MoD to buy 5 x P8 from USA - maybe
the Voyagers themselves
And not that I am defending the MOD decision makers but
And the future F35A (and all the other NATO countries F35A), the C17's, and all of the other NATO/USAFE fighters, bombers, and all other aircraft.
Despite the experts in the role stating that coalition operations, flexibility, support to allies, ability to do tanker-tanker etc etc meant that our FSTA should be so equipped, there was no UK boom requirement. Interoperability and flexibility, despite being entirely sensible, do not cut the mustard when it comes to spending money on a £13.6B programme. Not saying it is right or justifiable, just saying that is the way it is.
Now BEags solution of renegotiating the contract on the last Voyagers, now that other events have overtaken the huge delay in the delivery of FSTA, might be a sensible decision, but......
- Does the KC30 Boom work properly yet?
- Can you imagine how much the company would charge to change the contract now????
And now back on topic: Lockheed Martin were great hosts at RIAT in 1989, so the P7 programme was still a contender for the MR2 replacement at that time, so Eminence's 1990 cancellation date seems reasonable to me.
Tuc,
Absolutely agree with your comments above. High level leadership (RAF, DPA (as was) and BAEs) either buried it's head in the sand and refused to believe what their team of experts were telling them or they just accepted the BAEs/UK MOD procurement game of lies and spin whilst looking at their next onwards and upwards posting within 2 years of starting on the project.
As to,
Agree again - which brings us back to an off the shelf aircraft fully tested and certified. Something like the P-8 would be ideal with Boeing having just provided evidence that they can deliver on time and to cost. Bit like buying a new car from a dealers really...
Absolutely agree with your comments above. High level leadership (RAF, DPA (as was) and BAEs) either buried it's head in the sand and refused to believe what their team of experts were telling them or they just accepted the BAEs/UK MOD procurement game of lies and spin whilst looking at their next onwards and upwards posting within 2 years of starting on the project.
As to,
They will, or should be, very rigourous this time.
Whereas ,Roly, when the C130 leaves service, the RAF will have a capability which it no longer needs (FRU equipped ac). As a casual observer I would have thought that Air Tanker would have a better option of revenue gathering by making a small no of BOOM tankers available to cover the gaps in capability in NATO.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 932
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by BEagle
If the UK acquired the P-8A, the extra cost of a probe / trials etc. would be significant. Whereas if the RAF renegotiated the Voyager to include a boom on some aircraft, it could then refuel the Rivet Joint and P-8A...and E-3D should a centreline drogue tanker be unavailable.
Originally Posted by Roland Pulfrew
Despite the experts in the role stating that coalition operations, flexibility, support to allies, ability to do tanker-tanker etc etc meant that our FSTA should be so equipped, there was no UK boom requirement. Interoperability and flexibility, despite being entirely sensible, do not cut the mustard when it comes to spending money on a £13.6B programme. Not saying it is right or justifiable, just saying that is the way it is.
The other question at the time was if KC-45 had been reselected in 2010 (
), could we have had those instead please....? 
S41
*Cheap in the sense of lowest-cost spec. Nothing in the Voyager programme can be consider "cheap" in the conventional sense of the word, and the sooner we bin the damn PFI, the better.
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: The US of A, and sometimes Bonnie Scotland
Posts: 549
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Whereas ,Roly, when the C130 leaves service, the RAF will have a capability which it no longer needs (FRU equipped ac).
What? You mean the E3 is going? A400M isn't getting a probe? C130J going early? I think we have an extant requirement for a few years yet.
SO1 and his SO2 in MB in late 2009. They were experts, they'd be over-ruled
Add a few UAV's to the mix and do we have a whole new generation of ASW capability?
Is the UK going American....or will you stick to building your own kit or worse yet....buying US Airframes and sticking yer own Tech gear into them?
With the P-8....and the requirement to make them "British MOD" Airworthy....what problems is that going to cause and at what cost in money and operationally?
Navy's 757-Sized Drone Will Provide Big-Time Surveillance | Danger Room | Wired.com
Is the UK going American....or will you stick to building your own kit or worse yet....buying US Airframes and sticking yer own Tech gear into them?
With the P-8....and the requirement to make them "British MOD" Airworthy....what problems is that going to cause and at what cost in money and operationally?
Navy's 757-Sized Drone Will Provide Big-Time Surveillance | Danger Room | Wired.com
....buying US Airframes and sticking yer own Tech gear into them?
RP - Boeing Tactical Command System for MRA4 originally came out of P-3C Update IV, which was IIRC binned simply because of the end of the Cold War and the consequent abrupt end to the Sovs' energetic development of quieter subs. It was an upset win originally over Lockheed, based on AWACS experience.
As for P-8A - probably would be smart to do what the Australians are doing and come on board with Increment 2. Rather like the Block 1 (M-Scan radar) Super Hornet followed by the AESA Block 2, the USN is taking the program in stages. Increment 1 is basically P-3C in ASW terms while Increment 2 goes to the MAC (multistatic active coherent) acoustics, which matches the higher-altitude concept (and is behind the decision to not use MAD).
Beags' comment on AAR - it's not that the Navy doesn't know about it, I suspect, so much as that the large tanker business in the US is all-boom (I don't see a KC-130J tanking a P-8 somehow). Whether the P-8 is AAR-capable because of a mission requirement, because all US military heavies are AAR-capable by default, I am not sure - but don't forget that there was an entirely different secondary mission (not ASW) that was a big driver behind the P-8A design.
As for P-8A - probably would be smart to do what the Australians are doing and come on board with Increment 2. Rather like the Block 1 (M-Scan radar) Super Hornet followed by the AESA Block 2, the USN is taking the program in stages. Increment 1 is basically P-3C in ASW terms while Increment 2 goes to the MAC (multistatic active coherent) acoustics, which matches the higher-altitude concept (and is behind the decision to not use MAD).
Beags' comment on AAR - it's not that the Navy doesn't know about it, I suspect, so much as that the large tanker business in the US is all-boom (I don't see a KC-130J tanking a P-8 somehow). Whether the P-8 is AAR-capable because of a mission requirement, because all US military heavies are AAR-capable by default, I am not sure - but don't forget that there was an entirely different secondary mission (not ASW) that was a big driver behind the P-8A design.
because all US military heavies are AAR-capable by default
vasco
My understanding of A400 is that it will be fitted for (it comes as standard anyway) even if we might not plan to use it that often.
Accept that E3 preference is boom, but it still has the capability to do probe, which comes in handy if the ony tankers available to you are your own. Well at least until Tri* goes out of service.
Don't forget that when the FSTA requirement was written and based on the then planned OSDs, the future was: A400M (P&D); Sentinel (P&D); C130J (P&D); Nimrod R1 (P&D); Nimrod MRA4 (P&D); E3 (P&D/Boom) - that was quite a requirement.
But enough of this tanker discussion; now back to the future of MMA/ MPA........
SAS
and the requirement to make them "British MOD" Airworthy
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: in the magical land of beer and chocolates
Age: 53
Posts: 506
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just to make things clear;
Originally Posted by Roland Pulfrew
Hate to be picky but Voyager has no ability to receive fuel in flight.
And not that I am defending the MOD decision makers but
And not that I am defending the MOD decision makers but
The Voyager could cary both a boom and a Hose, just like the RAAF MRTT.
is a load of tosh. Unfortunately the bean counters will not allow you to fit, at UK tax-payers expense, something for which "we" have no requirement. At the time there was no UK requirement for a boom; only the E3 had a UARSSI but our E3s (and the French E3s) had a probe as well = no boom requirement. C-17 was a lease and UK use of AAR was ruled out to minimise fatigue on the airframe = no boom requirement. F-35C was already probe and drogue = no boom requirement. As for "all the other aircraft" that would be all the other aircraft except those of the USN/USMC or French built aircraft, or British built aircraft, or Eurpoean built aircraft all of which tend to be probe and drogue equipped.
I suspect that an A400M AAR with Boom could also be developed (admittedly with extra cost) and ultimately, the MPA is already boom compliant (just like the 737 wedgetail BTW).
All theory, I admit.
"Scoff".....more like just questioning why the huge cost and extensive difference.
It would seem our system works considering the age of the the B-52, C-130, P-3. A-10, C-5, CH-47, and KC-135 aircraft that are still active after so many years.
I understand there are two different systems....but in the Commerical market Boeing, Airbus,and others seem to be able find a common Airworthiness Standard that finds enough commonality to be viable.
Why can the MOD and DOD not be able to do the same?
Is a British AH-64 that different than a US Army AH-64, An RAF C-130 and a USAF C-130, or C-17's, CH-47's or even the P-8?
It would seem our system works considering the age of the the B-52, C-130, P-3. A-10, C-5, CH-47, and KC-135 aircraft that are still active after so many years.
I understand there are two different systems....but in the Commerical market Boeing, Airbus,and others seem to be able find a common Airworthiness Standard that finds enough commonality to be viable.
Why can the MOD and DOD not be able to do the same?
Is a British AH-64 that different than a US Army AH-64, An RAF C-130 and a USAF C-130, or C-17's, CH-47's or even the P-8?
SAS
I think we are in violent agreement. I think our requirements have become OTT, but that is where we are; it will require a significant policy change to alter direction. I believe that there really should be some element of practicality when it comes to taking a proven in service design that has operated for many years and allowing an element of logical read across. Others on here will no doubt disagree with me. Sadly we are where we are, with the UK's armed forces becoming ever more risk averse and wrapped up in impenetrable regulation.
KB
Only one type of JSF planned for the UK mil, the C version.
I think we are in violent agreement. I think our requirements have become OTT, but that is where we are; it will require a significant policy change to alter direction. I believe that there really should be some element of practicality when it comes to taking a proven in service design that has operated for many years and allowing an element of logical read across. Others on here will no doubt disagree with me. Sadly we are where we are, with the UK's armed forces becoming ever more risk averse and wrapped up in impenetrable regulation.
KB
the F35A is also planned for the RAF IIRC
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: in the magical land of beer and chocolates
Age: 53
Posts: 506
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Roland Pulfrew
Only one type of JSF planned for the UK mil, the C version.
Carriers?
Are we sure that is plural?
Are we sure that is plural?
KB
My apologies, we are both wrong.
A for USAF (conventional, fixed wing), B for USMC & RAF/FAA (hovery version) and C for USN (conventional with wing fold). Labour ordered the B, the Tories changed their mind and went for the C variant, before changing their minds back again to the B variant. The RAF might have suggested a split buy and want the A but don't hold you breath.
I strongly doubt that, B for the Carriers, A for the RAF(tbd in 2015), definitively no C version.
A for USAF (conventional, fixed wing), B for USMC & RAF/FAA (hovery version) and C for USN (conventional with wing fold). Labour ordered the B, the Tories changed their mind and went for the C variant, before changing their minds back again to the B variant. The RAF might have suggested a split buy and want the A but don't hold you breath.
Nothing like decisiveness in Leadership.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Umm, where did I put the Garmin?
Posts: 346
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To be fair the the u-turn on the C was due to discovering retro work to fit cats and traps to the QEs would've been prohibitively expensive. A lot of the much trumpeted design flexibility of the CVF 'Delta' spec was expunged as cost savings. Thanks Gordon!