New MPA?

[oxenos]

The mad MOD try out new UAV MPA for ASW and SAR. May buy ten but not for RAF use due £££. Low pay men get job. M'OL new CAS?

Those of you who laughed at my pathetic attempts to post pictures of Greek Tiger Moths, can have another laugh. I still haven't got the hang of it, so perhaps some kind soul will sort it.

This UAV has been seen undergoing test flights from a secret base in Northamptonshire. The emblem on the nose suggests that the uncrew who unman this unmanned aircraft have been brought in from Eastern Europe, a cost saving measure copied from O'Leary of Ryanair.

http://pic20.picturetrail.com/VOL1459/13603283/24385583/407155036.jpg

http://pic20.picturetrail.com/VOL1459/13603283/24385583/407155038.jpg

http://pic20.picturetrail.com/VOL1459/13603283/24385583/407155039.jpg

[taxydual]

Why does it look like a Wellington with ASW kit and D-Day recognition markings?

I'm only asking.

[oxenos]

Retro design - it's all the rage. And ASW aircraft are meant to have ASW kit.

[taxydual]

Every day's a school day.

[Lima Juliet]

It's a radio controlled scale model...:ugh:

[Wensleydale]

My mum told me that you need Wellingtons if you play near water.

[Willard Whyte]

Polish Air Force markings of over 20 years ago. Interesting.

[CoffmanStarter]

Do you get French Fries with it ? That's "chips" to anyone north of the Watford Gap :E

http://www.takeaway.com/images/restaurants/gb/3O053Q1/logo_small.png

[Willard Whyte]

Freedom Fries.

[betty swallox]

Aviation Today :: Navy's P-8 Poseidon Ready for Fleet Introduction (http://www.aviationtoday.com/the-checklist/Navys-P-8-Poseidon-Ready-for-Fleet-Introduction_79652.html#.UdyjcOtidlM)

Just sayin'.......

[John Botwood]

Looks good, looks right.

And as they say: "Anything that looks right . . . . . . . ."

JohnB :)

[C di E]

A good PR story..............not a lot about endurance and range, particularly at low level, a must for a Maritime Patrol Aircraft.

[Jet In Vitro]

JB,

Unfortunately looks are not important. It's military capability. Poor performance at low level has forced the P8 to adopt some unproven technology which may mean it is compromised in blue water ASW. Sensor requirements need to be explored fully and use cases developed to ensure the platform can match the required range and endurance requirements when conducting real operations.

[Kitbag]

Here it is being prepared for another sortie in the hands of 304 Sqn:
http://www.polishairforce.pl/dyw304zdj/8.jpg

[oxenos]

"Anything that looks right"

Were you referring to the P-8 or the UAV ,John?

Sources that I dare not name tell me that the UAV project is in fact being jointly funded by the MOD, the British Waterways Board and the Ministry of Ag. and Fisheries.
It seems that stretches of the Grand Union Canal and the Oxford Canal, both of which pass close to the trials airfield, are heavily infested with non-native species of small submarine. (known as U-boats). Like the New York alligators, they have probably been released by owners who can no longer afford to maintain them,and are now breeding.
They burrow into the canal banks to create nests ( known as pens ) and there are concerns that the banks will collapse, draining the canals and flooding the surrounding fields.

On the other hand,Leon may have got it right.

What is indisputable is that until the Coventry Shackleton is ready to fly, this UAV is the ONLY MPA FLYING IN THE WHOLE OF THE U.K.

Sad isn't it?

[BEagle]

What is indisputable is that until the Coventry Shackleton is ready to fly, this UAV is the ONLY MPA FLYING IN THE WHOLE OF THE U.K.

Au contraire - see Intro - The Catalina Society - PBY Consolidated Catalina Aircraft - Home of Plane Sailing (http://www.catalina.org.uk/) :ok:

[thing]

Aviation Today :: Navy's P-8 Poseidon Ready for Fleet Introduction (http://www.aviationtoday.com/the-checklist/Navys-P-8-Poseidon-Ready-for-Fleet-Introduction_79652.html#.UdyjcOtidlM)

Just sayin'.......

Look a lot nicer if they filed down all of those sticky out bits. Probably add 20kts too.

[oxenos]

Thanks, BEagle, I stand corrected.

So our inventory consists of one Catalina, a Shackleton undergoing (very) major refit, and a Wellington with a PLE of 9 1/2 minutes.
Let's hope we do not have to cope with anything more that some feral U-boats on the Grand Union.

[CoffmanStarter]

Not strictly MPA ... but I always thought the Ringed Wimpy looked purposeful :ok:

Might zap a few pacemakers these days though ...

http://www.mcdoa.org.uk/images/Wellington%20wedding%20ring%20med.jpg

[oxenos]

I suppose it has a certain attraction.

[Jet In Vitro]

Bloodhound Loose,

There are degrees of passing IOT&E and if it was acceptable why are they developing new technology.

Dog Box Established!

[Jet In Vitro]

The selection of the 737-based P-8A Poseidon means that the US Navy needs to act on these problems, especially since the P-8A can perform low swoops if necessary, but its airframe is optimized for cruising at altitude. A wish to extend the useful life of the hard-worked P3 Orion aircrafts also contributes to the urgency for action.

The US Navy is, as a consequence, pursuing a way to launch torpedoes from high altitude, possibly also reducing the need for the aircraft to maneuver and turn to a suitable release point by having the torpedo itself navigating to the splash point. With the airplane no longer required to carry out complex maneuvers and turns at low altitude, the useful life of the airframe obviously is protected, and the airplane can serve for a longer time, undergoing less stress. Here comes into play the HAAWC (High-Altitude Anti-Submarine Warfare Weapons Concept), a program to take the US standard light torpedo, the MK54, and give it wings.

Lockheed Martin puts forward the LongShot wing adapter kit: it enables the torpedo to glide on a range well in excess of 10 nautical miles and is also said to enable "off axis" launches so the aircraft doesn't have to maneuver to reach a precise splash point over a contact, but can immediately attack even if badly positioned.

[NutLoose]

They pulled some seriously high G I read ages ago on that Anti Mine degaussing Wellington, it was flying trying to detonate mines but wasn't having a lot of luck, so he brought it round dropped down megga low and it detonated underneath resulting in the vertical G loading

[RandomBlah]

Jet in Vitro

An inaccurate and misleading post. When Boeing started on the P-8 they decided to use a 737 fuselage, a wing design already proven (albeit with modified wing tips) joined these 2 components together and strengthened the result due to the demanding environment (low level) that it was planned for be aircraft to operate in.

You may want to think your logic behind HAAWC concept; you haven't quite grasped it correctly.

I assure you that the P-8 operates very nicely at low level; although that is only my opinion has someone who is a PPC qualified on the aircraft.

[Jet In Vitro]

I am merely posting information which is readily available on the www and asking why. What are the drivers for high level ASW. There is little threat from subs themselves. Trials during the 80s proved that the concept of firing a SAN from a submerged vessel was flawed. In the littoral being low is more of an advantage (RFI being a major issue these days) Being able to drive your weapon to the ISP I can see the benefit of that, but a good system should allow you to do that anyway (SRS/ GPS enabled buoys and a good Nav system negates the need for on tops).

[Yellow Sun]

What are the drivers for high level ASW.

Anything that reduces the time late at datum.

YS

[Jet In Vitro]

Timely use of sensors is also important. Acoustic sensors need to be deployed accurately. You can not normally attack a datum you need to get back into contact unless other things are driving your ROE. Dropping buoys from height adds complications: wind effects the ballistics and the time to drop/ get to the desired point in the water from height add to the pool of problems. If you wish to drive the buoy to a desired water entry point the Nav system on the buoy needs to be up and running at the point of release, therefore needs to be linked to the weapon system onboard the release platform up to the point of release. How do you drive the buoy, glide or powered, both have issues including sub counter detection of a powered buoy. Weapons will have the same issues.Release to service will also be interesting. A lot of effort for no much benefit. Unless there are other reasons why you do not want to tackle the problem be being at low level.

[DaveyBoy]

What are the drivers for high level ASW.

RF horizon for other sensors, some of which you don't know about.

Emphatically not because anyone would have the slightest qualms about flying P-8A at 200' all day every day for the next 40 years if that's what it is needed to do.

There are degrees of passing IOT&E.

Indeed there are. For ASW, P-8A Increment 1 passed OT-C1 (aka IOT&E) in the "Exceeded all expectations, handed every submarine commander it was up against his ass on a plate, shat all over the competition and pissed off other MPA crews by casually broadcasting a few Dolphin Codes in the clear that referenced how rubbish they were by comparison" degree.

Now, Jet In Vitro, I must congratulate you on a stellar start to your PPRuNe career. In your first ever post (http://www.pprune.org/military-aircrew/517590-any-rumours-fris-3.html#post7911086) you implied that European employment law might apply to members of the Armed Forces, when it doesn’t.*

In your second post (http://www.pprune.org/military-aircrew/503657-raf-rivet-joint-12.html#post7931415) you asked a question about RJ basing that had been answered, less than 24 hours before, on the very same thead.

In all your subsequent posts thus far, you have been on this thread, arguing about the P-8A’s low level performance with a bunch of P-8A flying instructors, and (this is my favourite) arguing about how well P-8A passed IOT&E with… wait for it… members of the P-8A Integrated Test Team that flew the test flights and wrote the report!

Bravo, sir, bravo!

You are either a Troll, or an Air Rank.



* That’s the short answer. Before people try to correct me, a slightly longer answer is that any employment law doesn’t automatically apply to the Armed Forces because we’re not ‘employed’ in the sense that we don’t have contracts of employment, and most EU directives that might have been relevant specifically exempt the Armed Forces of any member state anyway. Despite that, HMG did ‘opt us in’ to specific acts that suited it, such as anti-discrimination acts, even though it didn’t have to. None affect whether it might be lawful for the MOD to impose a RoS. As it happens, I don’t believe that the MOD has never gone to court to enforce one, but that’s another matter.

[Jet In Vitro]

Well thank you.

I feel suitably humbled by a seasoned PPer.

However, you have made assumptions based on assumptions.

The questions I have asked have not been answered.

[DaveyBoy]

Which questions have not been answered?

[betty swallox]

...and the P-8A flies perfectly well at low level...

[Phoney Tony]

DB,

I think you have been unfair to JIV.

Indeed he has merely asked questions, not stated facts. The discussion on where the RJ is to be delivered did not come to a conclusion it was specualtion.

PT

[RTC]

It is obvious that the supporters of the P8 programme on this thread are heavily involved in the seedcorn process and as such are probably in the best position to comment on the aircrafts capabilities. I though am somewhat disappointed at the lack of balanced criticism of this programme from these individuals and hence we may yet again may end up procuring a US built platform that subsequently does not meet its stated potential. The P3 was never as good an ASW platform as the Nimrod MR2. I suspect the P8 does not meet the capability of the now defunct MRA4. I have still to see proof that ASW can be done at high level yet the P8 continues to seek capable high level sensors and weapons. I hope our representatives on the P8 maintain an objective viewpoint and are not swayed by the hard sell(in its many guises) of US industry.

[The Old Fat One]

^^ This is a good post (apart from the P3 V Nimrod hyperbole)

The kipper fleet has history here. I was in the room when the MRA4 (correction Nimrod 2000) dissenters (or which there were many) were ordered to "get in line" with the programme. Do not under estimate how much the operator can influence military purchases (a fact very well known to the sales teams of the big players).

History too with the high level thing. The searchwater was initially optimised for medium level work...it did not take too long for the fleet to get back down in the weeds again. ASW is a varied game and technology moves on, but part of it is always going to be conducted at low level for all sorts of reasons.

I am not suggesting the P8 is not a great bit of kit...I have absolutely no knowledge of it's capabilities whatsoever. But in the HIGHLY UNLIKELY event we get an proper fully formed MPA force back and opertional again, one hopes (perhaps naively) that we learn all the lessons of history.

PS

[Heathrow Harry]

the difference is that the P8 is flying and the Nimrod was binned as we could never get it to work

we desperately need a long range PATROL aircraft - but does it need to have ASW capability as well?

[The Old Fat One]

the difference is that the P8 is flying and the Nimrod was binned as we could never get it to work

Simplistic and only partially true

we desperately need a long range PATROL aircraft - but does it need to have ASW capability as well?

Yes

[Heathrow Harry]

what is not true?

And why? - Al Qaida has no submarines..........

[The Old Fat One]

I didn't say it was untrue (although others will). I said it was only part of the picture. There are heaps of posts on here on the cancellation of the MRA4 and I have no intention of raking it all up again.

And talking of simplistic...

And why? - Al Qaida has no submarines..........

Seriously, is that the best you have? Well if they are the only threat to the security of the UK, we can sh1tcan 90 percent of our armed forces then.

Pprune eh...what you gonna do :ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh:

[Roland Pulfrew]

what is not true?


The systems and sensors were working. Some elements were a backwards step in capability in comparison to the MR2; but that's what happens when you place design freeze on the new system wilst continuing to upgrade the old system. Much of the MRA4 stuff is in the P8; MRA4 had a Boeing mission system. What didn't work was the airframe, or certain parts of it (if ever there was a case of "If it looks right....) and they kept finding bits that needed further mods to get it to "fly right". The joint trials team will tell you that it was working, very well; it just needed some more work.

And why? - Al Qaida has no submarines..........

Despite the claptrap about to be spouted by the LibDems Trident replacement review, AQ are not the only enemy - even the French have SSNs and SSBNs :E

[Party Animal]

we desperately need a long range PATROL aircraft - but does it need to have ASW capability as well?


Yes - Both our independant SSBN force and our 2020 Carrier Strike Group needs ASW protection at long range.

An ASW MPA/MMA provides a flexible, high speed, long range, renewable weapons carrying, semi-persistant capability (i.e, 24/7 ops for a couple of weeks) in defence of our SSBN's and CSG's, that cannot be replicated by any other asset.

That is why a key mitigation strategy for the scrapping of the MRA4 is to ask our allies for help in the guise of using their ASW MPA to do the job on behalf of UK plc. The requirement has not gone away. We just don't have a UK aircraft that can fill the void right now.

[Heathrow Harry]

"it just needed some more work."
and most of the Defence Budget ......................

The trouble with an anti-sub MPA is that where we know we can fly it - NW Europe, N Atlantic it is very unlikely we'll have to "protect" the new carriers

Where we might use them in anger - say in the Middle East/N Africa/W Africa - there are hardly any subs to look out for

Further afield we come back to the aircraft basing problem for very long distance naval deployments

[Roland Pulfrew]

Where we might use them in anger - say in the Middle East/N Africa/W Africa - there are hardly any subs to look out for

Really?

Iran (http://m.upi.com/story/UPI-39921334940331/)

Russia (http://zeenews.india.com/news/world/russia-tests-new-nuclear-submarine_852711.html)

The trouble with an anti-sub MPA is that it can do all of that other stuff that you might need it for when it's not required for ASW; a properly equipped true multi mission aircraft.

[Jet In Vitro]

HH,
The carrier can protect itself for a while, however, it's logistic tail and the tail of other support elements can not to the same degree thus it's the massive SLOC which are the problem areas. FIAC and the possibility of a submarine threat influence manoeuvre massively.

[The Old Fat One]

ASW is no different to any form of defence...it's all just insurance.

As to third world ASW capabilities...are you aware the argies had a free pot at some of our war canoes during the Falklands from their one and only serviceable SSK. the only reason they did not scupper the whole littoral operation was because their top weapons man had accidently wired up the torps arse about face.

It's all documented in the Proceeding, The USN magazine

circa 45 countries have a submarine force and virtually every developed maritime nation still has an MPA force with an ASW capability.

Whatever, for a land-locked nation that has no navy, and nothing like aircraft carriers to protect, I guess you are right, we don't need this expensive ASW sh1T.

Oh...wait mo, what's all this wet stuff all around and what are they building in those huge **** off sheds at Rosyth :D

[betty swallox]

Oh. And I'm afraid I need to comment...
Heathrow Harry, it's time to move on.
It's my belief that what we need is not an MPA but an MMA (Multiple Mission Aircraft), so such an aircraft would be capable of ASW and MUCH, MUCH more.
I hope the nae sayers and glass half empty lot, can see beyond the horizon on this one. Come on folks, it's 2013, not 1980....

[Heathrow Harry]

I'll move on

but I think it should be a priority to get some long range patrol aircraft up in a year or so - not spend 20 years refining an all-singing, all-dancing aircraft that we can afford to buy a single example of

[Jet In Vitro]

For those who commented on my previous posts please see the extracts below.


06-10-2013

The program manager for Maritime Surveillance Aircraft (the program manager) effectively addressed the potential risks and flight hour concerns of the DOT&E at the LRIP. However, as discussed below, additional critical testing should be completed before the full-rate production (FRP) decision.
The program manager planned the FRP decision review to occur in July 2013, before testers complete testing needed to demonstrate that the P-8A Poseidon airframe can meet life expectancy requirements. The program manager delayed life expectancy testing in reaction to funding constraints and testing priorities. The program manager also did not correct known system deficiencies, about which the DOT&E and Joint Interoperability Test Command officials had expressed concern, before conducting Initial Operational Test and Evaluation (IOT&E). This occurred because the Chief of Naval Operations accepted the risk of granting the program manager temporary waivers from correcting the deficiencies to allow the program to enter into IOT&E, while not having to fully correct the deficiencies until after the FRP decision. Finally, the program manager deferred completing mission testing in response to fleet commander concerns regarding maintaining on-time delivery of the P-8A Poseidon aircraft.


We recommend that the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics award an additional low-rate initial production lot for the P-8A Poseidon aircraft in July 2013 and defer the full-rate production decision for the P-8A Poseidon program until the program manager for Maritime Surveillance Aircraft demonstrates: the airframe can achieve the required 25-year lifespan without succumbing to structural fatigue; testing has resolved mission limited deficiencies; and the aircraft can perform its primary missions, including anti-surface warfare.


Perhaps you are too close to the programme and need to step back and look at the bigger picture.

Whilst the platform may perform well at low level, but is it robust enough to do this for 25 years!

Interesting that it has not proven it can carry out its primary missions!

[Heathrow Harry]

How do you PROVE the airframe will last for 25 years?

If it was the F-35 I guess we'd be most of the way there..................

[BEagle]

What didn't work was the airframe, or certain parts of it (if ever there was a case of "If it looks right....) and they kept finding bits that needed further mods to get it to "fly right". The joint trials team will tell you that it was working, very well; it just needed some more work.

Of course it was also such a good idea to install high-ratio bypass engines deep within the wing structure, with very long inlet and exhaust ducts. The effect of a single fan blade failure would have been catastrophic, both to the airframe and to the mission crew.....:(

Brilliant mission system, frankly appalling airframe.

[Roland Pulfrew]

install high-ratio bypass engines deep within the wing structure, with very long inlet and exhaust ducts

BEags, to be fair though the MR1, R1 and MR2 had something similar and I can't remember there ever being an uncontained blade failure. OK so it was the Spey engine and that would pretty much eat anything thrown into it with a small cough; are you saying the BMW/RR engines on the 4 were more susceptible to throwing blades?

[DaveyBoy]

Jet In Vitro: I'm sorry to disappoint you, but you haven't discovered anything shocking in those notes from DOT&E. All that you are looking at is a perfectly normal set of decisions on prioritization that any program manager has to make. Any program manager has to decide what to test, in what order. The P-8 program manager chose to test ASW and torpedoes (and ASuW search sensors) first, and fatigue life and Harpoon later. The text you pasted even explains why this was, so you answered your own question in a way. All DOT&E is saying is: "Let's not place the full order until we've had chance to test those things too, but instead of holding up the production line let's place a third LRIP order so everything stays on schedule, just without signing away the full $20bn or however much it is." Nobody has any concerns about fatigue life not being what it was designed to be by Boeing. It's just one of the things that hasn't been tested yet, precisely because it is not a concern for meeting the deployment schedule and therefore not a priority.

[BEagle]

Roly, I gather that the original choice of engine was rejected 'because it wasn't British'.... So the BR710 was selected.

Compared to the 32" diameter low by-pass ratio (0.64) Spey, the BR710 is a high by-pass ratio (4.2) engine with a 48" fan. Although there's no reason to suspect that it would shed blades any more than would any other jet engine (and certainly less than Das Teutor sheds prop blades....), if it did shed a blade, even if that blade was contained, massive out of balance forces would cause engine gyration and significant structural damage. Whereas in all other BR710 applications, it would fall off the pylon, in the MRA4 it would have thrashed about deep inside the wing / fuselage junction area....:uhoh:

[Just This Once...]

Are you sure about that Beags?

The RRD engine was fully certified, underwent extensive testing and coped with an explosive release of a fan blade - as expected. The whole thing is wrapped in a kevlar designed to stop any of the high energy bits from leaving the scene.

Not sure that any engine is designed to fall off in the event of a blade failure!

[Just This Once...]

Having discussed this subject extensively with my RN colleagues and the wider ISTAR community I can say the above post is not true.

:ok:

[Just This Once...]

From my office I have no need to guess so good luck with your single-service rivalry because in truth the nap of of RN and RAF ISTAR community runs together.

:ok:

[Jet In Vitro]

DB,

I am neither disappointed or claiming to have discovered something shocking. I merely posted what appeared to be a factual report in a defence magazine. It is others who have posted unsubstantiated opinions as facts.

Clearly the US is not going to proceed until testing has been completed. Testing should reveal the truth and to say nobody is concerned about fatigue is an opinion, if true why bother with all the expense of an instrumented ac and hours of testing and analysis.

I for one hope the P8 is a success for those that can afford it.

[Jet In Vitro]

I am well aware there are already instrumented P8 ac and I believe there are 2 airframes which are used for testing in controlled environments on the ground.

Fatigue and handling are 2 different issues!

[betty swallox]

Beagle
I disagree entirely with you assessment of blade shedding being harmful to the crew and airframe. There was a huge amout of work done on FBO, of which I was part, and it appeared a sound construct.

[alfred_the_great]

I'd be impressed if the RN were buying the MPA from our budget; we're already overheated with QEC/CEPP and T26.

[Just This Once...]

ATG,

Indeed and the RN is not alone in this. To make the money work the platform has to be a full MMA rather than a dedicated MPA. Even then, some other things have to be traded away. Times are hard but all 3 services recognise the need.

[alfred_the_great]

JTO - I doubt that we'll ever see a MMA or MPA in UK Service, at least not in the ASW sense. ASuW and SAR (or ISTAR), quite possibly, but ASW, not so much.

Unless we have some 'modular' idea, which will work as well as the last time that was tried.

[Phoney Tony]

I have seen a couple of maritime capabilities which are funded, but not committed that are currently assigned to seaborne platforms. These capabilities could be done by airborne platforms. If we had clever and forceful leadership in the RAF we could direct the funding to support the MMA case and provide a platform with wider utility than could be delivered by a ship/ boat.

[oxenos]

If we had clever and forceful leadership in the RAF !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[alfred_the_great]

And a return to intercine rivalry that would be matched only by the SHAR debate.

[Finnpog]

I think Alfred, that you mean?

And a return to intercine rivalry that would be matched only by the SHAR debacle.

I guess that the Politicians and the CS will be chuckling that the military is committing fratricide once again in the sake of hubris and Stellar career opportunities.

:ugh:

[Roland Pulfrew]

And a return to intercine rivalry

Well on this one I think that the news CAS "gets it" (to use that horrible buzzword from the other topic), as does the new CNS. As for
I doubt that we'll ever see a MMA or MPA in UK Service, at least not in the ASW sense. ASuW and SAR (or ISTAR), quite possibly, but ASW
why on earth would you procure an MMA that couldn't do ASW? It's one of the primary roles, contributes to the first 2 military tasks (as well as all of the others) and ASuW, ISTAR and SAR can all be done as a free gift from being able to do ASW (properly). Stop thinking single roles here, to be affordable and viable you need to be thinking multi(ple) mission aircraft.

[alfred_the_great]

RP - because ASW is hard and requires continued practice. And a MMA will be used for lots of other things first - cf Nimrod in Afg, T23 in the Gulf - before it's allowed to crack on with it's "core" role.

The only thing that will change that if we enter into a sustained period of operations against a SM using country that actually use their SMs properly.

[Joe Black]

Interesting thread here, and it's good to see more and more consideration regarding MMA. My fear is that we have already identified the platform; some interesting stuff in the August Air Forces Monthly on Sentinel as a maritime platform.
A MMA must be capable of ASW, ASuW inc MCT, SAR, MTI and have an ELINT capability of sorts. It must have range, speed and an ability to carry ample bouys, whilst also being able to Process and Disseminate vast amounts of information in a timely manner. Talk of smaller interim choices merely to fulfil the ASW role would be a mistake. The UK must wake up to this - it's time to move on from ageing fleets with limited potential......there's no reason why said MMA could not fulfil the role of the E-3D also. Undoubtedly, lack of money will be the stopper but replacing 2-3 fleets of aircraft which require significant overhauls, with a more stream-lined and flexible mission system must be the way forward.

The threat from submarines is as strong as ever.......I would argue that it's increasing with the wider proliferation of AIP technology.

[Heathrow Harry]

"must"?????

that's the sort of thinking that's got us where we are today

We need a PATROL Aircraft to start with - not an ASW platform . It would be nice indeed if we could afford one but it's clear we can't (or won't) fund a proper Nimrod replacement

According to the current "World Naval Review" the threat from submarines is NOT the same as it was in the '70's & '80's for example - Russia has only 1 post 2000 SSBN in service as of mid 2012 and a ragbag mix of 1970's and 1980's boats

Their surface fleet comprises around 22 warships of Frigate size and above - about the same as the RN - but without the maintenance plus its a 4 sea operation

[Biggus]

Any future UK MPA (if/when there is one - which is still up for debate) will be operated by the RN.



The RN still considers the role important, the RAF (at senior levels) does not, or at least not sufficiently to be willing to give up anything in order to achieve it.....

[Just This Once...]

Glad the man who knows what all the RAF top brass think is here.:=

Not sure when major spends became single service either. Does the RN have a massive pile of cash that the Joint Capabilities Board does not know about?

Or how about you set aside the divisive posts and embrace capabilities that are good for the UK Armed Forces, rather than just an individual service?

[Biggus]

As someone who is in the RAF, at least for a while longer, I don't consider saying that the RN will carry the role forward (if it goes forward at all) to be a divisive post, or individual service oriented.....

So keep your := 's to yourself thank you!!

[Roland Pulfrew]

We need a PATROL Aircraft to start with - not an ASW platform

What a load of crock! What do we need to "patrol"? We need an ASW platform; whether that is something Gucci like a P8 (which we cannot afford to buy) or something that keeps us in the game in the medium term (like a 295) will be down to budgets. If you need a "patrol" aircraft then there are already any number of assets that claim to be able to do it; Predator, Sentinel and E3 to name a few - none of them can do ASW. To do ASW you need a decent radar (which will also provide an ASuW capability); you need ESM of some sort to do ASW and ASuW; you need to be able to deploy sub-surface surveillance systems for ASW, which can be surprisingly handy for ASuW at times. A decent EO/IR camera system is now pretty much a must for either role, plus overland, MCT, SAR etc. You need good comms whether its for ASW or ASuW and an ability to deploy weapons is a must for either role. As I've said before, if you buy a properly equipped MMA which has a good ASW capability, you get all the other roles for "free". With carriers just a couple of years away we will need something more than a "patrol" aircraft to help protect them. As the main threat is likely to be from submarines there is no point in buying an aircraft which isn't ASW capable.

And just as an aside, doesn't MPA/MMA sit in the Jt Forces Cap area not within the Air or Navy command cap area? :rolleyes:

[Just This Once...]

egdg,

I really don't know why I respond to your inflammatory posts, especially as they stand in stark contrast to the tri-service team (yep, Army too) trying to bring an MMA to meet the UK's needs.

I don't care and the SRO does not care who operates this future Joint capability. No single service is pushing hard to be the prime provider of crews either. Indeed, with the manning picture as it is each service has strong reasons as to why finding crews would be problematic.

All the problems point to a large rationalisation of all the ISTAR assets (predominantly those operated by the Army and RAF). The first part of this is underway through the AIOS - again, a tri-service effort and this will probably influence what types are kept in any specific role in the future. Nobody in the ISTAR community expects any future platform to be a pure MPA. The future is with platforms that can deliver across multiple roles - we have no space for one-trick aircraft.

You are correct that whoever operates the aircraft will have to be trained and sustained. This could be an expansion of the MFTS contract or it could be provided by someone else. The existence of the MFTS contract providing trg at Culdrose does not make it a given. Please do not think the RN is in a position to provide any additional crews through the existing contract above and beyond its funded line; it exists to support the current requirement, even if it recognises the potential requirement to grow. In equal regard the maritime community dispersed around the RAF, RN and Seedcorn is not going to be enough either. All MMA aircraft soak-up relatively large numbers of personnel, groundcrew & aircrew alike.

I'm sorry I don't see the rivalry you allude to, but it just isn't there. The requirement is being driven by the UK's needs, not an individual service. My RN colleague sipping beer next to me thinks I am mad to respond to your post. He has a habit of being right.

[Duncan D'Sorderlee]

Ahoy, me hearties! How does I get press ganged into this there Navy MPA m'larkey. Ahaaarrgh!

Duncs:ok:

[betty swallox]

Aaaaar oh aaaaar Duncs!! Nowt wrong with a bit of pirating....

[betty swallox]

Surely that is the whole point of Seedcorn?!
Baby steps, given the scaling back that we've experienced, but, arguably, it's at least a start.

[Biggus]

How much longer will RAF ex-MPA seedcorn exist? I've heard of a specific date doing the rounds.

[betty swallox]

as long as it's deemed neccesary, I guess...

[The Old Fat One]

good post GD107.

Whatever it might look like to those still serving, seedcorn is a political fix. Something politicians and senior MOD bods can hang their hat on to be seen to doing something given the awkward reality that they have conjured up a capability gap in a maritime nation's security.

Whether it mutates into something better depends on...

a. Someone in power getting the message.
b. That someone having the budget to do something about it.

With regards to the latter, I refer you all to the latest OBR sustainability report, released just a couple of days ago.

That the would be the one predicting a growing deficit towards 2020, unless government expenditure is cut further or taxation is increased or both

It's probably best if we all live in the reality of the present. The RAF getting an MPA again is probably (never say never) not going to happen.

As I've said before, I would love to be wrong.

[Sandy Parts]

"It's probably best if we all live in the reality of the present. The RAF getting an MPA again is probably (never say never) not going to happen.

As I've said before, I would love to be wrong."

concur, sadly :(

[JSFfan]

The Old Fat One (http://www.pprune.org/members/217364-the-old-fat-one), the odds of the UK R&D'ing an orphan platform is zero, the yanks sunk $8 billion R&D into the p-8a and uk simply don't have the money or the will after the last effort.
Suck it up, like Aussies, you will run the p-8a with a few bams

[betty swallox]

It's not a case of "sucking it up".

That implies an element of negativity.

We are where we are, and the time for constantly going on about it is gone.

Would I have loved to see MRA 4 on the pan at Kinloss? Yes!! But, that didn't happen for many many reasons, and it's unhealthy to bang on about it forever.

I don't wish to speculate about P-8, because, frankly, that may be premature. However, it may be an option for the UK, and not simply a case of sucking it up.

[althenick]

As for the RN Operating a New MPA platform of any sort...

I don't believe it would be in the RN's interest to own and operate such a beast outright. the Manning would be a nightmare with respect to training sea time. It would end up that some of the Ground crew would never go to sea and that has never been an option that the RN AFAIKR.
The best option would be that the RN own the Budget and control of Asset comes under FONA down to squadron Commander. The WSO's are provided by The RN and Groundcrew and some Pilots provided by the RAF.

Just my opinion...

[JSFfan]

well it's going to be hard running a fleet without MPA and the 'suck it up' referred to a sole UK solution which isn't going to happen for the 2 reasons I've given, $8 billion R&D and fingers already burnt

better to buy 15 x p-8a at $200 million each, which is $3 billion plus pieces and put the other billions into upgrades

[betty swallox]

That I agree with!

[Roland Pulfrew]

Well there might be other options:

1. Boeing and the UK Mil have a very good experience of a lease-purchase arrangement - lease small numbers of P8s with a view to buying more later when "we" have some money available.
2. Do we know how sequestration in the States is going to effect the delivery timescales of the USN P8s? - might release P8s from the production line for lease/purchase to allow the USN to spread their buy till they have more money available
3. Something smaller but which offers a more flexible platform ie the Casa 295 (already an operational MPA, can do all of the roles required of a MMA + troop transport, para, cargo, short-rough field etc etc) and looking to the future could provide an AEW varient to replace E3.

On the latter option (and I am not a fan/employee) but you could see a fleet of aircraft doing the full MPA role, pick up the comms fleet role, elements of the tac AT role as a successor to the 130J, a Shadow replacement and possibly in the future as an E3 replacement. A single platform doing all of these roles - think of the support costs savings.

[The Old Fat One]

Where the defence budget is magically going to find the necessary wonga to buy/rent/hire/equity share/steal/extort some shiny new MPAs is something of a mystery to me, but allowing for that possibility may I point out a somewhat bigger problem...

Binning the kipper fleet allowed the RAF to meet it's manpower reduction of 3500 posts, of which circa 1500-2000 would have been maritime-related.

Irrespective of who operates it, we is gonna need most of these posts re-established to regain the capability. And that is going to cost a bucket load of moolah...every year.

[Roland Pulfrew]

of which circa 1500-2000 would have been maritime-related.

Hmm, I think your figures are a long way out; I would suggest less than a third of that number and many of them have gone to other roles.

[PFMG]

Roland - re your post #96, I think that is the best and most accurate reflection of the options and possible outcomes on this thread.

For what it is worth I think option 3 is probably the bookies favourite.

[triboy]

The MMA concept makes perfect financial sense but most of the "Other Govt Dept stuff" is not in a URD and not in DSD13 therefore there is a limited formal Defence requirement for it.

To get this off the ground one of the three (of the four who care) commands would have to give up their envelope to fund it or get together in a gang and "agree" to jointly fund it.

I am not getting that joined up feel.....:bored:

[Surplus]

BloodyHound Loose, (Expiry time?) http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/wink2.gif, agree with your post, but the cheap and cheerful option 3 has a lot of compromises that greatly limit it's effectiveness. A short range turbo prop MPA would probably be able to defend the deterrent at home; however, it's likely to have limited utility protecting the carrier world-wide. It will be up to the decision makers to balance that risk.The main purpose of a carrier is to project power globally, I have spent many hours, and from your pprune name I suspect so have you, in LRMPA's keeping an eye on them whilst they transit the GOO and at other times. Whilst they usually have plenty of subs to look after them, we might not be in the same position. IMHO, if we can't afford to look after them whilst they project power overseas, the safest place for them would be tied up alongside. How would you balance the risk of losing a carrier, your only carrier, and the thousands of people on board?

[The Old Fat One]

nice point Surplus.

It is one of the more ironic (or perhaps moronic) elements of the whole MPA cancellation saga, that the decision took place pretty much at the same time as the decision to continue building (but not necessarily equipping) aircraft carriers.

From the perspective of even the most intellectually challenged noob maritime siggie, it would seem the decisions were made on the back of a fag packet towards the end of an especially heavy happy hour in the MOD.

[The Old Fat One]

PS

Roland,

You mixing up actual people with LUEs. Think about it.

[The Old Fat One]

as long as it's deemed neccesary, I guess...

Nope...Seedcorn has a natural shelf life, and it's not far in the future. Since Seedcorn is "seeded" with operational combat ready MPA aircrew (which we don't have anymore) it's shelf life kicks in at the tourex of the current shift.

No doubt there will be room for the odd extension or two if the talking heads are still vacillating about the future MPA capability, but expect it to fold pretty quick not least because the individuals concerned will be thinking "nice gig, bwtf is my life/career going?".

Of course it may mutate into something else, but then it won't be Seedcorn any more will it?

[alfred_the_great]

The main purpose of a carrier is to project power globally, I have spent many hours, and from your pprune name I suspect so have you, in LRMPA's keeping an eye on them whilst they transit the GOO and at other times.

S-3 Viking anyone?

[Phoney Tony]

6 hrs plus doing ASW strapped to a bang seat. No thanks, I enjoy DCS, a cup of tea and proper toilet!

[Ivan Rogov]

On the ITN 22:00 news on AQ threat to UK and US in Yemen. Reporter states all staff left and camera pans to the sky as he explains the drones remain, looked remarkably like a P-3... :{

[reynoldsno1]

S-3 Viking anyone
Once described as a machine designed perfectly to work 4 men to near exhaustion in 6 hours...

[betty swallox]

USN, Boeing Sign Order for 13 Poseidon Aircraft - AMD ? Aerospace Manufacturing and Design (http://www.onlineamd.com/Article.aspx?article_id=144255)

[betty swallox]

Inaugural P-8A deployment near | Navy Times | navytimes.com (http://www.navytimes.com/article/20130808/NEWS04/308120006/Inaugural-P-8A-deployment-near)

[oxenos]

I started this thread. with a couple of photos of a flying model wot i built, as a light hearted , tongue in cheek spoof. I come back from my hols to to find it hijacked by the serious brigade. Surely there are enough "bring back the Nimrod or something" threads running already.
Time to close this one I think.

[betty swallox]

...or maybe not??!!

[EW73]

It's not going to change . . . . I've logged over five and a half thousand hours on P3s (B and C models), and I've seen the inside of these new P8s, and read quite a lot about their performance, and importantly, I've seen and been in the flight deck.
There is absolutely no way this new P8 is going to come anywhere near the established space and flight comfort of the P3, not even taking into account the very 'squeezy' flight deck for the long, very long missions this airplane will be asked to do.
Long missions of course, only if they don't try and fly it at any sort of low/lowish altitude, the result of which will surely be very much shorter missions, or an appointment with the AAR tanker.
And don't even start me off on the decision to operate these airplanes from remote airfields without a flight engineer.
The best option was always the launch of a modernized version of the P3!

[Party Animal]

Oxenos,


I started this thread.....


Actually, you started this thread with the title 'New MPA?', so for the likes of bs posting links to the P8, what else would you expect??

Maybe you should have started a thread on 'flying model wot i built, as a light hearted , tongue in cheek spoof', if you wanted to keep your thread away from serious comment.

[Yeller_Gait]

It's not going to change . . . . I've logged over five and a half thousand hours on P3s (B and C models), and I've seen the inside of these new P8s, and read quite a lot about their performance, and importantly, I've seen and been in the flight deck.
There is absolutely no way this new P8 is going to come anywhere near the established space and flight comfort of the P3, not even taking into account the very 'squeezy' flight deck for the long, very long missions this airplane will be asked to do.
Long missions of course, only if they don't try and fly it at any sort of low/lowish altitude, the result of which will surely be very much shorter missions, or an appointment with the AAR tanker.
And don't even start me off on the decision to operate these airplanes from remote airfields without a flight engineer.

Difficult to know where to begin with your post EW73.

The flight deck is just somewhere the drivers do their job, all the MPA type work goes on down the back. When the pilots are in their seats, you do not need a huge amount of wasted space all around you. For the mission crew sat at their seats operating, there is no need for a lot of wasted space. I agree that it would be nice to have, but there is a cost saving.

The airframe and engines are so much more reliable than a P3 that there is no problem operating from remote airfields, and a modern airframe is designed to be operated by two pilots. A spare crew member/3rd pilot, can occupy the jump seat for the low level stuff. The aircraft is more than capable of long missions, unless you want to do 8 hours of MAD searching, and having AAR capability is an added bonus.

Just my thoughts

Y_G

[Heathrow Harry]

and anywhere that you fly from will likely have a LCA operating 737's as well if you need the odd spare

[Biggus]

.....yeah, that really worked well for Voyager didn't it! :=

[betty swallox]

EW 73.
Disagree strongly.

[The Old Fat One]

watching the news tonight we are apparently eye-balling the C295. this from a Kiwi review of this second world makeshift...

It is the lowest priced and lowest possible specification. The aircraft is slow flying at a maximum 250 knots and can take off in 800 metres. For the bulk of short-range domestic missions it would be adequate but for longer range missions it would be too small and too slow.

Sounds ideal...problem solved:E:E:E:E:E

[Heathrow Harry]

yeah but New Zealand is surrounded by a LOT of Ocean - for us something that can get out a couple of hundred miles would be better than nothing

[Eclectic]

Take an Airbus A350 and fit an unpressurised canoe.
Fit a maximum sensor suite and all the latest comms.
Load it with a wide range of ordinance, especially anti shipping missiles of various sizes/ranges.
Engineer in the maximum number of roles including special forces insertion.

That would give immense strategic force projection. Base one in Akrotiri and it would change the balance of power in the region.

[Surplus]

There is absolutely no way this new P8 is going to come anywhere near the established space and flight comfort of the P3 (my bold)

Having just done a couple of 11 hour flights, the onsta at low level, not very comfortable, but I agree - very roomy.

[betty swallox]

Sorry. You've done a couple of 11 hour flights in the P-8A??!! Where exactly was that?

[EW73]

What BS !!! (I don't mean bs, I mean BS, the post) 11 hours and you have to ask!
Only way the P8 will do anywhere near 11 hours is loitering at FL370.

Hey Surplus, I guess it's all relative, try being strapped into a Viking for half that time and see how you come out.

EW73

[JSFfan]

I read it as Surplus did 11 hrs in a P3.

[Surplus]

Hey Surplus, I guess it's all relative, try being strapped into a Viking for half that time and see how you come out.Only if she's got blond hair.

Never been in a Viking, I'm sure that all of the horror stories are justified though.

Yes, I did mean a P3, I was merely pointing out that a P3 at low level, above a high sea state can hardly be classified as comfortable.

My post made no mention of what the ride or endurance of a P8 is like.

JSF Fan, thanks for clarifying my post. :ok:

[JSFfan]

no probs:ok:

I can't think of a valid reason why the P-8 can't stay up till the engines need more oil and my guess is it's a lot more than 11 hrs if needed

some seem to be missing that it is new tech that is allowing the p-8 to work high and the area this controls

[Biggus]

JSFfan,

The capacity of the toilet system would be the limiting factor.... :ok:

[JSFfan]

The poms and aussies will be fine, I understand allowances have been made and it's a very large system because everyone knows seppos are full of schite

[JSFfan]

I found a public source for the 11 hrs,
time at 3 min
P8 Poseidon interview with James Detwiler from Boeing - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SBc-DrliGW8&feature=player_detailpage#t=188)

[tucumseh]

While this thread discusses a possible future MPA, there is a deafening silence on the question of whether a replacement Replacement Maritime Patrol Aircraft (!) :( would actually be managed any better, given the nature of the MAJOR failures noted by the audit report which directly preceded cancellation of N2000/RMPA/MRA4.

If you study the MAJORs, and even the MINORS (some of which are actually showstoppers, so I would query the definitions used), every single one of them was identified and notified on the 1990s. :ugh: Some use more recent terminology, but all have direct links to mandated policies from the 90s and beyond. Over 12 years later, these remained outstanding. There is no doubt whatsoever why MRA4 was cancelled.

The point here is that the MAA are not addressing the root failures, especially the elephant in the room that is the consistent ruling that most of these mandated regulations can be regarded as OPTIONAL, if their implementation affects Time or Cost.

In MoD(PE) and then DPA, this ruling was made by Director General Air Systems 2 / Executive Director 1, :mad: who just happened to be the Nimrod (and Chinook) 2 Star, and the predecessor of the 2 Star mentioned in the report. To this day, his rulings are vigourously upheld and endorsed by his successors, including the MAA. :\ Also, in writing, by the last six Ministers for the Armed Forces and the current Head of the Civil Service.




http://i214.photobucket.com/albums/cc291/exploringtheblue/NimrodMRA4ProjectTeamAuditReport_001_zps33e7cc5c.jpg (http://s214.photobucket.com/user/exploringtheblue/media/NimrodMRA4ProjectTeamAuditReport_001_zps33e7cc5c.jpg.html)

http://i214.photobucket.com/albums/cc291/exploringtheblue/NimrodMRA4ProjectTeamAuditReport_002_zpsdf699569.jpg (http://s214.photobucket.com/user/exploringtheblue/media/NimrodMRA4ProjectTeamAuditReport_002_zpsdf699569.jpg.html)

http://i214.photobucket.com/albums/cc291/exploringtheblue/NimrodMRA4ProjectTeamAuditReport_003_zpsb8a8d31f.jpg (http://s214.photobucket.com/user/exploringtheblue/media/NimrodMRA4ProjectTeamAuditReport_003_zpsb8a8d31f.jpg.html)

http://i214.photobucket.com/albums/cc291/exploringtheblue/NimrodMRA4ProjectTeamAuditReport_004_zpsebc1a2d8.jpg (http://s214.photobucket.com/user/exploringtheblue/media/NimrodMRA4ProjectTeamAuditReport_004_zpsebc1a2d8.jpg.html)

[betty swallox]

...or we could just buy the P-8...!

[JSFfan]

http://www.uasvision.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/HAAWC.jpg

[donpizmeov]

If you need to strap wings to a torpedo to get it to the splash down point I think you are in the wrong platform.
The only time I would like to be loitering a long way from home on two engines, is when numbers 1 and 4 have been shutdown to save gas. :E

the Don

[althenick]

If you need to strap wings to a torpedo to get it to the splash down point I think you are in the wrong platform

Maybe we can do an excocet-type mod and strap one of these to a C295 ;)

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/9/97/Ikara.JPG/250px-Ikara.JPG

[betty swallox]

This REALLY is worth a read...

http://ukarmedforcescommentary.********.co.uk/2013/01/the-p8-poseidon-and-uk.html?m=1

[Roland Pulfrew]

This REALLY is worth a read...

Betty, your link doesn't work. You need to telll us what w e b s i t e it is hosted on as PPRuNe doesn't like alternative forums!!:uhoh:

[JSFfan]

It is worth a read and 'blog spot' [one word]

[betty swallox]

Ok. Not giving up yet! I can't even PM this link for some "reason". So, if you are inclined, I'll type it in two bits. If you take those two bits, insert a "." and join up, it should work. (Is it 2013??!!)

http://ukarmedforcescommentary.********.co

"."

uk/2013/01/the-p8-poseidon-and-uk.html

[betty swallox]

...and the last attempt.....

replace ***** with blog spot (but join up the two words)

Phew!!!

[Party Animal]

BS,

Mate, I know it's a big article but you could always cut 'n' paste the whole lot for ease of readership?

Now waiting for a C295 blog to come along for comparison purposes! :8

[kaitakbowler]

Oxenos

There is no such thing a British Waterways Board any more, killed off in the cull of the quangos and morphed into The Canal & River Trust, a registered charity. Haven't heard anything about them being in the UAV business.

[oxenos]

It's true - honest

[betty swallox]

PA....it's huge; I find that articles that are huge, and posted on here, loose the impact that they deserve. I'm hoping the link (joined up!) works.
Cheers,
BS

[Duncan D'Sorderlee]

Cheers, Betty!

Duncs:ok:

[Avtur]

Tucumseh,

Always enjoy reading your posts.

I believe the design and systems engineers responsible for the MRA4 air vehicle systems returned their salaries each month to safeguard their amateur status!

Amongst other 'system interoperability" issues; Imagine forgetting about PFCUs requirements when initially focusing on the mission system requirements and then wondering why not a lot worked properly with aircraft stability/controllability once remembered? Oh and then trying to introduce obsolete MR2 systems to mitigate these issues... brilliant.

But, having little or no Systems Safety Assessment training (thus oversight) within the group responsible for managing the project is just unforgivable and crass.

Thank goodness it was cancelled; for the sake of the crews.

(I have my 2 Sep memory chip in...)

[DaveyBoy]

Here's an easily clickable link to the article mentioned by Betty above: UK Armed Forces Commentary: The P8 Poseidon and the UK (http://tinyurl.com/p8article)

[Chugalug2]

Avtur, you rightly praise tucumseh for the breadth and depth of knowledge that he brings to this forum. You might also rightly comment on the consistent way that what he says is generally ignored here.
The usual gripe is one of "thread drift", whereby those who post merely want to wallow in a Boys Own fest of pages from the Bumper Book of Weird and Wonderful Aeroplanes and are not interested in the uncomfortable testimony from tuc that any one of them would fail at the first hurdle because GB plc has lost the ability to put them into UK military service without making a complete Horlicks of it.
Never mind, out with the Ian Allen Observers Book of Aircraft again. Oh look, that's a good one on p52...

[Biggus]

Chug,

Good point, but you should also mention whether UK plc can afford to buy the latest Boys Own toy.

What exactly would a fleet of 5-8 P-8s cost, along with spares, support, infrastructure, Sqns, aircrew etc? £1-2 Bn plus as a minimum I would suggest...

Where is that money going to come from? Especially when one considers there is another thread running on this forum discussing a £1-2 Bn cost overrun on the carriers for the UK, and the very real prospect of a substantial cost overrun (possibly offset by a reduced numbers buy?) for the JSFs to fly off them.

By the way, have you seen the one on page 84!!!

[Chugalug2]

Seems we are in violent agreement Biggus, for the ever rising costs of which you speak are merely enhanced by the very illegality, malevolence, and incompetence of which tuc constantly reminds us. The two carriers are a shining example of that, especially as there is a possibility that neither will enter RN service, let alone operate with the JSFs that they were designed for, and redesigned for, and re-redesigned, etc etc.

If only that nice Mr Broon knew of the scandal. Oh, he does? Ever on the ball then, as witness his comment about the Ministry of Waste. There at least he put his finger on the nub of it all. Like everything else that followed Earl Mountbatten getting a good idea, this creature has turned into a catastrophe and is perhaps the greatest foe confronting the UK Armed Forces.

What's to be done about that? Not my job mate. What is our job though is Flight Safety. That includes the provision of airworthy aircraft to HM Forces and the retention of that airworthiness. That requires an effective Airworthiness Authority and Air Accident Investigator. That requires that the MAA and the MAAIB be separated from and made independent of the MOD and of each other. Only then can we confidently pore over the glossy catalogues and brochures.

Yes, P84 is a stunner isn't it? Do they do easy payments?

[Party Animal]

Following the highly optimistic tone set by Biggus, perhaps we should have a hands up of who thinks a new MPA/MMA will get any form of mention in SDSR 15?

My guess?

Norfolk and Chance! :sad:

[betty swallox]

Thanks Davey Boy. Spot on!

[DaveyBoy]

Betty: That's why we're the Geek Squad up here ;-)

Party Animal: I'll bet you 5p that it gets a mention!

[OilCan]

Tuc

re the document. The review date is Apr 2010 but the date at the bottom of each page is Sept 2005. Could you explain please.

[dervish]

avtur

But, having little or no Systems Safety Assessment training (thus oversight) within the group responsible for managing the project is just unforgivable and crass.


That's certainly what struck me.


As for the dates, the way I read it the previous audit was 2005 and this is the follow-up. 5 years later sufficient "major" failures remain to warrant cancellation.

[Heathrow Harry]

P-8 Costs

31 July 2013, Boeing received a $2.04 billion contract to build 13 P-8A Poseidons as part of the fourth low-rate initial production lot

4 January 2009, India signed an agreement with Boeing for the supply of eight P-8Is at a total cost of US$2.1 billion.

so somewhere around $ 170 - $ 260 mm each

[JSFfan]

I think you will find that the $170 is the URF and the $260 is the FMS full package with pilot and crew training etc
http://www.dod.mil/pubs/foi/logistics_material_readiness/acq_bud_fin/SARs/DEC%202011%20SAR/P-8A%20-%20SAR%20-%2031%20DEC%202011.pdf

[Biggus]

Still money we don't have....

[betty swallox]

What price our Homeland Defence?!

[dervish]

Still money we don't have....

Maybe so, but there's still no sign of an inquiry into the MRA4 fiasco and £4Billion pissed down the drain. The report posted earlier must narrow the responsibility down considerably and I'd like to know those fools aren't still working in MoD. Something tells me they are. If MoD don't get a grip on this, the powers that be will always be reluctant to throw good money after bad.

[The Old Fat One]

I've posted this before and even an existing serviceman could not get their head round it (not you Betty) which is extraordinary given all the budget lectures they will go through in training.

The cost of procuring the aircraft - expensive as it will be - is not the main the cost.

The main cost will be - as is always is - the cost of the people to fly, fix and operate it. This will require a real and sizeable change in the Local Unit Establishment (LUE) of whoever gets it (RAF, RN or most likely Joint) which in turn will require a real increase in the defence budget in percentage terms.

That folks is not going to happen (for all sorts of political, democratic and socio-economic reasons).

So if it is coming back, it is coming back at the expense of something else, and that something else will have to be pretty big. Getting rid of the Reds for example would not come remotely close to covering it.

Getting rid of those two carriers might, or maybe scrapping the IND? Of course such things are important for homeland defence too, are they not? As is everything else in the inventory...I'm not aware that the armed forces have kept superfluous capabilities at any time in our recent history.

None of this is an argument for not having an MPA BTW. It is merely a pragmatic view of how hard it will be to ever get one back, which is why this old timer is so mightly p1ssed of at the total SNAFU we made of the one we used to have.

And a great many people, wearing all sorts of uniforms and suits, bear responsibility for that.

PS Just seen dervish's post...

Nobody would love to see a public enquiry into the MRA4 fiasco more than me...I would go to watch and I would go to give evidence. But it would not achieve anything, it would cost a bucketload and it's not going to happen :{

[Biggus]

I believe there will be further pressure on the Defence budget to absorb some capabilities that were bought for Afghanistan as UORs (and therefore don't have long term funding) into the core spending arena.

However, as someone nowhere near the procurement empire, I don't know if these costs have already been allowed for in the core Defence budget post 2015...

[Party Animal]

TOFO,

You're right but it has already been announced that Sentinel will go post 2015 (I know the decision may be reversed). 5 Sqn is already joint and huge, so just need to swap Army for RN and aircraft type to MAA and you're good to go!

Unless the savings from the removal of Sentinel have already been spent on Typhoon updates? Are we keeping 2 Reaper sqns post 2015?

[Biggus]

PA,

I thought Reaper was some of the UOR hardware I had just referred to.

[Party Animal]

Biggus,

I believe both Reaper and Shadow came in under UORs and like you, I do not know how or what is planned or budgeted for post 2015.

Anyone have the definitive?

[The Old Fat One]

Funnily enough I talked about this very thing with my mate (ex service like me) and my son as we strolled up a mountain just two days ago (he asked me who's going to pay for all the hardware we might be about to use up)

I can't give you chapter and verse (somebody on here will be able to for sure) but sometime in the last 10-20 years (around the time of foot and mouth???) I believe we changed the way we paid for all this overseas intervention stuff (or "wars", as we used to call them).

In a nutshell, they didn't used to come out the defence budget...now they do.

I'm not sure how accurate that is, I'm old (hence increasingly Mr Thicko) and suffering Post Lagavulin Stress Disorder, but I believe there to be an element of fact in that statement.

Which roughly translates to...

Here is X amount of money. Spend it on what you want (wars included) and when its gone, its gone.

More than happy to stand corrected though.

And PA, that's a good input...maybe some reason for optimism. One can but hope.

PS That beast was not (completely) in service when I left in 2003. And now it's going :ugh::ugh: That stinks to high heaven as well. WTFIGO!

[Roland Pulfrew]

Here is X amount of money. Spend it on what you want (wars included) and when its gone, its gone.



TOFO

I'm sure we will both be corrected if wrong, but IIRC your statement is incorrect. We have the core defence budget which we spend as we see fit. It covers pay, new equipment, maintenance, infrastructure, exercises and consumables (fuel/weapons etc) etc. The stuff that you can plan for and programme on a peacetime basis.

If the govt of the day send us off on ops then much of the additional money comes from HMT reserve - this includes UOR kit (the stuff we have to buy because we couldn't foresee a particular requirement for the area we end up operating in), replenishment of used war stocks of ammo etc and it can be used to fund increased usage of spares ie if you are burning up engines for a particular asset because you did not plan to use that asset as much under peacetime rates as you are actually doing on ops. Some of it though, will still come from the core budget so there will be an increased drain on the core budget as well.

Bringing good new "stuff" into core is the issue. Manpower liabilities to operate a new piece of kit on a UOR has to be taken from the core budget - hence if you stand up a new unit for the length of a UOR funded op you find the manpower from elsewhere but within your current cap. Bring it into core at the end of the op and you have to fund the necessary manpower and maintenence from within the existing budget/manpower cap unless you can get an enhancement option through the planning process that agrees an uplift in funding/manpower. Clear? As mud!!

I think :}

Edited to add:

Any manpower for a UOR is assumed to be released back to "core" roles at the end of a UOR, thus if Sentinel is not brought back in to core then those personnel on the Sentinel programme will be posted to other types. Given the lead time on aircrew training, running Sentinel on beyond 15 might not be viable, as those personnel currently on type will already be pencilled in to fill other core jobs - Voyager, A400, RJ etc etc.

[Party Animal]

RP,

Is Sentinel a UOR?? I thought it was core already. We were talking about needing the capability immediately after GW1!

[Roland Pulfrew]

PA

I am not certain. It is correct that Sent was a properly funded core programme (albeit late in delivery). My understanding was that it was/is due to exit service after AFG ops (this (http://www.thisislincolnshire.co.uk/County-based-spy-plane-scrapped-MoD-looks-slash-costs/story-11207079-detail/story.html#axzz2e7ToSKU4) from 2010). Under normal circumstances that would have meant it would already be drawing down - think VC10 or C130 or MR2 - a slow drawn out decline in capability and manning as aircraft are withdrawn and personnel are posted out. To ensure that R1 could make it to the (significantly brought forward) OSD it is, I believe, subject to some sort of UOR funding. But then memory is a fickle thing.

Edited to add:

PA

I may be wrong, see here (http://www.fast-air.co.uk/reprieve-for-sentinel-r1/) Maybe the memory is on the way out!!

[drustsonoferp]

Party Animal,

While nothing seems to have been stated even vaguely officially yet, I thought the RAF were trying to pull off a quick political sidestep by offering up Sentinel in a sort of payment in kind towards participation in NATO AGS, in a move vaguely similar to the arrangement of E-3Ds with NATO.

A fairly recent article lacking completely in detail here (http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/ain-defense-perspective/2013-06-14/germany-uk-offer-alternatives-global-hawk-nato-ags)

[The Old Fat One]

I'm sure we will both be corrected if wrong, but IIRC your statement is incorrect.

did a little light reading and I would have to agree with you...damn...knew that lagavulin tasted funny