MoD to buy 5 x P8 from USA - maybe
Older readers will perhaps recall that the UK's 'FLA' was originally intended to meet all future large aircraft requirements....
So perhaps it might be time to investigate the feasibility of a maritime version of the A400M?
So perhaps it might be time to investigate the feasibility of a maritime version of the A400M?
SASless: "Smoke signals from a camp site near a river in Maryland suggest the P-8 program is encountering some problems. Two engines shy of a real airplane....wings designed for hi-altitude cruise flight....MAD impossible at 30,000 feet.....Sonar Buoy drop patterns problematic from 30,000 feet.....being able to listen is nice being able to locate is the needed capability....then how does one drop a Torpedo from that height and it work upon arrival?"
SASless I don't know how reliable you pax source might be, but I hope these tales are not true. Sure all aircraft go through problems in T&E which need rectification, but as you point out a design for high altitude cruise may not be suitable for LL tactics and drops. The Indos have operated the -200 series Surveiller for many years, but I think they avoid the LL environment.
Sure turbofans will be better than turbojets at LL, but the physics of the aerodynamics have not changed.
I hope that the problems are exagerated, as the P-8 is the only show in town, and our P-3s will be stretched to last to 2020.
SASless I don't know how reliable you pax source might be, but I hope these tales are not true. Sure all aircraft go through problems in T&E which need rectification, but as you point out a design for high altitude cruise may not be suitable for LL tactics and drops. The Indos have operated the -200 series Surveiller for many years, but I think they avoid the LL environment.
Sure turbofans will be better than turbojets at LL, but the physics of the aerodynamics have not changed.
I hope that the problems are exagerated, as the P-8 is the only show in town, and our P-3s will be stretched to last to 2020.
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Tullahoma TN
Posts: 482
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
P-8 Poseidon MMA: Long-Range Maritime Patrol, and More
Mar 10, 2011 12:21 EST
...
To clinch the deal, however, Boeing took an unusual step, touring US Navy bases and Naval Air Stations in Brunswick, ME; Jacksonville, FL; Norfolk, VA; Kaneohe, HI, and Whidbey Island, WA on board a 737 that leveraged their Indonesian experience and had 2 functional mission system consoles installed. Navy personnel were allowed to fly the aircraft and sit at the consoles, and Boeing demonstrations reportedly included maximum power take-off and climb 40,000 ft, manual control with no hydraulics ( 737's are not fly-by-wire, unlike, say, Airbuses -- Elmo), maximum rate of descent at over 10,000 ft/minute, tactical maneuvers at the not-uncommon maritime patrol altitude of 200 feet, simulated single engine flying and short-field landing simulations.
...
The P-8 will use the same 737 airframe as the U.S. Navy’s C-40 Clipper naval cargo aircraft (replacing the C-9 Skytrain in the Naval Reserve), the E-737 Wedgetail AWACS aircraft on order by Australia, Italy, Turkey, and South Korea; and the U.S. Air Force’s T-43 Navigation trainer. The key difference will be the “raked” wingtips that improve performance for low-level flight.
...
Mk 54 lightweight torpedoes equipped with the HAAWC kit promise to extend the plane’s capabilities in other ways. Longshot/HAAWC turns the torpedo into a GPS-guided glide weapon that can be launched from high altitude, which would allow the P-8A to remain within its preferred aerodynamic envelope of high-altitude cruise, and reduce the fatigue and corrosion associated with low-level flight. This capability is not expected until P-8A Increment 2, however, with initial operating capability in 2016.
...
P-8 Poseidon MMA: Long-Range Maritime Patrol, and More
... Waiting for Beagie to complain that the P-8 doesn't have enough passenger cabin windows.
Mar 10, 2011 12:21 EST
...
To clinch the deal, however, Boeing took an unusual step, touring US Navy bases and Naval Air Stations in Brunswick, ME; Jacksonville, FL; Norfolk, VA; Kaneohe, HI, and Whidbey Island, WA on board a 737 that leveraged their Indonesian experience and had 2 functional mission system consoles installed. Navy personnel were allowed to fly the aircraft and sit at the consoles, and Boeing demonstrations reportedly included maximum power take-off and climb 40,000 ft, manual control with no hydraulics ( 737's are not fly-by-wire, unlike, say, Airbuses -- Elmo), maximum rate of descent at over 10,000 ft/minute, tactical maneuvers at the not-uncommon maritime patrol altitude of 200 feet, simulated single engine flying and short-field landing simulations.
...
The P-8 will use the same 737 airframe as the U.S. Navy’s C-40 Clipper naval cargo aircraft (replacing the C-9 Skytrain in the Naval Reserve), the E-737 Wedgetail AWACS aircraft on order by Australia, Italy, Turkey, and South Korea; and the U.S. Air Force’s T-43 Navigation trainer. The key difference will be the “raked” wingtips that improve performance for low-level flight.
...
Mk 54 lightweight torpedoes equipped with the HAAWC kit promise to extend the plane’s capabilities in other ways. Longshot/HAAWC turns the torpedo into a GPS-guided glide weapon that can be launched from high altitude, which would allow the P-8A to remain within its preferred aerodynamic envelope of high-altitude cruise, and reduce the fatigue and corrosion associated with low-level flight. This capability is not expected until P-8A Increment 2, however, with initial operating capability in 2016.
...
P-8 Poseidon MMA: Long-Range Maritime Patrol, and More
... Waiting for Beagie to complain that the P-8 doesn't have enough passenger cabin windows.
Last edited by Modern Elmo; 12th Jun 2011 at 18:54.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: The Great Midwest
Posts: 245
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SASless:
Added into the mix is the fact the nice folks at Boeing Commerical speak either Air Force or Airliine but not Squidspeak.
Added into the mix is the fact the nice folks at Boeing Commerical speak either Air Force or Airliine but not Squidspeak.
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Lancashire
Age: 75
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OFO
Your "official figures" for the MRA4 overruns are way out. Check Major projects Report 2010 and you will find the correct figures are April 2003 to October 2112 (+9.5 yrs) and Ł2.813b to Ł3.602b (x1.28). Of course that excludes the Ł1bn or so those generous BAe Systems shareholders threw in (trusting in the Customer's "good faith".)
EG
Your "official figures" for the MRA4 overruns are way out. Check Major projects Report 2010 and you will find the correct figures are April 2003 to October 2112 (+9.5 yrs) and Ł2.813b to Ł3.602b (x1.28). Of course that excludes the Ł1bn or so those generous BAe Systems shareholders threw in (trusting in the Customer's "good faith".)
EG
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Blackpool
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Some comparisons from the MoD ESM Subject Matter Expect
Written evidence given to the UK Parliament Defence Committee on the capability gap left by the cancellation of the Nimrod MRA4 can be found at the following link:
The strategic defence and security review and the national security strategy
There are also comparisons of the Nimrod MRA4 to existing MoD assets and potential future alternatives, including the P8.
The strategic defence and security review and the national security strategy
There are also comparisons of the Nimrod MRA4 to existing MoD assets and potential future alternatives, including the P8.
SASless ... I have hard time believing the smoke signals are more than the usual grousing. 737 has to fly low enough to land, hence, it can fly a MAD pattern a bove the surface of the water. Why not fly it at 300 feet? At 400 feet? (If you want to know what's behind this, PM me).
I find the assertion that sonobuoy launches would be at 10,000 or 30,000 feet hard to credit, except ... GPS makes a lot of those kinds of tasks less troublesome than formerly.
Radar searches ... you don't by default presume the optimum radar search altitude to be some chimerical figure -- 10,000 feet or 30,000 feet.
You don't need to drop the torp from 30K. Hell, you should not drop a torp from 30K. In short (ASW professional in an earlier life), the smoke signals you allude to are rubbish.
What is of interest is ...
if you are in an airframe optimized for 30-35K feet, and you go up and down during your mission profile to achieve certain tasks (like a mad trapping circle, weapons launch), what does that do to your fuel usage and on station time?
THAT's of critical interest. (Hmm, doesn't the P-8 come with provisioning for a refueling probe?)
OBTW, why are you assuming P-8 independent ops?
ASW has gone "coordinated" long since. There's a Seahawk running about at low level to drop a torp most of the time ... but when thre isn't, simply being in a 737 does not preclude descending to weapons drop alt.
I find the assertion that sonobuoy launches would be at 10,000 or 30,000 feet hard to credit, except ... GPS makes a lot of those kinds of tasks less troublesome than formerly.
Radar searches ... you don't by default presume the optimum radar search altitude to be some chimerical figure -- 10,000 feet or 30,000 feet.
You don't need to drop the torp from 30K. Hell, you should not drop a torp from 30K. In short (ASW professional in an earlier life), the smoke signals you allude to are rubbish.
What is of interest is ...
if you are in an airframe optimized for 30-35K feet, and you go up and down during your mission profile to achieve certain tasks (like a mad trapping circle, weapons launch), what does that do to your fuel usage and on station time?
THAT's of critical interest. (Hmm, doesn't the P-8 come with provisioning for a refueling probe?)
OBTW, why are you assuming P-8 independent ops?
ASW has gone "coordinated" long since. There's a Seahawk running about at low level to drop a torp most of the time ... but when thre isn't, simply being in a 737 does not preclude descending to weapons drop alt.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: SALISBURY
Age: 76
Posts: 706
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Seed corn aircrew
I've just returned from a very enjoyable week at CFB Greenwood attending the 45th anniversary of VPI. It was wonderful to see a viable MPA airborne, although it was 2 minutes late for the flypast at the memorial service on Sunday morning (pilot trainer, no Nav on board to run the stop watch.)!
The Block 3 Aurora conversion is superbly equipped, probably nearly as good as the MRA 4. The crews are thoroughly enjoying their time in Canada & say that the Aurora is great. (I certainly enjoyed it in the 80s).
Any bets as to how many of them return to the RAF in 3 years time when the RAF hasn't ordered a single MPA?
PS Alexander Keith still makes a fine ale & the lobsters are better than ever!
PPS The Split Crow in Halifax is still in operation.
The Block 3 Aurora conversion is superbly equipped, probably nearly as good as the MRA 4. The crews are thoroughly enjoying their time in Canada & say that the Aurora is great. (I certainly enjoyed it in the 80s).
Any bets as to how many of them return to the RAF in 3 years time when the RAF hasn't ordered a single MPA?
PS Alexander Keith still makes a fine ale & the lobsters are better than ever!
PPS The Split Crow in Halifax is still in operation.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
Even at 500 feet, in a 20 yard/sec wind, they could be 100-200 yards out of position. How many crews allowed for cross-trail (wind-drift) on an attack?
A few basics: the USN has elected not to install MAD on the P-8A but is pursuing a MAD-equipped air-launched UAV. (India is keeping the MAD.)
There is a plan afoot for a high-altitude gliding torpedo, more accurate than a parachute-equipped torp when released from high altitude.
Everyone is quiet about the reason for the change of tactics. However, I think that it's accepted that a jet has a higher best-endurance cruise altitude than a prop (and unlike the mighty PieBomber I cannot cheat by shutting down two engines in loiter) and is less efficient at low altitude.
Result: Repeated ups and downs will sharply reduce TOS. And yes, the P-8 has a boom receptacle (not a probe) but the nature of the operation is that you can't be sure exactly whether or when you'll need to tank. So am I going to send a KC-46 out after every P-8A, on spec?
There is a plan afoot for a high-altitude gliding torpedo, more accurate than a parachute-equipped torp when released from high altitude.
Everyone is quiet about the reason for the change of tactics. However, I think that it's accepted that a jet has a higher best-endurance cruise altitude than a prop (and unlike the mighty PieBomber I cannot cheat by shutting down two engines in loiter) and is less efficient at low altitude.
Result: Repeated ups and downs will sharply reduce TOS. And yes, the P-8 has a boom receptacle (not a probe) but the nature of the operation is that you can't be sure exactly whether or when you'll need to tank. So am I going to send a KC-46 out after every P-8A, on spec?
Air Launched UAV.....bit expensive for a MAD run is it not?
It would seem they are going to have to be one time use vehicles unless there is a ship close by to pick them up or catch them somehow!
It would seem they are going to have to be one time use vehicles unless there is a ship close by to pick them up or catch them somehow!
(sigh)....and no matter how good or bad they are, the Brits still can't afford them!!!!!
Maybe we'll get them on Lend - Lease, well it worked 70 odd years ago!
Maybe we'll get them on Lend - Lease, well it worked 70 odd years ago!
Thats great - but what happens to the seedcorn in 3-4 years time, when we still haven't procured any MPA? Is the seedcorn kept as seedcorn for another 3 years? Does anyone promoted in the interim get moved on, so reducing the size of the seedcorn, etc.... How many people will want to come home (nagged by her indoors) or transfer to the host nations military.
The seedcorn concept is better than nothing, but it represents a very short term ability to try and resurrect a capability, a fact which should be fully recognized in my opinion - especially given limited funds and long procurement lead times...
At what point do seedcorn simply become people whithering on the vine with no other useful form of employment? Maybe its time for everyone in the (ex)RAF MPA community to take off the rose tinted spectacles, wake up and smell the roses.....
The seedcorn concept is better than nothing, but it represents a very short term ability to try and resurrect a capability, a fact which should be fully recognized in my opinion - especially given limited funds and long procurement lead times...
At what point do seedcorn simply become people whithering on the vine with no other useful form of employment? Maybe its time for everyone in the (ex)RAF MPA community to take off the rose tinted spectacles, wake up and smell the roses.....
Last edited by Biggus; 15th Jun 2011 at 18:44.
Surely it's a problem planning your MPA coverage in the 30,000' plus window when there are so many civvie users up there? It must surely limit your operational flexibility to have to deconflict from the huge ammount of trans-atlantic traffic in the SW approaches/ iceland gap etc.
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: 45 yards from a tropical beach
Posts: 1,103
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fin 84
Well done Sir for representing the '80s MPA generation at VPI. I wish I could have joined you.
What is badly needed is a 4-Turboprop MPA. Apart from the Japanese, the only purpose-built MPA designs were the Neptune and the Atlantique. It should be relatively simple for Airbus Military to design a MPA that has the bomb bay of a Nimrod, a wing similar to the Orion (but not so rigid) and those beaut 11,060 HP donks of the A400M. The potential customers would be all the European Maritime nations, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, India, South Africa and South America - even China, now there's a thought.
Most of the airframe systems could be the same as the A400M and the research for the ASW/Tactical fit has already been done for the Nimrod MRA4. Of course, individual countries could specify their own tactical suites; look at the Aurora.
The trouble is the time-frame. De Havilland built and flew the prototype Mosquito in mere months from first drawings on the back of the proverbial fag packet. The A400M project was first mooted in 1982!
Well done Sir for representing the '80s MPA generation at VPI. I wish I could have joined you.
What is badly needed is a 4-Turboprop MPA. Apart from the Japanese, the only purpose-built MPA designs were the Neptune and the Atlantique. It should be relatively simple for Airbus Military to design a MPA that has the bomb bay of a Nimrod, a wing similar to the Orion (but not so rigid) and those beaut 11,060 HP donks of the A400M. The potential customers would be all the European Maritime nations, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, India, South Africa and South America - even China, now there's a thought.
Most of the airframe systems could be the same as the A400M and the research for the ASW/Tactical fit has already been done for the Nimrod MRA4. Of course, individual countries could specify their own tactical suites; look at the Aurora.
The trouble is the time-frame. De Havilland built and flew the prototype Mosquito in mere months from first drawings on the back of the proverbial fag packet. The A400M project was first mooted in 1982!
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Here and there, occasionally at home.
Age: 56
Posts: 146
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Biggus
"At what point do seedcorn simply become people whithering on the vine with no other useful form of employment? Maybe its time for everyone in the (ex)RAF MPA community to take off the rose tinted spectacles, wake up and smell the roses..... "
Wise words indeed. I have just completed my Civvy Class Rating and IR at Bristol (excellent training outfit, good standard of instruction, aircraft reliable and a really friendly welcome in a dedicated facility) and the paperwork went to the CAA this afternoon.
After 10 years on MR2 and 10 on MRA4, it's time to move on.
A sad realisation after so many wonderful years in a genuinely challenging but immensely enjoyable role, in aircraft that were a delight to fly. But most of all, the memories will be of the people, bless 'em all, the great and the good, the bad and the ugly and those sadly departed and no longer with us.
I will miss it, but I'll never forget it!
SFO
Wise words indeed. I have just completed my Civvy Class Rating and IR at Bristol (excellent training outfit, good standard of instruction, aircraft reliable and a really friendly welcome in a dedicated facility) and the paperwork went to the CAA this afternoon.
After 10 years on MR2 and 10 on MRA4, it's time to move on.
A sad realisation after so many wonderful years in a genuinely challenging but immensely enjoyable role, in aircraft that were a delight to fly. But most of all, the memories will be of the people, bless 'em all, the great and the good, the bad and the ugly and those sadly departed and no longer with us.
I will miss it, but I'll never forget it!
SFO
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: SALISBURY
Age: 76
Posts: 706
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Shortfatone
I will miss it, but I'll never forget it!
Good luck in your new career, wherever it takes you.
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Here and there, occasionally at home.
Age: 56
Posts: 146
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fin 84
Thank you for the kind words. Been a VPI member since 93 I think, shortly after moving north from 42 in 1992. I was but a mere Flying Officer then (co-pilot on Phil Taylor's crew). Big H sends his regards, went sailing with him last year to Portugal. We met a nice couple during the race, Eddie and his wife in their Rustler 42 from Falmouth, who claimed to know you!
Rgds
Stumpy
Rgds
Stumpy