• Hi Guest! Forum rules have been updated. All users please read here.

BAE SYSTEMS Nimrod MRA.4

Zoo Tycoon

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
May 27, 2008
Messages
372
Reaction score
382
No, it’s contained in the sentence;- A400m was BAESYSTEMS preferred Nimrod MR2 replacement. Due to be launched in Autumn 1994 but deferred. Actually launched in 2002.

RMPA = Regional Maritime Patrol Aircraft
 

Springtime

CLEARANCE: Restricted
Joined
Jul 27, 2020
Messages
7
Reaction score
2
Was there any attempts to sell the MRA.4 as a P-3 Replacement i remember reading the BAE considered offering it for the US Navy's P-8 Program but couldn't find a US Based partner
 

Fluff

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Sep 9, 2019
Messages
354
Reaction score
169
Was there any attempts to sell the MRA.4 as a P-3 Replacement i remember reading the BAE considered offering it for the US Navy's P-8 Program but couldn't find a US Based partner
Do you mean the systems into a different airframe? Or actually comet based airframes? USN must have at the time had 200?+ P-3, so not sure how the 40 or so nimrods MR2 airframes(upgraded) would replace these?

Just the embarrassment factor makes me hope this isn't true.
 

Fluff

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Sep 9, 2019
Messages
354
Reaction score
169
Springtime/Fluff
See posts 158-160
Er, thanks for the re-direct, but how am I going to sleep tonight, some things should be left unseen.....

I mean why Join a 1940's wing, to a 1960's fuselage - assume it was something to do with getting 4 engines, but shirley fitting some smaller engines to the 757 al la B52 style would be a much simpler way to tick that box?

Really we would be doing the world a favour to delete this whole subject......
 

shyab

CLEARANCE: Restricted
Joined
Jul 1, 2020
Messages
7
Reaction score
4
Was there any attempts to sell the MRA.4 as a P-3 Replacement i remember reading the BAE considered offering it for the US Navy's P-8 Program but couldn't find a US Based partner
yes new build aircraft around the same time they where having major problems with the UK programe
 

Zoo Tycoon

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
May 27, 2008
Messages
372
Reaction score
382
I mean why Join a 1940's wing, to a 1960's fuselage - assume it was something to do with getting 4 engines, but shirley fitting some smaller engines to the 757 al la B52 style would be a much simpler way to tick the box.

The wing was available new (remember there was a manufacturing line at Chaderton) and there were plenty of 757 around so it was a pretty cheap option. RMPA’s don’t need to high tech air platforms.

It’s very easy to look back with glorious hind sight on the whole four engine requirement and pronounce it stupid. However in the early nineties ETOP’s was unproven with many doubter even for commercial aviation (ETOP’s was said to really mean Engines Turning Or Pax Swimming). Add to that a number of very real stories of RMPA operators being a thousands miles away from a runway/SAR (search and rescue) and experiencing multiple bird strikes at low level, taking out one or two engines. The P8 concept even today doesn’t have enough operating time to validate the critical safety case and given the statistics required, never will. The commercial statistics are irrelevant as they are all at one altitude band (above the weather), one throttle setting and at a nice cosy one G. This is the reason why P8 was designed along with its sensor kit to operate from higher altitude and low level kit like the MAG was deleted.
 
Last edited:

Foo Fighter

I came, I saw, I drank some tea (and had a bun).
Joined
Jul 19, 2016
Messages
1,555
Reaction score
521
So, do rotary wing aircraft perform the MAD role now?
 

JFC Fuller

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 22, 2012
Messages
3,033
Reaction score
774
The idea for selling the MRA.4 into the US Navy for the MMA requirement was based on being able to produce new fuselages using modern manufacturing techniques and materials in a way that would avoid re-certification. It is recorded in a July 2002 Flight International article available here, some of the relevant details are below:
Nimrod managing director Tom Nicholson says 60-80 engineers are working on concept studies to take the Nimrod fuselage and re-engineer it for modern production processes.

Nicholson says the studies are considering how to replace the redux bonding originally used to attach stringers and frames to the skins and take advantage of digitally controlled machining techniques to make fuselage frames in one piece rather than building them up from multiple components.

Major changes to the fuselage would be avoided to eliminate the need for recertification, says Nicholson, although this may limit what can be ultimately done with the redesign.


It would be interesting to know what the technical conclusions of these studies were.
 
Last edited:

Springtime

CLEARANCE: Restricted
Joined
Jul 27, 2020
Messages
7
Reaction score
2
My understanding is that the MMA Airbus A320? ASW and BAE Nimrod were rejected/withdrew from the Program was the mutual inability to find a US partner wich is ironic as Northrop Grumman was Airbus partner for the KC-45 and now as of 2020 Airbus can probably just make aircraft for the US Military with out a Partner because of their Alabama Plant
 

Zoo Tycoon

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
May 27, 2008
Messages
372
Reaction score
382
We had, I think two official briefings on Project Phoenix (both pretty vague; short on detail), the MRA4 derived solution for MMA. Indeed the last was very positive, only for It to then go cold shortly thereafter. As I’ve posted before Project Phoenix was conducted quite separately to MRA4 , only joined at the top management circle. I think Boeing blew any partnership out the window.

The work was conducted by a design outfit on the Isle of Mann. Officially the work was for new low manufacturing costs Comet fuselages. The 757 fuselage suggestion didn’t come from the official briefings but from a quiet conversation with a chap who had a direct line of reporting to the upper circle. I’ve no reason to doubt it.

As far as I know there wasn’t a submission to MMA from Airbus.
 
Last edited:

LowObservable

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 18, 2006
Messages
2,197
Reaction score
118
Mr Zootycoon is right. The MRA4/MMA proposal seemed quixotic at the time but in fact Navair was very interested because of the extra two engines, because LM's Orion-21 was an underperformer, because Navair wanted someone to hold Boeing's feet to the fire, and because something else that was important. LM had a brief flirtation with Airbus, terminated by a death fatwa from the Washington state congressional delegation. Navair's only real option was the Boeing proposal, that emerged as an almost completely new, expensive and overweight airplane vaguely resembling a 737 and lacking severely in TOS.
 

marauder2048

"I should really just relax"
Joined
Nov 19, 2013
Messages
2,968
Reaction score
357
It’s very easy to look back with glorious hind sight on the whole four engine requirement and pronounce it stupid.
However in the early nineties ETOP’s was unproven with many doubter even for commercial aviation

Really hard to reconcile that claim with the trajectory of ETOPS regulatory limits during the period
and the roadmaps and product launches of the two major commercial aviation manufacturers.
 

Zoo Tycoon

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
May 27, 2008
Messages
372
Reaction score
382
It’s very easy to look back with glorious hind sight on the whole four engine requirement and pronounce it stupid.
However in the early nineties ETOP’s was unproven with many doubter even for commercial aviation

Really hard to reconcile that claim with the trajectory of ETOPS regulatory limits during the period
and the roadmaps and product launches of the two major commercial aviation manufacturers.
What you mean like when AIrbus launched the A3456, then the clean sheet A380 while Boeing launched the 747-8, all with four engines? All after the ETOPs regulations? At the time many considered the first accident would be the end of it. Of course history didn’t have that event so the four engined aircraft died...... it still took 25 years.
 

marauder2048

"I should really just relax"
Joined
Nov 19, 2013
Messages
2,968
Reaction score
357
What you mean like when AIrbus launched the A3456, then the clean sheet A380 while Boeing launched the 747-8, all with four engines? All after the ETOPs regulations? At the time many considered the first accident would be the end of it. Of course history didn’t have that event so the four engined aircraft died...... it still took 25 years.

I mean the A330 and 777 and not failures. ETOPS had been rev'ed upwards continually through the 80's. That's what allowed
the A330 and 777 (along with 767-300ER) to be launched.

The A340 and A380 were a bad case of hole envy and prestige project.
And quite why VLA widebodies would have any bearing on MPAs is a bizarre and unsustainable premise.
 

Hobbes

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
May 9, 2008
Messages
830
Reaction score
195
A380 and 747-8 were launched with 4 engines because there wasn't an engine powerful enough to fit only 2.
 

EwenS

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
Feb 20, 2010
Messages
116
Reaction score
171
ETOPS 90 min certified on A300 in 1976.
ETOPS 120 min certified 1985 on 767-200 and A310
ETOPS 180 min certified 1988 and started in 1989, but initially only on aircraft types with 1 year of trouble free ETOPS 120 min service. Only in 1990 did Boeing obtain permission for the 777 to have it from initial certification.
ETOPS 240 mins from 2007 on the A330
ETOPS 330 mins from 2011 on 777 initially on GE engined models.

The time limits are also based on the single engined cruise speed for each type.

The A319/320/321 only received ETOPS 180 in 2004 and the 737 NG variants in 1999, despite having 120 min ratings since the 1980s.

So when Nimrod MRA4 was selected in 1996 the only twin jet airliner based options from the civil market would have been large wide body airframes, so probably too big for the role.
 

marauder2048

"I should really just relax"
Joined
Nov 19, 2013
Messages
2,968
Reaction score
357
ETOPS 90 min certified on A300 in 1976.
ETOPS 120 min certified 1985 on 767-200 and A310
ETOPS 180 min certified 1988 and started in 1989, but initially only on aircraft types with 1 year of trouble free ETOPS 120 min service. Only in 1990 did Boeing obtain permission for the 777 to have it from initial certification.
ETOPS 240 mins from 2007 on the A330
ETOPS 330 mins from 2011 on 777 initially on GE engined models.

The time limits are also based on the single engined cruise speed for each type.

The A319/320/321 only received ETOPS 180 in 2004 and the 737 NG variants in 1999, despite having 120 min ratings since the 1980s.

So when Nimrod MRA4 was selected in 1996 the only twin jet airliner based options from the civil market would have been large wide body airframes, so probably too big for the role.

So the overwhelming trend through 1996 was that ETOPS restrictions were being greatly relaxed; the claim was that there were doubts in
"commercial aviation." As your condensed history indicates, this is demonstrably untrue.

The history is also incomplete since the 767 has 180 minute ETOPS by 1993.

The individual making the claim tried to undergird it by pointing to (failed) VLA developments during this period
so clearly bigger aircraft are in scope.
 
Last edited:

Zoo Tycoon

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
May 27, 2008
Messages
372
Reaction score
382
The above information you rely on is demonstrably incorrect as the Boeing 777 didn’t get it ETOP’s clearance until 1995. Prior to that no ETOPs was granted at entry into service and the basis for granting it previously was problem free statistically significant non ETOPS inservice experience which was unobtainable by a small fleet. Add to this the risk aversion within the MOD and it’s just not going to fly.

I was there and saw this, did you?
 
Last edited:

Zoo Tycoon

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
May 27, 2008
Messages
372
Reaction score
382
The ETOP’s clearance for 757 and 767 was based on on statistical significant non ETOPs operation that was completely irrelevant to an RMPA. Hence it would be a fresh start with a fleet size that could never attain the required operational hours. Do you know how the ETOPs cert process applicable at that time worked?
 

Fluff

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Sep 9, 2019
Messages
354
Reaction score
169
. Add to this the risk aversion within the MOD and it’s just not going to fly.

Says it all, ETOPS or not, MOD would view ETOPS for fare paying passengers, where they might make it home from cruise altitude on one engine. Not the same as losing 50% at 500 feet over the atlantic. Hence desire to only lose 25%

25 years later, we have twin MPA's.

Thats progress!
 

marauder2048

"I should really just relax"
Joined
Nov 19, 2013
Messages
2,968
Reaction score
357
The ETOP’s clearance for 757 and 767 was based on on statistical significant non ETOPs operation that was completely irrelevant to an RMPA. Hence it would be a fresh start with a fleet size that could never attain the required operational hours. Do you know how the ETOPs cert process applicable at that time worked?
Military aircraft tend to have small fleet sizes so it's vacuously true that it's difficult to attain the required operational hours.
But since MPAs don't necessarily have to get FAA/EASA certification and we were talking about demonstrable, readily
observable trends in the early 90's this is all irrelevant.

Naturally, as an alleged contributor to a disastrously failed project, you have a strong
motivation to generate apologia and revisionism.

"We were waylaid by technological trends that we couldn't have seen coming."

That's your argument. It's utterly, demonstrably untrue.

@LowObservable chimes in with his typical "USA boogieman" apologia to try to help you out.
 

overscan (PaulMM)

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 27, 2005
Messages
12,262
Reaction score
3,149
This topic has degraded beyond belief since I last read it. Marauder2048 has a week ban to reconsider his behaviour before permanent ban.
 

Similar threads

Top