British Future MPA

[Clockwork Mouse]

British Future MPA

As we are a maritime nation, it is inconceivable that we will not reestablish our military airborne maritime patrol capability when the nation’s finances are eventually back out of the red. The Nimrod saga was an object lesson to both politicians and the MoD in how not to procure a complex piece of military equipment and its demise was shocking, but the requirement has not gone away. I am sure that a great deal of useful knowledge and experience has been gained from that sad episode and planning must surely be going on in MoD in preparation for regaining the capability.

Assuming it will eventually happen, a number of questions about the future MPA spring to mind:

a. Should the platform be a domestic or a foreign development?

b. Should the full raft of sensor and performance capabilities that were deemed necessary in Nimrod be included in its replacement?

c. Should it be operated by the RAF or the RN?

I have my views of course, but would be interested first to unleash the massive collective intellect contained within Prune on the subject before daring to offer my own lowly, personal perspective.

[BEagle]

Firstly, are you sure that it's an 'MPA' which is needed?

Surely it would be preferable first to examine which defence capabilities you now consider to be missing - e.g. anti-submarine, long-range surface surveillance, long range SAR, electro-optical reconnaissance, (classified) role etc. Then decide whether these need to be met in a single platform, or in multiple specialist platforms.

No doubt the airship and drone fantasists will attempt to dream up useful applications for their air platforms, but my gut instinct is that airships are a complete and utter waste of time and drones do not yet have anything like the flexibility or load carrying capability of manned aircraft.

Who should operate over the sea? RAF, RN or an enhanced coastguard? Does it really matter, so long as the task needs are met?

[thunderbird7]

Who should operate over the sea? RAF, RN or an enhanced coastguard? Does it really matter, so long as the task needs are met?

Whoever can accomplish the task without allowing 'Inter-Service-4-Star-Whitehall-Back-Stabbing' to get in the way ;)

As I sit gazing out into my Cornish harbour, I notice that we are now patrolled by the UK Border Agency (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UKBA_42m_Customs_Cutter) in their own HM Cutters. Could this be the surface fleet of a future, enhanced HM Coastguard which deals with anything from smuggling French brandy to drugs to illegal immigrants to Search & Rescue?

Then, we could have a dedicated MPA for ASW or ASUW, leave the overland surveillance to Astor, Rivet Joint (http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2011/01/14/351887/raf-personnel-start-rivet-joint-training.html), AWACS and all the other bits & pieces, with dedicated taskings?

Then we might start having some semblance of order in our orbat.

[minigundiplomat]

Oh good, another MPA thread! :ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh:

[Lottery Winner]

FFS! .......... :*

[Duncan D'Sorderlee]

Alternatively, if you don't like what is being discussed - read another thread!

Duncs:ok:

[Duncan D'Sorderlee]

CM,

Before you determine who is going to man (or not!) your MPA - and I am assuming that there is a requirement - you need to get some higher level direction regarding its task/role. Only then can you work out what sensors it needs and who is going to operate it. (but probably RN/CG dependant on the ASW threat and/or requirement to support future RN deployments)

Duncs:ok:

[GrahamO]

it is inconceivable that we will not reestablish our military airborne maritime patrol capability when the nation’s finances are eventually back out of the red

It is very conceivable, au contraire.

If/when the economy returns to moderate health, and after years/decades of not having the capability, it will be a hard sell to pump up the threat to the point that a politician will want to be known the person who started Nimrod 5, and reinstate the capability as you suggest.

This all assumes that the MOD deficit has been resolved as it is still entirely possible for the country to be in good health, and the MOD still managing projects like the way a drunk on a Saturday night manages their drink budget for the week. In such as case, I doubt anyone will pony up any more cash. They have duck houses to buy.

[Clockwork Mouse]

My apologies for opening another MPA thread. I was not aware that the subject has been done to death elsewhere. I have not, until now, read the MRA4 thread as I assumed it was all about the destruction of the Nimrods and did not want to be further depressed.
Consider this thread closed.

[BEagle]

CM, this thread originally looked quite promising until that Chinook doorman ruined it.

Please continue; the children can play somewhere else.

[getsometimein]

The argument is initially flawed... It should be broken down to get a better idea of things.

The questions you need to ask are:

Do we need a Longe Range Fixed Wing Land-Based ASW aircraft?

Do we need a L.R.F.W.L-B.ASUW aircraft?

and

Do we need a L.R.F.W.L-B.SAR aircraft?

I know Nimrod did a whole lot more, but these 3 tasks effectively cover everything you could want from a LRMPA.

First of all, ASW. Ask anyone at Kinloss what asset the MoD needs to hunt submarines, and the answer will be an aircraft. Ask the same question at Faslane, and you'll be told that Sub vs Sub is the best scenario. I'm sure if you asked a Frigates crew, then the answer would be supporting their capability.

The obvious answer is that you need a layered defence, but you could argue the 'Nimrods' job can be done by SOSUS/IUSS (details available on open source), and as such the 'Long Range' element for UK defence is done by these systems.

ASUW, it's another argument against the need for a large aircraft such as the P-8 or Nimrod. A Dash-8 or King Air 350ER could do an excellent job with simple kit (probably still more capable than the MR2 or P-3), and still give around 10-12 hours endurance.

Finally SAR. Do we need a Long Range Search and RESCUE aircraft, or would a Search and LOCATE aircraft fulfill the required role. It is unlikely that this argument would every be finalised with an answer, but in theory the C-130 or A400 could do a good enough job to cover this role. Or if the rescue element is not needed then your ASUW aircraft comes into the fore.

I'd love to see an indiginous maritime patrol aircraft, but thats not going to happen. Does the UK need a single platform that can do all of the roles above? Arguably no, arguably yes. Those roles must be filled and the government hasn't denied that, but they are being done by a half dozen different assets (at least). Would there actually be any benefit from a single platform fulfilling many roles? Or is it better to have simpler platforms filling a single role?

Devels advocate on that one.

[minigundiplomat]

CM, this thread originally looked quite promising until that Chinook doorman ruined it.

Please continue; the children can play somewhere else.


Beagle, Beagle, Beagle. If I didn't know how much sage advice you regularly provide for those left in the military, and looking to escape, I might have almost been offended.

Then, I'd have been forced to point out that actually, the thread was heading for the flushpoint, until some autopilot commando from a second rate airline [unless it's BA - in which case it's third rate] came along and resurrected it for reasons unknown.

I may have reminded you that as a child, this is my playground, and you have actually moved onto big school.

However, fortunately I took your low blows in the spirit in which they were intended, and chose to remember the positives you bring.

Play nicely, or I'll shoot your samsonite.

[Rigga]

But do these proposals need to be service delivered?

More precisely - Why can't some (or all) of those functions be delivered by civilian organisations?

I suggest that there are many civilian organisations that could deliver all these services for much less cost and with more mission reliability.

...and sits back to await the incomming...

[Roland Pulfrew]

More precisely - Why can't some (or all) of those functions be delivered by civilian organisations?

I suggest that there are many civilian organisations that could deliver all these services for much less cost and with more mission reliability.

As you suggested it, go on then. Name some? Which civilian organisations that can do LR ASW? And LR ASuW? These are military roles with a military end result - sinking boats. Which UK civilian organisations can do LR SAR (remembering that "our" SAR region goes to 30W)? :confused:

[GrahamO]

No, a civilian organisation could not provide a service, and I speak as someone who has won similar deals in the past. Notwithstanding all the military action potentially, the key issue is the design and delivery of a platform to perform a function. MOD could not resist tinkering and giving the Contractor a get-out.

Given a fixed function, and corresponding design to a specification it would in theory be possible - Northern Line train for example is a classic "design to timetable within certain design performance limits" contract and it would be theoretically possible to have an availability based platform design, for crewing by service personnel. The key thing would be to have an agreed specification for performance parameters, leave it alone and never change it, and have it delivered 'inclusive of MAR' - all of which are 'slightly tricky' for MOD to stick to.

For those unaware of the NL trains example and how it is a good contract example, the criteria which made that procurement a good case are;

Payments only start on the day the trains become available, and finish at the end of the N years from contract award i.e. late delivery means certain payments are never received and are not delayed.

No number of trains are specified - just a timetable for them to run to over the contract life. It is therefore up to the Contractor to either provide a smaller number of high reliability trains, or a larger number of lower reliability trains. If trains fail during the life of the contract, the Contractor has to replace them free of charge if the timetable is to be affected.

The weight of the train, its power consumption, it shape and height and set to allow it to work within the design environment. This stops the Contractor from making their system cheap and passing cost (such as larger electricity bills) back to the Client.

All maintenance is carried out at a fixed price set at Contract award, by the Contractor so skimping on maintenance just costs the Contractor in the long term. Above all, the cardinal points of the Contract were set at Contract award (12 months of clarification it took) and literally nobody changed anything until the trains were in service.

They were delivered to time and cost was irrelevant as the Client pays no more. This is how contract should be set up.

The NL trains is costing TfL exactly what was planned and budgeted and while in general I would not hold them up at TfL as a good case of many things, MOD could learn a thing or two from that experience. Sadly delays on NL are never down to train issues, but down to the rest of the cr*p infrastructure.

[Rigga]

There are a great many aircraft capable of delivering the range - the difference with nimrod was endurance/dwell time.

Who knows, by the time this could be sorted the EU boundaries may be in use and the need to go to W30 may no longer be 'required' for the UK - perhaps that could be France's interest?

Equiping aircraft with the role equipment is key to the job. There are a plethora of aircraft already designed and approved for a wide variety of roles in civil and military guises. All could be operated by a civlian organisation.

The need for multi-roled aircraft is another consideration. It may not be cost effective to put all roles into one frame especially if some roles are not regularly used. This would possibly avoid the gold-plating approach and allow specialist stuff to be held back (or the percieved need scrapped).

What I'm trying to say is that there are many ways of skinning this particular cat. You may or may not be aware of some of the alternatives, but they don't all need to be nimrod or military operated.

[NURSE]

I would sugest you missed a couple of other options

1.New Builds
2.Refurbished/refitted
3.2nd Hand

[The Old Fat One]

R U kidding me!!

MGD, I am in your gang.

Seriously, Pprune needs another MPA thread like a moose needs a hatrack.

[Charlie Luncher]

What about get an aircraft that does not really do anything well and advertise it as Multi Mission capable.:8
Bugger Boeing has stolen my idea:E:(.
Maybe if a long range OISTAR/MISTAR platfrom had been employed recently some booties would not need new underwear and three Dutch flyers would be somewhere safe.
No military asset works in isolation in convential wartime, they are all part of a layered offence/defence:8.
Charlie sends

[engineer(retard)]

GrahamO

Did the train contract have any contingency such as having to go to Edinburgh or carrying elephants. Fixed service provision only works if you have a certain mission that will not vary.

regards

retard

[keesje]

a 2-3 engined platform having an airtime of max 18 hours,
get refuelled, refuel buddies / others including helicopters,
suitable to transport 4-5t of pallets and or up to 20 people.
Multiuser stations for 4-6 operators with ability to have a decent sleep in those seats. Usual galley/lavatory.
A lot of communication space incorporated on top of the aircraft for multiple high bandwidth satellite connections with ground teams, internet etc.
A big belly able to launch / drop all kinds of stuff (e.g SAR, UAV).
A big radar able to map / monitor large areas.
Moderate stealth (you can't see it from 200nm's)
Low noise propulsion for "unrestricted" operations from populated areas.

[Duncan D'Sorderlee]

Not sure why an MPA also needs to be AT/AAR.

Duncs:ok:

[NutLoose]

Take it this is about all we have now.

http://i536.photobucket.com/albums/ff321/taylortony/r5.jpg

[keesje]

Not sure why an MPA also needs to be AT/AAR.

e.g. expand range for SAR operations, move fuel between MPA, support e.g. strike aircraft.

It's a big machine with big fuel tanks. The days of a tanker is a tanker, a transport a transport and a MPA a MPA are probably gone.

http://www.verticalmag.com/control/news/articlefiles/6954-2.jpg

If the dutch MPA's would have had the above capabilities, being smalller /cheaper, having operational flexibility instead of stubborn sticking to cold war ASW, the squadron probably would have still existed.

[TBM-Legend]

Italian Navy moving to ATR platform for coastal and Med ASW/patrol work as is Turkey.

[NURSE]

well if plans for RAF come to fruition there will be a load of C130J airframes surplus to requirement when A400M comes in could they be converted?
Or Some Surplus P3 Orions?

[thunderbird7]

You mean like these? (http://www.airliners.net/photo/USA---Navy/Lockheed-P-3...-Orion/0691998/L/)

[Duncan D'Sorderlee]

keesje,

Showing a picture of a C130 tanking a Merlin still doesn't explain to me why an MPA should be AT/AAR.

As for using the ISTAR asset to refuel to attack package, I think that you may have forgotten what ASuW (or tanking for that matter) involves.

Duncs:ok:

[keesje]

Duncan,

I think the past 10 years showed that sticking to old assumptions, mission profiles and capabilities, as the RAF and MLD did for their fixed wing aircraft, proved the wrong idea. We should learn from our mistakes.

I think the RAF has to open up, start with a blank sheet of paper and draw up & check the requirements for the next 40 years. And they probably don't look like the past 40 years.

Flexibility is the answer in a global environment that proves unstable, ask our ally, Tu-16 pilot Mubarak who had it all sorted out.

[Duncan D'Sorderlee]

keesje,

I agree: flexibility is the key to airpower. I'm just not convinced that a 'jack of all trades; master of none' aircraft is the answer.

Duncs:ok:

[Madbob]

All this speculation about what we ough to have as a dedicated MPA platform is pointless. Given the way the whole RAF is being sliced up there won't be anything left in 10 years' time.:yuk::yuk:

All the best lessons of history are being lost and we'll never be able to afford to get back even a fraction of the capabilities we once had. Crass decision-making by our lords and masters have left this country woefully exposed at a time of increasing international instability, in places which we ignore at our peril.

Bases we once had will never re-open and the rhetoric of "cutting the tail, to sharpen the teeth" has been pretty hollow for years. :ugh:

I dispair.......


MB

[Biggus]

NURSE,

I seem to remember one of the original bids for the MR2 replacement was based on the re-use of "surplus" P-3 Orions. That bid didn't win, so presumably it wasn't the cheapest.

If you take a "surplus" P-3 then you are probably going to have to re-engine it, gut the interior, put in new avionics, etc. Didn't we try to re-use an old airframe for the maritime role recently? How did that work out again?




Thunderbird 7,

You need to be careful posting a link like that. Before you know it some armchair pprune CAS/CDS/procurer will be talking about getting some "cheap", "surplus" F-4 airframes, shoving some "cheap" modern avionics in them and using them to replace Tornado/Typhoon/F-35/etc as a money saving measure. Thankfully that will be on a different thread to this one though!



Edited to add:

NURSE,

I forgot to reply to your comment regarding the use of "spare" C-130J frames once A400M arrives. If you read the comments made by the AT guys regarding the C-130J you will see that it is eating up fatigue at a rapid rate of knots on Ops (wind centre boxes are I believe the area suffering most) and they will generally be as knackered as a knackered thing when the A400M eventually arrives (later than the planning date currently being used no doubt!).

[keesje]

I think the time of the flying battle ships Orions, Atlantics Nimrods is gone.

Lean & mean is the future.

I remember looking at the internal navigation package of P3C, with all the gyro's etc. In the cockpit there was also a little handheld GPS device. Comparing the costs was useless, guess which one was by far more accurate and reliable (everything was still connected to the big one though) . Same for the big central processing units.

Future processing and interpretation will be automated further and done by specialists in well equipped ground stations (or at home, or wherever they are...), looking over the shoulder of the crew & giving / discussing their inputs). Merging it with all other info from many other sources.

[Duncan D'Sorderlee]

"I think the time of the flying battle ships Orions, Atlantics Nimrods is gone."

I think not.

Boeing: P-8A Poseidon Home (http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/military/p8a/index.html)

Duncs:ok:

[tyne]

Don't know what to make of this. Possibly a bit of out of the box thinking might get an MPA for the future.

RN MPA. A New Dawn In Defence Procurement? | Dan Entwisle's Blog (http://www.danentwisle.com/blog/?p=13)

[KonfusedofKinloss]

What we really needed was the Export Version


http://i231.photobucket.com/albums/ee156/jimrodger_photos/NIMROD1.jpg?t=1299689140

[Clockwork Mouse]

“The Royal Navy is looking to buy a fleet of maritime patrol aircraft for up to £1 billion just weeks after the MoD scrapped the new Nimrod aircraft at a cost of £3.6 billion”.

Well, that is an interesting and novel idea! The Navy taking over the task of patrolling the oceans from the air! Dare I suggest that there is more than a smidgen of logic and practical common sense in the proposal? For that reason alone it is probably doomed and we can look forward to the next suggestion that the RAF should take over operation of the aircraft carriers.

Bets on the P8 anyone?

[GrahamO]

Bets on the P8 anyone?

Not from me as they won't get a penny for it/them from the government, and if they manage to save money elsewhere, the savings will not be given back, but will be 'saved'.

This from the organisation that has the two largest money pits in defence procurement ?

[thunderbird7]

What we really needed was the Export Version



That's the funniest thing I've seen in years :D:D:D:D

[keesje]

I'm just not convinced that a 'jack of all trades; master of none' aircraft is the answer.

Like the A330 MRTT, A400M, F22 and F16?

[Clockwork Mouse]

Time to stick my neck out again!

A poster has argued, or rather stated, that the tasks associated with an airborne maritime patrol capability could be achieved better and more economically by a civilian organisation. I suggest that does not stand up to scrutiny.

I confess that my knowledge of MPA is limited to what any professional military officer in the days of jointery would be expected to have. That said, my reading of the core maritime patrol capabilities, as a minimum insurance cover, that we, as an island trading nation with overseas dependant territories and a submarine based nuclear deterrent, need to possess are as follows.

Military capabilities. Long range maritime patrol; surveillance, detection and attack of surface and sub-surface threats. Interoperability with and protection of friendly air, surface and sub-surface assets far from land, including coordinating long range search and rescue tasks.

These tasks could only be planned and carried out by the military. While the RN is a more logical military owner of the these capabilities than the RAF, as someone wisely said in an earlier post, in the end the owner is not so important provided the required result is delivered. A civilian organisation, however, could not deliver the required result.

Non-military tasks. Littoral commerce surveillance and policing. Coordination of and assistance with Short Range search and rescue tasks.

Logically these tasks would be carried out by civilian Coastguard/Border Agency aircraft. The military could meet these tasks but it would not be economical for them to do so.

This seems self-evident to me, if not to the government and probably a few Pruners.

The really difficult horse-trading hinges on defining realistically the scale, sophistication and ultimately affordability, if at all, of the military hardware, role equipment and associated support, while avoiding being over ambitious.

[The Old Fat One]

CM,

You have a good grasp of the requirements - perhaps a little better than the present incumbent of 10 Downing St and those that would advise him.

My knowledge of MPA is limited to 27 years operational service, 6 frontline sqn tours, 5000 flying hours and an annual assessment in my log books (two) that reads "above the average" more times than not.

What is not being appreciated in these endless MPA threads, is that the vehicle is the smaller part of the picture.

You are totally correct in both your statements, that the RN is a more logical keeper of the capability, but it does not really matter if the RAF has it, and that no civilian organistion could mount this overall task. However, not only are the aircraft being dismantled and scrapped, much, much more importantly, so are the people who currently hold the chalice bearing 70 plus years of history, experience and training.

Because of that, the UK fixed wing long range maritime patrol capability is finished, kaput, extinct, gone to meet its maker and shuffled off its mortal coil.

And it ain't never coming back.

And if you wish to know why those that served before the "Galley Master" get so bent out of shape by some of the stuff on Pprune which appears on all these MPA/Nimrod threads, it is because not all the non-maritime posters have your educated view and they have no compulsion in posting the most utter geeky rubbish about the aircraft and service many of us proudly were part of for much of our lives.

[Clockwork Mouse]

TOFO

Thank you for your enlightening contribution to a thread which I know you did not like me starting. Your hurt shines out of your post and I sympathise with you and your mates. To see what amounts to your life’s work suddenly trashed unnecessarily and in such a cruel way is gutting.

While we are in danger of losing forever the accumulated wisdom and experience built up by the RAF MPA fleet, perhaps a brief window of opportunity still remains. If the RN is serious about picking up the chalice, and the indications are positive, then they would be foolish not to tap into that RAF expertise before it evaporates and save what they can. There ain’t much time and God knows how they can do it, but I hope they will try.

Despite your understandable pessimism about the future of the capability, I cannot believe we will never regain it. For our national security we cannot afford not to.

[Wrathmonk]

God knows how they can do it

Making it carrier capable would probably help (genuine comment, not meant to be facetious).

... shame they can't convert the GR9 to MPA. Harrier/Carrier/MPA solved in an instant and it would halve the number of threads / posts on PPRuNe in a stroke!:E;)

[Duncan D'Sorderlee]

TOFO,

The expertise is still here - albeit possibly only till Mar 12 (tranche 1 rendundancy exits)!

keesje,

I'm not sure what you mean with your last post regarding A330, A400M, F22 and F16.

Wrathmonk,

Carrier capable may work for some of the roles - and support deployability; however, for the present at least, in order to carry out passive ASW properly you need to be able to carry a lot of sonobouys (or have a lot of aircraft carrying out regular handover procedures) which increases the size and weight of your platform.

Duncs:ok:

[Wrathmonk]

Duncan

You are, of course, quite right on the roles and the immediate needs.

However, in the same way that any capability involved in 'the war in Afg' has been "immune" from the SDSR (at least from the Army perspective) once QEII is floating on the water (and with F35 perhaps late) there will be a clamour to put something (anything) on it to fend off the 'white elephant' tag (and perhaps save it (or the PoW) from the 'Sales and Wants' ad when the second carrier is launched). And actual capability requirement will play little in the decision process when it comes to saving face (or gaining the political high ground seeing as if DC/NC continue as they are going we could have Ed in No 10 by the time the QE II launches ....).

[Biggus]

Wrathmonk,

Milliband or Balls...? :hmm:

[Pontius Navigator]

Non-military tasks. Littoral commerce surveillance and policing. Coordination of and assistance with Short Range search and rescue tasks.

Logically these tasks would be carried out by civilian Coastguard/Border Agency aircraft. The military could meet these tasks but it would not be economical for them to do so.

The last statement is not necessarily correct. It depends on the level of tasking and the exactness of procurement of assets to tasks. Suppose the Coastguard tasking did not require all its assets to be used all the time and similarly the military requirement was less than continuous then you would have spare capacity on both. Equally if a surge was required either might find itself short of assets.

A single force capable of both roles is potentially more economical.

[Clockwork Mouse]

PN

The Coastguard/UKBA funding is outside the Defence budget, so no point in the RN/RAF volunteering for the guardroom! Of course any available resources would be offered by either side in a crisis.

[keesje]

keesje,

I'm not sure what you mean with your last post regarding A330, A400M, F22 and F16.

Duncan those are dominant "jack of all trades". The MRTT is a tanker transport, the A400M a tactical-strategic transport-tanker, the F22 a stealthy strike-air superiority platform and the F16 the classic fighter-bomber.

Contrary to the Typhoon fighter (that has yet to become a good attack aircraft, if ever), the Nimrod ~dedicated ASW, VC10 ~ a dedicated tanker and Tornado IDS a strike, ADV a ADV aircraft.

The USAF made the switch to with the KC-X. The previous 700 KC135s primairy task was waiting for a large scale tanker supported operation. The KC46's will make many more hours doing people, pallets and containers, at less then half the cost a C-17 can.

IMO the best way to prevent a new MPA for the UK happening is to basicly copy 1983 requirements and say a domestic product must be developed to fulfill the UK's unique requirements and its historic role on the Ocean.. Killing.

[davejb]

I was SO determined not to post on this thread,
but I've been reading it and there's the same level of rubbish here as on all the other Nimrod threads.

1 - (To paraphrase) 'we'll have carriers, so we might as well have an MPA asset onboard' is quite the worst reason I have yet seen for having an MPA sometime in the future. You determine the requirement, then decide how to fulfill it, anything else is complete nonsense.

2 - Civvy inshore capability and a military long range one: Nothing in human history has ever been improved by having two organisations for one role, outside of dodgy videos. Inshore/LRMPA overlap - who will protect SSBN inshore? CG? Where does the miltary LRMPA take over? Why complicate the matter? Make it all military, then you don't have a civvy crew inshore with no ammo when the BN deploys and you find a hostile SS/SSN waiting.... by all means have subdivisions for inshore/LRMPA, but one organistaion to control both and interoperability to maximise platforms where possible.

3 - F16 etc 'jack of all trades' - last I saw the F16 was an A-A, A-G fighter, whilst the proposition for the MPA was tanker, transport, MPA, limo service and "helo lift as soon as we can bolt the extra rotors on".... Nimrod was not dedicated ASW Keesje, the MRA4 was a damn sight more 'jack of all trades' than any of the aircraft you mention - by a very long way. You list several aircraft that can do tanker and transport, as if that's somthign wonderful, while the Nimrod did ASW, ASUW, SAR, Coastguard, Customs, ISTAR... I would suggest the Nimrod was going to be a damn sight more 'multi role' than anything you've mentioned.

Sorry CM, but if I had a gun I'd shoot this post in the head, it's full of the same bollocks as all the other Nim threads, from the same bunch of suspects! (including me).

Give it to the navy - as soon as ANYONE starts trying to 'do' ASW etc they'll discover the crews were the important part of the capability, not the platform.

Dave

[Neptunus Rex]

Apart from UK, Australia, New Zealand, Canada and Norway, just about everybody else with LRMP has it as a Navy job.

Apart from career progression for pilots, there are good arguments to be made both ways.

[minigundiplomat]

Does anyone actually care who is best to do a job that doesn't exist?

With the axe that's sweeping through every aspect of military existence at the moment, the sooner we all stop inter-service rivalry and start thinking like civilians and employers, the better.

[Clockwork Mouse]

Davejb

I presume from the anger apparent in your post that you are another Nimrod orphan. In that case what has happened to you is rotten and you have my sympathy. Since your resolve cracked and you did post, please let me make a couple of points.

Of course there is a lot of rubbish on this thread, indeed on ALL threads. That is because of the wide range of interest, knowledge, ignorance, experience, ego, prejudice and aggression spread throughout the posting fraternity and it goes with the territory. That is also why forums (fora?) like Prune are so interesting and thought provoking. It is not a valid reason for shooting a thread in the head, in fact quite the contrary. If what is being posted upsets you, don’t read it, but don't advocate silencing it. If one keeps an open mind and looks closely, there are usually a lot of valuable nuggets to be found hiding among the rubbish.

It also helps if posters read and understand what other posters have written before letting go with both barrels. For example, your para 2 suggests that I advocate a civvie inshore capability and a military long range one. I apologise for not making myself clear. I advocate the military carrying out military tasks, such as protection of military assets like submarines, wherever they may be, much of which will be long-range, and the civvies carrying out non-military tasks, such as customs work, surveillance and policing of merchant vessels around our coasts, which is by definition short-range. You suggest having one organisation responsible for doing both. That implies having a mega-expensive military asset like a LRMPA tasked with checking merchant vessels in the channel to see if they are illegally cleaning their tanks, and makes no financial, management or any other sort of sense. The Defence Budget is for defence, not for customs and border control duties.

Finally, this is NOT another "Nim thread". Nimrod is dead and gone, though not forgotten, God rest its soul. This is a thread about a future UK MPA capability, if it can be resurrected in some useful form. Despite your own hurt and pessimism, I’m sure that you would support that aspiration.

[Wrathmonk]

davejb

You determine the requirement, then decide how to fulfill it, anything else is complete nonsense

You have clearly never had the misfortune to work in certain corridors of MB. Whether we like it or not a lot (if not all) of our procurement decisions have a huge political input (far bigger than the requirement input) and once the spotlight is off Afg, and we are all scrabbling around for an even smaller pot of cash, there will be certain phrases required in 'the design spec' to ensure a project gets through the PR process. One of those will be 'carrier capable'.

Madness it may be (and not being kipper fleet I do not know for sure all the roles that were carried out by the MR2 and not spoken about) but I have had the misfortune to work in MB and see first hand political input over rule requirement and common sense.

This thread is about British future MPA. IMHO it will be carrier capable. Whether it is flown by the FAA, the RAF or a mix of both who knows. Yes, it will probably be less capable but the government of the day will be able to say they have restored the role of MPA and justified the decision not to axe the carriers in the SDSR .... and the really sad thing is Joe Public will buy the spin hook, line and sinker .... and the military will just get on and make do.

[Pontius Navigator]

PN

The Coastguard/UKBA funding is outside the Defence budget, so no point in the RN/RAF volunteering for the guardroom! Of course any available resources would be offered by either side in a crisis.

CM, while that is of course true, there is precedent for cost sharing between ministries. While it is not incorrect to talk of civil and military tasks it should be borne in mind that a CG and Mil MPA are both State aircraft.

A precedent was set in the 70s when the MAFF and DOE each funded a quantity of Nimrod hours under operation tapestry. IIRC their funding split was 70-30 and this funded 3 Nimrod.

As the Nimrod remained under Military control MAFF and DOE were not entirely happy and indeed the costs to them were higher than a cheaper civilian aircraft, so that confirms your counter argument.

Mine remains however the State was able to enjoy a larger MPA inventory by about 10% which was a useful reserve. Where two organisations with different aircraft, training and capabilties exist then the sum of the parts will add up to less than the whole. As a nation we really can't afford a properly funded maritime force and a coastguard - one or the other but not both.

[Duncan D'Sorderlee]

MGD,

"Does anyone actually care who is best to do a job that doesn't exist?"

Looking at all the recent Nimrod/MPA threads, apparently the answer is - YES.

Moreover, the job does exist; it is simply that we, in the UK, cannot do it!

Duncs:ok:

[A4scooter]

To highlight how short sighted the governments decision to remove the UK's maritime patrol capability is look at whats happening in the the Pacific with the latest tsunami.
Apart from the military issues look at the humanitarian responsibilities the UK has and how useful a long range aircraft with radar and sensors would be in the event of a major disaster such as what is happening in the Pacific area.
The Nimrod was not just a fighting aircraft it was a aircraft which could undertake many roles many of which were to save lives and even those opposed to the military must see that that having LRMP even with limited capabilities is an asset in the event of a natural disaster.
The types of military threats to our nation maybe changing but the threat from "mother nature" is always there.

[andyy]

By DaveJb:

"Give it to the navy - as soon as ANYONE starts trying to 'do' ASW etc they'll discover the crews were the important part of the capability, not the platform".

I assume that by this Dave, you consider that the Navy can't do the job? Hmmm, no one doubts the professional competence of the Nimrod crews but I think you'll find the RN has always done a fair amount of ASW (& ASuW etc). Some of it from the air & some from the surface & sub surface. As far as I am aware the science (art?) of ASW (and ASuW) does not change just because you happen to be flying. The RN has Sonar, radar, EW, Comms specialists; some of whom have airborne experience. They are even pretty good at the picture compilation & integration & "running the battle".

If ever the UK gets another LRMP aircraft I wouldn't recommend that the capability was either RN or RAF particularly but a Joint Force Maritime capability would seem to be the way forward, with each service providing the specialists from the pool of experts in its core competency areas.
If the RAF continue to have and train ASW personnel then that's great but I expect that the decison to bin Nimrod will mean that the RAFs ASW & ASuW pipeline will (has?) closed down. In contrast the RN will always be training ASW & ASuW personnel, because that's what it does, and some of those people will be able to do the job at 400 knots.

[Duncan D'Sorderlee]

Andy,

I think that Dave said - 'give it to the Navy'; not 'Don't give it to the Navy'.

His point, as I read it, was that which platform is used is (almost) irrelevant; you need to have competent crews. The longer it takes to re-introduce the capability, the more deeply the skill fade will have set in and the less competent the crews will be. Appologies to Dave if I have misinterpreted his words.

Duncs:ok:

[XV277]

(and perhaps save it (or the PoW) from the 'Sales and Wants' ad when the second carrier is launched).

Off topic, but I suspect there might be a cunning plan to sell QEII (suitably modified) to the French as a replacement for Charles de Gaul

On topic, was I the only one who heard Dr Fox say on radio (It may have been Radio Scotland, so it might not have sunk below the border) that there was a case for a LRMRP, but Nimrod wasn't that platform, and they may look again when the economy improved? Would have been the 24th Jaunary (Because I know where I was when I heard it!)

[Jig Peter]

I got a bit of a surprise when I looked recently (at least 5 minutes ago ...) at the Airbusmilitary.com web site, with their range of Maritime Patrol Aircraft, from refurbished P3s to an A319 version via the smaller (ex) CASA twin turboprops already in service.
Before the usual suspects start getting their anti-Airbus barbs out of their cases, they might do well at least to have a look-see. But perhaps they already have - it's not a site I often visit in any case.
Verb sap; as "one" says ...

:E:E:E

PS. Isn't there an idea that one of the new aircraft carriers at least could serve as a joint Anglo-French "second 11" when Charles the Gaul is having barnacles scraped off its undersides ?

[Duncan D'Sorderlee]

JP,

Any of those would be better than what we currently have on inventory!

Duncs:ok:

Has the A319 MPA flown yet?

[Jig Peter]

A319 MPA flown yet ? The web site doesn't mention that - perhaps it's "flying a kite" in the search for customers ... Looks interesting to an outsider though ...
Surprising the number of P3 upgrades they've done, too.
Perhaps Aigy or TEEJ has something more solid ???
JP

[davejb]

Duncan,
cheers, I DID think 'give it to the Navy' might have suggested I didn't see it as necessarily an RAF task.... your understanding was spot on :D

Single organisation does not imply single platform - inshore 'coastguard' style aircraft plus long range MPA, but all working for one organisation was my point.

No I'm not a Nimrod orphan - I'm ex Nimrod but in civvy employment now, my 'anger' isn't anger...it's irritation at the low signal to noise ratio of these threads.

Dave

[Charlie Luncher]

Dave
Maybe as you get older you may need a new PAU!! If you want to really mess it up give it to the Navy:eek::8.
Keesje you may need to lay off the herby pancakes, I can just imagine trying to refuel my attack package whilst dropping supplies to the ground troops and targeting the bad dudes, hollywood is not real life:ugh:
Proudly ex-nimrod but damn angry on how ISK has been treated.
Charlie sends

[Rigga]

Gents,
After some stirring it's nice to see the conversation livening up and that people are finally looking outside their trenches at the opportunities being developed by agencies other than those that 'tradition' has previously allowed.

[Clockwork Mouse]

Dave,
What is your argument for the military taking on responsibility for funding and executing inshore civilian coastguard/policing tasks?

Rigga,
Are you advocating civilianising LRMP for budgetary reasons as your earlier post seemed to imply?

[Rigga]

CM,
Only suggesting the possibility - not proposing a contract.

My "agenda" (if I had one) was to broaden the narrows of some people's vision and make some look for other solutions that even this poorly informed rigga knows are out there - definately cheaper and potentially better than that you had.

I'm quite sure that if you placed each of the nimrods roles into several airframes tuned to that particular need, it would still be cheaper than using an all-in-one nimrod. Easier to maintain and increasing reliability.

The ruse of having it all in one frame "in case its needed" is a bit of a red herring to me. No different to not having enough airframes to cover the patch adequately, or not having the right capability in the right place. Always a debate without solution.

[Clockwork Mouse]

Rigga,
Thank you. Very interesting and controversial.
What is your military background if you don't mind me asking?

[baffy boy]

From the Airbus military website

True Military Mission Aircraft

'The A319 MPA is fully equipped for anti-submarine and anti-surface warfare including offensive and strike capabilities. The aircraft can carry a variety of weapons internally and on wing-pylons.

The internal bomb bay has the capacity for eight weapon stations which allow the launching of torpedoes, depth charges, mines and other ASW weaponry.

Four under-wing stations which provide A319 MPA with the capability of launching missile attacks on naval or land targets.

The aircraft is equipped with a complete self-protection suite including radar, missile or laser warning systems fully integrated with a decoy dispenser and, optionally, a directed infrared countermeasures (DIRCM) system providing protection against IR-guided missiles.'

That's what a 'MRA' is for. It does the long range SAR and all the other stuff because it just happens to be really useful in those roles. This is why it's not a civvy job though, ultimately it's a weapon system and there hasn't been too much mention of that in previous discussion.

Maybe the 319 is the way to go. Let's get rid of single service ownership at the the same time. A dual service squadron (surely we wouldn't get more than one). We had 360. Joint Force Harrier and others, why not a joint MPA outfit? It would be ridiculous for the RN to raise a MPA force from scratch without using the considerable RAF experience still in circulation and it has always been a bit odd that we haven't had more RN operators integrated into the RAF MPA force (you know, people who really understand what ships and subs are about).

Go on RN. Go for it. Half a dozen to start with? Bury the crab rivalry, use some of that expertise and get us going again before it's too late. We're hanging on to the R1 by the skin of our teeth, a few weeks later and we wouldn't have been able to do that. The longer we stay out of the LRMPA business the longer it will take us to get back into it and get back into we will. Those who think we can do its multiple roles with a range of different aircraft flown by civvies don't appreciate that it's really a weapon platform at heart! Beware beware..........ah those were the days.

[Clockwork Mouse]

Rigga,
Got it! Thanks.

[Pontius Navigator]

Single role would certainly be less expensive airframe for airframe but then risk having numbers of the wrong airframe that were unuseable is a given scenario - Jaguars inb AFG might be a case in point.

A multi-role aircraft could mean lugging around unnecessary equipment for a particular role - sonics on SAR or ASR on ASW etc.

Several single role types requires more bases - Cottesmore - Wittering-Coltishall - which increases the aircraft operating costs etc,

A large multi-role base - Marham-Kinloss - may be less expensive but the more complex systes require more maintenance - Nimrod had its cameras removed to save servicing costs and aircrew need more training to reach the same multi-role capability as single-role types.

For the latter reason the original Typhoon concept was for two single-role types and one swing role.

It really is a slide rule issue and not a fag packet one.

[andyy]

DaveJb, sorry for my misinterpretation. I'm with baffy boy.

[getsometimein]

It is pointless having multiple airframes for multiple roles...

ASW requires a vast array of sensors, a large bomb bay, and storage for (ideally) 300 buoys.

Given the size required for this, it would be stupid not to have it capable of doing other roles......

Remember, flexibility is the key to air power....

[NURSE]

seam to remember the other half of the "Jack of all trades" saying is "master of none"

[Clockwork Mouse]

Getsome
I am convinced.

Nurse
If you had to go into the jungle, would you choose to take a razor blade or a swiss army knife?

[Pontius Navigator]

Looks like we may have agreement - multi-role capability wins.

How about modular multi-role? ASuW plumbing provided but missiles, kit, training held in abeyance? Like Shrike on Vulcan or SW on Nimrod?

The advantage could be a slightly smaller airframe. The disadvantage would be the time to re-role or re-train.

[Clockwork Mouse]

Apologies, but which is ASW and ASuW? I AM a pongo!

[Pontius Navigator]

Anti-Submarine Warfare = ASW
Anti-Surface Warfare = ASuW
Anti-Air Warfare = AAW

Those are all the aunties I can think of.

[getsometimein]

We're all living in the past!

Its:

UWW - Under Water Warfare
AWW - Above Water Warfare
AAW - Anti Air Warfare

Just to be pedantic.

As for the fit-for-role option... I cant see it working...

Looking at the size of kit, AQS-971 for example, it would take days if not weeks to re-role a jet for another task. There are so many boxes/cables/screens etc etc to plug in for each bit of kit. Indeed I know of wetties that would argue that the acoustics fit could help in AWW scenarios by proving extra SA using the screen symbology.

Looking at the MR2 as a prime example, and had it been in service today it would still arguably be the best MPA in the world. It's difficult to argue against having such an airframe with a basic fit of radar/acoustics/comms/esm and having role fit kit of EOS/DASS/Spec Comms. It's a system that wasn't pretty due to the aircrafts vintage, but worked remarkably well.

[davejb]

Andyy,
no problem.

CM
The rationale for having inshore and long range under one military head is that then you can task the asset best suited to the job...

Example - your long range MPA tracks the baddie sub into the Atlantic, baddie sub proceeds inshore to loiter where he isn't wanted. Military CG style aircraft could be used to drive him away, or if things escalate to kill him - no need for expensive large MPA for ops in coastal areas. Can't do that if your CG aircraft is civvy.

By making it all military (whatever the service chosen) you have people who can do everything from police/customs to killing anywhere beyond the high tide mark, if you have a civvy CG then that's not so. By having one organisation you then have freedom to deploy the right asset where you want, that organisation can then have expensive MPA and the cheaper CG aircraft that would otherwise be split between a civvy CG and a military MPA outfit.

As I said before, I can see no advantage in splitting the task between different organisations, especially where one of them won't be able to kill the target.

Joint RN/RAF makes a lot of sense, as far as making use of the guys is concerned, although I'd do it by encouraging exchange tours - I had RN crew mates over the years, but not many, I think it should have been more evident to help pass ideas between the two - although there was a fair amount of chat between RN and RAF MPA over the years, the two did not go about their job in isolation from each other.

Dave

[Clockwork Mouse]

Davejb

Thank you for your continuing input.

If I understand you correctly, you favour:

All military MPA and no civil coverage.

A multi (two?) platform solution with separate coverage of large long range and smaller coastal but all with ASW and ASuW capabilities.

The military taking on all civil coastguard, UKBA, commerce surveillance and policing airborne tasks in coastal waters with the smaller platform.

Joint ownership of the capability between RN and RAF.

Is that correct?

[keesje]

As an outstander I'm wondering about this interservice rivelary and basicly still sticking to old world references and requirements as the benchmark.

Look where it has brought you/us.

I think the chances of some future European MPA operation are bigger then doing a facelift of how it used to be. The policies of the EC countries on international interests and issues are converging IMO.

A bigger platform and a smaller platform seem no brainers. E.g. A force spread out over 3 bases, 1 in Northern UK, Portugal and south of Italy seem logical. Funding and crews from all participating Nato / EC countries, standardarized platforms and procedures. Maybe it could be combined with e.g. AWACS, tanker, transport and SAR forces.

Overlapping capabilities would allow for major efficiency and effectiveness steps.

FYI the EADS offerings:
A-319 (http://www.airbusmilitary.com/Surveillance/A319.aspx)

Imagine the UK had 10 yrs ago ordered 10 A319MPAs and 10 CN235s, no overspecification, of the shelve, instead of rebuilding the Nimrods. They would have been flying and paid for by the billions spend sofar on the MR4.

(to be clear I sympathise with the people around here that put a lot of life and energy in the Nimrod operations and now find themselves / families in uncertainty)

[Duncan D'Sorderlee]

keesje,

I agree that the CN235 would have been in-service providing a level MPA activity. I'm still not sure about the A319; I did ask in an earlier post if it had actually flown as an MPA. Furthermore, I'm not too sure that you could say that it is off-the-shelf! However, if it does what it says on the tin, I'll have one!

Duncs:ok:

[Pontius Navigator]

1 in Northern UK, Portugal and south of Italy

Logical maybe. Politically acceptable - certainly not.

The French have a larger Atlantic frontage than the Portuguese. They would also expect to have a Mediterranean presence too.

The Alboran Sea is particularly sensitive and I cannot see the Spanish accepting Portuguese based MPA operating in their own back yard.

The east Med also requires some attention especially with Indian Ocean states operating out of area.

Then remember the Russian merchant vessel that went missing.

[Siggie]

Getsometimein,

apparently it's gone full circle from ASW to USW (undersea warfare) and back to ASW again.

In times of financial constraint, I'm glad we got the small stuff sorted out, after all it didn't cost much to change all the docs to reflect our overseas 'special relations' changes in acronyms/abbreviations/initialisations.

(Pedants, please feel free to STFU about which of the aforementioned is correct.)

[Charlie Luncher]

Siggie
Don't forget our move to UBM when ASW was a dirty word:8
Charlie Sends

[Trim Stab]

Regarding the EADS A319 MPA, how useful would that be at low level?

The standard A319 has neither engines, airframe, nor handling optimised for low level.

[andyy]

Neither does the B737 but Boeing are developing the P-8 from it.

[Party Animal]

Albeit, the USN do not plan to operate the P-8 at low level.

[Heathrow Harry]

at a hell of a cost as well

but then the Nimrod was no Blue Light Special either

[andyy]

OK, so why the difference in Conops between the P8 & A319 MPA?

[Algy]

A319MPA is not flying (and realistically a company-funded, MPA/ASW jet for a speculative target is not on any airframer´s agenda) but has considerable attractions as pointed out above.

However, this C295 is certified and delivered (http://www.airbusmilitary.com/PressRelease/tabid/133/ArticleId/87/First-torpedo-launched-from-C295.aspx)(and can obviously pack a bigger punch than the much-discussed above CN235 - marvellous though that also is.)

And this P-3, (http://www.airbusmilitary.com/PressRelease/tabid/133/ArticleId/121/Brazilian-Minister-of-Defence-views-first-P-3-Orion-modernised-by-Airbus-Military.aspx) which came shrink-wrapped out of the desert but is now a rather nice place to work, is about to get back to business - the first of a fleet of nine (and five for Spain.)

[Trim Stab]

Arguments over whether RAF, RN or Coastguard should have primacy over a future MPA are parochial.

I agree that we will have to have a new MPA in the not too distant future, but why not an Anglo-French venture, possibly financed by another PFI as in Air Tanker?

Given the rumblings of a joint Anglo-French SSBN nuclear deterrent in the future, the obvious conflict of interest is evaporating. Every other role is common.

[NURSE]

arguments over who should provide the service should be put aside and it be provided between all interested agencies including RN/RAF/HMCG/HMRC/Fishery Protection and Border agencey

[Trim Stab]

arguments over who should provide the service should be put aside and it be provided between all interested agencies including RN/RAF/HMCG/HMRC/Fishery Protection and Border agencey


Well therein lies the issue - how do you create and finance a structure that can handle the operational demands of five separate agencies? That is why an Air Tanker style PFI might be a solution.

[ShortFatOne]

The AirTanker PFI is apparently going to cost in the region of £400Mil per year to implement and that is with a fairly well defined set of requirements. MRA4 was binned because it was going to cost £200mil per year (and we had already paid for the hardware). How much is a complex Multi-mission aircraft going to cost under a PFI contract? More than we can afford it would seem.

If you don't need (read can't afford) complexity and flexibilty then a cheap buy of some CASA 235/239s or ATR72s will at least allow you to maintain some degree of capability whilst retaining skills and knowledge. Unfortunately, the hard won skills and knowledge focussed at Kinloss over the last 75 years or so is leaking faster than Japanese reactor.

[betty swallox]

SFO,
Nicely put!!!

[Clockwork Mouse]

SFO
Are you related to TOFO or is obesity an occupational hazard in the MPA fraternity?:)

[Wrathmonk]

That is why an Air Tanker style PFI might be a solution.

Wouldn't it be difficult to get 3rd Party revenue from an MPA et al PFI?

[ShortFatOne]

Whilst many have questioned my parentage (and still do!), I can absolutely refute any biological relationship to TOFO. Indeed, I am surprised TOFO has taken this slur on his character so calmly!

It used to be rather too easy to gain a few pounds when flying on the 'rod, the Dairy Cream Sponges and Jam Doughnuts were a staple diet, although they worked very well at soaking up several pints of Seventy in the Scruff's Bar after flying. ;)

[OpsLoad8]

SFO

I seem to remember that they never got past the port beam (especially if I was in the Route Seat!)

[keesje]

In reply 21 I posted some possible requirements.


a 2-3 engined platform having an airtime of max 18 hours,
get refuelled, refuel buddies / others including helicopters,
suitable to transport 4-5t of pallets and or up to 20 people.
Multiuser stations for 4-6 operators with ability to have a decent sleep in those seats. Usual galley/lavatory.
A lot of communication space incorporated on top of the aircraft for multiple high bandwidth satellite connections with ground teams, internet etc.
A big belly able to launch / drop all kinds of stuff (e.g SAR, UAV).
A big radar able to map / monitor large areas.
Moderate stealth (you can't see it from 200nm's)
Low noise propulsion for "unrestricted" operations from populated areas.


just did a quick sketch based on those requirements

- 3 engined (1 small turbofan in the tail to boost MTOW for long range tanker function)
- large bay to carry alot (I dimensioned for 3 tomahawk sized objects)
- A large attic for many antenna's
- 6 workstations / sleeping seats in the main cabin
- A big AESA radar nose with 270 degree coverage.

Now I'm looking how to get fuel, or passenger, or pallet space into the airframe.

It should be significant smaller then Nimrod/P3C/737 but significant more capable then ATR72/CN-295 based props..

Any suggestions / directives / good ideas?

http://i191.photobucket.com/albums/z160/keesje_pics/EuroMPAstudy.jpg

[Clockwork Mouse]

Very interesting ideas and an excellent sketch Keesje!
As far as the UK is concerned, however, I do not think that a new design and new build solution is a practical option in the forseeable future. A tried, tested and already in service platform is more likely to be the preferred way ahead.

[keesje]

Clockwork Mouse thnx. I agree doing such a project as a single state would be very unrealistic these days. It would have to be a European program like A400M, replacing P3C, Nimrods, Atlantiques etc. Probably it would be logical to locate those assets in 3 strategic NAS, for the north Atlantic, more south and south of Europe.

I filled in the sketch a bit:

http://i191.photobucket.com/albums/z160/keesje_pics/EuroMPAstudy_2-2.jpg


A400M style In-Flight Refuelling Boom
Counter rotating props for lower speed / height regions fuel efficiency
The fuselage is about as wide as a 4 abreast aircraft but has a bigger cross section because of the bay and antenna spaces.
The tail engine inlet could be streamlined after take-offf by a retractable fairing..


Thinking about it, probably a single centreline hose and drogue would be sufficient and save a lot of weight / drag. Don't know if / how it could fit though..

[The Old Fat One]

I can absolutely refute any biological relationship to TOFO. Indeed, I am surprised TOFO has taken this slur on his character so calmly!


Not at all, it would be a priviledge. But are you sure we are not "biologically" related. I can think of one maritime tradition that might make us so :E:E:E:E:E:E:E:E

PS

CM...why do think the Nimrod had four mighty Speys, if not to get all that combined lard into the sky. There were a few fit types (not many) but they were generally crap at their job and always AWOL playing sport (or worse...golf).

[Clockwork Mouse]

TOFO
You have pricked my bubble and shattered my illusions! I had assumed that all you mighty hunters worked out regularly in the multi-gym in the back of the beast.

[BEagle]

A big belly able to launch / drop all kinds of stuff (e.g SAR, UAV).
A big radar able to map / monitor large areas.
Moderate stealth (you can't see it from 200nm's)

1. How do you intend to load 'all kinds of stuff' into the 'big belly'? There appears to be no provision for any weapon bay doors - the same probelm as A400M would have faced when it was proposed as the 'FLA', to include Nimrod replacement.

2. Anything with a 'big radar' is unlikely to have 'moderate stealth'! Neither are contrarotating 8-blade scimitar propellers going to give you any stealth.

3. What significant advantage do you see in a high-wing configuration? An overly robust structure implies a poor fuel fraction, something of a disadvantage in any AAR aircraft. As would have been the case with A400M/FLA as a tanker.

4. A single centreline hose would give you a single point of failure risk - not much help if you're considering long-range SAR. Dual Mk-80x Cobham units would be plausible.

5. Upon what is your '18 hours airtime' predicated?

6. Have you done any weight or performance estimations?

[The Old Fat One]

Hey Beags,

I was working on exactly the same list as you before I decided a pithy response to my equally muscular challenged buddy was a better use of my pprune time!

The only sweaty activity ever done down the back of a Nimrod was at an air show..............................

[BEagle]

The only sweaty activity ever done down the back of a Nimrod was at an air show

Quite right too! An aeroplane designed for the civilised days of the RAF, rather than for today's 'Kraft durch Freude' RAF...

Pleased to note that you have a Clarkson / Twain attitude to the pointless pastime of following little white balls around manicured countryside...

[Jabba_TG12]

Following the illustrations and associated suggestions of a high wing dual prop job, it would probably be cheaper to buy the ATR 72 ASW... if its good enough for the Italians & the Turks... :E

No need for BAe to chuck anyone on the dole afterwards, either. Job done :ok:

[airsound]

http://www.pprune.org/[IMG]http://i79.photobucket.com/albums/j134/airsound/C295_ASW.jpgNot recommending this, or otherwise commenting, merely passing on what the Chileans are doing, according to Airbus Military

http://i79.photobucket.com/albums/j134/airsound/C295_ASW.jpg

Chile takes delivery of first anti-submarine warfare C295 - first European aircraft with ASW capabilities since the 1960s

The Chilean Navy has taken delivery of the first Airbus Military C295 in its anti-submarine warfare (ASW) configuration. The handover took place after the aircraft was certified by INTA, the Spanish authority responsible for certification and military airworthiness.

Based on the Maritime Patrol (MPA) configuration of the aircraft, the C295 ASW is the first ASW type designed and certified in Europe, to enter service since the 1960s-vintage Bréguet Atlantic. It is a modern and risk-free choice to replace the veteran and ageing P-3 Orion or Bréguet Atlantic fleets.

The new model is the latest variant of the successful C295 family of multirole aircraft. Launched in 1996, it has been proved in many military roles and civic missions for the benefit of society. Transport logistics, medical evacuation or surveillance are just some of the roles already deployed by this aircraft in its MPA version.

The aircraft is equipped with two underwing hard points to carry weapons or other stores and boasts a comprehensive suite of sensors including a search radar, digital avionics that are compatible with night-vision goggles (NVG), automatic identification system, acoustic system, and a magnetic anomaly detector. The data from all these sensors are processed by the Fully Integrated Tactical System (FITS). This Airbus Military-developed mission system presents the data in an intuitive form to the four tactical operators via on board mission consoles as well as to the pilots.

This C295 ASW is part of a three aircraft order placed by the Chilean Navy in October 2007. The first one, a C295 MPA, was delivered in December 2009. The other two are both ASW versions and the second is being delivered over the next few months.

The Chilean Army, Navy, and Air Force already operate one C295 MPA, three CN235s, and 13 C212s – meaning they collectively operate members of the whole Airbus Military medium and light aircraft family.

To date, Airbus Military has sold 356 CN235 and C295 aircraft to 55 different operators.



airsound

[The Old Fat One]

Coastal/littoral work....yeah maybe.

Open ocean....too small. (Fuel, stores, weapons....DCS)

PS

F*** sight better than anything we have though!!!

[davejb]

Well,
if this thread is going to wander even further into the land of make believe, here's my contender:-

http://i585.photobucket.com/albums/ss297/davejb55/supercar.jpg

It can fly through the air, and for ASW (or whatever the current TLA might be) if you spot a sub...hey presto, go in after it! Simples.

[keesje]

1. How do you intend to load 'all kinds of stuff' into the 'big belly'? There appears to be no provision for any weapon bay doors - the same probelm as A400M would have faced when it was proposed as the 'FLA', to include Nimrod replacement.

You can't see the big belly from the front view. The A400 for MPA, amazing, I wonder why they even considered..:bored:

2. Anything with a 'big radar' is unlikely to have 'moderate stealth'! Neither are contrarotating 8-blade scimitar propellers going to give you any stealth.

Serious stealth would compromise price and efficiency, nor is it necessary. Passive sensors / network centric, ECM and radar absorbing coatings could do something.

3. What significant advantage do you see in a high-wing configuration? An overly robust structure implies a poor fuel fraction, something of a disadvantage in any AAR aircraft. As would have been the case with A400M/FLA as a tanker.

A high wing gives ground clearance to the big props (15 blades by the way) is aerodynamically more efficient and gives unobstructed views, a bigger bay. Disadvantage is you have to stow the landing gear somewhere else..

4. A single centreline hose would give you a single point of failure risk - not much help if you're considering long-range SAR. Dual Mk-80x Cobham units would be plausible.

That''s right. Although a boom has similar single point risks. Has a dual centerline hose ever been used, for redundancy? It could maybe save a lot of piping, weight. drag..

5. Upon what is your '18 hours airtime' predicated?


It's more a requirement, the P3C Update IIs can do it. :)

6. Have you done any weight or performance estimations?

Yes, I guess a OEW of around 70 klbs and MTOW of around 180lbs would be enough to provide a significant range / fuel capacity, but hardly possible for a twin prop. The main engines would provide maximum thrust of around 20klbs, the secondary turbofan around 10 klbs.

http://i191.photobucket.com/albums/z160/keesje_pics/ECOlLINErThrustatMTOWengineout.jpg

probably be cheaper to buy the ATR 72 ASW... if its good enough for the Italians & the Turks...

I guess for the Méditerranée / coast patrol it's good enough, for northern Atlantic it seems less suited though.



By the way, what would be a suitable name for the machine? (I'm working on a side look and it probably won't become a beauty (nose, side looking radar, refuel equipment, cargo door, 3rd engine :\ .. so forget Aphrodite..)

[rab-k]

Anythings got to be better than what we're currently using...

http://cdn-www.airliners.net/aviation-photos/photos/4/8/3/0208384.jpg

[The Old Fat One]

DaveJb

I'm going to go for this year's biggest thread drift prize and point out that.... that there picture is a model of "Supercar".

The original was built at the Gerry and Sylvia Anderson studios in Slough Trading Estate in the early sixties by my uncle.

[BEagle]

TOFO, did Uncle Reg also teach Mike Mercury to fly Supercar?

;)

[Modern Elmo]

Why not fit your Airbus tankers with 4-6 wing weapons rails, a sonobuoy dispenser, EO ball, operators' workstations, and upgraded radar?

Those big A330 tankers have lots of payload fraction which otherwise may be somewhat under-utilized, don't we agree?

[davejb]

Indeed,
and Mitch could run acoustics...

[keesje]

http://i191.photobucket.com/albums/z160/keesje_pics/EuroMPAstudy_3.jpg
concept

Addition; retractable 20mm turret to draw a line in the water to convince pirates, smuglers, rebels etc, asymmetric warfare. Similar to OV-10.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v15/cyprus/post-3212-1132924124.jpg

Any suggestions? Not sure about the hose and drogues yet..

E.g. what would be the best cabin configurations for 6 operators with lots of screens? side by side? how about interaction between them, would it help when everyone can see each other, from the corner of their eyes? to give signs, read body language ?

[Thelma Viaduct]

I hope that blue senior officer is dense, the CofG looks way off. :ok:

[davejb]

You've forgotten the Death Ray and the giant magnet.

[WillDAQ]

Any suggestions?

That you should lay off the gold plating? This thing makes Nimrod look like an airliner with a laptop strapped to one of the seats and a hostess throwing life rings out the window.

[keesje]

Pious Pilot: I hope that blue senior officer is dense, the CofG looks way off.

I compared the configurations to ATR72 and Q400, and compensated for the heavy tail (turbofan, hose-drogue) by moving the wing backwards a bit. I heightened the vertical tail further too. It seems too small, it effectiveness would be degraded by the air inlet. Will do another CoG estimation though. Most of the systems and the refuelling boom in front also influence the moment.. :8

http://i191.photobucket.com/albums/z160/keesje_pics/EuroMPAstudy_4.jpg

I wanted to put maindeck fuel tanks close to the CoG, but I guess you don't want to have them in line with the hpt :\ ..

WillDAQ Quote: Any suggestions?
That you should lay off the gold plating? This thing makes Nimrod look like an airliner with a laptop strapped to one of the seats and a hostess throwing life rings out the window.

The Nimrod was optimized for ASW, much bigger heavier and had 4 turbofans, the MR4 must have been gold plated, looking at the financials.. :oh:

A machine like this should be cheaper (smaller, lighter, fuel efficient, less crew) and have more applications. It's not to be another Nimrod. E.g. MPA could transfer excess fuel if they relieve eachother in patrol areas.

http://i191.photobucket.com/albums/z160/keesje_pics/EuroMPAstudy_5.jpg

About the 20mm, the only thing an MPA today does is make pirates hurry, getting on board before something with teeth arrives.

[Modern Elmo]

Please post a drawing of your proposed aircraft showing the bomb bay, the sonobuoy dispenser(s), and the MAD boom.

Compare to these pix of the P-3:

US Navy P-3Cs (http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/orion/orion2.html)

File:P-3 Orion underside view 20080614.jpg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:P-3_Orion_underside_view_20080614.jpg)

[keesje]

Modern Elmo: Please post a drawing of your proposed aircraft showing the bomb bay, the sonobuoy dispenser(s), and the MAD boom.


Hi Elmo, I'm not able to post that, because it doesn't exist (yet). For mission specific equipment the idea is to have it located in a secondary bay. Where the gatling is in the post above. A box sized space it available to such a gun, buoy dispensers, nothing, an additional fuel tank, side looking radar or whatever they come up with in the next 30 years. (e.g a tactical laser, 2025? maybe they can write the message on the pirat's deck with it, in the right language.. :cool: )

YouTube - Advanced Tactical Laser tested @ White Sands Missile Range

[Duncan D'Sorderlee]

keesje,

Sorry mate, the galley isn't nearly big enough!:=

Duncs:ok:

[Modern Elmo]

Keesje, here are some benchmark numbers for your design:

P-3C P-7A

Max Takeoff Gross Weight 139,760 lbs 171,350 lbs
Flight Design Gross Weight (3.0g) 135,000 lbs 165,000 lbs
Maneuver Weight (3.5g) --- 137,000 lbs
Design Zero Fuel Weight 77,200 lbs 105,000 lbs
Maximum Payload 22,237 lbs 38,385 lbs
Fuel Capacity 62,587 lbs 66,350 lbs
Maximum Landing Weight 114,000 lbs 144,000 lbs
Design Landing Weight 103,880 lbs 125,190 lbs
Sonobuoy Capacity 84 150-300
Wing Span 99.6 ft 106.6 ft
Wing Area 1300 sq ft 1438 sq ft
Fuselage Length* 116.8 ft 112.7 ft
Height 34.2 ft 32.9 ft


Federation of American Scientists :: P-7 Long Range Air ASW-Capable Aircraft (LRAACA) (http://www.fas.org/programs/ssp/man/uswpns/air/asw/p7.html)

* Hmmm, fuselage length for proposed P-7 is wrong. Wonder what else is wrong with that list?

[Modern Elmo]

Here's another important figure of merit. Better check yourselves out, younger comrades:

Key genital measurement linked to male fertility


By Deborah Zabarenko, Environment Correspondent

WASHINGTON | Fri Mar 4, 2011 12:10am EST
(Reuters) - When it comes to male fertility, it turns out that size does matter.

The dimension in question is not penis or testicle size, but a measurement known as anogenital distance, or AGD.

Men whose AGD is shorter than the median length -- around 2 inches (52 mm) -- have seven times the chance of being sub-fertile as those with a longer AGD, according to a study published on Friday in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives.

That distance, measured from the anus to the underside of the scrotum, is linked to male fertility, including semen volume and sperm count, the study found. The shorter the AGD, the more likely a man was to have a low sperm count.

...

This offers the prospect of a relatively simple screening test for men, said study co-author Shanna Swan of the University of Rochester Medical Center.

"It's non-invasive and anybody can do it, and it's not sensitive to the kinds of things that sperm count is sensitive to, like stress or whether you have a cold or whether it's hot out," Swan said in a telephone interview.

...

Key genital measurement linked to male fertility | Reuters (http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/04/us-genital-idUSTRE7230RO20110304)

[The Old Fat One]

....and you wonder why some of us don't want any more LRMP aircraft threads started....

[airsound]

Apologies if this has been mentioned before - it's about the Libyan Coast Guard Vessel Vittoria firing on sundry merchant shipping on 28 March.

Anyway, the said Vittoria was schtumphed by a P-3, says the US Navy
Vittoria was engaged and fired upon by a U.S. Navy P-3C Maritime Patrol aircraft with AGM-65 Maverick missiles; the first time that these missiles have ever been fired on a hostile vessel by a P-3C.

"P-3s have provided 24/7 ISR maritime domain awareness critical to the protection of U.S. and coalition surface assets in the JOA since the initiation of Odyssey Dawn," said Capt. Dan Schebler, commodore, Commander Task Force 67. "This engagement demonstrates the ability of the P-3 to complete the sensor-to-shooter kill chain, in parallel providing a key capability to the Joint Force Maritime Component Commander and the Composite Warfare Commander." Food for thought when considering the need for future MPA, and its ability to "complete the sensor-to-shooter kill chain"?

airsound

[EW73]

Also, as mentioned earlier re the specs of the Lockheed P-7 were sometimes in error...

I'm here to say that not all the specs, or indeed the cut-away graphic of the Boeing AEW&C are correct either!

I'd love to get a look-in of the flight deck of that Airbus Military refurbished P3C that was just completed, ready for delivery.

Cheers,
EW73 :)

[WillDAQ]

A machine like this should be cheaper (smaller, lighter, fuel efficient, less crew) and have more applications. It's not to be another Nimrod. E.g. MPA could transfer excess fuel if they relieve eachother in patrol areas.I think you're overlooking development costs somewhat. There's little point in a fuel efficient aircraft if it costs twice as much to purchase. You're using a new design radical configuration which will be expensive to develop and all the small efficiency improvements in the world aren't going to make it financially viable compared to something like the P3, which we could buy off the shelf tomorrow. Heck I bet the Americans would even throw in some discount training stateside and some spares rather than having to start with a new type from scratch.

I'd also challenge the idea of smaller and lighter. If there's one thing that's been learned during the development of Sentinel it was that small aircraft run out of space more quickly.

The fueling issue, potential to receive fuel would be useful (but not essential if it's got a 12hr plus endurance anyway). Delivering fuel is a waste of time, this is what we've got tankers for. If we wanted to have a flexible multirole tanking capability we'd buy the add ons for A400M which would make it into service far sooner than a new build aircraft.

[keesje]

Modern Elmo: Keesje, here are some benchmark numbers for your design:
P-3C P-7A

Thanks Elmo, usefull information to determine the balance between the various variables. I think if anyone these days would come up with a design matching P3/Nimrod like capabilities and dimensions, Dod would say it's a good idea for 1985 and if he/she has followed developments during the last 20 years.

The tanker is a tanker, a ASW platform is ASW platform and an interceptor is an interceptor days are behind us. One of the reasons IMO the US aerospace lobby decided the USAF KC30 had to be killed is that a quick look at the aircrafts cargo/range and tonne-mile costs not only caused red alert in the KC767 department but also in the C-17 and KC-10/KC-Y departments. It would spoil the business as it has been for the last 50 years.

airsound: Apologies if this has been mentioned before - it's about the Libyan Coast Guard Vessel Vittoria firing on sundry merchant shipping on 28 March.

Hadn't seen it, IMO a clear sign of changing requirements. All those Harpoons, Exocets, torpedo's and nucleair charges have a use. But how many were used during the last 50 years, do they still have first priority?

http://rickwilliams.com/images/cruise/pirate%20boat.jpg

Times and enemies are different. Big enemies became neighbours, small friends enemies.

YouTube - Iran unveils 'Bavar 2' stealth flying boat with machine gun and camera - 28 Sept. 2010
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2001/1549088746_b5c853928b_b.jpg


WillDAQ: I think you're overlooking development costs somewhat. There's little point in a fuel efficient aircraft if it costs twice as much to purchase. You're using a new design radical configuration which will be expensive to develop and all the small efficiency improvements in the world aren't going to make it financially viable compared to something like the P3, which we could buy off the shelf tomorrow.

Bigger aircraft cost more, specially if they are based on 50+ year old designs. Who will buy them for the next 40 years if they don't fit the requirements anyway? It just doesn't make sense.

Of course it wil take E8-10 billion Euro's to develop, but a lot of technology can be transferred from existing modern aircraft. Not everything needs to be reinvented. And doing a Nimrod, P3/P7 has the export potential of a Nimrod, P3/P7.

WillDAQ: Delivering fuel is a waste of time, this is what we've got tankers for. If we wanted to have a flexible multirole tanking capability we'd buy the add ons for A400M which would make it into service far sooner than a new build aircraft.

Just bring in the big tankers to refuel somewhere far away. What are the total costs of having that capability globally? Plus that capability for helicopters.. we just can't afford!

An aircraft bringing its own maintenance crew / maintenance tools, being able to refuel, function as a powerfull sensor for intelligence, able to perform a SAR and patrol with minimum adjustments saves money. Less transport, tanker, helihours, flight cycles, crews, specialized fleets, or smaller ones.

http://i191.photobucket.com/albums/z160/keesje_pics/orionnewconceptmerlinII.jpg

;)

[airsound]

An aircraft ..... being able to refuel, function as a powerfull sensor for intelligence, able to perform a SAR and patrol with minimum adjustments saves money.You missed out being able to schtumph Libyan Coastguards with Mavericks (see post #133 above)

airsound

[GarageYears]

Can't we just outsource?

India is buying P-8 and are pretty good at this outsourcing lark... :rolleyes:

Probably more likely than inventing a whole new airplane. :=

-GY

[WillDAQ]

Bigger aircraft cost more, specially if they are based on 50+ year old designs. Who will buy them for the next 40 years if they don't fit the requirements anyway? It just doesn't make sense.Cost of an aircraft is not directly proportional to size. For example it is easier to create a long range variant of a large aircraft than it is a small aircraft even from a basic volumetric perspective. What adds to the expense significantly is novel architecture such as what you're proposing. I'd suggest that ultimately the military cares less about fuel efficiency than total time in the air and through life maintenance practicalities.

You're also making the assumption that the requirements stay the same for 40 years, which is highly unlikely, more likely is that new technology will come along that needs to be retroactively added. This is most easily achieved on a larger aircraft that has a larger weight growth margin and more space to fit the stuff.

There's also a strong argument to be made for sticking with a commercial airframe from the perspective of support. One of the downfalls of Nimrod was that it became an orphan fleet long after the commercial equivalent was out of service. Support for airliners rolling off the production line today will run for at least the next twenty years, if not longer in the case of common parts. None of the expensive custom widgets typically associated with aging military aircraft.

Of course it wil take E8-10 billion Euro's to develop, but a lot of technology can be transferred from existing modern aircraft. Not everything needs to be reinvented. And doing a Nimrod, P3/P7 has the export potential of a Nimrod, P3/P7. If you don't need to re-invent the technology why not just shove it all into an off the shelf airframe and save the 8 billion? Are the capability gains you predict worth that much cash, particularly considering that most of the export sales will be taken by Boeing's cheaper alternative anyway?

Just bring in the big tankers to refuel somewhere far away. What are the total costs of having that capability globally? Plus that capability for helicopters.. we just can't afford! That's the beauty of the A400M tanker option. It can tank anything including choppers, all aircraft are capable of a basic tanking role, the pods take a couple of hours to fit, don't prevent the aircraft carrying a full cargo load and if you want you can even buy extra tanks for the fuz to make it into a full fat tanker. Why go through all the hassle of maintaining another fleet capable of refueling when in the very rare cases it's needed we have another aircraft capable of the job.

To be perfectly honest, an MPA conversion for A400M (ideally consisting of equipment predominantly palletised in the hold with a custom rear ramp for stores, fuel pods and some external array hardpoints) has the potential to make very good sense. The aircraft is at the very start of what's going to be a long in service life. It has a large payload, long range, is quiet and we're already getting a fleet of them.

An aircraft bringing its own maintenance crew / maintenance tools, being able to refuel, function as a powerfull sensor for intelligence, able to perform a SAR and patrol with minimum adjustments saves money. Less transport, tanker, helihours, flight cycles, crews, specialized fleets, or smaller ones.But you see that such a unique aircraft is a small specialized fleet requiring specifically trained crews capable of maintenance is hugely expensive.

MPA tanking does not make up the bulk of tanker work, we don't heli tank and we only divert ISTAR assets to MPA when they're needed. You're adding expensive capabilities to the aircraft that we barely use as it is and while it would be wonderful to have a flying swiss army knife, we can't afford one right now.

As an exercise in what's possible the design is interesting and original, but it's the hard financial realities of capability vs. cost that killed Nimrod and will kill any attempt at a bespoke replacement.

[Willard Whyte]

http://www.weirdthings.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2008/03/bactofront-plane.jpg

Well, it could work.

[Clockwork Mouse]

There are clear indications that a committee or a coalition has had a major involvement in designing Mr Whyte's flying machine. Cameron takes the right cockpit and Clegg the left I presume. Hope the intercom works.

[keesje]

2 Years ago India bought 8 P8 for $ 2.1+ billion, about 270 million per aircraft, of the shelf.
http://www.indiastrategic.in/image/img_220_mid_big.jpg
It isn't specially efficient, (Boeing will soon launch its replacement) based on a jetliner optimized for cruising at 38k ft, giving room to easily 20-30 crew members and still room left. It has redundancy typical for 2 engined aircraft, it needs big runways, can't refuel anything, can't fly slow, I haven't seen the big radar or option to engage small moving targets.

A kind of a Nimrod I guess, without the big radar and engine redundancy.
WillDAQ, a smaller, flexible, multirole platform costing 30-40% less to purchase and half to operate could easily have a 25 yr market of 300-400 IMO. The total costs of ownership would be significant lower then introducing a heritage platform.

Much of the technology / systems could be used from the A400M, CN295 MPA, A350.. The only novelty on the design would be open rotors providing 25% better fuel efficiency then todays smaller turbofans and superior low level, low speed performance.
Rolls seems to be in the lead on those, they invested a lot in them during the last 3 years. Alternatively the A400M's TP400 could offer a proven alternative.

[Duncan D'Sorderlee]

I still can't see the point in having an MPA that can also be a tanker. If it can carry extra fuel, it can stay on-task longer; if it is refuelling attack assets, it is not doing its ASuW task - it would likely be in the wrong place, in the wrong configuration, at the wrong height, with the wrong priorities.

Duncs:ok:

[keesje]

Duncan D'Sorderlee: I still can't see the point in having an MPA that can also be a tanker. If it can carry extra fuel, it can stay on-task longer; if it is refuelling attack assets, it is not doing its ASuW task - it would likely be in the wrong place, in the wrong configuration, at the wrong height, with the wrong priorities.

But it can do both, that's what it all about. Sometimes it uses the fuel itself, sometimes it transfer to other assetts, improving the mission effectiveness.
I think it is not revolutionary at all.


Related news: Navy orders Thales lightweight multi-role missiles for Lynx Wildcat.

They ordered 1000 of the lightweight multi-role missile (LMM)

Not to sink destroyers or submarines..

UK orders Thales lightweight multi-role missiles for Lynx Wildcat (http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2011/04/05/355186/uk-orders-thales-lightweight-multi-role-missiles-for-lynx.html)

Each LMM weighs 13kg (28lbs). Less then a tenth the weight of a Sea Skua. Talking about changing requirements..

It is the result of a new agreement with the UK Ministry of Defence "to re-role previously contracted budgets".

For me another sign rebuilding Nimrod/P3C capabilities by ordering a similar platform is the wrong track of thoughts, a zero chance business case.

"We didn't use to do it like that" is a dead end, as the Dutch naval air service also found out.

[Yeller_Gait]

@Willard

just got home and have seen the picture you posted, as opposed to the .jpg placeholder that work internet shows .... excellent, no worries about asymetric thrust etc. You might be on to something.

@ Duncs, I guess you can't be in any position of power or authority as I find myself agreeing with almost everything you say ... :D

My hope is that at sometime in the future the UK goes for the P8, on the grounds of commonality, and actually, it is not such a bad airframe.

Y_G

[WillDAQ]

it isn't specially efficient, (Boeing will soon launch its replacement) based on a jetliner optimized for cruising at 38k ft, giving room to easily 20-30 crew members and still room left. It has redundancy typical for 2 engined aircraft, it needs big runways, can't refuel anything, can't fly slow, I haven't seen the big radar or option to engage small moving targets.Redundancy of twin engined ETOPS aircraft... i'd be amazed if you can get your new design contra-rotating turboshafts to match the reliability of an already well developed ETOPS aircraft. As for the rest, big is relative, refueling isn't needed and why are you assuming it's the only asset in theater than needs to be able to do everything?

WillDAQ, a smaller, flexible, multirole platform costing 30-40% less to purchase and half to operate could easily have a 25 yr market of 300-400 IMO. The total costs of ownership would be significant lower then introducing a heritage platform.So here's my problem, the production numbers are dream land simply because it's not built by an American company, so all the allies who buy American to strengthen trade links aren't going to buy it. As a European project you might sell 100 ish maybe?

Even allowing for 400 units. You're never going to win against an aircraft based an existing civilian design. The airframe requirements for MPA are not much beyond 'truck' and there are plenty of cheap trucks already available as a starting point.

Much of the technology / systems could be used from the A400M, CN295 MPA, A350 The only novelty on the design would be open rotors providing 25% better fuel efficiency then todays smaller turbofans and superior low level, low speed performance. Indeed, but it would be cheaper to use them in an A400M, CN295 or A350 rather than spending billions going after a fuel saving. Fuel is cheap, new aircraft types aren't. In terms of flight envelope i'd be interested to see how far beyond the capabilities of A400M you're planning to go, I suspect that's an aircraft already capable of being thrown around a MAD circle if so desired.

Alternatively the A400M's TP400 could offer a proven alternative.They certainly do... in an A400M.

Remember, we're after the 80% solution here because the last 20% of requirements will vary over time and we have no money in the first place!

[cyrilranch]

do remenber that Boeing is using the Mission Electronic developed for the MRA4 as the base of the mission electronics for the P8.so all is not wasted with the scraping of the MRA4.

[keesje]

i'd be amazed if you can get your new design contra-rotating turboshafts to match the reliability of an already well developed ETOPS aircraft.

I think the reliability is a set requirement.

So here's my problem, the production numbers are dream land simply because it's not built by an American company, so all the allies who buy American to strengthen trade links aren't going to buy it. As a European project you might sell 100 ish maybe?

Times are changing. Congress had to block a massive KC30 sale, the army is buying a large fleet of Eurocopters, the coastguard EADS CN-295s. Saudi Arabia, UK and Emirates buy European tankers. Had you thought so 15 yrs ago?

Indeed, but it would be cheaper to use them in an A400M, CN295 or A350 rather than spending billions going after a fuel saving. Fuel is cheap, new aircraft types aren't. In terms of flight envelope i'd be interested to see how far beyond the capabilities of A400M you're planning to go, I suspect that's an aircraft already capable of being thrown around a MAD circle if so desired.

Alternatively the A400M's TP400 could offer a proven alternative.
They certainly do... in an A400M.

I think it's hard to find someone that has more confidence in the A400M future than I do. I think it solely covers an enormous niche and seems right sized / specified for a big market share in the next 20 yrs. I think even the Americans will order it, kicking and screaming..

Suggesting a very large 4 engined, expensive transport aircraft without a bomb bay for MPA. I guess the Ministry of Defence would get a meld down. However, they are the ones being convinced the Nimrod was good AEW and rebuilding those Nimrods after 50 years was actually a brilliant move..

I think future proof, lighter, flexible, adaptable, multirole makes a better option.. You have to get the old European Atlantique and Orion operators into the mix of course.

http://i191.photobucket.com/albums/z160/keesje_pics/EuroMPAstudy_6.jpg

this one: 2 auxiliary fuel tanks, 2 NSM missiles, 3 Sting Ray torpedo's in the main bay and 2 sonobuoy rotary launchers in the auxiliary bay, 10 crew members, photo taken from an airtanker ;)

[andyy]

I'm probably being a bit dim but i think most of us would prefer 4 engines to 2 for a LRMPA and I think we'd accept that there should be good endurance & good low level performance. We'd probably also agree that its the "kit" & the operators that are the most important element of the MPA "system" so, given that the mission kit for the MRA4 does not seem to have been doubted could this kit not be fitted into Hercules airframes? New build, I suppose & perhaps the kit could be fitted in in a modular manner within internal pre-fab type cabins/ containers?

Admittedly I'm not sure how a weapons bay is fitted in but there is lots of experience on then type, lots of support available, its still in production etc.

[keesje]

andyy I'm probably being a bit dim but i think most of us would prefer 4 engines to 2 for a LRMPA and I think we'd accept that there should be good endurance & good low level performance. Agree 2 engines for LRMPA seems to have disadvantages. Although the french (Atlantique) and US (P7) seem to be ok with it. The concept above has 3 engines btw. A small turbofan for take-off and redunancy. And if high performance is required.

could this kit not be fitted into Hercules airframes?It seems to me the Hercules and A400M even more are out of the picture in terms of size and operating costs. Both aircraft are optimized for maindeck cargo height and therefor have marginal options for lower decks/ bays.. They are inherent bulky, not lean and mean..

http://www.eol.ucar.edu/raf/pics/C-130_xsctn.gif

[andyy]

Keesje, your aircraft seems to be a completely new design with an untried engine confuguration. How cheap is that going to be to design/ develop/ produce when the requirement isn't for that many aircraft in reality. Its not going to happen.

My idea is a compromise, but at least the airframe is available, operating & engineering it is well known and itsstill in production so either new build or refurbished airframes could be used. Use the A400 if there needs to be a European or new airframe (although that doesn't yet come in to the tried & tested bracket yet!)

If we are ever to have an LRMPA again then we need to find a way to do it relatively cheaply & that means using off the shelf solutions in as risk averse way as possible. I'm suggesting that in order to meet an LRMPA requirement we could fit already developed sensor systems in to an already developed airframe.

Maybe the weapons could be carried externally? Not ideal I know, but as I said, we need to be a risk averse as possible (engineering a weapons bay into a C-130 or A400 is probably a reasonable size risk) & needs must. I'd rather have an 70-80% capability than no capability at all and in my view a proposal for a completely new design of a/c = no capability.

[Heathrow Harry]

TBH for 99% of its life an LRMPA doesn't need to carry weapons at all - just enough times for regular training

Stooging about the N Atlantic carrying weapons when there is nothing happening today seems a bit pointless

We expect to get at least a few hours notice of a war

[Charlie Time]

keesje - you may not be aware but Wildcat has a Light and a Heavy anti-surface requirement. The LIMM solution hopes to meet the Light part of this and is not intended as a Sea Skua replacement. Not a change of requirements at all as there is a Heavy missile meeting this solution.

[Modern Elmo]

Unducted fan or propfan:

Propfan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://www.mshtawy.com/en-wiki.php?title=Propfan)

The excerpts below are from an article by Bill Sweetman, the premier aviation journalist:

The Short, Happy Life of the Prop-fan | History of Flight | Air & Space Magazine (http://www.airspacemag.com/history-of-flight/prop-fan.html?c=y&page=6)

... Airbus’ chief planner, Adam Brown, still believes that Boeing hyped the 7J7 in a bid to disrupt the A320 program. At the 1985 Paris show, Airbus faced the inevitable question: Was the company still confident in the A320’s future? “We can go up against the ‘magic aeroplane,’ ” Brown answered, “and we can beat it.”

...

Airbus stuck to its guns, Brown says today, because its studies showed that aft-engine aircraft were heavy, and maintenance costs would be higher.

...

At the end of August 1987, Boeing announced that the 7J7 had been postponed a year. (And Monty Python’s dead parrot was “just resting.”)

McDonnell Douglas tried to carry on with prop-fan development. It had the rear-engine MD-80, but it was losing ground to the A320 and 737. MDC fitted a UDF engine to an MD-80 in late 1987 and wanted to launch the UDF-powered MD-91 and -92 by July 1988. The company even saw a 300-aircraft market for a Navy patrol version of the MD-91. But GE wanted to see 100 to 150 airline orders before committing to the program. Recalls Conboy, “If people aren’t going to buy it, there’s not much you can do.” ...

Russia’s Tu-95 bomber and its airliner derivative, the Tu-114, were designed in the 1950s and had jet-like swept wings. The turboprop-powered Tupolevs could sprint at Mach 0.78, but had to cruise at around Mach 0.7 for best range. Their 15,000-hp engines drove 18-foot counter-rotating propellers, requiring tall landing gear to keep the tips off the runways.

The Ukrainian Antonov An-70 and the yet-to-fly Airbus A400M cruise at up to Mach 0.72, about as fast as the jet-powered C-17 airlifter, but slower than commercial jets. They use large-diameter propellers, not prop-fans.

There is little interest in true high-speed propellers today. The latest conventional turbofans are more efficient than the engines of the mid-1980s, thanks to new fan aerodynamics and materials, so there is less to be gained by a move to a UDF-type engine. It’s also questionable whether the prop-fan could meet current international noise rules.

[keesje]

RR is still investing in open rotor technology. Rolls-Royce details next-generation engine studies (http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2011/03/14/354205/rolls-royce-details-next-generation-engine-studies.html)

Even GE thinks it's the best solution longer term (leap-x in front); http://i191.photobucket.com/albums/z160/keesje_pics/OPENROTOR-26PCT.jpg?t=1247751620

Very high speed at height isn't essential for MPA, superior fuel consumption and performance at lower levels are more important.

RR has made good progress on open rotors during the last 3-4 years and are doing further tests as we speak. As you can see on the earlier sketches the front and aft rotor have different diameters and numbers of blades, reducing noise and vibrations (blades don't all pass each other at the same moment, shockwaves from blade tips don't hit each other).

The Bear and late eighties Pratt and GE open rotors where complicated in this respect. The Russians made some progress already

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2548/3911940542_502055b0bc_z.jpg

Saying it's a big turboprop with contra rotating props like the Shackletons and some Spitfires makes people more confident then using words like exotic "propfan"..

A second rotor makes the resulting airstream straight backward, a single rotor produces a more rotating airstream. Open rotor have bypass ratios of above 1:30, turbofan of 1:12 max at this moment.

[Clockwork Mouse]

The UK maritime patrol capability was not lost because it was not considered necessary, but because the solution at the time, MRA4, was unaffordable. It could be that the P8 Poseidon will bring us back into the MPA business. My gut feeling is that it will happen and that the RN will operate it, which seems to make a lot of sense.

[oxenos]

I am ex Shackleton, ex Nimrod, got an awful lot of hours on 737's and I have a beard. Looks like I am the ideal chap to operate the R.N.'s P8s. Might have to lie about my age . Just a bit.

[manccowboy]

Very high speed at height isn't essential for MPA, superior fuel consumption and performance at lower levels are more important.

You have to ask why on earth a P8 (737) was ever considered for this role :ugh:

[Neptunus Rex]

Clockwork Mouse

What a crock! Andrew might be able to operate close in ASW, with frigates and helos, but he/she (these days) does not have a schmick about LRMP and its associatd ASW task..

Horses for courses.

[Rossian]

....oxenos, you'd only be rectifying the error you made a hundred years ago by stepping into the wrong recruiting office. No?

3 bells in the morning watch indeed (rolls eyes).

The Ancient Mariner

[Clockwork Mouse]

NR
As the Andrew spend their working lives working in, on, under and above the medium which your Prune name suggests you are master of, I suspect they have some of the basic knowledge, skills and aptitude to make the leap without too much angst.

[Tourist]

How hard can it be?

We've met Finchey for god's sake?!

[Yellow Sun]

I am ex Shackleton, ex Nimrod, got an awful lot of hours on 737's and I have a beard. Looks like I am the ideal chap to operate the R.N.'s P8s. Might have to lie about my age . Just a bit.

Ready Aye "Ready"?

YS;)

[TorqueOfTheDevil]

Agree 2 engines for LRMPA seems to have disadvantages


Not as many disadvantages as having no engines like our current MPA!


Saying it's a big turboprop with contra rotating props like the Shackletons and some Spitfires makes people more confident then using words like exotic "propfan"..


Bet the oppo submariners will love that thing! Won't be hard to hear that one coming, will it...?

[Pontius Navigator]

Very high speed at height isn't essential for MPA, superior fuel consumption and performance at lower levels are more important.

You have to ask why on earth a P8 (737) was ever considered for this role :ugh:

At the risk of answering a question already tackled:

It depends on the operational requirement. To use the Nimrod figures, it could react and reach a patrol area 1000 miles from base in 3.5 hours. Unrefuelled it could remain there for 4 hours and be relieved by another Nimrod with 6 patrol cycles in 24 hours.

A Shackleton, the epitome of low and slow, could reach that patrol area in 6.5 hours and remain on patrol for 2-3 hours and thus need 10-12 patrol cycles and more aircraft and crews to do the job.

In addition the Nimrod would only be 3.5 hours late on a datum with the Shackleton nearly double that. It doesn't take a genius to calculate the respective circles of uncertainty. In the Nimrod case it could reach a point on the circumference in 10 minutes. In the Shackleton case in an hour.

These are of course extremes and the speed difference between a modern hi-fast or low and not so slow is not as extreme but it points up the need for speed.

In the case of SRMP the difference comes down to launch reaction time rather than sheer speed.

[Pontius Navigator]

Bet the oppo submariners will love that thing! Won't be hard to hear that one coming, will it...?

You've obviously seen the grams from a P3!

Another reason for a high-flying whisper jet.

[keesje]

Bet the oppo submariners will love that thing! Won't be hard to hear that one coming, will it...?

Well RR says these new ones will be cat IV. They are a lot smarter these days. More silent then a P3.

http://www.rolls-royce.com/Images/open-rotor-rig_tcm92-23348.jpg

Anyway you can turn them off and it's a silent glider (with a turbofan in the tail) ;)

[oxenos]

YS
"Ready Aye Ready?"
Yup.

[Jane-DoH]

Keesje

That laser weapons system they were showing firing on an automobile? The comments about it being useful in an urban environment make me suspect SWAT will want to get their hands on some of those babies; furthermore with the plan to set up an infrastructure in the United States to operate drones such as the Reaper, that could make a fantastic assassination tool.


Robyn C.
"In closing, I want to remind everybody here that no matter how I die, it was murder; If I disappear mysteriously, it was murder."

[Heathrow Harry]

"You have to ask why on earth a P8 (737) was ever considered for this role :ugh:"

because, dear boy , every attempt to design one from scratch leads to a vastly expensive, unaffordable aeroplane

the Orion was based on that grotty Electra they operated for a while in the USA

If we'd based our on the HS-748 we'd still have some capability rather than a fantastic series of designs that cost us zillions and left us with nothing............

[davejb]

1) The P3 is a very, very successful design that is very good at its job - so I'm at a bit of a loss to understand the reference to the Electra.

2) Why should something based on the 748 be any better than an MPA based on the Comet, which led to the highly successful MR1, MR2, and sneaky beaky R1?

3) An off the shelf option would have been better than a "Bungling Baron Mk4" (especially if we could have fitted our own sensor suite), but nothing you've posted suggests that you have clue 1.

[TorqueOfTheDevil]

Anyway, given today's posts on the 'More Defence Cuts' thread, shall we just close this thread...?

[Pontius Navigator]

1) The P3 is a very, very successful design that is very good at its job - so I'm at a bit of a loss to understand the reference to the Electra..

Not sure what you mean here as Electra is to P3 as Comet is to Nimrod.

[keesje]

I wonder why everybody here assumes a new MPA (if ever) will be just for / from the UK, just like it always was. Are you following the news..

AGI News On - ROYAL NAVY HAS JETS HOSTED ABOARD FRENCH AIRCRAFT CARRIER (http://www.agi.it/english-version/world/elenco-notizie/201106052313-cro-ren1103-royal_navy_has_jets_hosted_aboard_french_aircraft_carrier)

A European MPA/coast guard fleet with 2-3 standardized types/ procedures seems so much more efficient. A few bases around the edges, mixed crews, moving around fleet/crews to where needed most.

[davejb]

Electra/P-3 yes, I know.... the same relationship as Comet/Nimrod... I don't see why a 748 would be better than a Nimrod, based on an Electra/P3 comparison? Didn't make sense to me....

[jamesdevice]

keesje

1) there are no RN jets on the CdeG. The RN doesn't have any flyable carrier jets
2) that news article in the Telegraph said nothing of the kind. It speculated on possible future co-operation over training and maybe use of the two new British carriers

[keesje]

Jane-DoH

thats what I think too.. & it won't be a nice sight, not a bang.

[Pontius Navigator]

why a 748 would be better than a Nimrod,. . . Didn't make sense to me....

Ah 748 meets the Fokkers :)

[keesje]

The P3 and Nimrod were good for Europe for the last 50 years.

Not for the next 50. The world has changed too much.

That's why Nimrod was scrapped and Dutch P3 sold..

Sad for everyone involved, IMO a radical turnaround long overdue for Europe.

A new flexible and efficient platform is expensive but cheaper to operate, lasts for 50 years and has good export potential.

http://i191.photobucket.com/albums/z160/keesje_pics/EuroMultirolepatrolaircraftconceptkeesje.jpg

[jamesdevice]

are those Twin Mambas hanging off the wings?

[Tallsar]

Cor Blimey...the Nimrod's L & D handling characteristics could be bad enough.....that looks as though some good training on a skid pad would be required before any OCU....Still the pilots' coffee cups could provide some good turn and slip indications...a lot of the time!;)

[Modern Elmo]

Boeing Sees Big Special-Mission 737 Market | AVIATION WEEK (http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_generic.jsp?channel=aerospacedaily&id=news/asd/2011/06/09/01.xml&headline=Boeing%20Sees%20Big%20Special-Mission%20737%20Market)

[oldgrubber]

Just read this article,
It's a good job we have so many ASW assets to call on.......Oh!

DEBKAfile, Political Analysis, Espionage, Terrorism, Security (http://www.debka.com/article/21004/)

[Tourist]

I think you have underestimated the galley requirements.......

[keesje]

Tourist I think you have underestimated the galley requirements.....

?! more then 2 meters on 2 sides. More then enough volume I would say. Lot's of meals, drinks, ovens, fridge, 2 meter countertop. You can eat at your seat and in the back cabin. I remember the dutch p3c had less galley space and a little table for 4.

I did a generous bathroom in the back enabling crew members to comfortably refresh, and redress themselves during long (refuelled) flights.

are those Twin Mambas hanging off the wings?

Not twin Mamba's ;) but new gen high power turbo props, think new GE38 / TP400 like rated at ~6000-8000 for this application. PW is also working on something. They are indeed hanging under the wings.

http://i191.photobucket.com/albums/z160/keesje_pics/EuroMPAstudy_7.jpg?t=1307980629

[Ian Corrigible]

Marshalls: "Can we interest you in a C-130MPA?" (http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&newspaperUserId=27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7&plckPostId=Blog%3a27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3a6019671d-9f28-4bc3-93b5-5ace6f5433f4&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest)

http://sitelife.aviationweek.com/ver1.0/Content/images/store/9/10/b9dcb583-26f2-495b-9a33-323a60e62f15.Large.jpg (http://sitelife.aviationweek.com/ver1.0/Content/images/store/9/10/b9dcb583-26f2-495b-9a33-323a60e62f15.Full.jpg)

I/C

[Pontius Navigator]

Just how quiet are these fan-jets as far as putting noise into the water. AKAIK the Nimrod was much quieter than the P3 but either could be counter-detected on a sub-sonar array.

[Willard Whyte]

IC, nice thought. Remind me of what is happening to our Js and why.

[Duncan D'Sorderlee]

Mrs D'Sorderlee was less than convinced by the Marshalls plan. She suggested that it probably needed another wing, or it would have really poor handling qualities!

Duncs:ok:

[Willard Whyte]

Duncs, they were probably just sniffing the same glue as these guys.

http://pixdaus.com/pics/1209087866YtW7Myu.jpg

[Clockwork Mouse]

Definitely designed by a Komittee!

[keesje]

Just how quiet are these fan-jets as far as putting noise into the water. AKAIK the Nimrod was much quieter than the P3 but either could be counter-detected on a sub-sonar array.

RR has invested a lot in new rotor technology and says Stage 4 is within reach. The supersonic shockwaves from the blade tips are reduced.

I can imagine that optimizing for low noise goes at the cost of efficiency. I guess it could be introduced as an options on engines if required. A "silent" mode to be selcted by the crew. Different rpm's, blade angles..

http://i191.photobucket.com/albums/z160/keesje_pics/SafranRROpenrotorResearch.jpg

[Bevo]

An interesting view not shared by either Airbus or Boeing.

Boeing has been collaboratively testing this engine with RR but remains very unconvinced of its future.
Boeing has three potential engines at its disposal for its new narrowbody including the current next-generation offerings from CFM and Pratt & Whitney, as well as the Rolls-Royce 133-445kN (30,000-100,000lb) thrust Advance3 future three-shaft Trent powerplant, which is currently in development and slated for a 2017 or 2018 entry into service.
Boeing boss green-lights all-new next generation narrowbody (http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2011/02/10/353056/boeing-boss-green-lights-all-new-next-generation-narrowbody.html)

Open Rotors: Based on our conversations with engineers and Boeing, we remain highly skeptical of open-rotors. Noise, maintenance, safety, size, weight, dimension of the rotor, application and speed all seem to work against this engine type and nobody we know suggests any different.

Even Leahy says the open-rotor Airbus believes in won’t likely be the open-rotor as we know it today. One concept is a shrouded open-rotor (isn’t that essentially the ducted fan?), which to us seems to add more weight and issues than problems it solves.

Furthermore, both PW and CFM believe that their new engines will, by 2025, have sufficient gains in fuel burn (typically 1% per year) that consumption will pretty well match that promised by open-rotors without the challenges.
2011 Outlook for Aerospace « Leeham News and Comment (http://leehamnews.wordpress.com/2011/01/03/2011-outlook-for-aerospace/)


And RR says it won’t be ready till at least 2020.

Lastly, if cleansheet 737 and A320 replacements slip beyond 2022, Rolls believes an Open Rotor design with gas turbine powered contra-rotating propellors becomes a viable option for the 20,000-35,000lb thrust range likely not available before 2025. Horwood is quick to admit that there are many open questions about the technology which could deliver a 30% improvement in fuel consumption and CO2. Movie Monday - March 7 - The Mystery of Flight 447 - FlightBlogger - Aviation News, Commentary and Analysis (http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/flightblogger/2011/02/rolls-royce-shows-its-cards-on.html)

[davejb]

...and that C130 design didn't have any laser turrets either, so how's that meant to work then?

I like the BV 141 though - getting p****d and scrawling something as elegant as a duck on LSD is one thing, persuading somebody to build and fly it is taking the joke to a whole new level.

[betty swallox]

The Marshall's plan won't survive first contact as they can't even spell sonobuoy. Oh, and as Duncs says, it isnae very aerodynamic!!!
*

[MRA4Man]

Exactly where are the weapons -ah yes we visited Money Convertors didn't we, to pay our redundancy payments :mad:

[Tourist]

keesje

It has occured to me after looking at your latest computer generated mpa pic that you have put your name on the pic, as if you are afraid somebody is going to run with your idea and deprive you of your intelectual property.


This suggests to me that rather than doing this as a bit of a running joke that we have been playing along with, you might actually believe that this is something that might parallel reality somewhere other than in your head.

Please tell me that you know it is silly?

[Clockwork Mouse]

On your usual charming form I see Tourist.

[keesje]

Tourist ;

http://www.duvekot.ca/eliane/archives/Statler_Waldorf.jpg

;)

[Siggie]

http://poietes.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/marvin-the-martian.jpg?w=367

:hmm:

[Dave Angel]

Has anybody else noticed that Tourist has the anagram: Sour Tit :hmm:

Explains a lot :ok:

[keesje]

A few strong sensors and high speed network connections, range, a few pilots and IT folks.

ItemID=41092http://www.flightglobal.com/assets/getAsset.aspx?ItemID=41092

The aircraft (below) already has an MX-15 sensor installed beneath its rear fuselage, plus a large fairing above its cabin to accommodate satellite communication equipment. ... Other systems could include a line-of-sight tactical common data link, self-protection equipment, signals intelligence-gathering sensors and a maritime search radar, all integrated with L-3's onboard processing, exploitation and dissemination system.

Fraction of the costs of a full blown MPA. The specialist are on the ground, not in the air.

PICTURE: How L-3's re-nosed 'Spydr' King Air will look (http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2011/07/22/359828/picture-how-l-3s-re-nosed-spydr-king-air-will-look.html)

[Scuttled]

Yes Tourist, what are you thinking? This is all very good stuff and I, for one, fully expect to see most of the Take Hart efforts in the gallery sent here by our talented viewers to be in service very soon.

I hope that you are very ashamed of yourself.

:hmm:

[keesje]

Scuttled, I guess in reality the thousands of more conservative, more of the same, proven airframe folks, were blown out of the water, sadly. If the RAF would have gone innovative, smaller, leaner and more flexible 10-15 yrs ago, some of the members around here would still have been flying MPA misisons. Lessons learned the hard way in the UK and the Netherlands..

[Duncan D'Sorderlee]

Keesje,

Probably not a bad MPA - kit dependant, of course. I'm not sure how much ASW it could do based on the likely sonobuoy storage area and release system. There are, however, a couple of things that confuses me: how is it going to give away its fuel when in AAR role? how much can it carry in the AT role? Or, have you decided that that was not such a clever idea after all?

Duncs:ok:

[The Old Fat One]

If the RAF would have gone innovative, smaller, leaner and more flexible 10-15 yrs ago, some of the members around here would still have been flying MPA misisons. Lessons learned the hard way in the UK and the Netherlands..

A mixture of 20/20 hindsight and misguided naivety.

The RAF has visited this concept repeatedly over the years. Multi role platform versus smaller, less complex, role specific platforms. All sorts of very clever dudes (in different league to you or I) have expended vast amounts of energy and money looking into this sort of stuff..and (unlike you or I) have put their professional reputations on the line by making a decision.

There was a long documentary on the space shuttle last night in the UK. Fascinating for some one like me who was a space geek back in the Apollo days and has a library on the subject to hear some of the views of the people behind the project, thirty years on.

I can remember NASA trumpeting how reuseable vehicles would dramtically lower the cost of getting stuff into Earth orbit. Thirty years on, turns out the cost of turning round the shuttle was 3 times higher than using a disposable booster, like Apollo. The moral of the story...hindsight is easy, foresight is hard and prone to error.

Your toy aircraft above is littoral surface surveillance platform. That's about ten percent of the MPA role. Add in a UAV for overland comms (and we all know how cheap they are) that's about another 10-20 percent. Then a modified C130 squadron (or adaptable container fit) for SAR. Then we have still have to address open ocean ASW and long range surface surveillance....um how about 10 or so Nimrods..?

OK I've given you some insight, and not for the first time. Tourist has given you the short answer...for those that would decry him, he happens to be spot on.

[Pontius Navigator]

There is also an indefined something about a large MPA crew in a small tube.

Even in the Sim you had this symbiosis (?) where team members would have an off-mic discussion and then pop an idea or make a proposal. With the flight deck, nav team, wet and dry you had 4 separate groups considering a problem.

Would the beanies countenance a 12 man crew on the ground controlling an MPUAV?

It might be attractive to prune the acoustics and radar teams by a couple of bods but the 2nd nav, 3rd wet and 3rd dry were what made for a particularly strong MPA team. How else could the experienced masters bring on their replacements for future years?

[fincastle84]

How else could the experienced masters bring on their replacements for future years?
Normally in the scruff's bar when I flew with "Soggy" Goss on 206.:E

[Pontius Navigator]

Fincastle, very true but the sprogs had to be on the crew to be privvie to the one on one debrief.

[davejb]

The point is that if you've never done it, you don't know what you need to do it. Finding a surface contact and classifying it without getting yourself counter detected (or, in wartime, shot down) is not easy, and it won't be achieved with a small boll on radar, tracking submerged subs via acoustics - and nobody, despite decades of stirling effort, has found an effective alternative - requires large numbers of sonobuoys, whilst effective on task periods require an aircraft with a long loiter time.

King Airs and the like would be perfectly decent platforms for inshore patrolling, which is - as has been pointed out above - a small fraction of what we require an MPA to do. You don't design an MPA by deciding to go small, use this kit and that kit, you design it by identifying the tasks it must perform and then designing the platform around the requirement.

Still, why would those of us with thousands of flying hours on MPA know what's needed, compared to the average Joe walking in off the street who likes playing with photoshop?

:ugh:

[davejb]

BTW PN,
I try to avoid joining the grammar police, but I hope you meant privy - or was that a freudian slip regarding the Sgts mess pigs' bar? :)

[Pontius Navigator]

oh ok, but it is Sunday

[keesje]

There are, however, a couple of things that confuses me: how is it going to give away its fuel when in AAR role? how much can it carry in the AT role? Or, have you decided that that was not such a clever idea after all?

The drogue installation would be permanent. The concept has a large fuel capacity that can be used for increasing range or for transferring it to e.g. other MPAs/ helicopters depending on mission requirements.

All sorts of very clever dudes (in different league to you or I) have expended vast amounts of energy and money looking into this sort of stuff..and (unlike you or I) have put their professional reputations on the line by making a decision.

Sorry I'm not from the militairy AND from the Netherlands. That gives me weak respect for authorities and allergy for directions solely based on ranks.

Then we have still have to address open ocean ASW and long range surface surveillance....um how about 10 or so Nimrods..?
Still, why would those of us with thousands of flying hours on MPA know what's needed, compared to the average Joe walking in off the street who likes playing with photoshop?

All the decades of global experience and knowledge let to totally missing out on what was really important. To much looking back / respect/ sticking to mantras and too little independently looking forward. They (Dutch and UK) navy people were too convinced of their truth and the world as they saw it that they didn't really pick up on the world / support for them changing & we all know what happened.

What has gone wrong sofar after the Nimrods were grounded?

[4thright]

Theres the old proverb, keesje. When having dug himself into a hole, a wise man stops digging. :)

[BEagle]

The drogue installation would be permanent. The concept has a large fuel capacity...

So your concept is going to carry about 1500kg of AAR equipment (pods, pylons, pipework, extra high flow rate pumps, valves, vent lines) on a permanent basis? Plus there's the drag penalty of the pods and pylons....

What do you consider to be a 'large' fuel capacity? Your sketch shows a few fuselage tanks - what about the wing tanks?

[keesje]

Theres the old proverb, keesje. When having dug himself into a hole, a wise man stops digging.

IMO the must be 12 crew 150k lbs 4 hauler MPA supporters dug themselves a hole, and it isn't a concept hole :(

So your concept is going to carry about 1500kg of AAR equipment (pods, pylons, pipework, extra high flow rate pumps, valves, vent lines) on a permanent basis? Plus there's the drag penalty of the pods and pylons....

What do you consider to be a 'large' fuel capacity? Your sketch shows a few fuselage tanks - what about the wing tanks?

No wing pods, center line. The wing tanks would carry most of the fuel.

[BEagle]

So if it has a centreline hose (just the one...??), how are you going to avoid compromising weapon bay and sonobuoy carriage space?

How much fuel is your design intended to carry?

[Duncan D'Sorderlee]

keesje,

Have you ever wondered why no-one has ever used a KingAir as a tanker?

Duncs:ok:

[MFC_Fly]

Sorry I'm not from the militairy
IMO the must be 12 crew 150k lbs 4 hauler MPA supporters dug themselves a hole
Says it all really. Those that know about MPA ops are the same people that are saying what the requirements really are, not the ones pushing for a "I can do everything - but only for 5 minutes within a mile of the coast" type plane :rolleyes:

from the Netherlands
Stick to talking about what you know best then... Flowers, cheese, drugs, tarts and 'chocolate shprinklesh' :ok:

[Just This Once...]

AO ISTAR briefed in recent days that it will be 5 x P8 on lease and that 'seedcorn' will get additional resources. Longer term has yet to be decided or funded.

[Duncan D'Sorderlee]

If that's the case, I don't think that AO ISTAR has spoken to CINC AIR.

Duncs:ok:

[ShortFatOne]

And of course the money to pay for this 'lease' + training + servicing + weapons + spares + ground equipment + pfa tools + rigs + etc etc is all coming out of the pay packet of the fu*kwit who cancelled, scrapped and completely disposed of the MR2/MRA4s and anything else to do with Maritime FW aviation isn't it?

I thought not. Even if it goes ahead, I'm fairly certain our cousins will get priority, then India, then us, so it will be 2016 at the earliest; my guess, there will be little or no maritime fw air experience left by then.

Good Luck.

[davejb]

Okay,
this has gone on for 12 pages, and that's quite enough - Keesje, I'll leave it to you to start the new thread on 'Space Ops post Shuttle', which subject hasn't had so much as a Microsoft Paint doodle so far, and is (surely) worthy of discussion? We've had reuseable boosters, non-reuseable boosters, I look forward to discovering the third way.

MFC, that made me chuckle :D

[Neptunus Rex]

AO ISTAR briefed in recent days that it will be 5 x P8 on lease

What a joke! That's not even a Squadron. With the P8's capabilities, 18 would be a minimum figure; plus another 2 for MOTU, (Showing my age!)

[t43562]

Here's one of the many post shuttle options but it's one that appeals to me:

Reaction Engines Ltd : Space Propulsion Systems (http://www.reactionengines.co.uk/)

The discussion on the Nasa spaceflight forum might interest some:

Skylon (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=24621.0)

It's interesting to see people's reactions to an idea. In my work I often have to explain why things work the way they do to people but the tradeoffs can suddenly change on you very quickly.

[keesje]

Microsoft Paint doodle so far,

Those that know about MPA ops are the same people that are saying what the requirements really are

I'm amazed how many still support an MPA strategy that so catastrophically hit the wall. This thread will be findable in 5-10 years & w'll be able to see how MPA's look by then.

http://media.defenseindustrydaily.com/images/AIR_EMB-145_P-99MPA_lg.jpg
http://www.satnews.com/cgi-bin/display_image.cgi?784669826

Hopefull the UK caught up.

[Willard Whyte]

http://www.byrdaviationbooks.com/harleyma.jpg

[davejb]

No no no no no!

I'm amazed how many still support an MPA strategy that so catastrophically hit the wall.

The MPA startegy worked, what didn't work was the process by which replacement aircraft were procured, and this is a problem that could hit ANY branch of the forces with the same anihilating effect... and arguably already has done, when you look at how many SSN, DDG and FFG the RN is going to have for the forseeable future, how many fighter/fighter-bomber aircraft the RAF will have, and the number of regiments there will be in the full time army.

At least TRY to learn to identify the real issue.

[ORAC]

Defense News: Germany to Press Maritime Patrol Aircraft Pool (http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=7239640&c=EUR&s=TOP)

BRUSSELS - Germany is looking to make progress on a maritime patrol aircraft pool, a European Union multinational joint headquarters (JHQ) and other high-priority military ideas at a workshop it is hosting in September and October.

At first sight, the maritime patrol aircraft pool looks to have more potential, as the JHQ has been opposed by the U.K. and requires all 26 EU member states taking part in the EU's defense policy to agree for it to proceed.

"Using the European Air Transport Command as a template, a management structure for the coordination of maritime patrol resources and capabilities could be established, bringing together partial, fragmented national capabilities into a European pool," a German Ministry of Defence official said.

The aim of the workshop is to gain thorough information on member states' interest. "Nations who have declared their intention to participate in this initiative will also have to discuss the topic of sharing the use of maritime patrol aircraft in real-world operations," the official said..........

[The Old Fat One]

A NATO/European MPA force...before anybody else claims that one for the modern generation, I wrote a paper on it circa mid 80s.

Pretty sure (as in absolutely ******** certain) many people had had the idea before me.

As with most (all) of my ideas, I was told to stop being a knob. Ho hum....the trials and tribulations of being years ahead of your time.


At least TRY to learn to identify the real issue.


Give it up mate...his morse key has been locked to transmit.

[Roland Pulfrew]

I'm amazed how many still support an MPA strategy that so catastrophically hit the wall.

keesje

As has been pointed out numerous times, the MPA strategy did not "hit the wall". Our Govt, as did yours, decided for different reasons to give up LONG range maritime patrol aircraft. The requirement for a LONG range MPA still exists in the UK. It exists in the USA and they are procuring the P8, the Russians still operate the Bear F; even the Chinese and Indian militaries have recognised the requirement for LRMPA and the Indians have 16 P8s on order. So according to you all of these countries have got it wrong.

The plastic toys you suggest may be able to do the long bit (in the case of Global Hawk), they might even be able to open water ASuW with nice radars, but most of your suggestions are littoral at best. With GH (designed for high altitude ops) just how do you suggest that it will be capable of carrying sufficient, suitable ASW sensors? With how much of a redesign? And at what cost? Where will the ASW weapons be fitted and at what cost/impact upon performance? Your Emb 145 looks lovely, on paper; however, as the UK has discovered with ASTOR/Sentinel, sticking a large fairing on a small biz-jet comes with its own, significant, expensive problems.

If you want coastal patrol aircraft there are lots out there that fit the bill already, but for deep water ASW, well there are the P8 and the world's ugliest aircraft (the Japanese purpose designed P1). I for one am a sceptic on the capabilities of the P8 (when it first enters service). After that you are into second hand aircraft modified for the role. As many on here have pointed out there are no UAVs that can do the task, there are unlikely to be any UAVs in the forseeable future that can do the ASW task and UAVs aren't cheap - not when you add in all of the C2 required to control them.

As someone who has specialised in both LRMP and AAR (not at the same time), your design might be able to do one task, or the other, but not both; the missions are simply mutually exclusive.

[Tallsar]

Spot On RP!:ok:

[The Old Fat One]

Spot On RP!http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/thumbs.gif


Indeed he is.

Standby to be told we are all wrong however.

[keesje]

Standby to be told we are all wrong however.

I don't have to, reality does.

I recognize the tone & confidence from the dutch MPA force.

Nobody could tell them what's really important, how it really works..

btw Roland good post, at least you explain why you don't agree

[keesje]

The dutch are now considering taking Apaches on board.

Dutch leading government party wants to deploy apaches against pirates (http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?204201-Dutch-leading-government-party-wants-to-deploy-apaches-against-pirates)

"Pirate motherships" seem to be moderately impressed by Lynx' .50 / 7.62mm.

Some might state that is not how these assets are supposed to be used and these folks just don't understand a decent naval patrol operation.

IMO the requirements are changing rapidly & a 2025 MPA will look entire different then a P3 or Nimrod because of it.

[Duncan D'Sorderlee]

keesje,

I fail to see how an Apache will perform the roles (either traditional or those proscribed by you in previous posts) of an MPA. The AAR role will be particularly taxing!

Duncs:ok:

[The Old Fat One]

btw Roland good post, at least you explain why you don't agree

My friend, go back over your posts and responses. You will find that all this has been explained to you before.

You choose to ignore it, becaue you have decided you know best. Ergo, experienced professionals (or ex professionals in my case) will now just take the p**s because to us your ideas are infantile and so is your obstinance.

That is not to say, you have nothing to offer and you raise some good points. You are also correct that the UK government has ****ed up completely the UKs maritime defence.

But the answer is not some plastic, littoral, airfix model... or any other of the UAV/airship nonsense.


IMO the requirements are changing rapidly & a 2025 MPA will look entire different then a P3 or Nimrod because of it.


No **** sherlock.

Forgive me for not worrying too much about 2025, with the possibility of a nuclear exchange once again rearing its head - only this time with decidedly non-rational actors in the loop - 2025 looks a little far off to being predicting too much.

[ORAC]

Hmmmm. Well, if you just need a new airframe, with proven engines and props, to fit kit you've already designed inside, looks like there's a new alternative to second hand P-3s........ :8

Ares: China's Maritime Patroller
(http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&newspaperUserId=27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7&plckPostId=Blog%3a27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3a80d4af00-aa3b-4009-82d1-d9e4b2ae8128&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest)

China's AVIC-Shanxii Y-8F-600, a modernized version of a reverse-engineered Antonov An-12, is spawning a growing family of special-use variants without having apparently entered service as a transport. Two AEW versions (one with a rotodome and another with an AESA similar to Saab's EriEye) have been sighted. Now, the latest version is a weapons carrier -- an antisubmarine warfare aircraft.

http://sitelife.aviationweek.com/ver1.0/Content/images/store/6/3/0613aa5d-7d28-4f77-b325-d9d2f3d3b3e2.Large.jpg

The extensively modified airframe has a weapons bay, surface-search radar, EO/IR sensor turret (ahead of the weapons bay) and a magnetic anomaly detector boom at the end of a redesigned, ramp-less rear fuselage. It will presumably have an acoustics system and sonobuoy tubes.

It's the first ASW aircraft of this scale and capability for the Chinese armed forces, and the only such active program outside the USA (following the demise of the Nimrod MRA4 in last year's UK defense review). It's not hard to guess its intended targets.

Aircraft of this type are not usually found searching large tracts of ocean for submarines. Norman Friedman's book Network-Centric Warfare describes the P-3 as an interceptor, launched to prosecute targets detected by SOSUS (sound surveillance system). An isolated report in 2008 suggested that China was deploying its equivalent of SOSUS.

Other missions for oceanic-range ASW aircraft include providing cover for ballistic missile submarines, making it possible to detect and track hostile subs that might be trailing the SSBN as it leaves on a patrol.

The appearance of the new Y-8 platform indicates that China is expanding its ASW ambitions. Building an aircraft is only a small part of the ASW battle. It also requires sensor and processing technology -- systems like the P-8A Poseidon draw on decades of experience with acoustic systems, using passive and active sonobuoys to detect and pin down the target -- and human expertise. So what is important is that the PLA-N is setting off down that long and difficult road.

By the way, the engines on the Y-8F600 are Pratt & Whitney PW150s and the propellers are from GE's Dowty unit. The program was launched in 2001-03 as a commercial venture.

[QTRZulu]

Orac,

Not disputing anything you've just written, but having worked with our cousins across the pond, the last 3 words of this part made me laugh out loud.

systems like the P-8A Poseidon draw on decades of experience with acoustic systems, using passive and active sonobuoys to detect and pin down the target -- and human expertise.

:D:D

Thanks

[Clockwork Mouse]

The Key Aero site is reporting a PFI as imminent with the MoD using reengined and modified Catalinas for MPA starting operations by 2019. Then I noticed the date!

[cyrilranch]

taken from Future Martime Surveillance (2nd April 2012) (http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201012/cmselect/cmdfence/writev/1918/fms09.htm)

from Raytheon UK suggest that these aircraft can be use in maritime surveillance at not a lot of cost.


"The Dual Mode Radar Sensor (DMRS) fitted to the Sentinel R Mk1 is currently tuned for operation in the ground environment. However, with only minor changes to the mission system computing, a maritime mode could be introduced that would enable the detection of surface vessels, and potentially submarine periscopes. This supplementary mode would not degrade performance of the DMRS in the Land environment, where it has recently demonstrated such effective operational utility in both Libya and Afghanistan. [/B]A similar maritime radar mode has already been proven and fielded within the United States (US) Broad Area Maritime Surveillance (BAMS) solution, the sister radar to the UK DMRS. Further capability enhancement of the Sentinel R Mk1 platform could be achieved through an incremental upgrade programme, adding additional sensors relevant to the maritime domain, such as Automatic Identification System, and Signals Intelligence."


is the cunning plan for the Sentinel post 'stan pull out????

[Wensleydale]

Further capability enhancement of the Sentinel R Mk1 platform could be achieved through an incremental upgrade programme, adding additional sensors relevant to the maritime domain, such as Automatic Identification System, and Signals Intelligence."




In other words, if we spend a lot of money, we could give the Sentinel the same capability as has been carried in the Sentry for many years.

(I am not saying that the Sentry is an MPA either, God forbid - it just has the capability that the Sentinel is advertising and much more besides).

[Finnpog]

Found this article this morning

MoD to buy U.S. spy planes months after axing £4.1bn fleet of Nimrods | Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2131324/MoD-buy-U-S-spy-planes-months-axing-4-1bn-fleet-Nimrods.html?ito=feeds-newsxml)

When I went looking for it later, it wasn't quite as prominent. More scathing readers' comments than compliments at the bottom.

[TBM-Legend]

Buy P-3's or x-IN Il-18's

[tilleydog1]

Mail Online appears to have dropped the story now.

[airsound]

MoD noticed it! Their riposte below may have had something to do with its disappearance.
Nimrod MRA4
The Daily Mail today claims that the MOD is considering buying a replacement for the Nimrod MRA4. This is not true. The paper has inaccurately reported the comments made by Air Vice-Marshal Mark Green at a House of Commons Defence Committee meeting yesterday. He was answering a hypothetical question asked by the Committee about which aircraft the MOD would look to buy if it was felt a replacement was required.

We assessed the implications of removing Nimrod from service and are confident the threat can be managed without the need for a replacement maritime patrol aircraft. We constantly monitor the threat but there is no evidence to suggest our assessment will change in the short term.

We are buying a number of Rivet Joint aircraft, known as Airseeker, which will provide the UK's airborne signals intelligence capability until 2025. This is not because of a gap left by the MRA4, as the Daily Mail suggests, as it will replace the Nimrod R1 which is not a maritime surveillance aircraft.

The RAF is deploying maritime-experienced aircrew to operate alongside international partners on a range of aircraft where our reconnaissance and surveillance skills are being exploited. We are also using other military assets for maritime patrol, including frigates, Merlin helicopters and Hercules aircraft.

The decision in the Strategic Defence and Security Review not to bring the Nimrod MRA4 into service was difficult but our ability to operate maritime patrol aircraft is being maintained. Only one Nimrod MRA4 had been delivered to the RAF and it had not passed air worthiness tests, the project was hundreds of millions of pounds over budget, years late, and needed considerable extra funding to rectify long-running technical problems.airsound

[cokecan]

of course it did - there was no link to Cancer, Immigration, Houseprices or Princess Diana in the story...

[BEagle]

We assessed the implications of removing Nimrod from service and are confident the threat can be managed without the need for a replacement maritime patrol aircraft. We constantly monitor the threat but there is no evidence to suggest our assessment will change in the short term.

"Well, he would say that, wouldn't he?", as someone* once said during the Profumo affaire......:(

http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a341/nw969/MR-D.jpg



*as well as "Coo, Lord Astor, what a little willy!"

[Postman Plod]

No evidence, cos we aren't looking, and besides we can't see submarines without an MPA so they're not there? lalalalalalaaaaa :}

[XV208 SNOOPY]

the written submisions in HANSARD make interesting reading from the 2nd April

House of Commons - Defence Committee - Written Evidence (http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201012/cmselect/cmdfence/writev/1918/contents.htm)