UK Defence Forum

How good of a compromise between the two does the P-1 represent?

raven111 wrote:How good of a compromise between the two does the P-1 represent?

The P1 looks to be a very good aircraft, it has all the kit you would expect to see on a good MPA, plus a custom airframe.

The only thing is it's Japanese, which is nothing wrong its self , but it produces a lot of unknowns and increases the risk substantially.
I think if it was the kit of a NATO nation it would be a real contender for the UK, I just don't see the situation working out, which is unfortunate because it's a good bit of kit

what are other european nations doing?

This is a nice little read:-

https://defenceoftherealm.wordpress.com ... saki-p-1s/

jonas wrote:This is a nice little read:-

https://defenceoftherealm.wordpress.com ... saki-p-1s/

An interesting bit:

cost is the biggest obstacle to Boeing’s ambition with a unit cost two-thirds higher than with the Kawasaki P-1

So we could buy eight P-1s for the cost of five P-8s.

I don't see it happening, but I think there should be an open competition between them.

interesting read

If anything happens, it won't be P1, It'll be P8.

It won't be P1 for the same reason the 'rod largely became unsustainable. 1 country, niche aircraft, no economy of scale and no piggy backing the shared development of a large programme.

I'd say 8. Aiming to have UK1 in the UK 2018.

Anyone else want to place a bet?

It will almost certainly be P-8. The question is how much of a balls up we can make of getting hold of some (which will dictate numbers, due affordability). Needs to be as close as a straight off-the-shelf lease/buy as possible, no faffing around with trying to integrate U.K specific kit where OTS kits meets requirements.

I'm short, success looks something like the C-17 model rather than the Apache (or worse still) Phantom model (anyone remember that farce)?

downsizer wrote:If anything happens, it won't be P1, It'll be P8.

It won't be P1 for the same reason the 'rod largely became unsustainable. 1 country, niche aircraft, no economy of scale and no piggy backing the shared development of a large programme.

I'd say 8. Aiming to have UK1 in the UK 2018.

Anyone else want to place a bet?

My hope is similar. Build up on SEEDCORN before it ceases being effective, and acquire a few P-8s by 2019 or so, while being prepared to use them for ISTAR over land as well, since an MPA purchase will mean no money to further stretch the Sentinel R1s (and Shadow R1) permanence in service.
Effectively, i think P-8 would "replace" those as well. And it could actually do so very well, especially in replacing Sentinel R1, if the AAS radar can be procured for them or another radar adapted to the same installation.

downsizer wrote:If anything happens, it won't be P1, It'll be P8.

It won't be P1 for the same reason the 'rod largely became unsustainable. 1 country, niche aircraft, no economy of scale and no piggy backing the shared development of a large programme.

I'd say 8. Aiming to have UK1 in the UK 2018.

Anyone else want to place a bet?

I did only put the article on here as an 'Interesting read', I think we are all agreed that the P8 is our aircraft of choice. Just as a matter of interest, if it is ordered shortly after the SDSR decisions are taken (whenever that might be) and bearing in mind the US is wanting us to buy it. Couldn't a date earlier than 2018 be feasible
From bits and pieces that have been put into the public domain, we are lead to believe that quite advanced talks have been taking place. Would the US be willing to let us purchase some from the current production run, rather than wait for a longer period of time.
Surely we need to get these seedcorn people building up our training system back in the UK. Have the people on seedcorn had to sign any sort of agreement in regards to their tenure of service, so as to take full advantage of the experience in operating P8 ?

I'm putting my money on 2018, no sooner IMO. Seedcorners have already extended.

And who said the training had to be done in the UK?

This would qualify as a "foreign military sales" wouldn't it? So maybe the septic's could massage the price, like they do to the Israelis...

And the sooner the better, really.

downsizer wrote:I'm putting my money on 2018, no sooner IMO. Seedcorners have already extended.

And who said the training had to be done in the UK?

^This.

In my head I imagine staged leasing of airfares similar to C-17 procurement with gradual training in the US in the short/medium term then brought over here like we're doing with F-35.

But then just I'm an outsider having a stab.

i don't think we're all agreed P8 is good so is the P-1.

with a limited budget we need the Best available for the best cost!

suspect it'll end up being the P8

downsizer wrote:I'm putting my money on 2018, no sooner IMO. Seedcorners have already extended.

And who said the training had to be done in the UK?

It doesn't have to be done in the UK, but we seem to like doing it that way. Isn't that what we are doing with the F35, spending money on setting up a training wing in the UK,when it could have been done in the US.

marktigger wrote:i don't think we're all agreed P8 is good so is the P-1.

with a limited budget we need the Best available for the best cost!

suspect it'll end up being the P8

OK, let's say the majority on here agree that P8 is the prefered choice, there are always differing opinions. You say P-1 is good, so it may be but have we actually had people involved in it's operations, how much do we know about it's capabilities compared to P8.

There was some article a while ago stating that during testing 'tears' had appeared in the airframe and that extra strengthening had to be put in, and before you bring up the matter of the bulkheads in the F35, that is a different kettle of fish altogether. For an aircraft spending long periods of time in a very hostile environment (weatherwise) I would like to think it has been thoroughly proved to have been rectified.

exactly. we need to get it right first time and is P8 having problems?

over a year ago but

http://theaviationist.com/2014/01/25/p- ... don-flaws/

marktigger wrote:exactly. we need to get it right first time and is P8 having problems?

over a year ago but

http://theaviationist.com/2014/01/25/p- ... don-flaws/

We both know that we could pull any new piece of defence equipment out of the bag, and we could find numerous articles pointing out it's flaws,real or imagined. Take the F16, one of the most ubiquitous fighter aircraft today and even that had it's inevitable detractors at the begining of it's life.
T45 and Astute class likewise, and at the moment the F35 is the whipping boy for everyone and their dog. The thing is that a lot of the people writing these articles have not even flown in the aircraft,or been to sea on the vessels they criticize. Indeed a good number of them have no experience of the armed forces whatsoever, but write their articles based on interviews done with an 'informed source' etc.

So I do take the media, and even the so called specialized defence sources with a very large dose of salt.

One other thing to consider is that the armed services and the DoD testing authority are no friends. While what Gilmore says can't be ignored entirely, the services tipically see things a little differently- I have no doubt the US Navy is working to improve certain aspects of the P-8, but whatever problem they have detected has not lead them to doubting of the P-8 like Gilmore's words would suggest.

Gilmore, in the end, does what the controller would do: calls for more controller involvment. The armed service chiefs, on the other hand, kind of hate his guts. They have flat out suggested Congress to shut down its office in order to save money, right in these days...

I have seen reports on the written media about low level handling issues.

Yes every project has its critics from those who see no need to change to those advocating a different product.
The UK MPA program has been beset by difficulties made through poor choices like recycling airframes and assuming they were all the same and very poor quality control. We need a platform that will get through accepetence program PDQ

marktigger wrote:I have seen reports on the written media about low level handling issues.

Yes every project has its critics from those who see no need to change to those advocating a different product.
The UK MPA program has been beset by difficulties made through poor choices like recycling airframes and assuming they were all the same and very poor quality control. We need a platform that will get through accepetence program PDQ

Exactly, and in that case there is only one logical choice, and that is ?? Come on now, off the fence with you and bite the bullet.

Now to add a little more fuel to the fire :-

Article from Aviationweek.com Increased P-8 production rate caters to international sales, possibly including the U.K.

Boeing is stepping up monthly production of the P-8 Poseidon maritime patrol aircraft amid mounting signs of additional international sales and solid funding for planned U.S. Navy procurement...... says Jimmy Dodd, vice president and general manager of mobility, surveillance and engagement at Boeing Military Aircraft....

However, Boeing is also courting the U.K., which according to British press reports, is studying acquiring up to 12 P-8s as part of efforts to rebuild its anti-submarine warfare (ASW) capabilities following the abrupt withdrawal of the Nimrod MR2 maritime patrol force in 2010. The same year the U.K. also axed the planned Nimrod MRA4 replacement program, leaving a capability gap that Russian surface vessels and submarines have exposed during recent incursions into British waters.

“The U.K. will be under FMS (foreign military sale),” says Dodd who adds that any negotiations will be led by the Navy. “Everything was stalled out waiting on the [U.K.] election, and now that it’s over we are hoping activity will increase and there will be a commitment.” Although discussions with the U.K. Defense Ministry are believed to be centered on an initial contract for six firm aircraft plus six options, Dodd adds that Boeing’s involvement has so far been minimal.

“We’ve never actually given [the U.S. Navy] a proposal [for the U.K.]. The Navy knows what they are paying, and they know what it costs to support. They also understand the differences in configurations, so they haven’t been asking us for a lot of detailed price and cost data at this point,” he says. “I’m sure that will come. Usually it is triggered to us when there is a letter of request [LOR] for price and availability. When there is an LOR on those jets, then they come to us and ask for offerability on cost and schedule,” adds Dodd.

Under the standard FMS procedure, the U.K. must submit an LOR for either price and availability or a letter of offer and acceptance. The U.S. government then has 120 days to respond, and if congressional review is required, an extra 15-50 days may be needed. “I know various things have been kicked about. Obviously, if it is an increase in quantity over and above what we already had then it is to do with the time line. How much is long lead, how much time line? The Navy already know us and we share line positions so they have that data,” says Dodd. “We will engage directly [with the U.K Defense Ministry] at some point. It just hasn’t happened yet, and it will happen.”..........

Looks good as well if RAF


http://i536.photobucket.com/albums/ff32 ... h3csno.jpg

I do agree that we will almost certainly buy the P-8 for political/commonality reasons, although I suspect that it might be an inferior airframe for this task compared with the purpose-designed P-1. After all, an airliner is designed to cruise efficiently at high speed and high altitude, a very different environment from the normal operating profile of an MPA; the logical consequence would be a much reduced airframe life. The US version isn't fitted with MAD because they say it's no longer effective (IIRC this was the reason given), and I can well believe that it isn't effective from 36,000 feet...

So on technical as well as cost grounds the P-1 may be the better choice, but that almost certainly won't be enough to swing the deal to Japan. I'd still like to see a fair competition between them, though. At the least, it might make the US think hard about the price they're charging.

I wonder if the P8 will be the carrot in the up coming SDR "We are cutting all this but don't worry we are buying 6 P8 with the possibility of more"