Boeing P-8 Poseidons on the way
Discussion
Eric Mc said:
It's certainly an interesting aeroplane. Why did they go with four engines on what is a relatively small airframe?
Flexibility and potential redundancy. Nimrod had four engines and I seem to recall they could shut two down for when they were just hanging around. Fuel saving and extending the time over the task perhaps?aeropilot said:
Because HMG/MOD didn't want to do the new build - too expensive (even though the USA were very keen to buy Nimrod, providing that they were new build) instead of P-8......
The US certainly had a lot of respect for the Nimrod, but BAe couldn't find anyone in the US willing to build it so pulled out of the competition.wildcat45 said:
Eric Mc said:
It's certainly an interesting aeroplane. Why did they go with four engines on what is a relatively small airframe?
Flexibility and potential redundancy. Nimrod had four engines and I seem to recall they could shut two down for when they were just hanging around. Fuel saving and extending the time over the task perhaps?wildcat45 said:
Flexibility and potential redundancy. Nimrod had four engines and I seem to recall they could shut two down for when they were just hanging around. Fuel saving and extending the time over the task perhaps?
SOP on Nimrod was to shut down to 3 at top-of-drop into the operating area.Shutting down to 2 was more problematic - there were 2 criteria that were looked at Crit(ical) Weight and Crit(ical) Alt(itude).
If you were below Crit Weight, you could happily shut down to 2 because the a/c had the performance to climb to a minimum of 1000 ft amsl if you lost a donk.
Crit Alt was used when there was a defined need to massively increase On-Task endurance (such as SAR tasks). In this case you stayed at, or above Crit Alt and shut down to 2. Crit Alt meant that you had time for 2x 'Air Assist Start' attempts (ie using high pressure air from the live engine) and 1x 'Windmill Start' attempt before you descended through 1000ft amsl.
Eric Mc said:
Now being fixed. It was always assumed it would be a temporary situation - which is what has transpired.
Slight point of order, now is a relative term, there will still be a massive capability gap until they are in service.Also 9. There's a lot of sea out there for 9.####
Now deploy 1/2 to the SA that's 7.
Japan plans to purchase 90 YES 90 P1's for their islands defence.....
.#### Bit like the number of AAR tankers now that camerons commandeered one for his own use....
Mojocvh said:
Slight point of order, now is a relative term, there will still be a massive capability gap until they are in service.
Also 9. There's a lot of sea out there for 9.####
Now deploy 1/2 to the SA that's 7.
Japan plans to purchase 90 YES 90 P1's for their islands defence.....
.#### Bit like the number of AAR tankers now that camerons commandeered one for his own use....
Japan's needs for MPA are rather different, with N Korea and the PRC having 'facing' coasts ... Also 9. There's a lot of sea out there for 9.####
Now deploy 1/2 to the SA that's 7.
Japan plans to purchase 90 YES 90 P1's for their islands defence.....
.#### Bit like the number of AAR tankers now that camerons commandeered one for his own use....
with regard to AAR - 8 RAF crewed Voyagers, 1 Air tanker crewed Voyager working for the RAF/ NATO QRA, plus the ability to reclaim the other 5 Voyagers as short notice
there is no requirement for any change in main deck fit for a voyager to function as AT or AAR ...
Eric Mc said:
hidetheelephants said:
9 is ridiculous; the dozen-ish MR2s were busier than one-armed paper hangers prior to the scrapman calling. The idea 9 less capable aircraft are going to adequately fill the hole is comic.
The current Zero is not good also.Europa1 said:
It is frankly staggering that as an island nation we currently have no maritime patrol aircraft.
Ok, in a search and rescue role i can see the usefullness, but as marine warfare patrol aircraft? Er who are we going to be fighting where 9 aircraft will help?The countries with a Navy big enough to enter our sovereign waters in anger are also big enough to swat 9 planes down without lifting more than a couple of fingers on a couple of buttons......
hidetheelephants said:
9 is ridiculous; the dozen-ish MR2s were busier than one-armed paper hangers prior to the scrapman calling. The idea 9 less capable aircraft are going to adequately fill the hole is comic.
And.......Will 'our' P-8's be redesigned for AAR, or are we buying them 'as is' in spec, in which case, not only will we have less a/c than we had Nimrod's, but unlike Nimrod, we won't be able to AAR them either, as the P-8 is not probe n drogue fit, but boom fit as per most USA a/c.
Is RAF Voyager boom capable as well as probe n drogue...?
Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff