Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
jumpjet
Topic Author
Posts: 325
Joined: Thu Feb 10, 2005 8:11 pm

UK Anti-Submarine Gap Exposed...

Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:47 pm

It seems that since the RAF Nimrod fleet was scrapped to save money, a yawning gap in the UK's defences has recently been exposed. When a suspected foreign submarine was recently spotted prowling off the coast, they had to send for the cavalry from other NATO countries as all our armed forces could do was to stand on the beach and throw stones at it!

Seems like the RAF needs to go shopping - and quickly!

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...submarine-thanks-defence-cuts.html
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 10610
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

RE: UK Anti-Submarine Gap Exposed...

Thu Dec 11, 2014 2:05 pm

Quoting jumpjet (Thread starter):
Seems like the RAF needs to go shopping - and quickly!

Why, NATO and your American cousins stepped in to fly around the waters, and since nothing was found, either nothing was there or the technology being used is inadequate so what did the UK really loose by saving their money 
Money is already being spent on the Astute subs, so rather then sending them the world over they can patrol the British Isles - best sub hunter is another sub right -. Industry could also look at non-nuclear subs as an option going forward, global aspirations are diminishing so what's is the best bang for the buck in protecting ones territory?
Another point, the best hunt from the air usually involves assets on or in the water, so if they do get additional sub hunters, and they going to purchase additional Frigates or Destroyers?
On the threat front, whose subs are invading UK waters, I'm certain the decision to dump air assets was based on threat projections or the lack there of, would love to read.
 
jumpjet
Topic Author
Posts: 325
Joined: Thu Feb 10, 2005 8:11 pm

RE: UK Anti-Submarine Gap Exposed...

Thu Dec 11, 2014 3:57 pm

Seems silly that a maritime country like the UK which relies wholly on shipping for the majority of its food and raw materials, should get rid of its anti submarine patrol aircraft. It appears to be a huge gamble to me. Perhaps they looked at the risk and decided that the old fashioned global warfare scenario just isn't going to happen any more.

Early this year when a British yacht went missing in the Western Atlantic, they sent a C130 cargo plane out to search for it....
 
User avatar
Moose135
Posts: 3223
Joined: Mon Oct 04, 2004 11:27 pm

RE: UK Anti-Submarine Gap Exposed...

Thu Dec 11, 2014 4:13 pm

Quoting jumpjet (Thread starter):
When a suspected foreign submarine was recently spotted prowling off the coast, they had to send for the cavalry from other NATO countries...

Which is why you are in an alliance - you don't need to reproduce every last bit of capability. How many reconnaissance satellites does the UK operate?

Quoting jumpjet (Reply 2):
Early this year when a British yacht went missing in the Western Atlantic, they sent a C130 cargo plane out to search for it....

So does the United States Air Force / Air National Guard...

http://www.moose135photography.com/Airplanes/Air-Shows/Jones-Beach-Air-Show-2011/i-tQGkKNm/0/XL/JM_2011_05_28_106ARW_Demo_001-XL.jpg
KC-135 - Passing gas and taking names!
 
User avatar
bikerthai
Posts: 3743
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 1:45 pm

RE: UK Anti-Submarine Gap Exposed...

Thu Dec 11, 2014 6:05 pm

Quoting jumpjet (Thread starter):
Seems like the RAF needs to go shopping - and quickly!

They are looking . . . but their decision may be hampered by budgetary constraints.

Seems like the folks in uniforms are really impressed with the P-8A and may have it on the wish list. However budgets may dictate that the UK will buy a smaller aircraft (perhaps one without strike capabilities like Boeing MSA offers).

If they can pony up the money or work out some sort of a lease deal, they may be able to get a P-8A in short order. Maybe not as soon as Australia, but not long afterward.

bt
Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
 
GDB
Posts: 14070
Joined: Wed May 23, 2001 6:25 pm

RE: UK Anti-Submarine Gap Exposed...

Thu Dec 11, 2014 8:12 pm

Quoting jumpjet (Reply 2):
Seems silly that a maritime country like the UK which relies wholly on shipping for the majority of its food and raw materials, should get rid of its anti submarine patrol aircraft. It appears to be a huge gamble to me. Perhaps they looked at the risk and decided that the old fashioned global warfare scenario just isn't going to happen any more.

It was a stupid last minute axing, during the rather chaotic 2010 review, often described as the most botched since WW2.
For all the problems with MRA.4A development, it was not far away from initial service, while there would have been a gap between Nimrod MR.2 retirement and MRA.4A service, it would have closed by now.
As it is, a vast yawning gap.

They also wanted to axe the brand new Sentinel platform, once the UK left Afghanistan, however things keep happening, like the type being deployed for various unexpected tasking for the UK and Allies.

In 2010, every time the MoD and services thought they had a plan, the Treasury came back for more.
Hence late changes, like axing maritime patrol.
Cameron dearly wanted to axe the carriers, despite the unbridgeable gap that would have meant for the shipbuilders awaiting the work on the Type 26 Frigates.
The PM moaned about the carrier contracts being drafted to make cancellation as expensive as carrying on, well the previous government nicked that idea from the Thatcher era when the Trident Subs were ordered.
In revenge, HMS Ark Royal went instead.
 
jumpjet
Topic Author
Posts: 325
Joined: Thu Feb 10, 2005 8:11 pm

RE: UK Anti-Submarine Gap Exposed...

Fri Dec 12, 2014 10:59 am

Quoting GDB (Reply 5):
It was a stupid last minute axing, during the rather chaotic 2010 review, often described as the most botched since WW2.
For all the problems with MRA.4A development, it was not far away from initial service, while there would have been a gap between Nimrod MR.2 retirement and MRA.4A service, it would have closed by now.
As it is, a vast yawning gap.

Totally agree...

As an ex RAF Harrier engineer, I couldn't believe the most capable bomber force we had, the Harriers, were just thrown away overnight. They'd just spent billions upgrading the fleet too. What I don't understand is why they seem intent on destroying these things rather than just mothballing them somewhere like the US forces do.

To see the Nimrods broken up by JCBs was quite unbelievable... It all seems so short term and without any foresight whatsoever.
  
 
bennett123
Posts: 10707
Joined: Sun Aug 15, 2004 12:49 am

RE: UK Anti-Submarine Gap Exposed...

Fri Dec 12, 2014 11:45 am

The Nimrod was initially built as a development of the DH Comet, in fact the 2 prototypes were converted Comet 4C's.

We then built 49 operational aircraft, these mostly entered service between 1969 and 1972. However, a batch of 8 were built in the late 1970's.

At that point, things went badly wrong.

The RAF decided to convert the remaining 46 MR1's into two new versions, (the MR2 with new Searchwater radar, and the AEW3).

The breakdown was MR2, (34 older XV reg and 1 new XZ reg) and the AEW3, (4 older XV reg and 7 new XZ reg).

Following another procurement disaster, the AEW3 was scrapped. This left the RAF with just 1 aircraft built after 1972.

Moving further down the line, we come to the MRA4, (otherwise called Nimrod 2000).

When ordered, this aircraft was supposed to enter service in 2000.

The same procurement disaster followed, until by the time the whole thing was scrapped it was planned number in service was only 9 aircraft, (initial plan was for 21).

IMO, the root cause of the problems are the same.

When an AEW was needed, they should have either purchased the E3, (which they did in the end) or built an AEW version of an existing type.

When the MR2 needed replacement, they should have started from a clean sheet, developed an MPA version of an existing type or bought the P8, (which they will probably do in the end).
 
jumpjet
Topic Author
Posts: 325
Joined: Thu Feb 10, 2005 8:11 pm

RE: UK Anti-Submarine Gap Exposed...

Fri Dec 12, 2014 12:02 pm

Quoting bennett123 (Reply 7):
IMO, the root cause of the problems are the same.

So who's at fault, the government, the RAF or the civil service? Just who's responsible and what's the root cause?

I don't believe a change of government (political party) helps these things anyway as the moment they're elected, they spend a fortune scrapping and reversing the other lot's plans!
 
bennett123
Posts: 10707
Joined: Sun Aug 15, 2004 12:49 am

RE: UK Anti-Submarine Gap Exposed...

Fri Dec 12, 2014 12:20 pm

Probably all three

The seeds of the problem date from a lack of long term vision.

Also from an attempt to develop an existing type, when the smart move would be to start from scratch.

If the AEW version had been binned and all 46 MR1 converted to MR2's then the position would have been much better.

Then all 46 could have been replaced by a new type in 2000.
 
scouseflyer
Posts: 2193
Joined: Wed Apr 26, 2006 7:02 pm

RE: UK Anti-Submarine Gap Exposed...

Fri Dec 12, 2014 12:45 pm

Wasn't there also only something like a 15% carry over of parts from a MR2 to MR4A and when they took the donor birds apart all the fuselages were differant and required massive rework - would of been cheaper and quicker to start with a new donor or design and build a bespoke fuse.
 
User avatar
moo
Posts: 5090
Joined: Sun May 13, 2007 2:27 am

RE: UK Anti-Submarine Gap Exposed...

Fri Dec 12, 2014 1:02 pm

Quoting scouseflyer (Reply 10):
Wasn't there also only something like a 15% carry over of parts from a MR2 to MR4A and when they took the donor birds apart all the fuselages were differant and required massive rework - would of been cheaper and quicker to start with a new donor or design and build a bespoke fuse.

BAE did offer new build MRA4s to the MoD and the US DoD but that offer was rejected in favour of re-manufacturered MRA2s on 'cost' basis and the P-8.
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 10610
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

RE: UK Anti-Submarine Gap Exposed...

Fri Dec 12, 2014 5:06 pm

Quoting jumpjet (Reply 6):
What I don't understand is why they seem intent on destroying these things rather than just mothballing them somewhere like the US forces do.

If they can be seen the debate is more easily continued, hence the need to quickly sell them to the Marines after they expressed interest (Harriers) or demolish the Nimrods, the old saying is "Out of Sight Out of Mind".
 
GDB
Posts: 14070
Joined: Wed May 23, 2001 6:25 pm

RE: UK Anti-Submarine Gap Exposed...

Fri Dec 12, 2014 8:05 pm

The reason the 1990's project became Nimrod 2000 was again the Treasury.
Why post Cold War did the RAF even need a new MPA platform? (Thinking ahead defence wise even less than they do with economics).
So to get one, a 're-build' is proposed.
That always sounds cheaper.
It might just have worked too, had experienced shop floor types at BAE been listened to, they knew each Nimrod was almost hand built.
But they weren't.

A new build Nimrod 2000 would have been in service years ago, maybe even soon enough to have prevented the loss of that legacy airframe over Afghanistan in 2006.
It was clearly the way to go from the start but that be a new airframe, conversions are cheaper remember? The Treasury says so.
When the project really hit problems in 2002/3 - or rather they were exposed, it would not have been too late to go to new build even then.
The Treasury would have pressured for outright cancellation then most likely.

While 9 of the actual ones built would not have been enough really, it would have been way better than nothing.

(There was a proposal to convert the 3 other development airframes too, I would have favoured them becoming Nimrod R.1 replacements, as it is we've had to buy Rivet Joints, however good they are not fitted with the kit developed over decades of RAF operational experience, plus the frames are 50 years old. No Nimrod was ever of that vintage).
 
strfyr51
Posts: 5106
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2012 5:04 pm

RE: UK Anti-Submarine Gap Exposed...

Sat Dec 13, 2014 8:43 am

By Buying the P8A the british can save themselves Billions in Development costs and change whatever ASW equipment they deem Necessary to fit their operating Philosophy
As they already have a hand in equipment Development in the USA they're not losing anything and they could become a major contributor To the program to make the ASW platform even better.
That they spent ass that money on the Nimrod was unfortunate but they Were long in the tooth. My Squadron worked with the British on operations in the North Sea when I was in the NAVY flying out of NAS Brunswick Maine with VP-44
.
 
GDB
Posts: 14070
Joined: Wed May 23, 2001 6:25 pm

RE: UK Anti-Submarine Gap Exposed...

Sat Dec 13, 2014 10:08 am

Quoting strfyr51 (Reply 14):
By Buying the P8A the british

By doing that the Government will still be spending a lot of money but also tacitly admitting they were wrong to scrap an aircraft built to do the same job.
So two reasons why that is unlikely to happen.

I would favour an interim solution based to LM proposals for a MPA C-130J, the RAF will be replacing their J fleet in the early 2020's in favour of A400M's so use those.
Whilst pushing to develop a longer term solution that other European NATO forces can also use to replace Atlantique fleet in France and P3 Orions with other AF's, likely based on the A320 platform - which has been mooted before as a multi national program.
 
L-188
Posts: 29881
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 1999 11:27 am

RE: UK Anti-Submarine Gap Exposed...

Sat Dec 13, 2014 5:30 pm

Quoting strfyr51 (Reply 14):
By Buying the P8A the british can save themselves Billions in Development costs and change whatever ASW equipment they deem Necessary to fit their operating Philosophy

Hello, I'm from Boeing and I'm here to help...

Quoting moose135 (Reply 3):
Quoting jumpjet (Reply 2):Early this year when a British yacht went missing in the Western Atlantic, they sent a C130 cargo plane out to search for it....
So does the United States Air Force / Air National Guard...

Yeah, but in all fairness those HC's are pretty heavily converted and optimized for the rescue role. They aren't freight haulers with a couple of extra guys on the flight deck with binoculars
OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
 
11Bravo
Posts: 1683
Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2005 8:54 am

RE: UK Anti-Submarine Gap Exposed...

Sat Dec 13, 2014 6:54 pm

Quoting GDB (Reply 15):
Whilst pushing to develop a longer term solution that other European NATO forces can also use to replace Atlantique fleet in France and P3 Orions with other AF's, likely based on the A320 platform - which has been mooted before as a multi national program.

That seems very wasteful when the P-8 is available for this purpose. I would cost shed-loads of money to develop an ASW version of the A320. Pretty much all the NATO countries are hurting for defense funding. Buy the P-8, move along. Spend those R+D funds on other projects and procurement.
WhaleJets Rule!
 
GDB
Posts: 14070
Joined: Wed May 23, 2001 6:25 pm

RE: UK Anti-Submarine Gap Exposed...

Sat Dec 13, 2014 8:28 pm

Quoting 11Bravo (Reply 17):
That seems very wasteful when the P-8 is available for this purpose. I would cost shed-loads of money to develop an ASW version of the A320. Pretty much all the NATO countries are hurting for defense funding. Buy the P-8, move along. Spend those R+D funds on other projects and procurement.

Perhaps, however the funding would be over a long period with nations such as the UK, France, Germany (perhaps), Netherlands, Italy and Spain involved.
The idea has been around for a while and some limited study work has been done.
Plus don't discount the local Aerospace/defence industry factor. Helps with funding.

There is no spending room for a UK P-8 buy for likely at least a decade, if then. Hence the idea to do a low cost, more limited solution based on existing C-130J frames (the 10 short bodied ones?), which at least gets the RAF back into the MPA game - at the moment some ex Nimrod crews are rotating with NATO allies including the US, so the service thinks it needs to retain some crew skill base and recency.

Moving to something as a program partner to something more substantial, if that does not happen, falls apart, loses finding, the RAF now have a MPA capability.
LM presumably has options for the MPA C-130J capability wise, so in that eventuality the RAF could at least build on what they've got.
 
User avatar
Aesma
Posts: 13988
Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2009 6:14 am

RE: UK Anti-Submarine Gap Exposed...

Sat Dec 13, 2014 11:19 pm

Quoting moose135 (Reply 3):
Which is why you are in an alliance - you don't need to reproduce every last bit of capability. How many reconnaissance satellites does the UK operate?

Yet the US doesn't apply this philosophy to itself and doesn't count on its allies to do anything significant, in fact you build and buy vehicles that any other country would deem redundant (how many various fighter jets, helicopters, etc. ?).

France has developed its reconnaissance sat capability precisely because we discovered the hard way that it was better to have your own.

Having an EU fleet to patrol EU waters would probably make sense, but the major maritime countries would still need to have some capabilities of their own.

Besides, it's precisely the existence of NATO that has prevented the EU to integrate its military more.
New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 10114
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

RE: UK Anti-Submarine Gap Exposed...

Mon Dec 15, 2014 12:10 pm

I think the CASA 295M is the best solution. It is proven and cheap to operate and fairly capable.
 
jumpjet
Topic Author
Posts: 325
Joined: Thu Feb 10, 2005 8:11 pm

RE: UK Anti-Submarine Gap Exposed...

Mon Dec 15, 2014 12:29 pm

Quoting seahawk (Reply 20):
I think the CASA 295M is the best solution. It is proven and cheap to operate and fairly capable.

It probably wouldn't have the necessary range would it? It might be OK for coastal operations, but for long patrols out over the Atlantic, it surely wouldn't have the legs.
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 10114
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

RE: UK Anti-Submarine Gap Exposed...

Mon Dec 15, 2014 1:38 pm

Endurance is around 11 hours range around 5500km. It is not a P-8 but surely is capable Portugal is using it for a few years over the Atlantic.
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 10610
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

RE: UK Anti-Submarine Gap Exposed...

Mon Dec 15, 2014 2:34 pm

Quoting 11Bravo (Reply 17):
That seems very wasteful when the P-8 is available for this purpose. I would cost shed-loads of money to develop an ASW version of the A320.

Major reason for local will be to preserve technology and expertise

Quoting Aesma (Reply 19):
Yet the US doesn't apply this philosophy to itself and doesn't count on its allies to do anything significant,

How accurate is that really, when the US was hit by terrorist on 9/11 NATO AWACS provided cover of the continental USA, perhaps if the international media covered international events rather than relying on what the American media was reporting for local consumption one would get a better picture of how much inter-dependency and coorperation takes place between US and International forces.
 
User avatar
moo
Posts: 5090
Joined: Sun May 13, 2007 2:27 am

RE: UK Anti-Submarine Gap Exposed...

Mon Dec 15, 2014 5:03 pm

Quoting Aesma (Reply 19):
Yet the US doesn't apply this philosophy to itself and doesn't count on its allies to do anything significant, in fact you build and buy vehicles that any other country would deem redundant (how many various fighter jets, helicopters, etc. ?).

There's a reason the US has a $17Trillion public debt...
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 10114
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

RE: UK Anti-Submarine Gap Exposed...

Tue Dec 16, 2014 8:34 am

One must remember that the current P-8 users also have fleet of smaller MPAs (in the Coast Guard or Military) that handle the daily national maritime patrol tasks. The UK does not enjoy that luxury. Using a P-8 for SAR off the coast is a little expensive, much more so to use it for identifying fishing vessels. I think C-295 gives a very good balance of capability, operational costs and affordability and you can use it for the daily routine maritime patrol and SAR tasks.

A few 6 P8s and then Cessna 404/406 as the next step below does not seem efficient to me compared to say 10-12 CASAs.
 
angad84
Posts: 2108
Joined: Mon Nov 05, 2012 3:04 pm

RE: UK Anti-Submarine Gap Exposed...

Tue Dec 16, 2014 9:06 am

Quoting seahawk (Reply 25):
A few 6 P8s and then Cessna 404/406 as the next step below does not seem efficient to me

Sure, but what I'd take away from your point is not that they should get 10-12 CASAs and call it a day but that they should beef up the low end of the mix.

India does it with a fleet of very well-equipped Do 228s for coastal patrol, EEZ monitoring, SAR and so on, while the long range "regional monitoring" of all activity in the IOR is done by the big MPAs like P-8I/Il-38SD/Tu-142Ms.

trying to do everything with one frame simply might not be possible, and if the UK plumps for a dozen CASAs, we may see a situation a few years down the line where they are deemed inadequate and P-8Is procured anyway. They'd look rather silly then.

Cheers
Angad
 
mffoda
Posts: 1099
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 4:09 pm

RE: UK Anti-Submarine Gap Exposed...

Tue Dec 16, 2014 1:17 pm

Here's an interesting read regarding the MPA / P-8A, from the "UK Armed Forces Commentary" website.

http://ukarmedforcescommentary.blogs...013/01/the-p8-poseidon-and-uk.html
harder than woodpecker lips...
 
User avatar
bikerthai
Posts: 3743
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 1:45 pm

RE: UK Anti-Submarine Gap Exposed...

Tue Dec 16, 2014 2:11 pm

Quoting angad84 (Reply 26):
we may see a situation a few years down the line where they are deemed inadequate and P-8Is procured anyway.

If the UK decides to get the P-8, more likely they would get the US Navy version of the P-8A (similar to the arrangement that Australia has).

bt
Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 10114
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

RE: UK Anti-Submarine Gap Exposed...

Tue Dec 16, 2014 6:29 pm

Quoting angad84 (Reply 26):
trying to do everything with one frame simply might not be possible, and if the UK plumps for a dozen CASAs, we may see a situation a few years down the line where they are deemed inadequate and P-8Is procured anyway. They'd look rather silly then.

Or they decide to press for the P-8 and after not getting the budget from the treasury by 2019 the expertise for MPA missions has been mostly lost and politicians will ask why they should spent so much on role that so far has not been needed for nearly 10 years. The CASAs however give an affordable and decent MPA capability, which could be expanded with P-8s - if needed - quite quickly.
For most European armies it is not about having the best equipment for the job, it is about keeping the capability at all.
 
User avatar
bikerthai
Posts: 3743
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 1:45 pm

RE: UK Anti-Submarine Gap Exposed...

Tue Dec 16, 2014 7:15 pm

Quoting seahawk (Reply 29):
which could be expanded with P-8s - if needed - quite quickly.

Careful. The P-8 line is linked to current 737 NG production. Once the MAX begins and the NG fazes out, you may not be able to get them. Make your decision within 3-4 years. Beyond that it's ifffy.

bt
Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
 
bennett123
Posts: 10707
Joined: Sun Aug 15, 2004 12:49 am

RE: UK Anti-Submarine Gap Exposed...

Tue Dec 16, 2014 8:41 pm

Does that mean that US purchase of P8A will end at that point.
 
11Bravo
Posts: 1683
Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2005 8:54 am

RE: UK Anti-Submarine Gap Exposed...

Wed Dec 17, 2014 12:27 am

Quoting bennett123 (Reply 31):
Does that mean that US purchase of P8A will end at that point.

I believe USN production will end by 2019-2020 ish
WhaleJets Rule!
 
angad84
Posts: 2108
Joined: Mon Nov 05, 2012 3:04 pm

RE: UK Anti-Submarine Gap Exposed...

Wed Dec 17, 2014 12:43 am

Quoting bikerthai (Reply 28):
If the UK decides to get the P-8, more likely they would get the US Navy version of the P-8A (similar to the arrangement that Australia has).

That was a typo, I meant to say P-8A.

Quoting bikerthai (Reply 30):
Careful. The P-8 line is linked to current 737 NG production. Once the MAX begins and the NG fazes out, you may not be able to get them. Make your decision within 3-4 years. Beyond that it's ifffy.

Good point.

Cheers
Angad
 
L-188
Posts: 29881
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 1999 11:27 am

RE: UK Anti-Submarine Gap Exposed...

Wed Dec 17, 2014 1:18 am

Quoting seahawk (Reply 29):
Once the MAX begins and the NG fazes out, you may not be able to get them. Make your decision within 3-4 years. Beyond that it's ifffy.

I think it is right to point out now that the Boeing-707 didn't end production until 1992 when the last E-3 or E-6 came off the line.

It definitely wasn't a high volume production line by then
OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 10114
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

RE: UK Anti-Submarine Gap Exposed...

Wed Dec 17, 2014 6:38 am

So we will known soon enough. If the UK gets a P-8 or not. It would have to be in the next SDR.
 
User avatar
Kiwirob
Posts: 13342
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2005 2:16 pm

RE: UK Anti-Submarine Gap Exposed...

Wed Dec 17, 2014 10:29 am

It's a wonder why Europe doesn't come together and build a common standard MPA around the A320, there are plenty of Euro nations with a requirement for an MPA who are flying around in older frames (P3, Atlantic) that a build of 100 or so would be fairly easy, a lot the equipment is already use on the CASA 295's, some of the equipment developed for the MR4 could be used, and I'm certain that there would also be an export market for it.
 
angad84
Posts: 2108
Joined: Mon Nov 05, 2012 3:04 pm

RE: UK Anti-Submarine Gap Exposed...

Wed Dec 17, 2014 11:25 am

Quoting KiwiRob (Reply 36):
It's a wonder why Europe doesn't come together and build a common standard MPA around the A320, there are plenty of Euro nations with a requirement for an MPA who are flying around in older frames (P3, Atlantic) that a build of 100 or so would be fairly easy, a lot the equipment is already use on the CASA 295's, some of the equipment developed for the MR4 could be used, and I'm certain that there would also be an export market for it.

It would need to be a hell of a modular programme, because I can see everyone at each others' throats within months of sitting down to design this thing.

Otherwise you end up with something that's overkill for some countries' stated requirements and sub-optimal for others'.

Cheers
Angad
 
strfyr51
Posts: 5106
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2012 5:04 pm

RE: UK Anti-Submarine Gap Exposed...

Wed Dec 17, 2014 12:33 pm

Quoting jumpjet (Reply 21):

It probably wouldn't have the necessary range would it? It might be OK for coastal operations, but for long patrols out over the Atlantic, it surely wouldn't have the legs.

well Just how FAR out are they going to patrol? And Really? Why couldn't the A320 have a search and weapons suite installed in it?? whatever you can do to a 737
could be done to an A320 I would think. . The French have their ASW airplane, and Airbus is French. Between the British and the French they could come up with a slam bang up
ASW platform. That is unless whatever killed the Nimrod development is still alive and kicking. Sometimes Military development get's bogged down in "TOO much"
When "just enough" is the way to go. The Canadians took the P3C Modified it to the CP140 and it's been a fine airplane ever since. I see no shortfall in British ingenuity.
Whatever they WANT to do?? They CAN and Will DO! So it's only a matter of What are you Willing to do??
 
User avatar
Kiwirob
Posts: 13342
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2005 2:16 pm

RE: UK Anti-Submarine Gap Exposed...

Wed Dec 17, 2014 2:18 pm

Quoting angad84 (Reply 37):
It would need to be a hell of a modular programme, because I can see everyone at each others' throats within months of sitting down to design this thing.

Isn't that what Boeing have done with the P8, you have the model the US and Australia have bought then a different specification for the Indian birds. So my guess is Airbus build a baseling 320MPA then allow individual tailoring for each nation. However I suspect if they had a common base model like the P8 that's what most countries would buy.

Quoting strfyr51 (Reply 38):
The French have their ASW airplane, and Airbus is French. Between the British and the French they could come up with a slam bang up
ASW platform.

And that's probably 20 frames right there, plus add in Norway, Germany, Greece, Spain, The Netherlands, another 20 or so. Add in a few long shots like Brasil, New Zealand, Chile, Canada, Pakistan and you've got a market.
 
User avatar
bikerthai
Posts: 3743
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 1:45 pm

RE: UK Anti-Submarine Gap Exposed...

Wed Dec 17, 2014 2:42 pm

Quoting KiwiRob (Reply 36):
It's a wonder why Europe doesn't come together and build a common standard MPA around the A320,

There was an A320 version out there. However the 737 configuration had a big head start as they had the baseline of the 737 AEW&C to work with. Now, the A320 is caught in a no-mans land. You can't start a NEO version because it's not ready and the A320 line is closing down. If you try to mod the frame as opposed to building it in-line then you won't be able to compete thru pricing.

bt
Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 10114
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

RE: UK Anti-Submarine Gap Exposed...

Thu Dec 18, 2014 8:03 am

The question is if the A320 is not too much for many users. Most have a coastal / brown water MPA need and this can be done very well with CASAs or ATRs, in fact ATR-72-600MP or CASA295M Persuader are close to what an Atlantique has to offer. They are also much better for fishery protection, SAR or general peace time patrols, as they are better at flying low and slow.

The P-8 is interesting for the US and India as they have an MPA need that covers whole oceans. If you want to be effective in the Pacific or the Indian Ocean you need something big, if you are just looking at the Med or the North Sea or even parts of the Atlantic, the turboprops are good enough.
 
as739x
Posts: 5244
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2003 7:23 am

RE: UK Anti-Submarine Gap Exposed...

Wed Dec 24, 2014 6:09 pm

Quoting jumpjet (Thread starter):
all our armed forces could do was to stand on the beach and throw stones at it!

Well played, hilarious!!
"Some pilots avoid storm cells and some play connect the dots!"
 
User avatar
LAXintl
Posts: 25197
Joined: Wed May 24, 2000 12:12 pm

RE: UK Anti-Submarine Gap Exposed...

Wed Jan 07, 2015 6:23 pm

Japan offers to sell the UK its P-1 submarine-hunting jet in a deal that could top $1 billion.
UK officials were able to discuss the offer this week at the Japanese-British strategic dialogue.


Exclusive: Japan seeks to sell sub-hunting jet to UK as Abe pushes arms exports
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/...ms-exclusive-idUSKBN0KG0WG20150107

=
From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
 
User avatar
mercure1
Posts: 5111
Joined: Sun Jul 13, 2008 5:13 am

RE: UK Anti-Submarine Gap Exposed...

Thu Jan 08, 2015 6:22 pm

Another reported sub of Scotland this week.
UK MoD request two US P-3 Orions to assist.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...bmarine-near-scotland-9966080.html
mercure f-wtcc
 
User avatar
Kiwirob
Posts: 13342
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2005 2:16 pm

RE: UK Anti-Submarine Gap Exposed...

Fri Jan 09, 2015 11:13 am

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 43):
Japan offers to sell the UK its P-1 submarine-hunting jet in a deal that could top $1 billion.

Form the article, this is a very important consideration IMO.

Quote:
If Japan can offer a P-1 variant tailored for the British military that is competitive on price and capability, it could represent a viable alternative.

Jointly building a P-1 that taps into Britain's experience building the Nimrod would allow London to retain rights over radar and sensing technology it would lose by buying a U.S. aircraft regulated by the Pentagon, one source said.
 
Bongodog1964
Posts: 3542
Joined: Wed Oct 18, 2006 6:29 am

RE: UK Anti-Submarine Gap Exposed...

Fri Jan 09, 2015 12:56 pm

Quoting GDB (Reply 5):
For all the problems with MRA.4A development, it was not far away from initial service, while there would have been a gap between Nimrod MR.2 retirement and MRA.4A service, it would have closed by now.
As it is, a vast yawning gap.

The MOD shot themselves in the foot. When asked by the previous Govt for savings they sacrificed MR2 leaving a capability gap. If they had insisted that anti submarine warfare was essential and MR2 must run on until replaced they would have made the subsequent decision much harder. With regard to MRA4 being not far away from initial service, there's lots of opinions on that subject, my only one would be that it had been imminent for quite some time.

Quoting scouseflyer (Reply 10):
Wasn't there also only something like a 15% carry over of parts from a MR2 to MR4A and when they took the donor birds apart all the fuselages were differant and required massive rework - would of been cheaper and quicker to start with a new donor or design and build a bespoke fuse.

I recall it was so bad that the intitial contractor for the fuselage refurbishment had the contract taken away from them.

The original planes appeared to have been built in the traditional style where parts are made and then installed by a "fitter" The fitter being a trained artisan who takes a part and modifies it to fit. Modern construction works on the principle of an "assembler" working with parts that fit 1st time.
 
User avatar
bikerthai
Posts: 3743
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 1:45 pm

RE: UK Anti-Submarine Gap Exposed...

Fri Jan 09, 2015 2:20 pm

"Jointly building" and "competitive on price" don't really go together does it? If Boeing were to offer to perform the military mod of the P-8A in England, the cost of those P-8 would be much higher. The only potential cost saving I see with the P-1 vs the P-8A is that there would be no "extra US charges" relating to Foreign Military Sale process.

One other aspect to consider is future upgrades. Consider how much money the US will putting into future enhancement of the P-8 and how much money Japan will put into future enhancement of the P-1, which aircraft would have a better outlook for growth? Australia is already on board to get potential future upgrade that the US Navy gets.


bt
Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
 
User avatar
moo
Posts: 5090
Joined: Sun May 13, 2007 2:27 am

RE: UK Anti-Submarine Gap Exposed...

Fri Jan 09, 2015 2:46 pm

Quoting bongodog1964 (Reply 46):
When asked by the previous Govt for savings they sacrificed MR2 leaving a capability gap.

The MR.2 was already due for retirement, and the decision to scrap it slightly earlier was not actually made by the MoD but by the Government because of the suggested cost of continuing it for 5 years.

Quoting bongodog1964 (Reply 46):
With regard to MRA4 being not far away from initial service, there's lots of opinions on that subject, my only one would be that it had been imminent for quite some time.

Regardless of whether the MRA4 was due for immediate delivery or not, the fact remains that it wasn't worth the money being spent on it - single user fleet, small number of aircraft, specialised equipment etc.

We should be buying off the peg, like we did for Airseeker.
 
User avatar
Kiwirob
Posts: 13342
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2005 2:16 pm

RE: UK Anti-Submarine Gap Exposed...

Fri Jan 09, 2015 3:06 pm

Quoting bikerthai (Reply 47):
and how much money Japan will put into future enhancement of the P-1

I've read that the Japanese P3's were better equiped than the US P3's, I'd have no way of know if this is true but I can't see them stinting on development. Plus if the US gets on board other countries (NZ?) may well follow.

Just because something is made in America doesn't make it better, plus the aircraft it's based on is a very old design, the P1 is purpose built as a maritime patrol aircraft, it should be better.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: CrackInspector and 21 guests

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos