British Future MPA

[davejb]

Indeed,
and Mitch could run acoustics...

[keesje]

concept

Addition; retractable 20mm turret to draw a line in the water to convince pirates, smuglers, rebels etc, asymmetric warfare. Similar to OV-10.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v1...1132924124.jpg

Any suggestions? Not sure about the hose and drogues yet..

E.g. what would be the best cabin configurations for 6 operators with lots of screens? side by side? how about interaction between them, would it help when everyone can see each other, from the corner of their eyes? to give signs, read body language ?

[Thelma Viaduct]

I hope that blue senior officer is dense, the CofG looks way off.

[davejb]

You've forgotten the Death Ray and the giant magnet.

[WillDAQ]

Any suggestions?

That you should lay off the gold plating? This thing makes Nimrod look like an airliner with a laptop strapped to one of the seats and a hostess throwing life rings out the window.

[keesje]

Pious Pilot: I hope that blue senior officer is dense, the CofG looks way off.

I compared the configurations to ATR72 and Q400, and compensated for the heavy tail (turbofan, hose-drogue) by moving the wing backwards a bit. I heightened the vertical tail further too. It seems too small, it effectiveness would be degraded by the air inlet. Will do another CoG estimation though. Most of the systems and the refuelling boom in front also influence the moment..



I wanted to put maindeck fuel tanks close to the CoG, but I guess you don't want to have them in line with the hpt ..

WillDAQ Quote: Any suggestions?
That you should lay off the gold plating? This thing makes Nimrod look like an airliner with a laptop strapped to one of the seats and a hostess throwing life rings out the window.

The Nimrod was optimized for ASW, much bigger heavier and had 4 turbofans, the MR4 must have been gold plated, looking at the financials..

A machine like this should be cheaper (smaller, lighter, fuel efficient, less crew) and have more applications. It's not to be another Nimrod. E.g. MPA could transfer excess fuel if they relieve eachother in patrol areas.

http://i191.photobucket.com/albums/z...MPAstudy_5.jpg

About the 20mm, the only thing an MPA today does is make pirates hurry, getting on board before something with teeth arrives.

[Modern Elmo]

Please post a drawing of your proposed aircraft showing the bomb bay, the sonobuoy dispenser(s), and the MAD boom.

Compare to these pix of the P-3:

US Navy P-3Cs

File:P-3 Orion underside view 20080614.jpg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[keesje]

Modern Elmo: Please post a drawing of your proposed aircraft showing the bomb bay, the sonobuoy dispenser(s), and the MAD boom.

Hi Elmo, I'm not able to post that, because it doesn't exist (yet). For mission specific equipment the idea is to have it located in a secondary bay. Where the gatling is in the post above. A box sized space it available to such a gun, buoy dispensers, nothing, an additional fuel tank, side looking radar or whatever they come up with in the next 30 years. (e.g a tactical laser, 2025? maybe they can write the message on the pirat's deck with it, in the right language.. )

YouTube - Advanced Tactical Laser tested @ White Sands Missile Range

[Duncan D'Sorderlee]

keesje,

Sorry mate, the galley isn't nearly big enough!

Duncs

[Modern Elmo]

Keesje, here are some benchmark numbers for your design:

P-3C P-7A

Max Takeoff Gross Weight 139,760 lbs 171,350 lbs
Flight Design Gross Weight (3.0g) 135,000 lbs 165,000 lbs
Maneuver Weight (3.5g) --- 137,000 lbs
Design Zero Fuel Weight 77,200 lbs 105,000 lbs
Maximum Payload 22,237 lbs 38,385 lbs
Fuel Capacity 62,587 lbs 66,350 lbs
Maximum Landing Weight 114,000 lbs 144,000 lbs
Design Landing Weight 103,880 lbs 125,190 lbs
Sonobuoy Capacity 84 150-300
Wing Span 99.6 ft 106.6 ft
Wing Area 1300 sq ft 1438 sq ft
Fuselage Length* 116.8 ft 112.7 ft
Height 34.2 ft 32.9 ft


Federation of American Scientists :: P-7 Long Range Air ASW-Capable Aircraft (LRAACA)

* Hmmm, fuselage length for proposed P-7 is wrong. Wonder what else is wrong with that list?

[Modern Elmo]

Here's another important figure of merit. Better check yourselves out, younger comrades:

Key genital measurement linked to male fertility


By Deborah Zabarenko, Environment Correspondent

WASHINGTON | Fri Mar 4, 2011 12:10am EST
(Reuters) - When it comes to male fertility, it turns out that size does matter.

The dimension in question is not penis or testicle size, but a measurement known as anogenital distance, or AGD.

Men whose AGD is shorter than the median length -- around 2 inches (52 mm) -- have seven times the chance of being sub-fertile as those with a longer AGD, according to a study published on Friday in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives.

That distance, measured from the anus to the underside of the scrotum, is linked to male fertility, including semen volume and sperm count, the study found. The shorter the AGD, the more likely a man was to have a low sperm count.

...

This offers the prospect of a relatively simple screening test for men, said study co-author Shanna Swan of the University of Rochester Medical Center.

"It's non-invasive and anybody can do it, and it's not sensitive to the kinds of things that sperm count is sensitive to, like stress or whether you have a cold or whether it's hot out," Swan said in a telephone interview.

...

Key genital measurement linked to male fertility | Reuters

[The Old Fat One]

....and you wonder why some of us don't want any more LRMP aircraft threads started....

[airsound]

Apologies if this has been mentioned before - it's about the Libyan Coast Guard Vessel Vittoria firing on sundry merchant shipping on 28 March.

Anyway, the said Vittoria was schtumphed by a P-3, says the US Navy

Vittoria was engaged and fired upon by a U.S. Navy P-3C Maritime Patrol aircraft with AGM-65 Maverick missiles; the first time that these missiles have ever been fired on a hostile vessel by a P-3C.

"P-3s have provided 24/7 ISR maritime domain awareness critical to the protection of U.S. and coalition surface assets in the JOA since the initiation of Odyssey Dawn," said Capt. Dan Schebler, commodore, Commander Task Force 67. "This engagement demonstrates the ability of the P-3 to complete the sensor-to-shooter kill chain, in parallel providing a key capability to the Joint Force Maritime Component Commander and the Composite Warfare Commander."

Food for thought when considering the need for future MPA, and its ability to "complete the sensor-to-shooter kill chain"?

airsound

[EW73]

Also, as mentioned earlier re the specs of the Lockheed P-7 were sometimes in error...

I'm here to say that not all the specs, or indeed the cut-away graphic of the Boeing AEW&C are correct either!

I'd love to get a look-in of the flight deck of that Airbus Military refurbished P3C that was just completed, ready for delivery.

Cheers,
EW73

[WillDAQ]

A machine like this should be cheaper (smaller, lighter, fuel efficient, less crew) and have more applications. It's not to be another Nimrod. E.g. MPA could transfer excess fuel if they relieve eachother in patrol areas.

I think you're overlooking development costs somewhat. There's little point in a fuel efficient aircraft if it costs twice as much to purchase. You're using a new design radical configuration which will be expensive to develop and all the small efficiency improvements in the world aren't going to make it financially viable compared to something like the P3, which we could buy off the shelf tomorrow. Heck I bet the Americans would even throw in some discount training stateside and some spares rather than having to start with a new type from scratch.

I'd also challenge the idea of smaller and lighter. If there's one thing that's been learned during the development of Sentinel it was that small aircraft run out of space more quickly.

The fueling issue, potential to receive fuel would be useful (but not essential if it's got a 12hr plus endurance anyway). Delivering fuel is a waste of time, this is what we've got tankers for. If we wanted to have a flexible multirole tanking capability we'd buy the add ons for A400M which would make it into service far sooner than a new build aircraft.

[keesje]

Modern Elmo: Keesje, here are some benchmark numbers for your design:
P-3C P-7A

Thanks Elmo, usefull information to determine the balance between the various variables. I think if anyone these days would come up with a design matching P3/Nimrod like capabilities and dimensions, Dod would say it's a good idea for 1985 and if he/she has followed developments during the last 20 years.

The tanker is a tanker, a ASW platform is ASW platform and an interceptor is an interceptor days are behind us. One of the reasons IMO the US aerospace lobby decided the USAF KC30 had to be killed is that a quick look at the aircrafts cargo/range and tonne-mile costs not only caused red alert in the KC767 department but also in the C-17 and KC-10/KC-Y departments. It would spoil the business as it has been for the last 50 years.

airsound: Apologies if this has been mentioned before - it's about the Libyan Coast Guard Vessel Vittoria firing on sundry merchant shipping on 28 March.

Hadn't seen it, IMO a clear sign of changing requirements. All those Harpoons, Exocets, torpedo's and nucleair charges have a use. But how many were used during the last 50 years, do they still have first priority?



Times and enemies are different. Big enemies became neighbours, small friends enemies.

YouTube - Iran unveils 'Bavar 2' stealth flying boat with machine gun and camera - 28 Sept. 2010

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2001/...c853928b_b.jpg

WillDAQ: I think you're overlooking development costs somewhat. There's little point in a fuel efficient aircraft if it costs twice as much to purchase. You're using a new design radical configuration which will be expensive to develop and all the small efficiency improvements in the world aren't going to make it financially viable compared to something like the P3, which we could buy off the shelf tomorrow.

Bigger aircraft cost more, specially if they are based on 50+ year old designs. Who will buy them for the next 40 years if they don't fit the requirements anyway? It just doesn't make sense.

Of course it wil take E8-10 billion Euro's to develop, but a lot of technology can be transferred from existing modern aircraft. Not everything needs to be reinvented. And doing a Nimrod, P3/P7 has the export potential of a Nimrod, P3/P7.

WillDAQ: Delivering fuel is a waste of time, this is what we've got tankers for. If we wanted to have a flexible multirole tanking capability we'd buy the add ons for A400M which would make it into service far sooner than a new build aircraft.

Just bring in the big tankers to refuel somewhere far away. What are the total costs of having that capability globally? Plus that capability for helicopters.. we just can't afford!

An aircraft bringing its own maintenance crew / maintenance tools, being able to refuel, function as a powerfull sensor for intelligence, able to perform a SAR and patrol with minimum adjustments saves money. Less transport, tanker, helihours, flight cycles, crews, specialized fleets, or smaller ones.

[airsound]

An aircraft ..... being able to refuel, function as a powerfull sensor for intelligence, able to perform a SAR and patrol with minimum adjustments saves money.

You missed out being able to schtumph Libyan Coastguards with Mavericks (see post #133 above)

airsound

[GarageYears]

Can't we just outsource?

India is buying P-8 and are pretty good at this outsourcing lark...

Probably more likely than inventing a whole new airplane.

-GY

[WillDAQ]

Bigger aircraft cost more, specially if they are based on 50+ year old designs. Who will buy them for the next 40 years if they don't fit the requirements anyway? It just doesn't make sense.

Cost of an aircraft is not directly proportional to size. For example it is easier to create a long range variant of a large aircraft than it is a small aircraft even from a basic volumetric perspective. What adds to the expense significantly is novel architecture such as what you're proposing. I'd suggest that ultimately the military cares less about fuel efficiency than total time in the air and through life maintenance practicalities.

You're also making the assumption that the requirements stay the same for 40 years, which is highly unlikely, more likely is that new technology will come along that needs to be retroactively added. This is most easily achieved on a larger aircraft that has a larger weight growth margin and more space to fit the stuff.

There's also a strong argument to be made for sticking with a commercial airframe from the perspective of support. One of the downfalls of Nimrod was that it became an orphan fleet long after the commercial equivalent was out of service. Support for airliners rolling off the production line today will run for at least the next twenty years, if not longer in the case of common parts. None of the expensive custom widgets typically associated with aging military aircraft.

Of course it wil take E8-10 billion Euro's to develop, but a lot of technology can be transferred from existing modern aircraft. Not everything needs to be reinvented. And doing a Nimrod, P3/P7 has the export potential of a Nimrod, P3/P7.

If you don't need to re-invent the technology why not just shove it all into an off the shelf airframe and save the 8 billion? Are the capability gains you predict worth that much cash, particularly considering that most of the export sales will be taken by Boeing's cheaper alternative anyway?

Just bring in the big tankers to refuel somewhere far away. What are the total costs of having that capability globally? Plus that capability for helicopters.. we just can't afford!

That's the beauty of the A400M tanker option. It can tank anything including choppers, all aircraft are capable of a basic tanking role, the pods take a couple of hours to fit, don't prevent the aircraft carrying a full cargo load and if you want you can even buy extra tanks for the fuz to make it into a full fat tanker. Why go through all the hassle of maintaining another fleet capable of refueling when in the very rare cases it's needed we have another aircraft capable of the job.

To be perfectly honest, an MPA conversion for A400M (ideally consisting of equipment predominantly palletised in the hold with a custom rear ramp for stores, fuel pods and some external array hardpoints) has the potential to make very good sense. The aircraft is at the very start of what's going to be a long in service life. It has a large payload, long range, is quiet and we're already getting a fleet of them.

An aircraft bringing its own maintenance crew / maintenance tools, being able to refuel, function as a powerfull sensor for intelligence, able to perform a SAR and patrol with minimum adjustments saves money. Less transport, tanker, helihours, flight cycles, crews, specialized fleets, or smaller ones.

But you see that such a unique aircraft is a small specialized fleet requiring specifically trained crews capable of maintenance is hugely expensive.

MPA tanking does not make up the bulk of tanker work, we don't heli tank and we only divert ISTAR assets to MPA when they're needed. You're adding expensive capabilities to the aircraft that we barely use as it is and while it would be wonderful to have a flying swiss army knife, we can't afford one right now.

As an exercise in what's possible the design is interesting and original, but it's the hard financial realities of capability vs. cost that killed Nimrod and will kill any attempt at a bespoke replacement.

[Willard Whyte]

Well, it could work.