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 19th Aug 2015, 08:30
  #1561 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: aus
Posts: 277
It sounds like they are bringing in the 6th station earlier than anticipated for block 1, block 3 will have other uses for it.
http://www.janes.com/article/53639/u...-asuw-missions
The P-8A is currently fitted with five fully functioning mission crew workstations, but has space for an additional sixth already set aside. This additional station is already fully 'plumbed in', and requires only the mission system controls and consoles to be fitted.


The sixth workstation is being activated to correct a deficiency in the baseline Increment 1 capability standard, while Increment 3 will capitalise on the addition to facilitate the addition of new capabilities in line with the P-8A Incremental Acquisition Strategy. One Increment 3 capability set that might necessitate the installation of a sixth mission station is the operation and teaming of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs). Boeing has been testing the MagEagle Compressed Carriage (MECC) UAV since 2010, with a view to deploying the system from the P-8.

Last edited by a1bill; 19th Aug 2015 at 11:54.
a1bill is offline  
Old 21st Aug 2015, 09:32
  #1562 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: home for good
Posts: 468
wow - there's one for Beagle and others to ponder - If the (UK - assuming it happens....) WSOp is sat at that station and 'flying' a drone/UAV - should he be a pilot (and get the Reaper style UAV pilot wings) (pulling up a chair and awaiting the debate...)

Yes - not strictly 'MPA' related (I blame mission creep), but in the absence of ANY UK MPA news (worrying?) - it is all I have.
Sandy Parts is online now  
Old 22nd Aug 2015, 09:14
  #1563 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,085
no news = politicians & journo's all on holiday

expect leaks to start 3rd week September - maybe around Tory party Conference time - the Minister will need something red & raw to feed to the party faithfull....................
Heathrow Harry is offline  
Old 22nd Aug 2015, 12:41
  #1564 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 1,519
What you mean is why are there no rumours.

News will come with the results of the SDSR.
The Old Fat One is offline  
Old 22nd Aug 2015, 18:09
  #1565 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: UK/ USA
Posts: 111
The rumours will start when the National Security Strategy is released. This should give a clue as to what the MOD needs to do.
Jet In Vitro is offline  
Old 22nd Aug 2015, 18:12
  #1566 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: The US of A, and sometimes Bonnie Scotland
Posts: 538
JiV. Check your PMs
betty swallox is offline  
Old 22nd Aug 2015, 18:46
  #1567 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: England
Age: 10
Posts: 39
I've noticed planes fly much better when they aren't gold plated. Just a thought.
TaranisAttack is offline  
Old 22nd Aug 2015, 18:48
  #1568 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: The US of A, and sometimes Bonnie Scotland
Posts: 538
You're suggesting we go for second best?

Well done you.
betty swallox is offline  
Old 22nd Aug 2015, 19:21
  #1569 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: England
Age: 10
Posts: 39
@betty swallox
Second, maybe third even. Too often the mil ends up wanting the most amazing piece of kit and ends up either with tiny numbers or with none, and a huge bill. Big bill for Nimrod, zero in service being a prime example. If the platform is capable of medium range civilian search, and capable of detecting Russian subs, that's the minimum spec fulfilled. It might not be the best, but if it does the job it's still better than no capability, and it frees up funds for other requirements. There's also potential value added here if we can help use them for customs patrols and immigration patrols too. I'd also like to see some real penalties for procurement people who screw this stuff up. This is public money.
TaranisAttack is offline  
Old 22nd Aug 2015, 20:14
  #1570 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: 4 Civvy Street. Nowhere-near-a-base. The Shires.
Posts: 560
Customs and Immigration, Fisheries and Oil all decided many years ago to do their own thing - because it was cheaper than paying the RAF. Those Govt. departments have already made the savings of which you write. I would argue that the anticipated new aircraft does not need to fill any civvy roles.
camelspyyder is offline  
Old 23rd Aug 2015, 08:57
  #1571 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,085
then it is unlikely to be bought.................

Taranis is correct - second best is better than none at all

A number of people on here still seem to think that the Govt is desperate to reinstate some marine aviation capability whereas they're actually doing their best to avoid exta expenditure on it

We might get something (and I hope we do) but it will be a case of pulling the forelock and thanking our masters for providing anything at all TBH

PS Avro Anson's anyone??
Heathrow Harry is offline  
Old 23rd Aug 2015, 10:09
  #1572 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2015
Location: England
Posts: 33
PS Avro Anson's anyone??
Definitely!
malcrf is offline  
Old 23rd Aug 2015, 10:39
  #1573 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: 4 Civvy Street. Nowhere-near-a-base. The Shires.
Posts: 560
Taranis - detecting modern Russian subs with 2nd or 3rd best equipment is unlikely to be feasible. The days are long gone when you could hear them miles away.
Any ASW role is going to demand the latest top-notch tech, or it is not going to be effective.
camelspyyder is offline  
Old 23rd Aug 2015, 12:51
  #1574 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: England
Age: 10
Posts: 39
@camelspyyder
The problem is that having P8s is likely to come at the price of something more valuable, like F35 numbers. It's sure not going to come from a reduction in civil servant positions at the MOD!
TaranisAttack is offline  
Old 23rd Aug 2015, 13:51
  #1575 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: home: United Kingdom
Posts: 780
Personally, I'd argue that the ability to protect your own back garden - with a P8 or a Pwhatever - is more valuable than all the F35s that we are ordering. But, maybe that's just me.

Duncs
Duncan D'Sorderlee is offline  
Old 23rd Aug 2015, 14:15
  #1576 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: aus
Posts: 277
"If the platform is capable of medium range civilian search, and capable of detecting Russian subs, that's the minimum spec fulfilled. It might not be the best, but if it does the job it's still better than no capability, and it frees up funds for other requirements."


TA, even the old P-3 did a hell of a lot more than sniffing subs, it's only one of a dozen missions. They were used a lot in astan and Iraq and there wasn't many subs there.


UK can buy into the P-8A or buy the shittiest thing out there. The fleet cost over 30 years isn't that much different. It only matters what you have, when you want to do something with them.
a1bill is offline  
Old 23rd Aug 2015, 14:45
  #1577 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 264
Anything you choose to spend your money on effectively involves a choice between that and something else, or not spending. In fact the money is there, there's still a large unallocated pot (several £billion) for unfunded priorities, helped a little additionally by the recent improvement in the funding position. Half a dozen or so P8s needn't affect the F35 position at all.
Frostchamber is offline  
Old 23rd Aug 2015, 21:34
  #1578 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: UK on a crosswind
Posts: 247
It may be relevant to this discussion which seems to have broadened a little. I see the Australian government has just committed to a twenty years programme of continuous building for the Royal Australian Navy. This makes sense to me because, whether its aircraft, ships or anything else, it means expertise isn't lost, lessons don't have to be expensively re-learned and a whole body of knowledge is built up. If the Australians (21 million) can do this - why can't we think in these terms? There are after all a couple of smaller operations that could begin to work at a higher level in aircraft building/design - if the government wanted.
Royalistflyer is offline  
Old 24th Aug 2015, 08:57
  #1579 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: E MIDLANDS
Posts: 284
Royalist, a 1* friend of mine suggested something similar about 10-12 years ago, and I expect he wasnt the first. The suggestion was that instead of building ships in batches and then taking a construction break, whilst also refitting ships already in service at the mid life point, we sold ships off at about the 12 year point and replaced with new builds from the continuous pipeline.

This was supposed to give continuity of construction, preserve strategic industries and skills and also help keep other nations on side by supplying them with UK kit and expertise.

The problem is that Politicians only think in the short term and there probably isnt enough friendly nations to buy an equally continuous stream of second hand Type 23s or even MCMVs etc.
andyy is offline  
Old 24th Aug 2015, 11:00
  #1580 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 264
With warship and submarine production that's pretty much what they're trying to do. The Type 26 frigate will follow on from the carriers (helped by adding three OPVs in between) and will be delivered at around 1 per year. In particular they're trying to achieve a seamless flow for submarines, with the Astutes being followed by the successor bombers followed by Astute replacement - the UK learned a very hard lesson from failing to do this before the Astutes came on stream.
Frostchamber 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.