New MPA?
 

The mad MOD try out new UAV MPA for ASW and SAR. May buy ten but not for RAF use due £££. Low pay men get job. M'OL new CAS?

Those of you who laughed at my pathetic attempts to post pictures of Greek Tiger Moths, can have another laugh. I still haven't got the hang of it, so perhaps some kind soul will sort it.

This UAV has been seen undergoing test flights from a secret base in Northamptonshire. The emblem on the nose suggests that the uncrew who unman this unmanned aircraft have been brought in from Eastern Europe, a cost saving measure copied from O'Leary of Ryanair.

http://pic20.picturetrail.com/VOL145.../407155036.jpg

http://pic20.picturetrail.com/VOL145.../407155038.jpg

http://pic20.picturetrail.com/VOL145.../407155039.jpg

Why does it look like a Wellington with ASW kit and D-Day recognition markings?

I'm only asking.

Retro design - it's all the rage. And ASW aircraft are meant to have ASW kit.

Every day's a school day.

It's a radio controlled scale model...:ugh:

My mum told me that you need Wellingtons if you play near water.

Polish Air Force markings of over 20 years ago. Interesting.

Do you get French Fries with it ? That's "chips" to anyone north of the Watford Gap :E

http://www.takeaway.com/images/resta...logo_small.png

Freedom Fries.

Aviation Today :: Navy's P-8 Poseidon Ready for Fleet Introduction

Just sayin'.......

Looks good, looks right.

And as they say: "Anything that looks right . . . . . . . ."

JohnB :)

P8 Poseidon
 

A good PR story..............not a lot about endurance and range, particularly at low level, a must for a Maritime Patrol Aircraft.

JB,

Unfortunately looks are not important. It's military capability. Poor performance at low level has forced the P8 to adopt some unproven technology which may mean it is compromised in blue water ASW. Sensor requirements need to be explored fully and use cases developed to ensure the platform can match the required range and endurance requirements when conducting real operations.

Here it is being prepared for another sortie in the hands of 304 Sqn:
http://www.polishairforce.pl/dyw304zdj/8.jpg

"Anything that looks right"

Were you referring to the P-8 or the UAV ,John?

Sources that I dare not name tell me that the UAV project is in fact being jointly funded by the MOD, the British Waterways Board and the Ministry of Ag. and Fisheries.
It seems that stretches of the Grand Union Canal and the Oxford Canal, both of which pass close to the trials airfield, are heavily infested with non-native species of small submarine. (known as U-boats). Like the New York alligators, they have probably been released by owners who can no longer afford to maintain them,and are now breeding.
They burrow into the canal banks to create nests ( known as pens ) and there are concerns that the banks will collapse, draining the canals and flooding the surrounding fields.

On the other hand,Leon may have got it right.

What is indisputable is that until the Coventry Shackleton is ready to fly, this UAV is the ONLY MPA FLYING IN THE WHOLE OF THE U.K.

Sad isn't it?

Au contraire - see Intro - The Catalina Society - PBY Consolidated Catalina Aircraft - Home of Plane Sailing :ok:

Look a lot nicer if they filed down all of those sticky out bits. Probably add 20kts too.

Thanks, BEagle, I stand corrected.

So our inventory consists of one Catalina, a Shackleton undergoing (very) major refit, and a Wellington with a PLE of 9 1/2 minutes.
Let's hope we do not have to cope with anything more that some feral U-boats on the Grand Union.

Not strictly MPA ... but I always thought the Ringed Wimpy looked purposeful :ok:

Might zap a few pacemakers these days though ...

http://www.mcdoa.org.uk/images/Welli...ring%20med.jpg

I suppose it has a certain attraction.

Bloodhound Loose,

There are degrees of passing IOT&E and if it was acceptable why are they developing new technology.

Dog Box Established!

The selection of the 737-based P-8A Poseidon means that the US Navy needs to act on these problems, especially since the P-8A can perform low swoops if necessary, but its airframe is optimized for cruising at altitude. A wish to extend the useful life of the hard-worked P3 Orion aircrafts also contributes to the urgency for action.

The US Navy is, as a consequence, pursuing a way to launch torpedoes from high altitude, possibly also reducing the need for the aircraft to maneuver and turn to a suitable release point by having the torpedo itself navigating to the splash point. With the airplane no longer required to carry out complex maneuvers and turns at low altitude, the useful life of the airframe obviously is protected, and the airplane can serve for a longer time, undergoing less stress. Here comes into play the HAAWC (High-Altitude Anti-Submarine Warfare Weapons Concept), a program to take the US standard light torpedo, the MK54, and give it wings.

Lockheed Martin puts forward the LongShot wing adapter kit: it enables the torpedo to glide on a range well in excess of 10 nautical miles and is also said to enable "off axis" launches so the aircraft doesn't have to maneuver to reach a precise splash point over a contact, but can immediately attack even if badly positioned.

They pulled some seriously high G I read ages ago on that Anti Mine degaussing Wellington, it was flying trying to detonate mines but wasn't having a lot of luck, so he brought it round dropped down megga low and it detonated underneath resulting in the vertical G loading

Jet in Vitro

An inaccurate and misleading post. When Boeing started on the P-8 they decided to use a 737 fuselage, a wing design already proven (albeit with modified wing tips) joined these 2 components together and strengthened the result due to the demanding environment (low level) that it was planned for be aircraft to operate in.

You may want to think your logic behind HAAWC concept; you haven't quite grasped it correctly.

I assure you that the P-8 operates very nicely at low level; although that is only my opinion has someone who is a PPC qualified on the aircraft.

I am merely posting information which is readily available on the www and asking why. What are the drivers for high level ASW. There is little threat from subs themselves. Trials during the 80s proved that the concept of firing a SAN from a submerged vessel was flawed. In the littoral being low is more of an advantage (RFI being a major issue these days) Being able to drive your weapon to the ISP I can see the benefit of that, but a good system should allow you to do that anyway (SRS/ GPS enabled buoys and a good Nav system negates the need for on tops).

Anything that reduces the time late at datum.

YS

Timely use of sensors is also important. Acoustic sensors need to be deployed accurately. You can not normally attack a datum you need to get back into contact unless other things are driving your ROE. Dropping buoys from height adds complications: wind effects the ballistics and the time to drop/ get to the desired point in the water from height add to the pool of problems. If you wish to drive the buoy to a desired water entry point the Nav system on the buoy needs to be up and running at the point of release, therefore needs to be linked to the weapon system onboard the release platform up to the point of release. How do you drive the buoy, glide or powered, both have issues including sub counter detection of a powered buoy. Weapons will have the same issues.Release to service will also be interesting. A lot of effort for no much benefit. Unless there are other reasons why you do not want to tackle the problem be being at low level.

RF horizon for other sensors, some of which you don't know about.

Emphatically not because anyone would have the slightest qualms about flying P-8A at 200' all day every day for the next 40 years if that's what it is needed to do.

Indeed there are. For ASW, P-8A Increment 1 passed OT-C1 (aka IOT&E) in the "Exceeded all expectations, handed every submarine commander it was up against his ass on a plate, shat all over the competition and pissed off other MPA crews by casually broadcasting a few Dolphin Codes in the clear that referenced how rubbish they were by comparison" degree.

Now, Jet In Vitro, I must congratulate you on a stellar start to your PPRuNe career. In your first ever post you implied that European employment law might apply to members of the Armed Forces, when it doesn’t.*

In your second post you asked a question about RJ basing that had been answered, less than 24 hours before, on the very same thead.

In all your subsequent posts thus far, you have been on this thread, arguing about the P-8A’s low level performance with a bunch of P-8A flying instructors, and (this is my favourite) arguing about how well P-8A passed IOT&E with… wait for it… members of the P-8A Integrated Test Team that flew the test flights and wrote the report!

Bravo, sir, bravo!

You are either a Troll, or an Air Rank.



* That’s the short answer. Before people try to correct me, a slightly longer answer is that any employment law doesn’t automatically apply to the Armed Forces because we’re not ‘employed’ in the sense that we don’t have contracts of employment, and most EU directives that might have been relevant specifically exempt the Armed Forces of any member state anyway. Despite that, HMG did ‘opt us in’ to specific acts that suited it, such as anti-discrimination acts, even though it didn’t have to. None affect whether it might be lawful for the MOD to impose a RoS. As it happens, I don’t believe that the MOD has never gone to court to enforce one, but that’s another matter.

Well thank you.

I feel suitably humbled by a seasoned PPer.

However, you have made assumptions based on assumptions.

The questions I have asked have not been answered.

Which questions have not been answered?

...and the P-8A flies perfectly well at low level...

DB,

I think you have been unfair to JIV.

Indeed he has merely asked questions, not stated facts. The discussion on where the RJ is to be delivered did not come to a conclusion it was specualtion.

PT

RTC
 

It is obvious that the supporters of the P8 programme on this thread are heavily involved in the seedcorn process and as such are probably in the best position to comment on the aircrafts capabilities. I though am somewhat disappointed at the lack of balanced criticism of this programme from these individuals and hence we may yet again may end up procuring a US built platform that subsequently does not meet its stated potential. The P3 was never as good an ASW platform as the Nimrod MR2. I suspect the P8 does not meet the capability of the now defunct MRA4. I have still to see proof that ASW can be done at high level yet the P8 continues to seek capable high level sensors and weapons. I hope our representatives on the P8 maintain an objective viewpoint and are not swayed by the hard sell(in its many guises) of US industry.

^^ This is a good post (apart from the P3 V Nimrod hyperbole)

The kipper fleet has history here. I was in the room when the MRA4 (correction Nimrod 2000) dissenters (or which there were many) were ordered to "get in line" with the programme. Do not under estimate how much the operator can influence military purchases (a fact very well known to the sales teams of the big players).

History too with the high level thing. The searchwater was initially optimised for medium level work...it did not take too long for the fleet to get back down in the weeds again. ASW is a varied game and technology moves on, but part of it is always going to be conducted at low level for all sorts of reasons.

I am not suggesting the P8 is not a great bit of kit...I have absolutely no knowledge of it's capabilities whatsoever. But in the HIGHLY UNLIKELY event we get an proper fully formed MPA force back and opertional again, one hopes (perhaps naively) that we learn all the lessons of history.

PS

the difference is that the P8 is flying and the Nimrod was binned as we could never get it to work

we desperately need a long range PATROL aircraft - but does it need to have ASW capability as well?

Simplistic and only partially true

Yes

what is not true?

And why? - Al Qaida has no submarines..........

I didn't say it was untrue (although others will). I said it was only part of the picture. There are heaps of posts on here on the cancellation of the MRA4 and I have no intention of raking it all up again.

And talking of simplistic...

Seriously, is that the best you have? Well if they are the only threat to the security of the UK, we can sh1tcan 90 percent of our armed forces then.

Pprune eh...what you gonna do :ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh:

The systems and sensors were working. Some elements were a backwards step in capability in comparison to the MR2; but that's what happens when you place design freeze on the new system wilst continuing to upgrade the old system. Much of the MRA4 stuff is in the P8; MRA4 had a Boeing mission system. What didn't work was the airframe, or certain parts of it (if ever there was a case of "If it looks right....) and they kept finding bits that needed further mods to get it to "fly right". The joint trials team will tell you that it was working, very well; it just needed some more work.

Despite the claptrap about to be spouted by the LibDems Trident replacement review, AQ are not the only enemy - even the French have SSNs and SSBNs :E

Yes - Both our independant SSBN force and our 2020 Carrier Strike Group needs ASW protection at long range.

An ASW MPA/MMA provides a flexible, high speed, long range, renewable weapons carrying, semi-persistant capability (i.e, 24/7 ops for a couple of weeks) in defence of our SSBN's and CSG's, that cannot be replicated by any other asset.

That is why a key mitigation strategy for the scrapping of the MRA4 is to ask our allies for help in the guise of using their ASW MPA to do the job on behalf of UK plc. The requirement has not gone away. We just don't have a UK aircraft that can fill the void right now.