The Strategypage is a comprehensive summary of military news and affairs.
 News As History - February 9, 2010




New Strategy - Wargames at Discount Prices
1.Modern Air Power: War Over the Middle East
2.Commander: Napoleon at War
3.Close Combat: Watch am Rhein
4.Gallic Wars
5.Fast Action Battle: The Bulge

100+ Computer and Board games all with free shipping.
 
 
 
Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use
How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Surface Forces Discussion Board
Sign In   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Jet powered seaplanes/maritime patrol aircraft
Iano    2/4/2005 2:17:10 PM
Hi there,
Does anyone know if a jet powered seaplane is possible? My idea was, that instead of relying on land based MPAs, if the MPAs could operate from the taskforce, say with the addition of a seaplane tender ship, then the fleet would have MPA cover when out of range of land based MPAs, and also the MPAs would have more time on-station and less time travelling.

As the new incarnation of the Nimrod seems the way forward, at least for the RAF/RN, are jet powered seaplanes feasible? Or are prop-driven seaplanes able to perform as well as the Nimrod in MPA role?

Do you think we will ever see MPAs move with the fleet and not be stuck on land?

Thanks a lot,
Ian
PS: I know this probably isnt the right board for this topic but didnt get a reply in Naval Air
 
Quote    Reply

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title     Sort in Reverse Order Posted
Lawman    RE:Jet powered seaplanes/maritime patrol aircraft   2/4/2005 2:51:04 PM
The Russians build the Beriev Be200, and previously the A-40/42. The Be 200 is a civilian design, shrunk from the A-40/42 design of the '80s. The aircraft has not been placed in large scale production, and is unlikely to be now. The idea of a seaplane Maritime Patrol Aircraft is not great for long range work, since the aircraft effectively is an airliner towing a yacht (sorry, but it's true!), thus not very good on fuel economy. As for landing on the water near a battle group, that would be suicide given the waves in the middle of the ocean! Seaplanes land at coastlines, not the sea, except in the Pacific, where the waves are small enough. In WW2, PBY Catalinas landed in the sea to rescue airmen, but the Pacific has small waves, unlike the Atlantic. If you're looking for MPAs to accompany the fleet, look no further than the S-2 Tracker or the S-3 Viking! They certainly can walk and chew gum...
 
Quote    Reply

Iano    RE:Jet powered seaplanes/maritime patrol aircraft   2/4/2005 3:02:43 PM
Okay then are there any MPAs that can operate from carriers? Or any with a particularly long range so that they can overfly the fleet from their airfields? How do you rate the Nimrod in its current version, the future incarnation is supposed to be very capable? Ian
 
Quote    Reply

Lawman    RE:Jet powered seaplanes/maritime patrol aircraft   2/4/2005 4:30:27 PM
Hmm, well, as I mentioned, the S-2 Tracker (older) and the S-3 Viking (newer) operated from carriers and the S-3 still does. Most MPAs can fly over battle groups, but the problem with this is that it makes politicians think this means no need for Navy ships/aircraft for surveillance. In the 1970s, the Royal Navy retired the Gannet AEW, instead relying on the RAF Avro Shackleton for fleet AEW coverage. Then the Argentines decide to hold a picnic on the Penguin sanctuary(Falklands). The task force had to retake the Islands with no AEW coverage. Politicians love to 'replace' by reassigning assets, which leaves the military short, hence overflying the battle group is not such a great idea for the Navy. As for the Nimrod MRA4, well, it's massively expensive, and not all that great. The UK would be better just buying the new MMA that the US is buying. The basic airframe would arrive, then be modified in the UK, probably by Marshalls of Cambridge, or possibly BAE, fitting the sensors developed for the MRA-4. The number they are buying, 12, is barely enough to patrol the North Sea, let alone all of the North Atlantic. In addition, the whole 'multi-role' thing is rubbish, since 12 airframes will not be enough to spare any for expeditionary duties...
 
Quote    Reply

RM-Nod    RE:Jet powered seaplanes/maritime patrol aircraft   2/4/2005 6:30:13 PM
Why is the MRA4 not "all that good", it seems very good in my opinion; especially for ASW work. I agree the number is too small but when has that ever not been the case? Speaking of jet powered sea planes, the UK did produce a jet sea fighter, which was very interesting.
 
Quote    Reply

elcid    RE:Jet powered seaplanes/maritime patrol aircraft   2/4/2005 8:25:40 PM
Of course they are possible. For a patrol plane, see the Martin P6M Seamaster. And for a fighter, see the Hughes Seadart. The rationale for these aircraft is missing, however. The USA has plenty of airfields and aircraft carriers. The reason for water basing is use in a place with no facilities. Pre WWII this was much of the world. It might have mattered in 1940 or 1941 in the South Pacific, before the USA built all those airfields or had enough carriers to matter.
 
Quote    Reply

Lawman    RE:Jet powered seaplanes/maritime patrol aircraft   2/4/2005 9:10:12 PM
My reference to the MRA4 as being not all that good is simple: if you tie the lobsters claws, it can't hurt anyone! The Nimrod is one aircraft, and does not have the range of weapons available to it that it should. The Nimrod is a great aircraft for detection, but not for price, or for offensive use. There are two elements to a good ASW aircraft: ability to detect subs, and presence! (If the aircraft isn't able to be in enough places at the same time, it can't detect anything!)
 
Quote    Reply

elcid    RE:Jet powered seaplanes/maritime patrol aircraft   2/5/2005 1:36:12 AM
I submit no aircraft can be in more than one place at the same time. I think you said something wrong. But if so, your point is lost.
 
Quote    Reply

Lawman    RE:Jet powered seaplanes/maritime patrol aircraft   2/5/2005 5:29:17 AM
No, I was referring to the aircraft being able to be bought in enough numbers to have an aircraft in one place, while another does something else! If the aircraft is too expensive to be bought in big enough numbers, then it can be the most capable plane in theory, but there wont be a plane available to do the job!
 
Quote    Reply

Iano    RE:Jet powered seaplanes/maritime patrol aircraft   2/5/2005 10:32:15 AM
Does anyone have an opinion on the number of MPAs the RAF/RN would need to fulfil its duties? Not "as many as possible", but a reasonable realistic number?
 
Quote    Reply

RM-Nod    RE:Jet powered seaplanes/maritime patrol aircraft   2/5/2005 11:03:17 AM
That's a matter of who is buying it, if the US wanted to buy the MRA4 then they could buy a lot of them. The UK could as well if we increased our defence budget to what it should be, stopped wasting so much money and implimented better a procurment system. There's nothing wrong with the actual aircraft, it has excellent range, endurance, payload (it can carry many weapons by the way, which ones did you think it can't?), signiture etc.
 
Quote    Reply

Lawman    RE:Jet powered seaplanes/maritime patrol aircraft   2/5/2005 11:44:21 AM
My reference to weapons is more to do with the weapons that are in service, that are checked out on the Nimrod. Theoretically, yes, it is quite capable of carrying weapons like Storm Shadow, but it's very unlikely this will ever be done. Also, I believe the Sea Eagle has now been withdrawn, meaning no in-service air launched anti-ship missile (the Harpoon is in service on surface combatants, and subs, but not aircraft). My point about the cost issue, is that the RAF could have bought into the US MMA project, and finished the aircraft with the systems designed for the MRA4. It isn't a question of whether the capability is there, if you can get the same capability for less, you probably should. Notably, if you used the MMA, there's always the attraction of it being 737 based, thus cheaper servicing (possibly).
 
Quote    Reply

RM-Nod    RE:Jet powered seaplanes/maritime patrol aircraft   2/6/2005 11:01:27 AM
No the Harpoon is carried on the Nimrod. It carries the full range capable of attacking any sea based target (Storm Shadow has now been dropped unfortunatley, but they can be carried on other aircraft). I agree about the cost, but I think it's important to keep the skill in country and if the MoD were effecient, were run properly and the treasury stopped screwing the forces around we could afford more.
 
Quote    Reply



StrategyWorld.com© 1998 - 2010StrategyWorld.com. All rights Reserved. StrategyWorld.com, StrategyPage.com, FYEO, For Your Eyes Only and Al Nofi's CIC are all trademarks of StrategyWorld.com Privacy Policy