Airbus A400M as a maritime aircraft ?
Or a MPRS pod.
Well there you go, you live and learn. 
So anyone know how big the internal HDU is? Where it is mounted within the fuselage? How it is connected to the fuel tank system? How it is fed through the rear doors and whether the ac can remain pressurised during centreline AAR.
So anyone know how big the internal HDU is? Where it is mounted within the fuselage? How it is connected to the fuel tank system? How it is fed through the rear doors and whether the ac can remain pressurised during centreline AAR.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 1,515
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sipping my 16 year lagavulin, a habit picked up during 27 years before the galley teapot, I'm trying to imagine what some you think happens at night 300 feet over a raging sea whilst trying to get an attack solution on a fast evading nuc.
Or tooling around the foggy inner Minches trying to sort out an active fix on a rubberised, 400 tonne german SSK.
Or joining a carrier group in the middle of an air raid, with every radio spewing constant chatter onto an already over crowded intercom with everyman jack working like a one armed paper hangar trying to sort out the surface picture, because guess what, Sunray has turned off the link to go reversionary.
I could go on and paint another dozen scenario's (like controlling 6 SAR assets when peoples lives hang in the balance), but you get my drift.
The fact that some of you think that this is some sort of youtube video you can just pause, so's you can pop up and pick up some fuel, just goes to show that you know absolutely the square root of **** all that you are blithely spouting pure sh1te about.
GTFO, the lot of you.
Except of course, them that are Kipper qualified, god bless you all.
Or tooling around the foggy inner Minches trying to sort out an active fix on a rubberised, 400 tonne german SSK.
Or joining a carrier group in the middle of an air raid, with every radio spewing constant chatter onto an already over crowded intercom with everyman jack working like a one armed paper hangar trying to sort out the surface picture, because guess what, Sunray has turned off the link to go reversionary.
I could go on and paint another dozen scenario's (like controlling 6 SAR assets when peoples lives hang in the balance), but you get my drift.
The fact that some of you think that this is some sort of youtube video you can just pause, so's you can pop up and pick up some fuel, just goes to show that you know absolutely the square root of **** all that you are blithely spouting pure sh1te about.
GTFO, the lot of you.
Except of course, them that are Kipper qualified, god bless you all.
Last edited by The Old Fat One; 20th Mar 2013 at 22:40.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: London
Age: 64
Posts: 238
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JSFan, Detection with what, technology from Star Trek?
Mention politics on here and the techies disappear.
I bet that journalist picked up the surprise and wrote about it.
That should be journalists, as there are plenty of reports about it.
As the Chinese leaders said, " Just a coincidence."
Advances it submarine technology could prove embarrassing. Have you heard of the Russian high speed Squall(Skval in Russian) torpedo ??
It uses a cavitation bubble to attain a very high speed.
Whoops there goes another Super Carrier hull. But they had high, hopes, they had high hopes.
Whoops there goes............
Mention politics on here and the techies disappear.
I bet that journalist picked up the surprise and wrote about it.
That should be journalists, as there are plenty of reports about it.
As the Chinese leaders said, " Just a coincidence."
Advances it submarine technology could prove embarrassing. Have you heard of the Russian high speed Squall(Skval in Russian) torpedo ??
It uses a cavitation bubble to attain a very high speed.
Whoops there goes another Super Carrier hull. But they had high, hopes, they had high hopes.
Whoops there goes............
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: London
Age: 64
Posts: 238
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Old Fat One,
Excellent post !
Wisdom writ large.
War/conflict is ordered chaos. Not a computer game.
16 year Lagavulin? One has to take you seriously !
Too many Budscheiser boys on here.
Excellent post !
Wisdom writ large.
War/conflict is ordered chaos. Not a computer game.
16 year Lagavulin? One has to take you seriously !
Too many Budscheiser boys on here.
Last edited by Stuffy; 20th Mar 2013 at 23:15.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: netherlands
Age: 56
Posts: 769
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The fact that some of you think that this is some sort of youtube video you can just pause, so's you can pop up and pick up some fuel, just goes to show that you know absolutely the square root of **** all that you are blithely spouting pure sh1te about.
I'm sure that TOFO,who probably has more AAR prods in an MPA than you've had hot dinners, will be shocked to hear that.
What he was talking about, if you take his quote in context, is the fact that some of the posts on this thread appear to suggest - they may not intend to, but they certainly appear to - that the new MPA conops using multi-mission types mean that you stop what you're doing, head off for the tanker to refuel (since no-one would be stupid enough to suggest conducting an AAR prod while still chasing down an SSN. I hope...) and then go back to what it was you were in the process of doing before getting your fuel.
Which, as TOFO was pointing out, is so divorced from reality as to be nonsense.
What he was talking about, if you take his quote in context, is the fact that some of the posts on this thread appear to suggest - they may not intend to, but they certainly appear to - that the new MPA conops using multi-mission types mean that you stop what you're doing, head off for the tanker to refuel (since no-one would be stupid enough to suggest conducting an AAR prod while still chasing down an SSN. I hope...) and then go back to what it was you were in the process of doing before getting your fuel.
Which, as TOFO was pointing out, is so divorced from reality as to be nonsense.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: London
Age: 64
Posts: 238
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is pretty obvious what The Old Fat One is talking about while sipping his single malt.
What happens in peacetime war games, is somewhat different from a real hot war.
Whilst the P8 may be adequate in peacetime.
Something more is required, when things get nasty.
The MPA version of 'Grizzly', the A400M, is tough enough and big enough, to do the job, in the FUTURE.
The level of sophistication of submarines in the future, will be frightening. So will their ability to disable a Super Carrier.
What happens in peacetime war games, is somewhat different from a real hot war.
Whilst the P8 may be adequate in peacetime.
Something more is required, when things get nasty.
The MPA version of 'Grizzly', the A400M, is tough enough and big enough, to do the job, in the FUTURE.
The level of sophistication of submarines in the future, will be frightening. So will their ability to disable a Super Carrier.
Last edited by Stuffy; 21st Mar 2013 at 02:23.
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 398
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
(since no-one would be stupid enough to suggest conducting an AAR prod while still chasing down an SSN. I hope...)
I am sure that the UK will eventually go for the P8, it is the only realistic option in terms of NATO/USA commitments.
The P8 could potentially fly for 11-12 hours un-refuelled, depending on ZFW. This is significantly better than the Nimrod MR2, and probably similar to the MRA4, but I stand to be corrected. I would also add that it is not fun flying for 10 hours or more in a 737, it is a lot more cramped than a P3, and similar space-wise to the MR2. To take additional flight crew to augment for longer missions will also add a not insignificant weight penalty to a 737/P8.
Y_G
Last edited by Yeller_Gait; 21st Mar 2013 at 04:14.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 1,515
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
keesje
Once more with feeling....
An MPA mission is divided into three parts....
The transit out
the on station (on task) period
The transit back
Notwithstanding the odd wacky sortie (thanks yellergait), you do AAR going out, or coming back, NOT during the on task period.
Further...if the transit is short (less than an hour) there will be neither a need for AAR, nor the opportunity to conduct one.
Thus, an ENDURING fundamental requirement of a MODERN Long Range Maritime Patrol Aircraft is the need to carry out a 4-6 hour on station period, equating to 10-12 hours airborne time...wait for it.... WITHOUT AAR.
If that rules out some of your low cost types, well that's just the way it is. It's nothing to do with us being old and stuck in the past...it's simply that we know the job, past, present and future.
These short range coastal type may well be great bits of kit, and who knows, maybe could fill a coastguard role for the UK.
But they are not LRMPA.
TOFO ZKJ2
Once more with feeling....
An MPA mission is divided into three parts....
The transit out
the on station (on task) period
The transit back
Notwithstanding the odd wacky sortie (thanks yellergait), you do AAR going out, or coming back, NOT during the on task period.
Further...if the transit is short (less than an hour) there will be neither a need for AAR, nor the opportunity to conduct one.
Thus, an ENDURING fundamental requirement of a MODERN Long Range Maritime Patrol Aircraft is the need to carry out a 4-6 hour on station period, equating to 10-12 hours airborne time...wait for it.... WITHOUT AAR.
If that rules out some of your low cost types, well that's just the way it is. It's nothing to do with us being old and stuck in the past...it's simply that we know the job, past, present and future.
These short range coastal type may well be great bits of kit, and who knows, maybe could fill a coastguard role for the UK.
But they are not LRMPA.
TOFO ZKJ2
FFS Stuffy
Will you just answer the question that you have been asked several times in the last couple of pages; why is the range/endurance combination of the P-8 unsatisfactory? And why would anyone buy a weapons system that is "adequate in peacetime" but not when things get nasty?
Except, of course that it doesn't exist. It doesn't have a weapons bay. It doesn't have ESM or RWR. Fitting a modern search radar will be an issue. And given Airbus Mil's delivery record so far, it isn't going to be an option anytime in the near or medium term.
TOFO
This has been pointed out numerous times, but there's none so blind as those that don't want to see........ Good luck with that!
Whilst the P8 may be adequate in peacetime.
Something more is required, when things get nasty.
Something more is required, when things get nasty.
The MPA version of 'Grizzly', the A400M, is tough enough and big enough, to do the job, in the FUTURE.
TOFO
Thus, an ENDURING fundamental requirement of a MODERN Long Range Maritime Patrol Aircraft is the need to carry out a 4-6 hour on station period, equating to 10-12 hours airborne time...wait for it.... WITHOUT AAR.
YG - I must apologise for my lack of clarity; what I had in mind was, say, an MPA charging in to release weapons against the SSN, with the pilot thinking 'y'know, this'd be a tad easier were we not plugged into the tanker at this very moment...'
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: netherlands
Age: 56
Posts: 769
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
devils advocate
No one mentioned refuelling during task periods. So lets stop attacking folks on things nobody said, ok?
LRMPA task are apparently so urgent you can pause them for 5+ years without anyone getting hurt or even worried. Meanwhile e.g. pirats are becoming a real problem (people getting hurt) without e.g. the UK having a suitable MPA to respond, chewing on their USSR era LRMPA / ASW requirements instead.
I can imagine politics are getting fed up after the 4billion we know better drama, and the RAF better start with a fresh sheet of paper and some new inputs drawing up MPA requirements that are more realistic and future / budget proof.
Not an opinion people want to hear, I know, but seeing how quick the Nimrods were scrapped not far beside what influential people in London think.
Thus, an ENDURING fundamental requirement of a MODERN Long Range Maritime Patrol Aircraft is the need to carry out a 4-6 hour on station period, equating to 10-12 hours airborne time...wait for it.... WITHOUT AAR.
I can imagine politics are getting fed up after the 4billion we know better drama, and the RAF better start with a fresh sheet of paper and some new inputs drawing up MPA requirements that are more realistic and future / budget proof.
Not an opinion people want to hear, I know, but seeing how quick the Nimrods were scrapped not far beside what influential people in London think.
TOFO
All true enough for oceanic MPA/ASW. However, the transit times you imply (3 h both ways) indicate well over 1000 nm from take-off to station and not everyone's national strategy calls for that.
YG
Why do you call the 737 more cramped than a P-3? It's a bigger cross-section and a longer fuselage.
As for the central question of the thread: The problem with any airlifter-to-MPA/ASW transition is that it has all kinds of structure where you don't need it and not enough where you do, and that cruise efficiency is always a bit compromised in favor of STOL.
All true enough for oceanic MPA/ASW. However, the transit times you imply (3 h both ways) indicate well over 1000 nm from take-off to station and not everyone's national strategy calls for that.
YG
Why do you call the 737 more cramped than a P-3? It's a bigger cross-section and a longer fuselage.
As for the central question of the thread: The problem with any airlifter-to-MPA/ASW transition is that it has all kinds of structure where you don't need it and not enough where you do, and that cruise efficiency is always a bit compromised in favor of STOL.
TOFO:
The fact that some of you think that this is some sort of youtube video you can just pause, so's you can pop up and pick up some fuel, just goes to show that you know absolutely the square root of **** all that you are blithely spouting pure sh1te about.
You are indeed quite right. The only patrolling I have done was on two feet on land. I can usually identify a submarine 3 times out of 10 at a range of 6 feet!
So, what is the correct solution, what is the budget for that solution and what's the expected timeframe to implement said solution?
The fact that some of you think that this is some sort of youtube video you can just pause, so's you can pop up and pick up some fuel, just goes to show that you know absolutely the square root of **** all that you are blithely spouting pure sh1te about.
You are indeed quite right. The only patrolling I have done was on two feet on land. I can usually identify a submarine 3 times out of 10 at a range of 6 feet!
So, what is the correct solution, what is the budget for that solution and what's the expected timeframe to implement said solution?
Keesje - Who's attacking you? And it's a critical analysis of things which can be inferred from/or the holes in/the detail lacking from your argument, not what you've said. There is a difference...
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: by the Great Salt Lake, USA
Posts: 1,542
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Yeller_Gait
I would also add that it is not fun flying for 10 hours or more in a 737, it is a lot more cramped than a P3, and similar space-wise to the MR2.
P-8: Length 129 ft 5 in (39.47 m) (no MAD boom); Fuselage Width 12 ft 4 in (3.76 m), Fuselage Height 13 ft 2 in (4.01 m); Maximum cabin width 11 ft 7 in (3.54 m)
MR2: Length: 38.65 m (126 ft 9 in) with MAD boom, 35.86m (117 ft 8 in) without MAD boom; Fuselage Width 2.97 m (9 ft 9 in), Fuselage Height (unknown, but greater due to added weapons/fuel section under main fuselage)
I can't see how, with a "non-MAD boom" fuselage 12 feet longer and 2 feet 7 inches wider, that the P-8 should be "similar space-wise to the MR2".
Nor how, with a "non-MAD boom" fuselage 31 feet 11 inches longer and 1 foot wider, that the P-8 should be "a lot more cramped than a P3". Its inside cabin width is 3 inches greater than the outside fuselage width of the P-3!
Perhaps you could explain in more detail?
Last edited by GreenKnight121; 21st Mar 2013 at 11:58.
YG - I must apologise for my lack of clarity; what I had in mind was, say, an MPA charging in to release weapons against the SSN, with the
pilot thinking 'y'know, this'd be a tad easier were we not plugged into the
tanker at this very moment..
pilot thinking 'y'know, this'd be a tad easier were we not plugged into the
tanker at this very moment..
For those not aware, I'll name no names ... just as with fighters air to air refueling is typically not done while tactically engaged.
That said, I had to laugh at the mental picture you drew.
Last edited by Lonewolf_50; 21st Mar 2013 at 12:28.
keesje
Its only been 3 years, or it will be at the end of this month. And has been pointed out before, how would you know whether people are "even worried"?
Really? When was the last time a vessel was taken by pirates?
Daily Telegraph
Not quite sure why the RAF need to change the requirement. Either you have a requirement or you don't. If your requirement is 4 hours on task at 1200nm range from base (quite a long transit distance as it happens) then that is your requirement. And there is a platform available that meets those requirements.
LRMPA task are apparently so urgent you can pause them for 5+ years without anyone getting hurt or even worried.
Meanwhile e.g. pirats are becoming a real problem
Daily Telegraph
Not quite sure why the RAF need to change the requirement. Either you have a requirement or you don't. If your requirement is 4 hours on task at 1200nm range from base (quite a long transit distance as it happens) then that is your requirement. And there is a platform available that meets those requirements.
Last edited by Roland Pulfrew; 21st Mar 2013 at 13:46.