ASW mission, Europe lost the train?

[Mangusta CBT]

Is very sad to see that Europe have lost the train of the ASW mission aircraft, no contenders for the P8-A MMA. would be interesting a new version of Atlantique, or a total new aircraft but the only proposal are not the top like ATR72 ASW :lul

 

[Tasman]

Is very sad to see that Europe have lost the train of the ASW mission aircraft, no contenders for the P8-A MMA. would be interesting a new version of Atlantique, or a total new aircraft but the only proposal are not the top like ATR72 ASW :lul

I believe that the market for this type of aircraft has shrunk considerably. Look at the huge decline in airborne ASW platforms operated by the USN or the RAF for example. The reasons for this are probably twofold. First the perceived threat has declined and secondly the capability of modern ASW aircraft means that fewer are needed to do the job. With a smaller market it would, IMO, be risky for any European manufacturer to develop a new design or even rework an old one.

Cheers

 

[swerve]

EADS tried to persuade governments to support an A320 or A321-based equivalent of the P-8, but couldn't get anyone to back it, & wasn't willing to put in a lot of company money without government interest.

The proposal was on their website for a while, & models were shown at airshows.

 

[contedicavour]

Besides the Atlantique-2 is recent enough to remain in service for another 20 years, even if 28 ATL-2 replace 42 ATL-1.
Germany has taken over the ex Dutch P3s, and Italy doesn't consider ATL-1 replacement a priority vs other more urgent naval programmes.
Bottomline who would buy a A320 ASW ??

cheers

 

[swerve]

Besides the Atlantique-2 is recent enough to remain in service for another 20 years, even if 28 ATL-2 replace 42 ATL-1.
Germany has taken over the ex Dutch P3s, and Italy doesn't consider ATL-1 replacement a priority vs other more urgent naval programmes.
Bottomline who would buy a A320 ASW ??

cheers

Who would buy a 737 ASW?

Bah! We should try to flog our spare Nimrod airframes & new-build ones as MRA4s. We've spent the big money, on the horribly over-budget development. The marginal cost of each extra unit is quite reasonable. Cruising on two Br710s, with the other two shut down, they have awesome time on station, & far longer range than the P-8.

 

[Mangusta CBT]

C27J ASW is the solution

 

[contedicavour]

ope ope

C27J ASW is the solution

That would require specific R&D to fit the ASW suite inside.
ATR-72 ASW is a good bird provided you don't need high speeds. The bird is also relatively cheap to maintain and operate, also because there are tens of similar civilian ATRs flying as we speak and commonality helps reduce costs.

Honestly most navies (except the lucky Spanish navy) are fighting to preserve numbers of FFGs, so ASW patrol aircrafts are close to the bottom of the priority list...
ope

Besides that, in Italy we've got enough EH101 and NH90s coming for ASW tasks.

cheers

 

[swerve]

...Besides that, in Italy we've got enough EH101 and NH90s coming for ASW tasks.

cheers

Except that MPAs don't only do ASW, & a helicopter is slow & short range, with a short time on station. Helicopters should be seen as weapons attached to ships, not substitutes for independently acting MPAs. Consider a Nimrod MRA4, with its 6000 nm range. How many ships, with how many helicopters, would you need scattered over the ocean to have that reach? Of course, the ships can also do things the Nimrod can't: they're complementary, not in competition. Ideally, you should have both!

You're seeing things from an Italian point of view, thinking in terms of littoral operations, & maybe, at a stretch, further afield in the Mediterranean. Some countries face oceans, & have to think in oceanic terms, e.g. Spain, India, France, Japan, Brazil. For them, helicopters & short-range patrol aircraft just don't hack it.

PS.
Consider a hypothetical scenario in which somebody seizes some remote British islands - we might call them the St. Malo, islands, for example. Nimrod MRA4s operating out of Ascension could patrol the seas around the islands, inhibiting resupply by sea with long-range anti-ship missiles (e.g. MM40 block 3, or Otomat), & could attack radars & the local airport with missiles, remaining out of range of SAMs & mainland-based fighters & preventing the basing of fighters on the islands. This is, of course, only one scenario, but it demonstrates how a maritime patrol aircraft, suitably equipped, can do far more than ASW, & how valuable a long range aircraft can be.

 

[petrac]

What I see is that many navies are swapping their cold war-style MPA aircraft optimized for ASW to more versatile airframes. In the Netherlands the orions were swapped for 2 Fokker 50 maritime patrollers. In the NATO environment, not all countries need a full-blown ASW-capable MPA force. We can call upon the German airframes now if we need them. Instead our Fokkers are doing a nice job patrolling the oceans around the Antilles, with two Do228 airframes doing CoastGuard and pollution control duties.

It is also supported as mowst Orions are now refitted with overland surveillance upgrades for use of Aghanistan and Iraq, to name two current operations. Dutch orions patrolled over Kosovo, RAF Nimrods and USAF orions over AFghanistan and now Canada is refitting its CP140 Aurora's with overland radars.

 

[Distiller]

The noise of a low flying turboprop can be heard quite well under water.
One of the good things of a system like S-3B, Nimrod or P-8, even though both S-3B and Nimrod operate at lower altitudes in a conventional pattern, whereas the P-8 will stay high up. Let's see if the mission equipment of the P-8 keeps up with all the fancy promises!

 

[chrisrobsoar]

Who would buy a 737 ASW?

Bah! We should try to flog our spare Nimrod airframes & new-build ones as MRA4s. We've spent the big money, on the horribly over-budget development. The marginal cost of each extra unit is quite reasonable. Cruising on two Br710s, with the other two shut down, they have awesome time on station, & far longer range than the P-8.

A few things to bear in mind about the MRA4 program.

The current Nimrod is based on the old Comet 4C aircraft. More powerful engineers were used and the double bubble fuselage was used to enable an extremely long bomb bay to be incorporated. Essentially these aircraft were hand built.

Here is an extract fro the RAF site explaining the programme.


“In December 1996, BAE Systems were awarded a £2bn contract for the remanufacturing of 21 Nimrod MR Mk 2 aircraft to the new Nimrod MRA4 (Nimrod 2000) specification including new mission, sensor and avionics systems. In February 2002, the UK Ministry of Defence reduced this number to 18 aircraft, citing a perceived reduction in the submarine threat. In July 2004, the UK Ministry of Defence announced that this number was to be further reduced to 12 aircraft.

Delivery of the first production aircraft is planned for 2009. The scheduled in-service date is 2010 and deliveries are scheduled to complete in 2012. The aircraft will be based at RAF Kinloss in Scotland.

The main roles of Nimrod MRA4 are maritime reconnaissance, anti-submarine warfare, anti-surface unit warfare, and search and rescue.

The remanufacture of the MR2 Aircraft involves an extensive reconstruction. The aircraft is stripped and the outer wings cut off and the centre box, including both inner wings, are removed from the fuselage which is stripped back to the bare alloy.”

http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/nimrod/

This site is rather old but does have a very good description of the work carried out and of the problems encountered.

http://www.spyflight.co.uk/MR4A.htm


DPA ITP site – good overview and timeline for programme.

http://192.5.30.131/dpa/projects/nimrod.htm


The programme was halted at one stage, until the first three prototype aircraft could be proven to meet the specification. The Production Contract for 12 aircraft was signed on 18th July 2006.

There were many problems encountered that caused huge delays, but the main one stems from the fact that the aircraft were hand build, and unlike today’s computer machined aircraft, they are each unique. So that the approach adopted measure one and build them all the same did not work. Each of the new wings has to be tailored for each fuselage.

Many configuration problems were encountered with the aircraft systems, again requiring time consuming on the fly development of modifications to install the new systems. In many cases the easiest solution was to increase the amount of new build items. In retrospect it probably would have been easier to build new aircraft from scratch. (I think that the refurbishment approach allows them to get around regulations by read across to the earlier design, reducing the total flight proving required).

Meanwhile the old aircraft have continued flying accumulating more fatigue hours.

The total number of aircraft to be modified has been reduced due to several factors: -

1 A perceived reduction in the maritime threat (although with the aircraft now used for more general surveillance, command and control and relay roles, additional aircraft probably are required).

2 Cost reductions.

3 Remaining fatigue life on the elements of the aircraft that are not being replaced by the MRA4 refurbishment programme (principally the fuselage).

The low hours aircraft will be selected from the current fleet of MR2s and will re refurbished under the MRA4 programme. The remaining high and medium flight hour will continue flying until the MRA4 aircraft start to com on stream; as the refurbish aircraft become available the high airframe aircraft will be scrapped.

It was hoped that some of the MR2 aircraft could be updated with similar modifications as the MRA4 to create a replacement for the Nimrod R1 aircraft, but it has been found that there were not enough MR2 aircraft available with sufficient hours remaining to make the exercise viable.


Also years ago BAE did push for the surplus MR2s to be converted into MRA4s for the export market, but that was quickly stopped when the difficulties in the MRA4 programme emerged and the real state of the MR2s was discovered.

So in summary there will be no spare Nimrod aircraft on offer for export: there are barely sufficient umbers of MR2 to enable 12 MRA4 aircraft to be produced.


Chris

 

[swerve]

Chris,

I make a point of always reading your posts, as I always learn something from them. This one's disappointing, because of the information contained in it. Amazing balls-up. How could anyone have planned for 21 MRA4 without checking there were 21 airframes fit for conversion?

I wonder how much complete new-build aircraft, including new fuselages, would cost? The wings for them would be cheaper, being uniform, but there's that flight proving issue.

 

[chrisrobsoar]

Chris,

I make a point of always reading your posts, as I always learn something from them. This one's disappointing, because of the information contained in it. Amazing balls-up. How could anyone have planned for 21 MRA4 without checking there were 21 airframes fit for conversion?

I wonder how much complete new-build aircraft, including new fuselages, would cost? The wings for them would be cheaper, being uniform, but there's that flight proving issue.

Thanks Swerve, I try my best not onlt to post the "facts" but also how we got here, what might be the current thinking and perhaps where we my be going (or could go).


A few more details on the Nimrod MR2.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawker-Siddeley_Nimrod

http://www.armedforces.co.uk/raf/listings/l0010.html

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/europe/nimrod_mr2.htm


Includes full production list.

http://www.targetlock.org.uk/nimrod/index.html


Currently the RAF operate Nimrod aircraft as follows: -

MR2
42 (R) Sqn OCU 3
120 Sqn 6
201 Sqn 6
Total 15 (Of which at least 2 will be required for refurbishment)

1 aircraft on lone to 51 Sqn for training during scheduled servicing of R1 aircraft NB: will not be modified.

R1
51 Sqn 3

MRA4 (Conversion from MR2)
Development Flying PA1-PA3 3
Being refurbished PA4 – PA8 5
PA9-PA12 4 (2 of which have been withdrawn from operational service)
Total 12 (10 of which at with BAE for conversion)

The situation is rather complex in that some of the aircraft withdrawn for service for refurbishment were found to have suffered so much that they were withdrawn for the programme and other aircraft substituted. So we know that at least 2 additional serving aircraft will be required to provide 12 platforms for refurbishment, but how many actually required is anybodies guess. My guess is 4, based on the number so far that have dropped out of the programme.

Originally they were going to refurbish 21 out of 27 aircraft. 6 aircraft were recognised as not being worth refurbishment. One aircraft has been lost. That leaves 20 aircraft thought to be worth refurbishment.

Operational 15 +1 = 16

Known not worth refurbishing 8
Unknown condition 8 of which 2 definitely required for refurbishment programme.

BAE 10 (of which 2 are thought to be bumped from the programme)

Total 26

So that is why I think that 4 aircraft currently in operational service will be required to complete the refurbishment programme. That will leave 4 aircraft that were included in the original batch of 21 that were going to be refurbished (more on these latter).

The 6 aircraft that were not going to be refurbished are early and now high hours aircraft and will be flown into the ground (or should that be sea) and withdrawn from service as the MRA4’s are introduced into service.

With only 12 aircraft I suspect they will be deployed as follows: -

MRA4
42 (R) Sqn OCU 2
120 Sqn 5
201 Sqn 5
Total 12

The 4 remaining MR2s could be used to provide back-up to the MRA4 & R1 squadrons until they are withdrawn form service. In particular if the R1 is not going the get the full MRA4 refurbished aircraft then they will need a mid-life update. It would make sense to use, at least 2, of the 4 surplus MR2s to provide cover during this process.

BTW

I find it interesting to see how much of the Comet 4 remains in this aircraft. Take a look at the side windows, they are just the Comet 4 windows rotated by 90 degrees.

The Comet 1 had square windows that caused stress concentration at the corners, cracks to propagate and the fuselage to fail. After several losses the Comet 1 was tested and the cause of failure found. The British Aerospace Industry shared this information with the rest of the world, including Boeing who made major changes to the B-707 avoiding our mistakes and took over the lead in commercial jet aviation.

The change of orientation of the windows is to allow the cabin crew to lookout and when flying close to the sea looking up and down is not so important as looking from side to side.

With a couple of material changes due to the spec change of the material the window is 100% interchangeable with the windows fitted to the Comet 4 more than 40 years ago.

To answer your questions more specifically, the original plan was just to refurbish the centre box section, but these proved to be impractical because the differences between individual aircraft were too great to accommodate. The present plan is to replace this item together with outer wings. There are major differences between aircraft in how the wing set is attached, but this is easier to accommodate joining the wings to the fuselage than joining the wings together.

Technically, just building a new aircraft would have been easier, but there were other issues, including qualifying a new aircraft (the Super Hornet has also used this approach). Politically it was sold as an upgrade to the present aircraft, so new builds would be difficult to sell.

The UK fell into the Nimrod because at that time Comet 4 aircraft were available. Generally jets do not operate very well at low altitude, hence the reason why turboprop aircraft have been used for maritime patrol. With wider ranging duties requiring these aircraft to operate at over a wider range of altitudes, jets do make sense.

In the future composite materials may enable modern aircraft to avoid the dual problems of stress and corrosion that have plagued the Nimrod.

The other key issue with such aircraft is the time to deploy and loiter on station. The MR2s can use all four engines to deploy quickly and the switch off engines to conserve fuel.

The best maritime patrol aircraft would be able to fly fast and slowly, changing the power extracted from the engines as required to produce the maximum possible endurance.

This is a very difficult requirement to achieve in one airframe, perhaps a two tier approach is required, jet powered above turboprop down below.


With regards to the Nimrod aircraft the message is the same the UK will not have any available aircraft for export. Any aircraft that will not refurbished will be stripped and scrapped.





Chris

 

[contedicavour]

You're seeing things from an Italian point of view, thinking in terms of littoral operations, & maybe, at a stretch, further afield in the Mediterranean. Some countries face oceans, & have to think in oceanic terms, e.g. Spain, India, France, Japan, Brazil. For them, helicopters & short-range patrol aircraft just don't hack it.

.

Fair point I take it
I would also add that from an Italian perspective we have to be very careful about funding priorities given the limited defence budgets... and that replacing FFGs is a zillion time more important than replacing the ATL-1 with anything better than simple ATR-72 patrollers.

cheers

 

[rjmaz1]

The nimrod is not a good aircraft at all. The military spec 737's has a higher cruise speed, higher climb rate, lower operating costs, lower purchase cost, more room for equipment. The 737 can also have longer range if the extended range fuel tanks are added in the cargo compartments which is the case with the P-8.

Commercial aircraft are definitely the way to go with ASW aircraft.

Boings 737 is perfect for this mission. Australia's wedgetails are ideal size and performance for Australia.

Boeing make many different configurations of the 737, different fuselage lengths, stronger wings and a variety of engines. If you combine the shorter length fuselage with the stronger wings and the biggest engine choice available you get a pretty high performance aircraft.

I do not believe there is room for both Airbus and Boeing in this market.

737's can be made so cheap that any competition would struggle to reach the price point of the 737 aircraft.

 

[Tasman]

The nimrod is not a good aircraft at all. The military spec 737's has a higher cruise speed, higher climb rate, lower operating costs, lower purchase cost, more room for equipment. The 737 can also have longer range if the extended range fuel tanks are added in the cargo compartments which is the case with the P-8.

I totally agree with this. The current 737 seems to me to be light years ahead of the Comet 4 which was the basis for the Nimrod airframe.

Commercial aircraft are definitely the way to go with ASW aircraft.

This has long been the case because there are obvious similarities in requirements such as long range, internal volume needed to carry ASW crew and consoles, etc, and they are large enough to carry a reasonable weapons load.

Commercial aircraft are definitely the way to go with ASW aircraft.

Boings 737 is perfect for this mission. Australia's wedgetails are ideal size and performance for Australia.

An ASW aircraft based on a 737 would, IMO, have sufficient range to meet the needs of any country needing a long range ASW patrol aircraft.

Boeing make many different configurations of the 737, different fuselage lengths, stronger wings and a variety of engines. If you combine the shorter length fuselage with the stronger wings and the biggest engine choice available you get a pretty high performance aircraft.

So therefore the 737 is ideal for adaption to a variety of purposes including ASW and AWACS roles.

I do not believe there is room for both Airbus and Boeing in this market.

737's can be made so cheap that any competition would struggle to reach the price point of the 737 aircraft

It seems to me that Airbus is competitive with Boeing in the commercial market. However, as I said earlier in this thread, the market for specialist ASW aircraft has shrunk so I agree that there is not room for too many players. As the USN is already developing the 737 based P-8 MMA, I believe Airbus would see it as a huge risk to attempt to enter the market where Boeing has a considerable head start.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/p-8.htm

Whilst I can't see a realistic market for European manufactured specialised ASW aircraft there does seem to me to be a growing market for simpler maritime patrol aircraft along the lines of the Dash-8s operated by Australian Customs. Maybe European manufacturers ought to be looking at this area.

http://www.dpmc.gov.au/publications/protecting_australia/preparedness/6_border.htm

Cheers

 

[Super Nimrod]

Sorry, but if I am going to spend long periods at low altitude over the sea x thousand miles from home I will take a couple of extra engines thanks Aircraft like this spend long periods doing mundane stuff like SAR where the chances of seabird ingestion are very high.

 

[rjmaz1]

If i had 40 year old turbojet engines i too would want a couple extra

If i had engines that are perfectly reliable with millions of flight hours without a catostrophic failure i wouldn't have a problem with it. The CFM56 cooks birds for breakfast!!

 

[swerve]

If i had 40 year old turbojet engines i too would want a couple extra

If i had engines that are perfectly reliable with millions of flight hours without a catostrophic failure i wouldn't have a problem with it. The CFM56 cooks birds for breakfast!!

Since when has the BR710 been a 40 year old turbojet engine? It's a ten year old turbofan (certification 1996), kept up to date with constant improvements. Superb reliability, selling extremely well. Excellent engine.

"The BR710 is the sole engine offered on the Gulfstream 500, Gulfstream 550 and Bombardier Global Express long range business jets, as well as on the new Bombardier super-large business jet Global 5000"

Everything you've said, including this, applies to the original Nimrod, not to the MRA4. Don't you know the difference?

 

[rjmaz1]

Everything you've said, including this, applies to the original Nimrod, not to the MRA4. Don't you know the difference?

Im comparing it to the aircraft in service and currently flying.

Has the MRA4 flown? If not how do you know its performance compared to a 737? How do you know if the MRA4 will be reliable and cost less to maintain than a 737?

The 737 is leap years ahead of the original Nimrod airframe.