RAF to get P8 to replace Nimrod?

[Arthur Tee]

[b]"A report in the Sunday Times says that the Nimrod was cancelled "because it had several hundred design faults". These included:
The bomb bay doors could not open in flight, and no solution had been found for this.

I'm sure when it appeared at Waddo and RIAT it performed a flypast with the doors open?

I always thought that the problem was that the new undercarriage sat lower - and the doors didn't open fully on the ground!

I was led to believe that small ramps would be needed to permit weapons loading...

Arthur

[st24]

I do enjoy the optimism of enthusiasts (ie not realists).

But my insider knowledge now allows me to reveal the following:

Mildenhall will take place in 2013. It will be opened by a flypast of 43 Spitfires recently returned from Burma. And at 1334 the RAFs latest aircraft, the P8 will perform. In a tribute to Dame Thatcher, Maggie will be named the new RIAT CEO during the closing ceromony.

No Mosquito? Forget it then.

[Dragon Rapide]

[JBartlett]

Does anyone think they would order the A319 MPA instead or is the P8 more the likely candidate.

James

[swingy]

Given our preference for old American airframes I would think we are more likely to get some P3s out of DM rather than a nice new P8.

Lets face it the folks working on the RC135s will need something to do when they ar edone with that order.

Now I think about it I am sure I saw some F18s in there are well. Used carrier aircraft anyone?

[DerekF]

There wasn't a problem with the bomb doors. They were opened regularly in flight and opened on the ground after each flight.
IIRC, an integrity issue arose that if the doors were open and a bird struck an aileron circuit component that was located at the rear of the bay then roll control may have been lost. I think that problem was solved but after I left the project.

There were many problems in the programme, some expected, some not, and had it been managed better then I believe it would not have been cancelled.

One day the stories will come out. Maybe I should write down the ones I know about.

[foxfour]

From what I gather the technical issues with the MRA4 Nimrod were to a very large extent solved by the time the decision was made to scrap it. The only reason it was scrapped was to "save" money. The haste with which the aircraft were scrapped was obscene and I really don't believe that the only value these aircraft had was scrap metal. I find it very strange that a government so desperate to save money that it scrapped a £6bn investment in maritime patrol aircraft was almost first off the starting blocks when it came to spending billions on a war in Libya. If we could afford to go to war in Libya we could afford Nimrod MRA4. It's utterly shameful that Malta has more dedicated maritime patrol aircraft than the UK.

[XP282]

Does anyone think they would order the A319 MPA instead or is the P8 more the likely candidate.

James

It would make far more sense to go with the P8, so... YES, the A319 must be a strong contender if and when we do decide to replace the mighty Nimrod!

[the concerned]

i hope for once that no one considers the A-319 . the P-8 is finshed no messing around the A-319 will not get built unless France actually orders it.

[JBartlett]

It's utterly shameful that Malta has more dedicated maritime patrol aircraft than the UK.

Maybe the RAF should hire G-BCEN for MPA role or all the aircraft at RVL Group I like to see the A319 get built to be honest might get some orders in if they got a prototype but then I like to see a P8 in RAF Grey.

Cheers
James

[foxfour]

i hope for once that no one considers the A-319 . the P-8 is finshed no messing around the A-319 will not get built unless France actually orders it.

I wouldn't be so sure about the A319MPA not getting built. As far as I gather the P-8 has some shortcomings when it comes to submarine hunting. Your traditional Nimrod, Orion, Atlantic were/are quite happy spending many hours low level virtually skimming the waves using the onboard MAD equipment to find submarines. The P-8 as I understand it can't do this due to the wings not being able to take the extra fatigue of prolonged periods at low level, hence it hasn't got a MAD boom. I believe submarine hunting with the P-8 is achieved by chucking out sonar buoys and remote listening from the smoother air at higher levels.

Now if Airbus were to get their act together and beef up this A319MPA so that it can spend long periods at low levels looking for submarines in the traditional manner then it might well sow-up the long term MPA market. The market for this type of aircraft in the next 50 years must be huge unless of course the rest of the world follow the UK's lead and abandon their maritime patrol capability!

[swingy]

Following from what Foxfour wrote I was speaking to a P3 captain who was less than complimentary about the P8. Not only did it not have the low level strength of the P3 or the MAD boom another comment he made was that the P8 had no where near the endurance of a P3 and that to get a similar mission duration would now also require a tanker assuming they had built in an AAR capability into the P8.

[DMH]

It would be interesting to know how either of them would have compared to a Nimrod, either a MR2 or MR4...

[foxfour]

I doubt if you could ever get anyone in government to admit this but I heard the Americans wanted to buy the MRA4s after it was announced they were to be scrapped. Not for the airframes I suspect but for the technology contained within which allegedly was the best in the world at finding submarines. If it is true then I suppose the extra cash was overshadowed by the already bitter political pill being swallowed over the affair.

[A40-BP]

My two cents:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kawasaki_P-1

7

[the concerned]

the Japanese P-1 would have done it perfectly but i feel we missed the chance to get the aircraft . This could have been done when we were bidding to give the Jap's our Eurofighter would have made a fantastic deal.Surely if the P-8 has low level loitering problems then the A-319 would suffer the same performance issues being of similar configuration.I actually think that the MPA will be reconfigured C-130j's as they are replaced by A-400m's it seems the most likely choice,didnt Marshalls aerospace offer a upgrade package.

[Davef68]

I doubt if you could ever get anyone in government to admit this but I heard the Americans wanted to buy the MRA4s after it was announced they were to be scrapped. Not for the airframes I suspect but for the technology contained within which allegedly was the best in the world at finding submarines. If it is true then I suppose the extra cash was overshadowed by the already bitter political pill being swallowed over the affair.

The mission suite that the MRA4 had forms the basis of that fitted to the P-8

[Dragon Rapide]

So, they got it anyway......

[DerekF]

The Nimrod MRA4 mission system was designed and built by Boeing.

[Dragon Rapide]

Ah, so foxfour's comment is irrelevant..

[ericbee123]

It would be interesting to know how either of them would have compared to a Nimrod, either a MR2 or MR4...

Quick Comparison:

Boeing P8 -- In production, based on a very common airframe, low servicing and running costs, not very good at low level, same electronics suite ( minus MAD boom ) as MRA4

Airbus A319M -- Based on a very successful, well selling modern airframe, low servicing and running costs, not yet in production, so will be able to be fitted with most recent electronics available at time of order ( The MRA4 was ordered in 1996 for comparison)

Nimrod -- Dangerous to refuel in flight (MR2 for certain, MRA4 rumoured). Design based on a Comet 4 Airliner. None flying. All been cut up into little bits and scrapped. Looked nice though, had top of the range electronics [for the 90's] ( which were removed before scrapping -- hopefully to be re-used [fully or partially] in whatever airframe we decide to use as MPA in the future ).

[Dragon Rapide]

It would be interesting to know how either of them would have compared to a Nimrod, either a MR2 or MR4...

Quick Comparison:

Boeing P8 -- In production, based on a very common airframe, low servicing and running costs, not very good at low level, same electronics suite ( minus MAD boom ) as MRA4

Airbus A319M -- Based on a very successful, well selling modern airframe, low servicing and running costs, not yet in production, so will be able to be fitted with most recent electronics available at time of order ( The MRA4 was ordered in 1996 for comparison)

Nimrod -- Dangerous to refuel in flight (MR2 for certain, MRA4 rumoured). Design based on a Comet 4 Airliner. None flying. All been cut up into little bits and scrapped. Looked nice though, had top of the range electronics [for the 90's] ( which were removed before scrapping -- hopefully to be re-used [fully or partially] in whatever airframe we decide to use as MPA in the future ).

Just a quick question - why would we want 90s electronics in a 21st century airframe?

[swingy]

The Nimrod MRA4 mission system was designed and built by Boeing.

Not quite the full system package as I understand it. Boeing provided the Nimrod MRA4 Tactical Command System . Stores management system from Smiths Industries. Smiths Industries would also provide the Navigation and Flight Management System, and new systems to manage and diagnose various mechanical components. Other suppliers include Thales (pulse Doppler radar), Elta, and Litton.


Boeing may have developed part of the overall package but will/ would have been contracted to the UK MOD and not the US DOD and thus restricted from passing on the system. That position should still remain despite the cancellation.


Now here is a question did Boeing sabotage the MRA4 to sell the P8...........................................................only joking when have the American defence contractors ever done anything like that.

[ericbee123]

It would be interesting to know how either of them would have compared to a Nimrod, either a MR2 or MR4...

Quick Comparison:

Boeing P8 -- In production, based on a very common airframe, low servicing and running costs, not very good at low level, same electronics suite ( minus MAD boom ) as MRA4

Airbus A319M -- Based on a very successful, well selling modern airframe, low servicing and running costs, not yet in production, so will be able to be fitted with most recent electronics available at time of order ( The MRA4 was ordered in 1996 for comparison)

Nimrod -- Dangerous to refuel in flight (MR2 for certain, MRA4 rumoured). Design based on a Comet 4 Airliner. None flying. All been cut up into little bits and scrapped. Looked nice though, had top of the range electronics [for the 90's] ( which were removed before scrapping -- hopefully to be re-used [fully or partially] in whatever airframe we decide to use as MPA in the future ).

Just a quick question - why would we want 90s electronics in a 21st century airframe?

I guess we didn't but when you order something in 1996 and get it delivered in 2011, then you get what you ordered.

Typhoon was specified and ordered in the 1980's by the way, so all our 21st century toys ( except the Airbus ones [Voyager] and Boeing ones [C17] ) are 1990's designs, luckily they looked futuristic from the outside.

EDIT -- Sorry just realised what you said, "why would we want to keep the electronics from Nimrod ?" -- well I am guessing that these were actually quite good from what others have said and give us some potential submarine detection which is potentially unique ( if a few years out of date ).

[Dragon Rapide]

Yes, I understand all of that but having made the decision to scrap the Nimrod, for right or wrong, why would we still want to be commited to the old electronics suite, when presumably there is or will be more up-to-date kit, as you implied in your notes referring to the A-319?