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 5th Apr 2011, 23:59
  #141 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: North Yorkshire
Age: 78
Posts: 645
There are clear indications that a committee or a coalition has had a major involvement in designing Mr Whyte's flying machine. Cameron takes the right cockpit and Clegg the left I presume. Hope the intercom works.
Clockwork Mouse is offline  
Old 6th Apr 2011, 10:04
  #142 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: netherlands
Age: 52
Posts: 730
2 Years ago India bought 8 P8 for $ 2.1+ billion, about 270 million per aircraft, of the shelf.
http://www.indiastrategic.in/image/img_220_mid_big.jpg
It isn't specially efficient, (Boeing will soon launch its replacement) based on a jetliner optimized for cruising at 38k ft, giving room to easily 20-30 crew members and still room left. It has redundancy typical for 2 engined aircraft, it needs big runways, can't refuel anything, can't fly slow, I haven't seen the big radar or option to engage small moving targets.

A kind of a Nimrod I guess, without the big radar and engine redundancy.
WillDAQ, a smaller, flexible, multirole platform costing 30-40% less to purchase and half to operate could easily have a 25 yr market of 300-400 IMO. The total costs of ownership would be significant lower then introducing a heritage platform.

Much of the technology / systems could be used from the A400M, CN295 MPA, A350.. The only novelty on the design would be open rotors providing 25% better fuel efficiency then todays smaller turbofans and superior low level, low speed performance.
Rolls seems to be in the lead on those, they invested a lot in them during the last 3 years. Alternatively the A400M's TP400 could offer a proven alternative.
keesje is offline  
Old 6th Apr 2011, 10:51
  #143 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: home: United Kingdom
Posts: 780
I still can't see the point in having an MPA that can also be a tanker. If it can carry extra fuel, it can stay on-task longer; if it is refuelling attack assets, it is not doing its ASuW task - it would likely be in the wrong place, in the wrong configuration, at the wrong height, with the wrong priorities.

Duncs
Duncan D'Sorderlee is offline  
Old 6th Apr 2011, 11:58
  #144 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: netherlands
Age: 52
Posts: 730
Duncan D'Sorderlee: I still can't see the point in having an MPA that can also be a tanker. If it can carry extra fuel, it can stay on-task longer; if it is refuelling attack assets, it is not doing its ASuW task - it would likely be in the wrong place, in the wrong configuration, at the wrong height, with the wrong priorities.
But it can do both, that's what it all about. Sometimes it uses the fuel itself, sometimes it transfer to other assetts, improving the mission effectiveness.
I think it is not revolutionary at all.


Related news: Navy orders Thales lightweight multi-role missiles for Lynx Wildcat.

They ordered 1000 of the lightweight multi-role missile (LMM)

Not to sink destroyers or submarines..

UK orders Thales lightweight multi-role missiles for Lynx Wildcat

Each LMM weighs 13kg (28lbs). Less then a tenth the weight of a Sea Skua. Talking about changing requirements..

It is the result of a new agreement with the UK Ministry of Defence "to re-role previously contracted budgets".

For me another sign rebuilding Nimrod/P3C capabilities by ordering a similar platform is the wrong track of thoughts, a zero chance business case.

"We didn't use to do it like that" is a dead end, as the Dutch naval air service also found out.

Last edited by keesje; 6th Apr 2011 at 14:42.
keesje is offline  
Old 6th Apr 2011, 12:04
  #145 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 397
@Willard

just got home and have seen the picture you posted, as opposed to the .jpg placeholder that work internet shows .... excellent, no worries about asymetric thrust etc. You might be on to something.

@ Duncs, I guess you can't be in any position of power or authority as I find myself agreeing with almost everything you say ...

My hope is that at sometime in the future the UK goes for the P8, on the grounds of commonality, and actually, it is not such a bad airframe.

Y_G
Yeller_Gait is online now  
Old 6th Apr 2011, 15:52
  #146 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Bristol
Posts: 184
it isn't specially efficient, (Boeing will soon launch its replacement) based on a jetliner optimized for cruising at 38k ft, giving room to easily 20-30 crew members and still room left. It has redundancy typical for 2 engined aircraft, it needs big runways, can't refuel anything, can't fly slow, I haven't seen the big radar or option to engage small moving targets.
Redundancy of twin engined ETOPS aircraft... i'd be amazed if you can get your new design contra-rotating turboshafts to match the reliability of an already well developed ETOPS aircraft. As for the rest, big is relative, refueling isn't needed and why are you assuming it's the only asset in theater than needs to be able to do everything?

WillDAQ, a smaller, flexible, multirole platform costing 30-40% less to purchase and half to operate could easily have a 25 yr market of 300-400 IMO. The total costs of ownership would be significant lower then introducing a heritage platform.
So here's my problem, the production numbers are dream land simply because it's not built by an American company, so all the allies who buy American to strengthen trade links aren't going to buy it. As a European project you might sell 100 ish maybe?

Even allowing for 400 units. You're never going to win against an aircraft based an existing civilian design. The airframe requirements for MPA are not much beyond 'truck' and there are plenty of cheap trucks already available as a starting point.

Much of the technology / systems could be used from the A400M, CN295 MPA, A350 The only novelty on the design would be open rotors providing 25% better fuel efficiency then todays smaller turbofans and superior low level, low speed performance.
Indeed, but it would be cheaper to use them in an A400M, CN295 or A350 rather than spending billions going after a fuel saving. Fuel is cheap, new aircraft types aren't. In terms of flight envelope i'd be interested to see how far beyond the capabilities of A400M you're planning to go, I suspect that's an aircraft already capable of being thrown around a MAD circle if so desired.

Alternatively the A400M's TP400 could offer a proven alternative.
They certainly do... in an A400M.

Remember, we're after the 80% solution here because the last 20% of requirements will vary over time and we have no money in the first place!
WillDAQ is offline  
Old 6th Apr 2011, 15:55
  #147 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Sutton
Posts: 47
P8 mission electronic's

do remenber that Boeing is using the Mission Electronic developed for the MRA4 as the base of the mission electronics for the P8.so all is not wasted with the scraping of the MRA4.
cyrilranch is offline  
Old 6th Apr 2011, 20:46
  #148 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: netherlands
Age: 52
Posts: 730
i'd be amazed if you can get your new design contra-rotating turboshafts to match the reliability of an already well developed ETOPS aircraft.
I think the reliability is a set requirement.

So here's my problem, the production numbers are dream land simply because it's not built by an American company, so all the allies who buy American to strengthen trade links aren't going to buy it. As a European project you might sell 100 ish maybe?
Times are changing. Congress had to block a massive KC30 sale, the army is buying a large fleet of Eurocopters, the coastguard EADS CN-295s. Saudi Arabia, UK and Emirates buy European tankers. Had you thought so 15 yrs ago?

Indeed, but it would be cheaper to use them in an A400M, CN295 or A350 rather than spending billions going after a fuel saving. Fuel is cheap, new aircraft types aren't. In terms of flight envelope i'd be interested to see how far beyond the capabilities of A400M you're planning to go, I suspect that's an aircraft already capable of being thrown around a MAD circle if so desired.
Alternatively the A400M's TP400 could offer a proven alternative.
They certainly do... in an A400M.
I think it's hard to find someone that has more confidence in the A400M future than I do. I think it solely covers an enormous niche and seems right sized / specified for a big market share in the next 20 yrs. I think even the Americans will order it, kicking and screaming..

Suggesting a very large 4 engined, expensive transport aircraft without a bomb bay for MPA. I guess the Ministry of Defence would get a meld down. However, they are the ones being convinced the Nimrod was good AEW and rebuilding those Nimrods after 50 years was actually a brilliant move..

I think future proof, lighter, flexible, adaptable, multirole makes a better option.. You have to get the old European Atlantique and Orion operators into the mix of course.



this one: 2 auxiliary fuel tanks, 2 NSM missiles, 3 Sting Ray torpedo's in the main bay and 2 sonobuoy rotary launchers in the auxiliary bay, 10 crew members, photo taken from an airtanker

Last edited by keesje; 7th Apr 2011 at 16:24.
keesje is offline  
Old 8th Apr 2011, 09:45
  #149 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: E MIDLANDS
Posts: 284
I'm probably being a bit dim but i think most of us would prefer 4 engines to 2 for a LRMPA and I think we'd accept that there should be good endurance & good low level performance. We'd probably also agree that its the "kit" & the operators that are the most important element of the MPA "system" so, given that the mission kit for the MRA4 does not seem to have been doubted could this kit not be fitted into Hercules airframes? New build, I suppose & perhaps the kit could be fitted in in a modular manner within internal pre-fab type cabins/ containers?

Admittedly I'm not sure how a weapons bay is fitted in but there is lots of experience on then type, lots of support available, its still in production etc.
andyy is offline  
Old 8th Apr 2011, 10:32
  #150 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: netherlands
Age: 52
Posts: 730
andyy I'm probably being a bit dim but i think most of us would prefer 4 engines to 2 for a LRMPA and I think we'd accept that there should be good endurance & good low level performance.
Agree 2 engines for LRMPA seems to have disadvantages. Although the french (Atlantique) and US (P7) seem to be ok with it. The concept above has 3 engines btw. A small turbofan for take-off and redunancy. And if high performance is required.

could this kit not be fitted into Hercules airframes?
It seems to me the Hercules and A400M even more are out of the picture in terms of size and operating costs. Both aircraft are optimized for maindeck cargo height and therefor have marginal options for lower decks/ bays.. They are inherent bulky, not lean and mean..

http://www.eol.ucar.edu/raf/pics/C-130_xsctn.gif
keesje is offline  
Old 8th Apr 2011, 14:30
  #151 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: E MIDLANDS
Posts: 284
Keesje, your aircraft seems to be a completely new design with an untried engine confuguration. How cheap is that going to be to design/ develop/ produce when the requirement isn't for that many aircraft in reality. Its not going to happen.

My idea is a compromise, but at least the airframe is available, operating & engineering it is well known and itsstill in production so either new build or refurbished airframes could be used. Use the A400 if there needs to be a European or new airframe (although that doesn't yet come in to the tried & tested bracket yet!)

If we are ever to have an LRMPA again then we need to find a way to do it relatively cheaply & that means using off the shelf solutions in as risk averse way as possible. I'm suggesting that in order to meet an LRMPA requirement we could fit already developed sensor systems in to an already developed airframe.

Maybe the weapons could be carried externally? Not ideal I know, but as I said, we need to be a risk averse as possible (engineering a weapons bay into a C-130 or A400 is probably a reasonable size risk) & needs must. I'd rather have an 70-80% capability than no capability at all and in my view a proposal for a completely new design of a/c = no capability.
andyy is offline  
Old 8th Apr 2011, 14:34
  #152 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,083
TBH for 99% of its life an LRMPA doesn't need to carry weapons at all - just enough times for regular training

Stooging about the N Atlantic carrying weapons when there is nothing happening today seems a bit pointless

We expect to get at least a few hours notice of a war
Heathrow Harry is offline  
Old 8th Apr 2011, 14:35
  #153 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: England
Posts: 106
keesje - you may not be aware but Wildcat has a Light and a Heavy anti-surface requirement. The LIMM solution hopes to meet the Light part of this and is not intended as a Sea Skua replacement. Not a change of requirements at all as there is a Heavy missile meeting this solution.
Charlie Time is offline  
Old 8th Apr 2011, 16:38
  #154 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Tullahoma TN
Posts: 482
Unducted fan or propfan:

Propfan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The excerpts below are from an article by Bill Sweetman, the premier aviation journalist:

The Short, Happy Life of the Prop-fan | History of Flight | Air & Space Magazine

... Airbus’ chief planner, Adam Brown, still believes that Boeing hyped the 7J7 in a bid to disrupt the A320 program. At the 1985 Paris show, Airbus faced the inevitable question: Was the company still confident in the A320’s future? “We can go up against the ‘magic aeroplane,’ ” Brown answered, “and we can beat it.”

...

Airbus stuck to its guns, Brown says today, because its studies showed that aft-engine aircraft were heavy, and maintenance costs would be higher.

...

At the end of August 1987, Boeing announced that the 7J7 had been postponed a year. (And Monty Python’s dead parrot was “just resting.”)

McDonnell Douglas tried to carry on with prop-fan development. It had the rear-engine MD-80, but it was losing ground to the A320 and 737. MDC fitted a UDF engine to an MD-80 in late 1987 and wanted to launch the UDF-powered MD-91 and -92 by July 1988. The company even saw a 300-aircraft market for a Navy patrol version of the MD-91. But GE wanted to see 100 to 150 airline orders before committing to the program. Recalls Conboy, “If people aren’t going to buy it, there’s not much you can do.” ...

Russia’s Tu-95 bomber and its airliner derivative, the Tu-114, were designed in the 1950s and had jet-like swept wings. The turboprop-powered Tupolevs could sprint at Mach 0.78, but had to cruise at around Mach 0.7 for best range. Their 15,000-hp engines drove 18-foot counter-rotating propellers, requiring tall landing gear to keep the tips off the runways.

The Ukrainian Antonov An-70 and the yet-to-fly Airbus A400M cruise at up to Mach 0.72, about as fast as the jet-powered C-17 airlifter, but slower than commercial jets. They use large-diameter propellers, not prop-fans.

There is little interest in true high-speed propellers today. The latest conventional turbofans are more efficient than the engines of the mid-1980s, thanks to new fan aerodynamics and materials, so there is less to be gained by a move to a UDF-type engine. It’s also questionable whether the prop-fan could meet current international noise rules.

Last edited by Modern Elmo; 8th Apr 2011 at 17:09.
Modern Elmo is offline  
Old 8th Apr 2011, 20:25
  #155 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: netherlands
Age: 52
Posts: 730
RR is still investing in open rotor technology. Rolls-Royce details next-generation engine studies

Even GE thinks it's the best solution longer term (leap-x in front); http://i191.photobucket.com/albums/z...g?t=1247751620

Very high speed at height isn't essential for MPA, superior fuel consumption and performance at lower levels are more important.

RR has made good progress on open rotors during the last 3-4 years and are doing further tests as we speak. As you can see on the earlier sketches the front and aft rotor have different diameters and numbers of blades, reducing noise and vibrations (blades don't all pass each other at the same moment, shockwaves from blade tips don't hit each other).

The Bear and late eighties Pratt and GE open rotors where complicated in this respect. The Russians made some progress already



Saying it's a big turboprop with contra rotating props like the Shackletons and some Spitfires makes people more confident then using words like exotic "propfan"..

A second rotor makes the resulting airstream straight backward, a single rotor produces a more rotating airstream. Open rotor have bypass ratios of above 1:30, turbofan of 1:12 max at this moment.

Last edited by keesje; 8th Apr 2011 at 21:18.
keesje is offline  
Old 7th Jun 2011, 16:29
  #156 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: North Yorkshire
Age: 78
Posts: 645
The UK maritime patrol capability was not lost because it was not considered necessary, but because the solution at the time, MRA4, was unaffordable. It could be that the P8 Poseidon will bring us back into the MPA business. My gut feeling is that it will happen and that the RN will operate it, which seems to make a lot of sense.
Clockwork Mouse is offline  
Old 7th Jun 2011, 17:04
  #157 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: uk
Posts: 638
I am ex Shackleton, ex Nimrod, got an awful lot of hours on 737's and I have a beard. Looks like I am the ideal chap to operate the R.N.'s P8s. Might have to lie about my age . Just a bit.
oxenos is offline  
Old 7th Jun 2011, 17:09
  #158 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Stockport
Posts: 121
Very high speed at height isn't essential for MPA, superior fuel consumption and performance at lower levels are more important.
You have to ask why on earth a P8 (737) was ever considered for this role
manccowboy is offline  
Old 7th Jun 2011, 17:27
  #159 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: 45 yards from a tropical beach
Posts: 1,104
Clockwork Mouse

What a crock! Andrew might be able to operate close in ASW, with frigates and helos, but he/she (these days) does not have a schmick about LRMP and its associatd ASW task..

Horses for courses.
Neptunus Rex is offline  
Old 7th Jun 2011, 17:30
  #160 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: morayshire
Posts: 768
Yeah but no but yeah but....

....oxenos, you'd only be rectifying the error you made a hundred years ago by stepping into the wrong recruiting office. No?

3 bells in the morning watch indeed (rolls eyes).

The Ancient Mariner
Rossian 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.