MoD to buy 5 x P8 from USA - maybe
P-8 - In service, yes with limitations and falls short, in significant areas, of satisying UK requirements.
If the UK buys an MPA/MMA, I can't see beyond the P-8 (Aren't a lot of it's mission systems based on those developed for MRA4?).
Unless the Japanese made the P-1 available at a reasonable price......
Unless the Japanese made the P-1 available at a reasonable price......
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: various
Posts: 73
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JIV.
You are going to have to clarify some of your points.
1. What are the limitations of P-8?
2. You state that it is fuel hungry. Prove it. You are wrong. A P-8 at Waddington could fly to the Gulf of Oman, go on task for 2 hours and land at Muscat with reserves for masirah intact.
3. In what way would P-8 require complex infrastructure any more or less than other options?
4. It is highly relevant that the P-8 is already operated by RAF aircrew. Especially considering many are in positions of influence and how the USN WiLL be bringing new capabilities online in the future.
If P-8 requires more money to develop it - who do you think will be paying? The US will have to.
You are going to have to clarify some of your points.
1. What are the limitations of P-8?
2. You state that it is fuel hungry. Prove it. You are wrong. A P-8 at Waddington could fly to the Gulf of Oman, go on task for 2 hours and land at Muscat with reserves for masirah intact.
3. In what way would P-8 require complex infrastructure any more or less than other options?
4. It is highly relevant that the P-8 is already operated by RAF aircrew. Especially considering many are in positions of influence and how the USN WiLL be bringing new capabilities online in the future.
If P-8 requires more money to develop it - who do you think will be paying? The US will have to.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: by the Great Salt Lake, USA
Posts: 1,542
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think he is basing his "In service, yes with limitations and falls short, in significant areas, of satisying UK requirements.
proven - yes but did not get a glowing report during OT&E." and the "P8 satisfies less than 70% of requirement.
To get it to 80% will be a massive extras cost that will require further testing etc making an expensive platform even more expensive. " from the fact that the P-8s currently in-service are the Increment 1 aircraft.
This is basically (if incompletely) correct.
He then assumes (very incorrectly) that this is the planned final version, and to get anything better the UK would have to pay for all of it yourselves.
There are several planned and in-process capability Increment phases scheduled - all of which are funded exclusively by the US.
http://http://www.seapowermagazine.o...40408-p-8.html
More at link.
proven - yes but did not get a glowing report during OT&E." and the "P8 satisfies less than 70% of requirement.
To get it to 80% will be a massive extras cost that will require further testing etc making an expensive platform even more expensive. " from the fact that the P-8s currently in-service are the Increment 1 aircraft.
This is basically (if incompletely) correct.
He then assumes (very incorrectly) that this is the planned final version, and to get anything better the UK would have to pay for all of it yourselves.
There are several planned and in-process capability Increment phases scheduled - all of which are funded exclusively by the US.
http://http://www.seapowermagazine.o...40408-p-8.html
P-8A Increment 2 Upgrades to Begin Phase-In in 2015 By RICHARD BURGESS, Managing Editor
NATIONAL HARBOR, Md. — The first increment of upgrades to the Boeing P-8A Poseidon, called Increment 2, will begin is fiscal 2015. The upgrades will be phased in as a series of Engineering Change Proposals (ECPs) and will be retrofitted on aircraft already delivered.
Martin Ahmad, the Navy’s deputy program manager for maritime patrol and reconnaissance aircraft, said the first part of Increment 2, a multi-static active coherent (MAC) acoustic capability, is a significant upgrade to the aircraft’s acoustic antisubmarine warfare (ASW) detection and tracking capability. The MAC will comprise ECP-1 for the program.
ECP-2, scheduled for fiscal 2016, will include the Automatic Information System (AIS) and the first segment of the High-Altitude Antisubmarine Weapon Capability (HAAWC), a sonobuoy equipped with the Global Positioning System transmitter and the ability to be deployed from high altitudes. The AIS is a system that receives identity, course, speed and other information from commercial ships in which it is installed.
ECP-3 will integrate the full HAAWC, a Mk54 lightweight torpedo fitted with a wing kit for gliding to the water entry point. The weapon also will have mid-course guidance capability to alter the water entry point as needed.
Ahmad said the Navy is just starting its pre-Milestone B activity for Increment 3. Increment 3 includes ASW upgrades, sensor upgrades, a net-enabled weapon and software architecture improvements. The net-enabled ASW weapon will allow for third-party control of the weapon. The software architecture improvements will include hosting of generic applications and will enable third-party competition for prototyping of the applications, which Ahmad said will reduce the cost of future integration.
NATIONAL HARBOR, Md. — The first increment of upgrades to the Boeing P-8A Poseidon, called Increment 2, will begin is fiscal 2015. The upgrades will be phased in as a series of Engineering Change Proposals (ECPs) and will be retrofitted on aircraft already delivered.
Martin Ahmad, the Navy’s deputy program manager for maritime patrol and reconnaissance aircraft, said the first part of Increment 2, a multi-static active coherent (MAC) acoustic capability, is a significant upgrade to the aircraft’s acoustic antisubmarine warfare (ASW) detection and tracking capability. The MAC will comprise ECP-1 for the program.
ECP-2, scheduled for fiscal 2016, will include the Automatic Information System (AIS) and the first segment of the High-Altitude Antisubmarine Weapon Capability (HAAWC), a sonobuoy equipped with the Global Positioning System transmitter and the ability to be deployed from high altitudes. The AIS is a system that receives identity, course, speed and other information from commercial ships in which it is installed.
ECP-3 will integrate the full HAAWC, a Mk54 lightweight torpedo fitted with a wing kit for gliding to the water entry point. The weapon also will have mid-course guidance capability to alter the water entry point as needed.
Ahmad said the Navy is just starting its pre-Milestone B activity for Increment 3. Increment 3 includes ASW upgrades, sensor upgrades, a net-enabled weapon and software architecture improvements. The net-enabled ASW weapon will allow for third-party control of the weapon. The software architecture improvements will include hosting of generic applications and will enable third-party competition for prototyping of the applications, which Ahmad said will reduce the cost of future integration.
Join Date: May 2013
Location: UK/ USA
Posts: 111
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
GK,
Where do I assume that the current P8 is the final version?
Why HAAWC? What is driving this?
GPS sonobuoys expected to cost $800 each!
Torpedoes with wings? Can the UK use Mk 54? We got rid of Mk 46 because they were deemed to be unsafe. The Mk 54 back end is essentially the same.
MAD satisfied by launching a UAV, which will probably be, unless there is a suitable ship or land based facility within range, on a one way journey.
Why have the Indians added another belly mounted radar and MAD to their version?
P8 fuel burn rate is 3-5 time the rate of others in the current options mix? Admittedly you can go further, quicker but that is not always an advantage.
Where do I assume that the current P8 is the final version?
Why HAAWC? What is driving this?
GPS sonobuoys expected to cost $800 each!
Torpedoes with wings? Can the UK use Mk 54? We got rid of Mk 46 because they were deemed to be unsafe. The Mk 54 back end is essentially the same.
MAD satisfied by launching a UAV, which will probably be, unless there is a suitable ship or land based facility within range, on a one way journey.
Why have the Indians added another belly mounted radar and MAD to their version?
P8 fuel burn rate is 3-5 time the rate of others in the current options mix? Admittedly you can go further, quicker but that is not always an advantage.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: SWAPS Inner
Posts: 567
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
C295 and Q400 are for countries with coastal type maritime operations - North Sea and the Channel Islands maybe but that big blue deep water ocean out west needs something a bit bigger. Perefect for Indonesia/Singapore/Phillipines but UK? It's not rocket science. And for the MMA naysayers, which airframe do you think you will be a be to (inevitably) add bits to over the years?
And how much was a CAMBS buoy then...?
GPS sonobuoys expected to cost $800 each!
At the risk of being smoked by a kipper
Is an a400 derivative an option.... Yes I know starting from scratch again !!! But most grizzly / atlas customers have a requirement for a new mpa / mma in the next few years?
Or am I smoking something ?
Is an a400 derivative an option.... Yes I know starting from scratch again !!! But most grizzly / atlas customers have a requirement for a new mpa / mma in the next few years?
Or am I smoking something ?
Join Date: May 2013
Location: UK/ USA
Posts: 111
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CAMBS, BARRA, £1000s but they were not dropped in the 100s like LOFAR, DIFAR, CODAR (waiting for the comments!) or HIDAR. Which were in the order of £150 a pop.
I suspect the route to improving medium size turbo props range and endurance is easier than reducing the cost of a large turbo fan.
Dagenham,
See earlier post on SEA HERC. A400 would probably be able to do the job. But it would probably end up costing the same to develop as a P8 would be to buy off the shelf.
I still wonder why HAAWC. Just thinking about a field of laying a field of 32 buoys. What would be the saving in terms of fuel burnt at lower levels balanced against the cost of HAAWC buoys.
I suspect aircraft performance or more likely unacceptable fatigue are what is driving HAAWC.
I suspect the route to improving medium size turbo props range and endurance is easier than reducing the cost of a large turbo fan.
Dagenham,
See earlier post on SEA HERC. A400 would probably be able to do the job. But it would probably end up costing the same to develop as a P8 would be to buy off the shelf.
I still wonder why HAAWC. Just thinking about a field of laying a field of 32 buoys. What would be the saving in terms of fuel burnt at lower levels balanced against the cost of HAAWC buoys.
I suspect aircraft performance or more likely unacceptable fatigue are what is driving HAAWC.
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: cardboard box in't middle of t'road
Posts: 745
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
And how much was a CAMBS buoy then...?
CAMBS, BARRA, £1000s but they were not dropped in the 100s like LOFAR, DIFAR, CODAR (waiting for the comments!) or HIDAR. Which were in the order of £150 a pop.
I suspect aircraft performance or more likely unacceptable fatigue are what is driving HAAWC.
nimbev,
Hey PA, I normally agree with you, but you are beginning to sound as if you are on the Q400 team
'Maritime awareness will have nothing to do with it' .No, but the fact that they dont actually have a product will have something to do with it!
By the way, I didnt know that Burridge had been CAS???
No, no, no, noooooo - absolutely not a supporter of the Q400 and I agree that not having a product is a major limitation. I'm certain that an 'off the shelf' option will be a significant factor in a future decision.
As to Burridge, he made 4* and C-in-C STC, which in his day was effectively the operational leader of the RAF as opposed to the titular head, i.e, CAS. Still a man to be respected and listened to if he can grease the right palms, although one would hope he's pushing a non-starter.
P.S. For some reason, my quotation button isn't working today??
Hey PA, I normally agree with you, but you are beginning to sound as if you are on the Q400 team
'Maritime awareness will have nothing to do with it' .No, but the fact that they dont actually have a product will have something to do with it!
By the way, I didnt know that Burridge had been CAS???
No, no, no, noooooo - absolutely not a supporter of the Q400 and I agree that not having a product is a major limitation. I'm certain that an 'off the shelf' option will be a significant factor in a future decision.
As to Burridge, he made 4* and C-in-C STC, which in his day was effectively the operational leader of the RAF as opposed to the titular head, i.e, CAS. Still a man to be respected and listened to if he can grease the right palms, although one would hope he's pushing a non-starter.
P.S. For some reason, my quotation button isn't working today??
Last edited by Party Animal; 31st May 2014 at 12:03. Reason: additional text
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
His Holiness Bill Gunston observed on several occasions that if various armed forces had settled on 80% capability rather than striving for artificially set 100% targets an awful lot of very useful aircraft would have been in service in stead of being cancelled/cut back etc
Sea Hercules gets my vote as you can take out the mission kit and use it for other stuff (we need to multirole our aircraft when we have so few these days 
).
http://www.lockheedmartin.co.uk/cont...ro%20Media.pdf
).http://www.lockheedmartin.co.uk/cont...ro%20Media.pdf
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: UK
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How much of what made the MR2 great, and was going to make the MR4 greater, down to the kit rather than the people? If we buy a pre-rigged P-8, are we losing an advantage that home grown gives?
I suspect the answer these days is it's how we use the factory shipped kit that makes the difference, as per the RC-135.
I suspect the answer these days is it's how we use the factory shipped kit that makes the difference, as per the RC-135.
LJ,
You can do the same with the C295. The biggest issue with the Q400 and the Sea Herc is that they only exist on paper. I very much doubt that MoD would wish to gamble on being a lead customer with all the cost of R&D, T&E etc, plus the experience from both the AEW3 and MRA4. COTS removes the uncertainty of the gamble.
However, we shall see what Father Christmas brings in SDSR 15 eh?
You can do the same with the C295. The biggest issue with the Q400 and the Sea Herc is that they only exist on paper. I very much doubt that MoD would wish to gamble on being a lead customer with all the cost of R&D, T&E etc, plus the experience from both the AEW3 and MRA4. COTS removes the uncertainty of the gamble.
However, we shall see what Father Christmas brings in SDSR 15 eh?
Join Date: May 2013
Location: UK/ USA
Posts: 111
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A wise man noted we always end up with third choice:
First choice is always too expensive.
Second choice will take too long to deliver.
Third choice is affordable and deliverable on time.
He never mentioned performance so he was not that wise!
A quick Q400 Google flagged up many safety concerns ref instability and issues with the undercarriage.
Adding conformal fuel tanks, a weapons bay and antennas is not likely to improve things. Not a good starting point for a MPA.
First choice is always too expensive.
Second choice will take too long to deliver.
Third choice is affordable and deliverable on time.
He never mentioned performance so he was not that wise!
A quick Q400 Google flagged up many safety concerns ref instability and issues with the undercarriage.
Adding conformal fuel tanks, a weapons bay and antennas is not likely to improve things. Not a good starting point for a MPA.
Last edited by Jet In Vitro; 1st Jun 2014 at 18:16.