Future UK Maritime Patrol Options

[jonas]

It's very easy to stay such things on an internet forum, anyone can claim to be a high flyer on the MOD but those NDA's mean I can't say what. It doesn't mean shit until it can be verified.

Regardless of if your a somebody, or nobody, its irrelevant, it still doesn't mean others conversations are fucking pointless.

Getting a bit rattled there aren't we

[jonas]

Yeah I would go as far as saying its pretty obvious it's going to be the P8.

That doesn't mean the merits and drawbacks of other systems can't be discussed, its a maritime partol thread, not the choke on P8 dick forum.

OK so what are the merits of the other seemingly favoured (by some) contender. What do we even know about the P1, we know that RAF personel were given access to it at RIAT, we know that they flew in it. What I don't know is was it the brass that were given a joy ride, or did people experienced in the MPA role, such as the current 'seedcorn' personel have a chance to sound it out.

It's all very well reading about its capabilities on paper, or through different military blogs, and I'm sure it has been perused over by the MOD but have the end users been given a chance to voice their opinions of it.

So it's not much use getting irate, if you can give us the merits and drawbacks, factual and not perceived let's hear them.

[Tiny Toy]

... if you can give us the merits and drawbacks, factual and not perceived let's hear them.

Well, the merits of the P1 over the P8 are going to be: cheaper to buy, cheaper to fly, probably more reliable and therefore cheaper to fix, and can do MAD without a horrible and even more expensive kludge.

The merits of a maritime patrol solution that doesn't depend 100% on expensive aircraft and airtime? I would have thought that was obvious.

[downsizer]

... if you can give us the merits and drawbacks, factual and not perceived let's hear them.

Well, the merits of the P1 over the P8 are going to be: cheaper to buy, cheaper to fly, probably more reliable and therefore cheaper to fix, and can do MAD without a horrible and even more expensive kludge.

Based on what? Through life cost? Upgrades? Have you ever been involved in bringing a completely new airframe and mission system into service? Any purchase price can be made to look more attractive when you chop out support, spares, training.

Frankly you haven't got a clue on the cost of the P1 and nor do I.

[R686]

... if you can give us the merits and drawbacks, factual and not perceived let's hear them.

Well, the merits of the P1 over the P8 are going to be: cheaper to buy, cheaper to fly, probably more reliable and therefore cheaper to fix, and can do MAD without a horrible and even more expensive kludge.

Based on what? Through life cost? Upgrades? Have you ever been involved in bringing a completely new airframe and mission system into service? Any purchase price can be made to look more attractive when you chop out support, spares, training.

Frankly you haven't got a clue on the cost of the P1 and nor do I.

No doubt if the Japanese push hard enough that they will eventfully get some third order sales which with there own requirement for 70 odd aircraft and with the that might bring down cost cycle for the aircraft as it also has some have similar components and subsystems with C-2, with the cost difference for a flyaway price is one thing but its the tail end that's the unknown P8 has a large user base with commercial and military operations. anther factor in the long run is E3 Sentry will be looking for replacement soon as they are approaching 30 years a Boeing 737 AEW&C will go a long way with fleet commonality

[shark bait]

anther factor in the long run is E3 Sentry will be looking for replacement soon as they are approaching 30 years a Boeing 737 AEW&C will go a long way with fleet commonality

Likley to be a slightly different variant, but still close enough for commonality benefits. Brings us close to a common ISTAR platform which would be great, just a shame air seeker messes with that.

[R686]

anther factor in the long run is E3 Sentry will be looking for replacement soon as they are approaching 30 years a Boeing 737 AEW&C will go a long way with fleet commonality

Likley to be a slightly different variant, but still close enough for commonality benefits. Brings us close to a common ISTAR platform which would be great, just a shame air seeker messes with that.

Actually I'm still surprised that the UK purchased these aircraft. I know they were needed after Nimrod but it appears that the US has started to move away from the 707 based aircraft with P8 its 737 based and the new KC-45 its 767 based, Boeing is pitching a variant of the P8 for E-8 Joint STARS I would imagine its the same for RC-135 series


old but gives an indication on future thinking
http://www.spyflight.co.uk/767%20mc2a.htm

[ArmChairCivvy]

A P8 fitted with a ground surveillance radar was snapped in Germany about a year ago.

As NATO has binned the manned component for ground surveillance that one must be connected with the E8 trials?
- when I say binned: Purchasing only drones, not new manned a/c. But giving reprieve from paying into the drones prgrm to countries (such as the UK) that can pledge manned a/c for missions when needed. I wonder if the "stay of execution" for the RAF Sentinels was achieved by these means? (Remembering that one of the 5, in turn, has been fitted with maritime surveillance radar for trials.)

[shark bait]

Actually I'm still surprised that the UK purchased these aircraft. I know they were needed after Nimrod but it appears that the US has started to move away from the 707 based aircraft with P8 its 737 based and the new KC-45 its 767 based, Boeing is pitching a variant of the P8 for E-8 Joint STARS I would imagine its the same for RC-135 series

Yes its a strange one isn't it, bit of a rush job out of desperation as it was the only real contender. Information on what it actually does but most information points to it being pretty special and we are lucky we have been able to jump on board with that. I believe that the RC-135 has been very well looked after and still has alot of life left in it so I guess once the AWACS bows out we will be left with an odd old airframe which isn't ideal.

The variants of P8 being considered are the most exciting for me. It has the potential to become a true multi mission aorcraft and have a fairly common fleet, which would be great

[arfah]

IIRC, the 707 airframes which became E3D's were amongst the last built along with the E3F's..?

Boeing 737 is a late 1960's design and still going strong. Compare that to the P1 airframe when you need replacement parts at an austere location.

[shark bait]

And strange Japanese engines as well!

[arfah]

And strange Japanese engines as well!

Boeing 737: http://www.cfmaeroengines.com/engines/cfm56-7b

CFM56-2A used by Sentry AEW.1.

[Pseudo]

And strange Japanese engines as well!

Ah, but that wouldn't be a problem because we'd spend millions refitting them with BR700's or something.

[Gabriele]

Quite a lot of assumptions about the P-1 being not just good, but better than P-8.

Do we even know what kind of EO/IR turret it has? I'm not even 100% sure it has one, although there seem to be one in some images.
I don't think it can be air refuelled in any way, i don't see any receptacle or fuselage guide marking suggesting it has one.
It does have more hardpoints for weapons, but how useful this might actually be when weapons integration funds are very likely to be tiny to non-existant anyway is a very good question.
And it has four engine but no, i don't think that is actually particularly relevant at all these days. It might actually be worse most of the time, as it means two more engines to maintain. If more engines was actually a solution, everything would look like a B-52.

Anyone has any actual idea how Toshiba does with AESA radars? I know P-1 has a multi-face AESA from Toshiba. No idea how good or bad that might be.

It sure seems to have racked up a lot of support very quickly, even though most people know basically nothing about it.

Very puzzled by claims of it being "cheaper", too. Cheaper in which way? Recurring Flyway Unit cost exclusive of all support and long term and non recurring costs?
Japanese military hardware normally tends to be more, not less, expensive. Sometime horribly more expensive because Japan always tries to produce at home and also deliberately stretches out production times to keep the industry working, no matter how much it costs. That is their choice, it is how they like to run their economy.

Now this aircraft, which is "purpose designed", has pulled nothing through from a commercial equivalent, has no export customers, has been produced for now only in a handful of units, has long term production plans for 70 or so (quite a few less than the P-8), has four engines instead of two and supposedly "better" capability, somehow it also costs less than P-8...?
I really struggle to believe to that.

[R686]

Quite a lot of assumptions about the P-1 being not just good, but better than P-8.

I must have missed that bit, I haven't seen anyone state its better than P8

It does have more hardpoints for weapons, but how useful this might actually be when weapons integration funds are very likely to be tiny to non-existant anyway is a very good question.

It appears from a variety of source, that it can use most US weapons as well as indigenous designs, if you want other weapons you either stump up the $ or don't do it. case in point ADF and ARH with Hellfire

And it has four engine but no, i don't think that is actually particularly relevant at all these days. It might actually be worse most of the time, as it means two more engines to maintain. If more engines was actually a solution, everything would look like a B-52.

That comes down to CONOPS and requirements of the end user P1 is expected to fly lower than P8, while most aircraft have the capacity to fly on one engine incase of FOD or other emergencies

Anyone has any actual idea how Toshiba does with AESA radars? I know P-1 has a multi-face AESA from Toshiba. No idea how good or bad that might be.

Whilst little is known about Japanese systems, I certainly would not be writing it off on that aspect

It sure seems to have racked up a lot of support very quickly, even though most people know basically nothing about it.

I would not say it has a lot of support, its just some on here would like to debate the merits on each type of aircraft. but that hard to do when information on how it performs is hard to come buy

Very puzzled by claims of it being "cheaper", too. Cheaper in which way? Recurring Flyway Unit cost exclusive of all support and long term and non recurring costs?

That has ben noted several times by a majority of posters within the thread

Japanese military hardware normally tends to be more, not less, expensive. Sometime horribly more expensive because Japan always tries to produce at home and also deliberately stretches out production times to keep the industry working, no matter how much it costs. That is their choice, it is how they like to run their economy.

Not much difference to what the UK have done in the past, only difference is the UK through its political interference has ran out of steam, whilst the Japanese have different strategic circumstances

Now this aircraft, which is "purpose designed", has pulled nothing through from a commercial equivalent, has no export customers, has been produced for now only in a handful of units, has long term production plans for 70 or so (quite a few less than the P-8), has four engines instead of two and supposedly "better" capability, somehow it also costs less than P-8...?
I really struggle to believe to that.

I have seen flyaway cost for P1 of 150m USD per copy but as we all know that is not the true cost. I think the benefit lies in that the P1 and the C2 was to try and achieve design similarities but unfortunately that was not achieved, but I think the real benefit was in the sharing of development resources to reduce costs

[Tiny Toy]

Very puzzled by claims of it being "cheaper", too. Cheaper in which way?

In fuel economy, at least.

[jonas]

Very puzzled by claims of it being "cheaper", too. Cheaper in which way?

In fuel economy, at least.

Youv'e watered down your claims then that it is 'Cheaper to buy, cheaper to fly and cheaper to fix .

[raven111]

We're not going to know exactly what airframe is best for our requirements unless they're actually put into a properly structured test program.

[Tiny Toy]

Very puzzled by claims of it being "cheaper", too. Cheaper in which way?

In fuel economy, at least.

Youv'e watered down your claims then that it is 'Cheaper to buy, cheaper to fly and cheaper to fix .

Nope. Better fuel economy implies that it's cheaper to fly. I said probably cheaper to fix. And the cheaper to buy, well, that's how it appears at the moment on a per-unit basis, otherwise it probably wouldn't even be being considered.

[Geoff_B]

Very puzzled by claims of it being "cheaper", too. Cheaper in which way?

In fuel economy, at least.

Youv'e watered down your claims then that it is 'Cheaper to buy, cheaper to fly and cheaper to fix .

Nope. Better fuel economy implies that it's cheaper to fly. I said probably cheaper to fix. And the cheaper to buy, well, that's how it appears at the moment on a per-unit basis, otherwise it probably wouldn't even be being considered.

Really ? !!!!!

Ok how many Boeing 737s are out there, how many CFM-56s in commercial use and then compare to how Many P-1s and IHI turbofans in use in Japan let alone the rest of the world !!!

[jonas]

Very puzzled by claims of it being "cheaper", too. Cheaper in which way?

In fuel economy, at least.

Youv'e watered down your claims then that it is 'Cheaper to buy, cheaper to fly and cheaper to fix .

Nope. Better fuel economy implies that it's cheaper to fly. I said probably cheaper to fix. And the cheaper to buy, well, that's how it appears at the moment on a per-unit basis, otherwise it probably wouldn't even be being considered.

Is it being considered ? I would have thought that if that were the case,then we would have carried out some serious testing of it's capabilities, something that I have never seen any reference to, nor have I seen where any in depth discussions have taken place between the interested parties.

In fact the only discussions that I can find on the subject, are those on different sites such as this one.

[downsizer]

It isn't being considered at the minute.

[bobp]

Surely the discussion should be not on A is cheaper than B, Or A is cheaper to run than B, or that A has two less engines than B. Shouldn't we be discussing what A does that B doesn't. Or maybe accepting that B is the governments choice and it doesn't really matter what we say B it will be when announced.

[jimthelad]

It isn't being considered at the minute.

That's what I have heard also. Stingray has been trial fitted last month i am led to believe. P1 is back in Japan, 30Brits are in P8 presently. Coincidence?!

[jonas]

Surely the discussion should be not on A is cheaper than B, Or A is cheaper to run than B, or that A has two less engines than B. Shouldn't we be discussing what A does that B doesn't. Or maybe accepting that B is the governments choice and it doesn't really matter what we say B it will be when announced.

Well yes, but therein is the problem. The people in the know i.e. the personel embedded within the P8 project, and the seedcorn personel, will by now know it's capability.
For any other contender that is patently not the case. So we would have to put the whole procurement on the back burner, whilst we carry out the same procedures on them. IMHO that is completely unacceptable, and frankly I think it would sign the death warrant for any future MPA assets.