Duncan,
That is why I asked the question. I could not understand either.

As for the older Nimrods. If the US can keep the B-52 in service, seemingly forever.
Why couldn't we keep the Nimrods, until a suitable replacement were found?

Refurbishment would have employed people. Stupid politicians only care about expense accounts and posing on TV.

AZR:

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

Can I clarify that range figure please? 4 hours on station at a range of 2,222km.

Based on the Navy's web site, that appears to be the case.

1200 nm radius of action with a 4 hour loiter time.

Internal five-station weapons bay
four wing pylons
two centerline pylons
joint missiles, torpedoes and mines.
rotary reloadable, pneumatically controlled sonobuoy launcher

It's not your grandfather's MPA, and I didn't see in my brief investigation if any provision for air to air refueling had been included. I don't think it ever was. IMO, the USN and US DoD missed a trick on that one.

Interesting to consider how one would fit A400M into the MPA mission.

Stuffy,
Read Haddon Cave. that will tell you why Nimrod had to go. I can send you my well thumbed copy

@Lonewolf_50

CUTAWAY: P-8A Poseidon - A Boeing with boost of bravado
Also hidden most of the time is an aerial refuelling port at the top of the fuselage just aft of the cockpit. Although not required for the mission profile, the navy decided to take advantage of the refuelling modifications that had been developed for the 737-based Wedgetail airborne early warning and control aircraft programme for the Australian defence forces.
Crews will largely learn to operate the aerial refuelling and other systems using simulators purchased from Boeing as part of a plan to achieve a three-to-one ratio of simulator-to-live flying for training and mission simulations, says Jim Reining, the navy's P-8A integrated test team government flight test director.

nimrod was cancelled principally to save (future support) money.

the well publicised niggles and quality issues, coupled with hc history were convenient reasons to mask this real, but politically delicate, motive.

the cancellation has created significant reputational damage to the uk, and is a short sighted scandal in my view, well covered here many times!

The Boeing P8 Poseidon, has a poor endurance for maritime patrol. In might suit the US. In fact keejse's C295 is far better. Not that I would be confident about its electronic cooling abilities?

The C295 will suit a number of European countries. The Portuguese have them already.
I cannot see the RAF or the Royal Navy being happy with them. The French will stick with their Atlantique 2's.

I cannot forsee the UK Coalition Government, making any decision before 2015.

They might, just might, get some Lockheed P3's. Eventually paying through the nose for them. Then they will sit in a hangar forever while BAe Systems muck about with them. I am just thinking about the Chinooks sitting in the hangar till kingdom come.

Will the A400M make a maritime aircraft? It certainly would have the range. There would be no issues with cooling the electronic equipment or crew comfort. It has a refueling boom so it could loiter longer than a hooker outside Bradford Station.

In the end it will be down to money, will and vision.

Don't hold your breath.

Thank you, JSFfan.

I had thought, back when I was still in the Navy, that aerial refuelling was in the requirements document for the P-8, but there was also a bit of a war over "how many NAV/NFO seats" is the design criteria? The sensible people won: two, not three. I lost track when I left the Navy of some of those details.

Stuffy:

Depending on mission, P-8 takes off, heads toward station, tops off from a tanker -- hey lookie there! On-station dwell time goes up quite a bit.

Why, you might even top off while on station. Fancy that! What incredibly modern thinking! Joint Operations. Who woulda thunk it? :confused:

Aerial refuelling port aft of the cockpit. The RAF and Royal Navy don't have KC-135's with their boom system.

All that topping up !

Two aircraft a mission, not one. Cost yer ?

With some, It's hard getting away from a platform centric POV and understand its mission centric. The P-8, BAMS etc will do the job. Force planners and system evaluators do actually earn their money

This topic has turned into a hugely amusing read. I'm beginning to look forward to a daily fix on the commute into work (actually that's a lie) but it is quite amusing all the same.

Stuffy, I have to congratulate you as being one of the best fishermen I've seen since Jesus did his loaves and fishes trick. Brilliant. Your latest subtlety over range and endurance was sublime.

I even loved the brilliant irony of keesje's statement: posted next to the spoof 146 MPA - although it would have been much better posted with this picture:http://i191.photobucket.com/albums/z...g?t=1311463771

Congratulations gentlemen, I doff my hat.:D:D

Hi, Roland. Thnx.

I'm no expert. We all know what the entire force of seasoned profesionals, 80 yrs of experience, research institutes and industry created. A 4 billion hole and a capability gab. Everybody is blaming everybody. But as a team effort, it sure is hard to beat. Maybe folks clinged to their old requirements/ jobs that meanwhile evaporated. Pointing at their logbooks and saying the rest of the world just doesn't / can't understand.

I think it's time to think ahead instead of keep looking back. Multirole, multi national, scrapping capabilities, adding new ones. European naval airforces can make a new start.

Roland, I wanted to keep the debate going with some tongue in cheek comments. I don't believe Americans share the same sense of humour or deal with irony very well?

I was looking for a solution to the insoluble. Perfidious politicians notwithstanding.

No money or orders will happen before the end of 2015. If at all.

There will be mad panic measures in 2019.

It gets better and better :D

Stuffy

Just confirm you do understand the difference between range and endurance? And it's link to on task time? I'm not sure your comment on the P8 v C295 was meant to humourous or ironic!!:}

And as for 2019; well who knows? This taken from another MPA topic: Well it is a rumour network :E

I have been trying to create a debate. Not pretending to be an expert.

So Gilbert Green.

What is your solution?

Roland,
Range is how far an aircraft can fly from A to B, including diversionary airfields. Depending on load factors or ferry range etc.

Endurance is how long the aircraft can stay airborne before the pilot is thinking about a change of trousers. Typically it includes loiter time like the whores outside Bradford train station.

Keejse.

Good one !

If we are dealing in rumours. I have heard from a reliable source that the UK is to get Boeing P8 Poseidons.

18 hour missions, will, however, not be an option.

The P-8A does have a refuelling receptacle so that it can gas up from the Navy's large fleet of boom-equipped tankers. Wait, what?

However, there is a limit on effective operator time, is there not? Tends to make AAR a bit academic for these types, unless they are very heavily laden and it is needed to give them even 8 h or so on station at range.

Pardon if this point has been taken up earlier - but there are a lot of MPA missions that can now be very well handled by quite small aircraft. The breakpoint is hardcore ASW - if you want to carry sonobuoys, torpedoes and a radar that can detect periscopes, that's more demanding. But a good surface-search radar, EO sensor, ESM and comms will fit nicely on a CN235, and even something smaller is useful - take a look at the UAE-Piaggio project.