Ordinance…?

Nimrods stopping noise after 9pm…or no cricket on Sundays?

The pedant in me wanted to do a similar post, but I resisted :}

Is it where the sonoboys go?:E

Jet In Vitro

Yes. Actually it is an objective assessment.

What's your point?

Pontious, I understand that fine. My point really being that the insurance policy has never been used therefore you could argue now at time of renewal do we need such an expensive policy?
In the RAF's hands I am utterly sure the Casa 295 would be a very capable platform with a still credible weapons capability.
Diplomacy, deterrent or just good luck we haven't had the need to use them and the cost of the shiny American replacement I'll wager is significantly higher.
Will the difference in weapons systems between the two be a factor in any future possible diplomacy or deterrent? IMO no.
The sensors and the ability of the crew with a still credible weapons system for me would be more than enough given the prohibitive costs.
Money no option, then sure get the gold plated policy, sadly money is a huge factor.

^^

Jayand, we are not seeking to simply replace a platform with a new one; we are seeking to restore a capability which has been comprehensively removed. In order to do so, we will have to fund a restoration of the establishment of the people, units, and organisations which flew, maintained and supported these beasts. Over time, those costs will vastly outweigh the costs of procuring the platform - it was ever thus as all educated military folk should know.

In other words, if we can find the money to restore the capability, funding the first choice platform (whatever that might be) should be relatively easy.

IMO, we will know the final answer to the bigger question before much longer.

Betty -

Thanks for the frank assessment. It's interesting that while the trend in all things electronic and ISR is towards smaller and smarter, P-8A is and Nimrod MRA4 was bigger/more powerful than their predecessors. Some of that is accounted for by the fact that the targets are getting smaller and quieter, by MAC and its prodigious appetite for sonobouys.

On the other hand, range, endurance and weapon load are not vastly increased (unless low-alt operations are curtailed), and as previously noted the P-8A carries a big weight penalty because of AAS and ASuW.

Of course, another aspect of the problem is that there really are not many platforms to be had that fall between Q400/Saab 2000/C295 size and the A320/737 family.

What is really sad is that Airbus appears to have (a) a credible ASW suite and (b) an A319neo platform that should be able to outperform the P-8A, but that nobody likes the cost and risk involved in putting them together.

TOFO, you are of course correct, however the politicians and the treasury see a somewhat shorter sighted picture.
The headline grabbing, shiney and very expensive P8 would grab all the headlines and have the treasury running for cover. In the current and somewhat foreseeable future climate those headline costs will probably massively influence the decision imo.
What makes you think an answer is coming shortly out of interest?

It doesnt have to be that expensive!
Ever heard of Offset Bartering ?

" The two countries have made progress in cooperative efforts in the area of defense equipment and technology. For example, the two sides conducted joint research on air-to-air missiles and chemical weapons. We confirmed that we will hold working-level talks in efforts to identify new areas of defense cooperation. In addition, we agreed to discuss procurement methods of defense equipment between the two countries including an offset barter."


Extra Press Conference by the Defense Minister Nakatani(07:31-07:39 P.M. January 21, 2015 (Japan time))

Any Shiny and very expensive platform becomes a hell of a lot more pallatable to the bean counters when there are significant financial gains to be made for UK industry.
Second last question.

Question, from the outside but of interest due to our historic "special relationship."
For MPA, as a practical matter, is it really that tough to (for example) get the P-8 shell and fill it with UK sourced (or mostly UK sourced) mission equipment? Have read the very interesting thread on the UK Rivet Joint project and wonder how the airworthiness issued would play into a P-8 buy (if chosen. There are of course other options).

From the requirements side: how much more information/persuasion is needed to convince MoD and Parliament that MPA capability cannot be left dormant?
From over here, it looks like an uphill battle.

Offset bartering is nothing new in UK if my understanding is correct. We did something with the F4 and C130 IIRC, tracked Rapier and Short Skyvan were alsooffsets with the E3.

Then there was cooperation with Australia over Nimrod acoustic systems.

Lone Wolf, you are bang on with regard to bespoke fitting a P8.

As we all know the Donks are a huge % of the cost, putting Rolls Royce on a P8 vice CFM56 puts a major chunk of the expenditure back in to the UK purse.

Now add an ATOS mission system. kerching again.


The money starts to trickle back.
An additional advantage would be no ITAR restrictions!

It is my opinion - not shared by everyone on here - that this capability gap will have to be addressed in SDSR 2015. Notwithstanding the potential for political turmoil which could be about to descend upon us, I would imagine that SDSR 2015 will progress in one form or another - maybe with a short delay?

If no allocation for an MPA/MMA/whatever is made in SDSR 2015, I personally think it is game over - but others will disagree and as I wish to see the the return of an MPA force, in one guise or another, as much as anybody, I hope I am being unnecessarily pessimistic.

As a matter of interest, what are/were the internal cabin widths of the Nimrod, P3, P8, CS 295?

The Nimrod was really too narrow to accommodate the nav suite and not much to spare for Sonics either. Radio, radar, and ESM were then squeezed in as loss ok ble. Then there was a dismountable platform for the astro station.

Those of you who are advocating taking a proven US product and refitting elements of it with UK kit are fooling yourselves.

1. Why do it when what is already there works?

2. Anyone who knows a bit of aviation history knows that when we do this the outcome is a) More expensive, b) less capable, c) late.

Phantoms anybody?

Also, in the case of the P-8, the Mission system is not a system in isolation. It interacts with the "standard" 737 - type flight system. Another integration issue to cause problems when trying to introduce a non-Boeing mission system to a Boeing flight system.

Do the P-8 mission system and that intended for the MRA4 not share a common core?

Random, I will bow to your superior knowledge.
Please pass on to Boeing that they may want to pull there press release and ammend their sales pitch delivered at Farnborough.

"The P-8I incorporates not only India-unique design features, but also Indian-built sub-systems that are tailored to meet the country’s maritime patrol requirements. The P-8I features open systems architecture, advanced sensor and display technologies, and a worldwide base of suppliers, parts, and support equipment."

"“We have a great partnership with India, which has helped us keep the program on schedule and on budget,” said Mark Jordan, Boeing P-8 International program manager.

Boeing Delivers Sixth P-8I Maritime Patrol Aircraft to India

I am not knocking P8, infact, believe it is our only option. Just advocating maybe some fine tuning in the interest of British self interest.

P.S may I suggest an ammendment.

2." Anyone who knows a bit of aviation history knows that when we do this the outcome is a) More expensive, b) less capable, c) late. when dealing with BAE."

I'm done, off to The Kimberley.

Bannock, I hope the CTM is as good as I remember.

It's very easy to be "on budget" when you've made the customer pay a hefty sum to get what amounts to insignificant changes compared to the P-8A as flown by the USN. You'd be interested to discover how much stuff the US has because the Indians paid for it!

Boeing appear to have used a great deal of artistic license in their press release, although it is certainly open to interpretation by the reader; it's amazing what you can claim by having a Mad Boom (old technology) "integrated" with the mission system. The world-wide spares system for the P-8 is really stretching the limits of imagination; although does shipping spares overnight from Seattle by FEDEX satisfy that statement?

Lone wolf,

I am not a MPA man, as you know. My thoughts about your idea about filling the P-8 shell with UK equipment are that it would probably not be worth it.

To start with, what equipment? The UK isn't building MPA at the moment, so there MAY not be equipment on the shelf to fill the airframe.

Next thing is the integration, testing and certification cost. I don't know, but wouldn't it be cheaper just to by the jet with the equipment already in it?

I understand the idea of making the expenditure more politically acceptable, but at the end of the day we have to ask whether the UK wants an MPA or not. :ok:

Bannock "P8 our only option" Really? how so?

Without a shadow of doubt, it would be cheaper - particularly if BAEs got involved and dragged the process out over 5 years etc.