There was an RN Navy exchange observer on 206 late 1990s early 2000s. Went through the OCU at the same time as me.

p.s. Tourist, do you not realise you are the one who comes across childish, protectionist and pompous? Throwing insults is not constructive argument.

How can I be protectionist?

I'm not saying the Navy should have the P8, in fact I'm saying we probably should not.

I am however saying that the reason given that it flies therefore it should be airforce is moronic.

reynolds,

Plenty of dark blue exchanges during my 23 years on the kipper fleet. All of them good guys and a few even transferred to the light blue rather than go back. Also know of a handful that went the other way to the FAA.

Regards who owns the thing when it arrives, it would make sense for the RAF purely on the numbers of available personnel and experience with operating large(ish) aircraft. That said, if the exchange was an option from day one then that would only be a good thing in my opinion.

Good to hear - one of my best mates was a Sea King observer, who passed away a couple of years ago. We had many spirited discussions regarding the relative merits of our sub hunting platforms ...

Does it really matter who operates the sodding thing? Surely what is more important is that we are getting it, not whether it has 'Royal Navy' or 'Royal Air Force' painted on it? The chances are that the crews are going to be a mix of light and dark blue anyway with the ongoing penchant for jointery.

If you want to blame somebody, blame those who decided that the Fleet Air Arm could go back to the Navy in the 1930s but that Coastal Command was going to stay with the RAF.

I agree with Martin - it's this sort of idiot argument that plays into the hands of the Treasury and their like

I have said what QTRZ said. The RAF training pool, now small, has more scope for pilots placements certainly. The case for light blue rear crew is now much weaker given the lack of nav training and maritime sensor experience.

Engineering support would probably be better with light blue.

Jointery would seem to be the only way notwithstanding seed corn that may well have withered on bare earth.

This sounds like a great justification for training missions down under since the Aussies are already operating P8. :ok:

The case for light blue rear crew is now much weaker given the lack of nav training and maritime sensor experience.

Engineering support would probably be better with light blue.

Jointery would seem to be the only way notwithstanding seed corn that may well have withered on bare earth.

Pontious, what are you basing any of this on? lol

We could always do what the Dutch did before they lost their MPA.
Navy owns the platform and comes under CINCFleet
Air Force Pilot & Maintain the Platform
Navy Man the back seats with Surface and Sub Surface Specialists

Best of both worlds!

<tongue in cheek> I have heard these Aircraft being referred to as "Flying Frigates" Therefore can I Suggest the following "Ships Names"

HMS Albatross
HMS Daedalus
HMS Fulmar
HMS Gannet
HMS Heron

<\tongue in cheek>

Yeah ok i'm leaving...

Speculation.

Althenick, quite.

You cant have HMS Heron, it's in service!

Your right, I meant HMS Osprey 😊

What, the P-8 tilt rotor variant? :confused:

Hmm, will the P8 be good enough to fulfil its intended purpose? Interesting article in the Economist.
Seek, but shall ye find?

MPA mission area is, in the year 2016, no longer only sub hunting. Won't comment on how much most of the press still don't know about ASW, but it isn't getting any easier. The improvements in AIP tech will see to that, particularly for any nation whose submarines are not required to support power projection. As a sea lane or area sea denial asset, a diesel sub is quite good, and one with AIP is even better ... and most importantly, for many small to mid sized nations, affordable.

Thing is Lonewolf that not many countries actually buy any type of sub in any numbers

Submarine Strength Strength by Country

Only 13 have over 10 - that includes the USA, Russia, China, France & the UK plus N Korea (70?), Greece, India, Iran, S korea, Japan, Turky and Columbia

hard too see many of those nations carrying out major, longrange operations. Most of them (and the others) are aimed at local defence

I think that list is a bit silly Harry.

Not all submarines are equal.

Both a tiny diesel minisub and a Vanguard Class are technically under the heading of "Submarine", but they are worlds apart in every other way.

I'll give the guys at 10 and 11 Sqn a call and let them know that...

"I think that list is a bit silly Harry. Not all submarines are equal.

Both a tiny diesel minisub and a Vanguard Class are technically under the heading of "Submarine", but they are worlds apart in every other way."

Tourist - I couldn't agree more - the point was that Lonewolf seemed to be conjuring up all manner of demons when in fact the number of countries who could actually maintain " sea lane or area sea denial" is probably 7 and three of those (China, India & Japan) only locally

The UK P-8's will only really target Russian subs - as well as the other benifits having them brings