Tourist's real identity
 

Has anybody else noticed that Tourist has the anagram: Sour Tit :hmm:

Explains a lot :ok:

A few strong sensors and high speed network connections, range, a few pilots and IT folks.

ItemID=41092http://www.flightglobal.com/assets/g...x?ItemID=41092

Fraction of the costs of a full blown MPA. The specialist are on the ground, not in the air.

PICTURE: How L-3's re-nosed 'Spydr' King Air will look

Oh Tourist really.........
 

Yes Tourist, what are you thinking? This is all very good stuff and I, for one, fully expect to see most of the Take Hart efforts in the gallery sent here by our talented viewers to be in service very soon.

I hope that you are very ashamed of yourself.

:hmm:

Scuttled, I guess in reality the thousands of more conservative, more of the same, proven airframe folks, were blown out of the water, sadly. If the RAF would have gone innovative, smaller, leaner and more flexible 10-15 yrs ago, some of the members around here would still have been flying MPA misisons. Lessons learned the hard way in the UK and the Netherlands..

Keesje,

Probably not a bad MPA - kit dependant, of course. I'm not sure how much ASW it could do based on the likely sonobuoy storage area and release system. There are, however, a couple of things that confuses me: how is it going to give away its fuel when in AAR role? how much can it carry in the AT role? Or, have you decided that that was not such a clever idea after all?

Duncs:ok:

A mixture of 20/20 hindsight and misguided naivety.

The RAF has visited this concept repeatedly over the years. Multi role platform versus smaller, less complex, role specific platforms. All sorts of very clever dudes (in different league to you or I) have expended vast amounts of energy and money looking into this sort of stuff..and (unlike you or I) have put their professional reputations on the line by making a decision.

There was a long documentary on the space shuttle last night in the UK. Fascinating for some one like me who was a space geek back in the Apollo days and has a library on the subject to hear some of the views of the people behind the project, thirty years on.

I can remember NASA trumpeting how reuseable vehicles would dramtically lower the cost of getting stuff into Earth orbit. Thirty years on, turns out the cost of turning round the shuttle was 3 times higher than using a disposable booster, like Apollo. The moral of the story...hindsight is easy, foresight is hard and prone to error.

Your toy aircraft above is littoral surface surveillance platform. That's about ten percent of the MPA role. Add in a UAV for overland comms (and we all know how cheap they are) that's about another 10-20 percent. Then a modified C130 squadron (or adaptable container fit) for SAR. Then we have still have to address open ocean ASW and long range surface surveillance....um how about 10 or so Nimrods..?

OK I've given you some insight, and not for the first time. Tourist has given you the short answer...for those that would decry him, he happens to be spot on.

There is also an indefined something about a large MPA crew in a small tube.

Even in the Sim you had this symbiosis (?) where team members would have an off-mic discussion and then pop an idea or make a proposal. With the flight deck, nav team, wet and dry you had 4 separate groups considering a problem.

Would the beanies countenance a 12 man crew on the ground controlling an MPUAV?

It might be attractive to prune the acoustics and radar teams by a couple of bods but the 2nd nav, 3rd wet and 3rd dry were what made for a particularly strong MPA team. How else could the experienced masters bring on their replacements for future years?

Normally in the scruff's bar when I flew with "Soggy" Goss on 206.:E

Fincastle, very true but the sprogs had to be on the crew to be privvie to the one on one debrief.

The point is that if you've never done it, you don't know what you need to do it. Finding a surface contact and classifying it without getting yourself counter detected (or, in wartime, shot down) is not easy, and it won't be achieved with a small boll on radar, tracking submerged subs via acoustics - and nobody, despite decades of stirling effort, has found an effective alternative - requires large numbers of sonobuoys, whilst effective on task periods require an aircraft with a long loiter time.

King Airs and the like would be perfectly decent platforms for inshore patrolling, which is - as has been pointed out above - a small fraction of what we require an MPA to do. You don't design an MPA by deciding to go small, use this kit and that kit, you design it by identifying the tasks it must perform and then designing the platform around the requirement.

Still, why would those of us with thousands of flying hours on MPA know what's needed, compared to the average Joe walking in off the street who likes playing with photoshop?

:ugh:

BTW PN,
I try to avoid joining the grammar police, but I hope you meant privy - or was that a freudian slip regarding the Sgts mess pigs' bar? :)

oh ok, but it is Sunday

The drogue installation would be permanent. The concept has a large fuel capacity that can be used for increasing range or for transferring it to e.g. other MPAs/ helicopters depending on mission requirements.

Sorry I'm not from the militairy AND from the Netherlands. That gives me weak respect for authorities and allergy for directions solely based on ranks.

All the decades of global experience and knowledge let to totally missing out on what was really important. To much looking back / respect/ sticking to mantras and too little independently looking forward. They (Dutch and UK) navy people were too convinced of their truth and the world as they saw it that they didn't really pick up on the world / support for them changing & we all know what happened.

What has gone wrong sofar after the Nimrods were grounded?

Theres the old proverb, keesje. When having dug himself into a hole, a wise man stops digging. :)

So your concept is going to carry about 1500kg of AAR equipment (pods, pylons, pipework, extra high flow rate pumps, valves, vent lines) on a permanent basis? Plus there's the drag penalty of the pods and pylons....

What do you consider to be a 'large' fuel capacity? Your sketch shows a few fuselage tanks - what about the wing tanks?

IMO the must be 12 crew 150k lbs 4 hauler MPA supporters dug themselves a hole, and it isn't a concept hole :(

No wing pods, center line. The wing tanks would carry most of the fuel.

So if it has a centreline hose (just the one...??), how are you going to avoid compromising weapon bay and sonobuoy carriage space?

How much fuel is your design intended to carry?

keesje,

Have you ever wondered why no-one has ever used a KingAir as a tanker?

Duncs:ok:

Says it all really. Those that know about MPA ops are the same people that are saying what the requirements really are, not the ones pushing for a "I can do everything - but only for 5 minutes within a mile of the coast" type plane :rolleyes:

Stick to talking about what you know best then... Flowers, cheese, drugs, tarts and 'chocolate shprinklesh' :ok:

AO ISTAR briefed in recent days that it will be 5 x P8 on lease and that 'seedcorn' will get additional resources. Longer term has yet to be decided or funded.

If that's the case, I don't think that AO ISTAR has spoken to CINC AIR.

Duncs:ok:

And of course the money to pay for this 'lease' + training + servicing + weapons + spares + ground equipment + pfa tools + rigs + etc etc is all coming out of the pay packet of the fu*kwit who cancelled, scrapped and completely disposed of the MR2/MRA4s and anything else to do with Maritime FW aviation isn't it?

I thought not. Even if it goes ahead, I'm fairly certain our cousins will get priority, then India, then us, so it will be 2016 at the earliest; my guess, there will be little or no maritime fw air experience left by then.

Good Luck.

Okay,
this has gone on for 12 pages, and that's quite enough - Keesje, I'll leave it to you to start the new thread on 'Space Ops post Shuttle', which subject hasn't had so much as a Microsoft Paint doodle so far, and is (surely) worthy of discussion? We've had reuseable boosters, non-reuseable boosters, I look forward to discovering the third way.

MFC, that made me chuckle :D

What a joke! That's not even a Squadron. With the P8's capabilities, 18 would be a minimum figure; plus another 2 for MOTU, (Showing my age!)

Shuttle Ops :-)
 

Here's one of the many post shuttle options but it's one that appeals to me:

Reaction Engines Ltd : Space Propulsion Systems

The discussion on the Nasa spaceflight forum might interest some:

Skylon

It's interesting to see people's reactions to an idea. In my work I often have to explain why things work the way they do to people but the tradeoffs can suddenly change on you very quickly.

I'm amazed how many still support an MPA strategy that so catastrophically hit the wall. This thread will be findable in 5-10 years & w'll be able to see how MPA's look by then.

http://media.defenseindustrydaily.co...P-99MPA_lg.jpg
Hopefull the UK caught up.

No no no no no!

The MPA startegy worked, what didn't work was the process by which replacement aircraft were procured, and this is a problem that could hit ANY branch of the forces with the same anihilating effect... and arguably already has done, when you look at how many SSN, DDG and FFG the RN is going to have for the forseeable future, how many fighter/fighter-bomber aircraft the RAF will have, and the number of regiments there will be in the full time army.

At least TRY to learn to identify the real issue.

Defense News: Germany to Press Maritime Patrol Aircraft Pool

BRUSSELS - Germany is looking to make progress on a maritime patrol aircraft pool, a European Union multinational joint headquarters (JHQ) and other high-priority military ideas at a workshop it is hosting in September and October.

At first sight, the maritime patrol aircraft pool looks to have more potential, as the JHQ has been opposed by the U.K. and requires all 26 EU member states taking part in the EU's defense policy to agree for it to proceed.

"Using the European Air Transport Command as a template, a management structure for the coordination of maritime patrol resources and capabilities could be established, bringing together partial, fragmented national capabilities into a European pool," a German Ministry of Defence official said.

The aim of the workshop is to gain thorough information on member states' interest. "Nations who have declared their intention to participate in this initiative will also have to discuss the topic of sharing the use of maritime patrol aircraft in real-world operations," the official said..........

A NATO/European MPA force...before anybody else claims that one for the modern generation, I wrote a paper on it circa mid 80s.

Pretty sure (as in absolutely ******** certain) many people had had the idea before me.

As with most (all) of my ideas, I was told to stop being a knob. Ho hum....the trials and tribulations of being years ahead of your time.

Give it up mate...his morse key has been locked to transmit.

keesje

As has been pointed out numerous times, the MPA strategy did not "hit the wall". Our Govt, as did yours, decided for different reasons to give up LONG range maritime patrol aircraft. The requirement for a LONG range MPA still exists in the UK. It exists in the USA and they are procuring the P8, the Russians still operate the Bear F; even the Chinese and Indian militaries have recognised the requirement for LRMPA and the Indians have 16 P8s on order. So according to you all of these countries have got it wrong.

The plastic toys you suggest may be able to do the long bit (in the case of Global Hawk), they might even be able to open water ASuW with nice radars, but most of your suggestions are littoral at best. With GH (designed for high altitude ops) just how do you suggest that it will be capable of carrying sufficient, suitable ASW sensors? With how much of a redesign? And at what cost? Where will the ASW weapons be fitted and at what cost/impact upon performance? Your Emb 145 looks lovely, on paper; however, as the UK has discovered with ASTOR/Sentinel, sticking a large fairing on a small biz-jet comes with its own, significant, expensive problems.

If you want coastal patrol aircraft there are lots out there that fit the bill already, but for deep water ASW, well there are the P8 and the world's ugliest aircraft (the Japanese purpose designed P1). I for one am a sceptic on the capabilities of the P8 (when it first enters service). After that you are into second hand aircraft modified for the role. As many on here have pointed out there are no UAVs that can do the task, there are unlikely to be any UAVs in the forseeable future that can do the ASW task and UAVs aren't cheap - not when you add in all of the C2 required to control them.

As someone who has specialised in both LRMP and AAR (not at the same time), your design might be able to do one task, or the other, but not both; the missions are simply mutually exclusive.

Spot On RP!:ok:

Indeed he is.

Standby to be told we are all wrong however.

I don't have to, reality does.

I recognize the tone & confidence from the dutch MPA force.

Nobody could tell them what's really important, how it really works..

btw Roland good post, at least you explain why you don't agree

The dutch are now considering taking Apaches on board.

Dutch leading government party wants to deploy apaches against pirates

"Pirate motherships" seem to be moderately impressed by Lynx' .50 / 7.62mm.

Some might state that is not how these assets are supposed to be used and these folks just don't understand a decent naval patrol operation.

IMO the requirements are changing rapidly & a 2025 MPA will look entire different then a P3 or Nimrod because of it.

keesje,

I fail to see how an Apache will perform the roles (either traditional or those proscribed by you in previous posts) of an MPA. The AAR role will be particularly taxing!

Duncs:ok:

btw Roland good post, at least you explain why you don't agree

My friend, go back over your posts and responses. You will find that all this has been explained to you before.

You choose to ignore it, becaue you have decided you know best. Ergo, experienced professionals (or ex professionals in my case) will now just take the p**s because to us your ideas are infantile and so is your obstinance.

That is not to say, you have nothing to offer and you raise some good points. You are also correct that the UK government has ****ed up completely the UKs maritime defence.

But the answer is not some plastic, littoral, airfix model... or any other of the UAV/airship nonsense.

No **** sherlock.

Forgive me for not worrying too much about 2025, with the possibility of a nuclear exchange once again rearing its head - only this time with decidedly non-rational actors in the loop - 2025 looks a little far off to being predicting too much.

Hmmmm. Well, if you just need a new airframe, with proven engines and props, to fit kit you've already designed inside, looks like there's a new alternative to second hand P-3s........ :8

Ares: China's Maritime Patroller


China's AVIC-Shanxii Y-8F-600, a modernized version of a reverse-engineered Antonov An-12, is spawning a growing family of special-use variants without having apparently entered service as a transport. Two AEW versions (one with a rotodome and another with an AESA similar to Saab's EriEye) have been sighted. Now, the latest version is a weapons carrier -- an antisubmarine warfare aircraft.

http://sitelife.aviationweek.com/ver...b3e2.Large.jpg

The extensively modified airframe has a weapons bay, surface-search radar, EO/IR sensor turret (ahead of the weapons bay) and a magnetic anomaly detector boom at the end of a redesigned, ramp-less rear fuselage. It will presumably have an acoustics system and sonobuoy tubes.

It's the first ASW aircraft of this scale and capability for the Chinese armed forces, and the only such active program outside the USA (following the demise of the Nimrod MRA4 in last year's UK defense review). It's not hard to guess its intended targets.

Aircraft of this type are not usually found searching large tracts of ocean for submarines. Norman Friedman's book Network-Centric Warfare describes the P-3 as an interceptor, launched to prosecute targets detected by SOSUS (sound surveillance system). An isolated report in 2008 suggested that China was deploying its equivalent of SOSUS.

Other missions for oceanic-range ASW aircraft include providing cover for ballistic missile submarines, making it possible to detect and track hostile subs that might be trailing the SSBN as it leaves on a patrol.

The appearance of the new Y-8 platform indicates that China is expanding its ASW ambitions. Building an aircraft is only a small part of the ASW battle. It also requires sensor and processing technology -- systems like the P-8A Poseidon draw on decades of experience with acoustic systems, using passive and active sonobuoys to detect and pin down the target -- and human expertise. So what is important is that the PLA-N is setting off down that long and difficult road.

By the way, the engines on the Y-8F600 are Pratt & Whitney PW150s and the propellers are from GE's Dowty unit. The program was launched in 2001-03 as a commercial venture.