Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Aircrew Forums > Military Aviation
Reload this Page >

Maritime Patrol Capability: The SDSR’s Wolf Whistle

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.

Maritime Patrol Capability: The SDSR’s Wolf Whistle

Old 26th Sep 2015, 09:10
  #81 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Gold Sector
Age: 70
Posts: 201
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Jets work

Oh dear,
malcrf, if you think that all we need is an old style coastal MPA then go on – buy a couple of dozen C-295’s.
But that’s not what we need is it? Nor would we buy that number – we couldn’t afford to support them.
They would indeed be 'better than nothing' but as to being 'decent' - I'm not sure about that. For some jobs maybe ... However,

What we do need is an MMA with ASW capability and the potential for future sensor growth.
One that will be able to operate quietly enough to avoid counter detection.
One that is in series production, where we may be able to take aircraft from the line currently allocated to the host nation’s navy.
One that is familiar to some of our highly trained (and competition winning) experienced crews.
What we need to do is get on with it and stop wasting more time.
HAS59 is offline  
Old 26th Sep 2015, 09:36
  #82 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: UK on a crosswind
Posts: 262
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Why do I have this persistent feeling that we need full independent control of the defence of our own country not subject to veto or possible withdrawal of vital support? In the future, there is no reason to believe that our interests and those of the USA or EU will always coincide. The world is evolving.
Royalistflyer is offline  
Old 26th Sep 2015, 11:11
  #83 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
bit late Royalist.... think back to B-29's, Polaris, Trident etc etc

our armed forces are all very very closely integrated with the US and have been for years

We cross-post staff, we have Brits involved in long-term planning at RAND, we used to test our N weapons near Las Vegas. The US runs acres of the UK as "RAF XX" bases and also effectily owns Ascension and Diego Garcia.

TBH we're almost as close (and a lot more tractable) than the US Marine Corps to the US military effort
Heathrow Harry is offline  
Old 26th Sep 2015, 12:13
  #84 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Far West Wessex
Posts: 2,640
Received 6 Likes on 4 Posts
Royalist - You haven't been watching the F-35, have you?

HAS59 - Airbus has produced full-on ASW aircraft - C295s for Chile, and completely refitted P-3s for Spain and Brazil. No, they are not P-8s, but are they the classic 80 per cent solution? Or if you do want P-8s, does it make sense to operate a small force of those aircraft for ASW, plus something with a fraction of the CPFH for MPA?

Could you amplify what you mean by "quiet enough to avoid counter-detection"? This sounds like the fourth reason I have heard for high-altitude ASW:

1 - Boeing/US Navy: Because MAC and a big sonobuoy load allows you to drop a big pattern, and you want to be high to be in LOS.
2 - (Various): You don't want to get shot by an IDAS or similar popping unexpectedly out of the water.
3 - (HAS59): Sonar will detect a low-flying prop job at tactically useful range.
4 - (Various cynics): The USN has loaded the P-8 with provisions for giant radars, cruise missiles, mines and a million sonobuoys to the point where any low-alt operation drops the TOS into the er.

Maybe we should start a poll. Personally I would put these in descending order of relevance as 1,4,3 and 2.
LowObservable is offline  
Old 26th Sep 2015, 12:29
  #85 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: 4 Civvy Street. Nowhere-near-a-base. The Shires.
Posts: 559
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
A turboprop can be detected from underwater at FL200 or more.

A jet can get away with maybe a tenth of that altitude, so thats hardly a reason for high alt ASW for P-8 is it?

It's a good reason for C-295 to have to work at high altitude though.
camelspyyder is offline  
Old 26th Sep 2015, 15:16
  #86 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: London/Oxford/New York
Posts: 2,931
Received 141 Likes on 66 Posts
Phoney Tony,

We are no longer in the first world category?

What a ridiculous statement that totally ignores and flies in the face of the size of our defence budget, our economy and the actual inventory of our armed forces both in terms of quality and quantity, not to mention capability.
We axed our MR capability because we made a total horlix of a replacement programme and a Political party wanted to make a gesture.
pr00ne is offline  
Old 26th Sep 2015, 16:44
  #87 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Far West Wessex
Posts: 2,640
Received 6 Likes on 4 Posts
Camel - I should think that depends on size and design. (Although the old C-133 could be detected and ID'd at any altitude at >10 miles, WUUUmmm-WUUUmmm-WUUUmmm.)

And while I hate to play the SUMMONS LEON JABACHJABICZ card, if you want something quiet that can patrol at speeds compatible with a boomer sneaking out to the ocean...
LowObservable is offline  
Old 26th Sep 2015, 17:20
  #88 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Worcestershire
Posts: 305
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Military mass is important. We might have a good economy but we need military FEAR in sufficient numbers to project, persist and execute in at least 3 or 4 concurrent ops. We can not do that at the moment in any domain.


In terms of being counter detected, may be with a good ASW capability it does not actually matter any more. Just do the maths.
Phoney Tony is offline  
Old 26th Sep 2015, 17:34
  #89 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: 4 Civvy Street. Nowhere-near-a-base. The Shires.
Posts: 559
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
I'm getting the impression no other poster on this page has ever flown ASW.
camelspyyder is offline  
Old 26th Sep 2015, 19:03
  #90 (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: 81
Posts: 16,777
Received 5 Likes on 5 Posts
CS, was in the TSC when a P3 crew was incandescent at the previous MPA. It had on topped the buoy in contact approaching CPA and blotted out the grams.

Certainly would have been counter detected. Not so sure an orbiting jet would escape detection today.
Pontius Navigator is offline  
Old 26th Sep 2015, 19:51
  #91 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Worcestershire
Posts: 305
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Camel,

Some of the posters on this site have never flown in anything. Let alone a MPA.


I doubt a P3 ontop a buoy would have blotted out the grams, Raised the broadband AN for an instance and drawn a few discrete tonals. No doubt the sub would know the pelican was there.
Phoney Tony is offline  
Old 26th Sep 2015, 20:51
  #92 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Far West Wessex
Posts: 2,640
Received 6 Likes on 4 Posts
Having been diagnosed with a life-threatening allergy to pies in my youth, I have never flown MPA.

I do believe that ASW is important. However, having watched the procurement and force-structure merry-go-round for many years, I can't over-emphasize the importance of a community having a consistent story to tell the people who sign the cheques, particularly if they're pushing for the Mercedes-Benz (if not the Maybach) solution and there are people peddling Toyotas or Citroens.

And I don't recall (even in PPrune threads) being told that avoiding detection is a reason for high-altitude ASW, until the last few days. Indeed, I think there have been a few people insisting that the P-8A is too super-good at low altitude.

But if counter-detection is important, then what's the spec? What are the standards? Are there any? Because I would be willing to bet that a little C295 with modern six-blade props has one heck of a lot different signature from the P-3 with those four-paddle-blade things. And the Treasury is not interested in anecdotes.
LowObservable is offline  
Old 26th Sep 2015, 21:11
  #93 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 1,515
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I'm getting the impression no other poster on this page has ever flown ASW.
Only now, where have you been
The Old Fat One is offline  
Old 26th Sep 2015, 21:21
  #94 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: 4 Civvy Street. Nowhere-near-a-base. The Shires.
Posts: 559
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Originally Posted by LowObservable
Having been diagnosed with a life-threatening allergy to pies in my youth, I have never flown MPA.



But if counter-detection is important, then what's the spec? What are the standards? Are there any? Because I would be willing to bet that a little C295 with modern six-blade props has one heck of a lot different signature from the P-3 with those four-paddle-blade things. And the Treasury is not interested in anecdotes.
Given that acoustic detection of submarines often focussed on the sounds created by the prop, isn't it fair that they can detect aircraft the same way. Any prop (4 blade or 6) emits detectable discrete frequencies, jets make more of a white noise blend which is less easy to identify.
camelspyyder is offline  
Old 26th Sep 2015, 21:38
  #95 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Far West Wessex
Posts: 2,640
Received 6 Likes on 4 Posts
I totally believe it's possible. But there are degrees in all things, air-to-water coupling is not perfect (or consistent, I would guess, being affected by surface conditions), and I would bet that Bear>P-3>C-295. Moreover, turbofans (including the CFM56) can have their own quirky bees-in-an-oil-drum noises, particularly in the front sector.

And until you can quantify that I don't think that the people approving the spec are going to give it much weight.
LowObservable is offline  
Old 27th Sep 2015, 07:03
  #96 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2015
Location: England
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
HAS59

But that’s not what we need is it? Nor would we buy that number – we couldn’t afford to support them.
Is it not what we need?

Don't we need to clear the routes to deep waters for our SSBNs? Don't we need to keep an eye on the Russian ships navigating their way through the GUIK or the Channel?

And I understood that the C295 had a serious sensor suite plus the ability to deploy a reasonable amount of ordnance. How many subs are we expecting an MPA to sink on any one mission?

And as for not being able to afford to support them...............I understood they were considerably cheaper to operate than the P8 (as well as to buy), so if we can't afford to operate the C295, what chance the P8!

We'll have to agree to disagree
malcrf is offline  
Old 27th Sep 2015, 07:44
  #97 (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: 81
Posts: 16,777
Received 5 Likes on 5 Posts
Quantification is easy. The evidence is on your own jez grams or whatever.
Pontius Navigator is offline  
Old 27th Sep 2015, 10:39
  #98 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Gold Sector
Age: 70
Posts: 201
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
C 295

malcrf,
we might see things from a different point of view, but I expect we both want to see something in the air - and soon.
I was rather keen on seeing the C 295 as an ASW OCU type aircraft which would also be good at doing the short range stuff. Buy half a dozen now and get on with it, sort of thing.
While also seeing a P-8 Squadron bought a short while later as the front line unit doing the more 'serious' and long range sorties.
However, that is a view from 'cloud cuckoo land' given the government priorities these days.

I guess we'll just have to wait and see. What I hope is that we do not have to go through a long and expensive tendering process followed by an even longer airworthiness safety accreditation.
HAS59 is offline  
Old 27th Sep 2015, 16:55
  #99 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2015
Location: England
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
we might see things from a different point of view, but I expect we both want to see something in the air - and soon.
I was rather keen on seeing the C 295 as an ASW OCU type aircraft which would also be good at doing the short range stuff. Buy half a dozen now and get on with it, sort of thing.
True indeed.......................the present situation is farcical, so some C295s now to at least plug some of the gap, and some P8s (or P1s later) I'd live with.
malcrf is offline  
Old 27th Sep 2015, 18:51
  #100 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: UK - sometimes
Posts: 47
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
UK only capability (RJ, Poseidon)

Jackonicko commented:

I know that at times you might just as well have painted the stars and stripes on the side of the Nimrod R, since it was integrated into their flying programme, used their Int data bases, etc., and could even be tasked by US commands. But 51 could do independent ops (Falklands, anti-IRA, etc.) and I wonder whether it could still, and whether the UK could ever use RJ completely autonomously without the planning, the targets, the "take" and the results going straight (and first) to the US, whereas previously I guess it used to go to the UK (Cheltenham? etc.) first? There are a whole bunch of unanswerable questions - Where is the inflight data downloaded to now? Do the US now even have a veto on when and where and how the UK deploys the aircraft?
There's one other thing to consider, relevant to UK RJ and any Poseidon buy, and that is the reliance on Boom tankers - which we don't have - for AAR.
SwitchMonkey is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.