British Future MPA

[Wrathmonk]

That is why an Air Tanker style PFI might be a solution.

Wouldn't it be difficult to get 3rd Party revenue from an MPA et al PFI?

[ShortFatOne]

ClockworkM

Whilst many have questioned my parentage (and still do!), I can absolutely refute any biological relationship to TOFO. Indeed, I am surprised TOFO has taken this slur on his character so calmly!

It used to be rather too easy to gain a few pounds when flying on the 'rod, the Dairy Cream Sponges and Jam Doughnuts were a staple diet, although they worked very well at soaking up several pints of Seventy in the Scruff's Bar after flying.

[OpsLoad8]

DCS

SFO

I seem to remember that they never got past the port beam (especially if I was in the Route Seat!)

[keesje]

In reply 21 I posted some possible requirements.

• a 2-3 engined platform having an airtime of max 18 hours,
• get refuelled, refuel buddies / others including helicopters,
• suitable to transport 4-5t of pallets and or up to 20 people.
• Multiuser stations for 4-6 operators with ability to have a decent sleep in those seats. Usual galley/lavatory.
• A lot of communication space incorporated on top of the aircraft for multiple high bandwidth satellite connections with ground teams, internet etc.
• A big belly able to launch / drop all kinds of stuff (e.g SAR, UAV).
• A big radar able to map / monitor large areas.
• Moderate stealth (you can't see it from 200nm's)
• Low noise propulsion for "unrestricted" operations from populated areas.

just did a quick sketch based on those requirements

- 3 engined (1 small turbofan in the tail to boost MTOW for long range tanker function)
- large bay to carry alot (I dimensioned for 3 tomahawk sized objects)
- A large attic for many antenna's
- 6 workstations / sleeping seats in the main cabin
- A big AESA radar nose with 270 degree coverage.

Now I'm looking how to get fuel, or passenger, or pallet space into the airframe.

It should be significant smaller then Nimrod/P3C/737 but significant more capable then ATR72/CN-295 based props..

Any suggestions / directives / good ideas?

[Clockwork Mouse]

Very interesting ideas and an excellent sketch Keesje!
As far as the UK is concerned, however, I do not think that a new design and new build solution is a practical option in the forseeable future. A tried, tested and already in service platform is more likely to be the preferred way ahead.

[keesje]

Clockwork Mouse thnx. I agree doing such a project as a single state would be very unrealistic these days. It would have to be a European program like A400M, replacing P3C, Nimrods, Atlantiques etc. Probably it would be logical to locate those assets in 3 strategic NAS, for the north Atlantic, more south and south of Europe.

I filled in the sketch a bit:

• A400M style In-Flight Refuelling Boom
• Counter rotating props for lower speed / height regions fuel efficiency
• The fuselage is about as wide as a 4 abreast aircraft but has a bigger cross section because of the bay and antenna spaces.
• The tail engine inlet could be streamlined after take-offf by a retractable fairing..

Thinking about it, probably a single centreline hose and drogue would be sufficient and save a lot of weight / drag. Don't know if / how it could fit though..

[The Old Fat One]

I can absolutely refute any biological relationship to TOFO. Indeed, I am surprised TOFO has taken this slur on his character so calmly!

Not at all, it would be a priviledge. But are you sure we are not "biologically" related. I can think of one maritime tradition that might make us so

PS

CM...why do think the Nimrod had four mighty Speys, if not to get all that combined lard into the sky. There were a few fit types (not many) but they were generally crap at their job and always AWOL playing sport (or worse...golf).

[Clockwork Mouse]

TOFO
You have pricked my bubble and shattered my illusions! I had assumed that all you mighty hunters worked out regularly in the multi-gym in the back of the beast.

[BEagle]

A big belly able to launch / drop all kinds of stuff (e.g SAR, UAV).
A big radar able to map / monitor large areas.
Moderate stealth (you can't see it from 200nm's)

1. How do you intend to load 'all kinds of stuff' into the 'big belly'? There appears to be no provision for any weapon bay doors - the same probelm as A400M would have faced when it was proposed as the 'FLA', to include Nimrod replacement.

2. Anything with a 'big radar' is unlikely to have 'moderate stealth'! Neither are contrarotating 8-blade scimitar propellers going to give you any stealth.

3. What significant advantage do you see in a high-wing configuration? An overly robust structure implies a poor fuel fraction, something of a disadvantage in any AAR aircraft. As would have been the case with A400M/FLA as a tanker.

4. A single centreline hose would give you a single point of failure risk - not much help if you're considering long-range SAR. Dual Mk-80x Cobham units would be plausible.

5. Upon what is your '18 hours airtime' predicated?

6. Have you done any weight or performance estimations?

[The Old Fat One]

Hey Beags,

I was working on exactly the same list as you before I decided a pithy response to my equally muscular challenged buddy was a better use of my pprune time!

The only sweaty activity ever done down the back of a Nimrod was at an air show..............................

[BEagle]

The only sweaty activity ever done down the back of a Nimrod was at an air show

Quite right too! An aeroplane designed for the civilised days of the RAF, rather than for today's 'Kraft durch Freude' RAF...

Pleased to note that you have a Clarkson / Twain attitude to the pointless pastime of following little white balls around manicured countryside...

[Jabba_TG12]

Following the illustrations and associated suggestions of a high wing dual prop job, it would probably be cheaper to buy the ATR 72 ASW... if its good enough for the Italians & the Turks...

No need for BAe to chuck anyone on the dole afterwards, either. Job done

[airsound]

Not recommending this, or otherwise commenting, merely passing on what the Chileans are doing, according to Airbus Military



Chile takes delivery of first anti-submarine warfare C295 - first European aircraft with ASW capabilities since the 1960s

The Chilean Navy has taken delivery of the first Airbus Military C295 in its anti-submarine warfare (ASW) configuration. The handover took place after the aircraft was certified by INTA, the Spanish authority responsible for certification and military airworthiness.

Based on the Maritime Patrol (MPA) configuration of the aircraft, the C295 ASW is the first ASW type designed and certified in Europe, to enter service since the 1960s-vintage Bréguet Atlantic. It is a modern and risk-free choice to replace the veteran and ageing P-3 Orion or Bréguet Atlantic fleets.

The new model is the latest variant of the successful C295 family of multirole aircraft. Launched in 1996, it has been proved in many military roles and civic missions for the benefit of society. Transport logistics, medical evacuation or surveillance are just some of the roles already deployed by this aircraft in its MPA version.

The aircraft is equipped with two underwing hard points to carry weapons or other stores and boasts a comprehensive suite of sensors including a search radar, digital avionics that are compatible with night-vision goggles (NVG), automatic identification system, acoustic system, and a magnetic anomaly detector. The data from all these sensors are processed by the Fully Integrated Tactical System (FITS). This Airbus Military-developed mission system presents the data in an intuitive form to the four tactical operators via on board mission consoles as well as to the pilots.

This C295 ASW is part of a three aircraft order placed by the Chilean Navy in October 2007. The first one, a C295 MPA, was delivered in December 2009. The other two are both ASW versions and the second is being delivered over the next few months.

The Chilean Army, Navy, and Air Force already operate one C295 MPA, three CN235s, and 13 C212s – meaning they collectively operate members of the whole Airbus Military medium and light aircraft family.

To date, Airbus Military has sold 356 CN235 and C295 aircraft to 55 different operators.



airsound

[The Old Fat One]

Coastal/littoral work....yeah maybe.

Open ocean....too small. (Fuel, stores, weapons....DCS)

PS

F*** sight better than anything we have though!!!

[davejb]

Well,
if this thread is going to wander even further into the land of make believe, here's my contender:-



It can fly through the air, and for ASW (or whatever the current TLA might be) if you spot a sub...hey presto, go in after it! Simples.

[keesje]

1. How do you intend to load 'all kinds of stuff' into the 'big belly'? There appears to be no provision for any weapon bay doors - the same probelm as A400M would have faced when it was proposed as the 'FLA', to include Nimrod replacement.

You can't see the big belly from the front view. The A400 for MPA, amazing, I wonder why they even considered..

2. Anything with a 'big radar' is unlikely to have 'moderate stealth'! Neither are contrarotating 8-blade scimitar propellers going to give you any stealth.

Serious stealth would compromise price and efficiency, nor is it necessary. Passive sensors / network centric, ECM and radar absorbing coatings could do something.

3. What significant advantage do you see in a high-wing configuration? An overly robust structure implies a poor fuel fraction, something of a disadvantage in any AAR aircraft. As would have been the case with A400M/FLA as a tanker.

A high wing gives ground clearance to the big props (15 blades by the way) is aerodynamically more efficient and gives unobstructed views, a bigger bay. Disadvantage is you have to stow the landing gear somewhere else..

4. A single centreline hose would give you a single point of failure risk - not much help if you're considering long-range SAR. Dual Mk-80x Cobham units would be plausible.

That''s right. Although a boom has similar single point risks. Has a dual centerline hose ever been used, for redundancy? It could maybe save a lot of piping, weight. drag..

5. Upon what is your '18 hours airtime' predicated?

It's more a requirement, the P3C Update IIs can do it.

6. Have you done any weight or performance estimations?

Yes, I guess a OEW of around 70 klbs and MTOW of around 180lbs would be enough to provide a significant range / fuel capacity, but hardly possible for a twin prop. The main engines would provide maximum thrust of around 20klbs, the secondary turbofan around 10 klbs.

http://i191.photobucket.com/albums/z...Wengineout.jpg

probably be cheaper to buy the ATR 72 ASW... if its good enough for the Italians & the Turks...

I guess for the Méditerranée / coast patrol it's good enough, for northern Atlantic it seems less suited though.



By the way, what would be a suitable name for the machine? (I'm working on a side look and it probably won't become a beauty (nose, side looking radar, refuel equipment, cargo door, 3rd engine .. so forget Aphrodite..)

[rab-k]

Anythings got to be better than what we're currently using...

[The Old Fat One]

DaveJb

I'm going to go for this year's biggest thread drift prize and point out that.... that there picture is a model of "Supercar".

The original was built at the Gerry and Sylvia Anderson studios in Slough Trading Estate in the early sixties by my uncle.

[BEagle]

TOFO, did Uncle Reg also teach Mike Mercury to fly Supercar?

[Modern Elmo]

Why not fit your Airbus tankers with 4-6 wing weapons rails, a sonobuoy dispenser, EO ball, operators' workstations, and upgraded radar?

Those big A330 tankers have lots of payload fraction which otherwise may be somewhat under-utilized, don't we agree?