BGG I share your sentiments re #199
Had we not done what we did in 82 the Papa would probably have been having lunch last week with Cameron rather than the GILF Miss Piggy.
I am certainly not defending compromises in airworthiness. Never have in my 30+ years. I think others have been more vocal on here about that. Tuc etc. Need to strike the ballance between CTP (Cost Time and Performance not the Chief Test Pilot!) Without any cash we will not be getting any performance at all soon. I am pleased to see safety has moved towards the top of the agenda unlike the early Cowan days of DLO.

Due to the economic situation getting worse.

The UK will have to rely on what it has.

Sentinel R1
Shadow R1
MQ 9 Reaper.
Hercules(modified)

Perhaps this is the most likely last minute measure when needed:-

Some of the equipment "can be installed at short notice", said Marshall.

Lockheed Martin's C-130J Super Hercules could be adapted for an entirely new mission, if UK company Marshall Aerospace gets its way.

Eyeing an opportunity raised by the UK's cancellation of its BAE Systems Nimrod MRA4 maritime patrol aircraft programme late last year, the maintenance, repair and overhaul specialist is offering to adapt several Royal Air Force tactical transports for the mission.

"Marshall Aerospace is proposing to fill key elements of the maritime patrol function by using existing C-130 assets, combined with equipment already developed by the Ministry of Defence," the company said.

PARIS: Marshall Aerospace offers C-130J maritime patrol conversion

Marshall's proposal explained:-
The link only seems to work with cut and paste to your browser, and you will have to add the word blog spot.co.uk after the word commentary and remove the space after the word blog
http://ukarmedforcescommentary./2011...air-force.html

The likeliest and cheapest option.

Probably when the A400M transports start to be delivered.

http://i1355.photobucket.com/albums/...ps0af4dd0c.jpg

In terms of C130 conversions, Marshall offered to the UK MOD, post SDSR, the possibility of converting some of the Js into Marittime Patrol Aircrafts as cost-effective replacement for the binned Nimrod MRA4.
The proposal was received well, but does not seem to be a favorite MOD solution in the assessment of possible solutions to the gap in patrol capability. The reasons are probably multiple: the nightmare of the “cost-effective” upgrade to Nimrod airframes is still a fresh and painful memory, and the fear of ending up in another disaster must be high.
Again, the A400 is late, and the C130K retirement is in perfect time, which means that the C130Js are being worked real hard. Unite this consideration with the well known problem of faster-than-expected aging and stressing of the C130J wing (a report on the conditions of the fleet is expected in 2013) and with the cost that the correction of this issue would imply (at least 3 million pounds per each plane, from 2008 NAO figures relating to the older C130K), and you have another cause of hesitation.
The issue of wings fatigue, with the necessary programme of wing replacement and strengthening, figured as part of the decision-making in the SDSR: to avoid the expense, it was decided to retire the C130J fleet by 2022, instead of operating it in addition to the A400 one, with OSD 2030, as was earlier planned.
The C130J maritime patrol would be attractive only if genuinely cost-effective, but the certainty of it being cheap and merry does not appear to be there.*
On the side of advantages, the Marshall offer would use airframes already in the RAF inventory, with training and logistics already well established and very effective. It would use an airplane which costs just around 12.000 pounds per flying hour, remarkably cost-effective. And it would tap into a global logistics and support system destined to last for many more years.

The Marshall proposal uses pallets that are rolled into the cargo bay and wired in, with five tactical workstations and other role-specific kit. ESM pods are fitted in the tail and at the extremity of the wings, and a EO/IR turret, presumably the same once planned for Nimrod, mounted under the nose of the plane. The biggest modification comes in the form of a new rear cargo ramp, which is changed entirely to accommodate an installation for the Searchwater 2000 radar that was destined to the Nimrod MRA4, plus two sonobouys launcher systems. A graphic I’ve found actually shows the C130J fitted with the Searchwater 2000AEW, weird choice since that is the Sea King MK7 radar, not adequate for the MPA role.

Thanks to LM’s own proposals, this concept could be improved. For example, there is no evident provision for carriage and employment of weapons in the Marshal proposal, and the extent of modification required appears quite significant.
It would be probably more effective and easier to adopt some of LM’s kit and ideas: for example, the EO/IR turret and search radar integrated in the fuel tank under the left wing (eventually with a second radar-only kit in the fuel tank on the right wing, if necessary to provide 360° coverage) would allow the rear ramp to be maintained, and reduce significantly the rebuilding necessary.
The rear-ramp could then be fitted with a weapons rack, on the style of that employed by the Harvest Hawk for Griffin missiles, loaded however with Stingray torpedoes and sonobuoys.
Ideally, a further two wing pylons would be added to the airframe, to enable the carriage of Anti-Ship missiles as well, since the Nimrod was the only remaining plane in inventory with this capability, and anti-shipping attack is now part of the huge bleeding gap. However, the addition of two pylons would be subject to strict evaluation of its cost and complexity.

Such an arrangement, with the Tactical Workstations being mounted on RoRo pallet, and the weapons rack being mobile, would allow rapid rerolling of the retained C130Js to Tactical Transport, and/or, with the addition of Harvest Hawk modules, the transformation into gunships, at very low cost.

Worth at least thinking a little bit about it, no? The cost of buying 5 to 6 Poseidon P8 MPAs hovers at around 1 billion pounds of cost, so there’s a margin of maneuver: if the conversion of 9 or 12 C130Js could be done with a similar cost, it would become advantageous, also due to the logistics, training and support being already available. The cost per flying hour of the C130 will also be considerably lower than that of P8.

Stuffy
http://www.lockheedmartin.com/conten...e_Aircraft.pdf

All this was discussed at the HOC in 2011.

Great picture of the C17 dropping a boat on the final slide. Reminds me of my old unit motto (Lead and Mislead)

We will be able to do all these things from the A400M if a requirement is properly staffed.

In no way is there is an appetite to design and run a UK only platform with the increased costs involved, suck it up you will run the seppo P-8a

If the Wedgetail/P-8 UAASI and associated plumbing can meet RAAF airworthiness requirements, then I'm sure the UK will be a formality.

With the 'back end' plumbing already taken care of, can anyone give us an idea of what would be the engineering implications of adapting it to a UK type probe for hose & drogue ops?

I like the C-130J MPA proposal myself...makes a lot of sense. The airframe has already been proven to be able to handle significant internal and external mods...aka MC/HC/WC/AC-130J

That boat drop system is British.
I remember the look on the faces on the US Navy SEALS when they came to look at it. They had spent a huge amount of dollars and still didn't have a workable system, only to be shown the UK's latest boat platform which I told them was a replacement for a smaller one that had been in service for several years.

If the PT is reading this, I'm still waiting for the commision for that sale.;)

the C130 is twice as small/ light as a A400M so it seems less of a waste.

If the existing C130J's can be converted (at guaranteed significantly lower costs then a brand new platform!) it seems an acceptable multi role MPA platform.. it can be refuelled and can even carry a 30mm

new Boat drop thread
 

VX, Save drift on here about to start a new thread on boat dropping

Drag

Why make an unproven modification to the P8? Why not just get a boom on the tails of the A330's. That is a proven fitment - and will allow better interoperability as well as being able to re-fuel the Rivet Joint aircraft you guys are buying and the C-17's you already have.

Mk 1

Post nos 113 & 114 on page 6

The Old Fat One
 

So, where's that solution mate? You did say that none of us have the first idea (or words to that effect). You seem to have oodles of experience in this area, what, when and how much for the solution.

Roland:

Post nos 113 & 114 on page 6

Yes, I know it's been covered before. But question for you - where is the greater risk in cost and time? Renegotiating a contract for a proven existing design (that would also add the ability to refuel C-17 and Rivet Joint as well as other coalition assets), or designing, and modifying an airframe that was not designed to use a probe?

It's not rocket surgery (to paraphrase the could-a-beens).

Mk 1 & BGG

Well off topic - but actually it is "rocket surgery" in this case. My info is a few years old now, so I am sure someone will have more up-to-date knowledge.

- The UK are funding FSTA/Voyager through PFI.
- The aim is to have the assets "off the balance sheet" and thereby exempt from smoke-and-mirrors HMT/Accountant buffoonery (cost of capital/depreciation charges/resource accounting and budgeting) etc etc.
- To be off balance sheet the owners need to be able to use their assets for "third party revenue" generation.
- No airline renting spare FSTAs is likely to want to pay to cart the weight of a boom around or the weight of the additional airframe structure associated with the boom mounting (even though they keep falling off at the moment :E) when that weight could be used to charge for additional baggage allowance for the SLF.

Renegotiating the PFI contract to include booms on a number of "our" jets would cost £££££££ and I would be very surprised if anyone in DE&S has even the remotest guess as to how many £s that would be. Once boom equipped they are unlikely to be able to be used for 3PR, and therefore on balance sheet, and therefore attract a whole new set of budgetry issues in the newly balanced MOD budget.

As already mentioned in this thread - when FSTA was in its infancy there was no UK requirement for boom tanking - even though the AAR experts said it should be included for operational/interoperability reasons. It is the same reason why "our" FSTAs do not have the ability to receive fuel - an even bigger error on the part of the "scrutineers" and the IPT if you ask me - it was assessed that with an A330s fuel load you would never need tanker-tanker AAR. :{

Roland, I do follow your drift but why would it be the IPT who should identify the trade offs in capability? Who really makes decisions about which whistles and bells to include? I always thought it was the guys in the DEC who did this complicated stuff!

Then the politicians come along and say, thanks for that but we have a better idea

BGG, our mistake is we are using LOGIC - and as we all know, that will never do when it comes to defense!

Roland, and this is just the start of the problems that will arise when you put civvies into the system. I remember back in the day when I was a platoon commander with the ADF embracing "civillianisation" of many formerly service roles writing a paper on why it was a bad idea. The examples I quoted showing that there were substantial limitations were from the UK MoD where you guys had initially jumped into the civvies doing base functions in the 1970's.

Why would a subaltern otherwise dedicated to chasing skirt and pickling his liver be writing a paper on the topic for a defense publication? About 2 months after the civvies moved into the messes on Holsworthy barracks were were plodding around the Close Training Area in our 1960's vintage M113's when one of our buckets broke an idler wheel. Of course murphy's law dictates that this only happens at the end of a day when returning to the sheds, in mid winter when it's drizzling with rain. Normally, you would radio Range Control, and ask them to ring the mess and ensure the Sgt Catering knows to keep some of his guys back as we would be late for dinner. We passed message as per SOP.

Finally dragged ourselves in freezing cold, muddy and wet looking for a nice hot feed... Only to find the civvies had knocked off (as per their contract), but they had left us sandwiches, and a popper juice box each. Needless to say nobody was particularly impressed as contrary to popular opinion on the military, the food in the diggers mess was usually very good.

When I addressed this with my OC, he suggested the paper (me and my big mouth).

We (the ADF) were finding the same sorts of problems that you UK MoD bods found 10 -15 years earlier. Whatever imaginary cost savings that were achieved were blown out the window by the reduction in flexibility by the civvies and the reduction in morale in the troops (probably contributing to retention issues). The classic case of not examining the bigger picture.

Later after I had pulled the pin, I heard that the ADF found they had to reinstate a mustering they had gotten rid of due to civillianisation - the job as steward. Apart from the mundane jobs in messes, these guys were the experts on running canteens - when the ADF deployed into East Timor in 1995, they had to offer absurd amounts of money to contarctors to operate the canteens, and they had recruitment issues as well as issues with costs etc. So the ADF bit the bullet and reinstated that position.

Our RAN patrol boats are operated with RAN crews, but all of the maintenance etc is handled by a contractor that was supposed to supply x hours of seagoing hours per year. Given the dash by refugees from halfway across the globe to all come to Australia at once in matchwood boats, the patrol force is doing double time and has been for some years. The contract didn't cover this and so quite a few boats are having availability issues. The RAN engineers crewing the boats are not permitted to fix anything(!!!), they just monitor and run the equipment. If it breaks down, that is the contractors responsibility to fix (and naval are prohibited from doing anything but whatever is required in an emergency to keep the hull afloat). Preventative maintenance that would add to the reliability of the boats is out the window, so too is availability. Brilliant.

And now Roland, as you have pointed out the tail again appears to be wagging the dog (thanks BGG). Civillianising the tanker force, whilst a wonderful initiative to some shinybum in Whitehall, looks to have caused a stack of expensive problems even before it has entered service. Classic own goal. As they say, people don't learn from history.

Rant off.

So many valuable lessons in that post Mk1. Difficult to see anyone disagreeing with any of that.

Another thread has just started on the imminent end of the RAF Tornado, which got me thinking. Once the Tornado has gone, what will be left in the RAF inventory that still refuels through a probe?

• Typhoon - obviously
• E3D - both probe/drogue and boom/receptacle, but does it better through the latter
• Hercules - probe (limited life)
• A400M - probe
• VC10 - going v soon
• C17 - boom/receptacle only
• Rivet Joint
• boom/receptacle only

I left out the aircraft that don't do AAR.

Looks like we brought either the wrong tanker or the right tanker to the wrong spec.

S-D