If we accept that the Future Maritime Patrol requirement may well have to be redefined to meet smaller budgets, there are a number of cheaper options to consider.
These are generally characterised by being smaller and shorter ranged than the options examined in the previous two posts on the P8, P3, P1, 319 and ATL.
Airbus Military C235/295 MPA
The C295 is often seen in suggestions for the future UK Maritime Patrol Aircraft, it is a logical off the shelf choice if the P-8A is unaffordable, it must be said, Airbus Military are pushing it hard as well.
Many have also suggested it as a stop gap until the P8 matures or other options become available.
The problem with stop gaps is twofold, you have to demonstrate a compelling need for a stop gap, difficult, and two, stop gaps tend to become full-time.
If the C295 MPA is to come into UK service it will be as a final answer to the capability gap.
The Airbus Military C295 MPA is a derivative of the well established C295 twin turboprop transport in service with many forces worldwide.
The C295 is a stretched version of the C235 which also has a maritime patrol version; notable users include the US Coastguard (C235), Chile, Oman and Portugal (C295)
The MPA version has the fully integrated tactical system mission suite (FITS) configured with four operator stations, sonobuoy dispenser, MAD boom, self-defence equipment, 6 under wing hard points and an electro-optical turret.
Click here for the FITS page
FITS is the same system as fitted to the Brazilian P3-AM’s
Endurance is reportedly 11 hours or 6 hours on station at 200nm range.
Compare that with 4 hours at 1,200nm ballpark for the P8, A319MPA, P1 and P3, and it should be obvious where the difference lies.
Stores capacity is also lower, and so is speed and altitude.
It can (and has) been fitted with a refuelling probe, though.
Airbus Military are continually improving the basic design, most recently the adoption of winglets in the C295W.
These are said to deliver and extra 30–60 minutes endurance or 1,000kg payload, improved altitude, hot/high-performance and reduced fuel costs.
Let’s not fool ourselves; the C295 MPA is no P-8A, but then it is not trying to be, the question the UK has to answer is a simple one, are its limitations acceptable or not.
What does the C295 bring?
Two things, cost and versatility.
As usual, it is difficult to pin down costs, but I have seen several reports that point to a £50m unit cost and very low running costs, or put another way, 3 for the price of one P8. Airbus themselves offered to the £50m price tag in a submission to the House of Commons Defence Select Committee.
It could be a thousand for the price of one but if it doesn’t meet the military requirement it would still be poor value for money but three to one is difficult to ignore.
One of the great strengths of the C295 MPA is its versatility, the rear cargo door and palletised mission systems allow the same aircraft to be used for a number of roles.
Standard 463L pallet compatibility means that in an expeditionary deployment it can carry its own spares or other stores, as an example.
This doesn’t really become a useful feature unless you have more airframes than mission systems and this is where those secondary implications come in. In the previous posts I have looked at how selecting one airframe or the other can have cost and/or capability implications across other areas, and it is here that I think the C295 scores pretty well.
If we buy into the C295 for maritime patrol then the established logistics and maintenance arrangements could support an increased number of C295 without the disproportionate cost of unique types.
When I looked at the A400M in a 5 part series (start here) I made the case for a C235/295 to occupy the space between Chinook and the A400M. When the A400M comes into service it will eventually supplant the C130 and leave a fairly large gap between its 30 tonne payload and the 10 tonne (but expensive to operate and slow) Chinook.
The C295 would provide about the same lift as a Chinook but in a package that is faster, much longer ranged and significantly cheaper to operate. Any view on whether such an aircraft would be worth investing in would come down to that balance of the costs of such an aircraft fleet and the cost of using the A400M Atlas at payloads far below its capabilities.
For years ISAF has been using contractors to provide air transport and air despatch using smaller aircraft like the Airbus C212’s and AN25’s.
The development of low-cost air despatch /air dropping equipment has allowed these cheap aircraft to be of much greater usefulness. Studies by the USAF and Army have shown that for a very high percentage of short range, intra theatre transportation tasks in ongoing operations the payload utilisation figures are very low.
It can carry 9 tonnes in its very long cargo hold, 12.7m. This means 71 seats or 5 463L pallets to a maximum range at full payload of 1,300km, plus it comes with this rather snazzy pallet loading system.
There are all manner of roles you could use a plain old C295 for; parachute training, intra-theatre lift and communications.
Airbus have also flown an AEW demonstrator
Plus of course there is always this bad boy to consider
Just saying!
If we are looking at different versions, greater utility, a large user base and low costs, the C295 has a lot to offer.
Others
There are a couple of other alternatives.
Bombardier and Elta have proposed a ‘Special Mission’ variant of the Dash 8 Q-400 commercial passenger aircraft. The Q400 MPA variant is equipped with and EL/M-2022A maritime search radar electro-optical turret and range of supporting electronic systems.
The Dash 8 series are adaptable aircraft and many ‘special. Variants exist in small numbers.
Alenia and Thales have the ATR72-ASW which might be considered broadly similar to the Bombardier aircraft.
Defense Industry Daily has the full details on the Turkish ATR72-ASW order, click here
Both the ATR72 and Q300/400 would offer a modest performance uplift in comparison with the C295 because they are larger aircraft but arguably not enough if the wider possibilities of a C295 selection are considered.
The ATR72-ASW provides a 7 hour at 200nm patrol endurance for example.
An interesting set of options, though.
I’m still not convinced that the C295 range is that big an issue. With AAR this can be extended when needed. Alot of the issues we seem to be having aka Russian Carriers showing up on Twitter just of the coast of Inverness seems to be closer to shore anyway.
Could another option also be to consider using airfields in the North Atlantic as well such as Iceland. Maybe is a very Nimrod Centric view to have all our MPA coverage from a single base in the North of Scotland.
Also given that the P8 does not come with an AAR system we can use and its range is not that great compared to MRA4 is the P8 the real heavy weight contender. Other than Range and Speed is their any advantage in the P8 over the C295. The C295 certainly seems to have the edge in the ability to move low and slow over the water and use shorter runways. All major advantages for an MPA.
@ Ted
“Buddy stays on until he has divert fuel and heads back to find the now refueled tanker for return journey.”
Yeah but you would have to pay airtanker a penalty every time you did this.
@ Monkey
“The Future Strategic Tanker Aircraft (our version of the Airbus330MRTT) ,could it be used as a mother ship for a fleet of low/medium level flying UCAV in the MPA/AEW/AA role out in the mid Atlantic. The FSTA would act as a refuelling station for the UCAV’s and house the UCAV controllers on palletized work stations”
Or maybe we could get the star ship Enterprise to hover over the area. Sounds cheaper and easier to do.
As the Russians had sailed from Northern Russia, wouldn’t/shouldn’t the Norweigns have monitored the passage of the Russian force. Seeing as they would have passed through the Norweign EEZ. As Norway is part of NATO, would they not have given us a heads up warning what was coming our way?
We should have had plenty of time to have a vessel off the coast of Scotland, ready to greet them!
Reading the above comments, the general consensus appears to high end jets or small turbo-props, I’ve just been perusing the interweb looking at the USCG HC-130J. As funding is obviously the problem, I’m thinking along the lines of utilising a baseline, reduced capability SC-130J model in a similar vein to the HC-130J, which can then be upgraded to the full-on SC-130J when the money becomes available.
This way we’re not lumbered with a fleet of small, unusable airframes, and neither are we committed to buying an uber-expensive aircraft like the P-8A. Am I the only one who thinks the future lies with the SC-130J?
@dave haine: we all knew it was there. But since we lack a North Sea base, a ship will take a day to arrive from Portsmouth, and even a fighty MPA isn’t a substitute. Distances matter, even for aircraft. Hence those pesky aircraft carriers :-)
While Australia’s commitment to the P8 Poseidon is well known and has been commented on in the MPA discussion threads a number of times, less well known is that Australia also operates a fleet of 14 modified Dash 8 aircraft that complement the RAAFs 19 AP3C aircraft. You could argue that in practice the Dash 8s tend to act as the first line of defence of Australia’s EEZ.
The Australian Customs Service uses a private sector provider for the Coastwatch program contracting out to Surveillance Australia Pty Ltd which is a subsidiary of National Jet Systems (and ultimately owned by Cobham plc.).
The Coastwatch program is the world’s largest aerial civil maritime surveillance operation involving 170 personnel, flying 20,000 hours per year from 4 four permanent bases (Broome, Darwin, Horn Island and Cairns) around Australia’s northern coast.
It is an interesting model that might also work in the UK and not unlike in some ways the outsourced arrangement that the RAF has in place for their Voyager tankers.
The Dash 8 Q300s were equipped with additional fuel tanks in the fuselage, providing an additional 4,000 lbs. of fuel capacity in addition to their standard long-range tanks. The Dash 8s are equipped with Raytheon’s SeaVue radar, L-3 Wescam’s MX-15 EO system and a new SIM system based on Galileo Avionica’s “ATOS.” SIM will automatically capture and integrate surveillance information from these surveillance aircraft, and transmit in near real time between other aircraft and the National Surveillance Centre in Canberra.
http://www10.giscafe.com/blogs/tatukgis/2011/03/06/salex-galileo-uses-tatukgis-products-for-australian-coastwatch-air-surveillance-system/
Since most actions in peacetime turn out to be relatively benign contacts (currently people smugglers cramming hundreds of desperate asylum seekers in unseaworthy wooden Indonesian fishing boats have overtaken illegal fishing as their main surveillance mission) it is fairly cost effective way of using a relatively inexpensive platform to do the lion’s share of the day-to-day maritime patrol.
It frees the AP3Cs up for their primary ASW mission and the Coastwatch aircraft can always handover more complex or military contacts to the AP3Cs to prosecute.
While the AP3Cs remain a handy piece of kit, especially following their 2002 upgrade, the RAAF has operated P3s since 1962 and the current crop of airframes have been working hard on military missions including overland ISR missions in Afghanistan and ASW taskings in addition to increasing border protection missions.
Notwithstanding the ADF’s own budgetary pressures, there doesn’t seem to be the ‘should we or shouldn’t we’ debate about the need for an MPA in Australia – it just appears to be a given. The only argument is likely to be the numbers and mix of platforms/capabilities.
There are at least two reasons for this, besides the current hysteria among the political classes about asylum seekers and ‘securing’ Australia’s borders against this invading horde.
Firstly the sheer size of Australia’s EEZ makes for a compelling case for an MPA capability. Australia has the third largest EEZ in the world of just over 10 million square kilometres. Tellingly just over 6 million square kilometres is contiguous with the Australian mainland, with the remainder accounted for by Australia’s remote island and Antarctic territories.
While the UK has a sizeable (5th largest) EEZ with just over 6.8 million square kilometres only a little over 10% or so (722,891 sq km) is contiguous with mainland UK, the rest comprising your far flung territories which makes for a different equation entirely. The UK would need a very sizeable forward deployed number of MPAs to mount anything like continuous surveillance of all of your territorial waters (let alone an ASW capability). And therein lies the dilemma at the heart of the spirited debate on these threads. It’s a different equation really to Australia.
Secondly the Australian AP3Cs are not only employed in the ASW role (Mk 46 / MU 90 torpedoes) they also have a handy ASuW maritime strike capability (AGM-84 Harpoon air-to-surface missiles). Together with the RAAFs classic FA18 Hornets it provides the ADF with 90 platforms capable of launching Harpoon missiles – a not insignificant deterrent for a small air force against any regional aggressor.
In theory the RAAF’s 24 Super Hornets are cleared for Harpoon (USN employ Harpoons off FA18E) which would bring total Harpoon platforms to 114 but my understanding is that their initial maritime strike weapon is the AGM-154C Joint Stand-off Weapon (JSOW). In any case maritime strike is a fundamental RAAF doctrine and capability, so the P8’s ability to launch AGM-84H/K SLAM-ER (or equivalent) is a baseline requirement for an Australian MPA. Whereas this doesn’t seem to be the case in the UK which opens up many more platform options.
The Australian doctrine seems to be to employ a combination of manned and UAV platforms. The likely mix is around 8 P8s, with the Chief of Air Force openly advocating for up to 12 and a commensurate reduction in the number of unmanned MQ-4C Triton from 7 to as few as four. This combination also allows the RAAF to use a USN BAMS style operating model or even become an integral part of the US BAMS network.
All of which would provide Australia with a layered maritime patrol/response capability – Triton, Dash 8 and P8 from as early as 2017 or 2018.
@simon … am sure you’ve got scouse blood in you … gotta get some kip before another shift buildin cars and battin away scouse wind up merchants !!!!
… crack on chaps …later lol :-)
The Future Strategic Tanker Aircraft (our version of the Airbus330MRTT) ,could it be used as a mother ship for a fleet of low/medium level flying UCAV in the MPA/AEW/AA role out in the mid Atlantic. The FSTA would act as a refuelling station for the UCAV’s and house the UCAV controllers on palletized work stations (fitted on a RORO basis to any of the fleet). FSTA would orbit up high usually but could drop lower for Direct Line Of Sight control if needed (WHEN the satellites are taken down by one of the two big high capability potential enemies Russia or China) The budget(?) would be spent on additional FSTA aircraft predominately (to give overall flexibility to that essential service of mid air refuelling / high speed logistics) and the remainder on the UCAV’s .using the existing FSTA design would improve commonality and the UCAV weapons delivery package is inevitable on multi mission profile whether Air /Land / Maritime Attack .
Last comment got eaten!
Anyway I like the C295 but I still think the A400 is the way to go…eventually, and we could design it with our new bosom buddies in Paris (Well Toulouse).
On the subject of Merlin those three indy ones are now languishing without spares, how about a real cheeky offer???
I like the C295, great utility but I Still think we should eventually just bung everything into the A400, on the subject of Merlin, those three Indy ones are lying idle with no spares…
Cheeky but what the hell…
Roll on part six…
Dave Haine,
…how long did it take the andrew to react to the Russian Carrier ‘sheltering’ of the Moray Firth…24hrs to get a Destroyer there? If we’d had an MPA, that would have been 2hrs, or even probably intercepted in the North Sea
So, basically you’re saying it’s the RAF’s fault for wasting money on the Nimrod upgrade?
Nice of the Royal Navy to bail them out though heh :-)
Dave Haine,
…how long did it take the andrew to react to the Russian Carrier ‘sheltering’ of the Moray Firth…24hrs to get a Destroyer there? If we’d had an MPA, that would have been 2hrs, or even probably intercepted in the North Sea
So, basically you’re saying it’s the RAF’s fault for wasting money on the Nimrod upgrade?
Nice of the Royal Navy to bail them out though heh :-)
Ooh dear….see what happens when you question the carrier….they’ll be forming up a boarding party, armed with cutting wit and sarcasm, supported by the boarding grappels of ‘power projection’ and ‘forward defence’. Won’t be long before they start questioning whether we need the RAF.
Now, Remind me, how long did it take the andrew to react to the Russian Carrier ‘sheltering’ of the Moray Firth…24hrs to get a Destroyer there? If we’d had an MPA, that would have been 2hrs, or even probably intercepted in the North Sea.
So actually I’m with Wirral Pete. We’re seeing increasing numbers of russian aircraft ‘testing’ UK response times, the russian fleet have been coming into British waters more and more. We need to maintain the security of the home nation, and that needs an MPA with a decent, offensive capability and a decent range. If nothing else to demonstrate serious intent.
@simon… good one lol ;-)
@engineer tom … yeah thats where i was coming from crown estates paying into two pots, one for monarchy and one as @dave haine so succintly puts it crown estates paying mod as capability provider for public duties/raf and army display teams
The C295 might actually be a better expeditionary aircraft as well, what is the comparison in runway length with that and the P8.
@mickp yeah see where you’re coming from there friend as regards allies in a combined ops scenario
However still think if we’re goin to be US go to partner no question asked in our part of world, or supporting our commonwealth friends around the world, going short/medium term interim capability to uphold our skill sets increases costs in procurement and training, if ultimately as you say goal would be high end (p8/p1/a319).
Also if we order P8 then like aussies we get to plug into the US sustainability & spiral development effort much like C17 contract with boeing and rivet joint spiral development.
Better to be at top table ala F35 influencing decisons and development, and getting big payoffs for UK industry in the long run, workshare r+d etc?
@ Wirralpete
If we were to have two pots coming out of the crown estates then yes it would be possible, but if it was going to be one pot of money for the ceremonial military stuff as well as the current funding for the monarchy then at least one newspaper editor will immediately say that it is giving more to the monarchy, it is an easy target.
If ASaC, Merlin ASW with Blue Kestrel, Wildcat with Seaspray, F35 and a one-billion quid Astute class SSN can’t police the ocean ahead of the RFTG, there’s no point in the Royal Navy ;-)
If ASaC, Merlin ASW with Blue Kestrel, Wildcat with Seaspray, F35 and a one-billion quid Astute class SSN can’t police the ocean ahead of the RFTG, there’s no point in the Royal Navy ;-)
6-8 of the auxillary motherships to take over counter piracy/nacotics and FIs stuff along with other routine deployments. You then have your T45 T23/26 and other fighty vessels available for proper war fighting. Not chasing people in wooden boats between islands.
That degrades your need for a large fleet somewhat and selling off the low end roles to the coastguard decreseases costs further. Then you might buy a few P8. But that is an aircarft less flexible for 3 times the price.
From: http://www.c295.ca/wp-content/uploads/2011-06-28-DP-295-MP-DATA-POSTER-GEN-EN.pdf: Mission @ 200 nm
• Over 8 hours.
• More than 1800 nm patrolled.
More than the 6 stated earlier. How much more is it now they have the new winglets. Also consider AAR if we had 22 A400m as well as 14 coyager surely we could use something from that pool. Also could the 295 have a buddy tanker capability? Its lexibility of basing means it could also be based closer to the required area.
You have that filler between the Chinook and A400 and I’m sure the speckle farces would love one or two of these to play around with. Plus AEW variant. I question how it would be a worse battlefield asset than P8a. I would have thought a flexible, relatively short take off and landing turboprop would have the edge over what is essentially a ‘pimped’ airliner.
IF the figures are correct and you can have 3 295s for every 1 P8 then range becomes less of an issue. 1 295 is converted to a buddy refueller. Refuel buddy when they get on station and heads for home. Buddy stays on until he has divert fuel and heads back to find the now refueled tanker for return journey. The beauty ot that would be two fold. 1)you have much longer time on task (probably not more than a P8) 2) you still have a spare aircraft to do what you like with!
@wp “… could see the need for a longer range MPA ahead of an RFTG comprising a new QEC aircraft carrier in the next 6 years?”
Use other assets perhaps?!
Seriously, assuming a coalition op RFTG in theory will have SSN, organic ASW etc. We can supply AEW (E3 and crowsnest) / Airseeker / Sentinel assets. not to mention AAR, C17 airlift, amphib assets, TLAM, F35s etc. Couldn’t someone else chip in with high end MPA?
I’m not saying we ultimately may not need a high end MPA, but I don’t see a compelling case for high end now. What I do see is a large gap in our basic core capabilities, loss of skillset, overstretch of other assets that needs filling with a highly decent MPA. C295 fits the bill I think.
Roll on part six…
@radish293 Not good value for money? Using expensively and highly trained aircrew to rescue yachtsmen isn’t a particular good use of cash either.
High end MPA for the crunchy stuff – especially when we don’t have many hulls in the surface fleet, and a submarine based deterrent to support.
.
C295 has some interesting features. I like the ability to role change with palletised role equipment. I also think that a lighter transport aircraft would be an advantage.
I’m not a fan of hiving off responsibility to civilian roles. It still has to be paid for so there is a likely cut in in defence budget.
It happened when the HIGHWAYS AGENCY Traffic officers were introduced. Police were withdrawn from routine. Motorway patrols. The budget was cut and officers have lost the skills of Motorway policing. The reported set up costs for the HATO was reportedly £53M. Not good value for money.
@Engineer Tom …but it aint going to the monarchy per se, its going to fund public duties? not the same thing from where i’m standing or am i missing something?
@Mick p … could see the need for a longer range MPA ahead of an RFTG comprising a new QEC aircraft carrier in the next 6 years?
As @Dave Haine says a high end P8/P1/A319 can do that but a C295 cannot
@ Wirralpete
But are they going to be willing to increase the percentage of the crown estates that goes to the monachy to encompass these new responsibilities.
@ Wirralpete
I’d have to admit I hadn’t considered the option of the MOD being a capability provider- and being paid a proportion of the cost of the service- given a sensible Service Level Agreement it could help both parties- good for crew currency and HM coastguard and legalised mugging service, get a decent service without having to pay for their own fleet.
I wonder what the coastguard had to say when the nimrod was canned? Apart from a sharp intake of breath all seemed to very quiet-
You could also use the same funding arrangement for the Navy OPVs….although I still like the partly RNVR manned model as well.
@ mark… did give lengthy reply to your comment … but spam monster ate me
but in a nutshell totally agree with you … which was why was trying to give an example of where manpower funding could come from and that spreadsheet phil has aprox £12bn still to allocate over next 8 years from equipment budget? Have not worked out ongoing costs of equipment but was off the cuff after a hard days night (shift) lol ;-)
think spam monster at me
@Mark… Totally agree… which is why i suggested resource funding for manpower coming from other depts of government ie HM coastguard, and funding public duties and display teams from crown estates. public duties, display teams (2 inf batt, 4 incremental coy’s, HAC, HCR mounted regt, Red Arrows, AAC display, RAF battle of britain memorial flight etc etc ) must have 2.5 – 3.5 thousand service personnel funded from mod budget?
THEN procurement costs can come from spreadsheet phil’s £8bn ‘headroom’ in equipment budget oh and also the £4bn set aside for overspend in individual projects… if he is as good at hammering down on overspends as he seems to be thats a fair old chunk of money that he’s built into equipment budget over the next 8 years til 2022 to be still allocated?
Admit ongoing running costs of equipment may need some thought but was off the back of a fag packet after a particularly tough night shift :-)
@engineer tom.. alls i’m sayin is fund public duties from same place as monarchy (duchy of lancaster ie crown estates) cant see any govt cutting that with amount of revenue from tourism etc that is brought into the country from ceremonial displays in london and big events such as jubilee etc
I see no benefit in creating another layer of infrastructure for a tooled up HM coastguard. Local inshore SAR is outsourced, fair enough, in terms of helos and RNLI. I think the RN / RAF should retain responsibility for broader EEZ patrol (encompassing longer range SAR if necessary).
I don’t think we need high end MPA yet – nice to have yes but needed?
What I think we need is a 24/7 EEZ patrol capability (UK and FI) out to decent range, decent ASW capability, CASD protection. In addition we need to restore and retain the various skill sets that requires. I can’t see what element of this the most up to date version of the C295 cannot provide
I think there is a strong case for the C295 as a small airlifter, supplementing the A400m, replacing a few other types
I’m not persuaded yet on P8, would like to see it mature. Additionally I think we should have just strive, ultimately for one type to cover future deployability requirements – longer range MPA, AEW, surveilliance etc. Maybe 737 can do all those or maybe its a longer term view on an Airbus type
@ Wirralpete
One problem with funding the military units on ceremonial duties through the monarchy, you would have to increase the cost of the monarchy overall and that would also put the military elements in that pot at the most risk of cuts that are likely to come, it is a very easy pot to cut.
Capabilty requirement number 1 is budget for all other capability requirements refer to number 1
I can’t help but think of the C295 in the same way as Corvettes/MTBs/etc; great for local low end work, but considerably less useful for expeditionary operations.
As others have stated, I don’t think C295 is the answer. I would rather we reduced the need for a MPA by having its civil missions taken over by a ‘CoastWatch’ / Coast Guard set-up and have a small fleet of high-end MPAs that can operate seamlessly with our likely allies (the US/Oz/etc). Also:
– Supplement the capability both of these types with area surveillance by Sentinel and Sentry, and possibly a Reaper.
– Equip the Patrol fleet with Scan Eagle, etc to boost their capability.
All that said, there is a compelling argument for a lighter transport to supplement the Atlas/C-17 fleet once the C-130s leave service. But I imagine that it would be very much a Nice To Have, rather than essential.
@Dave Haines & Jules
Couldnt agree more on size, range, payload etc with HM coastguard paying for 30-50% of procurement cost and running cost for guarenteed 24/7 in SAR coverage of uk eez, just as fisheries protection manning and ship costs are paid for out of i think enviroment dept budget and MOD pay for remaining % to deliver defence capability to uk and any forward deployed support to the RFTG on cougar deployments etc .
Much rather armed forces personnel be used for training purposes for delivering such capability.
This principle could also be applied to the public duties of the army in london, or red arrows and various display teams of the three services, perhaps from same source as the monarchy is funded now (crown estates), thus freeing up funding to increase manning in areas that all of us can see need filling out (navy, raf, 16AAB, 3CDO etc)
So… as long as we can get the C295 to do 2500nm with enough newer lighter weight sonobuoys that is where my money would go.
I didn’t realise they’d done an AEW (demo) version. Brilliant!!!
It’s got to be one of the most useful planes out there at the mo.
So… as long as we can get the C295 to do 2500nm with enough newer lighter weight sonobuoys that is where my money would go.
I didn’t realise they’d done an AEW (demo) version. Brilliant!!!
It’s got to be one of the most useful planes out there at the mo.
@East_Anglian
A good way fwd in my opinion, It does not always have to be about more Warships and Bombers, simply take some of the more Civvy roles away from the Navy/RAF, decrease the M.O.D. budget by as little as possible and either get some more cash out of Europe for border policing (we’re on the edge you know!), or take it out of somewhere else like the old overseas development budget, which would not exist if most on here had their way! Give the Rivers and Clyde to the HM Coastguard and give em 10-12 Turboprops for SAR and fining Fishing Boats.
You can let the Navy/RAF onto the Planes when required and indeed marines on to the boats when needed. That would give us the training required in those roles, while we go about getting an MPA in an orderly fashion, not an interim solution but a permanent one, Navy for fighting, UK Borders/Coastguard for policing…
Would get legs in a government that’s hell bent on stopping any foreigners getting in at all it would seem, and bashing non British passport holders is unfortunately a vote winner it seems…
A couple of things that crossed my mind, whilst reading this….
Derek has a point about airframe commonality- It shouldn’t be a factor in buying stuff, unless the procurement cycles fit.
The only problem with our AAR assets, is the fact that they’re also part of the air transport fleet (How typical of the MOD that a useful secondary ability ends up being the sole capability). Get an overseas deployment, and all of a sudden, we’ll be struggling for tankers.
I think that airframes such as the C295 and Q400, whilst useful, and if we ever had to go to a full-on nasty war a good additional airframe, won’t answer the question- We have a vast area to cover and we need the range, and we need the high end capability. You can use a P1/A319/P8 to do the EEZ/SAR stuff, but you can’t use a less capable asset out in the middle of the atlantic hunting down a Russian carrier, or a sub.
And lastly, TD makes a good point about having a small airlifter fleet. Handy to keep heli assets where they need to be, supporting the army. A small turboprop with a cargo ramp, would be cheaper to run than a small jet. Shame we got rid of the Andovers……
The only thing you get with less, is less.
The C295 is ideal for EEZ patrol, SAR and Coastguard type duties. It isn’t a serious contender for expeditionary ops.
I’d rather see the Coastguard take on the roles mentioned above, using something like a C295 releasing the “real” MPA for long endurance ASW/ASuW. With the few hulls available to the RN, we need a high end ASW/ASuW asset like the P-8/Kwaker P-1 armed to the teeth, in order to their bit.
I think the C295’s main failing is range. The wing tips are a good start for boosting this but I wonder if it would be possible to go further. Possibly having enlarged fuel tanks or extra under-wing tanks. Its not a small aircraft and one has to guess that with just four crew stations there must be a fair bit of room on board. With extra range then the C295 would be quite close to an optimal MPA solution and in some ways better than the P8.
Also the inclusion of an AAR probe could go some way to offsetting the range issues and given just how many AAR tankers we have for a relatively small force of FJ maybe thee range issue is not such a big one.
What happens if the powers that be start to split up some of the potential employment for these types of MPA? In the parliamentary inquiry it was clear that the civil functions of EEZ surveillance, oil spill and possibly SAR were up for grabs in a ‘coast watch’ style contract across several departments. The capital costs of the aircraft and through life support cost of the aircrew are much cheaper in this construct. If another aircraft picks up these jobs it takes away a lot of the short range employment that a one size fits all MPA might have otherwise been doing a lot of. All that’s left for a military MPA (deprived of this civil employment) is the long-range, long endurance and most probably expeditionary employment.
It’s tricky, especially if both requirements (civil and military) currently reside in different buckets of money. The CN295 is a good compromise for a one size fits all MPA, but it doesn’t look quite so attractive when all the low-end stuff is taken up by an even better aircraft (and cheaper aircrew).
“The problem with stop gaps is two fold, you have to demonstrate a compelling need for a stop gap, difficult,”
Would a Russia Carrier Battle Group showing up of the coast of Scotland for a second time count?
Seems everything is okay though as the MOD has been using Twitter to keep track of those pesky Russians as they swan around our oil fields. And we only had a gap of 39 days last year for the Fleet Ready Escort so all is well. Lets keep investing in massive army’s to invade other peoples countries and rely on social media to protect our EEZ.
http://www.scotsman.com/news/uk/mod-used-twitter-for-russian-warship-information-1-3292763
Seriously though given that our main potential belligerent has increased defence spending by 44% over three years. Is claiming pretty much everything North of Shetland to be theirs and is planning to spend a whopping $700 billion over ten years on modernizing equipment (much of it naval) should we not be taking home defence more seriously. We spend a not insignificant GBP 35 billion a year on defence but the vast majority of it is tied to defending others or intervening in other peoples wars. Yet we can’t even have a permanent warship stationed in our own waters and we have little ability to track what is going on just off our coast.
The MOD’s absolute number 1 priority must always be protection of the UK but after enjoying a benign environment for so long this seems to be lost on the department. Not only do we not have MPA but we have little if any ability to conduct naval air strikes from fixed wing platforms and other than a handful of SSN’s we have little ability to actually sink a modern warship if it shows up off our coast.
There is also a good chance that the T45 sent to escort the Russian Carrier has not anti ship capability beyond a 4.5 gun and a Lynx armed with Sea Skua.
Give the press this gets for the Russians I am guessing we can expect it to happen every time their carrier transits the North sea.
Norway is already bricking it and matching defence spending with the threat. Its easy to forget stuck down in Whitehall that other parts of the UK are quite close to Norway.
295 all the way for me as we can have as you said a common fleet which I think really does stand for something. Even if just cost savings from training but I suspect there are more.
However 6 hours at 200nm range with a max endurance of 11hrs. So its endurance speed would appear to be around 80kts.
I’ve said before if the issue is its endurance at range why not AAR? Yes its costly but merely planning to AAR gives I feel greater flexibility over P8 which would be expected to operate alone.
Bombardier make the CRJ700, CRJ900, and CRJ1000 series seating between 78 and 104 in one class seating and are similar to the Embraer ERJ 145 family but larger. The Embraer family that the make various military versions but the airline will only seat 37 to 50.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombardier_CRJ700_series
The other two options are the Bombardier C-Series and Embraer E-Jet family that will compete with the 737 and A320.
There is also the Embraer KC-390.
There are lots of airframe options.
The q400 next gen offer improvement in perhaps the single biggest weakness for the cn295 speed, it cruises at 350kts pretty similar to the p3 Orion, while offering similar mission capabilities to the cn295. So if it were to be decided that a turboprop and the flight profiles they excel at is what the mpa should do then it would be my front runner in this field.
From the left field how about rolling Airbus’s FITS pallets on board the Antonov AN74?
Comperable to the C-295 for range and payload but being a jet can go significantly faster and higher.
Got a cargo ramp. There was even an AEW variant of this airframe (AN71) too…
;-)
The Q300/400 should be interesting as much because of the scope of some of the modifications that have been made. Including the installation of long range tanks.
Get over the airframe commonality thing, it’s really not relevant- especially given where the rest of the uK special mission/transport fleet is in its procurement cycle.
There are ongoing rumours that both ATR and bombardier may pursue larger turboprop airliners (90 seaters), if this happened that would make great MPA platforms.