UK requests P-8A's

[Giorgio N]

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...

The thing that is missing is the cost that the US has paid to be able to keep the B-52 in service. This type has gone through a lot of expensive updates over the decades and these have only been possible with the kind of budget that the US could pour into their strategic forces. Britain could have never matched that kind of expenditures, unless a large part of the overall defence budget had been allocated to keeping a Nimrod of a Vulcan in service.

Edited July 12, 2016 by Giorgio N

[Max Headroom]

I'm guessing that your average B-52 is rather like Teigger's broom.

Is the type's longevity linked to USAF's inability to totally replace it - IIRC the B-1 and B-2 were both slated to do this.

Trevor

[Truro Model Builder]

And now the B-21 bomber will replace it.

I suspect that B-52 crews are already saying that when the last B-21 is delivered to the boneyard the crew will fly home in a B-52.

[Flankerman]

Re the RAF A-330 Voyager.......

I suppose one of the reasons that ours don't have a boom and the Ausie version does (they were both at RIAT 2016 BTW) - is that as part of the PFI deal, when not tasked to the RAF for tanking, the 'owners' (Air Tankers Ltd :- http://www.airtanker.co.uk/)can use them for passenger/transport.

Removing the wing IFR pods is easy - but if they had a boom it would be so much excess heavy metal to carry around - and judging by the size of the boom on the Aussie KC-30A, it's a sizeable piece of kit.

A bit short-sighted though......

Ken

Edited July 14, 2016 by Flankerman

[Alan P]

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.

The RAF NEVER fly off-peak. We're incredibly vulnerable at weekends and bank holidays

[Alan P]

And now the B-21 bomber will replace it.

I suspect that B-52 crews are already saying that when the last B-21 is delivered to the boneyard the crew will fly home in a B-52.

USAF talking about 100 B-21s as the mainstay strike force by 2045.

[Max Headroom]

Re the RAF A-330 Voyager.......

I suppose one of the reasons that ours don't have a boom and the Ausie version does (they were both at RIAT 2016 BTW) - is that as part of the PFI deal, when not tasked to the RAF for tanking, the 'owners' (Air Tankers Ltd :- http://www.airtanker.co.uk/)can use them for passenger/transport.

Removing the wing IFR pods is easy - but if they had a boom it would be so much excess heavy metal to carry around - and judging by the size of the boom on the Aussie KC-30A, it's a sizeable piece of kit.

A bit short-sighted though......

Ken

I can see that for the surge fleet, but the permanently configured aircraft?

Trevor

[Dave Fleming]

The boom was in the initial scoping but removed early on as a cost saving, and because we only had two aircraft at that time that could use it (E3, which also had a probe, and C17, which wasn't viewed to need it)

[dambuster]

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 !

Hmmm, US certified P-8, don't think so...... remind me again how the UK's Rivet Joint's airworthiness has been underwritten?

Peter

[Giorgio N]

The longevity of the B-52 is testament to the soundness of the original design, Boeing sure did a great job here. It's also the result of the failure of the USAF to find a replacement for all B-52s, but this must be seen in the right perspective...

The B-52 in its original mission has actually been replaced decades ago: the original mission was to be the main nuclear deterrent component of the USAF and this mission was taken over by ICBMs a long ago. The B-52 then became a part of the deterrent force tasked to penetrate the Soviet defences to drop nukes on their targets. In this mission too the B-52 has been replaced, by the B-1 first and then by the B-2, moving to the ALCM launcher role, a role that is much less demanding.

The B-52 is still used as a "bomb truck" when it comes to bombing targets located in relatively low threat areas and this has been the main mission of the type for the last 20 years. It's a mission that other types can perform too (and have performed aplenty) but clearly the large load carrying capability of the Buff is very useful in these missions.

The B-1 and the B-2 could have replaced the B-52 in these missions as well but the financial troubles of both programs meant that the number of aircrafts built was not sufficient, otherwise the B-52 would have been retired many years ago. That both types proved to be inferior to the B-52 in some areas is true but at the same time they are superior in others.

The B-21 (here's another stupid deviation from the standard nomenclature system..) would have no problem technically in replacing the B-52, but a lot will depend on how well the program will move...

Could the RAF have kept the Nimrod operational in the same way as the USAF kept the B-52 ? Yes, however as I said before this would have required accepting continuous expensive upgrades. The Nimrod MRA.4 in a way was one such upgrade, however it was IMHO too radical. To keep comparing the two types, proposals for re-engining the B-52 have been around since the late '70s and yet the H retains the old TF-33 as such a modification has always been considered too expensive for the benefits. Maybe the new wing of the Nimrod MRA.4 wasn't really needed, maybe the aircraft could have used a new engine but not one that required totally new engine bays and air intakes, such a solution would have been much less expensive.

Speaking of engines, the nacelle arrangement of the B-52 actually makes re-engining much easier than the Comet derived buried engine solution. It's not an accident if today's liners use nacelles and the Comet layout has been consigned to history...

[Slater]

Agreed that "B-21" should have been "B-3" if logical progression was followed. Same goes for "F-35", IIRC.

[Truro Model Builder]

But when has logic ever been a factor in US military designations? Yes, HC-144 Ocean Sentry, I am looking at you; what was wrong with HC-41?

[dambuster]

Could the RAF have kept the Nimrod operational in the same way as the USAF kept the B-52 ? Yes, however as I said before this would have required accepting continuous expensive upgrades.

I think you will find that the limiting factor for the Nimrod was the corrosion on the airframe as a result of years spent flying low-level over the sea. It is unlikely that the airframes would have been airworthy for much longer.

Peter

[Roland Pulfrew]

I think you will find that the limiting factor for the Nimrod was the corrosion on the airframe as a result of years spent flying low-level over the sea. It is unlikely that the airframes would have been airworthy for much longer.

Peter

Not quite true. The last aircraft to be "majored" was finished just before the OSD was brought forward. It was in great condition on return (it's Morayvia's aircraft now). The fleet would have been capable of flying for quite a few more years but of course it was the new N-word and more unacceptable in political circles than Guy Gibson's dog.

[Calum]

Hmmm, US certified P-8, don't think so...... remind me again how the UK's Rivet Joint's airworthiness has been underwritten?

Peter

So you're saying that the UK went through the entire certification process, as you would for a new aircraft, and recognized none of the aircrafts US military certification?

I'd be surprised if that was the case as thats a massive job

[Dave Fleming]

Big difference between a conversion of a 50 year old tanker with indeterminate production and modification records and a brand new straight from the factory certified design

[Meatbox8]

Any news on the likely number plate(s) to be used for the P-8As? 42 is my guess but I would like to see one of the ex-RNAS squadrons being reactivated.

[Slater]

From US DoD contract announcements today:

The Boeing Co., Seattle, Washington, is being awarded $60,843,705 for cost-plus-fixed-fee modification 01 to a delivery order 2004 issued against basic ordering agreement N00019-16-G-0001. This modification is to mature the Increment 3 Block 2 capabilities through preliminary and critical design review for the P-8A Poseidon Multi-mission Maritime Aircraft. Capabilities include Minotaur, multi-static active coherent enhancements, wide-band satellite communications, new computing and security architecture, automated digital network system, common data link upgrades, anti-surface warfare signal intelligence, combat system architecture improvements, and communication capability upgrades. Work will be performed in Puget Sound, Washington (87.75 percent); Naval Air Station Patuxent River, Maryland (8.25 percent); Huntington Beach, California (2 percent); Dallas, Texas (1.5 percent); and St. Louis Missouri (0.50 percent), and is expected to be completed February 2019. Fiscal 2016 research, development, test and evaluation (Navy) funds in the amount of $3,150,000 are being obligated at time of award, none of which will expire at the end of the current fiscal year. The Naval Air Systems Command, Patuxent River, Maryland, is the contracting activity

Is the UK also a party to these enhancements?