Airbus A400M as a maritime aircraft ?
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: netherlands
Age: 56
Posts: 769
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"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."
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: home: United Kingdom
Posts: 779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
keesje,
I'm not sure how you work out that ASW is a diminishing task. Just because the UK doesn't have a fixed wing ASW platform, doesn't mean that others don't have submarines that could pose a threat!
Duncs
I'm not sure how you work out that ASW is a diminishing task. Just because the UK doesn't have a fixed wing ASW platform, doesn't mean that others don't have submarines that could pose a threat!
Duncs
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: London
Age: 64
Posts: 238
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
and...... How does the P8 compare with the Nimrod for patrol endurance?
Roland Beamont -
The A330 can be fitted with the Airbus aerial refuelling boom.
I therefore concluded you were serious. The Australian version has this option.
Duncan,
Russian TU-95's are still sniffing around the North Sea, uninvited.
Likewise Russian submarines are continually testing our defences.
Roland Beamont -
The A330 can be fitted with the Airbus aerial refuelling boom.
I therefore concluded you were serious. The Australian version has this option.
Duncan,
Russian TU-95's are still sniffing around the North Sea, uninvited.
Likewise Russian submarines are continually testing our defences.
Last edited by Stuffy; 19th Mar 2013 at 14:52.
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: home: United Kingdom
Posts: 779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The P8's endurance is significantly better than that of the Nimrod - which are now, apart from a few in aviation museums, bean tins.
See, I'm getting over it!
Duncs
Stuffy,
Yup!
See, I'm getting over it!
Duncs
Stuffy,
Yup!
Last edited by Duncan D'Sorderlee; 19th Mar 2013 at 14:54.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: netherlands
Age: 56
Posts: 769
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Duncan, of cause there is / will be an ASW threat. But not justifying the resources it did some time ago. Even in the US the pressure to be always ready for everything, everywhere at any time, even if it isn't there, just to make sure, has deminished. The public can't be scared into approving everything anymore. A few squadrons to be deployed where / when needed could fill in at least part of the requirement.
Last edited by keesje; 19th Mar 2013 at 15:09.
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: north of barlu
Posts: 6,207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A pint of the finest ale from Chiswick says that within five years one of the UK armed forces has ordered the P8.
I will take odds on it then being canceled at even greater cost to the UK taxpayer !
I will take odds on it then being canceled at even greater cost to the UK taxpayer !
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: London
Age: 64
Posts: 238
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ah, a Fullers man.
I certainly wouldn't take on that bet. I'd lose. At £3.80 a pint !
Where are the figures that the P8 has more endurance than Nimrod?
I certainly wouldn't take on that bet. I'd lose. At £3.80 a pint !
Where are the figures that the P8 has more endurance than Nimrod?
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: north of barlu
Posts: 6,207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
stuffy
It is difficult to say what the endurance of the P8 is in the maritime role, the 737-800 is a very fuel efficient aircraft, I picked one up from Boeing and we had planned Seattle to Berlin via Keflavic for fuel, at top of drop into Keflavic we did have just have enough fuel to go direct to Berlin but felt in unwise due to WX so stopped for fuel. The aircraft had next to no payload and went all the way at FL410.
A bit more of a typical example of what the 800 can do would be LGW to Banjul, almost six hours with a TOW of 78,000 KG and diversion fuel for Dakar.
This is with the standard airliner tankage, no doubt the P8 would benifit from the sort of extra tanks fitted to the BBJ and with these fitted LAX - LGW is not out of the question.
Of course these numbers are all for high level cruise and you can double the fuel flow at low level but perhaps with a little more inside information about the fuel capacity and the mission profile you can come up with a best guess for the typical High - Low - High maritime endurance.
A bit more of a typical example of what the 800 can do would be LGW to Banjul, almost six hours with a TOW of 78,000 KG and diversion fuel for Dakar.
This is with the standard airliner tankage, no doubt the P8 would benifit from the sort of extra tanks fitted to the BBJ and with these fitted LAX - LGW is not out of the question.
Of course these numbers are all for high level cruise and you can double the fuel flow at low level but perhaps with a little more inside information about the fuel capacity and the mission profile you can come up with a best guess for the typical High - Low - High maritime endurance.
Stuffy
It wasn't me; it was the other boy.
The RAF's A330s cannot be fitted with an ARB - its a PFI. It wasn't in the requirement (because at the time the only aircraft we had in the inventory that required boom refuelling was the E3D and that can also do probe and drogue) and it would cost an absolute fortune to add it now!! C-17 was a lease and AAR was prohibited under the lease terms, so no requirement. Regretably the bean counters will not allow expenditure on something for which we have no "requirement" - even if it makes military sense in the interoperability department.
As to P8 v Nimrod MR1/MR2, well Duncs has answered that one (very different if you are talking MRA4 - but they also are, as Duncs says, bean tins); but you still haven't explained why you think 4 - 5 hours of transit time and 4 hours on task isn't good enough for an MPA?
It wasn't me; it was the other boy.
The RAF's A330s cannot be fitted with an ARB - its a PFI. It wasn't in the requirement (because at the time the only aircraft we had in the inventory that required boom refuelling was the E3D and that can also do probe and drogue) and it would cost an absolute fortune to add it now!! C-17 was a lease and AAR was prohibited under the lease terms, so no requirement. Regretably the bean counters will not allow expenditure on something for which we have no "requirement" - even if it makes military sense in the interoperability department.
As to P8 v Nimrod MR1/MR2, well Duncs has answered that one (very different if you are talking MRA4 - but they also are, as Duncs says, bean tins); but you still haven't explained why you think 4 - 5 hours of transit time and 4 hours on task isn't good enough for an MPA?
Roly, if the contract was renegotiated, it wouldn't be impossible for, say, 3 of the later Voyagers to be delivered with a boom...... Which would suit RJ, E-3D, C-17...and perhaps P-8.
££££ to the contract lawyers though...
Still no pod RTS, I gather...
££££ to the contract lawyers though...
Still no pod RTS, I gather...
Last edited by BEagle; 19th Mar 2013 at 16:43.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: London
Age: 64
Posts: 238
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A & C,
Arik Air fly Heathrow - Abuja, Nigeria, in a B738.
The A320/321 family have a 3000+nm range and the NEO versions longer than that.
If Airbus does to the A320/321, what Boeing has done to the B738 to make the P8 Poseidon. Will be interesting.
Whether it is possible to buy some second hand A320/321's and get Marshalls up at Cambridge to convert them, I could not say. At least the equipment that the RAF/RN wants, could be added.
Arik Air fly Heathrow - Abuja, Nigeria, in a B738.
The A320/321 family have a 3000+nm range and the NEO versions longer than that.
If Airbus does to the A320/321, what Boeing has done to the B738 to make the P8 Poseidon. Will be interesting.
Whether it is possible to buy some second hand A320/321's and get Marshalls up at Cambridge to convert them, I could not say. At least the equipment that the RAF/RN wants, could be added.
Last edited by Stuffy; 19th Mar 2013 at 17:49.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 1,515
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Every nation having their own credible ASW capability for that diminishing task would be very expensive. Maybe a task to centralize like Nato AWACS on two or three practicle locations.
I also think using LRMPA for overland recce and relay was also a a stop gap solution for which a modern UAV is much better suited.
See, us old timers had quite good ideas, 20 odd years ago...shocking isn't it!
It is my expectation that as time goes on, P-8 will become even more 'modular' in character.
So, what does that mean? It means that a given squadron will have changing mission kit, so that either EW or ASW missions can be flown, depending on theater level mission requirements.
As to refueling probe arguments, I recall MPRS being very handy.
Booms aren't the only way.
So, what does that mean? It means that a given squadron will have changing mission kit, so that either EW or ASW missions can be flown, depending on theater level mission requirements.
As to refueling probe arguments, I recall MPRS being very handy.
Booms aren't the only way.
Last edited by Lonewolf_50; 19th Mar 2013 at 22:03.
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: north of barlu
Posts: 6,207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Stuffy
You make some interesting points, I suspect that the Aric Air operation trades payload for fuel to do Abuja LHR direct or stops for fuel.
The Airbus A320 idea is interesting but I doubt if there is enough of a market to make the work economic, the other thing that springs to mind is the vulnerability of the three hydraulic systems to battle damage, at least you can fly the P8 manually ( yes I know about the A320's manual pitch trim and asymmetric thrust ).
Having flown both types I know that I would rather fly the Boeing in the maritime role simply because if its lack of sophisticated systems, in short there is less to go wrong.
The Airbus A320 idea is interesting but I doubt if there is enough of a market to make the work economic, the other thing that springs to mind is the vulnerability of the three hydraulic systems to battle damage, at least you can fly the P8 manually ( yes I know about the A320's manual pitch trim and asymmetric thrust ).
Having flown both types I know that I would rather fly the Boeing in the maritime role simply because if its lack of sophisticated systems, in short there is less to go wrong.
Further to ASW vs surface MPA: ASW is more than ever "go big or go home" because your average SSK these days is one stealthy little monkeyfighter and very hard to bag without high-end sensors and weapons.
I do wonder, though, if the move to electric power for torpedoes will eliminate the need for weapon bays, which I understand is driven by the fact that Otto fuel freezes.
I do wonder, though, if the move to electric power for torpedoes will eliminate the need for weapon bays, which I understand is driven by the fact that Otto fuel freezes.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: London
Age: 64
Posts: 238
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A & C,
Yes, that is a very good point I had not considered.
There is very basic control on an A320, with no computers.
The cabin size is much better from a passenger point of view.
As has been pointed out to me, any order for a P8 will not arrive till 2018 at the earliest.
Until the advent of the B787. Boeing has got the balance of old and new technology, about right, IMHO.
I believe the Japanese have taken the right route with the Kawasaki, rather than converting an existing type.
Any conversion is a compromise.
Which brings me back to the A400M.
It has the performance, the space, but is probably too big?
As I keep saying, no politicians will address this problem until it is too late.
With the Eurozone money problems, nothing will be done.
Perhaps in the end, it doesn't really matter?
I would like to see an elegant solution, which the Japanese appear to have achieved.
What would I have done if I had, the power and influence?
I would have made sure the Nimrod would be successful, and sacked 90% of the managers.
Hunting nukes, boomers, whatever you want to call them, is, a tricky business. Given, it is my belief, that, these things are where the real threat is coming from. Especially if one is a Super Carrier.
A 12 hour on station endurance, is essential.
Yes, that is a very good point I had not considered.
There is very basic control on an A320, with no computers.
The cabin size is much better from a passenger point of view.
As has been pointed out to me, any order for a P8 will not arrive till 2018 at the earliest.
Until the advent of the B787. Boeing has got the balance of old and new technology, about right, IMHO.
I believe the Japanese have taken the right route with the Kawasaki, rather than converting an existing type.
Any conversion is a compromise.
Which brings me back to the A400M.
It has the performance, the space, but is probably too big?
As I keep saying, no politicians will address this problem until it is too late.
With the Eurozone money problems, nothing will be done.
Perhaps in the end, it doesn't really matter?
I would like to see an elegant solution, which the Japanese appear to have achieved.
What would I have done if I had, the power and influence?
I would have made sure the Nimrod would be successful, and sacked 90% of the managers.
Hunting nukes, boomers, whatever you want to call them, is, a tricky business. Given, it is my belief, that, these things are where the real threat is coming from. Especially if one is a Super Carrier.
A 12 hour on station endurance, is essential.
Last edited by Stuffy; 19th Mar 2013 at 23:26.
Why re-invent the wheel? The P-8A is in production now. Low risk solution - just buy some. {or the Japanese four engined thingie??} All the academic b/s in the world won't deliver a real solution.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: London
Age: 64
Posts: 238
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The UK will buy the P8.
Examples redirected from the production line.
I am not convinced it is the right answer.
For ASW, it does not have enough time on station, to find submarines.
Examples redirected from the production line.
I am not convinced it is the right answer.
For ASW, it does not have enough time on station, to find submarines.
For ASW, it does not have enough time on station, to find submarines.
The Pacific and Indian Oceans are pretty big places to hide subs!
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Stuffy,
You are not for real are you?! Granted, you have gave me a chuckle this week with your crazy suggestions and continuous desire to have the A400M as an MPA!
Hope the day job is going well and your colleagues within industry are enjoying your answers when you feedback...
You are not for real are you?! Granted, you have gave me a chuckle this week with your crazy suggestions and continuous desire to have the A400M as an MPA!
Hope the day job is going well and your colleagues within industry are enjoying your answers when you feedback...