It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

RAF nimrods may become bomber force...!!!

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 12 2005 @ 05:02 AM
link   
It has been reported in the "Times" today that the RAF is drawing up plans to convert a fleet of 25 year old patrol planes into britans first long-range heavy bomber force since the Falklands war.

The plan is being seen as Britains answer to America`s B-52 bomber, still in regular use more than 50 years after it first flew.

It goes on to say, that a dozen Nimrods are already being modernised to double their range to almost 7000miles and improve anti-submarine capability.

The latest upgrade of the Nimrod, the MRA4, Could be adapted to carry Storm Shadows under each wing and another in a bomb bay. It follow`s on by saying, that it could fly missions of 17 hours or more, with ai-to-air refuelling, and hit targets with the missiles from up to 400 miles away.

Britain with long range bombers, again!

Watch out the rest of the world, Britains back......!!!

[edit on 12-6-2005 by veritas 7]

[edit on 12-6-2005 by veritas 7]

[edit on 12-6-2005 by veritas 7]




posted on Jun, 12 2005 @ 05:27 AM
link   
Do you have a link please? Im no expert but as far as i know the Nimrod was desighned as a sub hunter wasnt it? As such will the airframe be strong enough to carry heavy ordinance even after a refit?



posted on Jun, 12 2005 @ 05:36 AM
link   
Sorry no link.

But it is in the "Sunday Times", 12/6/05, TODAY!


RAB

posted on Jun, 12 2005 @ 05:40 AM
link   


[edit on 12-6-2005 by RAB]



posted on Jun, 12 2005 @ 09:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by veritas 7
It has been reported in the "Times" today that the RAF is drawing up plans to convert a fleet of 25 year old patrol planes into britans first long-range heavy bomber force since the Falklands war.

The plan is being seen as Britains answer to America`s B-52 bomber, still in regular use more than 50 years after it first flew.


Typical press spin on a bit of a non story there I'm afraid veritas because........



It goes on to say, that a dozen Nimrods are already being modernised to double their range to almost 7000miles and improve anti-submarine capability.

.


You see far from 'converting 25 year old patrol planes' the MR/A.4 is actually a complete rebuild where only the main fuselage is retained from the old planes and even this is stripped right back to the metal and 're-lifed' which basically means that these components are 'as new' when they have completed the process (hence the allocation of new serial numbers).

Whatsmore the 'A' in MR/A.4 stands for 'attack' and is a designation thats been carried by the programme since its inception several years ago, that thats 'The Times' with its finger on the pulse again. It must be a slow news day


Of course the real irony of this from my point of view is how from 2010 we will be using as our long range attack vehicle a derivative of a design that was rejected as a bomber (the proposed bomber version of the Comet airliner)in favour of the 'V Bomber' scheme way back in 1950!

Thats quite funny really even though the MR/A.4 is excellent and bang up to date systems wise.




Some more info

[edit on 12-6-2005 by waynos]



posted on Jun, 12 2005 @ 02:52 PM
link   
does anybody know what the max payload will be and will it be able to do what the B-52 did in vietnam, gulf, afghanistan that is bomb an enemy senseless from 30000 feet.



posted on Jun, 12 2005 @ 03:48 PM
link   
This may sound stupid, but why don't they bring the vulcans back??

Mad..i know..but that would be awesome.. i mean the usaf are using b52's from the same era...why not vulcans?



posted on Jun, 12 2005 @ 04:47 PM
link   
Because there aren't enough Vulcan airframes still around to create any kind of viable force and even the ones that are still around have not recieved the kind of intensive and continuous maintainence that the B-52 fleet has (XH558 excepted). I love the Vulcan to bits, its the greatest bomber ever for me, but I cannot think of one way in which such a plan would be workable, unfortunately.

About the Nimrods weapon load, I notice that the armed forces uk website gives it as being 10,000lb. I don't understand why they have put up such an obviously wrong figure. The Jaguar carries 10,000lb. The Tornado 18,000lb. The Handley Page Victor carried 35,0000lb and the Vulcan and Nimrod MR 2 both carried 21,000lb. Given that the new Nimrod has more power and a more efficient wing than the old one how likely is it that the bomb load is halved? Not very is what I would say.



posted on Jun, 12 2005 @ 11:33 PM
link   
Can someone tell me how this fits into Britains strategic vision I thought the Brits were going to focus more on peacekeeping (even though they are already the best in the world at it).



posted on Jun, 13 2005 @ 12:38 AM
link   
What's the max weapons load that the B-52H can carry? The B-52 weights 185,000 pounds empty and its maximum takeoff weight is 488,000 pounds.


RAB

posted on Jun, 13 2005 @ 03:41 AM
link   
To be fair the UK MOD never post real inforamtion about any of it's stuff the best I can do is Nimrod payload 12000ib, but if you look at the MASSIVE bomb bay the thing has I too cannot believe that at all!


From the BAE website:

Air Systems - Nimrod MRA4 (Continued)

Prime Contractor - BAE Systems Powerplant - BMW Rolls-Royce BR710
Maximum Speed - Mach 0.77
Service Ceiling - 42,000ft
Unrefuelled Range - In excess of 6,000 nautical miles
Unrefuelled Endurance - In excess of 14 hours
Length Overall - 127ft
Wing Span - 127ft
Height Overall - 30ft
Wing Area - 2538 sq.ft
Weight Empty - 102,516lbs.
Maximum Take-Off Weight - 232,315 lbs.
Maximum Payload - In excess of 12,000 lbs. (INXS I think that's the killer)

I like the idea of the Nimrod dropping the storm shadow on bad bad people, i.e. the other side. The Nimrod with it's advanced intel and targetting systems is perfect for taking out important chance targets. A very long way from home.

Do wish that they had made new airframes for the Nimrod MR4A but that the UK being cheap :-) only £2billion for 18 planes.

www.raf.mod.uk...

the bomb bay is on the bottom and is that same lenth of the line on the bottom

RAB



[edit on 13-6-2005 by RAB]



posted on Jun, 13 2005 @ 01:24 PM
link   
Dan wild, this stems from the British Govts realisation that getting rid of our long range bomber force was a mistake, it allows force projection over long distances very quickly indeed and, in the light of recent conflicts, is exactly what we are now lacking, as a long range bomber I cannot see the Nimrod ever overflying a target and dropping tons of iron bombs 'B-52 style' but instead acting as a rapid deployment cruise missile launcher that can get in theatre far more quickly than a fleet of ships could ever hope to achieve.

westy me old mate;

I'm sure you rtealise that the difference between an aircrafts empty weight and its MTOW has to account for the fuel load and flight crew as well as any weapons carried.

I have seen several bomb loads quoted for the B-52, one source quotes 10,000lb, which is even more laughable than it was for the Nimrod, like yeah!

More believably I understand that the max bomb load for the B-52G and B-52H is 70,000lbs whereas the B-52C could carry 48,000lbs. Whilst it is true that this is massively more than any British bomber you also have to understand that the B-52 is also twice as big as any British bomber so the difference is understandable.

BTW, It was the huge size of the B-52 when it appeared that caused the Vulcan, Valiant and Victor to be reclassified as 'medium' bombers despite the fact that they were all much bigger than the RAF's then current heavies, the Lincoln and Washington. I thought you might like to know that



posted on Jun, 13 2005 @ 01:36 PM
link   
Who wants to fly a "nimrod"???




instead acting as a rapid deployment cruise missile launcher that can get in theatre far more quickly than a fleet of ships could ever hope to achieve.


I think you've nailed the mission profile well though...


RAB

posted on Jun, 13 2005 @ 03:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gazrok
Who wants to fly a "nimrod"???




instead acting as a rapid deployment cruise missile launcher that can get in theatre far more quickly than a fleet of ships could ever hope to achieve.


I think you've nailed the mission profile well though...


Over the sea for hours I'd prefer to have 4 engines, than the two of the Boeing MMA thing. Also starting to think that the max load out will be eight shadow storm missiles 4 in the bay 2 under each wing.

RAB



posted on Jun, 13 2005 @ 03:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gazrok
Who wants to fly a "nimrod


- What's up with that?


A 'Nimrod' is a mighty hunter going all the way back to a mention in the Old Testament of the Bible.

A suitable name IMO for a very very capable - and deadly - plane.

(I also think there's something really unique and cool about it meaning that the world's first proper big 4 engined jet passanger plane is still flying)

[edit on 13-6-2005 by sminkeypinkey]



posted on Jun, 13 2005 @ 04:18 PM
link   
And i might add, SMINKEYPINKEY, that i totally agree with your last post.!!!

It would also be fair to say that the NIMROD is the only JET ENGINED maritime aircraft in the world. I mean in terms of it`s capabilities, regarding, the hunting of subs, and top reconnaisance abilities!

Sometimes on this site, there is a tendancy to knock the British a bit, for their ability to design, manufacture and the whole aspect of coming up with something GOOD......!!!

I mean about 90% of everything in the modern world was invented by the British, from the jet engine, to electricity, to computers, and even the internet! Yes i know, shocking isn`t it? I mean it was not invented by the American`s, like some might say.

OH the list goes on and on, but were leave it there.

Sorry to go off on a rant, but have to get things off you`re chest sometimes.

All us Brits need, sometimes, is support, confidence, and oh yeah!!! MONEY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



posted on Jun, 13 2005 @ 04:45 PM
link   

I mean about 90% of everything in the modern world was invented by the British, from the jet engine, to electricity, to computers, and even the internet! Yes i know, shocking isn`t it? I mean it was not invented by the American`s, like some might say.


Wow your facts are very wrong while I do not want to start a flam war I’m just going to say that your right and wrong about the jet engine, but wrong about electricity, computers, and the internet.



posted on Jun, 13 2005 @ 05:29 PM
link   
Westpoint23, while i don`t have all the facts to hand, it is rather late.

Frank whittle(British) invented the jet engine, FACT.

The internet was invented by a professor in some university in the UK.
I think he set it up as a means of transfering, and sharing data between other uni`s, colleges. I can`t remember his name, but he earnt hardly anything, whilst not realising his invention, lost out to all rights, money etc

Be back soon with more info and facts, thanks!

There maybe more people to help collaborate the facts!!!



posted on Jun, 13 2005 @ 06:37 PM
link   
How about a German scientist named Hans von Ohain also proposed his thesis at same time Whittle did they worked separately not knowing each others work they. And the first true Computer ENIAC ENIAC or Electronic Numerator Integrator Analyser and Computer its origins are American nd it was build with help form the US Army.
The internet first began when the US Defense Department and the US government and a few universities began exploring the potential of networking computers and by the late 1970’s there were half a dozen of these networking computers which allowed people to transfer and share data/information between one another. And as for electricity there are many people that contributed to its origins and to electricity as we know it today.

[edit on 13-6-2005 by WestPoint23]



posted on Jun, 13 2005 @ 06:57 PM
link   
Inventor of the Web:

Tim Berners-Lee

Inventor of the Computer:

Charles Babbage

Co-Inventors of the Jet Engine:

I'm Leaving on a Jet Plane

Electricity can't actually be invented, it was discovered. The guy who found out how to generate it in a useful form was Michael Faraday. To this day we still use Faraday's laws of electromagnetic induction.







 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join