Dave Fleming Posted April 1, 2016 Share Posted April 1, 2016 The French have managed with a two engined MPA 40 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flankerman Posted April 1, 2016 Share Posted April 1, 2016 The French have managed with a two engined MPA 40 years. That's because they are made by Rolls Royce !!! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ingo Degenhardt Posted April 1, 2016 Share Posted April 1, 2016 I expect so, all P-8s so far have been brought into service with the USN and Indians in the Boeing grey with hi vis markings. Changing paint colours adds to the final cost. But the P-8 looks rather boring - a color scheme in Hemp or EDSG over Sky would make up for their 'airliner look' 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slater Posted April 1, 2016 Author Share Posted April 1, 2016 Well, there are more "artsy" schemes available 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TIGER HOBBIESLIMITED Posted April 4, 2016 Share Posted April 4, 2016 (edited) Deleted - no traders advertisement outside of their trading area. Edited April 4, 2016 by Greg B Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John B (Sc) Posted April 4, 2016 Share Posted April 4, 2016 Surely the reason was that in a two engine MPA if you lose one engine you have to head for home whereas in a 4 engine MPA you can remain on station? Which made a lot of sense when engines were a lot less reliable than they are today. There is that , hopefully minor and rarely relevant, benefit to four engines. I'd be more concerned about airframe fatigue, long term. Operating at low level, as the RAF fleet did, will be a very different flying environment to that originally designed for - I wonder how much modification has been done to the structure to allow for the much more vigorous manoeuvring and turbulence conditions within which low level P-8s will operate. Could that restrict & influence tactics, force more medium level operation? How much modification was done to the structures of earlier generation airliner conversions? John B Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
falcon Posted April 6, 2016 Share Posted April 6, 2016 As far as range goes, The RAF is looking at adding refuelling booms to their Voyager fleet. http://www.janes.com/article/59242/uk-raf-shows-interest-in-voyager-boom Could be handy for the C-17's, RC-135's, P-8's and Sentries, not to mention the other NATO assets that use this method. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Truro Model Builder Posted April 6, 2016 Share Posted April 6, 2016 Hmm, which everybody was advising the MoD to write into the original spec in the first place. Allow me to wait for this horse to bolt before I close the stable door. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flankerman Posted April 6, 2016 Share Posted April 6, 2016 Could be handy for the C-17's, RC-135's, P-8's and Sentries, not to mention the other NATO assets that use this method. The RAF's E-3D Sentry is unique in that it has both a refueling probe AND a boom receptacle. I'm not sure if the crews have currency on both systems though........ Ken Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Max Headroom Posted April 6, 2016 Share Posted April 6, 2016 The RAF's E-3D Sentry is unique in that it has both a refueling probe AND a boom receptacle. I'm not sure if the crews have currency on both systems though........ Ken French E-3F's can also be dual equipped but a quick Googling shows that they are not always fitted with the probe. Trevor 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Fleming Posted April 6, 2016 Share Posted April 6, 2016 Hmm, which everybody was advising the MoD to write into the original spec in the first place. Allow me to wait for this horse to bolt before I close the stable door. It was in the early Spec for MRTT but dropped as a cost saving, not least because at the time the only types the RAF operated which were boom capable were the E3 (which also had a probe) and the C17, which wasn't seen to need an IFR capability as it had range for most anticipated flights. Since then, we of course have RC135 and P8 coming along 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Truro Model Builder Posted April 7, 2016 Share Posted April 7, 2016 Hindsight is 20-20 vision, admittedly, but many were the voices calling out for it, stressing the need for interoperability and 'futureproofing'. Of course, to now retrofit a boom even to the two point tankers will undoubtedly cost rather more than if it had been included from the start. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GMK Posted May 3, 2016 Share Posted May 3, 2016 Related? The first RAAF P-8A has been rolled out. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flankerman Posted May 3, 2016 Share Posted May 3, 2016 Looks like they should have paid extra ...... and got the folding-fin version. Ken PS - I'm surprised that ours aren't being sponsored by EasyJet - with some sort of leasing arrangement where they operate them as passenger jets and only let the RAF fly them off-peak. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Fleming Posted May 3, 2016 Share Posted May 3, 2016 Hindsight is 20-20 vision, admittedly, but many were the voices calling out for it, stressing the need for interoperability and 'futureproofing'. Of course, to now retrofit a boom even to the two point tankers will undoubtedly cost rather more than if it had been included from the start. Probably cheaper to return a few aircraft to Airbus and buy Aussie spec Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Max Headroom Posted May 3, 2016 Share Posted May 3, 2016 Probably cheaper to return a few aircraft to Airbus and buy Aussie spec This is a PFI contract. Unless the MoD legal eagles were on the ball any deviation from the deal will incur heavy penalties based no doubt on eroding their profit calculations. Trevor Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard G Posted May 5, 2016 Share Posted May 5, 2016 This is a PFI contract. Unless the MoD legal eagles were on the ball any deviation from the deal will incur heavy penalties based no doubt on eroding their profit calculations. Trevor Given that the tanker PFI was pretty much rammed through by the Treasury against the wishes of MOD I wouldn't bet on it. Anything outside what the MOD needed at the time in question would have been deemed an extravagance, and back then we didn't need a boom. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muzz Posted July 11, 2016 Share Posted July 11, 2016 Couldn't remember if the base had been confirmed or not, some news anyway....... Boeing to invest £100m in base at RAF Lossiemouth http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-business-36763883 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil32 Posted July 11, 2016 Share Posted July 11, 2016 Politician logic? Retire the Nimrod, its expensive. Ah, lost capability. Spend £3bn on P-8's. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Fleming Posted July 11, 2016 Share Posted July 11, 2016 Politician logic? Retire the Nimrod, its expensive. Ah, lost capability. Spend £3bn on P-8's. 10 years savings plus the fact that no-one could tell them (a) when Nirmod would get it's service release and ( how much it would cost. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tangerine_sedge Posted July 11, 2016 Share Posted July 11, 2016 Politician logic? Retire the Nimrod, its expensive. Ah, lost capability. Spend £3bn on P-8's. The Nimrod programme was a joke, and treated like a cash cow by BAe. Perhaps if BAe hadnt allowed the programme to over-run by 9 years and £789M then we would have had Nimrods currently flying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vlamgat9 Posted July 11, 2016 Share Posted July 11, 2016 Politician logic? Retire the Nimrod, its expensive. Ah, lost capability. Spend £3bn on P-8's. At least the P-8s will get their airworthiness certificates. More than the Nimrod was going to do.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John B (Sc) Posted July 11, 2016 Share Posted July 11, 2016 At least the P-8s will get their airworthiness certificates. More than the Nimrod was going to do.... So long as we just accept the US certification. Don't let the MOD or RAF senior crew near that - they are why Nimrod, and others, went bad. Near total loss of the capability to assure continuing airworthiness of anything from gliders on up ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil32 Posted July 11, 2016 Share Posted July 11, 2016 It is noticeable how America talks about keeping an aircraft the size of the B52 going for 100 years, while Britain cant keep a Nimrod or v-bomber going. I'm aware that beyond WW2 my knowledge turns fuzzy so theres gonna be things im missing but still... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coneheadff Posted July 12, 2016 Share Posted July 12, 2016 So long as we just accept the US certification. Don't let the MOD or RAF senior crew near that - they are why Nimrod, and others, went bad. Near total loss of the capability to assure continuing airworthiness of anything from gliders on up ! I don't think that it's the UK personal, but the EASA crap. I don't know about the US equipment, but over here everything has to be done in accordance with the EASA regulations. Even the military equipment Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now