"it just needed some more work."
and most of the Defence Budget ......................

The trouble with an anti-sub MPA is that where we know we can fly it - NW Europe, N Atlantic it is very unlikely we'll have to "protect" the new carriers

Where we might use them in anger - say in the Middle East/N Africa/W Africa - there are hardly any subs to look out for

Further afield we come back to the aircraft basing problem for very long distance naval deployments

Really?

Iran

Russia

it can do all of that other stuff that you might need it for when it's not required for ASW; a properly equipped true multi mission aircraft.

HH,
The carrier can protect itself for a while, however, it's logistic tail and the tail of other support elements can not to the same degree thus it's the massive SLOC which are the problem areas. FIAC and the possibility of a submarine threat influence manoeuvre massively.

ASW is no different to any form of defence...it's all just insurance.

As to third world ASW capabilities...are you aware the argies had a free pot at some of our war canoes during the Falklands from their one and only serviceable SSK. the only reason they did not scupper the whole littoral operation was because their top weapons man had accidently wired up the torps arse about face.

It's all documented in the Proceeding, The USN magazine

circa 45 countries have a submarine force and virtually every developed maritime nation still has an MPA force with an ASW capability.

Whatever, for a land-locked nation that has no navy, and nothing like aircraft carriers to protect, I guess you are right, we don't need this expensive ASW sh1T.

Oh...wait mo, what's all this wet stuff all around and what are they building in those huge **** off sheds at Rosyth :D

Oh. And I'm afraid I need to comment...
Heathrow Harry, it's time to move on.
It's my belief that what we need is not an MPA but an MMA (Multiple Mission Aircraft), so such an aircraft would be capable of ASW and MUCH, MUCH more.
I hope the nae sayers and glass half empty lot, can see beyond the horizon on this one. Come on folks, it's 2013, not 1980....

I'll move on

but I think it should be a priority to get some long range patrol aircraft up in a year or so - not spend 20 years refining an all-singing, all-dancing aircraft that we can afford to buy a single example of

The Navy Aircraft Needs Additional Critical Testing
 

For those who commented on my previous posts please see the extracts below.


06-10-2013

The program manager for Maritime Surveillance Aircraft (the program manager) effectively addressed the potential risks and flight hour concerns of the DOT&E at the LRIP. However, as discussed below, additional critical testing should be completed before the full-rate production (FRP) decision.
The program manager planned the FRP decision review to occur in July 2013, before testers complete testing needed to demonstrate that the P-8A Poseidon airframe can meet life expectancy requirements. The program manager delayed life expectancy testing in reaction to funding constraints and testing priorities. The program manager also did not correct known system deficiencies, about which the DOT&E and Joint Interoperability Test Command officials had expressed concern, before conducting Initial Operational Test and Evaluation (IOT&E). This occurred because the Chief of Naval Operations accepted the risk of granting the program manager temporary waivers from correcting the deficiencies to allow the program to enter into IOT&E, while not having to fully correct the deficiencies until after the FRP decision. Finally, the program manager deferred completing mission testing in response to fleet commander concerns regarding maintaining on-time delivery of the P-8A Poseidon aircraft.


We recommend that the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics award an additional low-rate initial production lot for the P-8A Poseidon aircraft in July 2013 and defer the full-rate production decision for the P-8A Poseidon program until the program manager for Maritime Surveillance Aircraft demonstrates: the airframe can achieve the required 25-year lifespan without succumbing to structural fatigue; testing has resolved mission limited deficiencies; and the aircraft can perform its primary missions, including anti-surface warfare.


Perhaps you are too close to the programme and need to step back and look at the bigger picture.

Whilst the platform may perform well at low level, but is it robust enough to do this for 25 years!

Interesting that it has not proven it can carry out its primary missions!

How do you PROVE the airframe will last for 25 years?

If it was the F-35 I guess we'd be most of the way there..................

Of course it was also such a good idea to install high-ratio bypass engines deep within the wing structure, with very long inlet and exhaust ducts. The effect of a single fan blade failure would have been catastrophic, both to the airframe and to the mission crew.....:(

Brilliant mission system, frankly appalling airframe.

BEags, to be fair though the MR1, R1 and MR2 had something similar and I can't remember there ever being an uncontained blade failure. OK so it was the Spey engine and that would pretty much eat anything thrown into it with a small cough; are you saying the BMW/RR engines on the 4 were more susceptible to throwing blades?

Jet In Vitro: I'm sorry to disappoint you, but you haven't discovered anything shocking in those notes from DOT&E. All that you are looking at is a perfectly normal set of decisions on prioritization that any program manager has to make. Any program manager has to decide what to test, in what order. The P-8 program manager chose to test ASW and torpedoes (and ASuW search sensors) first, and fatigue life and Harpoon later. The text you pasted even explains why this was, so you answered your own question in a way. All DOT&E is saying is: "Let's not place the full order until we've had chance to test those things too, but instead of holding up the production line let's place a third LRIP order so everything stays on schedule, just without signing away the full $20bn or however much it is." Nobody has any concerns about fatigue life not being what it was designed to be by Boeing. It's just one of the things that hasn't been tested yet, precisely because it is not a concern for meeting the deployment schedule and therefore not a priority.

Roly, I gather that the original choice of engine was rejected 'because it wasn't British'.... So the BR710 was selected.

Compared to the 32" diameter low by-pass ratio (0.64) Spey, the BR710 is a high by-pass ratio (4.2) engine with a 48" fan. Although there's no reason to suspect that it would shed blades any more than would any other jet engine (and certainly less than Das Teutor sheds prop blades....), if it did shed a blade, even if that blade was contained, massive out of balance forces would cause engine gyration and significant structural damage. Whereas in all other BR710 applications, it would fall off the pylon, in the MRA4 it would have thrashed about deep inside the wing / fuselage junction area....:uhoh:

Are you sure about that Beags?

The RRD engine was fully certified, underwent extensive testing and coped with an explosive release of a fan blade - as expected. The whole thing is wrapped in a kevlar designed to stop any of the high energy bits from leaving the scene.

Not sure that any engine is designed to fall off in the event of a blade failure!

Having discussed this subject extensively with my RN colleagues and the wider ISTAR community I can say the above post is not true.

:ok:

From my office I have no need to guess so good luck with your single-service rivalry because in truth the nap of of RN and RAF ISTAR community runs together.

:ok:

DB,

I am neither disappointed or claiming to have discovered something shocking. I merely posted what appeared to be a factual report in a defence magazine. It is others who have posted unsubstantiated opinions as facts.

Clearly the US is not going to proceed until testing has been completed. Testing should reveal the truth and to say nobody is concerned about fatigue is an opinion, if true why bother with all the expense of an instrumented ac and hours of testing and analysis.

I for one hope the P8 is a success for those that can afford it.

I am well aware there are already instrumented P8 ac and I believe there are 2 airframes which are used for testing in controlled environments on the ground.

Fatigue and handling are 2 different issues!

Beagle
I disagree entirely with you assessment of blade shedding being harmful to the crew and airframe. There was a huge amout of work done on FBO, of which I was part, and it appeared a sound construct.

I'd be impressed if the RN were buying the MPA from our budget; we're already overheated with QEC/CEPP and T26.

ATG,

Indeed and the RN is not alone in this. To make the money work the platform has to be a full MMA rather than a dedicated MPA. Even then, some other things have to be traded away. Times are hard but all 3 services recognise the need.

JTO - I doubt that we'll ever see a MMA or MPA in UK Service, at least not in the ASW sense. ASuW and SAR (or ISTAR), quite possibly, but ASW, not so much.

Unless we have some 'modular' idea, which will work as well as the last time that was tried.

I have seen a couple of maritime capabilities which are funded, but not committed that are currently assigned to seaborne platforms. These capabilities could be done by airborne platforms. If we had clever and forceful leadership in the RAF we could direct the funding to support the MMA case and provide a platform with wider utility than could be delivered by a ship/ boat.

If we had clever and forceful leadership in the RAF !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

And a return to intercine rivalry that would be matched only by the SHAR debate.

I think Alfred, that you mean?

I guess that the Politicians and the CS will be chuckling that the military is committing fratricide once again in the sake of hubris and Stellar career opportunities.

:ugh:

Well on this one I think that the news CAS "gets it" (to use that horrible buzzword from the other topic), as does the new CNS. As for
why on earth would you procure an MMA that couldn't do ASW? It's one of the primary roles, contributes to the first 2 military tasks (as well as all of the others) and ASuW, ISTAR and SAR can all be done as a free gift from being able to do ASW (properly). Stop thinking single roles here, to be affordable and viable you need to be thinking multi(ple) mission aircraft.

RP - because ASW is hard and requires continued practice. And a MMA will be used for lots of other things first - cf Nimrod in Afg, T23 in the Gulf - before it's allowed to crack on with it's "core" role.

The only thing that will change that if we enter into a sustained period of operations against a SM using country that actually use their SMs properly.

Interesting thread here, and it's good to see more and more consideration regarding MMA. My fear is that we have already identified the platform; some interesting stuff in the August Air Forces Monthly on Sentinel as a maritime platform.
A MMA must be capable of ASW, ASuW inc MCT, SAR, MTI and have an ELINT capability of sorts. It must have range, speed and an ability to carry ample bouys, whilst also being able to Process and Disseminate vast amounts of information in a timely manner. Talk of smaller interim choices merely to fulfil the ASW role would be a mistake. The UK must wake up to this - it's time to move on from ageing fleets with limited potential......there's no reason why said MMA could not fulfil the role of the E-3D also. Undoubtedly, lack of money will be the stopper but replacing 2-3 fleets of aircraft which require significant overhauls, with a more stream-lined and flexible mission system must be the way forward.

The threat from submarines is as strong as ever.......I would argue that it's increasing with the wider proliferation of AIP technology.

"must"?????

that's the sort of thinking that's got us where we are today

We need a PATROL Aircraft to start with - not an ASW platform . It would be nice indeed if we could afford one but it's clear we can't (or won't) fund a proper Nimrod replacement

According to the current "World Naval Review" the threat from submarines is NOT the same as it was in the '70's & '80's for example - Russia has only 1 post 2000 SSBN in service as of mid 2012 and a ragbag mix of 1970's and 1980's boats

Their surface fleet comprises around 22 warships of Frigate size and above - about the same as the RN - but without the maintenance plus its a 4 sea operation

Any future UK MPA (if/when there is one - which is still up for debate) will be operated by the RN.



The RN still considers the role important, the RAF (at senior levels) does not, or at least not sufficiently to be willing to give up anything in order to achieve it.....

Glad the man who knows what all the RAF top brass think is here.:=

Not sure when major spends became single service either. Does the RN have a massive pile of cash that the Joint Capabilities Board does not know about?

Or how about you set aside the divisive posts and embrace capabilities that are good for the UK Armed Forces, rather than just an individual service?

As someone who is in the RAF, at least for a while longer, I don't consider saying that the RN will carry the role forward (if it goes forward at all) to be a divisive post, or individual service oriented.....

So keep your := 's to yourself thank you!!

What a load of crock! What do we need to "patrol"? We need an ASW platform; whether that is something Gucci like a P8 (which we cannot afford to buy) or something that keeps us in the game in the medium term (like a 295) will be down to budgets. If you need a "patrol" aircraft then there are already any number of assets that claim to be able to do it; Predator, Sentinel and E3 to name a few - none of them can do ASW. To do ASW you need a decent radar (which will also provide an ASuW capability); you need ESM of some sort to do ASW and ASuW; you need to be able to deploy sub-surface surveillance systems for ASW, which can be surprisingly handy for ASuW at times. A decent EO/IR camera system is now pretty much a must for either role, plus overland, MCT, SAR etc. You need good comms whether its for ASW or ASuW and an ability to deploy weapons is a must for either role. As I've said before, if you buy a properly equipped MMA which has a good ASW capability, you get all the other roles for "free". With carriers just a couple of years away we will need something more than a "patrol" aircraft to help protect them. As the main threat is likely to be from submarines there is no point in buying an aircraft which isn't ASW capable.

And just as an aside, doesn't MPA/MMA sit in the Jt Forces Cap area not within the Air or Navy command cap area? :rolleyes:

egdg,

I really don't know why I respond to your inflammatory posts, especially as they stand in stark contrast to the tri-service team (yep, Army too) trying to bring an MMA to meet the UK's needs.

I don't care and the SRO does not care who operates this future Joint capability. No single service is pushing hard to be the prime provider of crews either. Indeed, with the manning picture as it is each service has strong reasons as to why finding crews would be problematic.

All the problems point to a large rationalisation of all the ISTAR assets (predominantly those operated by the Army and RAF). The first part of this is underway through the AIOS - again, a tri-service effort and this will probably influence what types are kept in any specific role in the future. Nobody in the ISTAR community expects any future platform to be a pure MPA. The future is with platforms that can deliver across multiple roles - we have no space for one-trick aircraft.

You are correct that whoever operates the aircraft will have to be trained and sustained. This could be an expansion of the MFTS contract or it could be provided by someone else. The existence of the MFTS contract providing trg at Culdrose does not make it a given. Please do not think the RN is in a position to provide any additional crews through the existing contract above and beyond its funded line; it exists to support the current requirement, even if it recognises the potential requirement to grow. In equal regard the maritime community dispersed around the RAF, RN and Seedcorn is not going to be enough either. All MMA aircraft soak-up relatively large numbers of personnel, groundcrew & aircrew alike.

I'm sorry I don't see the rivalry you allude to, but it just isn't there. The requirement is being driven by the UK's needs, not an individual service. My RN colleague sipping beer next to me thinks I am mad to respond to your post. He has a habit of being right.

Ahoy, me hearties! How does I get press ganged into this there Navy MPA m'larkey. Ahaaarrgh!

Duncs:ok:

Aaaaar oh aaaaar Duncs!! Nowt wrong with a bit of pirating....

Surely that is the whole point of Seedcorn?!
Baby steps, given the scaling back that we've experienced, but, arguably, it's at least a start.

How much longer will RAF ex-MPA seedcorn exist? I've heard of a specific date doing the rounds.

as long as it's deemed neccesary, I guess...

good post GD107.

Whatever it might look like to those still serving, seedcorn is a political fix. Something politicians and senior MOD bods can hang their hat on to be seen to doing something given the awkward reality that they have conjured up a capability gap in a maritime nation's security.

Whether it mutates into something better depends on...

a. Someone in power getting the message.
b. That someone having the budget to do something about it.

With regards to the latter, I refer you all to the latest OBR sustainability report, released just a couple of days ago.

That the would be the one predicting a growing deficit towards 2020, unless government expenditure is cut further or taxation is increased or both

It's probably best if we all live in the reality of the present. The RAF getting an MPA again is probably (never say never) not going to happen.

As I've said before, I would love to be wrong.