ASW mission, Europe lost the train?

[swerve]

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.

Yes, the MRA4 has flown. Last I heard, there were 3 flying, including one with full mission kit. The P-8 is a few years from flying, isn't it? MRA4 will be in service by the first flight. So you aren't comparing like with like, you're comparing the aircraft the (flying) MRA4 will replace with a civilian airliner from which an MPA is being developed. Hmm. Doesn't exactly sound like a well-founded comparison. We may as well compare the P-3 with the MRA4. At least in that case we have a real bit of hardware to compare with the aircraft in service, not a paper aeroplane. And what has the original Nimrod airframe got to do with the MRA4, which is mostly new?

FYI, the MRA4 has a much greater range than the P-8 will achieve (more than twice as much), even better endurance, due to far superior loiter capability, better weapons load . . . . . . AFAIK the only area in which the P-8 should beat it is on speed. Systems capability is something that we can't compare so easily: the P-8 systems are still under development, & the MRA4s might be upgraded by the time the P-8 is in service.

BTW, since you insist that the modernity of the basic design is a decisive advantage for the 737 over the Nimrod, why aren't you hailing the superiority of the A320 over the 737 as a maritime patrol platform?

 

[chrisrobsoar]

Swerve

You have basically got it right.

Even the Nimrod MR2 has greater endurance than the P-8.

The mistake that BAE Systems and the UK made, was not building the MRA4 from scratch, but as I mentioned earlier it was “sold” as an update.

The advantage with having four engines it that the Nimrod (even the old one) can fly just on two engines increasing the endurance. The MRA4 intake design and tweaks done to the new engines significantly improve the performance of the engines when operating low over the sea; this was the original role for the MRA4. These days operation at medium altitudes is also important.

The 737 is a very good platform for multi-role aircraft such as are being purchased by Australia and Turkey, because the 737 and the engines have been optimised for operation at higher altitudes.

If the Nimrod MRA4 had been designed and built from scratch then the UK would have had an aircraft to offer to other countries, the problem is that few of them would require such a niche aircraft; one of the few I can think of would have been Australia.

Using a common commercial aircraft (such as the 737 or similar airbus) is a good platform to build specialist aircraft such as maritime patrol aircraft, AWAC etc.

Within a very few years the Nimrod MRA4 will be deployed and will be the best maritime patrol aircraft in service.

One of the reasons why the updated P-3 Orion was beaten by the 737 P-8 is that for most countries the need to fly so low for so long is no longer a requirement. The success of the present Nimrod MR2 has shown the way forward and that, sea hugging turboprop aircraft are not the best option.

Unless some country comes along to BAE Systems and says I want 50 MRA4 aircraft then, currently the best deal in town is go with a 737 based aircraft. It may not necessarily be the best available, but it is the best that can be afforded.

Did the EU & the UK miss the boat, I think they did, an airbus platform (similar to the MRRT) could have been a serious contender.

Starting from now with 737 based aircraft such as Wedgetail, I think that the replacement for the P-3 Orion has to be the P-8. It will not be the best, but is the best that is available and will offer savings with regards to cost of ownership.

For long ranging operations the Nimrod MRA4 will be much better and if the UK and Oz had got their act together (with a few other countries, i.e. Japan) there may have been a better outcome.

In summary, the P-8 is not the best direct replacement for the P-3 Orion, but it is probably the best platform available to carry out the multi-role tasks required by aircraft in this class now and in the future.



Chris

 

[Super Nimrod]

Is it correct that the P-8 only has a very small weapons bay in comparison to its predesessor and the Nimrod, or have they actually put a full length double bottom in the design ? There doesn't seem to be much detailed info about the P-8 on the net.

 

[swerve]

Is it correct that the P-8 only has a very small weapons bay in comparison to its predesessor and the Nimrod, or have they actually put a full length double bottom in the design ? There doesn't seem to be much detailed info about the P-8 on the net.

It looks surprisingly small in this diagram -

http://www.navy.mil/view_single.asp?id=14915

You can see it better if you click on "download hi-res".

But, yeah, I think Chris is right. For most countries which want a proper (not limited-capability littoral) MPA, the P-8 is probably the best on offer. There seems to be no prospect of completely new-build MRA4s, EADS isn't interested in any speculative military development projects & none of the possible governments France, Spain, Germany) is backing an A320-based rival, & what else is there?

 

[Gladius]

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.

Well swerve, in our case (Spain), the long-range ASW tasks are charged to the upgraded P-3M Orion of the Sqn. 221 (Grupo 22 del Ala 11 / Group 22 of the Wing 11), that added to its full ASW/ASuW capacities has received important modifications in order to carry out other missions (EW/EliInt/SigInt) seeking to enlarge their versatility.

Nevertheless the road to continue in the short-term inside the Spanish Air Force is intended to go for a complementation of the Orions on the Maritime Patrol/ASuW/SAR role, with platforms of smaller range (CN-235). The conversion of six aircrafts from the Ala 35 (Wing 35) was approved and funded last December by the Cabinet.

With respect to the helicopters; Spain has been reducing, slowly but constantly, the number of helicopters with dedication to these tasks. Today, after the reconversion of the SH-3H Sea Kings, only the 12 SH-60 Block II in service with the frigates F-100 class and F-80 class provide full ASW capacity.
Also, a still undetermined number of NH-90s from the twenty eight planed for the Navy inside the Spanish NH-90 Program (104 NH-90s) will be a derivate design of the NFH version with ASW/ASuW capabilities.

 

[Tasman]

Is EADS interested in ASW development after all?

An article posted by aaaditya in Indian Navy News and Discussion yesterday suggests that an Airbus A319 ASW solution offered by EADS Casa is in contention with the P8 for an Indian Navy contract.

This is the link originally posted by aaaditya:

http://www.defensenews.com/aero/story.php?id=2539163

So just maybe Europe hasn't completely 'lost the train'. Could a success here open the door for more orders?

Cheers

 

[swerve]

An article posted by aaaditya in Indian Navy News and Discussion yesterday suggests that an Airbus A319 ASW solution offered by EADS Casa is in contention with the P8 for an Indian Navy contract.

This is the link originally posted by aaaditya:

http://www.defensenews.com/aero/story.php?id=2539163

So just maybe Europe hasn't completely 'lost the train'. Could a success here open the door for more orders?

Cheers

Interesting. I presume they dusted off the old proposal. Looks quite low risk, since the combat system is already developed. Presumably it's possible to upgrade sensors if desired - FITS is described as "modular" on the EADS website.