We're all living in the past!

Its:

UWW - Under Water Warfare
AWW - Above Water Warfare
AAW - Anti Air Warfare

Just to be pedantic.

As for the fit-for-role option... I cant see it working...

Looking at the size of kit, AQS-971 for example, it would take days if not weeks to re-role a jet for another task. There are so many boxes/cables/screens etc etc to plug in for each bit of kit. Indeed I know of wetties that would argue that the acoustics fit could help in AWW scenarios by proving extra SA using the screen symbology.

Looking at the MR2 as a prime example, and had it been in service today it would still arguably be the best MPA in the world. It's difficult to argue against having such an airframe with a basic fit of radar/acoustics/comms/esm and having role fit kit of EOS/DASS/Spec Comms. It's a system that wasn't pretty due to the aircrafts vintage, but worked remarkably well.

Andyy,
no problem.

CM
The rationale for having inshore and long range under one military head is that then you can task the asset best suited to the job...

Example - your long range MPA tracks the baddie sub into the Atlantic, baddie sub proceeds inshore to loiter where he isn't wanted. Military CG style aircraft could be used to drive him away, or if things escalate to kill him - no need for expensive large MPA for ops in coastal areas. Can't do that if your CG aircraft is civvy.

By making it all military (whatever the service chosen) you have people who can do everything from police/customs to killing anywhere beyond the high tide mark, if you have a civvy CG then that's not so. By having one organisation you then have freedom to deploy the right asset where you want, that organisation can then have expensive MPA and the cheaper CG aircraft that would otherwise be split between a civvy CG and a military MPA outfit.

As I said before, I can see no advantage in splitting the task between different organisations, especially where one of them won't be able to kill the target.

Joint RN/RAF makes a lot of sense, as far as making use of the guys is concerned, although I'd do it by encouraging exchange tours - I had RN crew mates over the years, but not many, I think it should have been more evident to help pass ideas between the two - although there was a fair amount of chat between RN and RAF MPA over the years, the two did not go about their job in isolation from each other.

Dave

Davejb

Thank you for your continuing input.

If I understand you correctly, you favour:

All military MPA and no civil coverage.

A multi (two?) platform solution with separate coverage of large long range and smaller coastal but all with ASW and ASuW capabilities.

The military taking on all civil coastguard, UKBA, commerce surveillance and policing airborne tasks in coastal waters with the smaller platform.

Joint ownership of the capability between RN and RAF.

Is that correct?

As an outstander I'm wondering about this interservice rivelary and basicly still sticking to old world references and requirements as the benchmark.

Look where it has brought you/us.

I think the chances of some future European MPA operation are bigger then doing a facelift of how it used to be. The policies of the EC countries on international interests and issues are converging IMO.

A bigger platform and a smaller platform seem no brainers. E.g. A force spread out over 3 bases, 1 in Northern UK, Portugal and south of Italy seem logical. Funding and crews from all participating Nato / EC countries, standardarized platforms and procedures. Maybe it could be combined with e.g. AWACS, tanker, transport and SAR forces.

Overlapping capabilities would allow for major efficiency and effectiveness steps.

FYI the EADS offerings:
A-319

Imagine the UK had 10 yrs ago ordered 10 A319MPAs and 10 CN235s, no overspecification, of the shelve, instead of rebuilding the Nimrods. They would have been flying and paid for by the billions spend sofar on the MR4.

(to be clear I sympathise with the people around here that put a lot of life and energy in the Nimrod operations and now find themselves / families in uncertainty)

keesje,

I agree that the CN235 would have been in-service providing a level MPA activity. I'm still not sure about the A319; I did ask in an earlier post if it had actually flown as an MPA. Furthermore, I'm not too sure that you could say that it is off-the-shelf! However, if it does what it says on the tin, I'll have one!

Duncs:ok:

Logical maybe. Politically acceptable - certainly not.

The French have a larger Atlantic frontage than the Portuguese. They would also expect to have a Mediterranean presence too.

The Alboran Sea is particularly sensitive and I cannot see the Spanish accepting Portuguese based MPA operating in their own back yard.

The east Med also requires some attention especially with Indian Ocean states operating out of area.

Then remember the Russian merchant vessel that went missing.

Getsometimein,

apparently it's gone full circle from ASW to USW (undersea warfare) and back to ASW again.

In times of financial constraint, I'm glad we got the small stuff sorted out, after all it didn't cost much to change all the docs to reflect our overseas 'special relations' changes in acronyms/abbreviations/initialisations.

(Pedants, please feel free to STFU about which of the aforementioned is correct.)

Siggie
Don't forget our move to UBM when ASW was a dirty word:8
Charlie Sends

Regarding the EADS A319 MPA, how useful would that be at low level?

The standard A319 has neither engines, airframe, nor handling optimised for low level.

Neither does the B737 but Boeing are developing the P-8 from it.

Albeit, the USN do not plan to operate the P-8 at low level.

at a hell of a cost as well

but then the Nimrod was no Blue Light Special either

OK, so why the difference in Conops between the P8 & A319 MPA?

A319MPA is not flying (and realistically a company-funded, MPA/ASW jet for a speculative target is not on any airframer´s agenda) but has considerable attractions as pointed out above.

However, this C295 is certified and delivered (and can obviously pack a bigger punch than the much-discussed above CN235 - marvellous though that also is.)

And this P-3, which came shrink-wrapped out of the desert but is now a rather nice place to work, is about to get back to business - the first of a fleet of nine (and five for Spain.)

Anglo-French MPA?
 

Arguments over whether RAF, RN or Coastguard should have primacy over a future MPA are parochial.

I agree that we will have to have a new MPA in the not too distant future, but why not an Anglo-French venture, possibly financed by another PFI as in Air Tanker?

Given the rumblings of a joint Anglo-French SSBN nuclear deterrent in the future, the obvious conflict of interest is evaporating. Every other role is common.

arguments over who should provide the service should be put aside and it be provided between all interested agencies including RN/RAF/HMCG/HMRC/Fishery Protection and Border agencey

Well therein lies the issue - how do you create and finance a structure that can handle the operational demands of five separate agencies? That is why an Air Tanker style PFI might be a solution.

TrimStab
 

The AirTanker PFI is apparently going to cost in the region of £400Mil per year to implement and that is with a fairly well defined set of requirements. MRA4 was binned because it was going to cost £200mil per year (and we had already paid for the hardware). How much is a complex Multi-mission aircraft going to cost under a PFI contract? More than we can afford it would seem.

If you don't need (read can't afford) complexity and flexibilty then a cheap buy of some CASA 235/239s or ATR72s will at least allow you to maintain some degree of capability whilst retaining skills and knowledge. Unfortunately, the hard won skills and knowledge focussed at Kinloss over the last 75 years or so is leaking faster than Japanese reactor.

SFO,
Nicely put!!!

SFO
Are you related to TOFO or is obesity an occupational hazard in the MPA fraternity?:)

Wouldn't it be difficult to get 3rd Party revenue from an MPA et al PFI?

ClockworkM
 

Whilst many have questioned my parentage (and still do!), I can absolutely refute any biological relationship to TOFO. Indeed, I am surprised TOFO has taken this slur on his character so calmly!

It used to be rather too easy to gain a few pounds when flying on the 'rod, the Dairy Cream Sponges and Jam Doughnuts were a staple diet, although they worked very well at soaking up several pints of Seventy in the Scruff's Bar after flying. ;)

DCS
 

SFO

I seem to remember that they never got past the port beam (especially if I was in the Route Seat!)

In reply 21 I posted some possible requirements.

• a 2-3 engined platform having an airtime of max 18 hours,
• get refuelled, refuel buddies / others including helicopters,
• suitable to transport 4-5t of pallets and or up to 20 people.
• Multiuser stations for 4-6 operators with ability to have a decent sleep in those seats. Usual galley/lavatory.
• A lot of communication space incorporated on top of the aircraft for multiple high bandwidth satellite connections with ground teams, internet etc.
• A big belly able to launch / drop all kinds of stuff (e.g SAR, UAV).
• A big radar able to map / monitor large areas.
• Moderate stealth (you can't see it from 200nm's)
• Low noise propulsion for "unrestricted" operations from populated areas.

just did a quick sketch based on those requirements

- 3 engined (1 small turbofan in the tail to boost MTOW for long range tanker function)
- large bay to carry alot (I dimensioned for 3 tomahawk sized objects)
- A large attic for many antenna's
- 6 workstations / sleeping seats in the main cabin
- A big AESA radar nose with 270 degree coverage.

Now I'm looking how to get fuel, or passenger, or pallet space into the airframe.

It should be significant smaller then Nimrod/P3C/737 but significant more capable then ATR72/CN-295 based props..

Any suggestions / directives / good ideas?

http://i191.photobucket.com/albums/z...roMPAstudy.jpg

Very interesting ideas and an excellent sketch Keesje!
As far as the UK is concerned, however, I do not think that a new design and new build solution is a practical option in the forseeable future. A tried, tested and already in service platform is more likely to be the preferred way ahead.

Clockwork Mouse thnx. I agree doing such a project as a single state would be very unrealistic these days. It would have to be a European program like A400M, replacing P3C, Nimrods, Atlantiques etc. Probably it would be logical to locate those assets in 3 strategic NAS, for the north Atlantic, more south and south of Europe.

I filled in the sketch a bit:

http://i191.photobucket.com/albums/z...Astudy_2-2.jpg

• A400M style In-Flight Refuelling Boom
• Counter rotating props for lower speed / height regions fuel efficiency
• The fuselage is about as wide as a 4 abreast aircraft but has a bigger cross section because of the bay and antenna spaces.
• The tail engine inlet could be streamlined after take-offf by a retractable fairing..

Thinking about it, probably a single centreline hose and drogue would be sufficient and save a lot of weight / drag. Don't know if / how it could fit though..

Not at all, it would be a priviledge. But are you sure we are not "biologically" related. I can think of one maritime tradition that might make us so :E:E:E:E:E:E:E:E

PS

CM...why do think the Nimrod had four mighty Speys, if not to get all that combined lard into the sky. There were a few fit types (not many) but they were generally crap at their job and always AWOL playing sport (or worse...golf).

TOFO
You have pricked my bubble and shattered my illusions! I had assumed that all you mighty hunters worked out regularly in the multi-gym in the back of the beast.

1. How do you intend to load 'all kinds of stuff' into the 'big belly'? There appears to be no provision for any weapon bay doors - the same probelm as A400M would have faced when it was proposed as the 'FLA', to include Nimrod replacement.

2. Anything with a 'big radar' is unlikely to have 'moderate stealth'! Neither are contrarotating 8-blade scimitar propellers going to give you any stealth.

3. What significant advantage do you see in a high-wing configuration? An overly robust structure implies a poor fuel fraction, something of a disadvantage in any AAR aircraft. As would have been the case with A400M/FLA as a tanker.

4. A single centreline hose would give you a single point of failure risk - not much help if you're considering long-range SAR. Dual Mk-80x Cobham units would be plausible.

5. Upon what is your '18 hours airtime' predicated?

6. Have you done any weight or performance estimations?

Hey Beags,

I was working on exactly the same list as you before I decided a pithy response to my equally muscular challenged buddy was a better use of my pprune time!

The only sweaty activity ever done down the back of a Nimrod was at an air show..............................

Quite right too! An aeroplane designed for the civilised days of the RAF, rather than for today's 'Kraft durch Freude' RAF...

Pleased to note that you have a Clarkson / Twain attitude to the pointless pastime of following little white balls around manicured countryside...

Following the illustrations and associated suggestions of a high wing dual prop job, it would probably be cheaper to buy the ATR 72 ASW... if its good enough for the Italians & the Turks... :E

No need for BAe to chuck anyone on the dole afterwards, either. Job done :ok:

http://www.pprune.org/[IMG]http://i7...d/C295_ASW.jpgNot recommending this, or otherwise commenting, merely passing on what the Chileans are doing, according to Airbus Military

http://i79.photobucket.com/albums/j1...d/C295_ASW.jpg

Chile takes delivery of first anti-submarine warfare C295 - first European aircraft with ASW capabilities since the 1960s

The Chilean Navy has taken delivery of the first Airbus Military C295 in its anti-submarine warfare (ASW) configuration. The handover took place after the aircraft was certified by INTA, the Spanish authority responsible for certification and military airworthiness.

Based on the Maritime Patrol (MPA) configuration of the aircraft, the C295 ASW is the first ASW type designed and certified in Europe, to enter service since the 1960s-vintage Bréguet Atlantic. It is a modern and risk-free choice to replace the veteran and ageing P-3 Orion or Bréguet Atlantic fleets.

The new model is the latest variant of the successful C295 family of multirole aircraft. Launched in 1996, it has been proved in many military roles and civic missions for the benefit of society. Transport logistics, medical evacuation or surveillance are just some of the roles already deployed by this aircraft in its MPA version.

The aircraft is equipped with two underwing hard points to carry weapons or other stores and boasts a comprehensive suite of sensors including a search radar, digital avionics that are compatible with night-vision goggles (NVG), automatic identification system, acoustic system, and a magnetic anomaly detector. The data from all these sensors are processed by the Fully Integrated Tactical System (FITS). This Airbus Military-developed mission system presents the data in an intuitive form to the four tactical operators via on board mission consoles as well as to the pilots.

This C295 ASW is part of a three aircraft order placed by the Chilean Navy in October 2007. The first one, a C295 MPA, was delivered in December 2009. The other two are both ASW versions and the second is being delivered over the next few months.

The Chilean Army, Navy, and Air Force already operate one C295 MPA, three CN235s, and 13 C212s – meaning they collectively operate members of the whole Airbus Military medium and light aircraft family.

To date, Airbus Military has sold 356 CN235 and C295 aircraft to 55 different operators.



airsound

Coastal/littoral work....yeah maybe.

Open ocean....too small. (Fuel, stores, weapons....DCS)

PS

F*** sight better than anything we have though!!!

Well,
if this thread is going to wander even further into the land of make believe, here's my contender:-

http://i585.photobucket.com/albums/s...5/supercar.jpg

It can fly through the air, and for ASW (or whatever the current TLA might be) if you spot a sub...hey presto, go in after it! Simples.

You can't see the big belly from the front view. The A400 for MPA, amazing, I wonder why they even considered..:bored:

Serious stealth would compromise price and efficiency, nor is it necessary. Passive sensors / network centric, ECM and radar absorbing coatings could do something.

A high wing gives ground clearance to the big props (15 blades by the way) is aerodynamically more efficient and gives unobstructed views, a bigger bay. Disadvantage is you have to stow the landing gear somewhere else..

That''s right. Although a boom has similar single point risks. Has a dual centerline hose ever been used, for redundancy? It could maybe save a lot of piping, weight. drag..

It's more a requirement, the P3C Update IIs can do it. :)

Yes, I guess a OEW of around 70 klbs and MTOW of around 180lbs would be enough to provide a significant range / fuel capacity, but hardly possible for a twin prop. The main engines would provide maximum thrust of around 20klbs, the secondary turbofan around 10 klbs.

http://i191.photobucket.com/albums/z...Wengineout.jpg

I guess for the Méditerranée / coast patrol it's good enough, for northern Atlantic it seems less suited though.



By the way, what would be a suitable name for the machine? (I'm working on a side look and it probably won't become a beauty (nose, side looking radar, refuel equipment, cargo door, 3rd engine :\ .. so forget Aphrodite..)

Anythings got to be better than what we're currently using...

http://cdn-www.airliners.net/aviatio.../3/0208384.jpg

DaveJb

I'm going to go for this year's biggest thread drift prize and point out that.... that there picture is a model of "Supercar".

The original was built at the Gerry and Sylvia Anderson studios in Slough Trading Estate in the early sixties by my uncle.

TOFO, did Uncle Reg also teach Mike Mercury to fly Supercar?

;)