Airbus A400M as a maritime aircraft ?
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Australia
Posts: 495
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@Lonewolf_50
CUTAWAY: P-8A Poseidon - A Boeing with boost of bravado
Also hidden most of the time is an aerial refuelling port at the top of the fuselage just aft of the cockpit. Although not required for the mission profile, the navy decided to take advantage of the refuelling modifications that had been developed for the 737-based Wedgetail airborne early warning and control aircraft programme for the Australian defence forces.
Crews will largely learn to operate the aerial refuelling and other systems using simulators purchased from Boeing as part of a plan to achieve a three-to-one ratio of simulator-to-live flying for training and mission simulations, says Jim Reining, the navy's P-8A integrated test team government flight test director.
CUTAWAY: P-8A Poseidon - A Boeing with boost of bravado
Also hidden most of the time is an aerial refuelling port at the top of the fuselage just aft of the cockpit. Although not required for the mission profile, the navy decided to take advantage of the refuelling modifications that had been developed for the 737-based Wedgetail airborne early warning and control aircraft programme for the Australian defence forces.
Crews will largely learn to operate the aerial refuelling and other systems using simulators purchased from Boeing as part of a plan to achieve a three-to-one ratio of simulator-to-live flying for training and mission simulations, says Jim Reining, the navy's P-8A integrated test team government flight test director.
nimrod was cancelled principally to save (future support) money.
the well publicised niggles and quality issues, coupled with hc history were convenient reasons to mask this real, but politically delicate, motive.
the cancellation has created significant reputational damage to the uk, and is a short sighted scandal in my view, well covered here many times!
the well publicised niggles and quality issues, coupled with hc history were convenient reasons to mask this real, but politically delicate, motive.
the cancellation has created significant reputational damage to the uk, and is a short sighted scandal in my view, well covered here many times!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: London
Age: 64
Posts: 238
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Boeing P8 Poseidon, has a poor endurance for maritime patrol. In might suit the US. In fact keejse's C295 is far better. Not that I would be confident about its electronic cooling abilities?
The C295 will suit a number of European countries. The Portuguese have them already.
I cannot see the RAF or the Royal Navy being happy with them. The French will stick with their Atlantique 2's.
I cannot forsee the UK Coalition Government, making any decision before 2015.
They might, just might, get some Lockheed P3's. Eventually paying through the nose for them. Then they will sit in a hangar forever while BAe Systems muck about with them. I am just thinking about the Chinooks sitting in the hangar till kingdom come.
Will the A400M make a maritime aircraft? It certainly would have the range. There would be no issues with cooling the electronic equipment or crew comfort. It has a refueling boom so it could loiter longer than a hooker outside Bradford Station.
In the end it will be down to money, will and vision.
Don't hold your breath.
The C295 will suit a number of European countries. The Portuguese have them already.
I cannot see the RAF or the Royal Navy being happy with them. The French will stick with their Atlantique 2's.
I cannot forsee the UK Coalition Government, making any decision before 2015.
They might, just might, get some Lockheed P3's. Eventually paying through the nose for them. Then they will sit in a hangar forever while BAe Systems muck about with them. I am just thinking about the Chinooks sitting in the hangar till kingdom come.
Will the A400M make a maritime aircraft? It certainly would have the range. There would be no issues with cooling the electronic equipment or crew comfort. It has a refueling boom so it could loiter longer than a hooker outside Bradford Station.
In the end it will be down to money, will and vision.
Don't hold your breath.
Thank you, JSFfan.
I had thought, back when I was still in the Navy, that aerial refuelling was in the requirements document for the P-8, but there was also a bit of a war over "how many NAV/NFO seats" is the design criteria? The sensible people won: two, not three. I lost track when I left the Navy of some of those details.
Stuffy:
Depending on mission, P-8 takes off, heads toward station, tops off from a tanker -- hey lookie there! On-station dwell time goes up quite a bit.
Why, you might even top off while on station. Fancy that! What incredibly modern thinking! Joint Operations. Who woulda thunk it?
I had thought, back when I was still in the Navy, that aerial refuelling was in the requirements document for the P-8, but there was also a bit of a war over "how many NAV/NFO seats" is the design criteria? The sensible people won: two, not three. I lost track when I left the Navy of some of those details.
Stuffy:
Depending on mission, P-8 takes off, heads toward station, tops off from a tanker -- hey lookie there! On-station dwell time goes up quite a bit.
Why, you might even top off while on station. Fancy that! What incredibly modern thinking! Joint Operations. Who woulda thunk it?
Last edited by Lonewolf_50; 18th Mar 2013 at 22:55.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: London
Age: 64
Posts: 238
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Aerial refuelling port aft of the cockpit. The RAF and Royal Navy don't have KC-135's with their boom system.
All that topping up !
Two aircraft a mission, not one. Cost yer ?
All that topping up !
Two aircraft a mission, not one. Cost yer ?
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Australia
Posts: 495
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Depending on mission, P-8 takes off, heads toward station, tops off from a tanker -- hey lookie there! On-station dwell time goes up quite a bit.
Why, you might even top off while on station. Fancy that! What incredibly modern thinking! Joint Operations. Who woulda thunk it?
Why, you might even top off while on station. Fancy that! What incredibly modern thinking! Joint Operations. Who woulda thunk it?
Last edited by JSFfan; 19th Mar 2013 at 00:00.
This topic has turned into a hugely amusing read. I'm beginning to look forward to a daily fix on the commute into work (actually that's a lie) but it is quite amusing all the same.
Stuffy, I have to congratulate you as being one of the best fishermen I've seen since Jesus did his loaves and fishes trick. Brilliant. Your latest subtlety over range and endurance was sublime.
I even loved the brilliant irony of keesje's statement:
posted next to the spoof 146 MPA - although it would have been much better posted with this picture:
Congratulations gentlemen, I doff my hat.
Stuffy, I have to congratulate you as being one of the best fishermen I've seen since Jesus did his loaves and fishes trick. Brilliant. Your latest subtlety over range and endurance was sublime.
I even loved the brilliant irony of keesje's statement:
overspecification, overcommitment to the national industry and baseless optimism turns into another multi billion disaster..
Congratulations gentlemen, I doff my hat.
Last edited by Roland Pulfrew; 19th Mar 2013 at 08:35.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: netherlands
Age: 56
Posts: 769
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi, Roland. Thnx.
I'm no expert. We all know what the entire force of seasoned profesionals, 80 yrs of experience, research institutes and industry created. A 4 billion hole and a capability gab. Everybody is blaming everybody. But as a team effort, it sure is hard to beat. Maybe folks clinged to their old requirements/ jobs that meanwhile evaporated. Pointing at their logbooks and saying the rest of the world just doesn't / can't understand.
I think it's time to think ahead instead of keep looking back. Multirole, multi national, scrapping capabilities, adding new ones. European naval airforces can make a new start.
I'm no expert. We all know what the entire force of seasoned profesionals, 80 yrs of experience, research institutes and industry created. A 4 billion hole and a capability gab. Everybody is blaming everybody. But as a team effort, it sure is hard to beat. Maybe folks clinged to their old requirements/ jobs that meanwhile evaporated. Pointing at their logbooks and saying the rest of the world just doesn't / can't understand.
I think it's time to think ahead instead of keep looking back. Multirole, multi national, scrapping capabilities, adding new ones. European naval airforces can make a new start.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: London
Age: 64
Posts: 238
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Roland, I wanted to keep the debate going with some tongue in cheek comments. I don't believe Americans share the same sense of humour or deal with irony very well?
I was looking for a solution to the insoluble. Perfidious politicians notwithstanding.
No money or orders will happen before the end of 2015. If at all.
There will be mad panic measures in 2019.
I was looking for a solution to the insoluble. Perfidious politicians notwithstanding.
No money or orders will happen before the end of 2015. If at all.
There will be mad panic measures in 2019.
I'm no expert
Stuffy
Just confirm you do understand the difference between range and endurance? And it's link to on task time? I'm not sure your comment on the P8 v C295 was meant to humourous or ironic!!
And as for 2019; well who knows? This taken from another MPA topic:
No-one really knows what the effects of sequestration is going to be on US programmes in the near term. I have read the list from the Head of the US Navy about what he is going to have to do if he doesn't receive his allocated share of the budget (eye watering).
We have in the UK recently experienced/managed/had a very successful lease-purchase programme on one of our major capabilities.
We have some unallocated money in the procurement programme.
And we have guys in the US on the P8 OCU and OEU...........
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: London
Age: 64
Posts: 238
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Roland,
Range is how far an aircraft can fly from A to B, including diversionary airfields. Depending on load factors or ferry range etc.
Endurance is how long the aircraft can stay airborne before the pilot is thinking about a change of trousers. Typically it includes loiter time like the whores outside Bradford train station.
Range is how far an aircraft can fly from A to B, including diversionary airfields. Depending on load factors or ferry range etc.
Endurance is how long the aircraft can stay airborne before the pilot is thinking about a change of trousers. Typically it includes loiter time like the whores outside Bradford train station.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: netherlands
Age: 56
Posts: 769
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: London
Age: 64
Posts: 238
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Keejse.
Good one !
If we are dealing in rumours. I have heard from a reliable source that the UK is to get Boeing P8 Poseidons.
18 hour missions, will, however, not be an option.
Good one !
If we are dealing in rumours. I have heard from a reliable source that the UK is to get Boeing P8 Poseidons.
18 hour missions, will, however, not be an option.
Last edited by Stuffy; 19th Mar 2013 at 11:40.
The P-8A does have a refuelling receptacle so that it can gas up from the Navy's large fleet of boom-equipped tankers. Wait, what?
However, there is a limit on effective operator time, is there not? Tends to make AAR a bit academic for these types, unless they are very heavily laden and it is needed to give them even 8 h or so on station at range.
Pardon if this point has been taken up earlier - but there are a lot of MPA missions that can now be very well handled by quite small aircraft. The breakpoint is hardcore ASW - if you want to carry sonobuoys, torpedoes and a radar that can detect periscopes, that's more demanding. But a good surface-search radar, EO sensor, ESM and comms will fit nicely on a CN235, and even something smaller is useful - take a look at the UAE-Piaggio project.
However, there is a limit on effective operator time, is there not? Tends to make AAR a bit academic for these types, unless they are very heavily laden and it is needed to give them even 8 h or so on station at range.
Pardon if this point has been taken up earlier - but there are a lot of MPA missions that can now be very well handled by quite small aircraft. The breakpoint is hardcore ASW - if you want to carry sonobuoys, torpedoes and a radar that can detect periscopes, that's more demanding. But a good surface-search radar, EO sensor, ESM and comms will fit nicely on a CN235, and even something smaller is useful - take a look at the UAE-Piaggio project.
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: home: United Kingdom
Posts: 779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LO,
A valid point. If submarines are deemd a threat, then you have to have an ASW capability. If not, your task just got a lot easier and the ac to carry out that task 'could' be a fair bit smaller. That said, an ASW torpedo is a lot smaller than an ASM!
Duncs
A valid point. If submarines are deemd a threat, then you have to have an ASW capability. If not, your task just got a lot easier and the ac to carry out that task 'could' be a fair bit smaller. That said, an ASW torpedo is a lot smaller than an ASM!
Duncs
Stuffy
Obviously you don't get humour and irony either! 
I'm glad that you understand the difference between range and endurance, perhaps you might now explain why 4 hours on task at 1200 nm from base (that's probably about 2 - 2.5 hours flying time) means the P8 "has a poor endurance for maritime patrol"?
can gas up from the Navy's large fleet of boom-equipped tankers. Wait, what?
There are no RAF tanker aircraft fitted with the boom system.
I'm glad that you understand the difference between range and endurance, perhaps you might now explain why 4 hours on task at 1200 nm from base (that's probably about 2 - 2.5 hours flying time) means the P8 "has a poor endurance for maritime patrol"?