Australia joins Poseidon MMA program
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Thread Starter
Australia joins Poseidon MMA program
FIRST PASS APPROVAL FOR ORION REPLACEMENT
The Hon. Dr Brendan Nelson,
Minister for Defence
I am pleased to announce that the Government has given first pass approval for AIR 7000 Phase 2 – a $4 billion project for Defence to acquire a manned Maritime Patrol and Response Aircraft (MPRA).
The manned MPRA, in conjunction with the Multi-mission Unmanned Aerial System being acquired by Defence under AIR 7000 Phase 1, will replace the capability currently provided by the AP-3C Orion.
The AP-3C Orion is planned to be retired in 2018 after over 30 years of service.
First pass approval has been granted to allow Defence to commence formal negotiations with the United States Navy (USN) to participate in the cooperative development of the P-8A Multi-mission Maritime Aircraft (MMA).
Following an exhaustive examination of available options, the USN chose the Boeing Company to develop the P-8A MMA based on its 737 commercial aircraft. The P-8A MMA offers a modern, highly reliable commercially-proven airframe with the latest maritime surveillance and attack capabilities.
The P-8A will be equipped with modern Anti-Submarine Warfare, Anti-Surface Warfare and Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance sensors that have evolved from proven systems. The P?8A will be capable of broad-area, maritime, littoral and limited overland operations.
Through its participation in the proposed cooperative development of the MMA, Defence will assist in providing opportunities for Australian industry as well as gain an ability to positively influence development of the MMA Program.
The Hon. Dr Brendan Nelson,
Minister for Defence
I am pleased to announce that the Government has given first pass approval for AIR 7000 Phase 2 – a $4 billion project for Defence to acquire a manned Maritime Patrol and Response Aircraft (MPRA).
The manned MPRA, in conjunction with the Multi-mission Unmanned Aerial System being acquired by Defence under AIR 7000 Phase 1, will replace the capability currently provided by the AP-3C Orion.
The AP-3C Orion is planned to be retired in 2018 after over 30 years of service.
First pass approval has been granted to allow Defence to commence formal negotiations with the United States Navy (USN) to participate in the cooperative development of the P-8A Multi-mission Maritime Aircraft (MMA).
Following an exhaustive examination of available options, the USN chose the Boeing Company to develop the P-8A MMA based on its 737 commercial aircraft. The P-8A MMA offers a modern, highly reliable commercially-proven airframe with the latest maritime surveillance and attack capabilities.
The P-8A will be equipped with modern Anti-Submarine Warfare, Anti-Surface Warfare and Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance sensors that have evolved from proven systems. The P?8A will be capable of broad-area, maritime, littoral and limited overland operations.
Through its participation in the proposed cooperative development of the MMA, Defence will assist in providing opportunities for Australian industry as well as gain an ability to positively influence development of the MMA Program.
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: 45 yards from a tropical beach
Posts: 1,103
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MPA Replacement
Whilst I am sure that this B737-800 derivative will be superbly equipped, it suffers one major flaw. It simply does not have enough donks for Maritime Patrol ops!
Neppie
Neppie
Last edited by Neptunus Rex; 23rd Jul 2007 at 07:10. Reason: Spacing
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: England
Posts: 488
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is crazy! Surely anyone should be able to see that it is madness to buy something off-the-shelf that has been tailored to meet the needs of such a small and specialized force as the US Navy, who clearly lack expertise in this area.
Why can't the Australians see what is staring them in the face? They should be rounding up about a dozen Shackleton Mk 1s. They could then strip each one down individually, throwing away everything except the tailwheel. Then, right, they could install LPG-conversions to the Griffon engines - removing any unnecessary fire suppressing systems to improve safety.
The changes to the engines should just be enough to ensure that the stability and control has to be totally re-engineered. This would be relatively easy and could utilize the latest in Vauxhall Corsa body-kit technology together with a state of the art rubber-band attached to the control column that will stop the pilot waggling it too much. This system would also help to ensure that the aircraft continues to fail to meet the equivalent civil airworthiness standards.
The rest of the airframe could then be rebuilt identically, paying careful attention to ensure that no inherent design flaws are inadvertently ironed-out. Costs could be kept down by building a jig based on the first airframe and then only minor mods would be required to the jig for each subsequent totally-different airframe. This would save the costly process of requiring anybody to rummage around the design-shop archives to see how the airframes were originally built. Furthermore, this policy would bring the added bonus of creating the world's leading Shackleton airframe jig modification facility.
Some modern avionics could be bunged-in somewhere; a bloke down the pub who used to work on Shackletons (or was it Lincolns?) says there are a couple of leads available where the Oboe and Gee sets used to be - should be enough.
Life cycle costs would be lowered by reducing the crew complement so we'll get rid of err... one pilot, a navigator and the wireless operator/air gunner? Yep that should do it - the rest of the crew will be able to cope won't they? Well they'll just have to manage or the AOC will tell them off.
The result will be a great aircraft for the 21st century. It will be called Shackleton 2020 - sounds catchy doesn't it? The projected in-service date will be 2029. If the press don't like it we'll just change the name a few times - that usually works.
The beauty of this project though lies in on-going benefits. The basic airframe is so old, no scrub that word, so proven - that there are absolutely no prospects of obtaining any unwanted export orders. This means that once the last aircraft has been delivered, the factory can be closed and sold off to a holding company - whose directors definitely won't have had anything to do with the project. The aircraft should hopefully have taken so long to build that the land on which the factory stood will then be worth billions for housing. The real legacy of Shackleton 2020 will be to get rid of a horrible, environmentally-unfriendly factory and a noisy airfield, replacing them with some nice 5-bedroom executive homes; which should sell at a premium as they would be so handy for the airport. The aviation industry heritage will be fully commemorated by naming the new roads on the development something like Lancaster Drive, Chadwick Place, A.V. Road (get it?).
Why can't the Australians see what is staring them in the face? They should be rounding up about a dozen Shackleton Mk 1s. They could then strip each one down individually, throwing away everything except the tailwheel. Then, right, they could install LPG-conversions to the Griffon engines - removing any unnecessary fire suppressing systems to improve safety.
The changes to the engines should just be enough to ensure that the stability and control has to be totally re-engineered. This would be relatively easy and could utilize the latest in Vauxhall Corsa body-kit technology together with a state of the art rubber-band attached to the control column that will stop the pilot waggling it too much. This system would also help to ensure that the aircraft continues to fail to meet the equivalent civil airworthiness standards.
The rest of the airframe could then be rebuilt identically, paying careful attention to ensure that no inherent design flaws are inadvertently ironed-out. Costs could be kept down by building a jig based on the first airframe and then only minor mods would be required to the jig for each subsequent totally-different airframe. This would save the costly process of requiring anybody to rummage around the design-shop archives to see how the airframes were originally built. Furthermore, this policy would bring the added bonus of creating the world's leading Shackleton airframe jig modification facility.
Some modern avionics could be bunged-in somewhere; a bloke down the pub who used to work on Shackletons (or was it Lincolns?) says there are a couple of leads available where the Oboe and Gee sets used to be - should be enough.
Life cycle costs would be lowered by reducing the crew complement so we'll get rid of err... one pilot, a navigator and the wireless operator/air gunner? Yep that should do it - the rest of the crew will be able to cope won't they? Well they'll just have to manage or the AOC will tell them off.
The result will be a great aircraft for the 21st century. It will be called Shackleton 2020 - sounds catchy doesn't it? The projected in-service date will be 2029. If the press don't like it we'll just change the name a few times - that usually works.
The beauty of this project though lies in on-going benefits. The basic airframe is so old, no scrub that word, so proven - that there are absolutely no prospects of obtaining any unwanted export orders. This means that once the last aircraft has been delivered, the factory can be closed and sold off to a holding company - whose directors definitely won't have had anything to do with the project. The aircraft should hopefully have taken so long to build that the land on which the factory stood will then be worth billions for housing. The real legacy of Shackleton 2020 will be to get rid of a horrible, environmentally-unfriendly factory and a noisy airfield, replacing them with some nice 5-bedroom executive homes; which should sell at a premium as they would be so handy for the airport. The aviation industry heritage will be fully commemorated by naming the new roads on the development something like Lancaster Drive, Chadwick Place, A.V. Road (get it?).
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: firmly on dry land
Age: 81
Posts: 1,541
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BP,
You forgot something.
I knw a man with a shed load of Mk 1c's and a mate has a lot of Mk 30s. The latter will be much more environmentally friendly as they don't create as much noise churning the water and, unlike those later active torpedoes won't disturb marine life with noisy accoustic pings.
Mind you, might have to ditch the 1c actives 'cause they ping.
You forgot something.
I knw a man with a shed load of Mk 1c's and a mate has a lot of Mk 30s. The latter will be much more environmentally friendly as they don't create as much noise churning the water and, unlike those later active torpedoes won't disturb marine life with noisy accoustic pings.
Mind you, might have to ditch the 1c actives 'cause they ping.
