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 24th Jul 2015, 11:28
  #1481 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,085
IIRC the choice was between no C-17 or a rental agreement - (and they even looked at some Russian options as well....) Treasury driven as always

when they proved so damn useful they case was made to buy not rent.......
Heathrow Harry is offline  
Old 24th Jul 2015, 11:42
  #1482 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Land of Oz
Posts: 492
M the M


"When the world was flying Neptunes the RAF had Shackletons.
When the world was flying Orions the RAF had Nimrods."



OK, but the world has moved on.
You had Shacks - probably over 150 were built for the RAF.
Nimrods for the Kipper fleet - 38 rings a bell.


Now for new MPAs - if you are lucky - you will get 10.
Still going it alone ?
BBadanov is offline  
Old 24th Jul 2015, 12:03
  #1483 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Lincolnshire
Age: 50
Posts: 158
The deal was simple: rent for 5 years = $100m dollars (made up numbers)
Buy outright = $150m dollars. Therefore 'cheaper' to lease them.

However, after the hours were overflown, and the lease was extended, they cost $450m dollars.

Like all the other PFIs and contracts of that era, a short term fix that saddles the bill payer with higher costs later down the line, presumably on another government/chancellors watch!
DCThumb is offline  
Old 24th Jul 2015, 14:00
  #1484 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Waiting to return to the Loire.
Age: 50
Posts: 386
Yeah, I think MOD had Milo Minderbinder and the Syndicate working down at Abbey Wood at the time.....
And everybody has a share.
Now, chocolate covered cotton...
Finnpog is offline  
Old 24th Jul 2015, 14:15
  #1485 (permalink)  
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Peripatetic
Posts: 10,276
ORAC is offline  
Old 24th Jul 2015, 14:47
  #1486 (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: 16,658
Originally Posted by DCThumb View Post
The deal was simple: rent for 5 years = $100m dollars (made up numbers)
Buy outright = $150m dollars. Therefore 'cheaper' to lease them.

However, after the hours were overflown, and the lease was extended, they cost $450m dollars.

Like all the other PFIs and contracts of that era, a short term fix that saddles the bill payer with higher costs later down the line, presumably on another government/chancellors watch!
DCT, yes, we exceeded the mileage allowance on the lease deal because some prat decided it was a good idea to pacify Afghanistan.

We only leased for 5 years until we replaced them with the A400 IIRC.

Now, if someone had the balls, we should consider cancelling A400 and just have the C17.
Pontius Navigator is offline  
Old 24th Jul 2015, 16:42
  #1487 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: UK/ USA
Posts: 111
DCT, unfortunately the UK will have to change things. P8 weapons and Data Links are likely to need attention. Sensors are not the best available. Mission support is typical US, manpower intensive and bespoke. I suspect the money to sort these will be significant. A C-17 is a truck and thus doesn't require updating to match emerging threats. The E3-D is a better platform to compare the P8 with. Acquired in haste when Nimrod AEW was abandoned. It is now very expensive to operate and has fallen behind othe E3s as it is too expensive to upgrade.

Last edited by Jet In Vitro; 24th Jul 2015 at 17:05.
Jet In Vitro is offline  
Old 24th Jul 2015, 18:53
  #1488 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Hampshire
Posts: 131
JIV, there is slightly more to the E-3D story though: we had access to international upgrade programmes, which split the cost between as many nations (or operators perhaps as NATO aren't a nation) partake, but haven't really used this option to keep pace with the other E-3 fleets.

We won't commit to the budget to upgrade significantly, but accepting the potential compromises of international mods could have been significantly cheaper than pursuing UK specific mods.

It doesn't seem impossible for P1 or P8 to be run on a similar programme for collaborative mods.
drustsonoferp is offline  
Old 24th Jul 2015, 19:27
  #1489 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Outside the Matz
Posts: 219
Rodhugger

Look at the context of my statement and don't be a tw$t.
Bannock is offline  
Old 24th Jul 2015, 19:57
  #1490 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: 4 Civvy Street. Nowhere-near-a-base. The Shires.
Posts: 560
He could have been a little more precise. Crew manning may well be an issue because neither light or dark blue have a surfeit of aviators, particularly rear-crew, to staff either aircraft.

The aircraft with the bigger crew complement would possibly put more strain on the (currently empty) specialist manning pool.
camelspyyder is offline  
Old 24th Jul 2015, 20:01
  #1491 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Quite near 'An aerodrome somewhere in England'
Posts: 25,585
DCThumb wrote:
C17 successful? Leasing them for 5 years was cheaper over 5 years than buying....

I don't know the end figures but we have ended up paying for those aircraft several times before we eventually purchased as I recall!
But you need to remember the bigger picture:

The Future Large Aircraft (FLA) was originally supposed to replace all the RAF’s large a/c. That proved unfeasible, so the tanker/transport requirement became Future Strategic Tanker Aircraft (FSTA) and another fight arose between A400M and C130J as the Future Transport Aircraft (FTA). FSTA then became a Private Finance Initiative (PFI) project; the preferred platform became the A330 Multi-Role Tanker Transport (MRTT) rather than the B767 offered by the rival TTSC. Meanwhile, A400M which had been the FLA was given the go-ahead to be the FTA; however, to fill the gap, a Short Term Strategic Airlifter, STSA, was needed and that became a fight between the An124 and the C-17. The RAF decided upon leased C-17s as STSA to fill the gap before FTA became reality; however, the C-17s were later bought and the STSA became another FTA, but not the sole FTA as that will still be the A400M. Which, of course had once been FLA and rejected as FSTA. Nevertheless, the Common Standard Aircraft (CSA) A400M does have a requirement to have an AAR role, but not as a strategic tanker as that will be the job of the FSTA, the A330MRTT 'Voyager' – which also has immense AT capability as well as its AAR capability but is seemingly not considered to be a FTA even though it would be.... Although there is, of course, the A310 MRTT in service with other countries but not offered by any of the FSTA bidders even though it had been studied under an earlier project by MoD Department of Future Systems (DFS) as it then was, when a Multi Role Tanker Transport rather than a Future Strategic Tanker Aircraft was being considered.

So:

C-17 which was the STSA but wasn't an FSTA is now an FTA.
A400M which was FLA, then rejected as FSTA has also, as 'Atlas' become an FTA.
A330 MRTT 'Voyager' is the FSTA under PFI but is not an FTA.

Clear enough?
BEagle is offline  
Old 24th Jul 2015, 20:44
  #1492 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Northumberland
Posts: 4,782
Was this from one of the unscreened "Yes Minister" episodes?
SWBKCB is online now  
Old 25th Jul 2015, 06:55
  #1493 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: UK on a crosswind
Posts: 247
BEagle, I just read your piece to my SWMBO and she just nodded and said, I knew that's what you lot've been doing all your lives.
Royalistflyer is offline  
Old 25th Jul 2015, 07:07
  #1494 (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: 16,658
Actual no.

Like the 'new' block, scheme, deal or whatever, when will the C17 cease to be FLA and even become a legacy aircraft transporting everything?

Perhaps when the FGULA comes along with just a Nav, sorry WSO, wg cdr on board to operate the Ground/Flight switch.
Pontius Navigator is offline  
Old 25th Jul 2015, 08:41
  #1495 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Next to Ross and Demelza
Age: 49
Posts: 942
BBadanov

Fair point, but I never mentioned building our own aircraft.
Martin the Martian is offline  
Old 25th Jul 2015, 10:20
  #1496 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: The Whyte House
Age: 91
Posts: 1,885
Re. interoperability with our allies: The Americans and Japanese cooperate in the Pacific Theatre, particularly since Obama's Pacific Pivot policy. One would think there aren't any particular issues with them using P-8s and P-1s. Indeed I would expect the P-1 to be designed with such measures in place.
Willard Whyte is offline  
Old 25th Jul 2015, 14:36
  #1497 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: UK/ USA
Posts: 111
Ref interoperability. The US do not do this well at all. They need BACN, a capability flown on another platform, to provide communication interoperability between their frontline fighters and the platforms they are working with.
Jet In Vitro is offline  
Old 25th Jul 2015, 15:49
  #1498 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Outside the Matz
Posts: 219
Originally Posted by Jet In Vitro View Post
Ref interoperability. The US do not do this well at all. They need BACN, a capability flown on another platform, to provide communication interoperability between their frontline fighters and the platforms they are working with.
A usefull insight into how serious the Japanese take interoparabirity!

www.mod.go.jp/e/jdf/index.html

You will note the focus on US and Australian joint ops. No one else has the concerns that are raised here.

Last edited by Bannock; 25th Jul 2015 at 16:09.
Bannock is offline  
Old 25th Jul 2015, 22:32
  #1499 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: aus
Posts: 277
JIV, they have just released an exportable BACN
Northrop unveils evolved, exportable BACN aerial gateway - DFNS.net Air


Northrop unveils evolved, exportable BACN aerial gateway
a1bill is offline  
Old 26th Jul 2015, 09:24
  #1500 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 16,712
The P-1 has also drawn attention from Europe.

The plane was a major point of discussion when Japan and Britain held their first "two-plus-two" meeting of foreign and defense ministers in London in late January.

Britain has shown an interest in purchasing P-1s, as reported by DoD Buzz, the U.S. defense news website. This interest comes as relations between the West and Russia deteriorate.

"The cooler relations get between the West and Russia over the Ukrainian crisis, the more robust Russian military activities near Europe's borders become," a European diplomatic source said.

"In waters near Britain and Nordic countries, movements of suspected Russian submarines are on the rise," the source added.

Given the circumstances, Britain may be trying to build up its anti-submarine patrolling capabilities in earnest for the first time since the end of the Cold War.
Japan's 'submarine killer' tantalizes West - Nikkei Asian Review

Surprised at the amount Japan is buying...... 70!
NutLoose is online now  

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.