Wow, I haven't been patronised like that since I was er.................. a young man!

Chicken Leg - don't get hung up on ASW, the MR2 was designed as a Maritime Patrol Aircraft which encompasses more than just ASW. Over the last 10 years the MR2 has expanded its capability and moved away from its traditional core business. Anyway, I would be more worried about the 48 Chinese subs and an expanding blue water navy, than "4 Iranian Subs".

I understand at a fairly recent conference an independent think tank type with vast experience, stated that we needed more MPA with the MRA4's capability and less fast jets.
No doubt this will upset our fast jet comrades, which is not intended. Yes the MRA 4 has not came in on time or budget, but then does any major project?
The need for this multi-role aircraft, i believe is still justified. Yes other platforms can do long range SAR searches, but not as efficiently, time is important as im sure you will all appreciate.
Ask anyone who has done a complete search and identification of the Falklands zone. I have done a bit of a search of the zone and a bit of SAR down there in a Herc many years ago and im sorry to have to say the Nimrod can do it in a fraction of the time due to radar and aircraft performance. If it was up to me and we had the airframes and the crews I'd have one down there permanently.
There is the arguement that the US Coast Guard use the Herc for long range SAR, so why not us, well the link below may give you a clue on that and of other types of operation:

http://www.internationalrelations.ho.../utl051105.pdf

Another glowing report for our equipment.
As for ASW, yes the days of the cold war may be over, but with greatest form of stealth being submarines and any potential threat against our or coalitions Navy, can we really afford to be without that capability. The submarine is an affordable piece of hardware, conventional ones that is, especially the smaller ones. What would happen if AQ got one, scary thought. China has already been mentioned, lets hope we never upset them, could be very messy.
I won't go into the overland roles, but the MRA 4 mission suite gives greater flexibility, modern comms and the option for various payloads.
Surely it is more cost effective to have a multi-role Maritime aircraft than many specialist one job types.
For years the Maritime Patrol community has been getting bashed, mainly by the uninformed. The nature of the job, as others have also perhaps, is that we dont go public one many of the things that we do. Maybe we dont have the great PR machine like the RN seems to have, but thats life.
In comparison, how busy is the E3 fleet these days. They worked their backsides off during the balkans, but although quiet now, are you really trying to say they wont be required again. I think not.
No doubt there will still be the doubters and bleaters, whether we get the MRA 4 or not we will always need a capable MPA.

Chicken leg,
"That's my point, it was primarily designed as a sub hunter and yet there aren't any subs to hunt (that matter anyway, and certainly not for the rediculous price we're paying). I reckon I could find the 4 Iranian subs with a karioke microphone and an ipod headset!"

I would guess from your comment above that sub hunting isn`t your strong point, it probably isn`t even your weak point either.

Reading the "whats happening at ISK" suggest that we need the MRA4 more than ever. It will be a large leap in capability and hopefully serviceabilty as well.

Sub hunting has not died, i would suggest the TG commander on his carrier passing through the straits of Hormuz has them very much on his mind as would anyone operating in the northern pacific. The Kipper fleet has evolved as the threat has changed, the MR2 reflects that, as does the MRA4.

If given the stand off weapons that it is designed / wired for, then some of the FJ jockeys maybe looking for a job.

Hoots. fine post. Im in the process of applying to OASC at the moment, Im shooting for a WSOp position if Im what they're looking for - hopefully, with the Nimrod.

I visited ISK years ago on a camp with my school's CCF, and I've still got fond memories of my time with the people I met up there. Im just praying that the big hats can realise just how important the MRA4 is, and get it finished already...!

I posted this link on another thread some might be interested in what the MRA4 is being asked to do:

http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/nimrod/

Tigerfish??
 

No Chicken Leg that is my point. YOU don't know enough about what the MR2 is capable of, and you don't know enough about what the MRA4 will be capable of. Sub hunting is only a small part of both aircraft's role and mission. The role(s) have moved on significantly since the introduction of the MR1. The other capabilities embeded within the mission system add to the cost. It is not the single role platform that you suggest.

If you think that the Iranian Kilos could be picked up by a kareoke mike and an iPod headset then you have proven your lack of knowledge and understanding of things ASW. But just to expand upon your knowledge: how noisy is the Gulf and how quiet is a good diesel electric?

And no I am not a Kipper Mate waiting for the new jet. Far from it, I just know a bit (a lot) more about the aircraft and its roles than you appear to.

And out of interest what capability could do what the MRA 4 will be capable of for 2% of the cost? Even if you ONLY include the sub hunting role what aircraft could do it for 2% of the cost? Or is that just another of your unfounded exagerations to make a point? With spin like that I would assume you work in the DPA or Labour Party HQ!

Data-Lynx: I agree, it looks like it might be a typo as Tigerfish was replaced by Spearfish and these are submarine launched only according to google search. Stingray is definately the aircraft launched torpedo.

I am sorry I agree with Chicken Leg. The main roles specified for the MK2 and MRA 4 (Maritime Reconnaissance & Attack) Nimrods are:

1. Maritime Reconnaissance

2. Anti-sub warfare

3. Anti-surface warfare

4. Search and Rescue

Now, it is all very well complaining that Chicken Leg is not familar with the other "add on" roles now being carried out by Nimrod, but his point is still valid. We have complex and costly weapon system platforms being used for task which could, and should be carried in a more cost effective manner. Why do you think that there are many "limitations" being carried by the current fleet --- because much of the prime task equipment is not required. And it will be the same with the MRA 4 (of which about 6 will enter service).

Sorry guys, but I do not see many prime task operations being carried out over Iraq and Afghanistan, only "add on", for which the aircraft was never designed and tested.

Can anyone tell me what Hot weather trials were carried out on the AAR system?

DV

And when you consider the cost of each unit it becomes an obscenely expensive mess.

I've taken the advice of the many on this thread and done some research :ok:

£3.8 billion for what appears to now be 8 platforms. Greater than £400 million per platform. And it's now knocking on for a decade late (and will be if it arrives in 2009).

I accept that it will be a capable asset, but let's face it, it's main purpose (and the one it was procured for) is to counter a threat that we as a nation don't currently face.

If the MRA4 was available today, it would be employed as the MR2 currently is, ie in the ISTAR role. And to answer Len's point, the MR2 is being used in that role not because it's the best platform, but because it's the only platform! And if it's an ISTAR asset we want, we could spend about

Chicken leg
I tend to agree -re ISTAR. With the formation of DE&S, MoD had the opportunity to move MRA4 into DG ISTAR, along with the likes of UAVs, Sensors and Nav, Air Command & Control, ASTOR. But they didn't, placing it in DG Air Support along with FSTA, A400, C17 etc (and Nimrod, which is a separate IPT, which always struck me as peculiar). To me, that shows the original role has not changed in the eyes of MoD. If ISTAR has become a de facto primary role, I'd allocate responsibility accordingly.

You say 2009 will be a decade. I recall N2000/RMPA/MRA4 originating long before 1999. I read the Cardinal Points Spec for the avionics in 93 and it was old then. Assume you mean a decade LATE!!!

CL - Where do you get the number 8 from? That's not what the 'centre' are working on.

How do you know what it's main role is? Are you that intimately involved in the programme?

If you an Len want to play semantics perhaps the ac (past, present and future) should be retitled. Perhaps we could have used MRASR2 and the MRRA4. Just because a designation is there, doesn't mean you have covered the totality of the roles. And I repeat what is capable of doing ISTAR for 2% of the cost? Just to confirm that is a platform capable of doing what the MR2 currently does, and will meet or exceed what the MRA 4 will be capable of, for £8M according to your (potentially flawed) calculations. And do we really want some single use platforms?

8 aircraft, I thought it was 12 - or are the numbers still shrinking? What sort of ASW fleet is that?

Whilst each individual aircraft may be effective, there is a certain minimum number of aircraft required to provide a sustained on station and area capability. Is that even enough to sustain 2-3 aircraft on station for any period of time more than 200-300 miles from home?

If they are only getting 8, they might as well save their money and get none.

P.R

"How do you know what it's main role is......."

The MRA 4 main roles are those that are specified in my previous post. That is what is being presented to "Joe Public" in order to justify the high cost. Now, stop hidding behind "you don't know" and face reality. If MRA 4 does not fill those main roles as prime tasks, the press will have afield day.

DV

D1ck Heeed
 

I'm sure that if you phone the press office at Boscombe Down they will tell yu!!:ugh:
Even if no hot weather trials were conducted - The system has been proven over the years operating out of hot places like Ascension Island (Falklands 1982), Oman (Gulf War 1 & 2) and Basrah.
Besides, I don't see the relevance of your comment as it's about -40 degrees C at the altitudes where we tank!!:rolleyes: (wanted to be cynical but my nature won't allow it!!):=

Vage Rot
Yes I am well aware that the temp at the altitudes you refuel at is around -40 degrees C, but that is not the critical factor. Temp differential is the thing we look at on trials ie, +50 (on ground) to -40 (in flight). Temp differentional affects pipe structure, joints and seals.

I would not call the ferry flights for the Falklands and Gulf 1 & 2 controlled flight trials.

DV

Hoots,
Very well put, and spot on, unfortunately I don't appear to have your capability to suffer fools lightly so.......

Chicken Leg,
You clearly have no idea about the threats this country is facing. If you believe there is no place for a multi role, maritime patrol/ISTAR aircraft you need to change your name from Chicken Leg to Bird Brain!
And as to the comment about a threat we don't face......why then, do we still operate AWACS and why have we purchased all those lovely Typhoons? Last time I looked out of the window I couldn't see the thousands of Soviet bombers and fighters overwhelming our air defences.....maybe they've got some sort of stealthski technology that makes them hard to spot. Or maybe you don't like Nimrods/Kinloss, either way you're an ill informed idiot, so do us a favour and sod off!:mad:

Cheers Dicky,

I like to think I am diplomatic. Probably see you next week dude. Hope you get lots of eggs for easter.

Bird brain, Ill informed idiot, sod off?

Well that's one way of introducing yourself to the debate I suppose!

Getting back to the topic...
 

Here are a few thoughts about the Nimrod MRA4 programme as it stands today. Not what it could be, or might be – but what is actually going on right now...and, more importantly, what has been contracted and funded.

The only contracted level of capability that BAE has to deliver is for an ASW aircraft. That is not BAE's fault – that is what the customer has ordered and paid for. Bizarrely, that requirement has never changed and sooner or later some serious questions are going to have to be answered about the procurement brains behind the MRA4.

There is immense potential within the MRA4's systems to do all the ISTAR and other funky 'new' missions of the MR2 fleet – but none of that has been contracted or funded so it remains entirely notional.

Thanks to the legion of UORs applied to the MR2 fleet that aircraft is today significantly better at the overland role than the MRA4 will be when it's delivered.

The same is true for all of MRA4's potential as a long-range strike platform. When the jets are delivered the ONLY weapon cleared for carriage will be Sting Ray. It is capable of carrying a lot more, but nothing else has been contracted.

BAE and the MoD are now about to start new negotiations over two rather important issues:

1.
The MRA4 needs a stability augmentation system because it doesn't fly in a straight line. Fixing this will incur additional costs and will bring a delay to initial deliveries.

2.
Even though the announced order in 2006 was for 12 aircraft, BAE has only been contracted to supply nine, plus three options. All of BAE's programme costings are based on a production run of 12 aircraft. If, for some reason, it turns out not to be 12 then the price goes up again.

Right now the entire programme from design and development to end of production is costing about £4 billion.

The target ISD for the fleet is still 2010 but confidence is slipping that that will be met. When the MRA4 does enter service it will be as an ASW platform – anything beyond that will have to be newly paid for and implemented.

The growth potential in the aircraft and its systems is enormous but until someone decides to unlock and PAY for that it remains a potential only.

I would ask, who is in charge of this programme and why has it been allowed to carry in a direction set out in 1996 (or earlier) with seemingly no regard for what is really required from the aircraft, and the people who are working hard to make it happen?

VC

VC.

A thousand thanks for that very informed update. It's just as Chicked leg and myself feared -- no, it's worse.

One question on the subject of computer software. If and when MRA enters service, who will be tasked with carrying out updates?

DV

VC
With skils like that u ort to B a proffesional riter

LO

They build an aircraft that can't fly in a straight line and the customer has to pay to fix it? :confused:

This would seem to contradict Hansard...:

18 July 2006:
The Secretary of State for Defence (Des Browne): I can announce that the contract for foil (sic) production of 12 Nimrod MRA4 aircraft has been placed with BAE Systems. This is the culmination of many years of hard work by BAE Systems and its supply chain, and builds upon the considerable investment already made by the Ministry of Defence and BAE Systems. Nimrod MRA4 has had a troubled and well publicised history of time delays and cost overruns. The contract restructuring introduced since early 2003 has been successful in stabilising costs and with three aircraft participating in the flight trials programme, the design has now reached a level of maturity which permits a commitment to foil production.....

BAe Investors Brief, same month: ..Nimrod Production contract
During Farnborough Airshow, the Secretary of State for Defence, the Rt Hon Des Browne MP announced that the UK Government had signed a production contract for a 12-aircraft fleet of the next-generation Nimrod, the MRA4....

Violet Club,

Isn't the real problem that the 'customer' in this case is DEC Underwater Warfare, who sees the aircraft as his trainset (the money came from his piggy bank), and who would see the addition of land attack (Storm Shadow), ISTAR and other such roles as being a 'diversion'.

Nimrod Catch Up
 

ORAC

Re: SAS costs
I believe this issue may have been highlighted as a potential risk by the time the 2006 contract was agreed and so the need for possible extra funding may have been flagged up then. Now that the fear has become fact the horse-trading begins.

And perhaps it doesn't fly in a straight line because of something the customer specified...I don't know.

Re: Yes Minister
You have quoted those two statements exactly as they were given at the time.

They do not, however, reflect actual reality – go and check BAE's 2006 Annual Report of December 06 and see what is says there. That's the ultimate bottom line. If anyone can explain to me the rather glaring discrepancy between the Minister's statement and the booked order I'd love to hear it.

Jacko
In a word, yes. And even the prospective maritime missions for the MRA4 seem to be locked in a timewarp...it will only carry Sting Rays for gawd's sake.

LowObz

I would be no good at that rock star lifestyle.

You should know better, ORAC, Hansard simply records misinformation given out by politicians. The BAe 2006 annual report is probably stating the truth

"Flight developement of Nimrod MRA4 programme continues and the formal production contract was received in July for nine aircraft with the option for the conversion of the three aicraft currently in flight developement to production standard."

DV

flew on the 30th
 

Supposed to fly twice today but it's still here!!!:ugh:

VC

Not that any of us could relate to a rock star lifestyle...

Feature in this week's Av Week on the MRA4's problems, adding to the insight provided by VC. Extracts:

Undesirable handling characteristics are forcing BAE Systems to augment the flight control system on its Nimrod MRA4 maritime reconnaissance and attack aircraft, with first flight of a modified version by year-end.

The U.K. MoD and BAE have yet to formally contract for the work package. According to a company official, discussions are ongoing. One issue is likely to be which organization pays for the cost of the so-called stability augmentation system (SAS).

There was a realization, even before the flight test program began, that there might be an issue with longitudinal stability, according to the company official, although there was "no definitive proof." The concern over longitudinal stability turned out to be valid, with the aircraft having a tendency to "porpoise," given the right conditions.

While the test crews are understood to be at ease dealing with "porpoising" effect, it was decided that the characteristic could not be disregarded.
The augmentation system will use a digital system to interface with the manual flight controls. The BAE official says integrating the package "is not a major issue."

There are indications the in-service date could slip until the end of 2010, or possibly further.

I/C

arriving 2009
 

really? more like mid 2011

Are they regretting dismantling Woodford's wind tunnel?

Breaking news
 

Some tip-top reporting from those on-the-ball chaps at AvWeek, well done fellas.

The stability issue was identified very early on in the development process, and replicated in the sim; first flight(s) just confirmed the precise characteristics. As to who pays? The taxpayer, who else?