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 14th May 2015, 12:33
  #1201 (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: 77
Posts: 16,696
How many P8?

Given 2Bn and the wiki cost for 8 x P8I of $2bn, that suggests 8 for UK with support costs.
Pontius Navigator is offline  
Old 14th May 2015, 16:02
  #1202 (permalink)  
Deepest Norfolk
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Well, the Beeb have finally cottoned on to the fact
that we have no LRMPA. Only took 'em five years and the SNP to mention it in their campaign.

DN
 
Old 14th May 2015, 16:13
  #1203 (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: 77
Posts: 16,696
DN, probably decided, in conjunction with SNP, that it is a good rod with which to beat the hated Tories.
Pontius Navigator is offline  
Old 14th May 2015, 16:56
  #1204 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 66
Posts: 1,954
BS - Empty weight from the USN, MTOW and fuel cap from Boeing.

Of course I don't know if the USN definition of OEW. Could be +-5,000 pounds or so depending on whether they include the pies.
There's something screwy with the numbers. Per multiple sources:
Empty wt = 62.7 t
MTOG wt = 85.3 t
Fuel Cap = 34.1 t

85.3 - 62.7 = 22.6
34.1 - 22.6 = 11.5

In other words, the P-8A is supposedly flying around with tankage for 11.5 tons of fuel that can never be loaded into those tanks.

Me thinks the "empty weight" includes weapons and/or other expendables (like sono buoys?) that are not normally included in commercial OEW numbers.
KenV is offline  
Old 14th May 2015, 17:32
  #1205 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: home for good
Posts: 473
Given the usual inaccuracies in the Express report and the fact the only actual MoD quote was "full spectrum of submarine detection capability would be reviewed this year" I'd say it was a case of "move along, nothing new to see here"?
Sandy Parts is offline  
Old 14th May 2015, 18:23
  #1206 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: ice station kilo
Posts: 200
Well, the Beeb have finally cottoned on to the fact
that we have no LRMPA. Only took 'em five years and the SNP to mention it in their campaign.
Just seen the NATO ASW Ex / Brit LRMPA gap story even on BBC Word News, 3 stories up from the guy who voices Mr Burns on The Simpson's leaving, but on BBC World all the same.
circle kay is offline  
Old 14th May 2015, 18:41
  #1207 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Outside the Matz
Posts: 219
Nato's 'Dynamic Mongoose': Hunting for submarines - BBC News
Bannock is offline  
Old 14th May 2015, 18:47
  #1208 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Lancashire
Age: 44
Posts: 552
Blatant BBC government propaganda on display today. Highlighting the need for a MPA capability, no mention of how much was 💦 💦 💦 away on Nimrod, then they chopped them up.

British public really are thick as 🐷 🐷 🐷 💩 💩 💩
Thelma Viaduct is offline  
Old 14th May 2015, 19:31
  #1209 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Far West Wessex
Posts: 2,549
KenV - the widely sourced OEW is wrong (if you compare it with 737 OEWs you can see it makes no sense). I think it is actually the MZFW. Navy said 112,000 lb ops empty.
LowObservable is offline  
Old 29th May 2015, 10:33
  #1210 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 1,519
So to the The Times this morning...

However, first off, I'm well aware that from time to time I've come off as anti MPA (OK, MMA) on this thread.

Frankly, nothing could be further from the truth.

I believe we need the capability as part of coherent maritime security strategy, and that has always been my stated position. Go look at my entire posting history if you wish (seriously, don't do that - it would be sad).

Where I have crossed swords with some maritime diehards (like wot I is) would be on the vexed subject of the possibility of ever finding the money to get this capability back - on which subject I have swayed between an unapologetic pessimist and a "perhaps-it-might-just-happen-others-might-know-better" sort of mindset.

So back to The Times...

And a quote from Paul Beaver...

...the MOD could delay the delivery of such aircraft as the A400M transport plane and the F-35 fighter jet, but this would be insufficient to cover the full 1 Billion [posters note - Osborne has instructed all departments except Health, Education and International Development to make savings at around 5% - which is, I guess, around 1 Billion for defence]...[Back to Beaver]...the only way to find the full savings is to stop doing things.
So there you have it...the unsquareable circle.

We want an old capability restored; the MOD could be facing binning more stuff.

Discuss.
The Old Fat One is offline  
Old 29th May 2015, 11:51
  #1211 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Around
Posts: 862
Deletion of GR4 would free up a pretty big wedge....be interesting to see typhoon try and do shader as well.
downsizer is offline  
Old 29th May 2015, 12:41
  #1212 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: where-ever nav's chooses....
Posts: 674
This is an in-year saving, so given that we've spent naff all money on MMA, there's even less to save.

I suspect that the Bn can be found relatively easily.
alfred_the_great is offline  
Old 29th May 2015, 13:17
  #1213 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,083
they'll threaten to cut the Red Arrows, a Guards regiment and maybe the Gurkhas - that normally gets a few million restored
Heathrow Harry is offline  
Old 29th May 2015, 17:05
  #1214 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: France
Age: 76
Posts: 6,378
And maintain defence spending at 2% - dream on. Sadly the time is coming when we need to reconsider the independent nuclear force and accept a seat in the back row. Huge shame, and I am ashamed to be a Brit and say it, but I see little alternative.
Wander00 is offline  
Old 29th May 2015, 18:15
  #1215 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 1,519
^^

That's the main thrust of article, with one analyst suggesting ~1.95% the best we might do. Of course, there is the time-honoured solution of "fixing" the math, by changing the parameters in some way.

And perhaps that offers the best hope for an MPA/MMA; playing with the "reserve" budgets in some way. One ppruner has already suggested this, although it is way above my head how this works.
The Old Fat One is offline  
Old 29th May 2015, 18:15
  #1216 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: The Roman Empire
Posts: 2,334
First of all they're links from wikipedia, but I see no reason why they shouldn't be reasonably accurate.

The UK apparently has the fifth largest GDP on the planet:

List of countries by GDP (nominal) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

We also have the fifth largest defence expenditure:

List of countries by military expenditures - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If our armed forces are becoming pitiful in size, when we spend more than for example France, Japan and India, and about 90% of Russia's military budget, then you have to ask whether we are getting value for money.

I read recently on a PPRuNe thread, I can't remember which, that companies routinely put their prices up by 200-300% on MOD contracts.

If we were to get better value for the money we spend, we would have more credible armed forces.

Easy to identify the problem - more difficult to resolve it!!






Then again, there is the issue of armed forces being a priority. If UK political parties aren't interested in anything other than the sacred cows of NHS and education, then the defence budget will only get smaller....
Biggus is offline  
Old 29th May 2015, 18:55
  #1217 (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: 77
Posts: 16,696
Originally Posted by Biggus View Post
I read recently on a PPRuNe thread, I can't remember which, that companies routinely put their prices up by 200-300% on MOD contracts.
I guess it goes like this:

MOD has to buy British first.

Money spent in Britain stays in Britain.

May as well charge more so everyone benefits.
Pontius Navigator is offline  
Old 29th May 2015, 19:29
  #1218 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 1,519
I read recently on a PPRuNe thread, I can't remember which, that companies routinely put their prices up by 200-300% on MOD contracts.
To be fair Biggus, that's just commercial pragmatism and it's the same throughout the Western world in all industry sectors.

Commercial companies exist for one purpose alone - to make a profit. Dealing with large bureaucratic organisations, especially governments, massively increases overhead, so prices must cover that. Otherwise commercial companies will just walk away. It's kinda day one at business school - trade at a loss, go busto.

I worked for 18 months at one of the biggest MOD software subcontractors and was good friends with one guy on the sales team (who was ex FJ btw). He told me the golden rule - if the profit margin is not 30%, we walk away.

You can hold all the competitions you wish; no solid company will take on a project at a loss, without a damn good reason (and there is almost never a reason big enough).

Matter of interest, in my current occupation there is a whole host of government schemes we can get involved with, with a ton of customers open to us.

We won't touch any of it with a barge pole. Why not? Tons and tons of paperwork, we are required to do for FA reward.

**** that!

Same principle applies.
The Old Fat One is offline  
Old 29th May 2015, 19:55
  #1219 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Sussex By The Sea
Age: 75
Posts: 263
I read recently on a PPRuNe thread, I can't remember which, that companies routinely put their prices up by 200-300% on MOD contracts.
Come on, you really shouldn't believe everything you read on PPRuNe! Especially if it comes from the usual cast of industry bashers. Many of whom appear to know F all about the subject.

On the major programmes in which I was involved, the contracts allowed us a specified maximum percentage profit, the MOD audited our books and any excess profit would be recovered. How many other industries have their costs analysed by their customers who can then refuse to pay ?

The large cost overruns were invariably caused by MOD either changing the requirement part way through the development, or by pushing programmes out to the right to 'save money' On one major contract PE decided to zero fund the contract for 12 months as a savings measure, with no guarantee that funding would be in place in a year's time resulting in all work stopping both in industry and the research establishments (in the days we had any). The company obviously wasnt going to pay for a team of 100 expensive development engineers to sit on their hands for a year so the team was disbanded and many went off to more highly paid jobs in the telecoms and IT industries, never to return to Defence. When MOD suddenly decided after 18 months to turn the project back on again, the company said OK, but it will take us at least 6 months to build up and retrain a new team. The end result was a 24 month slippage and a new development team which was less qualified and less experienced than the original, and a programme that ended up the subject of a parliamentary enquiry.

Having worked in Trials and Evaluation, Operational Requirements, Procurement, and Industry I would say they all have their shortcomings, but if you want to see where the problem lies, look within the greater MOD empire.
nimbev is offline  
Old 29th May 2015, 20:01
  #1220 (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: 77
Posts: 16,696
TOFO, a contract bid is a case in point. You accept the invite, you examine the SOR, you send someone to conduct due diligence, you price the SOR, you submit your bid hoping your future guess is correct, you meet the SOR, offer better VFM than other bidders, and hope you win.

If you lose that is a big cost thrown in the wind and if there are several losers that it a lot of money blown.

So you join with several competitors and form a consortium. You spread the cost, you reduce the risk and you improve the odds to evens or better (no other bidder).

The MOD is now over a barrel, bend over and take it or go back in house. Last one I was involved with the over bidder offered least risk and got the contract. The under bidder was still well over budget and they were working on 5% and anticipatory good will.
Pontius Navigator 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.