UK P8 Poseidon
 

Interesting article in this week's Aviation Leak indicating that an order for up to 12 Poseidons is not far away. Decision held up by General Election.

Good for you guys to come out of the closet with this.


You know it makes sense !!

I wonder how far away 'not far away' actually is. This has been mooted for some time:

http://www.pprune.org/military-aviat...usa-maybe.html

Hmmmm, only Boeing hype - but if they are right, out of who's budget?....

Increased P-8 production rate caters to international sales, possibly including the U.K.

Boeing is stepping up monthly production of the P-8 Poseidon maritime patrol aircraft amid mounting signs of additional international sales and solid funding for planned U.S. Navy procurement...... says Jimmy Dodd, vice president and general manager of mobility, surveillance and engagement at Boeing Military Aircraft....

However, Boeing is also courting the U.K., which according to British press reports, is studying acquiring up to 12 P-8s as part of efforts to rebuild its anti-submarine warfare (ASW) capabilities following the abrupt withdrawal of the Nimrod MR2 maritime patrol force in 2010. The same year the U.K. also axed the planned Nimrod MRA4 replacement program, leaving a capability gap that Russian surface vessels and submarines have exposed during recent incursions into British waters.

“The U.K. will be under FMS (foreign military sale),” says Dodd who adds that any negotiations will be led by the Navy. “Everything was stalled out waiting on the [U.K.] election, and now that it’s over we are hoping activity will increase and there will be a commitment.” Although discussions with the U.K. Defense Ministry are believed to be centered on an initial contract for six firm aircraft plus six options, Dodd adds that Boeing’s involvement has so far been minimal.

“We’ve never actually given [the U.S. Navy] a proposal [for the U.K.]. The Navy knows what they are paying, and they know what it costs to support. They also understand the differences in configurations, so they haven’t been asking us for a lot of detailed price and cost data at this point,” he says. “I’m sure that will come. Usually it is triggered to us when there is a letter of request [LOR] for price and availability. When there is an LOR on those jets, then they come to us and ask for offerability on cost and schedule,” adds Dodd.

Under the standard FMS procedure, the U.K. must submit an LOR for either price and availability or a letter of offer and acceptance. The U.S. government then has 120 days to respond, and if congressional review is required, an extra 15-50 days may be needed. “I know various things have been kicked about. Obviously, if it is an increase in quantity over and above what we already had then it is to do with the time line. How much is long lead, how much time line? The Navy already know us and we share line positions so they have that data,” says Dodd. “We will engage directly [with the U.K Defense Ministry] at some point. It just hasn’t happened yet, and it will happen.”..........

On timing, if there are any positives ahead I imagine they'll be being stored up for the SDSR outcome, they'll want to lard it with any good news they can.

I cannot imagine that there would be a Congressional obstacle to an FMS request from the UK, but I would like to know where the money is coming from, unless this week's announcement that the MoD has to find £500 million of savings is partly to offset a P-8 purchase.

Instead of RPI, as the P8 is based on an airliner, how about an "Operational Lease"?

BD

Aha! bring in the accountants!!

It would be interesting to see how the MAA would handle a P8 certification in light of the Rivet Joint experience (similar airframe provenance?), FMS restrictions and their new regulations for certification here.

EAP

Well, we had folk(s) flying them for a while now so would be logical, assuming funding can be sorted.

Well as the P-8s would be newly built aircraft rather than 50-year old airframes I think many of the problems would not be there.

I think you are confusing the P8 and the P3.

Anything heard about getting wedge tail at the same time to replace E-3? Common sense for lots of reasons.

On funding, AFAIK there's more than enough in the unallocated headroom (an amount set aside and carried forward with Treasury agreement to fund priorities from the whiteboard of unfunded wishlist items, as and when they're afforded priority) to fund an up front purchase of 6 or so.

But running them would need to be accommodated from a flatlined or shrinking running costs budget, so might mean a bit of deckchair shuffling...

Anyway, until such time as the Treasury reneges and snatches the unallocated funds (which is possible but which would be politically and presentationally difficult, especially given the current Tory backbench sentiment on defence and HMG's tiny majority), there IS funding available for this acquisition. At least for the capital part of it.

Do extant treasury rules allow you to roll up the support element in a front end support contract paid outright at the start (ie pay through life costs such as spares support, upgrades, training etc on day 1?)

Good question, wish I knew the answer. In general HMT are chary of running costs being disguised as capital. That said, I think major spare parts and servicing equipment can be capitalized as fixed assets, and upgrades / improvements can also be categorised as capital. So the upfront cost could reasonably include a substantial spares element and kit required to maintain and improve the fleet, and presumably progressive software upgrades and the like, these being improvements - so one way or another a fair bit could be built in. Hopefully someone with more accountancy knowhow can correct me if I'm wrong.

Yes.
however, what happens in reality when you contract like that, is the company in question runs the service/equipment for a year or so, and then says "Oh, it appears to be more expensive than we anticipated, give us more cash or we fail." We can't afford to fail, so we give them more cash.

There is no way to transfer risk when your business is defence or security.

Sun.

I was wondering as the other Boeing COTS FMS purchase (C-17) uses contacted spares and upgrade programme I believe. Very successfully I hear.

How likely is it, really?
 

All week leaks have been coming out of No10 and elsewhere about the depth and scale of budget cuts to the various ministries, this year, I've heard 12 billion for DPS or whatever it now, and more and more. Is there to be an SDR (again) this year>? Its a utter shambles. No money. Unrealistic
In simple terms, what will be this aircrafts primary role? Motive. (Don't tell me they know what they are actually doing)
Is there another thread running about where it will be based? Someone confidently said Yeovilton, another said Culdrose as a base....find this hard to fathom or understand..in a way.Logistical
So if above true.. the Navy runs it then?Also, I guessing Govt. is about to wash out Scotland and base the bombers out of Plymouth in the future instead? If the nuclear deterrent has a future.Political
#Its a good press story, which is what it is - a fairy story man. Page Filler
Plus PM will have to admit he ****** up in 2010 and that is something they never do. Political/Psychological

But I admit it would be a political winner, in some ways. And a state splitter response by HMG.

I think the die is pretty much cast on this one, with all the statements that have been made - it will happen.

OK, Good plan.

But, where are they going to be based? Which base has ramp space?

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!