Future UK Maritime Patrol Options

[raven111]

Ah, the old "I have evidence but it's covered in scary looking OSA forms, sorry" argument.

[shark bait]

Ah, the old "I have evidence but it's covered in scary looking OSA forms, sorry" argument.

Precisely. Zero credibility but he smashes everyone down

[downsizer]

I stand by what I've said, you can take it or leave it. However the outcome will be one of 2 things. P8 (most likely with deletion of other assets) or we're out of the game for good.

Feel free to QFT, as I'm sure you will.

[jonas]

Can we give it a rest now, enough is enough.

[downsizer]

Ah, the old "I have evidence but it's covered in scary looking OSA forms, sorry" argument.

Precisely. Zero credibility but he smashes everyone down

Not trying to smash anyone down. Trying to shed a bit of light on what is actually going on, but hey, it's your choice what you choose to accept.

Sadly MP.net is gone, but rarely was I incorrect there.

[shark bait]

Not trying to smash anyone down.

Really?

The retard is strong in this place from time to time.

That and the idea they could do the job of the P8 is full retard. FFS.

I cannot wait for the results of the SDSR to put an end to this pointless circle jerk.

I've already told you all what will or won't be happening, but some would rather fapp around in fantasy land.

There are other options for sure, but only 1 is a realistic option. And it'll be that or nowt.

All this pissing in the wind is irrelevant here, lets be honest, there is only 1 runner.

You should have watched closer at the time. Stop trolling.

'll be waiting a loooooong time on the latter point then.

yeah, your pretty much always openly discussing the concepts of others.

[downsizer]

I forgot how frustrating banging a head against a brick wall can be.

I'm done with this one. Roll on Oct.

[R686]

Actually my suggestion was a 2 tier MPA solution using both the P8 and the C-295, so I would argue that could enhance capability

No one could argue the P8 isn't more capable, but likewise you couldn't argue it isn't massively expensive. Whilst the capability is great, and crucial for the UK, I worry that it is somewhat over qualified for a lot of the work which ultimately means wasting money. That's why the C-295 seems attractive, in uk waters it could provide 75% of the cability for 25% of the cost. It seems to be the C-295 is the most economical for close work and then going further out the P8 is more economical which is where my suggestion of a mixed system comes from.

Small number of P8 for expensive high end stuff, way off into the north sea, where the C-295 wont cope.
Large number of C-295 for cheap routine work, coastal stuff, where the P8 is overqualified.

It does go against all my love of commonalty, but the P8 is a commercial platform, that can be managed as part of the Americans fleet thus buying into their economies of scale, and bringing back commonality benefits.

This way all the capability is covered, plus we might get a decent number of platforms, all of which are multi role. I think both would prove extremely valuable and this is a more economical way to achieve it.

I am just going to pull numbers out my arse here, just to serve as a numerical example. Instead of us ordering 8 P8, perhaps we could order 5P8 + 12 C-295. It would cost roughly the same, same capability, more efficient operationally and more numbers.

I personally don't think there is anything wrong with a discussion on types of MPA that might be deemed useful to the UK,

Should that be a single type or multiple types is a valid question, but when we look at it from a budget viewpoint and a operational veiw it has serious implications, the same questions are being raised in relation to the RNZAF(C295 option is raised as also a battlefield airlifted to a possible C17 purchase, but P8 is the desired outcome) RAAF have partially settled the argument but operationally the debate is on do we need more P8 and less BAMS or vice versa.


All indications are that the UKGov will settle on P8 as with all your project seedcorn pers have been embedded with nations either using P8 or intended to use P8. I think the fundamental question is for the UK, as I haven't looked it up yet do you have a coast watch role with customs or defence. C295 could have the role of similar to that of the USCG, budget is the overriding factor here, coast watch (or what ever you want to call it) can backstop RAF P8

[jimthelad]

DS is correct, 2 on lease with right to buy at 4 years for OCU prob on 120 sqn badge in Jacksonville and then 201 standing up with 4 airframes (Boeing serials 056-59)at Waddington and the 2 lease units following integration trials. 6 other options to follow at paired purchases starting in 2018. Stingray does fit the wing kit but needs new code for weapons system integration. No sharkbait and co there is no publishable source material but this is reliable. The only thing that can kill it is if there is a weaker GBP to dollar rate and lower growth forecast resulting in a higher debt bond repayment.

[raven111]

DS is correct, 2 on lease with right to buy at 4 years for OCU prob on 120 sqn badge in Jacksonville and then 201 standing up with 4 airframes (Boeing serials 056-59)at Waddington and the 2 lease units following integration trials. 6 other options to follow at paired purchases starting in 2018. Stingray does fit the wing kit but needs new code for weapons system integration. No sharkbait and co there is no publishable source material but this is reliable. The only thing that can kill it is if there is a weaker GBP to dollar rate and lower growth forecast resulting in a higher debt bond repayment.

What's your source?

[cockneyjock1974]

Sensible question..... is Lossiemouth going to be utilised at all for the new MPA or will they all be based at Waddington?

[R686]

DS is correct, 2 on lease with right to buy at 4 years for OCU prob on 120 sqn badge in Jacksonville and then 201 standing up with 4 airframes (Boeing serials 056-59)at Waddington and the 2 lease units following integration trials. 6 other options to follow at paired purchases starting in 2018. Stingray does fit the wing kit but needs new code for weapons system integration. No sharkbait and co there is no publishable source material but this is reliable. The only thing that can kill it is if there is a weaker GBP to dollar rate and lower growth forecast resulting in a higher debt bond repayment.

So going the PPL way interesting, I know it solves short term $ but does it in the long run ? Surely Boeing will be making a profit on the lease then when you buy another profit, throwing hood money out for bad if you ask me.

[jonas]

DS is correct, 2 on lease with right to buy at 4 years for OCU prob on 120 sqn badge in Jacksonville and then 201 standing up with 4 airframes (Boeing serials 056-59)at Waddington and the 2 lease units following integration trials. 6 other options to follow at paired purchases starting in 2018. Stingray does fit the wing kit but needs new code for weapons system integration. No sharkbait and co there is no publishable source material but this is reliable. The only thing that can kill it is if there is a weaker GBP to dollar rate and lower growth forecast resulting in a higher debt bond repayment.

So when are you suggesting we might see the 2 OCU aircraft in service.

[jonas]

DS is correct, 2 on lease with right to buy at 4 years for OCU prob on 120 sqn badge in Jacksonville and then 201 standing up with 4 airframes (Boeing serials 056-59)at Waddington and the 2 lease units following integration trials. 6 other options to follow at paired purchases starting in 2018. Stingray does fit the wing kit but needs new code for weapons system integration. No sharkbait and co there is no publishable source material but this is reliable. The only thing that can kill it is if there is a weaker GBP to dollar rate and lower growth forecast resulting in a higher debt bond repayment.

What's your source?

For goodness sake read what he said. For what notice you will take, the info he has provided in the past has been more than guesswork and speculation, unlike most of the recent posts on here. Sometimes it's good to listen.

[raven111]

For goodness sake read what he said. For what notice you will take, the info he has provided in the past has been more than guesswork and speculation, unlike most of the recent posts on here. Sometimes it's good to listen.

This isn't tumblr. "Listen and Believe" doesn't fly well.

[jonas]

For goodness sake read what he said. For what notice you will take, the info he has provided in the past has been more than guesswork and speculation, unlike most of the recent posts on here. Sometimes it's good to listen.

This isn't tumblr. "Listen and Believe" doesn't fly well.

We will see in a couple of months.

[raven111]

As long as it doesn't involve a cavalcade of childish "I TOLD YOU SO LOL!!!!11!" remarks like the internet is one massive fucking primary school playground.

Because quite frankly I don't care whether it's the P-8 or not. But apparently we're not even allowed to discuss what's on the market without someone wandering in and screaming about how we're not allowed to do that because the P-8 is clearly going to win because they said so and all of their evidence to support is classified info so they can't tell us.

Maybe someone should let Special Branch know that you're all flouting the Official Secrets Act just to stroke your web-egos.

[R686]

If they are as suggested being leased aircraft.will that have an impact on how they are operated, as we have seen with the lease of C17 there were restrictions on use

[jonas]

As long as it doesn't involve a cavalcade of childish "I TOLD YOU SO LOL!!!!11!" remarks like the internet is one massive fucking primary school playground.

Because quite frankly I don't care whether it's the P-8 or not. But apparently we're not even allowed to discuss what's on the market without someone wandering in and screaming about how we're not allowed to do that because the P-8 is clearly going to win because they said so and all of their evidence to support is classified info so they can't tell us.

Maybe someone should let Special Branch know that you're all flouting the Official Secrets Act just to stroke your web-egos.

Well if you don't care, it begs the question why are you going on and on about it. As for flouting the official secrets act, how very child like that remark is and you don't need to revert to foul language to prove your point,or do you. In fact you are guilty yourself of turning this this thread into a primary school playground. Never mind it will soon be the school hols.

[jonas]

If they are as suggested being leased aircraft.will that have an impact on how they are operated, as we have seen with the lease of C17 there were restrictions on use

The post suggests as I read it, that only the first 2 aircraft will be on lease and they will form the OCU. So I would not imagine there well be many restrictions. DS will probably know more on that score.

[Tiny Toy]

My point was aimed at Tiny Toy who seems obsessed with MAD or thinks it some kind of wonder weapon.

I never said this. The entire discussion was about why drones with MAD booms were being built for the P-8. RobWilliams said that it was because "the network" would make them more effective. I said this was not the case, it was because you cannot simply put them on the P-8 because of its operational altitude. Jonas said that I was talking out of my arse. Etc.

I never said that MAD was the be all and end all silver bullet for ASW. Nothing is the be all and end all. And as I keep on reiterating, ASW is not the only requirement for a maritime patrol solution.

[raven111]

Well if you don't care, it begs the question why are you going on and on about it.

OK, here's my question to you: Why are you so desperate to shut down any discussion that doesn't favour the Poseidon?

[jonas]

My point was aimed at Tiny Toy who seems obsessed with MAD or thinks it some kind of wonder weapon.

I never said this. The entire discussion was about why drones with MAD booms were being built for the P-8. RobWilliams said that it was because "the network" would make them more effective. I said this was not the case, it was because you cannot simply put them on the P-8 because of its operational altitude. Jonas said that I was talking out of my arse. Etc.

I never said that MAD was the be all and end all silver bullet for ASW. Nothing is the be all and end all. And as I keep on reiterating, ASW is not the only requirement for a maritime patrol solution.

Someone else taking liberties and accusing me of things I have never said, Where and when did I say you were quote 'talking out out of your arse' unquote. By the way the drones don't have MAD booms

[Tiny Toy]

Where and when did I say you were quote 'talking out out of your arse' unquote.

Ah right, I assumed from this that you believed what I said to be factually incorrect.

[downsizer]

Sensible question..... is Lossiemouth going to be utilised at all for the new MPA or will they all be based at Waddington?

The MOB, if it happens, will most likely be Waddo, but not 100% yet. That wn't stop them operating from other locations as required. Space is tight at Lossie for permanent basing.