UK Maritime Patrol Aircraft - An Urgent Requirement
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: West Midlands
Posts: 239
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sometime during MRA4 development, there was a Service wide paper that discussed the placing of all ISTAR assets at Waddington. It was agreed that it would be a good idea until someone sat down with an abacus and worked out how much it would cost. I don't think it was so much about the absolute figure that was the concern, but out of who's piggybank it was coming. These were the days of GB and 'if you want it, it comes out of existing budget, no more money', so it was shelved and everyone went back to plan A.
As for ISK, it now belongs to the Army, although no doubt they would move if required. The infrastructure is still there, remember, when head plonker decided to cancel the MRA4, everything was paid for and ready to go once the ac was cleared. But, and it's a big but, with Ms Sturgeon in the picture it's a risk not worth taking, so Waddington makes sense and by its nature, there is a new piggybank.
As for the P8, I know no facts about the ac, however, reading between the lines, it is the usual Boeing fudge. Show how it can fly at low level and then during developement discover that as it was designed to cruise at high level, it has fatigue issues when flown for extended period on the deck. Why else remove the MAD, drop sonobuoys from high level, (and as every wet man will tell you, that's just a way to spend money, not track anything - you might know where you dropped the buoy with its GPS, but it might not be where you wanted it to be.) With the USN, they have the budget to add a drone to the inventory, we do not.
So as it is, as far as I am concerned, unsuitable, we will surely buy it as it will come as a simple (expensive) package.
As for the P1 - now that would be interesting.......
As for ISK, it now belongs to the Army, although no doubt they would move if required. The infrastructure is still there, remember, when head plonker decided to cancel the MRA4, everything was paid for and ready to go once the ac was cleared. But, and it's a big but, with Ms Sturgeon in the picture it's a risk not worth taking, so Waddington makes sense and by its nature, there is a new piggybank.
As for the P8, I know no facts about the ac, however, reading between the lines, it is the usual Boeing fudge. Show how it can fly at low level and then during developement discover that as it was designed to cruise at high level, it has fatigue issues when flown for extended period on the deck. Why else remove the MAD, drop sonobuoys from high level, (and as every wet man will tell you, that's just a way to spend money, not track anything - you might know where you dropped the buoy with its GPS, but it might not be where you wanted it to be.) With the USN, they have the budget to add a drone to the inventory, we do not.
So as it is, as far as I am concerned, unsuitable, we will surely buy it as it will come as a simple (expensive) package.
As for the P1 - now that would be interesting.......
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: 4 Civvy Street. Nowhere-near-a-base. The Shires.
Posts: 559
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
So on one hand we have the P-8, a proven frame with alleged "fatigue issues" and on the other hand we have the unproven P-1 with its proven fatigue issues.
I'll not be flying in one of those then.
DATE:08/08/11
SOURCE:Flight International
Kawasaki XP-1 develops cracks in ground testing
By Greg Waldron
<a href="http://adserver.adtech.de/adlink|3.0|289|1061237|0|277|ADTECH;loc=300;key=key1+key2+ke y3+key4;grp=[group]" target="_blank"><img src="http://adserver.adtech.de/adserv|3.0|289|1061237|0|277|ADTECH;loc=300;key=key1+key2+ke y3+key4;grp=[group]" border="0" width="2" height="2" /></a>
Japan's developmental Kawasaki Heavy Industries XP-1 maritime patrol aircraft has developed rips and tears during ground testing, although it is uncertain whether the problems will delay the type's entry into service.
"The tears and rips were found in several locations, such as inside the fuel tank of the main wing and on the fuselage near the foot of the main wing," said Japan's defence ministry.
The tears and rips measured 10-15cm in length.
The two aircraft affected were acquired for ground tests and not flight activities.
SOURCE:Flight International
Kawasaki XP-1 develops cracks in ground testing
By Greg Waldron
<a href="http://adserver.adtech.de/adlink|3.0|289|1061237|0|277|ADTECH;loc=300;key=key1+key2+ke y3+key4;grp=[group]" target="_blank"><img src="http://adserver.adtech.de/adserv|3.0|289|1061237|0|277|ADTECH;loc=300;key=key1+key2+ke y3+key4;grp=[group]" border="0" width="2" height="2" /></a>
Japan's developmental Kawasaki Heavy Industries XP-1 maritime patrol aircraft has developed rips and tears during ground testing, although it is uncertain whether the problems will delay the type's entry into service.
"The tears and rips were found in several locations, such as inside the fuel tank of the main wing and on the fuselage near the foot of the main wing," said Japan's defence ministry.
The tears and rips measured 10-15cm in length.
The two aircraft affected were acquired for ground tests and not flight activities.
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If it does materialise, bring it to Waddington. Let's get out of 1 Group (they don't really like us ISTAR types anyway). Spend some money, like they've done at Coningsby and Lossiemouth, and make it Waddo into a proper ISTAR hub. You never know, you might even get the platforms talking to each other!
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: 45 yards from a tropical beach
Posts: 1,103
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WHAT AND WHERE
As an experienced LRMP pilot (four types with two Air Forces) my serious opinion is that two engines are not enough. Check the history of the Breguet Atlantique.
Now, whilst some of you might bring up the accident records of four-engined types, most of those were down to human error rather than mechanical failure, as well as being in the days before modern kit such as GPS, TCAS and EGPWS.
There will be plenty of cheap, low hours, second-hand, big donk Airbus 340s on the market soon. How about looking at modifying them for LRMP? Most of the ASW kit has already been formulated for the Nimrod MR4 and most of the work could be carried out in the UK.
'Nimrod' was one of Sir Ernest Shackleton's ships. Another was 'Endurance,' which is also the motto on the Squadron Standard of 120 Squadron, which was the top-scoring Anti-Submarine squadron in World War Two. How appropriate would it be to name the new LRMP aircraft 'Endurance,' and reform 120 Squadron to fly her.
Now, whilst some of you might bring up the accident records of four-engined types, most of those were down to human error rather than mechanical failure, as well as being in the days before modern kit such as GPS, TCAS and EGPWS.
There will be plenty of cheap, low hours, second-hand, big donk Airbus 340s on the market soon. How about looking at modifying them for LRMP? Most of the ASW kit has already been formulated for the Nimrod MR4 and most of the work could be carried out in the UK.
'Nimrod' was one of Sir Ernest Shackleton's ships. Another was 'Endurance,' which is also the motto on the Squadron Standard of 120 Squadron, which was the top-scoring Anti-Submarine squadron in World War Two. How appropriate would it be to name the new LRMP aircraft 'Endurance,' and reform 120 Squadron to fly her.
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Blighty
Posts: 177
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
'Nimrod' was one of Sir Ernest Shackleton's ships. Another was 'Endurance,' which is also the motto on the Squadron Standard of 120 Squadron, which was the top-scoring Anti-Submarine squadron in World War Two. How appropriate would it be to name the new LRMP aircraft 'Endurance,' and reform 120 Squadron to fly her.
Someone had to say it and get away from all this 2v4 engine crap!
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
NR, I know civair engines now have installed lives of thousands of hours but they fly most of the time in an undemanding environment.
I have no feel for the installed life of the Nimrod Spey; was it much lower?
What if the P8? Will its environment be much less demanding?
I have no feel for the installed life of the Nimrod Spey; was it much lower?
What if the P8? Will its environment be much less demanding?
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 398
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As an experienced LRMP pilot (four types with two Air Forces) my serious opinion is that two engines are not enough. Check the history of the Breguet Atlantique.
There will be plenty of cheap, low hours, second-hand, big donk Airbus 340s on the market soon. How about looking at modifying them for LRMP? Most of the ASW kit has already been formulated for the Nimrod MR4 and most of the work could be carried out in the UK.
For all the reasons and hundreds of posts above regarding a UK "fit your own kit" MPA, never mind the fact that an A340 is way too big and expensive to operate, this is one of the daftest ideas I have seen yet.
If the UK buy the P-8A, that will be the best defence decision made in UK for many years.
Y_G
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: SWAPS Inner
Posts: 567
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Some concern at LL with 2v4 was with birds but then again, the only catastrophic birdstrike for the mighty 'Rod was on take off and can personally only think of one minor strike on the nose while at LL (and that wasn't cos my tea was crap before someone says it..) so not sure how relevant that is. As stated, engine reliability is in a different league these days but then again, nobody has really flown round pumping high bypass fan engines at LL before so it would be interesting to see some engine failure/life statistics from the P8 after a few years.
Today's Times:
Good job we don't need to worry about anything like this even though we have no capability to find and prosecute such a problem. After all, there is no way (even if it does work) they would sell it on to other states on this side of the world. would they?
North Korea claimed to have test-fired a ballistic missile from a submarine, a military breakthrough that brings it closer to the ability to launch a nuclear attack on the United States.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Worcestershire
Posts: 305
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
YG,
Whilst your name sake equipment was supported to a degree by the DEWC. A quick look at the Boeing offer shows an extremely poor capability, which appears not to be supported at all. If the UK buys this princess of an aircraft it will have to spend a fortune to satisfy UK EW policy.
PT
Whilst your name sake equipment was supported to a degree by the DEWC. A quick look at the Boeing offer shows an extremely poor capability, which appears not to be supported at all. If the UK buys this princess of an aircraft it will have to spend a fortune to satisfy UK EW policy.
PT
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: West Midlands
Posts: 239
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wow - from the layman's perspective this is beginning to look pretty dire. P8: no MAD, huge sono-buoy bill and fatigue problems; P1 - MAD but questionable airframe and poor interoperability. Any takers for C295? Or how about a complete Triton buy and resurrect GR4s to be fitted with Sea Eagles? Makes the MR4 look positively tenable - remind me, what did we do with those airframes?
Join Date: May 2007
Location: North West
Age: 73
Posts: 91
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
P8 and fatigue
Bigbux
I take your point but it's been my experience of Boeing that they promise everything and when it falls short in a particular department it points out that that part wasn't specified in the contract.
In my opinion, the only reason airliners of the 60's made good maritime ac, was due to the fact they were built using slide rules and were over-engineered. I have no doubt that an A319/320 maritime ac would suffer similar issues, my beef is that instead of fixing the ac, like Kawasaki will no doubt do, Boeing remove the capability.
I take your point but it's been my experience of Boeing that they promise everything and when it falls short in a particular department it points out that that part wasn't specified in the contract.
In my opinion, the only reason airliners of the 60's made good maritime ac, was due to the fact they were built using slide rules and were over-engineered. I have no doubt that an A319/320 maritime ac would suffer similar issues, my beef is that instead of fixing the ac, like Kawasaki will no doubt do, Boeing remove the capability.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Outside the Matz
Posts: 220
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is going to be good. Must get some popcorn. In the space of five posts we have reignited the 2 or 4 donks debate, had a pop at the P8 sensors, questioned its low level characteristics, big upped the Kawasaki P1 , used the C word (CASA) and for good measure put Boeing in the same league as BAE.
Over to you Betty.
Over to you Betty.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Worcestershire
Posts: 305
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lets not forget the political arguements.
What UK/ European content is there in the P8/P1/C295/SAAB offerings. Whilst the election is over MPs will still try and do the best for their constituancies.
Thats why the ASTOR platform was chosen.
What UK/ European content is there in the P8/P1/C295/SAAB offerings. Whilst the election is over MPs will still try and do the best for their constituancies.
Thats why the ASTOR platform was chosen.
