Discussion
anonymous said:
[redacted]
The problem is that is wasn't just going to be £100m to finish it off, or whatever; BAE couldn't or wouldn't put a figure on it or give a timetable for delivery and called the government's bluff. Unsatisfactory as it was, pulling the plug was the only rational response to this brinksmanship, rather than allowing BAE to continue sucking at the teat in return for half a dozen poorly performing aircraft that are effectively all individual prototypes with the serviceability problems that will cause over 30 years of service.Dr Jekyll said:
When the MR4 project started was there ever a serious option of building new Nimrods from scratch?
Nope. Nor were there any real plans to take a civil a/c and modify it with weapons bays as is usually suggested. Airbus at the time were not interested in the redesign work to do so for such a small potential order. Ian Lancs said:
Dr Jekyll said:
When the MR4 project started was there ever a serious option of building new Nimrods from scratch?
Nope. Nor were there any real plans to take a civil a/c and modify it with weapons bays as is usually suggested. Airbus at the time were not interested in the redesign work to do so for such a small potential order. Airbus wise the best option for a 'weapon bay' would probably be panniers on a A330/ 340 wing using the outer engine hardpoint ( where the wing HDUs are on the Voyager ) ... plus commonailty with Voyager
fudnamentally from the RAF point of view the ideal for 'airliner' based aircraft is either the A330 for commonailty with Voyager unless you can fit it all into an aircraft of the same bombardier family as the Sentinel
the outside choices but possibly preferable becasue of existing fleet becasue they are based on not currently in build aircraft are
or the C135 / 707 family for commonality with Rivet joint / Airseeker and Sentry fleets or BAe 146 for commonality with the 32 sqn 146s in VIP / mini tac airlift
then it;s choose an aircraft in use with a NATO / commonwealth ally
eccles said:
I'm not sure knackered old P3's will be up to much. I dare say many of the ones being retired will be at the end of their life and will probably need updating or structural work to even make them a viable option.
Plenty of life left in the updated ones as Lockheed Martin opened a new P-3 wing production line in 2008 as part of its Service Life Extension Program (ASLEP) for delivery in 2010. A complete ASLEP replaces the outer wings, center wing lower section and horizontal stabilizers with newly built parts.Ian Lancs said:
Dr Jekyll said:
When the MR4 project started was there ever a serious option of building new Nimrods from scratch?
Nope. Nor were there any real plans to take a civil a/c and modify it with weapons bays as is usually suggested. Airbus at the time were not interested in the redesign work to do so for such a small potential order. The Nim 2000 / MRA4 should have had new fuses - rather than having to build bespoke box sections for each fuse to then mate with the wings.
And even after all of that - the unsafe snag list was still huge. A much as it was a shame - on this point - I don't think that the Government / MoD had a choice.
Ian Lancs said:
Dr Jekyll said:
When the MR4 project started was there ever a serious option of building new Nimrods from scratch?
Nope. Nor were there any real plans to take a civil a/c and modify it with weapons bays as is usually suggested. Airbus at the time were not interested in the redesign work to do so for such a small potential order. The USA were very seriously interested in buying new build Nimrod (to be built under licence in USA) as replacement for cancelled P7.......
UK Govt./BAe were responsible for putting a torpedo into that idea for reasons I don't think anyone has ever fully established. Probably locked away in the 'not to be opened for 50 years' cabinet.
Dr Jekyll said:
Given that the MR4 had new wings and engines, was there an option of putting the engines in pods under the wing? It seemed odd to persist in having engines in the wing root after what happened to the R1 whose engine caught fire.
I think that the original intent was to squeeze the mods through as "tweaks" to the existing design. A bit more load here, a bit more length there, but with the original design and cert documentation as a baseline.As soon as you start carving up the fundamentals you've got to start again. The wing spar isn't just a bit stronger with more room for the engines; they need to be redesigned for a completely different load distribution. The control surfaces need redesigning for engine out. The fuel, pneumatic, hydraulic, fire systems need redesign because of the different poitioning. The wing aerodynamics are completely changed in the area of the engines. The undercarriage needs lengthening. All of the maintenance documentation needs rewriting accordingly. It's a huge job compared to the "update and tweak" that MoD and BAES thought they were doing (and may not have prevented the loss of the Nimrod in Afganistan)
Dr Jekyll said:
Is it possible part of the motivation was that an upgrade sounds like it should be a frugal option compared with building new and was therefore easier to get past the treasury? The same logic that gave us through deck cruisers instead of aircraft carriers.
Perhaps, it seems to have happened with the upgrade from the Hornet to the Superhornet; it's the same aircraft, honest gov.Mave said:
Dr Jekyll said:
Given that the MR4 had new wings and engines, was there an option of putting the engines in pods under the wing? It seemed odd to persist in having engines in the wing root after what happened to the R1 whose engine caught fire.
. It's a huge job compared to the "update and tweak" that MoD and BAES thought they were doing (and may not have prevented the loss of the Nimrod in Afganistan)
Dr Jekyll said:
Given that the MR4 had new wings and engines, was there an option of putting the engines in pods under the wing? It seemed odd to persist in having engines in the wing root after what happened to the R1 whose engine caught fire.
the comet derived wing had (deemed positive) implications in terms of asymetric thrust for running on 2 or 3 engines to allow trading speed for loiter time over an area - as the thrust forces are a lot closer to the centreline also a podded engine wing pushes more towards the put it all in a new / different airframe answer ...
Mojocvh said:
Mave said:
Dr Jekyll said:
Given that the MR4 had new wings and engines, was there an option of putting the engines in pods under the wing? It seemed odd to persist in having engines in the wing root after what happened to the R1 whose engine caught fire.
. It's a huge job compared to the "update and tweak" that MoD and BAES thought they were doing (and may not have prevented the loss of the Nimrod in Afganistan)
Mave said:
Mojocvh said:
Mave said:
Dr Jekyll said:
Given that the MR4 had new wings and engines, was there an option of putting the engines in pods under the wing? It seemed odd to persist in having engines in the wing root after what happened to the R1 whose engine caught fire.
. It's a huge job compared to the "update and tweak" that MoD and BAES thought they were doing (and may not have prevented the loss of the Nimrod in Afganistan)
Mave said:
Mojocvh said:
Mave said:
Dr Jekyll said:
Given that the MR4 had new wings and engines, was there an option of putting the engines in pods under the wing? It seemed odd to persist in having engines in the wing root after what happened to the R1 whose engine caught fire.
. It's a huge job compared to the "update and tweak" that MoD and BAES thought they were doing (and may not have prevented the loss of the Nimrod in Afganistan)
There was an awful lot of "stuff" going on in the RAF at the time...not just at the coalface but very high up as well...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8329117.stm
http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2009/oct/28/nimrod-c...
Edited by Mojocvh on Saturday 27th December 19:41
Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff