RAF to get P8 to replace Nimrod?

[Rory76]

What....about being incredible in the sack?

[Seahornet]

...It would very nice to have a wardrobe full of Saville Row suits but in reality you have one good one and several from Burtons.

Actually, my best one is from Burtons, and the other two are from Oxfam....

...And come to think of it, that's a pretty good metaphor for our defence spending too!

[tankbuster]

What....about being incredible in the sack?

I thought the story was "get this right Dennis and I'll have twins and you'll never have to bother with this again". See she got something right

[st24]

Okay, so where's my post gone??

[toom317]

Lets hope so. It seems complete madness that an island nation like us doesn't have a maritime patrol aircraft.

Indeed. Caused by the madness of having a Labour government for 13 years, like many of our military shortcomings.

DanO, in case you missed it, it was the ConDems who scrapped the Nimrod, and the Conservatives haven't exactly been shy at cutting the forces in the past either.

It is becoming tedious reading your anti labour rants. We all know where you stand, please give it and us a rest.

[Dragon Rapide]

What....about being incredible in the sack?

I thought the story was "get this right Dennis and I'll have twins and you'll never have to bother with this again". See she got something right

Well I suppose it's another angle....

[Davef68]

Been on the cards since the day Nimrod was scrapped. There was an interview with Liam Fox on Radio Scotland, where he admitted that the UK needed an MPA capability, but the Nimrod MRA4 was not the platform to carry on with, due to the factors that have already been stated. He also said that thsi was something we would have to look at again in the future when the finances permitted.

[Mike]

Been on the cards since the day Nimrod was scrapped. There was an interview with Liam Fox on Radio Scotland, where he admitted that the UK needed an MPA capability, but the Nimrod MRA4 was not the platform to carry on with, due to the factors that have already been stated. He also said that thsi was something we would have to look at again in the future when the finances permitted.

Surely it can't cost too much to get hold of a few ex-Easyjet or Ryanair 737s, paint 'em grey, and bolt a few widgets on. Isn't that what Boeing have done with the P-8, only charged a fortune for them as the US Government have much deeper pockets?

[tsr2]

So we have three possible Boeings in the RAF, Sentry, RC-135, Poseidon(???) it makes sense to complete it with Boeing's other fixed wing offering..... The Super Hornet

You missed the C-17.

[Orion]

What....about being incredible in the sack?

And in which way ... good or awful.

I wouldn't be the slightest bit surprised to find that the RAF eventually gets the P-8 but neither would I be the slightest bit surprised if the purchase isn't associated with maritime drones either. This seems to be the way the Indians are going, ie using the P-8 and drones as a package.

Regards

[TonyO]

Lets hope so. It seems complete madness that an island nation like us doesn't have a maritime patrol aircraft.

Indeed. Caused by the madness of having a Labour government for 13 years, like many of our military shortcomings.

DanO, in case you missed it, it was the ConDems who scrapped the Nimrod, and the Conservatives haven't exactly been shy at cutting the forces in the past either.

It is becoming tedious reading your anti labour rants. We all know where you stand, please give it and us a rest.

But he's right, the cuts were forced upon us by the £38 billion black hole in the defence budget created by Labour alone...

The damage done by them is almost irrepairable, and the inability for people to accept this is very troubling!

[DerekF]

Maybe you could explain to us the common sense involved in cancelling a project that had been 16 or 17 years in the making and was within a few weeks of delivering a capable aircraft to the RAF?

You'll be doing well to explain it because nobody else seems to know the answer, least of all those who actually made the decision.

[the concerned]

I hope we do get the P-8 and nothing else but it would be nice if we could see if we could get a joint buy with other countries say australia and canada . I didn't mention other european countries because they couldn't decide between tea or coffee without wasting a couple of billion consulting someone unimportant

[Dragon Rapide]

Is there any truth in the following?

"According to Air Forces Monthly magazine, "significant aerodynamic issues and associated flying control concerns in certain regimes of flight meant that it was grounded at the time of cancellation and may not have been signed over as safe by the.. Military Aviation Authority." The magazine also stated that the reason for the cancellation was that the RAF and Navy placed a higher priority on fast jets and frigates than on maritime patrol"

[TonyO]

Maybe you could explain to us the common sense involved in cancelling a project that had been 16 or 17 years in the making and was within a few weeks of delivering a capable aircraft to the RAF?

You'll be doing well to explain it because nobody else seems to know the answer, least of all those who actually made the decision.

Because it probably would have needed another half a billion spent on it to bring it up to the standards required for operations in theatre, it might have been ready for operations around the UK, but that's all it would have been fit for!

[DerekF]

Oh OK. What is your source for this?

[Dragon Rapide]

What about the quote I posted from Air Forces Monthly? I also came across this. Is there any truth in these comments?

"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.
A single birdstrike could disable both ailerons, and bring the aircraft down.
The nose gear gets stuck in the bay and will not deploy.
The wings had fatigue issues (not sure how, as they are supposed to be new. Perhaps this refers to the wing-fuselage join.)
The deicing system did not work.
The engine bay overheated.
There were holes in the engine bay that could spread a fire. They were upset that Bae had denied this.
The fuel pipes were susceptible to the same fault as the Kandahar crash.
Most of the faults were, they said, "due to legacy design issues". In other words, the Nimrod was an ancient old dog of an aircraft, that did not conform to any modern certification requirements, and trying to make it into a modern aircraft was doomed to failure.

The aileron circuit, for example HAS to be seperable, port from stbd, in all modern aircraft - thus one fault cannot disable both wings. In fact, if you had a modern A320 as an airframe, you can separate the ailerons and spoilers, so you have four separate systems you can use to give roll control, just incase you have battle-damage. In fact, the A320 can fly on engines alone, as pseudo flight controls, so you don't need any controls at all, if you have battle-damage.

The conclusion of a MoD source was that: " There are serious concerns about the safety of the aircraft. The project has been a disaster, and should have been cancelled years ago. "

Presumably there must be a degree of truth in some if not all of those points. If so, there would seem to be ample justification for the decision which was taken.

I don't know but am seeking clarification from those here who do know more than I do.

[DerekF]

There are so many errors in that quote DR, it renders the article null and void as far as I'm concerned.

[Dragon Rapide]

Can you be specific? I am genuinely seeking to understand all that is being written about this episode, and am not being provocative. You seem to have "inside information" having worked on the project and I have to assume that, despite that, your comments are objective.

[ericbee123]

I too would also like an answer from someone who knows if some of these problems existed.

The main one being, was there a major flaw in the Nimrod design, around the implementation of Air to Air refuelling and the routing of fuel pipes and blow off valves.

If you read this report, it shows that tests with the AEW variant which got scrapped showed changes were needed, I can only hope these were implemented in MRA4, but the tests with dyed water in the MRA4 show that fluid can gather in the same places in an MR2 as an MRA4 -- as the fuselage is the same shape.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/p ... nimrod.pdf

The Nimrod MR2 looks to me to have been found to have been potentially unsafe, as this was the main donor for the MRA4 and some of the potential problems look to have been forwarded onto the MRA4, as soon as these 'flaws' were public, then MRA4 was doomed -- regardless of if it was flyable or the bomb bay doors opened, or whatever, Nimrod was not a design which would pass 21st century safety standards.

I would love someone to argue and tell me different -- rather than just post "this is rubbish".

[Dragon Rapide]

Apart from the "cries of horror" from any and all "interested" parties, I do not recall any reasoned arguments put forward AGAINST the cancellation, apart from the costs of the cancellation.

[DerekF]

I'm not sure there needed to be reason against cancellation; a proposal was submitted, a contract was signed and an aircraft designed and flown. It would be much more important to provide a clear and concise and above all accurate reason why it was cancelled.

DR, the long list of issues were by and large solved by the time I left in 2007. There was an issue with aileron cables, a fix for which was either in place or about to be. I can't say much about what happened afterwards. Unlike others, I like to be fairly certain of my facts before going into print on a forum.

As I said previously on another MRA4 thread, it was a poor project, badly managed and full of vested interests but having said that, to get so close to completion then cancel was verging on criminal.

[capercaillie]

[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?

[Dragon Rapide]

Thanks, Derek. "....poor project, badly managed and full of vested interests...". I suppose those words couild be applied to any number of MoD post-war projects. However, that being said, it still seems as though problems we do not know about may have arisen since your departure, accepting that you have generally addressed those in the list I quoted. In answer to your question we are not going to get anything better than this, puiblic statement, are we? Was this cancellation anymore "verging on the criminal", to use your phrase, than countless others which preceded it? Is that phrase even appropriate?

"In Parliament on the 28th of October the reasons for cancelling the Nimrod maritime patrol aircraft were yesterday given by Peter Luff,Minister for Defence Equipment,Support and Technology:

"The decision not to bring the Nimrod MRA4 into service announced by the Prime Minister on 19 October was difficult,owing to the nature of the military tasks to which it was designed to contribute,the amount of public money that had been spent on it,and the impact of such a decision on the people who have dedicated their careers to delivering this capability,or who depend on it for their livelihoods.
However,the severe financial pressures faced by the nation and the urgent need to bring the defence programme into balance meant that we could not retain all our existing programmes,and that we had to prioritise those capabilities that we could continue to maintain.
This project has suffered from repeated delays and cost overruns.
But it is the aircraft's future support costs that contributed to the decision not to bring it into service,despite its advanced state."

[24left]

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.