More UK MPA ideas frome EADS

Read the forum code of contact

Member for

14 years 2 months

Posts: 4,619

EADS is promoting its C295 MPA to the RAF:

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/riat-airbus-military-steps-up-c295-mpa-offer-to-uk-388594/

The article has a few pictures, including this one:

http://www.flightglobal.com/Assets/GetAsset.aspx?ItemID=51787

I think i like this more than a P8. Is that wrong?

Original post

Member for

15 years 5 months

Posts: 6,983

Why was Nimrod retired ?
I think it held up well, only its operational cost i dont know anything about

Member for

13 years 5 months

Posts: 3,381

I'm sure the Treasury likes it more than the P-8 too. ;)

Member for

14 years 2 months

Posts: 4,619

And so do I for the same reasons. It gives us a chance to operate an MPA whilst the world changes and we get on top of future requirements rather than operating the US replacement for their large fleet of elderly P3s.

Do you see what i mean? I think we need a capability (and the fact that the UK keeps its crews trained on allied aircraft shows that so does the MOD and Treasury), but do we need the most expensive system out their at this stage?

Member for

24 years 2 months

Posts: 4,875

And so do I for the same reasons. It gives us a chance to operate an MPA whilst the world changes and we get on top of future requirements rather than operating the US replacement for their large fleet of elderly P3s.

Do you see what i mean? I think we need a capability (and the fact that the UK keeps its crews trained on allied aircraft shows that so does the MOD and Treasury), but do we need the most expensive system out their at this stage?

Do we need something even this capable at the moment though?. Would something like this: http://www.naval-technology.com/news/newsselex-installs-atos-system-beechcraft-king-air-350er-aircraft be adequate for the immediate surface surveillance mission?.

Member for

18 years 3 months

Posts: 5,267

Why was Nimrod retired ?
I think it held up well, only its operational cost i dont know anything about

Kind of a how long is a piece of string question that one. You could pop over to Pprune and read through the threads on the matter there. In the end it boils down to three main issues:

Cost

Politics

Safety case clearance

In respect of cost to finish certification more money was needed from the treasury which is hardly a popular thing in a financial crisis. After the billions sunk already it was very much being portrayed as "Throw good money after bad". Whilst the money saved not bringing it into service is nominal the MOD was being asked to make a blood sacrifice and considering MPA/ASW is not a core role for the RAF they preferred offering that type up for the chop.

In respect of politics after the various accidents with the type and massive cost overruns on the MRA4 the name "Nimrod" was no-longer seen in a positive light by the general public.

Finally the safety case, this only came out after the cancellation but it was probably one of the key reasons why it was actually cancelled. Nobody was prepared to sign the aircraft off as safe for service, there were numerous issues with systems and handling. Whilst that could probably of been solved with money with the bad name Nimrod had developed and the general public view that it was unsafe the treasury wasn't keen on stumping up.

There are other issues as well, it was with hindsight a fundamental mistake trying to re-life the airframes considering their uniqueness. New ones would of been a better cheaper solution in the long run and more exportable. Nimrod was also unique meaning through life costs were always going to be higher, they would of been better served basing it on a civil airliner or large transport.

As for why MR2 was retired, fact is they should of been retired at least ten to fifteen years earlier, they were already facing serviceability issues and high maintenance due to age in the 1990's.

The thing that really stinks is the issue of the P7, prior to the selection competition that was won by Nimrod2000 the preferred solution was an updated version of the Orion the P7. When the P7 was cancelled by the US so a competition was started in the UK for an alternative. That competition finally won by the Nimrod2000, only thing is there were two different P3 Orion variants in the competition. Firstly rebuilt USN examples upgraded by Loral and most damningly new build Orion 2000 from Lockheed that utilised much from the cancelled P7 program including the engines. So after saying that the P7 up to its cancellation was their preferred choice why did they then not adopt what was in effect the P7 in the form of the Orion 2000?

Done is done now.

Member for

15 years 5 months

Posts: 6,983

OK, thanks

Member for

18 years 9 months

Posts: 13,432

Why was Nimrod retired ?
I think it held up well, only its operational cost i dont know anything about

The old Nimrods were getting worn out, & they'd had IFR probes fitted rather hastily, in a way which was not very safe. They'd already gone past the date at which they should have been retired, short of a major rebuild.

Retired airframes were being parted out & the best rebuilt into Nimrod MRA4s - but the MRA4 programme had been horribly mismanaged. It was many years late & vastly over budget, despite numbers having been cut by more than half. The official claim was that despite being due (at last!) to enter service soon, it was found that the MRA4 still had serious but unspecified (at the time) problems, & neither the cost nor the timescale for correcting them was clear. Combined with a budget squeeze, it was decided to be too risky (financially & technically) to continue the programme. The partly-built MRA4s were scrapped.

We got left with a stock of engines & avionics which could potentially be used elsewhere, but AFAIK the avionics (e.g. radars) are still sitting in storage. I don't know what's happened to the engines. They're a custom version of a standard engine (same basic engine is used on the RAF Sentinel), & IIRC many parts would fit standard versions. They may have been broken down for parts.

[Damn! Cross-posting. And Fedaykin said it better]

Member for

18 years 3 months

Posts: 5,267

But you filled in a few points I hadn't Swerve :D

Member for

14 years 2 months

Posts: 4,619

Do we need something even this capable at the moment though?. Would something like this: http://www.naval-technology.com/news/newsselex-installs-atos-system-beechcraft-king-air-350er-aircraft be adequate for the immediate surface surveillance mission?.

Well there is a SAAB 2000 variant mentioned but this seems less tangible than the others. I suppose I would view the C295 as least risky/expensive of the 3 options mentioned which gives us more room to work out what we need. But sure, if we don't need to blow up ships and sink submarines then we may not need something like the C295.

Member for

14 years 1 month

Posts: 2,163

Why was Nimrod retired ?
I think it held up well, only its operational cost i dont know anything about

The MRA4 program was a disaster from the get-go.

The decision was made in 1996. At that stage the MR2 was 20 years old... which in itself was a refurb of airframes that were ~5 years old.

So... using 25 year old fuselages - designed in an era of paper drawings and built at a time where consistency between airframes was very much a background objective. These fuselages were to be mated to new wings with new embedded engines, which would once again have become a maintenance nightmare in time due to the long-recognised access issues.

Crazy. Nothing short of f**king lunacy!

The clowns that made that decision should be in prison for criminal negligence.

What they should have done (and still should do) is design a "plug-n-play" system which consists of (1)a hub, (2)sensor inputs and (3)terminal outputs.

Various combinations of sensors/terminals could then have been mixed/matched to C-295s purchased in the late 90s/early 2000s to fit the immediate need - in fact, with the C-295 running roughly parallel, Airbus could easily have incorporated airframe mods which would have made the C-295 better suited to the role - wired pylons for instance. When the A400M comes on line, the same hub can be replicated/transferred, allowing more/larger sensors/terminals to be added to the airframe.

The benefits being:
- new airframe(s) without the ever-present Nimrod issues.
- not tied to any particular airframe.
- flexibility in the fleet, can be converted to cargo if needed, or more MPA as needed and even within that with different aircraft types.
- strong position for export sales (can tailor the solution to an airframe size [aka price] the customer wants).

Member for

17 years 7 months

Posts: 4,951

Lunacy is using a twin engine plane for 20+ hour patrols over frigid waters.

Member for

24 years 2 months

Posts: 4,875

Well there is a SAAB 2000 variant mentioned but this seems less tangible than the others. I suppose I would view the C295 as least risky/expensive of the 3 options mentioned which gives us more room to work out what we need. But sure, if we don't need to blow up ships and sink submarines then we may not need something like the C295.

A handful of C295's is not even close to enough to form a long-range ASW capability...so thats out. What kind of ships are we going to attack with a patrolling singleton light MPA?. C295 would predominantly be a surface recon platform with lip service ASW/ASuW. The surface search we have a requirement for....in support of GWoT etc the ASW etc we dont. If we accept theres not much in the budget then we need a balance of capability and cheap. The 350ER King Air is already in service with the RN as the Avenger....and the MPA variant is already developed. Find a cheaper solution!

[ATTACH=CONFIG]219082[/ATTACH]

http://www.janes.com/article/21667/gabbiano-and-vixen-pass-testing-events

Attachments

Well there is a SAAB 2000 variant mentioned but this seems less tangible than the others. I suppose I would view the C295 as least risky/expensive of the 3 options mentioned which gives us more room to work out what we need. But sure, if we don't need to blow up ships and sink submarines then we may not need something like the C295.

Marginally less tangible. Personally, I like the Saab 2000 idea, although it in fact has certain drawbacks compared to the C-295 it does have a few other things going for it. Add Saab's long experience with customising this and the closely related 340 airframe (Erieye, Japanese coast guard MPA) and the risk seems pretty bearable - I would not expect any show stoppers.

All in all, very much a competitive prospect that deserves serious consideration.

Member for

13 years 6 months

Posts: 2,120

What kind of ships are we going to attack with a patrolling singleton light MPA?

I suspect the main reason for MPA's these days is all those "non-core" functions - anti-piracy, fisheries protection, SAR, ISTAR, sea control etc.

I think the last time a British MPA attacked a ship or sub was 1945.

Member for

12 years 3 months

Posts: 5,905

I know EADS like heavy proposal but wasn't the US tanker competition (and debacle) enough for the bald head up there?

Think smart, think tailored (to the needs) and sell a lot of smaller platform easier to maintain instead of cross functionnal ones that you can't handle (program)

Damned is that so much difficult?

What are they gonna do with 295 in a blue water scenario? Put them back in storage claiming that war is an unfair competition?

Member for

15 years 1 month

Posts: 840

What is the advantages of C-295 / 235 vs. an ATR 72/ 42, which is already purchased as MPA/ASW by Italy and Turkey and Nigeria?
If the UK already operated C-295 as a transport I could see the benefits of commonality, but that's not the case.
If it was desired to outsource at least some part of operations, ATR would have a larger maintenance and pilot pool available.

Member for

15 years 1 month

Posts: 840

@TomcatViP: C-295 MPA is already developed so doesn't require extra funds to offer it.
Several countries already operate it in MPA role, it's not that far out to offer it to the UK as well.
They could also offer C-235 MPA as well. And EADS actually won one of those USAF tanker competitions.
And in the end may have forced Boeing to take a loss on the program in order to win.

Member for

13 years 6 months

Posts: 2,120

I
What are they gonna do with 295 in a blue water scenario? Put them back in storage claiming that war is an unfair competition?

I seriously doubt there's going to be any blue water scenarios in the service life of any MPA Britain may acquire in the next few years.

Also given that the current MPA is non-existent, a C295 would be a massive capability increase. :D

Member for

24 years 2 months

Posts: 4,875

I seriously doubt there's going to be any blue water scenarios in the service life of any MPA Britain may acquire in the next few years. Also given that the current MPA is non-existent, a C295 would be a massive capability increase.

Precisely. The job we need doing is to be able to pick up, profile, identify and track surface contacts of interest in UK waters, around Gib and the Med entry and maybe around Cyprus and/or the Falkands. We dont need to hunt for Red October in the mid Atlantic because its very rare Red October is there any more and Reforger died a long time ago!. Take away the need to fly low and slow through the worst of the climatic murk and what you are left with is a requirement for a cheap, fair endurance twin with a decent radar/EO surveillance suite and a SATCOM fitout. No more no less.