Discussion
The P8 is a bit odd; the only decent part of it is the computer system and that's out of the MRA4 anyway. Its loiter capability is poor, its performance at low altitude isn't great, which is a bit of a bear when you're hunting subs, as is not having a MAD boom. The only bit Boeing appear to have got right is persuading the DoD to pay them to build it, whereas BAE couldn't even get that bit right. I have my doubts about its durability vis-à-vis corrosion and fatigue cracking when Biggles ends up using the thing at low altitude like Nimrod, as patrolling at FL150 is f
k all use in Winter North Atlantic as you can't see the sea most of the time, necessitating wave dodging at 500'.
We'll buy it anyway as there's not really any alternative and it will plug the gap until drones take over the role.
k all use in Winter North Atlantic as you can't see the sea most of the time, necessitating wave dodging at 500'.We'll buy it anyway as there's not really any alternative and it will plug the gap until drones take over the role.
Edited by hidetheelephants on Tuesday 12th May 05:24
davepoth said:
That's pretty good value at $167m per plane; about a third of the cost of an MR4 it seems. I know the Nimrod might have been the superior plane, but was it really three times better?
I know it might be galling to buy things from other countries that we used to make ourselves, but this looks to be a pretty good deal.
Depends which school of value you believe in. I'd have said paying the remaining (iirc) ~£200M to get 3 productionised development aircraft and 6 production aircraft, is better value than scrapping the aforementioned aircraft and paying for 8 off £150M alternative aircraft.I know it might be galling to buy things from other countries that we used to make ourselves, but this looks to be a pretty good deal.
emicen said:
Depends which school of value you believe in. I'd have said paying the remaining (iirc) ~£200M to get 3 productionised development aircraft and 6 production aircraft, is better value than scrapping the aforementioned aircraft and paying for 8 off £150M alternative aircraft.
£200m wasn't the amount required to get operational aircraft. That was the remaining amount of money left to spend of the final (final, final, final) budget allocated to MRA4. If the Government had spent that money they still wouldn't have any aircraft.hidetheelephants said:
The P8 is a bit odd; the only decent part of it is the computer system and that's out of the MRA4 anyway. Its loiter capability is poor, its performance at low altitude isn't great, which is a bit of a bear when you're hunting subs, as is not having a MAD boom. The only bit Boeing appear to have got right is persuading the DoD to pay them to build it, whereas BAE couldn't even get that bit right. I have my doubts about its durability vis-à-vis corrosion and fatigue cracking when Biggles ends up using the thing at low altitude like Nimrod, as patrolling at FL150 is fk all use in Winter North Atlantic as you can't see the sea most of the time, necessitating wave dodging at 500'.
We'll buy it anyway as there's not really any alternative and it will plug the gap until drones take over the role.
Drones won't take over the role.k all use in Winter North Atlantic as you can't see the sea most of the time, necessitating wave dodging at 500'.We'll buy it anyway as there's not really any alternative and it will plug the gap until drones take over the role.
As I understand it, the USN budget allows for a combination of P8 and their drones to work as a 'team'.
Our budget won't have the drone element, so how much of the overall package will we be missing by buying P8 off the shelf.
The Indians buy of P8 isn't off the shelf, and has a lot of bespoke Indian kit in it IIRC.
I do think there will be fatigue issues within a relatively short time with these though if we start using them as we did the mighty 'Rod......i.e down on the deck.
ralphrj said:
£200m wasn't the amount required to get operational aircraft. That was the remaining amount of money left to spend of the final (final, final, final) budget allocated to MRA4. If the Government had spent that money they still wouldn't have any aircraft.
PA4 had been handed over, PA5 was in the middle of engine ground runs. That's pretty much 2 right there.I'm not trying to make out that MRA4 was a rip roaring success, far from it. But the money spent on these new aircraft would have gone a long way to finishing the job that was already started and not left us with a capability gap for the last 4 years.
ianrb said:
OK, so I have to ask a numpty question.
The problem with the Nimrod was the airframe, which was past its best. But the kit which was in it was OK. So why could the kit not just be transferred to a new(er) airframe?
I'm guessing it's not that simple.
It could have been, but the decision to reuse grotty old airframes fit for making bacofoil from rather than build jigs and make all-new airframes was made 20 years ago; everything since snowballed from that bonehead choice.The problem with the Nimrod was the airframe, which was past its best. But the kit which was in it was OK. So why could the kit not just be transferred to a new(er) airframe?
I'm guessing it's not that simple.
There were a lot of obsolescence issues with Nimrod's equipment. It worked well but spares are hard to find when basic components have been out of production for decades.
Nimrod crews had to boot up the computers from a catridge/cassette type thing that wouldn't have looked out of place in a 1970s car. It's very hard to integrate that sort of antiquity with the systems the rest of the military are using for battlefield information sharing and such like.
Regarding the new airframe - that wasn't lost on everyone there was a school of thought to design a brand new one for the job, recognising that the tinfoil airliners were unsuitable donor airframes for the sort of thing Nimrod crews actually needed to do.
It all got very political and someone somewhere convinced the right people that it would be cheaper to refurbish old airframes rather than design a new one from scratch using computers and the latest manufacturing techniques. Common sense innit?
Nimrod crews had to boot up the computers from a catridge/cassette type thing that wouldn't have looked out of place in a 1970s car. It's very hard to integrate that sort of antiquity with the systems the rest of the military are using for battlefield information sharing and such like.
Regarding the new airframe - that wasn't lost on everyone there was a school of thought to design a brand new one for the job, recognising that the tinfoil airliners were unsuitable donor airframes for the sort of thing Nimrod crews actually needed to do.
It all got very political and someone somewhere convinced the right people that it would be cheaper to refurbish old airframes rather than design a new one from scratch using computers and the latest manufacturing techniques. Common sense innit?
jamieduff1981 said:
It all got very political and someone somewhere convinced the right people that it would be cheaper to refurbish old airframes rather than design a new one from scratch using computers and the latest manufacturing techniques. Common sense innit?
Wasn't it a MOD beancounter driven exercise to lower the project initial cost of the project - i.e a typical false economy. Spend a fiver to justify saving a pound. It was only the fuselages of existing Nimrod's that were re-used/refurbished/modified, the wing box/centre sections and complete wings were all new design and new build.Had the whole airframe been new build, it's very likely the USA would have bought MRA4 - and quite why MOD thought that wouldn't be a good idea is incredulous really.
The P8 seems like a better way of doing it; the aero is the same as the 737, but the structure is significantly redesigned to carry weapons, resist corrosion better and tolerate low level flight. That could have been what MRA4 became but the MoD's beancounters struck again; a new build Nimrod would have been cheaper, more straightforward and offered the prospect of flogging them to other customers, as it transpired every other LRMP aircraft in development was either cancelled or delayed for years and beset with budget escalation.
aeropilot said:
Had the whole airframe been new build, it's very likely the USA would have bought MRA4 - and quite why MOD thought that wouldn't be a good idea is incredulous really.
I did read at the time that there was some casual interest from the Japanese and the US, and that if either of these had turned serious it would have been regarded as worthwhile tooling up for new build. I suspect the aviation bangernomics option was chosen because refurbishing an old aircraft simply sounds more frugal than building brand new.aeropilot said:
Wasn't it a MOD beancounter driven exercise to lower the project initial cost of the project - i.e a typical false economy. Spend a fiver to justify saving a pound. It was only the fuselages of existing Nimrod's that were re-used/refurbished/modified, the wing box/centre sections and complete wings were all new design and new build.
Had the whole airframe been new build, it's very likely the USA would have bought MRA4 - and quite why MOD thought that wouldn't be a good idea is incredulous really.
Initial airframe surveys showed very little corrosion, hence the decision to use the existing fuselages. When they got to strip and survey in Woodford, the opposite was found with respect to corrosion.Had the whole airframe been new build, it's very likely the USA would have bought MRA4 - and quite why MOD thought that wouldn't be a good idea is incredulous really.
Late on in the project there was still interest from one US defence company.
DuraAce said:
6-10 P8's to be purchased for the RAF, paid for by the retirement of the E3 following this years forthcoming SDSR.
Just a hunch but we'll see how things play out later this year......
Aah, so you plug one capability gap in the system by creating another one somewhere else in the system.........Just a hunch but we'll see how things play out later this year......
Madness.
DuraAce said:
6-10 P8's to be purchased for the RAF, paid for by the retirement of the E3 following this years forthcoming SDSR.
Just a hunch but we'll see how things play out later this year......
the P8 can;t do the Sentrys job , same as the Sentry and Sentinel can't sub hunt even if they can do some surface stuff and provide top cover for SAR efforts ... ditto with herc and SAR Just a hunch but we'll see how things play out later this year......
Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff