UK P8 Poseidon
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: N. Spain
Age: 79
Posts: 1,311
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As for RAF folk not being keen to spend much time afloat, I've served with an
astonishing number of RN folk who will do anything to avoid going to sea.
astonishing number of RN folk who will do anything to avoid going to sea.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: The Whyte House
Age: 95
Posts: 1,966
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quite, just like the Norwegians, Canadians, Australians, New Zealanders, Portugese, Spanish and no doubt others.
The Americans, Japanese, Chinese, French, Netherlands, Germans, Pakistanis, Russians, Chileans (and no doubt others) seem to be entirely happy letting their maritime patrol being handled by fish heads.
Doesn't matter who gets it in the end (I'd prefer the RN, just to watch this place explode with indignation) as long as the job's done properly.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: various
Posts: 73
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The RAF is not looking to get a MMA; UK defence is. Given that the asset would ultimately work for several different elements of UK PLC, it would make sense for it to work under a Joint Force Command. If only we had one if those.........
Consequently, the colour of the uniforms of those operating it becomes not particularly relevant.
Consequently, the colour of the uniforms of those operating it becomes not particularly relevant.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 3,399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think either shade of blue could operate it effectively, however logistically the RAF is far more suited.
The FAA has zero aircrew pie making capability, and in these austere times the attempt to ramp up to the kind of consumption on an MPA might prove catastrophic to the RN budget.
The FAA has zero aircrew pie making capability, and in these austere times the attempt to ramp up to the kind of consumption on an MPA might prove catastrophic to the RN budget.
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Hotel Gypsy
Posts: 2,821
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It doesn't really matter. Defence has a significant capability gap and there is no space for inter-service bickering.
If I were a fish head, I would want some form of top cover.
If I were a trawler man, I would want some form of top cover.
If I were an F35 driver, I would want some form of top cover.
In all of the above, I wouldn't be worrying about the colour of the pilots' mess dress.
If I were a fish head, I would want some form of top cover.
If I were a trawler man, I would want some form of top cover.
If I were an F35 driver, I would want some form of top cover.
In all of the above, I wouldn't be worrying about the colour of the pilots' mess dress.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
I agree with Tourist. As I said before, the RAF has a gene pool. Those with good pilot aptitudes can be directed towards one of many roles. On if the RN has several options such as Rotary, FJ and multi would they approach the flexibility of a multi role force when it comes to matching people to roles.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
WW, sarcasm, moi, how could you 
Seriously, the RNoAF is a good example of making best use of a small pool of aircrew.
The other countries cited have larger naval pools including many with aircraft carriers. Certainly the RAF took the MPA role in WW 2 and retained it through inter-service arguments ever since. Now would certainly be an opportune moment for change, if our small boat navy remembers how
Seriously, the RNoAF is a good example of making best use of a small pool of aircrew.
The other countries cited have larger naval pools including many with aircraft carriers. Certainly the RAF took the MPA role in WW 2 and retained it through inter-service arguments ever since. Now would certainly be an opportune moment for change, if our small boat navy remembers how
@Ian16th:
Does it came with the option of a probe for AAR?
As the forward fuselage is more or less the same as an E3 it shouldn't be too difficult, probably cost a shed load of dollars though.
Does it came with the option of a probe for AAR?
As the forward fuselage is more or less the same as an E3 it shouldn't be too difficult, probably cost a shed load of dollars though.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,868
Received 2,820 Likes
on
1,202 Posts
There is a simple replacement, use the Sentinal
Now I realise it's a bit small so get BAe to stretch it,
With that stretch, it will allow them to increase the bay size and fair in it for reduced drag
An as four engines would be preferred, a little redesign should see that as a possibility
With those extra engines and to help with the weight, the tail could then be redesigned to carry various aerials,
the T tail could be dropped with the engine removal and a more pleasant design look produced.
There, that's getting close to erm ideal
A bit rough, but only a quickie
Now I realise it's a bit small so get BAe to stretch it,
With that stretch, it will allow them to increase the bay size and fair in it for reduced drag
An as four engines would be preferred, a little redesign should see that as a possibility
With those extra engines and to help with the weight, the tail could then be redesigned to carry various aerials,
the T tail could be dropped with the engine removal and a more pleasant design look produced.
There, that's getting close to erm ideal
A bit rough, but only a quickie
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Island of Aphrodite
Age: 75
Posts: 530
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No Ian 16th. We just adjust the remaining, still to be built Voyagers, and build them as proper A330 MRTTs (as going to virtually everybody else who has ordered the A330 Tanker) and have a boom as well as two drogues. Or even a third drogues adjacent to the boom.
Then we will be able to refuel our Rivet Joints, P8s and our allies' aircraft.
Sorry Thread creep.
Then we will be able to refuel our Rivet Joints, P8s and our allies' aircraft.
Sorry Thread creep.
Last edited by beerdrinker; 7th Jun 2015 at 16:53.
As for RAF folk not being keen to spend much time afloat, I've served with an astonishing number of RN folk who will do anything to avoid going to sea.
Did they all end up as rulers of the Queen's Navee?
And isn't the Force de Frappe the barista staff at the Starbucks on the Champs?
Speaking of which, hanging Storm Shadow on the P-8 is not as bright an idea as some people think. The jet is loaded with bits and pieces that are entirely non-essential to the job of flying to a point within SS range of the target (a location which is not necessarily safe) and in any situation warranting the use of an air-launched cruise missile it is quite likely that the MPA/ISR fleet will be fully tasked.
Did they all end up as rulers of the Queen's Navee?
And isn't the Force de Frappe the barista staff at the Starbucks on the Champs?
Speaking of which, hanging Storm Shadow on the P-8 is not as bright an idea as some people think. The jet is loaded with bits and pieces that are entirely non-essential to the job of flying to a point within SS range of the target (a location which is not necessarily safe) and in any situation warranting the use of an air-launched cruise missile it is quite likely that the MPA/ISR fleet will be fully tasked.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Germany
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LO, thats the beauty, you can provide your ISR at the same time as carrying 4 underwing!
Being totally facetious of course, together with a bit of trolling on the earlier comment.
Being totally facetious of course, together with a bit of trolling on the earlier comment.
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: West Midlands
Posts: 239
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: West Midlands
Posts: 239
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is a simple replacement, use the Sentinal
Now I realise it's a bit small so get BAe to stretch it,
With that stretch, it will allow them to increase the bay size and fair in it for reduced drag
An as four engines would be preferred, a little redesign should see that as a possibility
With those extra engines and to help with the weight, the tail could then be redesigned to carry various aerials,
the T tail could be dropped with the engine removal and a more pleasant design look produced.
There, that's getting close to erm ideal
A bit rough, but only a quickie
Now I realise it's a bit small so get BAe to stretch it,
With that stretch, it will allow them to increase the bay size and fair in it for reduced drag
An as four engines would be preferred, a little redesign should see that as a possibility
With those extra engines and to help with the weight, the tail could then be redesigned to carry various aerials,
the T tail could be dropped with the engine removal and a more pleasant design look produced.
There, that's getting close to erm ideal
A bit rough, but only a quickie
Looks like a thing of beauty. Let me guesstimate - £1bn development costs and 20-year lead time. I still think we could use the Sunderland from the RAF museum - ideal for picking up drowning immigrants as well. True multi-mission.
P-8 with CASOM was only a passing thought, based only on possible range.
It seems the P-8 unrefuelled ferry range is 4000nm. Quite a bit to knock off with big stores & some sort of return leg, but still quite a long way. Of course points made about how (un)friendly the airpspace is 250km from the target all valid.
It seems the P-8 unrefuelled ferry range is 4000nm. Quite a bit to knock off with big stores & some sort of return leg, but still quite a long way. Of course points made about how (un)friendly the airpspace is 250km from the target all valid.
Join Date: May 2007
Location: upstairs
Posts: 208
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
S-D,
sorry, a bit of a terse observation on my part.
As I understood it, the MAA's main issue with the Rivet Joint exercise was the absence of complete traceability of the certification evidence to a known design baseline. Some of the required evidence would have dated back to the original civil certification exercise (Boeing's problem) and some was the DOD's responsibility; the passage of time hadn't helped either party. I was speculating that similar issues could arise with the P8 because of its fairly extended type family history, most of it under Boeing's responsibility. I'd expect the DOD to have no problem as such with the P8 mods.
I'd also wonder whether FMS conditions would help or hinder the UK in obtaining access to the necessary evidence. The C17 is probably a useful precedent but I know nothing about it. What I have observed in the fast jet world suggests there is scope for problems to arise.
EAP
sorry, a bit of a terse observation on my part.
As I understood it, the MAA's main issue with the Rivet Joint exercise was the absence of complete traceability of the certification evidence to a known design baseline. Some of the required evidence would have dated back to the original civil certification exercise (Boeing's problem) and some was the DOD's responsibility; the passage of time hadn't helped either party. I was speculating that similar issues could arise with the P8 because of its fairly extended type family history, most of it under Boeing's responsibility. I'd expect the DOD to have no problem as such with the P8 mods.
I'd also wonder whether FMS conditions would help or hinder the UK in obtaining access to the necessary evidence. The C17 is probably a useful precedent but I know nothing about it. What I have observed in the fast jet world suggests there is scope for problems to arise.
EAP