UK Defence Forum

The government being embarrassed and having red faces, you have got to be joking . All politicians have got skins thicker than a bloody rhinoceros.

jonas wrote:The government being embarrassed and having red faces, you have got to be joking . All politicians have got skins thicker than a bloody rhinoceros.

Tbh you do have a valid and justified point there

Tinman wrote:

downsizer wrote:It can be done much sooner than 2020.

Re-badged USN or they give up slots on the production line, Seedcorn crews come home Stand up an OCU Late 2016 early 2017?

how long will it take to train and certify the engineers, have all the support services and facilities in place. Produce RAF standard manuals, maintence schedules, courses, policy, doctrine etc etc. Its not as simple as there is the aircraft crack on. They will also need certification, trials and evaluation. Plus make some modifications to fit into the RAF.

All depends on whose RTS they are operated on and certified by. Also why we have IOC and FOC. If we wanted we could have some capability very soon. But you know best mate, you've proved your Air knowledge again and again.

marktigger wrote:

Tinman wrote:

downsizer wrote:It can be done much sooner than 2020.

Re-badged USN or they give up slots on the production line, Seedcorn crews come home Stand up an OCU Late 2016 early 2017?

how long will it take to train and certify the engineers, have all the support services and facilities in place. Produce RAF standard manuals, maintence schedules, courses, policy, doctrine etc etc. Its not as simple as there is the aircraft crack on. They will also need certification, trials and evaluation. Plus make some modifications to fit into the RAF.

Air seeker and C17 are operated on American RTS, hence why the Growbags C17 crews wear are different, as we would have had to pay for the clearance etc, similarly why we don't do Parachute ops from them. As for Engineers and servicing we would no doubt buy into USN maintenance schedules and training. Also you will see USN weapons used not UK.

fine so we base our maritime patrol fleet in the united states and spain so they can get first line servicing and have access to engineering facilities, simulators etc?

It won't be based in the US or Spain and first line maintenance will be done by RAF and probably some RN personnel.

I had a feeling that MPA would become joint forced manned and operated (if and when we buy/lease it). Makes sense what with today's personnel numbers. Unless the RN were always involved with Nimrod, I simply don't know.

downsizer wrote:It won't be based in the US or Spain and first line maintenance will be done by RAF and probably some RN personnel.

so those people can be taken straight of other types, and given a new aircraft with new engines and systems and it be up and running in 6 months? I don't think so and look at airseekers passage through the military aircraft cetification process alone yes P8 will be quicker because its new but it will still take time. so 3-5 years is a fairly good timescale.

Popcorn ready and beer chilled!! This should be good today

marktigger wrote:

downsizer wrote:It won't be based in the US or Spain and first line maintenance will be done by RAF and probably some RN personnel.

so those people can be taken straight of other types, and given a new aircraft with new engines and systems and it be up and running in 6 months? I don't think so and look at airseekers passage through the military aircraft cetification process alone yes P8 will be quicker because its new but it will still take time. so 3-5 years is a fairly good timescale.

Who said 6 months? Not me. It can be done quicker with an IOC quicker than 3-5 years for sure. If I was a betting man, and it gets the go-ahead, we could even see UK frames as soon as late 16, early 17.

But then your decades of experience working in this field and the air environment probably say otherwise right?

downsizer wrote:

marktigger wrote:

downsizer wrote:It won't be based in the US or Spain and first line maintenance will be done by RAF and probably some RN personnel.

so those people can be taken straight of other types, and given a new aircraft with new engines and systems and it be up and running in 6 months? I don't think so and look at airseekers passage through the military aircraft cetification process alone yes P8 will be quicker because its new but it will still take time. so 3-5 years is a fairly good timescale.

Who said 6 months? Not me. It can be done quicker with an IOC quicker than 3-5 years for sure. If I was a betting man, and it gets the go-ahead, we could even see UK frames as soon as late 16, early 17.

But then your decades of experience working in this field and the air environment probably say otherwise right?

Whats marktiggers experience?

I would agree we could have airframes in the UK 16-17 but not on operations, tests, trials and training but not released to service. so would we need all the seedcorn people back in 16-17?

Tinman wrote:

downsizer wrote:

marktigger wrote:

downsizer wrote:It won't be based in the US or Spain and first line maintenance will be done by RAF and probably some RN personnel.

so those people can be taken straight of other types, and given a new aircraft with new engines and systems and it be up and running in 6 months? I don't think so and look at airseekers passage through the military aircraft cetification process alone yes P8 will be quicker because its new but it will still take time. so 3-5 years is a fairly good timescale.

Who said 6 months? Not me. It can be done quicker with an IOC quicker than 3-5 years for sure. If I was a betting man, and it gets the go-ahead, we could even see UK frames as soon as late 16, early 17.

But then your decades of experience working in this field and the air environment probably say otherwise right?

Whats marktiggers experience?

You ever heard of sarcasm ?

An MPA will be sought in the SDSR according to the Guardian:
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... -sdsr-2015

But no shoe-in for the P8. Competition = obfuscation and delay.

Guardian article seems to indicate a competitative/selection process which IMO is only a marginal improvement over the current situation and offers little hope that the capability gap will be plugged anytime soon.

The government making noises such like 'we will look at options to regenerate MPA capability' is code for 'we can't really afford to do this but lets be seen to be doing something'. My god its like the Airports Commission...

The Armchair Soldier wrote:An MPA will be sought in the SDSR according to the Guardian:
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... -sdsr-2015

I notice that unfortunately this article seems to corroborate the previously reported stuff about P-8 not being a done deal.

Well that's that done and dusted then. The 'Guardian' has always been at the cutting edge of defence reporting. This story on future MPA has been doing the rounds for some time now, the article seems to be going along with the leaks from 'defence sources' that others have posted before.

Never mind, not long to go now.

Pseudo wrote: I notice that unfortunately this article seems to corroborate the previously reported stuff about P-8 not being a done deal.

Fortunately.

Much as I want an MPA asap, just buying the P8 for, well what reason? Because our trans-atlantic cousins build it? I think we have to recognise the financial circumstances and accept there's going to be a compromise between quality, quantity and cost.

malcrf wrote:

Pseudo wrote: I notice that unfortunately this article seems to corroborate the previously reported stuff about P-8 not being a done deal.

Fortunately.

Much as I want an MPA asap, just buying the P8 for, well what reason? Because our trans-atlantic cousins build it?

No, because as has been amply demonstrated over the past five years our geographic location means that it's one area that we can't really afford to settle for a second or third best solution.

I think we have to recognise the financial circumstances and accept there's going to be a compromise between quality, quantity and cost.

I think that recognising the financial circumstances would mean not committing to buy F-35 in numbers that we probably won't need until Typhoon comes to the end of its service, not comprising on a requirement that we absolutely do need.

Our defence of the realm is not based on, "Well, the U.S. has them and so should we."

There is no real easy answer to this problem, we run a Competition and need to wait even longer for the MPA to become available and if we buy off the shelf we might get shafted on price

arfah wrote:Our defence of the realm is not based on, "Well, the U.S. has them and so should we."

Sure as hell seems like it sometimes though.

Jdam wrote:There is no real easy answer to this problem, we run a Competition and need to wait even longer for the MPA to become available and if we buy off the shelf we might get shafted on price

I might be misremembering, but wasn't their some deal on the table to join the US in a block purchase and take advantage of some savings there?