UK Considers buying Boeing P8 to replace Nimrod

#2
Let Alex Salmon pay for the Nimrod if he's so keen on protecting Scottish waters,he wants nowt to do with us so let him get on with it but he won't1
 

Seaweed

War Hero
Book Reviewer
#3
Reading between the lines on RR, ARRSE and elsewhere it seems to me that this Nimrod project was ill-conceived, badly managed, and that we are better off without it as completion would probably have cost a vast amount more than has already been squandered. The capability gap is however very real - paricularly in possibly catastrophically compromising our nuclear deterrent - and the sooner our Govt, whose PRINCIPAL responsibility is the defence of the UK, closes that gap the better. Sadly, one supposes that the US purchase will be ballsed up in some way or another in order to provide 'UK jobs' at vastly increased and unnecessary expense and delay even though the Nimrod UK provider has so comprehensively let the country down by failing to deliver.

Oldies will recall that Arnie Wienstock managed to siphon off £8bn on the AEW Nimrod project before Govt had the guts to chop it. Nimrod was a bad name, Albatross would be better.

Further back it will be recalled that we only got into Nimrod to try and bail out the Comet which had failed because DH's brass overruled its own techies by insisting on prettier windows.

Parochial Scotch witterings are irrelevant to the defence of the UK.
 
#4
Let's have a witch-hunt......find out the truth of the whole thing.....it's an obscene amount of dosh that has been frittered

Time for some 'nut-tightening'
 
#6
Let's have a witch-hunt......find out the truth of the whole thing.....it's an obscene amount of dosh that has been frittered

Time for some 'nut-tightening'
The "witch hunt" is a very good idea. The MK4 was a very capable aeroplane and had more potential than the P8. If there was an inquiry, I think we would find that the entire programme had been conducted in a half hearted manner (not fast and pointy and not directly in support of the Army would do it) and a Christmas tree for other programmes to syphon funding from. If, say, FRES needed additional funds, it could be flexed from Nimrod by suitable re-reprofiling. It was also the first British military aircraft to need a Release to Service after Haddon-Cave's inquiry into the sandpit fireball Nimrod. Again, previous budget savings would have made it difficult to certify an airworthy aircraft as airworthy. Yes please; let's have a witch hunt; but not against the aeroplane.

Seaweed. You really should read beyond the Lewis Page. When the first HS801 (later, Nimrod) flew, the Comet had long been out of production with all stress problems solved. The Nimrod could just have easily have been a DH Trident, except that it needed 4 donks to meet the Spec.
 

wave_dodger

MIA
Book Reviewer
#7
I'm far from an expert in these areas but a great friend is/was a Nimrod Sqdn CO and is gutted that we've lost them. I did ask whether the P8 is comparable in his estimation and he thought it was a 70% fit and that the remaining 30% lost capability wasn't "nice to have". He pointed out the Nimrod utility in Afghanistan, thats capability the P8 can't replicate.
 
#8
The "witch hunt" is a very good idea. The MK4 was a very capable aeroplane and had more potential than the P8. If there was an inquiry, I think we would find that the entire programme had been conducted in a half hearted manner (not fast and pointy and not directly in support of the Army would do it) and a Christmas tree for other programmes to syphon funding from. If, say, FRES needed additional funds, it could be flexed from Nimrod by suitable re-reprofiling. It was also the first British military aircraft to need a Release to Service after Haddon-Cave's inquiry into the sandpit fireball Nimrod. Again, previous budget savings would have made it difficult to certify an airworthy aircraft as airworthy. Yes please; let's have a witch hunt; but not against the aeroplane.

Seaweed. You really should read beyond the Lewis Page. When the first HS801 (later, Nimrod) flew, the Comet had long been out of production with all stress problems solved. The Nimrod could just have easily have been a DH Trident, except that it needed 4 donks to meet the Spec.

The Trident 3b did have 4 engines 26 made?

[video=youtube;RTU2ao7kJdI]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RTU2ao7kJdI[/video]
 
#9
HS Trident 3B data
Accommodation:
3 or 4 Crew & 128-179 passengers
Engines:
3 Rolls-Royce Spey 512-5W turbofans 11,930lb stplus 1 Rolls-Royce RB162-86 turbojet 5,250lb st
Span:
98ft
Length:
131ft 2in
Gross weight:
150,000lb
Max payload:
32,396lb
Max cruise:
601mph at 28,300ft
Range:
1,094 miles max payload at 533mph (+ reserves)
[SIZE=-1]data Civil Airliner Recognition 1973[/SIZE]
 
#10
Ah! the RB162. Technically, that did make the 3B a 4 donk bus but it was only an auxiliary for heavy/hot/high takeoffs. It was a pure jet, designed as a vertical lift engine, with a prodigious thirst. If I remember rightly, it had no throttle control and was either"full" or "ground idle". It was not noted for its reliability.


Thread drift indicated and correcting.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top