What alternatives were being offered at the time the requirement was issued and the deal approved?
| Author | Comment | ||
|---|---|---|---|
 PMN1 |
|||
|
Posts: 3421 ( 3-Apr-2008 15:12:12) |
|
||
|
Rob |
|||
|
Posts: 582 ( 3-Apr-2008 15:21:55) |
Orions and Atlantiques.
|
||
|
Starviking |
|||
|
Posts: 147 ( 4-Apr-2008 07:29:58) |
Rob wrote: Was the requirement limited to in-service airframes? Starviking |
||
|
Bledlow |
|||
|
Registered Member
Posts: 37 ( 4-Apr-2008 10:50:17) |
I don't think there were any other MPAs under development at the time, & nobody proposed an all-new aircraft. Remember, this was the early 1990s.
BTW, it wasn't quite the P-3, it was the P-7 - a new variant of the P-3. |
||
|
Meeware |
|||
|
Posts: 1757 ( 4-Apr-2008 12:23:40) |
Funny isn't it- historically the cheapest way to maintain capability is to evolve a design and do new-build airframes and systems, and the most expensive
is to cram new bits into old airframes and partially redesign them. This comes up all the time- Harrier, Hawk and Hornet evolution, relatively cheap. Spey
Phantoms, SHAR and Nimrod, horrendously expensive for what you get. I'm quite prepared to believe this apparent pattern is something I've mistakenly
picked up, but some sort of learning seems buried in there!
|
||
|
taschoene |
|||
|
Posts: 4185 ( 4-Apr-2008 12:30:13) |
P-7 was apparently the leading contender to replace Nimrod from the 1980s, but the USN cancelled it in 1990. That forced the MoD to run a competition in 1995
that ultimately led to the selection of Nimrod 2000 (now MRA.4). That competition did not include the P-7 (obviously), but did include two P-3 versions -- one
with new-built aircraft (Orion 2000) and one based on rebuilt airframes (Valkyrie). IIRC, both would have incorporated P-7 engines and possibly wings, but
neither was not an actual P-7 airframe.
|
||
|
Bledlow |
|||
|
Registered Member
Posts: 38 ( 4-Apr-2008 13:08:10) |
My mistake. I knew the P-7 had been a candidate, but had forgotten the details.
|
||
|
Philip Sayers |
|||
|
Posts: 28 ( 4-Apr-2008 21:21:18) |
Hello,
Can someone please tell me whether it is still planned to equip MRA4 'for but not with' Storm Shadow? Seems to me a cheap way to regain a capability we haven't had since the Vulcans albeit in comfortable environments only. Perhaps too much of a diversion away from their maritime role but that will happen anyway. Thanks |
||
|
Rob |
|||
|
Posts: 585 ( 4-Apr-2008 21:44:21) |
@Philip Sayers: I haven't read anything to suggest that this FFBNW capability for Storm Shadow has been deleted.
|
||
|
Zen9 |
|||
|
Posts: 3404 ( 4-Apr-2008 23:46:30) |
"
Funny isn't it- historically the cheapest way to maintain capability is to evolve a design and do new-build airframes and systems, and the most
expensive is to cram new bits into old airframes and partially redesign them. This comes up all the time- Harrier, Hawk and Hornet evolution, relatively
cheap. Spey Phantoms, SHAR and Nimrod, horrendously expensive for what you get. I'm quite prepared to believe this apparent pattern is something
I've mistakenly picked up, but some sort of learning seems buried in there! "
Oneday I will figure out the new quote functions here but for now.... Yes Meeware, your onto something there. By not building new machines we avoid having anything to sell to anyone else, thus ensuring that the producer is utterly dependant on the UK gov order and ever more expensive to continue with our machines. |
||
- Battleship Vs Battleship
- Should Battleships Be Back In Service?
- The United States Navy
- The Royal Navy
- The European Navies
- The Commonwealth Navies
- The Asian Navies
- Aircraft Carriers
- Fighting Ships Of The World
- Submarines
- Designing A Navy/Ship
- The Land Forces
- The Air Forces
- The Naval Fiction Board
- The Politics Of War
- Naval Help
