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 7th Jun 2011, 18:11
  #161 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: North Yorkshire
Age: 78
Posts: 645
NR
As the Andrew spend their working lives working in, on, under and above the medium which your Prune name suggests you are master of, I suspect they have some of the basic knowledge, skills and aptitude to make the leap without too much angst.
Clockwork Mouse is offline  
Old 7th Jun 2011, 18:11
  #162 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 3,400
How hard can it be?

We've met Finchey for god's sake?!
Tourist is offline  
Old 7th Jun 2011, 18:19
  #163 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 1,041
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.
Ready Aye "Ready"?

YS
Yellow Sun is offline  
Old 7th Jun 2011, 19:27
  #164 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Among these dark Satanic mills
Posts: 1,179
Agree 2 engines for LRMPA seems to have disadvantages
Not as many disadvantages as having no engines like our current MPA!

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"..
Bet the oppo submariners will love that thing! Won't be hard to hear that one coming, will it...?
TorqueOfTheDevil is offline  
Old 7th Jun 2011, 19:43
  #165 (permalink)  
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Lincolnshire
Age: 76
Posts: 16,658
Very high speed at height isn't essential for MPA, superior fuel consumption and performance at lower levels are more important.
Originally Posted by manccowboy View Post
You have to ask why on earth a P8 (737) was ever considered for this role
At the risk of answering a question already tackled:

It depends on the operational requirement. To use the Nimrod figures, it could react and reach a patrol area 1000 miles from base in 3.5 hours. Unrefuelled it could remain there for 4 hours and be relieved by another Nimrod with 6 patrol cycles in 24 hours.

A Shackleton, the epitome of low and slow, could reach that patrol area in 6.5 hours and remain on patrol for 2-3 hours and thus need 10-12 patrol cycles and more aircraft and crews to do the job.

In addition the Nimrod would only be 3.5 hours late on a datum with the Shackleton nearly double that. It doesn't take a genius to calculate the respective circles of uncertainty. In the Nimrod case it could reach a point on the circumference in 10 minutes. In the Shackleton case in an hour.

These are of course extremes and the speed difference between a modern hi-fast or low and not so slow is not as extreme but it points up the need for speed.

In the case of SRMP the difference comes down to launch reaction time rather than sheer speed.
Pontius Navigator is offline  
Old 7th Jun 2011, 19:44
  #166 (permalink)  
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Lincolnshire
Age: 76
Posts: 16,658
Originally Posted by TorqueOfTheDevil View Post
Bet the oppo submariners will love that thing! Won't be hard to hear that one coming, will it...?
You've obviously seen the grams from a P3!

Another reason for a high-flying whisper jet.
Pontius Navigator is offline  
Old 7th Jun 2011, 20:26
  #167 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: netherlands
Age: 52
Posts: 730
Bet the oppo submariners will love that thing! Won't be hard to hear that one coming, will it...?
Well RR says these new ones will be cat IV. They are a lot smarter these days. More silent then a P3.



Anyway you can turn them off and it's a silent glider (with a turbofan in the tail)

Last edited by keesje; 9th Jun 2011 at 18:54.
keesje is offline  
Old 7th Jun 2011, 22:22
  #168 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: uk
Posts: 629
YS
"Ready Aye Ready?"
Yup.
oxenos is offline  
Old 8th Jun 2011, 00:36
  #169 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: New York & California
Posts: 414
Keesje

That [email protected] weapons system they were showing firing on an automobile? The comments about it being useful in an urban environment make me suspect SWAT will want to get their hands on some of those babies; furthermore with the plan to set up an infrastructure in the United States to operate drones such as the Reaper, that could make a fantastic assassination tool.


Robyn C.
"In closing, I want to remind everybody here that no matter how I die, it was murder; If I disappear mysteriously, it was murder."
Jane-DoH is offline  
Old 8th Jun 2011, 17:55
  #170 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,085
"You have to ask why on earth a P8 (737) was ever considered for this role "

because, dear boy , every attempt to design one from scratch leads to a vastly expensive, unaffordable aeroplane

the Orion was based on that grotty Electra they operated for a while in the USA

If we'd based our on the HS-748 we'd still have some capability rather than a fantastic series of designs that cost us zillions and left us with nothing............
Heathrow Harry is offline  
Old 8th Jun 2011, 18:10
  #171 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Forres
Age: 64
Posts: 637
1) The P3 is a very, very successful design that is very good at its job - so I'm at a bit of a loss to understand the reference to the Electra.

2) Why should something based on the 748 be any better than an MPA based on the Comet, which led to the highly successful MR1, MR2, and sneaky beaky R1?

3) An off the shelf option would have been better than a "Bungling Baron Mk4" (especially if we could have fitted our own sensor suite), but nothing you've posted suggests that you have clue 1.
davejb is offline  
Old 8th Jun 2011, 19:30
  #172 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Among these dark Satanic mills
Posts: 1,179
Anyway, given today's posts on the 'More Defence Cuts' thread, shall we just close this thread...?
TorqueOfTheDevil is offline  
Old 8th Jun 2011, 21:26
  #173 (permalink)  
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Lincolnshire
Age: 76
Posts: 16,658
Originally Posted by davejb View Post
1) The P3 is a very, very successful design that is very good at its job - so I'm at a bit of a loss to understand the reference to the Electra..
Not sure what you mean here as Electra is to P3 as Comet is to Nimrod.
Pontius Navigator is offline  
Old 8th Jun 2011, 22:00
  #174 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: netherlands
Age: 52
Posts: 730
I wonder why everybody here assumes a new MPA (if ever) will be just for / from the UK, just like it always was. Are you following the news..

AGI News On - ROYAL NAVY HAS JETS HOSTED ABOARD FRENCH AIRCRAFT CARRIER

A European MPA/coast guard fleet with 2-3 standardized types/ procedures seems so much more efficient. A few bases around the edges, mixed crews, moving around fleet/crews to where needed most.
keesje is offline  
Old 8th Jun 2011, 22:10
  #175 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Forres
Age: 64
Posts: 637
Electra/P-3 yes, I know.... the same relationship as Comet/Nimrod... I don't see why a 748 would be better than a Nimrod, based on an Electra/P3 comparison? Didn't make sense to me....
davejb is offline  
Old 8th Jun 2011, 22:23
  #176 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Malkin Tower
Posts: 849
keesje

1) there are no RN jets on the CdeG. The RN doesn't have any flyable carrier jets
2) that news article in the Telegraph said nothing of the kind. It speculated on possible future co-operation over training and maybe use of the two new British carriers
jamesdevice is offline  
Old 9th Jun 2011, 20:56
  #177 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: netherlands
Age: 52
Posts: 730
Jane-DoH

thats what I think too.. & it won't be a nice sight, not a bang.
keesje is offline  
Old 9th Jun 2011, 21:06
  #178 (permalink)  
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Lincolnshire
Age: 76
Posts: 16,658
Originally Posted by davejb View Post
why a 748 would be better than a Nimrod,. . . Didn't make sense to me....
Ah 748 meets the Fokkers
Pontius Navigator is offline  
Old 10th Jun 2011, 21:15
  #179 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: netherlands
Age: 52
Posts: 730
The P3 and Nimrod were good for Europe for the last 50 years.

Not for the next 50. The world has changed too much.

That's why Nimrod was scrapped and Dutch P3 sold..

Sad for everyone involved, IMO a radical turnaround long overdue for Europe.

A new flexible and efficient platform is expensive but cheaper to operate, lasts for 50 years and has good export potential.

keesje is offline  
Old 10th Jun 2011, 21:24
  #180 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Malkin Tower
Posts: 849
are those Twin Mambas hanging off the wings?
jamesdevice 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.