MoD to buy 5 x P8 from USA - maybe
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: In the State of Denial
Posts: 1,078
Likes: 0
Received 146 Likes
on
28 Posts
The bleakest of the English counties?
I'm not going to start naming names though.....
Suspicion breeds confidence
Thread Starter
Nice in the Summer. Even the Sea Gulls were grounded yesterday. Back to the point. The US gave Pakistan a number of refurbed P3s for nothing. The local population then expressed their gratitude by blowing them up. Then the US gave them some more. Perhaps these are better than nothing?
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Deepest, darkest Oxon
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
[QUOTE][The P-3 goes out of service in 2019./QUOTE]
I suspect both the Kiwis and Canucks would disagree with this OSD, not to mention the many other nations that operate the P3 (noting the Brazilians have a newly updated ac as well!). Plenty of life in the old girl yet!
I suspect both the Kiwis and Canucks would disagree with this OSD, not to mention the many other nations that operate the P3 (noting the Brazilians have a newly updated ac as well!). Plenty of life in the old girl yet!
Last edited by Ventre A Terre; 7th Jan 2014 at 00:13. Reason: Duplication
A bit of history on the P-7A program.....and how the P-8 came to be.
The P-7A was deemed the right Aircraft but upon a delay and cost over run in the development phase....and lots of lobbying by Boeing....commercial aircraft designs were allowed to compete.
P-7 Long Range Air ASW-Capable Aircraft (LRAACA)
The P-7A was deemed the right Aircraft but upon a delay and cost over run in the development phase....and lots of lobbying by Boeing....commercial aircraft designs were allowed to compete.
P-7 Long Range Air ASW-Capable Aircraft (LRAACA)
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 1,958
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Random, if that's a big issue how come so many on this forum are so keen on old airliners decades past their retirement everywhere else propping up our AAR Fleet? Btw the P3 has PowerPlant and hydraulics commonality with herc...but we probably won't buy them
I think it is a fairly safe bet to say that the RAF will not get any P3 aircraft, even if given away by the USA. The decision (whenever it is made) will be either the P8 with all it's MMA capability, or the CN295 with the 80% performance for 30% of the cost line being potentially attractive to the politicians.
Either are inevitable - just a question of how long we accept the capability gap.
Either are inevitable - just a question of how long we accept the capability gap.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 1,515
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
GG2,
The buzz at the time was the P7 was too capable and therefore a threat to the pointy go faster things. It was the RAF fast jet mentality that binned it first, not the termination of the program....rumour control only I hasten to add.
Dude...hostage to fortune or what 
The buzz at the time was the P7 was too capable and therefore a threat to the pointy go faster things. It was the RAF fast jet mentality that binned it first, not the termination of the program....rumour control only I hasten to add.
Either are inevitable
The bleakest of the English counties?
Apologies for drifting off track, but this is impossible on several grounds, not least the fact that so many Cornish people do not really regard themselves as English!
Joking apart, and just having spent five days at Thurlestone in South Devon, I appreciate what Navaleye was trying to say ....
Jack
Apologies for drifting off track, but this is impossible on several grounds, not least the fact that so many Cornish people do not really regard themselves as English!
Joking apart, and just having spent five days at Thurlestone in South Devon, I appreciate what Navaleye was trying to say ....
Jack
Gentleman Aviator
Apologies for drifting off track, but this is impossible on several grounds, not least the fact that so many Cornish people do not really regard themselves as English
..... one was always told that the difference between Devon & Cornwall was that Devon aspired to send a team to the (cricket) County Championship .....
........ while Cornwall aspired to sending a Test Team!
It was the RAF fast jet mentality that binned it first, not the termination of the program....rumour control only I hasten to add.
That and of course that it may have been a mistake for BAeS to do the mock up showing an MRA4 with 4 underwing Storm Shadow - now that really did get the FJ brethern worried - so the rumour goes!
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: in the magical land of beer and chocolates
Age: 52
Posts: 506
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For all those who believe that schedule slip and cost-growth are normal and
to be expected for big defence programs;
RealClearDefense - The U.S. Navy's New Submarine Hunter Is a Model for Success
to be expected for big defence programs;
RealClearDefense - The U.S. Navy's New Submarine Hunter Is a Model for Success
On time, on budget, passed operational testing for effectiveness and suitability, and now on initial deployment in Japan, the Boeing P-8A Poseidon aircraft is a replacement for the Navy’s fleet of P-3 Orion anti-submarine and maritime surveillance aircraft introduced in 1962. This $32 billion program is a real success for the Navy and the country.
....
Currently the Defense Department has an aggregate of over $400 billion of cost growth in the major systems category. These lessons of risk control, specifications management, performance proof, cost control and managerial continuity should be applied to all defense programs. It is time for action, rather than the current rationalization that all programs grow.
The P-8A program proves this attitude is dead wrong.
....
Currently the Defense Department has an aggregate of over $400 billion of cost growth in the major systems category. These lessons of risk control, specifications management, performance proof, cost control and managerial continuity should be applied to all defense programs. It is time for action, rather than the current rationalization that all programs grow.
The P-8A program proves this attitude is dead wrong.
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Sussex By The Sea
Age: 79
Posts: 264
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Some interesting points have been raised above re P7. A different perspective...?
Lockheed's P7 program was a classic illustration of what happens when Marketing lead a sales pitch with inadequate Technical input. Lockheed promised DoD 70 % comonality between P3 and P7, a major cost saver. This was impossible to achieve and Lockheed tried to move the goal posts. The whole thing was unachieveble and DoD cancelled the program on the grounds of underachievement. Lockheed then threatened to sue DoD for defaulting on the contract- and then unsurprisingly backed down. One doesn't sue ones number one customer!
Definitely wrong. ST(A)420 was kicked off before the P7 was cancelled, and yes, it was one of the options being considered and being pitched to us, as was a Boeing 757 variant and various refurbished P3 options. An interesting fact was that at desk level BAe seemed totally disinterested at this point, although we were well aware that at some stage GEC and BAe would start waving the 'Made in UK flag'. So the UK's interest in P7 terminated when the program was cancelled. We obviously were not in the business of paying development for a system that Lockheed or Boeing couldnt sell to their own government.
Lockheed's P7 program was a classic illustration of what happens when Marketing lead a sales pitch with inadequate Technical input. Lockheed promised DoD 70 % comonality between P3 and P7, a major cost saver. This was impossible to achieve and Lockheed tried to move the goal posts. The whole thing was unachieveble and DoD cancelled the program on the grounds of underachievement. Lockheed then threatened to sue DoD for defaulting on the contract- and then unsurprisingly backed down. One doesn't sue ones number one customer!
The British Nimrod MR2P was to have been replaced by the P-7A, but cancellation of that program forced the British Ministry of Defence to issue requirement SR(A)420 for a replacement maritime patrol aircraft (RMPA).
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Lancashire
Age: 75
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Model for Success?
So an R & D cost of $8b and a unit cost of $275m per aeroplane (almost double the out turn on MRA4) is a model of success????? Or is the model of success that a realistic price should be agreed in the first place?
EG
EG
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 1,515
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting...
I was surprised to see that the HC report (which one would expect to be correct in its references) gives SR 420 as originating in 1993, three years AFTER the P7 prog was cx.
Surprised, because, like nimbev above, I thought 420 came into being earlier. Was there perhaps a previous SR for the MR2 replacement? Whatever, I'm 99% certain the P7 was never more than a perhaps/maybe.
I guess it's all moot
now. We ended up with **** all.
I was surprised to see that the HC report (which one would expect to be correct in its references) gives SR 420 as originating in 1993, three years AFTER the P7 prog was cx.
Surprised, because, like nimbev above, I thought 420 came into being earlier. Was there perhaps a previous SR for the MR2 replacement? Whatever, I'm 99% certain the P7 was never more than a perhaps/maybe.
I guess it's all moot
now. We ended up with **** all.
Last edited by The Old Fat One; 8th Jan 2014 at 12:06. Reason: lack of formal education
Mute or moot?
Mute point and moot point is a commonly misunderstood phrase. Mute means to silence or quiet. Moot means impractical or irrelevant. A moot point means that the issue isn't up for debate and is irrelevant as the outcome has already been determined. There is no phrase of mute point. The correct terminology is moot point.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: by the Great Salt Lake, USA
Posts: 1,542
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
moot: definition of moot in Oxford dictionary - American English (US)
adjective
subject to debate, dispute, or uncertainty, and typically not admitting of a final decision:
verb
[with object] (usually be mooted) raise (a question or topic) for discussion; suggest (an idea or possibility):
noun 1 British an assembly held for debate, especially in Anglo-Saxon and medieval times.
a regular gathering of people having a common interest.
2 Law a mock trial set up to examine a hypothetical case as an academic exercise.
Note that a question subject to debate or dispute is a moot point, not a mute point. As moot is a relatively uncommon word, people sometimes mistakenly interpret it as the more familar word mute.
However,
Moot vs. mute - Grammarist
As an adjective, moot originally meant arguable or subject to debate. With this sense of moot, a moot point was something that was open to debate.
But, since around 1900, the adjective has gradually come to mean of no importance or merely hypothetical. This usage arose out of an exercise in U.S. law schools involving the discussion of “moot” cases to practice argumentation.
In the common phrase moot point, moot means (1) of no importance or (2) merely hypothetical. This is where moot most often gets confused with the adjective mute, which means (1) refraining from making sound or (2) silent.
adjective
subject to debate, dispute, or uncertainty, and typically not admitting of a final decision:
verb
[with object] (usually be mooted) raise (a question or topic) for discussion; suggest (an idea or possibility):
noun 1 British an assembly held for debate, especially in Anglo-Saxon and medieval times.
a regular gathering of people having a common interest.
2 Law a mock trial set up to examine a hypothetical case as an academic exercise.
Note that a question subject to debate or dispute is a moot point, not a mute point. As moot is a relatively uncommon word, people sometimes mistakenly interpret it as the more familar word mute.
However,
Moot vs. mute - Grammarist
As an adjective, moot originally meant arguable or subject to debate. With this sense of moot, a moot point was something that was open to debate.
But, since around 1900, the adjective has gradually come to mean of no importance or merely hypothetical. This usage arose out of an exercise in U.S. law schools involving the discussion of “moot” cases to practice argumentation.
In the common phrase moot point, moot means (1) of no importance or (2) merely hypothetical. This is where moot most often gets confused with the adjective mute, which means (1) refraining from making sound or (2) silent.
Eminence Gris,
Oh Really??
Let me just do the maths (or math for American readers) for the Nimrod MRA4.
Initial order in 1996 = £2bn for 21 aircraft
Final figure in 2010 (8 years after initial ISD) = £4Bn for 9 aircraft.
Which roughly = £444m per aircraft ($710m @1.6 exchange rate)
Then had BAEs eventually delivered all 9 aircraft, they wanted £1bn for a 5 year servicing contract!!! Which, had they been delivered would have required an additional fortune to make them safe!!!
Seems like the P-8 team have achieved a fantastic result and should be hugely congratulated. Nice touch to get the Tac System R&D provided for free courtesy of the UK taxpayer too...
So an R & D cost of $8b and a unit cost of $275m per aeroplane (almost double the out turn on MRA4) is a model of success?????
Let me just do the maths (or math for American readers) for the Nimrod MRA4.
Initial order in 1996 = £2bn for 21 aircraft
Final figure in 2010 (8 years after initial ISD) = £4Bn for 9 aircraft.
Which roughly = £444m per aircraft ($710m @1.6 exchange rate)
Then had BAEs eventually delivered all 9 aircraft, they wanted £1bn for a 5 year servicing contract!!! Which, had they been delivered would have required an additional fortune to make them safe!!!
Seems like the P-8 team have achieved a fantastic result and should be hugely congratulated. Nice touch to get the Tac System R&D provided for free courtesy of the UK taxpayer too...