"It's probably best if we all live in the reality of the present. The RAF getting an MPA again is probably (never say never) not going to happen.

As I've said before, I would love to be wrong."

concur, sadly :(

The Old Fat One, the odds of the UK R&D'ing an orphan platform is zero, the yanks sunk $8 billion R&D into the p-8a and uk simply don't have the money or the will after the last effort.
Suck it up, like Aussies, you will run the p-8a with a few bams

It's not a case of "sucking it up".

That implies an element of negativity.

We are where we are, and the time for constantly going on about it is gone.

Would I have loved to see MRA 4 on the pan at Kinloss? Yes!! But, that didn't happen for many many reasons, and it's unhealthy to bang on about it forever.

I don't wish to speculate about P-8, because, frankly, that may be premature. However, it may be an option for the UK, and not simply a case of sucking it up.

As for the RN Operating a New MPA platform of any sort...

I don't believe it would be in the RN's interest to own and operate such a beast outright. the Manning would be a nightmare with respect to training sea time. It would end up that some of the Ground crew would never go to sea and that has never been an option that the RN AFAIKR.
The best option would be that the RN own the Budget and control of Asset comes under FONA down to squadron Commander. The WSO's are provided by The RN and Groundcrew and some Pilots provided by the RAF.

Just my opinion...

well it's going to be hard running a fleet without MPA and the 'suck it up' referred to a sole UK solution which isn't going to happen for the 2 reasons I've given, $8 billion R&D and fingers already burnt

better to buy 15 x p-8a at $200 million each, which is $3 billion plus pieces and put the other billions into upgrades

That I agree with!

Well there might be other options:

1. Boeing and the UK Mil have a very good experience of a lease-purchase arrangement - lease small numbers of P8s with a view to buying more later when "we" have some money available.
2. Do we know how sequestration in the States is going to effect the delivery timescales of the USN P8s? - might release P8s from the production line for lease/purchase to allow the USN to spread their buy till they have more money available
3. Something smaller but which offers a more flexible platform ie the Casa 295 (already an operational MPA, can do all of the roles required of a MMA + troop transport, para, cargo, short-rough field etc etc) and looking to the future could provide an AEW varient to replace E3.

On the latter option (and I am not a fan/employee) but you could see a fleet of aircraft doing the full MPA role, pick up the comms fleet role, elements of the tac AT role as a successor to the 130J, a Shadow replacement and possibly in the future as an E3 replacement. A single platform doing all of these roles - think of the support costs savings.

Where the defence budget is magically going to find the necessary wonga to buy/rent/hire/equity share/steal/extort some shiny new MPAs is something of a mystery to me, but allowing for that possibility may I point out a somewhat bigger problem...

Binning the kipper fleet allowed the RAF to meet it's manpower reduction of 3500 posts, of which circa 1500-2000 would have been maritime-related.

Irrespective of who operates it, we is gonna need most of these posts re-established to regain the capability. And that is going to cost a bucket load of moolah...every year.

Hmm, I think your figures are a long way out; I would suggest less than a third of that number and many of them have gone to other roles.

Roland - re your post #96, I think that is the best and most accurate reflection of the options and possible outcomes on this thread.

For what it is worth I think option 3 is probably the bookies favourite.

The MMA concept makes perfect financial sense but most of the "Other Govt Dept stuff" is not in a URD and not in DSD13 therefore there is a limited formal Defence requirement for it.

To get this off the ground one of the three (of the four who care) commands would have to give up their envelope to fund it or get together in a gang and "agree" to jointly fund it.

I am not getting that joined up feel.....:bored:

BloodyHound Loose, (Expiry time?) http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/sr...lies/wink2.gif, agree with your post, but the cheap and cheerful option 3 has a lot of compromises that greatly limit it's effectiveness. The main purpose of a carrier is to project power globally, I have spent many hours, and from your pprune name I suspect so have you, in LRMPA's keeping an eye on them whilst they transit the GOO and at other times. Whilst they usually have plenty of subs to look after them, we might not be in the same position. IMHO, if we can't afford to look after them whilst they project power overseas, the safest place for them would be tied up alongside. How would you balance the risk of losing a carrier, your only carrier, and the thousands of people on board?

nice point Surplus.

It is one of the more ironic (or perhaps moronic) elements of the whole MPA cancellation saga, that the decision took place pretty much at the same time as the decision to continue building (but not necessarily equipping) aircraft carriers.

From the perspective of even the most intellectually challenged noob maritime siggie, it would seem the decisions were made on the back of a fag packet towards the end of an especially heavy happy hour in the MOD.

PS

Roland,

You mixing up actual people with LUEs. Think about it.

Nope...Seedcorn has a natural shelf life, and it's not far in the future. Since Seedcorn is "seeded" with operational combat ready MPA aircrew (which we don't have anymore) it's shelf life kicks in at the tourex of the current shift.

No doubt there will be room for the odd extension or two if the talking heads are still vacillating about the future MPA capability, but expect it to fold pretty quick not least because the individuals concerned will be thinking "nice gig, bwtf is my life/career going?".

Of course it may mutate into something else, but then it won't be Seedcorn any more will it?

S-3 Viking anyone?

6 hrs plus doing ASW strapped to a bang seat. No thanks, I enjoy DCS, a cup of tea and proper toilet!

On the ITN 22:00 news on AQ threat to UK and US in Yemen. Reporter states all staff left and camera pans to the sky as he explains the drones remain, looked remarkably like a P-3... :{

Once described as a machine designed perfectly to work 4 men to near exhaustion in 6 hours...

I started this thread. with a couple of photos of a flying model wot i built, as a light hearted , tongue in cheek spoof. I come back from my hols to to find it hijacked by the serious brigade. Surely there are enough "bring back the Nimrod or something" threads running already.
Time to close this one I think.

...or maybe not??!!

It's not going to change . . . . I've logged over five and a half thousand hours on P3s (B and C models), and I've seen the inside of these new P8s, and read quite a lot about their performance, and importantly, I've seen and been in the flight deck.
There is absolutely no way this new P8 is going to come anywhere near the established space and flight comfort of the P3, not even taking into account the very 'squeezy' flight deck for the long, very long missions this airplane will be asked to do.
Long missions of course, only if they don't try and fly it at any sort of low/lowish altitude, the result of which will surely be very much shorter missions, or an appointment with the AAR tanker.
And don't even start me off on the decision to operate these airplanes from remote airfields without a flight engineer.
The best option was always the launch of a modernized version of the P3!

Oxenos,

Actually, you started this thread with the title 'New MPA?', so for the likes of bs posting links to the P8, what else would you expect??

Maybe you should have started a thread on 'flying model wot i built, as a light hearted , tongue in cheek spoof', if you wanted to keep your thread away from serious comment.

Difficult to know where to begin with your post EW73.

The flight deck is just somewhere the drivers do their job, all the MPA type work goes on down the back. When the pilots are in their seats, you do not need a huge amount of wasted space all around you. For the mission crew sat at their seats operating, there is no need for a lot of wasted space. I agree that it would be nice to have, but there is a cost saving.

The airframe and engines are so much more reliable than a P3 that there is no problem operating from remote airfields, and a modern airframe is designed to be operated by two pilots. A spare crew member/3rd pilot, can occupy the jump seat for the low level stuff. The aircraft is more than capable of long missions, unless you want to do 8 hours of MAD searching, and having AAR capability is an added bonus.

Just my thoughts

Y_G

and anywhere that you fly from will likely have a LCA operating 737's as well if you need the odd spare

.....yeah, that really worked well for Voyager didn't it! :=

EW 73.
Disagree strongly.

watching the news tonight we are apparently eye-balling the C295. this from a Kiwi review of this second world makeshift...

Sounds ideal...problem solved:E:E:E:E:E

yeah but New Zealand is surrounded by a LOT of Ocean - for us something that can get out a couple of hundred miles would be better than nothing

Take an Airbus A350 and fit an unpressurised canoe.
Fit a maximum sensor suite and all the latest comms.
Load it with a wide range of ordinance, especially anti shipping missiles of various sizes/ranges.
Engineer in the maximum number of roles including special forces insertion.

That would give immense strategic force projection. Base one in Akrotiri and it would change the balance of power in the region.

(my bold)

Having just done a couple of 11 hour flights, the onsta at low level, not very comfortable, but I agree - very roomy.

Sorry. You've done a couple of 11 hour flights in the P-8A??!! Where exactly was that?

What BS !!! (I don't mean bs, I mean BS, the post) 11 hours and you have to ask!
Only way the P8 will do anywhere near 11 hours is loitering at FL370.

Hey Surplus, I guess it's all relative, try being strapped into a Viking for half that time and see how you come out.

EW73

I read it as Surplus did 11 hrs in a P3.

Only if she's got blond hair.

Never been in a Viking, I'm sure that all of the horror stories are justified though.

Yes, I did mean a P3, I was merely pointing out that a P3 at low level, above a high sea state can hardly be classified as comfortable.

My post made no mention of what the ride or endurance of a P8 is like.

JSF Fan, thanks for clarifying my post. :ok:

no probs:ok:

I can't think of a valid reason why the P-8 can't stay up till the engines need more oil and my guess is it's a lot more than 11 hrs if needed

some seem to be missing that it is new tech that is allowing the p-8 to work high and the area this controls

JSFfan,

The capacity of the toilet system would be the limiting factor.... :ok:

The poms and aussies will be fine, I understand allowances have been made and it's a very large system because everyone knows seppos are full of schite