Airbus A400M as a maritime aircraft ?
Who or what is going to refuel the short range P8 ?
The A319MPA is a paper plane, you would be paying for the development as well as the purchase and operating costs , and wait for Airbus Military to eventually deliver it to a French timetable - or you could buy the P-8, which is already developed (albeit that the UK may actually have paid for some elements of the mission kit, derived from the MRA4 if reports are to be believed) and is available off the shelf.
Anyway, The Uk isn't going to have any money for an MPA buy for a while yet.
Stuffy, I hadn't realized that restricting yourself to a particular sub system was a requirement of the UK acquisitions practice.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It would probably make more sense for the whatever airframe is chosen for any future mpa to also be the airframe choice for a replacement AWACS and airseeker in the future (I don't mean 1 aircaft performing the 3 roles simulationously).
An airbus solution would be nice especially after the US tanker nonsense however should the USAF decide the hawk trainer was for them the P8 could be a goer.
An airbus solution would be nice especially after the US tanker nonsense however should the USAF decide the hawk trainer was for them the P8 could be a goer.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: netherlands
Age: 56
Posts: 769
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BigGreenAlbert,
looking at the P8 configuration (which would be a waste of time for you, knowing it all) it becomes clear:
1 there doesn't seem much in that section of the aircraft that couldn't be moved and would prevent a ( nevertheless serious) modification
2 the piping in that area of the aircraft is there already for the UARSSI.
When I worked on customer specific mods of ASW platforms, analyses on previous similar installations often were used to speed up the qualification process.
g'night
looking at the P8 configuration (which would be a waste of time for you, knowing it all) it becomes clear:
1 there doesn't seem much in that section of the aircraft that couldn't be moved and would prevent a ( nevertheless serious) modification
2 the piping in that area of the aircraft is there already for the UARSSI.
When I worked on customer specific mods of ASW platforms, analyses on previous similar installations often were used to speed up the qualification process.
g'night
A400M AAR
Could a probe could be installed in lieu of probe receptacle, for military forces that don't use the boom? Maybe and maybe not.
The Sentry look alike seems to me a more difficult mod to the airframe.
Maybe, (and this is a HUGE maybe), the area on the "roof" of a P-8 where UARRSI currently is could be modified to accept a folding probe something like what an F-18 has: it folds out for refueling and tucks away after ... but that's a non trivial airframe mod, and adds moving parts, and also requires that a means be provided for the pilot to guide his probe into the chute via remote viewing.
My mind's eye sees a potential skin induced turbulence potentially making that probe to chute match up quite difficult.
Not a cheap series of mods, and not a cheap set of test flights to see if it works or not. On the bright side, at least the plumbing is already there for refuelling if that can be managed.
The mod to the C-130 J is interesting to ponder as an example of some of the issues germane to considering such a mod. The skin and frame are no doubt already "beefed up" in a similar fashion on the P-8, but given stowage space and other such needs there'd be a bit of real estate re allocation in a variety of places in that general area.
Possible, but I wonder at the cost.
Could a probe could be installed in lieu of probe receptacle, for military forces that don't use the boom? Maybe and maybe not.
The Sentry look alike seems to me a more difficult mod to the airframe.
Maybe, (and this is a HUGE maybe), the area on the "roof" of a P-8 where UARRSI currently is could be modified to accept a folding probe something like what an F-18 has: it folds out for refueling and tucks away after ... but that's a non trivial airframe mod, and adds moving parts, and also requires that a means be provided for the pilot to guide his probe into the chute via remote viewing.
My mind's eye sees a potential skin induced turbulence potentially making that probe to chute match up quite difficult.
Not a cheap series of mods, and not a cheap set of test flights to see if it works or not. On the bright side, at least the plumbing is already there for refuelling if that can be managed.
The mod to the C-130 J is interesting to ponder as an example of some of the issues germane to considering such a mod. The skin and frame are no doubt already "beefed up" in a similar fashion on the P-8, but given stowage space and other such needs there'd be a bit of real estate re allocation in a variety of places in that general area.
Possible, but I wonder at the cost.
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: UK East Anglia
Age: 66
Posts: 678
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting but we are broke
I found this quite entertaining for a while but am now bored with it.
the point I wish to make is that anything is possible and has probably been done before.
Tuff decisons were made about not bringing MPA4 into service. basically UK was broke and we could not afford to run these things. Its not just the frames but the formation eating team to man (or woman) these things. What we referred to as All Lines of Development.
Do we have a properly staffed and funded requirement? No. So how could we do it on the cheep. or trade some of the requirements such as ASW so it was affordable. I am sure the powers that be have/are exploring the options. A400M, P8, Big or small twin turbo props. It would not suprise me if the Islander, a micro-lite or airship had not been considered.
For those who may remember as far back as 1982 (I am sure the 12 year old will!) Marshall fitted probes to C130 and even made a tanker with a centreline HDU on the ramp. This was done in rapid time. In parallel Woodford were fitting probes to Nimrod. Again is rapid time with a few compromises. (the hose ran along the floor). On some a/c we fitted a spooky rack rendering some of the acoustic operator stations out of use. Tony put this in the public domain in his Rise and Fall book. I think the same kit went on the C130 tanker in front of the Andover ferry tanks.
Snoopy had many features allowing dropsondes to be dropped through the floor. much the same as the sono buoy launchers on Nimrod.
All these wonderful things you chaps are debating are all achievable but probably not affordable. Its good fun to get the grey matter going though.
As for Airbus airliner based versions - dream on.
One thing is for certain - the 12 year old will have long since retired by the time we save up for a kite as capable as Nimrod
Is this thread still about A400M as a MPA?
the point I wish to make is that anything is possible and has probably been done before.
Tuff decisons were made about not bringing MPA4 into service. basically UK was broke and we could not afford to run these things. Its not just the frames but the formation eating team to man (or woman) these things. What we referred to as All Lines of Development.
Do we have a properly staffed and funded requirement? No. So how could we do it on the cheep. or trade some of the requirements such as ASW so it was affordable. I am sure the powers that be have/are exploring the options. A400M, P8, Big or small twin turbo props. It would not suprise me if the Islander, a micro-lite or airship had not been considered.
For those who may remember as far back as 1982 (I am sure the 12 year old will!) Marshall fitted probes to C130 and even made a tanker with a centreline HDU on the ramp. This was done in rapid time. In parallel Woodford were fitting probes to Nimrod. Again is rapid time with a few compromises. (the hose ran along the floor). On some a/c we fitted a spooky rack rendering some of the acoustic operator stations out of use. Tony put this in the public domain in his Rise and Fall book. I think the same kit went on the C130 tanker in front of the Andover ferry tanks.
Snoopy had many features allowing dropsondes to be dropped through the floor. much the same as the sono buoy launchers on Nimrod.
All these wonderful things you chaps are debating are all achievable but probably not affordable. Its good fun to get the grey matter going though.
As for Airbus airliner based versions - dream on.
One thing is for certain - the 12 year old will have long since retired by the time we save up for a kite as capable as Nimrod
Is this thread still about A400M as a MPA?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: London
Age: 64
Posts: 238
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dragartist,
Is the thread still about the A400M MPA ?
That is a good question.
Considering what is going on in Cyprus. The thread could well morph into the economics about being able to afford a fire bucket filled with sand.
I expect a few surprise announcements with regard to military spending this year. Especially from the USA.
Is the thread still about the A400M MPA ?
That is a good question.
Considering what is going on in Cyprus. The thread could well morph into the economics about being able to afford a fire bucket filled with sand.
I expect a few surprise announcements with regard to military spending this year. Especially from the USA.
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: UK East Anglia
Age: 66
Posts: 678
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BGG I share your sentiments re #199
Had we not done what we did in 82 the Papa would probably have been having lunch last week with Cameron rather than the GILF Miss Piggy.
I am certainly not defending compromises in airworthiness. Never have in my 30+ years. I think others have been more vocal on here about that. Tuc etc. Need to strike the ballance between CTP (Cost Time and Performance not the Chief Test Pilot!) Without any cash we will not be getting any performance at all soon. I am pleased to see safety has moved towards the top of the agenda unlike the early Cowan days of DLO.
Had we not done what we did in 82 the Papa would probably have been having lunch last week with Cameron rather than the GILF Miss Piggy.
I am certainly not defending compromises in airworthiness. Never have in my 30+ years. I think others have been more vocal on here about that. Tuc etc. Need to strike the ballance between CTP (Cost Time and Performance not the Chief Test Pilot!) Without any cash we will not be getting any performance at all soon. I am pleased to see safety has moved towards the top of the agenda unlike the early Cowan days of DLO.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: London
Age: 64
Posts: 238
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Perhaps this is the most likely last minute measure when needed:-
Some of the equipment "can be installed at short notice", said Marshall.
Lockheed Martin's C-130J Super Hercules could be adapted for an entirely new mission, if UK company Marshall Aerospace gets its way.
Eyeing an opportunity raised by the UK's cancellation of its BAE Systems Nimrod MRA4 maritime patrol aircraft programme late last year, the maintenance, repair and overhaul specialist is offering to adapt several Royal Air Force tactical transports for the mission.
"Marshall Aerospace is proposing to fill key elements of the maritime patrol function by using existing C-130 assets, combined with equipment already developed by the Ministry of Defence," the company said.
PARIS: Marshall Aerospace offers C-130J maritime patrol conversion
Marshall's proposal explained:-
The link only seems to work with cut and paste to your browser, and you will have to add the word blog spot.co.uk after the word commentary and remove the space after the word blog
http://ukarmedforcescommentary./2011...air-force.html
Some of the equipment "can be installed at short notice", said Marshall.
Lockheed Martin's C-130J Super Hercules could be adapted for an entirely new mission, if UK company Marshall Aerospace gets its way.
Eyeing an opportunity raised by the UK's cancellation of its BAE Systems Nimrod MRA4 maritime patrol aircraft programme late last year, the maintenance, repair and overhaul specialist is offering to adapt several Royal Air Force tactical transports for the mission.
"Marshall Aerospace is proposing to fill key elements of the maritime patrol function by using existing C-130 assets, combined with equipment already developed by the Ministry of Defence," the company said.
PARIS: Marshall Aerospace offers C-130J maritime patrol conversion
Marshall's proposal explained:-
The link only seems to work with cut and paste to your browser, and you will have to add the word blog spot.co.uk after the word commentary and remove the space after the word blog
http://ukarmedforcescommentary./2011...air-force.html
Last edited by Stuffy; 24th Mar 2013 at 21:23.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: London
Age: 64
Posts: 238
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The likeliest and cheapest option.
Probably when the A400M transports start to be delivered.
In terms of C130 conversions, Marshall offered to the UK MOD, post SDSR, the possibility of converting some of the Js into Marittime Patrol Aircrafts as cost-effective replacement for the binned Nimrod MRA4.
The proposal was received well, but does not seem to be a favorite MOD solution in the assessment of possible solutions to the gap in patrol capability. The reasons are probably multiple: the nightmare of the “cost-effective” upgrade to Nimrod airframes is still a fresh and painful memory, and the fear of ending up in another disaster must be high.
Again, the A400 is late, and the C130K retirement is in perfect time, which means that the C130Js are being worked real hard. Unite this consideration with the well known problem of faster-than-expected aging and stressing of the C130J wing (a report on the conditions of the fleet is expected in 2013) and with the cost that the correction of this issue would imply (at least 3 million pounds per each plane, from 2008 NAO figures relating to the older C130K), and you have another cause of hesitation.
The issue of wings fatigue, with the necessary programme of wing replacement and strengthening, figured as part of the decision-making in the SDSR: to avoid the expense, it was decided to retire the C130J fleet by 2022, instead of operating it in addition to the A400 one, with OSD 2030, as was earlier planned.
The C130J maritime patrol would be attractive only if genuinely cost-effective, but the certainty of it being cheap and merry does not appear to be there.*
On the side of advantages, the Marshall offer would use airframes already in the RAF inventory, with training and logistics already well established and very effective. It would use an airplane which costs just around 12.000 pounds per flying hour, remarkably cost-effective. And it would tap into a global logistics and support system destined to last for many more years.
The Marshall proposal uses pallets that are rolled into the cargo bay and wired in, with five tactical workstations and other role-specific kit. ESM pods are fitted in the tail and at the extremity of the wings, and a EO/IR turret, presumably the same once planned for Nimrod, mounted under the nose of the plane. The biggest modification comes in the form of a new rear cargo ramp, which is changed entirely to accommodate an installation for the Searchwater 2000 radar that was destined to the Nimrod MRA4, plus two sonobouys launcher systems. A graphic I’ve found actually shows the C130J fitted with the Searchwater 2000AEW, weird choice since that is the Sea King MK7 radar, not adequate for the MPA role.
Thanks to LM’s own proposals, this concept could be improved. For example, there is no evident provision for carriage and employment of weapons in the Marshal proposal, and the extent of modification required appears quite significant.
It would be probably more effective and easier to adopt some of LM’s kit and ideas: for example, the EO/IR turret and search radar integrated in the fuel tank under the left wing (eventually with a second radar-only kit in the fuel tank on the right wing, if necessary to provide 360° coverage) would allow the rear ramp to be maintained, and reduce significantly the rebuilding necessary.
The rear-ramp could then be fitted with a weapons rack, on the style of that employed by the Harvest Hawk for Griffin missiles, loaded however with Stingray torpedoes and sonobuoys.
Ideally, a further two wing pylons would be added to the airframe, to enable the carriage of Anti-Ship missiles as well, since the Nimrod was the only remaining plane in inventory with this capability, and anti-shipping attack is now part of the huge bleeding gap. However, the addition of two pylons would be subject to strict evaluation of its cost and complexity.
Such an arrangement, with the Tactical Workstations being mounted on RoRo pallet, and the weapons rack being mobile, would allow rapid rerolling of the retained C130Js to Tactical Transport, and/or, with the addition of Harvest Hawk modules, the transformation into gunships, at very low cost.
Worth at least thinking a little bit about it, no? The cost of buying 5 to 6 Poseidon P8 MPAs hovers at around 1 billion pounds of cost, so there’s a margin of maneuver: if the conversion of 9 or 12 C130Js could be done with a similar cost, it would become advantageous, also due to the logistics, training and support being already available. The cost per flying hour of the C130 will also be considerably lower than that of P8.
Probably when the A400M transports start to be delivered.
In terms of C130 conversions, Marshall offered to the UK MOD, post SDSR, the possibility of converting some of the Js into Marittime Patrol Aircrafts as cost-effective replacement for the binned Nimrod MRA4.
The proposal was received well, but does not seem to be a favorite MOD solution in the assessment of possible solutions to the gap in patrol capability. The reasons are probably multiple: the nightmare of the “cost-effective” upgrade to Nimrod airframes is still a fresh and painful memory, and the fear of ending up in another disaster must be high.
Again, the A400 is late, and the C130K retirement is in perfect time, which means that the C130Js are being worked real hard. Unite this consideration with the well known problem of faster-than-expected aging and stressing of the C130J wing (a report on the conditions of the fleet is expected in 2013) and with the cost that the correction of this issue would imply (at least 3 million pounds per each plane, from 2008 NAO figures relating to the older C130K), and you have another cause of hesitation.
The issue of wings fatigue, with the necessary programme of wing replacement and strengthening, figured as part of the decision-making in the SDSR: to avoid the expense, it was decided to retire the C130J fleet by 2022, instead of operating it in addition to the A400 one, with OSD 2030, as was earlier planned.
The C130J maritime patrol would be attractive only if genuinely cost-effective, but the certainty of it being cheap and merry does not appear to be there.*
On the side of advantages, the Marshall offer would use airframes already in the RAF inventory, with training and logistics already well established and very effective. It would use an airplane which costs just around 12.000 pounds per flying hour, remarkably cost-effective. And it would tap into a global logistics and support system destined to last for many more years.
The Marshall proposal uses pallets that are rolled into the cargo bay and wired in, with five tactical workstations and other role-specific kit. ESM pods are fitted in the tail and at the extremity of the wings, and a EO/IR turret, presumably the same once planned for Nimrod, mounted under the nose of the plane. The biggest modification comes in the form of a new rear cargo ramp, which is changed entirely to accommodate an installation for the Searchwater 2000 radar that was destined to the Nimrod MRA4, plus two sonobouys launcher systems. A graphic I’ve found actually shows the C130J fitted with the Searchwater 2000AEW, weird choice since that is the Sea King MK7 radar, not adequate for the MPA role.
Thanks to LM’s own proposals, this concept could be improved. For example, there is no evident provision for carriage and employment of weapons in the Marshal proposal, and the extent of modification required appears quite significant.
It would be probably more effective and easier to adopt some of LM’s kit and ideas: for example, the EO/IR turret and search radar integrated in the fuel tank under the left wing (eventually with a second radar-only kit in the fuel tank on the right wing, if necessary to provide 360° coverage) would allow the rear ramp to be maintained, and reduce significantly the rebuilding necessary.
The rear-ramp could then be fitted with a weapons rack, on the style of that employed by the Harvest Hawk for Griffin missiles, loaded however with Stingray torpedoes and sonobuoys.
Ideally, a further two wing pylons would be added to the airframe, to enable the carriage of Anti-Ship missiles as well, since the Nimrod was the only remaining plane in inventory with this capability, and anti-shipping attack is now part of the huge bleeding gap. However, the addition of two pylons would be subject to strict evaluation of its cost and complexity.
Such an arrangement, with the Tactical Workstations being mounted on RoRo pallet, and the weapons rack being mobile, would allow rapid rerolling of the retained C130Js to Tactical Transport, and/or, with the addition of Harvest Hawk modules, the transformation into gunships, at very low cost.
Worth at least thinking a little bit about it, no? The cost of buying 5 to 6 Poseidon P8 MPAs hovers at around 1 billion pounds of cost, so there’s a margin of maneuver: if the conversion of 9 or 12 C130Js could be done with a similar cost, it would become advantageous, also due to the logistics, training and support being already available. The cost per flying hour of the C130 will also be considerably lower than that of P8.
Last edited by Stuffy; 24th Mar 2013 at 23:11.
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: UK East Anglia
Age: 66
Posts: 678
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Stuffy
http://www.lockheedmartin.com/conten...e_Aircraft.pdf
All this was discussed at the HOC in 2011.
Great picture of the C17 dropping a boat on the final slide. Reminds me of my old unit motto (Lead and Mislead)
We will be able to do all these things from the A400M if a requirement is properly staffed.
http://www.lockheedmartin.com/conten...e_Aircraft.pdf
All this was discussed at the HOC in 2011.
Great picture of the C17 dropping a boat on the final slide. Reminds me of my old unit motto (Lead and Mislead)
We will be able to do all these things from the A400M if a requirement is properly staffed.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Oz
Posts: 644
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If the Wedgetail/P-8 UAASI and associated plumbing can meet RAAF airworthiness requirements, then I'm sure the UK will be a formality.
With the 'back end' plumbing already taken care of, can anyone give us an idea of what would be the engineering implications of adapting it to a UK type probe for hose & drogue ops?
I like the C-130J MPA proposal myself...makes a lot of sense. The airframe has already been proven to be able to handle significant internal and external mods...aka MC/HC/WC/AC-130J
With the 'back end' plumbing already taken care of, can anyone give us an idea of what would be the engineering implications of adapting it to a UK type probe for hose & drogue ops?
I like the C-130J MPA proposal myself...makes a lot of sense. The airframe has already been proven to be able to handle significant internal and external mods...aka MC/HC/WC/AC-130J
Last edited by FoxtrotAlpha18; 25th Mar 2013 at 05:54.
Great picture of the C17 dropping a boat on the final slide.
I remember the look on the faces on the US Navy SEALS when they came to look at it. They had spent a huge amount of dollars and still didn't have a workable system, only to be shown the UK's latest boat platform which I told them was a replacement for a smaller one that had been in service for several years.
If the PT is reading this, I'm still waiting for the commision for that sale.
