I think he's actually just cutting and pasting random one liners from the daily mail on any subject that comes into his head :8

At least they had the sense to get a 'bolt on' rear Radar, albeit a totally different one to the FWD Radar and insisted on having MAD, hope we do the same.

Didn't we try that, but using the same radar? Maybe they learnt a trick or too?

Could not resist. Came across this through another thread on PPRuNe.
taken as recent as December 13. is this the future of our MPA?


Army Air Corps BN Defender AL2 ZG997 c/n 4012


Well its got the Wescam and looks to have self protection suite and lots of wiggly amp thingy madjigs.


I am pretty sure I have seen some of its brothers and sisters with weapons pylons.


Would the diesel engine DA2 not be better?


I'll get mi coat!

DA, I suspect rather good in a cross wind too. It could use Irish runways, the ones 9000 feet wide and 200 feet long.

This thread should be renamed Boeing-R-Us.

Airliners are very thirsty at 300ft. What is not understood about endurance ?

Turboprop noise under the sea. Is that a Disney song ?

The Bloomberg article talks about relying on computer software instead of a MAD boom, and, flying at high level more can be seen. Perhaps in that case drones are the way forward?

Nothing has been decided yet. Notwithstanding the Boeing wannabee salesmen on this thread.

So. I'm not out. Stuffy. What do you drink in the morning? I'm no Boeing salesman!

Can you please tell me the last time you MAD tracked a submarine, at 300ft or whatever?

If you can provide some sort of "evidence" as to your "expertise", you may stop looking like a fool. Not that I particularly care now, after all your ramblings. In this, I'm glad I'm not alone!

Ps. Are YOU a turboprop salesman?!

Anyway. Back to the SuperBowl. Watching 1 minute of action followed by 5 minutes of adverts and boredom is better fun than arguing with some individuals on this thread.
Guess I'm out again..

PN
On the plus side, BAE weren't involved and it's not AEW.

Just pointing out that the Indians saw the lack of a rear radar and MAD as a shortcoming which they wanted addressed in their Neptunes, in response to a post saying:

Surplus, first it was a joke and secondly who would get the contract to maintain it in UK?

Stuffy

Well, at first glance, we seem to understand it better than you :rolleyes:

Of course, a lot will depend upon your requirement. If your platform, or platforms, meet or exceed your requirement then you have your solution/options.

This from QBF's linked report on IOT&E:
So it would seem that the jet-powered P-8 is able to meet the required criteria and exceed that of the turboprop-powered P3. How that translates to endurance will of course depend upon a number of factors.

The UK already operates C130Js.

This is also a more flexible option.

Lockheed in Talks With 3 Countries To Sell 'Sea Hercs' | Defense News | defensenews.com


IT'S ABOUT TIME: MEET THE SC-130J SEA HERCULES - AviationIntel.com

The fact that the UK already operates C130s is sort of irrelevant. Why, apart from your assertion, is it a more flexible option?

Oh and of course it doesn't yet exist as a platform, apart from on paper! No development risk there then, is there?!!?

Ah!!!!

It's crystal now!!

Stuffy's a Herc mate!

Well done you!!

(With apologies to all my other Herc mates, and close friends...I'm not sure S is in the "club"...)

BS

Some relevant points on this thread.

SC-130J Sea Hercules Maritime Patrol Aircraft - Page 2



It is not surprising that the MOD has yet to make a decision?


Cancelling the MRA4 may well have been a mistake with hindsight.

Whether or not an MPA will be needed until 5 years from now is another debate.

Then there are, as ever, political decisions to be made. The next election is scheduled for 2015.

No decision until after that date?

It is likely that the Tories want the Boeing P8. They would order it tomorrow, but there is opposition within their own party because of the impact on British industry and jobs.
Don't be surprised if they make a decision on the eve of an election. Especially if they believe they are going to lose.

Similarly, the Labour party if it came to power would also be worried about UK jobs.

If Labour became the next government, they would delay the decision or get Marshalls to convert a few C130Js, until Airbus came up with something firm.

In the end it will not be technical or military decision, but one that involved politics and jobs.

Groundhog Day
 

http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/sr...er_offline.gif http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/sr...ons/report.gif http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/sr...eply_small.gif Go on then TOFO give us something something better.
I posted the paper because I thought it encapsulated the more accurate aspects of the RMPA argument. I agree there is nothing new to anyone who understands why we needed an MPA, I just had sight of it and thought others should too. I said tongue in cheek that we needed another MPA thread, I didn't really mean that, I just wanted those that patently don't really understand the need for a (long range) MPA to see a coherently constructed argument. I more or less posted it just so people could see it, I didn't really want to kick off another repeat of what has been said before especially by some of the, shall we say, less well informed contributors. I suppose I should just have picked one of the other threads and dropped it on there. Sorry for any distress caused and for bringing Stuffy to the surface again, I'm with Big Green Gilbert on that one and now I'm going quiescent. Enough really is enough. I go now, out.

uffy, some sense at last:

True.

Have you been paying attention?

Yes, but if there is opposition in their own party then they don't do they? But even US contracts lead to UK jobs.

And that would be for a British aircraft for British jobs to win the election? If it was for a US aircraft, what is the rush unless they line up British jobs at the same time?

Politically that is true. So you would opt for C130J or Airbus?

From yesterday's Commons defence debate:

Mr Hammond: I do not disagree with my hon. Friend’s assertion that we need to look at how we provide maritime surveillance cover. That will be part of the strategic defence and security review in 2015. However, I am afraid that he cannot argue that this incident demonstrates that need. In fact, this incident shows that we are perfectly capable of maintaining an intelligence picture through imagery, signals intelligence and reports from our NATO allies of movements of Russian ships without having access to maritime patrol aircraft.

Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab): In the light of this incident, will the Secretary of State tell the House what he is going to do to plug the capability gap in maritime surveillance that has been created by his Government, apart from relying on Twitter?

There are no "British" aircraft MMA/MPA options available.

Neither - both only exist on paper; so we would have to pick up the R&D costs. There are, realistically, only 2 options available in the short to medium term - the P8 and the CASA 295.

RP, while it is true that the C130 and Airbus only appear on paper, who is to say the BAE doesn't have a few sheets of paper AKA MRA5?

:)

I wonder how long it'll be before some suit remembers that, long before the Nimrod Y2K programme, all the RAF's future large aeroplane requirements were supposed to met by just one type. Named, surprisingly enough, the Future Large Aeroplane (FLA).....

Which became the A400M 'Atlas'.

Years ago, after receiving some corporate G&Ts, I managed to get into the FLA mock-up at Farnborough. When I asked about the proposed maritime version, it was 'guppy fish at feeding time' - they clearly hadn't really done much research into that requirement.....:rolleyes: