Future UK Maritime Requirement to remain a secret
If we had taken the Atlantique option we would have had many more units on task in a superb maritime aircraft
YS
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: St Annes
Age: 68
Posts: 638
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We are not broke, we (the UK) have quite a decent income, so much so that we can afford to give rather large amounts to other countries.
It's simply that the govt choose to spend varying proportions of our cash on a wide variety of different things - many of which are expensive - which prevents us from having everything we want.
Personally I think we need an MPA, buty I can't prove it - equally you can't prove we don't need one.
Dave
It's simply that the govt choose to spend varying proportions of our cash on a wide variety of different things - many of which are expensive - which prevents us from having everything we want.
Personally I think we need an MPA, buty I can't prove it - equally you can't prove we don't need one.
Dave
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Right here, right now
Posts: 270
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote:
If we had taken the Atlantique option we would have had many more units on task in a superb maritime aircraft
Having flown in the Atlantique on a number of occasions I cannot agree with your comments.
YS
If we had taken the Atlantique option we would have had many more units on task in a superb maritime aircraft
Having flown in the Atlantique on a number of occasions I cannot agree with your comments.
YS
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: at the end of the bar
Posts: 484
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Capability Review -yes we need an MPA (Fox said so in a radio interview on Radio Scotland the day after Nimrod was cancelled, just that Nimord was the wrong one!) but we can't afford to buy one now.
Personally, I suspect we will hedge our bets until 2016/17ish then get a P-8/BAMS combo.
Personally, I suspect we will hedge our bets until 2016/17ish then get a P-8/BAMS combo.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
We have had 3 experts views 1:2 for the Atlantique. Where did the Atlantique fall down where the Nimrod did not?
Was it range, endurance, speed etc, ie an airframe limitation or was it kit which could have been revised?
Was it range, endurance, speed etc, ie an airframe limitation or was it kit which could have been revised?
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
TOFO, agreed, I was hoping the other antagonists would respond too as they seemed Atlantique specific.
IIRC the Atlantic floated quite well too. I like the nose position as well.
IIRC the Atlantic floated quite well too. I like the nose position as well.
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: U.K.
Posts: 459
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As far as I remember, only one Atlantique ditched. Four engines didn't help the Nimrod in Roseisle forest. The Tyne is a reliable and economic engine, I would have felt much safer behind two Tynes than I did behind four Griffins! The break even point for time on task between the Shack and the Nimrod was a transit of 500nms to the task area. Its a pity the Vanguard jigs were broken up when a shack replacement was being found, as that looks like it would have made an ideal maritime aircraft.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: SWAPS Inner
Posts: 567
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2 Atlantiques ditched - one French, one Dutch - shortly after, the Cloggies bought their P3s IIRC. Something to do with an electrical problem that caused a double hush???
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: .
Posts: 2,173
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Comet or Trident"
Would the VC10 not have been a better bet? Larger, more range, four rear-mounted engines and reasonably quiet inside as a result. Any idea if it was considered? Especially as the RAF already had some on order
Would the VC10 not have been a better bet? Larger, more range, four rear-mounted engines and reasonably quiet inside as a result. Any idea if it was considered? Especially as the RAF already had some on order
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
T7, one cloggie Atlantic ditched but it was the deployment of an air brake/wing spoiler wot did it.
The engine cowling was hinged at the rear IIRC and opened in flight with predictable consequences. Does that make 3 total?
The engine cowling was hinged at the rear IIRC and opened in flight with predictable consequences. Does that make 3 total?
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: U.K.
Posts: 459
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OFO, Not true. a buoy pattern would be monitored at a reasonable ht so a couple or even four Tynes would be unlikely to be heard on a sonobuoy. I don't think "we lead the world" as we were using old US gear, although we did have the capability to get attack criteria as I experienced on a Shak detatchment to the States where the Orions could get contact then gave it to us to localise. The US sub skippers would chuck up a yellow candle which is something I never saw an RN skipper do!
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: home: United Kingdom
Posts: 779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Personally, I think that the platform is (almost) irrelevant; it's the kit inside and the crew that operate it. And, of course, the tactics that they employ. So what if the MPA is slow - take off earlier! Providing the crew don't overfly the target they (probably) won't be heard.
That said, having flown an Atlantique, I'd have taken a Nimrod every day of the week. But I would say that, wouldn't I?
Duncs
That said, having flown an Atlantique, I'd have taken a Nimrod every day of the week. But I would say that, wouldn't I?
Duncs
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: UK, sometimes!
Age: 74
Posts: 436
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So what if the MPA is slow - take off earlier!
MadMark!!!
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: home: United Kingdom
Posts: 779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MM,
That's why I said 'almost'.
Speed is, of course, a factor for short notice tasking - especially at range (less so in the North Sea or anywhere else close by, I'd argue). That said, I'm not too sure how many times in the last 40 years it would have made that much of a difference.
Duncs
That's why I said 'almost'.
Speed is, of course, a factor for short notice tasking - especially at range (less so in the North Sea or anywhere else close by, I'd argue). That said, I'm not too sure how many times in the last 40 years it would have made that much of a difference.
Duncs
So what if the MPA is slow - take off earlier!
Transit out: 1.00
Time on task 4.00
Handover overlap: 0.15
Transit in: 1.00
Turnround time: 1.30
No of airframes required: 2 (Sortie 1 turns round into sortie 3)
Now increase the transit time by 25% , i.e. 1.15 and 3 airframes are needed to obtain the same result as first slot that Sortie 1 can turn round to meet is Sortie 4.
Incidentally, 25% is not far off the difference in Nimrod\Atlantique transit speeds.
YS
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: As close to beer as humanly possible
Posts: 75
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That said, I'm not too sure how many times in the last 40 years it would have made that much of a difference.
More than half were topcover or sinking vessels so speed certainly does make a difference for a significant number of rescues. SAR crews being SAR crews they will now often take the risk of going without cover when life is at risk.....rather than wait for the Cessna 404 to catch up (assuming it can reach the area)!
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: home: United Kingdom
Posts: 779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
YS,
My maths might be (is!) crap; but if you have 4 hours ONSTA, then, for a 24 hour period then you have 6 ac (plus one in and one out). What difference does the transit time make? Unless you are assuming constant range; therefore less time on task for the slow ac. I am not sure how valid that point is.
I've just RTFQ! You are right that more frames are required - but only if the plan is for one 24hr patrol with nothing spare. I suspect that an ATL (or a CN295) is aslo 25% cheaper than a P8 so we could afford it.
Donna,
Top cover is deemed so important that no-one does it now; I suspect that the helos have better nav kit than they had when we were on RS60. I was thinking about situations where the late arrival of the MPA would have meant loss of life. I can't think of many; in fact, only one that I flew on - and they were all dead before we arrived on scene.
Don't get me wrong, the removal of the capability was barking mad; however, there are no Nimrods now and we have to think of a potential replacement. I think that we should weigh up all the options. If we stick our heels in for the P8 - nothing else is suitable - the answer may be NO.
Duncs
My maths might be (is!) crap; but if you have 4 hours ONSTA, then, for a 24 hour period then you have 6 ac (plus one in and one out). What difference does the transit time make? Unless you are assuming constant range; therefore less time on task for the slow ac. I am not sure how valid that point is.
I've just RTFQ! You are right that more frames are required - but only if the plan is for one 24hr patrol with nothing spare. I suspect that an ATL (or a CN295) is aslo 25% cheaper than a P8 so we could afford it.
Donna,
Top cover is deemed so important that no-one does it now; I suspect that the helos have better nav kit than they had when we were on RS60. I was thinking about situations where the late arrival of the MPA would have meant loss of life. I can't think of many; in fact, only one that I flew on - and they were all dead before we arrived on scene.
Don't get me wrong, the removal of the capability was barking mad; however, there are no Nimrods now and we have to think of a potential replacement. I think that we should weigh up all the options. If we stick our heels in for the P8 - nothing else is suitable - the answer may be NO.
Duncs
Last edited by Duncan D'Sorderlee; 9th Feb 2012 at 08:47. Reason: RTFQ!