Future UK Maritime Patrol Options

[Halidon]

There seems to be a major contradiction between your quoted story that claims Bae intensively lobbied the government to drop the MRA4 and to switch to an Airbus based solution, and your own story that Bae hid the MRA4 problems from the government and only when found out did they play the "jobs card" to blackmail the government into proceeding with the doomed program. Bit hard to intensively lobby for something while at the same time blackmailing for the opposite outcome!

I suspect the actual story is still waiting to be told. HMG is past master at briefing against Bae to cover their own backsides so I doubt if it will come from them.

Bit of a missed opportunity, I would have thought, to have the same (or very similar) Airbus airframe for tanker & ASW. Maybe even AEW. But all water under the bridge. American industry gets occasional flack on these boards for seeking to undermine European self-sufficiency. Not really needed when the euros keep shooting their own industry in the foot.

Well it helps to be around at the time and going out with somebody from the programme, so got to meet the draughtmen and could talk shop with them , BAE was trying to merge with Boeing and was divesting itself of Airbus, so suggestions of an Airbus solution is cobblers at that time in the late 90s, BAE Broughton soon became Airbus and is still making wings. Ironically BAE should have really gone for Airbus Military as they could have used the experience in the country to develop the Tankers and a viable MPA rather than CASA in Spain, not to mention the possible final assembly of the Atlas. Trouble is with Boeing as the selected Systems intergrator on Nimrod MRA4, you couldn't imagine them being allowed that close an access to raw Airbus airframes and design documents !

I do wonder if one of the elements of the BAE MPA proposal included looking at possible Boeing Airliners as a basis for an off the shelf airframe, and thus we may have inadvertantly founded the P-8 propossal

The US has often been inspired by things the UK has done or explored, but the potential use of turbofan airliners for maritime missions has a long history on this side of the pond. Back in the 80s Boeing and McDonnell Douglas were both pushing such concepts during the first attempt to replace P-3.

[arfah]

Indonesia had 2 or 3 B737's for maritime patrol across their archipelago back in the 80's, too. They were not submarine Hunters, though.

[ArmChairCivvy]

And Argentina used a 707 trying to spot the incoming fleet...

But the real story is between two competing turbofan designs for fuel efficiency/ duration improvements:

http://www.bizjournals.com/seattle/news ... iency.html

The problem with Boeing's is that for the 737 it is so much wider in diameter that even the civil airliner models only just got certified for the best grade runways... so no rough field capacity whatsoever for the military versions... hence no fuel savings/ endurance improvements in line with the civil versions.

[Ron5]

Fairly inaccurate reading of the quotes, note the year and who was it "saying":
"The modification and implementation committee in 2006 (32 people from maritime, independant industry, government) concluded the airframe was intolerant of the proposed changes and suggested an emergency adoption of the Airbus A320 or A319."

I agree that the full story is still to be told (I also agree that only a J Corbyn gvmnt would tell the story, just to embarrass... but luckily that won't happen). The second part of the statement I don't agree with, though, will detail below
"I suspect the actual story is still waiting to be told. HMG is past master at briefing against Bae to cover their own backsides so I doubt if it will come from them."
- HMG is not briefing against BAE, it is the press and these boards. An example:
- the Terrier programme (the last man standing, of UK tracked armour) initially went onto the rocks. The Gvmnt sued BAE and damages were agreed. The NAO reports kept this quiet, and the sky high unit cost of the as such excellent Terrier (II) is reported without the sunk cost of the first prgrm (as it had been written off, even though the compensation was rather partial). OK, you could say that both parties benefited from this.
- gvmnt has been quilty of sabotaging, through negligent prgrm/ budgetary management, many of the prgrms that have turned out as BAE disasters. E.g. the Nimrod AEW wasted billions (50-70% of the MR4 write off in constant money) are now part of written aviation history: everything else was excellent, and working, but the central processing unit had been underspecified and even though COTS would have been available by that time, the billions were written off as the MoD could possibly not be seen shopping on the high street.

Playing the jobs card definitely is the sin of BAE. Had they not made the concession for FRESH SV only in the last minute, we would now have it (and an AFV industry). Norway has even the recce version "on the road"
- but multinationals have a dilemma: bowing to the HMG, in that particular case, would have meant showing your backside to the Swedish gvmnt (it is unknown what guarantees were given when they were allowed to take over Hagglunds)

EDIT: G beat me to it, so I will add this from his "Trouble is with Boeing as the selected Systems intergrator on Nimrod MRA4, you couldn't imagine them being allowed that close an access to raw Airbus airframes and design documents !"
- it is not easy to be in the defence industry, dealing with sovereign gvmnts and ever changing priorities (not meaning ever changing specs, that is a more universal problem)
- to the merit of BAE, they tried the Airbus merger as well. Neither that nor the x-Atlantic merger went ahead. Plan B (now it might have become C) is not good for the UK, either: a demerger of the UK and American parts. Top 100 managers of the global BAE were once convened to consider the option in detail

I can't read, oh really?

Try reading:
1. "This (an Airbus based solution) was vetoed by MoD following intense lobbying from BAe"
2. "BAE played the British Jobs card and blackmailed a billion pound bailout (for Nimrod)"

I have a long memory too and I remember Bae proposing an Airbus based solution way back in the beginning of this saga. Re-engineering Nimrod was an idea that eminated from the MoD.

P.S.
Playing the jobs card is not a sin. Only an idiot would deny the benefits of building locally.

Bae lost the FRES bid because of cost and the higher weight capability of the ASCOD chassis to accept growth. The ASCOD bid was very significantly cheaper. British jobs were icing on the cake.

Make your mind up, is Bae bad for Britain (BAE disasters cost UK billions) or good (break up of US & UK BAe not good for UK) ??

The anti-Bae press articles feature in the Telegraph and using rise in volume during contract negotiations. Briefed by HMG. Usually proved to be incorrect. If you can be bothered to go back and check, often "greedy" Bae's initial cost estimates are proven to be close to final "huge Bae overruns". See CVF for details.

[Ron5]

There seems to be a major contradiction between your quoted story that claims Bae intensively lobbied the government to drop the MRA4 and to switch to an Airbus based solution, and your own story that Bae hid the MRA4 problems from the government and only when found out did they play the "jobs card" to blackmail the government into proceeding with the doomed program. Bit hard to intensively lobby for something while at the same time blackmailing for the opposite outcome!

I suspect the actual story is still waiting to be told. HMG is past master at briefing against Bae to cover their own backsides so I doubt if it will come from them.

Bit of a missed opportunity, I would have thought, to have the same (or very similar) Airbus airframe for tanker & ASW. Maybe even AEW. But all water under the bridge. American industry gets occasional flack on these boards for seeking to undermine European self-sufficiency. Not really needed when the euros keep shooting their own industry in the foot.

Well it helps to be around at the time and going out with somebody from the programme, so got to meet the draughtmen and could talk shop with them , BAE was trying to merge with Boeing and was divesting itself of Airbus, so suggestions of an Airbus solution is cobblers at that time in the late 90s, BAE Broughton soon became Airbus and is still making wings. Ironically BAE should have really gone for Airbus Military as they could have used the experience in the country to develop the Tankers and a viable MPA rather than CASA in Spain, not to mention the possible final assembly of the Atlas. Trouble is with Boeing as the selected Systems intergrator on Nimrod MRA4, you couldn't imagine them being allowed that close an access to raw Airbus airframes and design documents !

I do wonder if one of the elements of the BAE MPA proposal included looking at possible Boeing Airliners as a basis for an off the shelf airframe, and thus we may have inadvertantly founded the P-8 propossal

Low level worker bees aren't always the best source All kinds of weird and wonderful stories circulate.

As I mentioned earlier, if my memory serves me correctly, the original Bae submission for the program was an Airbus based solution. The MoD requested a re-worked Nimrod. Re-worked assets are politically the easiest sell. Politicians are reluctant to believe new build can save money overall and if actual authorized, are a lot easier to cancel later - "just go on using the old kit".

[marktigger]

i remember in the media the recycling bit was played out as the greenest solution

[ArmChairCivvy]

My Dear Boy! (Ron5)... no need to get touchy.

And I can't read what you write anyway, mixed up thoughts. But above all, I do this for a hobby and the kind of fist fight you are looking for... try someone else.

Period. On my part

[jonas]

Something for the aficionados of the P1 :-

http://www.iiss.org/en/militarybalanceb ... drive-b0d4

[jimthelad]

BAe proposed a reworked Nimrod the moment LRAACA collapsed in 1997. They also offered the A320 but refused to do the initial work on the airframe. They wanted to farm this out to Airbus (which they still part owned) to avoid any conflict with Boeing at the time of their proposed merger. This obviously made MoD jumpy as a nun in a guardroom and so the MRA4 was born. Good result for BAe, guaranteed R&D funding, small production line so high unit cost, and no effect on any merger. Politically it was a master stroke for them. Personally i would fit them for something in .38 calibre.

[jonas]

We already have Westlands holding up the Apache renewal programme, now Airbus seem to want to do the same to the MPA programme. That is along with LM pushing the seaherc, and Kawasaki doing likewise with the P1.

I can see that whichever aircraft is chosen, the recent trend by large company's to challenge the decision, on whatever spurious grounds, will be brought into play.

l https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... io-416717/

[~UNiOnJaCk~]

We already have Westlands holding up the Apache renewal programme, now Airbus seem to want to do the same to the MPA programme. That is along with LM pushing the seaherc, and Kawasaki doing likewise with the P1.

I can see that whichever aircraft is chosen, the recent trend by large company's to challenge the decision, on whatever spurious grounds, will be brought into play.

l https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... io-416717/

Seems we are inheriting the US procurement procedure culture wholesale. LM has also opted to mount a legal challenge against the recent JLTV decision citing obscure 'irregularities'. Playing silly-buggers sounds more likely.

[GibMariner]

DSEI 2015: Sea Herc solution for the UK

Lockheed Martin is offering up the SC-130J as a solution for The UK and say that the aircraft could be in service by the end of the decade if chosen.

Lockheed Martin is looking to offer a modification package for the current C-130J Super Hercules to the UK Ministry of Defence (MoD) to fulfil the capability gap following the retirement of the Nimrod in 2010.

The development programme of the aircraft, known as the Sea Hercules, has been planned alongside the out-of-service date of the current C130Js in service with the Royal Air Force (RAF) Keith Muir, international business development manager at Lockheed Martin told journalists at DSEI in London.

Like other companies, Lockheed is hoping that the Strategic Defence and Security Review (SDSR) results in an open competition to fulfil the UK’s surveillance aircraft requirement.

‘We are looking more at what comes after SDSR, hoping that it will confirm the need for a requirement. What we would expect after that would be an assessment phase based on an open competition,’ said Muir.

The company is looking at using the same mission system that they have implemented onto the Merlin Mk2 aircraft according to Muir.

The upgraded mission system for the Mk2 includes touch screen flat panel displays, tactical computers and digital maps and an improved radar and sonar system.

The Sea Hercules would have a larger console system than the Merlin with up to five stations.

Lockheed would look to save the MoD money by upgrading around ten of the current RAF short-fuselage Super Hercules.

More here: http://www.shephardmedia.com/news/imps- ... lution-uk/

[cockneyjock1974]

Everybody repeat after me..........

UK will acquire the P8
UK will acquire the P8
UK will acquire the P8
UK will acquire the P8
UK will acquire the P8
UK will acquire the P8
UK will acquire the P8

Of course I don't mind other options being discussed

[downsizer]

Everybody repeat after me..........

UK will acquire the P8
UK will acquire the P8
UK will acquire the P8
UK will acquire the P8
UK will acquire the P8
UK will acquire the P8
UK will acquire the P8

Of course I don't mind other options being discussed

Source please! Ha ha.

[Little J]

Everybody repeat after me..........

UK will acquire the P8
UK will acquire the P8
UK will acquire the P8
UK will acquire the P8
UK will acquire the P8
UK will acquire the P8
UK will acquire the P8

Of course I don't mind other options being discussed

So your saying 7 airframes?

[cockneyjock1974]

Glad you lads got my humour lol.

[jonas]

In view of the claims and counter claims being made on this thread, most of whom (including myself) have no experience of MPA ops, as far as I can tell. Perhaps the opinions of those who have. might be of a little help.

http://www.pprune.org/military-aviation ... istle.html

[arfah]

Finnmeccanica are throwing their hat in for this and other capabilities with the Spartan C27J.

http://www.janes.com/article/54436/dsei ... -to-the-uk

[jimthelad]

can anyone honestly claim to want to be in a herky bird for 10hrs at a pop. you could run over ac/dc and not hear them!!

[raven111]

can anyone honestly claim to want to be in a herky bird for 10hrs at a pop. you could run over ac/dc and not hear them!!

So a lot like the Shackletons then?

[arfah]

can anyone honestly claim to want to be in a herky bird for 10hrs at a pop. you could run over ac/dc and not hear them!!

My longest was 5hrs in a 'K'

After landing I would've kissed the concrete had it not been for the Foot & Mouth crisis.

[Ianmb17]

Raytheon reckon it will be P8 first and AAS By 2022

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... ts-416872/

[jimthelad]

can anyone honestly claim to want to be in a herky bird for 10hrs at a pop. you could run over ac/dc and not hear them!!

So a lot like the Shackletons then?

Noisier according to someone who has flown in both and done asw in the former. The initial sonobuoys were active and the the passive ones from the US needed to use special headphones to dampen the noise to a usable level.

We flew Ascension to Mount Pleasant in 96, the landies we had milan on had a stablised sight held on by 2 pinion bolts, they had been torque tightened by depot before loading. All 4 fell off on landing! The vibration would play hell with accoustics. Sorry, but that is what experience and that of proven asw operators tells me.

[~UNiOnJaCk~]

Raytheon reckon it will be P8 first and AAS By 2022

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... ts-416872/

Didn't someone recently post news on here about Sentinel perhaps getting a reprieve past 2018 as well? It was only in the past couple of days too. It would mesh with what is being said in this article and with what has been said by those more in the know on here as well. Reading between the lines could we not suggest, hesitantly, that this is a nigh on confirmation of all that has been said, both in that article and by others on here vis-a-vis the P-8???

[Gabriele]

Raytheon reckon it will be P8 first and AAS By 2022

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... ts-416872/

Didn't someone recently post news on here about Sentinel perhaps getting a reprieve past 2018 as well? It was only in the past couple of days too. It would mesh with what is being said in this article and with what has been said by those more in the know on here as well. Reading between the lines could we not suggest, hesitantly, that this is a nigh on confirmation of all that has been said, both in that article and by others on here vis-a-vis the P-8???

The reprieve for Sentinel was actually just Raytheon at DSEI saying that it is possible to extend the Sentinel to 2025 with a relatively small expense. I don't doubt it, but for the MOD there is no expense which is little enough these days. It might be simply impossible to keep Sentinel going as the P-8 (hopefully) enters service. It is also a manpower issue, i suspect. I think it is highly likely that if P-8 is indeed purchased, Sentinel and Shadow will be quickly asked to let go more and more personnel that will be sent towards Poseidon.

I'm wildly guessing, perhaps, but i see somewhat of an indication of how Sentinel and a new MPA/MMA purchase are linked also in this passage of the Air Chief Marshal's speech at DSEI:

However, there is still some work to do within the ongoing review which has some key decisions to make on the Future Combat Air System and persistent wide area surveillance over land and over water, to name but 2.

https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/thinking-to-win