BAE RAF P3 procurement feasibility report
Thread Starter
BAE RAF P3 procurement feasibility report
An alleged report (around June this year) looking at the feasibility of obtaining P3s from the USA, either leased or bought, from 'Desert' storage or line aircraft.
Fact or fiction?
Fact or fiction?
The following users liked this post:
What if it is fact? That doesn't mean it will happen!!
Reports are written all the time, to look at costs, timescales, options, capabilities, etc, etc.
No doubt during the SDSR a variety of reports were written, on a number of options, it didn't mean those options were taken up.
This could be a BAE internal report, to enable them to having costings/options up their sleeve if so asked - and to actually get the costs right this time.
It could be an MOD sponsored/funded report, so the next time someone in government asks "...how much would it cost for the UK to get back into the MPA game..", the answer, "..the last time this was examined was in 2011, when the cheapest cost/least capable option was assessed to cost £X billion, with an estimated in service date of YY months from initiation. Of course minister, costing may well have risen since then...", all said in a Sir Humphrey type voice, will be readily available!
Fact or fiction, the possible existence of such a report in itself doesn't mean anything at his stage of the game!
Reports are written all the time, to look at costs, timescales, options, capabilities, etc, etc.
No doubt during the SDSR a variety of reports were written, on a number of options, it didn't mean those options were taken up.
This could be a BAE internal report, to enable them to having costings/options up their sleeve if so asked - and to actually get the costs right this time.
It could be an MOD sponsored/funded report, so the next time someone in government asks "...how much would it cost for the UK to get back into the MPA game..", the answer, "..the last time this was examined was in 2011, when the cheapest cost/least capable option was assessed to cost £X billion, with an estimated in service date of YY months from initiation. Of course minister, costing may well have risen since then...", all said in a Sir Humphrey type voice, will be readily available!
Fact or fiction, the possible existence of such a report in itself doesn't mean anything at his stage of the game!
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: S of 55N
Posts: 360
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MPA
If I was betting man, and I am, I'd suggest a converted UK version of this:ARMEE DE L'AIR Alenia/CASA CN-235 '52-ID' 066 | Flickr - Photo Sharing!
was more likely.
Sun.
was more likely.
Sun.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Just south of the Keevil gap.
Posts: 308
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Siggie,
That's just one option in an on-going study into methods (or combination of methods ) of delivering a Wide Area Maritime Underwater Surveillance capability.
Edit - Biggus post #6 has the measure of it.
That's just one option in an on-going study into methods (or combination of methods ) of delivering a Wide Area Maritime Underwater Surveillance capability.
Edit - Biggus post #6 has the measure of it.
Last edited by Cpt_Pugwash; 7th Mar 2013 at 22:34.
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: home: United Kingdom
Posts: 779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sun,
I'd fly one of those. Not sure how happy I'd be at LL at 30W; but you have to cut your cloth to fit. It's infinately better than what we have at the moment!
Duncs
I'd fly one of those. Not sure how happy I'd be at LL at 30W; but you have to cut your cloth to fit. It's infinately better than what we have at the moment!
Duncs
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Temporarily missing from the Joe Louis Arena
Posts: 2,131
Received 27 Likes
on
16 Posts
What do we need P3s for?
I thought the SDSR came to the conclusion that a nation surrounded by water, who is a net importer of goods and thus requires unhindered sea access and possessing ICBM armed submarines doesn't need maritime patrol aircraft?
I thought the SDSR came to the conclusion that a nation surrounded by water, who is a net importer of goods and thus requires unhindered sea access and possessing ICBM armed submarines doesn't need maritime patrol aircraft?
Thread Starter
Biggus,
The fact that such a report has been asked for shows that the government has, at the best, doubts about the wisdom of scrapping the MPA fleet. Even if the report is only used to prove how expensive it would be to replace them.
Why would they feel the need to argue their case if there was no need for it?
The fact that such a report has been asked for shows that the government has, at the best, doubts about the wisdom of scrapping the MPA fleet. Even if the report is only used to prove how expensive it would be to replace them.
Why would they feel the need to argue their case if there was no need for it?
Before anyone signs up for the P3 I do hope they have asked to see all the design source material for it so that the MAA can be satisfied.
"What do you mean Mr Lockheed when you say the US Navy wasn't bothered with all that stuff and so you trashed the Electra source material years ago because it cost money to store".
My guess is that the holes in the information will cost millions to fill for no obvious benefit.
"What do you mean Mr Lockheed when you say the US Navy wasn't bothered with all that stuff and so you trashed the Electra source material years ago because it cost money to store".
My guess is that the holes in the information will cost millions to fill for no obvious benefit.
Siggie,
First of all, I'm not trying to start a pis*ing contest!! Having said that....
You start off by asking if an "alleged" report is fact or fiction. I respond along the lines that even if it is fact (and I don't know if it is...) then that doesn't really prove anything! A case of "don't get your hopes up".
You are now saying, in response to my comment, "... The fact that such a report has been asked for shows that the government has, at the best, doubts about the wisdom of scrapping the MPA fleet. Even if the report is only used to prove how expensive it would be to replace them. ....".
First of all, this implies you now believe the "alleged" report to actually exist. Even if it does - who commissioned it? You talk of "the government" having doubts, but was it a report formally commissioned by what you refer to as "the government". Was it an internally commissioned MOD report, in which case it is someone within the MOD (CAS perhaps) who maybe has doubts. You mention BAE, is it a BAE report, in which case it is about possible commercial interests (perhaps a non-solicited bid?), and once again doesn't necessarily reflect a formal government view.
Finally, even if it was a "government", for which case I suppose you should read MOD minister (i.e. politician), commissioned report, it doesn't necessarily mean they have doubts. It could alternatively mean that they know some people won't let this go (a bit like WEBF and his Sea Harrier) and this is just further ammunition for the "no" to MPA camp the next time it comes up in an interview/discussion/debate.
For what it is worth, these are my own thoughts. The UK will eventually have to get back into the LRMPA game, but maybe at nowhere near the level of sophistication we previously had. Perhaps something along the lines of the CN-235 mentioned. It will not happen for at least another 5-6 years, on the basis it will require new money (unless something else is cut to pay for it) and we are currently broke, and the current band of politicians won't want to be seen to be doing a U-turn.
In terms of The Helpful Stackers comments on the SDSR, I believe the current government decided that the Nimrod MRA4 was non viable, but rather than saying it was a dead duck but we still need an MPA, came up with the line that "we don't need MPA" to help justify getting rid of the white elephant that the MRA4 had become. However, as I said, those are just my personal thoughts on the matter.
First of all, I'm not trying to start a pis*ing contest!! Having said that....
You start off by asking if an "alleged" report is fact or fiction. I respond along the lines that even if it is fact (and I don't know if it is...) then that doesn't really prove anything! A case of "don't get your hopes up".
You are now saying, in response to my comment, "... The fact that such a report has been asked for shows that the government has, at the best, doubts about the wisdom of scrapping the MPA fleet. Even if the report is only used to prove how expensive it would be to replace them. ....".
First of all, this implies you now believe the "alleged" report to actually exist. Even if it does - who commissioned it? You talk of "the government" having doubts, but was it a report formally commissioned by what you refer to as "the government". Was it an internally commissioned MOD report, in which case it is someone within the MOD (CAS perhaps) who maybe has doubts. You mention BAE, is it a BAE report, in which case it is about possible commercial interests (perhaps a non-solicited bid?), and once again doesn't necessarily reflect a formal government view.
Finally, even if it was a "government", for which case I suppose you should read MOD minister (i.e. politician), commissioned report, it doesn't necessarily mean they have doubts. It could alternatively mean that they know some people won't let this go (a bit like WEBF and his Sea Harrier) and this is just further ammunition for the "no" to MPA camp the next time it comes up in an interview/discussion/debate.
For what it is worth, these are my own thoughts. The UK will eventually have to get back into the LRMPA game, but maybe at nowhere near the level of sophistication we previously had. Perhaps something along the lines of the CN-235 mentioned. It will not happen for at least another 5-6 years, on the basis it will require new money (unless something else is cut to pay for it) and we are currently broke, and the current band of politicians won't want to be seen to be doing a U-turn.
In terms of The Helpful Stackers comments on the SDSR, I believe the current government decided that the Nimrod MRA4 was non viable, but rather than saying it was a dead duck but we still need an MPA, came up with the line that "we don't need MPA" to help justify getting rid of the white elephant that the MRA4 had become. However, as I said, those are just my personal thoughts on the matter.
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 304
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In my humble opinion, the P3 is infinitely better than the P8...
I was really looking forward to the P7!
As an aside, did you know that the South Koreans have just signed up for eight additional P3Cs, which will double their fleet!
EW73
I was really looking forward to the P7!
As an aside, did you know that the South Koreans have just signed up for eight additional P3Cs, which will double their fleet!
EW73
Last edited by EW73; 22nd May 2012 at 02:49.