Boeing P-8A Poseidon (MRA Mk.1) (RAF)

Contains threads on Royal Air Force equipment of the past, present and future.
Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7249
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Boeing P-8A Poseidon (Future Maritime Patrol Aircraft) (RAF)

Post by Ron5 »

downsizer wrote:
Ron5 wrote: The MoD insisted on a Nimrod upgrade.
Wrong, the MoD and RAF actually wanted the P7. When that was cancelled they were forced into a 'Rod update by the treasury.
Let me update my comment then:

The Treasury insisted on a Nimrod upgrade.

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7249
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Boeing P-8A Poseidon (Future Maritime Patrol Aircraft) (RAF)

Post by Ron5 »

jimthelad wrote:DS is right. The RAF was to be the lead customer of the P7. When it was cancelled by the USN BAe thn offered 2 designs: a coalition effort based on the A319 and the Nimrod 2000 as the sole bidder. Other bids were the Be200, P3 upgrade, Atlantique 2+, and the A235. BAe was far from philanthropic and during the development nothing short of criminal. They knew from the RAF engineers embedded that the wing boxes would not fit the new CAM wings.
We've had this discussion before. I see no value in re-hashing old posts.

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7249
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Boeing P-8A Poseidon (Future Maritime Patrol Aircraft) (RAF)

Post by Ron5 »

indeid wrote:
Ron5 wrote: Indeed, the UK is very fortunate to have Bae with its rich heritage and its huge contribution to the UK's economy.

Every country on earth would take it over in heartbeat. Of course the UK's government, the MoD and Treasury in particular, run it down at every opportunity. That's the British way. Pathetic.
Having had the misfortune of being involved in two procurements with them I wouldn’t trust that company if they told me the sky was blue. I’ll exclude one of their departments from that, they offered me a job so must really know what they are doing........
Lucky for Bae that you turned it down then :D

indeid
Member
Posts: 271
Joined: 21 May 2015, 20:46

Re: Boeing P-8A Poseidon (Future Maritime Patrol Aircraft) (RAF)

Post by indeid »

Ron5 wrote:
Lucky for Bae that you turned it down then :D
The system they were looking for people for only existed on powerpoint with no customer, so an easy decision.

They do produce great powerpoint, its turning it into reality that tends to cause problems.

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7249
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Boeing P-8A Poseidon (Future Maritime Patrol Aircraft) (RAF)

Post by Ron5 »

Ron5 wrote:
downsizer wrote:
Ron5 wrote: The MoD insisted on a Nimrod upgrade.
Wrong, the MoD and RAF actually wanted the P7. When that was cancelled they were forced into a 'Rod update by the treasury.
Let me update my comment then:

The Treasury insisted on a Nimrod upgrade.
I'm reminded that I've been told that Bae was actually asked by the MoD to present a costed proposal for Nimrod. They would not have done so otherwise, they much preferred an Airbus solution. I've no doubt other folks have heard different stories.

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7249
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Boeing P-8A Poseidon (Future Maritime Patrol Aircraft) (RAF)

Post by Ron5 »

indeid wrote:
Ron5 wrote:
Lucky for Bae that you turned it down then :D
The system they were looking for people for only existed on powerpoint with no customer, so an easy decision.

They do produce great powerpoint, its turning it into reality that tends to cause problems.
Not unique to Bae. Implementation of an idea is always the hardest part. I assume you weren't up to the challenge?

(now I am teasing you)

indeid
Member
Posts: 271
Joined: 21 May 2015, 20:46

Re: Boeing P-8A Poseidon (Future Maritime Patrol Aircraft) (RAF)

Post by indeid »

Ron5 wrote:
Not unique to Bae. Implementation of an idea is always the hardest part. I assume you weren't up to the challenge?

(now I am teasing you)
Not up to the challenge? Caught me.........

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 6427
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Pitcairn Island

Re: Boeing P-8A Poseidon (Future Maritime Patrol Aircraft) (RAF)

Post by shark bait »

Ron5 wrote: they much preferred an Airbus solution
ahhhhh how good it could have been....... 15 years later we're doing the same thing and paying more for the privilege.
@LandSharkUK

indeid
Member
Posts: 271
Joined: 21 May 2015, 20:46

Re: Boeing P-8A Poseidon (Future Maritime Patrol Aircraft) (RAF)

Post by indeid »

shark bait wrote:
Ron5 wrote: they much preferred an Airbus solution
ahhhhh how good it could have been....... 15 years later we're doing the same thing and paying more for the privilege.
Are we not in danger of using the luxury of hindsight?

As a young holdy at Kinloss in the 90s my whisky addled mind (not the best evidence base I accept) can just about remember massive favouritism for the MRA4 over the other offerings, from users and industry. Typhoon hardly had a gleaming record at this point and plenty of scorn was poured by some on all sides on the idea that a civvy airliner could withstand the rigours of MPA work.

There wasn’t a lot of interest from other nations so the UK would likely be on the hook for the full conversion costs, and Airbus didn’t have the military sector and history it does now.

I’m sure finding people to now say they voted for the MRA4 at the time won’t be easy (much like Tony Blair!), but is it not too easy to shovel blame onto the treasury?

I think the way that such a large single source contract was put through shows that they just want to fill the MPA gap as quickly as possible and try and forget the Nimrod debarcle. Be thankful to whoever got Seedcorn up and running.

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 6427
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Pitcairn Island

Re: Boeing P-8A Poseidon (Future Maritime Patrol Aircraft) (RAF)

Post by shark bait »

Yes, hindsight is always perfect, I'm sure decisions we're made for right reasons in the early days, but later the warnings were ignored for all the wrong reasons.

Looking at it today a civilian platform easily looks like the best choice, and thankfully we're finally getting there, its just cost us a lot. Renewal will have cost us 8 billion by the time we have 9 new MPA's in service.

Good point about Seedcorn, hopefully it makes the return a smooth affair.
@LandSharkUK

jimthelad
Member
Posts: 507
Joined: 14 May 2015, 20:16
United Kingdom

Re: Boeing P-8A Poseidon (Future Maritime Patrol Aircraft) (RAF)

Post by jimthelad »

Thank WgCdrs Speight, Wallace, and Angus.

Opinion3
Member
Posts: 352
Joined: 06 May 2015, 23:01

Re: Boeing P-8A Poseidon (Future Maritime Patrol Aircraft) (RAF)

Post by Opinion3 »

I suspect that actually the Nimrod was the better design. The on paper capabilities are matched only by the Japanese. The implementation was clearly not good, but governments of both persuasions regularly cancelled orders, moved the goal posts and blamed the contractors unfairly.

A culture of massaging the truth was met with massaging the truth. This was seen in the ship building industry and also the aerospace industry.

If we were learning from our mistakes the defence black hole that was created by labour, resolved by hammond, and has now (in)conveniently reappeared would never happen again. The Americans utilise their hard labours more effectively but too suffer from waste and broken programs.

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7249
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Boeing P-8A Poseidon (Future Maritime Patrol Aircraft) (RAF)

Post by Ron5 »

Opinion3 wrote:and has now (in)conveniently reappeared
The new hole was the creation of one George Osborne who introduced the beyond stupid "efficiency" savings that the MoD had to make each and every year. Basically cut upon cut upon cut. Every year less money to spend than the year before.

Why didn't it show up against the 2% GDP target? Because good old George kept transferring items from other budgets into defense.

The guy was and is a complete scoundrel. So were the crew of oxbridge lovies at the Treasury backing him up. And they're still there.

Caribbean
Senior Member
Posts: 2784
Joined: 09 Jan 2016, 19:08
United Kingdom

Re: Boeing P-8A Poseidon (Future Maritime Patrol Aircraft) (RAF)

Post by Caribbean »

Ron5 wrote:lovies?
I doubt any of those geeks ever "trod the boards"
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Boeing P-8A Poseidon (Future Maritime Patrol Aircraft) (RAF)

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Ron5 wrote:Why didn't it show up against the 2% GDP target? Because good old George kept transferring items from other budgets into defense.
Would need a quick jump to the mid-term strat. review thread ("modernisation"), but in short:
- the navy will pull through as the money has been put into redirecting its capabilities - and more money can see the hulls manned, too
- the RAF is benefiting from the relative over-investment ( i.e. robbed the others be swelling the cost/scope of prgrms too costly to stop or cancel) during the lean years
- it is the army that has been cut to the bone... however, we are not too far from the summer now, when the latest review efforts/ results will come out [hold yr breadth?]
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)

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7249
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Boeing P-8A Poseidon (Future Maritime Patrol Aircraft) (RAF)

Post by Ron5 »

Watch out for Hammond trumpeting an extra extra 800m for defense while neglecting to mention 200m was this years under spend transferred to next and 600m transferred from Dreadnought contingency fund to plug program overruns.

Personally I don't think he's a lot better than Osborne.

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7249
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Boeing P-8A Poseidon (Future Maritime Patrol Aircraft) (RAF)

Post by Ron5 »

Caribbean wrote:
Ron5 wrote:lovies?
I doubt any of those geeks ever "trod the boards"
Not sure I know what "lovies" implies in the UK, saw it online and figured it wouldn't be good :-)

R686
Senior Member
Posts: 2322
Joined: 28 May 2015, 02:43
Australia

Re: Boeing P-8A Poseidon (Future Maritime Patrol Aircraft) (RAF)

Post by R686 »

Ron5 wrote:Watch out for Hammond trumpeting an extra extra 800m for defense while neglecting to mention 200m was this years under spend transferred to next and 600m transferred from Dreadnought contingency fund to plug program overruns.

Personally I don't think he's a lot better than Osborne.

out of curiosity what was the source of that information?

Opinion3
Member
Posts: 352
Joined: 06 May 2015, 23:01

Re: Boeing P-8A Poseidon (Future Maritime Patrol Aircraft) (RAF)

Post by Opinion3 »

We as a country do spend too much, the tax take is high and we spend more than we tax and have massive debts. However, there are ways and means to balance things better than we are doing. We can afford more to go to defence....

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7249
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Boeing P-8A Poseidon (Future Maritime Patrol Aircraft) (RAF)

Post by Ron5 »

R686 wrote:
Ron5 wrote:Watch out for Hammond trumpeting an extra extra 800m for defense while neglecting to mention 200m was this years under spend transferred to next and 600m transferred from Dreadnought contingency fund to plug program overruns.

Personally I don't think he's a lot better than Osborne.

out of curiosity what was the source of that information?
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/800- ... or-defence

To be fair, the 200m has seen several explanations. Some think its a genuine increase. Other say it's money pulled forward from next year.

So far, I think I'm the only one that says its underspent money - put that down to my shaky memory. Whatever the explanation, the amount is pathetic, half a percent of the budget.

Google "600m defence" and you can pick whichever explanation appeals to you the most :-)

Caribbean
Senior Member
Posts: 2784
Joined: 09 Jan 2016, 19:08
United Kingdom

Re: Boeing P-8A Poseidon (Future Maritime Patrol Aircraft) (RAF)

Post by Caribbean »

Ron5 wrote:half a percent of the budget
Weren't they supposed to get an extra 0.5% each year under the last SDSR? Sounds like this might just be what they were supposed to get anyway.
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Boeing P-8A Poseidon (Future Maritime Patrol Aircraft) (RAF)

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Drawing on a contingency, agreed in 2015, is hardly fresh money.

The half per cent (in real terms) every year was probably spent in the additions to the EP announced in the latest SDSR.

I read the £200m as "oxygen" to take the Dept to summer, when both structural changes (cuts?) and fresh money (to plug the holes in unfunded plans) will be announced. Alternatively (or, more specifically) the 200m could be this year's down payment for these two "errors & omissions" noted by NAO:
" Our review of the Department’s approach to
forecasting costs found that not all costs are included in the Plan. At least £1.3 billion of
planned costs associated with buying five general purpose frigates (Type 31e) are not
included in the Equipment Plan"
[p. 9, for the omission]



and p. 10 for the error, of which only the Dreadnought part was pulled out of the said, reserved contingency:
"Nuclear-related project costs continue to grow and forecast costs are higher
than those shown in the Plan.
Nuclear-related projects could destabilise the Plan
because of their size and complexity. Our project testing has shown that costs for the
Dreadnought and Astute projects have increased by £941 million since the 2016 Plan. "
- next years plan is supposed to show whether there will be any achievable savings, or whether the yearly costs will need to be contained by the not-so-good, but old trick of managing the build rate
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)

R686
Senior Member
Posts: 2322
Joined: 28 May 2015, 02:43
Australia

Re: Boeing P-8A Poseidon (Future Maritime Patrol Aircraft) (RAF)

Post by R686 »

Ron5 wrote:
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/800- ... or-defence

To be fair, the 200m has seen several explanations. Some think its a genuine increase. Other say it's money pulled forward from next year.

So far, I think I'm the only one that says its underspent money - put that down to my shaky memory. Whatever the explanation, the amount is pathetic, half a percent of the budget.

Google "600m defence" and you can pick whichever explanation appeals to you the most :-)
Yes I see what you mean, it's not new money.

So what happens when they spend the Dreadnought contingency fund and Dreadnought has to access the fund but there's no money left in the kitty. They are perpetuating the problem. :crazy:

That's why the RAN got into such a state when the AusGov cheapest out when we bought the LPA's and the cost more than budgeted for, instead of providing new money the raided the kitty for the maintenance fund of other ships and guess what happened, and you don't need to be Einstein to figure that out.

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7249
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Boeing P-8A Poseidon (Future Maritime Patrol Aircraft) (RAF)

Post by Ron5 »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:" Our review of the Department’s approach to
forecasting costs found that not all costs are included in the Plan. At least £1.3 billion of
planned costs associated with buying five general purpose frigates (Type 31e) are not
included in the Equipment Plan"
It was later clarified that, at the time, the 1.3 billion for T31 was being carried within the Type 26 budget. Later they split it out under its own heading. Note that 1.3 is rounding up of 1.25.

indeid
Member
Posts: 271
Joined: 21 May 2015, 20:46

Re: Boeing P-8A Poseidon (Future Maritime Patrol Aircraft) (RAF)

Post by indeid »

Ron5 wrote:
ArmChairCivvy wrote:" Our review of the Department’s approach to
forecasting costs found that not all costs are included in the Plan. At least £1.3 billion of
planned costs associated with buying five general purpose frigates (Type 31e) are not
included in the Equipment Plan"
It was later clarified that, at the time, the 1.3 billion for T31 was being carried within the Type 26 budget. Later they split it out under its own heading. Note that 1.3 is rounding up of 1.25.
Is there no process for ‘misunderstandings’ like this to be rectified before these reviews are published? Maybe the excel expert was on leave......

Post Reply