Got room for a Nimrod MR4?

Who said they intend to buy the P-8?

I can’t figure out how the British MoD thinks it’ll be cheaper to buy new Poseidons at $250-300 million a pop when these have already been contracted and paid for. Do the long-term savings compensate for the several billions being flushed down the toilet now?

Changing subjects, since this appears to be the most recent thread on the Nimrod MR4, I have a query I’d like to post here. How does the MR4’s sensor suite compare to equivalent solutions like the P-8 and the P-3D? What are the capabilities of the Searchwater 2000 radar, for instance? How does it compare to the APY-10 on the P-8?

Me too to be honest, not that we’d ever care to accuse the media of being anything less than accurate… :rolleyes:

I think I’d go for the latter!

If the newspaper reports have even the slightest shred of credibility, maybe we haven’t seen the end of MRA4 after all… If (and only if) there is a plan to complete the fleet, surely the project will have to be re-visited when the aircraft are delivered. Maybe the cancellation has been nothing more than a sound bite, and the true outcome will eventually be rather different? Or maybe the papers are talking rubbish again!

Why buy P-3s? The design is older than the Nimrod! The P-7 was cancelled a long time ago and who’s to say it wouldn’t have had as many issues as MRA4.
Buyin Lockheed would do very little to bring work to the UK. Governments have a duty to provide the best kit but they also have a duty to their own economy and workforce. Replacing MR2s with P-3s would look bizarre.

This is in no way a dig at the Maritime force- However from day 1 everyone raised an eyebrow at taking an old nimrod removing the wings and re fitting it- why did we not buy new or P3s? It was a recipe for disaster that no doubt Aviation writers will live on for years. I asked this question before if BAe are so sure of how good the Nimrod M4 will be lets see if they carry on and refurb the 9 airframes and sell them on….I think not ! Just proves my point that BAe have once again pulled the wool over the eyes of the Tax payer. I bet they even get £50M for scrapping what they have spent 10 years building.. THE UK IS MAD!!!

There’s a substantial amount of off- the- shelf equipment in MR4, but for lightweight airborne equipment, it’s normally so highly optimised against it’s original purpose it can rarely be used without a degree of engineering adaptation (in many cases this adaption constraint of OTS was/is more trouble than its worth), and it rarely comes with a qualification that can be directly reused, hence it all has to be expensively re-qualified as a single integrated system.The same costs would apply for any other platform.

MRA4 was not over ambitious,as I mentioned in my first post, its development woes are far more seated in the way BAESYSTEMS ran the project management.

I agree that many aspects of the project were a problem due to BAE management, however the MOD must share part of the blame. For every person trying to get the test aircraft flying, there appeared to be 10 trying to stop it. Some of the reasons for not flying were truly scandalous.
…there might be book in this were it not for the Official Secrets act.
Many of the problems were foreseen by the engineering staff but accepted as “project risks” by the management. Sadly most of them became a big deal in the end.
I agree with Chox in that the project should have been cancelled or at least redrawn around 2000/2001 when it was clear it wasn’t going to enter service anytime soon. I was always expecting cancellation anytime I worked on it.

But having come this far, it should have been completed and what we have lost is a very capable airframe that would have lasted many years in service.

With all these cuts it would appear that in the near future Shuttleworth and Duxford will have more flying aircraft than the RAF.
Ian

I guess we must agree to disagree on whether MRA4 was over-ambitious. My view is that a far cheaper solution could have been found by purchasing a P-3 derivative much like so many other countries have done, but by striving for more and more capability, the end result just becomes less and less achievable. Likewise, whilst I accept that the project might have started-off as a more realistic “rebuild” of Nimrod, it must be clear to anyone that a stage was reached where anyone could see that it was in effect a completely new aircraft which was only hampered by the incorporation of Nimrod components. It should have been killed-off far, far sooner. Just like TSR2 in fact as Peter commented!

A far more affordable design (perhaps with off-the-shelf equipment) could have been adopted.

There’s a substantial amount of off- the- shelf equipment in MR4, but for lightweight airborne equipment, it’s normally so highly optimised against it’s original purpose it can rarely be used without a degree of engineering adaptation (in many cases this adaption constraint of OTS was/is more trouble than its worth), and it rarely comes with a qualification that can be directly reused, hence it all has to be expensively re-qualified as a single integrated system.The same costs would apply for any other platform.

MRA4 was not over ambitious,as I mentioned in my first post, its development woes are far more seated in the way BAESYSTEMS ran the project management.

Brilliant but sad all the same.. it reeks of TSR2 does this!

Nimrods for sale. Would you believe it on here.
http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=190458901355&ru=http%3A%2F%2Fshop.ebay.co.uk%3A80%2Fi.html%3F_nkw%3D190458901355%26_in_kw%3D1%26_ex_kw%3D%26_sacat%3DSee-All-Categories%26_okw%3D190458901355%26_oexkw%3D%26_adv%3D1%26_udlo%3D%26_udhi%3D%26LH_Auction%3D1%26_ftrt%3D901%26_ftrv%3D1%26_sabdlo%3D%26_sabdhi%3D%26_samilow%3D%26_samihi%3D%26_sadis%3D200%26_fpos%3DPostcode%26LH_SALE_CURRENCY%3D0%26_sop%3D12%26_dmd%3D1%26_ipg%3D50%26_fvi%3D1&_rdc=1

I believe it for stress testing of some form during flight…

I might be wrong though…!

Zeb

I believe you are right.

Maybe the French will lend us some Atlantique ALT3s?

I believe it for stress testing of some form during flight…

I might be wrong though…!

Zeb

Seems such a waste and shortsighted idea to scrap what has more or less been finished, and would provide such a usefull role in our defence.
I went to take a pic of The Vulcan at Woodford back in September 2007, and a Nimrod, was stood outside, I dont know if it was a offcial run out, but the guys towed it to the bottom of the runway and around right in front of us at the fence. while I took a few shots and they wernt bothered in the slightest. By the way can anyone tell me what the red “CIRCUIT DIAGRAM” type markings are for on the tailfin.

The MRA4 had IIRC a 13 hour duration without AAR. AAR was provisioned for but not fully qualified. The MRA4 was not going to shut down two engines like MR2 anyway.

Thanks Arthur

MRA4 is a great and powerful RMPA

Exactly, whereas a P-3 derivative isn’t. MRA4 was over-ambitious. A far more affordable design (perhaps with off-the-shelf equipment) could have been adopted. As for the airframe, well yes, we know the background, point is, nobody stepped-in to stop the development when it was realised that it would in effect be a new-build aircraft. The manufacturer and customer knew what they were getting.

The MRA4 had IIRC a 13 hour duration without AAR. AAR was provisioned for but not fully qualified. The MRA4 was not going to shut down two engines like MR2 anyway.