UK Maritime Patrol Aircraft - An Urgent Requirement
Join Date: May 2013
Location: UK/ USA
Posts: 111
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good News For WSO WSOp
The P8 crew is having to be increased by 1 operator to cope with deficiencies in the mission system. This increase will be fleet wide with new ac coming out of the factory with an extra consuls. Current fleet will be upgraded later.
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: aus
Posts: 277
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It sounds like they are bringing in the 6th station earlier than anticipated for block 1, block 3 will have other uses for it.
http://www.janes.com/article/53639/u...-asuw-missions
The P-8A is currently fitted with five fully functioning mission crew workstations, but has space for an additional sixth already set aside. This additional station is already fully 'plumbed in', and requires only the mission system controls and consoles to be fitted.
The sixth workstation is being activated to correct a deficiency in the baseline Increment 1 capability standard, while Increment 3 will capitalise on the addition to facilitate the addition of new capabilities in line with the P-8A Incremental Acquisition Strategy. One Increment 3 capability set that might necessitate the installation of a sixth mission station is the operation and teaming of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs). Boeing has been testing the MagEagle Compressed Carriage (MECC) UAV since 2010, with a view to deploying the system from the P-8.
http://www.janes.com/article/53639/u...-asuw-missions
The P-8A is currently fitted with five fully functioning mission crew workstations, but has space for an additional sixth already set aside. This additional station is already fully 'plumbed in', and requires only the mission system controls and consoles to be fitted.
The sixth workstation is being activated to correct a deficiency in the baseline Increment 1 capability standard, while Increment 3 will capitalise on the addition to facilitate the addition of new capabilities in line with the P-8A Incremental Acquisition Strategy. One Increment 3 capability set that might necessitate the installation of a sixth mission station is the operation and teaming of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs). Boeing has been testing the MagEagle Compressed Carriage (MECC) UAV since 2010, with a view to deploying the system from the P-8.
Last edited by a1bill; 19th Aug 2015 at 11:54.
wow - there's one for Beagle and others to ponder - If the (UK - assuming it happens....) WSOp is sat at that station and 'flying' a drone/UAV - should he be a pilot (and get the Reaper style UAV pilot wings) 
(pulling up a chair and awaiting the debate...)
Yes - not strictly 'MPA' related (I blame mission creep), but in the absence of ANY UK MPA news (worrying?) - it is all I have.
(pulling up a chair and awaiting the debate...)Yes - not strictly 'MPA' related (I blame mission creep), but in the absence of ANY UK MPA news (worrying?) - it is all I have.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
no news = politicians & journo's all on holiday
expect leaks to start 3rd week September - maybe around Tory party Conference time - the Minister will need something red & raw to feed to the party faithfull....................
expect leaks to start 3rd week September - maybe around Tory party Conference time - the Minister will need something red & raw to feed to the party faithfull....................
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: England
Age: 14
Posts: 39
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@betty swallox
Second, maybe third even. Too often the mil ends up wanting the most amazing piece of kit and ends up either with tiny numbers or with none, and a huge bill. Big bill for Nimrod, zero in service being a prime example. If the platform is capable of medium range civilian search, and capable of detecting Russian subs, that's the minimum spec fulfilled. It might not be the best, but if it does the job it's still better than no capability, and it frees up funds for other requirements. There's also potential value added here if we can help use them for customs patrols and immigration patrols too. I'd also like to see some real penalties for procurement people who screw this stuff up. This is public money.
Second, maybe third even. Too often the mil ends up wanting the most amazing piece of kit and ends up either with tiny numbers or with none, and a huge bill. Big bill for Nimrod, zero in service being a prime example. If the platform is capable of medium range civilian search, and capable of detecting Russian subs, that's the minimum spec fulfilled. It might not be the best, but if it does the job it's still better than no capability, and it frees up funds for other requirements. There's also potential value added here if we can help use them for customs patrols and immigration patrols too. I'd also like to see some real penalties for procurement people who screw this stuff up. This is public money.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: 4 Civvy Street. Nowhere-near-a-base. The Shires.
Posts: 559
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Customs and Immigration, Fisheries and Oil all decided many years ago to do their own thing - because it was cheaper than paying the RAF. Those Govt. departments have already made the savings of which you write. I would argue that the anticipated new aircraft does not need to fill any civvy roles.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
then it is unlikely to be bought.................
Taranis is correct - second best is better than none at all
A number of people on here still seem to think that the Govt is desperate to reinstate some marine aviation capability whereas they're actually doing their best to avoid exta expenditure on it
We might get something (and I hope we do) but it will be a case of pulling the forelock and thanking our masters for providing anything at all TBH
PS Avro Anson's anyone??
Taranis is correct - second best is better than none at all
A number of people on here still seem to think that the Govt is desperate to reinstate some marine aviation capability whereas they're actually doing their best to avoid exta expenditure on it
We might get something (and I hope we do) but it will be a case of pulling the forelock and thanking our masters for providing anything at all TBH
PS Avro Anson's anyone??
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: 4 Civvy Street. Nowhere-near-a-base. The Shires.
Posts: 559
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Taranis - detecting modern Russian subs with 2nd or 3rd best equipment is unlikely to be feasible. The days are long gone when you could hear them miles away.
Any ASW role is going to demand the latest top-notch tech, or it is not going to be effective.
Any ASW role is going to demand the latest top-notch tech, or it is not going to be effective.
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: England
Age: 14
Posts: 39
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@camelspyyder
The problem is that having P8s is likely to come at the price of something more valuable, like F35 numbers. It's sure not going to come from a reduction in civil servant positions at the MOD!
The problem is that having P8s is likely to come at the price of something more valuable, like F35 numbers. It's sure not going to come from a reduction in civil servant positions at the MOD!
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: home: United Kingdom
Posts: 779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Personally, I'd argue that the ability to protect your own back garden - with a P8 or a Pwhatever - is more valuable than all the F35s that we are ordering. But, maybe that's just me.
Duncs
Duncs
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: aus
Posts: 277
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"If the platform is capable of medium range civilian search, and capable of detecting Russian subs, that's the minimum spec fulfilled. It might not be the best, but if it does the job it's still better than no capability, and it frees up funds for other requirements."
TA, even the old P-3 did a hell of a lot more than sniffing subs, it's only one of a dozen missions. They were used a lot in astan and Iraq and there wasn't many subs there.
UK can buy into the P-8A or buy the ****tiest thing out there. The fleet cost over 30 years isn't that much different. It only matters what you have, when you want to do something with them.
TA, even the old P-3 did a hell of a lot more than sniffing subs, it's only one of a dozen missions. They were used a lot in astan and Iraq and there wasn't many subs there.
UK can buy into the P-8A or buy the ****tiest thing out there. The fleet cost over 30 years isn't that much different. It only matters what you have, when you want to do something with them.
Anything you choose to spend your money on effectively involves a choice between that and something else, or not spending. In fact the money is there, there's still a large unallocated pot (several £billion) for unfunded priorities, helped a little additionally by the recent improvement in the funding position. Half a dozen or so P8s needn't affect the F35 position at all.
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: UK on a crosswind
Posts: 262
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It may be relevant to this discussion which seems to have broadened a little. I see the Australian government has just committed to a twenty years programme of continuous building for the Royal Australian Navy. This makes sense to me because, whether its aircraft, ships or anything else, it means expertise isn't lost, lessons don't have to be expensively re-learned and a whole body of knowledge is built up. If the Australians (21 million) can do this - why can't we think in these terms? There are after all a couple of smaller operations that could begin to work at a higher level in aircraft building/design - if the government wanted.
Royalist, a 1* friend of mine suggested something similar about 10-12 years ago, and I expect he wasnt the first. The suggestion was that instead of building ships in batches and then taking a construction break, whilst also refitting ships already in service at the mid life point, we sold ships off at about the 12 year point and replaced with new builds from the continuous pipeline.
This was supposed to give continuity of construction, preserve strategic industries and skills and also help keep other nations on side by supplying them with UK kit and expertise.
The problem is that Politicians only think in the short term and there probably isnt enough friendly nations to buy an equally continuous stream of second hand Type 23s or even MCMVs etc.
This was supposed to give continuity of construction, preserve strategic industries and skills and also help keep other nations on side by supplying them with UK kit and expertise.
The problem is that Politicians only think in the short term and there probably isnt enough friendly nations to buy an equally continuous stream of second hand Type 23s or even MCMVs etc.