Giorgio N Posted December 11, 2014 Share Posted December 11, 2014 Well, to keep matters on a level field I'd have to work on the base aircraft, which I believe was a child of the late 'sixties, so I'd put the age difference as about 15 years. I have a bad habit of over-simplifying matters, but it strikes me as ironic that the totally inadequate British aircraft based on an ancient jet airliner was replaced (under duress?) in a matter of weeks by a super-duper American aircraft that is coincidentally based on an ancient jet airliner. Yes, it's over-simplifying a bit for a number of reasons. First of all, those 15 years saw a huge progress and it makes a lot of difference if an aircraft is based on late '40s or early '60s technology. Just compare a Vampire and a Phantom... Second: The 737 went trough a huge development and the latest variant are modern today. The Comet from many points of view was already obsolete when the 737 first flew Third, the P-8s are new airframes built today, even if the original design is almost 50 year old. The Nimrods were all built 40 or so years ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Max Headroom Posted December 11, 2014 Share Posted December 11, 2014 The Nimrods may have been built 40 odd years ago but everything on the MRA.4 bar the upper fuselage where the crew sat, was completely new, (why not replace that too?). Politics aside it is very embarrassing not to have a dedicated maritime patrol aircraft. The Nimrod 'classic' was successfully repurposed in the latter part of its career so was used in Afghanistan. So could the Sentinels be switch rolled in the same way? As an aside a probably apocryphal story has a Hercules on an improvised maritime patrol over the North Sea stalking Bears. To oblige, the Russians slowed down so the Herc could catch up. Trevor 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete in Lincs Posted December 11, 2014 Share Posted December 11, 2014 The Bob Flight has a Dakota we could bodge up? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Max Headroom Posted December 11, 2014 Share Posted December 11, 2014 The Bob Flight has a Dakota we could bodge up? Like the South Africans. Once they got rid of the Shaks they drafted in C-47's. These were colloquially referred to as Shakotas or Dakletons (can't remember which!) Trevor Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HP42 Posted December 13, 2014 Share Posted December 13, 2014 As a short term measue I guess we could lease aircraft in the MR role from NATO members? It could serve as a stopgap until we choose something more fitting for our needs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Murdo Posted December 13, 2014 Share Posted December 13, 2014 The Nimrods may have been built 40 odd years ago but everything on the MRA.4 bar the upper fuselage where the crew sat, was completely new, (why not replace that too?). Politics aside it is very embarrassing not to have a dedicated maritime patrol aircraft. The Nimrod 'classic' was successfully repurposed in the latter part of its career so was used in Afghanistan. So could the Sentinels be switch rolled in the same way? As an aside a probably apocryphal story has a Hercules on an improvised maritime patrol over the North Sea stalking Bears. To oblige, the Russians slowed down so the Herc could catch up. Trevor LMAO! Whether true or not, I really do like that one! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dambuster Posted December 14, 2014 Share Posted December 14, 2014 France achieved all of this at a cost: taxation is quite high in France and public debt is high too. At the same time the French have always developed their weapon systems with an eye to the export potential so that the cost for the public of say a new aircraft would have been partly offset by revenues coming from foreign sales. Now this didn't work that well with the Rafale but worked wonder with the Mirage III and F-1. The F-1 is quite interesting as when it was adopted many believed that the AdA should have adopted one of the heavier types developed by Dassault. The export potential of these however was considered small while the F-1 would have been more interesting for the existing Mirage III users. Now compare this to most British types, where little or no consideration was ever given to the export potential... they are different philosophies, each has pros and cons. Yes, but how well did the Mirage variants do against the Harrier in the bit that counts? Thinking South Atlantic, 1982.... Peter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Max Headroom Posted December 14, 2014 Share Posted December 14, 2014 Yes, but how well did the Mirage variants do against the Harrier in the bit that counts? Thinking South Atlantic, 1982.... Peter Like the 109's in the BoB, the Mirages/Daggers (and the A-4's) were fighting at the edge of their range so from that point of view were hamstrung. Another factor out of the Argentine's control was that SHAR's had the benefit of a more up to date version of the Sidewinder. Trevor 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vickers McFunbus Posted December 14, 2014 Share Posted December 14, 2014 As a short term measue I guess we could lease aircraft in the MR role from NATO members? It could serve as a stopgap until we choose something more fitting for our needs. If you did that you might as well lease the P-8 (as we initially did with the C-17), particularly as we have crews flying it already. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Giorgio N Posted December 15, 2014 Share Posted December 15, 2014 Yes, but how well did the Mirage variants do against the Harrier in the bit that counts? Thinking South Atlantic, 1982.... Peter Sorry, but I struggle to see the sense here. The Mirage III was developed in the late '50s, the Sea Harrier back then was not even a distant thought in the mind of anyone. Are you saying that the French were wrong in developing the III because 25 years later one of their customers would have been beaten by another type of aircraft ? And this after the same Mirage III had proved to be a very competent aircraft in a number of conflicts ? Whatever the losses Argentina may have suffered in 1982, Mirage IIIs have shot down more enemy aircrafts during the career of the type than the aircrafts shot down by all British built types together during the same years. So the Mirage III did do its job in the bit that counts, and in situations where they didn't have the many advantages the Sea Harries enjoyed over the Falklands. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul J Posted December 15, 2014 Share Posted December 15, 2014 To move to one side but still warranting the same thread title, The Air Traffic situation on Friday was something waiting to happen. All eggs in one basket comes to mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bentwaters81tfw Posted December 15, 2014 Share Posted December 15, 2014 Yes, ATC were reported as a saying something about costs, and HMG want them to save money? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Max Headroom Posted December 18, 2014 Share Posted December 18, 2014 Regarding my comments earlier about repurposing the Sentinel for maritime duties, the latest Air Forces Monthly quotes a Raytheon executive as saying that an already developed software patch could be installed on RAF examples. Even if that were true, would the Sentinels need to maritimised to counter salt water effects? Correct me if I'm wrong but the Sentinels don't have any offensive capability. So supposing they find an intruder, they would need to call in other assets to deal with them. As far as I am aware maritime strike Tonkas have been culled, so what else do we have? Could our maritime needs be partly met with a simple reboot? Sounds too good to be true. Trevor Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Procopius Posted December 18, 2014 Share Posted December 18, 2014 Correct me if I'm wrong but the Sentinels don't have any offensive capability. So supposing they find an intruder, they would need to call in other assets to deal with them. As far as I am aware maritime strike Tonkas have been culled, so what else do we have? Perhaps they could go back to the WWI era and drop bricks or bog rolls on the hateful foe. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magwitch Posted December 19, 2014 Share Posted December 19, 2014 Regarding my comments earlier about repurposing the Sentinel for maritime duties, the latest Air Forces Monthly quotes a Raytheon executive as saying that an already developed software patch could be installed on RAF examples. Even if that were true, would the Sentinels need to maritimised to counter salt water effects? Correct me if I'm wrong but the Sentinels don't have any offensive capability. So supposing they find an intruder, they would need to call in other assets to deal with them. As far as I am aware maritime strike Tonkas have been culled, so what else do we have? Could our maritime needs be partly met with a simple reboot? Sounds too good to be true. Trevor Sentinel is always going to be a massively flawed MPA solution due to its lack of IR/optical sensors and its cramped and rather spartan interior fit which will involve defecating in a bucket on long missions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wellsprop Posted December 30, 2014 Share Posted December 30, 2014 Agree that Britain has always used aircraft and engineering ideas from other nations, as indeed does every country, don't think anyone has argued that British aircraft were produced in total isolation. A couple of points, the Spitfire aerodynamicist, Beverley Shenstone, was a man. See "Spitfire The History" by Morgan and Shacklady for development of the elliptical wing on the Spitfire. Shenstone admired the Heinkel 70 on a visit to the Paris Aero Show but it is stated that the He 70 did not contribute to the final Spitfire wing shape which was developed independently. Rolls used an He70 which contributed to Merlin development as a test bed. The Curtiss engine referred to is presumably the engine which powered the Fairey Fox in the mid Twenties. Rolls produced the Kestrel which was influenced by the Curtiss but much improved. The DH variable pitch prop was a licensed Hamilton. Hamilton was influenced by the Hele-Shaw-Beecham v-p prop produced by Gloster in the Twenties. The aviation world is interdependent! Cheers, Paul Thanks, Paul! I don't know where I got the idea that Shenstone was a lady I think I had it confused with Miss Shilling's Orifice I ought to clarify what I said too, I meant that the He 70's wing may have played a factor in ideas or thoughts that Shenstone had when creating the Spitfires wing. It is quite clear that each respective wing would have been wholly useless trying to do the others job; one being a thin fighter wing and the other a fat slow wing, so in reality they bare very little in common. Ben Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpine_modeller Posted January 8, 2015 Share Posted January 8, 2015 Lo and behold, the Japanese Government have cottoned on.... http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/11331604/Japan-offers-Britain-submarine-hunting-planes.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Truro Model Builder Posted January 8, 2015 Share Posted January 8, 2015 I'd snap their hands off, to be honest. Four engines, a purpose-built airframe, what's not to like? defecating in a bucket on long missions. Sheer luxury, dear boy! 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
F-32 Posted January 8, 2015 Share Posted January 8, 2015 Let's just take all of the museum Shackleton's, Nimrods and Hendon and Duxfords Sunderlands, form an operating company called 'Maritime patrol to the sky' and do it ourselves Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul A H Posted January 8, 2015 Share Posted January 8, 2015 I'd snap their hands off, to be honest. Four engines, a purpose-built airframe, what's not to like? I guess there would be a decent chance of a kit from the likes of Hasegawa too Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magwitch Posted January 9, 2015 Share Posted January 9, 2015 what's not to like? The 30%+ cost increase over a P-8 which, coinicidentally, we can't afford either! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nigel Bunker Posted January 9, 2015 Share Posted January 9, 2015 Interesting article in today's Independent showing we are using USN P-3s to fill the gap but I can't see the USN agreeing to supply these indefinitely. "Plans to equip the RAF with the BAE Systems Nimrod MRA4 aircraft were cancelled in 2010 as a result of the Strategic Defence and Security Review, at which point the project was £789m over-budget and more than nine years late." Article is here http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/mod-asks-for-american-help-in-searching-for-russian-submarine-near-scotland-9966080.html? if anybody is interested. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Truro Model Builder Posted January 9, 2015 Share Posted January 9, 2015 The 30%+ cost increase over a P-8 which, coinicidentally, we can't afford either! I have seen it quoted as $150m for a P-8 against $170m for a P-1, and also that a P-1 is two thirds the price of a P-8. Two more engines has a premium for sure, but buying a P-8 off the shelf means we will also be buying capabilities we don't require, such as SLAM-ER capacity etc. The P-1, I feel, is more in line with RAF maritime doctrine. However, I sadly expect it is all a moot point, as I somehow doubt that SDSR 15 will provide any answers. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeVi Tophatter Posted January 9, 2015 Share Posted January 9, 2015 Highly unlikely we'll see the P-1 in RAF service, even as a stop gap. We'll find an eventual sloution from the US or continental Europe, as ever. I guess there would be a decent chance of a kit from the likes of Hasegawa too I'm very sure we'll be treated to a top notch Kawasaki P-1 and C-2 kit fairly soon, the only question is whether it will be 1/144 or 1/200... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Max Headroom Posted January 9, 2015 Share Posted January 9, 2015 Highly unlikely we'll see the P-1 in RAF service, even as a stop gap. We'll find an eventual sloution from the US or continental Europe, as ever. The last time a maritime patrol aircraft was tendered NATO-wide, resulted in the winner being the Breguet Atlantic. Nobody except the French and Germans stood by in buying a purpose designed type and went for the Orion which was an Electra derivative. Since then of course many multi national designs and competitions have resulted in successful European wide designs being adopted. A logical way forward would be a multi national pooled collaboration like the NATO operated C-17 and E-3 fleets. However everyone else seems to be upgrading their existing P-3 fleets, so possibly only France would be a partner. One way or another, the P-8 is the likely solution. I believe a leased fleet of 4 was mentioned somewhere. Whatever, get it and get it soon. Trevor Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now