Double post.

bt

keesje wrote:

But had the choice to go tailored blank sheet, instead of being pressured into either a reworked passenger 737 or making the Electra a centennial aircraft.

Not much of a choice as when they started the P-1, the P-8A was not an option.

Of course there was pressure to chose the P-8A. It came from the pocket book. The ability to use existing 737 production line contribute to efficiencies (including improved engine performances incorporated on the regular 737NG) that allow Boeing to deliver these planes at one every three weeks under budgets, and with few exceptions ahead of schedule.

You sacrifice clean sheet design to reduce risk. Sometimes it does not go as planned aka KC-46. But in this case it went well.

And good thing for Boeing as during this time, the P-8A is one of the few programs that is keeping the company afloat.

Which will also lead me to propose that the economic impact of this pandemic may curb Europe's appetite from laying out development fund for hardware that already have an equivalent in production.

bt

bikerthai wrote:

keesje wrote:

But had the choice to go tailored blank sheet, instead of being pressured into either a reworked passenger 737 or making the Electra a centennial aircraft.

Not much of a choice as when they started the P-1, the P-8A was not an option.

Of course there was pressure to chose the P-8A. It came from the pocket book. The ability to use existing 737 production line contribute to efficiencies that allow Boeing to deliver these planes at one every three weeks under budgets, and with few exceptions ahead of schedule.

You sacrifice clean sheet design to reduce risk. Sometimes it does not go as planned aka KC-46. But in this case it went well.

And good thing for Boeing as during this time, the P-8A is one of the few programs that is keeping the company afloat.

Which will also lead me to propose that the economic impact of this pandemic may curb Europe's appetite from laying out development fund for hardware that already have an equivalent in production.

bt

Apparently KC46 production is a problem, but basically it's a good platform. It designed from the outset to move a lot of stuff over significant distances fast and efficient, be it fuel, passenegers or cargo. That is the problem with the 737 MPA or future A320 MPA. They are designed for 500kts, 40.000 feet, for 2-5 hours, 4-5 times a day. Of course the newest systems where installed in the P8. As an MPA replacement the Navy had pull back performance, flexibility requirements. They must have felt bad, but had no choice. They are paid, smile & look brave, make the best of it.

If you design a new MPA it just doesn't look like a 737 or A320 but local industry will often press politicians in believing so.

keesje wrote:

40.000 feet, for 2-5 hours, 4-5 times a day.

Actually this is a double edge sword. A frame design to have 4-5 GAG cycles per day will provide with great durability if they only fly it once a day for 10 hours.

I do not disagree that an MMA built from the ground up would be ideal. But it would be rather foolish from a budgetary stand point.

Europe will have to decide where to put their limited budget: a low end aircraft that does the minimum, a high end aircraft that does a lot, or burn a bunch of money to develope something that may be best and eat the risk that it will come out as you predict.

It is a tough decision.

As for the Japanese, scuttlebutts has it that if they had their rather, they wouldn't mind operating the P-8A. But they are already committed to the P-1.

Having dealt with Japanese designers, I have no doubt that the P-1 is probably much better designed and built than the P-8A. Alas there are more P-8A flying around by non US navies than P-1.

bt

keesje wrote:

bikerthai wrote:

keesje wrote:

But had the choice to go tailored blank sheet, instead of being pressured into either a reworked passenger 737 or making the Electra a centennial aircraft.

Not much of a choice as when they started the P-1, the P-8A was not an option.

Of course there was pressure to chose the P-8A. It came from the pocket book. The ability to use existing 737 production line contribute to efficiencies that allow Boeing to deliver these planes at one every three weeks under budgets, and with few exceptions ahead of schedule.

You sacrifice clean sheet design to reduce risk. Sometimes it does not go as planned aka KC-46. But in this case it went well.

And good thing for Boeing as during this time, the P-8A is one of the few programs that is keeping the company afloat.

Which will also lead me to propose that the economic impact of this pandemic may curb Europe's appetite from laying out development fund for hardware that already have an equivalent in production.

bt

Apparently KC46 production is a problem, but basically it's a good platform. It designed from the outset to move a lot of stuff over significant distances fast and efficient, be it fuel, passenegers or cargo. That is the problem with the 737 MPA or future A320 MPA. They are designed for 500kts, 40.000 feet, for 2-5 hours, 4-5 times a day. Of course the newest systems where installed in the P8. As an MPA replacement the Navy had pull back performance, flexibility requirements. They must have felt bad, but had no choice. They are paid, smile & look brave, make the best of it.

If you design a new MPA it just doesn't look like a 737 or A320 but local industry will often press politicians in believing so.

Again you go just a tad overboard denigrating a design you want to see non-selected/as a failure vs. other options. The P-8 has dominated international MPA orders for the past 5+ years, and the Navy benefits from the shift in tactics/technology it has enabled, both fiscally and strategically.

The P-8 capabilities are unique/different vs. it’s predecessors just as the A400, F-35, EF, and F-22 were in their respective cases. There’s no reason to imply the USN is somehow ‘feeling bad to smile and look brave.’ That’s pretty pathetic as far as commentary/analysis, frankly.

texl1649 wrote:

keesje wrote:

bikerthai wrote:

Not much of a choice as when they started the P-1, the P-8A was not an option.

Of course there was pressure to chose the P-8A. It came from the pocket book. The ability to use existing 737 production line contribute to efficiencies that allow Boeing to deliver these planes at one every three weeks under budgets, and with few exceptions ahead of schedule.

You sacrifice clean sheet design to reduce risk. Sometimes it does not go as planned aka KC-46. But in this case it went well.

And good thing for Boeing as during this time, the P-8A is one of the few programs that is keeping the company afloat.

Which will also lead me to propose that the economic impact of this pandemic may curb Europe's appetite from laying out development fund for hardware that already have an equivalent in production.

bt

Apparently KC46 production is a problem, but basically it's a good platform. It designed from the outset to move a lot of stuff over significant distances fast and efficient, be it fuel, passenegers or cargo. That is the problem with the 737 MPA or future A320 MPA. They are designed for 500kts, 40.000 feet, for 2-5 hours, 4-5 times a day. Of course the newest systems where installed in the P8. As an MPA replacement the Navy had pull back performance, flexibility requirements. They must have felt bad, but had no choice. They are paid, smile & look brave, make the best of it.

If you design a new MPA it just doesn't look like a 737 or A320 but local industry will often press politicians in believing so.

Again you go just a tad overboard denigrating a design you want to see non-selected/as a failure vs. other options. The P-8 has dominated international MPA orders for the past 5+ years, and the Navy benefits from the shift in tactics/technology it has enabled, both fiscally and strategically.

The P-8 capabilities are unique/different vs. it’s predecessors just as the A400, F-35, EF, and F-22 were in their respective cases. There’s no reason to imply the USN is somehow ‘feeling bad to smile and look brave.’ That’s pretty pathetic as far as commentary/analysis, frankly.

I collected all the specifications of all MPA's. They are in the table in the OP. I compared the performance and capabilities. You on the other hand, seem to ignore them and take the (our?) P-8A is great as the starting point. I think it is clear is who is not objective and not fact based.

keesje wrote:

I collected all the specifications of all MPA's

Interesting data. It does show the P-1 to be very efficient.

However, I wonder where did you get the cost data, whether it is weighted for inflation or whether it accounted for the price de-escalation with later lots. If you got the P-8A price from the UK contract, then that would be pretty accurate.

Finally, not to re-hash why was the P-8A chosen, but now that it has, consider that the open architecture of the system has allowed the Navy to upgrade the computing suite as technology improves. Any ally operating the P-8A will benefit from not having to pay for the development if they buy the upgrade.

It's one if those holistic aspect that does not show up on a stat sheet.

bt

keesje wrote:

texl1649 wrote:

keesje wrote:

Apparently KC46 production is a problem, but basically it's a good platform. It designed from the outset to move a lot of stuff over significant distances fast and efficient, be it fuel, passenegers or cargo. That is the problem with the 737 MPA or future A320 MPA. They are designed for 500kts, 40.000 feet, for 2-5 hours, 4-5 times a day. Of course the newest systems where installed in the P8. As an MPA replacement the Navy had pull back performance, flexibility requirements. They must have felt bad, but had no choice. They are paid, smile & look brave, make the best of it.

If you design a new MPA it just doesn't look like a 737 or A320 but local industry will often press politicians in believing so.

Again you go just a tad overboard denigrating a design you want to see non-selected/as a failure vs. other options. The P-8 has dominated international MPA orders for the past 5+ years, and the Navy benefits from the shift in tactics/technology it has enabled, both fiscally and strategically.

The P-8 capabilities are unique/different vs. it’s predecessors just as the A400, F-35, EF, and F-22 were in their respective cases. There’s no reason to imply the USN is somehow ‘feeling bad to smile and look brave.’ That’s pretty pathetic as far as commentary/analysis, frankly.

I collected all the specifications of all MPA's. They are in the table in the OP. I compared the performance and capabilities. You on the other hand, seem to ignore them and take the (our?) P-8A is great as the starting point. I think it is clear is who is not objective and not fact based.

I highlighted the commentary that was, at best, snarky/condescending (and yet another example of your own bias against both Boeing specifically, and any American product in general);

“They must have felt bad, but had no choice. They are paid, smile & look brave, make the best of it.”

The P-8 won vs. the Orion 21 on merits. It’s also won 6+ export customers (not sure who is really finalized yet). Claiming without any merit/facts the original customer must have had some sort of emotional regret...is pathetic, imho. Do the original OCCAR board of directors who approved moving forward with the A400M regret their contribution to massive losses over the next 3 decades for Airbus?

In your own (dated, pro-P-1) link the following are provided;

Should we just reject the P-8A for being under capable at low altitudes?

The answer is a clear NO!! The P-8A marks a big shift in operational procedures used for ASW. The United States Navy is developing new procedures and thoroughly testing them before they are written down for operational usage. They are also developing a wide variety of new hardware to make sure that the P-8A is as effective higher up as it should have been while operating at lower altitudes. Torpedoes will be receiving Fish Hawk guidance kits so that they can be accurately delivered from higher altitudes. The sonobuoys will also be modified for deployment from higher altitudes. On the other hand, the P-8A isn’t that bad at lower altitudes either. Its engines have been modified for better efficiency at lower altitudes.

Operating at higher altitudes has its advantages as well. The horizon for sensors is much larger, fuel efficiency is higher while much larger area can be covered in the same amount of time. The P-8A will be working alongside drones which include the massive MQ-4C Triton currently under testing. The absence of MAD (Magnetic Anomaly Detector) is also justified as it doesn’t work as well from higher altitudes. BAE is currently developing MAD equipped drones to make sure that the lack of MAD on the P-8A is taken care of. Thus the P-8A can comfortably operate at high altitudes while marshaling its drones for detecting targets and destroying them as and when needed using onboard weapons.

Poseidon is capable of conducting long range sorties which can be further extended by using air to air refueling. Official figures quoted by the Royal Australian Navy, one of the international customers of the P-8, claim that it can stay on station for 4 hrs at a range of 2200km from the nearest base. Thus the range is around 7500km considering a cruise speed of 850kph. The biggest advantage the P-8 has over its prop driven predecessor is faster transit time between base and station, this translates into quicker reaction and more time on station. It is powered by 2 CFM-56-7B engines just like the other jets of the 737-NG family. These engines produce a combined thrust of 240KN and have been tweaked to offer greater efficiency at low level.

And that’s not getting into the now ancient history behind the USN’s selection criteria/decision and LMT’s losing bid.

The Orion 21 might have had good specs, but production closed 15 years before the selection came, making it high risk. Most likely the aircraft supply chain would have to be recreated from the ground, Electra production technology was 2 generations / 45 yrs before.

And DoD was smart enough to see that, LM was ok, won the JSF already. The P8 was a "sign here" without a real alternative, or possibility to be tough on performance requirements.

Imagine the Navy sticked to an airtime of 18 hours and no twin engine over water restrictions, what then? Congress would have intervented.

Keesje, your ability to understand/interpret US politics is frankly quite poor. I know you will passionately see nefarious intent in any US procurement decision, but it was the Navy folks not politics that drove the decision.

Lockheed offered new build frames. Realistically, this would have had some risk but not that much, as the basic frame is pretty darn well known. It could not carry as much, was unable to carry sufficient potable water for extended missions and had less room for weaps expansions.

The Boeing offer had a greater load out, was able to take advantage of larger internal volume, a larger installed base and had a redesigned weaps area that was able to demonstrate greater load capability, as well of course as being able to transit to/from station vastly faster.

The other principle advantage was that the 737 vs. the Orion would never have been able to get higher for AEW work (which is what they needed to be considered for in a multi role tasking). The low/slow P-3 had already demonstrated it was struggling vs. Chinese threats. But, LM still offered it as an upgrade to export customers.

Finally, the real reason your “oh we have to sadly just help Boeing here” analysis is disproven is that it has won so many export customers (and has come in way under projected costs; something no LM project has ever done). It was also not really Boeing but their “McD Long Beach subsidiary” that got this business. I think that group is now...gone of course.

keesje wrote:

Imagine the Navy sticked to an airtime of 18 hours and no twin engine over water restrictions, what then?

Then another bidder will propose another aircraft to compete with the P-3 in order to satisfy this edge of the envelope performance that hardly ever get used.

If they did need the 18 hr requirement they would never wrote it in a way to limit the competition. AKA, they would have make that requirement flexible enough to be satisfied in several ways. In the P-8A's case the 18hrs can be met (on those rare occasions) by using arial refueling.

Now, about that 18 hrs flight. I have never been on an 18 hr flight. My longest flight was a commercial airline on one leg from LA to Fiji. After seeing the interior treatment of the P-3, P-1, and P-8A, I would propose any any crew on an 18 hrs flight would prefer the P-8A.

Though I do not have emperical evidence I suspect the lack of sidewall liners in both the P-1 and P-3 would result in higher interior noise which contribute to fatigue. I recall the P-3 had bunks for crew rest while the P-8A has lay flat bussiness class type seat

The P-8A has a commercial like galley and lav while the P-3 has what? A porta-potty? Yeah talk about the human factors of an 18 hr flight. There is more to a mission than just an how long a plane can stay up. It also include how effective the crew would be for that 18 hrs. Try writing that in to the requirements.

bt

I must pitch in with this.

Looking at it, WASP-M is cover everything modern P-8 lacks (and other existing MPA and ASW aircraft) and it does so with amazing flexibility and whole lot of smartness.I am very very impressed! Few of these spaced properly (and some unmanned) would give amazing coverage and tactics for fraction of the P-8 cost, not to mention development cost of other big MPA/ASW aircraft...

https://twitter.com/CAE_Defence/status/ ... 4219703304

"CAE’s #MADXR offers superior performance in a littoral environment to provide the @IcarusAerospace MPA with an unmatched magnetic anomaly detection #MAD capability."

https://twitter.com/Leonardo_UK/status/ ... 4382980096

"Leonardo is delighted to support the @IcarusAerospace multi-mode aircraft with our class-leading #Osprey radar. Learn more about how we're pushing new boundaries in surveillance innovation through the multi-role Osprey"

ExperimentalFTE wrote:

"CAE’s #MADXR offers superior performance in a littoral environment to provide the @IcarusAerospace MPA with an unmatched magnetic anomaly detection #MAD capability."

The key word here is "littorial". This aircraft does not have the same mission profile as the P-8A.

This may be ideal for border security, SAR, and sea lane patrol. It is not so ideal for open ocean sub hunting. There is no substitute for quantities of sonobuoy when tracking down a sub.

bt

bikerthai wrote:

ExperimentalFTE wrote:

"CAE’s #MADXR offers superior performance in a littoral environment to provide the @IcarusAerospace MPA with an unmatched magnetic anomaly detection #MAD capability."

The key word here is "littorial". This aircraft does not have the same mission profile as the P-8A.

This may be ideal for border security, SAR, and sea lane patrol. It is not so ideal for open ocean sub hunting. There is no substitute for quantities of sonobuoy when tracking down a sub.

bt

Correct. Why do you think aircraft like the P-8 and the P-3 carry close to a hundred sonobuoy's internally?

And for those flying littoral missions for border security, SAR, and sea lane patrol, there's already plenty of off the shelf aircraft already adapted for such roles, from DHC-6 Twin Otters to ATR's.

And I assume you guys asked around and know how many sonobuoys WASP-M carries?!? I am certain that someone who is smart and in aircraft design business kind of considered that don't you think? You know, kind of designing around mission profile, not modifying existing airframe not intended to do so sort of thing

I do know how many sonobuoy is in a P-8A and what is involved to storing and deploying them.

I do not know what the WASP-M's capability is. If you are referring to the aircraft pictured in your post, then by comparing airframe size, I can reasonably reduced that the P-8A will carry more.

bt

ExperimentalFTE wrote:

You know, kind of designing around mission profile, not modifying existing airframe not intended to do so sort of thing

As discussed above, sometimes modifying to meet 90% mission profile is more financially advantageous than unique design to meet 100% mission profile.

I mean the E-3 and E-7 aircrafts were modified aircrafts and they still have not designed any new to replicate that capability. Sure satelite radar or distributed system have been discussed, but has anyone speculated on how much such a system would cost?


bt

As part of the Beagle being multifunctional design, it was planned to be able to carry 4 patients flat on typical air ambulance type brancards.

Trying to fit them in it became clear this was over ambitious. This cabin is not as wide as a NB, more like A220. You can't use the space next to the cargo door used to bring the brancards on board, wounded patients typically have monitoring, fluids, systems on them and there would be 5-6 people to take care of them with lots of stuff. That proved physically impossible in the auxiliary cabin as I planned it on the Beagle. So for a 4 person Medevac mission the aft cabin and would have to be redesigned or it would be limited to two brancards.



In terms of the armement for special, low intensity warfare, Shipunov 2A42 seems similar sized to the BK-27 Mauser, which seems a very similar gun, also used by ground vehicles. Advantage versus gatling guns is the lower weight, longer range and ability to do single shots, short burst and have dual feed (2A42). From large distances you can put a small hole in a piracy suspect ship with possible hostages in international waters. Or stop a truck iso wiping it out, or give precise CAS during night missions. E.g. a Vulcan is way bigger and less suitable.

keesje wrote:

In terms of the armement for special, low intensity warfare, Shipunov 2A42 seems similar sized to the BK-27 Mauser, which seems a very similar gun, also used by ground vehicles.

Wouldn't accuracy be compromised as distance increased? For low intensity conflict, you'd better off using smart weapons. Maybe a smart bullet when you are going for that single shot?

I mean instead of trying to mount a gun on the platform and have to deal with the shock and vibration of the recoil, it might be easier to use smart munition the size of a sonobuoy, and launch it from the sonobuoy launcher.

The not sure if it's been done in the past, as people seem to be very reluctant to have munition inside the cabin.

How about a single use "gun" mounted in a guided drone, launched from a sonobuoy laucher, that flies to the target and "shoots" an unspecified number of rounds at the target?

bt

Zodiacs, speedboats, small aircraft, trucks, hide outs, warning shots. The large diameter guns 27mm, 30mm have better range and accuracy.

You can take out a Cesna with a Sidewinder, cars with Hellfires. These days such firepower makes you look like "trigger happy", inhuman, unlawfull. Innocent victims will be visible online before a spokesman can explain it was selfdefense really. Same for "killerdrones", so often counterproductive. Specially in e.g. international waters, far away countries.

keesje wrote:

The large diameter guns 27mm, 30mm have better range and accuracy.

A 27 mm round can be just as devistating as a grenade if it hits a car. I'm not talking about the current inventory of missiles. I'm thinking about future small drones less than 1/2 meter long with small explosive or kinetic warheads that has a 2-5 km flight range. The warhead can be tailored for different mission profile.

keesje wrote:

Same for "killerdrones", so often counterproductive.

We have already seen drone swarm attacking oil refineries, though they be the less sophisticated type. It's no longer the weapon of the first world.

The one thing about drone attack is they give you that extra minute or so from launch to change your mind.

bt

bikerthai wrote:

keesje wrote:

The large diameter guns 27mm, 30mm have better range and accuracy.

A 27 mm round can be just as devistating as a grenade if it hits a car. I'm not talking about the current inventory of missiles. I'm thinking about future small drones less than 1/2 meter long with small explosive or kinetic warheads that has a 2-5 km flight range. The warhead can be tailored for different mission profile.

keesje wrote:

Same for "killerdrones", so often counterproductive.

We have already seen drone swarm attacking oil refineries, though they be the less sophisticated type. It's no longer the weapon of the first world.

The one thing about drone attack is they give you that extra minute or so from launch to change your mind.

bt

Why are we even talking about a cannon equipped MPA... There is no cannon equipped MPA today and for good reason. There won't be a cannon equipped MPA going forward either, the use case being suggested doesn't exist. I agree going forward that loyal wingmen or similar drones will form the bulk of the arsenal of an MPA and allow them to extend reach and persistence.

The environment is changing, so are requirements. Russian subs have been replaced by smugglers, terrorists, rebels, pirates. MPA's have been used for a broadening amount of roles, but are still equipped based on cold war requirements. Many project moving ahead as a result:
- https://www.eme-es.com/dgs/
- https://www.defensenews.com/digital-sho ... ance-role/
- https://quwa.org/2016/10/26/leonardo-ai ... -aircraft/
- https://australianaviation.com.au/2019/ ... for-c-27j/

keesje wrote:

The environment is changing, so are requirements. Russian subs have been replaced by smugglers, terrorists, rebels, pirates. MPA's have been used for a broadening amount of roles, but are still equipped based on cold war requirements.

Which have been replaced by Chinese (and Russian) subs once again. That's why navies that were talking about "stabilization" frigates and LCS are now talking about full weapons range ships like the Type 26 and the FFGx.

keesje wrote:

smugglers, terrorists, rebels, pirates.

Not sure if any of these missions really applies to Europe's immediate vicinity, other than human trafficking.

Terrorists would come through the border as part of the trafficking route or more likely through regular legal entry.

Rebels and pirates are problems of those country that do not have sufficient stability or law enforcement. Thus they would not be able to afford an MPA. Better just to buy some helicopters and mount some machine guns on them.

For Europe, the MPA would be a high value asset. As noted above, the dirty work can be done by something else. And if the need arise, a multi capability weapon platform would be more useful and should take up less space.

bt

I think there have been ongoing European support off Somalia etc, and piracy/smuggling is a millennia old business in the Mediterranean, certainly, dating at least as far back as the ‘sea people’ invading Egypt.

Ozair wrote:

Why are we even talking about a cannon equipped MPA... There is no cannon equipped MPA today and for good reason. There won't be a cannon equipped MPA going forward either, the use case being suggested doesn't exist. I agree going forward that loyal wingmen or similar drones will form the bulk of the arsenal of an MPA and allow them to extend reach and persistence.

Reminds me of the B-25 with 75 mm cannon, and the story of a crew actually making a hit with it and saying "Don't tell anyone we did this, they might think it was a good idea."*

A Poseidon or "Beagle" swooping in low for a gun run seems enormously unlikely. If small craft are your problem, I would advocate a helicopter/SOF force to be deployed to handle the contacts that the MPA finds.

I'm sure the MPA could find the light craft, but could it confirm its identity enough to take a shot? The service members in the MPA need to be convinced of the target identity, or they won't use it. The bar for confirming your target is high these days.

* Airvectors has this quote.

texl1649 wrote:

I think there have been ongoing European support off Somalia etc, and piracy/smuggling is a millennia old business in the Mediterranean, certainly, dating at least as far back as the ‘sea people’ invading Egypt.

Yes, these would be one of the function of the MPA. To detect pirate or smuggling vessels.

Then the next step would be to alert near by merchant ship in case of pirates or the coast guard cutter in terms of smugglers.

You would have to drop down on the deck to take a pot shot. Even then you'll likely kill someone with a 27 mm round. I don't think most here would advocate such action even for pirates.

In most cases, dropping down on the deck would be sufficient to make the pirates turn around. If an MPA have to take a shot, then something has gone way wrong. In that case, a smart drone weapon launched from a sonobuoy launcher would be more than justified.

bt

The MPA would circle the area at say 5000ft, try to establish contact with suspect ship, monitor, access the situation, zoom in, share info with ships in the area, discuss with operation command and fire warning shots or worse if required. For hours if needed.

Helicopters have that role now, but have limited endurance, range and are frankly sitting ducks, because they have to get close for the machine gun.


https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.indepe ... html%3famp

Cool photo. Looks like the helicopter is doing fine with a warning shot.

For warning shot, the MPA could use warning flare and radio communication as a start start if you don't have a gun.

Fot a ship that size, if deadly force is needed, I'd say you'll need something bigger than a few 27 mm rounds.

If you are circling for hours, you would have already warned others in the shipping lane to avoid the area.

If the ship continue to pursue, though, a smart weapon at the stern would disable the ship more effectively then trying to knock out the engine with a gun.

Still, it would would be an engineering trade off. The easiest gun would most likely be mounted on a wing or centerline pod and would be slaved to the aircraft attitude. A gun run would not be very accurate.

A pivotable gun would have to be mounted on a turret outside the pressure vessel. The turret woud be a slave to the EOIR turret. The size of the turret will limit the size of your gun and would be an aero drag penalty. You can design some sort of a half turret on the side of the fuselage for side mounted gun. Then you have the issue of ordinance inside the fuselage and have ways to extract the exhaust fumes.

For such a rare occasion, you'd better off designing a port on the side of the fuselage and let a sharp shooter take the pot shots with a 12.7 mm sniper rifle. It would be much cheaper to design and execute.

bt

The photo seems to shot from another ship, the warning shots preventing ut from fleeing. If pirats know a navy shop is vlose they'll behave. If not there a risk they might have a rusty 14.5mm. Helicopter are favourite targets. Slow, big, low.

I think the popularity of the Mausers is the range (4000m) and scalebility. It can do 15 shots per second too, with various types of ammo. Tornado's IDS have it.

smithbs wrote:

A Poseidon or "Beagle" swooping in low for a gun run seems enormously unlikely. If small craft are your problem, I would advocate a helicopter/SOF force to be deployed to handle the contacts that the MPA finds.

Agree 100%. You don’t risk a $100 million plus platform and 6 highly trained specialists to fire a cannon at a pirate skiff…. Given this whole concept is for post 2030 then any discussion needs to focus on drone wingman and low cost smart munitions. That is the future operating concept for MPAs, people considering other options are in missing the direction the market, militaries and technology is going.

smithbs wrote:

I'm sure the MPA could find the light craft, but could it confirm its identity enough to take a shot? The service members in the MPA need to be convinced of the target identity, or they won't use it. The bar for confirming your target is high these days.

I doubt identity would be an issue as the ISR pods are very good these days but agree the ROE are very restrictive for most operators.

You do not use a gun, but a small guided stand-off ammunition.

seahawk wrote:

You do not use a gun, but a small guided stand-off ammunition.

I think operating in international waters, without proof anyone is really guilty, you quickly become an outlaw / pirat yourself when using excessive force. Global media / hate will be over you if you don't play by the rules. Specially if you use a remote drone "killer robot" and women / children are involved. Welcome 2020.

You need to contain for hours so a bigger ship / small boats can come in to arrest, investigate, take action. Still then you will have to let go mostly. It is not forbidden to sail around in international waters in a fishing with a ladder, boxes and some guns.

https://youtu.be/S19Bx5eftnU

keesje wrote:

when using excessive force.

Ah come on. When you start using a weapon, whether a gun or a guided smart weapon or small munition mounted on a drone you are already using deadly force!

Stop with the paradigm that smart weapon has to be an anti-tank missile or a guided bomb. If you want to use a 27mm round, you can design a guided drone with the equivalent kinetic or explosive power of a 27 mm round that can be launched from a sonobuoy launcher that can be much more accurate and have longer range than a 27mm round fired from a gun. Sure, the cost of developing that round might be expensive, but you can deploy it across many platforms without having to modify the airframe.

bt

keesje wrote:

You need to contain for hours so a bigger ship / small boats can come in to arrest, investigate, take action. Still then you will have to let go mostly. It is not forbidden to sail around in international waters in a fishing with a ladder, boxes and some guns.

So how woulda gun work differently than a small smart munition in this scenario?

bt

bikerthai wrote:

keesje wrote:

You need to contain for hours so a bigger ship / small boats can come in to arrest, investigate, take action. Still then you will have to let go mostly. It is not forbidden to sail around in international waters in a fishing with a ladder, boxes and some guns.

So how woulda gun work differently than a small smart munition in this scenario?

bt

Like it always works, surrender after warning shots by a visible, recognizeable, unbeatable entity, that you know will handle you in compliance with international law, after they arrest you. A gun can be armed with non explosive granates, destruction is hardly ever the goal. Stopping it, not blowing it out of the water.

https://youtu.be/Da4SqKTXoLg

OK, take that scenario in the video you linked?

How would you stop that sub with a 27mm round without sinking it or killing the occupant in side? I mean a small smart weapon has a better chance to disable the drive screw without sinking the sub than a burst of 27mm projectiles. A 27 mm round will punch through the hull, fill the inside with shrapnel and may come out the other side.

Even with a 27mm gun on the MPA, would you really want to use it? Or would you wait for surface assets to arrive.

bt

I take it back. A 27 mm round would punch a hole in the sub, but the shrapnel would be absorbed by the cocaine. So if the sub does not sink from the hole, it would just continue chugging along.

keesje wrote:

bikerthai wrote:

keesje wrote:

You need to contain for hours so a bigger ship / small boats can come in to arrest, investigate, take action. Still then you will have to let go mostly. It is not forbidden to sail around in international waters in a fishing with a ladder, boxes and some guns.

So how woulda gun work differently than a small smart munition in this scenario?

bt

Like it always works, surrender after warning shots by a visible, recognizeable, unbeatable entity, that you know will handle you in compliance with international law, after they arrest you. A gun can be armed with non explosive granates, destruction is hardly ever the goal. Stopping it, not blowing it out of the water.

https://youtu.be/Da4SqKTXoLg

I can load up a JDAM or a Paveway with a concrete filled warhead and drop it from altitude... the velocity alone when it hits the target is going to put a fairly large hole unless the hull is heavily armoured (which most ships aren't).

And these already exist, and have been used already; the French did it in Libya against Muammar Qadaffi's tanks, with great effect. Something about a 600lb concrete bomb dropped from medium altitude being able to crush a tank fairly easily without creating a huge explosion that kills a lot of people.

A traditional MPA, P3, P8, Atlantique would warn the hell out of them, and do real convincing coordination. Reality is smugglers, terrorists, pirates just keep going. You have to contain them before you arrest. Airforces are already adjusting for this new realities. Same for narco tanks and terrorist able to field real serious weaponry. If you have money you apparently can buy / develop / build specialized vehicles and weapons that require more than a low pass or M16 warning shot to convince to surrender Miniguns, rockets all around, .50, 23mm on trucks. A 27 or 30 mm gun from the air enables your crews to stay away at relative save distance / height, while still be able demonstrate fire power and avoid a real shoot out as much as possible.

keesje wrote:

convince to surrender Miniguns, rockets all around, .50, 23mm on trucks.

An MPA will not engage weapons on trucks with a strafing warning shot. It will take out the weapon platform with a standoff weapon. From 5Km out if you see a pirate ship with a 23mm mounted on the deck, you don't go in with a warning shot. You take out the gun mount with a smart weapon.

So if you warning shots is needed (for smugglers) then you don't need accuracy. A pod mount forward facing gun will do just fine. If they won't stop, with a warning shot, then a smart weapon would be preferred. Both of the above options are currently available without having a complex design to integrate a gun into the airframe.

bt

Not quite sure, but I believe here in the US, coast guard aircrafts on smuggling patrol are not armed other than what the crew carry on board.

bt

ThePointblank wrote:

I can load up a JDAM or a Paveway

I'm sure there will be a new class of Small Diameter Bomb variant with reduced lethality in the future.

I'm waiting for the sonobuoy launch hypersonic/kinetic kill drone or the sonobuoy launched version of the ninja bomb.

bt

bikerthai wrote:

Not quite sure, but I believe here in the US, coast guard aircrafts on smuggling patrol are not armed other than what the crew carry on board.

bt

https://www.guns.com/news/2013/05/23/hi ... ters-video

In Europe navy helicopters W101, NH90 have similar upgrades. https://magazines.defensie.nl/binaries/ ... 10039_.jpg

I guess in general the operational environment has become more unpredictable and an MPA no longer can't just cruise over oceans. I remember Orion and Nimrods being used over Afghanistan, not exactly equipped for what they were build for. A new multirole MPA must add value in a wider spectrum of operational environments then in the past in e.g. Africa, Middle East. But also exports to Asia, Middle and South America.

Also e.g. refilling a SAR / attack helicopter might be more valuable then jus coordinating it. https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CcAh-csW4Ac ... name=large

That appears to be an M240 7.62 NATO MG and a Barrett .50BMG sniper rifle; so yes, just weapons that the crew can carry aboard.
The other thing to remember is what the #1 purpose of an MPA is--to find, track and sink enemy submarines. Anything else that you can add to the airframe is gravy, but not vital.

johns624 wrote:

That appears to be an M240 7.62 NATO MG and a Barrett .50BMG sniper rifle; so yes, just weapons that the crew can carry aboard.
The other thing to remember is what the #1 purpose of an MPA is--to find, track and sink enemy submarines. Anything else that you can add to the airframe is gravy, but not vital.

carry aboard? Rambo maybe & but even he needs to walk twice. The snipers are mostly for taking out engines, the heavier guns to prevent pirates, smugglers, terrorists are tempted to shoot their way out, or open fire on the incoming vulnerable inflatables coast guards / marines use to investigate / arrest.


https://www.defensie.nl/onderwerpen/mat ... bewapening

"#1 purpose of an MPA -to find, track and sink enemy submarines"

I think things changed. Few subs hunts over the last 20 yrs, not one sunk in .. who knows? The environment changed. Maybe the russian aren't out to conquer the world & create a communist world state anymore.. Typically navies are trying to stick to cold war capabilities, budgets, doctrines, traditions, air stations, jobs, but haven't seen many subs lately (25 yrs). Doesn't mean the world became less dangerous, just the requirements changed.

Duplicate post.

bt

keesje wrote:

Few subs hunts over the last 20 yrs,

Wow! So what triggered the UK to quickly ordered the P-8A without a competition?

There are plenty of sub hunt going on right now as the Russian still have plenty of Boomers. And the fleet carriers still need protection from Russian attack sub.

Not to mention the new Chinese subs and their expansion into the South Pacific and Indian Ocean. Why else would India and the RAAF bought their P-8s?

Oh, and the potential for North Korean subs.

You don't equip your arm forces to prepare for the last 20 years. You equip them for the next 20 years and hope it does not get to be used.

bt

keesje wrote:

snipers are mostly for taking out engines, the heavier guns to prevent pirates, smugglers, terrorists are tempted to shoot their way out, or open fire on the incoming vulnerable inflatables coast guards / marines use to investigate / arrest.

Now that machine gun will do the job nicely. Integrating into the side of an airframe similar to the B-17 would be problematic if you are going to pressurize the fuselage.

Coming back to the concept. If a nation does not need a sub hunter, the the smaller frame would work find. Keep in mind, it is easier to take a sub hunter and make it do pirate duty than take a pirate patrol plane and make ot a sub hunter.

bt

keesje wrote:

johns624 wrote:

That appears to be an M240 7.62 NATO MG and a Barrett .50BMG sniper rifle; so yes, just weapons that the crew can carry aboard.
The other thing to remember is what the #1 purpose of an MPA is--to find, track and sink enemy submarines. Anything else that you can add to the airframe is gravy, but not vital.

carry aboard? Rambo maybe & but even he needs to walk twice. The snipers are mostly for taking out engines, the heavier guns to prevent pirates, smugglers, terrorists are tempted to shoot their way out, or open fire on the incoming vulnerable inflatables coast guards / marines use to investigate / arrest.


https://www.defensie.nl/onderwerpen/mat ... bewapening

"#1 purpose of an MPA -to find, track and sink enemy submarines"

I think things changed. Few subs hunts over the last 20 yrs, not one sunk in .. who knows? The environment changed. Maybe the russian aren't out to conquer the world & create a communist world state anymore.. Typically navies are trying to stick to cold war capabilities, budgets, doctrines, traditions, air stations, jobs, but haven't seen many subs lately (25 yrs). Doesn't mean the world became less dangerous, just the requirements changed.

You posted a picture of a USCG copter with a 7.62mm NATO MG and a Barrett sniper rifle. I identified them for you. Then you turn around and post a picture of a European NH90 with a .50BMG and tell me I'm wrong. It's more like you're moving the goalposts. I'm outta here. It's hard debating with someone who constantly changes the subject and is never wrong. I'm (and many others) are still waiting for one of your "concepts" to be adopted by anyone.