Nimrod MR4 vs P8
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: various
Posts: 73
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I must admit that I don't understand the reasoning behind comparing something that doesn't exist, and will not be recreated against something that has been decided and is the future of UK LRMPA.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: SWAPS Inner
Posts: 567
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
RB, it is a perfectly valid question. It is no less valid than many other questions on pprune and could be used to further support the decision to abandon the one and buy the other.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 1,515
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Never mind the systems issues, having the engines buried in the wing root creates significant design, performance and maintenance challenges. Going from a turbojet to a turbofan and increasing the space required just exacerbated those issues. During the upgrade program it was discovered that no two airframes were alike, despite BAE's claim of Nimrod "being the best understood airframe in service". The design was flawed from the start, and the Ostrich mentality that ignored the obvious was responsible for the cost and delay still impacting the maritime capability today.
Military folk with decades of maritime experience, on the ground and in the air, were venting their frustrations about all of this in 1990's and as I've mentioned before, I, like many others, was ordered to "get with the programme" by the then staish.
I was at BAE on a course in May 1998 when a crew chief uncovered a previously unknown issue with the bomb doors. It was a headslap doh moment. Pretty funny really, except for the 3 billion plus tax payers money down the swanney and 10 years (maybe more?) with no kipper fleet.
Still well-played BAE Marketing Team...that was some stunt you pulled off there.
edit cross posting Haraka...answer yes, and they were all know and out in the open from the get-go.
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 1,958
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is a massive advantage in a design with thousands of airframes in daily use all over the world versus twenty or so last of the Mohicans. Not just spares , training facilities, maintenance...not to mention post-service jobs!!
Still well-played BAE Marketing Team...that was some stunt you pulled off there.
Going slightly off topic but was Orion ever considered as a Shackleton replacement and if selected would we still a MPA force?
New Zealand, Spain, Brazil, Greece etc are still operating old updated P3s and will do so for a few more years.
New Zealand, Spain, Brazil, Greece etc are still operating old updated P3s and will do so for a few more years.
Last edited by A4scooter; 1st May 2017 at 10:56. Reason: Grammer
Military folk with decades of maritime experience, on the ground and in the air, were venting their frustrations about all of this in 1990's
The reason for cancellation, eventually admitted on 3 February 2014 (that it could never be certified), was well known and regarded as a standing risk. BAeS's suggested mitigation was that they establish a new production line with modern tooling, etc. As soon as MoD rejected that strategy, the programme would have been a nightmare as its entire focus would have shifted. It is less well known that the parallel Sea King AEW programme went through exactly the same argument, at the same time. The solution to the endorsed requirement was Merlin AEW (what, 20+ years later, will be Crowsnest). There was a political overrule and PE was instructed to let the contract on another contractor, who hadn't bid (handy if your MP is a Defence Minister), and to modify existing AEW Mk2s. The essential difference between the aircraft was that Sea King was basically sound, with very little work needed to bring her up to scratch. But in addition to, for example, the above mainplane issues, Nimrod had suffered from serious neglect - exposed publicly post-XV230. No hope of a public inquiry, but I wonder if an insider might write a book?
A4 -
.
In a word - No.
As a JO I held prior to my Shackleton course at HQ Coastal Command, and one of my jobs was to look after the Archives. As such I also had the opportunity to file (and read) a lot of the documents that came in - including those regarding the Shackleton replacement(s). Right from the beginning there was one overriding Treasury edict - that whatever replaced it had to be British built and designed, to save spending any money outside of the UK. In addition when the replacement was first puit out to tender, it was the principle in MOD that UK forces only operated UK equipment (with a few very small exceptions). There was also the requirement for at least three engines (see HS 800 and Avro 776), as jets were still not considered reliable enough for twin engine ops a long way from land!
Of note, it seemed it was also the dead hand of the Treasury that led to the Mk 3 Shackleton as a Mk 2 replacement. The original plans were for a new airframe, but the Treasury would only accept an upgrade to the existing airframe - so although Avro did their best, that's what we got.
Unfortunately this wonderful treasure trove of documents and memorabilia going back to the formation of the Command and all the WW2 action reports and reviews was stored in the Headquarters building, which included the Officers' Mess. It was destroyed by fire early in 1969.
was Orion ever considered as a Shackleton replacement
In a word - No.
As a JO I held prior to my Shackleton course at HQ Coastal Command, and one of my jobs was to look after the Archives. As such I also had the opportunity to file (and read) a lot of the documents that came in - including those regarding the Shackleton replacement(s). Right from the beginning there was one overriding Treasury edict - that whatever replaced it had to be British built and designed, to save spending any money outside of the UK. In addition when the replacement was first puit out to tender, it was the principle in MOD that UK forces only operated UK equipment (with a few very small exceptions). There was also the requirement for at least three engines (see HS 800 and Avro 776), as jets were still not considered reliable enough for twin engine ops a long way from land!
Of note, it seemed it was also the dead hand of the Treasury that led to the Mk 3 Shackleton as a Mk 2 replacement. The original plans were for a new airframe, but the Treasury would only accept an upgrade to the existing airframe - so although Avro did their best, that's what we got.
Unfortunately this wonderful treasure trove of documents and memorabilia going back to the formation of the Command and all the WW2 action reports and reviews was stored in the Headquarters building, which included the Officers' Mess. It was destroyed by fire early in 1969.
tuc:-
The words piss-ups and breweries come to mind. What insider is ever going to blow the whistle on such an expensive scandal (in treasure, lives, and capability)? Oh, wait....
The reason for cancellation, eventually admitted on 3 February 2014 (that it could never be certified), was well known.... I wonder if an insider might write a book?
