UK Maritime Patrol Aircraft - An Urgent Requirement
I vote for a ShinMaywa US-2. It has not four but five engines (eat that, P-8) of which four are RR and the fifth is half-RR. And instead of tossing expensive high-tech GPS sonobouys out from FL300 and hoping for the best, it can do what the PS-1 was originally designed to do - land on the open ocean and use a dipping sonar, which happens to be something that the UK builds very well. I suspect that would put the twitch up the commander of the best AIP boat out there.
It could be called the Sunderland 2...
It could be called the Sunderland 2...
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: 4 Civvy Street. Nowhere-near-a-base. The Shires.
Posts: 559
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
I hadn't really noticed but...
"The UK also operates an airborne maritime surveillance capability."
Source - National Strategy for Maritme Security 2014 - published this month. This is what it has to say about the futue for Maritime Air:
Aerial Surveillance. In order to deliver more cost-effective aerial surveillance of the UK Marine Areawhile satisfying the needs of the MCA, Border Force and MMO, we will work to harmonise contractedAerial Maritime Surveillance provision by 2015. This new provision will take full advantage of advances in technology and deliver some contingent capability to other agencies and government departments.The UK Armed Forces requirements and capabilities in air-based Intelligence,Surveillance, Targetingand Reconnaissance (ISTAR), including future maritime surface and sub-surface surveillance, will beconsidered in 2015, within the Strategic Defence and Security Review process.
More than I expected to find to be honest.
CS
Source - National Strategy for Maritme Security 2014 - published this month. This is what it has to say about the futue for Maritime Air:
Aerial Surveillance. In order to deliver more cost-effective aerial surveillance of the UK Marine Areawhile satisfying the needs of the MCA, Border Force and MMO, we will work to harmonise contractedAerial Maritime Surveillance provision by 2015. This new provision will take full advantage of advances in technology and deliver some contingent capability to other agencies and government departments.The UK Armed Forces requirements and capabilities in air-based Intelligence,Surveillance, Targetingand Reconnaissance (ISTAR), including future maritime surface and sub-surface surveillance, will beconsidered in 2015, within the Strategic Defence and Security Review process.
More than I expected to find to be honest.
CS
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,868
Received 2,818 Likes
on
1,200 Posts
Interesting reading on the P8
Analysis: OT&E Report Details Systemic Failures in US Weapon Testing
They must be taking lessons from the UK.
Analysis: OT&E Report Details Systemic Failures in US Weapon Testing
P-8A Poseidon: Not Mission Effective, But in Full-Scale Production
What is Gilmore’s “specific example?” He told the JCS Vice Chairman that “the P-8A Multi-Mission Maritime Patrol Aircraft could be fully compliant with all Key Performance Parameter (KPP) and Key System Attribute (KSA) threshold requirements, and nonetheless possess significant shortfalls in mission effectiveness.”
He also added that “The P-8 requirements define supporting system characteristics or attributes that are necessary, but not nearly sufficient, to ensure mission effectiveness.”
In an extreme case, he continues, “the contractor could deliver an aircraft that meets all the KPPs but has no mission capability whatsoever. Such an airplane would only have to be designed to be reliable, equipped with self-protection features and radios, and capable of transporting weapons and sonobuoys across the specified distances, but would not actually have to have the ability to successfully find and sink threat submarines in an Anti-Submarine Warfare mission (its primary mission).”
So how did the Joint Chiefs and the US Navy react to the “specific example” of the P-8A, which Gilmore concluded “is not effective for the intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance mission, and is not effective for wide area anti-submarine search?”
What is Gilmore’s “specific example?” He told the JCS Vice Chairman that “the P-8A Multi-Mission Maritime Patrol Aircraft could be fully compliant with all Key Performance Parameter (KPP) and Key System Attribute (KSA) threshold requirements, and nonetheless possess significant shortfalls in mission effectiveness.”
He also added that “The P-8 requirements define supporting system characteristics or attributes that are necessary, but not nearly sufficient, to ensure mission effectiveness.”
In an extreme case, he continues, “the contractor could deliver an aircraft that meets all the KPPs but has no mission capability whatsoever. Such an airplane would only have to be designed to be reliable, equipped with self-protection features and radios, and capable of transporting weapons and sonobuoys across the specified distances, but would not actually have to have the ability to successfully find and sink threat submarines in an Anti-Submarine Warfare mission (its primary mission).”
So how did the Joint Chiefs and the US Navy react to the “specific example” of the P-8A, which Gilmore concluded “is not effective for the intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance mission, and is not effective for wide area anti-submarine search?”
They must be taking lessons from the UK.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
as the article points out they never listen to him -
the sellers, the buyers, the politicians and the operators just ignore what he says as they all have their own vested interests in doing so
the sellers, the buyers, the politicians and the operators just ignore what he says as they all have their own vested interests in doing so
RAF crewed P-8 at Waddo
Last sunday at Waddo, came across the P-8 with the all Brit crew 
and here's my pics
Maybe in RAF roudels in the future who knows?
Cheers
and here's my pics Maybe in RAF roudels in the future who knows?
Cheers
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 56
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Betty,
A question for those in the know:
If the UK decide to purchase the P8 (and the rumour mill is in full force at the moment) then will that be a COTS buy, or will the MOD want it's own sensors on the platform? If it is a COTS purchase then how will the many sensors (thinking EW) be supported? Will this be UK personell placed into EWC in the US or would we be expected to set up our own EW support section in the UK (not a quick or simple suport section to set up)? To do so could be approx 5 years+ to be effective.
Along the same lines; I understand the mission system is similar to the MRA4 (at least the Boeing architecture) and therefore will require some sort of MSS. Will this be COTS or would the UK be expected to develop its own and integrate?
I understand the platform is excellent, and like all new aircraft will have it's teething problems, but I do feel that there is an assumtion that the jets can just be bought and flown "as is", but to do so requires a huge support organisation that I think has not even been considered. How many simulalators would be required? Would these have emulated mission systems, or simulated? Having seen the cluster that was the MRA4 rear crew simulator, I would hope some lessons had been identified there. (That is not a slur on those supporting that sim, but the decisions made on how to emulate the sensors).
The systems above are just a couple, and we have not even gone into acoustic support, an area where the RAF (standby RN) removed the capability to support with the retirement of the MR2.
Would you be able to add any info on how some of these areas would be managed?
Enjoy the US - when are you lot coming back anyway? If you are......
A question for those in the know:
If the UK decide to purchase the P8 (and the rumour mill is in full force at the moment) then will that be a COTS buy, or will the MOD want it's own sensors on the platform? If it is a COTS purchase then how will the many sensors (thinking EW) be supported? Will this be UK personell placed into EWC in the US or would we be expected to set up our own EW support section in the UK (not a quick or simple suport section to set up)? To do so could be approx 5 years+ to be effective.
Along the same lines; I understand the mission system is similar to the MRA4 (at least the Boeing architecture) and therefore will require some sort of MSS. Will this be COTS or would the UK be expected to develop its own and integrate?
I understand the platform is excellent, and like all new aircraft will have it's teething problems, but I do feel that there is an assumtion that the jets can just be bought and flown "as is", but to do so requires a huge support organisation that I think has not even been considered. How many simulalators would be required? Would these have emulated mission systems, or simulated? Having seen the cluster that was the MRA4 rear crew simulator, I would hope some lessons had been identified there. (That is not a slur on those supporting that sim, but the decisions made on how to emulate the sensors).
The systems above are just a couple, and we have not even gone into acoustic support, an area where the RAF (standby RN) removed the capability to support with the retirement of the MR2.
Would you be able to add any info on how some of these areas would be managed?
Enjoy the US - when are you lot coming back anyway? If you are......
then will that be a COTS buy, or will the MOD want it's own sensors on the platform?
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Oz
Posts: 644
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
grousehunter
I imagine the RAAF acquisition model may be one to follow closely. We're getting 8 (+4) P-8s from 2017, and will likely leverage off RAAF/Boeing Wedgetail AEW&C support facilities for deeper maintenance and EW support at Amberley, and will establish a flightline maintenance, spares warehouse and flight and cabin training facility at Edinburgh to mirror that of the Wedgetail's at Williamtown.
It's expensive to setup and run your own support and training facilities, but it can be done with initial deep support from Boeing and the US Navy - the old saying 'buy cheap, buy often' applies!
Cheers
I imagine the RAAF acquisition model may be one to follow closely. We're getting 8 (+4) P-8s from 2017, and will likely leverage off RAAF/Boeing Wedgetail AEW&C support facilities for deeper maintenance and EW support at Amberley, and will establish a flightline maintenance, spares warehouse and flight and cabin training facility at Edinburgh to mirror that of the Wedgetail's at Williamtown.
It's expensive to setup and run your own support and training facilities, but it can be done with initial deep support from Boeing and the US Navy - the old saying 'buy cheap, buy often' applies!
Cheers
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 193
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
UK to extend Sentinel surveillance program with Raytheon support
Raytheon Co (RTN.N), the U.S. maker of radar, missiles and other defense electronics, said it would improve software on the Sentinel to make it better equipped for maritime surveillance to help support the government's plan to extend its lifespan.
Raytheon Co (RTN.N), the U.S. maker of radar, missiles and other defense electronics, said it would improve software on the Sentinel to make it better equipped for maritime surveillance to help support the government's plan to extend its lifespan.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 932
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This may be of interest: New report calls for MPA competition
Though with Hammond gone, and Fallon in, presume any chance of an early decision is put back.
S41
Though with Hammond gone, and Fallon in, presume any chance of an early decision is put back.
S41
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: in the magical land of beer and chocolates
Age: 52
Posts: 506
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
With the new Japanese policy regarding all things defence related might I ,once again, advocate the Japanese (turbofan equipped) next gen ORION, aka the KAWASAKI P-1;
4 engined vs 2, much more range, speed, altitude and more weapons.
4 engined vs 2, much more range, speed, altitude and more weapons.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: in the magical land of beer and chocolates
Age: 52
Posts: 506
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Export rules severely relaxed in April and will further relax at the end of 2014,
The Shinmaywa is already cleared for export to the Indian NAVY, I cannot imagine that the P1 (or C2) would be problematic for any nation with good ties with the US (like all NATO members)
The Shinmaywa is already cleared for export to the Indian NAVY, I cannot imagine that the P1 (or C2) would be problematic for any nation with good ties with the US (like all NATO members)
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Planet Earth (mostly)
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hate to point out the elephant in the room...
Being able to see 'blips' on the surface of the sea is not maritime surveillance, just like putting searchwater in anti-col does not constitute a RAP.
Loving the look of the Kawasaki, but highly unlikely that the UK would buy Japanese.
Being able to see 'blips' on the surface of the sea is not maritime surveillance, just like putting searchwater in anti-col does not constitute a RAP.
Loving the look of the Kawasaki, but highly unlikely that the UK would buy Japanese.