MoD to buy 5 x P8 from USA - maybe
 

Well according to one Scottish newspaper the idea is being seriously considered.

Nimrod U-turn blunder set to cost UK hundreds of millions - Herald Scotland | News | Home News

So does this mean that Salmond get his Kipper Fleet?

Using the Indian purchase as a guide, that makes them £162m a copy. Presumably with only 5 airframes there won't be much slack for out of area deployments, but a least it would put us back in the sub hunting game.

But why base the P8 in the North of Jockistan, given that the Iceland/Faroes gap is less of a direct threat these days?

There'd surely be room for them at RAF Waddington? There used to be 40 Vulcans at Waddington, so even with all the E-3Ds, Sentinels and RC-135s, wouldn't there still be space for 5 P8s?

Keeping the whole of Kinloss active for a mere 5 aircraft seems somewhat unlikely.

St Mawgan sounds like an ideal place to base them, especially if they want some reservists to fly them :ok:

Maybe this is just what should have happened all along...Nimrod AEW / Sentry should have taught us a lesson!

If, and it's a very big if, this does go ahead there are many issues to discuss, no doubt most of which will soon be raised by ex-maritime aircrew. However, just to start the ball rolling until they chip in:




5 aircraft won't be enough to fulfill any overseas deployments as well as providing essential UK coverage - given that no doubt at least 1 will always be in long term maintenence. No doubt a "we'll deploy 1 on exercise, but it is always subject to short notice recall" policy will be adopted so they can show their face in some parts of the world.

They won't be based in Scotland.

The P-8 and MRA4 don't/didn't have the same capabilities (a thread on its own no doubt).

Given the current shortage in the Defence budget, with extra cuts looming, what goes in order to be able to afford this extra expenditure? Or is this yet another, "when the economy picks up in 2015 and the Defence budget increases again" aspiration that will probably never be fulfilled?

If we ordered them tomorrow (see point above) they probably wouldn't arrive for at least 3-5 years.

Who do you plan on manning them, given that many of your ex-maritime aircrew will have left or moved on to other fleets by then? In addition, who would volunteer for, or perhaps more importantly chose to remain long term and gather experience on, a fleet that they know has already been scrapped once when money got tight.

etc

etc

etc






The list goes on and on!

It will be Yeovilton.

Five LRMP aircraft?

You would need four aircraft to maintain 24-hour coverage on a major SAR incident at 15 West.

Fifteen aircraft would be my minimum.

Actually Clockwork, I think you may be spot on - or Culdrose.

The RAF has the 'seedcorn' maritime crews saved from the chop a while back, carefully dispersed with a number of friendly nations. 5 aircraft will not get us back the capability but it will enable us to gets the boats in and out without being molested.

More of an adjunct to the strategic deterrent than a serious recovery of the Nimrod capability with the potential to share effort with the US Navy P8 and others.

But why base the P8 in the North of Jockistan, given that the Iceland/Faroes gap is less of a direct threat these days?

There'd surely be room for them at RAF Waddington? There used to be 40 Vulcans at Waddington, so even with all the E-3Ds, Sentinels and RC-135s, wouldn't there still be space for 5 P8s?

Keeping the whole of Kinloss active for a mere 5 aircraft seems somewhat unlikely.

Why assume RAF?

Was it not the RAF who recently gave up a MPA capability?

Suspect more likely to be Culdrose. Having successfully knifed the Maritime force in the back to get their carriers, the Navy suddenly realised their problem when deployed against a possible threat in the Med. What better idea than for the RN to restart Fixed wing than with a few MR aircraft of their own so as to use all those ASW observers languishing at Culdrose waiting for a serviceable Merlin. After all, what could the possible difference be between the two?

(Edited to add it wasn't the RAF that 'volunteered' to give up MPA.)

Count me in as well ;)

Really? Are you on drugs or something? The First Sea Lord appeared to be against losing Nimrod here, and particularly against the axing of MRA4 here.

If your question is who killed Nimrod, then you perhaps ought to look elsewhere.

My first post on here.

Does anyone know what happened to the scrapped Nimrods mission systems? What is the likelyhood of any of that kit being fitted to these P-8's?

What do you care? You know the P8 isn't a harrier right?

Sounds like they are discussing provision of a capability purely to protect the duty Bombers in transit and thats about it. Once a system is in service then more can come in if required.

Jockistan eh, I take it this confirms England as Pakistan West these days!:ok:

FB:)

WEBF,

I'd not normally rise to comment on your posts, but you got me with this one:

But not against losing Nimrod enough to lose other Naval Service capabilities to fund the MRA4, whether in FAA service or not.

S41