Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Maritime Patrol

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • So to clarify, a cargo ship with no search equipment apart from navigation radar and mk1 eyeball got on scene before a dedicated search aircraft could?
    That's really nothing to boast about.
    For now, everything hangs on implementation of the CoDF report.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by na grohmití View Post
      So to clarify, a cargo ship with no search equipment apart from navigation radar and mk1 eyeball got on scene before a dedicated search aircraft could?
      That's really nothing to boast about.
      To be fair it probably had a fairly precise position relayed to it by the search authorities given the EPIRB activation.

      Comment


      • at least 1 hour (unless aircraft was already planned for a mission), probably 30 mins to Shannon, factor in refuel at Shannon, then flight time to search area.

        The radar is good but very small target in high seas?!

        Comment


        • Its a search radar, combined with the FLIR is designed to look for exactly such a thing as the subject.
          Perhaps its time we take a serious look at either procuring a MarPat aircraft with significant legs, or better still, one with In-Flight refuelling capability. We can start tanking up with the Good RAF who already patrol our skies to keep NATO safe.
          For now, everything hangs on implementation of the CoDF report.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by na grohmití View Post
            Its a search radar, combined with the FLIR is designed to look for exactly such a thing as the subject.
            Perhaps its time we take a serious look at either procuring a MarPat aircraft with significant legs, or better still, one with In-Flight refuelling capability. We can start tanking up with the Good RAF who already patrol our skies to keep NATO safe.
            Considering the amount of training that In-Flight refueling requires would the RAF really be willing to provide that (particularly given their PPP tanker contract)? Something with longer legs would be better I would think, rather than having a situation and having to arrange a tanker as well as everything else

            Comment


            • We are talking about 600nm off Valentia here.

              According to the manufacturer the max range of the radar is 200 nm (one would assume that is a relatively large target in calm conditions). https://www.telephonics.com/soft-gat...ochure-WEB.pdf

              The FLIR range is obviously a fraction of that:


              AAR requires lots of training and currency. The RAF's P8's won't even be AAR capable from their own tankers.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by DeV View Post

                AAR requires lots of training and currency. The RAF's P8's won't even be AAR capable from their own tankers.
                As things stand, by the time the P8's arrive and enter service I would expect the RAF to have fixed that (or plan to anyway), it's not like the design can't do it. And besides not relevant unless in the event we went with a In Flight Refueling option that was Boom instead of the current set up.

                That being said I can't imagine the RAF/UK being willing to make such an asset available or anyone being comfortable with it.

                Comment


                • Firstly well done to the crew of the CN235, a long mission, the heavy weather and well outside our area of responsibilty. The area to be started was under UK responsibilty....but they scrapped all the aircraft they had for such missions. So much for relying on the uk for defence.

                  As for AAR and the RAF, the Voyagers are only fitted with droge refueling, penny pinching by MOD even if the current C17's and the future P8's are fitted for boom refueling. For operations it is not too much a problem as they can call on other NATO boom equipment tankers should there be a need. Airbus do offer a boom for A330 MRTT's but the uk did not order it.
                  As for our CN235 I think it is too late to modify them for AAR but their replacement could have it. I have seen C295's fitted with probes. But we would need to develop the skills to use it.
                  As for utilising the AAR capacity of the uk: some lucky customers of Thomas Cook will be flying on their hols in Voyagers. The RAF does not own or operate them, that is done by Air Tanker who provide a refueling service. This meant that we could use them provided there was a tanker free. Naturally we would need an agreement with either the MOD or Air Tanker.

                  Comment


                  • It's wouldn't be necessary for the RAF to provide a dedicated tanker aircraft a few times a year for IAC recurrancy. There is a designated air to air refueling area off the Cornwall coast in almost daily use.

                    Comment


                    • Exactly, get a probe fitted, but some time off Air Tanker and off we go.
                      The ability to be able to do some AAR would greatly increase range and time on station for such long range SAR missions.

                      Comment


                      • http://www.leonardocompany.com/en/-/c-27j-1, specifically the http://www.leonardocompany.com/docum...?download_file

                        Leonardo (Selex) have a good range of electronics to fit this with radar, FLIR, Radar etc. For Radar the SeaSpray 7500 has a 320 NM range. i do not know whether it has ground surveillance capability, it is something I would want to see in order to have a capability to monitor ground troops. Also in a chin radome, not a nose one for better surveillance.

                        Same radar could go on the king airs.

                        IMO the new MPA should have regular MPA abilities together with C4ISTAR(EW) and should be deployable into situations up to Ukraine threat level. If we take our defence seriously, we need to be able to act upon it. I'd also like hard points for fuel tanks and ASM.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by EUFighter View Post
                          Exactly, get a probe fitted, but some time off Air Tanker and off we go.
                          The ability to be able to do some AAR would greatly increase range and time on station for such long range SAR missions.
                          To be honest, I would consider this more important in the short term to achieve this goal before the purchase, how ever necessary, or desirable, then that of the purchase of Interceptors, in fact, I would go further and say this was one of the necessary ''baby steps'' to this end.
                          "We will hold out until our last bullet is spent. Could do with some whiskey"
                          Radio transmission, siege of Jadotville DR Congo. September 1961.
                          Illegitimi non carborundum

                          Comment


                          • Why not fit drop tanks like the Hercules has? A Casa is perfectly capable of carrying them...... Regarding the fitment of A2A refuelling probes on the Voyager, the RAF did consider it but the MoD nixed it. As far as I know, there were/are issues about the fit of the probe and the channeling of the fuel pipes as all of the A330's fuel system is in the wings and belly.... Civvies will not get to fly on Voyagers to go on holidays. The contract is for trooping and refuelling and the aircraft are dedicated to the RAF's use only.....regarding defence of this island by the RAF? why not? they have juristiction over a quarter of it already and it allows them access to Shannon and we are friends with them and both air arms can learn from each other.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by GoneToTheCanner View Post
                              Why not fit drop tanks like the Hercules has? A Casa is perfectly capable of carrying them...... Regarding the fitment of A2A refuelling probes on the Voyager, the RAF did consider it but the MoD nixed it. As far as I know, there were/are issues about the fit of the probe and the channeling of the fuel pipes as all of the A330's fuel system is in the wings and belly.... Civvies will not get to fly on Voyagers to go on holidays. The contract is for trooping and refuelling and the aircraft are dedicated to the RAF's use only.....regarding defence of this island by the RAF? why not? they have juristiction over a quarter of it already and it allows them access to Shannon and we are friends with them and both air arms can learn from each other.
                              Surely if there was any issues with the pipes that was resolved with the Aussie version, or do they have some differences internally?

                              Comment


                              • The Aussie KC30's are fitted with a Universal Aerial Refueling Receptacle just above the cockpit, so there would be no piping problems. Could be that they had a problem mounting a probe like on the Nimrod.
                                Last edited by EUFighter; 9 August 2016, 21:29.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X