Talk:Hawker-Siddeley Nimrod
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. |
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. |
|
Related task forces...
|
|
4 December 2006 14 FINE MEN DIED IN THE NIMROD CRASH BUT STILL THE WHOLE FLEET'S A SHAMBLES Officer's fear over RAF jets dogged by safety blunders Exclusive by Mark Mcgivern http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/tm_headline=14-fine-men-died-in-the-nimrod-crash-but-still-the-whole-fleet-s-a-shambles-&method=full&objectid=18203521&siteid=66633-name_page.html THREE months on from the crash that killed 14 servicemen in Afghanistan, the RAF's ageing Nimrod fleet has been branded "a shambles"by a senior officer.
The whistleblower said: "It's just a matter of time before one of the aircraft falls on to a populated area.
"Every flight has major problems, without exception.
"There are instruments held on with tape, holes in the aircraft and fuel leaks. All are commonplace.
"There are also problems with fires and fumes and radar going down.
"The Nimrod fleet is a shambles. NOW READ ON Royzee 08:07, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
I have moved BAe Nimrod to BAE Nimrod. Mainly due to the fact that following the first flight of the MRA4 on August 26 less and less BAe built Nimrods will be flying as more and more BAE MRA4s enter service. Mark 19:13, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
What is the reason behind the distinctive engine-in-wing design? --Hooperbloob 01:17, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
- It's aerodynamically superior to a podded engine. When the first jet engines came out they were less powerful than today and so aerodynamic efficiency was more important at that time. Also, (although not so relevant to the Comet/Nimrod), having the engines in the wing root makes the wing 'look' thinner at high subsonic Mach numbers. This allows the wing to be made thicker at the root, simplifying construction, whilst still allowing it to be used at high Critical Mach numbers.
- This same type of installation was also used on the V bombers, the Vickers Valiant, Avro Vulcan and Handley Page Victor. Ian Dunster 13:22, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
-
- Thanks for filling me in. Do you think this deserves to be included in the main article itself or does it warrant the creation of some thing new like Jet engine placement that could tie all those other aircraft together?
-
-
- That's OK. I think it's probably worth an article of its own giving the reasons for the various types of installation. Podded engines are almost universal today on (relatively) low performance and civil jet aircraft, whilst 'enclosed' installations are still used where highest performance is required. A new article could state the various advantages/disadvantages of the different installations and the historical reasons behind them. Ian Dunster 10:22, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- Downside is that you must protect each engine from the closely adjacent engine (see Tomcat layout). Compare Comet (Nimrod origin) to contemporary the Boeing 707. Throughout their history several of the aforementioned aircraft have been lost (some with fatalities) due to engine fires. Some even before they left the ground. There is also some aerodynamic technology which we did not have unlike Boeing. If an engine fails on a 707 or B47 fails then you might get back OK. Conversely, the close-in arrangement of the Nimrod allows engine shutdown with little loss of controllability - can't do that on some other planes as well.
-
-
Another point is the thermal management problems they had with the AEW version - had to use fuel to cool the electronics which cut the range.
The RAF should have a special aircraft like ASTOR flying over Afghanistan etc. The Nimrod is a maritime patrol aircraft needed to patrol around the UK. Maybe an RPV would be even better. If you have that you can remotely monitor through on-board video, ECM etc. if a problem develops then no lives are at risk. It all seems to be another classic example of our brave airmen needlessly being put in harms way. They deserve better more appropriate equipment and more of it. You cannot put a price on human lives let alone what a waste of skills. It is reminiscent of other RAF tragedies when that Chinook crashed. Royzee 22:58, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Crashed RAF Nimrod identified Nimrod XV230 was one of six equipped with an L-3 Wescam MX-15 electro-optical turret in 2003. A further urgent operational requirement, known as Project Broadsword, was implemented in early 2006 and introduced the capability to transmit real-time video imagery from the MX-15 to ground stations and commanders.The official said the aircraft was on a reconnaissance mission at the time but that it could also serve as a communications relay platform. Jane's Information Group http://www.janes.com/aerospace/military/news/jdw/jdw060905_1_n.shtml
Was an electrical fire to blame for the tragedy in Afghanistan? The cause http://www.theherald.co.uk/news/69359.html The likeliest cause of the crash of the £100m Nimrod was an electrical fire at the rear of the fuselage which may have damaged essential flight control cables, according to military sources. The fuselage is packed with computer screens, wires, and consoles connected to sensors, ranging from high-resolution cameras to detectors which can pick out movement under the sea or over land by tracking disturbances in the earth's magnetic field. Witnesses who saw the aircraft come down reported seeing flames near the tail, where key control cables are located. If the MR2 had been struck by a heat-seeking missile, damage would have been in the area of the four engines, mounted on the wings close to the fuselage. The Nimrod contingent, which is regularly replaced from the two operational squadrons at RAF Kinloss, is in constant demand for surveillance missions, but not considered to be overstretched. The aircraft are not listed as part of the UK forces based in either Helmand province or at neighbouring Kandahar air base. They usually operate from bases in friendly Middle Eastern countries within easy striking distance. The MR2's 3800-mile range and air-to-air refuelling capability mean it can operate from virtually anywhere in the region as long there are allied air tankers on call. Much of the air support for coalition troops on the ground comes from as far away as Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, with US B1 bombers flying from the United States to deliver precision strikes. Both the UK and US military try to avoid basing large, vulnerable aircraft at either Kabul or Kandahar because of the risk of insurgent rocket or mortar attacks and the relatively poor runways and infrastructure. An RAF Harrier was damaged in a rocket bombardment at Kandahar last year. While sources say the small fleets of Chinook transport and Apache attack helicopters supporting British troops in the south of the country are running short of spare parts because of the heat and dust and sand damage, the Nimrods are under no similar pressures. A source said: "At a standard operating height of between 30,000 and 42,000ft, the MR2s are not affected by either heat or ground conditions. "They fly back to bases out of the war zone where they have adequate engineering and ground crew back-up. With a 10-hour loiter-time and air-to-air refuelling, they are effectively independent of coalition facilities below them unless there is an emergency. "Their safety record is second-to-none. Despite the age of the original design, the ships used over Afghanistan have been virtually rebuilt over the years in a series of major upgrades." Coalition aircraft regularly fly from Al Udeid, a military airfield in Qatar with a 15,000ft runway. Most of the coalition's tanker fleet for refuelling aircraft operating over Afghanistan is based there. British troops heading into or out of Iraq use the base as a stop-off point. The RAF normally has three of its MR2s in the region. There are also "friendly" airfields with adequate support facilities in Oman and Kuwait. A Kinloss-based Nimrod was sent to Cyprus recently to help co-ordinate the evacuation of 3500 British civilians from Lebanon and keep an eye on potential threats to their safety. Meanwhile, RAF personnel have complained about television speculation over the type of aircraft lost . Angry officers say reports claiming that the lost aircraft was either a Chinook helicopter or a Hercules transport plane caused unnecessary anguish for the families of all crews serving on those types in Afghanistan. One officer told The Herald yesterday: "A number of serving officers and other ranks have already lodged complaints with the BBC and others over their irresponsible early coverage. Even when details emerged, at least one television channel showed pictures of the wrong aircraft type. It's sloppy journalism at best and irresponsible at worst. "Every spouse, parent, and sibling of any aircrew in Afghanistan was left in dread until the news eventually broke."
Good Overview of MR4 on DID: Nimrod Was Actually a Good Hunter: Upgrading Britain's Fleet (updated) http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/2006/09/nimrod-was-actually-a-good-hunter-upgrading-britains-fleet-updated/index.php
Also on Battlespace Magazine: http://www.battle-technology.com/this_issue04e.html
Ontario Crash: http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=19950902-0 Other crashes: http://aviation-safety.net/database/dblist.php?field=typecode&var=282%&cat=%1&sorteer=datekey&page=1 Ironic that had the latest crash happened over water where the MR2 should be operating maybe the crew would have stood a chance as the one where they put her down in the Moray Firth was a 'survivable'.
[edit] Heat caused jet crash, says former engineer
Darren Devine, Western Mail
AN AIRCRAFT which crashed in Afghanistan with the loss of 14 servicemen was ageing and ill-equipped for its mission, according to the engineer who undertook its safety test.
The disaster was the RAF's biggest loss of life since a Hercules was shot down in Iraq two years ago. Among those killed was Welshman Flight Lieutenant Allan Squires, 39, who was originally from Flintshire.
The Ministry of Defence is conducting an investigation into the cause of the crash in September 2006.
Flight Lieutenant Jimmy Jones, then a flight trials engineer, was the first to test the Nimrod XV230 after it was brought into service in 1969. He said yesterday the plane was designed to fly over the North Atlantic to track Soviet submarines and was never tested in the kind of extreme heat it faced in recent conflicts.
[edit] RAF crew quit over ‘unsafe’ Nimrods
The Sunday Times - November 19, 2006
A preliminary board of inquiry report into the September crash said the Nimrod was ripped apart by a series of explosions after a fuel pipe fractured during or after mid-air refuelling.
Another crash was narrowly averted this month when a second Nimrod suffered a similar fuel pipe fracture — “on operations in the Middle East” — as the aircraft was refuelled in mid-air, defence sources said.
It is understood RAF crews were worried about the decision to allow the Nimrods to resume flying three days after the Afghan crash. A number of servicemen resigned after the crash and before the latest incident.
more... http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-2460265,00.html
[This raises the query as to why the all aircraft were not grounded pending identifying the cause. Military necessity one suspects. It has curious parallels with the early Comet crashes. IMO.]
Royzee 08:03, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
