Future UK Maritime Patrol Options

[shark bait]

The first thing that caught my eye was the £100 million price. At that they would be a bargain, they are costing more like £200 million, shows little fact checking and probably BS

Also maybe postponed purchase in favour of lease?

[jimthelad]

IF that article is true then no one in the appropriate acquisition team in the UK or stateside knew about it as of yesterday @ 2015. The leak is either BS, comes from the office of the minister or minister for procurement (that is verging on instant dismissal), or from the treasury. Maybe Downsizer can help here? Failing that, the thread MOD stool pigeon or the 2 journos who lurk here (one of which I believe contibutes to the Murdoch empire) may want to comment: you know who you are

[Halidon]

The first thing that caught my eye was the £100 million price. At that they would be a bargain, they are costing more like £200 million, shows little fact checking and probably BS

Also maybe postponed purchase in favour of lease?

Depending on how it's figured, the fly-away cost for a USN P-8A can be put at around £110 million and change, so figuring Boeing is offering bone-stock (no development cost) USN spec aircraft at the best price they can, it's not an unreasonable figure. Of course that might be part of the problem, the article mentions lack of British industry workshare/input and it's likely someone at MoD asked "how much for a P-8UK?" and didn't like when the price jumped up. So there's a chance this could be a somewhat heavy-handed ploy to try to pressure Boeing to bring down the cost of adding British Bits to the aircraft. Not unprecedented if so.

[jonas]

OMG please don't say they are going for the P1, or I am going to have to eat my hat.

Don't worry, you can always do a Paddy Ashdown if the P-1 is selected. Since we'll install some British equipment on it and call it the Vigilant or something you should be able to get out of your sombrero scoffing by claiming that the modifications mean it's not really a P-1.

Yes, no doubt we will push up the price by installing UK equipment, so in the end I guess it won't be much cheaper. Your suggestion though does give me a ready excuse. Frankly I have no faith in the Sunday Times reporting on defence matters, they have been wrong too many times in the past.

Strange isn't it that no other paper has a word to say about it, normally the Torygraph would be all over it like a rash. Well in for a penny in for a pound, I will say it is a load of BS.

[shark bait]

Depending on how it's figured, the fly-away cost for a USN P-8A can be put at around £110 million and change, so figuring Boeing is offering bone-stock (no development cost) USN spec aircraft at the best price they can, it's not an unreasonable figure.

I don't think the US fly away cost means anything to us in the UK. It's irrelevant, its not what we would pay. It's a similar thing in articles using the F35 fly away cost, its meaningless, its just a lower number than the actual cost, so its the one they like to publicise.

Much better off looking at the Australian and Indian contracts, but even then its only a rough indicator. Looking at those £100 million seems like a steel!

It's a very expensive aircraft, with great capabilities. We are a rich country, we can afford it, its just the political will to divert funds in the right direction.

[jonas]

IF that article is true then no one in the appropriate acquisition team in the UK or stateside knew about it as of yesterday @ 2015. The leak is either BS, comes from the office of the minister or minister for procurement (that is verging on instant dismissal), or from the treasury. Maybe Downsizer can help here? Failing that, the thread MOD stool pigeon or the 2 journos who lurk here (one of which I believe contibutes to the Murdoch empire) may want to comment: you know who you are

I find the latter part of your post intriguing, and now read posts with a new interest. I have a couple in mind, but one I can't put a finger on as yet.

Meanwhile do you have an answer to the question I asked a couple of days ago, perhaps overtaken by recent 'events :-

" Regarding the three leased airframes. Will these be eventually purchased as with the C17's orginal leased airframes, and be added to the " 3 + 6" or will they be returned to owner when lease expires ?"

[RichardIC]

IF that article is true then no one in the appropriate acquisition team in the UK or stateside knew about it as of yesterday @ 2015. The leak is either BS, comes from the office of the minister or minister for procurement (that is verging on instant dismissal), or from the treasury. Maybe Downsizer can help here? Failing that, the thread MOD stool pigeon or the 2 journos who lurk here (one of which I believe contibutes to the Murdoch empire) may want to comment: you know who you are

It is unfortunately typical of the way the political system works in the UK.

Civil servants work for years on a project, negotiate 'til they're blue in the face, think they have a watertight case with all the i's dotted and t's crossed.... and then it crosses the desk of a politician with only the vaguest grasp of the issue for sign off. All of a sudden it doesn't tally with the latest political whimsy, they're worried it may cause a slightly inconvenient headline, they're leant on by a colleague (probably from the Treasury) or they just think they're smarter than everyone else. And you can kiss goodbye to all your work.

[cockneyjock1974]

This is going to be an interesting day, cheers Jim, popcorn out and beers chilled lol.

Cant workout who the snoopers are though.

[ArmChairCivvy]

What if... decisions taken on the other side of the Pond have changed the evolution path. What if the MPA won't morph to an MMA after all ( even after a lengthy wait, which was to give a good smoke screen for the spend to be in smaller increments)? Would it still be worth buying... and then buying something else for the residual requirement?

Today's breakingdefence snippet: " the United States Air Force has been steadfast about the need to recapitalize the fleet and adamant that the solution must be a manned, business-class jet leveraging mature technology. The USAF’s Analysis of Alternatives (AOA) clearly validated this is the path forward and the most cost-effective and low-risk solution. "
- simply put, would all the additional functionality integration costs fall on the UK ( a fleet of a dozen +/- vs. the development being undertaken for hundreds of units)?

Please note the sprinkling of question marks in the above.

[ArmChairCivvy]

Cant workout who the snoopers are though.

Wouldn't it be lovely if not all the energy we expend here dissipated into space, but had an impact on the true public domain? Not that we weren't in the public domain, but the pull-mode of acquiring information is still only for the genuinely interested.

[cockneyjock1974]

Cant workout who the snoopers are though.

Wouldn't it be lovely if not all the energy we expend here dissipated into space, but had an impact on the true public domain? Not that we weren't in the public domain, but the pull-mode of acquiring information is still only for the genuinely interested.

Even on MP.net, Jim said it had a pretty good following at the MOD and hinted that it may have been influential at times, looks like the same is happening here. Whether we are influential or not remains to be seen. For my 2 cents worth if the P8 has been tabled for a while then it certainly sounds like penny pinching from either top level MOD or heavy interference from the treasury.

[bobp]

Whilst the P8 is the preferred solution, was wondering what the cost of the high altitude delivery systems and the reliance on sonar buoys has in regards to operating costs. Would a MAD boom as fitted to the Indian version be more cost effective.

[Little J]

What if... decisions taken on the other side of the Pond have changed the evolution path. What if the MPA won't morph to an MMA after all ( even after a lengthy wait, which was to give a good smoke screen for the spend to be in smaller increments)? Would it still be worth buying... and then buying something else for the residual requirement?

Today's breakingdefence snippet: " the United States Air Force has been steadfast about the need to recapitalize the fleet and adamant that the solution must be a manned, business-class jet leveraging mature technology. The USAF’s Analysis of Alternatives (AOA) clearly validated this is the path forward and the most cost-effective and low-risk solution. "
- simply put, would all the additional functionality integration costs fall on the UK ( a fleet of a dozen +/- vs. the development being undertaken for hundreds of units)?

Please note the sprinkling of question marks in the above.

If your talking about AAS, then that is a USN project and therefore no integration costs for us - however, if USAF does go with a P-8/AAS derivative it should lower the unit cost.

If your not talking AAS, then I'm confused and you can ignore the above

[ArmChairCivvy]

If your talking about AAS, then that is a USN project and therefore no integration costs for us - however, if USAF does go with a P-8/AAS derivative it should lower the unit cost.

If your not talking AAS, then I'm confused and you can ignore the abov

As we (all here) are looking in,from the outside, it is v difficult to tell about the mix of sensors (and weapons) as opposed to platforms, and what is going to be funded (by the volume customer, thereby the unit/ fly-away cost can come down by 50%).

All I am trying to do is to decipher the weak signals ( or noise in the media channel?) from what the many turns in the US defence funding are taking (sequestership... hundreds of bns of $; our quick turns hundreds of mlns of £; and the U-turns, following on from the quick, maybe tens of mlns of £, but over the life -or for filling in the gaps later, after the "penny" drops - maybe much more.
- USN= MPA
- USAF = MMA (next JSTARS)
- UK = how to procure both, in the same package, and perhaps keep Sentinel to bridge the gap

That is the narrative I am looking for, I am sure there are many folks around here who are much more knowledgeable about the detail

[Gabriele]

Most contenders in the JSTARS replacement race for the USAF are offering business jet platforms, size-wise, yes. Boeing no. Boeing is still offering a larger aircraft, the 737-700, which is however a bit smaller than the 737-800 which is the P-8's base. Right or wrong, we'll only know if and when the programme progresses to a selection.
The radar to be employed also hasn't been firmly selected yet, but one of the top contenders is the same AN/APS-154 AAS that the US Navy will put on part of its P-8 fleet for its own needs.

The JSTARS recap effort is, however, struggling to get funding and might not progress (yet).

Key take away: the AAS radar is a serious contender for the US JSTARS requirement and a 737 platform remains in the game.

The US Navy is working to integrate the AAS on P-8 for increased target mapping capability in the littoral and overland domains. The AN/APY-10 radar already comes with overland functionality and the P-8 as it is now is not any less of an ISTAR platform than other MPAs used over land.
It is actually probably better already.

The UK requirement is for a MPA with good ASW capability and, eventually, a wide area SAR / ISAR / GMTI surveillance capability over land. The P-8 with AAS fits the requirement like a glove.

Would it be better to use a pure, high performace MPA and a smaller, higher-flying business jet with AAS for the overland role? Sure. But the UK can't realistically afford to purchase, man, operate and upgrade through life two such fleets and have reasonable numbers to work with.

No other MPA in the world has a clear path to a wide area SAR / GMTI capability of that kind; no other MPA in the world has a civilian base of similar airframes and a military, international fleet as large as P-8 has; no other MPA in the world comes with tens of RAF personnel already trained / involved on it; no other MPA in the world has the kind of assured evolution path that the main MPA of the US Navy can expect to have.

There are several offers to create something that does MPA and overland ISTAR for the UK, but they all exist only on paper. The Sea Hercules, the Q-400, and a big evolution of the C-295 or P-1. They are all entirely or partially paper projects with varying degrees of risk and uncertainty.
Tipically, it starts with promises of "it'll be cheaper and better too" and then it ends in years of frustrations and cost overruns. Then, a few years later, when it is time for major upgrades, you look around for a partner to share the costs with... and while US and Australia go on with P-8, you end up alone in the room, with a Challenger 2 rifled gun and 2-piece ammo at your side.

No MPA in the world comes ready for british weaponry [unless Norway (only customer of Stingray ever) has actuallly put Stingray mod 1 on its old P-3s. Did it? But even if it did, is P-3 an option / would the UK take any real advantage?], so it is not a P-8 problem but a UK problem. Some integration of customer-specific kit is unavoidable. Either that, or purchase of US torpedoes for P-8 use, whatever is cheaper. India decided to bey the torpedoes along with the aircraft, for example.

[ArmChairCivvy]

Key take away: the AAS radar is a serious contender for the US JSTARS requirement and a 737 platform remains in the game.

All the reasoning that followed the above is solid, and logical, but those are the (known) facts.
- Stay tuned to the same channel (same time can't be guaranteed)!

[downsizer]

Cant workout who the snoopers are though.

Wouldn't it be lovely if not all the energy we expend here dissipated into space, but had an impact on the true public domain? Not that we weren't in the public domain, but the pull-mode of acquiring information is still only for the genuinely interested.

The only reason the MoD snoops on these sites (and other Mil sites) is to catch out and identify serving members and discipline them for posting outside of the MoD internet guidelines. I've seen the witch hunts first hand.

[bobp]

@ Downsizer
I remember back in the seventies we were warned about what we said down the local pub as it was known that foreign people came and eves dropped on conversations. Now it seems the internet social networking sites have become the place to watch. Progress I guess.

[Tiny Toy]

Whilst the P8 is the preferred solution, was wondering what the cost of the high altitude delivery systems and the reliance on sonar buoys has in regards to operating costs. Would a MAD boom as fitted to the Indian version be more cost effective.

As has been pointed out already in this thread, there is no point fitting a MAD boom to a P8 since it cannot economically fly at a low enough altitude to use it.

[bobp]

Yes I understand the fuel burn would increase, but why did the Indian Air Force Select it?

[Tinman]

Cant workout who the snoopers are though.

Wouldn't it be lovely if not all the energy we expend here dissipated into space, but had an impact on the true public domain? Not that we weren't in the public domain, but the pull-mode of acquiring information is still only for the genuinely interested.

The only reason the MoD snoops on these sites (and other Mil sites) is to catch out and identify serving members and discipline them for posting outside of the MoD internet guidelines. I've seen the witch hunts first hand.

Particularly considering the amount of loose lips leaking to the press to suit the needs of there particular regiments, thus creating a sizeable footprint of support for certain cap badges.

[jimthelad]

No other credible outlest have jumped on the band wagon for P8 cancellation so either someone has been fitted with a .38 implant, the press has been muzzled (not really likely no matter how much we want it), or the 'leak' is more of a wet patch.

I dint think the leased airframes are more than a temporary lend until the serials come off the production line. AFAIK there is not the budget to allow the crewing for more than 1 sqn and 1 OCU.

Why do India want MAD, they are operating in the littoral most of the time, passive is ratshit, active is confusing as hell unless you do some herding and have nice big quiet SSN lurking in deeper water! MAD allows some sorting out of the anomalous returns and gives you a snapshot if needed. Less use in deeper water with lots of ssns fitted with SAM.

[bobp]

@jimthelad Thank you for clarifying how MAD works.

[Mercator]

@Gab
Australia went with the mk54 as well. And passed on integrating the MU-90 onto the P3s a few years ago because it was going to cost around A$200M. Consider what a high-alt stingray program would cost. It won't be cheap going it alone.

And what's the sense in going it alone with MPA anyway? It's usually a team sport. It never hurts for everyone to be able to use the same bouys and weapons. I get that it makes sense to go it alone on some national capabilities, but I don't think that case is as strong with MPA (who often deploy in coalition) and with so few aircraft. Save your money for something more useful.

[seaspear]

You might find that there is a security body that listens to and reads all media for information that should not be disclosed and not just in the U.K .