Key.Aero Network
Register Free

Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234
Results 91 to 107 of 107

Thread: Future Franco-German MPA

  1. #91
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    "Where the fruit is"
    Posts
    5,118
    negative. I refuse to explain to you AGAIN what have been discussed WITH you the min before.

    Don't take me wrong, I DO like golden fishes... I simply rarely talk to them (at least with much expectation!).

    Oh and thank you for sabotaging this thread. After 1.5 pages of sterile denials, I guess we can put a term to it.
    Last edited by TomcatViP; 20th April 2018 at 16:27.

  2. #92
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    3,221
    thing is, you don't seem to realize that there are limits to what an aircraft can do, and these limits are to be respected... you talk about exceeding the VNE in a dive, close to the ground and outmanoeuvering a SAM coming your way with a 100t bomber... there isn't a single aircraft of that size on this planet that is able to do so, not even a specifically designed bomber. So all that crap is simply a non issue as it is not and won't ever be part of requirements... that is the first point.

    2nd, you take a bank angle limit as something terribly bad.. once more, misunderstanding what you give as an example.. the limits you see a re to provide a certain amount of G's in a coordinated level turn.. anything else (climbing or diving) and your limits to through the window, as the aircraft will easily and rapidly reach its max AoA (which is the real stall limit) regardless of its bank angle if trying to manoeuver in 3D... it was not designed for that purpose and would require to either change wings or keep flying stable and "easy" patterns.. those are airliners, made for efficient fast subsonic high altitude flight, meaning they generate as little drag as possible (and that means also little lift). If any is transformed into a bomber, it will be reworked a lot, and what you can read about civiliant aircraft limitations, regardless if you understand it or not) will be irrelevant anyway

  3. #93
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Southern Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    176
    Well, now that the squabbling has died down...
    Personally I would prefer a MPA based on the Airbus/Bombardier C series.
    The base package might then also interest Canada, which is also looking to replace its C-140 Auroras in the ASW/MPA role.
    I believe they are looking for 14 aircraft.

  4. #94
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    3,554
    Bu why a jet engine? Less efficient in terms of energy.

  5. #95
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Wales
    Posts
    384
    Well considering whilst the Nimrod was the quietest MPA to subs when in service I think you have your answer
    @ashwellrice

  6. #96
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    "Where the fruit is"
    Posts
    5,118
    @Toocool12F: I choose to discard from my attention your nonsensical diatribe: cherry picking some of my points (and some that are not - VNE, where did I mention anything flying past its VNE?!) to pass them as your own arguments... You seems to try so hard that... I would rather not engage in a conversation with what is now a schizophrenic golden fish!

    @Hallow: there is more room in the German potential usage for a turboprop. Logically, It won't be a souped-up Atlantic as mentioned before.
    Last edited by TomcatViP; 22nd April 2018 at 15:29.

  7. #97
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    3,221
    at least the golden fish has a clue what he talks about, but hey, don't let reality stop you from posting nonsense...

  8. #98
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    NI, UK
    Posts
    540
    Gee are we still going around this roundabout of irrelevance.

    No-one is going to pick an MPA platform on the basis of potential emergency performance. Frankly none of the bean-counters that make the decision give a toss about such a narrow, rare scenario. It's all based on mission-capability, lifecycle cost and politics.

    The first time around in the 1980s Boeing picked the 757 as its platform for the LRAACA requirement. By the late 2000s that was no longer an option so they chose the 737NG as the next best platform. Not because it could do a barrel-roll on one engine or could out-turn an SA-12, but because it was available, efficient and a 767 was too big. That's all!
    Last edited by Cherry Ripe; 22nd April 2018 at 15:21.

  9. #99
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    "Where the fruit is"
    Posts
    5,118
    nothing says the contrary. The point is to base your design on an airframe that have suitable characteristics. Nothing stated beyond that point.
    But obviously, this englobes potential realistic (hence must be expected) emergency situation. I am not sure who mentioned anything like barrel [t]rolling.

  10. #100
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    "Where the fruit is"
    Posts
    5,118
    The P-8 and P-3 put in perspective as a case of study (Source: FoxtrotAlpha 2014): Confessions Of A US Navy P-3 Orion Maritime Patrol Pilot
    Last edited by TomcatViP; 22nd April 2018 at 21:45.

  11. #101
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    384
    negative. I refuse to explain to you AGAIN what have been discussed WITH you the min before.
    Sorry but quoting an extract from a document without any comment doesn't count as an explanation. If you can't explain what kind of information your post had, well, that confirms it was irrelevant.

    Oh and thank you for sabotaging this thread. After 1.5 pages of sterile denials, I guess we can put a term to it.
    Kind of hard to sabotage for 1.5 pages when I was only active in the last one...

    FYI, one of the adaptations required for the P8-A has been a selector for boosting its bank angle in ASW tactics. It allows the commanded bank angle to increase up to 45° from the usual 28° without having so many alarms ringing that the pilot's ears start bleeding.

    This should put to rest any idea that the A320 is less suited than the B737 as a MPA on the basis on flight envelope limits when the truth of the matter is that the A320 actually has a (slightly and not relevant in practice) larger flight envelope than the 737.

    Personally I would prefer a MPA based on the Airbus/Bombardier C series.
    The base package might then also interest Canada, which is also looking to replace its C-140 Auroras in the ASW/MPA role.
    The airframe is certainly suitable in terms of range/payload.

    However while it may get the Canadians on board, now it's the German and the French who will be pissed off as there is very little German or French content in the C-series.

    IMO, from a political point of view, the only suitable airframes (outside of outright buying P-8s) are the A32x and the A400M.

    From a technical point of view, I think the A400M would be much harder and expensive to adapt to a MPA role (composite fuselages are really hard to modify)...but less work would be required (e.g. avionics are already NATO compliant).

    And from Airbus point of view, I think there's nothing they'd like more than someone to pay for the militarization of the A32x frame. Then they'd be able to float (credible) AWACS or tactical tanker proposals based on it.

    But then, I don't think the project will go anywhere. The French and German doctrines are miles apart: while the French have used their Atlantique in a very offensive roles (they spent a lot of time over Mali dropping LGB) and have the largest Exclusive Economic Zone on the planet (need a long range plane able to operate with minimal cover), the Germans need to patrol a territory the size of a napkin and would probably faint at the idea of actually dropping bombs in offensive operations. They also each have their own sonar and radar companies so even if they agree on the airframe, I don't see them ever agreeing on the payload suppliers.

  12. #102
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    "Where the fruit is"
    Posts
    5,118
    The French and German doctrines are miles apart: while the French have used their Atlantique in a very offensive roles (they spent a lot of time over Mali dropping LGB) and have the largest Exclusive Economic Zone on the planet (need a long range plane able to operate with minimal cover), the Germans need to patrol a territory the size of a napkin
    We agree on that. I mentioned this fact earlier on page2
    Last edited by TomcatViP; 23rd April 2018 at 20:02. Reason: Wrong quotation

  13. #103
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Wales
    Posts
    384
    I can't see Germany really needing anything much more than a C-295 based system whereas France needs something more like a P-8. I would assume that the Germans want to save more money on systems than the French (mainly refering to the offensive roles ATL2 is used in) however I also feel that considering the 319MPA proposal that Airbus will be pushing that over any cheaper system. I personally see this as a total s***storm and not going well.

    IF Airbus offer a family of aircraft such as AEW, MPA and SIG/ELINT then we may well see the 320 family route being the one taken purely on grounds of local industry and not so much on capability
    @ashwellrice

  14. #104
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Location
    Eastern Switzerland
    Posts
    2,215
    Quote Originally Posted by Blue Apple View Post
    the Germans need to patrol a territory the size of a napkin
    Quote Originally Posted by giganick1 View Post
    I can't see Germany really needing anything much more than a C-295 based system
    The Germans use their Orions for out of area missions. The days of Baltic Sea only ops are gone.

    Japanese P-1 are currently on a sales pitch in Germany. Their chances are pretty slim though I'd say. If not A320 MPA, P-8 would be my second guess.
    How can less be more? It's impossible. More is more.
    Yngwie Malmsteen

  15. #105
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    "Where the fruit is"
    Posts
    5,118
    Germany just added some UAV with dual capability. The persistence requirement (sea and out of area) might be then fielded already.
    Last edited by TomcatViP; 25th April 2018 at 11:42.

  16. #106
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    "Where the fruit is"
    Posts
    5,118
    Japan seeks role in French-German marine surveillance plane project: sources

    Discussion between the three governments began last year. Japanese officials also asked Kawasaki Heavy Industries, which makes the P-1, to discuss possible partnerships with France’s Dassault Aviation and Thales SA, said the sources, who have direct knowledge of the proposal but are not authorized to speak to the media.
    “If they try and build it from scratch it will cost a lot and their potential market is small, even if Spain or other European countries buy it,” one of the sources said of the European project.
    Source:
    Reuters.com

  17. #107
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Southern Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    176
    IIRC between 2000 and 2010, Italy and Germany did some studies on replacing their Atlantics ( MPA 2000), but nothing came out of it.
    Italy had a requirement for 14 aircraft at the time.
    They have recently acquired 4 ATR-72 MP aircraft for maritime patrol.
    Do they still need another 10, possibly of differing capabilities and roles ?

    Along with the previously mentioned Canadian requirement, if France and Germany take the right approach, the market may not be limited to just their own armed forces.
    A European option would be a good thing.
    I believe Canada has joined the M3A forum, which previously included France, Germany, Italy,Greece, Spain, Poland and Turkey.
    Last edited by MigL; 26th April 2018 at 03:25.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

 

- Part of the    Network -

KEY AERO AVIATION NEWS

MAGAZINES

AVIATION FORUM

SHOP

 

WEBSITES