Future UK Maritime Patrol Options

[Ron5]

Figured the UK would pay about the same as Australia, approx 4 billion for 8. But I did forget I was on a UK board, ooops, that was 4 billion dollars.

Still too expensive for 12 for the UK though. $8 billion = 5 bill UK pounds. Right?

The RAAF P-8 facilities work includes quite a few runway extensions and parking aprons, a completely new 92WG working space/hangers, a permanent det hanger/offices at Darwin and two sets of front&back-end sims. The transcript says A$707m for public works.

http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Bus ... ubmissions

You guys could get away with half that, at least.

You may be right but why would that stuff be in a contract with Boeing?

It's not. But when you see earlier reporting of A$4B for 8 aircraft (a project cost), remember that A$707M of it is the list above.

Got it. Thanks.

[jonas]

[raven111]

...I'd forgotten that the JMSDF still has flying boats.

[jonas]

...I'd forgotten that the JMSDF still has flying boats.

Indeed, in fact the Indian Navy are planning to buy twelve of these aircraft (Shinmaywa US-2i)

[raven111]

...I'd forgotten that the JMSDF still has flying boats.

Indeed, in fact the Indian Navy are planning to buy twelve of these aircraft (Shinmaywa US-2i)

...Maybe we should look at getting some to fill the SAR Support gap Nimrod left. >.>

[Little J]

...Maybe we should look at getting some to fill the SAR Support gap Nimrod left. >.>

Can't we just get them coz they're cool.

And think up a good reason after...

[jimthelad]

P8 and the P1 are under evaluation as of today, I believe 2 UK crews from seedcorn have been recalled 'on leave' to do this.

[jonas]

P8 and the P1 are under evaluation as of today, I believe 2 UK crews from seedcorn have been recalled 'on leave' to do this.

Are you saying the P1's are already at Fairford, or are the seedcorn personel studying the tech details before they arrive, and then they do the 'hands on' bit.

[jimthelad]

I believe they are looking at some of the hardware. Joint Warrior was used for some hands on P8 evaluation. Will post more when and if it becomes available. Interestingly the AAS has been certified for use in SKYNET satellites.

[jonas]

I believe they are looking at some of the hardware. Joint Warrior was used for some hands on P8 evaluation. Will post more when and if it becomes available. Interestingly the AAS has been certified for use in SKYNET satellites.

Tks for that, as far as I'm concerned P1 is a bit of an unknown quantity so any info on it is welcome.

[marktigger]

can understand why the P1 is in the frame now it is the only credible opponent to the P8. If the P8 was bought the government and the MoD could face unwarranted scrutiny from various committee's in Parliment and criticism in the media especially if there are the inevitible delays and cost over runs.

[bobp]

The P1 was designed from the outset as a MPA, it can go down to low level when required for a closer look and perhaps to launch a liferaft. The P8 by its nature of being a modified 737, is restricted to higher altitudes . That said I don't know how good the electronics fit on the Japanese plane is.

[marktigger]

The P1 was designed from the outset as a MPA, it can go down to low level when required for a closer look and perhaps to launch a liferaft. The P8 by its nature of being a modified 737, is restricted to higher altitudes . That said I don't know how good the electronics fit on the Japanese plane is.

hence the reports of handling difficulties at low level

[downsizer]

hence the reports of handling difficulties at low level

Got an official link or just internet here-say?

[jonas]

Never heard anything of handling difficulties at low level for the P8. The P1 though has had its problems with cracks being found in wing and body during testing. Makes you wonder how this will perform for lengthy periods at low level.

http://www.navyrecognition.com/index.ph ... ew&id=2314

[marktigger]

I seam to remember some comments in the News section of Airforces monthly about problems with the 737 wings to do with the aerodynamics and it effecting its stability at low level.
This is why a proper evaluation needs to take place of both platforms so we don't have any surprises when we eventually buy having 1 choice is never a good idea as we found with Nimrod and most other programs where there is one option put on the table.

[jonas]

I seam to remember some comments in the News section of Airforces monthly about problems with the 737 wings to do with the aerodynamics and it effecting its stability at low level.
This is why a proper evaluation needs to take place of both platforms so we don't have any surprises when we eventually buy having 1 choice is never a good idea as we found with Nimrod and most other programs where there is one option put on the table.

I would imagine that if any problems as you state above had been encountered, then our Seedcorn personel embedded in this programme would have made damn sure this was reported back. I doubt they would let us in for any surprises.
Apart from which the USN seems to be getting on fine with the aircraft, as do the Indian Navy. I'm pretty sure any instability recorded at low level would certainly have been brought to the fore.

[marktigger]

and has probably been sorted Just like the P1's fuselage and wing issues.
I would suggest the government is comming under allot of pressure to buy american but just because the US military uses it doesn't always mean its the best they have a very isolationist procurement regime as airbus and agusta westland both found out but aren't averse to arm twisting to protect "American Jobs"

[downsizer]

So, no, no proof at all. Just internet here-say then.....

[raven111]

and has probably been sorted Just like the P1's fuselage and wing issues.
I would suggest the government is comming under allot of pressure to buy american but just because the US military uses it doesn't always mean its the best they have a very isolationist procurement regime as airbus and agusta westland both found out but aren't averse to arm twisting to protect "American Jobs"

Wasn't most of the assembly for the VH-71 going to be done by Lockheed and Bell though?

And the KC-45 was going to be built in Alabama, along with all the future A330 freighters. Which fell through after Boeing got pissy and demanded the KC-X decision be overturned.

[jonas]

and has probably been sorted Just like the P1's fuselage and wing issues.
I would suggest the government is comming under allot of pressure to buy american but just because the US military uses it doesn't always mean its the best they have a very isolationist procurement regime as airbus and agusta westland both found out but aren't averse to arm twisting to protect "American Jobs"

You seem to be flying off at a bit of a tangent now, as the subject was relatiing to the stability of these aircraft at low level. For some reason you have now turned it into a political issue, or is that in lieu of an answer to the issue under discussion.

[bobp]

I wrote earlier that the P8 has handling difficulties at low level, that statement is incorrect and as some one suggested "Internet Hearsay".
So I apologise for that. In fact in order to launch its Sonar buoys and its Mk 54 Torpedoes the plane has to descend to low level. Apparently it is a smoother flight than a P3 due to its more flexible wings.

For UK service, there is of course the issue of Air-Air Refuelling would it be cheaper to add probes to the P8 or to add booms to our Voyager Aircraft. And also the issue of uk weapons fit to the P8 including Torpedoes. The P8 seems a fine aircraft and I hope that we will see some in service.

[CR4ZYHOR5E]

I would have thought the questions regarding the suitability of the P8s at low level is based on the fact that the wing and engines are (obviously) designed to operate at higher altitudes; that it's more a case of compromised efficiency rather than anything related to 'stability'. If anyone has any material to suggest otherwise I'd be interested to read it.

Would like to see P8 selected on the basis of economies of scale, greater confidence in continued support and development of the platform, and experience with type (Seedcorn). Am nervous about a P1 selection, not because of lack of capability, but because we would almost certainly spend and inordinate amount of time and money trying to put U.K kit on it, wiping out any theoretical cost benefit of going this route.

[raven111]

I would have thought the questions regarding the suitability of the P8s at low level is based on the fact that the wing and engines are (obviously) designed to operate at higher altitudes; that it's more a case of compromised efficiency rather than anything related to 'stability'. If anyone has any material to suggest otherwise I'd be interested to read it.

Would like to see P8 selected on the basis of economies of scale, greater confidence in continued support and development of the platform, and experience with type (Seedcorn). Am nervous about a P1 selection, not because of lack of capability, but because we would almost certainly spend and inordinate amount of time and money trying to put U.K kit on it, wiping out any theoretical cost benefit of going this route.

But we'd need to do kit integration with Poseidon as well.

[CR4ZYHOR5E]

It's all about orders of magnitude isn't it? I should have clarified my nervousness...Im concerned that it will look like our acquisition of Apache or, dare I say it, Phantom.

I'd prefer it to resemble C-17, stick in the RAF embossed floor mats by all means but don't go silly on 'kit integration'.