Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Aircrew Forums > Military Aviation
Reload this Page >

UK Maritime Patrol Aircraft - An Urgent Requirement

Military Aviation A forum for the professionals who fly military hardware. Also for the backroom boys and girls who support the flying and maintain the equipment, and without whom nothing would ever leave the ground. All armies, navies and air forces of the world equally welcome here.

UK Maritime Patrol Aircraft - An Urgent Requirement

Old 19th Apr 2014, 06:25
  #381 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: River Thames & Surrey
Age: 71
Posts: 8,424
I can't help noticing that (apparently) search operations in the Indian Ocean for MH370 have been affected by the endurance of the aircraft involved. If there were still Nimrods with AAR capability in service, would this have made any difference?
chevvron is offline  
Old 19th Apr 2014, 08:19
  #382 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: NSW
Posts: 261
Re AAR and MH370, the time on task is achieved by launching more airframes. There is quite a fleet available . The P-8 will have AAR in the next tranch and this has been specified by RAAF . Timing of equipment in arvo is always an issue going back to WW1.
TBM-Legend is offline  
Old 19th Apr 2014, 13:07
  #383 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: The US of A, and sometimes Bonnie Scotland
Posts: 536
Chevron. Yes.
betty swallox is offline  
Old 20th Apr 2014, 07:51
  #384 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Worcestershire
Posts: 305
BL,

I assume there are enough dedicated workstations, processing grunt and comms to support the AAS role in the P8A or do you need to re-role with the additional capability.


A version to replace EP3 and you have the complete set.

All sounds fantastic. Just the sort of capability a first world military force needs.
Phoney Tony is offline  
Old 20th Apr 2014, 11:24
  #385 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Far West Wessex
Posts: 2,543
Interesting multi-role potential... Note that the P-8A also has ALQ-218, a version of the Growler ESM, which would do some decent SIGINT with the right operators on board.

However, if you look at the USAF's plans to replace Joint STARS, they are based on a large business jet. 10-15 kft more altitude is a big advantage in terms of terrain shadows once you get beyond the littorals. However, the Boeing-Raytheon team is very well placed to win this - the main change needed would be a smaller antenna.
LowObservable is offline  
Old 20th Apr 2014, 14:50
  #386 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 1998
Location: England
Posts: 1,870
based on a large business jet.
Oh well, that went well with Sentinel!!
Roland Pulfrew is offline  
Old 20th Apr 2014, 20:11
  #387 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: The Roman Empire
Posts: 2,334
He wasn't.....

He was referring to LowObservable's comment about 3 posts back that said:

if you look at the USAF's plans to replace Joint STARS, they are based on a large business jet.
Biggus is offline  
Old 20th Apr 2014, 21:43
  #388 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 1,785
Sorry to be late... HAS59, you are so wrong about the Tornado and Tankers on Ellamy. The combinations enabled the longest range precision attacks out and back from the UK. TBH, I think most players, inc the most hi-tech, were supported by AAR. On the subject of budgets, we have to "cut our cloth". However, I do not agree that saving money makes no difference and, older platforms can fit the bill if their operating enviroment and capability still get the job done. As an example, the incredible waste on FSTA has seen a highly expensive, less capable and ponderous contract replacing a sound capable type that required a tiny fraction of the cost to provide a better service. Surely, it would have been better to life-extend TriStar and use the huge savings to help fund at least some UK MPA!
Muppets

OAP
Onceapilot is offline  
Old 21st Apr 2014, 11:56
  #389 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Gold Sector
Age: 66
Posts: 161
Long Range

Onceapilot,

I don't believe I am wrong, but I do agree that we may differ...

I do not doubt that some of the Tornado/Tanker/Tanker/Tanker combinations carried out some successful long missions, to their great credit.
As you say "older platforms can fit the bill if their operating environment and capability still get the job done"... but only some of the time.
Lugging a pair of StormShadows into a distant theatre to hit a target which is no longer viable rendering them useless is not getting the job done. Having the weapon on a long range aircraft may well have enabled it to be updated before launch and not wasted ... as may have been the case on Op Ellamy.
Don't get me wrong, for decades I worked 'getting things done' despite what we had in the RAF rather than doing it properly if only we had the right kit. I do not imagine that we are ever going to get into the true long range bomber game again, sadly. But we should not kid ourselves that we have that capability when we do not.
A future RAF Long Range Maritime/Multi-Mission aircraft may however be able to bring some smart weapons into a distant theatre to provide a useful capability.
This would then leave the Tornado (and whatever we can afford to replace it) to stick to the interdiction range job it is best suited to.

Peeing into a sponge in a sick-bag on long sorties in an aircraft not designed to do that is not going to entice many young bloods to join a force which claims to 'Rise above The Rest' ...
HAS59 is offline  
Old 21st Apr 2014, 12:17
  #390 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Pathfinder Country
Posts: 452
Bloodhound Loose.


I bet that doesn't get into the RAF News!!


A.D.
aw ditor is offline  
Old 21st Apr 2014, 14:33
  #391 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: The US of A, and sometimes Bonnie Scotland
Posts: 536
Aw. I bet it does!!!!
betty swallox is offline  
Old 21st Apr 2014, 15:10
  #392 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 1,785
HAS59, you are right, the UK will never get the B2. We will be operating short range combat aircraft at extreme (refuelled) range for evermore. Also, IMO the tanker would make a good home for mission specific support. A pity then, that the FSTA cannot have any changes like that made to it for less than £Billion*. Yes, a great pity because the TriStar that we already had, and just scrapped, could have had any modifications you might like done to it for no additional cost. BTW, you are still way wrong in your Ellamy UK return UK "Tornado/Tanker/Tanker/Tanker" inference. Don't expect me to fill you in though.
Long range MPA. To keep on pointing out folks, if we had binned FSTA and instead had a modest enhancement/life extension of the TriStar fleet, there would be money to support UK LRMPA, IMO.

*My estimate

OAP
Onceapilot is offline  
Old 21st Apr 2014, 15:39
  #393 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Around
Posts: 838
Genuine question then.....Where would the spares to keep the tri* going have come from?
downsizer is offline  
Old 21st Apr 2014, 15:40
  #394 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Around
Posts: 838
Anyway, there will be plenty of manpower and money for MPA when Tornado gets binned early in next years SDSR.
downsizer is offline  
Old 21st Apr 2014, 16:17
  #395 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 1,785
Two fatuous comments DS. I guess you see no problem with wasting the defence budget and, the thumb means you would be pleased to see the Tornado go?

OAP
Onceapilot is offline  
Old 21st Apr 2014, 16:59
  #396 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Around
Posts: 838
Neither were fatuous. Of course I don't want to see the Defence budget wasted. So again, a genuine question, where would the spares have come from? Maybe you could answer this time and play the ball rather than the man....

As to the deletion of Tornado, lets just say thats my outside bet for SDSR '15.
downsizer is offline  
Old 21st Apr 2014, 16:59
  #397 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 77
downsizer
Anyway, there will be plenty of manpower and money for MPA when Tornado gets binned early in next years SDSR.
Yeah, that should do it, fill an MPA with Tornado crews!
TwoTunnels is offline  
Old 21st Apr 2014, 17:00
  #398 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Around
Posts: 838
TT

Since when did we do the right thing? In mannings eye....pilots/WSO/techie are all just numbers....bums on seats.
downsizer is offline  
Old 21st Apr 2014, 17:30
  #399 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 1,785
Lets see DS.... the last time the Cpl sent you to stores for "a long weight" you had the time to poke your nose around and you didn't see any boxes with "TriStar spares"? Is that it, or are you going to tell us?

OAP
Onceapilot is offline  
Old 21st Apr 2014, 17:39
  #400 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Around
Posts: 838
So you don't know? You could have just said that.

I think you've got the wrong idea here fella, I too think that Air Tanker is an outrageous abortion and waste of money. Equally though I'm not convinced there is/was a neverending supply of tri* spares to keep it going for a lot longer, but I was happy to be proved wrong by someone in the know.
downsizer is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.