The good news I guess is that they will be operational pretty much straight away given the numbers of crews that we will have trained through seedcorn by then. I wonder how many complete crews we'll have initially though..and the small matter of what we intend to arm them with. Hopefully someone in Team Complex Weapons is at work on a GPS guided glide kit for Stingray...
Do we still have depth charges in stock? Are there any air launched Harpoon in stores somewhere? Are they in life? Are the Sonobuoys still in stock somewhere? Flares?
Not sure how to take you post if its a jibe about how long you have been without ASS air raft or how long it takes from ordering to first aircraft arriving?
But the reality is fairly good considering that you ordered last year and first aircraft in 2019 and last by 2021.
RAAF ordered in early 2014 with the first arriving in November 16 2.5 years, so if your first arrives in feb/march 2019 that's 2.5 years about the average time from orders taken. It's also interesting to note that both orders for RAF/RAAF are expected to be finish about the same time unless the UK orders more aircraft.
is at work on a GPS guided glide kit for Stingray...
remember the Trump administrations principle "American Jobs for American people" will we get the access to integrate British weapons or will we have to Buy American?
Well it's a cost benefit analysis situation, isn't it?
I recall when Australia introduced the MU-90, a case was made to integrate it on the AP-3C. From memory, it was going to cost something like $250 million. In the end, the ADF chose to just continue with the MK-46 on the AP-3C and settle on the MK-54 for the MH-60R and P-8A.
To this day, the Anzac class have MU-90 in the 3 round launchers, and MK-54 in the soon to be moded helicopter magazine. It was cheaper to do that than mess around with integration on the aircraft just so they could have one torpedo type. Think about that. I guess they had better things to do with the $250 million (and whatever it would have cost on the Romeos).
Personal suspicion is the result of this drive for UK/US cooperation covering MPA work in the North Atlantic it'll involve more P-8's visiting Lossie and a joint stock of weapons being available.
Defiance wrote:it'll involve more P-8's visiting Lossie and a joint stock of weapons being available.
And the same at the Iceland end. Anyone remember how Putin tried to buy Iceland out of NATO by offering "assistance" at the height of Iceland external debt crisis?
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
Mercator wrote:Well it's a cost benefit analysis situation, isn't it?
I recall when Australia introduced the MU-90, a case was made to integrate it on the AP-3C. From memory, it was going to cost something like $250 million. In the end, the ADF chose to just continue with the MK-46 on the AP-3C and settle on the MK-54 for the MH-60R and P-8A.
To this day, the Anzac class have MU-90 in the 3 round launchers, and MK-54 in the soon to be moded helicopter magazine. It was cheaper to do that than mess around with integration on the aircraft just so they could have one torpedo type. Think about that. I guess they had better things to do with the $250 million (and whatever it would have cost on the Romeos).
It is. And if I remember the MU90 hasn't gone that well as a procurement, so there may be other forces at play. The ANAO report on MU-90 wasn't exactly a vote of confidence, and in many was highlighted the issues of operating several weapon types for the same role. I do wonder how long MU-90 will continue in ADF service, particularly as it ages.
The UK will probably have to start P-8 operations with Mk54's as I suspect will Norway. But as both nations are enthusiastic users of Stingray, and it's gone/going through an update I can't see it being that difficult to add a HAAWC kit or similar to Stingray. Interestingly I can't see any mention of a datalink on HAAWC though...which given it's glide could be 5 mins+ would surely be an issue.
MU-90 was just about the last of a series of project setbacks primarily based upon Australian procurement believing the claims of industry (and some governments) about the state of maturity of various platforms and weapons. The Europeans were some of the worst offenders (MU-90, NH-90, Tiger, etc). The MU-90 was and is a perfectly decent weapon, it's just that a lot of the things we were trying to do were happening for the first time and consequently, every minor problem cost time and schedule that were not expected on a 'mature' (off-the-shelf) system.
To be fair, the project office badly underestimated the cost and schedule of some of these supposedly minor integration issues as well (and that's where I think you need to be very careful when throwing out similar statements about integrating Stingray). Anyway, our people are much more shy about taking on risk in this area, which is why we seem to be buying more off-the-shelf US kit, I suppose. There are trade-offs in doing this, of course, particularly for industry. But I suppose it's a matter of ruthlessly defining what are your strategic industries and concentrating on those instead of trying to be generous with your budget to everyone.
Finally, the other thing to think about is that if the integration of stingray onto the P8 and the development of a stand-off 'wing-kit' costs 'X', will you ever see any of that money again in exports? I don't know about you, but I doubt it. It's one thing to sustain industry in certain weapon systems through domestic procurement, but if the particular weapon is dead weight export wise, are there better options? In this case, I think there are.
Easy to see the common denominator: designed for fielding in the 90s, but when the Wall came down, the efforts started "idling" as funding fell off the cliff... and they are still not mature!
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
I think Seedcorn peaked at 27 people placed; almost half back by now (the cumulative total may have been higher than 27):
"investment on infrastructure in Lossiemouth in Scotland, where the planes will be based. Former armed forces personnel who previously served on UK Nimrod are also re-joining the RAF to help operate the future P-8s. 12 have recently re-joined and more will re-join in the future"
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
Mercator wrote:Finally, the other thing to think about is that if the integration of stingray onto the P8 and the development of a stand-off 'wing-kit' costs 'X', will you ever see any of that money again in exports? I don't know about you, but I doubt it. It's one thing to sustain industry in certain weapon systems through domestic procurement, but if the particular weapon is dead weight export wise, are there better options? In this case, I think there are.
I don't think anyone will be looking for Stingray sales opportunities. Is suspect that ship has long passed. But the users are very keen on it and have recently updated it. The costs of a HAAWC like kit and integration could well be far less than buying new torps, training on them, logistics etc. That is as long as we don't let BAe anywhere near it.
marktigger wrote:or the American will say no you buy american
If the U.K wants to add additional extras, it will.
The U.S cannot make demands of the UK exchequer but they could offer incentives to buy Yankee which would be favourable..?
Admin Note: This user is banned after turning most of their old posts into spam. This is why you may see their posts containing nothing more than dots or symbols. We have decided to keep these posts in place as it shows where they once were and why other users may be replying to things no longer visible in the topic. We apologise for any inconvenience.
little issues like design authority, access to source code for mission avionics. would all stop integration of any uk extras.
Looking at the Trump whitehouse so far the campaign rhetoric seams to be being followed through...So American Jobs for American workers could become very interesting with American equipment.
marktigger wrote:little issues like design authority, access to source code for mission avionics. would all stop integration of any uk extras.
Looking at the Trump whitehouse so far the campaign rhetoric seams to be being followed through...So American Jobs for American workers could become very interesting with American equipment.
Your first point: No it wouldn't. It could but it's highly unlikely.
Your second point. Uncle Donald has back tracked on campaign promises, too.
Admin Note: This user is banned after turning most of their old posts into spam. This is why you may see their posts containing nothing more than dots or symbols. We have decided to keep these posts in place as it shows where they once were and why other users may be replying to things no longer visible in the topic. We apologise for any inconvenience.
marktigger wrote:Looking at the Trump whitehouse so far the campaign rhetoric seams to be being followed through...So American Jobs for American workers could become very interesting with American equipment.
I suspect after the first cancelled order that would change rather quickly. Can't imagine the Israelis going along with that. Nor for that matter the RAF.
marktigger wrote:American Jobs for American workers
I think the main focus of that policy is actually "American" companies that have moved production of goods intended for sale into the US market overseas and countries like China, which he accuses (with some justification) of currency market manipulation (by refusing to allow the Renminbi to float on the international currency markets) and product dumping (i.e. selling at lower than production price, to destroy the competition).
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill
marktigger wrote:American Jobs for American workers
I think the main focus of that policy is actually "American" companies that have moved production of goods intended for sale into the US market overseas.....
I think that is the target but given the sledgehammer to crack a nut way he is going about things I could see stuff for various "Joint" programs getting caught up in it or zealously applied to increase US sales.....Could the modifications needed for the F35 or parts for it made in the UK suddenly become to expensive to be viable.
I doubt that he will, in the end, play around too much with previously agreed defence programs, though he might try to make it look as if he is "taking executive action" without hurting the substance of the programs too much. It also suits him to assist the UK at the moment and hitting the F35 program would a) be deeply harmful to the UK and b) put a lot of Americans out of work
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill
Mercator wrote:Finally, the other thing to think about is that if the integration of stingray onto the P8 and the development of a stand-off 'wing-kit' costs 'X', will you ever see any of that money again in exports? I don't know about you, but I doubt it. It's one thing to sustain industry in certain weapon systems through domestic procurement, but if the particular weapon is dead weight export wise, are there better options? In this case, I think there are.
I don't think anyone will be looking for Stingray sales opportunities. Is suspect that ship has long passed. But the users are very keen on it and have recently updated it. The costs of a HAAWC like kit and integration could well be far less than buying new torps, training on them, logistics etc. That is as long as we don't let BAe anywhere near it.
Stingray is a Bae product so your last comment is kinda dumb.
how many US jobs could be created if that figure was cut or eliminated?
Probably closer to 30% when you include electronics, software etc. I wonder who owns all the IP for that 30%? I doubt it's all owned in the USA. It would also mean reneging on a Government-to-government agreement with the USA's recently proclaimed number one ally. Any attempt to take workshare away from the UK would be tied up in the courts for years to come.
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill
Ron5 wrote:Stingray is a Bae product so your last comment is kinda dumb.
I meant the glide kit....
Boeing make the HAAWC, Raytheon make the Mk.54. No reason why they have to be the same manufacturer.
Your theme was that the UK should upgrade the Bae produced Stingray because it's a fine piece of kit but it shouldn't be done by Bae because they don't produce fine kit.
