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.

 

Nimrod R1 Grounded maybe Permanently

page: 2
1
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 13 2008 @ 08:35 AM
link   
Your right in cabin size A320/A318 is an improvement and I first thought it would be just right. I was thinking that once you add the weight of the elint gear you would reduce the range/loiter further. The A320 and comet has got similar range, but with nimrod they seemed to of increased it by a couple of thousand miles or the comet 4 increased it. The MRA4 has increased range again to about double of A320, with new wings and engines.

The A330 is to big really but I was trying to get the range/loiter time, with the A320 your going to be flying a A330 tanker (when our tanker fleet moves over to it) to refuel which will push operating costs up. They were refueling the nimrods until the restrictions

The A320 would most likely be cheapest buy option, but with reduced range. Cheap to operate, but plus cost of inflight refueling.
A330 expensive to buy and to operate, but wouldn't need inflight refueling.
Nimrod R4 (MRA4) cost?, but might not need inflight refueling.

Boeing would I guess have the same considerations as airbus.

[edit on 13-2-2008 by deckard83]




posted on Feb, 13 2008 @ 12:03 PM
link   
Yes, but an A318 isn't supposed to be able to fly the Atlantic either, range and loiter time depend on weight and efficiency as well as fuel capacity. The A330 was designed to have the same range as the A320 originally but the ETOPS meant that longer range versions were produced, the A330 carries more fuel, but as it is bigger it is also heavier and burns more fuel through its bigger engines, also the more fuel it carries on take-off the heavier the plane will be so even more power is required to make it fly meaning even more fuel is burned - so the gain in loiter time isn't going to be that great overall and flight refuelling will still be required. There would be nothing to stop extra tanks being installed in the underfloor hold of the A318 to greatly extend its own loiter time.
The commonality argument only really stands up if it was going to be part of the same fleet as the tankers, but due to the PFI nature of the tanker deal this cannot be the case with a highly sensitive ELINT aircraft.

Of course I could be completely wrong and I am just speculating for the fun of it, but I still think an A318 conversion would be the best bet as a Nimrod R.1 replacement. Oh, go on then, lets make it an A319




posted on Feb, 18 2008 @ 11:54 AM
link   
speculating for the fun of it is why I'm here


ok you've won me over A318


Ok if you take A318 Elite a with full fuel load you get a range of 3,980nm, but only get a payload of 6,909lb. Now if you use the engines from A321 (actually they both use CFM56-5 but with a different thurst rating I assume a different version) that gives you about extra 50,000lb of MTOW which should be more than plenty for increase payload since you haven't got the extra fuselage weight of the A321 (which seems to be about 40,000lb more, comparing empty weights) should also give you some for extra fuel tanks.

Ok the extra weight will reduce the range, but that's beyond me to work out.

I used A318 Elite as I found the specs with range with max fuel small payload or max payload and less fuel.
A318 Elite



posted on Mar, 6 2008 @ 11:30 AM
link   
Whilst I admire the technical knowledge (and intelligent guesswork) shown so far on this thread, I'm afraid I have to bring things down to earth a little. An important limiting factor on the Nimrod R1 is the capacity of the chemical toilet - sometimes full to brimming after a standard sub-8 hour mission.

Believe me, I know. In a former life, I spent 12000 flying hours on it. That's 500 days of No Fixed Abode!



posted on Aug, 27 2008 @ 06:58 AM
link   
Look like they might use KC-135R.

Bottom of the article.
www.ainonline.com...

I can't see that being a good idea for running costs, using an old airframe
www.aviation.com...



posted on Aug, 27 2008 @ 07:29 AM
link   
The MOD are inept.


They should have went with an A330.


Running costs may be a touch higher, but its much more flexible and maintenance costs are much better than the current Nimrods.



When they deploy their ELINT assets abroad - the A330 can carry so much more of its support equipment on the deployment. The smaller planes will need everything to be carried on separate supply trains.


Also, there is nothing to stop the ELINT aircraft operating as a tanker - the A330 already multi-tasks. Order a few more purely for the RAF and stick ELINT gear in.



posted on Aug, 27 2008 @ 09:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by kilcoo316
The MOD are inept.


They should have went with an A330.


Running costs may be a touch higher, but its much more flexible and maintenance costs are much better than the current Nimrods.



When they deploy their ELINT assets abroad - the A330 can carry so much more of its support equipment on the deployment. The smaller planes will need everything to be carried on separate supply trains.


Also, there is nothing to stop the ELINT aircraft operating as a tanker - the A330 already multi-tasks. Order a few more purely for the RAF and stick ELINT gear in.



ELINT is only one part of the MRA4s duties - the A in its designation stands for 'attack' and it carries that out through the absolutely massive bomb bay.

The A330 would not be able to carry out that role.



posted on Aug, 27 2008 @ 09:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by RichardPrice
ELINT is only one part of the MRA4s duties - the A in its designation stands for 'attack' and it carries that out through the absolutely massive bomb bay.

The A330 would not be able to carry out that role.



Maritime attack?

Sorry, I was hinting more at the pure ELINT role, but even so.



You know as well as I what kind of machine should be used for low and slow maritime patrolling... and its not a low bypass turbofan engine'd machine.



Anywayz, the whole program cost £4 billion!!! The A330 MRTT can carry 2 underwing pods - full of fuel, its not beyond the realms to change that to torpedo pylons. It could certainly be done for a fraction of the cost required to produce the MRA4.



posted on Aug, 27 2008 @ 01:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by kilcoo316

Maritime attack?

Sorry, I was hinting more at the pure ELINT role, but even so.


Nope, the MRA4 is being certified for all of the RAFs ordnance - including ground attack. It will even be certified for the Storm Shadow stand off missile.




You know as well as I what kind of machine should be used for low and slow maritime patrolling... and its not a low bypass turbofan engine'd machine.



The Nimrod has been doing sterling service so far - yes, its getting old now, but from where I am standing its *still* the best airframe for the job.




Anywayz, the whole program cost £4 billion!!! The A330 MRTT can carry 2 underwing pods - full of fuel, its not beyond the realms to change that to torpedo pylons. It could certainly be done for a fraction of the cost required to produce the MRA4.


The A330 MRTT program was costed in 2007 to be £13billion - for 14 aircraft.

The forecast cost of upgrading 12 current Nimrod airframes to MRA4 standard is currently £3.5billion, which includes a £1.1billion production contract awarded to BAE in 2006.

The MRA4 will have a payload in excess of 13,000 pounds - much much much greater than you are going to hang off those outer wing pylons. Remember, this is an A330-200 we are talking about, you can't simply stick a large amount of weight under those wings without extensive modifications.

Those underwing pods the A330 MRTT has currently are nothing more than the refueling equipment - the entire fuel payload the MRTT will carry for offload is part of the A330s internal fuel payload - the MRTT doesn't have separate fuel tanks for refueling from.

I stand by my prior comment - the MRA4 is the best airframe for the job.



posted on Aug, 27 2008 @ 04:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by RichardPrice
Nope, the MRA4 is being certified for all of the RAFs ordnance - including ground attack. It will even be certified for the Storm Shadow stand off missile.


It will only ever be useful for stand-off attack.





The Nimrod has been doing sterling service so far - yes, its getting old now, but from where I am standing its *still* the best airframe for the job.


Nah, I disagree. Old aged concept that should have been scrapped yonks ago.





The A330 MRTT program was costed in 2007 to be £13billion - for 14 aircraft.

The forecast cost of upgrading 12 current Nimrod airframes to MRA4 standard is currently £3.5billion, which includes a £1.1billion production contract awarded to BAE in 2006.

The MRA4 will have a payload in excess of 13,000 pounds - much much much greater than you are going to hang off those outer wing pylons. Remember, this is an A330-200 we are talking about, you can't simply stick a large amount of weight under those wings without extensive modifications.

Those underwing pods the A330 MRTT has currently are nothing more than the refueling equipment - the entire fuel payload the MRTT will carry for offload is part of the A330s internal fuel payload - the MRTT doesn't have separate fuel tanks for refueling from.

I stand by my prior comment - the MRA4 is the best airframe for the job.


Which has been paid already. The frame is there.

How much munitions do you think a Nimrod is ever going to drop in one mission?

For maritime, hundreds of kilos.

Standoff... a few missiles.


My point was more the underwing pods are on hardpoints, so the basic wing spar has been stressed to deal with.

Thus a couple of torps on each pylon can be mounted, or a storm shadow on each without an overt amount of bother.


The Nimrod's sole strength over the A330 is in a role it will almost certainly never be used.



posted on Aug, 27 2008 @ 04:55 PM
link   
I was at the Toronto air show in 1995 and was a witness to the Nimrod that crashed into Lake Ontario, I do not recall what caused it but I will never forget it, every time I hear Nimrod, thats what comes to mind, I am not saying whether it is good or bad or would,t know either way.



posted on Aug, 28 2008 @ 05:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by kilcoo316

It will only ever be useful for stand-off attack.



Sorry, there is no way you can make that assumption. The RAF certainly aren't.




Nah, I disagree. Old aged concept that should have been scrapped yonks ago.


Again, I disagree with you - reusing the Nimrod basic airframe has huge advantages over converting a modern civil aircraft to do the same job, and massive advantages over building a new custom airframe from scratch.




Which has been paid already. The frame is there.



And that frame is dedicated to a particular taskset at the moment - you are going to need significantly more than the 14 airframes purchased under the MRTT agreement if you want to fulfill tanking, cargo *and* maritime patrol duties at the same time.

One aircraft cannot be in two places at once, and if you insist on flying the aircraft more often then you drastically shorten its fatigue life. You are going to be replacing those airframes much sooner than either the MRTT or the MRA4 are planned to be operational for.



How much munitions do you think a Nimrod is ever going to drop in one mission?

For maritime, hundreds of kilos.

Standoff... a few missiles.


Again, you can't make that assumption.



My point was more the underwing pods are on hardpoints, so the basic wing spar has been stressed to deal with.

Thus a couple of torps on each pylon can be mounted, or a storm shadow on each without an overt amount of bother.


The problem with that is is that you aren't taking into account the basic load that all Nimrods fly with - life rafts, buoys, torpedoes, depth charges. You simply are not going to get all of that under the wing hard point - most of it isn't even suitable for underwing deployment.



posted on Oct, 15 2008 @ 09:35 PM
link   
Interesting discussion.

Seems to be confusion over the different roles of the maritime patrol (and limited bomber) MR2/MRA4 and the ELINT R mk 1. The MR2 & R mk 1 may share a common airframe but have very different electronics.

I always liked the idea of a Airbus 319CJ based replacement for the ELINT role. www.airliners.net...

The 319CJ has OK range (11,650km 10 passengers) per the link which is a bit more than the r1 I believe, based on the r1 entry in wikipedia (8,340-9,265 km). Unless one is one way and the other is radius of action, not sure. Plus there’d be a bunch of extra systems to carry etc, though for such a specialized task it may be possible to further specialize the airframe.

While one of the things the RAF supposedly prides itself in is the quality of the personnel on the R mk 1, one still might expect the crew could be reduced a little with current technology, if nothing else the flight crew could maybe drop to just 2-3, I believe they have a flight engineer & weapon systems operator on the R1.

The RC135 option seems ridiculous if the main reason is for retiring the R1 is that they are old airframes.

A Sentinal variant might be a possibility but even with improved technology allowing less crew & more compact electronics, would almost certainly mean a change, if not an outright decrease, in capabilities. Of course, if more platforms could be got for the price of fewer large platforms, this still might be attractive given the demand for Elint platforms in so many areas.

Just my thoughts though, probably not worth the paper they’re written on.



posted on Oct, 15 2008 @ 11:22 PM
link   
This weeks AWST says the RAF is looking at The Rivet Joint variant of the -135 that the USAF uses.



posted on Oct, 16 2008 @ 07:15 PM
link   
They've already started the Foreign Military Sale paperwork.

www.defense-aerospace.com...



posted on Feb, 28 2009 @ 08:27 PM
link   
reply to post by ex-spook
 


ex-spook-

I work for a company that supplies boxes on that ac. Looking for GENERAL feed back on how my stuff is doing. Possible to do off line?

-another ex-spook from a by gone era



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 1   >>

log in

join