UK Maritime Patrol Aircraft - An Urgent Requirement
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Australia
Posts: 87
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Last edited by 2805662; 26th Mar 2016 at 09:59.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: SALISBURY
Age: 76
Posts: 706
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Pentagon's DSC Agency approved the sale of the Poseidons on Thursday 24 March 2016 & notified Congress accordingly. The quoted price is up to $3.2 billion.
Additional contractors on the deal include ViaSat Inc (VSAT.O), Rockwell Collins Inc (COL.N), Spirit Aerosystems Holdings Inc (SPR.N), Raytheon Co (RTN.N), Northrop Grumman Corp (NOC.N) and Harris Corp (HRS.N) and General Electric Co (GE.N), the agency said.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Guernsey
Posts: 110
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
given that the Treasury are looking for more cuts just pray it doesn't turn into
"a maximum of nine"
I doubt we'd have got any if the current UK budget numbers had been around last year..........
"a maximum of nine"
I doubt we'd have got any if the current UK budget numbers had been around last year..........
I think 9 is more than most were realistically expecting. Remember that a popular and strongly-held view around here not so long ago was that there would be none at all because there was no money. Then there was a rumour of a lease of four airframes. Some wondered if it might be be half a dozen, I was genuinely surprised when it turned out to be nine and I can't see that number going higher. The answer to whether it's enough may depend on what it is you want them to do.
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Australia
Posts: 87
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Will the RAF train its aircrew for boom AAR for interoperability (for either the P-8 or the C-17 or RC-135, for that matter)?
The number of operational Nimrod MRA4s was going to be 9 at the last count, so realistically they couldn't ask for any more P8s. To begin with at least - the P-8 will still be in production, so 'additional required capability' can be added in the future.
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Australia
Posts: 87
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This capability effect could result in a need that may be greater, or less than, nine MPA/MMA.
Last edited by 2805662; 28th Mar 2016 at 07:14. Reason: Grammar fail.
"Surely its about the capability effect....."
Nope. It's about money and careers. The UK Govt was red faced at having to ask for NATO MPA support, this is the maximum number of airframes/support that can be afforded. The project will permit massive potential for 'grip and grin' photo ops for DE&S and assured promotion for those that steer it into service. Once IOC has arrived, the lustre will fade and those left behind will find FOC a long way off with little interest from above. Very rarely is a capability purchased that actually fully meets the requirement......
Nope. It's about money and careers. The UK Govt was red faced at having to ask for NATO MPA support, this is the maximum number of airframes/support that can be afforded. The project will permit massive potential for 'grip and grin' photo ops for DE&S and assured promotion for those that steer it into service. Once IOC has arrived, the lustre will fade and those left behind will find FOC a long way off with little interest from above. Very rarely is a capability purchased that actually fully meets the requirement......
Last edited by Evalu8ter; 28th Mar 2016 at 10:27.
I don't understand this line of thinking - why not ask for the number required?
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Australia
Posts: 87
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree with this. State actual requirement and force a decision to cut. That's what the rules say. A not too distant example. RN had 8 AEW Mk2s, plus 2 attrition airframes, not fitted. Actual requirement was 16, fully fitted. When (what became known as) the ASaC Mk7 programme came along, the RN had disbanded the office whose job it was to state quantitative requirements, so they just said 8+2 again. MoD(PE) bid for 16 and all hell broke loose. After much argument, 8+2 became 10 through clever wording, then 13 as a result of a PE Alternative Assumption. Beancounters dug in and contract was for 13, instead of 16; which is better than 8. There is no harm in it, and generally speaking the BCs regard it as good sport.
Capability appeasement helps no one.
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Horsham, England, UK. ---o--O--o---
Posts: 1,185
Received 4 Likes
on
2 Posts
Perhaps we could get "Mate's Rates."
BOGOF
Buy One, Get One Free!
= 16
BOGOF
Buy One, Get One Free!
= 16
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Australia
Posts: 87
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Large assumption that smacks of learned helplessness. In my (Antipodean) experience, the public is only vaguely interested in defence matters. So long as a capability acquisition can be explained in a 30-second sound bite, & spun as A Good Thing™ re-election prospects generally aren't affected.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Regretfully the Great UK Public is not interested AT ALL in defence issues - all they care about are lower taxes, higher pensions, a free health Service that covers every possible treatment and free education
Defence never features in any listing of "most important matters facing the UK" in any poll - the Meeja prefer "new Aircraft Carrier is same cost as a zillion nurses!"
I'm very very pleased we are getting ANY new MPA's TBH - I'd almost given up hope.....
Defence never features in any listing of "most important matters facing the UK" in any poll - the Meeja prefer "new Aircraft Carrier is same cost as a zillion nurses!"
I'm very very pleased we are getting ANY new MPA's TBH - I'd almost given up hope.....