http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/north_east/7315686.stm I still thought that there would be 3 development airframes and 9 production examples for a
12 unit buy? Does the statement, "....if the order for eight new MRA4 planes is canceled," indicate that the buy has been further reduced to 8
units?" What is certain is that the Nimrod MRA4 program has been a continuing embarrassment for Labor, with no assurance that the MRA4 will be any less
problematic in service than it has been in development - assuming that there is any possibility that service entry will actually occur in 2010. RAF Kinloss is
located in a SNP constituency, so a MRA4 cancellation, or an outright abandonment of the Nimrod along with the closure of the base, will not be to the
immediate political detriment of Labor. In broader terms, is maritime patrol a core function of the RAF, which by a mere accident of history, was entrusted
with the land based maritime patrol function that most navies assume? There might be tremendous financial gains from scrapping the MRA4, or to take it a step
further, withdrawing the entire current Nimrod MR2/RS fleet and closing RAF Kinloss.
| Author | Comment | ||
|---|---|---|---|
 CVA02 |
BBC: MRA4 Reduced to 8 units, 8 years late, Cancellation? |
Lead | |
|
Posts: 357 (28-Mar-2008 18:12:55) |
|
||
|
BenRoethig |
|||
|
Posts: 1737 (28-Mar-2008 19:00:37) |
If they're not planning on buying some P-8s to replace them, this will be just another penny pinching move by an administration completely ignorant of
defense issues.
|
||
|
Nathan |
|||
|
Posts: 2242 (28-Mar-2008 22:21:04) |
It's not the Maritime Patrol role that people are interested in at the moment, so much as the over-land Elint and surveilance role. Which begs the question
of what ASTOR was for.
If we'd been smart, we would have looked at a joint programme combining Nimrod, ASTOR, Sea King AEW and E3 replacements with super-long range UAVs and something that could operate from CVF. |
||
|
BenRoethig |
|||
|
Posts: 1739 (29-Mar-2008 13:42:10) |
ASTOR is sort of like an AWACs for ground targets.
|
||
|
Meeware |
Astor not perfect- MRA4 in many ways superior | ||
|
Posts: 1754 (29-Mar-2008 14:50:38) |
Astor is an interesting first generation solution to a problem and is in itself a far from perfect system. The selection of a small airframe with good high
altitude performance has already hobbled the program by setting an unatainable upper weight limit. This has been met by deleting the requirement for in flight
refueling. I think all on this board will concur that an airbourne surveilance system that is not IFR capable, or sea based, is something of a chocolate
teapot.
MRA4 however is something like a 5th generation multipurpose long range EW platofrm capable of survelance, command and control at very very long ranges for extended periods. The units opperating these systems are steeped in a long tradition of excellent tri service cooperation. |
||
|
Dickon M |
|||
|
Posts: 345 (30-Mar-2008 01:17:44) |
Should we now be looking at completely canning the Nimorod MR4 project, and instead converting some of the airframes into more R1s or an upgraded R1 (R2??)?
The whole MR4 project has been a disaster, and the number of airframes that we're likely to get out of it so small that it hardly seems whorth it. However,
there is the fact that millions/billions of pounds have been poured into it, and it would be nice to get SOMETHNG out of it.
What international off the shelf aircraft are obtainable? Weren't the Yanks looking at a P3 replacement a few years back. Where is this project and would it be feasible to buy into it? Dickon M |
||
|
taschoene |
|||
|
Posts: 4179 (30-Mar-2008 02:11:23) |
Dickon M wrote:The P-8 Poseidon is in development now -- basically a 737-800 airframe with modifications for the maritime patrol role (including a small bomb bay and wing pylons). The first test aircraft is supposed to be delivered next year, with entry to service in 2013. The Navy has been looking for foreign participation, along the lines of JSF, but it may be getting too late in the process for that. I imagine there would always be room for an export customer to modify its own version, though. Also, the USN is starting a competition for its EP-X ELINT platform (roughly comparable to the R1). The P-8 is pretty obviously the prime contender, though Airbus is apparently pitching an A320 derivative and Embraer is offering one of its regional jets (ironic, since EP-X came about because the last program died when the selected -- smaller-- Embraer platform proved too small for the mission.). Airbus has also pitched an adapted A320 for maritime patrol, but it's not exactly an off-the-shelf solution. The Japanese PX is at a similar stage of development to the P-8, but Japan doesn't do export, so that's out. Really, there are essentially no other large MPAs in development. All the other users are opting for smaller aircraft based on tactical transports -- CN-135, for example. But I can't see the RN accepting such a solution.
Last Edited By: taschoene
30-Mar-2008 02:16:05.
Edited 1 times.
|
||
|
Starviking |
|||
|
Posts: 139 (30-Mar-2008 17:12:48) |
taschoene wrote: The 'Japan doesn't do export' might change - a few years back Japan didn't do peacekeeping or support allied operations (Iraq & Persian
Gulf refuelling). That said - doubtful in the Nimrod replacement timescale, which is sad - PX looks like a nice aeroplane. I wouldn't want to handle the
'native language support' on it though! Starviking
|
||
|
shaun |
|||
|
Posts: 150 ( 2-Apr-2008 14:59:03) |
We're committed to the Nimrod programme after having spent several billions on it. It's rediculous to withdraw now. If we did cancel, then an outright
buy (or even joint squadron as with the MQ-9s) with the USAF of P-8s should be made. This is a capability we cannot afford to let go.
I've no idea what ASTOR does other than 'battlespace management and ground-surveillance radar'. So it could manage an engagement of RM Vikings against a Taliban position from the air? Sounds useful. The smart move would've been to integrate the maritime patrol/surveillance, ELINT, SIGINT, reconnaissance, ground-surveillance ASARS-2 radar, and maybe even the AN/SPY-1/2 look-down radar of the AWACS into a common airframe like an A330. Such a multimission airborne sensor (with the ASuW and ASW capability removed to eliminate stress-inducing hard- and fast- turns at low-level over the North Atlantic) would give the military a huge leap in capability, merging the MRA4, R1, E3-D into one platform. With IFR and commercially-designed to allow frequent sorties, in RAF service the aircraft could do an all-in-one job (obviously changing the flight profile as the particular mission permits). Add to this the capability to direct several UAVs, which would make the aircraft operate more like a mothership, you futureproof the design and reduce the burden on the aircraft to fly low and fast to reconnoitre. |
||
|
taschoene |
|||
|
Posts: 4183 ( 2-Apr-2008 17:26:53) |
shaun wrote:I'm not even sure that's physically possible -- all of these missions are intensive in terms of both equipment volume and antenna space. Even an A330 might have a hard time fitting enough racks and consoles for all of these missions. And the antenna interference issues would be interesting, to say the least. Trying to do ennsitive ELINT collection while simultaneously blasting out megawatts of RF energy from an antenna a few feet away is not generally a good idea, and trying to run high-power air and ground surveillance radars in close proximity also has significant potential for interference. The USAF's E-10 Multi-Sensor Command and Control Aircraft (MC2A) was initially to combine just the ground surveillance and AEW capabilities in a single aircraft. That failed in large part because there was massive interference between the two radars. They ultimately had to resort to three distinct vesions: AEW, Ground Surveillance,a nd ELINT collection. And of course, the cost of such an all-in-one aircraft would be terrifying. Take the electronics cost of each system as a start, then probably multiply be the number of systems, to account for the complexity of interoperating them on one platform. And it woudn't really save on the total number of platforms needed, because you often need only one capability in a given location (SIGINT collection flights don't always occur in the same places you need AEW). Far better to put these on separate airframes that can be tasked out as needed. |
||
|
Rob |
|||
|
Posts: 581 ( 3-Apr-2008 14:43:56) |
PA04, the first production standard Nimrod MRA4 will be delivered to the RAF in late 2009 says Air Forces Monthly.
|
||
- 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
