Indeed,
and Mitch could run acoustics...

http://i191.photobucket.com/albums/z...MPAstudy_3.jpg
concept

Addition; retractable 20mm turret to draw a line in the water to convince pirates, smuglers, rebels etc, asymmetric warfare. Similar to OV-10.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v1...1132924124.jpg

Any suggestions? Not sure about the hose and drogues yet..

E.g. what would be the best cabin configurations for 6 operators with lots of screens? side by side? how about interaction between them, would it help when everyone can see each other, from the corner of their eyes? to give signs, read body language ?

I hope that blue senior officer is dense, the CofG looks way off. :ok:

You've forgotten the Death Ray and the giant magnet.

That you should lay off the gold plating? This thing makes Nimrod look like an airliner with a laptop strapped to one of the seats and a hostess throwing life rings out the window.

I compared the configurations to ATR72 and Q400, and compensated for the heavy tail (turbofan, hose-drogue) by moving the wing backwards a bit. I heightened the vertical tail further too. It seems too small, it effectiveness would be degraded by the air inlet. Will do another CoG estimation though. Most of the systems and the refuelling boom in front also influence the moment.. :8

http://i191.photobucket.com/albums/z...MPAstudy_4.jpg

I wanted to put maindeck fuel tanks close to the CoG, but I guess you don't want to have them in line with the hpt :\ ..

The Nimrod was optimized for ASW, much bigger heavier and had 4 turbofans, the MR4 must have been gold plated, looking at the financials.. :oh:

A machine like this should be cheaper (smaller, lighter, fuel efficient, less crew) and have more applications. It's not to be another Nimrod. E.g. MPA could transfer excess fuel if they relieve eachother in patrol areas.

http://i191.photobucket.com/albums/z...MPAstudy_5.jpg

About the 20mm, the only thing an MPA today does is make pirates hurry, getting on board before something with teeth arrives.

Please post a drawing of your proposed aircraft showing the bomb bay, the sonobuoy dispenser(s), and the MAD boom.

Compare to these pix of the P-3:

US Navy P-3Cs

File:P-3 Orion underside view 20080614.jpg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hi Elmo, I'm not able to post that, because it doesn't exist (yet). For mission specific equipment the idea is to have it located in a secondary bay. Where the gatling is in the post above. A box sized space it available to such a gun, buoy dispensers, nothing, an additional fuel tank, side looking radar or whatever they come up with in the next 30 years. (e.g a tactical laser, 2025? maybe they can write the message on the pirat's deck with it, in the right language.. :cool: )

keesje,

Sorry mate, the galley isn't nearly big enough!:=

Duncs:ok:

Keesje, here are some benchmark numbers for your design:

P-3C P-7A

Max Takeoff Gross Weight 139,760 lbs 171,350 lbs
Flight Design Gross Weight (3.0g) 135,000 lbs 165,000 lbs
Maneuver Weight (3.5g) --- 137,000 lbs
Design Zero Fuel Weight 77,200 lbs 105,000 lbs
Maximum Payload 22,237 lbs 38,385 lbs
Fuel Capacity 62,587 lbs 66,350 lbs
Maximum Landing Weight 114,000 lbs 144,000 lbs
Design Landing Weight 103,880 lbs 125,190 lbs
Sonobuoy Capacity 84 150-300
Wing Span 99.6 ft 106.6 ft
Wing Area 1300 sq ft 1438 sq ft
Fuselage Length* 116.8 ft 112.7 ft
Height 34.2 ft 32.9 ft


Federation of American Scientists :: P-7 Long Range Air ASW-Capable Aircraft (LRAACA)

* Hmmm, fuselage length for proposed P-7 is wrong. Wonder what else is wrong with that list?

Here's another important figure of merit. Better check yourselves out, younger comrades:

Key genital measurement linked to male fertility


By Deborah Zabarenko, Environment Correspondent

WASHINGTON | Fri Mar 4, 2011 12:10am EST
(Reuters) - When it comes to male fertility, it turns out that size does matter.

The dimension in question is not penis or testicle size, but a measurement known as anogenital distance, or AGD.

Men whose AGD is shorter than the median length -- around 2 inches (52 mm) -- have seven times the chance of being sub-fertile as those with a longer AGD, according to a study published on Friday in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives.

That distance, measured from the anus to the underside of the scrotum, is linked to male fertility, including semen volume and sperm count, the study found. The shorter the AGD, the more likely a man was to have a low sperm count.

...

This offers the prospect of a relatively simple screening test for men, said study co-author Shanna Swan of the University of Rochester Medical Center.

"It's non-invasive and anybody can do it, and it's not sensitive to the kinds of things that sperm count is sensitive to, like stress or whether you have a cold or whether it's hot out," Swan said in a telephone interview.

...

Key genital measurement linked to male fertility | Reuters

....and you wonder why some of us don't want any more LRMP aircraft threads started....

Apologies if this has been mentioned before - it's about the Libyan Coast Guard Vessel Vittoria firing on sundry merchant shipping on 28 March.

Anyway, the said Vittoria was schtumphed by a P-3, says the US Navy
Food for thought when considering the need for future MPA, and its ability to "complete the sensor-to-shooter kill chain"?

airsound

Also, as mentioned earlier re the specs of the Lockheed P-7 were sometimes in error...

I'm here to say that not all the specs, or indeed the cut-away graphic of the Boeing AEW&C are correct either!

I'd love to get a look-in of the flight deck of that Airbus Military refurbished P3C that was just completed, ready for delivery.

Cheers,
EW73 :)

I think you're overlooking development costs somewhat. There's little point in a fuel efficient aircraft if it costs twice as much to purchase. You're using a new design radical configuration which will be expensive to develop and all the small efficiency improvements in the world aren't going to make it financially viable compared to something like the P3, which we could buy off the shelf tomorrow. Heck I bet the Americans would even throw in some discount training stateside and some spares rather than having to start with a new type from scratch.

I'd also challenge the idea of smaller and lighter. If there's one thing that's been learned during the development of Sentinel it was that small aircraft run out of space more quickly.

The fueling issue, potential to receive fuel would be useful (but not essential if it's got a 12hr plus endurance anyway). Delivering fuel is a waste of time, this is what we've got tankers for. If we wanted to have a flexible multirole tanking capability we'd buy the add ons for A400M which would make it into service far sooner than a new build aircraft.

Thanks Elmo, usefull information to determine the balance between the various variables. I think if anyone these days would come up with a design matching P3/Nimrod like capabilities and dimensions, Dod would say it's a good idea for 1985 and if he/she has followed developments during the last 20 years.

The tanker is a tanker, a ASW platform is ASW platform and an interceptor is an interceptor days are behind us. One of the reasons IMO the US aerospace lobby decided the USAF KC30 had to be killed is that a quick look at the aircrafts cargo/range and tonne-mile costs not only caused red alert in the KC767 department but also in the C-17 and KC-10/KC-Y departments. It would spoil the business as it has been for the last 50 years.

Hadn't seen it, IMO a clear sign of changing requirements. All those Harpoons, Exocets, torpedo's and nucleair charges have a use. But how many were used during the last 50 years, do they still have first priority?

http://rickwilliams.com/images/cruise/pirate%20boat.jpg

Times and enemies are different. Big enemies became neighbours, small friends enemies.

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2001/...c853928b_b.jpg


Bigger aircraft cost more, specially if they are based on 50+ year old designs. Who will buy them for the next 40 years if they don't fit the requirements anyway? It just doesn't make sense.

Of course it wil take E8-10 billion Euro's to develop, but a lot of technology can be transferred from existing modern aircraft. Not everything needs to be reinvented. And doing a Nimrod, P3/P7 has the export potential of a Nimrod, P3/P7.

Just bring in the big tankers to refuel somewhere far away. What are the total costs of having that capability globally? Plus that capability for helicopters.. we just can't afford!

An aircraft bringing its own maintenance crew / maintenance tools, being able to refuel, function as a powerfull sensor for intelligence, able to perform a SAR and patrol with minimum adjustments saves money. Less transport, tanker, helihours, flight cycles, crews, specialized fleets, or smaller ones.

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

;)

You missed out being able to schtumph Libyan Coastguards with Mavericks (see post #133 above)

airsound

Can't we just outsource?

India is buying P-8 and are pretty good at this outsourcing lark... :rolleyes:

Probably more likely than inventing a whole new airplane. :=

-GY

Cost of an aircraft is not directly proportional to size. For example it is easier to create a long range variant of a large aircraft than it is a small aircraft even from a basic volumetric perspective. What adds to the expense significantly is novel architecture such as what you're proposing. I'd suggest that ultimately the military cares less about fuel efficiency than total time in the air and through life maintenance practicalities.

You're also making the assumption that the requirements stay the same for 40 years, which is highly unlikely, more likely is that new technology will come along that needs to be retroactively added. This is most easily achieved on a larger aircraft that has a larger weight growth margin and more space to fit the stuff.

There's also a strong argument to be made for sticking with a commercial airframe from the perspective of support. One of the downfalls of Nimrod was that it became an orphan fleet long after the commercial equivalent was out of service. Support for airliners rolling off the production line today will run for at least the next twenty years, if not longer in the case of common parts. None of the expensive custom widgets typically associated with aging military aircraft.

If you don't need to re-invent the technology why not just shove it all into an off the shelf airframe and save the 8 billion? Are the capability gains you predict worth that much cash, particularly considering that most of the export sales will be taken by Boeing's cheaper alternative anyway?

That's the beauty of the A400M tanker option. It can tank anything including choppers, all aircraft are capable of a basic tanking role, the pods take a couple of hours to fit, don't prevent the aircraft carrying a full cargo load and if you want you can even buy extra tanks for the fuz to make it into a full fat tanker. Why go through all the hassle of maintaining another fleet capable of refueling when in the very rare cases it's needed we have another aircraft capable of the job.

To be perfectly honest, an MPA conversion for A400M (ideally consisting of equipment predominantly palletised in the hold with a custom rear ramp for stores, fuel pods and some external array hardpoints) has the potential to make very good sense. The aircraft is at the very start of what's going to be a long in service life. It has a large payload, long range, is quiet and we're already getting a fleet of them.

But you see that such a unique aircraft is a small specialized fleet requiring specifically trained crews capable of maintenance is hugely expensive.

MPA tanking does not make up the bulk of tanker work, we don't heli tank and we only divert ISTAR assets to MPA when they're needed. You're adding expensive capabilities to the aircraft that we barely use as it is and while it would be wonderful to have a flying swiss army knife, we can't afford one right now.

As an exercise in what's possible the design is interesting and original, but it's the hard financial realities of capability vs. cost that killed Nimrod and will kill any attempt at a bespoke replacement.

http://www.weirdthings.org.uk/wp-con...ront-plane.jpg

Well, it could work.

There are clear indications that a committee or a coalition has had a major involvement in designing Mr Whyte's flying machine. Cameron takes the right cockpit and Clegg the left I presume. Hope the intercom works.

2 Years ago India bought 8 P8 for $ 2.1+ billion, about 270 million per aircraft, of the shelf.
http://www.indiastrategic.in/image/img_220_mid_big.jpg
It isn't specially efficient, (Boeing will soon launch its replacement) based on a jetliner optimized for cruising at 38k ft, giving room to easily 20-30 crew members and still room left. It has redundancy typical for 2 engined aircraft, it needs big runways, can't refuel anything, can't fly slow, I haven't seen the big radar or option to engage small moving targets.

A kind of a Nimrod I guess, without the big radar and engine redundancy.
WillDAQ, a smaller, flexible, multirole platform costing 30-40% less to purchase and half to operate could easily have a 25 yr market of 300-400 IMO. The total costs of ownership would be significant lower then introducing a heritage platform.

Much of the technology / systems could be used from the A400M, CN295 MPA, A350.. The only novelty on the design would be open rotors providing 25% better fuel efficiency then todays smaller turbofans and superior low level, low speed performance.
Rolls seems to be in the lead on those, they invested a lot in them during the last 3 years. Alternatively the A400M's TP400 could offer a proven alternative.

I still can't see the point in having an MPA that can also be a tanker. If it can carry extra fuel, it can stay on-task longer; if it is refuelling attack assets, it is not doing its ASuW task - it would likely be in the wrong place, in the wrong configuration, at the wrong height, with the wrong priorities.

Duncs:ok:

But it can do both, that's what it all about. Sometimes it uses the fuel itself, sometimes it transfer to other assetts, improving the mission effectiveness.
I think it is not revolutionary at all.


Related news: Navy orders Thales lightweight multi-role missiles for Lynx Wildcat.

They ordered 1000 of the lightweight multi-role missile (LMM)

Not to sink destroyers or submarines..

UK orders Thales lightweight multi-role missiles for Lynx Wildcat

Each LMM weighs 13kg (28lbs). Less then a tenth the weight of a Sea Skua. Talking about changing requirements..

It is the result of a new agreement with the UK Ministry of Defence "to re-role previously contracted budgets".

For me another sign rebuilding Nimrod/P3C capabilities by ordering a similar platform is the wrong track of thoughts, a zero chance business case.

"We didn't use to do it like that" is a dead end, as the Dutch naval air service also found out.

@Willard

just got home and have seen the picture you posted, as opposed to the .jpg placeholder that work internet shows .... excellent, no worries about asymetric thrust etc. You might be on to something.

@ Duncs, I guess you can't be in any position of power or authority as I find myself agreeing with almost everything you say ... :D

My hope is that at sometime in the future the UK goes for the P8, on the grounds of commonality, and actually, it is not such a bad airframe.

Y_G

Redundancy of twin engined ETOPS aircraft... i'd be amazed if you can get your new design contra-rotating turboshafts to match the reliability of an already well developed ETOPS aircraft. As for the rest, big is relative, refueling isn't needed and why are you assuming it's the only asset in theater than needs to be able to do everything?

So here's my problem, the production numbers are dream land simply because it's not built by an American company, so all the allies who buy American to strengthen trade links aren't going to buy it. As a European project you might sell 100 ish maybe?

Even allowing for 400 units. You're never going to win against an aircraft based an existing civilian design. The airframe requirements for MPA are not much beyond 'truck' and there are plenty of cheap trucks already available as a starting point.

Indeed, but it would be cheaper to use them in an A400M, CN295 or A350 rather than spending billions going after a fuel saving. Fuel is cheap, new aircraft types aren't. In terms of flight envelope i'd be interested to see how far beyond the capabilities of A400M you're planning to go, I suspect that's an aircraft already capable of being thrown around a MAD circle if so desired.

They certainly do... in an A400M.

Remember, we're after the 80% solution here because the last 20% of requirements will vary over time and we have no money in the first place!

P8 mission electronic's
 

do remenber that Boeing is using the Mission Electronic developed for the MRA4 as the base of the mission electronics for the P8.so all is not wasted with the scraping of the MRA4.

I think the reliability is a set requirement.

Times are changing. Congress had to block a massive KC30 sale, the army is buying a large fleet of Eurocopters, the coastguard EADS CN-295s. Saudi Arabia, UK and Emirates buy European tankers. Had you thought so 15 yrs ago?

I think it's hard to find someone that has more confidence in the A400M future than I do. I think it solely covers an enormous niche and seems right sized / specified for a big market share in the next 20 yrs. I think even the Americans will order it, kicking and screaming..

Suggesting a very large 4 engined, expensive transport aircraft without a bomb bay for MPA. I guess the Ministry of Defence would get a meld down. However, they are the ones being convinced the Nimrod was good AEW and rebuilding those Nimrods after 50 years was actually a brilliant move..

I think future proof, lighter, flexible, adaptable, multirole makes a better option.. You have to get the old European Atlantique and Orion operators into the mix of course.

http://i191.photobucket.com/albums/z...MPAstudy_6.jpg

this one: 2 auxiliary fuel tanks, 2 NSM missiles, 3 Sting Ray torpedo's in the main bay and 2 sonobuoy rotary launchers in the auxiliary bay, 10 crew members, photo taken from an airtanker ;)

I'm probably being a bit dim but i think most of us would prefer 4 engines to 2 for a LRMPA and I think we'd accept that there should be good endurance & good low level performance. We'd probably also agree that its the "kit" & the operators that are the most important element of the MPA "system" so, given that the mission kit for the MRA4 does not seem to have been doubted could this kit not be fitted into Hercules airframes? New build, I suppose & perhaps the kit could be fitted in in a modular manner within internal pre-fab type cabins/ containers?

Admittedly I'm not sure how a weapons bay is fitted in but there is lots of experience on then type, lots of support available, its still in production etc.

Agree 2 engines for LRMPA seems to have disadvantages. Although the french (Atlantique) and US (P7) seem to be ok with it. The concept above has 3 engines btw. A small turbofan for take-off and redunancy. And if high performance is required.

It seems to me the Hercules and A400M even more are out of the picture in terms of size and operating costs. Both aircraft are optimized for maindeck cargo height and therefor have marginal options for lower decks/ bays.. They are inherent bulky, not lean and mean..

http://www.eol.ucar.edu/raf/pics/C-130_xsctn.gif

Keesje, your aircraft seems to be a completely new design with an untried engine confuguration. How cheap is that going to be to design/ develop/ produce when the requirement isn't for that many aircraft in reality. Its not going to happen.

My idea is a compromise, but at least the airframe is available, operating & engineering it is well known and itsstill in production so either new build or refurbished airframes could be used. Use the A400 if there needs to be a European or new airframe (although that doesn't yet come in to the tried & tested bracket yet!)

If we are ever to have an LRMPA again then we need to find a way to do it relatively cheaply & that means using off the shelf solutions in as risk averse way as possible. I'm suggesting that in order to meet an LRMPA requirement we could fit already developed sensor systems in to an already developed airframe.

Maybe the weapons could be carried externally? Not ideal I know, but as I said, we need to be a risk averse as possible (engineering a weapons bay into a C-130 or A400 is probably a reasonable size risk) & needs must. I'd rather have an 70-80% capability than no capability at all and in my view a proposal for a completely new design of a/c = no capability.

TBH for 99% of its life an LRMPA doesn't need to carry weapons at all - just enough times for regular training

Stooging about the N Atlantic carrying weapons when there is nothing happening today seems a bit pointless

We expect to get at least a few hours notice of a war

keesje - you may not be aware but Wildcat has a Light and a Heavy anti-surface requirement. The LIMM solution hopes to meet the Light part of this and is not intended as a Sea Skua replacement. Not a change of requirements at all as there is a Heavy missile meeting this solution.

Unducted fan or propfan:

Propfan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The excerpts below are from an article by Bill Sweetman, the premier aviation journalist:

The Short, Happy Life of the Prop-fan | History of Flight | Air & Space Magazine

... Airbus’ chief planner, Adam Brown, still believes that Boeing hyped the 7J7 in a bid to disrupt the A320 program. At the 1985 Paris show, Airbus faced the inevitable question: Was the company still confident in the A320’s future? “We can go up against the ‘magic aeroplane,’ ” Brown answered, “and we can beat it.”

...

Airbus stuck to its guns, Brown says today, because its studies showed that aft-engine aircraft were heavy, and maintenance costs would be higher.

...

At the end of August 1987, Boeing announced that the 7J7 had been postponed a year. (And Monty Python’s dead parrot was “just resting.”)

McDonnell Douglas tried to carry on with prop-fan development. It had the rear-engine MD-80, but it was losing ground to the A320 and 737. MDC fitted a UDF engine to an MD-80 in late 1987 and wanted to launch the UDF-powered MD-91 and -92 by July 1988. The company even saw a 300-aircraft market for a Navy patrol version of the MD-91. But GE wanted to see 100 to 150 airline orders before committing to the program. Recalls Conboy, “If people aren’t going to buy it, there’s not much you can do.” ...

Russia’s Tu-95 bomber and its airliner derivative, the Tu-114, were designed in the 1950s and had jet-like swept wings. The turboprop-powered Tupolevs could sprint at Mach 0.78, but had to cruise at around Mach 0.7 for best range. Their 15,000-hp engines drove 18-foot counter-rotating propellers, requiring tall landing gear to keep the tips off the runways.

The Ukrainian Antonov An-70 and the yet-to-fly Airbus A400M cruise at up to Mach 0.72, about as fast as the jet-powered C-17 airlifter, but slower than commercial jets. They use large-diameter propellers, not prop-fans.

There is little interest in true high-speed propellers today. The latest conventional turbofans are more efficient than the engines of the mid-1980s, thanks to new fan aerodynamics and materials, so there is less to be gained by a move to a UDF-type engine. It’s also questionable whether the prop-fan could meet current international noise rules.

RR is still investing in open rotor technology. Rolls-Royce details next-generation engine studies

Even GE thinks it's the best solution longer term (leap-x in front); http://i191.photobucket.com/albums/z...g?t=1247751620

Very high speed at height isn't essential for MPA, superior fuel consumption and performance at lower levels are more important.

RR has made good progress on open rotors during the last 3-4 years and are doing further tests as we speak. As you can see on the earlier sketches the front and aft rotor have different diameters and numbers of blades, reducing noise and vibrations (blades don't all pass each other at the same moment, shockwaves from blade tips don't hit each other).

The Bear and late eighties Pratt and GE open rotors where complicated in this respect. The Russians made some progress already

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2548/...2055b0bc_z.jpg

Saying it's a big turboprop with contra rotating props like the Shackletons and some Spitfires makes people more confident then using words like exotic "propfan"..

A second rotor makes the resulting airstream straight backward, a single rotor produces a more rotating airstream. Open rotor have bypass ratios of above 1:30, turbofan of 1:12 max at this moment.

The UK maritime patrol capability was not lost because it was not considered necessary, but because the solution at the time, MRA4, was unaffordable. It could be that the P8 Poseidon will bring us back into the MPA business. My gut feeling is that it will happen and that the RN will operate it, which seems to make a lot of sense.

I am ex Shackleton, ex Nimrod, got an awful lot of hours on 737's and I have a beard. Looks like I am the ideal chap to operate the R.N.'s P8s. Might have to lie about my age . Just a bit.

You have to ask why on earth a P8 (737) was ever considered for this role :ugh:

Clockwork Mouse

What a crock! Andrew might be able to operate close in ASW, with frigates and helos, but he/she (these days) does not have a schmick about LRMP and its associatd ASW task..

Horses for courses.

Yeah but no but yeah but....
 

....oxenos, you'd only be rectifying the error you made a hundred years ago by stepping into the wrong recruiting office. No?

3 bells in the morning watch indeed (rolls eyes).

The Ancient Mariner