x2 Kawasaki P-1 to RIAT!

[Flankerman]

They staged trough NAS Oceana....... http://www.arcforums.com/forums/air/index.php?showtopic=285799

Ken

[Truro Model Builder]

And very impressive the P-1s looked at the weekend. The one that flew only did a couple of passes, but it was incredibly quiet even with four engines. Not at all like a Nimrod with four Speys! It was interesting to note that whenever I walked past where the P-1 and P-8 were sat together in the static there were always a number of suits in evidence.

I really think there could be provision in SDSR 2015 for an MPA, but I hope they evaluate the contenders fully and not automatically select the P-8. The Japanese have put a lot of effort into the P-1; it has an 360-degree AESA radar and of course retains a MAD boom, and I really think it could be the right aircraft for the RAF.

[thomastmcc]

And very impressive the P-1s looked at the weekend. The one that flew only did a couple of passes, but it was incredibly quiet even with four engines. Not at all like a Nimrod with four Speys! It was interesting to note that whenever I walked past where the P-1 and P-8 were sat together in the static there were always a number of suits in evidence.

I really think there could be provision in SDSR 2015 for an MPA, but I hope they evaluate the contenders fully and not automatically select the P-8. The Japanese have put a lot of effort into the P-1; it has an 360-degree AESA radar and of course retains a MAD boom, and I really think it could be the right aircraft for the RAF.

i think your right too mate too many people are saying go for the P8 since we are working with the US already but the P1 has advantages over the P8 a mad detector ,4 engines and designed for the job ..

thomas

[PLC1966]

If something Japanese doesn't work - they fix it and take it personally

If the yanks make something that doesn't work - F35 - lie bull$hit cost over run, oh and the P8 doesnt work either.

Special relationahip means that we get screwed by the US and have to like it. (rivet joint)So

So from the top...

If it doesn't work the Japanese will fix it, as far as the Air environment goes, you based this assertion on what ?

If the Americans make it blah blah....F35...nothing to do with this subject, cost over--runs, new project, standard problem, its not as if the Brits have ever had a project come in overcost...FRES anyone....oh and the Nimrod I guess !!!

P-8, doesn't work...evidence ? certainly not what I have heard. As much of the mission kit is similar to what we would have hard in the Nimrod MR4, that would have been disappointing had we proceeded with our modified Comets.

The special relationship only works in the US favour...don't get me wrong, from a US industry selling us products point of view we are there to have a profit made from, it is what industry does to its customers. However, it is not only a Pound, Shillings and Pence thing chap. There is a lot of things that occur that you can't pay for that because of our relationship with the US. If it was all about money there would not be things like Five Eyes floating around. You may not have been around environments to witness things that occur, but the US does do a lot for us that is not paid for.

[thomastmcc]

So from the top...

If it doesn't work the Japanese will fix it, as far as the Air environment goes, what have you based this assertion on what ?

If the Americans make it blah....F35...nothing to do with this subject, cost over--runs, new project, standard problem, its not as if the Brits have ever had a project come in overcost...FRES anyone....oh and the Nimrod I guess !!!

P-8, doesn't work...evidence ? certainly not what I have heard. As much of the mission kit is similar to what we would have heard in the Nimrod MR4 that would have been disappointing.

The special relationship only works in the US favour...it is not only a Pound, Shillings and Pence thing chap. There is a lot of things that occur that you can't pay for that because of our relationship with the US. Don't get me wrong, from a US industry selling us products point of view we are there to have a profit made from, but if it was all about money there would not be things like Five Eyes floating around.

good points mate but we the uk need to keep out options open and get the best value for our quids..

[PLC1966]

good points mate but we the uk need to keep out options open and get the best value for our quids..

Certainly not arguing against keeping options open. There is some real money, and capability shortfalls at stake here.

But there is also sometimes things that money can't buy, and the MoD have certainly gone down save a pound now to pay two pounds later, T-45's, less ships, longer delivery time, cost more than original order anyone...

However good the P-1 looks, and it does look a lovely smooth aircraft, if that makes sense, we will buy the P-8. Not only because of our experience and familiarity with kit and the aircraft, there are established Logistics and training routes that we will jump straight in on fairly easily.

But when the MPA does turn up, where will it be based, no St Mawgan or Kinloss now, another Waddo jet ? Lossie as the Tornado ramps down ?

[thomastmcc]

no no mate the keeping options comment wasnt aimed at you just in general ..

[Truro Model Builder]

I think Waddington will be the only real option, as it will keep all the ISR eggs in one basket. Having said that there is a lot of space becoming available at Culdrose but that is only wishful thinking.

With regard to what will be the likely option, there is a possibility that Boeing thinks that the order is theirs and that they won't have to do anything to win it. This is dangerous thinking, as it gives Kawasaki a good opportunity. At the same time Kawasaki will be very keen to gain that first export order, particularly from a country such as the UK, and that could us a bargaining chip in getting a good deal. At the same time we could use the Japanese interest to get a better deal from the Americans. Whoever said it was all about military capability?

According to PPRuNe the P-1 flew a lengthy sortie from Fairford on Friday with a number of RAF people onboard, including three officers of air rank, and seemingly a UK evaluation team with a senior RAF officer spent some time in Japan a few months back having a close look at it, so it does appear that they are taking the Japanese option seriously.

[Flankerman]

It was interesting to note that whenever I walked past where the P-1 and P-8 were sat together in the static there were always a number of suits in evidence.

Every time I walked past the P-8 (on two days) there were always a number of fully armed British Police in attendance.

I counted FIVE on one occasion - but never less than two.

I could maybe understand it when the big-wigs in suits were on board looking round - but the police were still there when I left on Sunday evening and it was all buttoned up - not even the crew were there!

I wonder if this was American BS ?? - "We will display our new MPA - but only if it has an armed guard at all times".

I didn't see any other participants so guarded - not even the P-1!

Ken

PS _ I wonder if the poilce would actually have shot anyone ?? - a UK citizen (who's taxes pay for the police!) killed on UK soil to defend a US aircraft??

PPS - One of the armed coppers told me that the reason it had British guards rather than American personnel was that the Americans are not allowed to be armed on British soil.

I'm just questioning the need for it to be guarded at all?

[thomastmcc]

came across this on the P1.

http://asia.nikkei.com/Japan-Update/Japan-s-submarine-killer-tantalizes-West?page=1

TOKYO -- Japan's state-of-the-art maritime patrol aircraft has been attracting increasing attention, not only from its most important ally, the U.S., but also from Europe amid growing concerns about movements by Russian submarines.

The Maritime Self-Defense Force currently has about 10 P-1 planes deployed at Atsugi Air Base in Kanagawa Prefecture. They have so far been operating on a trial basis. Full-scale operations are scheduled to commence during the current fiscal year ending in March 2016.

P-1s are priced at about 20 billion yen ($163 million) each. The Defense Ministry plans to procure five of the planes per year starting in 2018 and eventually deploy a total of some 70.

[JohnT]

Forgive me asking and I am not trolling and really don't want a political answer but I am way behind in my state of knowledge on this. Please bear with the question and if its a daft one I apologise.

I wasn't paying close attention and have no doubt missed the point but we had a new MPA in the shape of the Nimrod MR4? It wasn't used and was scrapped due to unaffordability I so thought? (probably that's where I am going wrong) and the airframes were disposed of rather than put into long term storage again on cost grounds.

Now that was only a couple of years ago (2010). Not sure I can make sense of it but no doubt I am missing something other than perhaps the Nimrod was not able to do the job due old refurbished but perhaps questionable airframes hence the need for a "new build" perhaps?

Not playing politics - just genuinely confused and in need of enlightenment as to why the move from what was presumably a decent enough bit of kit to nothing to new aircraft in the space of what in aerospace terms seems the blink of an eye !!

[thomastmcc]

john the short answer over budget and politics mate..

[Radleigh]

All the Bolloticks aside...! I have plenty of photos from 2 days at RIAT.. Will post them soonish.

[Nigel Foster60]

The RAF and this country needs an MPA aircraft, us modellers need another aircraft to pester Airfix for.

The P-1 does it for me. That and I have great memories of a Kawasaki's in the 1970's. I am sold.

Nigel

[PLC1966]

Unfortunately, the Nimrod was never going to get certification saying it was safe to fly operationally.

[Truro Model Builder]

Every time I walked past the P-8 (on two days) there were always a number of fully armed British Police in attendance.

I counted FIVE on one occasion - but never less than two.

I could maybe understand it when the big-wigs in suits were on board looking round - but the police were still there when I left on Sunday evening and it was all buttoned up - not even the crew were there!

I wonder if this was American BS ?? - "We will display our new MPA - but only if it has an armed guard at all times".

I didn't see any other participants so guarded - not even the P-1!

Ken

PS _ I wonder if the poilce would actually have shot anyone ?? - a UK citizen (who's taxes pay for the police!) killed on UK soil to defend a US aircraft??

PPS - One of the armed coppers told me that the reason it had British guards rather than American personnel was that the Americans are not allowed to be armed on British soil.

I'm just questioning the need for it to be guarded at all?

The P-8's appearance was sponsored by Boeing. They requested the security presence due to the sensitive nature of the onboard gubbins.

Re your ps: Well, I wouldn't call their bluff. If it happened, that they were standing in front of a US aircraft would be irrelevant. It would be responding to a threat to public security with the intention of causing death or injury -end of. With regard to armed US personnel I remember M16-armed USAF police at Mildenhall Air Fete guarding the likes of the U-2 and the F-117, but armed police at RIAT have only been evident since 9/11, and either I'm more used to it or there aren't as many as there used to be.

How did others find the security checks this year, by the way? The man with the wand waved me through but I had my bag visually checked.

[Flankerman]

How did others find the security checks this year, by the way? The man with the wand waved me through but I had my bag visually checked.

After a cursory 'wanding' - I was waved straight through on Friday.

On Sunday I was also 'wanded' - but the coins in my pocket didn't set it off and I wasn't searched.

Once inside the marquee, I offered to open my bag for a visual inspection to the young squaddie - but he waved me through.

All very low key I thought.

Ken

[Vlamgat9]

Unfortunately, the Nimrod was never going to get certification saying it was safe to fly operationally.

Indeed. A rately observed fact.

An astonishing state of affairs given the money sunk into it. Shame on all involved. You would think this country would have learned from the Nimrod AEW debacle of the danger of trying to recycle a design as old as the Comet.

[dambuster]

Unfortunately, the Nimrod was never going to get certification saying it was safe to fly operationally.

Well, given that the Nimrod didn't require 'certification', I would be interested to know what you base your statement on.

Peter

[Nigel Foster60]

The snag must be something in the process of ordering military aircraft in this country because sadly the Nimrod is not the only example. You only have to go back to thin winged Hunter and Javelin and many others in between. I wonder if anyone has added it up, the amount of money lost.

Nigel

[Truro Model Builder]

The issue with the Nimrod AEW.3 was that the radar did not work as specified, and it was never likely to without a great deal of money being sunk into it that the government of the day was not prepared to spend; I personally think the real issue with the MRA.4 was that Nimrod was a poisoned chalice politically. The history of the AEW.3, the loss of the aircraft in Afghanistan and the subsequent inquiry, the Haddon-Cave report and the establishment of the Military Aviation Authority had left the Nimrod tainted. No explanation of the rebuild process nor even a change of name (had it been suggested) would hide the fact that in public and political eyes it essentially was the same aircraft. Put the development problems that were still ongoing (not insurmountable, and not in the league of the AEW.3 issues) and it all added up to the wrong number. Hence the scrapping of the airframes with indecent haste.

The real crime was not ordering a substitute at the time. When the AEW.3 was cancelled it was accompanied by an announcement that the E-3 would be purchased in its place.

Oh, and Vlamgat9, I have to point out that by procuring the Rivet Joint we are in actuality recycling a design almost as old as the Comet .

Edited July 22, 2015 by T7 Models

[Roland Pulfrew]

Well, given that the Nimrod didn't require 'certification'

Most certainly did require certification. What do you think the whole Military Aviation Authority is all about?? It was never going to get a certificate of airworthiness without another shed hangar full of money being thrown at it.

[Truro Model Builder]

The snag must be something in the process of ordering military aircraft in this country because sadly the Nimrod is not the only example. You only have to go back to thin winged Hunter and Javelin and many others in between. I wonder if anyone has added it up, the amount of money lost.

Nigel

I shudder to think. What is often forgotten is that the original Nimrod MR.1 was delivered on time and within the bounds of a fixed price contract. The update to the MR.2 too was a successful programme, but these days contractors shy away from fixed price contracts because they know any screw ups will hit them in the pocket. At the same time, and particularly with the MRA.4, the customer has a habit of changing its mind while the development phase is ongoing. This is not peculiar to the UK; for a real cock-up look at how the US Navy and the White House kept changing the spec for the EH101-based VH-71 Marine One aircraft.

At the same time, however, there have been a lot of aircraft purchases that have been uncomplicated and have done the job from day one. I mentioned the Nimrod MR.1, and you can add the Hawk and successive Sea King variants to that list among others. The ones that go pear shaped, of course, are the ones that everybody remembers.

Edited July 22, 2015 by T7 Models

[Roland Pulfrew]

At the same time, and particularly with the MRA.4, the customer has a habit of changing its mind while the development phase is ongoing.

To be fair to the 'customer' the MR2 continued to be developed and in fact was ahead of the MRA4 in capability, in a number of areas, when delivered. If the 'seller' fails to deliver on time, it is hardly surprising that the customer might want improved capability, already deployed in the platform being replaced, incorporated into its replacement.

[Truro Model Builder]

I agree, Roland. The one item of equipment that I always think of was the IR turret that was fitted to the MR.2, which was much more capable than the one specified for the MRA.4. Of course, it could be argued that if the customer didn't penny pinch at the time of the original contract and actually went with the higher spec they wouldn't need to keep upgrading their requirements.

Again, going back to the MR.1, it entered service with essentially the same radar as the Shackleton MR.3, in the knowledge that the aircraft would receive a comprehensive upgrade within a few years. Perhaps we should have done the same with the MRA.4, to have initially fitted it with MR.2 systems and plan an upgrade package at the earliest opportunity. Hindsight, I know.