Maritime Patrol Capability: The SDSR’s Wolf Whistle
CoffmanStarter,
The UK MR force operated without AAR for most of its life, and Nimrod MR only acquired AAR capability because of the Falklands. Why is it a must have now?
The UK MR force operated without AAR for most of its life, and Nimrod MR only acquired AAR capability because of the Falklands. Why is it a must have now?
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: The Sunny Side
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The UK MR force operated without AAR for most of its life, and Nimrod MR only acquired AAR capability because of the Falklands. Why is it a must have now?
S-D
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Sussex
Age: 66
Posts: 371
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CoffmanStarter,
It makes some sense that the P8 cannot do AAR. It is a Navy Asset when in US service, as far as I am aware the USN and USMC do not have any boom equipped tankers.
It would seem strange to me if the USN wanted to be able to AAR the P8 that they would want to rely on the USAF.
I cannot see the UK needing to do longer missions than the USN will no doubt be doing over the Pacific.
It makes some sense that the P8 cannot do AAR. It is a Navy Asset when in US service, as far as I am aware the USN and USMC do not have any boom equipped tankers.
It would seem strange to me if the USN wanted to be able to AAR the P8 that they would want to rely on the USAF.
I cannot see the UK needing to do longer missions than the USN will no doubt be doing over the Pacific.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Somewhere in England
Age: 60
Posts: 77
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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. Mind you, could 201 survive without the bloody Sunderland float?
Easy Street,
It may be in existence NOW, but how significant is the fact that in the SDSR document each and every ISTSR asset at Waddington has a specific extended OSD of either "2030/at least 2030/2035" except Sentinel which is "extended into the next decade?
That would mean it surviving until P-8 enters service, so maybe the second squadron? 5 Squadrons seniority would trump everybody else's.
Seniority only comes into play when a squadron number is resurrected, it has no input or affect on disbandment decisions.
It may be in existence NOW, but how significant is the fact that in the SDSR document each and every ISTSR asset at Waddington has a specific extended OSD of either "2030/at least 2030/2035" except Sentinel which is "extended into the next decade?
That would mean it surviving until P-8 enters service, so maybe the second squadron? 5 Squadrons seniority would trump everybody else's.
Seniority only comes into play when a squadron number is resurrected, it has no input or affect on disbandment decisions.
salad-dodger,
Charming!
Seeing as the USN do not routinely utilise AAR for the P-8 fleet, their P-3 fleet is not AAR equipped, I think my point is perfectly valid and the USN answer would be rather obvious!
Charming!
Seeing as the USN do not routinely utilise AAR for the P-8 fleet, their P-3 fleet is not AAR equipped, I think my point is perfectly valid and the USN answer would be rather obvious!
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Right here, right now
Posts: 270
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CoffmanStarter,
It makes some sense that the P8 cannot do AAR. It is a Navy Asset when in US service, as far as I am aware the USN and USMC do not have any boom equipped tankers.
It would seem strange to me if the USN wanted to be able to AAR the P8 that they would want to rely on the USAF.
I cannot see the UK needing to do longer missions than the USN will no doubt be doing over the Pacific.
It makes some sense that the P8 cannot do AAR. It is a Navy Asset when in US service, as far as I am aware the USN and USMC do not have any boom equipped tankers.
It would seem strange to me if the USN wanted to be able to AAR the P8 that they would want to rely on the USAF.
I cannot see the UK needing to do longer missions than the USN will no doubt be doing over the Pacific.
Davef68,
True, but so is the IOC of Poseidon in the RAF!
True, but so is the IOC of Poseidon in the RAF!
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: The Whyte House
Age: 95
Posts: 1,966
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sentry Force had two squadrons on 7 aircraft
Might be a case for 2 x P-8 Sqns, but I wouldn't expect a second to appear until all nine a/c are delivered, and only then when approaching a state of being 'fully manned'. 9 x a/c, ~9 crew, 2(?) crew per frame: circa 160 people + 'hangers on'*, call it 200 all-in.
*that isn't meant to sound derogatory!
As with most Govts, money already spent is of no issue to them (except to bash the previous one with) - only how much is this going to cost us? With MRA4, no-one could tell them.
Not so. secy of state Hammond -
Pretty honest (for a politician) although missing the point that MOD staffers had been saying the same for nigh on 20 years. Probably because it was a Tory government at the time.
"It is a bit rich for him to say that the gap in maritime patrol cover was created by this Government. What this Government did was to recognise the reality that his Government had been investing in aircraft that would never fly, would never be certified and would never be able to deliver a capability."
The P-8 is indubitably equipped for boom refuelling, down to a matt-painted panel above the windshield to keep the sun out of the operator's eyes.
Exactly why, I don't know. The kit had been developed and paid for under Wedgetail and it may have been considered valuable for certain missions and heavy/high-drag configurations (such as carrying a
ing big radar around).
Also, it's interesting that the MoD graphic indicates (lower right) that the P-8A will be tasked with counter-volcano operations.
Exactly why, I don't know. The kit had been developed and paid for under Wedgetail and it may have been considered valuable for certain missions and heavy/high-drag configurations (such as carrying a
ing big radar around).Also, it's interesting that the MoD graphic indicates (lower right) that the P-8A will be tasked with counter-volcano operations.
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: north of barlu
Posts: 6,207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As a civilian who was very worried by the security issues raised by the lack of an MPA capability I don't give a tinkers curse about the badge that goes on the side of the aircraft, I am just very pleased that the UK is getting back a capability that it should never have let slip.
My hope is that the requirement for these aircraft is so urgent that we can get a few of them from the production intended for the US Navy, this would have the advantage of quick delivery times and BAe not being involved in a high cost long delivery time gold plating.
My hope is that the requirement for these aircraft is so urgent that we can get a few of them from the production intended for the US Navy, this would have the advantage of quick delivery times and BAe not being involved in a high cost long delivery time gold plating.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: The Whyte House
Age: 95
Posts: 1,966
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One wonders how feasible fitting a probe onto a P-8 would be. Well, I know it's feasible - anything is feasible, but at what cost? A reasonable job was done on the E-3D, after all. No idea how much it cost in shekels/time but I believe it used common plumbing from behind the 'AAR vagina' rearwards.
Also wonder whether a 'guided sonobuoy' delivery system is in the works. There's certainly a patent out there for such a system, as to how far development has progressed I know not.
Also wonder whether a 'guided sonobuoy' delivery system is in the works. There's certainly a patent out there for such a system, as to how far development has progressed I know not.