Nimrod MRA4 for Indian Navy ?

I’ve asked this before without any success, but has anyone read performance figures for the sensor suites of the Nimrod and its prospective replacements(say, the P-8)? How does the Searchwater-2000 radar compare with the APY-10?

Ah, in that case it might have worked. Could have been in service several years ago, & be a bit late to scrap now.

I’d rather ask Airbus (preferably, because of workshare) or Boeing to modify their own aircraft than get BAe to do it, though.

You misundestand me Swerve, I’m talking hypotheticals in respect of what happened during the 1990’s not what should be done now. What would of happened if they had gone for a different airframe over Nimrod and how could of it been made more ideal for role.

My opinion now is P8 is the best solution if you want a jet MPA! With the huge USN purchase and further global sales giving the benefit of scale makes the choice a no brainer. A319MPA is interesting but it would be more expensive.

It’s still increasing development cost, risk, & support costs. I appreciate that you end up with a better MPA, but look at what the USN has done – and P-8 is getting exports. Too much cost & risk for the vastly better-funded USN – but OK for us?

I’m convinced that any new wing A320 or whatever based MPA is a non-starter. Nobody will pay for it, & nobody will want to buy it.

If we want a new full-size MPA, either buy P-8, or go for the Airbus Military A319 MPA. Each has advantages. A new BAe-winged hybrid would be a disaster waiting to happen. Haven’t we learned any lessons?

But are the new wings at fault with the MRA4? Bae Systems had no problem designing and making them. The issue was attaching them to forty year old airframes. Modern airline fuselage with accurate datum points shouldn’t of been a major issue.

I mean more exportable then the very unique MRA4.

I know Airbus wings are made in the UK, I’m talking about wings more suitable to the low/slow environment of maritime patrol.

Yes, that’s what they ended up doing with MRA4 – and look where we are now. Who do you think would bankroll such a redesign?

Why more exportable? It would be a lot more expensive to build than a less modified A320, & support costs would be higher.

BTW, most Airbus wings are already made in the UK.

Indeed Badger1968 in a heavy state things are going to be bad regardless. Which brings me to the conclusion that maybe the RAF over-egged the podded vs non podded argument in a ditching situation.

Ensuring the rescue beacons work and the liferafts deploy is far more important if they survive the ditching to my mind.

If it had been a less critical issue for the RAF then maybe British Aerospace could of been more creative with airframe choices and gone with a more common civil airline type as the basis for the aircraft. As I said before my choice would of been a dusting off the Boeing 757 based concept from the 80’s but there are plenty of other choices.

As an aside an issue that has been brought up before is the poor cruise performance and bumpy ride at low level and at a low speed for civil airline types. Understandable with the thin swept wings, which brings me to another conclusion. Lets say BAe had chosen an airline type like the a320, 737 or 757 why couldn’t they of used their known skills with wing design and built a new wing optimised for role?! Less wing sweep and more robust but retaining the same fuselage mating points and engine pods. Its not as crazy as it seems, in the end thats what Bae Systems did for the MRA4! You end up with an aircraft more suited for the role, workers employed building them and a more exportable type.

I would doubt that any large aircraft could manage an intact ditching under the conditions I outlined… however one (or two) less point(s) where the sea could catch and spin/flip/twist the airframe could make a difference in the final outcome… the degree of disintegration of the airframe, and thus in the flotation times of the remains.

The discussion between both you and Fedaykin was kind of avoiding the fact that the conditions around the British Isles tend to be rough and with poor weather… unlike the Hudson river on a calm day.

In these conditions it would make little difference whether the aircraft was an under-wing-podded-engine design (MPA320 / MPA319 or P-8) or an in-wing-engine design (Nimrod)… the airframe is nearly certain to break apart upon impact, due to the near certainty of digging in a wingtip or of hitting a wave-face/top, and the rest of the weather conditions would make rescue of survivors a slow and uncertain process.

It is in how badly it breaks up, and whether the crew will be in condition to deploy and enter life-rafts that the difference in engine mounting is likely to make itself a factor.

Floating calmly on a flat surface while conveniently-near ferries come to pluck the crew off the wings just isn’t going to happen!

2 facts that caught my eye concerning the ‘Miracle on the Hudson’

a. Airline pilots don’t receive simulator training in ditching their aircraft.
b. There is no fuel-dump facility on the A320.

Bearing in mind that the A320 had only burned of about 2-3 minutes worth of fuel before the bird-strike, along with the fact of the full capacity load of 155 passengers and baggage, Sullenberger had a very heavy aircraft when he hit the water.

Another interesting fact, both the A320 and the Nimrod both broke their backs.

Tell me, why would a Nimrod or a P-3 be able to survive “ditching at night, in a rain-squall, with 25-knot variable winds (bf6),” etc, compared to an airliner type?

I would have thought that the events on the Hudson river 2 years ago with US Airways’ A320 would have erased any doubts on the ditching qualities of podded engined airliners – and then there is MPA320 / MPA319:

http://www.casr.ca/bg-cp140-replacement-a320.htm

Flight 1549: landing in daylight, with clear visibility, and calm winds, on a very smooth river.

Hypothetical MPA: ditching at night, in a rain-squall, with 25-knot variable winds (bf6), on a rough sea (ss5) with 8′-10′ wave heights.

Hmmm… apples to pomegranates comparison, I’d say.

Beaufort Wind Force Scale and Sea State

Don’t just blame this Government.

You might be right, if the Sunday Time’s story is true.

Dave

It was stated before the process began that they would be stripped of anything usable or salable.

It’s standard procedure for scrapped aircraft. Everything that can be sold for more than the cost of removing it, or which if left on would degrade the value of the scrap aluminium by more than the cost of removal, is removed, & either stored appropriately pending sale or binned, depending on the reason for its removal.

Whilst the Nimrod airfarmes are being destroyed, I would hope that they are first stripped of the radar, computers and other kit inside them. Surely even this government would not be mad enough to wreck these items?

I wonder if one day they could be retrofitted into another suitable airframe?

Sadly I think you had some ideas of what was wanted, but that it was beyond british engineering capabilities to make without pouring too much money in. An example of why trying to spend the money at home may sound like a good way to save money and industry, but isn’t.

Ignoring the lack of performance of Orion P-3C even against Nimrod MR2, but would we be complaining now if the MoD had gone for 21 P-3C’s (using Pakistan as a guide, would have cost $2.5 billion)? Was the problem with MRA4 more about the fact that we wanted cutting edge performance and we did not have any good options if we wanted the level of performance promised by MRA4?

Ah well I was looking at what was available in the 90’s Swerve.

Looking at the 737 classic and A320 vs the 757 then I would say the latter type was more suitable. Remember the 757 was only pulled when the 737-900 became available.

I did consider a310 and 767 as well but to go to a wide body is a significant size and cost jump. I would think 757 is roomy enough but I agree a310 might of been interesting. Also over 1050 757 were built so they were not that unique in compaarison to Nimrod…

Yes. It was an awkward time to go for the 737. The old 737 would have been out of production before development was complete, so a very bad idea, & NG was launched during the selection process. Otherwise, it would have been near-perfect. I agree that A310 or 767 would have been a big – perhaps too big – jump. A320 had the advantages of the 737 without the timing drawback, & with the advantage of considerable British content.

You’re right to mention the numbers of civil versions sold. A320 & 737 score highest on this, followed by 757 & 767, with A300/310 a little behind. But all of them have a big enough user base to provide a sold backup, & even the first out of production (A300/310 & 757) will have lots in use around the world for many years, & stocks of spares, old airframes to be parted-out, etc., facilitating fleet support. However, it would be even better for the UK not to be the only operator of the MPA variant, as it would enable the sharing of upgrade costs, & perhaps some return on investment in development. Imagine, for example, that the UK had funded development of an 737 MMA, which was then adopted by the USN (heavily & not necessarily modified, of course, as always). UK royalties on every USN (Australian, Indian, etc) airframe! Piggy-backing on USN upgrades forever!

IMO, the 757 was less likely to be adopted by others, negating that advantage. The A320 was unlikely to be bought by the USN, for the usual political reasons, but still gave a much better chance of other sales than the 757, & every A320 sold has British wings.

With 20-20 hindsight I’d toss a coin to decide between the A320 with FITS & the 737NG with the Boeing-based mission system adopted for the MRA4. At the time, the risk of the new Boeing model might be seen as balancing out the risk of the new Spanish (with no reputation) mission system, but in hindsight we know both worked out very well. The UK gets more work on the A320 MPA, but the 737 MMA/P-8 (as it eventually becomes, after modifications) sells more, because of the USN.

the P-8 also offers extra benefits for airforces that already use 737 based airframes like australia and turkey in areas like training and maintenance.

On a side note, as a ASW 737 is a P-8, does this open the way for the wedgetail AEW/C as a E(W)-8, or the BBJ 737 as a C-8?

where is boeing offering a 737 with AAR capability for small airforces:D

Ah well I was looking at what was available in the 90’s Swerve.

Looking at the 737 classic and A320 vs the 757 then I would say the latter type was more suitable. Remember the 757 was only pulled when the 737-900 became available.

I did consider a310 and 767 as well but to go to a wide body is a significant size and cost jump. I would think 757 is roomy enough but I agree a310 might of been interesting. Also over 1050 757 were built so they were not that unique in compaarison to Nimrod…

It took some hunting but here is the only picture I can find of the Boeing 757 based proposal for the 1980 P3 replacement program. Eventually won by Lockheed with a revised P3 design then cancelled.

I can see the advantages of using the work already done on the 757, but I still think a 737 or A320 would have been better, because of the potential for sales to other countries & the size of the civilian user base. Not a good idea to be stuck with a unique type.

The A310 might have been an even better airframe (lots of room for operators & perfect for a tanker), but a bit big for most potential customers as well as starting from scratch.

so the A320 is officially a seaplane now ? 😀

thanks for clearing that up Fed.