Maritime Patrol Capability: The SDSR’s Wolf Whistle
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: In an ever changing place
Posts: 1,039
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
An excellent decision 
I wonder if they had learned something from my post in the "Paris Attacked" thread 
Before I close down, my final thought - should the UK not be looking at securing the actual safety of its own citizens within its own coastline first?
I mean before it again begins very expensive and much limited-use Air Expeditionary Warfare over Syria?
I mean before it again begins very expensive and much limited-use Air Expeditionary Warfare over Syria?
Above The Clouds
How about heavily investing in a robust airborne and maritime coast guard to patrol our borders and coastlines, working with the police, customs and armed forces to protect our citizens and country.
How about heavily investing in a robust airborne and maritime coast guard to patrol our borders and coastlines, working with the police, customs and armed forces to protect our citizens and country.
Congrats, the return of MPA is a good thing.
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Far North of Watford
Age: 82
Posts: 535
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Presumably it's a mistake ... But did anyone else notice that the 9 P-8's were listed under Naval Assets in The Times today ...
Surplus,
There are plenty of cheaper and more practical solutions to P-8, even without involving BWoS (as you amusingly refer to them).
Airbus Military are delivering C295 MPAs as though they were going out of style, while Alenia are churning out MPA versions of the ATR 42 and 72.
Saab have a number of off-the-shelf solutions available, and Lockmart have proposed a solution based on the C-130J.
Then you have the Japanese P-1, 70 of which are being built for another maritime island nation….
And what do all of these alternatives have in common? All are cheaper to buy, operate and sustain than the P-8, and none of them rely on the unproven concept of delivering buoys and weapons from FL Nosebleed.
One gets the impression that the P-8 decision was made without serious consideration of any alternative, and I fear it has been made in pursuit of the goal of harmonisation.
There are plenty of cheaper and more practical solutions to P-8, even without involving BWoS (as you amusingly refer to them).
Airbus Military are delivering C295 MPAs as though they were going out of style, while Alenia are churning out MPA versions of the ATR 42 and 72.
Saab have a number of off-the-shelf solutions available, and Lockmart have proposed a solution based on the C-130J.
Then you have the Japanese P-1, 70 of which are being built for another maritime island nation….
And what do all of these alternatives have in common? All are cheaper to buy, operate and sustain than the P-8, and none of them rely on the unproven concept of delivering buoys and weapons from FL Nosebleed.
One gets the impression that the P-8 decision was made without serious consideration of any alternative, and I fear it has been made in pursuit of the goal of harmonisation.
As much as I am pleased to see the resurrection of a Maritime role (
) 9 aircraft is hardly sufficient for one squadron, let alone two plus OCU. More likely is one sqn with an internal OCU of whatever number, although I would be more than happy to see any of the 'old' maritime numbers. There is also the likelyhood that this may be a joint RAF/RN Squadron - so 360 anyone?
Of more worry is the supply of the crews to man them (and the other ac announced), as well as the infrastructure. A major ramp up of flying training to produce more pilots - that'll be easy with all our eggs in one (Valley) basket under MFTS, and as for the supply of WSOPS...........! Engineers for the aircraft, Armourers for the weapons (and storage) and all the other trades involved - and who will supply all the pies!
As for base; thanks to SDSR 2010 we have/are closing bases to concentrate everything (what lovely targets) in airfields that are now full to overflowing, and adding the full maritime package will not sit easily, even less so with the lack of married quarters.
I'm glad that our lords and masters have seen sense, but the fun and games are only just beginning.
'Oh what a tangled web we weave'
) 9 aircraft is hardly sufficient for one squadron, let alone two plus OCU. More likely is one sqn with an internal OCU of whatever number, although I would be more than happy to see any of the 'old' maritime numbers. There is also the likelyhood that this may be a joint RAF/RN Squadron - so 360 anyone?Of more worry is the supply of the crews to man them (and the other ac announced), as well as the infrastructure. A major ramp up of flying training to produce more pilots - that'll be easy with all our eggs in one (Valley) basket under MFTS, and as for the supply of WSOPS...........! Engineers for the aircraft, Armourers for the weapons (and storage) and all the other trades involved - and who will supply all the pies!
As for base; thanks to SDSR 2010 we have/are closing bases to concentrate everything (what lovely targets) in airfields that are now full to overflowing, and adding the full maritime package will not sit easily, even less so with the lack of married quarters.
I'm glad that our lords and masters have seen sense, but the fun and games are only just beginning.
'Oh what a tangled web we weave'
A major ramp up of flying training to produce more pilots - that'll be easy with all our eggs in one (Valley) basket under MFTS
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Lincolnshire
Posts: 477
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I reckon the P-8 was chosen because its the best platform available and can operate over sea and have flexibility over land if called for .
Buying turbo prop because its cheaper is hardly the solution to what we need!
Buying turbo prop because its cheaper is hardly the solution to what we need!
pr00ne,
5(AC) Sqn is currently in service!
The 'rules' on seniority have been repeatedly broken over many years, either to secure a sensible long-term outcome or to meet senior officers' whims. A good recent example was the transfer of the II(AC) numberplate from the Tornado to Typhoon forces, which broke rules whether you looked at it as a disband - reform (in which case II(AC) should not have been disbanded as it was the most senior Tornado squadron at the time) or as a transfer of number plate away from a squadron which then continues under a different number (which is expressly prohibited). Playing by the rules would have brought 12(B) in as the fifth Typhoon squadron and consigned II(AC) to an uncertain fate at Tornado's retirement, so their airships quite sensibly fudged matters to secure II(AC)'s continuation on a long-term basis.
We'll see something similar with MPA, I'm sure. Seniority is not the only factor and there are guidelines to do with historic association with particular roles. The fact that 120 Sqn was presented with its standard early in recognition of its critical role in the Battle of the Atlantic (putting it in a very select group of sqns) is supposed to count, as well. If we were only going to get one MPA squadron, I would be steeled for a political argument over whether to go for 120 Sqn (probably the RAF's choice) or 201 Sqn (as a sop to the RN and the 200-series's RNAS legacy). My bet would be 2 squadrons instead.
5(AC) Sqn is currently in service!
The 'rules' on seniority have been repeatedly broken over many years, either to secure a sensible long-term outcome or to meet senior officers' whims. A good recent example was the transfer of the II(AC) numberplate from the Tornado to Typhoon forces, which broke rules whether you looked at it as a disband - reform (in which case II(AC) should not have been disbanded as it was the most senior Tornado squadron at the time) or as a transfer of number plate away from a squadron which then continues under a different number (which is expressly prohibited). Playing by the rules would have brought 12(B) in as the fifth Typhoon squadron and consigned II(AC) to an uncertain fate at Tornado's retirement, so their airships quite sensibly fudged matters to secure II(AC)'s continuation on a long-term basis.
We'll see something similar with MPA, I'm sure. Seniority is not the only factor and there are guidelines to do with historic association with particular roles. The fact that 120 Sqn was presented with its standard early in recognition of its critical role in the Battle of the Atlantic (putting it in a very select group of sqns) is supposed to count, as well. If we were only going to get one MPA squadron, I would be steeled for a political argument over whether to go for 120 Sqn (probably the RAF's choice) or 201 Sqn (as a sop to the RN and the 200-series's RNAS legacy). My bet would be 2 squadrons instead.
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Lincs
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Where will it got then?
I must admit I have a vested interest here, where will the P-8’s go then? To Waddington (I start work there on Wednesday) with it’s soon to be nice new extended runway or Scotland? 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: A lot closer to the sea
Posts: 665
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Easy,
Pretty sure that the USN have already flight tested a WESCAM fit on P-8 as well as a radar under the forward fuselage for GMTI (as shown in your pic). The USN is looking to turn the P-8 into a true replacement for all the specialist versions of the P-3 so there are all sorts of interesting lines of development that the UK can piggy back onto.
CptDesire,
The P-8 has a weapons bay in the aft fuselage for torpedoes and chutes for sonobuoys.
The UK has had some of its team that were testing Nimrod MRA4 heavily involved with the USN testing and intro to service of P-8 for some years.
Pretty sure that the USN have already flight tested a WESCAM fit on P-8 as well as a radar under the forward fuselage for GMTI (as shown in your pic). The USN is looking to turn the P-8 into a true replacement for all the specialist versions of the P-3 so there are all sorts of interesting lines of development that the UK can piggy back onto.
CptDesire,
The P-8 has a weapons bay in the aft fuselage for torpedoes and chutes for sonobuoys.
The UK has had some of its team that were testing Nimrod MRA4 heavily involved with the USN testing and intro to service of P-8 for some years.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shackman View Post
As much as I am pleased to see the resurrection of a Maritime role () 9 aircraft is hardly sufficient for one squadron, let alone two plus OCU.
Sentry Force had two squadrons on 7 aircraft
Originally Posted by Shackman View Post
As much as I am pleased to see the resurrection of a Maritime role () 9 aircraft is hardly sufficient for one squadron, let alone two plus OCU.
Sentry Force had two squadrons on 7 aircraft
Same for Voyager (9 aircraft, notwithstanding the 5 'surge' platforms)
The Voyager KC3 can refuel the Sentry using the FRU, but as the only A330MRTT variant not to have a boom, the Voyager cannot refuel the RC-135W or the P-8A. Surely such a lack of capability has been addressed?
The sooner they address the boom-on-the-Voyager issue, the better really.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: A lot closer to the sea
Posts: 665
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lots of questions about WSOp training for MPA and yet I'm sure I saw an article recently showing RAF WSOps going through the MFTS Observer training down at RNAS Culdrose. Green shoots of recovery perhaps....
"A lot of good people have worked very hard to get the best capability at the best price and at a delivery speed that is just stunning. Oh, and they did it quietly and professionally. Well done to them."
Wrong. Dead wrong.
