British Future MPA
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: North Yorkshire
Age: 82
Posts: 641
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: netherlands
Age: 56
Posts: 769
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: home: United Kingdom
Posts: 779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
Duncs
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: netherlands
Age: 56
Posts: 769
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 398
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@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
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
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Bristol
Posts: 184
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
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.
Alternatively the A400M's TP400 could offer a proven alternative.
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!
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.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: netherlands
Age: 56
Posts: 769
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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?
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.
They certainly do... in an A400M.
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.
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.
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.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: netherlands
Age: 56
Posts: 769
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
could this kit not be fitted into Hercules airframes?
http://www.eol.ucar.edu/raf/pics/C-130_xsctn.gif
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.
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.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: England
Posts: 106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Tullahoma TN
Posts: 482
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: netherlands
Age: 56
Posts: 769
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: North Yorkshire
Age: 82
Posts: 641
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Stockport
Posts: 121
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Very high speed at height isn't essential for MPA, superior fuel consumption and performance at lower levels are more important.
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: 45 yards from a tropical beach
Posts: 1,103
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
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
3 bells in the morning watch indeed (rolls eyes).
The Ancient Mariner