Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Aircrew Forums > Military Aviation
Reload this Page >

British Future MPA

Military Aviation A forum for the professionals who fly military hardware. Also for the backroom boys and girls who support the flying and maintain the equipment, and without whom nothing would ever leave the ground. All armies, navies and air forces of the world equally welcome here.

British Future MPA

Old 3rd Apr 2012, 17:03
  #241 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Sutton
Posts: 47
Sentinel for Maritime Survilance

taken from Future Martime Surveillance (2nd April 2012)

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


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


is the cunning plan for the Sentinel post 'stan pull out????
cyrilranch is offline  
Old 3rd Apr 2012, 17:52
  #242 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Somewhere flat
Age: 64
Posts: 3,953
Further capability enhancement of the Sentinel R Mk1 platform could be achieved through an incremental upgrade programme, adding additional sensors relevant to the maritime domain, such as Automatic Identification System, and Signals Intelligence."

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

(I am not saying that the Sentry is an MPA either, God forbid - it just has the capability that the Sentinel is advertising and much more besides).
Wensleydale is offline  
Old 18th Apr 2012, 11:30
  #243 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Waiting to return to the Loire.
Age: 50
Posts: 386
Found this article this morning

MoD to buy U.S. spy planes months after axing £4.1bn fleet of Nimrods | Mail Online

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

Last edited by Finnpog; 18th Apr 2012 at 11:41.
Finnpog is offline  
Old 18th Apr 2012, 12:38
  #244 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: NSW
Posts: 260
Buy P-3's or x-IN Il-18's
TBM-Legend is offline  
Old 18th Apr 2012, 12:56
  #245 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Tasmania, Australia
Age: 70
Posts: 29
Mail Online appears to have dropped the story now.
tilleydog1 is offline  
Old 18th Apr 2012, 13:27
  #246 (permalink)  

 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Bourton-on-the-Water
Posts: 879
MoD noticed it! Their riposte below may have had something to do with its disappearance.
Nimrod MRA4
The Daily Mail today claims that the MOD is considering buying a replacement for the Nimrod MRA4. This is not true. The paper has inaccurately reported the comments made by Air Vice-Marshal Mark Green at a House of Commons Defence Committee meeting yesterday. He was answering a hypothetical question asked by the Committee about which aircraft the MOD would look to buy if it was felt a replacement was required.

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

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

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

The decision in the Strategic Defence and Security Review not to bring the Nimrod MRA4 into service was difficult but our ability to operate maritime patrol aircraft is being maintained. Only one Nimrod MRA4 had been delivered to the RAF and it had not passed air worthiness tests, the project was hundreds of millions of pounds over budget, years late, and needed considerable extra funding to rectify long-running technical problems.
airsound
airsound is offline  
Old 18th Apr 2012, 13:29
  #247 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: the heathen lands
Posts: 357
of course it did - there was no link to Cancer, Immigration, Houseprices or Princess Diana in the story...
cokecan is offline  
Old 18th Apr 2012, 14:16
  #248 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Quite near 'An aerodrome somewhere in England'
Posts: 25,549
We assessed the implications of removing Nimrod from service and are confident the threat can be managed without the need for a replacement maritime patrol aircraft. We constantly monitor the threat but there is no evidence to suggest our assessment will change in the short term.
"Well, he would say that, wouldn't he?", as someone* once said during the Profumo affaire......




*as well as "Coo, Lord Astor, what a little willy!"
BEagle is offline  
Old 18th Apr 2012, 16:33
  #249 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 336
No evidence, cos we aren't looking, and besides we can't see submarines without an MPA so they're not there? lalalalalalaaaaa
Postman Plod is offline  
Old 18th Apr 2012, 18:31
  #250 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: EGXP
Posts: 56
the written submisions in HANSARD make interesting reading from the 2nd April

House of Commons - Defence Committee - Written Evidence
XV208 SNOOPY is offline  
Old 18th Apr 2012, 21:49
  #251 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: NSW
Posts: 260
One less competitor in the Fincastle we say. That can't be bad!
TBM-Legend is offline  
Old 19th Apr 2012, 07:18
  #252 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: .
Posts: 126

One less competitor in the Fincastle we say.
We always suspected you wanted to turn it into a Commonwealth cricket competition
FATTER GATOR is offline  
Old 19th Apr 2012, 11:00
  #253 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Lancashire
Age: 71
Posts: 29
It seems that the MoD have been upset by the AVM's honest answer and have put out a smoke screen with a blatant attempt to recontextualise the AVM's answer by alleging with complete dishonesty that the question was a hypothetical one about what type of aeroplane the gap filler might be. That question was asked, but much later in the session to which the answer was: "There is no active consideration nor an active requirement to buy an MPA at the moment. Any decision along those lines would be part of the SDSR 2015......The Seedcorn initiative gives us decision space till 2019". You can watch the whole session on the Parliament TV website, if you wish. It was wrong of the Daily Mail to suggest that anyone said the answer would be P-8 and my guess would be CN295 as a more likely outcome. It is sad also that the MoD once again fall back on the excuse of major problems with the MRA4 aeroplane, a fairly recent policy line and one they were too afraid to make in 2010, when there were more people around who knew the truth and were in a position to protest.

Incidentally the Daily Mail article is still viewable on line. Watch out for the next headline: "AVM Green to be OC RAF Kinloss".

EG
Eminence Gris is offline  
Old 19th Apr 2012, 14:55
  #254 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Sweden
Posts: 426
One less competitor in the Fincastle we say. That can't be bad!
Gives you a chance of a win for a change doesn't it?
Avionker is offline  
Old 20th Apr 2012, 02:42
  #255 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Somewhere nice overseas.
Posts: 226
Ref the link by xv208 Snoopy to Hansard.

Sqn Ldr Rab Forbes. Outstanding.

Scuttled is offline  
Old 20th Apr 2012, 08:53
  #256 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: As close to beer as humanly possible
Posts: 75
Scuttled,

Well said - I completely agree.
Donna K Babbs is offline  
Old 20th Apr 2012, 10:56
  #257 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Outside the Matz
Posts: 219
Ref posts 258 and 259

I concur!!!
Bannock is offline  
Old 20th Apr 2012, 11:17
  #258 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: North Yorkshire
Age: 78
Posts: 645
Excellent. I wonder if any MPs read, understood and took notice. Probably not as there aren't any immediate votes in it.
Clockwork Mouse is offline  
Old 20th Apr 2012, 14:38
  #259 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 2,874
our ability to operate maritime patrol aircraft is being maintained.
Which is not the same as saying we actually have any aircraft to operate.



Only one Nimrod MRA4 had been delivered to the RAF and it had not passed air worthiness tests....
Think about this one! It was (apparently) delivered to the RAF (which would require an agreement by ACAS that it was airworthy), yet it (apparently) wasn't. Who in DPA/DE&S would knowingly deliver an unairworthy a/c to the Customer?

......the project was hundreds of millions of pounds over budget, years late, and needed considerable extra funding to rectify long-running technical problems.
As advised in 1998 to the MoD(PE) 2 Star responsible for management oversight of the programme. We still wait for him to be asked to explain his actions (or rather, lack of).

See above question^^^ Same 2 Star ruled in 2001 (letters dated 10.1.01 and 16.3.01), that it was acceptable to deliver unairworthy a/c to the Services, having declared they were airworthy but in the full knowledge they were not.
tucumseh is offline  
Old 10th May 2012, 21:48
  #260 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: netherlands
Age: 52
Posts: 730
counter piracy, gun

Revealing the company's investigation of a gunship development, head of market development for light and medium transport aircraft Jerónimo Amador says: "We have seen a growing interest from customers." This has been prompted by a need to perform counter-piracy operations, participate in low-intensity conflict and provide protection for critical national infrastructure, he adds.

"Amador confirms that Airbus Military has held talks with ATK over the US company's work to modify two ex-Spanish air force CN-235s as gunships for Jordan, and that it is "looking for a partner to allow us to offer an efficient solution".

Aircraft could be manufactured in a dedicated armed reconnaissance and combat support configuration, to include an electro-optical/infrared sensor, fuselage-housed 30mm (1.2in) cannon and potentially [email protected] rockets and missiles. A surveillance radar could also be carried, along with intelligence-gathering equipment and up to four onboard operator stations. Alternatively, customers could be offered elements of this system as a removable kit.

Potential customers exist in Asia, Latin America and the Middle East, Amador says."

Airbus Military studies gunship versions of medium transports
keesje is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.