Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Aircrew Forums > Military Aviation
Reload this Page >

Maritime Patrol Capability: The SDSR’s Wolf Whistle

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.

Maritime Patrol Capability: The SDSR’s Wolf Whistle

Old 23rd Nov 2015, 22:48
  #301 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: The US of A, and sometimes Bonnie Scotland
Posts: 549
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Glad rag.

Have you ever seen the weather in summer Florida??!!
betty swallox is offline  
Old 23rd Nov 2015, 22:48
  #302 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 1998
Location: England
Posts: 1,929
Received 7 Likes on 4 Posts
Moreover, it is surely much better that the taxpayers and voters know that decisions costing billions of pounds have not been arrived at lightly or casually, since otherwise, defence spending will become a lower priority in the public mind. The services who explain their requirements and procurement priorities most clearly will be those who gain greatest public support, and politicians will find it easier and more popular to spend money on those programmes.
JN Routine taxpayers actually don't give a f&@k. It is only concerned citizens that do. Sometimes even those can be stiff armed with "we don't comment on......" Maybe we should just be happy that, for once, the best procurement decision has been made, for a multitude of reasons, after analysis of the options, and the right decision has been made without wasting millions on an unnecessary competition!
Roland Pulfrew is offline  
Old 23rd Nov 2015, 22:56
  #303 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 1998
Location: England
Posts: 1,929
Received 7 Likes on 4 Posts
[QUOTE]

My money's on CXX because it's seniority(not necessarily age) is greater than that of 201. 201 is also available as well so there could be 2 squadrons.
Err, no it's not. 201(and 42 and 206) is senior according to AHB; 120, like 617 is a "special case"; being a special case does not make you senior.
Roland Pulfrew is offline  
Old 23rd Nov 2015, 22:57
  #304 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: In the workshop, Prune-whispering.
Age: 71
Posts: 744
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Fedaykin,

I agree with using the American OCU to convert to type, but the serious tactical learning should be carried out on the Squadron in the UK. The UK MPA crews always remained far more tactically flexible during operations. That's also why we used to win the majority of the trophies and hang onto live 'contacts' longer.

With regard to squadron numbers, how about 42 Torpedo Bomber Squadron?
PingDit is offline  
Old 24th Nov 2015, 01:42
  #305 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Far West Wessex
Posts: 2,577
Received 4 Likes on 2 Posts
It would be nice to believe that, RP.

But as it stands, it seems that whoever made this decision did so without access to information about alternatives, other than what they could read in the papers, because they didn't ask.

It also is apparent that unless a deal has been negotiated secretly and absent top-level government approval, the U.K. is now about to say to Boeing: "We've decided to buy the plane, how much does it cost?"

But I'm sure it will work out fine and tickety-ing-boo in the end.
LowObservable is offline  
Old 24th Nov 2015, 05:35
  #306 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Somewhere in England
Age: 60
Posts: 77
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I am told that once a squadron number has been made into a reserve squadron , like 42(R), it cannot become a front-line squadron again. Don't know if it's still the case as I was briefed on this a few years ago during a squadron number plate debate at the MoD.
Random Bloke is offline  
Old 24th Nov 2015, 05:37
  #307 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 2,164
Received 46 Likes on 22 Posts
Trust me, there has been a lot of work.

We are not buying the aircraft from Boeing but from the US Navy instead.
Just This Once... is offline  
Old 24th Nov 2015, 06:05
  #308 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 1998
Location: England
Posts: 1,929
Received 7 Likes on 4 Posts
it seems that whoever made this decision did so without access to information about alternatives, other than what they could read in the papers, because they didn't ask.
Well appearances can be deceptive, and you are wrong in your statement.
Roland Pulfrew is offline  
Old 24th Nov 2015, 06:10
  #309 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 1998
Location: England
Posts: 1,929
Received 7 Likes on 4 Posts
RB

That's not true, what happens is a Reserve squadron, even if still in existence and flying or those at Linton or Valley, stops gaining "seniority". Only frontline squadrons add to their seniority, thus it becomes more difficult for a Reserve squadron to keep its place in the pecking order. Seems a bit harsh to me given that we decided to do away with OCU numbers and replace them with reserve squadrons, and many of the reserve squadrons fly the same frontline type as the frontline, but rules is rules!
Roland Pulfrew is offline  
Old 24th Nov 2015, 07:19
  #310 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Planet Earth
Posts: 2,083
Likes: 0
Received 8 Likes on 7 Posts
Will the P8 have the capability to drop life rafts like the Nimrod or is it too
early to tell ?
stilton is offline  
Old 24th Nov 2015, 07:33
  #311 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 509
Received 21 Likes on 6 Posts
Proone -in other words the Nimrod got an AAR capability when it needed it , as for the chances of P8 needing AAR , never say never. The problem we might have is that a UK eyes only mission (admittedly not that often) would be more difficult. We would of course have exactly the same problem with air seeker.

Phil G -the USN relies on the USAF (and others) for AAR on a regular basis.

Easy -not all Voyagers have been delivered so a boom option on a couple would not be out of the question. Those ac need never be on the CAR so certification would not be a problem.
vascodegama is offline  
Old 24th Nov 2015, 07:53
  #312 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Stratford-upon-Avon
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Great news but...

I am amazed the press hasn't latched on to the fact that this is a massive slap in the face for DPA and BAES. Essentially the Govt has confirmed that this is a capability that have always needed and will always need but which the collective incompetency of the MOD PE/DPA and BAES was unable to deliver despite having 14 years to do so. The prospect of ever building an aeroplane in the UK again seems rather distant though. Nevertheless, this is a time to celebrate the righting of a wrong.
Malin Head and Bar is offline  
Old 24th Nov 2015, 09:20
  #313 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: SALISBURY
Age: 76
Posts: 706
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
206 Squadron

Err, no it's not. 201(and 42 and 206) is senior according to AHB; 120, like 617 is a "special case"; being a special case does not make you senior.
Regardless of which Sqn number will be allocated, please remember that the first Sqn to fly the Poseidon will be 206 Sqn at Boscombe.



fincastle84 is offline  
Old 24th Nov 2015, 09:40
  #314 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Southern Europe
Posts: 5,335
Received 17 Likes on 6 Posts
Excellent news about the new MPA. Essential capability to be restored.

For a moment I thought it might stop everyone going on about it, but, NO. Now it's all about how it wasn't selected properly, what colour (excellent spoof thread, by the way!) and which Squadron number plate it will wear. As for squadron seniority "rules", the number plate chosen will more likely reflect CAS's choice. Who's rules are they? Who's going to tell him he can't have the one he wants? The only reason the same old favourites keep getting recycled is because VSOs once served on them.
Courtney Mil is offline  
Old 24th Nov 2015, 09:58
  #315 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: A lot closer to the sea
Posts: 665
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I suspect that, rather like the RJ and F-35, the RAF colour scheme for the P-8 will reflect the US one with only minimal changes to reflect the UKs ownership. When every penny of the procurement process is scrutinised intensly the cost of changing the paint scheme significantly is simply not worth it.

As regards number plates the rules do not seem hard and fast, whether they should be is debatable. History and tradition are important and the RAF should cling to what it has. Genuine question: why is 120 (or CXX if you prefer) a special case like 617?

I'm surprised the thread hasn't asked the question as to whether we should keep the Poseidon name or change it to something else yet!
WhiteOvies is offline  
Old 24th Nov 2015, 10:06
  #316 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Essex
Posts: 365
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Seems the civilians (even the sympathetic ones) are less excited about this than the RAF or ex-RAF people.

It's a very small number (not even a proper squadron's worth) of maritime patrol aircraft alongside an undertaking not to scrap some perfectly good not-very-old Typhoons that it would have been absolutely mad to scrap anyway.

At one point there were to be 21 Nimrod MRA4 and 138 F-35. 24 of the latter is barely enough to half-fill one of the two carriers, let alone replacing Tornado as well.

If this is the new level at which we all get very very excited, I'm still a bit depressed.

P
Phil_R is offline  
Old 24th Nov 2015, 10:18
  #317 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Courtney - abolutely correct

After years of moaning on here people get the replacement of a high end MPA they've been praying for and instead of cheers all we hear is moaning - even last week it wasn't certain an MPA would figure in the statement

Sure 9 isn't very many but we can always buy extra's later -as we did with the C130, the C-17 etc
Heathrow Harry is offline  
Old 24th Nov 2015, 10:18
  #318 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: ACT, Australia
Age: 62
Posts: 500
Received 11 Likes on 4 Posts
The way ahead surely was to go abroad and buy something we know works.

The trick is now to make sure BWOS don't wheedle their way in and cock the whole thing up.
Skeleton is offline  
Old 24th Nov 2015, 10:19
  #319 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
"whether we should keep the Poseidon name or change it to something else yet!"


Anson II - another civvy aeroplane with short legs that was converted into a useful MPA
Heathrow Harry is offline  
Old 24th Nov 2015, 10:33
  #320 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: SALISBURY
Age: 76
Posts: 706
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
they've been praying for and instead of cheers all we hear is moaning
What a load of b*ll*cks! I, & many others, are absolutely delighted with the purchase of the Poseidon. It has already proved to be an extremely successful MPA & the seedcorn at Jax have shown yet again that our RAF MPA aircrew are still world leaders.

I'm already looking forward to my invite to visit 206 at BDN to have a good look round, followed yet again by a superb reunion lunch!
fincastle84 is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.