No dull as I missed your point.

Given the Bear F was contra-rotating it was probably worse than the P3, but sound propagation is a funny thing as any wet man would tell you.

yet more evidence of the shortcomings of the P-8:

http://www.dote.osd.mil/pub/reports/...8aposeidon.pdf

A few quotes:

'As a result of these two sensor shortfalls the P-8 cannot execute the full range of mission tasks required by the ASW concept of operations.'

'The P-8 is not effective for the ISR mission.'

betty said 'Methinks you know hee haw about the P-8A program...'. (post 136)

How do you know what I know?

Besides I've stated my only interest would be to see taxpayers get value for money and no repeat of the recent past. The P-8 has too many shortcomings to be considered.

The way some people on here are so desperate to ignore P-8s notable shortcomings, you'd think they've got shares in Boeing....

Really QBF?

I can't find a date on your report but as it is based on a series of evaluations conducted over a year ago, how can you be sure those shortcomings haven't already been addressed?

I must be reading a different report to you as I can't really see ; I could selectively pull out positive quotes from that report just as easily as you have pulled negative ones. The US military have a bit of a track record of getting the airframe into service first and then fixing the systems; how long was the F15A in service before being upgraded to the C and how long has the C been in service compared to the A; same for the F16A and C; F18A and C etc etc.

If the P8 has too many shortcomings to be considered, what are the options available now, or in the next 5 years for UK PLC? Let's assume you need something with a minimum 4 hour loiter time at 1000nm from home base. That needs to be able to locate, track and attack all forms of SS. Undertake ASuW missions up to and including the attack phase. Do overwater and potentially overland ISR. Contribute to SAR if required. Etc etc. I've no dog in the fight but what is your solution?

As for we don't know, (unless QBF = Stuffy, in which case the answer would appear to be very little!!). Over to you.

Roly Pulledafew, Never mind the Swallox and Fagartist.

Fascinating, but not as we know it !

Senior Civil Servants with Ancient Greek degrees making decisions about aviation and naval matters are fair game.

How long would your P8 airliner hang about at three hundred feet drinking fuel quicker than I can drink good German beer?

Never mind, it is just a paper exercise.

There is no UK MPA.

Scotland will vote for independence.

Airframe or Mission Systems
 

It seems all the arguments here are about which airframe is better suited to the MPA or MMA role.

The 'old and bolds' argue that the P8 is ill suited to operating at low level and will not meet the range or endurance that the P3 or Nimrod are capable of.
So far I have not seen anything to indicate this; by all reports it is meeting or exceeding it's directed capability in those areas.

The argument that P8 is the wrong airframe for the job because it is not yet fully mission capable is flawed. The mission systems are having problems, apparently due to software issues, but these can by rectified by updates. How did the latest P3 or Nimrod upgrades go at first? Australia and the UK would receive Increment 2 or 3 aircraft based on how far away delivery times are.

An 80% mission capable P8 which can get airborne. is still better than a fatigued and unserviceable P3 or Nimrod.

aussiepilot. Exactly!! Was Typh as "good" as F-3 when it came in? No. How about Merlin and ASW SeaKing. Need I go on.

Stuffy. The P-8 "drinks", as you so beautifully put it, around the same as MRA4 did at 300'. Not sure why you've picked this nebulous height, but there you go. Please please stop comparing ASW in the 90s with now, if you think 300' is/was a good height to find a submarine. Things change, but not, it seems, your ability to understand reason, from the folks on here that may have a clue about the title of the thread.

AP, true.

The Nimrod 1 had a series of software updates.

Off the top of my head, when we started the OCU we were on version 1.3. 1.4 came out during our time on the OCU but the staff ensured we remained on the earlier version to avoid confusion. On the sqn we learnt 1.4. A few months later 1.5. In half the time after that, 1.6. Then we got a new airborne programming system and got updates at 6 week intervals or less.

Then came the Mk 2. Naturally the Mk 2 software standard was frozen at a point during production and delivery. It was less capable than the Mk 1.

After crew conversion and new updates the Mk 2 soon proved superior.

It is the same with any new kit.

I don't quite get the anti-P-8A vibe going on here; it is a new platform which is clearly developing and has HUGE potential. Yes, it is not fulfilling the full role that the older brother is able to do but the MRA4 would not have completed the tasks of the MR2 to the same level for quite some time. The roadmap is there to get to that level, and beyond......the Aussies will have timed their purchase well.

We have no MPA and have no aircraft that we can class as multi-mission in ISR terms(standing by for Reaper mates to shoot me down).....we need one. We are still investing in legacy platforms that deliver in only one area ie E-3D and Sentinel; both are fantastic at what they do, but why not have that capability on board a new frame that is more fuel efficient, easier to maintain, longer lifespan, more potential etc etc. The P-8A has all of this. Should it be fitted with AAS therefore becoming the AGS, it will have the overland radar piece squared away nicely.

In terms of other contenders, the Saab Swordfish and the CN-295 could be decent alternatives for a lower financial outlay but wouldn't cover the full capability of a Poseidon. Or do we go down the route of re-engineering old airframes a la P-3C/CP-140? Risk v proven capability v finance?

Biggest issue for me will be manning this MMA with the correct personnel and with the required experience and ability.....that is shrinking fast.

Convinced it will happen to the same degree as I was convinced MRA4 would never enter service.

The anti-P-8A vibe is the usual pish that gets rolled out by the armchair critics that really have no concept of the realities of the platform. And don't really understand what the Nimrod was about, to boot. The lack of...not even understanding on the thread...but the lack of willingness to understand is, frankly, astounding. I think your comments are some of the best and most apposite I've seen on this thread, but I'm afraid all you'll get is a slagging from those less able to conceptualise your sentiments


Over to you, Stuffy.

Thanks Betty......just my own personal opinion on it all. We know it is almost certainly going to be addressed in SDSR 15 and provided this review is conducted as it should be and not to save as much money as absolutely possible, there is only one outcome, and that will be a commitment to a Multi-Mission Maritime Patrol Aircraft. Should a commitment to P-8A happen, would it be conceivable for IOC 2018-19?

Pssst don't tell the Indian Navy about the "short comings" of the P-8...they've already taken delivery of new "Neptunes"....

This type 'warfare' has probably been going on since the war, and probably before that - Lancaster/Halifax, the V-bombers, Hunter/Swift, Javelin/Vixen, F111/TSR2/Buccaneer 2* etc etc.

Each type has its fans and detractors. You get what the politicians say you can have and then get on with it and make it a world beater.

Agree strongly

PN, exactly. At last! Some sense on here! Phew...!
BS

I think the plan is to ask industry to give, lend or lease capability for a number of years until MoD can put together a properly funded project.

If the MoD can convince industry to do this we may be able to get a P8, Refurbed P3, Airbus or a SAAB for a while to assess it and then make an informed decision on which way to go.

There is no UK MPA.

All the money goes on the Foreign Aid Budget.

Not even the flooded areas in the West Country are getting any assistance or relief.

There is no UK MPA.

Stuffy,
Are you Alex Salmond?
It's just that you talk the same amount of sense :ugh:

Betty,
Keep fighting the good fight........you never know.......

Really Stuffy? You should have told us earlier. We could have just cancelled this topic right from the start. Mind you, then we wouldn't have been entertained by your inane writings about low level fuel economy, or how the non-existant A319 MPA is better than a modified 737. Zzzzz

I'll have one of those German beers if you're offering; although on second thoughts, maybe not!!:hmm:

Rather than wasting time "educating" dearest Stuffy, maybe a thread suggesting Stuffy comments for the News of The World, or National Enquirer would be a better use of all our time. Or maybe a position within the Monster Raving Loony Party...
Anyway, I'm frankly bored of trying to explain the requirements of an MPA/MMA at a kindergarten level to then be cited in posts as "don't listen to them".
So I'm out of this thread.
It started off well, but has spiraled into arguments based in utter falsehoods. If it weren't so comical, it would be upsetting.