US Navy debuts the P-8A Poseidon at the Dubai Air Show
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Nine MRA4s was often said to be inadequate, so the minimum fleet of P8s with half the range/endurance must be around 20"
I'd have thought 8 was better than zero...............
I'd have thought 8 was better than zero...............
RP,
£3Bn also represents approx. 6-7% of current interest payments on the UK national debt (approx. £40Bn) and by 2017, when we might be looking to get our first airframe if ordered in 2015, approx. 4% of interest payments (expected to be approx. £70Bn, or over twice the defence budget, by then).
As HAS59 said, there is money being spent all over the country, that's why we are still borrowing about £120Bn a year!!
Yes, we could spend £40-50Bn on defence, and could reinvest in MPA, but the politicians have set a smaller budget, which the military has to work within. If we want to get back into the MPA game (and I'm not saying we shouldn't), given the current budget, something else has to go? What?
£3Bn also represents approx. 6-7% of current interest payments on the UK national debt (approx. £40Bn) and by 2017, when we might be looking to get our first airframe if ordered in 2015, approx. 4% of interest payments (expected to be approx. £70Bn, or over twice the defence budget, by then).
As HAS59 said, there is money being spent all over the country, that's why we are still borrowing about £120Bn a year!!
Yes, we could spend £40-50Bn on defence, and could reinvest in MPA, but the politicians have set a smaller budget, which the military has to work within. If we want to get back into the MPA game (and I'm not saying we shouldn't), given the current budget, something else has to go? What?
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Bristol
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
US Navy debuts the P-8A Poseidon at the Dubai Air Show
Election May 15. Sdsr Oct 15. Project startup Apr 16. Initial gate Apr 17. Main Gate Sep 18. Contract award Jan 19. 1st aircraft that uses US sonobuoys/weapons etc (as it is off the shelf) 2022. 8 aircraft 2025. Tell me you know of a similar value/complex project that delivered quicker?
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Leicestershire, England
Posts: 1,170
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Biggus
RP,
£3Bn also represents approx. 6-7% of current interest payments on the UK national debt (approx. £40Bn) and by 2017, when we might be looking to get our first airframe if ordered in 2015, approx. 4% of interest payments (expected to be approx. £70Bn, or over twice the defence budget, by then).
As HAS59 said, there is money being spent all over the country, that's why we are still borrowing about £120Bn a year!!
Yes, we could spend £40-50Bn on defence, and could reinvest in MPA, but the politicians have set a smaller budget, which the military has to work within. If we want to get back into the MPA game (and I'm not saying we shouldn't), given the current budget, something else has to go? What?
£3Bn also represents approx. 6-7% of current interest payments on the UK national debt (approx. £40Bn) and by 2017, when we might be looking to get our first airframe if ordered in 2015, approx. 4% of interest payments (expected to be approx. £70Bn, or over twice the defence budget, by then).
As HAS59 said, there is money being spent all over the country, that's why we are still borrowing about £120Bn a year!!
Yes, we could spend £40-50Bn on defence, and could reinvest in MPA, but the politicians have set a smaller budget, which the military has to work within. If we want to get back into the MPA game (and I'm not saying we shouldn't), given the current budget, something else has to go? What?
-RP
A comment which has since vanished!
All very salient points, and I don't disagree. My point was, the money is there, it's just there are no votes in Defence, the NHS is a Sacred Cow and despite IDS' best efforts the SS budget is still way too large.
RP
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 1,515
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Basically what Biggus keeps posting +1. I can't add anything worthwhile to the somewhat bleak reality he has nailed down.
As Biggus (and previously, yours truly) has noted, getting a platform is the easiest and cheapest part of restoring a capability lost.
March 31st 2014 will be the four year anniversary of the dark day when the RAF gave up "coastal", maritime, the kipper fleet, call it what you will. A capability introduced circa 1937 and previously deemed essential to our island nation. (note for the semantics out there...31st March 2010 is the date we actually last had an operational aircraft to do the job, so in my book that is when we stopped doing it)
I suggest that anniversary would be a good date to take stock. To see what has gone (almost all of it) and what is left (precious little more than the square root of **** all). I'll do a little research and see what I can come up with.
PS
I do like the expression "sweetcorners" though
As Biggus (and previously, yours truly) has noted, getting a platform is the easiest and cheapest part of restoring a capability lost.
March 31st 2014 will be the four year anniversary of the dark day when the RAF gave up "coastal", maritime, the kipper fleet, call it what you will. A capability introduced circa 1937 and previously deemed essential to our island nation. (note for the semantics out there...31st March 2010 is the date we actually last had an operational aircraft to do the job, so in my book that is when we stopped doing it)
I suggest that anniversary would be a good date to take stock. To see what has gone (almost all of it) and what is left (precious little more than the square root of **** all). I'll do a little research and see what I can come up with.
PS
I do like the expression "sweetcorners" though
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Home alone
Posts: 295
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Biggus
Yet your link is suggesting we will undershoot our borrowing forecast by as much as £15 billion...making 2013 borrowing £105 billion, which as a raw figure is pretty terrifying, but considering it was knocking on the door of £180 billion (off the top of my head) 3 years ago, then that's actually quite re-assuring. Furthermore, the deficit doesn't have to be £0 before the overall national debt starts falling. Additionally, inflation, exceptionally low interest rates and a comparatively strong pound will have a very strong part to play in devaluing the long-term bonds and securities that the government has and will continue to issue. Contrary to popular opinion, moderate amounts of debt are positive - like the 40% stated - for sustaining aggregate demand in a modern, globalised economy; the UK is extremely unlikely to ever get to 0% national debt.
Plus, maybe the MoD might be able to afford more gear than we initially thought if we continue to undershoot our own budget by £2 billion a year...
And finally, the point was made that any purchase would be looking at IOC in the 2020s...I'm very confident that money will no longer be under the lock-down that it is at the moment.
Just my 2 cents
As HAS59 said, there is money being spent all over the country, that's why we are still borrowing about £120Bn a year!!
Plus, maybe the MoD might be able to afford more gear than we initially thought if we continue to undershoot our own budget by £2 billion a year...
And finally, the point was made that any purchase would be looking at IOC in the 2020s...I'm very confident that money will no longer be under the lock-down that it is at the moment.
Just my 2 cents
Bastardeux,
Your points have some validity, although I could argue against some of them, and you are obviously well informed - but I don't want to turn this thread into a long winded economic discussion, if for no other reason that people wouldn't read it! I was simply trying to point out to the "....lets go out and spend £3Bn on MPA, base them at Waddo, it'll be done by 2020, job done...." fraternity some of the economic and political constraints that any major expenditure on Defence is actually working within, i.e. what its like in the real world.
In the real world:
There's an election due in 2015, before any SDSR presumably. The next government could well be Labour, or Labour/Liberal Democrat. In which case all previous bets on Defence spending/priorities could be off/re-assessed/delayed considerably while they think about it.
SDSR 2015 isn't a given, just a plan the current government is working towards.
Money for the Defence budget is tight, and is at risk of its own project overruns (final cost of the 2 carriers, cost of JSF, etc....). There are also assets already in service, I'm thinking mainly Sentinel, that aren't funded post 2015, but CAS wishes to try to maintain. Trying to keep these could soak up any "spare" money in the Defence budget, if there is any!! (It now looks as though you can add buying a 9th C-17 to the list of items which could use up any "spare" money)
A "yes" vote in the 2014 Scottish vote for independence would have a major impact on the Defence budget, apart from simply decreasing it, in terms of what assets go where, paying for base closures, redundancies, the possible cost of re-basing SSBNs in Plymouth, etc. Separation would also have economic impacts, it could also effect the strength of the pound, especially if some sort of Sterling Zone is formed, the remainder of UK might end up shouldering a higher proportion of national debt than expected after the split, etc
Defence simply isn't a vote winner. Any spare cash, whichever party has a hold of the purse strings, is likely to go into the standard sacred cows of Education and NHS, with the new priority of "upping peoples living standards" by trying to put money back in their pockets (perhaps by funding green policies from general taxation as opposed to fuel bills, upping personal allowance, dropping basic rate of tax or VAT, etc). For example:
BBC News - Nick Clegg pushes for £1bn income tax cut
Government Deficit reduction remains a political priority, and we aren't out of the woods yet.
This is the sort of background, and with no perceivable maritime threat as far as the public are aware, against which people are envisaging finding £3Bn+ to fund a new aircraft, infrastructure, support system, recruit and train crews, etc, without losing anything else from Defence to pay for it!
I just think the rose tinted specs need to come off. I think it highly unlikely that against the background I have highlighted, Defence will be able to "find" the funds for a major buy of up market MPAs, as opposed to 4 Casa-235s. If you want MPA, what big ticket item are you willing to lose in exchange, E-3D, SH fleet, etc? All of these are sacred cows in their own right, and, although the situation with MRA4 maybe made the decision easier, this trade off decision is one which the MPA has already lost once in SDSR2010.
Your points have some validity, although I could argue against some of them, and you are obviously well informed - but I don't want to turn this thread into a long winded economic discussion, if for no other reason that people wouldn't read it! I was simply trying to point out to the "....lets go out and spend £3Bn on MPA, base them at Waddo, it'll be done by 2020, job done...." fraternity some of the economic and political constraints that any major expenditure on Defence is actually working within, i.e. what its like in the real world.
In the real world:
There's an election due in 2015, before any SDSR presumably. The next government could well be Labour, or Labour/Liberal Democrat. In which case all previous bets on Defence spending/priorities could be off/re-assessed/delayed considerably while they think about it.
SDSR 2015 isn't a given, just a plan the current government is working towards.
Money for the Defence budget is tight, and is at risk of its own project overruns (final cost of the 2 carriers, cost of JSF, etc....). There are also assets already in service, I'm thinking mainly Sentinel, that aren't funded post 2015, but CAS wishes to try to maintain. Trying to keep these could soak up any "spare" money in the Defence budget, if there is any!! (It now looks as though you can add buying a 9th C-17 to the list of items which could use up any "spare" money)
A "yes" vote in the 2014 Scottish vote for independence would have a major impact on the Defence budget, apart from simply decreasing it, in terms of what assets go where, paying for base closures, redundancies, the possible cost of re-basing SSBNs in Plymouth, etc. Separation would also have economic impacts, it could also effect the strength of the pound, especially if some sort of Sterling Zone is formed, the remainder of UK might end up shouldering a higher proportion of national debt than expected after the split, etc
Defence simply isn't a vote winner. Any spare cash, whichever party has a hold of the purse strings, is likely to go into the standard sacred cows of Education and NHS, with the new priority of "upping peoples living standards" by trying to put money back in their pockets (perhaps by funding green policies from general taxation as opposed to fuel bills, upping personal allowance, dropping basic rate of tax or VAT, etc). For example:
BBC News - Nick Clegg pushes for £1bn income tax cut
Government Deficit reduction remains a political priority, and we aren't out of the woods yet.
This is the sort of background, and with no perceivable maritime threat as far as the public are aware, against which people are envisaging finding £3Bn+ to fund a new aircraft, infrastructure, support system, recruit and train crews, etc, without losing anything else from Defence to pay for it!
I just think the rose tinted specs need to come off. I think it highly unlikely that against the background I have highlighted, Defence will be able to "find" the funds for a major buy of up market MPAs, as opposed to 4 Casa-235s. If you want MPA, what big ticket item are you willing to lose in exchange, E-3D, SH fleet, etc? All of these are sacred cows in their own right, and, although the situation with MRA4 maybe made the decision easier, this trade off decision is one which the MPA has already lost once in SDSR2010.
Last edited by Biggus; 26th Nov 2013 at 14:03.
MMA not MPA
Well if we agree that 'something has to go' then perhaps we should look at the P-8A as a multi-mission aircraft and not simply a replacement MPA.
It could replace the dated concept (radar only) Sentinel R Mk1 in the broad area surveillance role adding other sensors with on-board analysis, doing the job better. Leasing aircraft from the production line shouldn't be out of the question, the US Navy have already indicated that 'we' could take some of their allocated slots.
The current 5 Sqn organisation could be retained, replacing the current 'brown jobs' with Dark Blue uniforms and renumbering it 201 Sqn. (201 was the former 1 Sqn RNAS before 1918) it might even keep everyone happy. The 'green slime' could move in with 14 Sqn when they replace the Islander/Defender ... oh hang on I'm not the CAS. Let's wait and see what happens...
It could replace the dated concept (radar only) Sentinel R Mk1 in the broad area surveillance role adding other sensors with on-board analysis, doing the job better. Leasing aircraft from the production line shouldn't be out of the question, the US Navy have already indicated that 'we' could take some of their allocated slots.
The current 5 Sqn organisation could be retained, replacing the current 'brown jobs' with Dark Blue uniforms and renumbering it 201 Sqn. (201 was the former 1 Sqn RNAS before 1918) it might even keep everyone happy. The 'green slime' could move in with 14 Sqn when they replace the Islander/Defender ... oh hang on I'm not the CAS. Let's wait and see what happens...
I'd have thought 8 was better than zero...............
Smacks of the 1909 slogan, "We want eight, and we won't wait", but the difference compared with the present day is that all eight Dreadnoughts were eventually built. If only ......
Jack
Smacks of the 1909 slogan, "We want eight, and we won't wait", but the difference compared with the present day is that all eight Dreadnoughts were eventually built. If only ......
Jack
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: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"We want eight, and we won't wait",
Nice allusion!
As Churchill wrote:-
In the end a curious and characteristic solution was reached. The Admiralty had demanded 6 ships, the economists (ie the Treasury) offered 4 and we finally compromised on 8 ships"
Nice allusion!
As Churchill wrote:-
In the end a curious and characteristic solution was reached. The Admiralty had demanded 6 ships, the economists (ie the Treasury) offered 4 and we finally compromised on 8 ships"
Boeing reveals low-cost Challenger to own P-8
On Flight Global:-
A low(ish)-cost compromise?
Boeing has used the Dubai air show to formally launch an offer to supply customers unable to afford its 737-based P-8 surveillance aircraft with a modified Bombardier Challenger 605 business jet instead.
Also involving modification specialist Field Aviation, the Boeing-led programme will be ready to deliver a 605-derived maritime surveillance aircraft (MSA) from 2015. Field is currently adapting a Boeing-owned 604-model aircraft as a demonstrator, with this to be flown in early 2014 and to be made swiftly available to support customer evaluations.
“The MSA brings to the global market a cost-effective solution based on P-8 technology, with the 605’s unique performance of speed, payload and endurance,” says Tim Peters, Boeing Defense, Space & Security’s vice-president for mobility, surveillance and engagement.
Boeing will supply the platform’s mission system equipment, with the 605 to be flown with two operators positioned at consoles inside its cabin. Potential buyers will be offered a wide range of payload options, says Peters, with the demonstrator to fly with a Selex ES Seaspray 7300 maritime surveillance radar and a FLIR Systems Star Safire 380 electro-optical/infrared sensor.
“We’re well under way with modifying the demonstrator, and will fly in the new year,” says Field chief executive Daniel Magarian. The adapted 605 will have a flight endurance of 9h, and a range of 2,500nm (4,630km), he adds.
“We think a customer base exists worldwide for an aircraft with the capabilities of the 605 and the P-8 mission system,” Peters says. Other roles for the type could include border surveillance, search and rescue support, exclusive economic zone protection and anti-piracy tasks, he adds. “We’re talking to a number of different customers,” he adds, mentioning potential buyers in the Middle East and Asian regions.
Noting that more than 40 Bombardier aircraft, including Challengers, have previously been modified for intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance applications for multiple users, Bombardier’s president, customer services and specialised aircraft Eric Martel comments: “We see a lot of potential for this programme.”
Also involving modification specialist Field Aviation, the Boeing-led programme will be ready to deliver a 605-derived maritime surveillance aircraft (MSA) from 2015. Field is currently adapting a Boeing-owned 604-model aircraft as a demonstrator, with this to be flown in early 2014 and to be made swiftly available to support customer evaluations.
“The MSA brings to the global market a cost-effective solution based on P-8 technology, with the 605’s unique performance of speed, payload and endurance,” says Tim Peters, Boeing Defense, Space & Security’s vice-president for mobility, surveillance and engagement.
Boeing will supply the platform’s mission system equipment, with the 605 to be flown with two operators positioned at consoles inside its cabin. Potential buyers will be offered a wide range of payload options, says Peters, with the demonstrator to fly with a Selex ES Seaspray 7300 maritime surveillance radar and a FLIR Systems Star Safire 380 electro-optical/infrared sensor.
“We’re well under way with modifying the demonstrator, and will fly in the new year,” says Field chief executive Daniel Magarian. The adapted 605 will have a flight endurance of 9h, and a range of 2,500nm (4,630km), he adds.
“We think a customer base exists worldwide for an aircraft with the capabilities of the 605 and the P-8 mission system,” Peters says. Other roles for the type could include border surveillance, search and rescue support, exclusive economic zone protection and anti-piracy tasks, he adds. “We’re talking to a number of different customers,” he adds, mentioning potential buyers in the Middle East and Asian regions.
Noting that more than 40 Bombardier aircraft, including Challengers, have previously been modified for intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance applications for multiple users, Bombardier’s president, customer services and specialised aircraft Eric Martel comments: “We see a lot of potential for this programme.”
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: The US of A, and sometimes Bonnie Scotland
Posts: 549
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts