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 29th Jan 2014, 19:49
  #161 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: London
Age: 60
Posts: 238
Duhhhhhh !

The Nimrod could loiter on two engines.

Shut down two engines on a P8 and you have a major embarrassment.
Stuffy is offline  
Old 29th Jan 2014, 20:23
  #162 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: SWAPS Inner
Posts: 547
??????? Well done. You can count engines. ????????
thunderbird7 is offline  
Old 29th Jan 2014, 20:49
  #163 (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: 76
Posts: 16,658
A jet transmits significantly less sound into water than a turboprop. A P3 at 20k was clearly audible as it on-topped its own buoys and obliterated the CPA
Pontius Navigator is offline  
Old 29th Jan 2014, 22:15
  #164 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 1998
Location: England
Posts: 1,870
Stuffy
Duhhhhhh !

The Nimrod could loiter on two engines.
I think what TB7 was referring to was your erroneous assertion:

My point being, an MPA must be a turboprop.
Have you informed the US, Japanese and Indian militaries?
Roland Pulfrew is offline  
Old 30th Jan 2014, 00:08
  #165 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: by the Great Salt Lake, USA
Posts: 1,541
Not to mention the Australians, who have signed contracts to replace their turboprop P-3s with P-8s?
GreenKnight121 is offline  
Old 30th Jan 2014, 06:54
  #166 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 1998
Location: England
Posts: 1,870
The Airbus A319 airframe is superior to the Boeing 737.
To what relevance? How is it superior? And I may be wrong but isn't the P-8/737 airframe strengthened and marinised? Something still to be done to the 319.

A jet cannot compete with a turboprop at low levels.
Using what reference? Jet powered MPA more than competes on speed, noise, comfort.

Invite the French to base a few Atlantique Mk 2's in the UK.
Despite our politicians belief that partnership with the French is the solution to all our problems (for which read: an opportunity to cut Defence spending), the simple fact is: the French aren't in the Club.
Roland Pulfrew is offline  
Old 30th Jan 2014, 07:36
  #167 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 607
A jet transmits significantly less sound into water than a turboprop
PN - not strictly true. It is dependant on engine type and numbers, height above the water and radiation pattern. The MR2 (broadband) was far noisier than the P3 but in a very small directed footprint. Analagous to a spotlight as oppossed to a 60 watt bulb if that makes sense.

Oh for the days of Andros...
Party Animal is offline  
Old 30th Jan 2014, 09:33
  #168 (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: 76
Posts: 16,658
Originally Posted by Roland Pulfrew View Post
Using what reference? Jet powered MPA more than competes on speed, noise, comfort.
When it came to a run off with a May, he got to 300 kts and we were quite comfortable with plenty of power in hand.

PA, thank you, I admit that knowledge of aircraft noise transmission was pretty poor in the 70s. We would try and avoid overflying the target but when I asked how long the towed array was the answer was a lemon. The P3 I mentioned was a true incident and the oncoming crew, also P3 were royally pissed off.
Pontius Navigator is offline  
Old 30th Jan 2014, 12:35
  #169 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: The back of beyond
Posts: 1,610
Quote:




A jet transmits
significantly less sound into water than a
turboprop
PN - not strictly true. It is dependant on engine type and numbers, height
above the water and radiation pattern. The MR2 (broadband) was far noisier than
the P3 but in a very small directed footprint. Analagous to a spotlight as
oppossed to a 60 watt bulb if that makes sense.

Oh for the days of
Andros...
I read somewhere that the Tu-142 Bear MPA is so noisy it can actually be 'heard' by the submarine it's tracking. Is this true or anecdotal, and is this something that happens for other turboprop or jet MPAs?
melmothtw is offline  
Old 30th Jan 2014, 18:26
  #170 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: London
Age: 60
Posts: 238
Devil

The Boeing P8 Poseidon is the answer then !

It ticks all the Civil Service boxes.

1)It is expensive.

2) It does not produce UK jobs.

3) It does not work.

4) Minimal endurance because airliners are thirsty below 24,000 feet.

5) It was not made in Britain.

6) It, like the Comet is based on a 1950's fuselage.

7) It is built by Boeing so it must be good. Don't worry about the finish because of the man hours cost.

8) The whole concept is flawed.

9) It was picked by a Civil Servant with a degree in Greek Classics.

10) It helps towards the US economy.

12) It does not effect house prices.

13) A Boeing 'Bung' is every bit as good as Lockheed.

14) It is not a Labour party project.

15) It will not have to operate in Scotland when they go independent.

16) It is not French.

17 ) It is not being bought by the EU, yet?

Yes, these are but a few reasons why the Boeing B737, errr I mean P8.
Is a perfect MPA.
Stuffy is offline  
Old 30th Jan 2014, 18:29
  #171 (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: 76
Posts: 16,658
Originally Posted by melmothtw View Post
I read somewhere that the Tu-142 Bear MPA is so noisy it can actually be 'heard' by the submarine it's tracking. Is this true or anecdotal, and is this something that happens for other turboprop or jet MPAs?
If you read back you will see that ALL sound is transmitted through water.
Pontius Navigator is offline  
Old 30th Jan 2014, 18:52
  #172 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 1998
Location: England
Posts: 1,870
Nice one Stuffy

Defeated by logic you resort to making it up completely. . Irrelevant that the jet engined A319 meets many of your "box ticks" (I particularly like No 4) with the added but minor one: the A319 MPA hasn't got beyond the paper advertising flier yet!

Oh, the same as the Sea Herc!!

But hey-ho never let a small detail like that get in the way
Roland Pulfrew is offline  
Old 30th Jan 2014, 20:21
  #173 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: cardboard box in't middle of t'road
Posts: 647
Not to mention the Australians, who have signed contracts to replace their turboprop P-3s with P-8s?
Having operated the Spiral one console demonstrator, it will be at least until spiral two until the sensors are comparable with what we have at the moment. The operators would still like a 360 degree radar and MAD.

obliterated the CPA
Hardly obliterated the CPA, was certainly visible on it and if we could see it, so could the sub, if he wasn't too fast.
Surplus is offline  
Old 30th Jan 2014, 21:07
  #174 (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: 76
Posts: 16,658
Originally Posted by Surplus View Post
Hardly obliterated the CPA, was certainly visible on it and if we could see it, so could the sub, if he wasn't too fast.
Unless you were the P3C crew at the time, it was their opinion that the actual CPA was obliterated. The P3 noise extended for long enough to obliterate the actual CPA buoy.

Instead of being able to start tracking they had to try to relocate the alerted submarine.
Pontius Navigator is offline  
Old 30th Jan 2014, 21:13
  #175 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 2,883
16) It is not French.
In December 1999 our old Chief of Defence Procurement (Walmsley) ruled that a programme, on the verge of completion ahead of schedule, under cost and to a better spec than requested, should be stopped, paid off, kit scrapped and re-let to Thales. Worse, he had personally signed the original procurement strategy.

I chose not to break the law and ignored him.

Not 2 months ago, DE&S policy branch cited this ruling, in writing, and emphatically stated they stood by it.

But I like your list!
tucumseh is offline  
Old 30th Jan 2014, 21:28
  #176 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: UK East Anglia
Age: 62
Posts: 668
Stuffy,
Why do you point this at Civil Servants?


I do realise that there are Civil Servants in the approval loop but they sit along side those in uniform.
dragartist is offline  
Old 31st Jan 2014, 00:06
  #177 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: The US of A, and sometimes Bonnie Scotland
Posts: 538
Stuffy.

Please stop posting utter utter utter utter nonsense! Yes, this is a rumour site. But get a grip.

The P-8 flys beautifully at low level, I'm led to believe. It flies as well as any turboprop. I'm afraid your understanding of aerodynamics is poor if you throw out these untruths.

The reason the Nimrod shut down engines was purely a fuel based decision. The MRA 4 would never have shut down engines on task. Different time. Different engines. And different generators. The P-8 would never fly with one engine shutdown for fuel economy. It's a ridiculous comparison to try and make. Yes it flies in the same environment, but it's a different air vehicle. Apples and oranges.

And before Biggus takes a side swipe at me for daring to mentioning P-8A, I'm purely replying to some very weird "logic" from Stuffy

Last edited by betty swallox; 31st Jan 2014 at 01:50.
betty swallox is offline  
Old 31st Jan 2014, 06:53
  #178 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Where I rest my head!
Posts: 44
Nostalgia Forums.

Nimrod MR I & IIP was a great aeroplane for the era. Last flown as a Air Eng in 1989.

I'm sure if Nimrod 4 had arrived on time (AKA Nimrod 2000), then it may have been OK. But over budget and over time, the suits must have had enough. And yes, I'm talking out of my proverbial, as I don't know if it worked in the end. I'm sure they'll be an expert explaining that it did or didn't soon enough.

Replacement, is there a need except to keep some Scots in work at Kinloss? What is the threat in this region? What do we need an MPA for: SSBN location and destruction / SAR.

The Afghan type roles are surely been done by drones these days.

Now if it was based off the China coast, now I understand the threat......
WildRover is offline  
Old 31st Jan 2014, 08:25
  #179 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: The back of beyond
Posts: 1,610
Quote:





Originally Posted by melmothtw

I read somewhere that the Tu-142 Bear MPA is so
noisy it can actually be 'heard' by the submarine it's tracking. Is this true or
anecdotal, and is this something that happens for other turboprop or jet
MPAs?


If you read back you will see that ALL sound is transmitted through
water.
Yes, but some sounds transmit further and more clearly than others. That was clearly the point of my question, but I suspect you already know that and are just being 'clever'.
melmothtw is offline  
Old 31st Jan 2014, 10:45
  #180 (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: 76
Posts: 16,658
No dull as I missed your point.

Given the Bear F was contra-rotating it was probably worse than the P3, but sound propagation is a funny thing as any wet man would tell you.
Pontius Navigator 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.