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.

I must admit that I don't understand the reasoning behind comparing something that doesn't exist, and will not be recreated against something that has been decided and is the future of UK LRMPA.

Forgive my ignorance but why is the to be P-8 operated by the RAF and not -say- the fleet air arm?

A quick search on this forum will reveal all the pros & cons debated ad nauseum....

But no answer.

RB, it is a perfectly valid question. It is no less valid than many other questions on pprune and could be used to further support the decision to abandon the one and buy the other.

"Discovered" ? - I wuz on MR1s, and we knew all about this....

Are there any parallels with the earlier RAF, Boeing AWACS , BAe AEW Nimrod saga still worth drawing I wonder?

This is pretty much spot except as mentioned above this was completely common knowledge in the 70 late alone later. Many of the airframe issues came up during the ill rated AEW debacle (funny how often that fails to get a mention) and you can even roll back the lack of space issues to the 1960's comet v 707.

Military folk with decades of maritime experience, on the ground and in the air, were venting their frustrations about all of this in 1990's and as I've mentioned before, I, like many others, was ordered to "get with the programme" by the then staish.

I was at BAE on a course in May 1998 when a crew chief uncovered a previously unknown issue with the bomb doors. It was a headslap doh moment. Pretty funny really, except for the 3 billion plus tax payers money down the swanney and 10 years (maybe more?) with no kipper fleet.

Still well-played BAE Marketing Team...that was some stunt you pulled off there.

edit cross posting Haraka...answer yes, and they were all know and out in the open from the get-go.

There is a massive advantage in a design with thousands of airframes in daily use all over the world versus twenty or so last of the Mohicans. Not just spares , training facilities, maintenance...not to mention post-service jobs!!

Almost as good as Boeing apparently floating the AWACS concept primarily as a means of getting the last batch of 707 airframes coming down the line taken up........

Going slightly off topic but was Orion ever considered as a Shackleton replacement and if selected would we still a MPA force?
New Zealand, Spain, Brazil, Greece etc are still operating old updated P3s and will do so for a few more years.

A4, and Atlantique

TOFO is correct, and MoD(PE) in London and then AbbeyWood (which dates it to pre-July 1995) were saying the same.

The reason for cancellation, eventually admitted on 3 February 2014 (that it could never be certified), was well known and regarded as a standing risk. BAeS's suggested mitigation was that they establish a new production line with modern tooling, etc. As soon as MoD rejected that strategy, the programme would have been a nightmare as its entire focus would have shifted. It is less well known that the parallel Sea King AEW programme went through exactly the same argument, at the same time. The solution to the endorsed requirement was Merlin AEW (what, 20+ years later, will be Crowsnest). There was a political overrule and PE was instructed to let the contract on another contractor, who hadn't bid (handy if your MP is a Defence Minister), and to modify existing AEW Mk2s. The essential difference between the aircraft was that Sea King was basically sound, with very little work needed to bring her up to scratch. But in addition to, for example, the above mainplane issues, Nimrod had suffered from serious neglect - exposed publicly post-XV230. No hope of a public inquiry, but I wonder if an insider might write a book?

A4 - .

In a word - No.

As a JO I held prior to my Shackleton course at HQ Coastal Command, and one of my jobs was to look after the Archives. As such I also had the opportunity to file (and read) a lot of the documents that came in - including those regarding the Shackleton replacement(s). Right from the beginning there was one overriding Treasury edict - that whatever replaced it had to be British built and designed, to save spending any money outside of the UK. In addition when the replacement was first puit out to tender, it was the principle in MOD that UK forces only operated UK equipment (with a few very small exceptions). There was also the requirement for at least three engines (see HS 800 and Avro 776), as jets were still not considered reliable enough for twin engine ops a long way from land!

Of note, it seemed it was also the dead hand of the Treasury that led to the Mk 3 Shackleton as a Mk 2 replacement. The original plans were for a new airframe, but the Treasury would only accept an upgrade to the existing airframe - so although Avro did their best, that's what we got.

Unfortunately this wonderful treasure trove of documents and memorabilia going back to the formation of the Command and all the WW2 action reports and reviews was stored in the Headquarters building, which included the Officers' Mess. It was destroyed by fire early in 1969.

Was a Viscount based MPA ever considered?

tuc:-
The words piss-ups and breweries come to mind. What insider is ever going to blow the whistle on such an expensive scandal (in treasure, lives, and capability)? Oh, wait....

I believe a Vanguard based MPA was - uncannily similar to a P3 Orion.

The Viscount is actually tiny.

I suppose the Viscount could have replaced the Anson!

Although I suspect totally impractical but a VC10 MPA would have looked the business.