UK Maritime Patrol Aircraft - An Urgent Requirement
Not the first time that a C-130J solution has been mentioned by LM in relation to the UK Paris Air Show 2015: Lockheed Martin says maritime C-130 offering for UK has international potential - IHS Jane's 360
Seems they're pitching it beyond the UK also.
Seems they're pitching it beyond the UK also.
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: UK on a crosswind
Posts: 262
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I wonder if any experts here can tell us which out of the Hercules surveillance version and the P-1 would best suit our needs. My only thoughts are if Lockheed can bring our own Hercs up to the surveillance spec would that save us money. On the other hand the P-1 seems to be purpose-built. I imagine Japan's requirements might be rather like ours from a geographic perspective.
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: Doncaster
Age: 76
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
C130 MPA
Back in the sixties when the RAF were equipping with the C130, we were shown a film of a USAF C130 landing on a carrier. Perhaps we should equip the C130 with missiles and thus solve the problem of finding an aircraft for our future aircraft carriers. We won't even have to buy any new aircraft if we convert some of those we already own!!!
I'm trying hard to think of an L-M solution that saved anyone any money...Nope my mind is a blank, they all end up costing sh1t tons.
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Craggy Island
Posts: 134
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In terms of industrial offset, Kawasaki are already licence building 13 AW101 (Merlin) helicopters for the Japanese MSDF. Hence there is a precedent for UK (albeit Italian owned) and Japanese military aerospace cooperation. If there could be some industrial offset such as UK radar, comms, DAS or such then this could become quite politically palatable.....
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
Japan already stated that they are very interested in the METEOR and BRIMSTONE missiles.
There are other fields related with but outside of the defence sector where the UK and JAPAN have similar interests like Space, commercial aviation and other tech sector related industries.
If the UK & Japan think outside of the box a little there are numerous examples where they could cooperate better and both make some good money.
High speed trains and railways, radar tech and even shipbuilding to name a few.
There are other fields related with but outside of the defence sector where the UK and JAPAN have similar interests like Space, commercial aviation and other tech sector related industries.
If the UK & Japan think outside of the box a little there are numerous examples where they could cooperate better and both make some good money.
High speed trains and railways, radar tech and even shipbuilding to name a few.
I'm not sure I understand this sudden drive to buy the P-1 over the P-8. I get that it's currently the shiny new piece of kit on the block, and that RIAT has certainly raised its profile, but as an MPA/ASW platform is it really any better than the P-8? I guess the Japanese themselves don't even know the answer to that one yet, as it's still in OT&E.
Is it cheaper to procure, operate, and sustain (it's a genuine question, as I have not seen any firm figures)?
And what of the interoperability and support base that comes with fielding a platform already in service with the US Navy (not to mention the already growing export market)?
Has the UK's experience of fielding Boeing products (C-17, Chinook, Apache, Airseeker [ok, probably not that last one]) really been so bad that we would jump on anything else just because it's not Boeing?
Is it cheaper to procure, operate, and sustain (it's a genuine question, as I have not seen any firm figures)?
And what of the interoperability and support base that comes with fielding a platform already in service with the US Navy (not to mention the already growing export market)?
Has the UK's experience of fielding Boeing products (C-17, Chinook, Apache, Airseeker [ok, probably not that last one]) really been so bad that we would jump on anything else just because it's not Boeing?
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Hotel Gypsy
Posts: 2,821
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Melmothtw, not necessarily. Indeed, many of your questions are ones that I would pose. However, to select a non-NATO aircraft ahead of America's best could well indicate that a thorough and non-biased procurement process had been followed; best meets the requirement.
I think there is still much scope for (accusations of) cronyism in defence procurement. if the P1 is the best all-round deal, then there should be absolutely no resistance to it's purchase. Personally, as a tax payer, I want value for money and capability. I think the Japanese have rather a good track record as far as maritime stuff is concerned and, judging by their cars, they're also pretty darn good at building things.
I think there is still much scope for (accusations of) cronyism in defence procurement. if the P1 is the best all-round deal, then there should be absolutely no resistance to it's purchase. Personally, as a tax payer, I want value for money and capability. I think the Japanese have rather a good track record as far as maritime stuff is concerned and, judging by their cars, they're also pretty darn good at building things.
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Seriously though, didn't Lockheed make a study of an amphibious Herc some years ago?
http://atomictoasters.com/2013/02/he...es-for-a-swim/
Heathrow and Cows, all good points.
Makes perfect sense.
Is there not a case to be made for procuring the P-8 over the P-1 precisely because the US is a NATO partner? I totally get the 'best tool for the job' argument, but are there not wider issues of alliance solidarity (more important than ever right now) and commonality.
Can't argue with any of that, but I have heard anecdotaly that the P-1's mission kit had some teething issues (which may or may not have been sorted by now), and that the engines are somewhat underpowered and unreliable.
Well melmoth - when you're negotiating a price it's nice to have an option to use to beat down Mr. B..........................
However, to select a non-NATO aircraft ahead of America's best could well indicate that a thorough and non-biased procurement process had been followed; best meets the requirement.
I think the Japanese have rather a good track record as far as maritime stuff is concerned and, judging by their cars, they're also pretty darn good at building things.
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
Not saying that Kawasaki is any better than Boeing, for all I know the Poseidon might be a better fit than the P1, it certainly has some strong selling points like the fact that it is a 737 and therefore lots of parts, people and knowledge is readily available already.
Just saying that if the UK opts for the P1, the industrial offset possibilities must not necessary be a problem.
I do think that the P1 is that much better looking but I don't really know anything about what makes an MPA a good MPA, I do think that the Japanese have a vested interest in having the best of the best when it comes to Maritime defence related stuff so it probably is good enough for the UK too, just like the P8 probably is.
Just saying that if the UK opts for the P1, the industrial offset possibilities must not necessary be a problem.
I do think that the P1 is that much better looking but I don't really know anything about what makes an MPA a good MPA, I do think that the Japanese have a vested interest in having the best of the best when it comes to Maritime defence related stuff so it probably is good enough for the UK too, just like the P8 probably is.