Airbus A400M as a maritime aircraft ?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: London
Age: 64
Posts: 238
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
On a more serious note. Maritime patrol aircraft will take on an extremely important role in the future. During the Second World War, the Battleship became obsolete and the aircraft carrier became the most important surface vessel.
They are now vulnerable to the submarine, it is not necessary to sink an aircraft carrier, just disable it, by destroying its steering gear and propellers.
The UK government is using the ‘Ten year rule’ in its judgement. They were elected to power in 2010, and the theory is, that there will not be a major war for ten years. Therefore 2020 will be when trouble kicks off. Major wars do not happen in a depression, that is, what we are experiencing now.
The Second World War, was, the naval war of the aircraft carrier. The Third World War (heaven forbid if it happens), will be the war of the submarine. Although in the North Atlantic, this already happened during the Second World War.
In theory, something must be done within seven years.Adapting aircraft types already in service, is all very well, but a dedicated aircraft is better.
There is no dedicated MPA aircraft, well there are a few old machines like the Atlantique.
The Lockheed P3 Orion is a decent bit of kit, but now it is getting old.
I will not go on about the Nimrod. Mismanagement is mismanagement, beancounters don’t have solutions, just an abacus.
Somebody needs to produce a solution, now !
They are now vulnerable to the submarine, it is not necessary to sink an aircraft carrier, just disable it, by destroying its steering gear and propellers.
The UK government is using the ‘Ten year rule’ in its judgement. They were elected to power in 2010, and the theory is, that there will not be a major war for ten years. Therefore 2020 will be when trouble kicks off. Major wars do not happen in a depression, that is, what we are experiencing now.
The Second World War, was, the naval war of the aircraft carrier. The Third World War (heaven forbid if it happens), will be the war of the submarine. Although in the North Atlantic, this already happened during the Second World War.
In theory, something must be done within seven years.Adapting aircraft types already in service, is all very well, but a dedicated aircraft is better.
There is no dedicated MPA aircraft, well there are a few old machines like the Atlantique.
The Lockheed P3 Orion is a decent bit of kit, but now it is getting old.
I will not go on about the Nimrod. Mismanagement is mismanagement, beancounters don’t have solutions, just an abacus.
Somebody needs to produce a solution, now !
Last edited by Stuffy; 17th Mar 2013 at 12:40.
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: The US of A, and sometimes Bonnie Scotland
Posts: 549
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Stuffy
Sorry. Who are you? Have you any clue on this thread. I'm afraid your posts are rather niaive and ill-informed. Do you really think the P-8 doesn't have a bomb bay. Even the most basic search on wiki would reveal this. Well done you.
Sorry. Who are you? Have you any clue on this thread. I'm afraid your posts are rather niaive and ill-informed. Do you really think the P-8 doesn't have a bomb bay. Even the most basic search on wiki would reveal this. Well done you.
Last edited by betty swallox; 17th Mar 2013 at 04:26.
The RAF could follow the Roland Pulfrew line; live in the past, preserve a Nimrod carcas, build models to dream away while the rest of the world moves on..
Neither I nor the RAF advocate living in the past. If your platform is required to do ASW and ASuW, then maybe you need to be looking at the other roles it could do. ELINT. Overland EO/FMV. Over water EO/FMV. Comms relay. COMINT. Long range SAR. Scene of Action commander etc, etc. Carry a variety of weapons from torpedo, through Hellfire sized weapons, anti ship weapons such as Harpoon, long range cruise missiles of the TLAM/Storm Shadow class, through to NDBs (for those that still possess them). A proper multi mission aircraft. All of these could be done by the same platform, but even then I would say that you are going to end up with some dedicated platforms. If you are going to come up with a European or new solution then there is going to be one driving requirement for your MMA; a weapons bay. And that is going to be the limiting factor on a tanker or a transport. It would be dead weight, not required on either of them.
I completely agree that the future requires more multi-role assets, as does the RAF's chief, but they have to be mutually compatible roles and in that you need to be looking at a platform that might do all of the ISTAR type missions, not take a transport that has lots of space but which will require major modification to make it work.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: netherlands
Age: 56
Posts: 769
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Roland
I think the MPA world isn't what it used to be. So copying 40 yr old formats into the future is useless.
- the UK has been without MPA's for years and the world didn't fall apart
- tanker, strategic transport, tactical transports used to be mutually incompatible roles, now the RAF has them on order.
- the 12-20 man crews of the Pc3s and Nimrod were developped within a world without network centric possibilities. IMo they will never come back, many of the mission brains will be on the ground. The German replaced Atlantics with 0 crew Euro Hawks as an extreme.
- a selling point of the C295 MPAs is they can move pallets and crews too.
- the only result of xxx million MPA circling pirats has been they know they have to hurry.
- an MPA has lots of fuel, being able to transfer excess fuel to e.g another MPA following it up in operational areas of extending helicopter ranges during SAR operations would be a significant operational asset. And not innovative at all, the US uses C130s for it.
http://i191.photobucket.com/albums/z...g?t=1311463937
I agree a weapons bay would be required and the transport opportunities would be limitted. I remember we even stuffed P3s with " cargo" flying to/ from the Antilles. They were seriously unfit for it (small doors) full cabin, but it still saved time/ costs/ logistic trouble. If it had had an oversized door and a little passenger / cargo deck we would have loved / used it..
I think the MPA world isn't what it used to be. So copying 40 yr old formats into the future is useless.
- the UK has been without MPA's for years and the world didn't fall apart
- tanker, strategic transport, tactical transports used to be mutually incompatible roles, now the RAF has them on order.
- the 12-20 man crews of the Pc3s and Nimrod were developped within a world without network centric possibilities. IMo they will never come back, many of the mission brains will be on the ground. The German replaced Atlantics with 0 crew Euro Hawks as an extreme.
- a selling point of the C295 MPAs is they can move pallets and crews too.
- the only result of xxx million MPA circling pirats has been they know they have to hurry.
- an MPA has lots of fuel, being able to transfer excess fuel to e.g another MPA following it up in operational areas of extending helicopter ranges during SAR operations would be a significant operational asset. And not innovative at all, the US uses C130s for it.
http://i191.photobucket.com/albums/z...g?t=1311463937
I agree a weapons bay would be required and the transport opportunities would be limitted. I remember we even stuffed P3s with " cargo" flying to/ from the Antilles. They were seriously unfit for it (small doors) full cabin, but it still saved time/ costs/ logistic trouble. If it had had an oversized door and a little passenger / cargo deck we would have loved / used it..
German MPA...
.......were those 8 P3s that the Dutch navy sold to the German squadron at Nordholz a figment of my imagination? Or perhaps an interference pattern in the time/space continuum.
Ok OK betty - having suggested that you didn't bite I just couldn't help myself.
Sorreeeee
The Ancient Mariner
Ok OK betty - having suggested that you didn't bite I just couldn't help myself.
Sorreeeee
The Ancient Mariner
I dont know why I do this but I will, one last time!Keesje
UK and MPA - a couple of years, and you would know whether the world fell apart would you?
Tankers and strategic transport - never said they were mutually exclusive and they aren't - VC10, Tristar and Voyager.
Tac transport and strat transport - depends on your definition of Tac and the RAF do not have any tac tankers on order (and if you say A400M go and do some research first).
German Euro Hawk is ELINT/SIGINT not MPA and the Germans still use P3C in MPA role - so simply wrong.
The C295 can only move pallets if you re-role it. Ever tried re-roling an aircraft of all it's electronics? Not as easy as it sounds!
Pirates and MPA? Not if it's done properly they don't! MPA stands off and tracks with radar and EO and directs warships or helis where to go.
An MPA generally carries sufficient fuel - for it's own mission. Ever heard of PLE? Do you understand the definition? No spare fuel here so move along.
The US C130s are tankers that can do a bit of surface surveillance. They are not multi-mission aircraft that can do the full range of tasks.
As I said, I have no issue with multi-mission platforms, but you have to choose your missions to amalgamate into one airframe. If you want a strat AT platform you might well be able to use it as a tanker. The same is probably true of TAC AT and tankers. But MPA or MMA, tanker and pax/freight - you are just dreaming. The role of AT is to move pax and freight, so no space for mission systems and crew. The role of AAR is to give the fuel away thereby limiting on station time. The role of MMA is to be on station effectively so no spare fuel to give away and no need to carry pax or freight. Pax and freight is invariably going from A to B most MMA are going to go from A and back to A. The fact that P3s (and Nimrods and E3s etc etc) may once have carried stuff because they could and were already transiting somewhere thereby saving the requirement to send a dedicated AT asset is just common sense and effective/efficient use of what was available. It doesnt mean you would have done it all the time.
Anyway my last comments on the subject; I'm off to the pub!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: London
Age: 64
Posts: 238
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Almost immediately after the cancellation of the Nimrod MRA4 was announced in the SDSR there were persistent rumours of a reinstatement of the capability at some point in the future. What that ‘point’ would be depended on what newspaper you were reading but the suggestion of anything substantial would have to wait until a suitable period after the cancellation of MRA4.
The MoD had just wasted somewhere south of £4 billion on MRA4 and we should note that at this point, the final costs of cancellation have not yet been announced. So, public discussion of a replacement was therefore about as welcome as a turd in a swimming pool but time has passed and almost everyone agrees that for a nation with a long coastline, extensive search and rescue obligations, a submarine based nuclear deterrent and an expeditionary capability that forms the likely core of any future military strategy it is a capability that is not a luxury.
After the usual collection of leaks and rumours, this was confirmed in a number of Defence Committee evidence sessions and subsequently the RAF’s Seedcorn Initiative was revealed in a November 2011 Parliamentary answer;
At a cost of £12m for a 5 year programme it has a significant cost, more when one includes other associated costs such as allowances and travel, not included in the answer above.
With the early withdrawal of the MR2 and focus on overland operations prior to that it is debatable how much realistic ASW and ASuW training had been carried out anyway and with Seedcorn, given the dispositions, again, how many of these perishable skills will be maintained?
Whatever the answer to these questions, in March this year another Parliamentary Answer revealed the following
Despite the delaying and facing saving ‘it’s secret’ position from a few months ago it has been reported that an announcement will be made this month, maybe another one of those ghost announcements that never seem to happen but who knows?"
The MoD had just wasted somewhere south of £4 billion on MRA4 and we should note that at this point, the final costs of cancellation have not yet been announced. So, public discussion of a replacement was therefore about as welcome as a turd in a swimming pool but time has passed and almost everyone agrees that for a nation with a long coastline, extensive search and rescue obligations, a submarine based nuclear deterrent and an expeditionary capability that forms the likely core of any future military strategy it is a capability that is not a luxury.
After the usual collection of leaks and rumours, this was confirmed in a number of Defence Committee evidence sessions and subsequently the RAF’s Seedcorn Initiative was revealed in a November 2011 Parliamentary answer;
Angus Robertson (Moray, Scottish National Party)
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence
(1) how many personnel are taking part in the Seedcorn initiative; what the location is of each; and with what equipment they are training;
(2) what capabilities are being maintained through the Seedcorn initiative;
(3) what estimate he has made of the cost to the public purse of the Seedcorn initiative in each of the next five years.
Gerald Howarth (Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (International Security Strategy), Defence; Aldershot, Conservative)
The Seedcorn initiative will sustain the Ministry of Defence (MOD)’s capability to operate high level fixed-wing Maritime Patrol Aircraft (MPA) and maintain the associated skills of its personnel. Qualified RAF aircrew will be on exchange with a variety of Allied MPA forces, where they will maintain their anti-submarine and anti-surface warfare, long-range search and rescue, and Intelligence, Surveillance, Target Acquisition and Reconnaissance (ISTAR) skills.
The estimated cost of the initiative on average is £2.4 million per year for the next five years; this includes salary and allowances.
Retaining skills and MPA knowledge is vital if the United Kingdom is to be in a position to regenerate our own MPA capability at some point in the future.
The number and location of personnel and equipment to be used is as follows:
Location, Aircraft, Number of personnel
Canada, Royal Canadian Air Force Greenwood, CP-140 Aurora, 7
New Zealand, Royal New Zealand Air Force Base Whenuapai, P-3K Orion/P-3K2 Orion, 5
Royal New Zealand Air Force Base Ohakea, Beech King Air B200, 1
Australia, Royal Australian Air Force Base Edinburgh, AP-3C Orion, 4
United States, Naval Air Station Norfolk, Non-flying appointment related to maritime operational staff duties, 1
Naval Air Station Patuxent River, P3C Orion, 2
Additionally, discussions are ongoing with the US Navy on an exchange initiative for fully qualified RAF aircrew to support the US P-8A Poseidon programme.
A total of 33 personnel are serving overseas
So personnel have been cast to the four corners of the world to maintain their varied skillsets, again, another sign, if any were needed, that the maritime patrol capability gap was a temporary one. I think it is apparent that the Seedcorn initiative has a limited life span, there is little point in it if we have no intention of regenerating the capability.To ask the Secretary of State for Defence
(1) how many personnel are taking part in the Seedcorn initiative; what the location is of each; and with what equipment they are training;
(2) what capabilities are being maintained through the Seedcorn initiative;
(3) what estimate he has made of the cost to the public purse of the Seedcorn initiative in each of the next five years.
Gerald Howarth (Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (International Security Strategy), Defence; Aldershot, Conservative)
The Seedcorn initiative will sustain the Ministry of Defence (MOD)’s capability to operate high level fixed-wing Maritime Patrol Aircraft (MPA) and maintain the associated skills of its personnel. Qualified RAF aircrew will be on exchange with a variety of Allied MPA forces, where they will maintain their anti-submarine and anti-surface warfare, long-range search and rescue, and Intelligence, Surveillance, Target Acquisition and Reconnaissance (ISTAR) skills.
The estimated cost of the initiative on average is £2.4 million per year for the next five years; this includes salary and allowances.
Retaining skills and MPA knowledge is vital if the United Kingdom is to be in a position to regenerate our own MPA capability at some point in the future.
The number and location of personnel and equipment to be used is as follows:
Location, Aircraft, Number of personnel
Canada, Royal Canadian Air Force Greenwood, CP-140 Aurora, 7
New Zealand, Royal New Zealand Air Force Base Whenuapai, P-3K Orion/P-3K2 Orion, 5
Royal New Zealand Air Force Base Ohakea, Beech King Air B200, 1
Australia, Royal Australian Air Force Base Edinburgh, AP-3C Orion, 4
United States, Naval Air Station Norfolk, Non-flying appointment related to maritime operational staff duties, 1
Naval Air Station Patuxent River, P3C Orion, 2
Additionally, discussions are ongoing with the US Navy on an exchange initiative for fully qualified RAF aircrew to support the US P-8A Poseidon programme.
A total of 33 personnel are serving overseas
At a cost of £12m for a 5 year programme it has a significant cost, more when one includes other associated costs such as allowances and travel, not included in the answer above.
With the early withdrawal of the MR2 and focus on overland operations prior to that it is debatable how much realistic ASW and ASuW training had been carried out anyway and with Seedcorn, given the dispositions, again, how many of these perishable skills will be maintained?
Whatever the answer to these questions, in March this year another Parliamentary Answer revealed the following
Mrs Moon: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence pursuant to the answer of 22 March 2011, Official Report, column 947W, on military aircraft, when he expects to publish the findings of the capability investigation on maritime surveillance capability; and if he will make a statement. [92528]
1 Feb 2012 : Column 654W
Peter Luff: The Ministry of Defence has completed its capability investigation into its long term requirements for maritime surveillance capability, but I am withholding the information as its disclosure would, or would be likely to prejudice the capability, effectiveness or security of the armed forces.
In February this year the Commons Select Committee for Defence announced they would be holding a session on just the subject, Future Maritime Surveillance1 Feb 2012 : Column 654W
Peter Luff: The Ministry of Defence has completed its capability investigation into its long term requirements for maritime surveillance capability, but I am withholding the information as its disclosure would, or would be likely to prejudice the capability, effectiveness or security of the armed forces.
Despite the delaying and facing saving ‘it’s secret’ position from a few months ago it has been reported that an announcement will be made this month, maybe another one of those ghost announcements that never seem to happen but who knows?"
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: London
Age: 64
Posts: 238
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nimrod Was Actually a Fine Hunter: Britain’s MRA4 Programme:-
Nimrod Was Actually a Fine Hunter: Britain’s MRA4 Program
Nimrod Was Actually a Fine Hunter: Britain’s MRA4 Program
Stuffy,
If you're going to use this thread as an excuse to open up the whole "...UK MPA..." debate, then you're a bit late to the party.
I suggest you read this thread:
http://www.pprune.org/military-aircr...ty-report.html
It's got some good stuff on it. I particularly recommend post 88 - but then I would, as I wrote it!!
If you're going to use this thread as an excuse to open up the whole "...UK MPA..." debate, then you're a bit late to the party.
I suggest you read this thread:
http://www.pprune.org/military-aircr...ty-report.html
It's got some good stuff on it. I particularly recommend post 88 - but then I would, as I wrote it!!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: London
Age: 64
Posts: 238
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A good post #88 biggus.
With the dithering UK Coalition government, hoping for an election miracle before May 2015. If indeed they get that far.
No decision will be taken.
Then it will be panic and the expensive leasing of Lockheed P3's.
However, Airbus might do something quickly with the A400M. It certainly has the performance and in flight refueling.
A320 or A321?
It's up to the Europeans, who are as broke as everyone else.
With the dithering UK Coalition government, hoping for an election miracle before May 2015. If indeed they get that far.
No decision will be taken.
Then it will be panic and the expensive leasing of Lockheed P3's.
However, Airbus might do something quickly with the A400M. It certainly has the performance and in flight refueling.
A320 or A321?
It's up to the Europeans, who are as broke as everyone else.
what tanker..
Nope, totally irrelevant for an MPA as the grown ups keeping telling you.
The UK doesn't have any SAR helicopters with AAR capability; even if they did, either the A400M or KC-390 would be a much better option to meet their AAR requirements, rather than a fictitious MPA platform which would rarely have any spare fuel available without compromise to its own mission - and even if it did, it would probably have difficulty flying slowly enough to refuel helicopters.
The UK doesn't have any SAR helicopters with AAR capability; even if they did, either the A400M or KC-390 would be a much better option to meet their AAR requirements, rather than a fictitious MPA platform which would rarely have any spare fuel available without compromise to its own mission - and even if it did, it would probably have difficulty flying slowly enough to refuel helicopters.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: netherlands
Age: 56
Posts: 769
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
IMO inability to change & stubbornness killed UK & NL MPA operations.
BEagle: "flying slowly enough to refuel helicopters"
For a prop?
http://4.bp.********.com/-juwjPlhcS5...lin_refuel.jpg
Back on topic, the A400M MPA would be the largest and least efficient MPA "solution" I can think off. Maybe make it a double decker for 60 operators?
http://www.airbus.com/fileadmin/medi...cargo-hold.jpg
BEagle: "flying slowly enough to refuel helicopters"
For a prop?
http://4.bp.********.com/-juwjPlhcS5...lin_refuel.jpg
Back on topic, the A400M MPA would be the largest and least efficient MPA "solution" I can think off. Maybe make it a double decker for 60 operators?
http://www.airbus.com/fileadmin/medi...cargo-hold.jpg