UK P8 Poseidon

[beerdrinker]

Interesting article in this week's Aviation Leak indicating that an order for up to 12 Poseidons is not far away. Decision held up by General Election.

[BBadanov]

Good for you guys to come out of the closet with this.


You know it makes sense !!

[Background Noise]

I wonder how far away 'not far away' actually is. This has been mooted for some time:

http://www.pprune.org/military-aviation/453611-mod-buy-5-x-p8-usa-maybe.html

[ORAC]

Hmmmm, only Boeing hype - but if they are right, out of who's budget?....

Increased P-8 production rate caters to international sales, possibly including the U.K. (http://aviationweek.com/defense/boeing-plans-p-8-ramp-upgrades-stay-track)

Boeing is stepping up monthly production of the P-8 Poseidon maritime patrol aircraft amid mounting signs of additional international sales and solid funding for planned U.S. Navy procurement...... says Jimmy Dodd, vice president and general manager of mobility, surveillance and engagement at Boeing Military Aircraft....

However, Boeing is also courting the U.K., which according to British press reports, is studying acquiring up to 12 P-8s as part of efforts to rebuild its anti-submarine warfare (ASW) capabilities following the abrupt withdrawal of the Nimrod MR2 maritime patrol force in 2010. The same year the U.K. also axed the planned Nimrod MRA4 replacement program, leaving a capability gap that Russian surface vessels and submarines have exposed during recent incursions into British waters.

“The U.K. will be under FMS (foreign military sale),” says Dodd who adds that any negotiations will be led by the Navy. “Everything was stalled out waiting on the [U.K.] election, and now that it’s over we are hoping activity will increase and there will be a commitment.” Although discussions with the U.K. Defense Ministry are believed to be centered on an initial contract for six firm aircraft plus six options, Dodd adds that Boeing’s involvement has so far been minimal.

“We’ve never actually given [the U.S. Navy] a proposal [for the U.K.]. The Navy knows what they are paying, and they know what it costs to support. They also understand the differences in configurations, so they haven’t been asking us for a lot of detailed price and cost data at this point,” he says. “I’m sure that will come. Usually it is triggered to us when there is a letter of request [LOR] for price and availability. When there is an LOR on those jets, then they come to us and ask for offerability on cost and schedule,” adds Dodd.

Under the standard FMS procedure, the U.K. must submit an LOR for either price and availability or a letter of offer and acceptance. The U.S. government then has 120 days to respond, and if congressional review is required, an extra 15-50 days may be needed. “I know various things have been kicked about. Obviously, if it is an increase in quantity over and above what we already had then it is to do with the time line. How much is long lead, how much time line? The Navy already know us and we share line positions so they have that data,” says Dodd. “We will engage directly [with the U.K Defense Ministry] at some point. It just hasn’t happened yet, and it will happen.”..........

[Frostchamber]

On timing, if there are any positives ahead I imagine they'll be being stored up for the SDSR outcome, they'll want to lard it with any good news they can.

[Martin the Martian]

I cannot imagine that there would be a Congressional obstacle to an FMS request from the UK, but I would like to know where the money is coming from, unless this week's announcement that the MoD has to find £500 million of savings is partly to offset a P-8 purchase.

[beerdrinker]

Instead of RPI, as the P8 is based on an airliner, how about an "Operational Lease"?

BD

[glad rag]

They also understand the differences in configurations,

Aha! bring in the accountants!!

[EAP86]

It would be interesting to see how the MAA would handle a P8 certification in light of the Rivet Joint experience (similar airframe provenance?), FMS restrictions and their new regulations for certification here (https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/432385/NPA_15_12_Combined.pdf).

EAP

[just another jocky]

Well, we had folk(s) flying them for a while now so would be logical, assuming funding can be sorted.

[Martin the Martian]

Well as the P-8s would be newly built aircraft rather than 50-year old airframes I think many of the problems would not be there.

[VinRouge]

I think you are confusing the P8 and the P3.

Anything heard about getting wedge tail at the same time to replace E-3? Common sense for lots of reasons.

[Frostchamber]

On funding, AFAIK there's more than enough in the unallocated headroom (an amount set aside and carried forward with Treasury agreement to fund priorities from the whiteboard of unfunded wishlist items, as and when they're afforded priority) to fund an up front purchase of 6 or so.

But running them would need to be accommodated from a flatlined or shrinking running costs budget, so might mean a bit of deckchair shuffling...

Anyway, until such time as the Treasury reneges and snatches the unallocated funds (which is possible but which would be politically and presentationally difficult, especially given the current Tory backbench sentiment on defence and HMG's tiny majority), there IS funding available for this acquisition. At least for the capital part of it.

[VinRouge]

Do extant treasury rules allow you to roll up the support element in a front end support contract paid outright at the start (ie pay through life costs such as spares support, upgrades, training etc on day 1?)

[Frostchamber]

Good question, wish I knew the answer. In general HMT are chary of running costs being disguised as capital. That said, I think major spare parts and servicing equipment can be capitalized as fixed assets, and upgrades / improvements can also be categorised as capital. So the upfront cost could reasonably include a substantial spares element and kit required to maintain and improve the fleet, and presumably progressive software upgrades and the like, these being improvements - so one way or another a fair bit could be built in. Hopefully someone with more accountancy knowhow can correct me if I'm wrong.

[Sun Who]

Do extant treasury rules allow you to roll up the support element in a front end support contract paid outright at the start (ie pay through life costs such as spares support, upgrades, training etc on day 1?) Yes.
however, what happens in reality when you contract like that, is the company in question runs the service/equipment for a year or so, and then says "Oh, it appears to be more expensive than we anticipated, give us more cash or we fail." We can't afford to fail, so we give them more cash.

There is no way to transfer risk when your business is defence or security.

Sun.

[VinRouge]

I was wondering as the other Boeing COTS FMS purchase (C-17) uses contacted spares and upgrade programme I believe. Very successfully I hear.

[Hangarshuffle]

All week leaks have been coming out of No10 and elsewhere about the depth and scale of budget cuts to the various ministries, this year, I've heard 12 billion for DPS or whatever it now, and more and more. Is there to be an SDR (again) this year>? Its a utter shambles. No money. Unrealistic
In simple terms, what will be this aircrafts primary role? Motive. (Don't tell me they know what they are actually doing)
Is there another thread running about where it will be based? Someone confidently said Yeovilton, another said Culdrose as a base....find this hard to fathom or understand..in a way.Logistical
So if above true.. the Navy runs it then?Also, I guessing Govt. is about to wash out Scotland and base the bombers out of Plymouth in the future instead? If the nuclear deterrent has a future.Political
#Its a good press story, which is what it is - a fairy story man. Page Filler
Plus PM will have to admit he ****** up in 2010 and that is something they never do. Political/Psychological

But I admit it would be a political winner, in some ways. And a state splitter response by HMG.

[Frostchamber]

I think the die is pretty much cast on this one, with all the statements that have been made - it will happen.

[taxydual]

OK, Good plan.

But, where are they going to be based? Which base has ramp space?

[salad-dodger]

It would be interesting to see how the MAA would handle a P8 certification in light of the Rivet Joint experience (similar airframe provenance?), FMS restrictions and their new regulations for certification here.

Go on then EAP86, explain the similarities between the airframe provenance of RC-135W and P8, I'm looking forward to this.

S-D

[Bigbux]

Yes.
however, what happens in reality when you contract like that, is the company in question runs the service/equipment for a year or so, and then says "Oh, it appears to be more expensive than we anticipated, give us more cash or we fail." We can't afford to fail, so we give them more cash.

There is no way to transfer risk when your business is defence or security.

Sun.

Sun - you are right about the contract risk but I'm not so sure about the Treasury rules. Up-front payments are generally discouraged and repayments are supposed to be matched with accrued value. That doesn't mean to say, of course, that poor decisions haven't been made in the past by those with their own agenda or little commercial knowledge. It would be interesting to see if the fiscal controls have got any tighter.

[NutLoose]

http://i536.photobucket.com/albums/ff321/taylortony/RAF2_zpsmrlxcxct.jpg










..

[Buster Hyman]

I'll see your P8(?) Nutty, and raise you one of our Wedgetails! :p

http://cdn.defesaaereanaval.com.br/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/AEWC-WEDGETAIL.jpg

[Trim Stab]

If the P8 is purchased, would the RAF necessarily be the automatic choice of service to operate it? Might it be more sensible to let the RN be the lead service, given that the entire airborne ASW structure is going to have to be rebuilt from scratch?

[The Helpful Stacker]

What is the Seedcorn project about (and been funded for) if it's not about providing a nucleus with which to rebuild an RAF-led long range ASW fleet? Indeed, many of them are already operating P8s!

[Surplus]

http://farm9.static.flickr.com/8288/7878338640_88669e65ab_m.jpg

A much better option ;)

[Genstabler]

"What is the Seedcorn project about (and been funded for) if it's not about providing a nucleus with which to rebuild an RAF-led long range ASW fleet? Indeed, many of them are already operating P8s!"

It should be about providing a nucleus with which to rebuild a UK long range ASW fleet. Who should operate it should be looked at carefully without historical preconceptions and tribal empire building. To me, as a neutral onlooker, it seems logical that it should be RN led, as in the rest of the world's armed forces.

[Martin the Martian]

I certainly think that it would include a great deal of jointery between the RAF and the FAA, whatever name is painted on it.

As to where it could be based, Waddington is the obvious choice, but if there is a big FAA element, maybe not. Space could be made at Yeovilton if the Junglie force is moved to Culdrose to join the grey Merlins. There is a lot of ramp space available at Culdrose these days, and once the Sea King goes there will be a heck of a lot more. Basing P-8s there may not be a possibility, but I don't see why Yeovilton would not be.

[RandomBlah]

If this happens, the UK will not be buying a Maritime Patrol Aeroplane, it will be buying a Multi Mission Aeroplane. This is a subtle yet very important point that has implications for the amount of "customers" the aircraft would have and therefore implications of where in the structure of Defence it should be placed for effective use.

[RandomBlah]

The runway at Yeovilton is not long enough for effective P-8 operations.

[Bannock]

Prestwick is though. I can't think of a more ideal location.

[JFZ90]

Interesting RandomBlah,

Are you inferring that - as a flexible ISTAR platform doing lots of things e.g. like the latter day MR2 did - that is will tick a range of capability boxes and hence be thought of as much more than "just" ASW?

Sounds like a good ruse to keep it under the RAF. :E

What would be the strike range capability of a P8 with CASOM be? Might open up all sorts of options - e.g. back to the old NucASOM idea (I forget the acronym). Could work out cheaper than relocating Faslane to Plymouth. I know trident is still a superior capability, but the the French still have their Nuc-ASMP under Rafale - I guess they would argue that is still part of their 'strategic' frappe capability, so the range & penetration ability still makes sense to them? Sorry for the drift, but the idea of a real multirole P8 is quite interesting, especially if it could address the trident issue in a cost effective way. Of course there would be an irony in that one of the P8s key roles - to protect trident - would disappear.

EDIT: the ASMP is considered a "pre-strategic" warning shot by FR. Range is actually quite limited - alledgedly 80-300km.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air-Sol_Moyenne_Port%C3%A9e

[RUCAWO]

Where to base them ?Former Coastal Command station with a former Coastal Command Aux Sqn based there, operational runway big enough for 747s, just get rid of the squaddies and RAF Aldergrove is back and to its WW2 North Atlantic role (Ballykelly has been sold and being built on).

[Pontius Navigator]

To me, as a neutral onlooker, it seems logical that it should be RN led, as in the rest of the world's armed forces.

Quite, just like the Norwegians, Canadians, Australians, New Zealanders, Portugese, Spanish and no doubt others.

[163627]

I suppose it's human nature but I find it quite amusing that as soon as the possibility of a shiny new toy that flies becomes a possibility the arguments start as to who should be able to play with it

Perhaps I missed all the protests but I don't recall much effort from the RAF's top brass to keep the long range maritime patrol and sub hunting capability from being scrapped. The same happened when the axe fell on the Harrier force.

Perhaps it's something to do with a general lack of interest within the RAF of the maritime environment. For example I've never yet met anyone from the RAF who enjoyed serving afloat for any length of time. Stock answer being "if I'd wanted to go to sea I'd have joined the navy"......

[Random Bloke]

As for RAF folk not being keen to spend much time afloat, I've served with an astonishing number of RN folk who will do anything to avoid going to sea.

[JFZ90]

Irrespective of who plays with it, I can see a need for it to tick more than one box (ISTAR, ASW etc.) in order to squeeze its way into the available money. If they can kill 2 birds etc., they might just get this in.

[ian16th]

Does it came with the option of a probe for AAR?

[VinRouge]

Be interested to see if the hard points and databus support storm shadow. That would put the cat amongst the pigeons with the navy getting hold of a strike aircraft!

Be an interesting play bearing in mind how Torpy torpedoed the SHAR force a few years back!

[Shack37]

As for RAF folk not being keen to spend much time afloat, I've served with an
astonishing number of RN folk who will do anything to avoid going to sea.


Our FAA 819 Sqn friends at BK even had a song about that. ISTR the last line was "but I´ve never ever been to sea";)

[Willard Whyte]

Quite, just like the Norwegians, Canadians, Australians, New Zealanders, Portugese, Spanish and no doubt others.

Oooh, sarcasm. How jolly.

The Americans, Japanese, Chinese, French, Netherlands, Germans, Pakistanis, Russians, Chileans (and no doubt others) seem to be entirely happy letting their maritime patrol being handled by fish heads.

Doesn't matter who gets it in the end (I'd prefer the RN, just to watch this place explode with indignation) as long as the job's done properly.

[RandomBlah]

The RAF is not looking to get a MMA; UK defence is. Given that the asset would ultimately work for several different elements of UK PLC, it would make sense for it to work under a Joint Force Command. If only we had one if those.........

Consequently, the colour of the uniforms of those operating it becomes not particularly relevant.

[Tourist]

I think either shade of blue could operate it effectively, however logistically the RAF is far more suited.

The FAA has zero aircrew pie making capability, and in these austere times the attempt to ramp up to the kind of consumption on an MPA might prove catastrophic to the RN budget.

[Cows getting bigger]

It doesn't really matter. Defence has a significant capability gap and there is no space for inter-service bickering.

If I were a fish head, I would want some form of top cover.
If I were a trawler man, I would want some form of top cover.
If I were an F35 driver, I would want some form of top cover.

In all of the above, I wouldn't be worrying about the colour of the pilots' mess dress.

[Heathrow Harry]

" logistically the RAF is far more suited"

actually Ryanair might be better suited..................

[Jwscud]

It's where all the crew will end up anyway when they PVR :}

[Pontius Navigator]

I agree with Tourist. As I said before, the RAF has a gene pool. Those with good pilot aptitudes can be directed towards one of many roles. On if the RN has several options such as Rotary, FJ and multi would they approach the flexibility of a multi role force when it comes to matching people to roles.

[Pontius Navigator]

WW, sarcasm, moi, how could you :)

Seriously, the RNoAF is a good example of making best use of a small pool of aircrew.

The other countries cited have larger naval pools including many with aircraft carriers. Certainly the RAF took the MPA role in WW 2 and retained it through inter-service arguments ever since. Now would certainly be an opportune moment for change, if our small boat navy remembers how :)

[k3k3]

@Ian16th:
Does it came with the option of a probe for AAR?

As the forward fuselage is more or less the same as an E3 it shouldn't be too difficult, probably cost a shed load of dollars though.

[NutLoose]

There is a simple replacement, use the Sentinal


http://i536.photobucket.com/albums/ff321/taylortony/Nimrod%20replacement/nimrodski_zpsbkzfjvse.jpg


Now I realise it's a bit small so get BAe to stretch it,


http://i536.photobucket.com/albums/ff321/taylortony/Nimrod%20replacement/nimrodstretch_zpskiz0lzht.jpg

With that stretch, it will allow them to increase the bay size and fair in it for reduced drag


http://i536.photobucket.com/albums/ff321/taylortony/Nimrod%20replacement/nimrodfaired_zps1tuflgyh.jpg

An as four engines would be preferred, a little redesign should see that as a possibility


http://i536.photobucket.com/albums/ff321/taylortony/Nimrod%20replacement/nimrodextra%20power_zps5nu8w2va.jpg


With those extra engines and to help with the weight, the tail could then be redesigned to carry various aerials,
the T tail could be dropped with the engine removal and a more pleasant design look produced.


http://i536.photobucket.com/albums/ff321/taylortony/Nimrod%20replacement/nimroddone_zps31fbhfoi.jpg

There, that's getting close to erm ideal :p


A bit rough, but only a quickie :)

[beerdrinker]

No Ian 16th. We just adjust the remaining, still to be built Voyagers, and build them as proper A330 MRTTs (as going to virtually everybody else who has ordered the A330 Tanker) and have a boom as well as two drogues. Or even a third drogues adjacent to the boom.

Then we will be able to refuel our Rivet Joints, P8s and our allies' aircraft.

Sorry Thread creep.

[LowObservable]

As for RAF folk not being keen to spend much time afloat, I've served with an astonishing number of RN folk who will do anything to avoid going to sea.

Did they all end up as rulers of the Queen's Navee?

And isn't the Force de Frappe the barista staff at the Starbucks on the Champs?

Speaking of which, hanging Storm Shadow on the P-8 is not as bright an idea as some people think. The jet is loaded with bits and pieces that are entirely non-essential to the job of flying to a point within SS range of the target (a location which is not necessarily safe) and in any situation warranting the use of an air-launched cruise missile it is quite likely that the MPA/ISR fleet will be fully tasked.

[VinRouge]

LO, thats the beauty, you can provide your ISR at the same time as carrying 4 underwing!


Being totally facetious of course, together with a bit of trolling on the earlier comment. :ok:

[Bigbux]

" logistically the RAF is far more suited"

actually Ryanair might be better suited..................

But just imagine the excess baggage charges!!

[Bigbux]

There is a simple replacement, use the Sentinal


http://i536.photobucket.com/albums/ff321/taylortony/Nimrod%20replacement/nimrodski_zpsbkzfjvse.jpg


Now I realise it's a bit small so get BAe to stretch it,


http://i536.photobucket.com/albums/ff321/taylortony/Nimrod%20replacement/nimrodstretch_zpskiz0lzht.jpg

With that stretch, it will allow them to increase the bay size and fair in it for reduced drag


http://i536.photobucket.com/albums/ff321/taylortony/Nimrod%20replacement/nimrodfaired_zps1tuflgyh.jpg

An as four engines would be preferred, a little redesign should see that as a possibility


http://i536.photobucket.com/albums/ff321/taylortony/Nimrod%20replacement/nimrodextra%20power_zps5nu8w2va.jpg


With those extra engines and to help with the weight, the tail could then be redesigned to carry various aerials,
the T tail could be dropped with the engine removal and a more pleasant design look produced.


http://i536.photobucket.com/albums/ff321/taylortony/Nimrod%20replacement/nimroddone_zps31fbhfoi.jpg

There, that's getting close to erm ideal :p


A bit rough, but only a quickie :)


Looks like a thing of beauty. Let me guesstimate - £1bn development costs and 20-year lead time. I still think we could use the Sunderland from the RAF museum - ideal for picking up drowning immigrants as well. True multi-mission.

[JFZ90]

P-8 with CASOM was only a passing thought, based only on possible range.

It seems the P-8 unrefuelled ferry range is 4000nm. Quite a bit to knock off with big stores & some sort of return leg, but still quite a long way. Of course points made about how (un)friendly the airpspace is 250km from the target all valid.

[EAP86]

S-D,
sorry, a bit of a terse observation on my part.

As I understood it, the MAA's main issue with the Rivet Joint exercise was the absence of complete traceability of the certification evidence to a known design baseline. Some of the required evidence would have dated back to the original civil certification exercise (Boeing's problem) and some was the DOD's responsibility; the passage of time hadn't helped either party. I was speculating that similar issues could arise with the P8 because of its fairly extended type family history, most of it under Boeing's responsibility. I'd expect the DOD to have no problem as such with the P8 mods.

I'd also wonder whether FMS conditions would help or hinder the UK in obtaining access to the necessary evidence. The C17 is probably a useful precedent but I know nothing about it. What I have observed in the fast jet world suggests there is scope for problems to arise.

EAP

[sandiego89]

Nutloose- awesome "evolution" pictures- gave me a real chuckle. Well done :ok:

[Navaleye]

Seconded. BZ.

[Wander00]

Vote in favour -"Aye". brilliant. Now watch someone try to morph it into a Har........................

[KenV]

I was wondering as the other Boeing COTS FMS purchase (C-17) uses contacted spares and upgrade programme I believe. Very successfully I hear.

That is generally correct. The UK C-17 program buys parts from the same worldwide parts system as USAF, and all maintenance beyond home station is done at the same depots as USAF C-17s, with one exception. All UK C-17s only go to USAF's San Antonio depot, and not any other depot. The San Antonio depot is operated by Boeing. The other depots are government run. San Antonio has also done some P-8 mod work for USN.

[Martin the Martian]

Nutloose, you are a very naughty boy!:ok:

[andyy]

By Trim Stab:

"If the P8 is purchased, would the RAF necessarily be the automatic choice of service to operate it? Might it be more sensible to let the RN be the lead service, given that the entire airborne ASW structure is going to have to be rebuilt from scratch?"

Surely the answer to that is "Joint Force P8"? The concept of Jointery is well established and (with teething problems) Joint Force Harrier and Joint Helicopter Command have operated OK. No doubt there will be howls about that but it has to be the template going forward and familiarity in Joint units is growing all the time.

The RAF clearly have the large jet experience and the maintenance teams; there are also the "seedcorn" teams. The RN trains sonar, radar and EW operators, and ASW Observers and Aircrewmen, so could provide some crew positions. Clearly many of the RNs sonar, radar and EW operators are ship based but could be trained to enhance their core skills to operate within an MPA, with the help of the seedcorn staff?

[Jwscud]

Surely spares for the P-8 would be fairly painless as the airframe is pretty much a 737 and although there are clearly plenty of modified areas the civilian commonality with the most common civil aircraft means it would be pretty cheap.

[Genstabler]

Andyy

Your argument has considerable merit but is largely based on logistic and other non operational considerations. I wonder how confident the RN would be that the RAF would always give sufficient priority to naval requirements if push came to shove in battling for finance and resources needed for effective use of the capability.

[alfred_the_great]

I, for one, would quite happily serve in a "JF P8" if ever a thing stood up.

[Tourist]

The problem the FAA would have is manning the thing. A P8 sqn would require about as many people as the all the lynx and ASW Merlin sqns combined.

[andyy]

Genstabler, my argument is largely based on the fact that ASW/ ASuW is a core competence of the RN and a large proportion of its manpower.

If UK PLC decides that it needs an MPA fleet then having one training stream for ASW/ASuW operators would seem to be the most efficient way forward. I'm not aware that the RAF has a training stream for those skill sets anymore?

Similarly the RN has no experience of flying and maintaining large multi-engine a/c so keep that with the RAF within JFP8.

JFP8 will primarily be a maritime asset, by definition, so OPCOM/OPCON of JFP8 would come under the appropriate JTF cell within "CinCFleet", surely?

[camelspyyder]

I dont know about the RN not being able to man it, the RAF are in the same boat.
Already short of Navs for existing commitments, there aren't enough Pilots or WSOps to man the ISTAR platforms we've already got either let alone a fleet of 12 new jets.

Manning and Recruiting are years behind the curve if this project is actually going to happen.

[Biggus]

Obviously "joint" is the way ahead then - the RN and RAF can "not man it" together. Each can then blame the other for failure to achieve manning levels.

Drag all the seedcorn back and you have enough personnel to get one or two airborne, which will be enough for the politicians to say "look, we have restored the capability...."

At least Manning/Recruiting have a chance to restore Pilot and WSOp numbers. I don't know where the shortage of Navs (shouldn't that be WSOs? :=) for existing commitments is (Tornado?) but if there are plans to put them on P-8 (but why should there be?) the only obvious training pipeline for them is RN Observer training, and presumably that has a limited capacity, and why should the RN give any of it up?

[bobward]

As a civvie reader, with no vested interest, apart from National Security, might I offer a couple of thoughts?

1: It's already been suggested that any P8 be a 'joint force' asset. Why not resurrect the 360 Sqn number plate? It might have an RAF CO / RN Exec, rotating. Then:

2: Base the jets at Leeming, half way between norf and sarf with a reasonable amount of ramp space......

Give me a few minutes to dig the slit trench in the garden please, then feel free.....

[The Old Fat One]

Manning and Recruiting are years behind the curve if this project is actually going to happen.

That maybe so, but I would suggest that they are innocent given that they recruit, train and man establishments.

Since the kipper fleet and its establishment was binned circa 2010, its not really Personal Management task is it? It's essentially a political (or at least high-level policy if you prefer) conundrum - both in origin and solution.

If the Kipper Fleet, and its establishment, is resurrected, Manning and Recruitment get the unenviable task of filling all those new posts.

That will be a bigger challenge by far than buying a dozen or so kites off the Americans.

But...here's hoping.

[Bismark]

I think Joint Force is the only option. Engineering could be largely contracted out as it will mostly based in UK or MOBs abroad. Pilots could be a combination of RN and RAF retread pilots until the training stream gets going.

The RN is the only Service conducting officer Rear Crew training (ie Observers) so the logical thing would be to expand this. There is also another factor that argues for this route...career development. The requirement for officer rear crew will be relatively small so it makes no sense for the RAF to want to establish such a small cadre, whereas the RN can broaden such people into RW Obs and PWOs.

WSOps could come from both Services but career management would become an issue for the RAF.

All in all a bit of a mess really, but this will happen with so few airframes (projected). However, I expect the RAF to fight hard to own the full capability and muddle through.

[Guernsey Girl II]

WSOps could come from both Services but career management would become an issue for the RAF.

Bismark, with that deep insight into NCA manning you are AMP and I claim my £5

[Courtney Mil]

Where? Well the Government and the MoD won't put them north of the border. The risk of spending millions on the infrastructure and support with the re-emerging threat of an independence vote would make that a non-starter, unless they want to use it as a lever. But that would be a massive political gamble.

Waddo springs to mind. Fairly central for the North and the SWApps. And it has all the secure connections.


Who? Well, the FAA would just love to take on maritime patrol. But they simply can't get there from here. They simply cannot generate that many trained personnel and everything needed to support them in the timeframe. The Navy has new ships to man. A whole new, big role is never going to happen.

How? Guernsey Girl, just saw your post. WSOs are in short supply. But, consider this; where will the money come from to fund P8? Something else will have to go in SDSR. Maybe something with navs based north of the border. Hopefully, this could be in time to harvest the seed corn in the west for the rest of the crew. How else will this happen?

[Davef68]

In terms of funding, P8 with AGS could replace Sentinel which would give an element of the ongoing support costs from an existing budget AND free up space at Waddington.

[Courtney Mil]

With you there, Dave.

[Wander00]

BobWard - as a founder member of 360 I'll go with that one

[The Old Fat One]

Engineering could be largely contracted out as it will mostly based in UK or MOBs abroad

Let's not get too carried away with all this "engineering on the cheap" stuff hey (read the comments above on the C17 and thought the same thing).

MPA/MMA and C17, apples and oranges. MPA needs significant frontline engineering support in the shape of armourers and avionics to maintain and support a ton of weaponry and sensors.

When the RAF binned maritime about 3500 posts went at the same time. They were not all maritime related of course, but a hell of a lot of them were.

Even if you leverage every single "leaning" trick in the book, the RAF (and/or RN) are still going to have create a lot of new posts.

...and that costs a ton of money, as everybody should know.

[Courtney Mil]

Who were you quoting, there TOFO? So much easier to follow if folk say where that random blue box comes from.

[alfred_the_great]

quotes on this site are generally chuff.

[alfred_the_great]

Back onto point - there is no need for all 8 aircraft to be able to fly from day 1, with full crews. I suspect an IOC with 3 aircraft and 3 or 4 crews might be achievable in a couple of years, working up to FOC within a decade. That is enough time to open up the manning pipeline. Add in some innovative solutions (cross train RN Surface and SM ratings and Officers to man the wet, dry and WSO posts - some would stay, some would go back to surface/SM ASW after 1 tour) and I think we could do it.

However, if parochialism (by any party) gets in the way, we might as well all go home now.

[Courtney Mil]

ATG, why do you think that?

[alfred_the_great]

Which bit?

The parochialism? Because ASW is truly all-arms. I've spent too long puking my guts up in the NWApps supported by non-Brit MPA to think that it can ever be solved solely by a RN or RAF only answer. People like Gp Capt Tom, Capt Nick, Sqn Ldr Tim and many others worked hard to keep seedcorn on the straight and narrow, as well as RN ASW, for it to be f*cked over by silly arguments over Sqn numbers or where we get the people from.

RN ASW operators are threaders with the lack of in-contact time, but they are trained on passive sonar and radar (depending on branch). The manning overhead to get them in the sky would cost the RN something, but at the same time, as a ASW focused CO, I'd welcome some guys in my Ops Room who have a flying badge and experience on live ops. It's a bit like the RN exchanges to teh E3 Fleet. Plus, it'd be a huge retention draw for people to work slightly out of the ordinary, can you imagine the dits they'd get to spin once they get back onboard?

We have a huge opportunity, lets not f*ck it up!

[Courtney Mil]

Which bit?

That was my point exactly. Without explaining who or what, a quote, isolated statement or question is meaningless. Especially if the quote is removed from its origin by a couple of other posts. Get it? They may be chuff, but you can easily help us stupid ones follow the thread. If you care to.

I genuinely had no idea what your quote about contracted engineering was about.

[alfred_the_great]

But there are some easy ways for the site admins to change the way you quote, but automatically tagging the quote as you make it.

[Ivan Rogov]

ATG, so your idea is to put RN surface and subsurface operators in the air because it would be nice for them and retention draw?

From what I remember all the RN exchange guys I worked with on the MPA fleet in the past were all FAA?

The idea of wasting the valuable experience on single tourist is ridiculous and demonstrates a very poor understanding of what is required to generate and maintain an effective MPA force. RAF NCA WSOps spend most of their careers flying and build up a wealth of knowledge and experience, this is enhanced by cross pollination from other fleets. They are selected for the job at OASC on their potential abilities and aptitude to operate in the air. If you are advocating replacing these people with others from trades with less stringent selection processes you will not get the same quality output in the air.

The RAF didn't drop MPA in the SDSR, the MRA 4 position was untenable for a number of reasons and was a government decision (rightly or wrongly). The RAF provided an extremely effective force and it and would want to regenerate it again if it can be funded. In addition to ASW and other Maritime roles UK MPA were capable of many other roles, any new platform would do the same so little point providing someone who is just and acoustics operator.

There is no reason to reinvent the wheel on this, the RAF training pipeline can provide greater output if/when required, RN FAA operators will come on exchange. If aircraft are purchase they won't all arrive at once, skills and experience will build, provided people remain on the force :rolleyes:

BTW which part of this All Arms ASW involves Land?

[Courtney Mil]

Ivan, your points are spot on. And the bottom line is that neither the RN nor the FAA have the personnel to spare, nor can they generate them They need to work up to one (maybe two) new big ships and aircrew for their aircraft. Finding and training crew members of fixed wing, large, MPA isn't in the RN/FAA box of tricks right now.

[Tourist]

Ivan

Whilst not entirely disagreeing with what you say, I think you are not thinking through the possible benefits of using non RAF/FAA badged operators in some roles.

Submariner sonar operators will obviously have enormous amounts of useful knowledge to bring to the party when hunting submarines, and conversely, imagine how useful it might be to have airborne trained operators back in the sub fleet post airborne tour.

Aside from that, do you actually have any idea what "stringent selection processes" submariner sonar operators go through or are you just making assumptions of superiority?

Do you honestly believe that the finest sonar operators are in aircraft rather than on subs which depend on it to stay alive?

I know that ex nimrod people tend to look down upon others in the field of ASW, but I think you need to grow up a little.

Incidentally. What RAF pipeline are you talking about? There is only an RN pipeline for rearseaters now, and it has plenty of spare capacity since it was set up with the expectation of all RAF WSOs coming through it. What we don't have is enough people in either service right now.

[downsizer]

Could be plenty of manpower freed up depending which (multiple?) platforms get the chop in sdsr. Sentinel, shadow, puma, e3 cuts, tornado....??

[alfred_the_great]

And given that all 5 of my Senior Rates have done (and passed) the same AAAC that 'Wet' operators do, perhaps they might be a little bit SQEP?

[andyy]

Tourist, agree entirely. And to be clear the RN has the only ASW/ASuW training courses of any of the 3 UK services, whether aircrew or not. But, in the spirit of Jointery, if any one from the other 2 Services whats to do the relevant courses and become SQEP in those skill sets then they should be allowed to!

[BEagle]

Ivan Rogov wrote: the RAF training pipeline can provide greater output if/when required....

Are you sure about that?

:hmm:

[camelspyyder]

Tourist, agree entirely. And to be clear the RN has the only ASW/ASuW training courses of any of the 3 UK services, whether aircrew or not. But, in the spirit of Jointery, if any one from the other 2 Services whats to do the relevant courses and become SQEP in those skill sets then they should be allowed to!

Oh! So I imagined the sensor section teaching acoustics and sonar the last 3 years at Cranwell then!

[Ivan Rogov]

Camelspyyder, I wouldn't waste your time using facts. After these last few responses and the diatribe on the Nav thread recently, we are obviously inept and should keep quiet and listen to the experts :D

[Courtney Mil]

Ivan,

I suspect you refer to the NCA/Officer Aircrew sub-plot that has emerged on the Nav thread. Unfortunate - not my debate. The main discussion there and here should be about the MoD's ability to put people in the P-8's seats.

Don't be discouraged.

From the perspective of manning P-8 I would make the same points that I have done on "the other thread". The purchase and delivery of a new platform into the UK inventory will take a dreadfully long time. So the MPA thread doesn't need to give up just yet. Part of the discussion ahead of any announcement and ahead of SDSR will include manning, support, basing, etc, etc.

So, for every airframe the RAF shall require two pilots and five rear crew. No Nav. There is a small cadre of RAF folk in the USA keeping the LRMPA dream alive. 45 Sqn are training a couple of colours of WSOps and the U.S. Training System may well be a part of the deal - the RAF could probably do without having to set up its own OCU. As many have stated here already, there is no LRMPA training school in the UK so kicking off this new platform may well need to tap into the established US system as well as the "seed corn".

The point is, this will be under the microscope and the likely lead time will allow for ramped up manning and training.

I say again, resurrecting the vital UK LRMP capability may well come at a cost to the Forces. The books will need to be sufficiently balanced to include crew training.

[Ivan Rogov]

Hi CM, you suspect correctly and I know you avoided it. As you say it will take sometime to build the force back up, 5 years in my opinion. If it happens there will challenges, but as ever we will overcome them :ok:
TBH there is nothing new being said that hasn't been covered in the many MPA threads in the last 5 years or so. There are far bigger issues to consider which I do not intend to introduce to a public forum, none of them are insurmountable but they are the real secret to regenerating the capability and as important as crews and platforms.
I go now...

[Tourist]

Ivan

Nice try to come across as the injured party:=

Nobody said you are inept.

You, however said

"RAF NCA WSOps spend most of their careers flying and build up a wealth of knowledge and experience, this is enhanced by cross pollination from other fleets. They are selected for the job at OASC on their potential abilities and aptitude to operate in the air. If you are advocating replacing these people with others from trades with less stringent selection processes you will not get the same quality output in the air."

Clearly you think that non Aviator operators are inept.

I merely pointed out your error.

[The Old Fat One]

...plus

There are far bigger issues to consider which I do not intend to introduce to a public forum

Spraff.

We are talking about a procurement decision and in the absence of a hot war cost will always be a the biggest factor and manpower will always be the biggest component of cost, as every single serviceman and woman is made aware at some time in their careers.

There will of course be all sorts of operational imperatives, some of which may be classified, but until the shooting starts (for real), cost will decide the outcome and it was ever thus.

[andyy]

CS and IR, sorry to have upset you but my point was that there is a difference between teaching the sensors and teaching and practicing/ delivering the full warfare, analysis and decision making skill set from an integrated command team point of view.

The seedcorn teams will be doing that but the RN is doing it daily across much of the fleet and the training pipeline.

[Tourist]

As an aside, does anybody happen to know if any of the various Navys that do have MPAs rotate their sensor operators through airborne, surface and submarine roles?

I can see it might get expensive giving flying pay and submarine pay!:eek:

[tucumseh]

Setting aside the taxi, I think it a good move to have apparently ditched the long standing government (not MoD) edict that sonics hardware and software must be sourced from (what was) GEC-Marconi. I always felt this restrictive and wondered if operators knew far better and cheaper equipment was available, but denied them. To try to prove what had merely been hearsay, in 1994 I ran a blind trial at the JAAC pitting an upgrade of the AQS902G-DS system processor against a foreign one used by, for example, Canada and Australia. The latter won hands down. The operators / guinea pigs were both RN and RAF and were astonished at the performance. The Gods stepped in and demanded I buy the poorer value one for a related RN programme. It was then transferred to DHSA and I never found out what they did, but they'd be under the same edict.

Tourist may remember this, but every 18 months we spent in the region of £xM getting around 2% extra detection range via software updates. (Hard to call 2% an upgrade). In 1995 we developed a separate system that gave 78% for £758 per operator, with recurring costs of £2 per flight for batteries. Rejected as too embarrassing, but the Canadians took an interest. As did our Merlin people, whose SOBS had been in the Boscombe trials crew at BUTEC, FORACS and AUTEC, but they were soon told to wind it in.

Sorry, drifting a little bit, but the point is that designated strategic technologies are mostly governed by political directives. MoD has little say.

[Roadster280]

quotes on this site are generally chuff.

For those with deficits in the IT area, to quote a post:

Hit the "reply" button under the post. Go to the URL in the browser, and change the "noquote=1" to "noquote=0". The page will reload, and magically have the attributed quote at the beginning of the post edit window.

For those unable to cope with that, please click here (http://www.barney.com/usa/).

[Genstabler]

For those with deficits in the IT area, to quote a post:

Hit the "reply" button under the post. Go to the URL in the browser, and change the "noquote=1" to "noquote=0". The page will reload, and magically have the attributed quote at the beginning of the post edit window.

For those unable to cope with that, please click here (http://www.barney.com/usa/).

Wow! Thanks Roadster!

[Roadster280]

Wow! Thanks Roadster!

You're welcome!

[Genstabler]

You're welcome!

Just to be clear Roadster, I wasn't being sarcastic! Very useful tip. 👍

[Courtney Mil]

Good one, Roadster!

If you don't want to quote the whole thing, there is another way.

As many do, copy the section you want to use as a quote, click the little quote icon (looks like a speech bubble at the top of the box you type your reply into and copy the quote between the two sets of square brackets.

Then, after the [quote but before the closing square bracket ] type =name-of-the-nob-your-quoting. An equals sign followed by the person's name. PPRuNe will do the rest.

Hmmm, I couldn't have made that more confusing if I'd tried.

Make it look like this, but use square brackets instead of round ones...

(Quote=user-name)text you want to share(/quote)

It's the "=username" that does the trick.

[Three Wire]

[QUOTE]Hmmm, I couldn't have made that more confusing if I'd tried.[/QUOTE = Courtney mil]

You mean like this CM
:D

[Courtney Mil]

Yep, exactly right. Actually, no.

I'll leave that there for a while and delete everything about quoting a little later.

[Roadster280]

Anyways, about these Nimrods...

[Pontius Navigator]

Roadsters, one step less, the zero is assumed so just delete 1

[Frostchamber]

So given the challenges of manning / regenerating the capability, what would a sensible first batch order be? I'd been thinking six plus options, but would even that be too much of a stretch in the short term in working towards IOC? Then again I guess it could just be a question of achieving a manageable delivery drumbeat.

[Surplus]

a manageable delivery drumbeat

I only need paradigm, under-pinning and overarching and I win the buzzword bingo. :rolleyes:

( got the quote thing nailed CM :ok: )

[Biggus]

Tourist,

You asked in post 103...As an aside, does anybody happen to know if any of the various Navys that do have MPAs rotate their sensor operators through airborne, surface and submarine roles?

I can see it might get expensive giving flying pay and submarine pay....

Many years ago I was speaking to a Dutch P-3 aviator who said that one of the acoustic operators on his crew had been in the sound room of a towed array Frigate in his previous tour - so it appears that the Dutch used to do it.

Reference flying pay and submarine pay, I can certainly see the advantages of having someone with submarine experience as part of the crew of any ASW platform. Poacher turned gamekeeper.....






By the way, isn't it frustrating when you ask a question and nobody answers it!!

[Wander00]

During WW2 ISTR there were former submariners running ant-submarine ships and flotillas, on the poacher/gamekeeper thesis

[Pontius Navigator]

Biggus, we once had some Perishers along for a ride on a sortie that they shouldn't have been in, if you follow my drift. They were able to tell us what was happening and more importantly what was about to happen, and happen it did.

Now that was something an airborne sonar operator would never have known until told and that could only have come from a poacher. Criss fertilisation should not be dismissed.

[andyy]

Wander00

Submariners have often been Captains of surface ships, including, in relatively recent years, the Invincible Class CVS.

[Frostchamber]

I only need paradigm, under-pinning and overarching and I win the buzzword bingo. :rolleyes:

( got the quote thing nailed CM :ok: )


Apologies, I thought it was handy and well understood term that was reasonably succinct. Must try harder I guess, and remember where I am.

[NutLoose]

Apologies, I thought it was handy and well understood term that was reasonably succinct. Must try harder I guess, and remember where I am.


Do not worry, ever since Surplus has been on here, he has been trying to slip the words Cucumber and Wheelbarrow in, but has yet to have the opportunity.

[Archimedes]

Good one, Roadster!

If you don't want to quote the whole thing, there is another way.

As many do, copy the section you want to use as a quote, click the little quote icon (looks like a speech bubble at the top of the box you type your reply into and copy the quote between the two sets of square brackets.

Then, after the [quote but before the closing square bracket ] type =name-of-the-nob-your-quoting. An equals sign followed by the person's name. PPRuNe will do the rest.

Hmmm, I couldn't have made that more confusing if I'd tried.

Make it look like this, but use square brackets instead of round ones...

(Quote=user-name)text you want to share(/quote)

It's the "=username" that does the trick.


And one more way.


Go to the foot of the webpage. You will probably see, at bottom left


---Pprune vB3 Googleads Style.


Click on the down arrow to the right of the text, and a drop down menu appears.


Sinlge left click on either


Pprune No Ads Style


or


vBulletin 3



Allow the page to refresh.

The 'reply' button at the bottom right of previous posts - including the one you wish to quote - should turn from 'reply' to 'quote'


Click that, and one of your parents has a sibling called Robert. Quote and post away...


(I am not sure if this affects advertising revenue for Pprune, so after I've quoted, I make sure that I turn it back to ---Pprune vB3 Googleads Style just so that I'm not accidentally denying the site revenue by having it on permanently; doing this still takes less time and fuss (at least for me), so I hope that anyone doing this would adopt the same approach, just in case)

[alfred_the_great]

And one more way.


Go to the foot of the webpage. You will probably see, at bottom left


---Pprune vB3 Googleads Style.


Click on the down arrow to the right of the text, and a drop down menu appears.


Sinlge left click on either


Pprune No Ads Style


or


vBulletin 3



Allow the page to refresh.

The 'reply' button at the bottom right of previous posts - including the one you wish to quote - should turn from 'reply' to 'quote'


Click that, and one of your parents has a sibling called Robert. Quote and post away...


(I am not sure if this affects advertising revenue for Pprune, so after I've quoted, I make sure that I turn it back to ---Pprune vB3 Googleads Style just so that I'm not accidentally denying the site revenue by having it on permanently; doing this still takes less time and fuss (at least for me), so I hope that anyone doing this would adopt the same approach, just in case)


SWWWWEEEEEEEETTTTT!

[alfred_the_great]

As an aside, does anybody happen to know if any of the various Navys that do have MPAs rotate their sensor operators through airborne, surface and submarine roles?

I can see it might get expensive giving flying pay and submarine pay!:eek:

There are RN FCs in the E3D, and there was a time when, apparently, a RN AAWO could qualify to act as a Mission Director in the E3D as well. I know of several 'GL' Observers who were submariners as their first draft.

[Ivan Rogov]

Tourist, I have tried to resist responding to your incorrect assumptions of me but you persist. I was going to debunk these however I do not wish to drag the debate down, I would just like to ask that you read other peoples posts carefully and stop posting things that have not been said or insinuated by them.

Andyy, no need for apologies. I was just dismayed by the lack of knowledge by some of those who seemed so certain of how to fix issues that never previously existed.

I'm sorry but Pprune is not the place to put more meat on the bones of what we did, how we did it or how we will do it in the MPA world. I tried to provide some perspective for the good ideas club based on facts, knowledge and experience, but Pprune wouldn't be so entertaining if it wasn't for the various opinions.

Perhaps there should be a TLA for the opposite of SME, PME (Pprune Matter Expert)?

ZKJ 2
AR

[Wensleydale]

"There are RN FCs in the E3D, and there was a time when, apparently, a RN AAWO could qualify to act as a Mission Director in the E3D as well. I know of several 'GL' Observers who were submariners as their first draft".


There were originally four "exchange" slots for RN personnel, including the Tactical Director post. However, the E-3D mission crew hierarchy has a policy of progression through the seats with all personnel starting at the bottom and then qualifying through crew positions to finally reach TD. The RN did not wish one of their PWOs to start as a tracker and therefore declined this post - they also cut back on a second post (possibly the Surveillance Controller in charge of the surveillance functions of the aircraft). They finally took two posts - one of the weapons controller slots and a SNCO who was sent to the Mission Briefing Flight in Ops Support Squadron.

[alfred_the_great]

That's a shame. But doesn't surprise me.

[Davef68]

Perhaps there should be a TLA for the opposite of SME, PME (Pprune Matter Expert)?



KFU - Knowledge Free User

[Surplus]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Frostchamber View Post
Apologies, I thought it was handy and well understood term that was reasonably succinct. Must try harder I guess, and remember where I am.

Do not worry, ever since Surplus has been on here, he has been trying to slip the words Cucumber and Wheelbarrow in, but has yet to have the opportunity.

Although the Nimrod was agricultural in some respects, Cucumber and Wheelbarrow never came up during a Fincastle symposium, The use of paradigm and over-arching stopped after the catcalls from the audience.

Funnily enough, Google has never heard of the phrase 'manageable delivery drumbeat (at least in the top few pages - got bored after that), unless it's to do with percussion instruments.

Fincastle Competition is available on Google, in case you were unsure what it is.

[Tourist]

And one more way.


Go to the foot of the webpage. You will probably see, at bottom left


---Pprune vB3 Googleads Style.


Click on the down arrow to the right of the text, and a drop down menu appears.


Sinlge left click on either


Pprune No Ads Style


or


vBulletin 3



Allow the page to refresh.

The 'reply' button at the bottom right of previous posts - including the one you wish to quote - should turn from 'reply' to 'quote'


Click that, and one of your parents has a sibling called Robert. Quote and post away...


(I am not sure if this affects advertising revenue for Pprune, so after I've quoted, I make sure that I turn it back to ---Pprune vB3 Googleads Style just so that I'm not accidentally denying the site revenue by having it on permanently; doing this still takes less time and fuss (at least for me), so I hope that anyone doing this would adopt the same approach, just in case)

Testing........

Oohhh clever!

[ulsteraviator]

"What is the Seedcorn project about (and been funded for) if it's not about providing a nucleus with which to rebuild an RAF-led long range ASW fleet? Indeed, many of them are already operating P8s!"

It should be about providing a nucleus with which to rebuild a UK long range ASW fleet. Who should operate it should be looked at carefully without historical preconceptions and tribal empire building. To me, as a neutral onlooker, it seems logical that it should be RN led, as in the rest of the world's armed forces.


If you leave to one side the historical preconceptions, the P8 falls firmly into the lap of the RAF to operate it. In terms of who 'leads' it, whilst on ASW or ASuW missions, the MCC will have OPCON of it, no change there. When on ISR missions, the ACC will have OPCON of it. Still no change. There is a bit of a 1916 attitude throughout this thread from the RN guys.

It's the RAF's job to operate aircraft to protect the nations interests from the air. The argument that because MPA conduct their business over the sea, it should be RN operated is as daft as suggesting that as the T45's job is to destroy aircraft, it should be manned and operated by airmen! It's the environment that you operate in, not the adversary you are pitched against that determines who gets to 'do' it. This is an argument that was put to bed about 100 years ago! There are now 3 environments! Not 2!!!!

The FAA's job is to support the RN by operating aircraft off ships. That's why they came into being as part of the RAF in 1924, and were granted independence from the RAF in 1939. Will the P8 ever operate off a ship? No! The lack of recognition by the RN, and to some extent the AAC, that its the RAF's job to do the flying, except with a few niche specialists that add value to their individual services, demonstrates to all that they don't quite get Air Power, and only strengthens the RAF's position.

[Tourist]

What a load of tosh.

Your entire argument is rubbish and childish.

I'm not saying that the RN should operate it, there are many arguments either way, but the reasons are nothing so silly as you suggest.

In the current environment the FAA has no experience of the MPA role aside from read across from pingers, so it probably makes sense that the RAF own the fleet.

That is nothing to do with parochial reasons such as yours.

Other countries successfully work it the other way round, so there is no natural realm it belongs in.

"The FAA's job is to support the RN by operating aircraft off ships."

Twaddle.
The Junglies are there to support the Marines who are there to support etc etc etc...

[Just This Once...]

Ah yes, the air arm for the RN's army argument.

Not exactly the clearest of justifications.

[Tourist]

hmm, no my point is that all the parts of the uk military are there to support some other parts of the bigger picture, rather than the RAF is there for the air, RN for the sea, army for land.

[Lonewolf_50]

Back in '81, there was a Nimrod doing hot weather trials at NAS Corpus Christi where I was in training. I got to sit in on the brief and debrief, and to go on board for a surveillance sortie over the Gulf of Mexico. A few of the winged aviators, instructors, were invited up on to the flight deck with the plane commander, but we students were not.


One of the navs showed those of us in the back a digital radar display that I think was a precursor to ISAR, or in the same family. (Based on the ISAR I worked with ten years later in Seahawks). The actual purposes of the test as I remember it was was to exercise the environmental control systems, since Corpus Christi is notorious for being hot and humid in July and August. As it turns out, that particular month was not as hot and humid as they had hoped for their tests.

My memory may be shot, but I recall that the Nimrod was operated by the RAF. If it was the RN, we'll chalk that up to my memory going bad.

[Yellow Sun]

Lonewolf 50,

The radar was Searchwater, some kits were later purchased by the USN. the Nimrod was indeed operated by the RAF.

YS

[Lonewolf_50]

Lonewolf 50,

The radar was Searchwater, some kits were later purchased by the USN. the Nimrod was indeed operated by the RAF.

YS Thanks! :ok: Good to know the memory isn't utterly shot.

[Exnomad]

At least we might have some maritime patrol aircraft again. How long have we been without Nimrods

[Pontius Navigator]

a SNCO who was sent to the Mission Briefing Flight in Ops Support Squadron.
To amplify what WD said, the first RN in to Mission Briefing was a FS or Warrant equivalent. He was originally intended for the Mission Sim and would have been a valuable source of maritime air defence. However this is an exchange and the equivalent rank from the then Fighter Control branch was an administrator rather than an operator so there was no suitable ground branch person for the exchange hence his employment as a briefer.

[OldAgeandTreachery]

The order and back up facilities are very good news for the Moray area and are being talked up as such by the SNP. But:- What happens when indyref2 is looking like happening? How far down the £100m(facilities)road do the UK government go before pulling the plug?
Mrs May's references to the Union in her speech probably didn't go down well in nationalist circles.

[reynoldsno1]

There was an RN observer who finished the Nimrod OCU in '74 (Rory....?). He was very good. Can't remember which squadron he went to, but I don't recall any other dark blues on Nimrods.

[Sideshow Bob]

There was an RN Navy exchange observer on 206 late 1990s early 2000s. Went through the OCU at the same time as me.

p.s. Tourist, do you not realise you are the one who comes across childish, protectionist and pompous? Throwing insults is not constructive argument.

[Tourist]

How can I be protectionist?

I'm not saying the Navy should have the P8, in fact I'm saying we probably should not.

I am however saying that the reason given that it flies therefore it should be airforce is moronic.

[QTRZulu]

reynolds,

Plenty of dark blue exchanges during my 23 years on the kipper fleet. All of them good guys and a few even transferred to the light blue rather than go back. Also know of a handful that went the other way to the FAA.

Regards who owns the thing when it arrives, it would make sense for the RAF purely on the numbers of available personnel and experience with operating large(ish) aircraft. That said, if the exchange was an option from day one then that would only be a good thing in my opinion.

[reynoldsno1]

Good to hear - one of my best mates was a Sea King observer, who passed away a couple of years ago. We had many spirited discussions regarding the relative merits of our sub hunting platforms ...

[Martin the Martian]

Does it really matter who operates the sodding thing? Surely what is more important is that we are getting it, not whether it has 'Royal Navy' or 'Royal Air Force' painted on it? The chances are that the crews are going to be a mix of light and dark blue anyway with the ongoing penchant for jointery.

If you want to blame somebody, blame those who decided that the Fleet Air Arm could go back to the Navy in the 1930s but that Coastal Command was going to stay with the RAF.

[Heathrow Harry]

I agree with Martin - it's this sort of idiot argument that plays into the hands of the Treasury and their like

[Pontius Navigator]

I have said what QTRZ said. The RAF training pool, now small, has more scope for pilots placements certainly. The case for light blue rear crew is now much weaker given the lack of nav training and maritime sensor experience.

Engineering support would probably be better with light blue.

Jointery would seem to be the only way notwithstanding seed corn that may well have withered on bare earth.

[Lonewolf_50]

I have said what QTRZ said. The RAF training pool, now small, has more scope for pilots placements certainly. The case for light blue rear crew is now much weaker given the lack of nav training and maritime sensor experience.

Engineering support would probably be better with light blue.

Jointery would seem to be the only way notwithstanding seed corn that may well have withered on bare earth. This sounds like a great justification for training missions down under since the Aussies are already operating P8. :ok:

[Jayand]

The case for light blue rear crew is now much weaker given the lack of nav training and maritime sensor experience.

Engineering support would probably be better with light blue.

Jointery would seem to be the only way notwithstanding seed corn that may well have withered on bare earth.

Pontious, what are you basing any of this on? lol

[althenick]

We could always do what the Dutch did before they lost their MPA.
Navy owns the platform and comes under CINCFleet
Air Force Pilot & Maintain the Platform
Navy Man the back seats with Surface and Sub Surface Specialists

Best of both worlds!

<tongue in cheek> I have heard these Aircraft being referred to as "Flying Frigates" Therefore can I Suggest the following "Ships Names"

HMS Albatross
HMS Daedalus
HMS Fulmar
HMS Gannet
HMS Heron

<\tongue in cheek>

Yeah ok i'm leaving...

[Pontius Navigator]

Speculation.

Althenick, quite.

[Tourist]

You cant have HMS Heron, it's in service!

[althenick]

You cant have HMS Heron, it's in service!
Your right, I meant HMS Osprey 😊

[Lonewolf_50]

Your right, I meant HMS Osprey 😊
What, the P-8 tilt rotor variant? :confused:

[Lyneham Lad]

Hmm, will the P8 be good enough to fulfil its intended purpose? Interesting article in the Economist.
Seek, but shall ye find? (http://www.economist.com/news/science-and-technology/21703360-proliferation-quieter-submarines-pushing-navies-concoct-better-ways?cid1=cust/ednew/n/bl/n/2016084n/owned/n/n/nwl/n/n/UK/n)

[Lonewolf_50]

MPA mission area is, in the year 2016, no longer only sub hunting. Won't comment on how much most of the press still don't know about ASW, but it isn't getting any easier. The improvements in AIP tech will see to that, particularly for any nation whose submarines are not required to support power projection. As a sea lane or area sea denial asset, a diesel sub is quite good, and one with AIP is even better ... and most importantly, for many small to mid sized nations, affordable.

[Heathrow Harry]

Thing is Lonewolf that not many countries actually buy any type of sub in any numbers

Submarine Strength Strength by Country (http://www.globalfirepower.com/navy-submarines.asp)

Only 13 have over 10 - that includes the USA, Russia, China, France & the UK plus N Korea (70?), Greece, India, Iran, S korea, Japan, Turky and Columbia

hard too see many of those nations carrying out major, longrange operations. Most of them (and the others) are aimed at local defence

[Tourist]

I think that list is a bit silly Harry.

Not all submarines are equal.

Both a tiny diesel minisub and a Vanguard Class are technically under the heading of "Submarine", but they are worlds apart in every other way.

[Hempy]

This sounds like a great justification for training missions down under since the Aussies are already operating P8.

I'll give the guys at 10 and 11 Sqn a call and let them know that...

[Heathrow Harry]

"I think that list is a bit silly Harry. Not all submarines are equal.

Both a tiny diesel minisub and a Vanguard Class are technically under the heading of "Submarine", but they are worlds apart in every other way."

Tourist - I couldn't agree more - the point was that Lonewolf seemed to be conjuring up all manner of demons when in fact the number of countries who could actually maintain " sea lane or area sea denial" is probably 7 and three of those (China, India & Japan) only locally

The UK P-8's will only really target Russian subs - as well as the other benifits having them brings

[Lonewolf_50]

hard too see many of those nations carrying out major, longrange operations. Most of them (and the others) are aimed at local defence Harry, that's exactly what I was getting at. (Maybe go back and read my post again?)


Nations who don't need to do power projection aren't taking their subs out of their local area. (A fine example is the San Luis, Falklands, 1982.) Argies were not doing power projection, they were trying a bit of sea denial. HMS Conqueror was in the power projection game. (And did nicely, I might add).

[Lonewolf_50]

I'll give the guys at 10 and 11 Sqn a call and let them know that... Hmm, got my verb tenses wrong. "Will already be" operating P-8 would have been correct, it being 2016 now. Still, it seems a great idea to budget for those training missions down under, doesn't it?

[Hempy]

Not even 1 crew o/s learning it yet, so perhaps the jollies would be better spent in the States..

[Lonewolf_50]

Not even 1 crew o/s learning it yet, so perhaps the jollies would be better spent in the States.. Just curious: Why is Oz IOC forecast for the 20's? Deliveries start, allegedly, next year.

[Heathrow Harry]

Probably they have to pay the final 10% on IOC................

[ORAC]

Britain, US Pledge to Improve Cooperation in Maritime Patrol Operations (http://www.defensenews.com/articles/britain-us-pledge-to-improve-cooperation-in-maritime-patrol-operations)

LONDON — Britain and the US have pledged to work closer together on P-8A maritime patrol aircraft operations in the North Atlantic, the two nations announced Thursday.

A declaration to better coordinate maritime patrol aircraft operations and support in the region was signed in London by British Defence Procurement Minister Harriett Baldwin and her US counterpart, Deputy Secretary of Defense Bob Work. It is only a declaration of intent at the moment. A statement issued by the two officials said they “plan to cooperate closely on operation of their P-8A aircraft in the North Atlantic to ensure a coherent approach to MPA activity.” “The declaration provides a new opportunity to maximize value for money for the taxpayer and continue to strengthen U.K.-U.S. interoperability and to pursue efficiencies in operations and support, including at RAF Lossiemouth in Scotland, [the British P-8A base],” according to the statement...........

The British are rebuilding their fleet of maritime patrol aircraft after axing the capability in 2010. In recent years, they have increasingly had to rely on the US and other NATO allies to help search for rising numbers of Russian submarines said to be watching for Royal Navy ballistic missile boats exiting from the naval base at Faslane, Scotland. The move closer on North Atlantic surveillance is part of an expanding effort to counter a growing Russian submarine threat said by analysts and others to be approaching Cold War levels.

The increase in North Atlantic cooperation is not just confined to the UK and US either. Late last year, Norway and Britain signed an agreement to work closer on training and sharing P-8A capabilities. The Nordic nation last year announced it was buying five of the jets to replace its aging Lockheed Martin P-3Cs.

Earlier this month, Defense News reported that top officials from the three nations were seeking to reenergize a maritime surveillance alliance that had faded since the end of the Cold War. In a Dec. 4 interview, Work, of the US Defense Department, termed the expanding relationship between the three P-8A operators as “really, really exciting ... it just opens up a whole new level of possibilities for us to in the future do collaborative and coordinated operations."

[Heathrow Harry]

we need to keep an eye on the UK Poseidon order - the problems with the exchange rate will no doubt tempt the Treasury into "delay mode"

[Sandy Parts]

guess it depends when payment due? If on delivery - who knows where the exchange rate will be in 2019...
Like the sound of co-operation. We could provide a big hangar to store all their spares and buoys for when they come to visit (and we promise not to 'borrow' them too often..) :)

[camelspyyder]

Ha!

That hangar is in fact still at Keflavik, and many's the time we did actually raid their (the USN) sonobuoy store to keep the flypro going.

[ORAC]

Pentagon seeks increased P-8 ties with Norway, UK (http://www.defensenews.com/articles/pentagon-seeks-increased-p-8-ties-with-norway-uk)

[HaveQuick2]

120 Sqn and 201 Sqn announced as the future RAF operators.

[thunderbird7]

I'll give the guys at 10 and 11 Sqn a call and let them know that...

10 Sqn liveried P8 spotted at Boeing field last week...

[huge72]

Gosh they must be joining the AT/AR fleet then as 10 Sqn operates Voyager alongside 101Sqn at Brize!!!!

[BEagle]

10 Sqn RAAF, perhaps? Due to be re-equipped with the P-8A next year.

[ICM]

10 Sqn RAF does indeed share the Voyager with 101 Sqn, but I suspect the reference here is to 10 Sqn RAAF, a unit with a long history in the maritime role. Lots of scope for confusion over the years, particularly with both operating from the UK in WW2, and that's before we start with 10 Sqn RFC and 10 Sqn RNAS in France in WW1.

[rjtjrt]

10 Sqn RAAF, perhaps? Due to be re-equipped with the P-8A next year.

Third RAAF P-8 arrived in Australia recently.

[DANbudgieman]

OK, Good plan.

But, where are they going to be based? Which base has ramp space?

Er, Kinloss...

[MFC_Fly]

Er, Kinloss...

Er, Lossiemouth actually

[The Old Fat One]

Jeez,

research b4 posting guys ffs...

Let me clear it up

The RN are buying 120 P80 Neptunes from Africa and they will be based at RAF Macrahanish on the Isle of White and operated by 24 (water-bomber) Reserve Squadron. Seven old timers from the sweetcorn detachments will do the induction.

:D

[George K Lee]

Sweetcorn goes well with pies.

[MFC_Fly]

Doesn't go well with DCS though :yuk:

[Sevarg]

Lossie puts a hell of a lot of eggs in one basket.

[downsizer]

Lossie puts a hell of a lot of eggs in one basket.

Like Brize, Waddo, Etc, etc...:sad:

[Green Flash]

Pies! Of course, that explains why Harry Gows' is opening a new bakery in Inverness! :E (Must have been a Spetznatz raid that burnt it down a few days ago! :eek:)

[Sevarg]

Like Brize, Waddo, Etc, etc...:sad:

Maybe it's time to open up a few more etcs. No Lossie, then no FJ's in the north of UK, nothing to protect the fleet and it could be due to nothing more than a bloody good snow storm. All sounds a bit iffy

[Pontius Navigator]

Sweetcorn goes well with pies.

And can be recycled like old Nimrod aircrew. They may not have been old when planted overseas but they are now.

[Pontius Navigator]

Maybe it's time to open up a few more etcs. No Lossie, then no FJ's in the north of UK, nothing to protect the fleet and it could be due to nothing more than a bloody good snow storm. All sounds a bit iffy

Remember one trip back from Iceland. The snow swept in, ISK went black so we went around, extended for Lossie which went black. Round again for ISK which had gone white before going red and black. Lossie too so we set off for our diversion, Leeming, and spent the night at Aberdeen.

Good weather factor on the Moray coast, except when too windy or it snows.

[DANbudgieman]

Lossie puts a hell of a lot of eggs in one basket.

That's why I suggested re-open Kinloss rather than station the P8s at Lossie.

This would make available a further operational runway locally.

It would please the the local communities no-end and dis-embarrass the Army of a facility they really don't want.

Kinloss should be able to be re-activated at minimal cost (keep the bean counters happy) and demonstrate a firm commitment to the future of the RAF in Scotland. - Everybody wins, but I guess it will never happen...

[Willard Whyte]

If wee Krankie gets her way Kinloss/Lossie will probably be hosting Tu-95s instead of P-8s.

[MFC_Fly]

That's why I suggested re-open Kinloss rather than station the P8s at Lossie.

This would make available a further operational runway locally.

It would please the the local communities no-end and dis-embarrass the Army of a facility they really don't want.

Kinloss should be able to be re-activated at minimal cost (keep the bean counters happy) and demonstrate a firm commitment to the future of the RAF in Scotland. - Everybody wins, but I guess it will never happen...
Once again you show you don't know what you are talking about. As TOFO said earlier, research before posting :ugh:

The runway IS still operational, as a relief landing field for Lossie and it is used as the base for the local military flying club.

[ANGRYBEARD]

Surely due to the proximity of Kinloss to Lossiemouth if it was weather causing an issue both would likely be shut?

I know in the local press it was announced in the last year or two that Inverness was to be used as a diversion for Lossiemouth, with the agreement that armed Typhoons would be allowed to land in addition to previously only unarmed. This was of course met with stories of horror in the local press, the world is going to end. Up until that point I believe they were still using Leuchars as a diversion.

As far as civvy sites how would Wick fair (on the few reasonable days) as an option since the recent upgrades were completed?

[DANbudgieman]

Once again you show you don't know what you are talking about. As TOFO said earlier, research before posting :ugh:

The runway IS still operational, as a relief landing field for Lossie and it is used as the base for the local military flying club.

Thank you, but I can do without the condescending tone.

A runway being available for RLG and flying club use is a world apart from having a fully operational airfield. My original post stands.

[camelspyyder]

However, a shorter runway with serious bird issues sounds like a less than great place to operate a twin jet at max AUW year round.

[George K Lee]

Short runway with bird issues, you say?

http://www.pc-6.com/history/936-gceci06.jpg

[MFC_Fly]

Thank you, but I can do without the condescending tone.

A runway being available for RLG and flying club use is a world apart from having a fully operational airfield. My original post stands.
Not condescending, just that, like TOFO, I am fed up with people that don't know about the subject they are posting 'factually' on - that was your second post in a row in this thread where you got your facts wrong.

Also, you didn't say "fully operational airfield", you said "a further operational runway", exactly what Kinloss has already :ugh:

[thunderbird7]

Gosh they must be joining the AT/AR fleet then as 10 Sqn operates Voyager alongside 101Sqn at Brize!!!!

If you'd bothered to read the post I was replying to you'd have noticed the reference to 10 & 11.