UK Maritime Patrol Aircraft - An Urgent Requirement
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 1,515
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
^^
sonobuoy launcher
https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=so...secewAftUxM%3A
Some types (Nimrod) had them internal, which was well handy because even us AEOs could
sonobuoy launcher
https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=so...secewAftUxM%3A
Some types (Nimrod) had them internal, which was well handy because even us AEOs could
prep a buoy
Ground-loadable sonobuoy chutes (as used on the P-3 and derivatives). The P-8A has multi-buoy rotary launchers in the cabin that look like water heaters and can be reloaded in flight. The P-3 had a few individual chutes that could be loaded in flight, IIRC.
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: UK on a crosswind
Posts: 262
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was never a Shack driver let alone anything later, so my ignorance is massive. However the P-1 does look to me like a purpose designed aircraft. It has good visibility for the driver, it looks rugged, it has 4 engines, which seems good to me if you're way out over the water, and its not a compromise adaption of a civil aircraft (and they are always compromises to some extent). Surely going for something like the P-1 that is actually designed for the job from the bottom up would be better - and possibly more adaptable as technology changes in the future. I wonder if it could be re-engined by RR? Tay 611-8C - I don't know but its at least the same power and a long proven design.
First of all I'm not arguing in favour of either the P-1 or the P-8, but I would offer the following word of caution. Don't get too focused on the purchase costs of an airframe. The long term support costs for an aircraft far outweigh the initial purchase price.
So we have aircraft A and aircraft B to chose from, both with acceptable performance levels. Aircraft A is cheaper to buy, but more expensive to run, than aircraft B. So while A might appear the better option, B is actually the more cost effective in the long term.
Of course if your budget is limited in the purchase phase then that may sway the argument........but you end up paying in the long term.
I should also point out that I haven't a clue what the purchase price of a P-1 or P-8 is, or their relative long term support costs!!
So we have aircraft A and aircraft B to chose from, both with acceptable performance levels. Aircraft A is cheaper to buy, but more expensive to run, than aircraft B. So while A might appear the better option, B is actually the more cost effective in the long term.
Of course if your budget is limited in the purchase phase then that may sway the argument........but you end up paying in the long term.
I should also point out that I haven't a clue what the purchase price of a P-1 or P-8 is, or their relative long term support costs!!
Biggus is of course correct but I'd suspect the MoD's creative accounting to blur any lines and therefore make it impossible to see the true cost of either element (capital cost vs through-life).
The same happened with the MRA4 where costs were extracted from the through-life 'guesstimate' to enable the ever-growing purchase cost to be met. Classic example was the sims. Originally all manning and course prep was included in the 'life-cost' , then removed, so we blue-suiters had to pick up the gaps in short-order before the OCU started.
I fear these issues (accounting fudges) will have a far greater impact on any possible purchase than what may actually be the best tool for the job. As others have said, the clock is ticking and no sign of any tender on the table.....
The same happened with the MRA4 where costs were extracted from the through-life 'guesstimate' to enable the ever-growing purchase cost to be met. Classic example was the sims. Originally all manning and course prep was included in the 'life-cost' , then removed, so we blue-suiters had to pick up the gaps in short-order before the OCU started.
I fear these issues (accounting fudges) will have a far greater impact on any possible purchase than what may actually be the best tool for the job. As others have said, the clock is ticking and no sign of any tender on the table.....
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
In my day I only ever saw a pilot south of the toilet once and that was when he, a sqn ldr, was interviewed by a very senior flt lt nav behind closed doors in the galley.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
I'll have you know I have helped load and unload sonobuoys, more than all the pilots combined on the Sqn.
Even been know to put a chicken pie in the oven or jock pie in a launcher.
Even been know to put a chicken pie in the oven or jock pie in a launcher.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
I wonder if it could be re-engined by RR? Tay 611-8C - I don't know but its at least the same power and a long proven design.
So we haggle for offsets and changes the engines for RR, and BWoS get to replace/augment the mission systems, and we change the avionics; then Marshalls get the maintenance contract - then, of course, Qinetiq get involved because it has to be completely re certified. And all for a total fleet of 6-8 or, if we are exceptionally lucky, 12 airframes. I mean, really?
And "suddenly" (sic) the purchase price has doubled, it's 5-10 years late getting into service and all upgrades/repairs are proprietary and cost an arm and a leg - the proverbial £1m toilet seat.
Buy the P-8 if we need it and stop pandering to the leeches waiting to suck the life out of the whole thing the way they did with the AEW-3 and MRA-4.....
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: UK on a crosswind
Posts: 262
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes ORAC is right that sequence has happened time after time. So buy it as is. My guess is that it may well be equipped right now for exactly the kind of mission we want because the Japanese situation is in many respects similar.
My post #1198: Stop stuffing around - get P-8.
Guys, honestly, I don't want to teach you to suck eggs, but...
What was your most recent successful acquisition? C-17 ?
Or was it perhaps AEW.3, MRA.4... maybe (shudder) TSR2 ?
Look, if there really is a UK MPA/MMA requirement, then buy MOTS.
We have done that here in Oz, and that has been successful with C-17 and F/A-18F, and we have ordered P-8 similarly.
Your Allies/coalition partners will be operating P-8.
The P-1 may be a capable maritime platform (it might have big windows, and a Tepanyaki galley !!), but look around the acquisition costs to through-life-support, and whether the Japanese will support...this is the key. When was the last time Japanese exported military aircraft (apart from to Malaya, Singapore, New Guinea in 1941-42). OK, tongue-in-cheek, but there is no track record here. And as for RR engines, or other local mods, OMG!! Don't fcuk with it.
Was C-17 procurement successful? OK, then look at P-8, and those who know me, know that I am not a paid advertisement for Boeing !
Guys, honestly, I don't want to teach you to suck eggs, but...
What was your most recent successful acquisition? C-17 ?
Or was it perhaps AEW.3, MRA.4... maybe (shudder) TSR2 ?
Look, if there really is a UK MPA/MMA requirement, then buy MOTS.
We have done that here in Oz, and that has been successful with C-17 and F/A-18F, and we have ordered P-8 similarly.
Your Allies/coalition partners will be operating P-8.
The P-1 may be a capable maritime platform (it might have big windows, and a Tepanyaki galley !!), but look around the acquisition costs to through-life-support, and whether the Japanese will support...this is the key. When was the last time Japanese exported military aircraft (apart from to Malaya, Singapore, New Guinea in 1941-42). OK, tongue-in-cheek, but there is no track record here. And as for RR engines, or other local mods, OMG!! Don't fcuk with it.
Was C-17 procurement successful? OK, then look at P-8, and those who know me, know that I am not a paid advertisement for Boeing !
Last edited by BBadanov; 24th Jul 2015 at 09:07.
C17 successful? Leasing them for 5 years was cheaper over 5 years than buying....
I don't know the end figures but we have ended up paying for those aircraft several times before we eventually purchased as I recall!
But your message is a wise one. Whatever you buy, don't mess with it!!!!
I don't know the end figures but we have ended up paying for those aircraft several times before we eventually purchased as I recall!
But your message is a wise one. Whatever you buy, don't mess with it!!!!
hi DC, thx,
But I do not understand your thrust... "leasing was cheaper than buying", but then "we have ended up paying for those aircraft several times before we eventually purchased as I recall".
I did not mean to suggest that your C-17 renting part was the way to go - the platform was right, but procurement method was wrong - the overall success of the programme was sorted out in the end. Same/same with tankers, rent by the hour, or the gallon? (Sounds like Goering's bombers with Monty Python.) Not a great way to go.
But I do not understand your thrust... "leasing was cheaper than buying", but then "we have ended up paying for those aircraft several times before we eventually purchased as I recall".
I did not mean to suggest that your C-17 renting part was the way to go - the platform was right, but procurement method was wrong - the overall success of the programme was sorted out in the end. Same/same with tankers, rent by the hour, or the gallon? (Sounds like Goering's bombers with Monty Python.) Not a great way to go.