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 27th Jan 2014, 07:06
  #141 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 2,897
The P-7's competitors had been Boeing's modified B757 and McDonnell Douglas' modified MD-90. Lockheed was announced by the USN as the winner in October 1988, and the UK had, in fact, stated it would buy P-7 instead of modernizing the MR2... until the USN canceled that program in 1990.

While I know in general terms what was going on in the late 80s I don't know if there was an endorsed requirement to replace MR2 at that time, although as you say there was an aspiration.

What did happen was a lot of piecemeal upgrades were endorsed, which gave the impression of stability and the MRA requirement being fully satisfied, but very often R&D was not backed up with development and production. On other occasions, companies saw the problems accumulating and committed private venture capital. For example, the limitations of the primary radar were recognised and the design review for the replacement was held on the day Margaret Thatcher resigned (!), but never used. Colour displays went ahead instead, which to me is back to front. Lots of indecision at the time, for whatever reason. At any one time there would be literally hundreds of ongoing tasks to tweak the old girl, few properly funded. Put them altogether and rationalise, and what popped out the other end is a new aircraft, not an upgrade.

I also recall there was much annoyance within the Treasury at Nimrod procuring a major new secure comms systems, at many tens of millions (lots in those days, for a small fleet), but as soon as all the kit was delivered deciding not to bother fitting it. They threw that one in the RAF's face for many years after that, every time they asked for MPA money. The infamous Staff Requirement 6676. Of course, the RN didn't help matters by specifying the same kit for Merlin, so keeping the pot boiling!

The money spent on the eventual 1996 contract is, in many eyes, just one example of many wasted spends. Treasury people tend to hang around in post for many years and they have long memories. The Post Project Evaluation report would be interesting reading, in a Yes Minister kind of way. It definitely shouldn't start in 1995. More like 1980-ish, when initial funding was committed to updating the forthcoming MR2.
tucumseh is online now  
Old 27th Jan 2014, 08:02
  #142 (permalink)  
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Peripatetic
Posts: 10,395
Or maybe buy a few Bear Foxtrots............

Comrades in arms: Britain and Russia to sign defence deal
ORAC is online now  
Old 27th Jan 2014, 11:16
  #143 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: London
Age: 60
Posts: 238
NIMROD MR2
Specifications
Crew13
Span35m
Height9.08m
Length38.63m
Max All Up Weight87,090kg
Max Weapon Load10,000lb/4,500kg
Operating Range3,800miles/6,080km
Endurance10-12hrs
Ferry Range 9,265kmMax Speed575mph/926kph
Engines4 x Rolls Royce Spey RB 168-20 Mark 250 Turbofans
ArmamentSidewinder AIM-9 Harpoon 9 x Mark 46 or Stingray Torpedoes Bombs.

Last edited by Stuffy; 27th Jan 2014 at 11:27.
Stuffy is offline  
Old 27th Jan 2014, 11:22
  #144 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: London
Age: 60
Posts: 238
Boeing P8A.


Crew:Flight: 2;
Mission: 7
Length:129 ft 5 in (39.47 m)Wingspan:123 ft 6 in (37.64 m)Height:42 ft 1 in (12.83 m)
Empty weight:138,300 lb (62,730 kg)Max. takeoff weight:189,200 lb (85,820 kg)
Powerplant:2 CFM56-7Bturbofan, 27,000 lbf (120 kN) each

Performance
Maximum speed:490 knots (907 km/h)Cruise speed:440 kn (815 km/h)Range:1,200 nmi (2,222 km); 4 hours on station (for anti-submarine warfare mission)


Service ceiling:41,000 ft (12,496 m)
Armament(5 internal and 6 external)AGM-84H/K SLAM-ERmissiles, mines, torpedoes, and a new High Altitude Anti-Submarine Warfare Weapon Capability (HAAWC).Avionics Raytheon APY-10multi-mission surface search radar(Advanced Airborne Sensor surface search radar and SIGINT package to be follow on system.


Source Wikipedia fag packet.
Stuffy is offline  
Old 27th Jan 2014, 11:31
  #145 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: EU Land
Posts: 189
P8 Fit for Purpose?

Perhaps the P8 Posiedon isn't a panacea answer after all.

'The Pentagon's chief weapons tester has also slammed the P8 Poseidon jet that is based on the Boeing 737 airliner.

'According to Bloomberg, the report finds that the US Navy's version of the aircraft, the P-8A, is ineffective at both surveillance, and in detecting and destroying submarines.'

Two major projects to replace ageing RAAF jet planes have come under fresh assault from the Pentagon's chief weapons tester | News.com.au
skippedonce is offline  
Old 27th Jan 2014, 12:17
  #146 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Tennessee - Smoky Mountains
Age: 51
Posts: 1,597
Maybe instead of a whole new platform (P8), or an old one (P3), or a bodged one (C130), the UK should have just upgraded its MR2s.

New engines, wings and mission kit, and you'd have a practically new aircraft.
Roadster280 is offline  
Old 27th Jan 2014, 12:20
  #147 (permalink)  
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Lincolnshire
Age: 77
Posts: 16,680
Stuffy, I don't know what they did to the Mk 2 to get an endurance of 10-12 hours unless it was flying round the Moray Firth at endurance. A typical mission was 9 hours and I never exceeded 10. The last bit of gravy was sometimes a MAD Comp or circuits.

The figures you quoted are apples and pears.

Maximum speed:490 knots (907 km/h)Cruise speed:440 kn (815 km/h)Range:1,200 nmi (2,222 km); 4 hours on station (for anti-submarine warfare mission)
The Nimrod was considerably slower - 0.76 Mn in the cruise - so the P8 mission profile you quoted would match that of the Nimrod but with shorter transits thus equating to a sortie length of about 9.30. The Nimrod with a speed of about 400 kts (IIRC) would be 10 hours.
Pontius Navigator is offline  
Old 27th Jan 2014, 15:58
  #148 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: London
Age: 60
Posts: 238
Perhaps they included loitering on two engines?

Source:-


Royal Air Force - RAF Aircraft - Nimrod MR2/R1 - r7a5 - Armed Forces
Stuffy is offline  
Old 27th Jan 2014, 16:11
  #149 (permalink)  
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Lincolnshire
Age: 77
Posts: 16,680
Stuffy, yes, that am true

Again I plead anno dominie but we would cruise at about 270/290 outbound climbing to 370/390 for RTB. At weights above 143,000lbs, and above a certain height that I cannot recall, we could shut down 2 engines when on task.

If we had to descend early on for a prosecution or visual ID then we would have to restart one or even two. Below 143,000lbs we were cleared to 200 feet on two and had the ability to climb at 100 ft/min on one - sporty.

At least the procedure with the P8 would be a lot simpler
Pontius Navigator is offline  
Old 27th Jan 2014, 16:43
  #150 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Here
Posts: 1,275
Perhaps by the time HMG decides to acquire an MPA capability, the cousins will have ironed out all the teething problems in the piglet, sorry, P-8 and we will obtain a mature capability.

I cannot see any other type being seriously considered.
Davef68 is offline  
Old 27th Jan 2014, 16:47
  #151 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: SWAPS Inner
Posts: 551
The Nimrod was considerably slower - 0.76 Mn in the cruise -
Whoaa cowboy! Not so fast! .69 in the CRZ - almost as slow as our taxi speed on the ground..... and keep those engines synchronised...
thunderbird7 is offline  
Old 27th Jan 2014, 16:50
  #152 (permalink)  
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Lincolnshire
Age: 77
Posts: 16,680
TB, I did plead age. IIRC .76 was high speed cruise?
Pontius Navigator is offline  
Old 27th Jan 2014, 17:08
  #153 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 1,058
The Nimrod was considerably slower - 0.76 Mn in the cruise
Try 0.69TMn The AMT horn operated at .765-.775.

Below 143,000lbs we were cleared to 200 feet on two and had the ability to climb at 100 ft/min on one - sporty.
Critical Weight was not a fixed value and had to be calculated, similarly the minimum height for 2+2 decreased until Crit. Wt. was reached.

Just checked my log books and find a small but significant number of trips 10hrs+.

YS
Yellow Sun is online now  
Old 27th Jan 2014, 18:08
  #154 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: The Roman Empire
Posts: 2,333
Are some people possibly confusing Nimrod MR1 and MR2 performance data?

PN - where you a Mk1 or Mk2 man?

MR2 was certainly a 0.69M in the cruise bird, I don't know about MR1 - I'm not that old!!
Biggus is offline  
Old 27th Jan 2014, 20:53
  #155 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Posts: 1,292
The MR1 was the same...
reynoldsno1 is offline  
Old 28th Jan 2014, 10:38
  #156 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: London
Age: 60
Posts: 238
Airbus A319 MPA - Pocket guide.


http://www.scribd.com/mobile/doc/474...z152&width=360
Stuffy is offline  
Old 28th Jan 2014, 18:30
  #157 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: London
Age: 60
Posts: 238
With the UK's close association with Lockheed Martin.

My preferred option:-

Lockheed SC-130J Sea Hercules.

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=kjFijMC...%3DkjFijMCgh24
Stuffy is offline  
Old 28th Jan 2014, 19:15
  #158 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: The back of beyond
Posts: 1,610

With the UK's close association with Lockheed Martin.
With C-17, AH-64, RC-135, E-3, and Chinook all in UK service, I'd say our association is closer with Boeing right now. P-8 anybody?
melmothtw is offline  
Old 29th Jan 2014, 18:18
  #159 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: London
Age: 60
Posts: 238
Lockheed-Martin is involved with a number of technological activities besides the UK's C130's.

The Airbus A319 airframe is superior to the Boeing 737.

But that is really not the issue.

A jet cannot compete with a turboprop at low levels.

If time wasn't needed at below 24,000 feet. The jet is better.
An MPA will most likely need long periods at low levels. This is where the turboprop wins.

There are too many question marks hanging over the P8.

Horses for courses.

As an aside. The block times of the KLM Electras on the Heathrow - Amsterdam route were only a few minutes more than the jet.

A friend in Varig told me that the reliability of the Electra's on the Rio Galeao - Sao Paulo route was phenomenal. Varig does not exist now but they switched to B737s. Not so efficient.

My point being, an MPA must be a turboprop.

Short term solution ? Invite the French to base a few Atlantique Mk 2's in the UK.
Stuffy is offline  
Old 29th Jan 2014, 19:37
  #160 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: SWAPS Inner
Posts: 551
My point being, an MPA must be a turboprop.
Funny. That 4 jet Comet thingy seemed to cope pretty well?
thunderbird7 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.