Airbus A400M as a maritime aircraft ?

[Stuffy]

Is it a realistic option to convert the Airbus A400M to maritime use?

The Boeing P8 appears to be too small ?

http://dms.progressivemediagroup.com/Uploads/Project/3730/images/145610/large/a400m.jpg


http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcS_6hrwHXYgc7n5kCyK8QUO_jRbOFEIWpqUqQGFN3h fwXDfMxpSRXsewx7Few

[CoffmanStarter]

Anything is possible these days ... But with all that MPA kit to lug around ... plus flight rations ... you might look to convert these :}

http://sophiefigenwald.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/beluga-airbus.jpg

[Herod]

You know, if you filled the Beluga's fuselage with ferry tanks, it would have one hell of a range.

[Biggus]

Who says the P-8 is too small?


Too small for what?

[Phoney Tony]

The P8 is too big..........for the MoD budget!

[BEagle]

In the days when A400M was 'FLA', one of its intended roles was as the intended RMPA. However, the design requirements for a sturdy, austere base transport aeroplane with a freight floor and those of an MPA with a need for sensors and weapons carriage were, to an extent, mutually incompatible.

The A321 would, however, be a reasonable platform upon which to base an MPA.

Although whether it would be affordable is a different matter.

[Rigga]

..even I have a ticket for 321's!
Roll on the civvy contract? I'm sure that's the only way the RAF will get them.
If they buy 20-yr-old frames I'm sure some Northern company could modify them in just a few short decades.

[Stuff]

So basically we're having this conversation http://www.pprune.org/military-aircrew/456091-marshall-proposes-c-130-mpa-conversion-uk-4.html again but with a bigger airframe?

[Bigpants]

I believe they as in the MOD had a look at using the above.

Cheap, fast, modest platform, just a shame they do not make them anymore but Eastern have a few.

I would be pleasantly surprised to see the A400 perform its prime role without further Airbus related cok ups and delays before thinking about maritime roles.

[Stuffy]

All the European Maritime patrol aircraft are getting long in the teeth.

With the A330 Tanker fiasco with the Americans, I don't forsee a lot of enthusiasm to buy the Boeing P8?

Obviously the Europeans would want a european solution. Enter the dedicated maritime A400M. The freight door would be removed and the aircraft would contain all the weapons, sonor bhoys, electonics etc needed.

Most of the cost would be the electronics, so it is important to have a longish production run to bring the cost of the aircraft down. As in the Boeing P8.

Since the maritime version would be the same as the original version, apart from the freight door. There is a chance this could be achieved with the A400 Maritime.

The alternative is for the whole of Europe to buy American.
That is unacceptable.

[Bubblewindow]

Anything is possible these days ... But with all that MPA kit to lug around ... plus flight rations

It's ok, the rations have been axed in the cutbacks!!

BW

[keesje]

Obviously the Europeans would want a european solution

I think the A400M would be way to big & expensive. A bombbay seems problematic. Much of the systems could be used, e.g engines.

A while back I sketched a euro concept that can transfer fuel to other MPAs and helicopters, as well as move 20 people/ cargo and carry optional gun turret (counter piracy). Single purpose platforms proved risky in dynamic times.

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

[Jayand]

Oh ffs, this is a wind up surely? A400m as an MPA lol.
We are not getting ANY MPA. Simples.

[keesje]

In another thread a european command was discussed with three main bases (northern UK, Portugal, Southern Italy) and a number of helicopter stations. A standarized long haul MPA type, a smaller coast ops optimized type and mixed european crews. Aircraft could be rotated between the bases as required.

[Stuffy]

What is really needed is an aircraft with a nice big bomb bay and four engines.

Something like this:-

http://htka.hu/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/nimrod_mra4_01.jpg

[juliet]

http://www.spyflight.co.uk/images/jpgs/Lockheed%20P3/2001939548.jpg

Big bomb bay - tick
Four engines - tick

[Stuffy]

How the Nimrod took so long to complete, is anybody's guess. I think I few heads needed knocking together. All that money spent for scrap metal.

A while back I flew a Boeing B737-800 from Mumbai to Bangkok.
Sardines in a tin. The engines and wing may be modern, but it is still a cramped 1950's fuselage. Not the greatest flight.

There will be problems with the Boeing P8 Poseidon.
Two engines, no bomb bay to drop things. Trying to do too much with a small airframe. Where have we heard that before ?

Maybe we should update the Nimrod ? Errr, sorry, cancelled.

Only two engines on the Atlantique ? Yes, but it has a bomb bay.

Lots of MPA aircraft in Europe getting old. Replacement needed, come on Eurozone, you have loads of money. You keep telling us that things are fine.

No, not the Airbus 321, it is an airliner, and it has two engines.

A400M expensive ? Depends on the production run. Most of the expense will be the electronics on board. Which need, an aircraft that is quite large for many reasons. The crew need a rest on a long flight.

The A400M has quite a good rough/short field performance, and a inflight refueling probe. It is quick for a turboprop.

Nearly getting there are we?

The bomb bay, might be a problem. Still, much can be done with a big aircraft. Lots of space inside means lots of flexibility. I am still thinking Of that flight to Bangkok, sitting by the window and asking the passengers to move so I can go to the toilet. It would, probably make quite a good business aircraft. Done already you say, OK fine. Boeing Business aircraft.

Back to square one. The Nimrod should never have been cancelled. It was just mismanaged. Well, we know how smart managers are?

Airbus A340-300. Ideal, send a few up to Marshalls at Cambridge, conversion time.

Back to square two.

1)Four engines for an MPA
2)A nice big bomb bay to drop things.
3)Lots of electronic power and cooling.
4)Somewhere for the crew to eat and sleep.
5)An aircraft not designed in the 1950's. Nimrod, yeah I know, but it looks nice.

In the end, the Europeans will keep their ancient crates going, and the British will buy the Boeing P8.
Won't they Liam ?

[Stuffy]

The good old P3 Orion.

A geat aircraft in its day, but old. Those maintenance costs upset the accountants.

Probably another option, better than the P8 though.

http://www.spyflight.co.uk/images/jpgs/Lockheed%20P3/2001939548.jpg

[betty swallox]

Stuffy. When it comes to P-8, I'm afraid you are wrong. It is not too small. Please don't compare to a passenger 737. It's a different beast.

[juliet]

Two engines, no bomb bay to drop things.

http://harmoniaphilosophica.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/p-8a-poseidon-torp-drop-usn-1.jpg

[Stuffy]

I think Juliet has answered that one.

The P8 ....

It is too small.

It has two engines.

It does not, as far as I am aware. Have a bomb bay.

Lockheed make better aircraft than Ford(Boeing).

[Stuffy]

That is not a bomb bay. That is a delivery shoot.

Anyway, Made in USA. Will not go down well in Europe.

I thought the USAF ordered A33o tankers ?

Whoops, here comes Congress !

[juliet]

The integral bomb bay can carry free-fall bombs, Raytheon Mark 54 torpedoes and depth charges. Air-to-surface missiles are installed on the underwing hardpoints.
The US Navy armed the P-8A with a development of the MK 54 torpedo that can be fired from high-altitude. The first MK 54 torpedo was successfully test fired by the P-8A Poseidon in October 2011.

Pretty sure there is a bomb bay.

[Stuffy]

I know they are Made in Russia, have two engines, but I rather like these:-

http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3567/5696553197_c76a3ff9ca_z.jpg

[Stuffy]

And the smaller version:-

http://www.airplane-pictures.net/images/uploaded-images/2013-1/13/261623.jpg

[Stuffy]

If it walks like a duck, and talks like a duck. It is a duck, or a Boeing 737.


An airliner.

The A400M is a beast. You can't lease them to Soutwest Airlines, well not yet anyway.

[aussiepilot]

We all know that you can't make a successful maritime aircraft based on an airliner...

http://www.century-of-flight.net/Aviation%20history/photo_albums/timeline/airliners/images/16.jpg


http://media.defenceindustrydaily.com/images/AIR_P-3C_Orion_Drops_Sonobuoy_lg.jpg

[Stuffy]

As long as they have four engines and they are called Nimrod.

[keesje]

Dream on, no flying battleships for the UK. Don't think 1985.

Even something like this is ambitious at this moment..

http://www.aviationnews.eu/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/C295_MPA_VP-1_Chile-600x400.jpg

[Roland Pulfrew]

As long as they have four engines and they are called Nimrod.

Stuffy. Step away from the computer. You are making yourself look foolish. And even worse you know have keesje on the case and we will have to suffer his ASW, tanker, transport MPA pipe dream again :ugh:

[keesje]

The RAF could follow the Roland Pulfrew line; live in the past, preserve a Nimrod carcas, build models to dream away while the rest of the world moves on..

[Stuffy]

http://www.warbirdalley.com/images/Shackleton-Bomber.jpg

One million rivets, vibrating in unison.

Bomb Bay ? This is a bomb bay:-

http://cdn-www.airliners.net/aviation-photos/photos/8/3/0/1227038.jpg

[Stuffy]

Airbus have already designed it...

"The A400M aircraft will meet the requirements of European Air Forces well into the 21st century while enhancing Europe's airlift capability. It will be able to takeoff from short (less than 1,000 meters) and rough runways and to operate autonomously loading and unloading payloads through its own resources independently of ground support. The aircraft has a rear loading ramp and T tail.

Airbus Military manages the A400M program. There are plans to developed advanced derivatives to fulfill specific missions profiles such as maritime patrol aircraft, early warning aircraft etc. The A400M will be converted to the air tanker role rapidly through the addition of under wing hose and drogue pods. The aircraft also features a forward fuselage mounted refueling probe."

What is needed, and the P8 does not appear to have, is a MAD boom. Or are they out of date ?
Magnetic anomaly detector - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_anomaly_detector)


http://images.auctionhelper.com/images/10343/Anigrand/AnigrandIL38b

[Biggus]

....someone's going to come along in a minute and tell you to make the picture smaller!

[NutLoose]

Unfortunately cancelled, but were design studies

http://www.bisbos.com/images_aircraft/vc10/vc10_aew_g_600.jpg

http://www.bisbos.com/images_aircraft/vc10/vc10_aew_f_600.jpg

http://www.bisbos.com/images_aircraft/vc10/vc10_nimrod_600.jpg

And lets not forget

http://www.bisbos.com/images_aircraft/vc10/vc10_poffler_600.jpg

:ok:

[Stuffy]

The wonderful VC-10. Thirsty by today's standards.

Boeing have been pushing the UK government hard for the P8.

Liam Fox wanted it. I am not sure the service chiefs agreed?

A Europe wide solution will have to be found, eventually. A decision based purely on costs, will be the wrong one.

Beware the Beancounters !

[cokecan]

Gents,

how far did the (i think) FOAS idea of a C-130/A-400M type aircraft lobbing a pallet load of ALCM's out the back get along?

i would have seen the illustration/concept around 1990 - was it ever anything of a go-er?

[Wholigan]

Finger trouble reporting that post Stuffy??? ;)

[Bing]

Beware the Beancounters !

Yes, because completely ignoring financial reality has worked wonderfully so far...

[keesje]

Generally I think less people onboard will be required for a future MPA. Computerpower, smart software and data transfer helped. So less space for many crew stations/ facilities required. Then 4 engines were the only options for Nimrod and PC3, 50 yrs ago. Things have changed. Requirements to. Dept charges aren't effective fighting pirats in small fast boats with machine guns.

Me too thinks a European requirement will grow over the years.

Love the VC-Nimrod :)

[Stuffy]

Big is best.

A classic...

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3d/Short_Sunderland_I_210_Sqn_in_flight.jpg

http://img4.hostingpics.net/pics/290032ShortSunderlandMkIII.jpg

[CoffmanStarter]

Even better then :E

http://latimesphoto.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/fa_396_47gooseflies1_970.jpg

[Stuffy]

On a more serious note. Maritime patrol aircraft will take on an extremely important role in the future. During the Second World War, the Battleship became obsolete and the aircraft carrier became the most important surface vessel.

They are now vulnerable to the submarine, it is not necessary to sink an aircraft carrier, just disable it, by destroying its steering gear and propellers.

The UK government is using the ‘Ten year rule’ in its judgement. They were elected to power in 2010, and the theory is, that there will not be a major war for ten years. Therefore 2020 will be when trouble kicks off. Major wars do not happen in a depression, that is, what we are experiencing now.

The Second World War, was, the naval war of the aircraft carrier. The Third World War (heaven forbid if it happens), will be the war of the submarine. Although in the North Atlantic, this already happened during the Second World War.

In theory, something must be done within seven years.Adapting aircraft types already in service, is all very well, but a dedicated aircraft is better.

There is no dedicated MPA aircraft, well there are a few old machines like the Atlantique.

The Lockheed P3 Orion is a decent bit of kit, but now it is getting old.
I will not go on about the Nimrod. Mismanagement is mismanagement, beancounters don’t have solutions, just an abacus.

Somebody needs to produce a solution, now !

[betty swallox]

Stuffy
Sorry. Who are you? Have you any clue on this thread. I'm afraid your posts are rather niaive and ill-informed. Do you really think the P-8 doesn't have a bomb bay. Even the most basic search on wiki would reveal this. Well done you.

[Roland Pulfrew]

The RAF could follow the Roland Pulfrew line; live in the past, preserve a Nimrod carcas, build models to dream away while the rest of the world moves on..

Dream on keesje, the rest of the world move on? Name one nation that has adopted anything other than an MPA for MP. Only the US, with all their resource, and the Israelis are using UAVs in the surface search role. Others will no doubt follow, but everyone else is using an MPA (even the US are sticking with the multi-mission P8). Some might be modified transport (in the case of the CASA 235/295 MPA variants, but no one has tanker, transport, MPA because, as was pointed out to you on your previous topic, they are mutually exclusive roles. That's not to say that one airframe couldn't do all of those roles, just not at the same time!!

Neither I nor the RAF advocate living in the past. If your platform is required to do ASW and ASuW, then maybe you need to be looking at the other roles it could do. ELINT. Overland EO/FMV. Over water EO/FMV. Comms relay. COMINT. Long range SAR. Scene of Action commander etc, etc. Carry a variety of weapons from torpedo, through Hellfire sized weapons, anti ship weapons such as Harpoon, long range cruise missiles of the TLAM/Storm Shadow class, through to NDBs (for those that still possess them). A proper multi mission aircraft. All of these could be done by the same platform, but even then I would say that you are going to end up with some dedicated platforms. If you are going to come up with a European or new solution then there is going to be one driving requirement for your MMA; a weapons bay. And that is going to be the limiting factor on a tanker or a transport. It would be dead weight, not required on either of them.

I completely agree that the future requires more multi-role assets, as does the RAF's chief, but they have to be mutually compatible roles and in that you need to be looking at a platform that might do all of the ISTAR type missions, not take a transport that has lots of space but which will require major modification to make it work.

[The Old Fat One]

Standard Pprune MPA thread.

Most of it appears to be drug induced.

[Stuffy]

The marvelous sound of Tyne engines.

The Breguet Atlantique. I don't know how effective this aircraft has been in service ?

http://zone.sousmarins.free.fr/atlantique-&-agosta.jpg

[keesje]

Roland

I think the MPA world isn't what it used to be. So copying 40 yr old formats into the future is useless.

- the UK has been without MPA's for years and the world didn't fall apart
- tanker, strategic transport, tactical transports used to be mutually incompatible roles, now the RAF has them on order.
- the 12-20 man crews of the Pc3s and Nimrod were developped within a world without network centric possibilities. IMo they will never come back, many of the mission brains will be on the ground. The German replaced Atlantics with 0 crew Euro Hawks as an extreme.
- a selling point of the C295 MPAs is they can move pallets and crews too.
- the only result of xxx million MPA circling pirats has been they know they have to hurry.
- an MPA has lots of fuel, being able to transfer excess fuel to e.g another MPA following it up in operational areas of extending helicopter ranges during SAR operations would be a significant operational asset. And not innovative at all, the US uses C130s for it.

http://i191.photobucket.com/albums/z160/keesje_pics/orionnewconceptmerlin.jpg?t=1311463937

I agree a weapons bay would be required and the transport opportunities would be limitted. I remember we even stuffed P3s with " cargo" flying to/ from the Antilles. They were seriously unfit for it (small doors) full cabin, but it still saved time/ costs/ logistic trouble. If it had had an oversized door and a little passenger / cargo deck we would have loved / used it..

[Rossian]

.......were those 8 P3s that the Dutch navy sold to the German squadron at Nordholz a figment of my imagination? Or perhaps an interference pattern in the time/space continuum.

Ok OK betty - having suggested that you didn't bite I just couldn't help myself.

Sorreeeee

The Ancient Mariner

[Roland Pulfrew]

:ugh: I dont know why I do this but I will, one last time!

Keesje

UK and MPA - a couple of years, and you would know whether the world fell apart would you?
Tankers and strategic transport - never said they were mutually exclusive and they aren't - VC10, Tristar and Voyager.
Tac transport and strat transport - depends on your definition of Tac and the RAF do not have any tac tankers on order (and if you say A400M go and do some research first).
German Euro Hawk is ELINT/SIGINT not MPA and the Germans still use P3C in MPA role - so simply wrong.
The C295 can only move pallets if you re-role it. Ever tried re-roling an aircraft of all it's electronics? Not as easy as it sounds!
Pirates and MPA? Not if it's done properly they don't! MPA stands off and tracks with radar and EO and directs warships or helis where to go.
An MPA generally carries sufficient fuel - for it's own mission. Ever heard of PLE? Do you understand the definition? No spare fuel here so move along.
The US C130s are tankers that can do a bit of surface surveillance. They are not multi-mission aircraft that can do the full range of tasks.
As I said, I have no issue with multi-mission platforms, but you have to choose your missions to amalgamate into one airframe. If you want a strat AT platform you might well be able to use it as a tanker. The same is probably true of TAC AT and tankers. But MPA or MMA, tanker and pax/freight - you are just dreaming. The role of AT is to move pax and freight, so no space for mission systems and crew. The role of AAR is to give the fuel away thereby limiting on station time. The role of MMA is to be on station effectively so no spare fuel to give away and no need to carry pax or freight. Pax and freight is invariably going from A to B most MMA are going to go from A and back to A. The fact that P3s (and Nimrods and E3s etc etc) may once have carried stuff because they could and were already transiting somewhere thereby saving the requirement to send a dedicated AT asset is just common sense and effective/efficient use of what was available. It doesnt mean you would have done it all the time.

Anyway my last comments on the subject; I'm off to the pub!:cool:

[Stuffy]

"Almost immediately after the cancellation of the Nimrod MRA4 was announced in the SDSR there were persistent rumours of a reinstatement of the capability at some point in the future. What that ‘point’ would be depended on what newspaper you were reading but the suggestion of anything substantial would have to wait until a suitable period after the cancellation of MRA4.
The MoD had just wasted somewhere south of £4 billion on MRA4 and we should note that at this point, the final costs of cancellation have not yet been announced. So, public discussion of a replacement was therefore about as welcome as a turd in a swimming pool but time has passed and almost everyone agrees that for a nation with a long coastline, extensive search and rescue obligations, a submarine based nuclear deterrent and an expeditionary capability that forms the likely core of any future military strategy it is a capability that is not a luxury.
After the usual collection of leaks and rumours, this was confirmed in a number of Defence Committee evidence sessions and subsequently the RAF’s Seedcorn Initiative was revealed in a November 2011 Parliamentary answer;
Angus Robertson (Moray, Scottish National Party)
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence
(1) how many personnel are taking part in the Seedcorn initiative; what the location is of each; and with what equipment they are training;
(2) what capabilities are being maintained through the Seedcorn initiative;
(3) what estimate he has made of the cost to the public purse of the Seedcorn initiative in each of the next five years.
Gerald Howarth (Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (International Security Strategy), Defence; Aldershot, Conservative)
The Seedcorn initiative will sustain the Ministry of Defence (MOD)’s capability to operate high level fixed-wing Maritime Patrol Aircraft (MPA) and maintain the associated skills of its personnel. Qualified RAF aircrew will be on exchange with a variety of Allied MPA forces, where they will maintain their anti-submarine and anti-surface warfare, long-range search and rescue, and Intelligence, Surveillance, Target Acquisition and Reconnaissance (ISTAR) skills.
The estimated cost of the initiative on average is £2.4 million per year for the next five years; this includes salary and allowances.
Retaining skills and MPA knowledge is vital if the United Kingdom is to be in a position to regenerate our own MPA capability at some point in the future.
The number and location of personnel and equipment to be used is as follows:
Location, Aircraft, Number of personnel
Canada, Royal Canadian Air Force Greenwood, CP-140 Aurora, 7
New Zealand, Royal New Zealand Air Force Base Whenuapai, P-3K Orion/P-3K2 Orion, 5
Royal New Zealand Air Force Base Ohakea, Beech King Air B200, 1
Australia, Royal Australian Air Force Base Edinburgh, AP-3C Orion, 4
United States, Naval Air Station Norfolk, Non-flying appointment related to maritime operational staff duties, 1
Naval Air Station Patuxent River, P3C Orion, 2
Additionally, discussions are ongoing with the US Navy on an exchange initiative for fully qualified RAF aircrew to support the US P-8A Poseidon programme.
A total of 33 personnel are serving overseas
So personnel have been cast to the four corners of the world to maintain their varied skillsets, again, another sign, if any were needed, that the maritime patrol capability gap was a temporary one. I think it is apparent that the Seedcorn initiative has a limited life span, there is little point in it if we have no intention of regenerating the capability.
At a cost of £12m for a 5 year programme it has a significant cost, more when one includes other associated costs such as allowances and travel, not included in the answer above.
With the early withdrawal of the MR2 and focus on overland operations prior to that it is debatable how much realistic ASW and ASuW training had been carried out anyway and with Seedcorn, given the dispositions, again, how many of these perishable skills will be maintained?
Whatever the answer to these questions, in March this year another Parliamentary Answer revealed the following
Mrs Moon: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence pursuant to the answer of 22 March 2011, Official Report, column 947W, on military aircraft, when he expects to publish the findings of the capability investigation on maritime surveillance capability; and if he will make a statement. [92528]
1 Feb 2012 : Column 654W
Peter Luff: The Ministry of Defence has completed its capability investigation into its long term requirements for maritime surveillance capability, but I am withholding the information as its disclosure would, or would be likely to prejudice the capability, effectiveness or security of the armed forces.
In February this year the Commons Select Committee for Defence announced they would be holding a session on just the subject, Future Maritime Surveillance (http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/defence-committee/news/new-inquiry-future-maritime-surveillance/)
Despite the delaying and facing saving ‘it’s secret’ position from a few months ago it has been reported that an announcement will be made this month, maybe another one of those ghost announcements that never seem to happen but who knows?"

[Stuffy]

Nimrod Was Actually a Fine Hunter: Britain’s MRA4 Programme:-

Nimrod Was Actually a Fine Hunter: Britain’s MRA4 Program (http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/nimrod-was-actually-a-good-hunter-upgrading-britains-fleet-updated-02442/)

[Biggus]

Stuffy,

If you're going to use this thread as an excuse to open up the whole "...UK MPA..." debate, then you're a bit late to the party.

I suggest you read this thread:

http://www.pprune.org/military-aircrew/466856-bae-raf-p3-procurement-feasibility-report.html

It's got some good stuff on it. I particularly recommend post 88 - but then I would, as I wrote it!!

[Stuffy]

A good post #88 biggus.
With the dithering UK Coalition government, hoping for an election miracle before May 2015. If indeed they get that far.
No decision will be taken.
Then it will be panic and the expensive leasing of Lockheed P3's.
However, Airbus might do something quickly with the A400M. It certainly has the performance and in flight refueling.
A320 or A321?
It's up to the Europeans, who are as broke as everyone else.

[betty swallox]

No, Stuffy. Wrong again. Please see my PM to you.
BS

[Stuffy]

Replied.
I am not wrong and I don't work for Boeing or Airbus.

[Stuffy]

"The thing I feared most during the Second World War, was the German U-Boats."
-Winston Spencer Churchill.

[keesje]

ROLAND :sad: what tanker..

buddy-buddy refueling and feeding SAR heli's has been around for ages
and so relevant for a new MPA.. :ugh:

[BEagle]

Nope, totally irrelevant for an MPA as the grown ups keeping telling you.

The UK doesn't have any SAR helicopters with AAR capability; even if they did, either the A400M or KC-390 would be a much better option to meet their AAR requirements, rather than a fictitious MPA platform which would rarely have any spare fuel available without compromise to its own mission - and even if it did, it would probably have difficulty flying slowly enough to refuel helicopters.

[keesje]

IMO inability to change & stubbornness killed UK & NL MPA operations.

BEagle: "flying slowly enough to refuel helicopters"
For a prop?
http://4.bp.********.com/-juwjPlhcS5o/TcpfoL261zI/AAAAAAAAALw/mxFv-mfd_7s/s1600/merlin_refuel.jpg

Back on topic, the A400M MPA would be the largest and least efficient MPA "solution" I can think off. Maybe make it a double decker for 60 operators?
http://www.airbus.com/fileadmin/media_gallery/photogallery/big/800x600_1342130400_A400M-cargo-hold.jpg

[kbrockman]

OK, I don't know the first thing about these type of aircraft but,

Maybe its time to get something a little unorthodox?
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a3/JMSDF_Kawasaki_XP-1_Aoki.jpg/800px-JMSDF_Kawasaki_XP-1_Aoki.jpg
Performance
Maximum speed: 996 km/h (538 knots, 619 mph)
Cruise speed: 833 km/h (450 knots, 516 mph)
Range: 8,000 km (4,320 nm, 4,970 mi)
Service ceiling: 44,200 ft (13,520 m)

Armament
Bombs: 20,000+ lb (9,000+ kg)
Missiles: AGM-84 Harpoon, ASM-1C, AGM-65 Maverick
Sonobuoys: 30+ Pre-loaded, 70+ Deployable from inside
Other: MK-46 and Type 97 and new(G-RX5) torpedoes, mines, depth charges

[keesje]

There always options.

http://i714.photobucket.com/albums/ww142/PhantomPhil/Misc/BAESystemsAvroBarracudaMRA1-1.jpg

Thats also the risk that overspecification, overcommitment to the national industry and baseless optimism turns into another multi billion disaster..

[Davef68]

There always options.

http://i714.photobucket.com/albums/ww142/PhantomPhil/Misc/BAESystemsAvroBarracudaMRA1-1.jpg

Thats also the risk that overspecification, overcommitment to the national industry and baseless optimism turns into another multi billion disaster..

I'm tempted to say "oh god, not that again....." - an airframe that's been out of production for 10+ years, and a drawing whose provenance is doubtful (I'd be surprised if it came from BAE).

tanker, strategic transport, tactical transports used to be mutually incompatible roles, now the RAF has them on order

Ummm, Voyager, C-17, A400M - yes, those are the same airframe.....

[Stuffy]

Turning the cancelled BAe RJX into a military aircraft has always been an interesting option.

However no decision on a European MPA will be taken, however great the need.

They are more worried about contagion from Cyprus, and its possible exit from the Euro.

Although out of production. The A340-200 might fit the bill. It is in that large category the same as the A400M. Great range.
A340-200 aircraft: range, specifications | Airbus*| Airbus, a leading aircraft manufacturer (http://www.airbus.com/aircraftfamilies/out-of-production/a340-200/)

That Japanese aircraft looks interesting, is it photoshopped ? From the looks of it, the range and on station can't be that great.

A completely new airframe would be too expensive. Although would most likely be the best option.

How large should the aircraft be ?
Large enough to carry all the necessary bits. Have four engines, and a long loiter time on station. In flight refueling to extend its time on mission. Then that needs an onboard relief crew.

The Nimrod got most things right. Except for the people developing it. The Conservative Government started the programme for the MRA4 in 1992.

Somebody needed to get a grip !

This aircraft ticked most of the boxes in its day.
http://www.coopersmodels.com/i/Execuform/ac_230_Argus_68_-_73.jpg

[Davef68]

Kawasaki P-1 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kawasaki_P-1)

[Stuffy]

Dave, that seems better than the P8 ?

With the devalued Japanese Yen, it could well be an option. :-

General characteristics

Crew: Flight: 2 Mission: 11
Length: 38.0 m (124 ft 8 in)
Wingspan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wingspan): 35.4 m (114 ft 8 in)
Height: 12.1 m (39 ft 4 in)
Max. takeoff weight (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maximum_takeoff_weight): 79,700 kg (176,000 lb)
Powerplant (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aircraft_engine): 4 × IHI Corporation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IHI_Corporation) XF7-10 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IHI_F7) turbofan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turbofan), 13,500 lbs (60 kN) each
Performance

Maximum speed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V_speeds#Regulatory_V-speeds): 996 km/h (538 knots, 619 mph)
Cruise speed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V_speeds#Vc): 833 km/h (450 knots, 516 mph)
Range (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Range_(aircraft)): 8,000 km (4,320 nm, 4,970 mi)
Service ceiling (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ceiling_(aircraft)): 44,200 ft (13,520 m)
Armament


Bombs: 20,000+ lb (9,000+ kg)
Missiles: AGM-84 Harpoon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AGM-84_Harpoon), ASM-1C (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_91_Air-to-Ship_Missile), AGM-65 Maverick (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AGM-65_Maverick)
Sonobuoys: 30+ Pre-loaded, 70+ Deployable from inside
Other: MK-46 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_46_torpedo) and Type 97 and new(G-RX5) torpedoes, mines, depth charges
Avionics


Radar: Toshiba, Active Electronically Scanned Array radar system
Sonar: NEC, multi-static sound navigation system sound
Anti-submarine systems:SHINKO ELECTRIC CO.LTD., Advanced combat direction system
Other: Mitsubishi, Electronic countermeasures (CMD, RWR, MWS, ESM)

[GreenKnight121]

OK, stuffed-up... to foolishly answer another of your uninformed comments... no, the Kawasaki P-1 is NOT "photoshopped"!

The first 2 production examples have been delivered:

http://i.imgur.com/1NAbbtU.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/WwohlK6.jpg


Link to a larger image of one of the test examples firing ordnance (note the pylon between the inner port engine and the fuselage):
http://i.imgur.com/v5PUMIK.jpg

[keesje]

Stuffy, I don't think 4 engines are required these days (and the A340 is enormous..) The Atlantic/P8 don't need (two) FOUR engines.. The euro concept I drew up has 2.5 engine, an APTU, (Boeing consdered for the 777NG) providing additional power during heavy take-offs, power for new directed energy weapons and as back-up if one engine fails far from the shore. Keeps the main engines decently light/ efficient. A CROR engine as sketched is 5% more efficient then a straight prop.

IMO a new Long range MPA can be smaller, but to fly far you need a significant airframe/wing. I used a cross section slightly larger then the double bubble Embraer Ejet as a compromise to provide space for large bays and nose radar.

http://i191.photobucket.com/albums/z160/keesje_pics/EuroMPAstudy_3.jpg?t=1311463771

[Duncan D'Sorderlee]

keesje,

If you'd ever flown in an Atlantic, you'd know - they need 4 engines!;)

Duncs:ok:

[Stuffy]

Answers and solutions !

I don't see any answers or solutions from the alleged so-called informed experts on here ? (They probably work for Boeing).

Just snide comments and no proof that they actually know what they are talking about.

At least biggus and keesje have pointed out the problems and keesje has come up with some ideas along with davef68.

I think four engines are needed with long endurance. Keesje is happy with two.

As yet nobody has informed me why exactly the Nimrod MRA4 was cancelled.?

Why the moribund politicians of Europe are not addressing the problem?

What are the realistic options?

The Boeing P8 will not be available to the UK for some time yet.(as explained by biggus).

The rather elegant looking Kawasaki, will go to Japan first. Another wait.

What is to be done?

Answers and solutions please.

At least the Italians have thought about it:-

http://i1294.photobucket.com/albums/b604/Kocmoc2/A400M_zps7ff22b36.jpg

[Stuffy]

The Fiasco of Politicians, Panic and Procurement.

http://i1294.photobucket.com/albums/b604/Kocmoc2/AirTanker002_zps5b04f508.jpg

[Davef68]

Somewhat out of context, and North is wrong in that RJ is not a UOR for a start.

Re the Italians - there is a difference between a military maritime aircraft and a Coastal/Sea control aircraft that is primarily concerned with surface search and identification (In the same way that the USCG uses the C-130). A UK military 'MPA' would be expected to pursue both surface and sub surface targets as well as SAR and all the other secondary roles mentioned above.

[AlphaZuluRomeo]

More fuel for thoughts?
I think I heard Atlantique 2s (french MPAs) have 2 engines only. Does that fit?

[edit] did a quick homework thx to Wiki:
P-3 Orion - 4 engines
Max speed 761 kph
Ceiling 10,500 m
Range 8,940 km

Atlantique 2 - 2 engines
Max speed 650 kph
Ceiling 9,145 m
Range 8,000 km

P-8 Poseidon - 2 engines (jet)
Max speed 908 kph
Ceiling 12,500 m
Range 2,222 km

[Stuffy]

Yes, out of context, but it demonstrates how the MPA situation will not be resolved.

They spent too much time and money on the Nimrod MRA4.

Having spent that amount, they should have endeavoured to get something out of it.

Now there is nothing.

[Stuffy]

The Atlantique 2, is better than nothing.

I don't know how it measures up against the P3 Orion?

Assume the UK gets a few Orions from Florida or wherever.

The electronics would have to be updated.

The US marines got our Harriers on the cheap.

Rest assured, the Orions will cost a pretty penny.

Solutions anybody?

[keesje]

A squadron of "off the shelf" C295 MPAs to start with ASAP.

& Don't let the local industry modify them for all those special, unique requirements.

The price and delivery times would triple. Adjust & get them into service ASAP.

http://www.airbusmilitary.com/portals/0/Images/Aircraft/C295/About/06.png

[Duncan D'Sorderlee]

keesje,

For once, I think that you might have something there!

I think that an issue might be that if the UK bought C295 then it would keep C295 and nothing else. Is that platform capable enough?

Stuffy,

We haven't stated why the MRA4 got cancelled because, as operators, we can find no valid strategic reason for it being binned!

Duncs:ok:

[Stuffy]

Duncan,
That is why I asked the question. I could not understand either.

As for the older Nimrods. If the US can keep the B-52 in service, seemingly forever.
Why couldn't we keep the Nimrods, until a suitable replacement were found?

Refurbishment would have employed people. Stupid politicians only care about expense accounts and posing on TV.

[Mk 1]

AZR:

P-8 Poseidon - 2 engines (jet)
Max speed 908 kph
Ceiling 12,500 m
Range 2,222 km

Can I clarify that range figure please? 4 hours on station at a range of 2,222km.

[Lonewolf_50]

Based on the Navy's web site, that appears to be the case.

1200 nm radius of action with a 4 hour loiter time.

Internal five-station weapons bay
four wing pylons
two centerline pylons
joint missiles, torpedoes and mines.
rotary reloadable, pneumatically controlled sonobuoy launcher

It's not your grandfather's MPA, and I didn't see in my brief investigation if any provision for air to air refueling had been included. I don't think it ever was. IMO, the USN and US DoD missed a trick on that one.

Interesting to consider how one would fit A400M into the MPA mission.

[dragartist]

Stuffy,
Read Haddon Cave. that will tell you why Nimrod had to go. I can send you my well thumbed copy

[JSFfan]

@Lonewolf_50

CUTAWAY: P-8A Poseidon - A Boeing with boost of bravado (http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/cutaway-p-8a-poseidon-a-boeing-with-boost-of-bravado-340955/)
Also hidden most of the time is an aerial refuelling port at the top of the fuselage just aft of the cockpit. Although not required for the mission profile, the navy decided to take advantage of the refuelling modifications that had been developed for the 737-based Wedgetail airborne early warning and control aircraft programme for the Australian defence forces.
Crews will largely learn to operate the aerial refuelling and other systems using simulators purchased from Boeing as part of a plan to achieve a three-to-one ratio of simulator-to-live flying for training and mission simulations, says Jim Reining, the navy's P-8A integrated test team government flight test director.

[JFZ90]

nimrod was cancelled principally to save (future support) money.

the well publicised niggles and quality issues, coupled with hc history were convenient reasons to mask this real, but politically delicate, motive.

the cancellation has created significant reputational damage to the uk, and is a short sighted scandal in my view, well covered here many times!

[Stuffy]

The Boeing P8 Poseidon, has a poor endurance for maritime patrol. In might suit the US. In fact keejse's C295 is far better. Not that I would be confident about its electronic cooling abilities?

The C295 will suit a number of European countries. The Portuguese have them already.
I cannot see the RAF or the Royal Navy being happy with them. The French will stick with their Atlantique 2's.

I cannot forsee the UK Coalition Government, making any decision before 2015.

They might, just might, get some Lockheed P3's. Eventually paying through the nose for them. Then they will sit in a hangar forever while BAe Systems muck about with them. I am just thinking about the Chinooks sitting in the hangar till kingdom come.

Will the A400M make a maritime aircraft? It certainly would have the range. There would be no issues with cooling the electronic equipment or crew comfort. It has a refueling boom so it could loiter longer than a hooker outside Bradford Station.

In the end it will be down to money, will and vision.

Don't hold your breath.

[Lonewolf_50]

Thank you, JSFfan.

I had thought, back when I was still in the Navy, that aerial refuelling was in the requirements document for the P-8, but there was also a bit of a war over "how many NAV/NFO seats" is the design criteria? The sensible people won: two, not three. I lost track when I left the Navy of some of those details.

Stuffy:

Depending on mission, P-8 takes off, heads toward station, tops off from a tanker -- hey lookie there! On-station dwell time goes up quite a bit.

Why, you might even top off while on station. Fancy that! What incredibly modern thinking! Joint Operations. Who woulda thunk it? :confused:

[Stuffy]

Aerial refuelling port aft of the cockpit. The RAF and Royal Navy don't have KC-135's with their boom system.

All that topping up !

Two aircraft a mission, not one. Cost yer ?

[JSFfan]

Depending on mission, P-8 takes off, heads toward station, tops off from a tanker -- hey lookie there! On-station dwell time goes up quite a bit.
Why, you might even top off while on station. Fancy that! What incredibly modern thinking! Joint Operations. Who woulda thunk it?

With some, It's hard getting away from a platform centric POV and understand its mission centric. The P-8, BAMS etc will do the job. Force planners and system evaluators do actually earn their money

[Roland Pulfrew]

This topic has turned into a hugely amusing read. I'm beginning to look forward to a daily fix on the commute into work (actually that's a lie) but it is quite amusing all the same.

Stuffy, I have to congratulate you as being one of the best fishermen I've seen since Jesus did his loaves and fishes trick. Brilliant. Your latest subtlety over range and endurance was sublime.

I even loved the brilliant irony of keesje's statement:overspecification, overcommitment to the national industry and baseless optimism turns into another multi billion disaster.. posted next to the spoof 146 MPA - although it would have been much better posted with this picture:http://i191.photobucket.com/albums/z160/keesje_pics/EuroMPAstudy_3.jpg?t=1311463771

Congratulations gentlemen, I doff my hat.:D:D

[keesje]

Hi, Roland. Thnx.

I'm no expert. We all know what the entire force of seasoned profesionals, 80 yrs of experience, research institutes and industry created. A 4 billion hole and a capability gab. Everybody is blaming everybody. But as a team effort, it sure is hard to beat. Maybe folks clinged to their old requirements/ jobs that meanwhile evaporated. Pointing at their logbooks and saying the rest of the world just doesn't / can't understand.

I think it's time to think ahead instead of keep looking back. Multirole, multi national, scrapping capabilities, adding new ones. European naval airforces can make a new start.

[Stuffy]

Roland, I wanted to keep the debate going with some tongue in cheek comments. I don't believe Americans share the same sense of humour or deal with irony very well?

I was looking for a solution to the insoluble. Perfidious politicians notwithstanding.

No money or orders will happen before the end of 2015. If at all.

There will be mad panic measures in 2019.

[Roland Pulfrew]

I'm no expert

It gets better and better :D

Stuffy

Just confirm you do understand the difference between range and endurance? And it's link to on task time? I'm not sure your comment on the P8 v C295 was meant to humourous or ironic!!:}

And as for 2019; well who knows? This taken from another MPA topic:

No-one really knows what the effects of sequestration is going to be on US programmes in the near term. I have read the list from the Head of the US Navy about what he is going to have to do if he doesn't receive his allocated share of the budget (eye watering).

We have in the UK recently experienced/managed/had a very successful lease-purchase programme on one of our major capabilities.

We have some unallocated money in the procurement programme.

And we have guys in the US on the P8 OCU and OEU...........


Well it is a rumour network :E

[Stuffy]

I have been trying to create a debate. Not pretending to be an expert.

So Gilbert Green.

What is your solution?

[Stuffy]

Roland,
Range is how far an aircraft can fly from A to B, including diversionary airfields. Depending on load factors or ferry range etc.

Endurance is how long the aircraft can stay airborne before the pilot is thinking about a change of trousers. Typically it includes loiter time like the whores outside Bradford train station.

[keesje]

http://my-online-log.com/tech/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/3muppets.jpg

[Stuffy]

Keejse.

Good one !

If we are dealing in rumours. I have heard from a reliable source that the UK is to get Boeing P8 Poseidons.

18 hour missions, will, however, not be an option.

[LowObservable]

The P-8A does have a refuelling receptacle so that it can gas up from the Navy's large fleet of boom-equipped tankers. Wait, what?

However, there is a limit on effective operator time, is there not? Tends to make AAR a bit academic for these types, unless they are very heavily laden and it is needed to give them even 8 h or so on station at range.

Pardon if this point has been taken up earlier - but there are a lot of MPA missions that can now be very well handled by quite small aircraft. The breakpoint is hardcore ASW - if you want to carry sonobuoys, torpedoes and a radar that can detect periscopes, that's more demanding. But a good surface-search radar, EO sensor, ESM and comms will fit nicely on a CN235, and even something smaller is useful - take a look at the UAE-Piaggio project.

[Stuffy]

There are no RAF tanker aircraft fitted with the boom system.

[Duncan D'Sorderlee]

LO,

A valid point. If submarines are deemd a threat, then you have to have an ASW capability. If not, your task just got a lot easier and the ac to carry out that task 'could' be a fair bit smaller. That said, an ASW torpedo is a lot smaller than an ASM!

Duncs:ok:

[Roland Pulfrew]

Stuffy

can gas up from the Navy's large fleet of boom-equipped tankers. Wait, what?

There are no RAF tanker aircraft fitted with the boom system.

Obviously you don't get humour and irony either! :rolleyes:

I'm glad that you understand the difference between range and endurance, perhaps you might now explain why 4 hours on task at 1200 nm from base (that's probably about 2 - 2.5 hours flying time) means the P8 "has a poor endurance for maritime patrol"?

[JSFfan]

and the p-3 has 3 hrs and about 1300nm

[keesje]

"there are a lot of MPA missions that can now be very well handled by quite small aircraft. The breakpoint is hardcore ASW - if you want to carry sonobuoys, torpedoes and a radar that can detect periscopes, that's more demanding."

LowObservable, makes sense. Every nation having their own credible ASW capability for that diminishing task would be very expensive. Maybe a task to centralize like Nato AWACS on two or three practicle locations.

[Duncan D'Sorderlee]

keesje,

I'm not sure how you work out that ASW is a diminishing task. Just because the UK doesn't have a fixed wing ASW platform, doesn't mean that others don't have submarines that could pose a threat!

Duncs:ok:

[Stuffy]

and...... How does the P8 compare with the Nimrod for patrol endurance?
Roland Beamont -

The A330 can be fitted with the Airbus aerial refuelling boom.

I therefore concluded you were serious. The Australian version has this option.

Duncan,
Russian TU-95's are still sniffing around the North Sea, uninvited.

Likewise Russian submarines are continually testing our defences.

[Duncan D'Sorderlee]

The P8's endurance is significantly better than that of the Nimrod - which are now, apart from a few in aviation museums, bean tins.:(

See, I'm getting over it!

Duncs:ok:

Stuffy,

Yup!

[keesje]

Duncan, of cause there is / will be an ASW threat. But not justifying the resources it did some time ago. Even in the US the pressure to be always ready for everything, everywhere at any time, even if it isn't there, just to make sure, has deminished. The public can't be scared into approving everything anymore. A few squadrons to be deployed where / when needed could fill in at least part of the requirement.

[A and C]

A pint of the finest ale from Chiswick says that within five years one of the UK armed forces has ordered the P8.



I will take odds on it then being canceled at even greater cost to the UK taxpayer !

[Stuffy]

Ah, a Fullers man.

I certainly wouldn't take on that bet. I'd lose. At £3.80 a pint !

Where are the figures that the P8 has more endurance than Nimrod?

[A and C]

It is difficult to say what the endurance of the P8 is in the maritime role, the 737-800 is a very fuel efficient aircraft, I picked one up from Boeing and we had planned Seattle to Berlin via Keflavic for fuel, at top of drop into Keflavic we did have just have enough fuel to go direct to Berlin but felt in unwise due to WX so stopped for fuel. The aircraft had next to no payload and went all the way at FL410.

A bit more of a typical example of what the 800 can do would be LGW to Banjul, almost six hours with a TOW of 78,000 KG and diversion fuel for Dakar.

This is with the standard airliner tankage, no doubt the P8 would benifit from the sort of extra tanks fitted to the BBJ and with these fitted LAX - LGW is not out of the question.

Of course these numbers are all for high level cruise and you can double the fuel flow at low level but perhaps with a little more inside information about the fuel capacity and the mission profile you can come up with a best guess for the typical High - Low - High maritime endurance.

[Roland Pulfrew]

Stuffy

It wasn't me; it was the other boy. ;)

The RAF's A330s cannot be fitted with an ARB - its a PFI. It wasn't in the requirement (because at the time the only aircraft we had in the inventory that required boom refuelling was the E3D and that can also do probe and drogue) and it would cost an absolute fortune to add it now!! C-17 was a lease and AAR was prohibited under the lease terms, so no requirement. Regretably the bean counters will not allow expenditure on something for which we have no "requirement" - even if it makes military sense in the interoperability department. :(

As to P8 v Nimrod MR1/MR2, well Duncs has answered that one (very different if you are talking MRA4 - but they also are, as Duncs says, bean tins); but you still haven't explained why you think 4 - 5 hours of transit time and 4 hours on task isn't good enough for an MPA?

[BEagle]

Roly, if the contract was renegotiated, it wouldn't be impossible for, say, 3 of the later Voyagers to be delivered with a boom...... Which would suit RJ, E-3D, C-17...and perhaps P-8.

££££ to the contract lawyers though...:rolleyes:

Still no pod RTS, I gather...:mad:

[Stuffy]

A & C,
Arik Air fly Heathrow - Abuja, Nigeria, in a B738.

The A320/321 family have a 3000+nm range and the NEO versions longer than that.

If Airbus does to the A320/321, what Boeing has done to the B738 to make the P8 Poseidon. Will be interesting.

Whether it is possible to buy some second hand A320/321's and get Marshalls up at Cambridge to convert them, I could not say. At least the equipment that the RAF/RN wants, could be added.

[The Old Fat One]

Every nation having their own credible ASW capability for that diminishing task would be very expensive. Maybe a task to centralize like Nato AWACS on two or three practicle locations.

For once Keesje, you're right. But since you've pulled me up for being out of date (since I'm merely an old timer whose forgotten more about LRMPA, than you will ever know) can I just point out that I've been making that very same suggestion, since, oh I don't know... 1989!

I also think using LRMPA for overland recce and relay was also a a stop gap solution for which a modern UAV is much better suited.

See, us old timers had quite good ideas, 20 odd years ago...shocking isn't it!

[Lonewolf_50]

It is my expectation that as time goes on, P-8 will become even more 'modular' in character.

So, what does that mean? It means that a given squadron will have changing mission kit, so that either EW or ASW missions can be flown, depending on theater level mission requirements.

As to refueling probe arguments, I recall MPRS being very handy.

Booms aren't the only way. ;)

[A and C]

You make some interesting points, I suspect that the Aric Air operation trades payload for fuel to do Abuja LHR direct or stops for fuel.

The Airbus A320 idea is interesting but I doubt if there is enough of a market to make the work economic, the other thing that springs to mind is the vulnerability of the three hydraulic systems to battle damage, at least you can fly the P8 manually ( yes I know about the A320's manual pitch trim and asymmetric thrust ).

Having flown both types I know that I would rather fly the Boeing in the maritime role simply because if its lack of sophisticated systems, in short there is less to go wrong.

[LowObservable]

Further to ASW vs surface MPA: ASW is more than ever "go big or go home" because your average SSK these days is one stealthy little monkeyfighter and very hard to bag without high-end sensors and weapons.

I do wonder, though, if the move to electric power for torpedoes will eliminate the need for weapon bays, which I understand is driven by the fact that Otto fuel freezes.

[Stuffy]

A & C,

Yes, that is a very good point I had not considered.

There is very basic control on an A320, with no computers.
The cabin size is much better from a passenger point of view.

As has been pointed out to me, any order for a P8 will not arrive till 2018 at the earliest.

Until the advent of the B787. Boeing has got the balance of old and new technology, about right, IMHO.

I believe the Japanese have taken the right route with the Kawasaki, rather than converting an existing type.


Any conversion is a compromise.

Which brings me back to the A400M.

It has the performance, the space, but is probably too big?

As I keep saying, no politicians will address this problem until it is too late.

With the Eurozone money problems, nothing will be done.

Perhaps in the end, it doesn't really matter?

I would like to see an elegant solution, which the Japanese appear to have achieved.

What would I have done if I had, the power and influence?

I would have made sure the Nimrod would be successful, and sacked 90% of the managers.

Hunting nukes, boomers, whatever you want to call them, is, a tricky business. Given, it is my belief, that, these things are where the real threat is coming from. Especially if one is a Super Carrier.

A 12 hour on station endurance, is essential.

[TBM-Legend]

Why re-invent the wheel? The P-8A is in production now. Low risk solution - just buy some. {or the Japanese four engined thingie??} All the academic b/s in the world won't deliver a real solution.

[Stuffy]

The UK will buy the P8.
Examples redirected from the production line.
I am not convinced it is the right answer.
For ASW, it does not have enough time on station, to find submarines.

[TBM-Legend]

For ASW, it does not have enough time on station, to find submarines.

Please explain why the US Navy, Indian Navy and the RAAF think it is an OK platform for ASW as well as other roles!

The Pacific and Indian Oceans are pretty big places to hide subs!

[Flyga]

Stuffy,

You are not for real are you?! Granted, you have gave me a chuckle this week with your crazy suggestions and continuous desire to have the A400M as an MPA!

Hope the day job is going well and your colleagues within industry are enjoying your answers when you feedback...

[keesje]

BigGreenGilbert:

- go to "User CP" left above in the screen and then go to "Edit Your Details" for correct "age"
- go to PPRuNe Forums - Forum Rules (http://www.pprune.org/misc.php?do=showrules) to get an update on forum policies
- for enhanced handling opinions without stripes; check yr colleagues

;)

About my twin prop multirole MPA concept
Elta, Bombardier Pursue Multi-Mission Aircraft Opportunities | Defense Update - Military Technology & Defense News (http://defense-update.com/20110210_elta_bombardier.html)
A naval version of the soon to be launched bigger ATR would come close too.

Tactics that weren't feasible / required in previous 25 years, could very be in the next 25 years, believe me. Operational requirements seem fluid these days.. :sad:

[Lonewolf_50]

A 12 hour on station endurance, is essential.
At what range from base, Stuffy?
If your base is in Sig, you don't need 1200 NM to get much of anywhere, for example. If your range to datum decreases, then on station time increases.

The Pacific mission is another matter, which I suspect informs the Air to Air refueling option.

keesje, "believe me" is a reach, sorry.

[Stuffy]

Why the US, Indian and Aussie navies think the P8 is OK?

Boeing have superb salesmen.

Stuffy
Who is not 12 years old.

[Roland Pulfrew]

I am not convinced it is the right answer.

Really? Why?

For ASW, it does not have enough time on station, to find submarines.

Really?? I wonder how we used to do it in the past? I know submarines are getting quieter, but 12 hours?!?!

Why the US, Indian and Aussie navies think the P8 is OK?

Boeing have superb salesmen.


Or of course, it is a platform (the only platform currently available?) that meets your requirement for a LRMPA.

About my twin prop multirole MPA concept

But also note:

Elta and Bombardier are positioning this platform to meet Medium Range Maritime Patrol and Coastal Surveillance So not so good if you need/want long range MPA (or Stuffy's 12 hours on station time).:hmm:

[LowObservable]

The P-8A's advantages are:

1 - It is big, with mongo radar, big-a$$ generators, lots of workstations, lots of sonobuoys, an internal weapon bay and hardpoints for other weapons. It is also big enough to carry DIRCMs, all the comms equipment you want &c without breaking much of a sweat.

2 - It has been heavily redesigned for the mission and is less like a 737 than most people think.

3 - Someone else has already paid for it.

[Lonewolf_50]

Stuffy
Who is not 12 years old.
We'll never know for sure, but I'll take your word for it.
For ASW, it does not have enough time on station, to find submarines.
How do you come up with that? What assumptions are you making as regards cues and datum?
(Just a hint: Orion didn't work in isolation, it was part of a complex ASW system. So was Nimrod).

As to "super carrier" and "boomers" I wonder at what you believe boomer deployment patterns to be. Not thirty years ago, now.

Carriers tend to be threatened by SSN and SSK, though most boomers I know of have torps and would use them if they need to.

Elta and Bombardier are positioning this platform to meet Medium Range Maritime Patrol and Coastal Surveillance
There are plenty of nations whose requirements are limited to that, so best wishes on getting the hardware to them and meeting their needs.

EDIT:

While these two slides ought to be taken with a grain of salt ... being part of the Oz promotional material ... it points to where on station limits are expected. As depicted, the on station segment of the mission is proposed at low altitude.
http://defence.boeing.com.au/website_33/pages/page_42988/uploads/PPT_AIA-DEV_R4_FINAL(1).pdf
See slide 4 of 22.

Also of interest are slides 17 and 18 which are "and the future looks so wonderful from here" estimates of platform growth. (How about more fuel, lads? ;) )


Looks like the Navy can live with that.

[Stuffy]

Boeing P-8 Poseidon - in conjuntion with a UAV system, which is not BOGOF(buy one get one free).

Range (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Range_(aircraft)): 1,200 nmi (2,222 km) 4 hours on station (Anti-submarine warfare mission)

In U.S. service, the Poseidon will be complemented by the Broad Area Maritime Surveillance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broad_Area_Maritime_Surveillance) UAV (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unmanned_aerial_vehicle) system, which will provide continuous surveillance. The system is expected to enter service around 2010. Around 40 UAVs based on the RQ-4 Global Hawk (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RQ-4_Global_Hawk) will be used in the program.

(source:Wikipedia)

The uninvited guest: Chinese sub pops up in middle of U.S. Navy exercise, leaving military chiefs red-faced.
The uninvited guest: Chinese sub pops up in middle of U.S. Navy exercise, leaving military chiefs red-faced | Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-492804/The-uninvited-guest-Chinese-sub-pops-middle-U-S-Navy-exercise-leaving-military-chiefs-red-faced.html)


"American military chiefs have been left dumbstruck by an undetected Chinese submarine popping up at the heart of a recent Pacific exercise and close to the vast U.S.S. Kitty Hawk - a 1,000ft supercarrier with 4,500 personnel on board.
By the time it surfaced the 160ft Song Class diesel-electric attack submarine is understood to have sailed within viable range for launching torpedoes or missiles at the carrier.
According to senior Nato officials the incident caused consternation in the U.S. Navy."

[Stuffy]

Quote:3 - Someone else has already paid for it.

How many UK jobs will be produced by buying the Boeing P8 ?

Today is budget day in the UK. The UK is bumping along the bottom in economic terms.

Capital projects produce work where there is none.

Come on BAe Systems, Airbus. Rise to the challenge.

[keesje]

Quote:
Elta and Bombardier are positioning this platform to meet Medium Range Maritime Patrol and Coastal Surveillance


That is of course correct and a limitation. Same goes for the ART72 and C295 MPA variants.

The Bombardier Multi Mission design btw has a gunpod. Unthinkable in the P3/Nimrod era.

Not that I feel the Q400 is a practicle platform for MPA. No lower deck at all, requiring those bumps visible on the model..

The concept I sketched would be bigger and use new generation GE38/TP400 class engines (8-11k shp) and have a small booster APTU that also supports take-off close to (a high) MTOW.

The buddy-buddy equipment could be for 2 aircraft to lift off at MTOW and one topping up the other a few hours in the right direction before continuing to fly a shorter mission. An ( unlikely) 400MPA would have that as an option anyway.

How many UK jobs will be produced by buying the Boeing P8 ?

Local jobs, one of the pillars of the MR4 catastrophe. The 4 bill pounds lost could easily bought say 15-18 (?) off the shelf(!) P8's. (The US recently payed USD 1.9 for 11 aircraft).

[Lonewolf_50]

"American military chiefs have been left dumbstruck by an undetected Chinese submarine popping up at the heart of a recent Pacific exercise and close to the vast U.S.S. Kitty Hawk - a 1,000ft supercarrier with 4,500 personnel on board. By the time it surfaced the 160ft Song Class diesel-electric attack submarine is understood to have sailed within viable range for launching torpedoes or missiles at the carrier. According to senior Nato officials the incident caused consternation in the U.S. Navy."

As if this never happened during the cold war with Charlie, Victor, and IIRC a Sierra. :rolleyes:
Not to mention the poetic license used by the journo in this article.

Do you actually know anything about real life ASW? I'll bet the under.

Boeing P-8 Poseidon - in conjuntion with a UAV system, which is not BOGOF(buy one get one free).
Concur, and a good point supporting my observation up there about MPA being part of a system.

[500N]

Re Chinese Sub

During a similar exercise, one of the Aussie subs technically had a firing solution
on one of the US Carriers and the US knew it was there and were looking for it ! So doesn't surprise me.

[JSFfan]

Stuffy (http://www.pprune.org/members/333799-stuffy) That's a big assumption to have that they didn't know the sub was there, I'm pretty sure the USN aren't advertising their detection capabilities

exercises with collins and others are limited to stress systems and I wouldn't put the class of chinese at the time in the same sentence

[keesje]

Re: chinese sub

I have seen many of these reports greatfully adopted by US militairy/ congressman to support the need to spend even more on defense.

No threat is the biggest threat for many in the militairy-industrial complex.

Another example: Russian flyover takes Navy by surprise? (http://www.wnd.com/2000/12/2254/)

[JSFfan]

there is a doco submariners by sbs on the collins on ex, it should be online.
what really upset the usn was when they broke roe and went active and still couldn't find it

[Roland Pulfrew]

The buddy-buddy equipment could be for 2 aircraft to lift off at MTOW and one topping up the other a few hours in the right direction before continuing to fly a shorter mission. An ( unlikely) 400MPA would have that as an option anyway.

Or, of course, you could design your MPA/MMA to carry sufficient fuel for the requirement/task that you want it to achieve.

And no, the A400MPA would need to have a centreline hose fitted for another one to be able to receive. If that is an option (I don't think it is) then the tanker variant won't be doing MPA as well. Back to that mutual exclusivity again. :ok:

[500N]

JSF

Yes, I have seen that, although I read of the success
on the DoD web site at one point. I think the Sub Capt
was quite pleased.


Re No threat is the greatest threat, I agree.

[JSFfan]

that ex was actually good for aus, as the usn came and fixed what was wrong with collins and we had some tech that they liked

[Lonewolf_50]

heh, I've been in no few exercises where our own SSN's snuck about and the first we finally found of them, after quite a bit of searching, was the infamous green flare indicating an attack.

ASW's hard.

[Mk 1]

LO has it - its already in production.

IF range is such an issue, look at retrofitting a boom to some of those A330 tankers you guys have. Yes, it would add to that programs cost, but it would solve two other problems as well (EC and C17).

[keesje]

And no, the A400MPA would need to have a centreline hose fitted for another one to be able to receive. If that is an option (I don't think it is) then the tanker variant won't be doing MPA as well. Back to that mutual exclusivity again.

Roland, the A400M does have an optional centre-line FRU that can be used for buddy refuelling.

http://www.airbusmilitary.com/portals/0/Images/Aircraft/A400M/About/13.jpg

[Lonewolf_50]

Or a MPRS pod.

[Roland Pulfrew]

Well there you go, you live and learn. :ok:

So anyone know how big the internal HDU is? Where it is mounted within the fuselage? How it is connected to the fuel tank system? How it is fed through the rear doors and whether the ac can remain pressurised during centreline AAR.

[The Old Fat One]

Sipping my 16 year lagavulin, a habit picked up during 27 years before the galley teapot, I'm trying to imagine what some you think happens at night 300 feet over a raging sea whilst trying to get an attack solution on a fast evading nuc.

Or tooling around the foggy inner Minches trying to sort out an active fix on a rubberised, 400 tonne german SSK.

Or joining a carrier group in the middle of an air raid, with every radio spewing constant chatter onto an already over crowded intercom with everyman jack working like a one armed paper hanger trying to sort out the surface picture, because guess what, Sunray has turned off the link to go reversionary.

I could go on and paint another dozen scenario's (like controlling 6 SAR assets when peoples lives hang in the balance), but you get my drift.

The fact that some of you think that this is some sort of youtube video you can just pause, so's you can pop up and pick up some fuel, just goes to show that you know absolutely the square root of **** all that you are blithely spouting pure sh1te about.

GTFO, the lot of you.

Except of course, them that are Kipper qualified, god bless you all.

[Stuffy]

JSFan, Detection with what, technology from Star Trek?

Mention politics on here and the techies disappear.


I bet that journalist picked up the surprise and wrote about it.

That should be journalists, as there are plenty of reports about it.

As the Chinese leaders said, " Just a coincidence."

Advances it submarine technology could prove embarrassing. Have you heard of the Russian high speed Squall(Skval in Russian) torpedo ??

It uses a cavitation bubble to attain a very high speed.

Whoops there goes another Super Carrier hull. But they had high, hopes, they had high hopes.
Whoops there goes............

[Stuffy]

The Old Fat One,

Excellent post !

Wisdom writ large.

War/conflict is ordered chaos. Not a computer game.

16 year Lagavulin? One has to take you seriously !

Too many Budscheiser boys on here.

[keesje]

The fact that some of you think that this is some sort of youtube video you can just pause, so's you can pop up and pick up some fuel, just goes to show that you know absolutely the square root of **** all that you are blithely spouting pure sh1te about.

What a non-sense. Many MPA's can refuel.

[Archimedes]

I'm sure that TOFO,who probably has more AAR prods in an MPA than you've had hot dinners, will be shocked to hear that.

What he was talking about, if you take his quote in context, is the fact that some of the posts on this thread appear to suggest - they may not intend to, but they certainly appear to - that the new MPA conops using multi-mission types mean that you stop what you're doing, head off for the tanker to refuel (since no-one would be stupid enough to suggest conducting an AAR prod while still chasing down an SSN. I hope...) and then go back to what it was you were in the process of doing before getting your fuel.

Which, as TOFO was pointing out, is so divorced from reality as to be nonsense.

[500N]

Archimedes

That was my understanding of what TOFO meant as well.

[Stuffy]

It is pretty obvious what The Old Fat One is talking about while sipping his single malt.

What happens in peacetime war games, is somewhat different from a real hot war.

Whilst the P8 may be adequate in peacetime.

Something more is required, when things get nasty.

The MPA version of 'Grizzly', the A400M, is tough enough and big enough, to do the job, in the FUTURE.

The level of sophistication of submarines in the future, will be frightening. So will their ability to disable a Super Carrier.

[Yeller_Gait]

(since no-one would be stupid enough to suggest conducting an AAR prod while still chasing down an SSN. I hope...)I knew it was a bad dream and surely did not happen, 12 hour cold/cold barrier with a mid on-station refuel at 20 West. I must re-write history, and my flying log book.

I am sure that the UK will eventually go for the P8, it is the only realistic option in terms of NATO/USA commitments.

The P8 could potentially fly for 11-12 hours un-refuelled, depending on ZFW. This is significantly better than the Nimrod MR2, and probably similar to the MRA4, but I stand to be corrected. I would also add that it is not fun flying for 10 hours or more in a 737, it is a lot more cramped than a P3, and similar space-wise to the MR2. To take additional flight crew to augment for longer missions will also add a not insignificant weight penalty to a 737/P8.

Y_G

[The Old Fat One]

keesje

Once more with feeling....

An MPA mission is divided into three parts....

The transit out
the on station (on task) period
The transit back

Notwithstanding the odd wacky sortie (thanks yellergait), you do AAR going out, or coming back, NOT during the on task period.

Further...if the transit is short (less than an hour) there will be neither a need for AAR, nor the opportunity to conduct one.

Thus, an ENDURING fundamental requirement of a MODERN Long Range Maritime Patrol Aircraft is the need to carry out a 4-6 hour on station period, equating to 10-12 hours airborne time...wait for it.... WITHOUT AAR.

If that rules out some of your low cost types, well that's just the way it is. It's nothing to do with us being old and stuck in the past...it's simply that we know the job, past, present and future.

These short range coastal type may well be great bits of kit, and who knows, maybe could fill a coastguard role for the UK.

But they are not LRMPA.

TOFO ZKJ2

[Roland Pulfrew]

FFS Stuffy

Whilst the P8 may be adequate in peacetime.

Something more is required, when things get nasty.

Will you just answer the question that you have been asked several times in the last couple of pages; why is the range/endurance combination of the P-8 unsatisfactory? And why would anyone buy a weapons system that is "adequate in peacetime" but not when things get nasty?

The MPA version of 'Grizzly', the A400M, is tough enough and big enough, to do the job, in the FUTURE.

Except, of course that it doesn't exist. It doesn't have a weapons bay. It doesn't have ESM or RWR. Fitting a modern search radar will be an issue. And given Airbus Mil's delivery record so far, it isn't going to be an option anytime in the near or medium term.

TOFO

Thus, an ENDURING fundamental requirement of a MODERN Long Range Maritime Patrol Aircraft is the need to carry out a 4-6 hour on station period, equating to 10-12 hours airborne time...wait for it.... WITHOUT AAR.

This has been pointed out numerous times, but there's none so blind as those that don't want to see........ Good luck with that!:ok:

[Archimedes]

YG - I must apologise for my lack of clarity; what I had in mind was, say, an MPA charging in to release weapons against the SSN, with the pilot thinking 'y'know, this'd be a tad easier were we not plugged into the tanker at this very moment...'

[keesje]

No one mentioned refuelling during task periods. So lets stop attacking folks on things nobody said, ok?

Thus, an ENDURING fundamental requirement of a MODERN Long Range Maritime Patrol Aircraft is the need to carry out a 4-6 hour on station period, equating to 10-12 hours airborne time...wait for it.... WITHOUT AAR.

LRMPA task are apparently so urgent you can pause them for 5+ years without anyone getting hurt or even worried. Meanwhile e.g. pirats are becoming a real problem (people getting hurt) without e.g. the UK having a suitable MPA to respond, chewing on their USSR era LRMPA / ASW requirements instead.

I can imagine politics are getting fed up after the 4billion we know better drama, and the RAF better start with a fresh sheet of paper and some new inputs drawing up MPA requirements that are more realistic and future / budget proof.

Not an opinion people want to hear, I know, but seeing how quick the Nimrods were scrapped not far beside what influential people in London think.

[LowObservable]

TOFO

All true enough for oceanic MPA/ASW. However, the transit times you imply (3 h both ways) indicate well over 1000 nm from take-off to station and not everyone's national strategy calls for that.

YG

Why do you call the 737 more cramped than a P-3? It's a bigger cross-section and a longer fuselage.

As for the central question of the thread: The problem with any airlifter-to-MPA/ASW transition is that it has all kinds of structure where you don't need it and not enough where you do, and that cruise efficiency is always a bit compromised in favor of STOL.

[Mk 1]

TOFO:

The fact that some of you think that this is some sort of youtube video you can just pause, so's you can pop up and pick up some fuel, just goes to show that you know absolutely the square root of **** all that you are blithely spouting pure sh1te about.

You are indeed quite right. The only patrolling I have done was on two feet on land. I can usually identify a submarine 3 times out of 10 at a range of 6 feet!

So, what is the correct solution, what is the budget for that solution and what's the expected timeframe to implement said solution?

[Archimedes]

Keesje - Who's attacking you? And it's a critical analysis of things which can be inferred from/or the holes in/the detail lacking from your argument, not what you've said. There is a difference...

[GreenKnight121]

I would also add that it is not fun flying for 10 hours or more in a 737, it is a lot more cramped than a P3, and similar space-wise to the MR2.

P-3C: Length 116 ft 10 in (35.6 m) including MAD boom, 97 ft 6 in (29.75 m) without MAD boom; Fuselage Diameter 11 ft 4 in (3.45 m).

P-8: Length 129 ft 5 in (39.47 m) (no MAD boom); Fuselage Width 12 ft 4 in (3.76 m), Fuselage Height 13 ft 2 in (4.01 m); Maximum cabin width 11 ft 7 in (3.54 m)

MR2: Length: 38.65 m (126 ft 9 in) with MAD boom, 35.86m (117 ft 8 in) without MAD boom; Fuselage Width 2.97 m (9 ft 9 in), Fuselage Height (unknown, but greater due to added weapons/fuel section under main fuselage)


I can't see how, with a "non-MAD boom" fuselage 12 feet longer and 2 feet 7 inches wider, that the P-8 should be "similar space-wise to the MR2".

Nor how, with a "non-MAD boom" fuselage 31 feet 11 inches longer and 1 foot wider, that the P-8 should be "a lot more cramped than a P3". Its inside cabin width is 3 inches greater than the outside fuselage width of the P-3!


Perhaps you could explain in more detail?

[Lonewolf_50]

YG - I must apologise for my lack of clarity; what I had in mind was, say, an MPA charging in to release weapons against the SSN, with the
pilot thinking 'y'know, this'd be a tad easier were we not plugged into the
tanker at this very moment..
I think you probably realize that you presented us with a self-contradictory scenario. If I tracked the conversation correctly, you were making fun of one of the assertions of A400M topping off during the mission, but I may have crossed wires on whose posts were up for response.

For those not aware, I'll name no names ... just as with fighters air to air refueling is typically not done while tactically engaged.

That said, I had to laugh at the mental picture you drew. :ok:

[Roland Pulfrew]

keesje

LRMPA task are apparently so urgent you can pause them for 5+ years without anyone getting hurt or even worried.

Its only been 3 years, or it will be at the end of this month. And has been pointed out before, how would you know whether people are "even worried"?

Meanwhile e.g. pirats are becoming a real problem

Really? When was the last time a vessel was taken by pirates?

Daily Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/piracy/9462185/Piracy-attacks-drop-to-zero-for-first-full-month-in-five-years.html)

Not quite sure why the RAF need to change the requirement. Either you have a requirement or you don't. If your requirement is 4 hours on task at 1200nm range from base (quite a long transit distance as it happens) then that is your requirement. And there is a platform available that meets those requirements.

[Lonewolf_50]

Roland, why be worried when the Norwegians have it covered with their P-3's in our glorious NATO alliance? :( :ok:

keesje, as to your concern with pirats

I daresay rodent mathematicians are a massive threat! :eek:

(Fun with typos)

[Archimedes]

I think you probably realize that you presented us with a self-contradictory scenario. If I tracked the conversation correctly, you were making fun of one of the assertions of A400M topping off during the mission, but I may have crossed wires on whose posts were up for response.

For those not aware, I'll name no names ... just as with fighters air to air refueling is typically not done while tactically engaged.

That said, I had to laugh at the mental picture you drew. :ok:

I was attempting to make the point that we were apparently - and that is the key word, apparently - being presented with the possibility that right in the middle of some fairly important task, it would be entirely acceptable, no matter what the situation, to disappear off to the tanker to refuel, return to where you were and hope that nothing much had changed.

The only 'obvious' alternative to doing this would be to continue to do whatever it was one was doing, such as running in to release weapons and tanking at the same time. Which, of course, is not at all 'obvious' because it's barking mad.

But what I was really endeavouring to suggest that was Keesje's rebuttal of TOFO's point and the curt manner of it was nonsensical - which, I realise, was a complete waste of effort since Keesje is only here to lecture us and isn't open to debate or discussion on anything (MPA, MMA, Colonialism, TTPs, etc, etc, see PPrune, passim).

[Lonewolf_50]

Then perhaps I should offer a

"Well played"

since I concur on all points. :ok:

[keesje]

Not quite sure why the RAF need to change the requirement.

http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/61982000/jpg/_61982459_61982458.jpg

Why did the Nimrod have air-to-air refueling probes anyway?

[Biggus]

Because of another of your favourite topics - the Falklands!

[Stuffy]

Britain needs jobs, they won't get them by buying from the USA, however good the Poseidon is.

The Falklands !!

Look at a map Keesje. That is why a UK MPA needs a lot of
range and endurance. Especially if there are 60 billion barrels of oil there.

[Bing]

Britain needs jobs, they won't get them by buying from the USA, however good the Poseidon is.

And if you buy from the UK you won't get the aircraft within a decade of the estimated delivery date or a few billion of the budget...

[kbrockman]

Without having to reread the whole thread ,but are the UK even reconsidering operating such a type of platform again or are you guys talking just purely hypothetical here ?
Wasn't the Nimrod supposed to be the last type ever?

[Lonewolf_50]

Someone a bit further up seems to have sorted out a partial answer to that:

Let the development happen and buy off the shelf if the next Defense Review restores that capability to the required base.

Not necessarily a bad acquisition strat, is it?

[Yeller_Gait]

Perhaps you could explain in more detail?

I accept that the numbers say that a P8 is bigger than a Nimrod and P3, but from experience of operating in the 3 different airframes, the P3 has a much more spacious feel about it, and certainly for the pilots, the flight deck is much more spacious and comfortable.

I guess it all depends on the mission equipment layout and internal design as to how cramped the inside feels when flying for long periods.

Before anyone suggests it, I have no experience of operating a P8, but yes to operating a military 737NG.

Y_G

[Captain Radar....]

Is it a realistic option to convert the Airbus A400M to maritime use?

Negative, out.

[Stuffy]

Captain radar,

I understand that The Sun newspaper is looking for people who can write impressive one-liners. Leave your job as a Captain on a boating lake in Cleethorpes and take up a new job as a super-hack.

Of course the A400M can be redesigned as a dual role Maritime-Intel aircraft. With a bit of cargo carrying as well.

If the will is there, any aircraft can be redesigned.

The Comet was redesigned as the Nimrod, the fuselage is completely different.

The Poseidon cannot fly to the Falklands, which as an island near oil reserves will become increasingly important in the future. Peak oil has already been passed. A new airport with a very long runway, will need to be built, probably on East Falkland. The only alternate for Falklands, is Chile. Aircraft with plenty of fuel to spare will be needed.

[Lonewolf_50]

Stuffy, did you miss the part about air to air refueling? :confused:

I'll also point out that A400M can't fly to the Falklands ... but then, you never did mention a starting point, did you?

[Stuffy]

Who or what is going to refuel the short range P8 ?

There is another island to refuel at, called Ascension.

The A400M has a refuelling probe. That is compatible with the A330 tanker.

Come on, go to bed, school in the morning.

[keesje]

Converting the A400M is an option, but it seems hardly a realistic or smart option.

Way to large, expensive, as said no bomb bay options. Space for crew rests, lavatory and galley options could surely beat those on the P3C though..

That said rewinging, re-engining, re-wiring, re-equipping 40-50 yr old frames has been approved before, so anything is possible.

[Stuffy]

Keejse,

For Europe, the CN295 is a viable option.

The British need a bigger machine with long legs.

[Mk 1]

Many are pointing out the lack of bomb bay in the A-400. LockMart has overcome this on the proposed Seaherk by extending the landing gear sponsons forward. Could this not be done for the Atlas?

[Stuffy]

The design team at Airbus could sort this out easily.

What you have, is an aircraft with a lot of capacity and range. Good short field performance and yet at the same time is fast in the cruise at high level.

It is a flexible platform. Maritime, Elint and some freight. It also has a refuelling probe. Expensive, but a lot of bang for your buck. Governments and military are constantly moving the goalposts, the A400 Atlas, has wide goalposts.

Obviously a maritime version would be very different from a transport version, but the basics are there. In the future, its performance and capacity will be important.

As it stands, as a heavy transport, it would not fit the bill, as a maritime aircraft.
But its performance and capacity could be transformed into a very interesting aircraft.

Over to you, Mr Airbus.

[keesje]

Stuffy I've always been a serious A400M cheerleader, amazing machine.

But if it would up to Mr Airbus, they'll prefer an A320 NEO version. It has a usefull belly, more then enough cabin space and e.g. additional fuel tanks are off the shelf. It was discussed in the past. I guess many are waiting what the french will do. They have an old MPA fleet and fresh conflict insights. Airbus launched an A319 based MPA concept more the a decade ago for USN and India RFI 's.

A319 MPA Maritime Patrol Aircraft - Naval Technology (http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/a319mpa/)

I think in the end UK, France, Germany will sit around the table and come to a joint basic MPA requirement.

[Stuffy]

Keesje wrote:
>I think in the end UK, France, Germany will sit around the table and come to a joint basic MPA requirement.

As you point out, likely to be a version of the A319/320/321 family, depending on national requirement.

It makes sense. Whether the UK needs the requirement now, is open to debate. Soon may not be soon enough ?

British Airways fly a Airbus A318 from New York direct to London City Airport.


http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/a319mpa/images/1-image-01.jpg
Airbus A319 Maritime Patrol Aircraft
http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/a319mpa/images/2-image-02.jpg



I still prefer four engines.

Welcome to the MPA Enterprise.
With large bomb doors, MAD boom, accommodation for a relief crew, extra fuel tanks, side cargo door(rear ramp and doors removed),powerful radar system,all the knobs and bells to hunt submarines and ships, Elint suit, Link 16/11/22, cruise missile launch,long time on station patrol, zoom camera system for observation. Something to deal with pirates. Finally a large price tag, which will not come from the aircraft, but all the kit inside it.

Such is the reliability of twin engined aircraft. Like Keesje, I suspect that eventually, Europe will go for Airbus A319 or A320.

[Lonewolf_50]

Who or what is going to refuel the short range P8 ?

A tanker. I find your lack of understanding of how tanking works droll.

[Davef68]

British Airways fly a Airbus A318 from New York direct to London City Airport..

With a relatively light load. The USAF/USN fly C-40s across the Atlantic non-stop as well.

The A319MPA is a paper plane, you would be paying for the development as well as the purchase and operating costs , and wait for Airbus Military to eventually deliver it to a French timetable - or you could buy the P-8, which is already developed (albeit that the UK may actually have paid for some elements of the mission kit, derived from the MRA4 if reports are to be believed) and is available off the shelf.

Anyway, The Uk isn't going to have any money for an MPA buy for a while yet.

[Stuffy]

Lonewolf,
As I have said on numerous occasions. The UK doesn't use the boom system that tanks the P8.

[keesje]

I think the P-8 could be fitted with a refueling probe. Not of the shelf/ for free, but doable. Sentry noses are very similar to the P-8s

http://www.ausairpower.net/USAF/Boeing-E-3D-Sentry-AEW.1-ZH-107-CKopp-2011-2S.jpg

http://www.therichest.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/p8a_poseidon.jpg

[Lonewolf_50]

Stuffy, I hadn't realized that restricting yourself to a particular sub system was a requirement of the UK acquisitions practice.

[Rulebreaker]

It would probably make more sense for the whatever airframe is chosen for any future mpa to also be the airframe choice for a replacement AWACS and airseeker in the future (I don't mean 1 aircaft performing the 3 roles simulationously).

An airbus solution would be nice especially after the US tanker nonsense however should the USAF decide the hawk trainer was for them the P8 could be a goer.

[Stuffy]

Green Gilbert,
....and your solution would be?

[keesje]

BigGreenAlbert,

looking at the P8 configuration (which would be a waste of time for you, knowing it all) it becomes clear:

1 there doesn't seem much in that section of the aircraft that couldn't be moved and would prevent a ( nevertheless serious) modification

2 the piping in that area of the aircraft is there already for the UARSSI.

http://www.aviamarket.org/gallery/cutaways/P-8A_MMA_cutaway.jpg

When I worked on customer specific mods of ASW platforms, analyses on previous similar installations often were used to speed up the qualification process.

g'night

[Lonewolf_50]

A400M AAR (http://videos.airbus.com/video/iLyROoafzEiT.html)

Could a probe could be installed in lieu of probe receptacle, for military forces that don't use the boom? Maybe and maybe not.

The Sentry look alike seems to me a more difficult mod to the airframe.

Maybe, (and this is a HUGE maybe), the area on the "roof" of a P-8 where UARRSI currently is could be modified to accept a folding probe something like what an F-18 has: it folds out for refueling and tucks away after ... but that's a non trivial airframe mod, and adds moving parts, and also requires that a means be provided for the pilot to guide his probe into the chute via remote viewing.

My mind's eye sees a potential skin induced turbulence potentially making that probe to chute match up quite difficult.

Not a cheap series of mods, and not a cheap set of test flights to see if it works or not. On the bright side, at least the plumbing is already there for refuelling if that can be managed.

The mod to the C-130 J (http://www.lockheedmartin.com/content/dam/lockheed/data/aero/documents/global-sustainment/product-support/2010HOC-Presentations/Tues_1045_UARRSI-Dennis_Champagne.pdf) is interesting to ponder as an example of some of the issues germane to considering such a mod. The skin and frame are no doubt already "beefed up" in a similar fashion on the P-8, but given stowage space and other such needs there'd be a bit of real estate re allocation in a variety of places in that general area.

Possible, but I wonder at the cost.

[dragartist]

I found this quite entertaining for a while but am now bored with it.

the point I wish to make is that anything is possible and has probably been done before.

Tuff decisons were made about not bringing MPA4 into service. basically UK was broke and we could not afford to run these things. Its not just the frames but the formation eating team to man (or woman) these things. What we referred to as All Lines of Development.

Do we have a properly staffed and funded requirement? No. So how could we do it on the cheep. or trade some of the requirements such as ASW so it was affordable. I am sure the powers that be have/are exploring the options. A400M, P8, Big or small twin turbo props. It would not suprise me if the Islander, a micro-lite or airship had not been considered.

For those who may remember as far back as 1982 (I am sure the 12 year old will!) Marshall fitted probes to C130 and even made a tanker with a centreline HDU on the ramp. This was done in rapid time. In parallel Woodford were fitting probes to Nimrod. Again is rapid time with a few compromises. (the hose ran along the floor). On some a/c we fitted a spooky rack rendering some of the acoustic operator stations out of use. Tony put this in the public domain in his Rise and Fall book. I think the same kit went on the C130 tanker in front of the Andover ferry tanks.

Snoopy had many features allowing dropsondes to be dropped through the floor. much the same as the sono buoy launchers on Nimrod.

All these wonderful things you chaps are debating are all achievable but probably not affordable. Its good fun to get the grey matter going though.

As for Airbus airliner based versions - dream on.

One thing is for certain - the 12 year old will have long since retired by the time we save up for a kite as capable as Nimrod

Is this thread still about A400M as a MPA?

[Stuffy]

Dragartist,

Is the thread still about the A400M MPA ?

That is a good question.

Considering what is going on in Cyprus. The thread could well morph into the economics about being able to afford a fire bucket filled with sand.

I expect a few surprise announcements with regard to military spending this year. Especially from the USA.

[JSFfan]

stuffy said. JSFan, Detection with what, technology from Star Trek?

what, you think they turn off GIG during ex? as I said ex is limited to stress systems

[dragartist]

BGG I share your sentiments re #199
Had we not done what we did in 82 the Papa would probably have been having lunch last week with Cameron rather than the GILF Miss Piggy.
I am certainly not defending compromises in airworthiness. Never have in my 30+ years. I think others have been more vocal on here about that. Tuc etc. Need to strike the ballance between CTP (Cost Time and Performance not the Chief Test Pilot!) Without any cash we will not be getting any performance at all soon. I am pleased to see safety has moved towards the top of the agenda unlike the early Cowan days of DLO.

[Stuffy]

Due to the economic situation getting worse.

The UK will have to rely on what it has.

Sentinel R1
Shadow R1
MQ 9 Reaper.
Hercules(modified)

[Stuffy]

Perhaps this is the most likely last minute measure when needed:-

Some of the equipment "can be installed at short notice", said Marshall.

Lockheed Martin's C-130J Super Hercules could be adapted for an entirely new mission, if UK company Marshall Aerospace gets its way.

Eyeing an opportunity raised by the UK's cancellation of its BAE Systems Nimrod MRA4 maritime patrol aircraft programme late last year, the maintenance, repair and overhaul specialist is offering to adapt several Royal Air Force tactical transports for the mission.

"Marshall Aerospace is proposing to fill key elements of the maritime patrol function by using existing C-130 assets, combined with equipment already developed by the Ministry of Defence," the company said.

PARIS: Marshall Aerospace offers C-130J maritime patrol conversion (http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/paris-marshall-aerospace-offers-c-130j-maritime-patrol-conversion-358490/)

Marshall's proposal explained:-
The link only seems to work with cut and paste to your browser, and you will have to add the word blog spot.co.uk after the word commentary and remove the space after the word blog
http://ukarmedforcescommentary./2011/11/buy-plane-get-air-force.html

[Stuffy]

The likeliest and cheapest option.

Probably when the A400M transports start to be delivered.

http://i1355.photobucket.com/albums/q718/Bletchley2/C130MPA_zps0af4dd0c.jpg

In terms of C130 conversions, Marshall offered to the UK MOD, post SDSR, the possibility of converting some of the Js into Marittime Patrol Aircrafts as cost-effective replacement for the binned Nimrod MRA4.
The proposal was received well, but does not seem to be a favorite MOD solution in the assessment of possible solutions to the gap in patrol capability. The reasons are probably multiple: the nightmare of the “cost-effective” upgrade to Nimrod airframes is still a fresh and painful memory, and the fear of ending up in another disaster must be high.
Again, the A400 is late, and the C130K retirement is in perfect time, which means that the C130Js are being worked real hard. Unite this consideration with the well known problem of faster-than-expected aging and stressing of the C130J wing (a report on the conditions of the fleet is expected in 2013) and with the cost that the correction of this issue would imply (at least 3 million pounds per each plane, from 2008 NAO figures relating to the older C130K), and you have another cause of hesitation.
The issue of wings fatigue, with the necessary programme of wing replacement and strengthening, figured as part of the decision-making in the SDSR: to avoid the expense, it was decided to retire the C130J fleet by 2022, instead of operating it in addition to the A400 one, with OSD 2030, as was earlier planned.
The C130J maritime patrol would be attractive only if genuinely cost-effective, but the certainty of it being cheap and merry does not appear to be there.*
On the side of advantages, the Marshall offer would use airframes already in the RAF inventory, with training and logistics already well established and very effective. It would use an airplane which costs just around 12.000 pounds per flying hour, remarkably cost-effective. And it would tap into a global logistics and support system destined to last for many more years.

The Marshall proposal uses pallets that are rolled into the cargo bay and wired in, with five tactical workstations and other role-specific kit. ESM pods are fitted in the tail and at the extremity of the wings, and a EO/IR turret, presumably the same once planned for Nimrod, mounted under the nose of the plane. The biggest modification comes in the form of a new rear cargo ramp, which is changed entirely to accommodate an installation for the Searchwater 2000 radar that was destined to the Nimrod MRA4, plus two sonobouys launcher systems. A graphic I’ve found actually shows the C130J fitted with the Searchwater 2000AEW, weird choice since that is the Sea King MK7 radar, not adequate for the MPA role.

Thanks to LM’s own proposals, this concept could be improved. For example, there is no evident provision for carriage and employment of weapons in the Marshal proposal, and the extent of modification required appears quite significant.
It would be probably more effective and easier to adopt some of LM’s kit and ideas: for example, the EO/IR turret and search radar integrated in the fuel tank under the left wing (eventually with a second radar-only kit in the fuel tank on the right wing, if necessary to provide 360° coverage) would allow the rear ramp to be maintained, and reduce significantly the rebuilding necessary.
The rear-ramp could then be fitted with a weapons rack, on the style of that employed by the Harvest Hawk for Griffin missiles, loaded however with Stingray torpedoes and sonobuoys.
Ideally, a further two wing pylons would be added to the airframe, to enable the carriage of Anti-Ship missiles as well, since the Nimrod was the only remaining plane in inventory with this capability, and anti-shipping attack is now part of the huge bleeding gap. However, the addition of two pylons would be subject to strict evaluation of its cost and complexity.

Such an arrangement, with the Tactical Workstations being mounted on RoRo pallet, and the weapons rack being mobile, would allow rapid rerolling of the retained C130Js to Tactical Transport, and/or, with the addition of Harvest Hawk modules, the transformation into gunships, at very low cost.

Worth at least thinking a little bit about it, no? The cost of buying 5 to 6 Poseidon P8 MPAs hovers at around 1 billion pounds of cost, so there’s a margin of maneuver: if the conversion of 9 or 12 C130Js could be done with a similar cost, it would become advantageous, also due to the logistics, training and support being already available. The cost per flying hour of the C130 will also be considerably lower than that of P8.

[dragartist]

Stuffy
http://www.lockheedmartin.com/content/dam/lockheed/data/aero/documents/global-sustainment/product-support/2011HOC-Presentations/Wed_1530-Maritime_Aircraft.pdf

All this was discussed at the HOC in 2011.

Great picture of the C17 dropping a boat on the final slide. Reminds me of my old unit motto (Lead and Mislead)

We will be able to do all these things from the A400M if a requirement is properly staffed.

[JSFfan]

In no way is there is an appetite to design and run a UK only platform with the increased costs involved, suck it up you will run the seppo P-8a

[FoxtrotAlpha18]

If the Wedgetail/P-8 UAASI and associated plumbing can meet RAAF airworthiness requirements, then I'm sure the UK will be a formality.

With the 'back end' plumbing already taken care of, can anyone give us an idea of what would be the engineering implications of adapting it to a UK type probe for hose & drogue ops?

I like the C-130J MPA proposal myself...makes a lot of sense. The airframe has already been proven to be able to handle significant internal and external mods...aka MC/HC/WC/AC-130J

[VX275]

Great picture of the C17 dropping a boat on the final slide.

That boat drop system is British.
I remember the look on the faces on the US Navy SEALS when they came to look at it. They had spent a huge amount of dollars and still didn't have a workable system, only to be shown the UK's latest boat platform which I told them was a replacement for a smaller one that had been in service for several years.

If the PT is reading this, I'm still waiting for the commision for that sale.;)

[keesje]

the C130 is twice as small/ light as a A400M so it seems less of a waste.

If the existing C130J's can be converted (at guaranteed significantly lower costs then a brand new platform!) it seems an acceptable multi role MPA platform.. it can be refuelled and can even carry a 30mm

[dragartist]

VX, Save drift on here about to start a new thread on boat dropping

Drag

[Mk 1]

Why make an unproven modification to the P8? Why not just get a boom on the tails of the A330's. That is a proven fitment - and will allow better interoperability as well as being able to re-fuel the Rivet Joint aircraft you guys are buying and the C-17's you already have.

[Roland Pulfrew]

Mk 1

Why make an unproven modification to the P8? Why not just get a boom on the tails of the A330s.

Post nos 113 & 114 on page 6

[Mk 1]

So, where's that solution mate? You did say that none of us have the first idea (or words to that effect). You seem to have oodles of experience in this area, what, when and how much for the solution.

[Mk 1]

Roland:

Post nos 113 & 114 on page 6

Yes, I know it's been covered before. But question for you - where is the greater risk in cost and time? Renegotiating a contract for a proven existing design (that would also add the ability to refuel C-17 and Rivet Joint as well as other coalition assets), or designing, and modifying an airframe that was not designed to use a probe?

It's not rocket surgery (to paraphrase the could-a-beens).

[Roland Pulfrew]

Mk 1 & BGG

Well off topic - but actually it is "rocket surgery" in this case. My info is a few years old now, so I am sure someone will have more up-to-date knowledge.

- The UK are funding FSTA/Voyager through PFI.
- The aim is to have the assets "off the balance sheet" and thereby exempt from smoke-and-mirrors HMT/Accountant buffoonery (cost of capital/depreciation charges/resource accounting and budgeting) etc etc.
- To be off balance sheet the owners need to be able to use their assets for "third party revenue" generation.
- No airline renting spare FSTAs is likely to want to pay to cart the weight of a boom around or the weight of the additional airframe structure associated with the boom mounting (even though they keep falling off at the moment :E) when that weight could be used to charge for additional baggage allowance for the SLF.

Renegotiating the PFI contract to include booms on a number of "our" jets would cost £££££££ and I would be very surprised if anyone in DE&S has even the remotest guess as to how many £s that would be. Once boom equipped they are unlikely to be able to be used for 3PR, and therefore on balance sheet, and therefore attract a whole new set of budgetry issues in the newly balanced MOD budget.

As already mentioned in this thread - when FSTA was in its infancy there was no UK requirement for boom tanking - even though the AAR experts said it should be included for operational/interoperability reasons. It is the same reason why "our" FSTAs do not have the ability to receive fuel - an even bigger error on the part of the "scrutineers" and the IPT if you ask me - it was assessed that with an A330s fuel load you would never need tanker-tanker AAR. :{

[dragartist]

Roland, I do follow your drift but why would it be the IPT who should identify the trade offs in capability? Who really makes decisions about which whistles and bells to include? I always thought it was the guys in the DEC who did this complicated stuff!

[JSFfan]

Then the politicians come along and say, thanks for that but we have a better idea

[Mk 1]

BGG, our mistake is we are using LOGIC - and as we all know, that will never do when it comes to defense!

Roland, and this is just the start of the problems that will arise when you put civvies into the system. I remember back in the day when I was a platoon commander with the ADF embracing "civillianisation" of many formerly service roles writing a paper on why it was a bad idea. The examples I quoted showing that there were substantial limitations were from the UK MoD where you guys had initially jumped into the civvies doing base functions in the 1970's.

Why would a subaltern otherwise dedicated to chasing skirt and pickling his liver be writing a paper on the topic for a defense publication? About 2 months after the civvies moved into the messes on Holsworthy barracks were were plodding around the Close Training Area in our 1960's vintage M113's when one of our buckets broke an idler wheel. Of course murphy's law dictates that this only happens at the end of a day when returning to the sheds, in mid winter when it's drizzling with rain. Normally, you would radio Range Control, and ask them to ring the mess and ensure the Sgt Catering knows to keep some of his guys back as we would be late for dinner. We passed message as per SOP.

Finally dragged ourselves in freezing cold, muddy and wet looking for a nice hot feed... Only to find the civvies had knocked off (as per their contract), but they had left us sandwiches, and a popper juice box each. Needless to say nobody was particularly impressed as contrary to popular opinion on the military, the food in the diggers mess was usually very good.

When I addressed this with my OC, he suggested the paper (me and my big mouth).

We (the ADF) were finding the same sorts of problems that you UK MoD bods found 10 -15 years earlier. Whatever imaginary cost savings that were achieved were blown out the window by the reduction in flexibility by the civvies and the reduction in morale in the troops (probably contributing to retention issues). The classic case of not examining the bigger picture.

Later after I had pulled the pin, I heard that the ADF found they had to reinstate a mustering they had gotten rid of due to civillianisation - the job as steward. Apart from the mundane jobs in messes, these guys were the experts on running canteens - when the ADF deployed into East Timor in 1995, they had to offer absurd amounts of money to contarctors to operate the canteens, and they had recruitment issues as well as issues with costs etc. So the ADF bit the bullet and reinstated that position.

Our RAN patrol boats are operated with RAN crews, but all of the maintenance etc is handled by a contractor that was supposed to supply x hours of seagoing hours per year. Given the dash by refugees from halfway across the globe to all come to Australia at once in matchwood boats, the patrol force is doing double time and has been for some years. The contract didn't cover this and so quite a few boats are having availability issues. The RAN engineers crewing the boats are not permitted to fix anything(!!!), they just monitor and run the equipment. If it breaks down, that is the contractors responsibility to fix (and naval are prohibited from doing anything but whatever is required in an emergency to keep the hull afloat). Preventative maintenance that would add to the reliability of the boats is out the window, so too is availability. Brilliant.

And now Roland, as you have pointed out the tail again appears to be wagging the dog (thanks BGG). Civillianising the tanker force, whilst a wonderful initiative to some shinybum in Whitehall, looks to have caused a stack of expensive problems even before it has entered service. Classic own goal. As they say, people don't learn from history.

Rant off.

[salad-dodger]

So many valuable lessons in that post Mk1. Difficult to see anyone disagreeing with any of that.

Another thread has just started on the imminent end of the RAF Tornado, which got me thinking. Once the Tornado has gone, what will be left in the RAF inventory that still refuels through a probe?

Typhoon - obviously
E3D - both probe/drogue and boom/receptacle, but does it better through the latter
Hercules - probe (limited life)
A400M - probe
VC10 - going v soon
C17 - boom/receptacle only
Rivet Joint
boom/receptacle only


I left out the aircraft that don't do AAR.

Looks like we brought either the wrong tanker or the right tanker to the wrong spec.

S-D

[Mk 1]

SD: right tanker to the wrong spec.

And under the wrong business model.

[Party Animal]

But at least under PFI, we have some form of AAR capability. Under the business model of lets give £4Bn to BAE 'Waste of Space', we no longer have any form of MPA whatsoever!

[BEagle]

But at least under PFI, we have some form of AAR capability.

Not at the moment, it seems.......:mad:

[Biggus]

While I realize that this is something of a "what if" thread, can anyone contributing to it kindly acknowledge that, in the light of:

Armed Forces and police to face further spending cuts, Danny Alexander warns - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9949546/Armed-Forces-and-police-to-face-further-spending-cuts-Danny-Alexander-warns.html)

the UK is highly unlikely to get back into the MPA game before 2023, and quite possibly never.

Time to bring back the seedcorn? Quietly of course, without mentioning it in parliament....

[triboy]

...... and as from Monday the budgets for the £8bn new equipment programme are being held by the flcs who I suspect do not have this that high up there things2do list. There is an arguement that mpa/mma is a cross govt role but historocally we haven't been too successful in cross govt procurement.

[Stuffy]

There isn't any money to do much of anything.

The A400M would be a beast of a maritime aircraft, but is not going to happen.

The converted C-130J is the most likely option, and will be good enough.

The A320 would make a pretty good MPA, but that is not going to happen.

It's all about money and there isn't any.

[Ken Scott]

A400M - probe

Our A400s are not being fitted with probes.......

[Roland Pulfrew]

KHI gives MSDF first P-1 antisub patrol aircraft - The Japan Times (http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2013/03/27/business/khi-gives-msdf-first-p-1-antisub-patrol-aircraft/#.UVWuTRepXSh)

No sign of any AAR kit. Just saying. That's all. :E

Ken. AFAIK RAF A400s are coming with probes, but we aren't buying any of the tanking (giving fuel) kits.

[COBO27]

Last information I got was that RAF will not use their A400M for AAR (https://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/a400m-delays-creating-contract-controversies-05080/) at all because of the Voyager-(A330MRTT)-aircraft.

[Mk 1]

Ah, that makes sense. The civvies operating the A330's don't want an in house competitor, so there was possibly something contractual about that - which is the sort of thing that would be commendable in a business sense. Unfortunately for you chaps in the RAF, best business practice is not what's best for defence...

Tail, dog etc.

[The Old Fat One]

While I realize that this is something of a "what if" thread, can anyone contributing to it kindly acknowledge that, in the light of:

Armed Forces and police to face further spending cuts, Danny Alexander warns - Telegraph

the UK is highly unlikely to get back into the MPA game before 2023, and quite possibly never.

Time to bring back the seedcorn? Quietly of course, without mentioning it in parliament....

Much as I would to acknowledge your post Biggus, I must point out that this is an MPA thread, and therefore any form of reality is highly inappropriate.

[Finnpog]

If the finance fairy ever smiles again and the UK can get back into the LRMPA then as much as the P-8 and the Kwak P-1 might offer... maybe a Sea Herk would be the best choice for overall fleet commonality if, as LM suggest, the mission kit can be ported across and some 'things that go bang' can be hung off them.

And I know that this is fantasy land, but also buying the USMC Harvest Hawk kit would also give the RAF and therefore the UK a great capability from the Herk folk.

A400M seems even more fanciful than my suggestions.

[Davef68]

Ah, that makes sense. The civvies operating the A330's don't want an in house competitor, so there was possibly something contractual about that - which is the sort of thing that would be commendable in a business sense. .

Which rules out us AARing any of our helicopters that are equipped for it.....

[Stuffy]

Lots of 'Shills' about !

Shill - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shill#section_5)

[fincastle84]

Since the channel tunnel opened DC concluded that we are no longer an island nation & therefore no longer require MPA.

QED.

What a w*nker.

[Stuffy]

DC = David Cam-moron the 'Wine Bar Johnny' ?

[Stuffy]

Keesje will like this almost definitive article:-
Future UK Maritime Patrol ? Think Defence Think Defence (http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2012/04/future-uk-maritime-patrol/)

[Duncan D'Sorderlee]

I can't help but think that if the RAF was offered AMX or Super-Tucano as a replacement fighter there would be an uproar; however, a coastal recce asset as a replacement MPA appears to be a viable alternative.

If you have a Vauxhall Conference goalkeeper in your Premiership team, you will lose!

Duncs:ok:

[Stuffy]

Sandy Parts comment about the beancounters at the treasury saying 'too much'. Hits the nail on the head.

One would think that the gear developed for the Nimrod, just has to be looking for a new platform? Too much, or, too logical ?

I am led to believe, that Russian submarines are taking advantage of the situation.

Yuri Dolgarukii was the founder of Moscow.
Notice the propeller gear is covered.
Silent killer: Nuclear submarine Vladimir Monomakh is latest in new fleet of Russian missile-carriers to have started sea trials nearly seven years after building began | Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2255683/Silent-killer-Nuclear-submarine-Vladimir-Monomakh-latest-new-fleet-Russian-missile-carriers-started-sea-trials-nearly-seven-years-building-began.html)

[Surplus]

MPA is a dirty word to the Government, let's wait and see if MMA is more palatable.

[Stuffy]

The Russians are coming, the Russians are coming:-

HMS York scrambled to Scotland in Russian fleet security scare | Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2073901/HMS-York-scrambled-Scotland-Russian-fleet-security-scare.html)

David Vs Goliath of the water: British warship is dwarfed by 50,000-tonne Russian aircraft carrier as it escorts fleet past Britain | Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2097622/David-Vs-Goliath-water-British-warship-dwarfed-50-000-tonne-Russian-aircraft-carrier-escorts-fleet-past-Britain.html)

Who needs MPA ?

[FoxtrotAlpha18]

So, despite the MoD clearly and correctly clarifying in the story that the comparative sizes of the actual vessels is irrelevant, the Mail still makes this the main headline of the story? :suspect::hmm::mad:

In a ship vs ship scenario, I'd back a well-equipped DDG over a singleton carrier anyday!:E

[Biggus]

Stuffy,

It's just a pity that your first link is to a story dated 14 Dec 2011, and your second to one dated 7 Feb 2012...... :=


FA18,

Unfortunately the Type 42s aren't "well equipped" DDGs!! I believe Sea Dart has been withdrawn, see:

Sea Dart (missile) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_Dart_(missile))


No doubt as a cost saving measure. Indeed, I'm not even sure we have any Type 42s left, but no doubt someone will inform us....or we could just.....


Type 42 destroyer - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_42_destroyer)

HMS Edinburgh still seems to be around?

[FoxtrotAlpha18]

Isn't Sea Dart an anti-air missile???:8

I was talking ship vs ship and I don't think I mentioned the Type 42 specifically. But I would certainly put a Type 45 in the 'well equipped' category!

Anyway...what do I know...

[HAS59]

Way off-topic I know but...

What could a Type 45 do against another ship?

1 - Shoot at it with the gun on the front.
2 - If it had a Lynx embarked it might be able to throw a Sea-Skua at it.
3 - No anti-ship missiles
4 - No torpedoes

A Royal Marine band might frighten the other ship off by playing awful music on the flight deck I suppose...

They are not as "Well equipped" as they ought to be ... as yet.

[Biggus]

FA18,

Sea Dart had a limited SSM capability, but basically a Type 42 and a Type have no anti ship capability beyond a 4.5in gun and a helo......still put money on the destroyer (at least an RN one)? :hmm:

[Courtney Mil]

Technically, yes, Biggus. Sea Dart had a very limited ASM mode, but with no warhead. To be honest, it always looked to me a bit like the claimed role of using Sparrow against fast surface craft. OK in theory, but (apart from one trial in the SD case, I think) I wouldn't want to rely on it in a shooting war.

[Surplus]

In a ship vs ship scenario, I'd back a well-equipped DDG over a singleton carrier anyday!http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/evil.gifI think I'd rather have the 12 missile salvo of SSN 19 Shipwreck missiles, with a range out to a max of 388nm, than Sea Dart. (The air wing embarked onboard Kuznetsov can provide the 3rd party targetting and CAP)

The carrier would also have at least one friendly SSN in Direct Support in times of tension.

[Stuffy]

Biggus,

It was meant to show a continuing threat. Not just a one off.

Here is a later one, if it makes you happy.

Russian navy fights the clock to launch new submarines near UK shores - DefenceReport (http://defencereport.com/russian-navy-fights-the-clock-to-launch-new-submarines-near-uk-shores/)

[Stuffy]

Big Green Gilbert,

It's not you that need convincing but the government beancounters.

I have heard that the British government is helping Boeing by acquiring P8's, priority reservation and all that.

I had a look around a RAF AWACS in 1999.

Big old fashioned magnetic tapes and a large area behind the minimal equipment, awaiting other stuff the US wouldn't sell us or we couldn't afford. The crew called it the 'Ballroom'.

[Party Animal]

Surplus,


The carrier would also have at least one friendly SSN in Direct Support in times of tension.


and don't forget the round the clock outer defence provided by an MPA. Tooled up with Long Range ASM's and also very capable of providing third party targetting.

unless of course it's a British carrier! :sad:

[Stuffy]

BGG,

I was being facetious, with a dash of irony. Or steel casing in this instance. Boeing is casing its B787 batteries in steel because they have a habit of catching fire. The grounding of the B787 has cost them a few quid.

I was astonished by the lack of equipment in the RAF AWACS. Still, that was late 1999. I am sure they have rectified the problem?

[Guernsey Girl II]

Biggus

Edinburgh isn't around for long

End of an era as HMS Edinburgh returns from Atlantic deployment | Royal Navy (http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/News-and-Events/Latest-News/2013/March/28/130328-Edinburgh-home)

[Biggus]

Stuffy,

Yes, you're right, 3 Mar 2012 is much later than 7 Feb 2012.... :=


GG II,

Thanks for the link - end of an era, and 12 down to 6.... :{

[Surplus]

Party Animal,

and don't forget the round the clock outer defence provided by an MPA. Tooled up with Long Range ASM's and also very capable of providing third party targetting.

unless of course it's a British carrier! http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/puppy_dog_eyes.gifWhich may have an MMA ;), but probably not enough of them for 24/7.

Edinburgh isn't around for longShe wouldn't have been around for very long if she'd tried to take on Kuznetsov.

[Stuffy]

Biggus
Indeed, being a 743 year old Time Lord. Time is relative,so is space.

I have have seen the future, it is not pretty. Well neither am I.

In the Second World War the Battleship became obsolete. RE: Prince of Wales & Repulse.
HMS Prince of Wales (53) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Prince_of_Wales_(53))

The aircraft carrier became supreme.

16 + US super carriers.

Then the submarine becomes No.1