Classic British Flight Sim

The A.400M always strikes me as odd in the lack of upper and lower flightdeck glazing said to be so essential in the militray operations the type needs to be engaged in????

Garry

We cannot aford to be having wars. This is why the country is in a crisis with defence budgets or what have you...

not to go too far off topic but PLEASE PULL THE TROOPS.

Apologies for the rant.

there would have to be modifications of course. I just think that the airframe would be a better choice as a start then one based on the airliner. (and the a 400m has near jet performance anyway). you could have the deployed weapons in the back where the cargo door is (maybe replaceing it with hardware to deploy sonobuoys. and maybe 4 torpedos. ) the a400m looks like a big plane with lots of space.

I am betting the us military picked what it did to replace the p3 for lack of any more suitable home made alternatives.

Why not then combine four aircraft in one? They could call it the... Nim-nado Tri-phoon

bigred1970 wrote:I am betting the us military picked what it did to replace the p3 for lack of any more suitable home made alternatives.

You are most probably right. Also I may note that even the fastest submarine can not achieve a speed of over 100 KPH (unless made by Ferrari, of course) or near it so even the slowest of aircraft is capable of ASW. The Orion SOP was to feather engine 1 (because Engine No1 has no generator) while loitering in order to maximize fuel consumption.

I am betting the us military picked what it did to replace the p3 for lack of any more suitable home made alternatives.

IIRC at the time the USN wanted BAe to offer the Nimrod MRA4 as part of the competition. In the end BAe decided to opt out on the grounds they'd have to certify new production airframes, as they'd be significantly different to some converted Comets from several decades ago. Obviously if MoD had been willing to stump up for new airframes in the first place things would have been quite different, plus they wouldn't have problems like the new CAD designed wingboxes having randomly sized gaps when mated up to the hand built fuselages.
I think Nimrods actually shut down two engines when loitering on task.

every time a ASW had to break of to fly up to refuel would negate the fact that flying at low atltiude makes it harder to detect.

It's actually easier for subs to detect aircraft at low level as they can hear the noise. If they stuck a radar up to detect high flying aircraft they'd be sunk in minutes.

The Nimrods do loiter on two engines

Garry

It's actually easier for subs to detect aircraft at low level as they can hear the noise. If they stuck a radar up to detect high flying aircraft they'd be sunk in minutes.

I also understand that it is far easier for a sub to "hear" prop driven aircraft. I can't recall the reason why unfortunately, I'm sure one of the multi-talented folks on here will be able to enlighten me.

I also understand that it is far easier for a sub to "hear" prop driven aircraft.

I think it's to do with the lower frequency of the props penetrating further through the water. I have occasionally talked to pingers without losing conciousness and they tell me certain aircraft are very distinctive to our submersed friends, and if you fly certain profiles they can get all kinds of worried about what you're doing.

SkippyBing wrote: Obviously if MoD had been willing to stump up for new airframes in the first place things would have been quite different, plus they wouldn't have problems like the new CAD designed wingboxes having randomly sized gaps when mated up to the hand built fuselages.

I'm LOL just imagining the problems! But surely BAE would have thought of that from an early stage?

I think Nimrods actually shut down two engines when loitering on task.

My understanding too. Same as that jets are much harder to hear than props, although I'd imagine that some of the modern very high bypass turbofans wouldn't make that much difference.

I really do think this one has gone too far to cancel. I've not heard that anything particularly doesn't work, so it should be relatively straightforward from now on. Military contracts will tend to be this way - the goalposts constantly move, and some of the tech doesn't come through. All of which increases the cost.

I'm sure most of us are cross, or even somewhat bitter, that the TSR2 never saw service. But that would have seen a similar escalation in cost, to the point of being unaffordable. Whether it's worth paying that to keep the industry current (see France) is debatable.

James