Go on then EAP86, explain the similarities between the airframe provenance of RC-135W and P8, I'm looking forward to this.

S-D

Sun - you are right about the contract risk but I'm not so sure about the Treasury rules. Up-front payments are generally discouraged and repayments are supposed to be matched with accrued value. That doesn't mean to say, of course, that poor decisions haven't been made in the past by those with their own agenda or little commercial knowledge. It would be interesting to see if the fiscal controls have got any tighter.

http://i536.photobucket.com/albums/f...psmrlxcxct.jpg










..

I'll see your P8(?) Nutty, and raise you one of our Wedgetails! :p

http://cdn.defesaaereanaval.com.br/w...-WEDGETAIL.jpg

If the P8 is purchased, would the RAF necessarily be the automatic choice of service to operate it? Might it be more sensible to let the RN be the lead service, given that the entire airborne ASW structure is going to have to be rebuilt from scratch?

What is the Seedcorn project about (and been funded for) if it's not about providing a nucleus with which to rebuild an RAF-led long range ASW fleet? Indeed, many of them are already operating P8s!

http://farm9.static.flickr.com/8288/...669e65ab_m.jpg

A much better option ;)

"What is the Seedcorn project about (and been funded for) if it's not about providing a nucleus with which to rebuild an RAF-led long range ASW fleet? Indeed, many of them are already operating P8s!"

It should be about providing a nucleus with which to rebuild a UK long range ASW fleet. Who should operate it should be looked at carefully without historical preconceptions and tribal empire building. To me, as a neutral onlooker, it seems logical that it should be RN led, as in the rest of the world's armed forces.

I certainly think that it would include a great deal of jointery between the RAF and the FAA, whatever name is painted on it.

As to where it could be based, Waddington is the obvious choice, but if there is a big FAA element, maybe not. Space could be made at Yeovilton if the Junglie force is moved to Culdrose to join the grey Merlins. There is a lot of ramp space available at Culdrose these days, and once the Sea King goes there will be a heck of a lot more. Basing P-8s there may not be a possibility, but I don't see why Yeovilton would not be.

If this happens, the UK will not be buying a Maritime Patrol Aeroplane, it will be buying a Multi Mission Aeroplane. This is a subtle yet very important point that has implications for the amount of "customers" the aircraft would have and therefore implications of where in the structure of Defence it should be placed for effective use.

The runway at Yeovilton is not long enough for effective P-8 operations.

Prestwick is though. I can't think of a more ideal location.

Interesting RandomBlah,

Are you inferring that - as a flexible ISTAR platform doing lots of things e.g. like the latter day MR2 did - that is will tick a range of capability boxes and hence be thought of as much more than "just" ASW?

Sounds like a good ruse to keep it under the RAF. :E

What would be the strike range capability of a P8 with CASOM be? Might open up all sorts of options - e.g. back to the old NucASOM idea (I forget the acronym). Could work out cheaper than relocating Faslane to Plymouth. I know trident is still a superior capability, but the the French still have their Nuc-ASMP under Rafale - I guess they would argue that is still part of their 'strategic' frappe capability, so the range & penetration ability still makes sense to them? Sorry for the drift, but the idea of a real multirole P8 is quite interesting, especially if it could address the trident issue in a cost effective way. Of course there would be an irony in that one of the P8s key roles - to protect trident - would disappear.

EDIT: the ASMP is considered a "pre-strategic" warning shot by FR. Range is actually quite limited - alledgedly 80-300km.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air-Sol...ne_Port%C3%A9e

Where to base them ?Former Coastal Command station with a former Coastal Command Aux Sqn based there, operational runway big enough for 747s, just get rid of the squaddies and RAF Aldergrove is back and to its WW2 North Atlantic role (Ballykelly has been sold and being built on).

Quite, just like the Norwegians, Canadians, Australians, New Zealanders, Portugese, Spanish and no doubt others.

Do the RAF actually care that much about supporting maritime ops?
 

I suppose it's human nature but I find it quite amusing that as soon as the possibility of a shiny new toy that flies becomes a possibility the arguments start as to who should be able to play with it

Perhaps I missed all the protests but I don't recall much effort from the RAF's top brass to keep the long range maritime patrol and sub hunting capability from being scrapped. The same happened when the axe fell on the Harrier force.

Perhaps it's something to do with a general lack of interest within the RAF of the maritime environment. For example I've never yet met anyone from the RAF who enjoyed serving afloat for any length of time. Stock answer being "if I'd wanted to go to sea I'd have joined the navy"......

As for RAF folk not being keen to spend much time afloat, I've served with an astonishing number of RN folk who will do anything to avoid going to sea.

Irrespective of who plays with it, I can see a need for it to tick more than one box (ISTAR, ASW etc.) in order to squeeze its way into the available money. If they can kill 2 birds etc., they might just get this in.

Does it came with the option of a probe for AAR?

Be interested to see if the hard points and databus support storm shadow. That would put the cat amongst the pigeons with the navy getting hold of a strike aircraft!

Be an interesting play bearing in mind how Torpy torpedoed the SHAR force a few years back!