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 21st Jul 2014, 17:16
  #481 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,085
these days protect THE SSBN on patrol from what exactly?
Heathrow Harry is offline  
Old 21st Jul 2014, 17:45
  #482 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Far West Wessex
Posts: 2,543
The T800 is the "BLC compressor" here.

LowObservable is offline  
Old 21st Jul 2014, 22:01
  #483 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 1998
Location: England
Posts: 1,870
HH

these days protect THE SSBN on patrol from what exactly?
The French, obviously!!

On a more serious note, those who need to know, know etc etc.
Roland Pulfrew is offline  
Old 22nd Jul 2014, 01:03
  #484 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: cardboard box in't middle of t'road
Posts: 646
Nice to see that the Russians have just received their upgraded MPA.
Surplus is offline  
Old 22nd Jul 2014, 08:46
  #485 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Aberdeen
Age: 48
Posts: 44
apparently we are getting a new MPA as well
UK To Spend 650m On Drones To Stop Russian Incursions Into British Waters
Doobry Firkin is offline  
Old 22nd Jul 2014, 11:11
  #486 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: 35S
Posts: 278
apparently we are getting a new MPA as well


From the article:

Drones can spot hostile aircraft from 2,000 miles away and thanks to sophisticated cameras they can zoom in so close that they are able to identify the individual pilots.
A defence source told The Sun
nuff said.

Last edited by Siggie; 22nd Jul 2014 at 11:26.
Siggie is offline  
Old 22nd Jul 2014, 12:25
  #487 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: The US of A, and sometimes Bonnie Scotland
Posts: 536
Heathrow Harry,
In asking that question, you have again displayed your complete lack of SA and knowledge for things maritime. In fact in even asking the question...
betty swallox is offline  
Old 22nd Jul 2014, 16:05
  #488 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,085
We normally have ONE SSBN on patrol, occasionally two

The Russians currently have 13 active SSN's split between the Northern & Pacific fleets - probably no more than 4 of these are on patrol at any one time (probaly 3 Northern + 1 Pacific)

Seems a bit perverse to prioritise defence of our SSBN over all the other things an MPA is needed for ..................
Heathrow Harry is offline  
Old 22nd Jul 2014, 21:48
  #489 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Europe
Posts: 414
HH, using your hypothetical figures, what do you think the 3 SSN (AKA Attack or Hunter-Killer Submarine) were designed for and might be doing out there in the water?

You'll have to guess as you won't find it on the WWW
Ivan Rogov is offline  
Old 25th Jul 2014, 17:05
  #490 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Far West Wessex
Posts: 2,543
Interesting P-8A question that has floated around for a while.

The USN a few years ago (well after P-8A got started) eliminated the MAD boom and sensor and started funding high-altitude ASW kit such as gliding torpedoes. Is this because:

(a) They found it was possible to do effective high-alt ASW, covering a wider area more efficiently, or

(b) They realized that any low-level excursion would completely the P-8A's time-on-station?
LowObservable is offline  
Old 25th Jul 2014, 18:35
  #491 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: S of 55N
Posts: 360
MoD will buy P8.

Sun.
Sun Who is offline  
Old 25th Jul 2014, 18:42
  #492 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: not scotland
Posts: 187
Sun Who

opinion or fact?

If true, great news.
Toadstool is online now  
Old 25th Jul 2014, 18:55
  #493 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A long long way from ISK!
Posts: 34
MoD will buy P8.

Sun.
My money's on a lease to buy option!

From Written Parliamentary Questions 21 Jul 14

99 Angus Robertson(Moray):To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, what communication (a) he and (b) officials in his Department have had with the Boeing Company regarding the lease of four P-8A aircraft.
(206988)

Order Book Part 2 []

No smoke without fire, right?
Ventre A Terre is offline  
Old 25th Jul 2014, 21:20
  #494 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: S of 55N
Posts: 360
Ventre a Terre said:

My money's on a lease to buy option!

From Written Parliamentary Questions 21 Jul 14

99 Angus Robertson(Moray):To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, what communication (a) he and (b) officials in his Department have had with the Boeing Company regarding the lease of four P-8A aircraft.
(206988)

Order Book Part 2 []

No smoke without fire, right?
MoD will buy P8.

Sun.
Sun Who is offline  
Old 26th Jul 2014, 02:53
  #495 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: by the Great Salt Lake, USA
Posts: 1,541
LO - I have been reading about how the next generation of SSKs are supposed to have composite material hulls - something the USN had found feasible in the 1970s-90s:

http://www.ericgreeneassociates.com/...Composites.pdf

And there have been advanced in cancelling out the magnetic signature of metal-hulleds subs:
Demagnetising Subs


So it is possible that MADs are soon to be less-useful than they have been.
GreenKnight121 is offline  
Old 26th Jul 2014, 03:10
  #496 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: The US of A, and sometimes Bonnie Scotland
Posts: 536
LowObservable

Your point b) is factually incorrect. Please explain. If you are able.
betty swallox is offline  
Old 26th Jul 2014, 11:25
  #497 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Worcestershire
Posts: 305
I thought the MAD capability was removed because of weight. Also the APU is in that area of the ac.

There are no tactical requirements which drive you to high level ASW. In fact it just increases the problems. Most ASW Sensors, at high level, will be degraded. The USN MPA radars have never been great compared to SEARCHWATER.

GPS guided sonobuoys, $800 a pop just for the basic types, wings on weapons etc all technically possible but just add expense and additional things to go wrong both technically and tactically.

The reasons for HLASW must be one or all, in varying degrees, of the following:

Ac performance.
Ac fatigue.
Other simultaneously tasked mission.
Phoney Tony is offline  
Old 26th Jul 2014, 11:29
  #498 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Far West Wessex
Posts: 2,543
The point was in the form of a question. But there is some funny data around regarding P-8A OEW. The unofficial world is unanimous on 138,300 lb which sounds way too high. There is no official number I can find.

The original plan was to use the 737-700, but that changed to the -800 - 20 feet longer - to accommodate the APS-154. The structure has been beefed up for low flying and to carry multiple 1500-lb weapons under the outer wings. All that costs weight.

Also, the MAD was thrown out at the same time MTOW was nudged up a bit.
LowObservable is offline  
Old 26th Jul 2014, 11:46
  #499 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 1,895
The P-8A can fly low level with no issues at all and can be fitted with a MAD boom; one customer has already chosen this option.

Try to think of the P-8A as an MMA than can also conduct its ops from high level. The high level capabilities are a bonus but when you are chucking out cheap stores, working in the visual domain or just reducing the RF horizon you will find the P-8A working at low level just like every other MPA.

The urban myths of the P-8A being incapable of traditional maritime flight profiles are just that - urban myths. It has plenty weight growth potential too.
Just This Once... is offline  
Old 26th Jul 2014, 12:08
  #500 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Worcestershire
Posts: 305
The other customer who has asked for MAD has also added another radar as well.

MMA carrying out 2 or more missions simultaneously invariably means compromise in one or all missions in terms of one or all of the following:

Geospatial domain.
Temporal domain
Spectral domain.

Unfortunately, the laws of physics trump any sales pitch.
Phoney Tony 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.