mispost!
The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter overlander
- Start date
Just about the only part of the MR 2 that was retained was the fuselage and even that was extensively refurbished. There was very little left to do to make it a totally new aircraft and the true irony is (according to the guy I knew from the project) it would have been cheaper and easier to design and build a new fuselage than it was to refurbish the old ones and mate them to the new wings.
Now considering the MR4 made it as far along as it did before cancellation it is only logical that something that was better, cheaper and ready earlier would have actually made it into service before the current cuts. Being in production and in service with the RAF would have made it an option for India and Australia instead of the P-8.
Huge opportunity to build something off a cheap airbus or RJ100 platform and they could have had a real success story.
Airbus yes but RJ100 would have caused more heart ache than the MR4, it was not that good an aircraft to start with and would have cost squillions to bring it to the capability of the MR2 let alone the MR4 or P-8.
The thing with the MR4 is it had the potential, had they gone for a new fuselage as well, to have beaten the P-8 into service by over a decade while providing greater capability than the P-3 or Atlantic. Infact a new fuselage could have permitted the easy integration of systems that were never considered for the refurbished option, or for that matter the P-8 or notional A319/320/321 due to structual arrangement limitiations of using an existing airliner based design.
Yes MOTS or an adapted COTS platform can be cheaper and less risky but the UK decided to go for the MR4; I just think it is a shame they didn't take it just one step further and replace the fuselage too, once they realised the issues with the existing airframes, whic I believe was very early on in the project.
I think the facts & figures were 80% of the fuselage was removed. The wings were originally going to be retained, but highly modified & the main bodyshell was retained for 1 main reason, the ability to have a pressurised cabin & an un-pressurised bomb-bay, with the ability to carry weapons internally, rather than on pylons.
Like most aircraft, 'the box' where the wings & fuselage are merged is the usually the most problamitic area, due to the loading placed on it during take-off, flight & landing, because of the stresses, the weight change and a few other factors.
While a new airfarme might have been an option & with hindsight seems cheaper, at the time, the lead-time / time scale of development & build precluded the thought of such an undertaking.
After all the old adage comes to mind
" If it aint broke, don't fix it...."
SA
The other advantage of a new build airframe is that it would have removed the need to draw down the MR2 fleet to provide airframes to modify. End result a larger pool of airframes sharing the load and there by extending the types effective life and providing more room to move on schedule for the replacement.
Actually, it isn't hindsight. The chief engineer was sacked for refusing to sign off the MRA4 proposal on the grounds that it grossly understated the cost & risk.
A320 yes, RJ100 no. Too small, not enough range & endurance.
There are two possibilities here: replacing the fuselage with newly manufactured standardised Nimrod fuselages, or designing a new fuselage. The latter is a non-starter, for the reasons I gave above. It adds risk & cost. The former would have avoided the problems with the variability of the old MR2 fuselages, thus saving time & money, & avoided the necessity to draw down the MR2 fleet to provide sound fuselages to cannibalise. The problem with it is that it no longer fits the "we're renovating old aircraft & therefore it's going to be relatively cheap" model & could thus have scuppered the whole proposal.
I stand corrected, i did not know this.
as a sidebar, have you read the Nimrod risk analysis re MR4? - its a sphincter tightening document
they buggered up a very very good plane.
I don't doubt they buggered up quite a few things over the last 10 years!
I remember watching the news reports at the time showing the pictures of x2 plane bodies & x4 wings inside the Antonov 225, ready for transport & I even got to see the take off of one in 2001, from Warton Aerodrome.
At the time I was impressed by how far technology had come & how far it was going to go with this 'new' plane. I also had the pleasure of seeing the 1st x2 aircraft at Woodford, near Manchester, sat on the runway doing engine warm ups & pre-flight runs, still doused in the horrible yellow ochre pre-paint undercoat.
Then in 2009 I had the joy of watching one of those suckers 'buzz' a ship I was on & thought that things had gone well even after all the FUBAR stuff that had happened with costs, etc.
...& here we are today, 2011 & a Conservative led Govt is repeating the history of the TSR-2. An airframe that could do so much & had the possibility to last another 25 - 30 years, being destined now to become chinese take-away trays & milk bottle tops.
Yes it does truely make ya proud to be British.....
SA :nutkick
PS Haven't seen that 'sphincter tightening' report. Do you have any links, or is it 'not in the public domain' ??
I've got it at work. it's now a reference document on how "not to run a project". I'll flick it to you during the week.
in so many areas the Nimrod was a superior platform to the Orion, couple that with the quality of UK ASW training in the 70's, 80's and early 90's they were a golden mile ahead of US, Canada, Aust and NZ
absolutely screwed by political indolence and indifference.
Do you know if anyone on my project has access to the report? One of the DARs perhaps?
I am a fan of the Nimrod having seen a few when I was a kid attending the regular airshows at the local RAAF base. The Falklands mods incorporating AIM-9L and Harpoon put it miles ahead of the P-3. I could also imagine a, now impossible, future MR5 incorporating an AESA, Meteor and (possibility) CEC in addition to more traditional MPA loads.
The cancellation really is a shame considering the fact it was actually ready for service, it really is the TSR 2 over again. Like the TSR 2 the real cost is far more than the money wasted on the project and the loss of a critical capability but also the opportunity cost of everything else that couldn’t be done because the MR4 had priority.
I would think so. Our entire Division has had it relayed to us en masse a few times NOW to reinforce what we shouldn't do.
Oh, the ignomy of it, we're teaching the Australians how not to feck up procurement. If you want any other tips on how *not* to purchase light, easily deployable and relatively cost effective armoured vehicles etc, we're there for you
Nimrod is a terrible shame - doubly embarrassing as of course, we did it all before with the AWACS thing. Doh...well..not quite, the bits inside MR4 apparently worked.
Damn shame and we're unlikely to get that capability back - either at all or at least in a hurry.
Ian
Is it restricted?
The RJ100 would be a reduced capability....well in theory on the MR4 but then we don't have anything now. There are lighter aircraft like C295 even the old Viking S3 and certainly all have bigger/have more endurace than any helicopter in the ASW role.
At the other end of the scale, would the A330 just be to much overkill, it might be able to have a useful secondary role as a carrier of cruise missiles almost like a B52 and commonality with MRTT would be useful?. Although would a A321 have been a viable option for a smaller light tanker maybe in greater numbers but without the logistics support capability?
RubiconNZ
The Wanderer
Will the Rivet Joints not provide a capacity for Maritime Patrol?
Limited as it may be with three airframes and primary mission tasking.
Wrong sensors. They're electronic intelligence, replacements for the Nimrod R.1s. Flying listening posts. Great for locating emitters, analysing signals, etc, but that doesn't make them good MPAs. Using them in that role would be a waste of their abilities. Something cheaper could do the MPA role better.
Weren't we discussing alternatives at the time of the decision, not now? RJ100 was too big a step down to be considered. Complete non-starter.
A330 - far too big, & doubling up as a cruise missile carrier would have required us to be interested in buying such a capability. Wasn't wanted, no budget.
One of the A320 family would have been realistic as an MPA. It's the only one of your suggestions that has actually been offered as an MPA. The smaller aircraft such as C-295 & CN-235 are offered mostly for coastguard-type roles, & the S-3 for carrier-borne ASW.