Riain
Banned
I've heard similar, they were all pretty much hand built. Not that that's a bad thing necessarily, Aston Martins of the same vintage are hand made too, but nobody is trying to make a DB6 into a Tesla.
Have the BAe Nimrod AEW be more successful and enter service
- Thread starter Fuzzy Dunlop
- Start date
I've heard similar, they were all pretty much hand built. Not that that's a bad thing necessarily, Aston Martins of the same vintage are hand made too, but nobody is trying to make a DB6 into a Tesla.
Nimrod was an example of what happens when the bean counters get control of procurement and listen to what the engineers tell them without understanding what was said.
Nimrod should have been replaced by a VC-10 variant when the VC-10 was in production. It would have been up to current standards and would have been faster to fly to station. Replace the VC-10s when the A300 becomes available. QED.
Nimrod should have been replaced by a VC-10 variant when the VC-10 was in production. It would have been up to current standards and would have been faster to fly to station. Replace the VC-10s when the A300 becomes available. QED.
The VC-10 is usually described as too big when the idea of using it is suggested.
It could be made smaller. However, size is not a disadvantage when it comes to electronics, particularly for ASW.
Nick P
Donor
Having been aboard the Nimrod R.1 at Cosford I have to say that having more space on board would only have been an improvement. I get the same impression from photos of the MR.2 version.
Converting the VC10 for all operations would have given us these - http://www.bisbos.com/air_canc_vc10.html
I suspect it was really a question of the price being too big and the desire by the UK govt to support all the UK plane manufacturers evenly. What else did Hawker Siddeley have going on at the time, was this choice intended to keep them going?
That the Comet was a proven design with a supply chain already established probably swung the decision in favour of Nimrod.
The Russians were gone, we were not going to fight anyone without the US backing us up and anyone we did was unlikely to have the best or latest tech. The same rational is why we have been enjoying "capability holidays" and didn't buy a Nimrod replacement for years, why the RAF did not have any replacements for the Sea Eagle anti-shipping or ALARM missiles. The Sea Eagle were scrapped as they were due for deep maintenance to the turbines which would have cost a total of £4 million for the entire fleet.
The UK treasury just would not pay for even basic upgrade to the UK military.
Essentially this. The MRA.4 was a casualty of the War on Terror. The latter was a rather expensive venture and the MRA.4 was an especially easy project to place on the chopping block with Haddon-Cave fulminating. Pity as the Nimrod MRA.4 promised to finally be a mightily capable platform. I'm still not sold on medium-altitude ASW, sorry Boeing fans.
Oh well, not the first goat to befall the political T-Rex and certainly not the last.
The electronic fit was, apparently, a world leading game changer. Unfortunately the aircraft was a death trap with over 200 safety faults identified.
We're probably lucky we only had one XV230 over Afghanistan.
McPherson
Banned
Dog's breakfast. It amazes me that card-punch control or analog milling in the machine still was not a thing as British aviation entered into the jet age that deep, post Korea. I mean it is incredible that WWII lessons that should have been learned on the shop floor had not made it through in the 1950s.
The Russians were gone, we were not going to fight anyone without the US backing us up and anyone we did was unlikely to have the best or latest tech. The same rational is why we have been enjoying "capability holidays" and didn't buy a Nimrod replacement for years, why the RAF did not have any replacements for the Sea Eagle anti-shipping or ALARM missiles. The Sea Eagle were scrapped as they were due for deep maintenance to the turbines which would have cost a total of £4 million for the entire fleet.
The UK treasury just would not pay for even basic upgrade to the UK military.
groundhogday666
Banned
The fuselage was too small, the computers lacked power and overheated, so they used the fuel as coolant sink, the radar did not worked properly... a complete disaster !
Anything but the Comet / Nimrod, as they say.
- Vickers V1000 / VC7, from day one (that is, a Nimrod-VC7 rather than a Nimrod-Comet)
- Vickers VC10 (same as above)
- Airbus A300 or A310 (maybe the later was too late - first flight 1982, shame)
Or Short Belfast, damn it - tons of volume, and yes, Tu-126 Moss look-alike...
It is amazing (and despairing, too) to think the MR4 become an even larger quagmire than the AEW.3 - as if the later hasn't set the bar low enough, they managed to go even lower !
Geez...
I have this vision of the AEW.3 and MR.4 lamenting their respective fates, this way... ( 0:15 "LOWER !" - ROTFLMAO)
“- Nimrod MR.4: I'm pond scum. Well, lower actually. I'm like the… the fungus that feeds on pond scum.
- Nimrod AEW.3 : Lower. The pus that infects the mucous... that cruds up the fungus... that feeds on the pond scum.
Anything but the Comet / Nimrod, as they say.
- Vickers V1000 / VC7, from day one (that is, a Nimrod-VC7 rather than a Nimrod-Comet)
- Vickers VC10 (same as above)
- Airbus A300 or A310 (maybe the later was too late - first flight 1982, shame)
Or Short Belfast, damn it - tons of volume, and yes, Tu-126 Moss look-alike...
It is amazing (and despairing, too) to think the MR4 become an even larger quagmire than the AEW.3 - as if the later hasn't set the bar low enough, they managed to go even lower !
Geez...
I have this vision of the AEW.3 and MR.4 lamenting their respective fates, this way... ( 0:15 "LOWER !" - ROTFLMAO)
“- Nimrod MR.4: I'm pond scum. Well, lower actually. I'm like the… the fungus that feeds on pond scum.
- Nimrod AEW.3 : Lower. The pus that infects the mucous... that cruds up the fungus... that feeds on the pond scum.
Last edited:
Even today with far more efficient and reliable engines ETOPS certified aircraft are limited to One hour on one engine distances. Nimrods exceed that so yes 4 engines.
Unless you want to limit the search radius?
Don't be amazed . A good craftsman can work 'dead on' if he has to. That should bring both shame and pride. Pride that we could produce such men and shame that we relied on them far too long.
I believe you have your stats about ETOPS backwards there. Non-ETOPS aircraft were limited to 60 minutes on a single engine. That was then pushed to 90 minutes. After that you begin hitting ETOPS time limits of 120, 180, 240 minutes, etc. Today aircraft like the 777, 787, A330 and A350 are certified for up to 330 minutes on a single engine
Hangs head in shame a vows not to rely on memory while on ah. Com and working at the same time.
But yes absolutely correct and that only reinforces the point I was clumsily trying to make.
Engine reliability is far and away better than it was.
So back in the day with Speys or something similar? 4 or more just to be safe. The Atlantic is Big!
Oh completely agree. I wouldn't trust a twin jet before the CFM-56 was introduced for smaller aircraft and the JT9/CF6/RB211 generation of jets for wide bodies.