MPA announced 2015?
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Somewhere flat
Age: 68
Posts: 5,563
Likes: 0
Received 45 Likes
on
30 Posts
Ref E-3 updates....
The costs of joining the NATO fleet would be significantly higher..... NATO Mid-term still needs work as far as I am aware.
The costs of joining the NATO fleet would be significantly higher..... NATO Mid-term still needs work as far as I am aware.
Last edited by Wensleydale; 18th Nov 2012 at 20:25.
Ivan
If you want ASW then C-130J can do it...
http://www.lockheedmartin.com/conten...ro%20Media.pdf
They'll even throw a MAD on the back for those that want/need it!
No, I don't work for LM, before anyone asks. I just want value for money and the C-130J would likely provide that and also keep Marshalls ticking along for a few years (and I don't work them either!).
LJ
If you want ASW then C-130J can do it...
http://www.lockheedmartin.com/conten...ro%20Media.pdf
They'll even throw a MAD on the back for those that want/need it!
No, I don't work for LM, before anyone asks. I just want value for money and the C-130J would likely provide that and also keep Marshalls ticking along for a few years (and I don't work them either!).
LJ
MAD was crucial to the P-3's traditional low-altitude tactics
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Outside the Matz
Posts: 220
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The unit cost of a P-8A Poseidon is $176.0 million (flyaway cost) or $197.8 million incl. support costs. The airframe costs $111.43 million, the two CFM56-7B engines cost $20 million ($10 million each), and the avionics costs $31.57 million.
I had a tour of a Canadian CP140 Aurora Block 3 last year at Trinats. It was very impressive. The sensors and mission suite all top drawer, new wings and four engines, good to go for another 20 years. 12 hours endurance using a fraction of the fuel the old Nimrod put away. All this for 30 million quid a pop.
Now do the maths.
One shiny new unproven jet or 6 modernised arse kickers.
Many thanks to the Canadian crew and its seedcorn lads for the hospitality.
Bannock
I've done some more maths...
The unit price for the P8 including support is an absolute steal! That's about £120M per copy including support. If we had bought these instead of wasting time and money on MRA4 then we could have bought 30x P8s for the money...
The Govt were right to chop MRA4 - any more money to those shisters that claim they have British interests at heart would have been an absolute travesty!
ing w@nk€rs
I've done some more maths...
The unit price for the P8 including support is an absolute steal! That's about £120M per copy including support. If we had bought these instead of wasting time and money on MRA4 then we could have bought 30x P8s for the money...
The Govt were right to chop MRA4 - any more money to those shisters that claim they have British interests at heart would have been an absolute travesty!
ing w@nk€rs
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
iRaven, there is of course the counter argument that one is money out of the country and the other is money that returns in taxes. That of course was the money saving driver on the F4, C130 and E3 deals where offset orders of British kit was installed.
PS. The J model was obviously so unsuited to Maritime roles that the US Coastguard have just placed another order for more last month!
PN:
Whilst a multi-capable maritime weapons system could effect anti-piracy coordination, do you need something like an MPA? There are plenty of other platforms that can do that.
Are there? The reports that appear in Jane's seem to suggest that the one thing missing from anti-piracy ops (certainly in the Horn of Africa) is the availability of a properly equipped long-range MPA.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pontius - the point of ordering aircraft is that someone will actually deliver them - the "churn the money around inside the country " argument is normally disposed of in the first week of any Economics degree course
We'd have to make EVERYTHING here if that's the theory
We'd have to make EVERYTHING here if that's the theory
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Somewhere flat
Age: 68
Posts: 5,563
Likes: 0
Received 45 Likes
on
30 Posts
...there is of course the counter argument that one is money out of the
country and the other is money that returns in taxes. That of course was the
money saving driver on the F4, C130 and E3 deals where offset orders of British
kit was installed.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: SALISBURY
Age: 76
Posts: 706
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It looks as though the Soviets are starting to flex their muscles & underwater capabilities again. 
Sierra-2 Russian submarine: Navy detects Russian Northern Fleet attack sub off U.S. East Coast
Sierra-2 Russian submarine: Navy detects Russian Northern Fleet attack sub off U.S. East Coast
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Brisbane Queensland
Age: 65
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The current quotes from Lockheed are that the C130 J will have systems from the latest P3 with the addition of open architecture to allow for system expansion or upgrades.
You can have full ASW/ASUW capability dependant on service requirements. Weapons bays are attached on the fuselarge as well as 4 wing hardpoints. The system is designed to be roll on roll off in a day.
The current bumf that Lockheed has released (even if it is the sales pitch) states that only minor testing is required for the system to be ready to progress to the installation phase. They also quote the UK as one of their primary targets for the equipment fit.
Could be the way ahead.
You can have full ASW/ASUW capability dependant on service requirements. Weapons bays are attached on the fuselarge as well as 4 wing hardpoints. The system is designed to be roll on roll off in a day.
The current bumf that Lockheed has released (even if it is the sales pitch) states that only minor testing is required for the system to be ready to progress to the installation phase. They also quote the UK as one of their primary targets for the equipment fit.
Could be the way ahead.
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
Didn't Japan change its defence industry laws recently to be able to be involved in international defense projects (ala JSF) and as such are now also able to sell some of their homegrown defense products to partnering nations?
So why not their Kawasaki P-1 MPA; (if its any good??).
Looks like a 21st century P3.
So why not their Kawasaki P-1 MPA; (if its any good??).
Looks like a 21st century P3.
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 304
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Servodyne, with respect you've got to be kidding...
The refurbished P-3C is a so much better alternative, and the Poms will get to fit their own internal kit.
It's the only one with a three-man flight crew, something that, believe me, is very, very important when you get to fly 12 to 14 hour missions, and also want to start shutting down engines inflight for fuel economy.
It's a proven platform, there's still many of them in use around the world, and they are available moderately quickly!
Anyone who wants to fly these types of very long missions with two crew, is advertising his ignorance of the issues involved!
That includes P8, C130J and AEW&C.
As an aside, hey brockman, I think it looks like an 18th century Argese!!
The refurbished P-3C is a so much better alternative, and the Poms will get to fit their own internal kit.
It's the only one with a three-man flight crew, something that, believe me, is very, very important when you get to fly 12 to 14 hour missions, and also want to start shutting down engines inflight for fuel economy.
It's a proven platform, there's still many of them in use around the world, and they are available moderately quickly!
Anyone who wants to fly these types of very long missions with two crew, is advertising his ignorance of the issues involved!
That includes P8, C130J and AEW&C.
As an aside, hey brockman, I think it looks like an 18th century Argese!!
Last edited by EW73; 19th Nov 2012 at 10:03.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
HH, I was not advocating that economic theory. That I mentioned the F4 should have given a clue - British engines, British INAS - CoG problems, re-engineer the back end etc etc.
RP, the bit I was trying to focus on was
as you need a good surface surveillance and comms fit but what else? A P3/P8 etc would be lugging a hugely expensive ASW kit around for much of the time. I know there is a potential use of sonics but I won't go there.
RP, the bit I was trying to focus on was
multi-capable maritime weapons system
Last edited by Pontius Navigator; 19th Nov 2012 at 10:22.
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: UK
Age: 33
Posts: 166
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Saab 2000 MPA
Much cheaper than the P8, they are little work horses, much smaller than the P8 so they'll need a much smaller space for a squadron and up to 9 hours endurance.
Much cheaper than the P8, they are little work horses, much smaller than the P8 so they'll need a much smaller space for a squadron and up to 9 hours endurance.
Last edited by TurningFinals; 19th Nov 2012 at 10:18.
Can just imagine the line at Waddo or wherever with the crews fighting for the 737-800 over the old Britannia 737-300...."you had the 800 last time, that's not fair"!
There was a choice in them days, evidently.
CG
Let's make a deal!
Swap some Typhoons for some P-1's. The Japanese do have a history of ASW and a rather large fleet of P-3's that followed an even larger fleet of P-2's and S-2's....or are we only interested in their cars and TV's??
Swap some Typhoons for some P-1's. The Japanese do have a history of ASW and a rather large fleet of P-3's that followed an even larger fleet of P-2's and S-2's....or are we only interested in their cars and TV's??
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
EW73
Why do we need 12-14 hour missions?
I can see the need for persistence in ASW operations but for straight marine patrol surely it's the amount of sea you cover in one mission that is important and speed can make up for a lot of wandering about with engines switched off at a couple of hundred knots
If you can't land to pick anyone up most ASR really doesn't need someone turning circles over the "incident" all day every day until the surface fleet turns up
Why do we need 12-14 hour missions?
I can see the need for persistence in ASW operations but for straight marine patrol surely it's the amount of sea you cover in one mission that is important and speed can make up for a lot of wandering about with engines switched off at a couple of hundred knots
If you can't land to pick anyone up most ASR really doesn't need someone turning circles over the "incident" all day every day until the surface fleet turns up