British Future MPA
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: at the end of the bar
Posts: 484
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
On topic, was I the only one who heard Dr Fox say on radio (It may have been Radio Scotland, so it might not have sunk below the border) that there was a case for a LRMRP, but Nimrod wasn't that platform, and they may look again when the economy improved? Would have been the 24th Jaunary (Because I know where I was when I heard it!)
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Toulouse area, France
Age: 93
Posts: 435
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Platforms for the future ...
I got a bit of a surprise when I looked recently (at least 5 minutes ago ...) at the Airbusmilitary.com web site, with their range of Maritime Patrol Aircraft, from refurbished P3s to an A319 version via the smaller (ex) CASA twin turboprops already in service.
Before the usual suspects start getting their anti-Airbus barbs out of their cases, they might do well at least to have a look-see. But perhaps they already have - it's not a site I often visit in any case.
Verb sap; as "one" says ...
PS. Isn't there an idea that one of the new aircraft carriers at least could serve as a joint Anglo-French "second 11" when Charles the Gaul is having barnacles scraped off its undersides ?
Before the usual suspects start getting their anti-Airbus barbs out of their cases, they might do well at least to have a look-see. But perhaps they already have - it's not a site I often visit in any case.
Verb sap; as "one" says ...
PS. Isn't there an idea that one of the new aircraft carriers at least could serve as a joint Anglo-French "second 11" when Charles the Gaul is having barnacles scraped off its undersides ?
Last edited by Jig Peter; 11th Mar 2011 at 15:32. Reason: Add PS
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Toulouse area, France
Age: 93
Posts: 435
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@ Duncan D'Sorderlee
A319 MPA flown yet ? The web site doesn't mention that - perhaps it's "flying a kite" in the search for customers ... Looks interesting to an outsider though ...
Surprising the number of P3 upgrades they've done, too.
Perhaps Aigy or TEEJ has something more solid ???
JP
Surprising the number of P3 upgrades they've done, too.
Perhaps Aigy or TEEJ has something more solid ???
JP
Last edited by Jig Peter; 11th Mar 2011 at 16:04. Reason: Splng (again)
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: St Annes
Age: 68
Posts: 638
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Duncan,
cheers, I DID think 'give it to the Navy' might have suggested I didn't see it as necessarily an RAF task.... your understanding was spot on
Single organisation does not imply single platform - inshore 'coastguard' style aircraft plus long range MPA, but all working for one organisation was my point.
No I'm not a Nimrod orphan - I'm ex Nimrod but in civvy employment now, my 'anger' isn't anger...it's irritation at the low signal to noise ratio of these threads.
Dave
cheers, I DID think 'give it to the Navy' might have suggested I didn't see it as necessarily an RAF task.... your understanding was spot on
Single organisation does not imply single platform - inshore 'coastguard' style aircraft plus long range MPA, but all working for one organisation was my point.
No I'm not a Nimrod orphan - I'm ex Nimrod but in civvy employment now, my 'anger' isn't anger...it's irritation at the low signal to noise ratio of these threads.
Dave
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: A 1/2 World away from Ice Statio Kilo
Posts: 404
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dave
Maybe as you get older you may need a new PAU!! If you want to really mess it up give it to the Navy
.
Keesje you may need to lay off the herby pancakes, I can just imagine trying to refuel my attack package whilst dropping supplies to the ground troops and targeting the bad dudes, hollywood is not real life
Proudly ex-nimrod but damn angry on how ISK has been treated.
Charlie sends
Maybe as you get older you may need a new PAU!! If you want to really mess it up give it to the Navy
.Keesje you may need to lay off the herby pancakes, I can just imagine trying to refuel my attack package whilst dropping supplies to the ground troops and targeting the bad dudes, hollywood is not real life
Proudly ex-nimrod but damn angry on how ISK has been treated.
Charlie sends
Gents,
After some stirring it's nice to see the conversation livening up and that people are finally looking outside their trenches at the opportunities being developed by agencies other than those that 'tradition' has previously allowed.
After some stirring it's nice to see the conversation livening up and that people are finally looking outside their trenches at the opportunities being developed by agencies other than those that 'tradition' has previously allowed.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: North Yorkshire
Age: 82
Posts: 641
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dave,
What is your argument for the military taking on responsibility for funding and executing inshore civilian coastguard/policing tasks?
Rigga,
Are you advocating civilianising LRMP for budgetary reasons as your earlier post seemed to imply?
What is your argument for the military taking on responsibility for funding and executing inshore civilian coastguard/policing tasks?
Rigga,
Are you advocating civilianising LRMP for budgetary reasons as your earlier post seemed to imply?
CM,
Only suggesting the possibility - not proposing a contract.
My "agenda" (if I had one) was to broaden the narrows of some people's vision and make some look for other solutions that even this poorly informed rigga knows are out there - definately cheaper and potentially better than that you had.
I'm quite sure that if you placed each of the nimrods roles into several airframes tuned to that particular need, it would still be cheaper than using an all-in-one nimrod. Easier to maintain and increasing reliability.
The ruse of having it all in one frame "in case its needed" is a bit of a red herring to me. No different to not having enough airframes to cover the patch adequately, or not having the right capability in the right place. Always a debate without solution.
Only suggesting the possibility - not proposing a contract.
My "agenda" (if I had one) was to broaden the narrows of some people's vision and make some look for other solutions that even this poorly informed rigga knows are out there - definately cheaper and potentially better than that you had.
I'm quite sure that if you placed each of the nimrods roles into several airframes tuned to that particular need, it would still be cheaper than using an all-in-one nimrod. Easier to maintain and increasing reliability.
The ruse of having it all in one frame "in case its needed" is a bit of a red herring to me. No different to not having enough airframes to cover the patch adequately, or not having the right capability in the right place. Always a debate without solution.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: On The Road
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Euro MPA might save the day, but we need a new way!
From the Airbus military website
True Military Mission Aircraft
'The A319 MPA is fully equipped for anti-submarine and anti-surface warfare including offensive and strike capabilities. The aircraft can carry a variety of weapons internally and on wing-pylons.
The internal bomb bay has the capacity for eight weapon stations which allow the launching of torpedoes, depth charges, mines and other ASW weaponry.
Four under-wing stations which provide A319 MPA with the capability of launching missile attacks on naval or land targets.
The aircraft is equipped with a complete self-protection suite including radar, missile or laser warning systems fully integrated with a decoy dispenser and, optionally, a directed infrared countermeasures (DIRCM) system providing protection against IR-guided missiles.'
That's what a 'MRA' is for. It does the long range SAR and all the other stuff because it just happens to be really useful in those roles. This is why it's not a civvy job though, ultimately it's a weapon system and there hasn't been too much mention of that in previous discussion.
Maybe the 319 is the way to go. Let's get rid of single service ownership at the the same time. A dual service squadron (surely we wouldn't get more than one). We had 360. Joint Force Harrier and others, why not a joint MPA outfit? It would be ridiculous for the RN to raise a MPA force from scratch without using the considerable RAF experience still in circulation and it has always been a bit odd that we haven't had more RN operators integrated into the RAF MPA force (you know, people who really understand what ships and subs are about).
Go on RN. Go for it. Half a dozen to start with? Bury the crab rivalry, use some of that expertise and get us going again before it's too late. We're hanging on to the R1 by the skin of our teeth, a few weeks later and we wouldn't have been able to do that. The longer we stay out of the LRMPA business the longer it will take us to get back into it and get back into we will. Those who think we can do its multiple roles with a range of different aircraft flown by civvies don't appreciate that it's really a weapon platform at heart! Beware beware..........ah those were the days.
True Military Mission Aircraft
'The A319 MPA is fully equipped for anti-submarine and anti-surface warfare including offensive and strike capabilities. The aircraft can carry a variety of weapons internally and on wing-pylons.
The internal bomb bay has the capacity for eight weapon stations which allow the launching of torpedoes, depth charges, mines and other ASW weaponry.
Four under-wing stations which provide A319 MPA with the capability of launching missile attacks on naval or land targets.
The aircraft is equipped with a complete self-protection suite including radar, missile or laser warning systems fully integrated with a decoy dispenser and, optionally, a directed infrared countermeasures (DIRCM) system providing protection against IR-guided missiles.'
That's what a 'MRA' is for. It does the long range SAR and all the other stuff because it just happens to be really useful in those roles. This is why it's not a civvy job though, ultimately it's a weapon system and there hasn't been too much mention of that in previous discussion.
Maybe the 319 is the way to go. Let's get rid of single service ownership at the the same time. A dual service squadron (surely we wouldn't get more than one). We had 360. Joint Force Harrier and others, why not a joint MPA outfit? It would be ridiculous for the RN to raise a MPA force from scratch without using the considerable RAF experience still in circulation and it has always been a bit odd that we haven't had more RN operators integrated into the RAF MPA force (you know, people who really understand what ships and subs are about).
Go on RN. Go for it. Half a dozen to start with? Bury the crab rivalry, use some of that expertise and get us going again before it's too late. We're hanging on to the R1 by the skin of our teeth, a few weeks later and we wouldn't have been able to do that. The longer we stay out of the LRMPA business the longer it will take us to get back into it and get back into we will. Those who think we can do its multiple roles with a range of different aircraft flown by civvies don't appreciate that it's really a weapon platform at heart! Beware beware..........ah those were the days.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
Single-Role - Multi-Role
Single role would certainly be less expensive airframe for airframe but then risk having numbers of the wrong airframe that were unuseable is a given scenario - Jaguars inb AFG might be a case in point.
A multi-role aircraft could mean lugging around unnecessary equipment for a particular role - sonics on SAR or ASR on ASW etc.
Several single role types requires more bases - Cottesmore - Wittering-Coltishall - which increases the aircraft operating costs etc,
A large multi-role base - Marham-Kinloss - may be less expensive but the more complex systes require more maintenance - Nimrod had its cameras removed to save servicing costs and aircrew need more training to reach the same multi-role capability as single-role types.
For the latter reason the original Typhoon concept was for two single-role types and one swing role.
It really is a slide rule issue and not a fag packet one.
A multi-role aircraft could mean lugging around unnecessary equipment for a particular role - sonics on SAR or ASR on ASW etc.
Several single role types requires more bases - Cottesmore - Wittering-Coltishall - which increases the aircraft operating costs etc,
A large multi-role base - Marham-Kinloss - may be less expensive but the more complex systes require more maintenance - Nimrod had its cameras removed to save servicing costs and aircrew need more training to reach the same multi-role capability as single-role types.
For the latter reason the original Typhoon concept was for two single-role types and one swing role.
It really is a slide rule issue and not a fag packet one.
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Blighty
Posts: 177
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is pointless having multiple airframes for multiple roles...
ASW requires a vast array of sensors, a large bomb bay, and storage for (ideally) 300 buoys.
Given the size required for this, it would be stupid not to have it capable of doing other roles......
Remember, flexibility is the key to air power....
ASW requires a vast array of sensors, a large bomb bay, and storage for (ideally) 300 buoys.
Given the size required for this, it would be stupid not to have it capable of doing other roles......
Remember, flexibility is the key to air power....
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
Looks like we may have agreement - multi-role capability wins.
How about modular multi-role? ASuW plumbing provided but missiles, kit, training held in abeyance? Like Shrike on Vulcan or SW on Nimrod?
The advantage could be a slightly smaller airframe. The disadvantage would be the time to re-role or re-train.
How about modular multi-role? ASuW plumbing provided but missiles, kit, training held in abeyance? Like Shrike on Vulcan or SW on Nimrod?
The advantage could be a slightly smaller airframe. The disadvantage would be the time to re-role or re-train.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
Anti-Submarine Warfare = ASW
Anti-Surface Warfare = ASuW
Anti-Air Warfare = AAW
Those are all the aunties I can think of.
Anti-Surface Warfare = ASuW
Anti-Air Warfare = AAW
Those are all the aunties I can think of.