User avatar
KarelXWB
Moderator
Topic Author
Posts: 26968
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2012 6:13 pm

Boeing Receives Additional P-8A Orders

Fri Aug 28, 2015 2:35 pm

Nine for the U.S. Navy and four for the Royal Australian Air Force:

Quote:

Boeing will provide the first P-8A Poseidon maritime surveillance aircraft for Australia and additional P-8As for the U.S. Navy following a $1.49 billion contract award from the Navy for 13 aircraft.

The order includes nine aircraft for the U.S. Navy and four Poseidon aircraft for the Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF), a long-time partner to the U.S. Navy on P-8A development.

Press release:
http://boeing.mediaroom.com/2015-08-...ract-for-13-P-8A-Poseidon-Aircraft
What we leave behind is not as important as how we've lived.
 
mmo
Posts: 1789
Joined: Thu Apr 18, 2013 3:04 pm

RE: Boeing Receives Additional P-8A Orders

Fri Aug 28, 2015 2:42 pm

What the Boeing press release leaves out is there is long lead time funding for parts for another 20 (16 USN and 4 RAAF).

http://uk.reuters.com/article/2015/0...-boeing-navy-idUKKCN0QW2N120150827
If we weren't all crazy we'd all go insane!
 
User avatar
moo
Posts: 4891
Joined: Sun May 13, 2007 2:27 am

RE: Boeing Receives Additional P-8A Orders

Fri Aug 28, 2015 3:41 pm

Quoting mmo (Reply 1):
What the Boeing press release leaves out is there is long lead time funding for parts for another 20 (16 USN and 4 RAAF).

Not all of those 20 will actually end up with the USN...
 
User avatar
bikerthai
Posts: 2963
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 1:45 pm

RE: Boeing Receives Additional P-8A Orders

Fri Aug 28, 2015 7:01 pm

Quoting moo (Reply 2):
Not all of those 20 will actually end up with the USN...

Besides the 4 for the RAAF, do you know something we don't know?   

bt
Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
 
User avatar
moo
Posts: 4891
Joined: Sun May 13, 2007 2:27 am

RE: Boeing Receives Additional P-8A Orders

Fri Aug 28, 2015 7:22 pm

Yes, 6 of the USN allocation are actually destined for a FMS which will be placed with a good friend next year when political hurdles have been dealt with...

The foreign purchaser wants them delivered as quickly as possible after the order is finally placed, so the USN has agreed to placeholder the order as they will take the frames anyway if it all goes pearshape  
 
Chaostheory
Posts: 1134
Joined: Wed Mar 06, 2013 2:09 am

RE: Boeing Receives Additional P-8A Orders

Sat Aug 29, 2015 6:47 am

Quoting bikerthai (Reply 3):
Besides the 4 for the RAAF, do you know something we don't know?

Probably the long-rumored UK procurement of the P-8.

A chap I went to University with is on the Project Seedcorn initiative in New Zealand on their P-3 fleet and he first heard the rumours over 2 years ago. The UK has crews in the US and Aus on the P-8 too.

Personally, I would have preferred a C130 or A400 platform for the UK's MPA requirement.

[Edited 2015-08-28 23:49:06]
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 26366
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: Boeing Receives Additional P-8A Orders

Sat Aug 29, 2015 2:42 pm

I know G-I-UK isn't what it was 20 years ago, but the P-8 should certainly have the endurance edge over the C-130 for North Sea and Arctic Ocean operations. And I do not believe the A400M currently has native ASW capability so it would have to be developed at likely not-insginificant cost. And considering how expensive the A400M is on a per frame basis as a cargo plane, it might be significantly more expensive than the P-8 even before you factor in the development costs.
 
Chaostheory
Posts: 1134
Joined: Wed Mar 06, 2013 2:09 am

RE: Boeing Receives Additional P-8A Orders

Sat Aug 29, 2015 3:44 pm

Quoting Stitch (Reply 6):

I know G-I-UK isn't what it was 20 years ago, but the P-8 should certainly have the endurance edge over the C-130 for North Sea and Arctic Ocean operations. And I do not believe the A400M currently has native ASW capability so it would have to be developed at likely not-insginificant cost. And considering how expensive the A400M is on a per frame basis as a cargo plane, it might be significantly more expensive than the P-8 even before you factor in the development costs.

As right you are with the above points, the P-8 doesn't hold a candle to a turboprop platform where field, climb and low altitude loitering performance is concerned.

Also keep in mind that Airbus has refurbished and outfitted non-Airbus maritime patrol aircraft on time and on budget recently and the option exists to outsource any extensive conversion work to Marshall who did the L-1011 fuel tanker conversion and tp400 flight test bid fitting.

Lastly, the UK will shortly be retiring the C-130J in favour of the A400M. The C-130J are relatively young aircraft with low number of cycles that have been used predominantly on the UK-Cyprus-Afghanistan airlink. They would provide good feedstock for conversion.
 
flyingcello
Posts: 206
Joined: Thu Jul 15, 2010 8:31 pm

RE: Boeing Receives Additional P-8A Orders

Sat Aug 29, 2015 5:20 pm

The UK has been stung before with painful conversion exercises. So while a C130J or A400M option might seem good from the outside (and I can see the reasons why people like this idea), a P8 deal represents the lowest risk proposition. Interoperability comes built in as does long term support (witness the current AH64 upgrade for the Army Air Corp). The 737 might not be the most ideal liw level platform, but it makes most sense for the UK just now.
I personally think a strong argument can be made for the P1, but the P8 is a pragmatic choice.
 
Chaostheory
Posts: 1134
Joined: Wed Mar 06, 2013 2:09 am

RE: Boeing Receives Additional P-8A Orders

Sat Aug 29, 2015 8:30 pm

Quoting flyingcello (Reply 8):
The UK has been stung before with painful conversion exercises. So while a C130J or A400M option might seem good from the outside (and I can see the reasons why people like this idea), a P8 deal represents the lowest risk proposition.

Things is, I'm not sure past experience is a good indicator. And if anything, the current Boeing trouble with the 767 tanker doesn't inspire confidence.

The same arguments were also bandied about when a handful of Chinooks were procured for the special forces. You know, we've been operating them for decades, most of our NATO allies use them etc. Yet ultimately, what should have been relatively simple upgrades centred on the avionics ended up being mothballed when costs spiralled to £600m. So when people say it's low risk, I laugh.

Ultimately, whichever platform they end up choosing, I just hope the MoD managers don't balls it up. The Forces haven't had an easy time under the conservatives.
 
Ozair
Posts: 4254
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 8:38 am

RE: Boeing Receives Additional P-8A Orders

Sat Aug 29, 2015 10:21 pm

Quoting ChaosTheory (Reply 9):

Things is, I'm not sure past experience is a good indicator. And if anything, the current Boeing trouble with the 767 tanker doesn't inspire confidence.

So which is it? You deride Boeing for issues with the 767 but then highlight Airbus for recent MPA conversion work while ignoring all the issues Airbus have had with the A400 and KC-30.

If the UK is the customer, and it seems likely that they are, then it can be understood why they are keen on a low risk ASW/MPA option. The debacle that was the Nimrod MRA4 is fresh in too many minds.

Quoting ChaosTheory (Reply 7):
the P-8 doesn't hold a candle to a turboprop platform where field, climb and low altitude loitering performance is concerned.

The UK operated the Nimrod for many years and didn't complain about the field, climb and low altitude performance of those turbofan powered aircraft, so much so they tried to update the same aircraft. There are also a range of mission sets where the speed advantage the P-8 has would be clearly more beneficial than a turbo prop.

Quoting ChaosTheory (Reply 9):
whichever platform they end up choosing

The question remains, what is the purpose for the UK acquisition of an MPA?

Is it for long range search and rescue, world class ASW, anti-shiping, sea lane patrol? When I look at the various mission sets, a long range converted civil airliner that operates at higher altitudes for much of the mission and uses its greater electrical generation to power advanced sensors, seems a better option. As with the RAAF, the UK is probably also investigating a companion UAV to facilitate a long range persistent capability, which will probably result in lower overall MPA flight time and operational costs.
 
Chaostheory
Posts: 1134
Joined: Wed Mar 06, 2013 2:09 am

RE: Boeing Receives Additional P-8A Orders

Sat Aug 29, 2015 10:50 pm

Quoting Ozair (Reply 10):
So which is it? You deride Boeing for issues with the 767 but then highlight Airbus for recent MPA conversion work while ignoring all the issues Airbus have had with the A400 and KC-30.

My general point being that there is no low risk option.

Quoting Ozair (Reply 10):
The UK operated the Nimrod for many years and didn't complain about the field, climb and low altitude performance of those turbofan powered aircraft, so much so they tried to update the same aircraft. There are also a range of mission sets where the speed advantage the P-8 has would be clearly more beneficial than a turbo prop.

At the time of development, other than the P-3, there was no other option that had the endurance. The Nimrod like the P-3 could also happily loiter on two engines.

Quoting Ozair (Reply 10):
Is it for long range search and rescue, world class ASW, anti-shiping, sea lane patrol?

The same as the Nimrod. It needs to be focused on ASW which would be conducted in the Iceland gap and North Sea yet it also needs the endurance for SAR up to 30West.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 26366
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: Boeing Receives Additional P-8A Orders

Sun Aug 30, 2015 2:08 am

Quoting ChaosTheory (Reply 11):
My general point being that there is no low risk option.

But the Poseidon should be the lowest-risk option as it is already in service with the United States and Indian Navies.
 
User avatar
Groover158
Posts: 120
Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2005 12:43 pm

RE: Boeing Receives Additional P-8A Orders

Sun Aug 30, 2015 9:41 am

Quoting ChaosTheory (Reply 11):
At the time of development, other than the P-3, there was no other option that had the endurance. The Nimrod like the P-3 could also happily loiter on two engines.

The P-8 can also happily loiter on two engines 
 
Chaostheory
Posts: 1134
Joined: Wed Mar 06, 2013 2:09 am

RE: Boeing Receives Additional P-8A Orders

Sun Aug 30, 2015 10:59 am

Quoting Stitch (Reply 12):
But the Poseidon should be the lowest-risk option as it is already in service with the United States and Indian Navies.

Despite the similarities in doctrine and so called 'interoperable needs' the UK MoD still likes to do things their own way. Just off the top of my head you have the general differences in refuelling equipment (boom vs probe and drogue) and tailored comms by QinetiQ which cost ~$100m per aircraft for the recent Rivet Joint.
 
ZaphodHarkonnen
Posts: 937
Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2015 10:20 am

RE: Boeing Receives Additional P-8A Orders

Sun Aug 30, 2015 11:36 am

I thought the MO of the P-8 was to patrol at altitude and only come down down to lay down sonabouys or attack? With that sort of profile I can't imagine they would be exposed to that much salt air in comparison to the earlier P-3.

And when it comes to frame maintainence the B737 airframe is likely cheaper just due to the mass of spare parts out there. Hell, who knows. Run it down fast enough and you might just be able to do airframe conversions of the MAX and transplant the sensors. :p
 
User avatar
DeltaMD90
Posts: 8498
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 11:25 pm

RE: Boeing Receives Additional P-8A Orders

Sun Aug 30, 2015 7:28 pm

Quoting ChaosTheory (Reply 7):
As right you are with the above points, the P-8 doesn't hold a candle to a turboprop platform where field, climb and low altitude loitering performance is concerned.

For a mission close to base, the P-3 beats the P-8 in on-station time. But they are doing missions out of Kadena that the P-3 wouldn't even be able to fly to, stay 0 minutes, and make it back. The P-8 on the other hand can reach far off places, stay on-station a few hours, and fly back.

And obviously the P-8 can make it to the op area a lot faster. Not always needed but sometimes it helps.

Quoting Ozair (Reply 10):
There are also a range of mission sets where the speed advantage the P-8 has would be clearly more beneficial than a turbo prop.

   Not to mention the range that goes along with it

Quoting ZaphodHarkonnen (Reply 15):
I thought the MO of the P-8 was to patrol at altitude and only come down down to lay down sonabouys or attack? With that sort of profile I can't imagine they would be exposed to that much salt air in comparison to the earlier P-3.

Depends on the mission. It is better to stay high and they are working on being able to do the entire mission from up high. Corrosion is always an issue down low, one the P-8 fleet is already running into
 
angad84
Posts: 2018
Joined: Mon Nov 05, 2012 3:04 pm

RE: Boeing Receives Additional P-8A Orders

Mon Aug 31, 2015 7:08 am

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 16):
one the P-8 fleet is already running into

That's interesting - it seems pretty early for the fleet to be dealing with corrosion issues. Got a link for this?

Cheers
A
 
Ozair
Posts: 4254
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 8:38 am

RE: Boeing Receives Additional P-8A Orders

Mon Aug 31, 2015 11:44 am

Quoting ChaosTheory (Reply 11):
My general point being that there is no low risk option.

In that case I think your general point is incorrect. As Stitch points out, given the P-8 is in service already it presents the lowest risk of any new build aircraft. Modifying a C-130, or A400, would add significantl more risk with no additional benefit. About the only possible lower risk option would be the UK receiving P-3Cs from the boneyard and re-winging them but even that is potentially riskier than a current in production jet.

Quoting ChaosTheory (Reply 11):
The same as the Nimrod. It needs to be focused on ASW which would be conducted in the Iceland gap and North Sea yet it also needs the endurance for SAR up to 30West.

In that case I cannot see a better overall package than the P-8. It is more than a one for one replacement for the Nimrod in every role.

Quoting ChaosTheory (Reply 14):
general differences in refuelling equipment (boom vs probe and drogue)

Hasn't stopped the UK with the C-17.
 
User avatar
DeltaMD90
Posts: 8498
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 11:25 pm

RE: Boeing Receives Additional P-8A Orders

Mon Aug 31, 2015 3:19 pm

Quoting angad84 (Reply 17):
That's interesting - it seems pretty early for the fleet to be dealing with corrosion issues. Got a link for this?

No, nothing online or anything.

It's not like the planes are falling apart, there are just the problems any plane that operates low over the ocean faces. As I said earlier, they are trying to enable the P-8A to stay up high, see:

http://www.militaryaerospace.com/art...2013/04/Boeing-flying-torpedo.html

The article mentions time and fuel savings, but another benefit is being away from the corrosive sea water
 
angad84
Posts: 2018
Joined: Mon Nov 05, 2012 3:04 pm

RE: Boeing Receives Additional P-8A Orders

Tue Sep 01, 2015 6:43 am

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 19):
It's not like the planes are falling apart, there are just the problems any plane that operates low over the ocean faces. As I said earlier, they are trying to enable the P-8A to stay up high, see:

Ah, ok. It sounded a bit like *unexpected* corrosion issues. Thanks.

Cheers
A
 
User avatar
N328KF
Posts: 5945
Joined: Tue May 25, 2004 3:50 am

RE: Boeing Receives Additional P-8A Orders

Tue Sep 01, 2015 12:45 pm

Quoting ChaosTheory (Reply 7):
Lastly, the UK will shortly be retiring the C-130J in favour of the A400M. The C-130J are relatively young aircraft with low number of cycles that have been used predominantly on the UK-Cyprus-Afghanistan airlink. They would provide good feedstock for conversion.

Only the C-130Ks are going. The C-130Js are staying.
“In the age of information, ignorance is a choice.”
-Donny Miller
 
User avatar
bikerthai
Posts: 2963
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 1:45 pm

RE: Boeing Receives Additional P-8A Orders

Tue Sep 01, 2015 1:41 pm

Quoting ChaosTheory (Reply 11):

My general point being that there is no low risk option.
Quoting Stitch (Reply 12):
But the Poseidon should be the lowest-risk option as it is already in service with the United States and Indian Navies.

Boeing is now or is about to go to full rate production on the P-8 at a little over one airplane a month. Seems to me that is as low risk as you are going to get other than buying a commercial 737.

Quoting ChaosTheory (Reply 14):
Just off the top of my head you have the general differences in refuelling equipment (boom vs probe and drogue)

The refueling configuration for the P-8 is almost the same as the RAAF Wedgetail. So for only a little bit of money, you can add the probe over the existing receptacle. Besides, the UK have their A330 tanker, so there should be no need to refuel the P-8 using a probe.

Quoting ZaphodHarkonnen (Reply 15):
I thought the MO of the P-8 was to patrol at altitude and only come down down to lay down sonabouys or attack?

I believe by the time the UK gets their frame (the Aussies also) the P-8 will have high altitude sonobouy and weapons drop capabilities. No need to drop down low unless you need to eyeball debris or drop a SAR package. Heck.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 16):
Not to mention the range that goes along with it

Just to say that how much a 737 burns its oil dictates how long it can stay in the air.

Quoting moo (Reply 4):
Yes, 6 of the USN allocation are actually destined for a FMS which will be placed with a good friend next year when political hurdles have been dealt with...

The foreign purchaser wants them delivered as quickly as possible after the order is finally placed, so the USN has agreed to placeholder the order as they will take the frames anyway if it all goes pearshape

Maybe we can get the good news as a Christmas gift 

bt

[Edited 2015-09-01 06:47:45]
Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
 
User avatar
moo
Posts: 4891
Joined: Sun May 13, 2007 2:27 am

RE: Boeing Receives Additional P-8A Orders

Wed Sep 02, 2015 9:16 am

Quoting bikerthai (Reply 22):
Besides, the UK have their A330 tanker, so there should be no need to refuel the P-8 using a probe.

The RAF's Voyagers don't have booms.

The RAF has never sought boom refuelling capability, they just don't have enough aircraft reliant on it to justify the costs of acquiring and maintaining the capability. The main reason for using a boom is speed of refuelling, which the RAF has never had an issue with - they have used probe and drogue for the largest bombers in RAF service without issue.

The flip side is that by going for an all probe and drogue fleet, you can have low cost conversions of existing airframes (eg the Valiant, Victor and Vulcan all at some point served in the tanker roll due to low cost conversions, not to mention the VC-10 and the Tristar - all boom conversions require more significant conversions and resulting costs).

Quoting bikerthai (Reply 22):
Maybe we can get the good news as a Christmas gift 

I'm afraid it won't be that soon  
 
User avatar
bikerthai
Posts: 2963
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 1:45 pm

RE: Boeing Receives Additional P-8A Orders

Wed Sep 02, 2015 1:52 pm

I recall that there was a probe design for the 737 AEW&C but can not find any photos. Maybe the RAAF decided they did not need it. So if the RAF wants a probe they will need to pay for the development and certification.

You do pay a drag penalty with the probe.

bt
Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
 
angad84
Posts: 2018
Joined: Mon Nov 05, 2012 3:04 pm

RE: Boeing Receives Additional P-8A Orders

Wed Sep 02, 2015 2:18 pm

Quoting bikerthai (Reply 24):
You do pay a drag penalty with the probe.

How significant though? low single-digit penalties on effective ranges in the thousands of kilometres aren't too much of a hassle, particularly with friendly AAR assets deployed alongside...

Cheers
A
 
User avatar
moo
Posts: 4891
Joined: Sun May 13, 2007 2:27 am

RE: Boeing Receives Additional P-8A Orders

Wed Sep 02, 2015 2:55 pm

Quoting bikerthai (Reply 24):
You do pay a drag penalty with the probe.

Its never been seen as an issue on the AWACs, Nimrods, VC-10s, Victors or Vulcans, most of which flew for years in operational service with probes, which in the case of the Vulcans were actually deactivated for several years but few aircraft had them removed.

The RAF won't have an issue certifying the probe if needed  
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11118
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: Boeing Receives Additional P-8A Orders

Wed Sep 02, 2015 9:32 pm

The RAF has had good luck with Boeing new builds, the E-3D, C-17A, CH-47C/D. They seem to be having good luck with the one RC-135W Rivet Joint they now have (two more being converted from USAF KC-135Rs to RAF RC-135Ws).

What they need now is a tanker with a Boom on it. They will have 4 Boom type air refuelable airplanes soon, the E-3D (actually it is duel capable, Boom and probe and drogue), the C-17A, the RC-135W, and now the P-8A.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_RC-135#/media/File:First_Rivet_Joint_Aircraft_Lands_at_RAF_Waddington_MOD_45156408.jpg

Now the question is do they modify some Voyagers with the KC-30 Boom, Buy some additional A-330MRTTs (with Booms), try to buy some USAF or French KC-135Rs, buy IAI B-767MMTT, or a few Boeing KC-46As?
 
User avatar
moo
Posts: 4891
Joined: Sun May 13, 2007 2:27 am

RE: Boeing Receives Additional P-8A Orders

Thu Sep 03, 2015 8:32 am

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 27):
What they need now is a tanker with a Boom on it. They will have 4 Boom type air refuelable airplanes soon...

Not really.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 27):
the E-3D (actually it is duel capable, Boom and probe and drogue)

As you say, it has dual capability, no need to spend money on that basis.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 27):
the C-17A

Has never flown any missions in the RAF that has needed refuelling capabilities, and thats not likely to change.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 27):
the P-8A

Which replaces a platform which was never routinely refuelled air-to-air on its normal maritime missions, so the P-8A isn't likely to be treated any differently.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 27):
the RC-135W

The Nimrod R2 and the few MR2s which supplemented them (as some MR2s also received the electro-optical turret upgrade) were the only large platform routinely performing missions that required air-to-air refuelling.

So rather than four aircraft that require boom refuelling, you have only one that actually requires it - and if the RC-135W does indeed end up requiring air-to-air refuelling capability, and the RAF want to retain the capability to perform those missions end to end themselves, then the money is going to be spent on certifying the RC-135W platform for probe use rather than any costly boom conversions or new purchases.
 
Ozair
Posts: 4254
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 8:38 am

RE: Boeing Receives Additional P-8A Orders

Thu Sep 03, 2015 8:55 am

Quoting moo (Reply 28):

So rather than four aircraft that require boom refuelling, you have only one that actually requires it - and if the RC-135W does indeed end up requiring air-to-air refuelling capability, and the RAF want to retain the capability to perform those missions end to end themselves, then the money is going to be spent on certifying the RC-135W platform for probe use rather than any costly boom conversions or new purchases.

To add to your comments realistically how often will British RC-135s operate where they cannot receive US boom equipped tanker support? IMO almost never.
 
User avatar
DeltaMD90
Posts: 8498
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 11:25 pm

RE: Boeing Receives Additional P-8A Orders

Thu Sep 03, 2015 5:55 pm

Quoting moo (Reply 28):
Which replaces a platform which was never routinely refuelled air-to-air on its normal maritime missions, so the P-8A isn't likely to be treated any differently.

I don't believe the P-8A has a need to refuel with its aux tanks... they are routinely flying long missions (not quite as long as P-3s but close) without refueling. It's when they need to take out the aux tanks (due to future expansion) will the range and time aloft be significantly reduced and refueling necessary
 
rwessel
Posts: 2448
Joined: Tue Jan 16, 2007 3:47 pm

RE: Boeing Receives Additional P-8A Orders

Thu Sep 03, 2015 6:05 pm

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 30):
they are routinely flying long missions (not quite as long as P-3s but close) without refueling.

I believe the P-3 can fly missions of longer duration, but in terms of distance the P-8 wins hands down.
 
User avatar
bikerthai
Posts: 2963
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 1:45 pm

RE: Boeing Receives Additional P-8A Orders

Thu Sep 03, 2015 6:25 pm

Quoting rwessel (Reply 31):
I believe the P-3 can fly missions of longer duration, but in terms of distance the P-8 wins hands down.

And the P-8A would win in terms of crew comfort.   

bt
Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
 
jumpjet
Posts: 325
Joined: Thu Feb 10, 2005 8:11 pm

RE: Boeing Receives Additional P-8A Orders

Fri Sep 04, 2015 9:44 am

Quoting ChaosTheory (Reply 5):
Probably the long-rumored UK procurement of the P-8.

Absolutely! Talking to P-8 crew at RIAT Fairford in July, they already had Royal Air Force, and I think Royal Navy, crew members working with them. Seems like a done deal behind the scenes....
 
Max Q
Posts: 7691
Joined: Wed May 09, 2001 12:40 pm

RE: Boeing Receives Additional P-8A Orders

Sat Sep 05, 2015 1:07 pm

There really was and is no logical reason for the UK to delete the boom on their A330 tanker, the extra flexibility it would offer in being able to refuel any type of aircraft would be invaluable and for bigger aircraft it significantly speeds up the refuelling due to the booms higher flow rate.



The RAF now has several aircraft that can be boom refueled and it looks like they are about to add another.
They had an opportunity to purchase a brand new tanker that could refuel anything (no other customer deleted the boom)
and they deliberately didn't take advantage of this, their decision made no sense.
The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.


Guns and the love of them by a loud minority are a malignant and deadly cancer inflicted on American society
 
angad84
Posts: 2018
Joined: Mon Nov 05, 2012 3:04 pm

RE: Boeing Receives Additional P-8A Orders

Sat Sep 05, 2015 1:41 pm

Quoting Max Q (Reply 34):
their decision made no sense.

It's cheaper. They don't have to buy and maintain the boom equipment, and they don't have to train to use it.

It also complicates the civil-military (and back again) conversion of the UK tankers, whereby they are leased out when not needed by the RAF.

None of the RAF UARRSI birds are routinely refueled in service, so it doesn't matter whether the RAF has boom tankers or not. FWIW, India operates P-8s and C-17s and we have no refueling capability for those either - but no one cares because it doesn't matter, the P-8 has the legs for its mission, as does the C-17.

Cheers
A
 
User avatar
moo
Posts: 4891
Joined: Sun May 13, 2007 2:27 am

RE: Boeing Receives Additional P-8A Orders

Sun Sep 06, 2015 9:01 am

Quoting Max Q (Reply 34):
There really was and is no logical reason for the UK to delete the boom on their A330 tanker, the extra flexibility it would offer in being able to refuel any type of aircraft would be invaluable and for bigger aircraft it significantly speeds up the refuelling due to the booms higher flow rate.

They didnt delete the boom, the Voyagers are not based on the MRTT purchased by other countries.

The RAF has never had an issue with flow rate over probe refueling before, why would it be an issue now?
 
Max Q
Posts: 7691
Joined: Wed May 09, 2001 12:40 pm

RE: Boeing Receives Additional P-8A Orders

Sun Sep 06, 2015 11:25 am

Quoting moo (Reply 36):
The RAF has never had an issue with flow rate over probe refueling before, why would it be an issue now?

They never had a boom equipped tanker as no one operated the same type with that capability.


Now they have the opportunity to capitalize on that (already developed) capability the only apparent reason they don't take advantage of it is that 'they've never done it that way'



It makes no sense and is a massive waste of a valuable asset.
The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.


Guns and the love of them by a loud minority are a malignant and deadly cancer inflicted on American society
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 9035
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

RE: Boeing Receives Additional P-8A Orders

Sun Sep 06, 2015 12:11 pm

Quoting ChaosTheory (Reply 9):
The same arguments were also bandied about when a handful of Chinooks were procured for the special forces. You know, we've been operating them for decades, most of our NATO allies use them etc. Yet ultimately, what should have been relatively simple upgrades centred on the avionics ended up being mothballed when costs spiralled to £600m. So when people say it's low risk, I laugh.
Quoting ChaosTheory (Reply 14):
Despite the similarities in doctrine and so called 'interoperable needs' the UK MoD still likes to do things their own way.

Which is most likely the reason why the UK has no low risk options, it has to be done their way or the highway, so bear the cost.
 
User avatar
moo
Posts: 4891
Joined: Sun May 13, 2007 2:27 am

RE: Boeing Receives Additional P-8A Orders

Sun Sep 06, 2015 8:27 pm

Quoting Max Q (Reply 37):

Spending money on boom capability is what doesnt make sense, and would be a waste of money - a huge outlay for a tiny proportion of the fleet.

If the MoD is going to spend any of its precious and diminishing budget on refueling capability, its not going to be on something which benefits only a few aircraft.
 
tommy1808
Posts: 10865
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

RE: Boeing Receives Additional P-8A Orders

Mon Sep 07, 2015 8:45 am

Quoting Max Q (Reply 34):
it significantly speeds up the refuelling due to the booms higher flow rate.

The RAF mostly tanks tactical aircraft in the air, and I daubt that one boom does that faster than two probes. Heck, if push comes to shove I see no reason why a KC3 couldn't fuel 3 tactical aircraft at the same time with up to 4200kg/minute.
The F16 takes how much at a boom? 1200kg/min?
The RAF doesn't have enough large receives to make the potential time savings account for much.

Best regards
Thomas
This Singature is a safe space......
 
Max Q
Posts: 7691
Joined: Wed May 09, 2001 12:40 pm

RE: Boeing Receives Additional P-8A Orders

Tue Sep 08, 2015 4:26 am

They do still have large receivers which are far more optimally refueled with a boom, further more it would allow these
assets to be mixed amongst NATO and other Allies and be able to refuel any type that needs it.
The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.


Guns and the love of them by a loud minority are a malignant and deadly cancer inflicted on American society
 
ThePointblank
Posts: 3211
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:39 pm

RE: Boeing Receives Additional P-8A Orders

Tue Sep 08, 2015 5:45 am

Quoting Max Q (Reply 41):
They do still have large receivers which are far more optimally refueled with a boom, further more it would allow these
assets to be mixed amongst NATO and other Allies and be able to refuel any type that needs it.

The reality is that:

1. the RAF's C-17's don't practice air to air refueling;
2. the E-3 fleet are 1: hermaphrodites, meaning they can tank from both boom and probe systems, and 2: don't actually refuel from tankers all that often, and only do so enough so that crews maintain competency;
3. A number of RAF A330 refuelers are equipped with the Cobham 805E Fuselage Refuelling Unit, which has a much higher capacity at 700 US gallons per minute, making it more suitable to refuel larger aircraft;
4. The bulk of NATO aircraft are standardized on probe refueling, with probe-capable refuelers constantly in higher demand than a boom refueler;
5. Other than the RC-135's, no other platform uses boom refueling on a regular basis in the RAF's inventory

Quoting tommy1808 (Reply 40):
The F16 takes how much at a boom? 1200kg/min?

No way F-16's can take that high of a flow rate; if you tried that on a F-16, you will blow the fuel lines and tanks on the F-16 wide open, if you haven't ejected the F-16 off the boom already. The F-16 normally refuels at 200 gallons per minute.
 
User avatar
moo
Posts: 4891
Joined: Sun May 13, 2007 2:27 am

RE: Boeing Receives Additional P-8A Orders

Tue Sep 08, 2015 8:02 am

Quoting Max Q (Reply 41):
They do still have large receivers which are far more optimally refueled with a boom, further more it would allow these
assets to be mixed amongst NATO and other Allies and be able to refuel any type that needs it.

You have tried that argument before - there is no NATO requirement that you be able to give fuel via a boom, so no country is going to factor in NATO or its allies when planning its refuelling capabilities.

And the RAF have found probe refuelling rates perfectly adequate for the past 50 years, with numerous large receivers along the way (I wouldn't hesitate to consider the Victor, Vulcan, Valiant and others as "large"). The sudden appearance of the P-8A isn't likely to change that opinion.

In the past, the RAF have used a higher offload rate on centre line drogues than on wing mounted drogues, so it is possible to increase the offload rate of probe and drogue - if they find they need additional flow rate then the addition of higher flow rate centre line drogues are almost certainly the way they will go.

Lets not forget that the RAF will have an untapped air refuelling resource should they so need it in the A400Ms as well (the RAF just needs to order the wing units, all the plumbing and electronics for offloading already exist in the airframes they are purchasing).
 
Max Q
Posts: 7691
Joined: Wed May 09, 2001 12:40 pm

RE: Boeing Receives Additional P-8A Orders

Tue Sep 08, 2015 9:01 am

Times have changed since the V force days.


No one else that ordered the A330 tanker deleted the boom and no good reason has been put forward for
the RAF's decision to do so.


One tanker that can refuel anything capable of IFR seems like a pretty safe bet, why limit your options ?
The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.


Guns and the love of them by a loud minority are a malignant and deadly cancer inflicted on American society
 
User avatar
moo
Posts: 4891
Joined: Sun May 13, 2007 2:27 am

RE: Boeing Receives Additional P-8A Orders

Tue Sep 08, 2015 9:21 am

Quoting Max Q (Reply 44):
Times have changed since the V force days.

Yes indeed it has - the average size of an aircraft in the RAF's fleet has decreased massively.

Quoting Max Q (Reply 44):
No one else that ordered the A330 tanker deleted the boom and no good reason has been put forward for
the RAF's decision to do so.

Out of the current purchasers, the only one which stands out is France - all of the others which have ordered the MRTT with the boom have significant fleets of US sourced aircraft which require boom refuelling. F-15s, F-16s etc etc.

We do not have any of those, boom capable aircraft remain an extremely small minority in RAF service.

Quoting Max Q (Reply 44):
One tanker that can refuel anything capable of IFR seems like a pretty safe bet, why limit your options ?

Because its bloody expensive to cover all options - why the hell would we spend money on boom purchase, training, maintenance and operation when the internal demand for boom refuelling is a tiny proportion (currently at zero) of your fleets air to air refuelling requirements?

You don't purchase equipment based on external requirements.
 
ThePointblank
Posts: 3211
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:39 pm

RE: Boeing Receives Additional P-8A Orders

Tue Sep 08, 2015 10:02 am

Quoting Max Q (Reply 44):
Times have changed since the V force days.

Yes it has, and the average size of aircraft flying with the RAF has gone down, not up.

Quoting Max Q (Reply 44):
No one else that ordered the A330 tanker deleted the boom and no good reason has been put forward for
the RAF's decision to do so.

1. Every other buyer has significant numbers of boom refueled aircraft; the RAF doesn't.
2. The RAF's birds are leased.

Quoting Max Q (Reply 44):
One tanker that can refuel anything capable of IFR seems like a pretty safe bet, why limit your options ?

Because it costs a lot of money to maintain capabilities (purchase cost, training, maintenance), especially if the capability is rarely, if ever needed! It's not just the cost of fitting the booms, but also a significant cost for training boom operators which will add quite a lot to in-service support costs. It's hardly chump change!

Quoting moo (Reply 43):

You have tried that argument before - there is no NATO requirement that you be able to give fuel via a boom, so no country is going to factor in NATO or its allies when planning its refuelling capabilities.

Correct; the bulk of NATO partner aircraft are probe refuelers anyways! France, Germany, Italy, and Spain all operate probe and drogue aircraft. So, in reality, the British would be doing a better job supporting European / NATO allies anyways with the current Voyager refuelers anyways!

Most of the European boom refuelers operators (Belgium, Poland, Greece, Denmark, and Norway) don't usually conduct out of area operations far from home, and thus have no need for boom refueler, and whenever they need one, the USAF is often nearby to provide that capability. The nations that operate boom-refueled aircraft and do regularly conduct out of area operations far from home (the Netherlands and Turkey) have boom refuelers of their own anyways and don't need additional assistance.

Making a case for a boom based on allied use is kind of silly anyways; the USAF doesn't deploy without their boom refuelers anyways (and why would the USAF deploy their major attack elements to be "location compromised" by having a foreign AAR requirement somewhere in the chain, even if it is a super close ally?). Every other boom refueler that needs boom refueling has their own refueler if they regularly go it alone on out of area operations, and if they do conduct out of area operations, they only do so in the context of a multi-national deployment which will very likely include the USAF, whom will bring their boom refuelers.
 
User avatar
bikerthai
Posts: 2963
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 1:45 pm

RE: Boeing Receives Additional P-8A Orders

Tue Sep 08, 2015 2:01 pm

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 46):
and if they do conduct out of area operations, they only do so in the context of a multi-national deployment which will very likely include the USAF, whom will bring their boom refuelers.

And this is the crux of the argument. The RAF is no longer expected to go it alone any more. With Argentina a democracy, the chance of losing the Falkands through military conflict is greatly diminished.

 

bt
Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
 
strfyr51
Posts: 3929
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2012 5:04 pm

RE: Boeing Receives Additional P-8A Orders

Tue Sep 08, 2015 2:16 pm

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 16):
Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 16):
For a mission close to base, the P-3 beats the P-8 in on-station time. But they are doing missions out of Kadena that the P-3 wouldn't even be able to fly to, stay 0 minutes, and make it back. The P-8 on the other hand can reach far off places, stay on-station a few hours, and fly back.

**************************************************************************************************************************************************
I've flown Patrols out of Kadena in a P3C as a Flight Engineer. with VP-47
We flew one of my longest missions at 17.5 hours.
Most of it on 2 engine Loiter Above 5000 ft once we got on statiion, We transited at at long range cruise on 3 engines as soon as we could make money shutting one down ,somewhere below 122K pounds. We took off at 139,500 with a FULL Charlie Load including 2 MK46 Torpedo's in the Bombay . I don't know what the P8 has or can do but I Doubt it can beat the "on station" time of a P3.C or P3B. Knowing what I know about the B737 . And I'm a Maintenance controller now at United. and worked the B737 desk before my present position on the Airbus A320/319 desk.With the P8 having the -900 wing It might come close to the P3C but I STILL doubt it can beat it.,as we were on station close to 11 Hours. in the South China Sea. .
 
User avatar
bikerthai
Posts: 2963
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 1:45 pm

RE: Boeing Receives Additional P-8A Orders

Tue Sep 08, 2015 4:35 pm

Quoting strfyr51 (Reply 48):
With the P8 having the -900 wing It might come close to the P3C but I STILL doubt it can beat it.,as we were on station close to 11 Hours. in the South China Sea. .

The P-8 has extra tanks, so it does have greater range than a typical 737. The P-8 gets to station faster than a P-3, so there would be a distance where loiter on station advantage goes from the P-3 to the P-8. For example, for the Malaysian Airline search, the P-8 was the preferred platform to the P-3 because of the distance involved.

As for being "on station for 11 hrs" not sure if the P-8 can do that as the engine oil would run out. You would probably know what that "air time" would be.

bt
Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: RJMAZ and 42 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