Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Aircrew Forums > Military Aviation
Reload this Page >

Calling Kipper Fleet veterans - Nimrod query!

Military Aviation A forum for the professionals who fly military hardware. Also for the backroom boys and girls who support the flying and maintain the equipment, and without whom nothing would ever leave the ground. All armies, navies and air forces of the world equally welcome here.

Calling Kipper Fleet veterans - Nimrod query!

Old 5th Jun 2017, 10:09
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Just behind the back of beyond....
Posts: 3,911
Calling Kipper Fleet veterans - Nimrod query!

I have been putting together a table comparing various current ASW/MPA aircraft to accompany an article, and had hoped to include the Nimrod MR2 and MRA4 (along with the P-3C Update III) as benchmarks.

But while I've been able to get time on task figures for all of the current offerings (e.g. 8 hours at 1,000 nm for the Saab G6000-based Swordfish, 4 hours at 1,200 nm for the P-8A and 7 hours at 200 nm for the ATR72), I don't have any such examples for the two Nimrod versions, nor do I have a reliable absolute range figure for the MR2.

Published MR2 range figures vary from 3,800 nm to 4,500 nm - does anyone have an opinion as to which sounds more like it?

Many thanks.
Jackonicko is offline  
Old 5th Jun 2017, 11:58
  #2 (permalink)  
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Lincolnshire
Age: 75
Posts: 16,487
Jackoniko, there is a blast from the past.
Pontius Navigator is offline  
Old 5th Jun 2017, 12:00
  #3 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: 4 Civvy Street. Nowhere-near-a-base. The Shires.
Posts: 550
MR2 Mach.69 X 8 hours.

Should be close enough for cash.

MR1 was lighter and could manage an extra hour though
camelspyyder is offline  
Old 5th Jun 2017, 12:00
  #4 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 1,511
it will be trickier than you expect to get hard and fast ranges for the MR2 especially. The MK1 was a pretty clean beast and also we used to transit a great deal at FL370 up to FL390 and few times higher.

Following a renegotiation of military use of oceanic airspace circa mid eighties, it became pretty standard to transit at FL250 or lower, which knocked the range back a ton. Also the MR2 had a plethora of extra aerials and ducts, which probably didn't help the drag factor a whole lot. Finally as the old lady started to creak at the seams (pun intended) there were often fuel tank restrictions.

Bottom line. Nine hour sorties in the seventies in a mark one were completely standard (I have dozens of them in my log book, and there was no air-to-air refueling before the Falklands. Post Mark two I never flew a nine hour sortie, unless we were refueled in flight.)

I managed 8 hours 50 in a direct transit from the Canary Islands (yes, I do mean the Canary Islands, not the Azores!!!) circa 2000. We had a rescue callsign, so we lied to Shanwick and got up to FL390 ish. Quite funny seeing the reaction of the crew to fuel burn figures they had never witnessed before. We were supposed to refuel at Gib...went straight by....then St Mawgan...nope not stopping, did it in a oner with fuel to spare.
The Old Fat One is offline  
Old 5th Jun 2017, 12:14
  #5 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 1,511
Inspired to do a little trip down memory lane..

I flew four Ocean Safari sorties (direct support, so a lot of low level work) in the South West Approaches out of St Mawgan, with the 206th (Captained by good ol 924 himself )

17th, 22nd, 23rd, 28th Oct 1977...9 hours, 9 hours 5 mins, 7 hours 40 mins & 8 hours 50 minutes.

Those were the days.
The Old Fat One is offline  
Old 5th Jun 2017, 13:16
  #6 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Just behind the back of beyond....
Posts: 3,911
So what do we think - six hours 1,000 nm out for the MR2?

(Fascinating that Saab claim eight hours at 1,000 nm for their G6000 based Swordfish, while Boeing give a figure of four hours at 1,200 nm)

A couple of quick follow-up Qs?

How many buoys could be stored on board in the racks on the MR.2? - MRA.Mk 4 had storage for 350, apparently…..

Was the MAD on the MR2 still the ASQ-10A?

(PN: I thought I was dead….!)
Jackonicko is offline  
Old 5th Jun 2017, 16:42
  #7 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 1,511
How many buoys could be stored on board in the racks on the MR.2? - MRA.Mk 4 had storage for 350, apparently….
.

This was completely variable. As you will be aware the Nimrod was not blessed with a lot of cabin space so space in ordnance area was at a premium and frequently a compromise (between seats, if you were deploying with ground crew, extra kit depending on your task, and sonobuoys.)

I expect this would have been a even bigger issue if the MRA4 had got into service, because there was even less space/seating, down the back. Not that BAE would ever have admitted that.

Was the MAD on the MR2 still the ASQ-10A?
Yes.
The Old Fat One is offline  
Old 5th Jun 2017, 17:47
  #8 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: 4 Civvy Street. Nowhere-near-a-base. The Shires.
Posts: 550
When search sonos went F size you could carry 3 times as many.
I certainly recall loading over 200 in a sortie this century against a fast and quiet nuclear target.


I have done one 10 hour sortie without tanking in a MR2, but it was a very atypical profile (no LL) and extended by diverting also.


MR2 got a new MAD in the 80's or 90's - AIMS or AN-ASQ 504 ISTR.
camelspyyder is offline  
Old 5th Jun 2017, 19:50
  #9 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Just behind the back of beyond....
Posts: 3,911
Thanks all.

ASQ-504 was the MRA4 MAD, but I'm not familiar with AIMS.

I know that MRA4 was an airworthiness nightmare, and had major issues, but had it got into service and sorted the problems, it looks as though it would have had a VERY impressive spec.

P-8 impresses me less and less the more I learn about it….
Jackonicko is offline  
Old 5th Jun 2017, 21:16
  #10 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: The US of A, and sometimes Bonnie Scotland
Posts: 522
Jackonicko. Your figures for P-8 are off. Those figures were the original base spec. The actual figures are similar to the MR2, and with AAR coming on line soon, will be well in excess.
betty swallox is offline  
Old 5th Jun 2017, 22:30
  #11 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 1,511
I know that MRA4 was an airworthiness nightmare, and had major issues, but had it got into service and sorted the problems, it looks as though it would have had a VERY impressive spec.
Jeez Jacko, for an aviation journalist, that is one hell of an oxymoron
The Old Fat One is offline  
Old 6th Jun 2017, 06:19
  #12 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: New Zealand
Age: 66
Posts: 76
My very first trip in a Nimrod was 10 hrs 20 mins Ks to Ks. That was January 1973 and I was a supernumerary. Captain was Jack Alcock the Sqn Boss.
Janda is offline  
Old 6th Jun 2017, 06:44
  #13 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Munich/Gemany
Posts: 42
Computing equipment...

Was there still the original computing hardware (Elliott 900 series computer) on board the MR2
as it went out of service?
baigar is offline  
Old 7th Jun 2017, 01:49
  #14 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Posts: 1,293
I know of at least one MR1 sortie that was about 11.5 hrs ....
reynoldsno1 is offline  
Old 7th Jun 2017, 09:38
  #15 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: 4 Civvy Street. Nowhere-near-a-base. The Shires.
Posts: 550
AIMS / AN-ASQ 504 were the same piece of kit. It was carried over to the MRA4 because it was current, it worked, and we had 20+ sets I guess.

Unlike the sensor pod where the MRA4 was a retrograde step.
camelspyyder is offline  
Old 7th Jun 2017, 11:46
  #16 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Just behind the back of beyond....
Posts: 3,911
You mean the MRA4's Northrop Grumman Nighthunter compared to the MR2's MX-15?
Jackonicko is offline  
Old 7th Jun 2017, 11:48
  #17 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Just behind the back of beyond....
Posts: 3,911
Originally Posted by betty swallox View Post
Jackonicko. Your figures for P-8 are off. Those figures were the original base spec. The actual figures are similar to the MR2, and with AAR coming on line soon, will be well in excess.
The original figure given for the P-8A was four hours at 600 nm (US Navy P-8 website). Obviously without AAR.

What do you think the proper figure for the MR2 should be?
Jackonicko is offline  
Old 7th Jun 2017, 14:19
  #18 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Beyond the Blue Horizon
Posts: 48
While we are on this MPA subject, I have 9 hours endurance for the Kawasaki P-1, but not at what distance. Any better figures out there?

Also, what is the loaded take-off distance required for the P-1, and for that matter the P-8?

JT
JT Eagle is offline  
Old 7th Jun 2017, 15:13
  #19 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Squirrel Heaven (or hell!), Shropshire UK
Posts: 661
The original figure given for the P-8A was four hours at 600 nm
Even the MR2 Shack could do better than that. A (not uncommon) 12 hour sortie would give 5.30 at 600 miles; add the overload tank and still have a good bomb bay load would give nearly 7 hours on task!
Shackman is offline  
Old 7th Jun 2017, 16:58
  #20 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Right here, right now
Posts: 228
Originally Posted by The Old Fat One View Post
(Captained by good ol 924 himself )
That'll be a pint please
MFC_Fly is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.