UK Maritime Patrol Aircraft - An Urgent Requirement
Join Date: May 2013
Location: UK/ USA
Posts: 111
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PN, submarine launch of a SAM requires a long time at PD to acquire and track before launch. I suspect the balance of probability of a successful attack remains with the MPA.
Counter detection is an issue but good awareness of tgt position and ac positioning goes a long way to mitigating this.
A sub launched GPS jammer could easily screw up a many systems.
Also, in the littoral, RFI becomes a significant issue as sonobuoy RF channels are shared with other users. Indeed in the UK they are not supposed to be used within 50nm of the coast. This comes as a surprise to most. The way to mitigate RFI is ac positioning, directional receivers and operating as low as possible.
Compromise will always be a factor in any MPA design. The UK needs to ensure it truly understands its requirements and the cost benefit of each solution. Platform performance must be matched to sensor performance. Radar performance at high level will have significant issues, especially detections close in.
Visual ID and inspection is important in peacetime and in war. 8/8 of cloud drives MPA below the cloud base. Radar imagining will not show the detail required. Can you see if a fishing boat is fishing, can you see ladders and weapons associated with piracy etc.
The ability to operate at low level is really important, so is speed, range and endurance, but so are cost of ownership, op sovereignty, the ability to quickly add UOR capability, flexibility of operating base, interoperability, etc etc. Of all the factors listed above cost is unfortunately the biggest factor, a fleet of less than 12 ac will just be tokenism.
Counter detection is an issue but good awareness of tgt position and ac positioning goes a long way to mitigating this.
A sub launched GPS jammer could easily screw up a many systems.
Also, in the littoral, RFI becomes a significant issue as sonobuoy RF channels are shared with other users. Indeed in the UK they are not supposed to be used within 50nm of the coast. This comes as a surprise to most. The way to mitigate RFI is ac positioning, directional receivers and operating as low as possible.
Compromise will always be a factor in any MPA design. The UK needs to ensure it truly understands its requirements and the cost benefit of each solution. Platform performance must be matched to sensor performance. Radar performance at high level will have significant issues, especially detections close in.
Visual ID and inspection is important in peacetime and in war. 8/8 of cloud drives MPA below the cloud base. Radar imagining will not show the detail required. Can you see if a fishing boat is fishing, can you see ladders and weapons associated with piracy etc.
The ability to operate at low level is really important, so is speed, range and endurance, but so are cost of ownership, op sovereignty, the ability to quickly add UOR capability, flexibility of operating base, interoperability, etc etc. Of all the factors listed above cost is unfortunately the biggest factor, a fleet of less than 12 ac will just be tokenism.
Last edited by Jet In Vitro; 21st Jun 2015 at 10:29.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
Random, I haven't read back to check where we may have got crossed wires but dropping from height is certainly an issue.
In a light wind, say 36kts, the sonobuoy will drift at 20 yards per second. At 20,000ft, free fall the time in air will be in the order of 40 seconds and 800 yards drift. Add a rotor and halve the drop rate and you are near 1 nm adrift. Finding all your buoys post drop become essential - a GPS transmitter would fix that.
Indeed a bit like the old smoke float, drop one and calculate the wind. I wonder why we never did that?
In a light wind, say 36kts, the sonobuoy will drift at 20 yards per second. At 20,000ft, free fall the time in air will be in the order of 40 seconds and 800 yards drift. Add a rotor and halve the drop rate and you are near 1 nm adrift. Finding all your buoys post drop become essential - a GPS transmitter would fix that.
Indeed a bit like the old smoke float, drop one and calculate the wind. I wonder why we never did that?
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
JIV, agreed in all points, we certainly used low level to 'open up' channels when we only had 31.
Agree about the SAM and probably more relevant to a disabled submarine caught on the surface.
Aircraft positioning will have an effect on counter detection though towed arrays greatly complicate the problem. It was not something we considered in the 70s until we saw one in a certain boat.
Agree about the SAM and probably more relevant to a disabled submarine caught on the surface.
Aircraft positioning will have an effect on counter detection though towed arrays greatly complicate the problem. It was not something we considered in the 70s until we saw one in a certain boat.
Indeed in the UK they are not supposed to be used within 50nm of the coast
Join Date: May 2013
Location: UK/ USA
Posts: 111
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PA,
Follow the link below to the OFCOM UK FAT:
http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/bin...UKFAT_2013.pdf
Annex E.
FREQUENCIES FOR THE OPERATION OF SONOBUOYS
Footnote UK40 and UK48
1. Sonobuoys may be operated in the band 136-174 MHz, subject to the following conditions:
The assignments agreed for Sonobuoys operations in the band 136-174 MHz are listed below.
The channel numbers and frequencies are listed but I have not bothered to post them here (channel 38 and above are below 162.MHz) . In several documents we used to carry these were classified Confidential!!!!
If you look at the FAT at and around sonobuoy frequencies you will see the others who share the allocation.
How many operators were aware of this? I know the GSU and Gp Staff were not!
Please note this is for the UK. The sonobuoy alloaction is not internationally recognised and the EM spectrum is not policed well in other areas of the world. Thus my comment on RFI.
Follow the link below to the OFCOM UK FAT:
http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/bin...UKFAT_2013.pdf
Annex E.
FREQUENCIES FOR THE OPERATION OF SONOBUOYS
Footnote UK40 and UK48
1. Sonobuoys may be operated in the band 136-174 MHz, subject to the following conditions:
a) During normal peacetime exercises, sonobuoys operating below 162 MHz would not be deployed within 50 miles of the United Kingdom coast.
b) Sonobuoys would not normally be used within a radius of 5 nautical miles of any oil rig or platform.
c) Should the operation of Sonobuoys cause harmful interference to radio services operating in accordance with the UK Frequency Allocation Table,
geographical or frequency assignment restrictions would be imposed on the Sonobuoy operations.
2. Sonobuoys are covered by Footnotes UK40 (for the band 136·0-162·0 MHz) and UK48 (for the band 162·0-174·0 MHz and permitting use near UK coasts on a noninterference basis).b) Sonobuoys would not normally be used within a radius of 5 nautical miles of any oil rig or platform.
c) Should the operation of Sonobuoys cause harmful interference to radio services operating in accordance with the UK Frequency Allocation Table,
geographical or frequency assignment restrictions would be imposed on the Sonobuoy operations.
The assignments agreed for Sonobuoys operations in the band 136-174 MHz are listed below.
The channel numbers and frequencies are listed but I have not bothered to post them here (channel 38 and above are below 162.MHz) . In several documents we used to carry these were classified Confidential!!!!
If you look at the FAT at and around sonobuoy frequencies you will see the others who share the allocation.
How many operators were aware of this? I know the GSU and Gp Staff were not!
Please note this is for the UK. The sonobuoy alloaction is not internationally recognised and the EM spectrum is not policed well in other areas of the world. Thus my comment on RFI.
Last edited by Jet In Vitro; 21st Jun 2015 at 13:49. Reason: Formatting.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
JIV, I guess the get out of jail free card is the "normal peacetime exercises".
That would have covered the old Stage 2, Casex, JMC, etc but normal Greened sorties under the ubiquitous SurvOp would be exempt. Any search or investigation for a submarine would automatically fall outside any of the limitations - normal or peacetime or exercise
That would have covered the old Stage 2, Casex, JMC, etc but normal Greened sorties under the ubiquitous SurvOp would be exempt. Any search or investigation for a submarine would automatically fall outside any of the limitations - normal or peacetime or exercise
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Next door
Posts: 74
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think I remember something about sonobuoy restrictions close to land, but we were always out in deeper water, and away from land.
Summer time over the continental shelf (Swapps) about as useful as t*ts on a bull. Noisiest bit of water around, especially with the RN doing their best to kill the fish!
Summer time over the continental shelf (Swapps) about as useful as t*ts on a bull. Noisiest bit of water around, especially with the RN doing their best to kill the fish!
BS
Many thanks for your kind and very helpful post above, I appreciate your advice, particularly in spelling. Lazy keyboard use, sorry. I'm sure that we have all made similar mistakes at some point, including you.
Not a troll. I served 20 years in the FAA, surface fleet and Joint environments but that was a while ago.
I'm still interested in learning and my comments reflect numerous published articles and forum posts expressing concern about the P8s abilities but I appreciate that all aircraft are a compromise in some areas. I understand your point about the cross sectional area of the engines, but if it was me on long endurance sorties over the sea, including some aspects of the mission at low level, I would rather have 4 engines than 2 for the sake of redundancy.
Now you clearly have vastly superior knowledge than the rest of us so how about I give you a bit of advice, if you don't mind, & in the spirit that you gave me advice; use that knowledge to educate, help and train the rest of the interested population rather than typing arrogant, aggressive and rude posts, there's a good chap.
Cheers
Many thanks for your kind and very helpful post above, I appreciate your advice, particularly in spelling. Lazy keyboard use, sorry. I'm sure that we have all made similar mistakes at some point, including you.
Not a troll. I served 20 years in the FAA, surface fleet and Joint environments but that was a while ago.
I'm still interested in learning and my comments reflect numerous published articles and forum posts expressing concern about the P8s abilities but I appreciate that all aircraft are a compromise in some areas. I understand your point about the cross sectional area of the engines, but if it was me on long endurance sorties over the sea, including some aspects of the mission at low level, I would rather have 4 engines than 2 for the sake of redundancy.
Now you clearly have vastly superior knowledge than the rest of us so how about I give you a bit of advice, if you don't mind, & in the spirit that you gave me advice; use that knowledge to educate, help and train the rest of the interested population rather than typing arrogant, aggressive and rude posts, there's a good chap.
Cheers
Last edited by andyy; 22nd Jun 2015 at 17:09.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
Andyy, 2-4?
The real question is the aircraft's ability to fly with the engines on one wing.
A 4 engined aircraft with embedded engines has to be capable of flight assuming 2 engines on one side become inoperable. Where the aircraft, for fuel economy, shuts down an engine on each side of it must be capable of flying on one engine.
In comparison with a 2 engine aircraft it is now on 25% of its installed power until another engine is restarted. Loss of one engine of two leaves 50% installed power. As for better survivability from bird strikes, the Nimrod at Kinloss and the E3 at Elmendorf disprove that.
The consider all the disadvantages of 4 engines - greater installed weight, more complex utility services including weight, increased drag, which all add to increased fuel burn together with increased fuel weight for the same endurance.
I submit that 4 engines give an unjustified confidence where modern twin-jets are technically the better option and no less safe.
The real question is the aircraft's ability to fly with the engines on one wing.
A 4 engined aircraft with embedded engines has to be capable of flight assuming 2 engines on one side become inoperable. Where the aircraft, for fuel economy, shuts down an engine on each side of it must be capable of flying on one engine.
In comparison with a 2 engine aircraft it is now on 25% of its installed power until another engine is restarted. Loss of one engine of two leaves 50% installed power. As for better survivability from bird strikes, the Nimrod at Kinloss and the E3 at Elmendorf disprove that.
The consider all the disadvantages of 4 engines - greater installed weight, more complex utility services including weight, increased drag, which all add to increased fuel burn together with increased fuel weight for the same endurance.
I submit that 4 engines give an unjustified confidence where modern twin-jets are technically the better option and no less safe.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Outside the Matz
Posts: 220
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Andyy,
My posts are neither aggressive nor arrogant. If you continue to post untruths, I'm afraid I'm going to shoot you down, mate.
Frankly, I'm fed up trying to "justify" the P-8's performance at low level, and if I've hurt your feelings, I genuinely apologise.
However, please understand my frustration at "here we go again". This has all been covered on this, and other threads. Ad nauseam.
My posts are neither aggressive nor arrogant. If you continue to post untruths, I'm afraid I'm going to shoot you down, mate.
Frankly, I'm fed up trying to "justify" the P-8's performance at low level, and if I've hurt your feelings, I genuinely apologise.
However, please understand my frustration at "here we go again". This has all been covered on this, and other threads. Ad nauseam.
Join Date: May 2013
Location: UK/ USA
Posts: 111
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BS,
I can not open the link posted by Bannock however at the Farnborough air show last year the P8's display was notable as the fairly tame manoeuvres were executed with leading edge devices and flaps deployed. If these are required in normal ops I suspect the fatigue on these parts will exceed any assumptions made for an airliner where they would be used for takeoff and landing in one 'mission cycle'.
Why do you feel you must justify the characteristics of the platform. If they UK can afford this platform it will examine the platform and ask the company to justify its performance.
I also worry when RAF crews are rolled out and appear to be part of the sales team. Their role as Seedcorn is invaluable and platform loyalty is natural but not necessarily as objective as it needs to be when acquiring new capability.
I can not open the link posted by Bannock however at the Farnborough air show last year the P8's display was notable as the fairly tame manoeuvres were executed with leading edge devices and flaps deployed. If these are required in normal ops I suspect the fatigue on these parts will exceed any assumptions made for an airliner where they would be used for takeoff and landing in one 'mission cycle'.
Why do you feel you must justify the characteristics of the platform. If they UK can afford this platform it will examine the platform and ask the company to justify its performance.
I also worry when RAF crews are rolled out and appear to be part of the sales team. Their role as Seedcorn is invaluable and platform loyalty is natural but not necessarily as objective as it needs to be when acquiring new capability.
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Far North of Watford
Age: 82
Posts: 535
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you copy Bannock's link you can paste it into your browser and open the link. The interview doesn't answer many questions. It's more of an advertising spiel by the squadron exec saying how pleased they all are with it, how reliable it is, how many sonobuoys they can carry and how smooth it flies at low level. Adds zilch to the sum of knowledge of the aircrafts capabilities and shortcomings.
Bannock, thanks for the link, I enjoyed the interview. Vago needs to think his questions through before he gets in front of a camera.
I would like to add one more thought to the 2 vs 4 engine debate that Pontius has covered very well. The more engines you have, the higher the likelihood of having a failure.
As Pontius says, under normal operating conditions, the more engines, the lower the impact of losing one. With engines deliberately shut down the redundancy benefit is lost.
I suppose part of the safety issue can be measured by probabilities. If so, two engined, large aircraft have been cleared to do trains-Atlantic flights with fare-paying passengers on board for many years now. I used to fly over way out over vast oceans in a two engined aircraft. Seemed to work OK. Not many 4 engined ac being designed these days.
I'll butt out now. I'm not a MPA man so I'll leave the comments to the guys that are. I enjoy reading the thread though, especially when the boys get tough! Very entertaining.
I would like to add one more thought to the 2 vs 4 engine debate that Pontius has covered very well. The more engines you have, the higher the likelihood of having a failure.
As Pontius says, under normal operating conditions, the more engines, the lower the impact of losing one. With engines deliberately shut down the redundancy benefit is lost.
I suppose part of the safety issue can be measured by probabilities. If so, two engined, large aircraft have been cleared to do trains-Atlantic flights with fare-paying passengers on board for many years now. I used to fly over way out over vast oceans in a two engined aircraft. Seemed to work OK. Not many 4 engined ac being designed these days.
I'll butt out now. I'm not a MPA man so I'll leave the comments to the guys that are. I enjoy reading the thread though, especially when the boys get tough! Very entertaining.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 1,515
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gotta say my MMA-O-METER is nudging evermore towards the positive (I read stuff - and not just in the papers).
Looking like a wee wager on P8 being announced in forthcoming SDSR, wouldn't be an outrageous bet.
What I have no idea about is where the pain is going fall elsewhere in the defence budget - or perhaps, and more likely, this is going to be a smoke and mirrors exercise with budget numbers.
Kinda exciting isn't it?
Looking like a wee wager on P8 being announced in forthcoming SDSR, wouldn't be an outrageous bet.
What I have no idea about is where the pain is going fall elsewhere in the defence budget - or perhaps, and more likely, this is going to be a smoke and mirrors exercise with budget numbers.
Kinda exciting isn't it?
Rumours abounding that the Japanese may be sending two P-1s to RIAT this year. Nothing officially announced as yet. If so, it would seem a serious intent to show them off to the MoD.
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: U.K.
Posts: 459
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I still think that the Shack should have been replaced with the Atlantique and now we would be upgrading to the ATL3. The overall saving would have been huge and we would have had a larger fleet of a/c as capable as the Nimrod at least, more so in some departments. I suppose new airframes are not possible now, and there will be no surplus ATL2 around. Pity.