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

RAF Poseidon - Not too long to wait?

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.

RAF Poseidon - Not too long to wait?

Old 8th Aug 2020, 15:58
  #361 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Quite near 'An aerodrome somewhere in England'
Posts: 25,917
So the trick would be to obtain a figure from EADS (preferably through EFW Dresden, not Getafe) for the cost of converting 4 x A310MRTT to include a boom kit, then ask AirTanker how they would meet the requirement using Voyager?
BEagle is offline  
Old 8th Aug 2020, 16:35
  #362 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: UK
Posts: 155
P-3, E-7 and RJ all have intercontinental range. Spending billions on a tanker facility that might possibly be used once in a blue moon hardly seems sensible when there are more immediate needs.
Video Mixdown is offline  
Old 8th Aug 2020, 17:47
  #363 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: London/Oxford/New York
Posts: 2,505
Originally Posted by BEagle View Post
So the trick would be to obtain a figure from EADS (preferably through EFW Dresden, not Getafe) for the cost of converting 4 x A310MRTT to include a boom kit, then ask AirTanker how they would meet the requirement using Voyager?
BEagle,
To which Air Tanker would politely reply that it isn't in the requirement, the requirement that YOU wrote, YOU specified, nor is it in the contract that YOU wrote and YOU presented to us to sign after a commercial competition. (just for the sake of clarity here YOU refers to the MoD, NOT BEagle!)
pr00ne is offline  
Old 8th Aug 2020, 18:20
  #364 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 628
Originally Posted by Video Mixdown View Post
P-3, E-7 and RJ all have intercontinental range. Spending billions on a tanker facility that might possibly be used once in a blue moon hardly seems sensible when there are more immediate needs.
Clearly you mean the Poseidon MRA1 rather than P-3 however, your comments merely show how ignorant you are of the operations conducted by the platforms mentioned. Have you even the remotest knowledge of how much tanking RJ and the E3 have conducted over the last many years?
Party Animal is offline  
Old 9th Aug 2020, 02:14
  #365 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: NSW
Posts: 77
Originally Posted by Video Mixdown View Post
P-3, E-7 and RJ all have intercontinental range. Spending billions on a tanker facility that might possibly be used once in a blue moon hardly seems sensible when there are more immediate needs.

THE RAAF in-flight refuels our E-7's, C-17's and P-8's [plus our F-35's/F/A-18's/EA-18's and most USAF/USN/ aircraft] with our KC-30A's both boom and drogue equipped.
TBM-Legend is offline  
Old 9th Aug 2020, 06:48
  #366 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Quite near 'An aerodrome somewhere in England'
Posts: 25,917
pr00ne, fine - since boom AAR is outside the contract the MoD has with AirTanker, then a new contract to provide boom AAR should be put out to tender.

Or preferably, should be entirely in-house and well away from the ridiculously 1M+ per day absurdity of a PFI.
BEagle is offline  
Old 9th Aug 2020, 12:37
  #367 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: London/Oxford/New York
Posts: 2,505
Originally Posted by BEagle View Post
pr00ne, fine - since boom AAR is outside the contract the MoD has with AirTanker, then a new contract to provide boom AAR should be put out to tender.

Or preferably, should be entirely in-house and well away from the ridiculously 1M+ per day absurdity of a PFI.
BEagle,

All well and good, with the small exception of the 'exclusion provision of AAR to the RAF' clause being in the contract, as specified, required and written by the MoD. As to that 1m per day absurdity, just how much do you think provision of 14 aircraft, training, maintenance and servicing, upgrades, a new hangar and squadron accommodation, simulator and airworthiness provision would have actually cost the MoD? It would have been a fortune and simply was not available at the time as up front money.
pr00ne is offline  
Old 9th Aug 2020, 13:08
  #368 (permalink)  
MG
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Hampshire
Posts: 539
I realise that we’ve drifted towards AAR (are there any threads that don’t drift?) but how long has the Airtanker PFI got left to run? Curiosity, nothing else.
MG is offline  
Old 9th Aug 2020, 13:13
  #369 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Leicestershire, England
Posts: 1,170
Originally Posted by MG View Post
I realise that we’ve drifted towards AAR (are there any threads that don’t drift?) but how long has the Airtanker PFI got left to run? Curiosity, nothing else.
I think the contract was for 27 years, signed in 2008(?) and it started providing services in 2013(?), so 2040 ish depending on when the contract commenced?

-RP
Rhino power is offline  
Old 9th Aug 2020, 19:40
  #370 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Quite near 'An aerodrome somewhere in England'
Posts: 25,917
As to that 1m per day absurdity, just how much do you think provision of 14 aircraft, training, maintenance and servicing, upgrades, a new hangar and squadron accommodation, simulator and airworthiness provision would have actually cost the MoD? It would have been a fortune and simply was not available at the time as up front money.
Well, pr00ne, the MoD seemed to have found the money for the same shopping list for the 22 x A400M at Brize.......

As it's physically impossible for the current Voyager to conduct boom AAR, notwithstanding the contract clause what would be your solution to provide P-7, P-8A, Rivet Joint, C-17 and potentially F-35A with AAR support?
BEagle is offline  
Old 10th Aug 2020, 09:48
  #371 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: UK
Posts: 155
Not P-8, but still maritime patrol of a sort, an A400M looking for dinghys this morning.


Video Mixdown is offline  
Old 10th Aug 2020, 10:28
  #372 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: Waddington
Posts: 18
Apparently it's an RAF Atlas 'Surveillence' aircraft......I take it that its surveillance capability consists of the Mk1 eyeball and weather radar? I spent many happy hours flying around the FIFPZ in the C130K undertaking maritime reconnaissance with a dodgy E290 and occasionally a working Orange Crop.
Tedderboy is offline  
Old 22nd Aug 2020, 00:15
  #373 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Arizona, USA
Posts: 1,131
RAF P-8A #3 & #4 on the production line now:

RAFEngO74to09 is offline  
Old 22nd Aug 2020, 14:01
  #374 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: The Whyte House
Age: 92
Posts: 1,939
Originally Posted by Video Mixdown View Post
P-3, E-7 and RJ all have intercontinental range. Spending billions on a tanker facility that might possibly be used once in a blue moon hardly seems sensible when there are more immediate needs.
The ideal scenario for RJ is to tank on every single mission sortie. I'm not sure whether that constitutes a blue moon though.
Willard Whyte is offline  
Old 22nd Aug 2020, 14:30
  #375 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: cardboard box in't middle of t'road
Posts: 740
Originally Posted by ORAC View Post
https://www.raf.mod.uk/news/articles...ssian-warship/

First Operation for RAF Poseidon tracking Russian Warship




On Monday morning, a P-8A Poseidon from 120 Squadron based at Kinloss Barracks demonstrated its speed and readiness by completing a prolonged overwatch of the Russian warship, Vasily Bykov, as it passed through the North Sea......
A lot of fire power for a patrol boat.
Based at Kinloss Barracks?
Aren't 120 Based at Lossiemouth?
Or have they moved back to RAF Kinloss full time?
GG
Surplus is offline  
Old 22nd Aug 2020, 15:10
  #376 (permalink)  
Green Flash
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Lossie's runway is being re-laid so the P8's and some Typhoons are operating from ISK. The Q is tempo Leuchars.
 
Old 11th Sep 2020, 12:02
  #377 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Next to Ross and Demelza
Age: 50
Posts: 1,151
I note that the fifth Poseidon is to be named Fulmar after the RNAS name for Lossie. So far we've had Pride of Moray, City of Elgin and Terence Bulloch DSO* DFC*. The first two are a bit meh, I heartily agree with the third and now... Fulmar. Really?

Have they run out of ideas, or are they just coming up with random thoughts. It looks like the first musings at a brainstorming session. At least the VC10s all had the names of RAF Victoria Cross awardees. This is just silly.

If they wanted maritime stations, why not Kinloss, St. Mawgan, St. Eval, Ballykelly, Mount Batten, Pembroke Dock, Calshot, Banff and Wick?
Martin the Martian is offline  
Old 11th Sep 2020, 16:55
  #378 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Bed
Posts: 232
St Nicola of Sturgeon?
sangiovese. is offline  
Old 11th Sep 2020, 22:32
  #379 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2020
Location: Hampshire
Posts: 329
Surely when 1 Squadron RNAS 201 Squadron RAF reforms it should have an aircraft named after Sub-Lt R A J Warneford VC in the spirit of jointery that led to Fulmar. Mind you his record on indiscipline might count aganst him.
SLXOwft is offline  
Old 12th Sep 2020, 08:45
  #380 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: The US of A, and sometimes Bonnie Scotland
Posts: 548
Martin, a bit meh?! How rude. Pride of Moray is an excellent name, IMHO, of course.
betty swallox is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright 2021 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.