MMA - same aircraft type will also be able to take over ASTOR/Sentinel role as well as do 'MPA'. P-8 is being configured to do that.

Not sure I quite get your gist there Alfred. The P-8 already is an MMA, at least according to the US Navy The US Navy -- Fact File: P-8A Multi-mission Maritime Aircraft (MMA)

If the P-8 is an MMA, then so is the P-1. That was the only point I was making in my original comment.

I suppose it depend on whether MMA means Multi-mission Maritime Aircraft or Multi-Mission Aircraft...

;););)

It's my understanding that with the A400M coming on line with the RAF, that the RAF's C-130Js will be retired. If that is true and there are still a lot hours available on those airframes, how about putting an MPA/MMA suite in those airframes? A Herc has more cabin volume than a P-3 or P-1 so you can theoretically put a lot of good stuff in there. And it should have pretty good range/endurance, albeit a bit slow.

Puzzled by all this MMA vs MPA talk.

As I understand it, MRA4 was only budgeted to be armed with torpedoes. The P-8A is designed to carry Harpoon, JSOW and mines, not to mention the AAS, which is presumably where the MMA name justifies itself.

However, any MPA will have a radar, ESM, EO/IR, extensive comms and flexible workstations, and will be able to do overland ISR, SAR support and the other things that we expect MPA to do.

Ah, yes indeed Davef68. It would seem perhaps there was some confusion as to what exactly what folks were meaning when referring to MMA.

I don't know the mission details, but I think the lack of submarines and the deployment of Nimrod in Afg suggests a non-maritime role, more a MMA role perhaps?

The MRA4 was designed to carry a lot more than torpedos -what we budgetted for may be different, but I recall late in the programme BAE touting it as an overland bomber armed with LGBs

AQA5 - fair point.

Alright I'll bite,

From my limited experience, (after all I didn't even make a year in the air on MR2)

Let's face reality. Despite the glossy brochures and ex multi-star 'consultants' on the euro turbo-props. Despite the quirky Japanese solution.

If we really want to be in LRMP/MMA (by that I mean both).

P8 is the only game in town.

But nobody here has been clear about what the :mad: the difference is between an MPA and MMA.

If it's the ability to carry a giant radar, or ASuW with ASMs, someone should say so. If it's something else that distinguishes the P-8 from everything else, I'd love to know what it is.

Likewise, the importance of speed. Until there is a sub that goes at 300 knots, what defines the necessary speed? The P-3 was originally defined as an interceptor to go out and prosecute contacts picked up by SOSUS (open source), hence the choice of a platform much faster than the P-2; but that was in the era of noisy Soviet hardware and I am unaware of any substitute cueing system.

It seems to me that a lot of people have decided that the only way is the P-8 and are otherwise going LALALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU.

We have invested quite heavily in gaining experienced and qualified personnel on P-8, so it would seem odd to suddenly switch focus completely to another platform in my opinion. The P-8 programme has also benefitted massively from ex-MR2 and MRA4 crews joining the testing and fielding teams; hence if I was at High Wycombe I would want to capitilise on that US goodwill fairly quickly.

Where the money is going to come from is perhaps the major sticking point....

RAF to get £2billion fleet of jets to spot Putin's nuclear submarines off British coast.

BRITAIN'S defences are to get a £2billion boost in a bid to counter the ongoing threat from Russian armed forced.

Russian nuclear submarine threat to see £2billion to be invested in RAF jets | UK | News | Daily Express

Is this just journalistic dribble from Rob Virtue (11 May 15) - any other source?

Do I need to exercise my 'Get out of Jail Free' card option?

LO, you are right in that a higher transit speed equated to a faster reaction time but in the case you cited it would only apply to the first aircraft in a patrol cycle. Suffice to say, the case you cited was rarely the case.

A more important factor is reach and endurance. Given equal endurance, say 10 hours, where one aircraft could transit for 2 hrs and be on task for 6,the other might transit for 3 and be on task for 4. You need more airframes and crews in the latter case.

Then take a patrol box 120 across. The Nimrod could dash in about 15 minutes whereas your slower aircraft might take 20-25 minutes. Time late at datum is a critical factor.

Then another need for speed may be less obvious - the need to run in the case of a hostile threat. Running bravely away at 400 kts or more feels much better than running at 200 kts.

Been there, done that. It was not very comfortable sitting a 100 miles off when a fighter was launched against us.

LO - until the MPA can take off from the back of my frigate, speed will get the team on task quicker. If I'm 150nm+ offshore, and then a further 200nm+ from your airbase, an extra 300kts might get me an extra hour on task from each aircraft, reducing the resultant loading on the MPA Sqn in a sustained operation.

A light hearted ASW themed interlude: Swedish peace group trolls Russian submarines with gay defence system | Technology | The Guardian

Unfortunately the engineering reality is that speed and endurance (particularly at low altitude) pull in opposite directions. I believe that at best the P-8A equals the TOS-at-radius of the P-3 despite being much bigger.

One problem (if the USN's own numbers are correct) is that the P-8A can barely take off with full tanks, even with no weapons on board, and appears to have a fuel fraction lower than that of the P-3C (that's a bit of a squishy number because the P-3C would have gained weight during its career). That will tend to mean less range and endurance, particularly at low altitude.

But it won't be spending all its time at low altitude. Transit out is made at an economical height, and the mission may not need low altitude most (or some of the time). Is it perfect? No? Is it in service, right now, with UK personnel trained on it? Hell, yes!

LO, now that is different. I can't speak for the P3/8 but the Nimrod would remain high as long as it could but once it descended it would generally remain low trading climb fuel against higher fuel burn. I don't recall being low as having a particularly high fuel penalty.

I recall a particular Cat check when I was presented with the Met charts and asked what level I would use on RTB. The standard reply would be 370.

Being given the Met charts I suspected the better answer was different. I eyeballs the charts and selected 180 - low burn to cruise, higher cruise burn, lower head wind component. My checker was surprised but accepted my logic. Later he worked it out accurately and confirmed 180 was the best height.

In short, there is rarely a one size suits all but quality every time. If the P3 was so much better than the P8, why not upgrade the P3?

There are people who wish it had been done - but after the P-7A LRAACA debacle and the subsequent delay, the P-3 went out of production so a Super P-3 looked expensive in 2003.