Nimrod MR4 vs P8
 

Currently reading Tony Blackman's 'Nimrod, the rise and fall'


Very interesting accounts of the MR2's gestation and its
distinguished service record.


The MR4 as it's planned successor seemed a very advanced
and capable platform.


I realize it's all academic now but i'm curious as to how it
would measure up technologically against the P8 ?

A forties designed airframe, built in the 60s, nineties engines and wings or a a 60s airframe totally new build?

A re engined Austin of England or a new Mustang?

PN ... that would be a "new Mustang" designed to operate at FL350 being hacked around at low level, surely?

A Mustang might be cool soon a Freeway or cruising a boulevard, but what are they like on Alpine roads? :)

Any new airframe that is in current military use in the US and some massively used airliner (that means parts available globally) is advantageous compared to some refurbished classic.

Nothing against it's new RR engines but the custom made adaptions needed for the wing/fuselage connection (because none was the same) made me wonder.

IIRC the Mission System for MRA4 and P-8 were very similar and essentially a BAESYSTEMS/Boeing collaborative project. The Indian P-8s have a Magnetic Anomaly Detector (MAD) boom whereas the rest do not. It is understood that due to its normal operating height the P-8 would find the MAD of limited value and is better off carrying 3,000lbs of extra fuel. Further, there are many new high-fidelity techniques - both acoustic, active and off-board that effectively renders a MAD not worth all of the effort.

As for MRA4's airframe: conceived in 1943, first flew 1949, maritime role conceived 1964, first flew 1967, then bastardised in the 90s with new engines and wings with a variety of build issues dating back from the time when the fuselages were built in wooden jigs. It is understood MRA4 had too small a tailplane/rudder to cope with the new engines and a workaround had to be found for loss of engine(s) at slow speed. There were build quality issues. Some of the control circuits were understood to be at the back of the bomb bay and so opening it at low level and taking a bird could have been catastrophic. It is understood that the RAF were asked to accept the aircraft with a speed limitation on the bomb bay and without a sonobuoy dropping clearance - not a lot of good for a maritime aircraft! Finally, it appeared that we had learned nothing from the sad loss of the MR2 in having fuel, heat and a source of ignition in enclosed zones without fire detection and extinguishing systems. We should have pulled the plug on the programme several times but the need outweighed common-sense judgement on many occasions; plus the good old 'Buy British' flag waivers had been allowed to get carried away without realising at that point that BAESYSTEMS is a global company.

Thankfully all will end up as it should have 10 years ago - a fleet of Boeing P-8 Poseidon with RAF roundels on them. It's just a shame we didn't do it earlier.

All in my humble opinion of course...:ok:

LJ

http://www.ukmil.org.uk/DLA2/thumbnail/rafp8thm.jpg

Is the "technology" inside not related?

Did the MRA4 mission system not come from Boeing, get the bugs out, and then speed development of the P8?





Oops, Leon posted whilst I was typing.

Well said Sir. :D

Notwithstanding the decision to go with MRA4, how could it go so wrong? I heard various horror stories about the airframe being a complete handful, and build problems due to original MR2 wing/fuselage joints being bespoke, but was the project failure due to poor management or simply a lack of a well thought-through plan?

HP, and chopping numbers as it went.

Whichever frame makes the best brew gets my vote...

I wonder, did the MRA 4 need 4 engines? Well at 16k each - 64k compared with 27k each on the P8, you can see the advantage of pods over embedded installation.

Not sure about your maths PN.

S-D

64K. He's a Nav so is good with numbers!!

ACW

According to Wiki it's 62K.

He is a nav....

and you can shut down 2 ,less of an asymmetric problem..

Sycamore,

I know. We were based at Coningsby and Cottesmore at the same time. I think it is called banter.

ACW

Short arms and deep pockets....in the bar..

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.

Nah, never carried money.

Minor point of order, the Nimrod never had turbojets, the Spey was/still is a turbofan...

-RP

The bespoke nature of the airframe was a problem on the AEW3 when individual transition pieces had to be made to suite the standard radome. There were still a few of us boring old f****s around who mentioned this when a new wing was planned, completely ignored.