New MPA?
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Australia
Posts: 495
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I found a public source for the 11 hrs,
time at 3 min
P8 Poseidon interview with James Detwiler from Boeing - YouTube
time at 3 min
P8 Poseidon interview with James Detwiler from Boeing - YouTube
Last edited by JSFfan; 26th Aug 2013 at 03:44.
While this thread discusses a possible future MPA, there is a deafening silence on the question of whether a replacement Replacement Maritime Patrol Aircraft (!) 
would actually be managed any better, given the nature of the MAJOR failures noted by the audit report which directly preceded cancellation of N2000/RMPA/MRA4.
If you study the MAJORs, and even the MINORS (some of which are actually showstoppers, so I would query the definitions used), every single one of them was identified and notified on the 1990s.
Some use more recent terminology, but all have direct links to mandated policies from the 90s and beyond. Over 12 years later, these remained outstanding. There is no doubt whatsoever why MRA4 was cancelled.
The point here is that the MAA are not addressing the root failures, especially the elephant in the room that is the consistent ruling that most of these mandated regulations can be regarded as OPTIONAL, if their implementation affects Time or Cost.
In MoD(PE) and then DPA, this ruling was made by Director General Air Systems 2 / Executive Director 1,
who just happened to be the Nimrod (and Chinook) 2 Star, and the predecessor of the 2 Star mentioned in the report. To this day, his rulings are vigourously upheld and endorsed by his successors, including the MAA. 
Also, in writing, by the last six Ministers for the Armed Forces and the current Head of the Civil Service.
would actually be managed any better, given the nature of the MAJOR failures noted by the audit report which directly preceded cancellation of N2000/RMPA/MRA4.If you study the MAJORs, and even the MINORS (some of which are actually showstoppers, so I would query the definitions used), every single one of them was identified and notified on the 1990s.
Some use more recent terminology, but all have direct links to mandated policies from the 90s and beyond. Over 12 years later, these remained outstanding. There is no doubt whatsoever why MRA4 was cancelled. The point here is that the MAA are not addressing the root failures, especially the elephant in the room that is the consistent ruling that most of these mandated regulations can be regarded as OPTIONAL, if their implementation affects Time or Cost.
In MoD(PE) and then DPA, this ruling was made by Director General Air Systems 2 / Executive Director 1,
who just happened to be the Nimrod (and Chinook) 2 Star, and the predecessor of the 2 Star mentioned in the report. To this day, his rulings are vigourously upheld and endorsed by his successors, including the MAA. Also, in writing, by the last six Ministers for the Armed Forces and the current Head of the Civil Service. 
If you need to strap wings to a torpedo to get it to the splash down point I think you are in the wrong platform.
The only time I would like to be loitering a long way from home on two engines, is when numbers 1 and 4 have been shutdown to save gas.
the Don
The only time I would like to be loitering a long way from home on two engines, is when numbers 1 and 4 have been shutdown to save gas.
the Don
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: troon
Age: 61
Posts: 551
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you need to strap wings to a torpedo to get it to the splash down point I think you are in the wrong platform
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: The US of A, and sometimes Bonnie Scotland
Posts: 549
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: The US of A, and sometimes Bonnie Scotland
Posts: 549
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ok. Not giving up yet! I can't even PM this link for some "reason". So, if you are inclined, I'll type it in two bits. If you take those two bits, insert a "." and join up, it should work. (Is it 2013??!!)
http://ukarmedforcescommentary.********.co
"."
uk/2013/01/the-p8-poseidon-and-uk.html
http://ukarmedforcescommentary.********.co
"."
uk/2013/01/the-p8-poseidon-and-uk.html
BS,
Mate, I know it's a big article but you could always cut 'n' paste the whole lot for ease of readership?
Now waiting for a C295 blog to come along for comparison purposes!
Mate, I know it's a big article but you could always cut 'n' paste the whole lot for ease of readership?
Now waiting for a C295 blog to come along for comparison purposes!
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: uk
Posts: 162
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oxenos
There is no such thing a British Waterways Board any more, killed off in the cull of the quangos and morphed into The Canal & River Trust, a registered charity. Haven't heard anything about them being in the UAV business.
There is no such thing a British Waterways Board any more, killed off in the cull of the quangos and morphed into The Canal & River Trust, a registered charity. Haven't heard anything about them being in the UAV business.
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: The US of A, and sometimes Bonnie Scotland
Posts: 549
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PA....it's huge; I find that articles that are huge, and posted on here, loose the impact that they deserve. I'm hoping the link (joined up!) works.
Cheers,
BS
Cheers,
BS
Tucumseh,
Always enjoy reading your posts.
I believe the design and systems engineers responsible for the MRA4 air vehicle systems returned their salaries each month to safeguard their amateur status!
Amongst other 'system interoperability" issues; Imagine forgetting about PFCUs requirements when initially focusing on the mission system requirements and then wondering why not a lot worked properly with aircraft stability/controllability once remembered? Oh and then trying to introduce obsolete MR2 systems to mitigate these issues... brilliant.
But, having little or no Systems Safety Assessment training (thus oversight) within the group responsible for managing the project is just unforgivable and crass.
Thank goodness it was cancelled; for the sake of the crews.
(I have my 2 Sep memory chip in...)
Always enjoy reading your posts.
I believe the design and systems engineers responsible for the MRA4 air vehicle systems returned their salaries each month to safeguard their amateur status!
Amongst other 'system interoperability" issues; Imagine forgetting about PFCUs requirements when initially focusing on the mission system requirements and then wondering why not a lot worked properly with aircraft stability/controllability once remembered? Oh and then trying to introduce obsolete MR2 systems to mitigate these issues... brilliant.
But, having little or no Systems Safety Assessment training (thus oversight) within the group responsible for managing the project is just unforgivable and crass.
Thank goodness it was cancelled; for the sake of the crews.
(I have my 2 Sep memory chip in...)
Last edited by Avtur; 4th Sep 2013 at 02:07.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: N/A
Posts: 143
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Here's an easily clickable link to the article mentioned by Betty above: UK Armed Forces Commentary: The P8 Poseidon and the UK
Avtur, you rightly praise tucumseh for the breadth and depth of knowledge that he brings to this forum. You might also rightly comment on the consistent way that what he says is generally ignored here.
The usual gripe is one of "thread drift", whereby those who post merely want to wallow in a Boys Own fest of pages from the Bumper Book of Weird and Wonderful Aeroplanes and are not interested in the uncomfortable testimony from tuc that any one of them would fail at the first hurdle because GB plc has lost the ability to put them into UK military service without making a complete Horlicks of it.
Never mind, out with the Ian Allen Observers Book of Aircraft again. Oh look, that's a good one on p52...
The usual gripe is one of "thread drift", whereby those who post merely want to wallow in a Boys Own fest of pages from the Bumper Book of Weird and Wonderful Aeroplanes and are not interested in the uncomfortable testimony from tuc that any one of them would fail at the first hurdle because GB plc has lost the ability to put them into UK military service without making a complete Horlicks of it.
Never mind, out with the Ian Allen Observers Book of Aircraft again. Oh look, that's a good one on p52...
Chug,
Good point, but you should also mention whether UK plc can afford to buy the latest Boys Own toy.
What exactly would a fleet of 5-8 P-8s cost, along with spares, support, infrastructure, Sqns, aircrew etc? £1-2 Bn plus as a minimum I would suggest...
Where is that money going to come from? Especially when one considers there is another thread running on this forum discussing a £1-2 Bn cost overrun on the carriers for the UK, and the very real prospect of a substantial cost overrun (possibly offset by a reduced numbers buy?) for the JSFs to fly off them.
By the way, have you seen the one on page 84!!!
Good point, but you should also mention whether UK plc can afford to buy the latest Boys Own toy.
What exactly would a fleet of 5-8 P-8s cost, along with spares, support, infrastructure, Sqns, aircrew etc? £1-2 Bn plus as a minimum I would suggest...
Where is that money going to come from? Especially when one considers there is another thread running on this forum discussing a £1-2 Bn cost overrun on the carriers for the UK, and the very real prospect of a substantial cost overrun (possibly offset by a reduced numbers buy?) for the JSFs to fly off them.
By the way, have you seen the one on page 84!!!
Last edited by Biggus; 4th Sep 2013 at 12:37.