Military Aviation A forum for the professionals who fly military hardware. Also for the backroom boys and girls who support the flying and maintain the equipment, and without whom nothing would ever leave the ground. All armies, navies and air forces of the world equally welcome here.

UK P8 Poseidon

Old 6th Jun 2015, 09:43
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Island of Aphrodite
Age: 71
Posts: 531
UK P8 Poseidon

Interesting article in this week's Aviation Leak indicating that an order for up to 12 Poseidons is not far away. Decision held up by General Election.
beerdrinker is offline  
Old 6th Jun 2015, 09:45
  #2 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Land of Oz
Posts: 491
Good for you guys to come out of the closet with this.


You know it makes sense !!
BBadanov is offline  
Old 6th Jun 2015, 10:09
  #3 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 1,445
I wonder how far away 'not far away' actually is. This has been mooted for some time:

http://www.pprune.org/military-aviat...usa-maybe.html
Background Noise is offline  
Old 6th Jun 2015, 10:31
  #4 (permalink)  
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Peripatetic
Posts: 10,057
Hmmmm, only Boeing hype - but if they are right, out of who's budget?....

Increased P-8 production rate caters to international sales, possibly including the U.K.

Boeing is stepping up monthly production of the P-8 Poseidon maritime patrol aircraft amid mounting signs of additional international sales and solid funding for planned U.S. Navy procurement...... says Jimmy Dodd, vice president and general manager of mobility, surveillance and engagement at Boeing Military Aircraft....

However, Boeing is also courting the U.K., which according to British press reports, is studying acquiring up to 12 P-8s as part of efforts to rebuild its anti-submarine warfare (ASW) capabilities following the abrupt withdrawal of the Nimrod MR2 maritime patrol force in 2010. The same year the U.K. also axed the planned Nimrod MRA4 replacement program, leaving a capability gap that Russian surface vessels and submarines have exposed during recent incursions into British waters.

“The U.K. will be under FMS (foreign military sale),” says Dodd who adds that any negotiations will be led by the Navy. “Everything was stalled out waiting on the [U.K.] election, and now that it’s over we are hoping activity will increase and there will be a commitment.” Although discussions with the U.K. Defense Ministry are believed to be centered on an initial contract for six firm aircraft plus six options, Dodd adds that Boeing’s involvement has so far been minimal.

“We’ve never actually given [the U.S. Navy] a proposal [for the U.K.]. The Navy knows what they are paying, and they know what it costs to support. They also understand the differences in configurations, so they haven’t been asking us for a lot of detailed price and cost data at this point,” he says. “I’m sure that will come. Usually it is triggered to us when there is a letter of request [LOR] for price and availability. When there is an LOR on those jets, then they come to us and ask for offerability on cost and schedule,” adds Dodd.

Under the standard FMS procedure, the U.K. must submit an LOR for either price and availability or a letter of offer and acceptance. The U.S. government then has 120 days to respond, and if congressional review is required, an extra 15-50 days may be needed. “I know various things have been kicked about. Obviously, if it is an increase in quantity over and above what we already had then it is to do with the time line. How much is long lead, how much time line? The Navy already know us and we share line positions so they have that data,” says Dodd. “We will engage directly [with the U.K Defense Ministry] at some point. It just hasn’t happened yet, and it will happen.”..........
ORAC is online now  
Old 6th Jun 2015, 10:33
  #5 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 264
On timing, if there are any positives ahead I imagine they'll be being stored up for the SDSR outcome, they'll want to lard it with any good news they can.
Frostchamber is offline  
Old 6th Jun 2015, 11:27
  #6 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Next to Ross and Demelza
Age: 48
Posts: 915
I cannot imagine that there would be a Congressional obstacle to an FMS request from the UK, but I would like to know where the money is coming from, unless this week's announcement that the MoD has to find £500 million of savings is partly to offset a P-8 purchase.
Martin the Martian is offline  
Old 6th Jun 2015, 12:14
  #7 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Island of Aphrodite
Age: 71
Posts: 531
Instead of RPI, as the P8 is based on an airliner, how about an "Operational Lease"?

BD
beerdrinker is offline  
Old 6th Jun 2015, 13:09
  #8 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,633
They also understand the differences in configurations,
Aha! bring in the accountants!!
glad rag is offline  
Old 6th Jun 2015, 15:38
  #9 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: upstairs
Posts: 202
It would be interesting to see how the MAA would handle a P8 certification in light of the Rivet Joint experience (similar airframe provenance?), FMS restrictions and their new regulations for certification here.

EAP
EAP86 is offline  
Old 6th Jun 2015, 16:21
  #10 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: front seat, facing forwards
Posts: 1,027
Well, we had folk(s) flying them for a while now so would be logical, assuming funding can be sorted.
just another jocky is offline  
Old 6th Jun 2015, 16:22
  #11 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Next to Ross and Demelza
Age: 48
Posts: 915
Well as the P-8s would be newly built aircraft rather than 50-year old airframes I think many of the problems would not be there.
Martin the Martian is offline  
Old 6th Jun 2015, 16:40
  #12 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Germany
Posts: 2,013
I think you are confusing the P8 and the P3.

Anything heard about getting wedge tail at the same time to replace E-3? Common sense for lots of reasons.
VinRouge is offline  
Old 6th Jun 2015, 17:15
  #13 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 264
On funding, AFAIK there's more than enough in the unallocated headroom (an amount set aside and carried forward with Treasury agreement to fund priorities from the whiteboard of unfunded wishlist items, as and when they're afforded priority) to fund an up front purchase of 6 or so.

But running them would need to be accommodated from a flatlined or shrinking running costs budget, so might mean a bit of deckchair shuffling...

Anyway, until such time as the Treasury reneges and snatches the unallocated funds (which is possible but which would be politically and presentationally difficult, especially given the current Tory backbench sentiment on defence and HMG's tiny majority), there IS funding available for this acquisition. At least for the capital part of it.
Frostchamber is offline  
Old 6th Jun 2015, 17:20
  #14 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Germany
Posts: 2,013
Do extant treasury rules allow you to roll up the support element in a front end support contract paid outright at the start (ie pay through life costs such as spares support, upgrades, training etc on day 1?)
VinRouge is offline  
Old 6th Jun 2015, 19:49
  #15 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 264
Good question, wish I knew the answer. In general HMT are chary of running costs being disguised as capital. That said, I think major spare parts and servicing equipment can be capitalized as fixed assets, and upgrades / improvements can also be categorised as capital. So the upfront cost could reasonably include a substantial spares element and kit required to maintain and improve the fleet, and presumably progressive software upgrades and the like, these being improvements - so one way or another a fair bit could be built in. Hopefully someone with more accountancy knowhow can correct me if I'm wrong.
Frostchamber is offline  
Old 6th Jun 2015, 20:01
  #16 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: S of 55N
Posts: 360
Do extant treasury rules allow you to roll up the support element in a front end support contract paid outright at the start (ie pay through life costs such as spares support, upgrades, training etc on day 1?)
Yes.
however, what happens in reality when you contract like that, is the company in question runs the service/equipment for a year or so, and then says "Oh, it appears to be more expensive than we anticipated, give us more cash or we fail." We can't afford to fail, so we give them more cash.

There is no way to transfer risk when your business is defence or security.

Sun.
Sun Who is offline  
Old 6th Jun 2015, 20:13
  #17 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Germany
Posts: 2,013
I was wondering as the other Boeing COTS FMS purchase (C-17) uses contacted spares and upgrade programme I believe. Very successfully I hear.
VinRouge is offline  
Old 6th Jun 2015, 20:25
  #18 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: England
Posts: 928
How likely is it, really?

All week leaks have been coming out of No10 and elsewhere about the depth and scale of budget cuts to the various ministries, this year, I've heard 12 billion for DPS or whatever it now, and more and more. Is there to be an SDR (again) this year>? Its a utter shambles. No money. Unrealistic
In simple terms, what will be this aircrafts primary role? Motive. (Don't tell me they know what they are actually doing)
Is there another thread running about where it will be based? Someone confidently said Yeovilton, another said Culdrose as a base....find this hard to fathom or understand..in a way.Logistical
So if above true.. the Navy runs it then?Also, I guessing Govt. is about to wash out Scotland and base the bombers out of Plymouth in the future instead? If the nuclear deterrent has a future.Political
#Its a good press story, which is what it is - a fairy story man. Page Filler
Plus PM will have to admit he ****** up in 2010 and that is something they never do. Political/Psychological

But I admit it would be a political winner, in some ways. And a state splitter response by HMG.
Hangarshuffle is offline  
Old 6th Jun 2015, 20:35
  #19 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 264
I think the die is pretty much cast on this one, with all the statements that have been made - it will happen.
Frostchamber is offline  
Old 6th Jun 2015, 20:58
  #20 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Bedale, North Yorkshire
Age: 65
Posts: 1,059
OK, Good plan.

But, where are they going to be based? Which base has ramp space?
taxydual is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.