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
GBZ
I hope VVG brief but accurate explanation answers part of your question. As for speed it really only matters if you are operating a truly reactive scenario. In the case of most MPA ops the transit times just alters the take off and landing times it is the on/off task times that are important. Furthermore, the TP has a better endurance thereby reducing the number of aircraft required to maintain coverage. As for the dash speed it had such an impact on PLE to open the thrust levers on the MR2 that the jets full speed advantage was rarely used on task.
I did not mean to cause offense about the panel bashing but we can not compete against emerging markets on these basic engineering skills. Look at the commercial sector where a lot of the low end fabrication is done in the far east. Western industry can only have the advantage in high end, cutting edge technology such as the weapons, sensors and avionics that were required in the Nimrod replacement. With MRA4 this was mainly imported from Canadian and US companies. If the alternate P3/7 was chosen much of the high tech squiggly amps stuff would have been from UK companies.
I hope VVG brief but accurate explanation answers part of your question. As for speed it really only matters if you are operating a truly reactive scenario. In the case of most MPA ops the transit times just alters the take off and landing times it is the on/off task times that are important. Furthermore, the TP has a better endurance thereby reducing the number of aircraft required to maintain coverage. As for the dash speed it had such an impact on PLE to open the thrust levers on the MR2 that the jets full speed advantage was rarely used on task.
I did not mean to cause offense about the panel bashing but we can not compete against emerging markets on these basic engineering skills. Look at the commercial sector where a lot of the low end fabrication is done in the far east. Western industry can only have the advantage in high end, cutting edge technology such as the weapons, sensors and avionics that were required in the Nimrod replacement. With MRA4 this was mainly imported from Canadian and US companies. If the alternate P3/7 was chosen much of the high tech squiggly amps stuff would have been from UK companies.
If my memory serves me correctly there were three offerings to replace the MR2-
First the ill fated MRA 4
Second was a Loral bid using Orion 2000 new build P-3s
Last was a GEC/Marconi bid utilising refurbished P-3 airframes
The Marconi bid had massive UK input in terms of the sensors and UK PLC would have made a lot of money. Unfortunately, the BWoS Nimrod appeared to be more British but wasn't.
The wish at EGQK at the time was for the GEC solution even given our affection for the MR2 airframe.
Regards from a country with LRMP assets
First the ill fated MRA 4
Second was a Loral bid using Orion 2000 new build P-3s
Last was a GEC/Marconi bid utilising refurbished P-3 airframes
The Marconi bid had massive UK input in terms of the sensors and UK PLC would have made a lot of money. Unfortunately, the BWoS Nimrod appeared to be more British but wasn't.
The wish at EGQK at the time was for the GEC solution even given our affection for the MR2 airframe.
Regards from a country with LRMP assets
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Tullahoma TN
Posts: 482
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Looking at the picture posted by Diabolo Rouge, note how far aft the bomb bay is - surely most other designs try to get it as close to the CG as possible!
The CG is where it needs to be. See (a) below .
It is also noticeable how small the internal carriage is compared to the MRA4 - it looks (ahem) considerably less than 1/2 the length.
That Nimrod weapons bay was never going to be filled with weapons. It was a clumsy snoot British Leyland Aerospace stuck under and on to the Comet fuselage, needlessly adding to the dry weight and drag of the aircraft, instead of making a proper weapons bay for the Nimrod. ... The Nimrod underbelly snoot .. something like the heavy, ugly, awkward rubber bumpers bolted on the last few model years of MGB roadsters.
I would also bet that the P8 design isn't capable of carring a full weapon load, sonobuoys and full fuel all at the same time, without having some sort of active fuel management system to maintain CG limits.
(a) Is there supposed to be something wrong with an active fuel management and aircraft trim system, which will, among other things, empty the fuel tank aft of the weapons bay first?
As a final observation, why does it need a torpedo that can be dropped from higher altitude, with guidance during descent to ensure splash point accuracy - is this actually because the aircraft hasn't got good enough handling to operate at low level?
[/COLOR]
In the near feature, submarines sensing a hostile aircraft overhead may deploy antiaircraft missiles -- something like a MANPAD and a video camera in a buoy, with a wire back to das Boot.
Even if the submarine doesn't have such weapons, why not take the submerged target by surprise instead of giving it a chance to take evasive action and release decoys? Submariners can hear a large aircraft nearby and a low altitude, you know.
is this actually because the aircraft hasn't got good enough handling to operate at low level?
The Indian Navy's P-8I's will have MAD booms installed. Ask them if they expect their P-8's to have low altitude handling problems.
The CG is where it needs to be. See (a) below .
It is also noticeable how small the internal carriage is compared to the MRA4 - it looks (ahem) considerably less than 1/2 the length.
That Nimrod weapons bay was never going to be filled with weapons. It was a clumsy snoot British Leyland Aerospace stuck under and on to the Comet fuselage, needlessly adding to the dry weight and drag of the aircraft, instead of making a proper weapons bay for the Nimrod. ... The Nimrod underbelly snoot .. something like the heavy, ugly, awkward rubber bumpers bolted on the last few model years of MGB roadsters.
I would also bet that the P8 design isn't capable of carring a full weapon load, sonobuoys and full fuel all at the same time, without having some sort of active fuel management system to maintain CG limits.
(a) Is there supposed to be something wrong with an active fuel management and aircraft trim system, which will, among other things, empty the fuel tank aft of the weapons bay first?
As a final observation, why does it need a torpedo that can be dropped from higher altitude, with guidance during descent to ensure splash point accuracy - is this actually because the aircraft hasn't got good enough handling to operate at low level?
[/COLOR]
In the near feature, submarines sensing a hostile aircraft overhead may deploy antiaircraft missiles -- something like a MANPAD and a video camera in a buoy, with a wire back to das Boot.
Even if the submarine doesn't have such weapons, why not take the submerged target by surprise instead of giving it a chance to take evasive action and release decoys? Submariners can hear a large aircraft nearby and a low altitude, you know.
is this actually because the aircraft hasn't got good enough handling to operate at low level?
The Indian Navy's P-8I's will have MAD booms installed. Ask them if they expect their P-8's to have low altitude handling problems.
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Tullahoma TN
Posts: 482
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If the 737 had low altitude handling problems, don't you think someone would have noticed by now?
Wikipedia:
The 737 is operated by more than 500 airlines, flying to 1,200 destinations in 190 countries. With over 8,000 aircraft ordered, over 6,000 delivered, and over 4,500 still in service, at any given time there are on average 1,250 airborne worldwide. On average, somewhere in the world, a 737 takes off or lands every five seconds.[7] Since entering service in 1968, the 737 has carried over 12 billion passengers over 120 billion km (65 billion nm), and has accumulated more than 296 million hours in the air. The 737 represents more than 25% of the worldwide fleet of large commercial jet airliners.[7][107]
Wikipedia:
The 737 is operated by more than 500 airlines, flying to 1,200 destinations in 190 countries. With over 8,000 aircraft ordered, over 6,000 delivered, and over 4,500 still in service, at any given time there are on average 1,250 airborne worldwide. On average, somewhere in the world, a 737 takes off or lands every five seconds.[7] Since entering service in 1968, the 737 has carried over 12 billion passengers over 120 billion km (65 billion nm), and has accumulated more than 296 million hours in the air. The 737 represents more than 25% of the worldwide fleet of large commercial jet airliners.[7][107]
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: UK, sometimes!
Age: 74
Posts: 436
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And your point, Modern Elmo, is?
How many of those airlines flying the B737 spend hours and hours throwing their aircraft around at 200' in bad weather?
MadMark!!!
How many of those airlines flying the B737 spend hours and hours throwing their aircraft around at 200' in bad weather?
MadMark!!!
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: 100 Group Country
Posts: 187
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If my memory serves me correctly there were three offerings to replace the MR2-
First the ill fated MRA 4
Second was a Loral bid using Orion 2000 new build P-3s
Last was a GEC/Marconi bid utilising refurbished P-3 airframes
First the ill fated MRA 4
Second was a Loral bid using Orion 2000 new build P-3s
Last was a GEC/Marconi bid utilising refurbished P-3 airframes
The Loral bid was to use refurbished P-3's.