Thanks TEEEJ, I know where the WSOp(L)s come from!!

It was a rhetorical question based on how long it takes to get them up to useful proficiencies!!!!!!

This was looked at in the 90s wrt tying in to the tanker replacement program. Believe an A330 was considered but shelved due to cost I think. Oh, and cos its a crappy scarebus with a horrible blue cockpit :)

Any reason why an MRA4 airframe can't be used? Now that the airframe bugs have been worked out, surely that would do the job.

It may not be the biggest, but it has commonality advantages and the MRA4 airframe will be in service for a very long time now.

There must be more extravant ways of throwing bundles of money into a gaping maw than asking BWoS to quote for that job. :rolleyes:

I mean, I can't think of any at the moment, but there must be, surely?

:mad:!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Any reason why an MRA4 airframe can't be used?

BAE Systems kicking aside, there are some good reasons why the Nimrod isn't the best choice.

The R.Mk 1 is great, but it's cramped and already lacks space. If we're acquiring a new airframe, then why not let's have one that could accomodate better lavatory provision, a proper galley (at least like the MR2), some crew rest accomodation, and, who knows, space for relief crewmembers and even travelling groundcrew.

It might even be advantageous to have a widebody to allow a better, more efficient layout of consoles, which are, at the moment, effectively strung out along one side of the aircraft (they're actually on both sides, but can never be back to back, with choke points at the forward facing consoles).

If we could also have space to accomodate new sensors and new specialists to operate those, that would be great, while a cargo door would be a huge advantage for all of the reasons alluded to on this thread.

A340.

747SP ;)

Fair enough - just asking:)

I remember lack of space being a "bit of a problem" on the AEW3, so I suppose this is a case where size matters.

Sort of off topic, but do the MR2 chaps feel that the MRA4 is still big enough to do the job? Not so much a question about whether or not they'd like a bigger airframe (most of us would) but whether or not the MRA4 is actually big enough for the role.

Old Fat One,

Agreed - if there's not enough stowage space to store all the ingredients for the 'Honkers', then it's a definite scrub in my book.:ok:

A vast improvement would be made, regardless of any other consideration, if the RAF would pay for competent computer consultancy (alliteration yet!) rather than turning to BAe etc and saying 'here's 50 squillion quid, please hire a computer geek'.

Unfortunately, from my very limited experienece of 'design committee' style work, what you get is a civil servant chair who knows very little, some company men who know about the same, a few tech rep types who know which side the butter is on, and a bunch of RAF guys who eventually die of frustration or start spin-off businesses to supply the glaring need. Due to poor business acumen their company folds inside 5 years.

(There is also a fair amount of 'free lunch' in this - I, personally, was always more than a little annoyed at how cheaply the company thought I could be bought, and how readily my colleagues went for it).

The home PC boom in the 80's saw huge numbers of aircrew getting into programming and stuff, the odd square peg made it to the square hole (others pretended to be square so they could avoid flying), the net result being that whilst the RAF quite rightly (in my view) distrusts complete automation/computation in favour of man hour intensive skill development (which is why we're the best, naturally) it lost out on the ability of computing to streamline decision making - and perhaps more importantly, to provide even the weaker practitioners with a safety net that ensured a basic level of competence.

I would be amazed if some of the R job were not open to computerisation, requiring little more than an O level standard of ability - the problem being that the RAF subcontracts that side of things to people who don't understand it themselves, it is 'staffed' by people who have no idea beyond an inherent distrust of geeks.

As I (used to) lean out of radar, on all those sorties where we concentrated on wet stuff, I couldn't help but wonder why so many people in 'the loop' were gut-feeling location, course, depth, speed when it's trigonometry.... computers are good at trig - I used to wonder why the various players weren't maybe looking at a computer generated set of solutions, picking the most likely, instead of doing it all from scratch?

Don't get me started on 8" floppy disks...what idiot settled for that as a programming method (and as my ex-colleagues will agree, continual RE-programming method) - when solid state memory devices were on the commercial market?

My vote is for two platforms - one does everything, including taking old mates for nice jollies... being a really old git this is probably now only 2 or 3. The second platform is highly computerised, required a small crew, and goes for say 75% of the possible take. You do not need full capability on every trip, you do need one of the right type of platform (and crew) for every trip.

Out.

In today's cost cutting climate the answer is obvious: An A380, the ELINT equipment on the upper deck and passengers on the lower one. :E

Green Granite,

it's been done before ! :E

DZ

The perils of secrecy.......

Few people have even the faintest clue as to how Nimrod R compares with its rivals, in terms of what it can do, and what it can't. What it does better than brand X, and what it does less well, and why you'd actually need to launch brand X and brand Y to do some Nimrod R tasks.

Few people have a clue about the implications of having this as a real, National capability, and many are dazzled by the advantages of common and pooled fleets with our major partners and allies.

It's perhaps understandable that many might think that replacement by another, better-known, better-advertised platform would be an improvement. A better option. However wrong they are.

So expect rounds of applause when the Nimrod R replacement is unveiled, but don't be surprised by the long faces of those who will have to use it and who knew what Nimrod R could do.

It looks as though its a done deal.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle3296568.ece

THE RAF is being forced to borrow American spy planes and paint roundels on them to replace its fleet of Nimrod R1 signals intelligence aircraft.
The crews of the US Rivet Joint spy planes masquerading as RAF aircraft will not even be totally British with US personnel expected to take control on some missions......

The MoD said last week a final decision had not yet been taken. But Air Marshal Sir Glenn Torpy, chief of the air staff, briefed air crew during a visit to the Middle-East just before Christmas.
“He told the R1 crew that he had brought them an early Christmas present,” one source said. But when he described the plan to use the RC135 Rivet Joint spy planes the response was blunt.

Guess they did.....

Wanna see a 737 AEW&C 'Wedgetail' get built?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qxcrav5V5Hk

No. But I suspect that a few of your 2 Sqn guys would prefer to see a video of a Wedgetail working properly though!:}

A CCC? Almost as great an oxymoron and intelligence officer. Even if the CCC is found and makes the right choice you still need the money and politicial balls to make it work.

As for not turning to BAe, as soon as you set up a bid all the likely contenders go "Oooh, TFD, lets set up a consortia led by . . . "

Indeed.

(There is also a fair amount of 'free lunch' in this - I, personally, was always more than a little annoyed at how cheaply the company thought I could be bought, and how readily my colleagues went for it).

On the Magic Mushroom a complete software lab was set up and highly skilled technicians set to with a will to learn Jovial and make Mr Boeing's software really zing. But how much do you pay an SAC or a Cpl?

Gut feeling because the target was driven not by computers but by humans. yes, it might be following a line x=y+2 but could the computer anticipate a manouevre?

I remember (dry) 55 plus contacts on the screen, chinagraph of course, on the ASV21. Got the target on the 3rd contact. Why, it was a gut feeling and operator intuition and skill - Mr Murgatroyd - who just know it was the target. Why not straight there? Partly covert and partly because the first 2 were en route.

What about Global Express or a GV?
 

At the risk of being too controversial why does the R1 replacement have to be a large aircraft at all? Given that the RAF happily operates Predators, soon even for combat missions, from half way round the world relying on data links, why not put the sensors and processors and a limited number of mission "managers" to monitor and "optimise" the mission and provide an element of airborne "redundancy" on an aircraft such as Global Express (commonality with ASTOR and faster, higher and further than the R1) or GV and send the data back to be analysed on the ground in real time? Also less aircrew at risk. I know, because I was part of the Team, that a US systems company made such a proposal to MOD at least 10 years ago, and had carried out a wide ranging study of the concepts. Sensors and particularly computers and data links have got a lot smaller since then. Needless to say such a radical proposal was not well received by MOD!

JB

I wouldn't take that at face value.

Ed Sett

PN
- That's 'what he's gonna do next.' The discussion about 'where he is now, which way he's going, how fast and how deep' could have been simplified to a degree I feel. 'Where he's going next' isn't worth a hoot if you got 'here he is now' wrong in the first place.

Mick Murgatroyd - I knew a Derek, and a Mick Muttit (who, with something like 19,000 flying hours didn't find contacts, he willed them into place)....