MR4A slips right
Yes, regardless of how the J is or isn't performing now, it's delayed entry to service alone was worthy of BAE at its best and attracted penalty payments equivalent to two of the 25 aircraft.
And in addition to the late arrival there was a raft of problems (many detailed on this board) associated with the new AMLCDs and digital avionics, the stregth of the cargo handling system, the propensity of those using the para doors to hit the aircraft on departure, etc. etc. There were issues about range without tanks, crew duty times and a real concern about the two-crew flight deck. USMC Pruners pointed to the unsuitability of the new props for operation from graded coral airstrips, and problems with the refuelling pods. In short, there was a time when the C-130J looked like a better example of poor procurement and manufacturer incompetence than any British type.
Now most of it's history, perhaps someone with a better memory will post a more definitive, better explained list?
And in addition to the late arrival there was a raft of problems (many detailed on this board) associated with the new AMLCDs and digital avionics, the stregth of the cargo handling system, the propensity of those using the para doors to hit the aircraft on departure, etc. etc. There were issues about range without tanks, crew duty times and a real concern about the two-crew flight deck. USMC Pruners pointed to the unsuitability of the new props for operation from graded coral airstrips, and problems with the refuelling pods. In short, there was a time when the C-130J looked like a better example of poor procurement and manufacturer incompetence than any British type.
Now most of it's history, perhaps someone with a better memory will post a more definitive, better explained list?
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 105
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jackonicko wot are you talking about – I’m surprised at you repeating such baseless rumours!
By the way wot is an AMLCD – does that sit between the CNI-MUs, left of the PFDs, just above one of the BIUs or near the pilots AMU?
…and wot problems am I having with it – excuse my ignorance.
By the way wot is an AMLCD – does that sit between the CNI-MUs, left of the PFDs, just above one of the BIUs or near the pilots AMU?
…and wot problems am I having with it – excuse my ignorance.
MRA4
I was told by a friend with a long association with the Nimrod that when they tried to put the wings on the prototype they wouldn't fit.
He tells me that the original Nimrods airframes/wings were effectively all one-off items and not actually mass produced at all.
I suspect he is winding me up - he can be a bit of a joker.
He tells me that the original Nimrods airframes/wings were effectively all one-off items and not actually mass produced at all.
I suspect he is winding me up - he can be a bit of a joker.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Swindonshire, UK
Posts: 73
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
J rantings - nowt to do wi' MR4A, sorry
Shame on you RA, you being a teacher as well 
AMLCD stands for "....And My Loadie Cooks Dinner". I've not seen the reports on this but I don't believe it's a persistent snag on the UK C130J fleet.
I am worried about the graded coral strips bit though.....
Anyway, it's great now they've put Windows 5.3 or whatever it is on it
Yes the J had problems as it was coming in. A few of them major, some of them minor, many of them nuisance and the majority of them hearsay, Pprune half-truths
At least the C130J contract was written such that it stung the manufacturer for delays and problems; would I be right in assuming that BWoS will be penning large cheques to HMG for these latest delays? I think we should be told..........
AMLCD stands for "....And My Loadie Cooks Dinner". I've not seen the reports on this but I don't believe it's a persistent snag on the UK C130J fleet.
I am worried about the graded coral strips bit though.....
Anyway, it's great now they've put Windows 5.3 or whatever it is on it
Yes the J had problems as it was coming in. A few of them major, some of them minor, many of them nuisance and the majority of them hearsay, Pprune half-truths
At least the C130J contract was written such that it stung the manufacturer for delays and problems; would I be right in assuming that BWoS will be penning large cheques to HMG for these latest delays? I think we should be told..........
With respect to Maninblack's post
Surely the RAF, DPA or MOD should write the specifications of the various systems....
Maybe the Radio Introduction Unit (etc) should be involved more, instead of just leaving it to the prime contractor.
Surely the RAF, DPA or MOD should write the specifications of the various systems....
Maybe the Radio Introduction Unit (etc) should be involved more, instead of just leaving it to the prime contractor.
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Where the heart belongs
Age: 55
Posts: 413
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
2 Posts
Woff1965, your friend is quite right. The wings and fuselages of the Nimrod where built long before the advent of CAD and CAM so had to be built in jigs and mated together by skilled trademen, whose job it was to file them by hand till they fitted. I believe they have also had problems with the wing flexing so much when the outer engine is placed on it's mountings that if the inner engine is not already fitted it will not mate up to it's mountings. There is also and very big problem with the aircrafts C of G so I am told. Don't know how reliable the information is but it would explain the no-fly situation.
JN,
The Nimrod fiasco is pretty much of BAE's own making. It may eventually break the entire company. The company, as you say, has rightly earned the reputation it enjoys, and now gets blamed even when its not at fault. When I think of BAE I often recall the phrase about lions led by donkeys.
The Nimrod fiasco is pretty much of BAE's own making. It may eventually break the entire company. The company, as you say, has rightly earned the reputation it enjoys, and now gets blamed even when its not at fault. When I think of BAE I often recall the phrase about lions led by donkeys.
lazy fairweather PPRuNer
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Forres,Scotland
Posts: 218
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Look, never mind about the huge losses Bae is now making on this project, or the fact there are still some fairly major design problems to resolve. Or even that the European Rmpa will probably be up and running before ours...... no no no no no, never mind all that. The real issue here is who (or which brevet) will be in charge of the machine that goes "BING".
But it won't be me.
Unless its the "chips done" alarm at Burger King.
But it won't be me.
Unless its the "chips done" alarm at Burger King.
Look on my works, ye mighty, and despair.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Floatin' on th' Black Pig, Yarr!
Posts: 187
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
regarding WE Branchj Fanatic, I have wrked with Warton on Tornado in various forms, Tornado mid life update, export Hawk variants, Eurofighter and Nimrod. I can assure you that Warton thinks it can tell customers what they are getting rather than ask them what they want. When faced with the layers of bull and waffle at warton a mere Air Force has no chance of influencing a specification.
As a former MR1er, I've got this feeling of deja-vu about all this, but....
As a former MR1er, I've got this feeling of deja-vu about all this, but....
As a former MR1er, I've got this feeling of deja-vu about all this, but....
As a former MR1er, I've got this feeling of deja-vu about all this, but....
As a former MR1er, I've got this feeling of deja-vu about all this, but....
As a former MR1er, I've got this feeling of deja-vu about all this, but....
As a former MR1er, I've got this feeling of deja-vu about all this, but....
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: the gem of south devon
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
All the problems with MRA4 lie in the lap of MESSY BEAST.
The bright young things at Farnborough decided to use the Mk2 airframes for MRA4. Anyone who knows anything about the Nimrod will tell you that they are all hand built. The fuselage frames can be upto 4" different from airframe to airframe. Next came the brainwave of using two different CAD systems to design the wing and equip the fuselage, both systems have great difficulty 'talking' to each other.
The wing re-design was forced on them because the BWM/RR engines wouldn't fit in the old wing, which had been stretched to the limit to get the Spey's in. The re-deisgn by the wing experts produced a new wing that weighed a couple of tons more than the original. As for the fuselage, as early as 1998 MESSY BEAST realised they had big problems installing the systems, because all the airframes differed in some way, one of them was actually bent. Then comes the really clever bit marrying the wing to the fuselage, a fuselage attachment designed on CATIA and a wing designed on CADDS5 (see above). Not only that but because they had used one fuselage for the datum points, and the first fuselage was different then 'hey presto' they wont mate!
The work of assembling the Nimrod went to FR Aviation who realised very quickly they where out of there depth. Sollution ship it to Woodford, which if the empty suits at Farnborough had listened to them in the first place most of what has gone wrong could have been avoided. MESSY BEAST should have asked the design teams in Manchester most of whom new the Nimrod inside out, but what do they know, Warton are the gods of military aircraft.
The MRA4 is AEW Nimrod all over again, only this time the systems work but the airframe doesn't. The only real shame is the sh!t will stick on Woodford and Prestwick and the gods in Preston will live to ruin another project.
I've allways thought that Wartons old title of Military Aircraft Division (MAD), very appropriate.
0.02 Euros supplied.
The bright young things at Farnborough decided to use the Mk2 airframes for MRA4. Anyone who knows anything about the Nimrod will tell you that they are all hand built. The fuselage frames can be upto 4" different from airframe to airframe. Next came the brainwave of using two different CAD systems to design the wing and equip the fuselage, both systems have great difficulty 'talking' to each other.
The wing re-design was forced on them because the BWM/RR engines wouldn't fit in the old wing, which had been stretched to the limit to get the Spey's in. The re-deisgn by the wing experts produced a new wing that weighed a couple of tons more than the original. As for the fuselage, as early as 1998 MESSY BEAST realised they had big problems installing the systems, because all the airframes differed in some way, one of them was actually bent. Then comes the really clever bit marrying the wing to the fuselage, a fuselage attachment designed on CATIA and a wing designed on CADDS5 (see above). Not only that but because they had used one fuselage for the datum points, and the first fuselage was different then 'hey presto' they wont mate!
The work of assembling the Nimrod went to FR Aviation who realised very quickly they where out of there depth. Sollution ship it to Woodford, which if the empty suits at Farnborough had listened to them in the first place most of what has gone wrong could have been avoided. MESSY BEAST should have asked the design teams in Manchester most of whom new the Nimrod inside out, but what do they know, Warton are the gods of military aircraft.
The MRA4 is AEW Nimrod all over again, only this time the systems work but the airframe doesn't. The only real shame is the sh!t will stick on Woodford and Prestwick and the gods in Preston will live to ruin another project.
I've allways thought that Wartons old title of Military Aircraft Division (MAD), very appropriate.
0.02 Euros supplied.
Look on my works, ye mighty, and despair.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Floatin' on th' Black Pig, Yarr!
Posts: 187
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, Design Chappie, it is nice to know that things did get worse after I moved on, so I can't be blamed for any of it.
OK _ let me get this straight....
...the RAF is buying a "new" aircraft based on an airframe designed in the 1940's, where all the original jigs and production tooling were probably all recycled into razor blades in the '60's.
The airframes are ALL non-standard. The wings may/may not fit and to cap it all they are tying to sell this to REAL airforces like the USN who wouldn't buy foreign unless their pants were on fire.
What next - obvioulsy the Tornado replacement is going to be TSR2, the Hawk is going to be replaced by reengined Gnats and the Chinook replacement will all be Sycamores with T700's obviously.
Do BAe/MOD actually DO drug testing?
The airframes are ALL non-standard. The wings may/may not fit and to cap it all they are tying to sell this to REAL airforces like the USN who wouldn't buy foreign unless their pants were on fire.
What next - obvioulsy the Tornado replacement is going to be TSR2, the Hawk is going to be replaced by reengined Gnats and the Chinook replacement will all be Sycamores with T700's obviously.
Do BAe/MOD actually DO drug testing?
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Thread Starter
Woff1965,
To be fair, they'd have to build new airframes, to modern standards, for any new customer.
Flight International last week quoted the programme test pilot as stating that:
- The BR710 engine installation has the potential for inlet distortion and may be sensitive to cross-wind and sideslip.
- He expects directional stability near the stall with the bay open to be "challenging".
To be fair, they'd have to build new airframes, to modern standards, for any new customer.
Flight International last week quoted the programme test pilot as stating that:
- The BR710 engine installation has the potential for inlet distortion and may be sensitive to cross-wind and sideslip.
- He expects directional stability near the stall with the bay open to be "challenging".
Last edited by ORAC; 23rd Oct 2002 at 02:26.
Oh right
So while the RAF will get cobbled together rebuilds of ancient MR2 aitrframes Johnny foreigner gets brand spanking new kit.
BTW isn't "challenging" test pilot speak for rapid onset of brown trousers?
BTW isn't "challenging" test pilot speak for rapid onset of brown trousers?
I thought I saw somewhere (JDW??) that MRA 4 for Uncle Sam is not going to happen.
The aircraft was possibly going to be offered as a P-3 replacement, but the Bungling Baron failed to get his act together. Sadly for t'Baron's coffers, the DoD informed him that, unlike the MoD, they wanted the submission in at the time specified, not as his convenience. T'Baron kicked up a small fuss, but DoD replied with a sentence allegedly including the words 'it' and 'poke'. At which point, t'Baron announced that he was not going to bid for the project after all, so there.
The potential US partner (I believe LMTAS) breathed a sigh of relief....
If we're lucky, BEagle might have found a transcript of the conversations about this and reproduce it here....
The aircraft was possibly going to be offered as a P-3 replacement, but the Bungling Baron failed to get his act together. Sadly for t'Baron's coffers, the DoD informed him that, unlike the MoD, they wanted the submission in at the time specified, not as his convenience. T'Baron kicked up a small fuss, but DoD replied with a sentence allegedly including the words 'it' and 'poke'. At which point, t'Baron announced that he was not going to bid for the project after all, so there.
The potential US partner (I believe LMTAS) breathed a sigh of relief....
If we're lucky, BEagle might have found a transcript of the conversations about this and reproduce it here....
It only seems like a short decade ago that all at Ice Station Zebra were excited at getting to keep the mighty hunter for another 100 years or so. Could not have the kipper fleet using props could we, too many similarities to the navies ships. How times change.
I did like the one that the MR4 was to be sold to overseas operators...almost fell of my chair.
I guess that the entry into service date will become one of those never answered questions, just like the one about what does an AEO really do?
I am sure that all this design problems could be solved in the VPI bar over a barrel or two. Shame that would not answer the AEO question as well!
I did like the one that the MR4 was to be sold to overseas operators...almost fell of my chair.
I guess that the entry into service date will become one of those never answered questions, just like the one about what does an AEO really do?
I am sure that all this design problems could be solved in the VPI bar over a barrel or two. Shame that would not answer the AEO question as well!