C-130 vs P-8 for MPA

[PLC1966]

However, in my view P8 is a bucket of compromise; indeed an expensive compromise with a series of severe limitations. While it might make a good MMA, as a MPA it has several problems.

Ascoteer,

Genuine question, how do you mean expensive compromise ?

After the debacle with the Military Aviation Authority over the service history of the RAF's RC-135s, I think the likelihood of second hand P-3s has only slightly more chance than the Hendon and Duxford Sunderlands being returned to service.

Tell me about the MAA and the Rivet Joint ?

[PLC1966]

In this case (and probably any other `pops' that I`ve made?) ,.....it isn`t the entire RAF that I may be criticising ,..but it does feel as if there are some up in high places within the RAF who think that everything revolves around fast jets and that other roles,

Did you miss the memo where it mentions three of the top four Officers in the RAF are ex-Rotary, it is unlikely they are fast jet centric.

especially those supporting the Navy and Army are just not worth the hassle (maritime especially,..Army not so much, probably because Iraq and Afghanistan have been so `centric; and high profile, although tactical fixed wing transport is questionable),

Any real basis to this ? Whatever the conspiracy theorists like to think, JFH worked well, JHC deployments on ships worked well, and the Dark Blue & Light Blue are well into Purple when it comes to the Air Environment, I am sure that the the RAF will not be supporting F-35 when it comes to the FAA basing and operations, oops, all at RAF Marham....

And not supporting the Army, so those extra Chinooks, Puma Upgrades etc were brought and paid for just for a laugh...!!

yet they cling onto these roles because they appear to be scared of losing them,.....it must stem back to the 1920`s when the RAF was in danger of being taken over again by the RN & Army which just isn`t going to happen in this day and age!

The RAF cling onto these roles because, well, its what there is an RAF for !!!

I do feel that the Fleet Air Arm fixed wing element was also killed off in a long running and well planned campaign by high ranking RAF officers in the MoD who felt that they alone deserved to fly fast jets.

I refer you to the F-35, far from killing of the FAA, I would suggest the RAF is guaranteeing it's survival in the Fast Jet World

Procurement,.....well I blame the MoD.

Well so do I, BUT I spent more than enough time at Abbey Wood and Corsham to know that many of the Project Teams biggest problems are caused by the Military Staff. A ten year development Project with Military staff changed over every 24-36 months, those guys going through just looking to either

1. get an appropriate tick in the Career Check list and escape as soon as possible or

2. make the effort to get the Project Managers qualifications and then brown nose their way into consultancy roles with the contractor for the project they have just worked on for the MoD, the Civil Service are not blameless, but neither is the Military.

[tonyot]

Oh I cannot be bothered arguing my corner as there is so much that you disagree with me about and anyway my tea is ready,......I`d much rather be eating my Sweet & Sour Chicken! Sometimes life is just too short!

Cheers

Tony

Edited November 11, 2015 by tonyot

[Ascoteer]

Ascoteer,

Genuine question, how do you mean expensive compromise ?

Any modern MPA today has to be an MMA. We went down that route with MR2 during and post Op GRANBY and certainly with Ops TELIC and HERRICK.

I'm not sure that's the right way to go but that is the way we went with MRA4.

As such, such an MPA/MMA will be expensive in view of the sensor and data processing suites (and weapons capability(ies). Fair enough if that's what is required and we have the right aircraft for the roles. However I do not believe that P8 is the right aircraft.

For me P8 is a compromise because it is flawed as an MPA - it is the wrong airframe in the wrong job. It may well be the bees knees as an MMA but I very much doubt it can be the the MPA that we need.

I wrote 'bucket of compromise, indeed an expensive compromise' because had I written what I wanted I would have received a ban from BM.

I

[PLC1966]

Any modern MPA today has to be an MMA. We went down that route with MR2 during and post Op GRANBY and certainly with Ops TELIC and HERRICK.

I'm not sure that's the right way to go but that is the way we went with MRA4.

As such, such an MPA/MMA will be expensive in view of the sensor and data processing suites (and weapons capability(ies). Fair enough if that's what is required and we have the right aircraft for the roles. However I do not believe that P8 is the right aircraft.

For me P8 is a compromise because it is flawed as an MPA - it is the wrong airframe in the wrong job. It may well be the bees knees as an MMA but I very much doubt it can be the the MPA that we need.

I wrote 'bucket of compromise, indeed an expensive compromise' because had I written what I wanted I would have received a ban from BM.

I

Thanks for that.

[PLC1966]

Oh I cannot be bothered arguing my corner as there is so much that you disagree with me about and anyway my tea is ready,......I`d much rather be eating my Sweet & Sour Chicken! Sometimes life is just too short!

Cheers

Tony

No point in arguing Mate, but nothing wrong with a bit of too-ing and throw-ing of ideas.

And life is short, but never too short to eat a decent Sweet and Sour ! Enjoy.

[pigsty]

I suggest there is little appetite to design and build our own MPA from the MoD or from our own industry

Yes, because of the cost. Even to base something on an existing airframe for what might, on a good day, be 30 airframes would be ruinous. To design something from scratch, the same, only much more so. The Japanese are a bit of a special case in this regard, as they managed to get some commonality with the C-2 and still feel the pressure to enhance their aviation industry. We don't have that need, nor that luxury.

Perhaps we will go down the time honoured road and convert some ex BA airframes

Sorry? When did that last happen in the maritime field? TriStars and VC10s, yes, as the job of refuelling isn't massively different from the job of carrying self-loading cargo. But it would be a very different kettle of fish for maritime. I suppose making an ersatz P-8 out of old 737s might be feasible, but at least, if we bought P-8s, they'd be newly built.

[bentwaters81tfw]

Perhaps we will go down the time honoured road and convert some ex BA airframes

Sorry? When did that last happen in the maritime field? TriStars and VC10s, yes, as the job of refuelling isn't massively different from the job of carrying self-loading cargo. But it would be a very different kettle of fish for maritime. I suppose making an ersatz P-8 out of old 737s might be feasible, but at least, if we bought P-8s, they'd be newly built.

Tongue firmly in cheek!

[ClaudioN]

Folks,

what about that bunch of Atlantiques, right across the Channel?

I like the Japanese thing, by the way.

Edited November 11, 2015 by ClaudioN

[Vlamgat9]

Much as i'd like it to be the P-1, the practixal reality is that it's the P-8 or it's nothing.

This C-130 stuff is baloney - just like the C-130 with Nimrod AEW radar fit was baloney.

These are rival paper projects for no purpose other than keeping Boeing honest.

[Roland Pulfrew]

There's been a lot of discussion on this topic. In this case, would the UK go for the cheaper option?

. Who says which one is the cheapest option? Let's face it the C130 MPA doesn't exist so there will be significant R&D costs!!

[Max Headroom]

In the early 80's, BAe had a 748 derivative called the Coastguarder

http://aviadejavu.ru/Images6/MM/MM-224/0746-02-2-2.jpg

Might have been useful for inshore patrols leaving the Nimrod for blue water ops. In competitions against P-3's and Nimrods it did very well, beating them in competition once.

Trevor

[Roland Pulfrew]

For me P8 is a compromise because it is flawed as an MPA - it is the wrong airframe in the wrong job. It may well be the bees knees as an MMA but I very much doubt it can be the the MPA that we need.

Go on then Ascoteer, care to explain why? Why is the P-8 the wrong aircraft to meet the UK's MPA requirement?

[Roland Pulfrew]

more transport Herk`s as the new Atlas thing is too large for tactical ops and apparently the current British low level parachute is incompatible with the Atlas

Probably a lot cheaper to buy some new A400 compatible parachutes then.

Airborne support operations have been woefully underrated by the RAF

Well it's not the RAF that decides that and the C-130s have been somewhat busy doing support operations in several theatres

I`d prefer reconditioned Orion`s myself and after all we are in the process of receiving 50 plus year old C-135 airframes

Big difference between some airframes that have low hours and have spent their lives in med/high altitude cruise v something that has spent a lot of time at low level in turbulent coditions. Of course support for P-3 ceases in the not to distant future.

a MPA-modified Atlas would be as expensive as a P-8?

Certainly would. The A400 doesn't have weapons bays, would need modification to carry a suitable radar, electronic systems, EO/IR systems, acoustic systems, weapons clearances etc, etc with any airframe manufacturer that will = lots of £££££

It was the MOD that insisted that 30 C130J could do the work of 60+ C130K.

And not true of course. 66 C-130Ks were to be replaced by 25 C-130Js in tranche 1 and 25 A400Ms in tranche 2.

[Truro Model Builder]

Tell me about the MAA and the Rivet Joint ?

The first of the three aircraft remained grounded in the USA post-conversion for the best part of twelve months waiting to be handed over to the MoD because the MAA were not satisfied with the aircraft's paper trail from the date of its construction. However, the Secretary of State for Defence eventually overruled the MAA and the aircraft was accepted into RAF service, immediately heading off to warmer climes.

The MAA announced it was satisfied with the SoS' decision (as it effectively let them off the hook if the aircraft was damaged or lost due to a 'historic' issue), but showed that ultimately it had no independent power if it rolled over and let the SoS tickle its belly when an important decision came up. The truly ironic part was that the RC-135 was procured to replace the Nimrod R.1, which was grounded due to the loss of XV230, which resulted in an enquiry which resulted in the establishment of the MAA to ensure such an event could never happen again.

So the upshot is that I think that it will be a very long time before the RAF or FAA or AAC operate any aircraft that has previously seen service with another operator.

[Truro Model Builder]

Why is the P-8 the wrong aircraft to meet the UK's MPA requirement?

The 737 airframe was designed for medium altitude transits from A to B, not for being thrown around at low level over the sea. Despite the fact that it has been strengthened the P-8 cannot undertake MPA in the same way as a Nimrod or an Orion, and the US Navy is having to change its ASW doctrine to medium level operations. A lot of ex-Nimrod (and ex-Orion) crew are not at all convinced that the task can be undertaken effectively from medium altitude, despite the new sensors onboard the P-8. By comparison, the P-1 has been designed from the outset to do the job at low level.

There is a lot more to it, and I am sure that -having worked in the MPA environment- Ascoteer has a much better understanding of the issues than I have.

[Slater]

But weren't Orion and Nimrod derived from airliners that also operated at medium altitudes?

[dambuster]

C-130 or Atlas as an MPA has the distinct disadvantage of prop noise advertising your presence to the target.

P-8 is not optimised for the low level prosecute the submerged target profiles; agree with Ascoteer: it is a good (though expensive) MMA when operated medium altitude with stand-off sensors in a cooperative engagement with tactical weapons carriers.

In truth, Nimrod's troubles began when a very capable and effective MPA was turned into a MMA because the UK didn't have the foresight to develop it's own long loiter medium sized platforms capable of being quickly upgraded with sensor suites, data links and crew capacity necessary to operate close to the asymmetric battlespace. Think Rivet Joint, Sentinel, Shadow and how much better if we had a home grown, truly adaptable single type Multi mission airframe.....

Peter

[Roland Pulfrew]

the P-8 cannot undertake MPA in the same way as a Nimrod or an Orion.

Hmmm someone better tell the RAF guys flying it that this is the case; when I spoke to the crew of the P-8 at RIAT they were more than happy with low level operations, the strength and g-limits of the aircraft and the sensor fit. The USN always planned to move to medium level ASW operations as there is no real need to tool around at low level any more. Every time you descend to low level you lose the RF horizon, your radar can't see as far and you you have to rebuild the radar picture every time you climb. Obviously descents to low level also uses fatigue and burns more fuel, but the P-8 is perfectly capable of operating at low level if it needs to.

[Roland Pulfrew]

C-130 or Atlas as an MPA has the distinct disadvantage of prop noise advertising your presence to the target. Agree completely

P-8 is not optimised for the low level prosecute the submerged target profiles; Says who? Prosecution of a sub surface target is the aircraft's primary role - why does that need to be done at low level?

it is a good (though expensive)Expensive in comparison to what? MMA when operated medium altitude with stand-off sensors in a cooperative engagement with tactical weapons carriers. P-8 carries its own weapons

In truth, Nimrod's troubles began when a very capable and effective MPA was turned into a MMA Nimrod was always an MMA before the term became in vogue, the only thing added was the MX15 EO/IR turret which was a great boost when operating over water as well as overland

Because the UK didn't have the foresight to develop it's own long loiter medium sized platforms capable of being quickly upgraded with sensor suites, data links and crew capacity necessary to operate close to the asymmetric battlespace. Think Rivet Joint, Sentinel, Shadow and how much better if we had a home grown, truly adaptable single type Multi mission airframe.....Dont disagree with that, but then the UK hasn't built any medium/large aircraft for decades

Peter

[Ascoteer]

Go on then Ascoteer, care to explain why? Why is the P-8 the wrong aircraft to meet the UK's MPA requirement

We've done this on PPRune I don't intend to go through it again here, save for your assertion that P8 is good at low level.

Strange that you say that the Maritime types you met say it is good at low level when my experience my ex Nimrod friends say the opposite.

That the idea of using an Airliner with a flexible wing says the opposite.

The fact that the USN (as you clearly admit) want to get out of LL says the opposite.

For me, the bottom line for passive sub hunting ops requires the ability to operate at LL

For sub prosecution, and accurate weapon delivery you need the ability to operate at LL.

P8 can not operate at LL ergo it is a compromise as an MPA.

[Ascoteer]

And not true of course. 66 C-130Ks were to be replaced by 25 C-130Js in tranche 1 and 25 A400Ms in tranche 2.

Oh whoop de doo, 25 frames as opposed to 30.

If you'd been there you know, on the Herc fleet (as I was) when the numbers were being bandied about, it was originally 30 frames.

Either way it's moot.

Whether thirty or twenty five frames could do the job of 60+ frames the fact is they couldn't.

Oh and check your facts, we might have bought 66x C-130K - we'd lost 5 frames by the introduction of the J model (plus XV208 had become Snoopy).

[Roland Pulfrew]

We've done this on PPRune I don't intend to go through it again here, save for your assertion that P8 is good at low level.

Strange that you say that the Maritime types you met say it is good at low level when my experience my ex Nimrod friends say the opposite. Well I was talking to the VX-1/VP-30 guys flying the jet, who included ex-MRA4 JTT people

That the idea of using an Airliner with a flexible wing says the opposite. Do you remember how flexible the Nimrod wing was? Remember how uncomfortable the more rigid winged P-3 was??

The fact that the USN (as you clearly admit) want to get out of LL says the opposite. Because low level ops are rarely required any more, even the MR2 rarely operated at true low level at out of service

For me, the bottom line for passive sub hunting ops requires the ability to operate at LL Why? Low level risks counter detection

For sub prosecution, and accurate weapon delivery you need the ability to operate at LL.Only if you are using 1930s s Swordfish torpedo delivery techniques

P8 can not operate at LL ergo it is a compromise as an MPA.P-8 can and currently does operate at low level ergo not true

[Roland Pulfrew]

Oh whoop de doo, 25 frames as opposed to 30.

Well I was in MoD at the time and you've missed the key point in my reply 25 C-130J AND 25 A400s, note the AND bit. 25 Js were never planned to replace 60 Ks

If you'd been there you know, on the Herc fleet (as I was) when the numbers were being bandied about, it was originally 30 frames.Don't disagree

Either way it's moot.

Whether thirty or twenty five frames could do the job of 60+ frames the fact is they couldn't. See above

Oh and check your facts, we might have bought 66x C-130K - we'd lost 5 frames by the introduction of the J model (plus XV208 had become Snoopy).I know, I never said we hadn't, I think you said 60+, so what you were meant was 60

[Ascoteer]

OK Roland,

How are you going to sow an accurate buoy field from ML?

How are you going to make an accurate torpedo attack? Indeed how are you going to get a torpedo in the water from 10,000'?

Secondly. Please address to me, aside from the strat misuse of Albert, how C130J can do tac with its plastic props. Please tell me how A400 can do tac with its plastic props?

(Let alone the fact that no one, least of all me, would want to do a repeat of Sarajevo in A400.)