P-8 Doesn`t meet RAF Specifications!!

[BlackAck]

As a Brit currently in the US, I too bemoan the lack of a good cup of tea.  Lipton's is  .  Even my American wife agrees.   Twinning, Yorkshire are much better.  I'll even drink Tetley's.  As for chocolate, Hershey's will do if you're desperate.  

Back to the P8, why they didn't include hot water facilities, even for US crews?  Are they robots who don't drink hot drinks?  I suspect a moronic regulation prohibit liquids on aircraft to prevent spills.

[Britman]

So there's no galley or rest area  on this long range MPA?

[hairystick]

On 6/1/2017 at 11:28 AM, BlackAck said:

Back to the P8, why they didn't include hot water facilities, even for US crews?  Are they robots who don't drink hot drinks?

Presumably there is a fizzy drink vending machine fitted as standard on US aircraft?

[camper1]

9 hours ago, Britman said:

So there's no galley or rest area  on this long range MPA?

Nimrod was long range, what is the operating radius of the P8?

[Max Headroom]

41 minutes ago, camper1 said:

Nimrod was long range, what is the operating radius of the P8?

Manchester-Palma-Manchester

 

Trevor Getmecoat

[stever219]

Great: can't even get to Madeira n back on a tank full, and that refuelling stop on Porto Santo (IIRC) is a real bind.

[GMK]

On 03/06/2017 at 3:36 AM, camper1 said:

Nimrod was long range, what is the operating radius of the P8?

 

 

Effectively unlimited...

[Panzer Vor!!!]

9 minutes ago, GMK said:

 

 

Effectively unlimited...

Only if it has a kettle 

No long trip with out a cuppa and a biccy 

[GMK]

I thought that was tea being transferred! Shouldn't assume, I suppose. 

[camper1]

13 hours ago, GMK said:

 

 

Effectively unlimited...

So we have to go out and purchase some more 60 year old aircraft to support the new technology.

Good business for Boeing,can't get my head round why they are so embedded in the MOD structure

[Duncan B]

Now there's a trick they've missed. That tow bar widget in the photo above, if only they'd thought about making it hollow they could have refuelled the P-8 in flight instead of having to tow it back to base when it ran out of fuel/tea/coffee/toast etc.

 

Duncan B

[GMK]

2 hours ago, camper1 said:

So we have to go out and purchase some more 60 year old aircraft to support the new technology.

Good business for Boeing,can't get my head round why they are so embedded in the MOD structure

The RAAF KC-30A (for example - USAF KC-46A is another) certainly aren't 60 years old.

 

Good business for Airbus & Boeing. 

[camper1]

5 hours ago, GMK said:

The RAAF KC-30A (for example - USAF KC-46A is another) certainly aren't 60 years old.

 

Good business for Airbus & Boeing. 

Unfortunately the RAF does not have any of these aircraft fitted with a boom and it would take rather a long time to whistle one up in case of an emergency.

The photo you posted showed a KC135 which is what I based my comments on, and they are 60 years old.

The main point I was trying to make in my first post was that our people are buying off the shelf aircraft instead of specifying what is required to enhance the operational aspects 

of the aircraft and provide a safe operating back up for the crews.

It should not beyond the imagination of the people who buy these[or maybe it is]to have a refuelling probe fitted to the aircraft before it is pressure tested and thus avoid a much more expensive fix sometime in the future

as this will undoubtedly happen a few years down the line when the range is found to be unsatisfactory to the RAF.

When I worked at RAE Farnborough things were specified tested altered to the satisfaction of the military and then put out for manufacture which was the correct way to do the job.

Had enough of this now and am going to keep my further thoughts to myself.

 

Ian

 

[Max Headroom]

The RAF already has C-17's with the USAF standard refuelling kit, which as far as I am aware is unused. Obviously the RAF has taken the view that the capability is not needed (I wonder though is it ever tested to ensure it works and currency of the pilot achieved?).

 

Remember that the Nimrod only received a probe as an emergency fit because of the Falklands conflict, so again was it used afterwards and if so, on a regular basis?

 

I just googled whether RAF E-3's ever refuel. Surprisingly I found this

 

https://i.ytimg.com/vi/evqkLmZx71k/maxresdefault.jpg

 

Trevor

[GMK]

Fair enough, Ian. I agree that "developing a capability" rather than "buying a thing" is generally a better way to go about things.

 

There's a perception - rightly or wrongly - that COTS/MOTS is less susceptible to cost &/or schedule risk, so that ("buying a thing") seems to be the trade-off being made.

 

Perfect being the enemy of good enough; or something (P-8, even sans kettle) is better than nothing (current RAF MPA/MMA aircraft), in this case. 

 

Trevor - cool pic of the RAF Sentry. Didn't realise it had the flexibility to use both systems. That's what I'd like to see on all RAF (& RAAF) large aircraft, plus the training to put it to use. Gives lots of options (interoperability in a coalition environment being one) - though with some trade-offs. 

 

Not sure I agree with you comment that the RAF don't view the capability as "needed" on the C-17 (noting it is present on the Atlas, for example). How much of what the RAF does or does not do with the C-17 is an artefact of the original conditions of lease (before they were purchased), or not wanting to undermine the capability business case for the A400, makes understanding of C-17 related decisions tricky. 

 

Though these days it appears that a lot of decisions on RAF capability and training are cost-driven, rather than requirements led.

 

Either way, I'm sure planners (& C-17 crew) would love to be able to wring the most capability out of their aeroplanes. 

 

Do you happen to know wether the RAF Rivet Joint uses its AAR gear?

[Vickers McFunbus]

2 hours ago, Max Headroom said:

 

I just googled whether RAF E-3's ever refuel. Surprisingly I found this

 

 

RAF E-3Ds have always had the ability to do both. How easily a probe could be fitted to P-8 is another matter.

[Vickers McFunbus]

4 minutes ago, GMK said:

Not sure I agree with you comment that the RAF don't view the capability as "needed" on the C-17 (noting it is present on the Atlas, for example). How much of what the RAF does or does not do with the C-17 is an artefact of the original conditions of lease (before they were purchased), or not wanting to undermine the capability business case for the A400, makes understanding of C-17 related decisions tricky. 

 

The C-17 is used as a strategic airlifter. Unless you start using it tactically it's always going to be easier and cheaper to fuel stop.

[GMK]

1 minute ago, Vickers McFunbus said:

 

The C-17 is used as a strategic airlifter. Unless you start using it tactically it's always going to be easier and cheaper to fuel stop.

 

Different way of looking at it, I guess. When I think "strategic airlifter" I think "flying a long way" (& likely without a lot of notice, but that's not always a thing). Getting to wherever "there" is, without having to land on the way is likely to be faster (fewer dog legs), easier to plan access (countries generally happier to permit overflying territory than landing on it), and less wear & tear on the aircraft (fewer take off/landing cycles). 

[Max Headroom]

18 minutes ago, Vickers McFunbus said:

 

RAF E-3Ds have always had the ability to do both. How easily a probe could be fitted to P-8 is another matter.

 

P-8's are already fitted with the USAF standard refuelling system.

 

Thought - is this the first USN type so equipped?

 

Trevor

[Vickers McFunbus]

41 minutes ago, GMK said:

 

Different way of looking at it, I guess. When I think "strategic airlifter" I think "flying a long way" (& likely without a lot of notice, but that's not always a thing). Getting to wherever "there" is, without having to land on the way is likely to be faster (fewer dog legs), easier to plan access (countries generally happier to permit overflying territory than landing on it), and less wear & tear on the aircraft (fewer take off/landing cycles). 

 

Fewer take off landing cycles? Mil aircraft tend to do far fewer than civvy aircraft, so probably not a factor. Any taker would need to do a cycle too. 

 

Crew duty? You'd probably need to be doubling-up the crew. So that's a manning increase, something of a luxury in today's climate.

 

 

[Vickers McFunbus]

38 minutes ago, Max Headroom said:

 

P-8's are already fitted with the USAF standard refuelling system.

 

Thought - is this the first USN type so equipped?

 

Trevor

 

Pass. Disappointingly though the pipework architecture from the boom receptacle seems different to older 737 based airframes which had pipework very similar to the E-3D.

[GMK]

1 hour ago, Vickers McFunbus said:

 

Fewer take off landing cycles? Mil aircraft tend to do far fewer than civvy aircraft, so probably not a factor. Any taker would need to do a cycle too. 

 

Crew duty? You'd probably need to be doubling-up the crew. So that's a manning increase, something of a luxury in today's climate.

 

 

 

Crew duty is certainly a consideration. I'll have to talk to my RAAF & RCAF mates to see how they tackle if. 

 

The C-17 life cycle is a bit different than civil aircraft in terms of op cycles, but is very load dependant. AAR lets you take off with a heavier cargo/lighter fuel load, refuel etc. 

[Goofyfoot]

I have a one-word answer to the Pommeys...........Thermos, the thing that keeps hot things hot, and cold things cold, but only if you don't mix them.

[tonyot]

6 hours ago, Max Headroom said:

Remember that the Nimrod only received a probe as an emergency fit because of the Falklands conflict, so again was it used afterwards and if so, on a regular basis?

Trevor

Hiya Trevor,

                    Yes the Nimrod was regularly refuelled in the air during ops over Afghanistan and wasn`t that the cause of the in flight fire and loss of the Nimrod and crew which hastened the types demise?

Cheers

             Tony

[magwitch]

8 hours ago, Max Headroom said:

 

P-8's are already fitted with the USAF standard refuelling system.

 

Thought - is this the first USN type so equipped?

 

Trevor

 

No, the E-6 Mercury has had the USAF system since 1989.

 

Also, F-16N now I think about it.