Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Aircrew Forums > Military Aviation
Reload this Page >

UK Maritime Patrol Aircraft - An Urgent Requirement

Military Aviation A forum for the professionals who fly military hardware. Also for the backroom boys and girls who support the flying and maintain the equipment, and without whom nothing would ever leave the ground. All armies, navies and air forces of the world equally welcome here.

UK Maritime Patrol Aircraft - An Urgent Requirement

Old 16th Feb 2014, 22:25
  #301 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: The US of A, and sometimes Bonnie Scotland
Posts: 537
Good luck trying to explain something "simple" to Stuffy...
betty swallox is offline  
Old 17th Feb 2014, 14:34
  #302 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,085
Betty S wrote:-

"Harry. I see your point. But can we really afford to compromise on this?! Haven't we compromised too much already?!"

That's water under the bridge - right now we don't even have a patrol capacity - any discussion of going back to full on 1990's capability will cause hysterics at No.10 and the Treasury

We don't have enough cash to pay for a lot of things for the next 10 years at least

I'd love to see maybe 4 P-8's ordered but I suspect we'll settle on maybe 8 simple patrol aircraft -.

If the Scots go you can forget those as well
Heathrow Harry is offline  
Old 18th Feb 2014, 07:50
  #303 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Worcestershire
Posts: 305
HH, why 4 P8s. One in maintenance would leave 3 for ops, trg etc. Hardly worth the effort.
Phoney Tony is offline  
Old 18th Feb 2014, 09:32
  #304 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: home for good
Posts: 467
Maybe we should 'manage our expectations' (business bullphrase for 'cut our cloth to suits our circumstances')?
How about matching our commonwealth cousins New Zealand? Not sure of their latest P3-K numbers but they seem to be able to patrol a vast amount of water with them?
To those who might say - "but they are not covering all the other tasks that MR2 did", see my para 1...
Sandy Parts is offline  
Old 18th Feb 2014, 13:44
  #305 (permalink)  
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Lincolnshire
Age: 76
Posts: 16,648
Originally Posted by Sandy Parts View Post
Maybe we should 'manage our expectations' (business bullphrase for 'cut our cloth to suits our circumstances')?
Ah, but define cloth and circumstance.

Circumstance - political ambition to remain a great global player

Cloth - broad loom to make large enough suit.

Cicumstance - broke

Cloth - copy the emperor for Hans Christian Anderson
Pontius Navigator is offline  
Old 18th Feb 2014, 14:03
  #306 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 1998
Location: England
Posts: 1,870
Cloth - copy the emperor for Hans Christian Anderson
Ah, you mean copy Wee Eck's SNP policy?

Sorry! SORRY!!

I'll get my coat; TAXI!
Roland Pulfrew is offline  
Old 21st Feb 2014, 11:43
  #307 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,085
"why 4 P8s. One in maintenance would leave 3 for ops, trg etc. Hardly worth the effort."

Still - we'd have one active every day

We don't need to patrol the whole of the UKCS 24/7

just like a copper on the beat - turn up every so often and it introduces another variable for the bad guys
Heathrow Harry is offline  
Old 21st Feb 2014, 12:22
  #308 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: The US of A, and sometimes Bonnie Scotland
Posts: 537
Govt approves RAAF P-8 acquisition | Australian Aviation Magazine
betty swallox is offline  
Old 21st Feb 2014, 14:17
  #309 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Worcestershire
Posts: 305
HH,

So one Typhoon sortie a day in the UK FIR - AD sorted

One E3D sortie a month - AEW sorted.

One Voyager mission a week - AT sorted

Etc etc.

Defence budget sorted!
Phoney Tony is offline  
Old 22nd Feb 2014, 14:45
  #310 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,085
I didn't say I thought it was perfect - I just think it's better than nothing at all - which is where we are now

the easiest way to ensure we never get any patrol aircraft ever again is to ask for a load of hi-spec aircraft right now.

The important thing is to keep the capacity in being - you never know there might be more money in the future but once it's gone for a decade I suspect you'll never convince the Treasury or the politicains that we really need to re-instate it again

PS just how many Typhoon sorties ARE there on an average day???? 120 aircraft, average pilot gets 18-19 hours a month with luck ... not a lot I suspect
Heathrow Harry is offline  
Old 22nd Feb 2014, 20:05
  #311 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: The US of A, and sometimes Bonnie Scotland
Posts: 537
Disagree. Going for a half-baked solution will only cost more in the long run.
betty swallox is offline  
Old 24th Feb 2014, 08:01
  #312 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,085
do you really think anyone is going to fund a fully baked solution in the next 10 years?

Osborne is still looking for CUTS for heaven sakes

And I can't see the Labour or LibDems spending on this capability either

I know we HAD a really good MPA capability but we now have none - we have to move on and take what we can get I'm afraid. We used to have 1000 bomber force but that has gone as well.....................
Heathrow Harry is offline  
Old 24th Feb 2014, 12:14
  #313 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: The real world
Posts: 447
Couldn't agree more with you Harry.
The problem is and I understand why, people are allowing emotion to cloud their judgement, just because we used to have a world leading mpa capability and just because people believe vehemently that we need one again asap does in no way reflect the realistic likelihood of it happening.
By all means plead your case, bang the drum hard, whilst at the same time allowing a modicum of realism to prevail.
I would be flabbergasted if the uk or what's left of it (post referendum) gets back into the high end mpa game.
Jayand is offline  
Old 24th Feb 2014, 13:57
  #314 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: The US of A, and sometimes Bonnie Scotland
Posts: 537
Wow!! That that was patronising!!

Last edited by betty swallox; 25th Feb 2014 at 02:24.
betty swallox is offline  
Old 26th Feb 2014, 21:13
  #315 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: The US of A, and sometimes Bonnie Scotland
Posts: 537
Boeing wins $2.1 billion contract for 16 more P-8 spy planes
betty swallox is offline  
Old 27th Feb 2014, 01:17
  #316 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 397
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Boeing Co (BA.N) has been awarded a contract valued at $2.1 billion to build 16 P-8A Poseidon long-range maritime spy planes for the U.S. Navy, the Pentagon announced on Tuesday.

The deal marks the first full-rate production contract for Boeing for the new planes, and follows a decision by Australia last week to buy eight P-8A planes for A$4 billion ($3.6 billion).
So can someone explain why the Aussie P-8s are so much more expensive?

Y_G
Yeller_Gait is offline  
Old 27th Feb 2014, 04:10
  #317 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: cardboard box in't middle of t'road
Posts: 647
So can someone explain why the Aussie P-8s are so much more expensive?
Just a guess, but does the contract include Simulator, spares and other through life support?

From the RAAF website:

The acquisition of the eight P-8A aircraft will cost approximately $4 billion, including support facilities.

Last edited by Surplus; 27th Feb 2014 at 04:12. Reason: Include a quote.
Surplus is offline  
Old 27th Feb 2014, 15:07
  #318 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: by the Great Salt Lake, USA
Posts: 1,541
Whereas the USN P-8 contract is for additional aircraft to enlarge an existing fleet (12 in service as of December last year with 6 of those on deployment to Japan, and brings the total of current orders to 53).

The USN contracts support separately from purchases.

Note that this is NOT a new contract, but is actually the USN exercising an option (for more aircraft) in a previously-awarded contract.

Boeing Awarded $2.07 Bln Contract By U.S. Navy For P-8 Spy Planes
2/26/2014 4:09 AM ET
Boeing co. has been awarded a $2.07 billion modification to a previously awarded firm-fixed-price contract to exercise the options for the procurement of 16 P-8A Multi-mission Maritime Aircraft full rate production Lot I aircraft and 16 Ancillary Mission Equipment kits for the U.S. Navy, the U.S Department of Defense said. The order is expected to be completed in April 2017.


The deal reportedly increases the Navy's order to 53 jets as it exercised options as part of a broader agreement that would see the service take up to 117 of the aircraft, a heavily-modified version of its 737-800 passenger plane.
GreenKnight121 is offline  
Old 1st Mar 2014, 10:43
  #319 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 16,638
Some articles for you to peruse in case you haven't seen them

Journal Archives - Think Defence
NutLoose is online now  
Old 23rd Mar 2014, 08:23
  #320 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Pays Basque
Posts: 577
Another blow to the MPA community.. Bredbury Hall has gone into administration.
sidevalve is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.