Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
BAE Dropped From US Navy MMA  
User currently offlineLMP737 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (12 years 3 months 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 3721 times:

The US Navy has selected Boeing and Lockheed-Martin for the Multi-mission maritime Aircraft. The MMA is to replace the P-3C/EP-3E. In choosing BA and LM the Navy locked out the Nimrod from contention. Obviously politics played a part in the decision. I'm quite sure that more than one influential congressman let it be known that a European aircraft would be unacceptable. Then there's the fact that the Navy would have cost savings from using the same basic airframe for airlift (C-40) and MMA. If an upgraded P-3 is chosen there is cost savings in that also. Even though the Nimrod was eliminated one would expect BAE to still play a role as a major sub-contractor.

Any thought's?

21 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineJwenting From Netherlands, joined Apr 2001, 10213 posts, RR: 19
Reply 1, posted (12 years 3 months 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 3653 times:

Nimrod (like Orion) is a 40+ year old design.
Nimrod is based on the Comet, Orion on the Electra.

A totally new airframe is needed, and Nimrod doesn't provide that.



I wish I were flying
User currently offlineGDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 13253 posts, RR: 77
Reply 2, posted (12 years 3 months 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 3634 times:

Well the Nimrod MRA.4 is new, the ones being rebuilt for the RAF are mostly made up of new components, only the pressure shell being from the original aircraft.
Any export Nimrods would be 100% new.

Moreover, the basic concept has been around since the late 60's, although derived from the Comet in truth it's more like a proper military aircraft, the weapons bay is huge, (far bigger than anything you'll graft on to a 737 derivative).

The 4 engines, (R/R BMWs on the MRA.4), allow a fast transit to patrol, then two can be switched off to greatly extend patrol times-again try doing that with a 737 version!

But BAE being dropped is no surprise, to think the UK government actually believed the US Administration, when they strongly indicated that the Nimrod MRA.4 was favoured as a reward for the UK's support for the War On Terror!


User currently offlineFredT From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2002, 2185 posts, RR: 26
Reply 3, posted (12 years 3 months 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 3624 times:

Hah, the US buying non-US hardware? Yeah right, on a cold day in hell...

Cheers,
Fred



I thought I was doing good trying to avoid those airport hotels... and look at me now.
User currently offlineSaintsman From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2002, 2065 posts, RR: 2
Reply 4, posted (12 years 3 months 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 3624 times:

Fred,

What about the Harrier and Hawk? Nimrod could have been built in the States too.


User currently offlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29836 posts, RR: 58
Reply 5, posted (12 years 3 months 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 3644 times:

Hah, the US buying non-US hardware? Yeah right, on a cold day in hell...

Give me a break....

Lets see here, the USCG flies French and Italian helicopters and will be ordering Casa 235's in the near future, made in Spain. And a large number of Falcon 20's. In fact the only US designed aircraft they flying right now are the Herks and the Jayhawks. There are a couple of Hack aircraft and special role aircraft

The FAA flies Bae-125's in the nav-check role.

The US Navy flies Hawks for trainers.

The US Air Force has a large number of Slingsby Fireflies used in training, And also has Raytheon maufacturing PC-9's as trainers also. You also forget about the old B-57's A lot of the old A-7's had Spey engines. Fiat built a bunch of G-111's that are now running around Central American-designated C-27's. These are not the new version manufactered by Lockheed. The USAF also has a couple of Dash-9's running around

The Alaska Air National Guard is using Sherpas that where born in Belfast. A bunch of those also ended up with the US Forest Service.

And if we want to make the list longer we can talk about the different subsystems that are used by the US. Engines and Electronics for example.



OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
User currently offlineFredT From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2002, 2185 posts, RR: 26
Reply 6, posted (12 years 3 months 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 3652 times:

Yes, sort that under "posts I instantly regretted". It does happen. I do maintain that the US is protectionistic to a much larger degree than most of the rest of the world but still, I overreacted. Sorry about that. Where's that edit feature when you need it?  Smile

Cheers,
Fred



I thought I was doing good trying to avoid those airport hotels... and look at me now.
User currently offlineDerekF From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2001, 914 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (12 years 3 months 6 days ago) and read 3619 times:

LMP737

Can you provide a link to some news item or other article announcing this or is it a rumour?

Regards

DerekF



Whatever.......
User currently offlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29836 posts, RR: 58
Reply 8, posted (12 years 3 months 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 3621 times:

On the Army Equiptment side.

Intems that I know about,

Italian Berretta Pistols.
German Reinmetal 120mm Tank Guns
British 105MM howitzers
5.56 and 7.62 machine guns from FN Belgium
French Communications systems
Swedish Line of Sight radios
Wheeled APC's based on a Canadian modified-Austrian design
Trucks based on an Austrian design
Swedish Anti-Tank weapons




OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
User currently offlineJwenting From Netherlands, joined Apr 2001, 10213 posts, RR: 19
Reply 9, posted (12 years 3 months 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 3613 times:

Shorts and Fokker aircraft.
BAe systems SAMs.
those wheeled APCs are in fact a Canadian modified Swiss design  Smile/happy/getting dizzy (unless you mean another type than I do).
Dutch Signaal fire control radars are standard for Sea Sparrow (license built in the US of course).



I wish I were flying
User currently offlineLMP737 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (12 years 3 months 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 3602 times:

DerekF:

I found the article in the Sept 16 issue of Aviation Week. Unfortunately in order to read the full article on the internet you have to be a subscriber. However if you are a subscriber go to World News Roundup.

On a little side note Sig Sauer and HK made pistols and sub-machine guns are preferred by US Special Forces.


User currently offlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29836 posts, RR: 58
Reply 11, posted (12 years 3 months 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 3561 times:

You know you are right, the LAV's are based originally on a Swiss design.

Oh forgot about the FOX Chemical warfare vehicles that where built in Germany, Aka Fuchs.



OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
User currently offlineLMP737 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (12 years 3 months 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 3536 times:

When I first posted this thread I had a feeling that "Fortress America" would come up. Yes, there is an element of truth to "Fortress America". Just as there is an element of truth to "Fortress Europe". As many people have pointed out there are many systems used by the US Armed Forces that are European in origin.

Most big ticket items such as fighter and tanker aircraft will remain US produced. It would be politically unacceptable for the USAF for example to buy A330 tankers. Congressmen from Washington, Missouri, Illinois, Texas etc would scream bloodymurder. On the same token it would be politically unacceptable for the French Air Force to cancel their A400M and go with the C-130J or even the C-17.

I've heard that Airbus thought it was unfair that the A330T was not chosen by the USAF. I think there were other factors other than "not made here" were involved. I'm curious as to how Airbus could have produced the same number of A330T cheaper that KC-767-200. Considering the fact that the 767-200 is cheaper than the A330 and that Boeing owns the patent for the hose-n-drougue refueling system. This would have meant Airbus would have had to have bought the system from Boeing or develop their own. Then there is the issue that the A330 has a much bigger footprint than the 767-200. This was one of the deciding factors in the Italian Air Forces decision to go with the 767 tanker.

Fred T:

Did you know that the EU spends almost twice the amount of money on agricultural subsides than the US. If the US is the most protectionist we must not be very good at it since we run a trade deficit with most of our trading partners.


User currently offlineGDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 13253 posts, RR: 77
Reply 13, posted (12 years 3 months 20 hours ago) and read 3516 times:

LMP737, shouldn't that be the Flying Boom system Boeing holds the patent for? The major hose and drougue maker is the UK's Flight Refuelling Ltd, and since they brought out the Sergeant Fletcher company they've become the supplier of these systems for USN/USMC.

User currently offlineFredT From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2002, 2185 posts, RR: 26
Reply 14, posted (12 years 3 months 19 hours ago) and read 3492 times:

LMP737,
that's on 376 million citizens as opposed to around 280 million (1995). But it is way too much. It is insane, we pay farmers to grow grapes, which are of such poor quality that they can't be used. We also pay farmers to NOT grow anything in the fields, to avoid an excess of certain crops. And so on...

While I am no fan of the US style of protectionism, I'm very aware of the fact that strong forces are working to make the EU just as bad -and that it is going their way. It is not something I agree with. On the whole, I don't think power blocks are a good thing to have in the world.

Cheers,
Fred



I thought I was doing good trying to avoid those airport hotels... and look at me now.
User currently offlineLMP737 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (12 years 3 months 7 hours ago) and read 3482 times:

GDB:

Yes you are correct. In my haste writing the post I got the two systems confused.


User currently offlineSteman From Germany, joined Aug 2000, 1403 posts, RR: 7
Reply 16, posted (12 years 2 months 4 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 3514 times:

I don't want to go out of topic but I would like to correct a couple of things regarding Italian designs used by American Armed Forces:

Aeritalia (ex Fiat) built 10 G-222A (not G-111) and they were assigned to USAF Southern Command in Panama. Designated as Chrysler C-27A Spartan (Chrysler performed maintainance) they have been used for 10 years, then stored in Arizona for a while and now it seems that some of them are being utilized again.
The C-27J is the new version of the famous Italian cargo aircraft, with same engines and avionic of the C-130J. Lockheed-Martin and Alenia will jointly commercialize it but it is produced only in Italy.

The US Coast Guard has just selected the AB-139, ordering 34 examples, as replacement for its HH-60 helicopters. The new Italian helicopter, jointly developed with Bell, will be built in the US by the latter.

Back in the late '50s the US Army (not the air force) was evaluating the Fiat G-91 as possibile Close Air Support combat airplane before the Pentagon decided that all combat fixed wing land based aircraft should have been with the AF.
As for the topic of this post, the MMA, I don't see how BAe can offer its Nimrod 2000 as the production of the airframes ceased many decades ago (both first generation Nimrod and current generation Nimrod2000 are conversion of Comet airliners).
BAe can hope to participate as system integrator or componet supplier.

Italy and Germany have a common requiremet for an Atlantic replacement. Recently EADS and Alenia have offered a dedicated version of the A320, like Boeing didi with its 737 derived C-40 to the US Navy.
Actually I don't know if a twin engined airliner can act profitably in the antisom, anti-ship and maritime recoinnasance role....

Ciao

Stefano


User currently offlineGDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 13253 posts, RR: 77
Reply 17, posted (12 years 2 months 4 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 3467 times:

Steman, the Nimrod MRA4 is mostly all new, and the tooling exists to make all-new aircraft if needed.
In any case, only the prototype Nimrods were Comet 4 conversions, the production aircraft were all new.


User currently offlineLMP737 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 18, posted (12 years 2 months 3 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 3431 times:

More info on the MMA.

Since there are issues with remanufacturing P-3C to MMA configuration Lockheed Martin is offering new build aircraft based on the P-3. One has to wonder if LM is going to go with a two-man cockpit or stick with the current pilot-copilot-FE configuration. It would make sense to go with a two-man cockpit for cost saving reasons.

On Boeing's side there are questions how much of a hurdle they will have to overcome converting a commercial airliner to a weapons carrier. I find this interesting since the P-3 began life as the Lockheed Electra. The more I read the more I think that the final decision is a toss up. Both an updated
P-3 and a 737 based aircraft have their positives. With a updated P-3 you have a platform that the Navy is already familiar with. With the 737 you have an aircraft with lower operating costs and that is already used for Navy airlift. I'll admit, as a former Boeing employee I'm sort of biased.


User currently offlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29836 posts, RR: 58
Reply 19, posted (12 years 2 months 3 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 3415 times:

It shouldn't be a big deal to convert a P-3 over to a two man cockpit. Especially if you are going to go over to new build aircraft. The C-130J made the same jump,

I think some of the P-3 air tanker operators allready operate with two man crews in the restricted catagory.



OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
User currently offlineBsergonomics From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2002, 462 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (12 years 2 months 3 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 3404 times:

A quick Euro Cent's worth for you.

I spent a thankfully very brief stint on the MRA4 programme, and am doing a small bit for the Alenia part of the MRA programme.

Boeing did the Mission Systems for the MRA4 programme. So there is a significant US involvement in the programme already.

As for the 2 engine versus 4 engine argument, it doesn't really hold in this case. The Comet/Nimrod engines are so close together that the hazard analyses assume that if you lose one engine, you will also lose the other engine on that wing. In other words, it assumes that the aircraft has two pairs of engines rather than four separate ones.



The definition of a 'Pessimist': an Optimist with experience...
User currently offlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29836 posts, RR: 58
Reply 21, posted (12 years 2 months 3 weeks 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 3454 times:

2 vs. 4 engine arguement isn't about controling the Adverse yaw in this case.

It is a simple statement that in a Nimrod or Orion you are going to only loose 1/4 of your available thrust in case of engine failure. With a 737 derivitive or Alantique you are down to half power.

I still don't think that the engine thrust was a desiding factor in the Nimrods un-shortlisting.



OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic BAE Dropped From US Navy MMA
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Military aviation related posts only!
  • Not military related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
Becoming A Pilot For The US Navy posted Sat Nov 25 2006 18:16:30 by Turpentyine
3 US Navy (?) Planes At SFO posted Sat Oct 7 2006 16:13:40 by Leamside
US Navy C9B posted Sun Jul 23 2006 19:13:31 by Kchs29418
US Navy Fokker 27 posted Tue Jun 6 2006 21:21:33 by Columba
How Could The US Navy Pass On The Natf posted Sat Mar 11 2006 01:45:16 by 747400sp
Fokker F28 Carrier Tests For US Navy! posted Wed Mar 8 2006 23:05:24 by BuyantUkhaa
US Navy T-39 Sabreliner Missing posted Wed Jan 11 2006 23:16:31 by Yanqui67
ERJ-145 Dropped From ACS- E-190 Considered posted Sat Jul 2 2005 02:35:58 by PPVRA
US Navy E-6A Mercury posted Fri Apr 1 2005 13:32:27 by Socal
US Navy To Sink The USS America posted Fri Mar 4 2005 03:30:32 by Boeing4ever

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format