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 23rd Jul 2012, 09:07
  #281 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 1998
Location: England
Posts: 1,870
Cool

those rose tinted specs
Not rose-tinted, just knowledge of the facts.
Roland Pulfrew is offline  
Old 23rd Jul 2012, 15:08
  #282 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: The Alps
Posts: 2,164
SC-130J

I must have missed this walking around a fortnight ago at Farnborough, but just thinking a Herk down Stanley Way did have a secondary role of limited maritime patrol so I read once.


Cheers
chopper2004 is online now  
Old 23rd Jul 2012, 17:38
  #283 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Waiting to return to the Loire.
Age: 50
Posts: 386
Sea Herk - an interesting concept, particulalry the conformal weapons bays.

If you could also bolt in the Harvest Hawk package it could cover a number of roles, including martime interdiction of the piracy problems (if there was the political will).

I wonder if LM are just raising it up the flag pole to see if they get a salute.
Finnpog is offline  
Old 23rd Jul 2012, 22:42
  #284 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: UK
Age: 49
Posts: 76
Jayand,

As RP has already stated it is fact. If we accept your argument that it was not needed/wanted/desired why was the capability built into the MRA4 as a KUR from day one?

I'm not just talking mission specific rolefit stuff here either as much of the kit you allude to was catered for in the original design. Any other additional kit was catered for via a dedicated role fit station which provided an element of future proofing and was intentionally designed that way.

That to coin RP is fact!

Perhaps wearing your rose tinted specs, you see it as the designers at BAE just coming up with it on a whim and thinking 'I know, lets shove all this expensive kit in, bill the customer, hope they don't notice and oh create a load of work for ourselves!' - plausible but not very likely!
QTRZulu is offline  
Old 24th Jul 2012, 07:46
  #285 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,085
what is the price of some of those P-8's?

We could subcontract their running to Ryanair ................. at least we'd get some hours out of them that way
Heathrow Harry is offline  
Old 24th Jul 2012, 09:10
  #286 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: The real world
Posts: 447
Qtr, I never said it was not needed or not wanted but simply stated that it was an add on that ended up being used in theatre for far longer than it should have (procurement issues of better suited platform)
If we get an MPA it won't be nearly as capable, I reckon we will be lucky to get much more than a coastal ac that covers SAR and basic Asuw.
Jayand is offline  
Old 24th Jul 2012, 09:50
  #287 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 1,906
The Sea Hercules concept with P-3 derived mission system has been kicking around for a while and it looks a pretty good option for some markets.



Just This Once... is offline  
Old 24th Jul 2012, 11:03
  #288 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: MARS
Posts: 1,041
Please please please stop banging on about SAR. SAR was and is, a tertiary role for an MPA and IMHO the concentration on 'SAR' of much of the argument for retention of an MPA capability was it's main downfall. It is an easy argument to undermine and was, leading to the loss of MRA4 without any planned replacement. That is not to say there were no issues with MRA4 but just that the programme was cancelled without any idea what was going to replace it. There are other far more important reasons than SAR for MPA capability.

Last edited by Widger; 24th Jul 2012 at 11:05.
Widger is offline  
Old 24th Jul 2012, 11:44
  #289 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: The real world
Posts: 447
There are a lot of reasons for having a fully capable MPA and SAR is only one of them, you can argue that SAR is not the most important but I believe that what the MOD will get will be not much more than a Littoral Asuw ac with SAR responsibilities and capabilities. I think ASW, overland EO and any other roles have gone forever in an "MPA" that this country will see.
just my opinion.
Jayand is offline  
Old 24th Jul 2012, 11:44
  #290 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: one side of la Manche
Posts: 140
Whilst SAR might have been a lower priority role, it is high profile. Yes, yes, MPA/ASuW(search and warn?) went on throughout Cold War, but it's story untold - or at least not heard by the general public. Whereas SAR occurs on a more 'acute' basis, but then grabs headlines and the public's imagination.

I expect we in the RAF will feel regret at the outcome of the decision to cut the RAF's MPA and SAR capability at some time in the future. Unfortunately, the public will probably either not know (ASuW) or care (SAR) for very long.

Batco
PS. I thought of raising the C-130J frames that will be available, but thought better of starting another 'MOD procurement nightmare' thread. You know, the one where we are offered a COTS/MOTS MPA/SAR solution but then decide it would be cheaper to recycle our airframes and then discover that it wasn't.
BATCO is offline  
Old 29th Jul 2012, 11:28
  #291 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: netherlands
Age: 52
Posts: 730
I think a Sea Herc would be another heritage, large, can do all, coldwar 4 hauler, like the Orion, Nimrod, Bear and Ill-38.

Its just not the route MPAs seem to be going. Smaller multirole platforms as part of complicated networks seem to have the future.

E.g. EADS added/ is adding inflight refuelling, AEW, anti ship missiles, guns, Mk46s, winglets to its C295 platform.

The maximum take off weight of the C295MPA is 23,200kg. More then 4 times as low as the MR4s (105k)..

Adversaries are not the same / at the same place they were in the Nimrod/ P3C era. IMO a Sea Herc provides an answer to a big requirement that isn't there anymore, just like the MR4. Neither are the budgets.

Search and Rescue (SAR) | c295
http://www.defenceweb.co.za/index.ph...812&Itemid=107

keesje is offline  
Old 18th Nov 2012, 11:21
  #292 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Far North of Watford
Age: 78
Posts: 541
Thread duplication

MPA is of central importance and interest to UK defence so will continue to feature prominently on these forums. However, would it not be sensible to extend this excellent one rather than generate yet another?
Genstabler is offline  
Old 18th Nov 2012, 14:27
  #293 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Glasgow
Age: 57
Posts: 909
I've Got It. I've Got A Cheap, Effective Solution To MPA.

Gentlemen,

I think it is time for us to think outside the box with some blue sky mind mapping.

This is what I came up with.

Who has LRMPA in the regions we need? Top of my list was Russia. The French wont help, nor will the rest of Europe as we keep upsetting them. The USA is focussing on the Pacific, that leaves Russia.

Can we not ask them to keep an eye out for submarines? Even offer to share the costs.
hval is offline  
Old 19th Nov 2012, 08:10
  #294 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,085
Some Tu-142's??

great idea.... that'll fix the people who complain about the noise of the odd Hercules...............................
Heathrow Harry is offline  
Old 19th Nov 2012, 10:00
  #295 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Glasgow
Age: 57
Posts: 909
Heathrow Harry,

Those TU 142's do not even have to land in the UK. Crewed and maintained by the Russians. If they spot any Russian subs they just have to let us know.
hval is offline  
Old 19th Nov 2012, 11:33
  #296 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,085
Indded - but it's an easy job - most of them are on the surface asking for help these days -

But we'd probably have to incentivise them a little - for a $100 a proven contact we'd get REAL service I think

They 'd probably split it 50:50 with Northern Fleet so the boats surfaced regularly at fixed locations........

Last edited by Heathrow Harry; 19th Nov 2012 at 11:36.
Heathrow Harry is offline  
Old 19th Nov 2012, 12:22
  #297 (permalink)  
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Lincolnshire
Age: 76
Posts: 16,658
Shades of milominder bender. Just think how much money we could have saved in the cold war. Instead of bumping the opposition miles from home we could have agreed a mutal bump in home waters. Save all that hassle.

Also arrange to scuttle a sub outside the harbour after evacuating the crew

Or running aground on the Isle of Wight rather than Lord Howe island.
Pontius Navigator is offline  
Old 19th Nov 2012, 12:36
  #298 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Far North of Watford
Age: 78
Posts: 541
Nuckle rap!

This is a deadly serious topic! Please take it seriously! Who knows who may be reading it.
Genstabler is offline  
Old 19th Nov 2012, 13:04
  #299 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Glasgow
Age: 57
Posts: 909
Genstabler,

Whos ays that we are not being serious.

Think of the budget savings. Would also impress the public and them upstairs at how good the R.A.F. is at submarine detection.
hval is offline  
Old 19th Nov 2012, 15:56
  #300 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,085
Pontius

maybe they need to investigate the RN - running that Astute ashore at Broadford sounds just like the arrangement I was suggesting with our ex Allies ('41-'45) in the East
Heathrow Harry 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.