The effects of a single engine loss at low level, may be the difference between the two aircraft, for starters.

Has this been done before?

I get the feeling that many more PPRuNers might have had further thoughts about and experience of both types since the subject was last aired.....

What are the Rivet Joint airframes the MoD are buying going to replace then, just 51SQN's bombers? Or is there a new unit going to be raised if the purchase does go ahead?

You mean between losing 50% of your installed power or 25%?

More to do with the more pronounced asymetric change, made potentially more difficult by engines displaced further from the centre of the aircraft on the P-8.

I'm sure it's controllable but I doubt it would be pleasant, if you got away with it, when tooling around at 200 feet.

The overall power loss is probably less of a concern, a 737 specialist would be able to advise on its SEC capability.

Midweight stab ht from driftdown 240 IAS at FL240 - ballpark. To climb from low level prob FL 180 ish. 737-8

As I recall an A320 based solution was rejected on the ground of only having 2 engines. Was any thought given to hanging 2 engines off each pylon as per B52?

Obviously hindsight is a wonderful thing but it could have saved a lot of grief and provided a marketable product, not a dead end.

There have been several proposals to re-engine the B52 with one larger engine per pylon. The problem with double pods is always sympathetic failure of both engines - like falling off or blade ingestion.

Both engines in a pod failing simultaneously is, i would have thought, still less likely than a single engine failure. Could some sort of barrier between them not be engineered to protect one in the event of the other shedding blades/disintegrating.

I thought that B52 re-engining proposals were based more on fuel & maintainance savings - JT8s are not the youngest or most fuel efficient engines out there. I assume a reasonable gain in range would also be achieved. Also the aircraft is still left with 4 engines, giving the sort of redundancy required on military missions.

My hypothetical 4 engined A320 proposal would have had newer engines - Perhaps even BR710s - depends on the best fit for the airframe requirements.

blandy, you are right about the B52 in that 4 new engines would be easier to maintain than 8 old ones.

The problem with podded pairs is not only the containment shield needed between each engine but the possibility of blade ingestion in the adjacent engine. Remember the MPA is not operating in a benign regime but for much of its time it is inevitable that it will be in a bird-strike risk zone.

The embedded pairs of engines on Nimrod have the same risk as a podded pylon pair except that they are unlikely to fall off :)

Interesting article in the Register today:

Most expensive RAF aircraft ever takes to the skies ? The Register

Not really an interesting article, just crap.

Uninformed and, generally, lacking in fact, this must have taken a few hours of trolling and 10 minutes to write.

'F'......see me.

Mostly ill-informed bollocks from a grumpy ex Lt Cdr (and therefore an expert in these matters). Comparing the cost to the Space Shuttle orbiter is absurd - if indeed it is even accurate. But one thing is right - and rightly outrageous:

<<Rant Mode: On>>

21 MRA4s were contracted for on FIXED PRICE CONTRACT for £2.8bn - and now we're going to get 9 for who knows how much?

So which bit of FIXED PRICE CONTRACT didn't I understand? And before we hear some whining about "It was more difficult than we thought" from BAES, you signed a FIXED PRICE CONTRACT and took some business risk - you should've delivered.

Worse, the MOD let BAES get off the said FIXED PRICE CONTRACT and have paid them more to deliver less. Why?:hmm: BAES is large and profitable - it made a mistake and should've paid for it.

<<Rant Mode: Off>>

S41

If you want to be boring, there were a number of + and - cost variations.

When the number of jets was reduced from 18 to 12, the NAO (bless 'em) calculated that it would produce a saving of £155 m with an associated redction in COCC (Cost of Capital Charge) of £10m....

That's £155 m for six aircraft.

£25.8 m each.

Surely it would have been better taking the six aircraft and selling them on (to India or Oz, perhaps?) or using them for R1 replacements, and even to replace the old BAC One Elevens and Andovers at QinetiQ.

If BAE offered six more for £155 m tomorrow I hope the MoD would bite their ****ing hands off.

If you only save £155 m by cancelling six jets, then cancelling them does not look like a great call, to me.

Quite simple....the P-7 is significantly better than ANY other alternative.

The P-7 is a developed version of the P-3...better engines, avionics, etc.

By far the best option...a proven airframe, can do everything any others can do, and do it better!

Pity lockheed didn't go ahead with it's development, would have been a winner!

Cheers...FD :ok:

In your opinion FD.

The P-7 program has suffered similar development and financial difficulties, to the point that the USN order for P-7 was cancelled (maybe a lesson for the British Government, who knows?). In fact, I'm pretty sure that the aircraft was mooted as a replacement for MR2 when the need to do so was identified.

To say it is better than anything else is beyond fact and would only be alluded to, rather than proven, if the two aircraft were placed in direct competition, in very similar circumstances.

Also, the performance and ability of the mission crew is a major player in this pissing contest, that cannot be forgotten. You could use any number of recent ASW exercises to demonstrate this point, Fincastle (Nimrod MR2 winners)......etc, etc

:}

Missing Gear
 

Jacko
You are correct it is almost the same data mission bus, but it is the sensors that hang off the bus that make the difference. Depends what you are looking for and where :sad:. The height of operations often quoted at the low altitudes are only needed during limited events and crew playtime neither of which is ever allowed due to tree hugging, pinko, commy politicians and restrictive ROEs:(. I do not rate the AIP P3C that high from my own experience and P8 is not going to be much better I fear, I am sure the spiral program will make it better.....expensively..... eventually:ugh:
Charlie sends

Squirrel
It is one of the quirks of procurement speak that "Fixed is variable, and Firm is Fixed".

And, regardless of the pricing strategy, the price only holds good for the services or goods that the contract calls up. Change something after contract award, and you pay.

MoD doesn't help itself in this respect. For example, CDP and the Nimrod 2 Star in PE/DPA ruled a few years ago that a project manager could, without recourse to the Customer/Sponsors, waive certain contracted requirements yet still pay the full amount. The more obvious ones were minor things like systems integration, Design Reviews - you know, inconvenient airworthiness things. The reasons were various, but usually involved the contractor taking on more than he could chew, or declaring he wasn't making enough profit.

Crucially, they also ruled that when the sh1t hit the fan (for example, through not being able to attain MA Release) the contractor could be paid a second time to do what was waived.

And on one particular subect, notable for it being referred to in a subsequent board of inquiry, they both ruled it ok that the contractor could be paid for not doing it a second time, and 3rd and 4th payments made to the contractors who should have been contracted in the first place - without clawing back the nugatory spend. That is, money was wasted on a grand scale by paying the favoured, rather than competent, contractor.

And no, I don't agree with all this. But I do agree you are right to query the nature of the contracts. 9 (thought that was reducing?) instead of 21, for a greater sum, is gross incompetence. But, whisper it, those responsible were the ones rewarded.

Given that PA4 flew for the first time last week (with no fanfare I might add-very strange...)does anyone really think BAE are providing an airframe or a capability? Ok it flys, but could you hand it to an OCU today? Could an OCU crew fly it? Can it perform to the specifications that were contracted? Can it perform all the (core) roles that the MR2 can now?

Is Kinloss ready? Does the station really appreciate that a brand spanking new aircraft, which other than a name and a similar shaped fuselage is going to be operating out of there in a few months? Again I would suggest that only a few people do -or care. Ok ops has some new plasma screens.....:ugh:

I am sad about this project. The MR2 is a fantastic platform but it is being replaced with such an over ambitious replacement that we may end up with a real duffer unless more is done, and quickly. There are many working very very hard from all areas of the RAF on this project, but that does not seem to be replicated at the higher levels, or by BAE. Indeed much of the CONTRACTED work seems to be handed over to the "specialists" within the airforce. We're the customer! The timelines are getting shorter but the apathy continues.

Sorry about the rant but am fed up.

No-one could be happy about the way the programme has gone, nor about the billions of pounds that have been squandered. Less than half as many aircraft for 50% more money is never going to be good news.

Nor am I convinced that the troubles are over. Is there a support contract in place that would allow ISD to be achieved on time, even by the latest much revised schedule?

But, like the A400M, I find myself wondering whether, in spite of all the nonsense, the aircraft isn't going to be a better option than any other alternative.

The overweight, MAD-less P-8, with its critical technologies judged immature, sounds as though it has neither the kit nor the performance nor the range to offer a viable alternative, while it's almost as expensive as the MRA4, and wouldn't be available for UK squadron use for another five or six years - minimum.