It was only a matter of time............

[thomastmcc]

The last time a maritime patrol aircraft was tendered NATO-wide, resulted in the winner being the Breguet Atlantic. Nobody except the French and Germans stood by in buying a purpose designed type and went for the Orion which was an Electra derivative.

Since then of course many multi national designs and competitions have resulted in successful European wide designs being adopted.

A logical way forward would be a multi national pooled collaboration like the NATO operated C-17 and E-3 fleets. However everyone else seems to be upgrading their existing P-3 fleets, so possibly only France would be a partner.

One way or another, the P-8 is the likely solution. I believe a leased fleet of 4 was mentioned somewhere.

Whatever, get it and get it soon.

Trevor

i agree mate the p8 is the most likely choice but then we`re dealing with numptys in government they could go for the P1 or do it ourselves costing a whole lot more , the SDR 2010 cut the MPA , what was it last year or before the russians had a surface ship in so close to the uk shoreline members of the public could see it before the MOD !! .. also i heard/read ( cant remember maybe AFM ) the raf would prefer a 4 engine airframe ..

Thomas

[Radleigh]

Let's just take all of the museum Shackleton's, Nimrods and Hendon and Duxfords Sunderlands, form an operating company called 'Maritime patrol to the sky' and do it ourselves

I saw a comment on Facebook earlier about getting a Gannet back up for this role... would be nice for us, but it won't ever happen... funny if it did though.

[Nigel Bunker]

Max Headroom posted Today, 04:53 PM

Nobody except the French and Germans stood by in buying a purpose designed type

Not even the Italians or the Dutch? And I know the Pakistanis operate some. But the Atlantique was designed for the job, not an adapted airliner like most of the others.

And I strongly believe they will be holding the Winter Olympics in the desert before any Japanese ruling party dares to upset Japanese voters by actually exporting arms to foreign countries.

[Max Headroom]

Not even the Italians or the Dutch? And I know the Pakistanis operate some. But the Atlantique was designed for the job, not an adapted airliner like most of the others.

And I strongly believe they will be holding the Winter Olympics in the desert before any Japanese ruling party dares to upset Japanese voters by actually exporting arms to foreign countries.

The Dutch spent a lot of Euros updating their P-3's only to sell them at a bargain price to a grateful German military, so I can only assume they did not see a need for them? Maybe they will change their minds now.......

Italy - I can see they would need something if only to do something about the refugees that appear to be arriving by sea. However don't they already have something else already, CN235 or ATR.42's or similar?

We need something, anything. If India are re equipping with the P-8, then they won't ne wanting their newly refurbed Il-38's?

Trevor

[magwitch]

I have seen it quoted as $150m for a P-8 against $170m for a P-1, and also that a P-1 is two thirds the price of a P-8. Two more engines has a premium for sure, but buying a P-8 off the shelf means we will also be buying capabilities we don't require, such as SLAM-ER capacity etc. The P-1, I feel, is more in line with RAF maritime doctrine.

However, I sadly expect it is all a moot point, as I somehow doubt that SDSR 15 will provide any answers.

It's not just aquisition cost. There are no operation and maintenance procedures or documentation for the massively complex P-1 in English. so all that will have to be generated from scratch and validated. Climate change will have boiled the seas dry before the RAF/MoD and whichever contractor they've chosen to get ripped off by achieve that. There would also be very little possibility of crew exchange or training opportunities.

However, as you correctly observe, it's a moot point as the post 2015 RAF will be shedding capabilities not restoring previously abandoned ones.

[Nick Millman]

Japan has no overseas deployment capabilities, no overseas bases to man and defend,

Article 9 of the Japanese Constitution prohibits the use of military force outside Japan except for self-defence purposes. In June 1992, the National Diet passed a UN Peacekeeping Cooperation Law which permitted the JSDF to participate in UN medical, refugee repatriation, logistical support, infrastructural reconstruction, election-monitoring, and policing operations under strictly limited conditions. As a result Japan has contributed to UN missions abroad and in 2004 sent a battalion sized unit to Iraq on a five year "reconstruction and support" mission in Samawah. Personnel from the Japanese Special Forces Group, Western Infantry Army Regiment and 1st Airborne Brigade personnel were deployed to provide protective duties, permitted to engage hostile forces only if they came under fire.

In 2008 a Japanese high court ruled that the deployment had been partly unconstitutional but in addition to the deployment of ground forces JASDF transport aircraft had assisted coalition forces to airlift materials and personnel between Iraq and Kuwait. The airlift mission was twice extended and by November 2008 had transported 671.1 tons of supplies.

[Truro Model Builder]

Italy and the Netherlands also purchased the Atlantic; the Italians still operate theirs and the Dutch did indeed replace them with P-3s. The RAF had no interest in the Atlantic as a replacement for the Shackleton -despite British industry involvement- as it was a two-engined aircraft which was contrary to RAF maritime doctrine. Studies were made to fit podded jets (Vipers, I think) in the style of the SP-2H Neptune, but it was not sufficient to allow it to be seriously considered.

I think that until recent events a non-ASW maritime aircraft such as the CN.235MP could have been a possibility, but with the Faslane incident and the embarrassment of asking our NATO allies to help out only the reinstatement of a full MR/ASW/ASV capability will be acceptable. As much as I like the P-1 and believe it is the most suitable aircraft for the job, the P-8 is likely to be the only candidate. SDSR 15 will no, in my view, lead to a purchase or lease, but it may ease the path for acquiring them in the next SDSR.

What I find interesting is what the French will do when they decide to replace their Atlantique 2; buying a fleet of American aircraft may be very uncomfortable to them, and it may prompt Airbus to finally do something serious about a competitor in the shape of an A320 derivative. I find it surprising that Airbus have no interest in meeting this challenge, instead relying on the CN.235MP and possibly a palletised arrangement for the A400M. It is also worth bearing in mind that Germany, Italy and Spain will also be looking for new MR aircraft in the next few years, and a pan-European project based on the A320 could yet happen. If it integrated the radar and avionics hardware planned for the Nimrod MRA.4, it could happen swiftly.

[Simon Cornes]

Italy and the Netherlands also purchased the Atlantic; the Italians still operate theirs and the Dutch did indeed replace them with P-3s. The RAF had no interest in the Atlantic as a replacement for the Shackleton -despite British industry involvement- as it was a two-engined aircraft which was contrary to RAF maritime doctrine. Studies were made to fit podded jets (Vipers, I think) in the style of the SP-2H Neptune, but it was not sufficient to allow it to be seriously considered.

I think that until recent events a non-ASW maritime aircraft such as the CN.235MP could have been a possibility, but with the Faslane incident and the embarrassment of asking our NATO allies to help out only the reinstatement of a full MR/ASW/ASV capability will be acceptable. As much as I like the P-1 and believe it is the most suitable aircraft for the job, the P-8 is likely to be the only candidate. SDSR 15 will no, in my view, lead to a purchase or lease, but it may ease the path for acquiring them in the next SDSR.

What I find interesting is what the French will do when they decide to replace their Atlantique 2; buying a fleet of American aircraft may be very uncomfortable to them, and it may prompt Airbus to finally do something serious about a competitor in the shape of an A320 derivative. I find it surprising that Airbus have no interest in meeting this challenge, instead relying on the CN.235MP and possibly a palletised arrangement for the A400M. It is also worth bearing in mind that Germany, Italy and Spain will also be looking for new MR aircraft in the next few years, and a pan-European project based on the A320 could yet happen. If it integrated the radar and avionics hardware planned for the Nimrod MRA.4, it could happen swiftly.

But thats sensible.........won't happen!!

[alex]

Airbus did have a A320 in a MR role on their website some time ago, but it looks like this has been cancelled due to lack of interest. As I mentionned before, a palletized solution on a A400 would do the job.

Alex

[Truro Model Builder]

For maritime surveillance and SAR, probably. The US Coast Guard's HC-130 is a good example of how it can be done. But for the full spectrum of maritime tasks, not so. How about weapons carrying? MAD detection? Dedicated search radar and comms fit? Sonobuoy launching?

[magwitch]

It is also worth bearing in mind that Germany, Italy and Spain will also be looking for new MR aircraft in the next few years, and a pan-European project based on the A320 could yet happen. If it integrated the radar and avionics hardware planned for the Nimrod MRA.4, it could happen swiftly.

Germany and Italy have already knocked back the A319/A320MPA option after evaluating it in the MPA-R procurement competition.

The Atl 2 OSD isn't until 2030 so I don't think the French will be in a hurry to do anything quickly.

[hovis]

It used to be that the MOD used to set the criteria for the role a plane needed to achieve (as a minimum).

Nowadays it seems they just look for something, either euro or American, that'll just do if it's close enough.

When did it change?

[magwitch]

It used to be that the MOD used to set the criteria for the role a plane needed to achieve (as a minimum).

Nowadays it seems they just look for something, either euro or American, that'll just do if it's close enough.

When did it change?

NImrod AEW.3

[Head in the clouds.]

America can keep and modify 50 year old B52's flying, Sweden can design and build complex Grippen fighters and the Russians can turn a brick into a viable weapon if they needed to, even Far Eastern and South American countries are looking at thier own indigenous designs and we, Great Britain, cannot do any of the above. I know we could but a crucial ingredient is missing and in the current world climate that will not change. What an embarresment we are. Live off past glory folks because that is all we have now, oh, and enough hot gas to fill a Zepplin,(not this forum before you decide to launch a full frontal assault).

[Dave Wilson]

Have a look at the tax that Swedes pay and compare it to ours. That's why they can afford Grippens and the wherewithall to design and build them. If you want an indigenous independent aerospace industry then you have to pay for it. Are you willing to do that?

[Procopius]

The Gripen also isn't terribly complex as 4th-gen fighters go, and was designed with considerable help from BAe.

[Cookenbacher]

And Britain is still one of the few nations that designs and builds state of the art turbines, arguably the most complex piece of equipment on any aircraft.

The Gripen uses license built GE engines.

[Head in the clouds.]

I do not mind paying my taxes if they go to producing goods made and designed in this country, in fact, that is why we are in this state because no one want s to pay tax, I for one would pay more IF a better all round society came about because of it. And you are correct on both the above points.Still a good plane though.

[Truro Model Builder]

The Gripen also isn't terribly complex as 4th-gen fighters go, and was designed with considerable help from BAe.

The Gripen is a very capable aircraft, and even though some of the systems (including the engine, but most Saab jets have had foreign engines) have been imported it is still a Swedish aircraft. It was not designed with any assistance from abroad; Saab have been designing combat aircraft since the 1930s and had a track history of producing very good ones, created without compromise to fulfil Sweden's particular requirements. Remember that the last foreign combat aircraft the Swedes operated was the Hunter.

The Gripen was designed to be a simple aircraft to maintain, as the Swedes wanted it to deploy into the field (literally) and be serviced and turned around by a team of one NCO and five conscripts, and in this they succeeded. It also has one of the best tactical datalink/communications systems around, apparently -again, designed in Sweden.

BAe's involvement stems from an agreement they signed with Saab to market and support export sales in the 1990s, and the Swedes were very unimpressed when bribery allegations arose from BAe's efforts in South Africa. Since 2004 there has been no involvement from BAe/BAE Systems in the Gripen.

[magwitch]

BAe's involvement stems from an agreement they signed with Saab to market and support export sales in the 1990s, and the Swedes were very unimpressed when bribery allegations arose from BAe's efforts in South Africa. Since 2004 there has been no involvement from BAe/BAE Systems in the Gripen.

Which is an ironic bit of posturing when you consider the Swedes paid a R30m bribe to get the SAAF Gripen deal and the guy who was the bag man on the deal is now the PM of Sweden!