Nimrod alternatives?

[The Rat]

Just got struck by a thought; what if Britain had decided upon a different aircraft than the Comet for the Nimrod's role? I was particularly wondering about a turboprop design, such as a Viscount or Vanguard. After all, the U.S. had a successful plane in the Orion, and Canada went the same route with the Aurora. Or maybe a Trident or VC-10?

Gittin' that twitch again... 

[GTX]

May I suggest you check out this:  http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,300.0.html

Especially pg 2 & 3.

Regards,

Greg

[The Rat]

Looks like a nice discussion there Greg, unfortunately none of the pictures are showing up.    Ah well, off to bed. To sleep, perchance to dream.

[GTX]

You need to be a member to see the pics.  It is worth it trust me!!!

Regards,

Greg

[Thorvic]

Yeap Greg is right the alternatives were very interesting, the 4 engine turboprop being somewhat bigger than the orion i may add.

Geoff

[kitbasher]

I recall reading of VC10 and (I think) Vanguard-based proposals.  I may be wrong about the Vanguard option, probably just recalling a very nice model in recent years (either at SMW, on the internet or in a magazine - helpful I know!!) of a whiffed military Vanguard in Hemp/Light Aircraft Grey, toned down markings and a MAD tail.  All very Nimrod and rather smart.

[Lawman]

A VC-10 based option might have been attractive, especially with the VC-10 project needing some government support... There could have been maritime patrol versions, ELINT/SIGINT versions, AEW versions (preferably using a modified version of the Hawkeye's radar systems, given the Nimrod AEW mess!), tankers and transports. It could potentially have ended up being the UK's direct equivalent of the C-135, i.e. ongoing annual procurements, giving the program a degree of stability. Given the numbers, there could well have been 50 or so MPAs, 10-20 AEW and ELINT aircraft, 40-50 tankers (replacing the old Valiants when they needed to be retired, allowing Victors to remain as bombers, though with a tanker kit), plus a couple of VIP versions. This would mean 100-120 aircraft, more than enough to keep Vickers in business! These numbers could have been achieved over a number of years of procurements, probably at a rate of no more than 20 or so aircraft per year. Though not the hundreds of aircraft of the American C-135 fleet, for British industry this order would have been pretty welcome!

[Mossie]

Coming in a bit later, there was a chance of the Nimrod MR.2 being replaced by the P-7, basically a jet powered version of the Orion.  The program was envisaged for the USN but when costs rose, it was cancelled.  The RAF were watching very keenly but was cancelled around the time the Replacement Maritime Patrol Aircraft (RMPA) tender went out.  Had things gone to plan, it the P-7 program would have been at an advanced stage when the winner of the RMPA was announced as the Nimrod MRA.4, so the P-7 may well have got the nod.  Other competitors for the USN contract were a Boeing 757 based proposal & the McDonnell Douglas P-7 based on their proposed turboprop MD-91 that itself never got built  Of course if either of these had won, they would have had chance of winning the RMPA contract too.
http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/graham-warwick/2007/08/p3-to-p8-an-airsea-saga-1.html

The RAF & USN have had continued problems through the years trying to replace various MPA aircraft.  I wonder if this has been mainly because they've been half-arsed attempts to try an adapt existing aircraft rather than take a new approach?

Looking at the Jetstream proposal (Nick'll be in raptures!) on Secret Projects, I've always liked the idea of a mini-MPA aircraft like this or the current Dash-8.  Maybe the RAF could have had an MPA version of the Sentinel R1?

[Lawman]

The problem is that smaller platforms have limited payloads, and therefore have to sacrifice some capability.

The three crucial payloads are:

- Range: the platform needs to have the ability to fly quite far, and then orbit over that area for as long as possible
- Sensors: the platform needs to carry sufficiently capable sensors to do its job well (less of a problem nowadays with smaller electronics)
- Weapons: the platform must be capable of carrying sufficient weapons and sonobouys to search and kill targets

The problem with the smaller platforms is that they are, in general, less capable in all three payload factors. They have limited space to fit sensors, e.g. large side-looking radars, MAD probes, sonobouy dispensers; similarly, they will almost always have very limited weapons capability, and almost always limited to wing stores. For weapons, it is much better to carry them inside the weapons bay, since external carriage can damage the weapons (they have limited carriage times for external carriage).

Arguably, the best balance could have been something like a slightly stretched S-3 Viking - enlarge the weapons bay a little bit (to allow anti-ship missiles to be carried internally), and increase the cabin to allow for at least four operators plus the flight crew, with room to move around. This would, in many ways, be similar to the old P-2 Neptune, which was even carrier capable. These should be cheap enough to operate in good numbers, and yet capable enough to do the job well. These could be operated in place of both the S-3s (now retiring without true replacement) and P-3s; they would probably be mainly land based, but the ability to operate from the carriers when needed would be very useful. They could, of course, have other functions, e.g. AEW, tankers, jammers and carrier onboard delivery.

[Zen]

For the Carriers the best bet was a Pulse Doppler system in a 'mushroom' above the fusilage, and just such a study was done by Brough for the P139, this one using I think RR Tynes. Since the basic airframe would be producable in COD, AEW, EW and transport variants its clear there was a cheaper route to the twin FICMW Argus system on the jet powered study. An ideal successor the Gannet and Tracker type aircraft with potential for export in various versions.

For the RAF the same system (PD radar in a mushroom) mounted on a larger aircraft like the VC-10 seems a valid route too, and theres even scope for the COD/transport type the RN wanted to serve useful functions for the RAF as well.

Again missed opportunities.

[kitnut617]

Last year I bought three Gene Hooker 1/72 Vickers Vanguard vacuforms, with one being just for this type of project.  I envisioned an RCAF intrim aircraft using surplus Trans Canada Air Ways Vanguards as the source.  I'm playing with the idea of adding some spare domes from a EC-121 I've got to it.  Either that or a radome from an Avenger or Shackleton and some other lumps & bumps.

[Lawman]

Using the illustration of the VC-10 MPA from the Secret Projects page, modified a little...

[BillSlim]

Oh the poor old VC-10...

[Mossie]

The problem is that smaller platforms have limited payloads, and therefore have to sacrifice some capability.

The three crucial payloads are:

- Range: the platform needs to have the ability to fly quite far, and then orbit over that area for as long as possible
- Sensors: the platform needs to carry sufficiently capable sensors to do its job well (less of a problem nowadays with smaller electronics)
- Weapons: the platform must be capable of carrying sufficient weapons and sonobouys to search and kill targets

The problem with the smaller platforms is that they are, in general, less capable in all three payload factors. They have limited space to fit sensors, e.g. large side-looking radars, MAD probes, sonobouy dispensers; similarly, they will almost always have very limited weapons capability, and almost always limited to wing stores. For weapons, it is much better to carry them inside the weapons bay, since external carriage can damage the weapons (they have limited carriage times for external carriage).

Arguably, the best balance could have been something like a slightly stretched S-3 Viking - enlarge the weapons bay a little bit (to allow anti-ship missiles to be carried internally), and increase the cabin to allow for at least four operators plus the flight crew, with room to move around. This would, in many ways, be similar to the old P-2 Neptune, which was even carrier capable. These should be cheap enough to operate in good numbers, and yet capable enough to do the job well. These could be operated in place of both the S-3s (now retiring without true replacement) and P-3s; they would probably be mainly land based, but the ability to operate from the carriers when needed would be very useful. They could, of course, have other functions, e.g. AEW, tankers, jammers and carrier onboard delivery.

Small MPA platforms do have their uses.  As you mentioned, there's the lower cost for operators that just can't stretch to the larger aircraft.  They are of use in a more local role, such as that which the Dutch use their Dash 8's to patrol waters off the Netherlands Antilles, for small island nations or those with a large coast line protecting themselves or larger nations protecting a regional area.  MPA aircraft don't have to be used offensively, they can be used as purely recce platforms, this would suit a Coastguard type role, being able to alert other assets to a potential threat.

I don't personally think this would be of use to the UK, definately not as a Nimrod 'replacement'.  For patrolling home waters, although we're only a relatively small isalnd, there's a huge amount of coastal territory to patrol.  A smaller platform may have a handful of uses for the UK, fishery protection & customs duties, possibly oil/gas rig protection & such but then you don't need such a sosphisticated sensory package.  A small UK developed MPA would have probably have enjoyed more sucess in the export market, something that has unfortunately never happened for Nimrod.

[The Rat]

You need to be a member to see the pics.  It is worth it trust me!!!

Regards,

Greg

D'OH! Just realized that I signed up over there a loooooong time ago, password still works. Yep. there's some nice info there to be sure.