This is mostly true but does not provide a complete picture. Yes, the ToS at radius of the P-8 is similar to P-3, and P-8 is bigger than P-3, but its bigger for a reason. The Navy wanted lots more "stuff" on station. If you look at Lockheed's proposal that lost against Boeing's, Lockheed's solution was not merely an upgraded P-3, but an entirely new aircraft significantly larger and MUCH more powerful than the P-3. Nimrod was bigger than Orion also, and for good reason. It was a superbly equipped and capable aircraft.

USN specified additional tankage to the P-8 sufficient to reach MTOGW with a light weapons load. As for the "lower" fuel fraction, that was driven by the equipment USN added to the P-8. If the P-8's full mission suite had been added to a P-3, the P-3's Operating Empty Weight would by very high and its fuel fraction would have been laughably low. Basically you can't really compare a P-8 to a P-3 (just as you can't really compare a Nimrod to a P-3, or a P-3 to C-295) because they are very different aircraft with quite different mission suites.

BS - Empty weight from the USN, MTOW and fuel cap from Boeing.

Of course I don't know if the USN definition of OEW. Could be +-5,000 pounds or so depending on whether they include the pies.

How many P8?

Given £2Bn and the wiki cost for 8 x P8I of $2bn, that suggests 8 for UK with support costs.

Well, the Beeb have finally cottoned on to the fact
that we have no LRMPA. Only took 'em five years and the SNP to mention it in their campaign.

DN

DN, probably decided, in conjunction with SNP, that it is a good rod with which to beat the hated Tories.

There's something screwy with the numbers. Per multiple sources:
Empty wt = 62.7 t
MTOG wt = 85.3 t
Fuel Cap = 34.1 t

85.3 - 62.7 = 22.6
34.1 - 22.6 = 11.5

In other words, the P-8A is supposedly flying around with tankage for 11.5 tons of fuel that can never be loaded into those tanks.

Me thinks the "empty weight" includes weapons and/or other expendables (like sono buoys?) that are not normally included in commercial OEW numbers.

Given the usual inaccuracies in the Express report and the fact the only actual MoD quote was "full spectrum of submarine detection capability would be reviewed this year" I'd say it was a case of "move along, nothing new to see here"?

Just seen the NATO ASW Ex / Brit LRMPA gap story even on BBC Word News, 3 stories up from the guy who voices Mr Burns on The Simpson's leaving, but on BBC World all the same.

Blatant BBC government propaganda on display today. Highlighting the need for a MPA capability, no mention of how much was 💦 💦 💦 away on Nimrod, then they chopped them up.

British public really are thick as 🐷 🐷 🐷 💩 💩 💩

KenV - the widely sourced OEW is wrong (if you compare it with 737 OEWs you can see it makes no sense). I think it is actually the MZFW. Navy said 112,000 lb ops empty.

So to the The Times this morning...

However, first off, I'm well aware that from time to time I've come off as anti MPA (OK, MMA) on this thread.

Frankly, nothing could be further from the truth.

I believe we need the capability as part of coherent maritime security strategy, and that has always been my stated position. Go look at my entire posting history if you wish (seriously, don't do that - it would be sad).

Where I have crossed swords with some maritime diehards (like wot I is) would be on the vexed subject of the possibility of ever finding the money to get this capability back - on which subject I have swayed between an unapologetic pessimist and a "perhaps-it-might-just-happen-others-might-know-better" sort of mindset.

So back to The Times...

And a quote from Paul Beaver...

So there you have it...the unsquareable circle.

We want an old capability restored; the MOD could be facing binning more stuff.

Discuss.

Deletion of GR4 would free up a pretty big wedge....be interesting to see typhoon try and do shader as well.

This is an in-year saving, so given that we've spent naff all money on MMA, there's even less to save.

I suspect that the Bn can be found relatively easily.

they'll threaten to cut the Red Arrows, a Guards regiment and maybe the Gurkhas - that normally gets a few million restored

And maintain defence spending at 2% - dream on. Sadly the time is coming when we need to reconsider the independent nuclear force and accept a seat in the back row. Huge shame, and I am ashamed to be a Brit and say it, but I see little alternative.

^^

That's the main thrust of article, with one analyst suggesting ~1.95% the best we might do. Of course, there is the time-honoured solution of "fixing" the math, by changing the parameters in some way.

And perhaps that offers the best hope for an MPA/MMA; playing with the "reserve" budgets in some way. One ppruner has already suggested this, although it is way above my head how this works.

First of all they're links from wikipedia, but I see no reason why they shouldn't be reasonably accurate.

The UK apparently has the fifth largest GDP on the planet:

List of countries by GDP (nominal) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

We also have the fifth largest defence expenditure:

List of countries by military expenditures - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If our armed forces are becoming pitiful in size, when we spend more than for example France, Japan and India, and about 90% of Russia's military budget, then you have to ask whether we are getting value for money.

I read recently on a pprune thread, I can't remember which, that companies routinely put their prices up by 200-300% on MOD contracts.

If we were to get better value for the money we spend, we would have more credible armed forces.

Easy to identify the problem - more difficult to resolve it!!






Then again, there is the issue of armed forces being a priority. If UK political parties aren't interested in anything other than the sacred cows of NHS and education, then the defence budget will only get smaller....

I guess it goes like this:

MOD has to buy British first.

Money spent in Britain stays in Britain.

May as well charge more so everyone benefits.

To be fair Biggus, that's just commercial pragmatism and it's the same throughout the Western world in all industry sectors.

Commercial companies exist for one purpose alone - to make a profit. Dealing with large bureaucratic organisations, especially governments, massively increases overhead, so prices must cover that. Otherwise commercial companies will just walk away. It's kinda day one at business school - trade at a loss, go busto.

I worked for 18 months at one of the biggest MOD software subcontractors and was good friends with one guy on the sales team (who was ex FJ btw). He told me the golden rule - if the profit margin is not 30%, we walk away.

You can hold all the competitions you wish; no solid company will take on a project at a loss, without a damn good reason (and there is almost never a reason big enough).

Matter of interest, in my current occupation there is a whole host of government schemes we can get involved with, with a ton of customers open to us.

We won't touch any of it with a barge pole. Why not? Tons and tons of paperwork, we are required to do for FA reward.

**** that!

Same principle applies.