UK Maritime Patrol Aircraft - An Urgent Requirement
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: The Sunny Side
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Here's a 2+2=8 scenario - If the Scots do their own thing, and the SSBN fleet moves to Devonport, and UK MOD acquires an MPA fleet, where would they go?
St Mawgan? Yeovilton? Waddington?
St Mawgan? Yeovilton? Waddington?
S-D
No RAF airbase is going to be economically viable with just 4 aircraft based there - please use some common sense people!! They're shoving 50+ into Brize eventually for goodness sake...
Indeed I was once told by a 4* that Kinloss wouldn't be economically viable if we bought less than 12 MRA4s.
Indeed I was once told by a 4* that Kinloss wouldn't be economically viable if we bought less than 12 MRA4s.
Last edited by Biggus; 14th Sep 2014 at 16:51.
Indeed, after a short study it will be decided that a refurbished hangar 2 at Waddington will be the ideal home.
After an intolerable DIO delay and an even shorter study they will actually move into the accommodation vacated by 5 Sqn.
Meanwhile someone will get around to refurbishing Waddington's bomb dump.
After an intolerable DIO delay and an even shorter study they will actually move into the accommodation vacated by 5 Sqn.
Meanwhile someone will get around to refurbishing Waddington's bomb dump.
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Sussex By The Sea
Age: 79
Posts: 264
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No RAF airbase is going to be economically viable with just 4 aircraft based there - please use some common sense people!!
ATG,
A very good example, even if the MoD is looking at a number greater than 4!
A small unique fleet is not viable as training, maintenance and development overheads would eliminate any realistic capability.
A cooperative program such as the original C-17 program can punch above its weight as the wider program can absorb the training, development, weapons and major maintenance overhead. Adopting a type from a larger production run can also allow the UK to be more selective in its spending profile. Finding the money to buy aircraft every so often is just not possible with a unique fleet off a dedicated production line.
A future conflict where the UK can contribute a small number of P8s to augment the exact same type operated by the US and Aus sounds quite attractive to the UK right now. Pitching up at the last minute and buying a bunch of the exact weapons needed for that particular scenario direct from the US Navy sounds attractive to those who hold the purse strings.
None of this will be easy given the mess we are in, but it is far from impossible.
A very good example, even if the MoD is looking at a number greater than 4!
A small unique fleet is not viable as training, maintenance and development overheads would eliminate any realistic capability.
A cooperative program such as the original C-17 program can punch above its weight as the wider program can absorb the training, development, weapons and major maintenance overhead. Adopting a type from a larger production run can also allow the UK to be more selective in its spending profile. Finding the money to buy aircraft every so often is just not possible with a unique fleet off a dedicated production line.
A future conflict where the UK can contribute a small number of P8s to augment the exact same type operated by the US and Aus sounds quite attractive to the UK right now. Pitching up at the last minute and buying a bunch of the exact weapons needed for that particular scenario direct from the US Navy sounds attractive to those who hold the purse strings.
None of this will be easy given the mess we are in, but it is far from impossible.
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Sussex By The Sea
Age: 79
Posts: 264
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Because C-17 is one of a number of transport aircraft types flying from A to B. The P-8 will be required to be on station over an area of interest (whether over land or sea). Assuming that there are on average 3 aircraft available for tasking, one could not keep 24 hour coverage in one area let alone two or three. Additionally looking over a history of operational Nimrod deployments, there were frequently 5 or 6 airframes deployed. The P-8 may well be more capable than Nimrod MR2, but it still cant be in two (or more) places at one time.
The idea, presumably, is that there will come a day when more P-8s can be acquired. However... the whole idea seems to be based on (1) minimizing upfront cash, 
the LCC and (2) a perhaps well-founded fear that if we try something new it will turn into a gigantic cockup. Sad, in a way, because there is likely to be a nice little global market for MPA/ASW and not everyone will want to spring for the P-8A and its US-priced upgrade packages.
the LCC and (2) a perhaps well-founded fear that if we try something new it will turn into a gigantic cockup. Sad, in a way, because there is likely to be a nice little global market for MPA/ASW and not everyone will want to spring for the P-8A and its US-priced upgrade packages.
Perhaps worth reminding ourselves at this point that the suggestion of a lease of 4 P8s came from a PQ which got a "no comment" reply. The questioner may have got duff or partial info and it's quite possible, or even likely, that a range of options are being explored, with the potential lease of 4 (and maybe other numbers too) being among them.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Worcestershire
Posts: 305
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rumours of an announcement of an intent to fill the MPA gap before christmas are fading fast. If the scots go their own way then then we will have to wait for SDSR 15, 16 ......! The window of opportunity to easily lease P8s will have passed as the USN will resume acceptance of ac at their desired rate.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"there is likely to be a nice little global market for MPA/ASW and not everyone will want to spring for the P-8A and its US-priced upgrade packages."
I hope you're not suggesting that BAe take a hand? We're in this hole because of gross over-spend (and probably gross over-complication) on a UK solution
I hope you're not suggesting that BAe take a hand? We're in this hole because of gross over-spend (and probably gross over-complication) on a UK solution
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Sussex By The Sea
Age: 79
Posts: 264
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I hope you're not suggesting that BAe take a hand? We're in this hole because of gross over-spend (and probably gross over-complication) on a UK solution
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 1,515
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
nimbev,
Without reopening all the old wounds and whilst agreeing you make a valid point, BAe will always carry a large part of the blame, not least for pitching up at Kinloss in the mid nineties and promising something they knew full well they did not have a snowball's chance in hell of delivering on time and on budget...and that was with no "goalpost moving" by anybody. That said, they were my no means the only villain in the piece.
Without reopening all the old wounds and whilst agreeing you make a valid point, BAe will always carry a large part of the blame, not least for pitching up at Kinloss in the mid nineties and promising something they knew full well they did not have a snowball's chance in hell of delivering on time and on budget...and that was with no "goalpost moving" by anybody. That said, they were my no means the only villain in the piece.
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: north of barlu
Posts: 6,207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Too big to comprehend !
The BAe management of the Nimrod project is almost too big and complicated to fully understand and it is complicated by other party's inputs, but at the end of the day it was the attitude that the govenment had an unlimited ability to fund the project that resulted BAe thinking they could get away with anything.
Much smaller was the Buldog life extension program, it was quite clear to see that with the price quoted for the work BAe was under the misaprihention that they could charge sky high prices for a comparitvly simple job, I don't think this was coruption so much as institutional torpa and incompetence ......... Fortunatly the simplicity of the job resulted in the govenment getting wise and not giving BAe the contract.
Their are a lot of fine people working for BAe but collectively they don't work well within that system and BAe as a company has proved itself unfit to run any big contract at a reasonable price.
The idea that BAe should in any way be involved in any future large aviation project should be resisted otherwise we will have a rerun of the two Nimrod failures.
Much smaller was the Buldog life extension program, it was quite clear to see that with the price quoted for the work BAe was under the misaprihention that they could charge sky high prices for a comparitvly simple job, I don't think this was coruption so much as institutional torpa and incompetence ......... Fortunatly the simplicity of the job resulted in the govenment getting wise and not giving BAe the contract.
Their are a lot of fine people working for BAe but collectively they don't work well within that system and BAe as a company has proved itself unfit to run any big contract at a reasonable price.
The idea that BAe should in any way be involved in any future large aviation project should be resisted otherwise we will have a rerun of the two Nimrod failures.
before this goes once again down the BAE / contract issuers bashing route, I don't think there is any suggestion of them being involved in any way (happy to be corrected)? Therefore, we can focus on the POSSIBILITY of P8s? I still have the question - who is giving up what to get the money freed up? Even a lease deal will cost millions - and from where in the MoD will that pot of cash come?
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: The US of A, and sometimes Bonnie Scotland
Posts: 549
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I can put this to bed. After MRA4, BAE SYSTEMS, have publicly said, they have NO wish to ever be involved in a large aircraft project.
The end.
The end.