NationStates Jolt Archive

This Thread deals with the development of 2 maritime patrol aircraft.

The first is a large long endurance offensive patrol aircraft to repalce the P-3 orion provsionally titled LMPA

The second is a smaller general use patrol aircraft for law enforcement and light military use proviosnally titled MRPA

Principle memebers of design team:
Crookfur
Kotterdam


general features:

LMPA: some what stealthy design capable of carrying a wide rnage of sensors for surface and submarine tracking and targeting and a large number of attack muntions (air to surface missiles and torpedos/depth charges) prefferably carried internally.

Possible airframes:
BAE Nimrod:
http://www.tim-beach.com/RIAT03/nimrod.jpg

Airbuss A330-200 (or the CFU-9 Longshore version):
http://www.tim-beach.com/RIAT03/a330.jpg

Beoing 767
http://www.3dmodelworks.com/models/thumb/3DAIRCRAFTS/KC-767/KC-767%20SE.JPG

Or a possible new biult design, any of the existing airframes will be modified for a decreased RCS.

MRPA:
Small agile airframe, equipped with sensors to detect a wide rnage of very small targets, possibility of a weapons load of 2-4 light weapons, ability to deploy rescue equipment and/or personaell would be a possibility.

Possible airframes
Falcon 2000:
http://www.shanaberger.com/images/falcon2000.jpg

or any other bizjet or a new biult airframe.


Please note that this is a dev thread, any possible sales will be done elsewhere, we may be looking for other dev partners but you must actually be able to contribute soemthign other than funds.

Star Systems Corporation is interested in developing both of these aircraft along with Crookfur and Kotterdam. As we are looking for such aircraft in our nation as well, it would be most beneficial to us.

Our initial assesment for the lighter variant would be the following two airframes:

http://www.boeing.com/bcc/sitemap/images/bbj3.jpg

http://www.thebattlezone.com/models/modelpix/h0848c3r.jpg

Star Systems would be willing to provide avionics and systems, including fly-by-optics, to ensure that the safety, stability, and effectiveness of the aircraft. Esmier Corp will also offer engines.

Your participation is acceptable to the Dominion, and we would like to make it known that we find the triple-engine airframe suggested to be quite interesting, if only because of the increased survivability three engines would offer. Kielly-Caesar Aeroengines of the Dominion will be competing to provide a powerplant for the larger aircraft, though they concede the smaller aircraft powerplant to Esmier. Additionally, Longfield Electronics will be contributing the Pallas Athena Tactical Sensor Countermeasure System for use in the new aircraft.

OOC:
I don't have the link to the Pallas Athena thread, but I do have the write-up handy if we need it.

Esmier would like to concede the powerplant for the larger aircraft to Kielly-Caesar Aeroengines, and is proceeding engine design on the smaller one. For now, Star Aerospace is considering the 3-engine design more than the other, which will be a backup plan...

Crookfur Has no oblections to a zoogie involvment so welcome to the team

As to the other airframes the tri engine (being the Falcon 900) is a good aircraft but i found it to be just a bit too big but its upto you.

Engines are tricky for Crookfur as we tend to reengine our aircraft with alcohol engines which very few othe rpeople use so we can assume that you split the export engines amoungst yourselves.


Crookfur are willing to porvide principle airframe (or airframe section) services as well as radar and optical/IR systems.
(for the lighter aircraft, a fighter radar is fully possible as would a light weight side looking system or ESA in a vetral mounting behind any imaging sensor pods).

We *could* pretend to make it smaller by listing the size in the specifications...or look for another one. Export engines ought to be petroleum based, but it shouldn't be that hard to make separate domestic versions...

--

While we are still evaluating the possibilities for the larger aircraft, we believe the trijet Falcon 900 is a good start for the smaller one. By start, we mean a new airframe modeled on the Falcon 900, not just modifying the airframe. We believe that using the Falcon 900 as a basis for a similar airframe is necessary because of the attack role and rescue deployment roles...as for length, we are looking at something like fifty feet for the airframe?

Doujin, while not great in technical aspects of aircraft, is more than willing to provide some funding to this project, as it interests our Naval operations department.

THe USSNSR would like to take part in this project via both funding and if possible, aid through state owned Lightning Stryke Industries.

Actually looking again at the dassault range, give the Falcon 7X (http://www.falconjet.com/aircraft/7x/) a look, it is fairly big at 76ft but thats still 20ft shorter than the current world leader in the Embraer P99/EMB145 family.

In fact give the entire flacon rnage a look, a smaller version of the 900 can be found in the 50EX

As for length i would say anywhere in the 50-80ft rnage

As to the weapons and equipment deployment, well the wings coudl easily be modified to take hard points or a small bay could be fitted in the cabin, oh and the patrol versions of the old Falcon 20 drop equipment out a hole in the floor...

of course we could img edit a pic to add canards or soemthing...

Doujin: your interest is noted, perhaps we coudl eventually push this for a OMP wide deployment? fundingisn't a major issue but i suppose we could operate a teired investment program where discounts and priority service is involved (like the JSF project).

Neo-Soviet Russia: Are there any particular areas you would be willing to take responsibility for or any specifc things you think we may have missed?

Yes...the falcon 7x looks good, we could shorten it by eight or nine feet for our purposes to make it smaller, more if necessary...it looks bettter than the 900/50ex. It's also got great range...

Thats what i like about the falcon series great rnage yet they still out perform a number of fighters...

(the french navy use the old Falcon 10 as a trainer and it outperfroms the super entard, it also means that all fench navy pilots are also full qualified civil airliner pilots...)
the rahter short runway requirment is alos good, i'll dig up soem images and see what i can do with them.

I'd suggest that for the smaller aircraft we go with external hardpoints for armament such as torpedoes, Anti-Shipping Missiles, and perhaps even short-range AAMs for self defense. For sonobuoys, I suggest a section at the aft-end of the aircraft be allocated for the stowage and deployment of buoys. We're also probably going to want to incorporate Magnetic Anomaly Detection gear to help it in the Anti-Submarine role.

Also, Longfield Electronics makes a superb combination Infrared/Millimeter Wave Radar Imaging turret that could be mounted either as a retractable or a fixed system. The infrared would be a major bonus because naval vessels, small motorboats, and diesel submarines running at snorkel depth are a lot warmer than the ocean water. Also, the MWRI gear provides an all-environment imaging capability with some truly impressive resolution.

We should go with external weapons unless we can fit them internally, which would be a plus. What are sonobuoys?

Sonobuoys are small, air-droppable sonar transducers equipped with variable-buoyancy floats. They're carried in ASW helicopters and maritime patrol aircraft as one of their primary means of detecting submarines. Capable of functioning in both active and passive mode, they have little radio transmitters which beam their results back to the aircraft, allowing it to engage and destroy submarines with its air-dropped torpedoes, or other munitions.

I see...so, how are we going to design the specifics of this?

Oh yes please, we need really need to replace the Tu-142 as the airframes are reaching the upper limit of fling hours.

Possible Airframe:

A-40 Amphibian:

http://membres.lycos.fr/seaplanespages/seaplanes/picts/be_a-401.jpg

Iron Blood is interested in joining the project. We suggest either the Be-200 or A-40 as an airframe.

Obviously we would take responsibility for engines, plus a few sensor or avionics systems and anything else you need.

Additional platofrms could be the: EA-372 (http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=87858&highlight=) for the larger version.


http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/images/7e7-pic01.jpg


For the smaller aircraft, how about the Bell/Agusta 609 tiltrotor:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/images/ba609_sunset.jpg

For the smaller aircraft, how about the mach 2 capable Sukhoi S-21 buisness jet?

Isn't that a 7E7?

Its an EA-372

Otherwise your C-240 is a New Strategic Aircraft (NSA) Concept from Lockheed Martin.

Ah, I see...sorry, your post before had that picture under the smaller aircraft, so I was confused...I see you edited it now.

okay, my fault then...

OOC: sorry for not posting for a while the boards have been rahter annoying...

IB: well the S-21 looks fast but high speed isn't that important (i my mind) for a patrol aircraft and it requires too big a runway for my likeing (i forsee the smaller aircraft mainly being used by by authoritys who have lots of small airstrips on a number of different islands.

UE: the tilt rotor is ok but then if i had wanted a long rnage vtol option i would have gone for a rotodyne version.


On the larger aircraft perhaps we might have to look at a modular systems package that could be installed on a number of different airframes (mainly because i really really want a A330 version)
or produce a number of airframes as options for export versions (seeing as how some will find 767s easier to comprehend etc).

For the small plane I would recommend a propellar driven plane simply for the better fuel economy. As speed is not a real issue a propellar drive design would work great. Something like a DASH-9 maybe?

For the long range I would go a A340 over an A330 simply for the range increase you get with the A340 with almost the same fuel load. 9000km compared to 12000km.

I hate the Airbus series, how is it manly to fly a whacking great plane with a joystick smaler than my Microsoft Sidewinder Pro?

Well my reason for the A330-200 is simple i already biuld it and currently use it for just about everythign already... (kind of like the US and the early boeings).

Well my reason for the A330-200 is simple i already biuld it and currently use it for just about everythign already... (kind of like the US and the early boeings).

same with me and the EA-372(7E7) which is slightly smaller than the A330 but about 25% more efficient.

I'm thinking that because of the varying requirements we all have for the larger aircraft, we should go with the modular set of mission-critical hardware that can be assembled in a variety of different airframes. I say this because we each seem to need something slightly different to fill the same role.

The Dominion needs a stealthy aircraft because we will be using it to locate and target surface ships as well as submarines, and thus it needs to evade search radars. Crookfur's hellbent on using an A340-style airframe. UE would rather lean towards a Boeing bird. Let's make the mission hardware modular, and load it into a variety of aircraft. This would have the advantage of making maintenance cost less because more people would use the same parts for different aircraft, thus increasing the availability and decreasing the cost.

Here's another idea - Rather than employing a completely different set of systems for the smaller aircraft, we should use a high number of common components. This serves two purposes - First, it allows us to further decrease maintenance costs by allowing us to consolidate stocks of spare parts for both aircraft. Secondly, it decreases training costs and times because of the high degree of commonality. Operators who are familiar with the equipment on one plane could transition easily to the other.

As far as an airframe goes, the Dominion is leaning towards the BAe Nimrod with a series of EB-52 Megafortress-style modifications to make it more stealthy. For both aircraft, MAD gear and sonobuoy capabilities will be essential for them to fulfil their primary role of Anti-Submarine Warfare. The larger aircraft should probably have some ESM capability in the form of signal receptors and interpreters to allow it to identify and localize surface radars to help it in the Anti-Surface Warfare and Maritime Patrol roles.

We'll probably want some degree of Anti-Shipping Missile capability for both aircraft. Likely, this would come in the form of a pair of AGM-84 Harpoons on pylons the smaller aircraft, with the larger aircraft carrying weapons internally. This means we'd have to include fire control systems, a weapons officer position, targeting radars - That kind of thing. Also, since the smaller aircraft would likely be used by the Coast Guard, we're going to want some sort of FLIR, or MWRI system to pick up small targets in the sea at night for smuggling interdiction missions.

Here's my suggestion for the larger aircraft's systemry: Provision for somewhere between a hundred and a hundred and fifty sonobuoys for ASW work, as well as a Magnetic Anomaly Detector. It will also need some form of signal processors to allow it to analyze radars and perform ELINT/SIGINT duties. I propose that on the models used by the full, contributing partners in the design (Zoogie, Crookfur, UE, and myself) this is augmented by the Pallas Athena system, since it has the ability to analyze, identify, and locate radar systems in addition to its sensor canceling role.

Additionally, we'll probably want some sort of surface search radar. I suggest a frequency agile active electronically scanned array, largely due to the fact that such a system is hard to jam, and can be difficult to detect in operation. On top of that, I'd suggest some form of turreted imagery system, probably retractable. My best bet for it would be a combination infrared and millimeter-wave radar imaging system in a turret mount. This would be good for spotting motor boats, snorkeling diesel submarines, periscopes... Hell, you could use it to enforce speed limits on your highways if you really wanted to.

Finally, the data from all these systems should probably be routed through some form of computer - Possibly one of the Dominion's coldframe superconducting computers - So that it can be analyzed and condensed into a single coherent display of the space around the aircraft to be viewed from the Warfare Coordinator's position, and in a further simplified version, in the cockpit for the pilot and copilot to keep them in the loop.

Here's how I'd organize the crew space. Up front, you'd have the pilot, copilot, and navigator. Modern aircraft are so automated these days that the position of flight engineer is no longer neccesary, so just those three. Aft of the cockpit, you'd have the Offensive Systems Officer, who'd be responsible for actually engaging the target with the aircraft's weapons. The Offensive Systems Operator would also be responsible for the aircraft's surface search radar. You'd have the Defensive Systems Operator, who would operate the aircraft's jammers, ESM hardware, and other such equipment. It would be their job to locate surface ships by their electronic emissions while doing their best to prevent the enemy from locating or engaging them.

Then you would have the Anti-Submarine Warfare Officer. His job would be to find enemy submarines and work together with the Offensive Systems Officer to destroy them. He would have access to the telemetry from the sonobuoys, the Magnetic Anomaly Detector, and the IR/MWRI turret, if included, all to help him better perform his task. In an Anti-Submarine Warfare situation, the ASW Officer would have command of the aircraft. He would find the sub, and the Offensive Systems Officer would kill it.

Then you'd have the Intelligence Officer. Their job would be to record and analyze any transmissions or other electronic signals the aircraft may intercept in the course of its mission. In a maritime patrol role, especially in wartime, or situations where it's patroling disputed waters, an aircraft such as this would be perfectly situated to intercept some very juicy bits of SIGINT, or Signals Intelligence. At the very least, a patrol aircraft shadowing a foreign battlegroup would be able to record hours of radio chatter over a variety of frequencies to be analyzed later.

Finally, you'd have the Warfare Coordinator. Their job would be to take the information from all the separate systems and condense it down to something that makes sense. They would have access to either the raw takes from all the separate sensors, or a combined feed analyzed and simplified by the onboard computer. In a combat situation, the Warfare Coordinator would technically be in charge, though he would likely hand command off from time to time.

A typical patrol would go like this - The pilot would take off, and it would be his aircraft until they reached their patrol zone. Then, the Warfare Coordinator would take over. He would issue orders based on the information he's recieving from his sensor operators and from the sensors himself. If they were on an ASW patrol, he would issue orders to the aircraft up until the moment they detected a submarine. At that point, the ASW Officer would take command and destroy the submarine.

Suppose instead that they were supposed to shadow an enemy battlegroup and guide an airstrike in. They would circle just outside of radar range while the DSO called the shots, keeping them outside detection range as he localized the battlegroup using his sensitive signal analyzers and recorded as much information on their electronic emissons as he could. If they were to attack a surface ship directly, then the aircraft would belong to the Offensive Systems Operator. Somewhat complicated, yes, but each of these men - Or women. It is the 21st Century, after all - Would be experts in their field, and could do it better than one man trained to do everything. The crew would operate as a team to get the job done.

Anyway, those are my suggestions.

I agree with nearly all of those suggestions, and here is what we will be able to manufacture, based on exisiting systems used on the carrier based EA-60, which will be scaled up.

-Sonarbuoy dispensing system
-Stores Management Computer
-Littoral Airborne Sensor - Hyperspectral (LASH) system
-Short Range AEELS Signal locator system (just to give a secondary ELINT Capability)

As for the Active Electronically Scanned Array we do make a long range one that has been retrofitted to our Tu-142s but I think Crookfur has more expertise in this field.

I agree on most points but have soema dditions:
For the small aircraft 2 harpoons was about what i was aiming at although i would add the option for pengiuns and/or brimstone/hellfire Blast frag for dealing with small targets.
I might add a Electro optical imagining system (i use EO/IR combos on most of my targeting pods) but thats just a personal veiw, a laser designator might also be crammed in...

I'm not adverse to the Nimrod either as i do currently use it but my military does have a mania for standardising things.
large aircraft sesnors are fine but again i would add more options to the imaging system and perhaps using 2 IR sensors a fixed wide angle system and the one in the turret. The radar likely can have a secondary air surveilance mode (like the Nimrods MR4's new searchwater 2000).

As for crew, would the navigator really be required? the rest sounds good although i would likely give the intel officer a secondary role as a ground/surface forces liason (like the extra crewman the US marines are desperate to put onto the P3).

The radar i can definatly handle any idea as to required rnages? (the CSA surface serach radar was 200-500km depending on target)

I agree on most points but have soema dditions:
For the small aircraft 2 harpoons was about what i was aiming at although i would add the option for pengiuns and/or brimstone/hellfire Blast frag for dealing with small targets.
I might add a Electro optical imagining system (i use EO/IR combos on most of my targeting pods) but thats just a personal veiw, a laser designator might also be crammed in...

I'm not adverse to the Nimrod either as i do currently use it but my military does have a mania for standardising things.
large aircraft sesnors are fine but again i would add more options to the imaging system and perhaps using 2 IR sensors a fixed wide angle system and the one in the turret. The radar likely can have a secondary air surveilance mode (like the Nimrods MR4's new searchwater 2000).

As for crew, would the navigator really be required? the rest sounds good although i would likely give the intel officer a secondary role as a ground/surface forces liason (like the extra crewman the US marines are desperate to put onto the P3).

The radar i can definatly handle any idea as to required rnages? (the CSA surface serach radar was 200-500km depending on target)

As far as weapons go, adding the option for Hellfires and Penguins is an excellent idea. I'd also include Exocet capability. As well, for the larger aircraft - Perhaps we can agree on the Nimrod, then? - I'd suggest depth charge and mine-laying capability, as well as the ability to carry ASMs and torpedoes. Also, perhaps some AAM capability would be a good idea - Nothing special, just the ability to mount a Sidewinder-style missile or four if the mission required it.

The Dominion could also contribute its MicroBurst 40mm Precision Guided Fragmentation Cannon. We could mount it backwards in the tail, and since it's fragmentation rounds are capable of consistantly striking targets within a 45-degree cone of the tail, we could mount it in a fixed aft-firing configuration. This would be mainly to knock inbound missiles out of the air, rather than to engage enemy aircraft. To preserve the aircraft's stealth characteristics, it could be mounted entirely internally, and fire through a hatch in the hull.

As far as radar ranges, I'm not sure either - Perhaps a three hundred kay improvement wouldn't be out of the question, though. The radar could detect targets between 500-800km, depending on the target.

Let's take a look at the capabilities and systems we have so far.

Large Aircraft - We should give it a name
General Capabilities
* Somewhat stealthy airframe (Nimrod, perhaps?)
* Possible AAM capability
* 16-Hour Endurance
Systems
* Multi-Function Air/Surface Search AESA Radar w/500-800km range (Crookfur)
* M94A1 MicroBurst Precision-Guided Fragmentation Cannon (Kotterdam)
* Pallas Athena Tactical Sensor Countermeasure System (Kotterdam)
* Magnetic Anomaly Detection Gear (Kotterdam)
* Coldframe Superconducting Tactical Analysis Computer (Kotterdam)
* Turreted IR/EO/MWRI/Telephoto Visible Light Optics Turret (Kotterdam)
* High-Efficiency Turbojet Engines (Kotterdam)
* Littoral Airborne Sensor - Hyperspectral (LASH) system (United Elias)
* Sonobuoy dispensing system (United Elias)
* Stores Management Computer (United Elias)
* Short Range AEELS Signal locator system (United Elias)
* Long-Range Electronic Support Measures (ESM) suite including signal analyzers and direction-finders (Required)
* GPS Navigation System (Required)
* Satelite/Radio/Microwave/Directional Laser Communications System (Required)
* Electronic Countermeasures (ECM) Suite (Required)
* Side-Facing Fixed IR/EO/Telephoto Visible Light Optics System (Required)
* Radar Warning Recievers
Crew
7 (Pilot, Copilot, Warfare Coordinator, Defensive Systems Officer, Offensive Systems Officer, ASW Officer, Intelligence/Surface-to-Ground Liason Officer
Payload
* 150-200 Sonobuoys
* 200 MicroBurst Rounds
* 40,000+ lbs of internal and external stores

As mentioned i'm good on the nimrod

Well weapons capability could liekly be handled by an open
standard/architecture weapons/stores management system (a fluff UE and myself have used before) basically its system that is easily updated/modified for new weapons by adding or updating modules of software/hardware (vital for decent export as a large number of people use a mix of western, soviet and custom weapons. It also allows them to use the Likes of SLAM if they really want to).

Self defence missile options would be good.

just out of interest what sort of ammo does the 40mm gun use? 40mm grenade style or full 40mm cannon rounds (or soemthing in between like 40mm supershot) i might have to develope a similar (non giuded) system using by 25mm smart fuzed bursting grenades(an altered version of the OCSW).

As to required systems the Nav and coms systems i could do but i should leave something for zoogie.
I might move to include a Crookfur datalink system probably of the battlesphere or warsphere class (Crookfur datalinks come in 3 main classes: combat sphere=your basic JTIDS/Link16 style system for individual units, battlesphere= bigger and more complex can handle data from a wider rnage of sources and has a bigger data "push" ability. Warsphere= your mainline C3/C4I data link module for AWACS and command units. All the units can communticate with msot common datalink systems (primarily the nato link16 system) and transfer just about any data the unit can capture, yes the entire concept is kind of fluffy as its just soemthing thats grown over time).


As to name for the big aircraft can you think of the name of any mythical sea watchers?

* Short Range AEELS Signal locator system (United Elias)
* Long-Range Electronic Support Measures (ESM) suite including signal analyzers and direction-finders (Required)

These two are more or less the same so we can take care of that whole thing.

We are certainly not happy with the Nimrod which I should remind people is based on the DHC COMET! So we'll be using the EA-372 (7E7) as our large platform.

As for a name, well ours will be called the 'Cormorant'

althought it is a very heavily modified and imporved version of the comet and thats without the Mr4a rebiuld program...

We won't be calling it the Cormorant because i have a new naval rotodyne planned with that name.. maybe the albatros... but i would preffer a mythical name.

Zoogiedom announces that in its defense spending cuts and its military restructuring, that the Joint Military Patrol aircraft has been cut from its dossier. While we may pursue such an aircraft on our own, we are unable to continue this project at the time.

The Dominion suggests the name Argus after the mythical hundred-eyed guard from Greek mythology. Additionally, while the assistance of the Zoogie People will be missed, the Argus/Cormorant project will doubtlessly go ahead, with two parallel development projects using the same electronics on different airframes.

As to Crookfur's questions, I agree with the inclusion of a Warsphere-class datalink system. The ESM suites are analysis systems, while the datalink system is primarily geared towards C3 duties, and it would be an excellent idea to include both. I would suggest that United Elias, considering they are contributing the short range ESM suite, be given the task of designing the more capable long range suite, as their experience would prove invaluable in that area.

As well, the MicroBurst rounds are full 40mm versions of our 20mm and 30mm Precision Guided Cannon Rounds equipped with a proximity fuse. MicroBurst is primarily an anti-air system, although it can prove useful against soft surface targets. Rather than impacting directly, the MicroBurst round has a two-stage charge that detonates in proximity to the target. The first stage is a shaped charge that destroys the nose cone of the round, creating a lethal bloom of shrapnel. The second charge destroys the remaining portion of the round while at the same time driving a cluster of tungsten flechettes through the target to further damage internal systems.

Finally, due to the size of the contributions of United Elias and the Dominion, not to mention Crookfur's obvious technical expertise, we suggest that the remaining "Required" systems, apart from the ESM suite be allocated to that nation for manufacture. With these major questions (airframe, systems, crew) answered, I would suggest that we finalize the designs at our earliest convenience and then move on to the smaller aircraft.

Excellent, we will post some stats and specs tommorrow hpefully. Crookfur I hear what your saying about the MR.4 but I happen to know that the RAF are anything but happy with it. According to my source they really wanted to move the avionics onto the 737-700 platform but funding was out of the question. Plus the UK government doesnt allow UK to buy american as we're all nice Europeans now. Lets just forget a combined total of two centuries of warfare against France and Germany and let them rule us!

Sorry for the political rant, now for the smaller aircraft, I have a few further suggestions for a possible platform:

-EA-75 (C-27 Spartan)

-G-550/GV executive jet (is already the platform for our EA-70 airborne standoff synthetic aperture radar aircrafft)

-CN-235 STOVL transport

On the other hand we could just make a land based version of the EA-60 CSA which already has an ASW/ASuW version.

Well when Kotterdam and i have finsihed Dale Browning the Nimrod i should be better... i might still put some of the sensors on my CFU-9(A330-200) as a more freindly looking alternative (kind of like using the canberra or P3 in place of the more sinister U-2) probably intgrating them into my CFE-9E Sparky.

i'll get soem proper stats and writes up doen on my bits.
As to the name, the Argus is rahter similar to our A400 rip off the CFU-12 Argo but as an export name it's cool we generally rename everything eventually...

As to the small aircraft i woulds till push for the Falcon family as athe base.

For the small aircraft-
[img]http://www.flightsim.krsk.ru/FTP/AIRCRAFT/s-80.gif/img]
S-80?

Or has it already been decided?

bump

bump

Ok a quick write up on the radar:

MK2015 (JMPA): Advanced long range maritime search radar capable of detecting even periscope sized targets at long range even in a cluttered littoral environment. A secondary air search mode capable of detecting targets at up to medium high altitude is a further feature. Using frequency hoping techniques a low observability capacity is standard
Targets: up to 4000 individual traces in both air and surface realms
Range:
Air surveillance: 300km
Detail scan: 400km
Surface scan vs. ships: 800km
Surface scan vs. very small targets: 320km

Sound good?

Littoral Airborne Sensor - Hyperspectral (LASH) system

The Littoral Airborne Sensor Hyperspectral or LASH is a new sensor device that allows an aircraft or helicopter equipped with a LASH pod to be able to ‘see’ submarines rather than hear them. It uses reflected sunlight to illuminate an area of ocean, sensors then relay the images to an onboard computer system where LASH technology is able to distinguish shades of colour in underwater objects that look identical. The system breaks the image into up to 288 wavelengths including infrared and ultraviolet to search for patterns that reveal shapes beneath the waves.

Currently the technology is only useful during daylight hours and can ‘see’ a submarine size object up to 2600ft in depth, the technology is particularly useful in shallow waters where sonar is often unreliable.


ERSS-213R Integrated EW system

This integrated system includes a targetable jamming system with emissions processing and interpretation system. An Automatic Elint Emitter Locater System (AEELS) which intercepts electronic and signals transmissions and automatically sifts the data for useful information. Includes an advanced direction finding system to track the position of radar sites and communication centres. The ERSS-213R also includes a High Band Sub-System, RF distribution network, and software to intercept, exploit, and report on modern modulation and low probability of detection communications and radar signals.

ERS/EM-1139 Sonarbuoy dispenser

Internally stores up to 156 sonarbouys/marine markers/noise makers, uses cartridge actuating devices to dispense.






* Sonobuoy dispensing system (United Elias)
* Stores Management Computer (United Elias)
* Short Range AEELS Signal locator system (United Elias)
* Long-Range Electronic Support Measures (ESM) suite including signal analyzers and direction-finders (Required)
* GPS Navigation System (Required)
* Satelite/Radio/Microwave/Directional Laser Communications System (Required)
* Electronic Countermeasures (ECM) Suite (Required)
* Side-Facing Fixed IR/EO/Telephoto Visible Light Optics System (Required)
* Radar Warning Recievers
Crew
7 (Pilot, Copilot, Warfare Coordinator, Defensive Systems Officer, Offensive Systems Officer, ASW Officer, Intelligence/Surface-to-Ground Liason Officer
Payload
* 150-200 Sonobuoys
* 200 MicroBurst Rounds
* 40,000+ lbs of internal and external stores[/quote]