Calling Kipper Fleet veterans - Nimrod query!
 

I have been putting together a table comparing various current ASW/MPA aircraft to accompany an article, and had hoped to include the Nimrod MR2 and MRA4 (along with the P-3C Update III) as benchmarks.

But while I've been able to get time on task figures for all of the current offerings (e.g. 8 hours at 1,000 nm for the Saab G6000-based Swordfish, 4 hours at 1,200 nm for the P-8A and 7 hours at 200 nm for the ATR72), I don't have any such examples for the two Nimrod versions, nor do I have a reliable absolute range figure for the MR2.

Published MR2 range figures vary from 3,800 nm to 4,500 nm - does anyone have an opinion as to which sounds more like it?

Many thanks.

Jackoniko, there is a blast from the past.

MR2 Mach.69 X 8 hours.

Should be close enough for cash.

MR1 was lighter and could manage an extra hour though

it will be trickier than you expect to get hard and fast ranges for the MR2 especially. The MK1 was a pretty clean beast and also we used to transit a great deal at FL370 up to FL390 and few times higher.

Following a renegotiation of military use of oceanic airspace circa mid eighties, it became pretty standard to transit at FL250 or lower, which knocked the range back a ton. Also the MR2 had a plethora of extra aerials and ducts, which probably didn't help the drag factor a whole lot. Finally as the old lady started to creak at the seams (pun intended) there were often fuel tank restrictions.

Bottom line. Nine hour sorties in the seventies in a mark one were completely standard (I have dozens of them in my log book, and there was no air-to-air refueling before the Falklands. Post Mark two I never flew a nine hour sortie, unless we were refueled in flight.)

I managed 8 hours 50 in a direct transit from the Canary Islands (yes, I do mean the Canary Islands, not the Azores!!!) circa 2000. We had a rescue callsign, so we lied to Shanwick and got up to FL390 ish. Quite funny seeing the reaction of the crew to fuel burn figures they had never witnessed before. We were supposed to refuel at Gib...went straight by....then St Mawgan...nope not stopping, did it in a oner with fuel to spare.

Inspired to do a little trip down memory lane..

I flew four Ocean Safari sorties (direct support, so a lot of low level work) in the South West Approaches out of St Mawgan, with the 206th (Captained by good ol 924 himself ;))

17th, 22nd, 23rd, 28th Oct 1977...9 hours, 9 hours 5 mins, 7 hours 40 mins & 8 hours 50 minutes.

Those were the days.

So what do we think - six hours 1,000 nm out for the MR2?

(Fascinating that Saab claim eight hours at 1,000 nm for their G6000 based Swordfish, while Boeing give a figure of four hours at 1,200 nm)

A couple of quick follow-up Qs?

How many buoys could be stored on board in the racks on the MR.2? - MRA.Mk 4 had storage for 350, apparently…..

Was the MAD on the MR2 still the ASQ-10A?

(PN: I thought I was dead….!) :}

.

This was completely variable. As you will be aware the Nimrod was not blessed with a lot of cabin space so space in ordnance area was at a premium and frequently a compromise (between seats, if you were deploying with ground crew, extra kit depending on your task, and sonobuoys.)

I expect this would have been a even bigger issue if the MRA4 had got into service, because there was even less space/seating, down the back. Not that BAE would ever have admitted that.

Yes.

When search sonos went F size you could carry 3 times as many.
I certainly recall loading over 200 in a sortie this century against a fast and quiet nuclear target.


I have done one 10 hour sortie without tanking in a MR2, but it was a very atypical profile (no LL) and extended by diverting also.


MR2 got a new MAD in the 80's or 90's - AIMS or AN-ASQ 504 ISTR.

Thanks all.

ASQ-504 was the MRA4 MAD, but I'm not familiar with AIMS.

I know that MRA4 was an airworthiness nightmare, and had major issues, but had it got into service and sorted the problems, it looks as though it would have had a VERY impressive spec.

P-8 impresses me less and less the more I learn about it….

Jackonicko. Your figures for P-8 are off. Those figures were the original base spec. The actual figures are similar to the MR2, and with AAR coming on line soon, will be well in excess.

Jeez Jacko, for an aviation journalist, that is one hell of an oxymoron :ok::ok:

My very first trip in a Nimrod was 10 hrs 20 mins Ks to Ks. That was January 1973 and I was a supernumerary. Captain was Jack Alcock the Sqn Boss.

Computing equipment...
 

Was there still the original computing hardware (Elliott 900 series computer) on board the MR2
as it went out of service?

I know of at least one MR1 sortie that was about 11.5 hrs ....

AIMS / AN-ASQ 504 were the same piece of kit. It was carried over to the MRA4 because it was current, it worked, and we had 20+ sets I guess.

Unlike the sensor pod where the MRA4 was a retrograde step.

You mean the MRA4's Northrop Grumman Nighthunter compared to the MR2's MX-15?

The original figure given for the P-8A was four hours at 600 nm (US Navy P-8 website). Obviously without AAR.

What do you think the proper figure for the MR2 should be?

While we are on this MPA subject, I have 9 hours endurance for the Kawasaki P-1, but not at what distance. Any better figures out there?

Also, what is the loaded take-off distance required for the P-1, and for that matter the P-8?

JT

Even the MR2 Shack could do better than that. A (not uncommon) 12 hour sortie would give 5.30 at 600 miles; add the overload tank and still have a good bomb bay load would give nearly 7 hours on task!

That'll be a pint please :=:=:=

Jackonicko

I'd have thought you'd have known the MR2 stuff with your background.

But. I guess not. Fairly easy to get a 9 hour stretch out of a full tank of gas. Mission dependent, more.

With AAR crew fatigue was the issue.

P-8 is similar, however the intent is to ASW at higher altitudes, thereby saving even more gas.

I'm curious about your statement though.

Why are you "less and less impressed"?

The P-8 hasn't been to war yet so we haven't needed to work out how to eeek out every extra bit of mileage! Give it time (and a generation of GEs who know what leaks are acceptable).

YT
What are you trying to say? :confused:
The aircraft performance is known to the last kg of fuel used / available. As for GEs and leaks, there are very few, and the GEs will have every tiny fault correctly sorted!
Or, if you are trying to make some very bad slur,.. I suggest you make yourself clear right now or, FO! :mad:

OAP

MPA do their war role all the time. The P8 has completed several Ops already :ok:

Got to say I like the look of the Saab Swordfish, especially with its trendy digital camouflage, but.......

Lets have a look at some of the claims in the glossy

What is that number? What types of buoy? What is the usage rate against a modern submarine?

What is the impact on range and endurance with external stores? How many torpedoes can be carried? How are those weapons kept conditioned in flight?

In comparison to what? Nimrod? P-8A?

Well at least that's a step up from the P-8A!!

Swordfish might make a great peacetime platform, but not convinced of its viability in this role in wartime.

1) Cost
2) the inability to use anything but Size A buoys
3) Lack of MAD - still a useful confirmation sensor
4) Comparing the OEW with MTOW makes me suspect that payload/range will not be as impressive as the brochure suspects
5) I wonder whether the emphasis on (unproven) high altitude delivery of weapons and buoys is a matter of choice or whether it has been forced on the USN by platform limitations - fuel consumption, a relatively wide turn radius, fatigue, engine placement, etc.?
6) Lack of a 360 degree radar
7) Programmatically - the failure to integrate U.K. Weapon and buoy stocks - especially Stingray.
8) will demand massive investment in airfield infrastructure
9) fleet size. Two carriers, four SSBNs and a major maritime trading nation, with vital fisheries and EEZs and we're getting 9.Nine. Japan plans to get 70 P-1s.
10) I remain profoundly sceptical that one can accurately put a pattern of buoys in the water from FL nosebleed

I am sure that the P-8 will be a great maritime ISR platform, which is after all 90% of what the aircraft will do. In peacetime.

But I hear that a very senior Purple fellow revealed that the P-8 was not placed first in terms of ASW capability when the UK assessed competing MPAs.

And someone expressed the view that for ASW, alone and unafraid, he'd take an MRA4 over the P-8, while others aver that the P-8 "simply isn't an improvement over Nimrod...."

Saab's briefer on Swordfish at various press things (ex-Nimrod) is extremely compelling.

Two ten-shot rotary launchers and two pressurised single launchers for smoke floats, bathy buoys etc. Racks for 112 A size (224 G or 336 F) buoys.

More than 5.5 hours with weapons. Six torpedos can be carried, or four big ASMs. Because the MU90 uses new technology silver oxide aluminium batteries they don't need to be carried in an internal bay.

Saab claim better than P-8.

I think Saab fully appreciate the importance of a mug of tea or a plate of 'honkers'!!!

Less than two thirds of the acquisition cost and half the Life Cycle Cost.

920ATCs?
 

Think that the CTS still had 920ATC. Acoustics system replaced by then with Ultra kit.

J, MAD is a two edged weapon. The greater the detection range, the less precise the fix. Counter detection would alert the target which can make considerable distance before the MPA can make a second pass, although good against a steel conventional.

MAD would enable an upgrade in detection probability and that a target was probably present at weapon release.

So yes, it does have its uses

And you can now have MAD without the weight and cost penalty it used to impose....

J, you can never remove cost. We had useful kit removed from the Nimrod as we needed to save money. Removing the cameras from the Nimrod meant the camera bay could be closed and the aircraft maintenance removed.

Adding MAD requires a MAD bay (infrastructure), engineers (establishment), training, etc.

Yes of course I just meant that the kit is now cheaper and lighter

So it comes down to cost benefit. MAD is really only a confirmation aid where better aids might obviate the need for MAD. That said we once caught a submarine where MAD was the initial sensor. We were investigating a radar contact when we got a MAD mark. The JEZ buoy picked up noise, a second MAD was gained and the sub confirmed. Pure luck, but crews used to make their own luck.

Range has a number of variables, but assuming still air, no AAR in flight and LL 'turning and burning on-station', I'd plump for MR2 = 2 hours at 1200nm, MRA4 = 6 hours at 1200nm

2) Not really sure why that's important; you worried about running out of buoys? The P8 is very spacious inside. I am convinced you could put extra racks in and carry enough buoys to ensure you'd run out of fuel before sonobuoys.

3) MAD is desirable but not essential. Multi-Statics is a game-changer.

4) 4 hours at 1200nm was a key performance measure at initial test. It met the requirement.

5) The driver to operate at higher than traditional altitudes was nothing to do with ac limitations. Indeed, the increment 1 P-8A had to be able to operate at low level and it can. I hear a lot about how the 737 was not designed to operate at LL, but then neither was the comet or the Lockheed Electra. The first couple of P8 ac were used for flight envelope expansion. They had a whole raft of instrumentation devices attached all over the ac. This was then fed back into extremely accurate computer modeling so there is a deep understanding of fatigue issues during LL manouvre - this technology didn't exist when Nimrod and P3 ac were being developed.

6) Depends what you're trying to do with the mission. BAMS is seen as a partner of the P8 in terms of USN CONOPS for ASuW mission. The USN is also hanging its hat on multi static ASW in preference to radar detections.

7) Stingray was the only weapon planned and funded for MRA4. The P8 has a much broader suite of weapons. The databus/wing hard points on P8 offer significant weapon delivery options over the MRA4. You could try to put Stingray on it, but why? Buying off the shelf is cheaper to the taxpayer than making bespoke UK requirements - good enough is good enough.

10) I think you're looking at the problem through an old 'cold war' lens. Multi-statics is a game-changer. Maybe you don't need to drop a sonobuoy on 'a dime' anymore?

The arguments for COTS are well rehearsed. You buy 'off the shelf' you accept you're getting something that meets the host nation's requirements and CONOPS. As long as your requirements and CONOPS are not too different then you can get a product without having to fork out all the R&D costs - good enough is good enough.

The fact is that P8 is an on-time, on-budget, high-end war fighting platform that has achieved impressive maturity in the 7 years since first flight - look at platform and squadron numbers, number of nations flying the aircraft and the maturity of the training system in just 7 years; then compare that to MRA4 program. P8 development has been staggering.

IMHO, the P8 is a great buy for UK Defence that will fill a capability gap relatively quickly.

Thanks very much for a considered, informative and lengthy reply, Bloodhound.

I don't dismiss the P-8, and the enthusiasm of chaps like you for the aircraft is naturally extremely persuasive.

It's clearly a very compelling maritime ISR aircraft, and an impressive performer.

In the light of a procurement that gave every appearance of having been a 'done and dusted' deal (even if that's a false impression), it is the journo's responsibility to ask questions and to try and struggle towards a proper understanding - and I'm grateful to all of those who are prepared to facilitate that.

I have to say that I remain slightly concerned about the cost/force size equation (though I am aware at the same time that manning considerations and the eventual MRA4 fleet size impose their own constraints).

I am also slightly concerned that the P-8 MAY have been selected without an exhaustive enough evaluation of alternatives, and especially of cheaper alternatives, some of which might, perhaps, have lived up to Bloodhound's phrase: "good enough is good enough"?

I also remain unconvinced that the P-8 would not be an even better (and more cost-effective and value-for-money) solution were it to be able to use existing UK sonobuoy stocks, by being able to use F and G sized buoys, and by being able to use the apparently highly regarded StingRay torpedo.

I appreciate that Multi-Statics is a game-changer, but was under the impression that:

a) this is not a unique-to-the-P-8A capability
and b) that while it is a game-changer, it should not be the only club in the capability golf bag, and that search radar, MAD, passive buoys, etc. all continue to have a role to play

I am afraid I do not understand modern ASW well enough to really appreciate the significance or otherwise of accurate sonobuoy placement, and of maintaining 'security of pattern', though naturally these concerns are not my own, but ones that people I've spoken to have raised. I would welcome any guidance on this.

Two questions:

With what kind of weapon load? Did this include descents to low level to prosecute contacts?

What was the driver, then?

I may very well be looking at the problem through an old 'cold war' lens. I haven't flown on an MPA sortie since the Nimrod MR.Mk 1.

Sonobuoy placement, or rather misplacement is simple maths. With a not unrealistic 36 kt wind a sonobuoy will drift 20 yards per second. Dropped from height it could be a mile away from the computer mark. Adjacent buoys might be subject to slightly different wind speed or direction. A neat and evenly spaced line on the tac display would be anything but.

Accurate post drop determination of position, without on topping each buoy, will reveal any gaps.

Once at low level errors are smaller but without accurate location a torpedo might be dropped outside target acquisition range.

That doesn't sound like "dropping a sonobuoy on 'a dime'", PN!

As a lay-person it sounds pretty significant……

What am I not getting, P-8A defenders?

Things change.

I haven't flown Maritime for 10 years, but I'm a damn sight more current than PN. Jeez, GPS hadn't even been rolled out when he was a lad.

If the RAF guys that I know have been flying P-8 for the last 6 years tell me it's the best aircraft for the job, I'm happy to believe them.

Given that it is a current platform, how it goes about it's business maybe just too classified for Jacko, me or any of the other pundits on here.

It's certainly going to be a lot more advanced than the 40's airframe with 60's kit that was our last operational MPA.

It'll never catch on.....
 

Jeez Camel-Toe - listening to the people who have current, first-hand knowledge of the topic/aircraft/capability under discussion ?!?!?!? Are you some kind of anarchist ?! :) It'll NEVER catch on here !

CS, I was commenting on the need to know where your sonobuoy actually was rather than where you thought it was. That has nothing to do with currency.

Certainly, once you are drawing on one buoy it matters not where it actually is, what you do know is where the submarine is.