UK Maritime Patrol Aircraft - An Urgent Requirement
I have a question.
Just because the world and his wife uses a particular brand why is there the automatic assumption that we have to?
When the world was flying Neptunes the RAF had Shackletons.
When the world was flying Orions the RAF had Nimrods.
It never seemed to have an effect on how the RAF inter-operated in joint/coalition ops. Why would operating P-1s against P-8s make a difference?
Just because the world and his wife uses a particular brand why is there the automatic assumption that we have to?
When the world was flying Neptunes the RAF had Shackletons.
When the world was flying Orions the RAF had Nimrods.
It never seemed to have an effect on how the RAF inter-operated in joint/coalition ops. Why would operating P-1s against P-8s make a difference?
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
IIRC the choice was between no C-17 or a rental agreement - (and they even looked at some Russian options as well....) Treasury driven as always
when they proved so damn useful they case was made to buy not rent.......
when they proved so damn useful they case was made to buy not rent.......
M the M
"When the world was flying Neptunes the RAF had Shackletons.
When the world was flying Orions the RAF had Nimrods."
OK, but the world has moved on.
You had Shacks - probably over 150 were built for the RAF.
Nimrods for the Kipper fleet - 38 rings a bell.
Now for new MPAs - if you are lucky - you will get 10.
Still going it alone ?
"When the world was flying Neptunes the RAF had Shackletons.
When the world was flying Orions the RAF had Nimrods."
OK, but the world has moved on.
You had Shacks - probably over 150 were built for the RAF.
Nimrods for the Kipper fleet - 38 rings a bell.
Now for new MPAs - if you are lucky - you will get 10.
Still going it alone ?
The deal was simple: rent for 5 years = $100m dollars (made up numbers)
Buy outright = $150m dollars. Therefore 'cheaper' to lease them.
However, after the hours were overflown, and the lease was extended, they cost $450m dollars.
Like all the other PFIs and contracts of that era, a short term fix that saddles the bill payer with higher costs later down the line, presumably on another government/chancellors watch!
Buy outright = $150m dollars. Therefore 'cheaper' to lease them.
However, after the hours were overflown, and the lease was extended, they cost $450m dollars.
Like all the other PFIs and contracts of that era, a short term fix that saddles the bill payer with higher costs later down the line, presumably on another government/chancellors watch!
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Waiting to return to the Loire.
Age: 54
Posts: 386
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yeah, I think MOD had Milo Minderbinder and the Syndicate working down at Abbey Wood at the time.....
Now, chocolate covered cotton...
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
The deal was simple: rent for 5 years = $100m dollars (made up numbers)
Buy outright = $150m dollars. Therefore 'cheaper' to lease them.
However, after the hours were overflown, and the lease was extended, they cost $450m dollars.
Like all the other PFIs and contracts of that era, a short term fix that saddles the bill payer with higher costs later down the line, presumably on another government/chancellors watch!
Buy outright = $150m dollars. Therefore 'cheaper' to lease them.
However, after the hours were overflown, and the lease was extended, they cost $450m dollars.
Like all the other PFIs and contracts of that era, a short term fix that saddles the bill payer with higher costs later down the line, presumably on another government/chancellors watch!
We only leased for 5 years until we replaced them with the A400 IIRC.
Now, if someone had the balls, we should consider cancelling A400 and just have the C17.
Join Date: May 2013
Location: UK/ USA
Posts: 111
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DCT, unfortunately the UK will have to change things. P8 weapons and Data Links are likely to need attention. Sensors are not the best available. Mission support is typical US, manpower intensive and bespoke. I suspect the money to sort these will be significant. A C-17 is a truck and thus doesn't require updating to match emerging threats. The E3-D is a better platform to compare the P8 with. Acquired in haste when Nimrod AEW was abandoned. It is now very expensive to operate and has fallen behind othe E3s as it is too expensive to upgrade.
Last edited by Jet In Vitro; 24th Jul 2015 at 17:05.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Hampshire
Posts: 137
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JIV, there is slightly more to the E-3D story though: we had access to international upgrade programmes, which split the cost between as many nations (or operators perhaps as NATO aren't a nation) partake, but haven't really used this option to keep pace with the other E-3 fleets.
We won't commit to the budget to upgrade significantly, but accepting the potential compromises of international mods could have been significantly cheaper than pursuing UK specific mods.
It doesn't seem impossible for P1 or P8 to be run on a similar programme for collaborative mods.
We won't commit to the budget to upgrade significantly, but accepting the potential compromises of international mods could have been significantly cheaper than pursuing UK specific mods.
It doesn't seem impossible for P1 or P8 to be run on a similar programme for collaborative mods.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: 4 Civvy Street. Nowhere-near-a-base. The Shires.
Posts: 559
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
He could have been a little more precise. Crew manning may well be an issue because neither light or dark blue have a surfeit of aviators, particularly rear-crew, to staff either aircraft.
The aircraft with the bigger crew complement would possibly put more strain on the (currently empty) specialist manning pool.
The aircraft with the bigger crew complement would possibly put more strain on the (currently empty) specialist manning pool.
DCThumb wrote:
But you need to remember the bigger picture:
The Future Large Aircraft (FLA) was originally supposed to replace all the RAF’s large a/c. That proved unfeasible, so the tanker/transport requirement became Future Strategic Tanker Aircraft (FSTA) and another fight arose between A400M and C130J as the Future Transport Aircraft (FTA). FSTA then became a Private Finance Initiative (PFI) project; the preferred platform became the A330 Multi-Role Tanker Transport (MRTT) rather than the B767 offered by the rival TTSC. Meanwhile, A400M which had been the FLA was given the go-ahead to be the FTA; however, to fill the gap, a Short Term Strategic Airlifter, STSA, was needed and that became a fight between the An124 and the C-17. The RAF decided upon leased C-17s as STSA to fill the gap before FTA became reality; however, the C-17s were later bought and the STSA became another FTA, but not the sole FTA as that will still be the A400M. Which, of course had once been FLA and rejected as FSTA. Nevertheless, the Common Standard Aircraft (CSA) A400M does have a requirement to have an AAR role, but not as a strategic tanker as that will be the job of the FSTA, the A330MRTT 'Voyager' – which also has immense AT capability as well as its AAR capability but is seemingly not considered to be a FTA even though it would be.... Although there is, of course, the A310 MRTT in service with other countries but not offered by any of the FSTA bidders even though it had been studied under an earlier project by MoD Department of Future Systems (DFS) as it then was, when a Multi Role Tanker Transport rather than a Future Strategic Tanker Aircraft was being considered.
So:
C-17 which was the STSA but wasn't an FSTA is now an FTA.
A400M which was FLA, then rejected as FSTA has also, as 'Atlas' become an FTA.
A330 MRTT 'Voyager' is the FSTA under PFI but is not an FTA.
Clear enough?
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!
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!
The Future Large Aircraft (FLA) was originally supposed to replace all the RAF’s large a/c. That proved unfeasible, so the tanker/transport requirement became Future Strategic Tanker Aircraft (FSTA) and another fight arose between A400M and C130J as the Future Transport Aircraft (FTA). FSTA then became a Private Finance Initiative (PFI) project; the preferred platform became the A330 Multi-Role Tanker Transport (MRTT) rather than the B767 offered by the rival TTSC. Meanwhile, A400M which had been the FLA was given the go-ahead to be the FTA; however, to fill the gap, a Short Term Strategic Airlifter, STSA, was needed and that became a fight between the An124 and the C-17. The RAF decided upon leased C-17s as STSA to fill the gap before FTA became reality; however, the C-17s were later bought and the STSA became another FTA, but not the sole FTA as that will still be the A400M. Which, of course had once been FLA and rejected as FSTA. Nevertheless, the Common Standard Aircraft (CSA) A400M does have a requirement to have an AAR role, but not as a strategic tanker as that will be the job of the FSTA, the A330MRTT 'Voyager' – which also has immense AT capability as well as its AAR capability but is seemingly not considered to be a FTA even though it would be.... Although there is, of course, the A310 MRTT in service with other countries but not offered by any of the FSTA bidders even though it had been studied under an earlier project by MoD Department of Future Systems (DFS) as it then was, when a Multi Role Tanker Transport rather than a Future Strategic Tanker Aircraft was being considered.
So:
C-17 which was the STSA but wasn't an FSTA is now an FTA.
A400M which was FLA, then rejected as FSTA has also, as 'Atlas' become an FTA.
A330 MRTT 'Voyager' is the FSTA under PFI but is not an FTA.
Clear enough?
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
Actual no.
Like the 'new' block, scheme, deal or whatever, when will the C17 cease to be FLA and even become a legacy aircraft transporting everything?
Perhaps when the FGULA comes along with just a Nav, sorry WSO, wg cdr on board to operate the Ground/Flight switch.
Like the 'new' block, scheme, deal or whatever, when will the C17 cease to be FLA and even become a legacy aircraft transporting everything?
Perhaps when the FGULA comes along with just a Nav, sorry WSO, wg cdr on board to operate the Ground/Flight switch.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: The Whyte House
Age: 95
Posts: 1,966
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re. interoperability with our allies: The Americans and Japanese cooperate in the Pacific Theatre, particularly since Obama's Pacific Pivot policy. One would think there aren't any particular issues with them using P-8s and P-1s. Indeed I would expect the P-1 to be designed with such measures in place.
Join Date: May 2013
Location: UK/ USA
Posts: 111
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ref interoperability. The US do not do this well at all. They need BACN, a capability flown on another platform, to provide communication interoperability between their frontline fighters and the platforms they are working with.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Outside the Matz
Posts: 220
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
www.mod.go.jp/e/jdf/index.html
You will note the focus on US and Australian joint ops. No one else has the concerns that are raised here.
Last edited by Bannock; 25th Jul 2015 at 16:09.
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: aus
Posts: 277
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JIV, they have just released an exportable BACN
Northrop unveils evolved, exportable BACN aerial gateway - DFNS.net Air
Northrop unveils evolved, exportable BACN aerial gateway
Northrop unveils evolved, exportable BACN aerial gateway - DFNS.net Air
Northrop unveils evolved, exportable BACN aerial gateway
