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 8th Sep 2014, 19:44
  #581 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 607
LO,

Saab will tell you......
BAEs will also tell you that they can do everything Saab can do, but twice as good in half the time for a third of the price!!!!!!!

And as for earlier comments on Typhoon taking on the role
Party Animal is offline  
Old 8th Sep 2014, 20:11
  #582 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: The Roman Empire
Posts: 2,334
LO,

I thought the "herring thieves" side of things you refer to had been done by the likes of:

Maritime Surveillance

for the last 20 odd years, so why buy a military aircraft to start doing the job again?
Biggus is offline  
Old 9th Sep 2014, 12:50
  #583 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: The US of A, and sometimes Bonnie Scotland
Posts: 538
That's not really the point though, is it?!
It would be a foolish MoD that bought a one trick pony. What is being said is that any aircraft, that is hopefully procured, would have a Multi mission capability.
Is that such a difficult concept to grasp?
betty swallox is offline  
Old 9th Sep 2014, 15:50
  #584 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Far West Wessex
Posts: 2,545
Betty,

There's a balance to be struck. One-trick ponies aren't good. On the other hand, there's also a problem with what our German friends called Tornado at one point - der Eiergelegende Wollmilchsau (egg-laying, wool- and milk-producing pig).

P-8A is ASW, maritime patrol, overland and littoral ISR, missile- and mine-toting ASuW, SIGINT, platform for big-a$$ radar. Great, if you can afford it, but I suspect in UK service it will be carrying body length, extra hardpoints, big gennys and a whole lot of other heavy kit that doesn't get used.
LowObservable is offline  
Old 9th Sep 2014, 16:30
  #585 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: The US of A, and sometimes Bonnie Scotland
Posts: 538
Next you'll be telling us that the MR2 and MRA4 didn't really need to have a weapons capability...
betty swallox is offline  
Old 9th Sep 2014, 18:17
  #586 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Worcestershire
Posts: 305
Betty,

There is a point here, the optimum platform may not be a big jet which tries to do everything. A platform which can be re-rolled quickly to be able to do the high impact but infrequent missions will be cheaper. Why carry an acoustic system, launchers sonobuoys etc on a maritime surveillance mission. If you stumble across a submarine you will be able to track it until it goes sinker. In peace time that should be enough. Remember we are now intelligence led! If there was a chance of stumbling across something the ac fit may be different.

The cost of trying to put everything into offers the ability to change role within a single mission, but in reality this does not happen often. So you do end up carrying around an elephant for the whole life of the platform.
Phoney Tony is offline  
Old 9th Sep 2014, 20:49
  #587 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Far West Wessex
Posts: 2,545
No, Betty - but 4 x SLAM-ERs or 2400 pound Captor mines?
LowObservable is offline  
Old 9th Sep 2014, 22:09
  #588 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 1998
Location: England
Posts: 1,870
A platform which can be re-rolled quickly to be able to do the high impact but infrequent missions will be cheaper.
Got any examples of this fantastic capability?
Roland Pulfrew is offline  
Old 9th Sep 2014, 22:18
  #589 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Temporarily missing from the Joe Louis Arena
Posts: 1,912
Got any examples of this fantastic capability?
I'm sure if the government gave a blank cheque to BAe they could come up with something. What is the worse that could happen?
The Helpful Stacker is offline  
Old 10th Sep 2014, 00:44
  #590 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: cardboard box in't middle of t'road
Posts: 647
Why carry an acoustic system, launchers sonobuoys etc on a maritime surveillance mission. If you stumble across a submarine you will be able to track it until it goes sinker. In peace time that should be enough. Remember we are now intelligence led! If there was a chance of stumbling across something the ac fit may be different.
We were intelligence led when I was re-tasked from Fishery Protection onto ASW with no prior warning, whilst airborne and on-task. Few maritime sorties had no sonobuoys on board the aircraft, probably not enough for a full on task period, but enough to maintain contact until the SAR Standby a/c got there.

The ability to carry out multiple roles is probably now more important, given the numbers of airframes available. You're going to need more than 4 airframes for 24/7 ASW.
Surplus is offline  
Old 10th Sep 2014, 06:31
  #591 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 1,519
There is a point here, the optimum platform may not be a big jet which tries to do everything. A platform which can be re-rolled quickly to be able to do the high impact but infrequent missions will be cheaper. Why carry an acoustic system, launchers sonobuoys etc on a maritime surveillance mission. If you stumble across a submarine you will be able to track it until it goes sinker. In peace time that should be enough. Remember we are now intelligence led! If there was a chance of stumbling across something the ac fit may be different.
Not only a very valid point, but in point of fact, everybody posting here that flew on the rod has already been there. We have flown countless times with missing, broken or semi broken acoustics and/or diminished/absent sonobuoy loads on sorties where ASW was not on the agenda. During Op Tapestry (got to be my age to remember that, fishery surveillance for the youfs amongst you ) we often flew with only one wettie and he did radio (yep, wetties usd to do that on the mark 1).

I'm not saying this is a viable option...I'm merely saying it's a valid point.
The Old Fat One is offline  
Old 10th Sep 2014, 17:46
  #592 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: UK/ USA
Posts: 111
BEWARE AMERICANS OFFERING A GOOD DEAL

UK launches new Rivet Joint flight test programme - IHS Jane's 360


What happens if the test flights and other studies reveal something unacceptable.

A valuable lesson.

Before someone says it P8 has been built to modern design and build standards......US standards.
Jet In Vitro is offline  
Old 11th Sep 2014, 01:28
  #593 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: The US of A, and sometimes Bonnie Scotland
Posts: 538
Jet in Vitro
You display your lack of knowledge of the P-8 program, Boeing and airworthiness wrt the MAA.
betty swallox is offline  
Old 11th Sep 2014, 04:37
  #594 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: cardboard box in't middle of t'road
Posts: 647
BEWARE AMERICANS OFFERING A GOOD DEAL

More like : BEWARE BRITISH AEROSPACE OFFERING A GOOD DEAL

Surplus is offline  
Old 11th Sep 2014, 17:14
  #595 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: UK/ USA
Posts: 111
BS,

Please enlighten me. I assume you mean P8 design and build standards can be read across to UK MoD requirements seamlessly?
Jet In Vitro is offline  
Old 11th Sep 2014, 18:04
  #596 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 1,905
It should do as we can accept US standards as a valid substitute for our own.

Just This Once... is offline  
Old 11th Sep 2014, 19:41
  #597 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Far West Wessex
Posts: 2,545
I like the comment in the RJ story:

"This will augment the limited availability of detailed historical flight test information."

This sounds like "somewhere in the lower basement level of the Big Safari office, in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying Beware of the Leopard."
LowObservable is offline  
Old 12th Sep 2014, 03:33
  #598 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: by the Great Salt Lake, USA
Posts: 1,541
Originally Posted by Jet In Vitro
Please enlighten me. I assume you mean P8 design and build standards can be read across to UK MoD requirements seamlessly?
Yes - exactly the same way they were read across for the 8 C-17s you seem to be happy to operate.
GreenKnight121 is offline  
Old 12th Sep 2014, 03:38
  #599 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: The US of A, and sometimes Bonnie Scotland
Posts: 538
Jet in Vitro

Enlightened?
betty swallox is offline  
Old 12th Sep 2014, 05:43
  #600 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: UK/ USA
Posts: 111
Thank you. Sounds simple then.

Let's hope the RJ RTS is sorted soon.

MoD can find the money for P8.

Peace breaks out in the Middle East.

England wins the next World Cup.
Jet In Vitro 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.