The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates

Nice presentation on the Type 26 which looks fairly similar to earlier views of the thing - and damn but does that mast look tall...

Good to see a modern 5 inch going on there -that should have happened with the Type 45 I think.

No signs of any deck mounted Harpoon launchers so that still leaves the question as to what the anti shipping side of things would be.
 
StobieWan said:
Nice presentation on the Type 26 which looks fairly similar to earlier views of the thing - and damn but does that mast look tall...

Good to see a modern 5 inch going on there -that should have happened with the Type 45 I think.

No signs of any deck mounted Harpoon launchers so that still leaves the question as to what the anti shipping side of things would be.
Click to expand...

Yep, similar to early comments on Australia's ANZAC Class. Nice ships, but what about putting some weapons on them???
 
swerve said:
Remember that the crashes of early Comets due to metal fatigue seem to have been at least partly caused by short cuts on the production line. Instead of gluing in window frames as originally designed, they were punch-riveted. Production supervisors didn't understand why it was essential to follow specific processes, so they did what they & the assembly workers were familiar with & was quick & easy.
Click to expand...

IIRC the sudden raft of failures was also due to basic design flaws leading to structural failure
eg early comets had square and oblong passenger windows which stress fractured over time - its why all modern passenger jets have rounded corners on the windows.
 
Not quite. The windows were square, true - but the corners were rounded, specifically to avoid cracking at the corners. Look at pictures, & the rounding is obvious. The cracks didn't begin directly at the corners of the windows, but around rivet holes near the corners, from a combination of the extra localised stress from the overall (albeit with rounded corners) squareness of the windows & the fine cracks created by punch riveting. They then spread along stress lines in line with the straight bases of the windows. There were also stress points caused by the sharp edges of countersunk bolt holes, helping crack propagation.

The square windows might have been fatal eventually, but it was the combination of them with rivet holes with fine cracks caused by punch riveting (a production line decision contrary to what was specified by the designers) which caused those two fuselages to fail so dramatically & so soon.

The official verdict was failures caused by a combination of design flaws & manufacturing faults.

Note that the fuselage which was tested to destruction, revealing the causes of the failures, underwent 3000 pressurisation cycles before failing, & at significantly higher pressures than encountered in service. The crashes were at lower numbers: one had fewer than 1300 cycles. The difference may be due to slight manufacturing differences. Punching rivets through aluminium produces rather variable results. The holes are rough edged, but unpredictably so.

The investigators concluded there was a failure risk any time after 1000 cycles, & a maximum of 9000.

Note that other jet airliners under development were modified on the drawing board as a result of the Comet crash investigation. They were 'basic' design flaws that everyone else was also making. The state of the art was being pushed to its limits & beyond. A lot was learned about fatigue & stress, which might have been learned from Boeing or Douglas crashes if De Havilland hadn't got there first.
 
StobieWan said:
Nigel. Tinsnips. I've outlined my mental model of the Comet production line in the past :)
Click to expand...

I only have to look at what BL was making around that time to understand the structural issues with Nimrod. :D

John Fedup said:
Canada opted for upgrading the Aurora (Cdn version of the P-3).

Maintaining Canada’s CP-140 Aurora Fleet
Click to expand...

My point is that P-3 users for the most part don't have the urgent need for a new MPA like the UK does. P-3 upgrades are being offered from a variety of sources and the type will be useful for at least another 20 years.
 
gf0012-aust said:
range, integration ease, common combat suite layout, power generation is way way way ahead of the kwakka

could go on and on and on

I know what I'd pick
Click to expand...

Where does that come from?
P1 is purpose built and has room for growth as well as MAD fitted as standard and four engined.

P8 is a converted civilian airliner does not carry MAD, is two engined and not sure about room for growth.

Be interested in your reasoned opinion.
 
Riga said:
Where does that come from?
P1 is purpose built and has room for growth as well as MAD fitted as standard and four engined.

P8 is a converted civilian airliner does not carry MAD, is two engined and not sure about room for growth.

Be interested in your reasoned opinion.
Click to expand...
The aircraft have a similar range and the twin engines will consume less fuel than four engined aircraft. The P3 Orion was developed from the Lockheed L188 Electra civilian airliner and the P3 Orion has very successfully completed over 50 years operational service and probably will complete another 20 years. The RAF Nimrod was developed from the DeHavilland Comet 4 airliner. The Russian Il38 May MPA was developed from the Il18 Coot airliner. Hence there is a precedent of airliners being used as a base airframe for successful MPAs. That's just the basic aircraft.

It's what goes inside and on the aircraft as sensors, weapons, computing, coms etc., that make the big difference. From what has been made available in the public domain, the P8 is a MMA hence it carries out more mission roles than the MPA role. It as a strong ISR component, a C4ISR or C5ISR capability, as well as a strong overland sensing capability not available in other platforms other than something like JSTARS or the R1 Sentinel. The P1 doesn't have that level of capability.
 
ngatimozart said:
The aircraft have a similar range and the twin engines will consume less fuel than four engined aircraft. The P3 Orion was developed from the Lockheed L188 Electra civilian airliner and the P3 Orion has very successfully completed over 50 years operational service and probably will complete another 20 years. The RAF Nimrod was developed from the DeHavilland Comet 4 airliner. The Russian Il38 May MPA was developed from the Il18 Coot airliner. Hence there is a precedent of airliners being used as a base airframe for successful MPAs. That's just the basic aircraft.

It's what goes inside and on the aircraft as sensors, weapons, computing, coms etc., that make the big difference. From what has been made available in the public domain, the P8 is a MMA hence it carries out more mission roles than the MPA role. It as a strong ISR component, a C4ISR or C5ISR capability, as well as a strong overland sensing capability not available in other platforms other than something like JSTARS or the R1 Sentinel. The P1 doesn't have that level of capability.
Click to expand...

However, JSDF also wish to role the P1 as above. Not sure of your point.
Nimrod was four engined - they shut down two when loitering.

What I have read, including SEEDCORN, is that P1 is a strong contender for the UK role.

Regards.
 
Riga said:
However, JSDF also wish to role the P1 as above. Not sure of your point.
Nimrod was four engined - they shut down two when loitering.

What I have read, including SEEDCORN, is that P1 is a strong contender for the UK role.

Regards.
Click to expand...
Who said the P1 is a strong contender? It is a possibility but no RAF crew are on the P1 whereas RAF aircrew are on the P8 and P3 as part of SEEDCORN. AFAIK Japan isn't part of SEEDCORN. The Japanese may in the long term wish to rerole the P1 to a role similar to that of the P8, but the P1 does not have those capabilities now, whereas the P8 does or will do in the near future including the ability to control MQ4C Tritons.
 
Last edited:
ngatimozart said:
Who said the P1 is a strong contender? It is a possibility but no RAF crew are on the P1 whereas RAF aircrew are on the P8 and P3 as part of SEEDCORN. AFAIK Japan isn't part of SEEDCORN. The Japanese may in the long term wish to rerole the P1 to a role similar to that of the P8, but the P1 does not have those capabilities now, whereas the P8 does or will do in the near future including the ability to control MQ4C Tritons.
Click to expand...

We must be reading different websites. I understand that they have similar capabilities; can not comment on controlling MQ4C but there are some issues over transmitting that volume of information especially if Sats have been taken out.


I made reference to four engine loitering and the MAD but don't recall seeing anything back from you.

Is P1 a serious contender? I think at the least it can used as leverage over the P8 buy at the very least. As to operating consoles - is there really such a difference? Maintaining the aircraft will be different but are maintenance crews part of SEEDCORN?
 
Riga said:
What I have read, including SEEDCORN, is that P1 is a strong contender for the UK role.

Regards.
Click to expand...

Can't disagree more. 20 out of 33 Seedcorn operators are on the P-8, so far nobody has even been on an exchange let alone being an integrated part of the OT&E cycle of the P-1. A P-8 also recently performed a flight with an all UK crew.

P-1 interest is for politics, not operational reality.
 
Riga said:
Where does that come from?
P1 is purpose built and has room for growth as well as MAD fitted as standard and four engined.

P8 is a converted civilian airliner does not carry MAD, is two engined and not sure about room for growth.

Be interested in your reasoned opinion.
Click to expand...

The Indians ordered their P-8 with MAD, so the option is there. MAD has long been considered useless. The joke among ASW crews is that if the sonarbouys don't pick it up MAD certainly won't. It is too unreliable and picks up more false alarms than it does real tracks.

The engines on the P-1 are bespoke while the ones on the P-8 are fitted to perhaps the most popular airliner in the world, parts are readily available and fairly inexpensive. Hell, a smaller nation could just contract out all engine maintenance to a regional airline. Because of that huge civilian user base any improvements to the engines or aerodynamics can cheaply be pulled through to the P-8.

Twin vs four engines silly at this point. 737's are not falling out of the sky from engine failure or limping along with one engine.
 
@AegisFC...exactly right, the 737 platform is a very attractive option for nations that need to minimize operation costs. As a proven platform, it is attractive to all potential customers needing a MPA/MMA capability. You can't get much more risk-free than a jet with a production run well over 6,000 and still counting!
 
AegisFC said:
The Indians ordered their P-8 with MAD, so the option is there. MAD has long been considered useless. The joke among ASW crews is that if the sonarbouys don't pick it up MAD certainly won't. It is too unreliable and picks up more false alarms than it does real tracks.

The engines on the P-1 are bespoke while the ones on the P-8 are fitted to perhaps the most popular airliner in the world, parts are readily available and fairly inexpensive. Hell, a smaller nation could just contract out all engine maintenance to a regional airline. Because of that huge civilian user base any improvements to the engines or aerodynamics can cheaply be pulled through to the P-8.

Twin vs four engines silly at this point. 737's are not falling out of the sky from engine failure or limping along with one engine.
Click to expand...
That is an interesting point!
MMA serviced by Ryanair - if anyone can bring down costs, Ryanair can :)
 
Riga said:
That is an interesting point!
MMA serviced by Ryanair - if anyone can bring down costs, Ryanair can :)
Click to expand...

May be a whimsical point but it's still valid - there are staff all over Britain who can service most of the P8 flight systems. It'd be very easy to contract for availability for instance and simply swap the engines right off the pylons, package them up and swap them out for freshly serviced ones. .

P1? Less so.
 
It's being blown out of proportion with people thinking that they'll almost be £1bn a pop, that's BS considering that's the cost of a Type 45. There's a distinction to be made, program cost doesn't equate to ship cost.

£12billion (or £11.5billion) relates to the cost of the entire program out until "the 2030's". That means supporting the ships that are being run from 2021 onwards.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top