BAe Nimrod update drawings (Tay engined)

Re: Nimrod update drawings

Interesting, Nimrod meets Kawasaki P-1. B)
I can make out that the new engines were to be RR Tays, but nothing else. Any idea on the date for this project?


cheers,
Robin.
 
Re: Nimrod update drawings

Looks like 1991 on one of the drawings. Auction ended, maybe somone on this forum won and can provide more info.
 
Re: Nimrod update drawings

Wasn't me that grabbed it.
Tays, and the date appears to be 1991. Also has a four-wheel bogie undercarriage a la Vulcan/Shackleton Mk.4.
Bet they wished they'd gone with this version!

Chris
 
Re: Nimrod update drawings

A friend of mine bought them so we have a good chance to see them here.
 
Drawings are titled "Nimrod Update", which is suggestive of what I've previously heard called the MR.2 Mid-Life Update. The avionics that went into the AP-3C were developed for this program, and eventually became the core of the MRA.4 and P-8 mission systems.

I've heard, anecdotally, that most of the work on the MR.2 MLU was discarded when the P-7 was selected as a Nimrod replacement, leaving the RAF scrambling for a solution when the P-7 got cancelled. That goes some way to explaining the MRA.4 acquisition program.
 
Great to see those plans. Submission was made in late 1991 as part of a hi-lo menu; the low bid was for a gentle airframe re-lifing keeping the Speys to tide things over until ASR.420 was fulfilled*.

Even back then they realised that the wing was the critical factor, hence throwing it away and starting from scratch if the high-bid was selected.

Edit: passing reference here, mentioning that RR proposed the Tay should the full rework be selected but not mentioning the revised installation:

www.flightglobal.com/FlightPDFArchive/1991/1991%20-%202558.PDF

Rolls-Royce says that, if the RAF opted for the Nimrod update, it would propose the Tay engine to replace the Spey.
Click to expand...



* yes, you are permitted to laugh knowingly at this naive optimism
 
RLBH said:
Drawings are titled "Nimrod Update", which is suggestive of what I've previously heard called the MR.2 Mid-Life Update. The avionics that went into the AP-3C were developed for this program, and eventually became the core of the MRA.4 and P-8 mission systems.

I've heard, anecdotally, that most of the work on the MR.2 MLU was discarded when the P-7 was selected as a Nimrod replacement, leaving the RAF scrambling for a solution when the P-7 got cancelled. That goes some way to explaining the MRA.4 acquisition program.
Click to expand...

That's not how I remember it. In about 94 the RAF favoured solution was based on an A400M but the RMPA version would have an EIS at least 2005, so MR2 would need a low impact refurb, plus new mission system which would transfer onto A400M. A400M was due to be launched in 95 and they were left without a solution when it's launch was delayed by its Euro partners. So the details of the MR2 refurb grew and grew until it filled the requirements gap. That's how I saw it.

At the time I heard of the 4 underwing Tays version but this is the first time I've seen it. BAESYSTEMS where convinced that leaving the basic architecture unchanged from MR2 was a way to save money...... hind sight showed this to be misguided.
 
I assume you mean FIMA or the FLA rather than the A400M.

These drawings are for what would lead to the Nimrod 2000 and ultimately the MRA.4. The Air Staff wanted the Lockheed P-7, but that was di'ssed by HMG who wanted British at any cost. It was academic anyway as the P-7 was binned in the celebrations accompanying the end of the Cold War.

A four-engined A320MR would have been interesting, a successor to the four-engined Mercures that Woodford worked on.

Is the Kawasaki cheaper than the Boeing? Air Staff has demanded four engines for the last 65 years.

Chris
 
Yes in 94/95 A400M was FLA. My first involvement in the RMPA nonsense was with A321 (Note not A320) in about 93. I never saw a four engined proposal of this A/C. But the A321 proposal was ultimately killed by the RAF insistence for four engine solution...remember twin EROP's was pretty new and many older guys had no confidence in it. It all went away for a year or so only to come back in 94 with a study for FLA rmpa/MR2 refurb. All looked promissing until FLA launch stalled. Then in late 95 I was called into a meeting and shown the first stab at Nimrod 2000. That was the start of 10 years of engagement all of which went in the scrap bin.

When was P7 the favoured solution? I remember the competition with GEC.....Smart Procurement ....what an Oxymoron.
 
The undercarriage looks very interesting... if you look carefully you can just see the words 'Avro Vulcan type'...

BAe raiding the parts bin again...!

Zeb
 
zebedee said:
The undercarriage looks very interesting... if you look carefully you can just see the words 'Avro Vulcan type'...

BAe raiding the parts bin again...!

Zeb
Click to expand...
Blow me, you're right! I couldn't quite make that out the first time.

In fairness, I doubt that actual Vulcan undercarriage units would fit. More likely, it was shorthand indicating that the new units would be of generally similar configuration and workings to the familiar Vulcan undercarriage.
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom