New MPA?
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"it just needed some more work."
and most of the Defence Budget ......................
The trouble with an anti-sub MPA is that where we know we can fly it - NW Europe, N Atlantic it is very unlikely we'll have to "protect" the new carriers
Where we might use them in anger - say in the Middle East/N Africa/W Africa - there are hardly any subs to look out for
Further afield we come back to the aircraft basing problem for very long distance naval deployments
and most of the Defence Budget ......................
The trouble with an anti-sub MPA is that where we know we can fly it - NW Europe, N Atlantic it is very unlikely we'll have to "protect" the new carriers
Where we might use them in anger - say in the Middle East/N Africa/W Africa - there are hardly any subs to look out for
Further afield we come back to the aircraft basing problem for very long distance naval deployments
Where we might use them in anger - say in the Middle East/N Africa/W Africa - there are hardly any subs to look out for
Iran
Russia
The trouble with an anti-sub MPA is that
Join Date: May 2013
Location: UK/ USA
Posts: 111
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
HH,
The carrier can protect itself for a while, however, it's logistic tail and the tail of other support elements can not to the same degree thus it's the massive SLOC which are the problem areas. FIAC and the possibility of a submarine threat influence manoeuvre massively.
The carrier can protect itself for a while, however, it's logistic tail and the tail of other support elements can not to the same degree thus it's the massive SLOC which are the problem areas. FIAC and the possibility of a submarine threat influence manoeuvre massively.
Last edited by Jet In Vitro; 15th Jul 2013 at 17:09.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 1,515
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ASW is no different to any form of defence...it's all just insurance.
As to third world ASW capabilities...are you aware the argies had a free pot at some of our war canoes during the Falklands from their one and only serviceable SSK. the only reason they did not scupper the whole littoral operation was because their top weapons man had accidently wired up the torps arse about face.
It's all documented in the Proceeding, The USN magazine
circa 45 countries have a submarine force and virtually every developed maritime nation still has an MPA force with an ASW capability.
Whatever, for a land-locked nation that has no navy, and nothing like aircraft carriers to protect, I guess you are right, we don't need this expensive ASW sh1T.
Oh...wait mo, what's all this wet stuff all around and what are they building in those huge **** off sheds at Rosyth
As to third world ASW capabilities...are you aware the argies had a free pot at some of our war canoes during the Falklands from their one and only serviceable SSK. the only reason they did not scupper the whole littoral operation was because their top weapons man had accidently wired up the torps arse about face.
It's all documented in the Proceeding, The USN magazine
circa 45 countries have a submarine force and virtually every developed maritime nation still has an MPA force with an ASW capability.
Whatever, for a land-locked nation that has no navy, and nothing like aircraft carriers to protect, I guess you are right, we don't need this expensive ASW sh1T.
Oh...wait mo, what's all this wet stuff all around and what are they building in those huge **** off sheds at Rosyth
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: The US of A, and sometimes Bonnie Scotland
Posts: 549
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh. And I'm afraid I need to comment...
Heathrow Harry, it's time to move on.
It's my belief that what we need is not an MPA but an MMA (Multiple Mission Aircraft), so such an aircraft would be capable of ASW and MUCH, MUCH more.
I hope the nae sayers and glass half empty lot, can see beyond the horizon on this one. Come on folks, it's 2013, not 1980....
Heathrow Harry, it's time to move on.
It's my belief that what we need is not an MPA but an MMA (Multiple Mission Aircraft), so such an aircraft would be capable of ASW and MUCH, MUCH more.
I hope the nae sayers and glass half empty lot, can see beyond the horizon on this one. Come on folks, it's 2013, not 1980....
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'll move on
but I think it should be a priority to get some long range patrol aircraft up in a year or so - not spend 20 years refining an all-singing, all-dancing aircraft that we can afford to buy a single example of
but I think it should be a priority to get some long range patrol aircraft up in a year or so - not spend 20 years refining an all-singing, all-dancing aircraft that we can afford to buy a single example of
Join Date: May 2013
Location: UK/ USA
Posts: 111
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Navy Aircraft Needs Additional Critical Testing
For those who commented on my previous posts please see the extracts below.
06-10-2013
The program manager for Maritime Surveillance Aircraft (the program manager) effectively addressed the potential risks and flight hour concerns of the DOT&E at the LRIP. However, as discussed below, additional critical testing should be completed before the full-rate production (FRP) decision.
The program manager planned the FRP decision review to occur in July 2013, before testers complete testing needed to demonstrate that the P-8A Poseidon airframe can meet life expectancy requirements. The program manager delayed life expectancy testing in reaction to funding constraints and testing priorities. The program manager also did not correct known system deficiencies, about which the DOT&E and Joint Interoperability Test Command officials had expressed concern, before conducting Initial Operational Test and Evaluation (IOT&E). This occurred because the Chief of Naval Operations accepted the risk of granting the program manager temporary waivers from correcting the deficiencies to allow the program to enter into IOT&E, while not having to fully correct the deficiencies until after the FRP decision. Finally, the program manager deferred completing mission testing in response to fleet commander concerns regarding maintaining on-time delivery of the P-8A Poseidon aircraft.
We recommend that the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics award an additional low-rate initial production lot for the P-8A Poseidon aircraft in July 2013 and defer the full-rate production decision for the P-8A Poseidon program until the program manager for Maritime Surveillance Aircraft demonstrates: the airframe can achieve the required 25-year lifespan without succumbing to structural fatigue; testing has resolved mission limited deficiencies; and the aircraft can perform its primary missions, including anti-surface warfare.
Perhaps you are too close to the programme and need to step back and look at the bigger picture.
Whilst the platform may perform well at low level, but is it robust enough to do this for 25 years!
Interesting that it has not proven it can carry out its primary missions!
06-10-2013
The program manager for Maritime Surveillance Aircraft (the program manager) effectively addressed the potential risks and flight hour concerns of the DOT&E at the LRIP. However, as discussed below, additional critical testing should be completed before the full-rate production (FRP) decision.
The program manager planned the FRP decision review to occur in July 2013, before testers complete testing needed to demonstrate that the P-8A Poseidon airframe can meet life expectancy requirements. The program manager delayed life expectancy testing in reaction to funding constraints and testing priorities. The program manager also did not correct known system deficiencies, about which the DOT&E and Joint Interoperability Test Command officials had expressed concern, before conducting Initial Operational Test and Evaluation (IOT&E). This occurred because the Chief of Naval Operations accepted the risk of granting the program manager temporary waivers from correcting the deficiencies to allow the program to enter into IOT&E, while not having to fully correct the deficiencies until after the FRP decision. Finally, the program manager deferred completing mission testing in response to fleet commander concerns regarding maintaining on-time delivery of the P-8A Poseidon aircraft.
We recommend that the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics award an additional low-rate initial production lot for the P-8A Poseidon aircraft in July 2013 and defer the full-rate production decision for the P-8A Poseidon program until the program manager for Maritime Surveillance Aircraft demonstrates: the airframe can achieve the required 25-year lifespan without succumbing to structural fatigue; testing has resolved mission limited deficiencies; and the aircraft can perform its primary missions, including anti-surface warfare.
Perhaps you are too close to the programme and need to step back and look at the bigger picture.
Whilst the platform may perform well at low level, but is it robust enough to do this for 25 years!
Interesting that it has not proven it can carry out its primary missions!
What didn't work was the airframe, or certain parts of it (if ever there was a case of "If it looks right....) and they kept finding bits that needed further mods to get it to "fly right". The joint trials team will tell you that it was working, very well; it just needed some more work.
Brilliant mission system, frankly appalling airframe.
install high-ratio bypass engines deep within the wing structure, with very long inlet and exhaust ducts
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: N/A
Posts: 143
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jet In Vitro: I'm sorry to disappoint you, but you haven't discovered anything shocking in those notes from DOT&E. All that you are looking at is a perfectly normal set of decisions on prioritization that any program manager has to make. Any program manager has to decide what to test, in what order. The P-8 program manager chose to test ASW and torpedoes (and ASuW search sensors) first, and fatigue life and Harpoon later. The text you pasted even explains why this was, so you answered your own question in a way. All DOT&E is saying is: "Let's not place the full order until we've had chance to test those things too, but instead of holding up the production line let's place a third LRIP order so everything stays on schedule, just without signing away the full $20bn or however much it is." Nobody has any concerns about fatigue life not being what it was designed to be by Boeing. It's just one of the things that hasn't been tested yet, precisely because it is not a concern for meeting the deployment schedule and therefore not a priority.
Roly, I gather that the original choice of engine was rejected 'because it wasn't British'.... So the BR710 was selected.
Compared to the 32" diameter low by-pass ratio (0.64) Spey, the BR710 is a high by-pass ratio (4.2) engine with a 48" fan. Although there's no reason to suspect that it would shed blades any more than would any other jet engine (and certainly less than Das Teutor sheds prop blades....), if it did shed a blade, even if that blade was contained, massive out of balance forces would cause engine gyration and significant structural damage. Whereas in all other BR710 applications, it would fall off the pylon, in the MRA4 it would have thrashed about deep inside the wing / fuselage junction area....
Compared to the 32" diameter low by-pass ratio (0.64) Spey, the BR710 is a high by-pass ratio (4.2) engine with a 48" fan. Although there's no reason to suspect that it would shed blades any more than would any other jet engine (and certainly less than Das Teutor sheds prop blades....), if it did shed a blade, even if that blade was contained, massive out of balance forces would cause engine gyration and significant structural damage. Whereas in all other BR710 applications, it would fall off the pylon, in the MRA4 it would have thrashed about deep inside the wing / fuselage junction area....
Are you sure about that Beags?
The RRD engine was fully certified, underwent extensive testing and coped with an explosive release of a fan blade - as expected. The whole thing is wrapped in a kevlar designed to stop any of the high energy bits from leaving the scene.
Not sure that any engine is designed to fall off in the event of a blade failure!
The RRD engine was fully certified, underwent extensive testing and coped with an explosive release of a fan blade - as expected. The whole thing is wrapped in a kevlar designed to stop any of the high energy bits from leaving the scene.
Not sure that any engine is designed to fall off in the event of a blade failure!
Join Date: May 2013
Location: UK/ USA
Posts: 111
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DB,
I am neither disappointed or claiming to have discovered something shocking. I merely posted what appeared to be a factual report in a defence magazine. It is others who have posted unsubstantiated opinions as facts.
Clearly the US is not going to proceed until testing has been completed. Testing should reveal the truth and to say nobody is concerned about fatigue is an opinion, if true why bother with all the expense of an instrumented ac and hours of testing and analysis.
I for one hope the P8 is a success for those that can afford it.
I am neither disappointed or claiming to have discovered something shocking. I merely posted what appeared to be a factual report in a defence magazine. It is others who have posted unsubstantiated opinions as facts.
Clearly the US is not going to proceed until testing has been completed. Testing should reveal the truth and to say nobody is concerned about fatigue is an opinion, if true why bother with all the expense of an instrumented ac and hours of testing and analysis.
I for one hope the P8 is a success for those that can afford it.
Join Date: May 2013
Location: UK/ USA
Posts: 111
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am well aware there are already instrumented P8 ac and I believe there are 2 airframes which are used for testing in controlled environments on the ground.
Fatigue and handling are 2 different issues!
Fatigue and handling are 2 different issues!
Last edited by Jet In Vitro; 20th Jul 2013 at 12:41.
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: The US of A, and sometimes Bonnie Scotland
Posts: 549
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Beagle
I disagree entirely with you assessment of blade shedding being harmful to the crew and airframe. There was a huge amout of work done on FBO, of which I was part, and it appeared a sound construct.
I disagree entirely with you assessment of blade shedding being harmful to the crew and airframe. There was a huge amout of work done on FBO, of which I was part, and it appeared a sound construct.
Last edited by betty swallox; 20th Jul 2013 at 12:39.
ATG,
Indeed and the RN is not alone in this. To make the money work the platform has to be a full MMA rather than a dedicated MPA. Even then, some other things have to be traded away. Times are hard but all 3 services recognise the need.
Indeed and the RN is not alone in this. To make the money work the platform has to be a full MMA rather than a dedicated MPA. Even then, some other things have to be traded away. Times are hard but all 3 services recognise the need.