Why re-invent the wheel? The P-8A is in production now. Low risk solution - just buy some. {or the Japanese four engined thingie??} All the academic b/s in the world won't deliver a real solution.

The UK will buy the P8.
Examples redirected from the production line.
I am not convinced it is the right answer.
For ASW, it does not have enough time on station, to find submarines.

Please explain why the US Navy, Indian Navy and the RAAF think it is an OK platform for ASW as well as other roles!

The Pacific and Indian Oceans are pretty big places to hide subs!

Stuffy,

You are not for real are you?! Granted, you have gave me a chuckle this week with your crazy suggestions and continuous desire to have the A400M as an MPA!

Hope the day job is going well and your colleagues within industry are enjoying your answers when you feedback...

BigGreenGilbert:

- go to "User CP" left above in the screen and then go to "Edit Your Details" for correct "age"
- go to PPRuNe Forums - Forum Rules to get an update on forum policies
- for enhanced handling opinions without stripes; check yr colleagues

;)

About my twin prop multirole MPA concept
Elta, Bombardier Pursue Multi-Mission Aircraft Opportunities | Defense Update - Military Technology & Defense News
A naval version of the soon to be launched bigger ATR would come close too.

Tactics that weren't feasible / required in previous 25 years, could very be in the next 25 years, believe me. Operational requirements seem fluid these days.. :sad:

At what range from base, Stuffy?
If your base is in Sig, you don't need 1200 NM to get much of anywhere, for example. If your range to datum decreases, then on station time increases.

The Pacific mission is another matter, which I suspect informs the Air to Air refueling option.

keesje, "believe me" is a reach, sorry.

Why the US, Indian and Aussie navies think the P8 is OK?

Boeing have superb salesmen.

Stuffy
Who is not 12 years old.

Really? Why?

Really?? I wonder how we used to do it in the past? I know submarines are getting quieter, but 12 hours?!?!

Or of course, it is a platform (the only platform currently available?) that meets your requirement for a LRMPA.

But also note:

So not so good if you need/want long range MPA (or Stuffy's 12 hours on station time).:hmm:

The P-8A's advantages are:

1 - It is big, with mongo radar, big-a$$ generators, lots of workstations, lots of sonobuoys, an internal weapon bay and hardpoints for other weapons. It is also big enough to carry DIRCMs, all the comms equipment you want &c without breaking much of a sweat.

2 - It has been heavily redesigned for the mission and is less like a 737 than most people think.

3 - Someone else has already paid for it.

We'll never know for sure, but I'll take your word for it.
How do you come up with that? What assumptions are you making as regards cues and datum?
(Just a hint: Orion didn't work in isolation, it was part of a complex ASW system. So was Nimrod).

As to "super carrier" and "boomers" I wonder at what you believe boomer deployment patterns to be. Not thirty years ago, now.

Carriers tend to be threatened by SSN and SSK, though most boomers I know of have torps and would use them if they need to.

There are plenty of nations whose requirements are limited to that, so best wishes on getting the hardware to them and meeting their needs.

EDIT:

While these two slides ought to be taken with a grain of salt ... being part of the Oz promotional material ... it points to where on station limits are expected. As depicted, the on station segment of the mission is proposed at low altitude.
http://defence.boeing.com.au/website...4_FINAL(1).pdf
See slide 4 of 22.

Also of interest are slides 17 and 18 which are "and the future looks so wonderful from here" estimates of platform growth. (How about more fuel, lads? ;) )


Looks like the Navy can live with that.

Boeing P-8 Poseidon - in conjuntion with a UAV system, which is not BOGOF(buy one get one free).

Range: 1,200 nmi (2,222 km) 4 hours on station (Anti-submarine warfare mission)

In U.S. service, the Poseidon will be complemented by the Broad Area Maritime Surveillance UAV system, which will provide continuous surveillance. The system is expected to enter service around 2010. Around 40 UAVs based on the RQ-4 Global Hawk will be used in the program.

(source:Wikipedia)

The uninvited guest: Chinese sub pops up in middle of U.S. Navy exercise, leaving military chiefs red-faced.
The uninvited guest: Chinese sub pops up in middle of U.S. Navy exercise, leaving military chiefs red-faced | Mail Online


"American military chiefs have been left dumbstruck by an undetected Chinese submarine popping up at the heart of a recent Pacific exercise and close to the vast U.S.S. Kitty Hawk - a 1,000ft supercarrier with 4,500 personnel on board.
By the time it surfaced the 160ft Song Class diesel-electric attack submarine is understood to have sailed within viable range for launching torpedoes or missiles at the carrier.
According to senior Nato officials the incident caused consternation in the U.S. Navy."

Quote:3 - Someone else has already paid for it.

How many UK jobs will be produced by buying the Boeing P8 ?

Today is budget day in the UK. The UK is bumping along the bottom in economic terms.

Capital projects produce work where there is none.

Come on BAe Systems, Airbus. Rise to the challenge.

That is of course correct and a limitation. Same goes for the ART72 and C295 MPA variants.

The Bombardier Multi Mission design btw has a gunpod. Unthinkable in the P3/Nimrod era.

Not that I feel the Q400 is a practicle platform for MPA. No lower deck at all, requiring those bumps visible on the model..

The concept I sketched would be bigger and use new generation GE38/TP400 class engines (8-11k shp) and have a small booster APTU that also supports take-off close to (a high) MTOW.

The buddy-buddy equipment could be for 2 aircraft to lift off at MTOW and one topping up the other a few hours in the right direction before continuing to fly a shorter mission. An ( unlikely) 400MPA would have that as an option anyway.

Local jobs, one of the pillars of the MR4 catastrophe. The 4 bill pounds lost could easily bought say 15-18 (?) off the shelf(!) P8's. (The US recently payed USD 1.9 for 11 aircraft).

Quote:

---

"American military chiefs have been left dumbstruck by an undetected Chinese submarine popping up at the heart of a recent Pacific exercise and close to the vast U.S.S. Kitty Hawk - a 1,000ft supercarrier with 4,500 personnel on board. By the time it surfaced the 160ft Song Class diesel-electric attack submarine is understood to have sailed within viable range for launching torpedoes or missiles at the carrier. According to senior Nato officials the incident caused consternation in the U.S. Navy."

---

As if this never happened during the cold war with Charlie, Victor, and IIRC a Sierra. :rolleyes:
Not to mention the poetic license used by the journo in this article.

Do you actually know anything about real life ASW? I'll bet the under.

Concur, and a good point supporting my observation up there about MPA being part of a system.

Re Chinese Sub

During a similar exercise, one of the Aussie subs technically had a firing solution
on one of the US Carriers and the US knew it was there and were looking for it ! So doesn't surprise me.

Stuffy That's a big assumption to have that they didn't know the sub was there, I'm pretty sure the USN aren't advertising their detection capabilities

exercises with collins and others are limited to stress systems and I wouldn't put the class of chinese at the time in the same sentence

Re: chinese sub

I have seen many of these reports greatfully adopted by US militairy/ congressman to support the need to spend even more on defense.

No threat is the biggest threat for many in the militairy-industrial complex.

Another example: Russian flyover takes Navy by surprise?

there is a doco submariners by sbs on the collins on ex, it should be online.
what really upset the usn was when they broke roe and went active and still couldn't find it

Or, of course, you could design your MPA/MMA to carry sufficient fuel for the requirement/task that you want it to achieve.

And no, the A400MPA would need to have a centreline hose fitted for another one to be able to receive. If that is an option (I don't think it is) then the tanker variant won't be doing MPA as well. Back to that mutual exclusivity again. :ok:

JSF

Yes, I have seen that, although I read of the success
on the DoD web site at one point. I think the Sub Capt
was quite pleased.


Re No threat is the greatest threat, I agree.

that ex was actually good for aus, as the usn came and fixed what was wrong with collins and we had some tech that they liked

heh, I've been in no few exercises where our own SSN's snuck about and the first we finally found of them, after quite a bit of searching, was the infamous green flare indicating an attack.

ASW's hard.

LO has it - its already in production.

IF range is such an issue, look at retrofitting a boom to some of those A330 tankers you guys have. Yes, it would add to that programs cost, but it would solve two other problems as well (EC and C17).

Roland, the A400M does have an optional centre-line FRU that can be used for buddy refuelling.

http://www.airbusmilitary.com/portal...M/About/13.jpg

Or a MPRS pod.

Well there you go, you live and learn. :ok:

So anyone know how big the internal HDU is? Where it is mounted within the fuselage? How it is connected to the fuel tank system? How it is fed through the rear doors and whether the ac can remain pressurised during centreline AAR.

Sipping my 16 year lagavulin, a habit picked up during 27 years before the galley teapot, I'm trying to imagine what some you think happens at night 300 feet over a raging sea whilst trying to get an attack solution on a fast evading nuc.

Or tooling around the foggy inner Minches trying to sort out an active fix on a rubberised, 400 tonne german SSK.

Or joining a carrier group in the middle of an air raid, with every radio spewing constant chatter onto an already over crowded intercom with everyman jack working like a one armed paper hanger trying to sort out the surface picture, because guess what, Sunray has turned off the link to go reversionary.

I could go on and paint another dozen scenario's (like controlling 6 SAR assets when peoples lives hang in the balance), but you get my drift.

The fact that some of you think that this is some sort of youtube video you can just pause, so's you can pop up and pick up some fuel, just goes to show that you know absolutely the square root of **** all that you are blithely spouting pure sh1te about.

GTFO, the lot of you.

Except of course, them that are Kipper qualified, god bless you all.

JSFan, Detection with what, technology from Star Trek?

Mention politics on here and the techies disappear.


I bet that journalist picked up the surprise and wrote about it.

That should be journalists, as there are plenty of reports about it.

As the Chinese leaders said, " Just a coincidence."

Advances it submarine technology could prove embarrassing. Have you heard of the Russian high speed Squall(Skval in Russian) torpedo ??

It uses a cavitation bubble to attain a very high speed.

Whoops there goes another Super Carrier hull. But they had high, hopes, they had high hopes.
Whoops there goes............

The Old Fat One,

Excellent post !

Wisdom writ large.

War/conflict is ordered chaos. Not a computer game.

16 year Lagavulin? One has to take you seriously !

Too many Budscheiser boys on here.

What a non-sense. Many MPA's can refuel.

I'm sure that TOFO,who probably has more AAR prods in an MPA than you've had hot dinners, will be shocked to hear that.

What he was talking about, if you take his quote in context, is the fact that some of the posts on this thread appear to suggest - they may not intend to, but they certainly appear to - that the new MPA conops using multi-mission types mean that you stop what you're doing, head off for the tanker to refuel (since no-one would be stupid enough to suggest conducting an AAR prod while still chasing down an SSN. I hope...) and then go back to what it was you were in the process of doing before getting your fuel.

Which, as TOFO was pointing out, is so divorced from reality as to be nonsense.

Archimedes

That was my understanding of what TOFO meant as well.

It is pretty obvious what The Old Fat One is talking about while sipping his single malt.

What happens in peacetime war games, is somewhat different from a real hot war.

Whilst the P8 may be adequate in peacetime.

Something more is required, when things get nasty.

The MPA version of 'Grizzly', the A400M, is tough enough and big enough, to do the job, in the FUTURE.

The level of sophistication of submarines in the future, will be frightening. So will their ability to disable a Super Carrier.

I knew it was a bad dream and surely did not happen, 12 hour cold/cold barrier with a mid on-station refuel at 20 West. I must re-write history, and my flying log book.

I am sure that the UK will eventually go for the P8, it is the only realistic option in terms of NATO/USA commitments.

The P8 could potentially fly for 11-12 hours un-refuelled, depending on ZFW. This is significantly better than the Nimrod MR2, and probably similar to the MRA4, but I stand to be corrected. I would also add that it is not fun flying for 10 hours or more in a 737, it is a lot more cramped than a P3, and similar space-wise to the MR2. To take additional flight crew to augment for longer missions will also add a not insignificant weight penalty to a 737/P8.

Y_G

keesje

Once more with feeling....

An MPA mission is divided into three parts....

The transit out
the on station (on task) period
The transit back

Notwithstanding the odd wacky sortie (thanks yellergait), you do AAR going out, or coming back, NOT during the on task period.

Further...if the transit is short (less than an hour) there will be neither a need for AAR, nor the opportunity to conduct one.

Thus, an ENDURING fundamental requirement of a MODERN Long Range Maritime Patrol Aircraft is the need to carry out a 4-6 hour on station period, equating to 10-12 hours airborne time...wait for it.... WITHOUT AAR.

If that rules out some of your low cost types, well that's just the way it is. It's nothing to do with us being old and stuck in the past...it's simply that we know the job, past, present and future.

These short range coastal type may well be great bits of kit, and who knows, maybe could fill a coastguard role for the UK.

But they are not LRMPA.

TOFO ZKJ2

FFS Stuffy

Will you just answer the question that you have been asked several times in the last couple of pages; why is the range/endurance combination of the P-8 unsatisfactory? And why would anyone buy a weapons system that is "adequate in peacetime" but not when things get nasty?

Except, of course that it doesn't exist. It doesn't have a weapons bay. It doesn't have ESM or RWR. Fitting a modern search radar will be an issue. And given Airbus Mil's delivery record so far, it isn't going to be an option anytime in the near or medium term.

TOFO

This has been pointed out numerous times, but there's none so blind as those that don't want to see........ Good luck with that!:ok:

YG - I must apologise for my lack of clarity; what I had in mind was, say, an MPA charging in to release weapons against the SSN, with the pilot thinking 'y'know, this'd be a tad easier were we not plugged into the tanker at this very moment...'

devils advocate
 

No one mentioned refuelling during task periods. So lets stop attacking folks on things nobody said, ok?

LRMPA task are apparently so urgent you can pause them for 5+ years without anyone getting hurt or even worried. Meanwhile e.g. pirats are becoming a real problem (people getting hurt) without e.g. the UK having a suitable MPA to respond, chewing on their USSR era LRMPA / ASW requirements instead.

I can imagine politics are getting fed up after the 4billion we know better drama, and the RAF better start with a fresh sheet of paper and some new inputs drawing up MPA requirements that are more realistic and future / budget proof.

Not an opinion people want to hear, I know, but seeing how quick the Nimrods were scrapped not far beside what influential people in London think.

TOFO

All true enough for oceanic MPA/ASW. However, the transit times you imply (3 h both ways) indicate well over 1000 nm from take-off to station and not everyone's national strategy calls for that.

YG

Why do you call the 737 more cramped than a P-3? It's a bigger cross-section and a longer fuselage.

As for the central question of the thread: The problem with any airlifter-to-MPA/ASW transition is that it has all kinds of structure where you don't need it and not enough where you do, and that cruise efficiency is always a bit compromised in favor of STOL.