The Nimrod replacement P-8 or RC-135?

[albeback]

You're right of course, don't know how I mixed that up.

The A330 would be a good option for AEW (as you'll want as many operators as possible on board). It's rather bigger than necessary for ASW.

I'd also considered the Revell  A310 and A330 as AEW platforms but, the kits are very difficult to get hold of nowadays. I don't know about availability (or lack thereof) of the A321 -I just happen to have one handy! A pity because the A330 in particular is a fine model. I just have to put on my practical hat & use what I have available.. Of course, once I have built them, the kits will be re-released!! Sods law of modelling!!

[McColm]

I would have thought the new 'Grizzley'/ C-130 replacement for the RAF would be a better option. I'll have to wait for the price to come down a bit in the 1/72 scale model before I 'Whiff-it'.
Although a stretched C-17, looks plausable.

[albeback]

I would have thought the new 'Grizzley'/ C-130 replacement for the RAF would be a better option. I'll have to wait for the price to come down a bit in the 1/72 scale model before I 'Whiff-it'.
Although a stretched C-17, looks plausable.

Interesting!!! An A-400 with an ESA radar mount on its back? That would work I reckon.

[McColm]

Thanks, just got to clear some space in my stash for that, I'm slowly working my way thru my spare parts bin. Hence the 'Welsh Harp Sea Monster' build.

[GeorgeC]

 Some clarifications of points in earlier posts:

Airseeker - RAF crews are training on USAF aircraft now with the first RJ getting roundals next year (I think).

Nimrod MRA4 - money sunk in project yes but there was always a bit of a black hole over paying the in service costs.

Sentinel - still in service until not needed in Afghanistan.  Lot of interest in keeping this one running on after Op Ellamy proved how good it was at doing its designed task (tracking lots of vehicles over a very big area)

Kinloss - ex nimrod base and now shortly home to 39 (Air Support) Regt RE.  Still a functioning relief landing ground for Lossiemouth though.

P8 in future - no money, yet.  But see House of Commons answer on ex Nimrod crew on exchange tours as 'seedcorn'

P8 basing - Waddington is now the RAF ISTAR hub.

All info freely available from open sources...

[PR19_Kit]

All info freely available from open sources...

Yes, probably so, but most of us spend our spare time modelling, unless we're digging into the aforementioned 'open sources' to find gaps that we can fill in with our models and backstories.......

[Weaver]

Before the MRA.4 was decided upon, my clean-sheet-of-paper idea for a Nimrod replacement was to use the program as an excuse to develop propfans for airliner use, the way the KC-135 was used to develop airliner technology off the back of a military program. The aircraft would have two pusher propfans at the back (in the style of the GE UDF demonstrator), but instead of a T-tail, it would have canards just behind a raised flight deck, which in turn would allow for a Nimrod-style radar installation below/in front of it. Canards on a long moment arm (relative to the Cof G) should be lighter than a big heavy tail on a short moment arm, and the fact that the fin doesn't have to support the latter should make it lighter too.

This configuration solves most of the problems of the propfan and is ideal for an MPA. Noise? Happens at the back. Uncontained blade failure? Happens at the back. Engine out? Engines are relatively near the centreline. Don't need to shut one down for loiter since a propfan has nearly the fuel economy of a turboprop with nearly the speed of a turbofan.

[Weaver]

Nimrod MRA4 - money sunk in project yes but there was always a bit of a black hole over paying the in service costs.

Those running costs are also going to apply to whatever replaces it though, unless you believe that we either don't need the capability at all or that we can do it with fewer/smaller/simpler aircraft.

[Hobbes]

Running cost depends on the amount of maintenance required per flying hour, and the amount of specialized knowledge required. A bespoke design that's only been built a dozen times is probably going to have higher costs than an airliner of which hundreds are flying around.

[PR19_Kit]

But when the airliner is modified into an MPA it becomes a bespoke design surely?

[pyro-manic]

Yes, but basic airframe/engine/flight systems maintenance for e.g. the A319 is well-established and large-scale as it's used on hundreds of civvie machines worldwide, whereas (for example) the Nimrod would require procedures and infrastructure to be built up basically from scratch for a handful of machines.

[jcf]

But when the airliner is modified into an MPA it becomes a bespoke design surely?

Not so much on the P-8, the fuselages are built in Wichita on the 737 line and final assembly
in Renton is on a parallel line to the civie 737s. The fuselage mods are incorporated on the
assembly line, as are the wing mods and the specialized systems are installed during assembly.
The P-8 is truly a production aircraft, it is not like the Wedgetail where 'white-tail' BBJ airframes
were completely constructed and then torn apart and rebuilt to incorporate the airframe modifications
and systems installations.

[Weaver]

Yes, but basic airframe/engine/flight systems maintenance for e.g. the A319 is well-established and large-scale as it's used on hundreds of civvie machines worldwide, whereas (for example) the Nimrod would require procedures and infrastructure to be built up basically from scratch for a handful of machines.

Building up those procedures and infrastructure is a start-up cost, not a running cost. Once it's done, it's done: you don't have to keep doing it. Bear in mind also that there was already a support structure in place for the MR.2s, so it would have been a matter of adapting it rather than starting from scratch. In addition, two of the MRA.4's major "new" items were not really unique: the BR715 engines were basically BR710s, as seen in a number of business jets, with re-arranged accessories to fit the Nimrod's engine bays, and the digital FCS was basically Airbus technology, so both of them leveraged an existing experience base. The major bespoke items were the airframe, which was all traditional alloy so differing from the MR.2 only in detail, not fundamentals, and the mission system, which would have been new whatever platform was chosen.

[McColm]

Remember that the 'Nimrod 2000' was the blue print for the internal layout which could have been installed to the Atlantique, P-3/P-7 or Be-A40 proposals. The Brits took the best equipment at the time and fine-tuned it to their requirements.
It will be interesting to see what the French replace their Atlantiques with.

[Gondor]

Remember that the 'Nimrod 2000' was the blue print for the internal layout which could have been installed to the Atlantique, P-3/P-7 or Be-A40 proposals. The Brits took the best equipment at the time and fine-tuned it to their requirements.
It will be interesting to see what the French replace their Atlantiques with.

Maybe an Anglo-French aircraft? How about the UK buying the Japanese P-1?

Gondor