IMO inability to change & stubbornness killed UK & NL MPA operations.

BEagle: "flying slowly enough to refuel helicopters"
For a prop?
http://4.bp.********.com/-juwjPlhcS5...lin_refuel.jpg

Back on topic, the A400M MPA would be the largest and least efficient MPA "solution" I can think off. Maybe make it a double decker for 60 operators?
http://www.airbus.com/fileadmin/medi...cargo-hold.jpg

OK, I don't know the first thing about these type of aircraft but,

Maybe its time to get something a little unorthodox?
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi..._XP-1_Aoki.jpg
Performance
Maximum speed: 996 km/h (538 knots, 619 mph)
Cruise speed: 833 km/h (450 knots, 516 mph)
Range: 8,000 km (4,320 nm, 4,970 mi)
Service ceiling: 44,200 ft (13,520 m)

Armament
Bombs: 20,000+ lb (9,000+ kg)
Missiles: AGM-84 Harpoon, ASM-1C, AGM-65 Maverick
Sonobuoys: 30+ Pre-loaded, 70+ Deployable from inside
Other: MK-46 and Type 97 and new(G-RX5) torpedoes, mines, depth charges

There always options.

http://i714.photobucket.com/albums/w...cudaMRA1-1.jpg

Thats also the risk that overspecification, overcommitment to the national industry and baseless optimism turns into another multi billion disaster..

I'm tempted to say "oh god, not that again....." - an airframe that's been out of production for 10+ years, and a drawing whose provenance is doubtful (I'd be surprised if it came from BAE).

Ummm, Voyager, C-17, A400M - yes, those are the same airframe.....

Turning the cancelled BAe RJX into a military aircraft has always been an interesting option.

However no decision on a European MPA will be taken, however great the need.

They are more worried about contagion from Cyprus, and its possible exit from the Euro.

Although out of production. The A340-200 might fit the bill. It is in that large category the same as the A400M. Great range.
A340-200 aircraft: range, specifications | Airbus*| Airbus, a leading aircraft manufacturer

That Japanese aircraft looks interesting, is it photoshopped ? From the looks of it, the range and on station can't be that great.

A completely new airframe would be too expensive. Although would most likely be the best option.

How large should the aircraft be ?
Large enough to carry all the necessary bits. Have four engines, and a long loiter time on station. In flight refueling to extend its time on mission. Then that needs an onboard relief crew.

The Nimrod got most things right. Except for the people developing it. The Conservative Government started the programme for the MRA4 in 1992.

Somebody needed to get a grip !

This aircraft ticked most of the boxes in its day.
http://www.coopersmodels.com/i/Execu...us_68_-_73.jpg

Dave, that seems better than the P8 ?

With the devalued Japanese Yen, it could well be an option. :-

General characteristics

• Crew: Flight: 2 Mission: 11
• Length: 38.0 m (124 ft 8 in)
• Wingspan: 35.4 m (114 ft 8 in)
• Height: 12.1 m (39 ft 4 in)
• Max. takeoff weight: 79,700 kg (176,000 lb)
• Powerplant: 4 × IHI Corporation XF7-10 turbofan, 13,500 lbs (60 kN) each

Performance

• Maximum speed: 996 km/h (538 knots, 619 mph)
• Cruise speed: 833 km/h (450 knots, 516 mph)
• Range: 8,000 km (4,320 nm, 4,970 mi)
• Service ceiling: 44,200 ft (13,520 m)

Armament

• Bombs: 20,000+ lb (9,000+ kg)
• Missiles: AGM-84 Harpoon, ASM-1C, AGM-65 Maverick
• Sonobuoys: 30+ Pre-loaded, 70+ Deployable from inside
• Other: MK-46 and Type 97 and new(G-RX5) torpedoes, mines, depth charges

Avionics

• Radar: Toshiba, Active Electronically Scanned Array radar system
• Sonar: NEC, multi-static sound navigation system sound
• Anti-submarine systems:SHINKO ELECTRIC CO.LTD., Advanced combat direction system
• Other: Mitsubishi, Electronic countermeasures (CMD, RWR, MWS, ESM)

OK, stuffed-up... to foolishly answer another of your uninformed comments... no, the Kawasaki P-1 is NOT "photoshopped"!

The first 2 production examples have been delivered:

http://i.imgur.com/1NAbbtU.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/WwohlK6.jpg


Link to a larger image of one of the test examples firing ordnance (note the pylon between the inner port engine and the fuselage):
http://i.imgur.com/v5PUMIK.jpg

Stuffy, I don't think 4 engines are required these days (and the A340 is enormous..) The Atlantic/P8 don't need (two) FOUR engines.. The euro concept I drew up has 2.5 engine, an APTU, (Boeing consdered for the 777NG) providing additional power during heavy take-offs, power for new directed energy weapons and as back-up if one engine fails far from the shore. Keeps the main engines decently light/ efficient. A CROR engine as sketched is 5% more efficient then a straight prop.

IMO a new Long range MPA can be smaller, but to fly far you need a significant airframe/wing. I used a cross section slightly larger then the double bubble Embraer Ejet as a compromise to provide space for large bays and nose radar.

http://i191.photobucket.com/albums/z...g?t=1311463771

keesje,

If you'd ever flown in an Atlantic, you'd know - they need 4 engines!;)

Duncs:ok:

Answers and solutions !

I don't see any answers or solutions from the alleged so-called informed experts on here ? (They probably work for Boeing).

Just snide comments and no proof that they actually know what they are talking about.

At least biggus and keesje have pointed out the problems and keesje has come up with some ideas along with davef68.

I think four engines are needed with long endurance. Keesje is happy with two.

As yet nobody has informed me why exactly the Nimrod MRA4 was cancelled.?

Why the moribund politicians of Europe are not addressing the problem?

What are the realistic options?

The Boeing P8 will not be available to the UK for some time yet.(as explained by biggus).

The rather elegant looking Kawasaki, will go to Japan first. Another wait.

What is to be done?

Answers and solutions please.

At least the Italians have thought about it:-

http://i1294.photobucket.com/albums/...ps7ff22b36.jpg

The Fiasco of Politicians, Panic and Procurement.

http://i1294.photobucket.com/albums/...ps5b04f508.jpg

Somewhat out of context, and North is wrong in that RJ is not a UOR for a start.

Re the Italians - there is a difference between a military maritime aircraft and a Coastal/Sea control aircraft that is primarily concerned with surface search and identification (In the same way that the USCG uses the C-130). A UK military 'MPA' would be expected to pursue both surface and sub surface targets as well as SAR and all the other secondary roles mentioned above.

More fuel for thoughts?
I think I heard Atlantique 2s (french MPAs) have 2 engines only. Does that fit?

[edit] did a quick homework thx to Wiki:
P-3 Orion - 4 engines
Max speed 761 kph
Ceiling 10,500 m
Range 8,940 km

Atlantique 2 - 2 engines
Max speed 650 kph
Ceiling 9,145 m
Range 8,000 km

P-8 Poseidon - 2 engines (jet)
Max speed 908 kph
Ceiling 12,500 m
Range 2,222 km

Yes, out of context, but it demonstrates how the MPA situation will not be resolved.

They spent too much time and money on the Nimrod MRA4.

Having spent that amount, they should have endeavoured to get something out of it.

Now there is nothing.

The Atlantique 2, is better than nothing.

I don't know how it measures up against the P3 Orion?

Assume the UK gets a few Orions from Florida or wherever.

The electronics would have to be updated.

The US marines got our Harriers on the cheap.

Rest assured, the Orions will cost a pretty penny.

Solutions anybody?

A squadron of "off the shelf" C295 MPAs to start with ASAP.

& Don't let the local industry modify them for all those special, unique requirements.

The price and delivery times would triple. Adjust & get them into service ASAP.

http://www.airbusmilitary.com/portal...5/About/06.png

keesje,

For once, I think that you might have something there!

I think that an issue might be that if the UK bought C295 then it would keep C295 and nothing else. Is that platform capable enough?

Stuffy,

We haven't stated why the MRA4 got cancelled because, as operators, we can find no valid strategic reason for it being binned!

Duncs:ok: