MoD to buy 5 x P8 from USA - maybe

[Navaleye]

Well according to one Scottish newspaper the idea is being seriously considered.

Nimrod U-turn blunder set to cost UK hundreds of millions - Herald Scotland | News | Home News (http://www.heraldscotland.com:80/news/home-news/nimrod-u-turn-blunder-set-to-cost-uk-hundreds-of-millions-1.1105372?)

[diginagain]

So does this mean that Salmond get his Kipper Fleet?

[Navaleye]

Using the Indian purchase as a guide, that makes them £162m a copy. Presumably with only 5 airframes there won't be much slack for out of area deployments, but a least it would put us back in the sub hunting game.

[BEagle]

But why base the P8 in the North of Jockistan, given that the Iceland/Faroes gap is less of a direct threat these days?

There'd surely be room for them at RAF Waddington? There used to be 40 Vulcans at Waddington, so even with all the E-3Ds, Sentinels and RC-135s, wouldn't there still be space for 5 P8s?

Keeping the whole of Kinloss active for a mere 5 aircraft seems somewhat unlikely.

[thunderbird7]

St Mawgan sounds like an ideal place to base them, especially if they want some reservists to fly them :ok:

[NWSRG]

Maybe this is just what should have happened all along...Nimrod AEW / Sentry should have taught us a lesson!

[Biggus]

If, and it's a very big if, this does go ahead there are many issues to discuss, no doubt most of which will soon be raised by ex-maritime aircrew. However, just to start the ball rolling until they chip in:




5 aircraft won't be enough to fulfill any overseas deployments as well as providing essential UK coverage - given that no doubt at least 1 will always be in long term maintenence. No doubt a "we'll deploy 1 on exercise, but it is always subject to short notice recall" policy will be adopted so they can show their face in some parts of the world.

They won't be based in Scotland.

The P-8 and MRA4 don't/didn't have the same capabilities (a thread on its own no doubt).

Given the current shortage in the Defence budget, with extra cuts looming, what goes in order to be able to afford this extra expenditure? Or is this yet another, "when the economy picks up in 2015 and the Defence budget increases again" aspiration that will probably never be fulfilled?

If we ordered them tomorrow (see point above) they probably wouldn't arrive for at least 3-5 years.

Who do you plan on manning them, given that many of your ex-maritime aircrew will have left or moved on to other fleets by then? In addition, who would volunteer for, or perhaps more importantly chose to remain long term and gather experience on, a fleet that they know has already been scrapped once when money got tight.

etc

etc

etc






The list goes on and on!

[Clockwork Mouse]

It will be Yeovilton.

[Neptunus Rex]

Five LRMP aircraft?

You would need four aircraft to maintain 24-hour coverage on a major SAR incident at 15 West.

Fifteen aircraft would be my minimum.

[minigundiplomat]

It will be Yeovilton.


Actually Clockwork, I think you may be spot on - or Culdrose.

[Just This Once...]

The RAF has the 'seedcorn' maritime crews saved from the chop a while back, carefully dispersed with a number of friendly nations. 5 aircraft will not get us back the capability but it will enable us to gets the boats in and out without being molested.

More of an adjunct to the strategic deterrent than a serious recovery of the Nimrod capability with the potential to share effort with the US Navy P8 and others.

[HaveQuick2]

But why base the P8 in the North of Jockistan, given that the Iceland/Faroes gap is less of a direct threat these days?

There'd surely be room for them at RAF Waddington? There used to be 40 Vulcans at Waddington, so even with all the E-3Ds, Sentinels and RC-135s, wouldn't there still be space for 5 P8s?

Keeping the whole of Kinloss active for a mere 5 aircraft seems somewhat unlikely.

Why assume RAF?

Was it not the RAF who recently gave up a MPA capability?

[Shackman]

Suspect more likely to be Culdrose. Having successfully knifed the Maritime force in the back to get their carriers, the Navy suddenly realised their problem when deployed against a possible threat in the Med. What better idea than for the RN to restart Fixed wing than with a few MR aircraft of their own so as to use all those ASW observers languishing at Culdrose waiting for a serviceable Merlin. After all, what could the possible difference be between the two?

(Edited to add it wasn't the RAF that 'volunteered' to give up MPA.)

[PFMG]

St Mawgan sounds like an ideal place to base them, especially if they want some reservists to fly them http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/thumbs.gif


Count me in as well ;)

[WE Branch Fanatic]

Suspect more likely to be Culdrose. Having successfully knifed the Maritime force in the back to get their carriers, the Navy suddenly realised their problem when deployed against a possible threat in the Med. What better idea than for the RN to restart Fixed wing than with a few MR aircraft of their own so as to use all those ASW observers languishing at Culdrose waiting for a serviceable Merlin. After all, what could the possible difference be between the two?

(Edited to add it wasn't the RAF that 'volunteered' to give up MPA.)

Really? Are you on drugs or something? The First Sea Lord appeared to be against losing Nimrod here (http://www.warisboring.com/2010/04/13/royal-air-force-cut-means-stealthy-hit-on-royal-navy/), and particularly against the axing of MRA4 here (http://www.defencemanagement.com/news_story.asp?id=14699).

If your question is who killed Nimrod, then you perhaps ought to look elsewhere.

[NJHr]

My first post on here.

Does anyone know what happened to the scrapped Nimrods mission systems? What is the likelyhood of any of that kit being fitted to these P-8's?

[downsizer]

What do you care? You know the P8 isn't a harrier right?

[Jimlad1]

Sounds like they are discussing provision of a capability purely to protect the duty Bombers in transit and thats about it. Once a system is in service then more can come in if required.

[Finningley Boy]

But why base the P8 in the North of Jockistan, given that the Iceland/Faroes gap is less of a direct threat these days?



Jockistan eh, I take it this confirms England as Pakistan West these days!:ok:

FB:)

[Squirrel 41]

WEBF,

I'd not normally rise to comment on your posts, but you got me with this one:

Really? Are you on drugs or something? The First Sea Lord appeared to be against losing Nimrod here, and particularly against the axing of MRA4 here.

But not against losing Nimrod enough to lose other Naval Service capabilities to fund the MRA4, whether in FAA service or not.

S41

[Pontius Navigator]

5 aircraft won't be enough to fulfill any overseas deployments as well as providing essential UK coverage

Maybe 5 aircraft will be exactly enough to fulfill any overseas deployments. We have had no essential UK coverage for ober a year so how can that be defined as essential?

In the Gulf of Sirte, OTOH, it may have been useful to have LRMP.

[Tallsar]

Putting aside this inter service jibing.....it is clear that both the RN & the RAF were shocked at the political decision to axe the MRA4 and it's implications. Implications that mean that there has been much scrabbling to pull together some sort of Revised ASW and LRMPA strategy that fills the gap both in the short term, mid term and in the post 2020 future. Seems to me there might be some real cobbling together needed if any sort of long range fixed wing capability is to be funded in the next few years..and who owns and runs it is secondary to filling a critical gap in our defence at this juncture. However, the world post 2020 might take a completely different shape to whatever comes along soon, and who may operate it.....and what's more...if we had a JFH, still have a JHC, then we can have a jointly manned platform if we are to capitalise on our hard won expertise in both services...or is that too politically correct?

[Whenurhappy]

Five does seem an awfully small number, however if it is SAR cover that's requiiored, look at what the Kiwis do with 6 P3-Ks, based in Auckland. The NZ maritime AOR is (IIRC) 35% bigger that the North Atlantic - granted, less traffic, moreover their P3s ahve been progressively upgraded to give them a pretty impressive overland ISTAR capability.

Size isn't everything...

[Fortissimo]

Has anyone thought to wonder why an obscure Jock journal suddenly has the scoop of the century on the planned buy of 5 x P-8? I know this is a rumour forum, but this is barking. Are we to believe everything we read in the press without question? I certainly don't buy the line that 'The MOD did not comment' - MOD would have told the journo the story was untrue, or provided some other weasel-wording if there was any truth in it. It would not be the first time that the 'did not comment' line was used because the provided comment did not suit the journo!

If you want to have a discussion about the relative merits of the P-8, crack on, but please don't give any more credence to the Herald ramblings. Apart from the fact that it is bolleaux, you will only raise false hopes amongst our Kipper fleet brethren.

[Pontius Navigator]

Fortissimo, it may have been published in the SH but it has been rumoured here before that.

Now digressing, on the SH webpage there is an advert for a BA Credit card. Did you clock the interest rate? 50.1% APR.

They have to be ****ing joking or they think the jocks are particularly gullible.

[Could be the last?]

Of course it will be Culdrose, that is where MFTS invested their efforts (money) on ac and infra. And as all WSOps/WSOs and Obs were destined to do their FT there it makes perfect sense!!!

[Tourist]

Whilst Culdrose would not be a terrible place to put them in terms of positioning, and I am certainly not against the idea of the RN running these alleged P8s we might get, there is the slight problem that Culdrose and Yeovilton are the fullest airbases in the UK.
5 P8 might be nothing to Waddington, but Culdrose?
I think not.

ps I'm loving the nimrod reverse victimisation from RN banter. very funny.

[cpants]

With the purchase of only three RC-135’s, and now talk of purchasing five P-8s, is it safe to assume that the UK will integrate these US military airframes into the inspection cycles conducted by US military maintenance teams? It doesn’t make sense for the UK to ramp up an 18 month (soon to be 24 month) inspection team for only three Rivet Joint airframes. The same can be said for five P-8s. What has become of UK sovereignty?

[muppetofthenorth]

What has become of UK sovereignty?

Costs too much.

[RileyDove]

There is no reason why major maintainance of all these aircraft couldnt be carried out by Waddington using contractors and RAF personnel . As for the
Boeing P-8 idea -how about detaching two north and two south with one machine as a trainer /spare etc. Somewhere like Leuchars and Culdrose spring to mind with small support crews.

[Rulebreaker]

Maintenance shouldnt be an issue, P8's are after all 737's so we could just farm the maintenance out to the BA facility at Cardiff. Waddington would seem the obvious location to collate all the ISTAR assets. Also with the promised demise of sentinel does the P8 not also carry a similar SAR.

[Pontius Navigator]

Riley,

The P8 is rather faster than the Sea King therefore there is no need for dispersed flights. As already opined, Waddington is central and sensible as the P8 is yet another ISTR asset.

While the Nimrod was originally based at St Mawgan and Kinloss I suggest that was both for historic reasons (give CinChan his own air assets) and force numbers. Kinloss could not have handled 4 sqns plus the OCU.

Your north-south suggestion even in the 70s was invalid as we often flew SWApps Ops from Kinloss and loaned assets to SouMar to prosecute as far as Lajes.

Also, by the time the P8 could be introduced to Waddo it is likely that the Sentinel will be on its way out.

[MRA4Man]

This report is utter cobblers, pure journalistic wishful speculation. With the SDSR savings target still 10s £billion adrift and savage cuts to come in PR12, including the delayed PR11 measures. it is more likely to be goodbye Challengers, Merlins and GR4s.:mad:

[Widger]

All wishful thinking. Despite the clear requirement for LRMPA and the desire of both light and dark blue to regain such a capability, there is NO MONEY. Indeed it is my personal view that much more will go in the next few years to pay off the arrears of the MOD's mortgage. The UK is broke and cannot afford any new capabilities. You only have to look at how perfectly good capabilities are being thrown on the scrapheap to save money to see that.

Type 22 gone
Sentinel to go in 2015
E3D downsizing
Type 42, last few hulls
CVF, possibly down to one hull
JCA.....will we ever see it? I doubt it!
Serious discussion about not having 4 SSBNs
Reduction in attack submarines
GR4 reductions
Harrier gone
Jaguar gone
Regiments amalgamated
Airfields closed
AS90s reduced
FRES?? etc etc etc

and many, many more enabling capabilities that make all the above work, all being burnt on the bonfire of Billions and Billions of debt. Don't kid yourselves that anything will get better before 2020 because there is no money, what is left is broken and people will soon be leaving in droves as the pressure of the Stan and Libya, means doing much much more with less.

The UK public is as deluded with the ability of the military to do whatever is bid by politicians, without the appropriate funding as it is with the state of the economy. In both cases, it will only be a strategic upset (god-forbid) that will change this attitude of both fingers in the ears and "la, la, la I'm not listening!"

[TorqueOfTheDevil]

This report is utter cobblers, pure journalistic wishful speculation. With the SDSR savings target still 10s £billion adrift and savage cuts to come in PR12, including the delayed PR11 measures. it is more likely to be goodbye Challengers, Merlins and GR4s.http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/censored.gif


Now don't be like that. Here we are, all eagerly anticipating the arrival of the Liam MR1, and someone has to be the stark raving pessimist.

5 does seem an odd number, seeing as a year ago 9 was viewed as the absolute bare minimum needed for our new MPA...

[LFT]

BAW 737 maintenance is all done at Glasgow International Airport in Jockistan, bu@@er, eh, beagle.

[Tallsar]

Widget..yes much has gone but you are being overly pessimistic about what the full implications are. Yes they will be severe but not a complete end to all days. At some point too the Government will have to give further consideration to shuffling cash between departmental budgets to make it work better too. Some capabilities will take priority over others whatever the additional cutbacks to come...one of those being the preservation of the deterrents' effectiveness...hence something will be done in due course to fill at least some of the gap left by the demise of MRA4...and yes ..no doubt the planners will be giving serious consideration as to what that will mean for extant capabilities too...including addressing some of the issues you talk off no doubt.
BTW....once upon a time Culdrose was the largest helo base in Europe but has not been for many a year since circa 120 ASW, SAR & AEW SKs & 30 Gazelles were replaced by circa 35 Merlins and about 25 remaining SKs. The Sea Prince and then Jetstream fleet has also evaporated to a few Avengers....so I don't think slipping a few additional fixed wing for LRMPA work will be too taxing...especially as CU is now the de facto home UK ASW capability....How the world turns eh?

[NutLoose]

One has to wonder how long the all ready paid for Nimrod MR4 fleet could have operated for on the budget to buy 5 of these things plus all the extra junk associated with the purchase........ one thinks quite a while.


Burton would be the ideal base for the MOD as it is the furthest point in the UK from any coastal area...... and of course as there is not a base there, further funds could be squandered in providing one......

[Yozzer]

I have a letter from Liam Fox in which the following is written:
Ref: MRA4
The project had suffered from a history of delays and cost overruns but it was principally the aircrafts high future support costs that contributed to the decision not to bring it into service despite its advanced state. It was also a matter of serious concern to us that the single MRA4 aircraft that had been delivered to the MoD was unsafe and could not pass its flight tests. It would have taken more money and time to put it right if it was possible at all. It goes on to mention £3.9 billion down the drain 'balanced' by a £2 billion 'saving' over 10 years as a result of the axe.

In response to my comments to parliament regarding protecting whats left of the UK fishing fleet in the next Icelantic Cod War, he tried to impress me with tales about 3x River Class patrol boats being up to the task. There were no comments whatsoever that would suggest that policy involving expenditure was going to be considered before 2015 and probably nearer to 2020. He did however mention 6 MPA crew (No specific trades mentioned) working in Canada until April 2014 to sustain MPA/ISTAR skills.

At least I wrote to the MP instead of just bleating here!
Dont shoot the messenger :{

[olddog]

Definitely won't be Culdrose. A former maritime VSO proved the runway was too short for Nimrod Ops some years ago! Unlikely that P8 could operate from there at full weight.

[Tallsar]

A good point OD..but others on here are focussed on the solution being P8s....who knows what other "out of the box" solution may actually appear
in due course.

[Chicken Leg]

Having successfully knifed the Maritime force in the back to get their carriers,

The irony in that particular quote is priceless! Well done sir!

What do you mean it wasn't supposed to be ironic??!!

[thunderbird7]

Definitely won't be Culdrose. A former maritime VSO proved the runway was too short for Nimrod Ops some years ago! Unlikely that P8 could operate from there at full weight.

Ha ha! Beat me to it. Never did read the incident report on that one. Ooops! Senior officer in confidence!! :ok:

[Jetex_Jim]

All jolly interesting.

What are we to make of this?

So the UK no longer had a maritime patrol requirement, and now it has!

Could it be that MRA4 had fundamental problems that just could not be fixed. It wouldn't do to admit that, would it? And, now that all frames have been scrapped, turns out that the UK really does have a requirement.

Imagine that.

[Whenurhappy]

Why should the future LRMPA requirement be manned? There are some very ointeresting unmanned developments.......

[Clockwork Mouse]

What are they? I'm ointerested.

[TheSmiter]

Yozzer

He did however mention 6 MPA crew (No specific trades mentioned) working in Canada until April 2014 to sustain MPA/ISTAR skills.

Just to clarify, that's 6 x crewpersons (ie 0.5 Nimrod crew) not 6 x MPA crews, :) I'm sure that's what you meant to say! Wouldn't want to give anyone the wrong idea.

It was only a matter of time before this widely known (within the community) state of affairs came out into the public arena and, although my focus now lies firmly outside the service, I shall watch this thread with great interest and probably much amusement!

[INT ZKJ]

Don't worry everyone, it won't cost us that much.

There's a UK aviation company who will suggest that we get the frames half built and then they'll "finish them off" for us.

It'll save time and soooo much cash any government would be mad not to support their shareholders, ooops I mean financially viable proposal!

Or, perhaps we could give the kits to Mark Evans and he could do a series "An MPA is Born"?

[RileyDove]

On what basis are we saying we cannot afford the supposed P-8 aircraft . Looking at the cost and investment in JSF/carriers -is it beyond the possibility of the U.K acquiring aircraft without paying large sums for the development of them?? It seems a virtually off the peg buy to me -maybe I am looking at it too simply??

[Harley Quinn]

@RileyDove.
Yes, see post #48, it's inevitable.

[manccowboy]

Liam Fox will get slaughtered by the press if we buy American P8's after scrapping £4.2 billion of BRITISH built hardware.

Bring it on :mad:

[Easy Street]

manc,

Between 1938 and 1941 the British aircraft industry failed to deliver on a number of maritime aircraft programmes. The only really succesful indigenous design, the Sunderland, was built at a low rate because Shorts could make more money from the Stirling. The RAF responded by buying American MPA (first the Catalina and later the very-long-range Liberator). Predictably enough this provoked howls of protest from British industry, despite their lack of comparable offerings! Whilst both American aircraft were superb, it was the Liberator that was primarily responsible for closing the "Atlantic Gap" and effectively bringing the Battle of the Atlantic to an end.

As in so many other aspects of history - we have been here before. BAE will not dare kick up a stink about P-8 because it would just draw more attention to the MRA4; the only reason BAE haven't copped more stick already is that it suits both BAE and the MoD to gloss over the whole episode and hope it goes away. If a slanging match develops, I would not be entirely surprised to see some ugly truths about MRA4 finding their way into circulation. They were already hinted at in Fox's letter higher up the thread.

[Pontius Navigator]

Easy Street, you might also have mentioned the P2 that was loaned until Avro got the Shacks into production.

It is also interesting to consider how few dedicated MPA, as opposed to airliner conversions, there have been.

Without deep research the Catalina, Neptune, Atlantic/que, the Japanese one, Shackleton and the Walrus :) were some of the very few and mostly very successful.

[TBM-Legend]

RAF B-17 M/R aircraft as well. Don't mention the Hudsons....:8

[ZH875]

But the Shackleton GR1 was only a conversion of a Manchester Bomber, albeit through the Lancaster/Lincoln versions.

Manchester + 2 engines = Lancaster
Lancaster + bigger wing = Lincoln
Lincoln + bigger fuselage = Shackleton

So I wouldn't put it in the dedicated MPA class, even if it is not in the converted airlines class.

[Trumpet_trousers]

Why not buy some ex-R*an*ir 737-800s, and, in the spirit of their former owner, have them converted for the MR role, BUT have the mission kit coin-operated? You could even have speedy boarding for the Occifers! SEEMPLES! :ok:

[Pontius Navigator]

ZH, I was being cautious, on that ground I would omit the B17 and B24 and was why I omitted the Whitley and Wellington.

[Pontius Navigator]

I think it has to be said that the best attempt at an off-the-drawing board MPA was Breguet's although only having 2 engines put the Air Ministry off that chance of European collaboration.

The engine doors also made a devastating airbrake but at least it ditched well and floated.

[Postman Plod]

What about that Japanese 4 engined jobbie?? Kawasaki P1 is it? Or is Japan subject to export restrictions, or we're just too mesmirised by America to notice anyone else?

[oxenos]

Beriev A-40 Albatross?

[aw ditor]

Another PFI' coming?

[bobward]

Aw Ditor, think you got one letter wrong in your post.
Shurley it should have been:
P F U...as in Probable (Something) Up??:eek::eek::ugh:

[Marham69]

What if....?

http://i55.tinypic.com/2ef4x9s.jpg

[NutLoose]

Looks nice :)

[Wander00]

Where's the "Sponsored by Ry@n@ir" logo?

[Union Jack]

Looks nice

R***l N**y would look even nicer!:E

Jack

[skippedonce]

Perhaps this is the 'P8' they actually meant.:confused:

Piaggio P.8 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piaggio_P.8)

It is actually a maritime patrol aircraft, and with a bit of inventive accounting might even be something today's MoD could afford.

[MPN11]

Forgive me, but is this the P-8 that apparently has question marks about its ability to cope with turbulence/gust response/stress at low level?

Swept wings designed for FL300+ and all that sort of thing?

[Biggus]

Let's try and get things into perspective.

First of all do you believe the newspaper article? Even if you do, it just said that the MOD was "considering" buying some P-8s. I haven't actually worked in MOD (thank god!) but I have spoken to some who have. I would expect that someone was told to write a paper investigating the cost of getting back into the MPA game as cheaply as possible, so the information is readily available for any future discussions. It doesn't mean there is any actual intend to go ahead with the purchase!

Someone has stated the cost of the 5 airframes as £800 million odd, I don't know what support/spares package you get for that. However, there will be considerable infrastructure and support costs, not to mention introducing a new aircraft type, with subsequent logistics trail, into the MOD inventory. Also, as I said before, if we ordered them tomorrow they probably wouldn't arrive for at least three years. Look at the order to delivery time for the Indian C-17s as an example.

Given that the MOD budget is already overspent, and further cuts are being actively discussed, what will be cut to fund the £1Bn+ purchase and operating cuts for a P-8 fleet?

The RN has no prior experience of operating MPA, and the RAF seedcorn (a laughable 6 people) will expire in 3 years, making the introduction of MPA by either service a protracted affair.

We can debate the ins and outs till the cows come home, but it isn't going to happen in the short term - if at all.

Still, that (pointless discussion) is (a large) part of what pprune appears to be about....!

[manccowboy]

As in so many other aspects of history - we have been here before. BAE will not dare kick up a stink about P-8 because it would just draw more attention to the MRA4; the only reason BAE haven't copped more stick already is that it suits both BAE and the MoD to gloss over the whole episode and hope it goes away. If a slanging match develops, I would not be entirely surprised to see some ugly truths about MRA4 finding their way into circulation. They were already hinted at in Fox's letter higher up the thread.

Easystreet,

I said the press would kick up a stink, BAE would have nothing to gain commenting on any P8 purchase. Don't beleive any hint Fox has made about MRA4's supposed flaws because that plane would have been in service NOW had it not been axed, there are people here who flew the MRA4 who can verify it.

I'll say it one last time, MRA4 died because it was called Nimrod and that is the only reason.

[Tourist]

Manc

I don't know either way, but we have had one test pilot from the Nimrod programme on here saying how glad he was that it would never fly again.

[Joe Black]

Forget P8 - more likely we'll end up with former US P3s with upgraded mission system similar to the Canadian CP-140 Block 3 Aurora.

[tornadoken]

ES #52: Sunderland, like Stirling, were built at the rates funded by the Customer. Upon Declaration of War, Armament Profits Duty (1941: Excess Profits Tax) captured...what they say on the tin. Early Catalinas were ordered for money; they, and B-24s came to the King's Forces courtesy of US taxpayers. Very, very pleased we were to have them. And, yes, priority and status attached to Bomber, more than to Coastal Command. Many, then and now, believed resources would have paid better if applied to maritime: do I recall an assessment that B-29 did more devastating work against Japan as minesower, than as incendiary bomber?

[Pontius Navigator]

do I recall an assessment that B-29 did more devastating work against Japan as minesower, than as incendiary bomber?

Which probably accounts for the Vulcan including capabilties as a minelayer in its design.

[MOA]

Tourist

I know you spout drivvle from time to time, but can you point me in the direction of the tp's assertion that he was glad the aircraft would never fly again? I seem to have missed it....

There were problems, but you would be surprised by the number of senior decision makers that were influenced by unsubstantiated comments such as that...

I should really let it go.....:ugh:

[manccowboy]

Manc

I don't know either way, but we have had one test pilot from the Nimrod programme on here saying how glad he was that it would never fly again.

Think there's only one MRA4 pilot that Ive seen comment on these forums and he didn't say any of the ****e your spouting :mad:

[NutLoose]

Of the P8, what happened to the four blow jobs are better than two doctrine that even the Japanese agreed with and built their own four engined maritime aircraft ?......

And whilst the Flightsim image looks the part, I would point out the airstair is an option on the 737, so that would be binned in the interests of economy, why have / give RAF crews an easy access facilty, when waiting for steps / landrover roof / tractor roof etc is a perfectly feasible option.... ;)

[davejb]

You forgot to mention the knotted ropes in the doorways...

[The Old Fat One]

I'll say it one last time, MRA4 died because it was called Nimrod and that is the only reason.


Other than being 7 years late and 3.8X over budget (I believe those are the official figures now).


Think there's only one MRA4 pilot that Ive seen comment on these forums and he didn't say any of the ****e your spouting


Maybe if you could learn to frame an argument, you wouldn't need the rhetoric?? Just a thought.

[SASless]

Smoke signals from a camp site near a river in Maryland suggest the P-8 program is encountering some problems. Two engines shy of a real airplane....wings designed for hi-altitude cruise flight....MAD impossible at 30,000 feet.....Sonar Buoy drop patterns problematic from 30,000 feet.....being able to listen is nice being able to locate is the needed capability....then how does one drop a Torpedo from that height and it work upon arrival?

Folks in the know are suggesting the P-3 production line should be re-opened but that would require explaining how all the P-8 money was for naught....and that ain't something the Admiral's Flying Club wishes to discuss anywhere within earshot of anyone that matters.:rolleyes:

Added into the mix is the fact the nice folks at Boeing Commerical speak either Air Force or Airliine but not Squidspeak.

All of which begs the question of whether the P-8 is worth buying at all!:uhoh:

How old is this program and just how much of taxpayer dosh has been spent to discover these small bumps in the roadway?:ugh:

[BEagle]

Older readers will perhaps recall that the UK's 'FLA' was originally intended to meet all future large aircraft requirements....

So perhaps it might be time to investigate the feasibility of a maritime version of the A400M?

[BBadanov]

SASless: "Smoke signals from a camp site near a river in Maryland suggest the P-8 program is encountering some problems. Two engines shy of a real airplane....wings designed for hi-altitude cruise flight....MAD impossible at 30,000 feet.....Sonar Buoy drop patterns problematic from 30,000 feet.....being able to listen is nice being able to locate is the needed capability....then how does one drop a Torpedo from that height and it work upon arrival?"

SASless I don't know how reliable you pax source might be, but I hope these tales are not true. Sure all aircraft go through problems in T&E which need rectification, but as you point out a design for high altitude cruise may not be suitable for LL tactics and drops. The Indos have operated the -200 series Surveiller for many years, but I think they avoid the LL environment.

Sure turbofans will be better than turbojets at LL, but the physics of the aerodynamics have not changed.

I hope that the problems are exagerated, as the P-8 is the only show in town, and our P-3s will be stretched to last to 2020.

[Modern Elmo]

P-8 Poseidon MMA: Long-Range Maritime Patrol, and More
Mar 10, 2011 12:21 EST

...


To clinch the deal, however, Boeing took an unusual step, touring US Navy bases and Naval Air Stations in Brunswick, ME; Jacksonville, FL; Norfolk, VA; Kaneohe, HI, and Whidbey Island, WA on board a 737 that leveraged their Indonesian experience and had 2 functional mission system consoles installed. Navy personnel were allowed to fly the aircraft and sit at the consoles, and Boeing demonstrations reportedly included maximum power take-off and climb 40,000 ft, manual control with no hydraulics ( 737's are not fly-by-wire, unlike, say, Airbuses -- Elmo), maximum rate of descent at over 10,000 ft/minute, tactical maneuvers at the not-uncommon maritime patrol altitude of 200 feet, simulated single engine flying and short-field landing simulations.

...

The P-8 will use the same 737 airframe as the U.S. Navy’s C-40 Clipper naval cargo aircraft (replacing the C-9 Skytrain in the Naval Reserve), the E-737 Wedgetail AWACS aircraft on order by Australia, Italy, Turkey, and South Korea; and the U.S. Air Force’s T-43 Navigation trainer. The key difference will be the “raked” wingtips that improve performance for low-level flight.

...

Mk 54 lightweight torpedoes equipped with the HAAWC kit promise to extend the plane’s capabilities in other ways. Longshot/HAAWC turns the torpedo into a GPS-guided glide weapon that can be launched from high altitude, which would allow the P-8A to remain within its preferred aerodynamic envelope of high-altitude cruise, and reduce the fatigue and corrosion associated with low-level flight. This capability is not expected until P-8A Increment 2, however, with initial operating capability in 2016.

...

P-8 Poseidon MMA: Long-Range Maritime Patrol, and More (http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/p8-poseidon-mma-longrange-maritime-patrol-and-more-02980/)


... Waiting for Beagie to complain that the P-8 doesn't have enough passenger cabin windows.

[Bevo]

SASless:
Added into the mix is the fact the nice folks at Boeing Commerical speak either Air Force or Airliine but not Squidspeak.Actually I believe the P-8 program is managed by the Boeing's Defenses Systems group who get the basic 737 from the commercial division and are then responsible for all system integration and testing. The program manager Bob Feldmann was the past F/A-18G program manager so my guess is he is pretty good at "Squidspeak".

[Eminence Gris]

OFO

Your "official figures" for the MRA4 overruns are way out. Check Major projects Report 2010 and you will find the correct figures are April 2003 to October 2112 (+9.5 yrs) and £2.813b to £3.602b (x1.28). Of course that excludes the £1bn or so those generous BAe Systems shareholders threw in (trusting in the Customer's "good faith".)

EG

[Northern Skeptic]

Written evidence given to the UK Parliament Defence Committee on the capability gap left by the cancellation of the Nimrod MRA4 can be found at the following link:

The strategic defence and security review and the national security strategy (http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmselect/cmdfence/writev/761/m18.htm)

There are also comparisons of the Nimrod MRA4 to existing MoD assets and potential future alternatives, including the P8.

[Lonewolf_50]

SASless ... I have hard time believing the smoke signals are more than the usual grousing. 737 has to fly low enough to land, hence, it can fly a MAD pattern a bove the surface of the water. Why not fly it at 300 feet? At 400 feet? (If you want to know what's behind this, PM me).

I find the assertion that sonobuoy launches would be at 10,000 or 30,000 feet hard to credit, except ... GPS makes a lot of those kinds of tasks less troublesome than formerly.

Radar searches ... you don't by default presume the optimum radar search altitude to be some chimerical figure -- 10,000 feet or 30,000 feet.

You don't need to drop the torp from 30K. Hell, you should not drop a torp from 30K. In short (ASW professional in an earlier life), the smoke signals you allude to are rubbish.

What is of interest is ...

if you are in an airframe optimized for 30-35K feet, and you go up and down during your mission profile to achieve certain tasks (like a mad trapping circle, weapons launch), what does that do to your fuel usage and on station time?

THAT's of critical interest. (Hmm, doesn't the P-8 come with provisioning for a refueling probe?)

OBTW, why are you assuming P-8 independent ops?

ASW has gone "coordinated" long since. There's a Seahawk running about at low level to drop a torp most of the time ... but when thre isn't, simply being in a 737 does not preclude descending to weapons drop alt.

[fincastle84]

I've just returned from a very enjoyable week at CFB Greenwood attending the 45th anniversary of VPI. It was wonderful to see a viable MPA airborne, although it was 2 minutes late for the flypast at the memorial service on Sunday morning (pilot trainer, no Nav on board to run the stop watch.)!

The Block 3 Aurora conversion is superbly equipped, probably nearly as good as the MRA 4. The crews are thoroughly enjoying their time in Canada & say that the Aurora is great. (I certainly enjoyed it in the 80s).

Any bets as to how many of them return to the RAF in 3 years time when the RAF hasn't ordered a single MPA?

PS Alexander Keith still makes a fine ale & the lobsters are better than ever!

PPS The Split Crow in Halifax is still in operation.:ok:

[Pontius Navigator]

I find the assertion that sonobuoy launches would be at 10,000 or 30,000 feet hard to credit, except ... GPS makes a lot of those kinds of tasks less troublesome than formerly.

IIRC, dropping at 20k (top of our patrol area) was no problem, finding them afterwards was the issue. I nice line of buoys released at 1.5 MDR would not land in a neat line 1.5 MDR apart as they would 'fly' with their rotor blades.

Even at 500 feet, in a 20 yard/sec wind, they could be 100-200 yards out of position. How many crews allowed for cross-trail (wind-drift) on an attack?

[fincastle84]

How many crews allowed for cross-trail (wind-drift) on an attack?

Didn't need to on the Aurora as it had SRS!

[LowObservable]

A few basics: the USN has elected not to install MAD on the P-8A but is pursuing a MAD-equipped air-launched UAV. (India is keeping the MAD.)

There is a plan afoot for a high-altitude gliding torpedo, more accurate than a parachute-equipped torp when released from high altitude.

Everyone is quiet about the reason for the change of tactics. However, I think that it's accepted that a jet has a higher best-endurance cruise altitude than a prop (and unlike the mighty PieBomber I cannot cheat by shutting down two engines in loiter) and is less efficient at low altitude.

Result: Repeated ups and downs will sharply reduce TOS. And yes, the P-8 has a boom receptacle (not a probe) but the nature of the operation is that you can't be sure exactly whether or when you'll need to tank. So am I going to send a KC-46 out after every P-8A, on spec?

[SASless]

Air Launched UAV.....bit expensive for a MAD run is it not?

It would seem they are going to have to be one time use vehicles unless there is a ship close by to pick them up or catch them somehow!:rolleyes:

[Biggus]

(sigh)....and no matter how good or bad they are, the Brits still can't afford them!!!!!











Maybe we'll get them on Lend - Lease, well it worked 70 odd years ago!

[Just This Once...]

It was interesting to get the 'Invitation to apply for Maritime Seedcorn' in my inbox today. Good to see the number of places available increased too.

:ok:

[Biggus]

Thats great - but what happens to the seedcorn in 3-4 years time, when we still haven't procured any MPA? Is the seedcorn kept as seedcorn for another 3 years? Does anyone promoted in the interim get moved on, so reducing the size of the seedcorn, etc.... How many people will want to come home (nagged by her indoors) or transfer to the host nations military.



The seedcorn concept is better than nothing, but it represents a very short term ability to try and resurrect a capability, a fact which should be fully recognized in my opinion - especially given limited funds and long procurement lead times...


At what point do seedcorn simply become people whithering on the vine with no other useful form of employment? Maybe its time for everyone in the (ex)RAF MPA community to take off the rose tinted spectacles, wake up and smell the roses.....

[Flap62]

Surely it's a problem planning your MPA coverage in the 30,000' plus window when there are so many civvie users up there? It must surely limit your operational flexibility to have to deconflict from the huge ammount of trans-atlantic traffic in the SW approaches/ iceland gap etc.

[Neptunus Rex]

Fin 84

Well done Sir for representing the '80s MPA generation at VPI. I wish I could have joined you.

What is badly needed is a 4-Turboprop MPA. Apart from the Japanese, the only purpose-built MPA designs were the Neptune and the Atlantique. It should be relatively simple for Airbus Military to design a MPA that has the bomb bay of a Nimrod, a wing similar to the Orion (but not so rigid) and those beaut 11,060 HP donks of the A400M. The potential customers would be all the European Maritime nations, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, India, South Africa and South America - even China, now there's a thought.

Most of the airframe systems could be the same as the A400M and the research for the ASW/Tactical fit has already been done for the Nimrod MRA4. Of course, individual countries could specify their own tactical suites; look at the Aurora.

The trouble is the time-frame. De Havilland built and flew the prototype Mosquito in mere months from first drawings on the back of the proverbial fag packet. The A400M project was first mooted in 1982!

[ShortFatOne]

"At what point do seedcorn simply become people whithering on the vine with no other useful form of employment? Maybe its time for everyone in the (ex)RAF MPA community to take off the rose tinted spectacles, wake up and smell the roses..... "

Wise words indeed. I have just completed my Civvy Class Rating and IR at Bristol (excellent training outfit, good standard of instruction, aircraft reliable and a really friendly welcome in a dedicated facility) and the paperwork went to the CAA this afternoon.

After 10 years on MR2 and 10 on MRA4, it's time to move on.

A sad realisation after so many wonderful years in a genuinely challenging but immensely enjoyable role, in aircraft that were a delight to fly. But most of all, the memories will be of the people, bless 'em all, the great and the good, the bad and the ugly and those sadly departed and no longer with us.

I will miss it, but I'll never forget it!

SFO

[fincastle84]

I will miss it, but I'll never forget it!

If you haven't already done so, please join VPI. It needs new blood & it's a great excuse to travel & meet like minded aviators!

Good luck in your new career, wherever it takes you.:ok:

[ShortFatOne]

Thank you for the kind words. Been a VPI member since 93 I think, shortly after moving north from 42 in 1992. I was but a mere Flying Officer then (co-pilot on Phil Taylor's crew). Big H sends his regards, went sailing with him last year to Portugal. We met a nice couple during the race, Eddie and his wife in their Rustler 42 from Falmouth, who claimed to know you!

Rgds

Stumpy

[Lonewolf_50]

LowObs: thanks.

Also a possibility, if they make it modular ... suites of mission kit that has BFA to do with acoustics. ;)

[Pontius Navigator]

So am I going to send a KC-46 out after every P-8A, on spec?

Actually why not?

In the days of old the Russians decided on a maxi push sending pair through the GIUK and return via the Denmark Strait. I think it was 4 pairs at 30 minute intervals. This sucked all the NATO QRA from Norway, UK and Iceland, as they tracked each pair through the AOA.

As well as sucking up the interceptor force (we had a force) it also sucked up several tankers too. There was a T* jet RTB from Cyprus with pax but he had a useful giveaway and joined the game topping up the 10s.

I can't remember the actual NATO assets commited but it was between 30-40.

Now a P8 might be on task and need to extend either because he is engaged or because a relief is going to be late. If there are sufficient tankers it may be possible that one could be diverted to assist.

[jamesdevice]

"I can't remember the actual NATO assets commited but it was between 30-40."

could that number be provided now in the event of a similar incursion?

[Pontius Navigator]

James, that included RNoAF Q launches out of north and central bases, UK Northern and Southern Q and replacements, probably at least 3 UK AAR, and numerous F4 and Mogas out of Kef.

[andyy]

[Quote]
Older readers will perhaps recall that the UK's 'FLA' was originally intended to meet all future large aircraft requirements....

So perhaps it might be time to investigate the feasibility of a maritime version of the A400M? [\Quote]

I think that was discussed on another thread. Seems logical to me, after all a) its the mission kit & the crews that's the important bit of the capability & much of the mission kit must have been designed for the MRA4 programme b) surely its designed to operate at low level some of the time & c) it might lower the unit cost of the A400M if a few more were bought by European Air Force/ Navies

[fincastle84]

We met a nice couple during the race, Eddie and his wife in their Rustler 42 from Falmouth, who claimed to know you!

Blimey, that doesn't happen very often!! Eddie & Jean Burke, very good drinking friends from Ladock.

All the best Stumps, not the way anyone would want to finish their Maritime career but as one door closes................

"Fortiter in Re" :ok:

[WillDAQ]

I think that was discussed on another thread. Seems logical to me, after all a) its the mission kit & the crews that's the important bit of the capability & much of the mission kit must have been designed for the MRA4 programme b) surely its designed to operate at low level some of the time & c) it might lower the unit cost of the A400M if a few more were bought by European Air Force/ Navies

Indeed, it also turns out that low level maneuvering is part of the certification program so it really will be mission hardware away from perfect.

[sense1]

Maritime version of A400M eh? :hmm:

Might lower the unit cost eh?:rolleyes:

Just plug in the mission hardware and it will be perfect eh? ;)

Chaps, we can't even afford to buy all of the transport versions of A400M that we had planned. Do you honestly believe that developing a maritime version of A400M is actually a realistic possibility in the world in which we live these days??! I would love to see HM Forces properly equipped (and in the area of MPA, some P-8s would be great!) but honestly - the notion of a navalised A400M for the Brits is utter cr*p!

Now I would love to be proved wrong and see us get some much needed capability back but take a look at the Telegraph today... they are apperently planning to chop some of the SH capability to save cash! Helicopters!!!! Whilst we are still in Afghan!!!!! And you talk about procuring maritime A400Ms?!?! :ugh:

They have chopped our MPA fleet chaps - it has gone. Its very sad and I think it is a massive mistake and a shameful decision by the government of a 'maritime' nation - but thats how things are. With helicopters potentially getting chopped in the next Planning Round - and goodness only knows what else - even talking about buying an existing MPA platform like the P-8 is a pipe dream, nay - a fools dream, never mind a fanciful A400M - MRA400M or whatever it would be.

Sorry to be a party pooper - and if the MOD turned round tomorrow and announced a fleet of P-8s had been ordered I would be turbo happy - but lets try and be realistic chaps.

Sense1

[TBM-Legend]

The Royal Scottish Navy will be equipped with the Prestwick Prowler - The ATP MPA...under the "jobs for Jock" program.:eek:

[WillDAQ]

Chaps, we can't even afford to buy all of the transport versions of A400M that we had planned. Do you honestly believe that developing a maritime version of A400M is actually a realistic possibility in the world in which we live these days??! Don't get me wrong, it's not something that's going to come about due to forethought on the part of the formal procurement channels, there are two likely scenarios:

(1) Airbus decide a little bit of speculative development wouldn't hurt the export market (AAR anyone?), 10 years from now when we have an A400M fleet and more than £2.50 for defence, we buy a small number as the cost of including them within the existing support structure is low.

(2) We find ourselves in a situation (probably "south of ascension") where it becomes a very high priority to shove whatever kit we can get our hands on into the closest thing to an MPA we have (which will be the A400M).

They have chopped our MPA fleet chaps - it has gone. Its very sad and I think it is a massive mistake and a shameful decision by the government of a 'maritime' nation - but thats how things are. And when it turns out we did need an MPA, 400M will be the closest thing we have.

[Willard Whyte]

Given that a 'significant' number of ex-Nimrod people are upping sticks and setting sail for Canadialand to crew their CP-140s, recently(?) fitted out with MR2-ish kit, who will be left to operate the fantasy P-8 purchase?

[The Old Fat One]

Me,

If Lord Alex will give me time off from playing up front with Sir Wayne.

None of which is any bigger a fantasy than anything else on this thread.

[Duncan D'Sorderlee]

If they base at HMS Findhorn (or NAS Forres!), I'll fly it!;)

Duncs:ok:

[oxenos]

There is a parallel thread (or is it universe) entitled British Future MPA, on which I have already offered my services. Please form an orderly queue ( behind me ).

[Navaleye]

Having just returned from a week in Cornwall may i be so bold to suggest that any future MPA base is as far inland as possible. At least they will be able to fly during the winter months.

[SASless]

The best option yet is buying Up Dated P-3's.....as there is a desert full of them to be had for a very good price.....and it is far better a choice of an airframe than the P-8.

[Squirrel 41]

SASLess - why?

And if so, why is the USN going P8? IIRC, the Orions in the desert were all more than a bit shagged.

S41

[SASless]

A small thing called "Politics" determined the P8 Program and a Boeing buy to be the way forward when most in the Navy sought an upgraded P-3.....for a start.

The P-3's most recently sent or headed to the Desert and a Modification program would be cheaper overall than buying new build P-8's.

Those that pushed the P-8 program would like nothing better than to see the P-3's gone from the inventory to safeguard any back sliding and curtailing the P-8 program....thus they would encourage a FMS Program.

The P-8 systems or the UK desired outfitting is just a matter of adapting the gear to the airframe.

[Hangarshuffle]

Navaleye - agree. The bleakest of the English counties?

[A and C]

Having seen the cost of keeping the aged Lockheed Electra flying a very similar airframe to the P3 I would say the cost would be huge.

The Boeing is far more affordable

[Ken Scott]

The bleakest of the English counties?

Do you really think so? I see rolling hills and spectacular coastline - anywhere in our country can seem bleak when the weather's poor but Cornwall is by and large a much nicer place than some of the post-industrial wasteland or derelict urban areas that blight our once green and pleasant land.

I'm not going to start naming names though.....

[Navaleye]

Nice in the Summer. Even the Sea Gulls were grounded yesterday. Back to the point. The US gave Pakistan a number of refurbed P3s for nothing. The local population then expressed their gratitude by blowing them up. Then the US gave them some more. Perhaps these are better than nothing?

[RandomBlah]

The P-3 goes out of service in 2019. I suggest that after that the price of spares would go through the roof. LP fuel pump? Certainly Sir, that'll be $50 000.

[Ventre A Terre]

[QUOTE][The P-3 goes out of service in 2019./QUOTE]

I suspect both the Kiwis and Canucks would disagree with this OSD, not to mention the many other nations that operate the P3 (noting the Brazilians have a newly updated ac as well!). Plenty of life in the old girl yet!:ok:

[SASless]

A bit of history on the P-7A program.....and how the P-8 came to be.

The P-7A was deemed the right Aircraft but upon a delay and cost over run in the development phase....and lots of lobbying by Boeing....commercial aircraft designs were allowed to compete.


P-7 Long Range Air ASW-Capable Aircraft (LRAACA) (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/p-7.htm)

[Guernsey Girl II]

As I recall, P7 would have been the UK's MR2 replacement too if the program continued. When it was caned the whole valkyrie, P3 and Nimrod 2000 thing span up.

[ShotOne]

Random, if that's a big issue how come so many on this forum are so keen on old airliners decades past their retirement everywhere else propping up our AAR Fleet? Btw the P3 has PowerPlant and hydraulics commonality with herc...but we probably won't buy them

[Party Animal]

I think it is a fairly safe bet to say that the RAF will not get any P3 aircraft, even if given away by the USA. The decision (whenever it is made) will be either the P8 with all it's MMA capability, or the CN295 with the 80% performance for 30% of the cost line being potentially attractive to the politicians.

Either are inevitable - just a question of how long we accept the capability gap.

[The Old Fat One]

GG2,

The buzz at the time was the P7 was too capable and therefore a threat to the pointy go faster things. It was the RAF fast jet mentality that binned it first, not the termination of the program....rumour control only I hasten to add.

Either are inevitable

Dude...hostage to fortune or what :eek:

[Union Jack]

The bleakest of the English counties?

Apologies for drifting off track, but this is impossible on several grounds, not least the fact that so many Cornish people do not really regard themselves as English!:)

Joking apart, and just having spent five days at Thurlestone in South Devon, I appreciate what Navaleye was trying to say ....

Jack

[teeteringhead]

Apologies for drifting off track, but this is impossible on several grounds, not least the fact that so many Cornish people do not really regard themselves as English Indeed .....

..... one was always told that the difference between Devon & Cornwall was that Devon aspired to send a team to the (cricket) County Championship .....

........ while Cornwall aspired to sending a Test Team! ;)

[Roland Pulfrew]

It was the RAF fast jet mentality that binned it first, not the termination of the program....rumour control only I hasten to add.



Interesting buzz that one, never heard that before. My understanding was that the UK's interest terminated when Lockheed started to have problems with stretching the fuselage and putting new wings onto the old bit of the fuselage....... sound familiar?

That and of course that it may have been a mistake for BAeS to do the mock up showing an MRA4 with 4 underwing Storm Shadow - now that really did get the FJ brethern worried - so the rumour goes!

[kbrockman]

For all those who believe that schedule slip and cost-growth are normal and
to be expected for big defence programs;

RealClearDefense - The U.S. Navy's New Submarine Hunter Is a Model for Success (http://www.realcleardefense.com/articles/2014/01/07/navys_new_sub-hunter_a_model_for_success_107019.html)
On time, on budget, passed operational testing for effectiveness and suitability, and now on initial deployment in Japan, the Boeing P-8A Poseidon aircraft is a replacement for the Navy’s fleet of P-3 Orion anti-submarine and maritime surveillance aircraft introduced in 1962. This $32 billion program is a real success for the Navy and the country.

....

Currently the Defense Department has an aggregate of over $400 billion of cost growth in the major systems category. These lessons of risk control, specifications management, performance proof, cost control and managerial continuity should be applied to all defense programs. It is time for action, rather than the current rationalization that all programs grow.

The P-8A program proves this attitude is dead wrong.

[nimbev]

Some interesting points have been raised above re P7. A different perspective...?

Lockheed's P7 program was a classic illustration of what happens when Marketing lead a sales pitch with inadequate Technical input. Lockheed promised DoD 70 % comonality between P3 and P7, a major cost saver. This was impossible to achieve and Lockheed tried to move the goal posts. The whole thing was unachieveble and DoD cancelled the program on the grounds of underachievement. Lockheed then threatened to sue DoD for defaulting on the contract- and then unsurprisingly backed down. One doesn't sue ones number one customer!

The British Nimrod MR2P was to have been replaced by the P-7A, but cancellation of that program forced the British Ministry of Defence to issue requirement SR(A)420 for a replacement maritime patrol aircraft (RMPA). Definitely wrong. ST(A)420 was kicked off before the P7 was cancelled, and yes, it was one of the options being considered and being pitched to us, as was a Boeing 757 variant and various refurbished P3 options. An interesting fact was that at desk level BAe seemed totally disinterested at this point, although we were well aware that at some stage GEC and BAe would start waving the 'Made in UK flag'. So the UK's interest in P7 terminated when the program was cancelled. We obviously were not in the business of paying development for a system that Lockheed or Boeing couldnt sell to their own government.

[Eminence Gris]

So an R & D cost of $8b and a unit cost of $275m per aeroplane (almost double the out turn on MRA4) is a model of success????? Or is the model of success that a realistic price should be agreed in the first place?

EG

[The Old Fat One]

Interesting...

I was surprised to see that the HC report (which one would expect to be correct in its references) gives SR 420 as originating in 1993, three years AFTER the P7 prog was cx.

Surprised, because, like nimbev above, I thought 420 came into being earlier. Was there perhaps a previous SR for the MR2 replacement? Whatever, I'm 99% certain the P7 was never more than a perhaps/maybe.

I guess it's all moot:\ now. We ended up with **** all.

[Lima Juliet]

Mute or moot? :ok:


Mute point and moot point is a commonly misunderstood phrase. Mute means to silence or quiet. Moot means impractical or irrelevant. A moot point means that the issue isn't up for debate and is irrelevant as the outcome has already been determined. There is no phrase of mute point. The correct terminology is moot point.

[reynoldsno1]

A moot point means that the issue isn't up for debate
Well, actually, that's a moot point - since I have always understood it to mean that the issue IS debatable or undecided.

[GreenKnight121]

moot: definition of moot in Oxford dictionary - American English (US) (http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/moot)
adjective
subject to debate, dispute, or uncertainty, and typically not admitting of a final decision:

verb
[with object] (usually be mooted) raise (a question or topic) for discussion; suggest (an idea or possibility):

noun 1 British an assembly held for debate, especially in Anglo-Saxon and medieval times.
a regular gathering of people having a common interest.

2 Law a mock trial set up to examine a hypothetical case as an academic exercise.


Note that a question subject to debate or dispute is a moot point, not a mute point. As moot is a relatively uncommon word, people sometimes mistakenly interpret it as the more familar word mute.


However,
Moot vs. mute - Grammarist (http://grammarist.com/usage/moot-mute/)
As an adjective[/URL], moot originally meant arguable or subject to debate. With this sense of moot, a moot point was something that was open to debate.



But, since around 1900, the adjective has gradually come to mean of no importance or merely hypothetical. This usage arose out of an exercise in U.S. law schools involving the discussion of “moot” cases to practice argumentation.


In the common phrase[URL="http://grammarist.com/grammar/phrases/"] (http://grammarist.com/grammar/adjectives/) moot point, moot means (1) of no importance or (2) merely hypothetical. This is where moot most often gets confused with the adjective mute, which means (1) refraining from making sound or (2) silent.

[Party Animal]

Eminence Gris,


So an R & D cost of $8b and a unit cost of $275m per aeroplane (almost double the out turn on MRA4) is a model of success?????


Oh Really??

Let me just do the maths (or math for American readers) for the Nimrod MRA4.

Initial order in 1996 = £2bn for 21 aircraft

Final figure in 2010 (8 years after initial ISD) = £4Bn for 9 aircraft.

Which roughly = £444m per aircraft ($710m @1.6 exchange rate)

Then had BAEs eventually delivered all 9 aircraft, they wanted £1bn for a 5 year servicing contract!!! Which, had they been delivered would have required an additional fortune to make them safe!!!

Seems like the P-8 team have achieved a fantastic result and should be hugely congratulated. Nice touch to get the Tac System R&D provided for free courtesy of the UK taxpayer too... ;)

[Biggus]

PA,

Let me get this right, are you saying the total cost of MRA4 was £4Bn for 9 aircraft?

If so, and £4Bn divided by 9 is £444m so it seems to be the case, have you not lumped together both R&D and production costs and spread them evenly over each airframe?

According to the figures provided by Eminence, the costs if only 9 P-8 were produced would be $8Bn R&D + 9 x $275 production = $10.475Bn, approx. £6.38 vs £4Bn for MRA4, or using your preferred method £708m per airframe....

That seems to me to be the true figures in the comparison you were attempting to make?

Of course considerably more than 9 P-8s will be produced, so the R&D cost spread evenly per airframe will reduce considerably with time!

[SASless]

Ah now fellas.....we all know British is better and thus worth the extra Dosh.

Remembering the figures quoted are only those for the planned purchase and does not consider the real costs such a program would incur as is absolutely typical of your procurements historically.

Some suggest the P-3 nee Electra is a 1950's airliner carcass way beyond its sell by date.....but just skip over the antecedents of the proposed Nimrod thingy.

At least the P-8 is both new build but also new tech.

[The Old Fat One]

Posted this before several times, but once more with feeling...

MRA4 costs...

When the contract was signed in 1996 it was for 21 ac @ c£2 billion (source defence white papers around 95-98)

Smoke and mirrors exercise, the cost was removed from said documents and reappeared in their replacement defence review thingys as...

18 ac @ c£3.4 billion (around 2000, same time as it stopped being Nimrod 2000 and became MRA4)

The original cost then disappeared and the new cost became the new "original" cost. This was handy as when the contract was "re-baselined" to 9 aircraft (2006 ish ??) it only ever referred to the made up "original" cost.

(honestly these cnuts must think we are incapable of doing basic research)

When it was binned, it cost the taxpayer c£3.6 billion (source national audit office). For **** all.

Footnote, when the AEW Nimrod was binned it cost the taxpayer c£1 billion in seventies money (for **** all) and government declared "this must never happen again". The MOD introduced a new procurement system as a result.

It's enough to make a blind shepherd throw away his crook and **** his sheep.

[Party Animal]

Biggus,

If there were only going to be 9 x P-8's ordered, then you would be right. However, knowing there would be at the very least, 120 aircraft built, then worst case would be:

120 x $275m = $33Bn

plus R&D cost of $8Bn

= $41Bn for 120 aircraft

or $341m per aircraft = £214m per aircraft which is less than half of what each MRA4 would cost.

Bottom line is that we can play around with figures in many ways. The reality is that Boeing agreed a cost and delivery programme with the US DoD that was (or is being) achieved. On that very basis alone, the programme should be seen as a model for success.

Conversely, both AEW3 and MRA4 should be seen as models for absolute, utter and total failure, with the single exception that an RAF team of specialists based at Warton was probably a good idea! ;)

[The Old Fat One]

....Conversely, both AEW3 and MRA4 should be seen as models for absolute, utter and total failure...

Now there is an idea I can get on board with! :ok::ok::ok::ok:

[Party Animal]

TOFO,


The original cost then disappeared and the new cost became the new "original" cost. This was handy as when the contract was "re-baselined" to 9 aircraft (2006 ish ??) it only ever referred to the made up "original" cost.




and what you missed was that once the contract was 're-baselined' with half the aircraft for twice as much, ten years late - BAES then boasted about how good they were and how they were achieving all their contracted obligations on time and within budget!!!!

at least for a couple of months until the programme slipped again.... :mad:

[Lonewolf_50]

A gent I served with was later on staff in DC in the program office when LRAACA went belly up. He was a long time P-3 guy. His major takeaway was that LM had made a mess of a good idea, and he was glad to see them get slapped for it, even though that left our P-3 fleet to spend another twenty years trying to meet requirements with an airframe that wasn't getting any younger.

A credit to the whole crowd of Orion professionals, top to bottom, that they did pretty well with what they had to work with.

Good to see P-8 finally arrive, and one hopes our Brits friends can find room for a few since maritime surveillance and similar missions don't ever seem to go away.

[The Old Fat One]

PA

Indeed I remember it very well. I also remember my comments at the time...I was still in, just. And I remember being told to get back in my box.

Also told to get back in my box in 1996 when I interrupted a presentation (the one often referred to on here) by the handsome ex AEO, with the words..."are you ****ing kidding me"

Back in my box again, when myself and the venerable Air Eng OBE did a presentation in the Icebox OM on why Nimrod 2000 was utterly bananas.

And also enroute Brass Nut when I bet a future member of the MRA4 project team it was 50/50 it would ever see service.

And believe me I was by no means a lone wolf. The idea that the whole of the maritime community was behind the MRA4 is an utter, utter myth. Many of us served through the AEW debacle and were well aware of the myriad of shortcomings with the airframe.

PS

I was also personally in the room at BAE, when a crew chief queried if the enlarged engine nacelles would interfere with the bomb door travel.

"Nope, we've simulated the flight conditions and they are fine", was the confident reply.

Crew chief... "I'm not talking about in flight...I'm talking about when we put them to 'Ground Load'

"Excuse me, the ground what now?"

"Ground Load, so we can get the weapons trolleys in".

Cue white faces, the air of panic and the rather obvious fact that they just didn't **** ing know what they were doing.

[sandiego89]

A few thoughts:

I think the debate over the FL 30,000 feet optimized wing is over analyzed. Yes it is most efficient at that altitude and is adopted from a commercial design; but so what? That does not mean it can not fly lower. After all what kind of performance was the Electra wing (P-3 granddad) designed for? What was the Comet wing (Nimrod grandad) designed for? Surely both wings were more efficient at cruise, at higher altitude, but that did not make them terrible down low ASW platforms. Yes fuel flow will be higher down low. No they will not always operate at FL30.

I see 5 as a good entry number. More to follow. Look at the C-17 example the UK went through. Lease a few, then buy, then buy more when money opens up or they prove thier value.

A new platform is unafforadable.

Don't let BAE touch a thing. Go with US kit. Forget the talk of integrating UK equipment from the MR4 or other sources. When has that gone well? Have Marshall install a probe and repaint- that is alll.

[Vage Rot]

I was very suspicious when the MRA4's were chopped up within minutes of the announcement of the cancellation. Huge smelly RAT! If the platform was THAT good and it was just surplus to UK requirement then it could have been sold!!

P8's - I hope so....but I doubt it!

[nimbev]

http://www.fnpile.co.uk/images/site/products/2904.jpg

When I Googled SR(A)420 I got this - a Stihl Mist Blower, very apt dont you think? :D:D. As used for MRA4 smoke and mirror presentations??

[nimbev]

TOFO asked Was there perhaps a previous SR for the MR2 replacement? In the late 80's there were a number of 'requirements', I cant remember whether they were at ST or SR or MER status at the time, loosely gathered together as a Nimrod Mid Life Update. They covered things such as Comms, Navigation and Avionics. ST(A)420 was kicked off in 1988, thus IMHO that is when the Nimrod MR2 Replacement saga started. I am not sure when ST(A)420 progressed to become SR(A)420 as I had left by then. It was almost certainly after P7 had been cancelled, hence giving the impression in some quarters that 420 and MRA4 only originated because P7 had been cancelled.

Initially 420 was being drafted with P7 very much in mind, but I think it unlikely that it could have survived in that form for very long. Everyone in the OR chain up to 2* were keen to get an off the shelf solution with as little frigging about as possible. Lessons from the F4 procurement were still fresh in the memory.

[The Old Fat One]

Nimbev,

That's pretty much how I recall it. TVM

[Eminence Gris]

The first draft of SRA 420 for industry comment was dated 21st June 1990 and released to industry on 6 July. Presumably there were earlier versions inside MoD. I believe it was written around the P-7. The P-7 contract was cancelled on 20 July 1990.

EG

[vascodegama]

Why install a probe? Does the ac not use boom or is it not rx capable at all?

[Party Animal]

ST(A)420 was kicked off in 1988, thus IMHO that is when the Nimrod MR2 Replacement saga started.


I'm not sure when the official staff requirement kicked off but I do remember glossy brochures of the P7 (LRAACA) being passed around 201 Sqn in 1987 with the line that we (the UK), were buying into the programme and was intended to be a lead customer alongside the USN.

[Surplus]

TOFO

It's enough to make a blind shepherd throw away his crook and **** his sheep. Unfortunately, in the procurement world, the shepherd's and sheep's' roles seem to get reversed.

[BEagle]

Why install a probe? Does the ac not use boom or is it not rx capable at all?

P-8A is fitted with a UARSSI and crews begin AAR training next year.

A rumour doing the rounds a year or few ago was that the USN never knew that large aircraft can use probe and drogue AAR quite happily....

If the UK acquired the P-8A, the extra cost of a probe / trials etc. would be significant. Whereas if the RAF renegotiated the Voyager to include a boom on some aircraft, it could then refuel the Rivet Joint and P-8A...and E-3D should a centreline drogue tanker be unavailable.

Speaking of which, has the KC3 been given clearance to use the FRU yet...:hmm:

[kbrockman]

If the UK acquired the P-8A, the extra cost of a probe / trials etc. would be significant. Whereas if the RAF renegotiated the Voyager to include a boom on some aircraft, it could then refuel the Rivet Joint and P-8A...and E-3D should a centreline drogue tanker be unavailable.

... And the future F35A (and all the other NATO countries F35A), the C17's, the Voyagers themselves, and all of the other NATO/USAFE fighters, bombers, and all other aircraft.

[tucumseh]

Conversely, both AEW3 and MRA4 should be seen as models for absolute, utter and total failure, with the single exception that an RAF team of specialists based at Warton was probably a good idea! http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/wink2.gif
To be absolutely fair, at all but the most senior levels it did prove that, as stated by TOFO, very many RAF servicemen and technical Civil Servants (many ex-RAF) knew what they were talking about, as the precise reasons for eventual cancellation were predicted and notified in about 1994 (to my certain knowledge, but probably earlier). I know this because the same risks existed on a concurrent sister programme and I had the mitigation approved and under contract in November 1994. Poor decision making on Nimrod featured heavily in the background and justification. These warnings took various forms, from unofficial observations, formal submissions and the 1994 and 1996 Boscombe reports revealed during the post-XV230 investigations.

Unfortunately, they were ignored. As I've said before, on 27th February 1998 at a meeting with our 2 Star (DGAS2): 2 Star - "Ah, Sqn Ldr, I've spoken to your Director this morning and he tells me N2000 is right on target". Sqn Ldr - "So he didn't mention the 4 year slip then?" Never saw the Sqn Ldr again.


Same 2 Star also had management oversight of Chinook Mk3. Same predictions and notifications. Same result. MoD claimed to PAC they did not know who had management oversight. They lied. This was pointed out to PAC and HCDC. They didn't want to know. Why not? Look at who was protected.


I reckon £4Bn is conservative. I don't think another replacement is a foregone conclusion. I'm quite sure there will be Treasury people, with long memories, quite rightly pointing out that MoD came cap in hand many times in the 90s and 00s begging for more money for RMPA/N2000/MRA4. They will, or should be, very rigourous this time. When such events occur, the norm is for the Service involved to wait until the original decision makers have long gone, before someone in DEC has the bottle to put pen to paper reminding everyone that (now) very senior staffs royally screwed up.

[Roland Pulfrew]

the Voyagers themselves

Hate to be picky but Voyager has no ability to receive fuel in flight.

And not that I am defending the MOD decision makers but

And the future F35A (and all the other NATO countries F35A), the C17's, and all of the other NATO/USAFE fighters, bombers, and all other aircraft.

is a load of tosh. Unfortunately the bean counters will not allow you to fit, at UK tax-payers expense, something for which "we" have no requirement. At the time there was no UK requirement for a boom; only the E3 had a UARSSI but our E3s (and the French E3s) had a probe as well = no boom requirement. C-17 was a lease and UK use of AAR was ruled out to minimise fatigue on the airframe = no boom requirement. F-35C was already probe and drogue = no boom requirement. As for "all the other aircraft" that would be all the other aircraft except those of the USN/USMC or French built aircraft, or British built aircraft, or Eurpoean built aircraft all of which tend to be probe and drogue equipped.

Despite the experts in the role stating that coalition operations, flexibility, support to allies, ability to do tanker-tanker etc etc meant that our FSTA should be so equipped, there was no UK boom requirement. Interoperability and flexibility, despite being entirely sensible, do not cut the mustard when it comes to spending money on a £13.6B programme. Not saying it is right or justifiable, just saying that is the way it is.

Now BEags solution of renegotiating the contract on the last Voyagers, now that other events have overtaken the huge delay in the delivery of FSTA, might be a sensible decision, but......

- Does the KC30 Boom work properly yet?
- Can you imagine how much the company would charge to change the contract now????

And now back on topic: Lockheed Martin were great hosts at RIAT in 1989, so the P7 programme was still a contender for the MR2 replacement at that time, so Eminence's 1990 cancellation date seems reasonable to me.

[Party Animal]

Tuc,

Absolutely agree with your comments above. High level leadership (RAF, DPA (as was) and BAEs) either buried it's head in the sand and refused to believe what their team of experts were telling them or they just accepted the BAEs/UK MOD procurement game of lies and spin whilst looking at their next onwards and upwards posting within 2 years of starting on the project.

As to,

They will, or should be, very rigourous this time.

Agree again - which brings us back to an off the shelf aircraft fully tested and certified. Something like the P-8 would be ideal with Boeing having just provided evidence that they can deliver on time and to cost. Bit like buying a new car from a dealers really...

[vascodegama]

Whereas ,Roly, when the C130 leaves service, the RAF will have a capability which it no longer needs (FRU equipped ac). As a casual observer I would have thought that Air Tanker would have a better option of revenue gathering by making a small no of BOOM tankers available to cover the gaps in capability in NATO.

[Squirrel 41]

If the UK acquired the P-8A, the extra cost of a probe / trials etc. would be significant. Whereas if the RAF renegotiated the Voyager to include a boom on some aircraft, it could then refuel the Rivet Joint and P-8A...and E-3D should a centreline drogue tanker be unavailable.

Dumb question time: given the P-8 is a 707 derivative (albeit via 737/737NG) like E-3D/F, how much of the probe / UAARSI design can be read across? Obviously the trials would be needed, but if the structure were sufficiently similar there should be some significant savings.

Despite the experts in the role stating that coalition operations, flexibility, support to allies, ability to do tanker-tanker etc etc meant that our FSTA should be so equipped, there was no UK boom requirement. Interoperability and flexibility, despite being entirely sensible, do not cut the mustard when it comes to spending money on a £13.6B programme. Not saying it is right or justifiable, just saying that is the way it is.

I had this conversation with an SO1 and his SO2 in MB in late 2009. They were experts, they'd be over-ruled, they were facing the "get it as cheaply as possible" and that's what happened*. My understanding at the time was the financing structure was created in such a way that the RAF could (and certainly wanted) to buy the aircraft out from AirTanker and bring them into the core fleet, at which point lots of things could happen (including drouge receiver capability, though not boom).

The other question at the time was if KC-45 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EADS/Northrop_Grumman_KC-45) had been reselected in 2010 (:ugh:), could we have had those instead please....? :sad:

S41

*Cheap in the sense of lowest-cost spec. Nothing in the Voyager programme can be consider "cheap" in the conventional sense of the word, and the sooner we bin the damn PFI, the better.

[betty swallox]

RealClearDefense - The U.S. Navy's New Submarine Hunter Is a Model for Success (http://www.realcleardefense.com/articles/2014/01/07/navys_new_sub-hunter_a_model_for_success_107019.html)

[Roland Pulfrew]

Whereas ,Roly, when the C130 leaves service, the RAF will have a capability which it no longer needs (FRU equipped ac).

Vasco,

What? You mean the E3 is going? A400M isn't getting a probe? C130J going early? I think we have an extant requirement for a few years yet.

SO1 and his SO2 in MB in late 2009. They were experts, they'd be over-ruled

I think the SO1 and SO2 experts have been over-ruled since about 2000.

[SASless]

Add a few UAV's to the mix and do we have a whole new generation of ASW capability?

Is the UK going American....or will you stick to building your own kit or worse yet....buying US Airframes and sticking yer own Tech gear into them?

With the P-8....and the requirement to make them "British MOD" Airworthy....what problems is that going to cause and at what cost in money and operationally?

Navy's 757-Sized Drone Will Provide Big-Time Surveillance | Danger Room | Wired.com (http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2014/01/triton/)



http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/dangerroom/2014/01/23941-660x440.jpg

[Roland Pulfrew]

....buying US Airframes and sticking yer own Tech gear into them?



Oh the irony. SAS, you are aware that a significant amount of the P8's systems were proven on the now defunct MRA4, weren't you? ;)

[LowObservable]

RP - Boeing Tactical Command System for MRA4 originally came out of P-3C Update IV, which was IIRC binned simply because of the end of the Cold War and the consequent abrupt end to the Sovs' energetic development of quieter subs. It was an upset win originally over Lockheed, based on AWACS experience.

As for P-8A - probably would be smart to do what the Australians are doing and come on board with Increment 2. Rather like the Block 1 (M-Scan radar) Super Hornet followed by the AESA Block 2, the USN is taking the program in stages. Increment 1 is basically P-3C in ASW terms while Increment 2 goes to the MAC (multistatic active coherent) acoustics, which matches the higher-altitude concept (and is behind the decision to not use MAD).

Beags' comment on AAR - it's not that the Navy doesn't know about it, I suspect, so much as that the large tanker business in the US is all-boom (I don't see a KC-130J tanking a P-8 somehow). Whether the P-8 is AAR-capable because of a mission requirement, because all US military heavies are AAR-capable by default, I am not sure - but don't forget that there was an entirely different secondary mission (not ASW) that was a big driver behind the P-8A design.

[vascodegama]

Roly-my understanding is

A400-AAR not planned

E3 -Boom preferred

Air Seeker-an obvious problem there

C130 J -as I said when it is gone!

[Roland Pulfrew]

because all US military heavies are AAR-capable by default

What a sensible default option. If only our bean counters were similarly forward thinking!!

vasco

My understanding of A400 is that it will be fitted for (it comes as standard anyway) even if we might not plan to use it that often.

Accept that E3 preference is boom, but it still has the capability to do probe, which comes in handy if the ony tankers available to you are your own. Well at least until Tri* goes out of service.

Don't forget that when the FSTA requirement was written and based on the then planned OSDs, the future was: A400M (P&D); Sentinel (P&D); C130J (P&D); Nimrod R1 (P&D); Nimrod MRA4 (P&D); E3 (P&D/Boom) - that was quite a requirement.

But enough of this tanker discussion; now back to the future of MMA/ MPA........

SAS

and the requirement to make them "British MOD" Airworthy

Tis a fair point, but much as you might scoff, it is our requirement. For the future one might hope that we could take the Boeing/USN airworthiness cases and accept them, but with the MAA and, IIRC, the different standards between UK and US risk levels then I won't hold my breath.

[kbrockman]

Hate to be picky but Voyager has no ability to receive fuel in flight.

And not that I am defending the MOD decision makers but

I wasn't commenting on what is, but rather what could be.
The Voyager could cary both a boom and a Hose, just like the RAAF MRTT.

is a load of tosh. Unfortunately the bean counters will not allow you to fit, at UK tax-payers expense, something for which "we" have no requirement. At the time there was no UK requirement for a boom; only the E3 had a UARSSI but our E3s (and the French E3s) had a probe as well = no boom requirement. C-17 was a lease and UK use of AAR was ruled out to minimise fatigue on the airframe = no boom requirement. F-35C was already probe and drogue = no boom requirement. As for "all the other aircraft" that would be all the other aircraft except those of the USN/USMC or French built aircraft, or British built aircraft, or Eurpoean built aircraft all of which tend to be probe and drogue equipped.

Again I was theorizing, the F35A is also planned for the RAF IIRC, the C17's AAR capabilities could be used if they wished to do so, the E3D is already Boom capable, their are plenty of USAFE airplanes and NATO aircraft that could make good use of a boom equipped VOYAGER, alleviating some of the costs for the UK DoD.
I suspect that an A400M AAR with Boom could also be developed (admittedly with extra cost) and ultimately, the MPA is already boom compliant (just like the 737 wedgetail BTW).

All theory, I admit.

[SASless]

"Scoff".....more like just questioning why the huge cost and extensive difference.

It would seem our system works considering the age of the the B-52, C-130, P-3. A-10, C-5, CH-47, and KC-135 aircraft that are still active after so many years.

I understand there are two different systems....but in the Commerical market Boeing, Airbus,and others seem to be able find a common Airworthiness Standard that finds enough commonality to be viable.

Why can the MOD and DOD not be able to do the same?

Is a British AH-64 that different than a US Army AH-64, An RAF C-130 and a USAF C-130, or C-17's, CH-47's or even the P-8?

[Roland Pulfrew]

SAS

I think we are in violent agreement. I think our requirements have become OTT, but that is where we are; it will require a significant policy change to alter direction. I believe that there really should be some element of practicality when it comes to taking a proven in service design that has operated for many years and allowing an element of logical read across. Others on here will no doubt disagree with me. Sadly we are where we are, with the UK's armed forces becoming ever more risk averse and wrapped up in impenetrable regulation.

KB

the F35A is also planned for the RAF IIRC

Only one type of JSF planned for the UK mil, the C version.

[kbrockman]

Only one type of JSF planned for the UK mil, the C version.

I strongly doubt that, B for the Carriers, A for the RAF(tbd in 2015), definitively no C version.

[SASless]

Carriers?

Are we sure that is plural?

[kbrockman]

Carriers?

Are we sure that is plural?
http://www.kiddokingdom.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/kiddo-kingdom-fingers-crossed-pray-we-open-this-weekend.jpg

[Roland Pulfrew]

KB

I strongly doubt that, B for the Carriers, A for the RAF(tbd in 2015), definitively no C version.

My apologies, we are both wrong.

A for USAF (conventional, fixed wing), B for USMC & RAF/FAA (hovery version) and C for USN (conventional with wing fold). Labour ordered the B, the Tories changed their mind and went for the C variant, before changing their minds back again to the B variant. The RAF might have suggested a split buy and want the A but don't hold you breath.

[SASless]

Nothing like decisiveness in Leadership.:ugh:

[Rakshasa]

To be fair the the u-turn on the C was due to discovering retro work to fit cats and traps to the QEs would've been prohibitively expensive. A lot of the much trumpeted design flexibility of the CVF 'Delta' spec was expunged as cost savings. Thanks Gordon!

[vascodegama]

I always thought this was another case of a broken promise (or lie if you like). The ships were supposed to be fitted for (but not with) the systems for conventional carrier ops. When it came down to it , things were either too difficult or too expensive.

[SASless]

Now who would pitch Catapults and Arresting gear on a Carrier and think VTOL only capability was wise?

I am just a stupid Helicopter Pilot so I am sure the wisdom of that escapes me.

Can anyone explain that decsision in very simple terms that a stupid helicopter pilot could who speaks American can understand?

I know my Navy has two kinds of "Carriers".....Fleet Carriers that have four Cats and Arresting gear......and Amphibious Support Carriers that have no Cats or Traps and carry Helicopters, VTOL aircraft.

Different missions....different capabilities.

So in our view....your "Carriers" are really just what we would consider "Helicopter Carriers" but without the Well Deck, and other Amphib support gear.

Which in my view makes your Carrier not fit for either mission set.

[LowObservable]

SasLess...

What makes the UK ships "carriers" is that they are designed to carry aircraft, not warehouse soldiers, their weapons and vehicles, and (except for two mistake-ships, LHA-6/7) landing craft. This means that they can support AEW as well as a sufficient number of combat aircraft to provide more than occasional CAS.

How they get on and off is secondary.

[SASless]

Actually how they get on and off is primary.....if they are not VTOL aircraft they will have to be craned on and off like Cargo Boxes.

Right now you have a Carrier design that requires a single kind of airplane....if that F-35 variant proves to be a failure....then your carrier design is a failure....or will you bring back Harriers?

[Rakshasa]

No. We'll just spend the money to fit cats and traps. It's not that the design can't fit them it's that their plug and play elements were removed, making it very expensive to convert them.

[Bastardeux]

Yep, thanks to that utter clusterf*ck, Gordon Brown! Who also cynically signed the world's most water-tight contract for both the carriers right before the general election, despite knowing that the MoD didn't have the money for both of them. Cnut!!

[Heathrow Harry]

if the contract hadn't been water tight both ships would have been cancelled the moment Osbourne walked into No. 11

[The Helpful Stacker]

if the contract hadn't been water tight both ships would have been cancelled the moment Osbourne walked into No. 11

You say that like it'd have been a bad thing.

[smujsmith]

When walking yesterday 9 Jan, I saw an aircraft, looked like it was departing Brize, that looked like a 737 but with some rather obvious underwing mounting points ? Could anyone confirm this was one of these P8 jobbies ? I'd be chuffed to know I've seen one.

Smudge :ok:

[LowObservable]

Smudge - You'd better hope it was a P-8A...
http://images.motoring.co.uk/images/car-pictures/mucf-images/500x375/spid1/29/e5/4b/vauxhall-omega-2003-metallic-black-saloon-elite-3-2-v6-automatic-saloon-29e54b591fe6ee8e1c586fca44d4fe1b-m2.jpg

[smujsmith]

LowObservable :ok: I've looked it up on t'tweb and can see that the beauty I saw flying was one of those P8a jobbies. Thanks for your input, I'm sure its a nice motor car if its your thing.

Smudge :ok:

[NoVANav]

MoD is buying eight P-8s for the RAF ASW mission. First ones might be initially leased.


Welcome to the Poseidon club: USN, Indian AF, RAAF, probably Italian AF.

[denachtenmai]

MoD is buying eight P-8s for the RAF ASW mission
Now, if only we had an airfield to fly them from, Bally.. no, ISK..no, St Ma..no, oh dear we will just have to shovel them in somewhere inland:\
Regards, Den.

[Party Animal]

MoD is buying eight P-8s for the RAF ASW mission. First ones might be initially leased.




Is the bloke you bumped into in Wal-Mart, who knows someone who works for Boeing, who gave you the story, getting confused between Australia and the UK?

If not, then has anyone told the UK Ministry of Defence about this order?

Had to make sure the date wasn't 1st April for a minute!

[chopper2004]

@ Lowobservable

Looks like a Staish's personal mount so will the Poseidons also double up as 32s mount or as station flight now long gone :hmm::cool:

Apparently the USN have been invited and accepted Waddos show invite so wonder if a Poseidon will make appearance in first weekend in July lol or is that wishful thinking lol

Cheers

[Rocket2]

"Apparently the USN have been invited and accepted Waddos show invite" - probably shipping over a USAF crew to fly the RJ :E

[betty swallox]

Wrong. A P-8A will be there.

[Davef68]

Now, if only we had an airfield to fly them from, Bally.. no, ISK..no, St Ma..no, oh dear we will just have to shovel them in somewhere inland:\
Regards, Den.

Or, if my countrymen vote 'No' in September, move the Typhoons back to Leuchars and stick them at Lossie!

But you're right, it will be Waddington....:-)

[Ventre A Terre]

MoD is buying eight P-8s for the RAF ASW mission. First ones might be initially leased.


:ooh: Oh go on then, I'll nibble on the hook - pray tell where this latest rumour has its grounding! :rolleyes:

[gr4techie]

When they say the MOD is buying 5 x P8 to take on Russian ICBM submarines. Knowing the MOD, they'll be buying these P8's... Heckler & Koch :: Product Overview | P8 (http://www.heckler-koch.com/en/military/products/pistols/p8/p8/overview.html)

[Willard Whyte]

Oh ye of little faith gr4techie. I'm sure MoD always put their trousers on the right way round and have ordered an aircraft called P8.

Albeit probably this one:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ec/Piaggio_P.8.jpg

or this one:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fd/Boeing_xp-8.jpg

(which is a Boeing!)

[BEagle]

"Minister, minister - I've got some great news!"
"What is it, boy?"
"You know these P-8 things the RAF keeps talking about, well I can get them for a great price!"
"Pray tell me how?"
"Well, there was this plumber who was fixing the Ministry leaks the other day and he told me he could get me some for a few quid and a permanent immigration visa - what's even better is that he can get a 4-engined version!"
"Really.....??"
"Yes - bit hard to understand his accent, but here's a photo. Sorry it's only in black and white though:

http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a341/nw969/PetlyakovPe-8_zps37396ab9.jpg (http://s14.photobucket.com/user/nw969/media/PetlyakovPe-8_zps37396ab9.jpg.html)

"Good show - tell him we'll take 5!"

[Bannock]

"Apparently the USN have been invited and accepted Waddos show invite" - probably shipping over a USAF crew to fly the RJ"

Seeing the best P8A crew in the USN bring her over would bring a tear to a glass eye.

http://www.navy.mil/submit/display.asp?story_id=80308 (http://apicdn.viglink.com/api/click?format=go&key=1e857e7500cdd32403f752206c297a3d&loc=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pprune.org%2Fmilitary-aircrew%2F537792-usn-fleet-challenge-2014-winners.html&out=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.navy.mil%2Fsubmit%2Fdisplay.asp%3Fstory _id%3D80308&ref=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pprune.org%2Fmilitary-aircrew-57%2F)

[NutLoose]

Perhaps if we buy them they could install these

EBACE: Fokker proposes giant window to Boeing Business Jets - 5/21/2014 - Flight Global (http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/ebace-fokker-proposes-giant-window-to-boeing-business-399588/)

[Boudreaux Bob]

Buy American.....after scrapping the Nimrods....now there was a decision that makes sense...for the American's anyway.

[Lonewolf_50]

On the bright side, my esteemed Cajun cousin, it does make for an interoperability win among allies. :ok: Neither we nor the Brits do things alone anymore, or so it seems. It's all about allies and coalitions.

NutLoose: love the window, hope that mod is available for the Poseidon. You could probably line up three aircrew to press ham duringa low pass / fly by of the battlegroup. :ok: :D :}

[Boudreaux Bob]

Having seen some British Asses in my time, perhaps they would be limited to one or two Pressed Hams maximum.:E

[NutLoose]

fly by of the battlegroup.

That won't take long

[WhiteOvies]

Surprised that no-one seems to have picked up on this document published a couple of days ago:

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/310323/National_Strategy_for_Maritime_Security_2014.pdf

This is what it states about the RAF, without ever bothering to state how, or with what:

The Royal Air Force (RAF) protects Britain’s interests, citizens, territory and trade through the intelligent application of Air Power, exploiting the inherent speed of reaction, speed of reach and speed of effect that this offers – to enable flexible political choice and, ultimately, to deliver
military effect. In concert with allies, partners and the other Services, the RAF provides support to international maritime security and deters
threats to UK prosperity and security. The RAF maintains a number of aircraft and units ready to respond at extremely short notice to threats
to the UK; the roles include Quick Reaction Alert (to sustain Control of the Air), Attack, and Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance (ISR). Internationally, the RAF works with partners to counter illegal maritime activity, including piracy, drug smuggling and other illegal trade, particularly in the Mediterranean, the Gulf, the Caribbean and the South Atlantic, and it also contributes to the development of maritime air surveillance capabilities.

Still, it's a starter for 10 for a Staff Officer to tie his P-8 Statement of Requirement to.

[Jet In Vitro]

Is SAAB, L3 or anyone else bringing their offering for MPA?

[Party Animal]

Not sure where others stand but Airbus have certainly expressed an interest with the C295.

[Jet In Vitro]

Never seen Airbus offering. Does it exist?

[Archimedes]

Yes. - Chile has a handful of C295 MPA, as do the Portuguese. IIRC, the Omanis have ordered it (or is it the UAE? I forget). I don't think that there are that many about (the MPA variant), but it's not just a concept drawing.

[NutLoose]

C295 Maritime Patrol Aircraft - Naval Technology (http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/c295maritimepatrolai/)

A twin and a prop job, so fatiguing to fly in compared to a jet and one or two engines short of ideal.

Has been offered to the uk

RIAT: Airbus Military steps up C295 MPA offer to UK - MILAVIA Military Aviation News (http://www.milavia.net/news/2013/riat%3A-airbus-military-steps-up-c295-mpa-offer-to-uk.html)

[Heathrow Harry]

it's all we can afford dear boy.......

If you don't want it them money will be used somewhere else I'm sure

[tonker]

Get these and spend the rest on Webbers.

The maritime surveillance light aircraft P2006T MRI takes to the air (http://www.indracompany.com/en/prensa/actual-indra/edition/2013/2/the-maritime-surveillance-light-aircraft-p2006t-mri-takes-to-the-)

[Tourist]

Nutloose

Not flown the C295, but have flown the younger sister in the MPA role, and it is a very pleasant/quiet aircraft to spend time in. Modern turboprops are a very different beast.

[NutLoose]

Surely if you were going the turboprop route you would go with commonality of fleet without adding another type and all the support that would need.

http://www.lockheedmartin.co.uk/content/dam/lockheed/data/aero/documents/global-sustainment/product-support/2012HOC-Presentations/Wednesday/Wed%201530%20Sea%20Herc-LM-Mike%20Bell.pdf

That would allow it to be used and tailored as and when required.


http://youtube.com/watch?v=PtGM9ldHcgM

[Jet In Vitro]

Sea Herc looks like it has wide utility and probably could do the job. Why has it been discussed before and never developed beyond a power point brief?

There must be a fundamental issue which stops it from being a viable option:

Development cost?

Handling characteristics?

Aircraft performance?

I suggest all of the above are as manageable as any other offering, probably better.

[Roland Pulfrew]

I suggest all of the above are as manageable as any other offering, probably better.

CASA 295 - in service as an MPA.

P8 - in service as an MMA.

P1 - Although not yet in service a number have been built and are in testing.

Sea Herc - a powerpoint presentation.

[Heathrow Harry]

well pointed out Roland - we're sure to go for the Sea Herc then..............

for a start puts of the day of evil for several years if not a decade......

[Martin the Martian]

HC-130J -in service as an MPA (just ask the US Coast Guard)

[melmothtw]

Not often I find myself agreeing with Roland, but the SC-130J Sea Herc and HC-130J are two very different beasts Martin.

The former is, as Roland says, still just a concept that offers Level 2 (anti-surface warfare) and Level 3 (anti-submarine warfare) capability, whereas the HC-130J, although fielded by the USCG, is purely a Level 1 maritime surveillance platform with no offensive capability whatsoever (the same is true for other MPAs mentioned previously in this thread - Saab MSA, Boeing MSA to name but two).

I guess it all depends on exactly what kind of MPA we're wanting to field.

[thunderbird7]

That's the bit that all the naysayers don't really get. Nimrod was more than just an MPA. Fair enough, the role evolved over the years but by the time it was binned it was probably the most flexible tasking platform the RAF had, thanks to a lot of clever, hardworking people and a backup organisation that learnt to think on its feet over the years.

[Doptrack]

Thank you Thunderbird7 from all background people

[ORAC]

Consortium Offers Proposal if UK Re-establishes Maritime Patrol Requirement (http://www.defensenews.com/article/20140529/DEFREG01/305290033/Consortium-Offers-Proposal-UK-Re-establishes-Maritime-Patrol-Requirement)

LONDON — A consortium involving L-3 Communications, Selex and Ultra Electronics has thrown its hat into the ring as a bidder for a possible British government requirement to re-establish a maritime patrol aircraft capability. The industrial trio took the wraps off a multimission maritime patrol and surveillance aircraft based on a modified Bombardier Q400 commercial turboprop in a briefing for reporters here today.

Britain’s fixed-wing maritime patrol capability was axed when the Nimrod MRA4 program was canceled by the Conservative-led coalition in 2010, although the previous Labour administration had already withdrawn an earlier version of the aircraft ahead of the introduction into service of the new and much-delayed Nimrod. The consortium joins fixed-wing contenders like Airbus, Boeing, Lockheed Martin and unmanned air vehicle supplier Northrop Grumman positioning for an expected decision by the British government’s 2015 strategic defense and security review (SDSR) on whether to fill a yawning capability gap left by a budget-driven decision in the last review to do away with fixed-wing maritime patrol capability.

L-3 Mission Integration announced in February it was collaborating with Bombardier Aerospace and Cascade Aerospace of Canada and Britain’s Marshall Aerospace to develop an extended-range version of the Q400 for maritime patrol and surveillance duties. Cascade was working on the auxiliary fuel tanks and Marshall Aerospace the internal fuel system integration. Now, L-3 has revealed British sensor and mission systems suppliers Selex ES and Ultra Electronics have signed up to collaborate in the development of an aircraft that initially, at least, has the possible Royal Air Force requirement as its main target.

The aircraft features auxiliary fuel tanks running down the side of the fuselage and a large under-fuselage canoe capable of housing weapons and sensors. Executives at the briefing said they have also been looking at the options for inflight refueling to extend the range of the machine even further than the 10 hours or so offered by the Q400 with auxiliary fuel tanks. Selex’s sensor fit offering include its Seaspray 7500 radar and the Eagle active electronically scanned array wide-area radar.

Officials said an Eagle with a 4-meter-long array would provide nearly the air-surveillance capabilities offered by the RAF’s E-3D Sentry airborne early warning fleet. Ultra is proposing an in-development airborne acoustic system which, along with a new generation of sonar buoys, would be capable of countering the increasing threat posed by a proliferation of small quiet submarines operating in the littoral. Weapon options include lightweight torpedoes and anti-surface ship missiles like the Harpoon. Weapons could be carried in the fuselage canoe or wing hard points.

Flash Gordon, L-3 communications director of international programs here, said the consortium had already acquired an ex-airline Q400 for modification into a test bed and demonstration platform. The airframe is due to be moved to aircraft modifier Cascade later in the year for installation of auxiliary fuel tanks fitted down the sides of the fuselage and payload systems ahead of type certification and fitting out of further systems next year. Gordon said they could have an aircraft with an initial operating capability ready by early 2019.

The L-3 executive said multirole flexibility and low whole life costs of a platform like the 400Q were the key to adoption by customers who could no longer afford single mission aircraft.

Gordon said British MoD officials had already been briefed on the aircraft’s capabilities. The aircraft would provide 80 percent of the capabilities of Boeing’s P-8 maritime patrol aircraft but at a third of the acquisition and operating cost, he said.

Pressure on budgets here, though, continue to raise questions about if and when a maritime patrol capability might be reinstated. Further government spending cuts are expected after the May 2015 election even though the Conservative government says it remains committed to a 1 percent real growth in the equipment budget for several years starting in 2016.

Brian Burridge, Finmeccanica UK’s vice president of strategic marketing, told reporters at the briefing that plugging the gap in British maritime patrol capabilities has emerged as the highest priority in the next SDSR. “The general rhetoric is that filling this capability gap is currently the highest priority for SDSR 2015 ... but the issue remains affordability,” said the retired RAF air chief marshal.

Recent events in the Atlantic and Indian oceans have added to the growing recognition that the UK has a capability gap, he said. “The Malaysian Airlines flight MH370 and the yacht [sunk in the Atlantic earlier this month] have conjured the notion of what if that happened here? What if we had to mount that sort of search operation, what degree of national embarrassment would that bring with it?” said Burridge.

Earlier this month, Britain had to send an RAF C-130 Hercules into the Atlantic equipped only with binoculars to look for the yacht — an accident in which the crew of four lost their lives.

Officials from the three companies said they reckoned a fleet of between 10 and 12 aircraft would be a starting point to plug the gap left by the SDSR decision in 2010.

[Trout99uk]

Another new US military aircraft taking part in RIAT 2014 will be a Boeing P-8A Poseidon from the US Navy. A single example from test and evaluation squadron VX-1 at NAS Patuxent River, Maryland, will make the type's Air Tattoo debut in the static aircraft park. A number of British crew members, maintaining national maritime patrol experience since retirement of the RAF Nimrod fleet, will be among those on board for the visit.

[A and C]

What rubbish a UK consorts is putting together a bid for an MPA ........ It will be years before we see it it will be over budget and useless for years after it enters service, the only function it will satisfy is to let the Whitehall incumbents tell us they are doing something.

Forget all this rubbish we need an aircraft that can do the job and we need it now! The P8 is the cheapest and fastest way to get that aircraft without letting the British Defense industry push the price through the roof.

[Party Animal]

And so the game begins:

L3 (Q400) v Airbus (C295) v Boeing (P-8)

Pro's and cons:

P-8 - In service, proven, tested, biggest, best, already operated by RAF aircrew. Can replace Sentinel and E-3 (Wedgetail).

Problem is cost.

C295 - In service, proven, tested, 80% performance for 30% of cost of P-8. AWACs variant available.

Problem is capability.

Q400 - Brian Burridge and Flash Gordon on the team (influential), 80% performance for 30% of cost of P-8. AWACs variant available.

Problem is capability and not yet designed, tested or proven.

Maybe it will come down to the best leasing package? and we know Boeing have a proven track record with that one (C17)......

[Sandy Parts]

"Flash Gordons alive???" - sorry, couldn't resist:p

[nimbev]

What rubbish a UK consorts is putting together a bid for an MPA ..I dont know which consortium you would consider to be UK based - they are all foreign led as far as I can see, with a dash of UK involvement to keep the 'built in britain' mob happy.

Interesting to see the '80% capability for 30% cost' claims trotted out again. Amazing how it is almost always these same figures that are quoted no matter what the project. Makes one wonder whether anyone has actually done the calculations .... hang on, mustn't be cynical.

[LowObservable]

Unless the UK wants to build an all-new platform, Japan-style, there isn't going to be an all-UK MPA. Even the brain of the MRA4 was from Seattle.

On the other hand, there's a lot of scope for UK content in the acoustics and radar systems, and with its experience in ASW/MPA, the UK could lead a program that might (if done properly) fill a few national needs, doing a large percentage of the P-8A mission for a small percentage of the cost.

Displays, computing, lighter and better radars and other technologies (like electric torpedoes that don't have to be carried in a bay) can give you a bit more effectiveness in a small package. And props are more efficient than fans in this regime. Also, before anyone falls over laughing at the Q400 idea, the Q400 has >80 per cent of the payload-range of the Lockheed L-188, which IIRC turned out OK as the basis for an MPA.

Difficulty: ASW. Both MRA4 and P-8A were big and expensive, in large measure, because they are designed to carry a metric :mad:ton of sonobuoys to do multistatic active coherent (MAC) acoustics, which may be necessary to hunt AIP boats and modern nukes. How does a smaller aircraft handle that?

[A and C]

If the 20% the small aircraft can't do is the thing you most need then you have got 100% of nothing for 80% of the cost of what you need.

It's time to buy the P8..... Now!

[Heathrow Harry]

"there's a lot of scope for UK content..."


Oh no.... we've been down that route so often - delays, cost overruns, impaired capabilities

We buy the P-8 as is, where is with NO "improvements" - that way we might actually get them on time and on budget

[Yellow Sun]

Q400 - Brian Burridge and Flash Gordon on the team (influential),

Burridge - last seen advertising geo-thermal heating

Flash Gordon - away from maritime for quarter of a century

YS

[Party Animal]

Burridge - always rated as 2 steps ahead of his peers group and former VSO and leader of the RAF.

Flash Gordon - Not too far removed from a key RAF ISTAR position.

Both will have remaining high level connections and will be 'listened to' by the decision makers. Maritime awareness will have nothing to do with it.

[A and C]

You hit the nail firmly on the head..........UK content = late, over budget, won't work properly.

[nimbev]

Burridge - always rated as 2 steps ahead of his peers group and former VSO and leader of the RAF.

Flash Gordon - Not too far removed from a key RAF ISTAR position.

Both will have remaining high level connections and will be 'listened to' by the decision makers. Maritime awareness will have nothing to do with it. Hey PA, I normally agree with you, but you are beginning to sound as if you are on the Q400 team

'Maritime awareness will have nothing to do with it' .No, but the fact that they dont actually have a product will have something to do with it!

By the way, I didnt know that Burridge had been CAS???

[Jet In Vitro]

PA,

P-8 - In service, yes with limitations and falls short, in significant areas, of satisying UK requirements.

proven - yes but did not get a glowing report during OT&E.

tested - see above.

biggest - fuel hungry. Requires complex infrastructure.

best - less than 80 % of requirement.

already operated by RAF aircrew. Irrelevant. Will provide some mitigation in terms of training but nothing else.

Can replace Sentinel and E-3 (Wedgetail). Requirement for Sentinel is still, being debated. WedgeTail sub optimal.

I would say P8 satisfies less than 70% of requirement.

To get it to 80% will be a massive extras cost that will require further testing etc making an expensive platform even more expensive.

[Jet In Vitro]

Q400 Safety Issues (http://www.communityair.org/Issues/Q400_Safety/Q400_Safety.html)

Adding extra fuel weapons etc will not improve this.

[Roland Pulfrew]

P-8 - In service, yes with limitations and falls short, in significant areas, of satisying UK requirements.

Really? Perhaps you could tell us what the UK reqt is? AFAIK there isn't one at present.

[Jet In Vitro]

Ok,

MRA4 requirements the best approximation to what we wanted. The MOD will not buy a MPA. The stated position is it wants a MMA.

This will add even more expense to P8.

[Roland Pulfrew]

JIV

But surely the P8 already is an MMA, as was the MR2 and so would the MRA4 had it entered service? What other missions do you/the RAF want to add?

[Davef68]

If the UK buys an MPA/MMA, I can't see beyond the P-8 (Aren't a lot of it's mission systems based on those developed for MRA4?).


Unless the Japanese made the P-1 available at a reasonable price......

[betty swallox]

Roland. Correct. The P-8 is a seasoned MMA.

[RandomBlah]

JIV.

You are going to have to clarify some of your points.

1. What are the limitations of P-8?

2. You state that it is fuel hungry. Prove it. You are wrong. A P-8 at Waddington could fly to the Gulf of Oman, go on task for 2 hours and land at Muscat with reserves for masirah intact.

3. In what way would P-8 require complex infrastructure any more or less than other options?

4. It is highly relevant that the P-8 is already operated by RAF aircrew. Especially considering many are in positions of influence and how the USN WiLL be bringing new capabilities online in the future.

If P-8 requires more money to develop it - who do you think will be paying? The US will have to.

[GreenKnight121]

I think he is basing his "In service, yes with limitations and falls short, in significant areas, of satisying UK requirements.

proven - yes but did not get a glowing report during OT&E." and the "P8 satisfies less than 70% of requirement.

To get it to 80% will be a massive extras cost that will require further testing etc making an expensive platform even more expensive. " from the fact that the P-8s currently in-service are the Increment 1 aircraft.

This is basically (if incompletely) correct.


He then assumes (very incorrectly) that this is the planned final version, and to get anything better the UK would have to pay for all of it yourselves.


There are several planned and in-process capability Increment phases scheduled - all of which are funded exclusively by the US.

http://http://www.seapowermagazine.org/sas/stories/20140408-p-8.html

P-8A Increment 2 Upgrades to Begin Phase-In in 2015 By RICHARD BURGESS, Managing Editor

NATIONAL HARBOR, Md. — The first increment of upgrades to the Boeing P-8A Poseidon, called Increment 2, will begin is fiscal 2015. The upgrades will be phased in as a series of Engineering Change Proposals (ECPs) and will be retrofitted on aircraft already delivered.

Martin Ahmad, the Navy’s deputy program manager for maritime patrol and reconnaissance aircraft, said the first part of Increment 2, a multi-static active coherent (MAC) acoustic capability, is a significant upgrade to the aircraft’s acoustic antisubmarine warfare (ASW) detection and tracking capability. The MAC will comprise ECP-1 for the program.

ECP-2, scheduled for fiscal 2016, will include the Automatic Information System (AIS) and the first segment of the High-Altitude Antisubmarine Weapon Capability (HAAWC), a sonobuoy equipped with the Global Positioning System transmitter and the ability to be deployed from high altitudes. The AIS is a system that receives identity, course, speed and other information from commercial ships in which it is installed.

ECP-3 will integrate the full HAAWC, a Mk54 lightweight torpedo fitted with a wing kit for gliding to the water entry point. The weapon also will have mid-course guidance capability to alter the water entry point as needed.



Ahmad said the Navy is just starting its pre-Milestone B activity for Increment 3. Increment 3 includes ASW upgrades, sensor upgrades, a net-enabled weapon and software architecture improvements. The net-enabled ASW weapon will allow for third-party control of the weapon. The software architecture improvements will include hosting of generic applications and will enable third-party competition for prototyping of the applications, which Ahmad said will reduce the cost of future integration.More at link.

[Jet In Vitro]

GK,

Where do I assume that the current P8 is the final version?

Why HAAWC? What is driving this?

GPS sonobuoys expected to cost $800 each!

Torpedoes with wings? Can the UK use Mk 54? We got rid of Mk 46 because they were deemed to be unsafe. The Mk 54 back end is essentially the same.

MAD satisfied by launching a UAV, which will probably be, unless there is a suitable ship or land based facility within range, on a one way journey.

Why have the Indians added another belly mounted radar and MAD to their version?

P8 fuel burn rate is 3-5 time the rate of others in the current options mix? Admittedly you can go further, quicker but that is not always an advantage.

[thunderbird7]

C295 and Q400 are for countries with coastal type maritime operations - North Sea and the Channel Islands maybe but that big blue deep water ocean out west needs something a bit bigger. Perefect for Indonesia/Singapore/Phillipines but UK? It's not rocket science. And for the MMA naysayers, which airframe do you think you will be a be to (inevitably) add bits to over the years?

GPS sonobuoys expected to cost $800 each!

And how much was a CAMBS buoy then...?

[dagenham]

At the risk of being smoked by a kipper

Is an a400 derivative an option.... Yes I know starting from scratch again !!! But most grizzly / atlas customers have a requirement for a new mpa / mma in the next few years?

Or am I smoking something ?