Got any (really) genuine alternatives?

Bannock

And integration costs, and certification costs, and they might not be as good or efficient. And the CFM-56 is what is alrwady on the wing of an E-3 isn't it? So there may be logisitics savings by having common-ish engines.

And what/which Rolls' engine would be put on as a substitute for the CFM 56?

If you really wanted to go down that route it would be the V2500, but I just cannot see the point of doing it.

YS

Kawasaki P1, is this not an option.

I would certainly say so, as a four engined aircraft designed from the outset specifically for MR/ASW, but the beancounters would probably have a fit unfortunately.

Courtney, I see your point, as the size of the fleet buy might not be large enough to cover the integration costs, etc, without making the cost differential become burdensome.
And as we both noted, getting the requirement to restore the capability agreed may prove harder than any subsequent steps.

Jayand,

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

Rapid capability regeneration.
We already have the experienced instructors , access to a training facility that speaks a form of English and a production line spitting out platforms that are tried , tested and available in significant numbers.

I cannot think of anywhere or anything else that can claim that.

I understand that, as it is an indigenous design, getting the P1 past the MAA would be exceptionally challenging. It also has no mission support.

Presumably the Japanese have some sort of robust certification system

Not sure what the K-1 is, but the the P-1 is an MMA.

Care to elaborate on your definition of "multi-mission aircraft" Mel?

NEW INVESTMENT
 

The Press reports today that the new Government will invest £ 2 Billion in Maritime Patrol aircraft, to include the P8.

If this were true, where would they be based? Could Ice Station Kilo be resurrected? The new SNP MPs must be slavering over the prospect.

Waddington?

There was talk before the MRA4 was cancelled of it being based at Waddington.

True, but that was before La Sturgeon took to the stage.

The discussion of the "risk" associated with any decision to base another unit in Scotland would be interesting. Waddington already supports two CFM56 engined Boeing types and has a number of infrastructure elements that would be relevant to a maritime operation. I cannot see any compelling reason why a new maritime aircraft would have to be based at either extremity of the country but I could come up with a number of good reasons why it should not.

Any basing option will entail significant expenditure on support functions, I don't know whether Waddington would have the capacity. Scampton would require a great deal of investment to bring it back to operational status. The same applies to Cottesmore; and in any case it's probably too late to take it back from 3Bde. Could Wittering be expanded again, I really don't know. What is clear is that we seem to be getting a bit short of real estate!

YS

PS
Aside from all that, let's just hope the rumour has some foundation and soon "The boys will be back in town"!

P8 and Waddington
 

Sometime during MRA4 development, there was a Service wide paper that discussed the placing of all ISTAR assets at Waddington. It was agreed that it would be a good idea until someone sat down with an abacus and worked out how much it would cost. I don't think it was so much about the absolute figure that was the concern, but out of who's piggybank it was coming. These were the days of GB and 'if you want it, it comes out of existing budget, no more money', so it was shelved and everyone went back to plan A.

As for ISK, it now belongs to the Army, although no doubt they would move if required. The infrastructure is still there, remember, when head plonker decided to cancel the MRA4, everything was paid for and ready to go once the ac was cleared. But, and it's a big but, with Ms Sturgeon in the picture it's a risk not worth taking, so Waddington makes sense and by its nature, there is a new piggybank.

As for the P8, I know no facts about the ac, however, reading between the lines, it is the usual Boeing fudge. Show how it can fly at low level and then during developement discover that as it was designed to cruise at high level, it has fatigue issues when flown for extended period on the deck. Why else remove the MAD, drop sonobuoys from high level, (and as every wet man will tell you, that's just a way to spend money, not track anything - you might know where you dropped the buoy with its GPS, but it might not be where you wanted it to be.) With the USN, they have the budget to add a drone to the inventory, we do not.

So as it is, as far as I am concerned, unsuitable, we will surely buy it as it will come as a simple (expensive) package.

As for the P1 - now that would be interesting.......

The P8 has a greater span than Nimrod. Would it fit ISK hangars?

How many P8 plus support to the £bn?

P-8A wingspan is 123'
Nimrod MRA4 was 127'

Betty, was that a get back in your box moment and get your facts right, is still a fine day over Glasgow I'm sure