Jump to content
This site uses cookies! Learn More

This site uses cookies!

You can find a list of those cookies here: mysite.com/cookies

By continuing to use this site, you agree to allow us to store cookies on your computer. :)

tonyot

P-8 Doesn`t meet RAF Specifications!!

Recommended Posts

Gorby    1,139
7 hours ago, Goofyfoot said:

I have a one-word answer to the Pommeys...........Thermos

Being a Yank I can understand your confusion. Being Pommeys we value decent quality tea:

 

Freshly made tea: :angel:

 

Tea from a Thermos: :puke:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Aeronut    740

Tea in a Thermos flask and a box meal was the RAF's idea of in-flight catering for passengers on the Hercules air bridge flight to the Falklands. (Ascension to Stanley - 12 Hour flight). Getting to watch the refuelling from behind the pilot was the only in-flight entertainment supplied.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Seahawk    1,170
28 minutes ago, Aeronut said:

Tea in a Thermos flask and a box meal was the RAF's idea of in-flight catering for passengers on the Hercules air bridge flight to the Falklands. (Ascension to Stanley - 12 Hour flight). Getting to watch the refuelling from behind the pilot was the only in-flight entertainment supplied.

 

Ah, but that's self-loading cargo: different rules apply. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
junglierating    339
On Sunday, June 04, 2017 at 3:42 PM, camper1 said:

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

 

You mean like nimrod......if things were correctly modified in the first place and people listened to we wouldn't be in this mess in the first place.Clearly the issues with nimrod weren't deliberate but we are where we are.

Moving on I have absolutely no doubt that UK refueling kit was discussed at length but it comes down to time and money which effects capability.....of which we have no MR at present.

I'm not happy with the choice of aircraft either but it was either that or the Japanese thing....doubtless that was also considered

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PLC1966    704
On 2017-6-4 at 3:42 PM, camper1 said:

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. Money is needed to provide the capability

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. Off the shelf is cheaper

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. Imagination is free, but making these changes to an airframe already configured to a task will cost money

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

 

 

As mentioned on the MV-22 for the Carrier thread, the MoD does not have enough money.  Playing 'Fantasy Equipment Provisioner' does not mean that the Goverment and Treasury will provide the cash that the Sevices desparately need.  Unfortunately on today of all days, there is no sign this situation will change. Defence has hardly been mentioned other than the question as to whether one PM Candidate would be prepared to whack the 'Mushroom Cloud here' button .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Max Headroom    5,999

Here is Boeing's sales brochure

 

http://www.boeing.com/defense/maritime-surveillance/p-8-poseidon/index.page#/performance

 

8+ Hours endurance and 2,400 nautical mile range. Is that enough?

 

Trevor

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dave Fleming    1,350

At the time that the specification for what became the Voyager was drawn up, a boom was on the list of requirements but dropped for economy reasons relatively early in the process - at that time only the E3 (also with a probe) and C17 (Envisaged as a hub to hub strategic transport) had boom rf euiipment.

 

Now, you can add the RC135 and P8 to that list,which are obviously much more likely operationally to need IFR than the C17.

 

I understand the RAF have already considered long term adding Boom equipped Voyagers to the fleet, either by modifying existing aircraft or by getting new ones (possibly on a replacement basis) but of course as it's a PFI deal, costs willbe considerable ('Change control' always costs!)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
junglierating    339
On Thursday, June 08, 2017 at 0:59 PM, Dave Fleming said:

At the time that the specification for what became the Voyager was drawn up, a boom was on the list of requirements but dropped for economy reasons relatively early in the process - at that time only the E3 (also with a probe) and C17 (Envisaged as a hub to hub strategic transport) had boom rf euiipment.

 

Now, you can add the RC135 and P8 to that list,which are obviously much more likely operationally to need IFR than the C17.

 

I understand the RAF have already considered long term adding Boom equipped Voyagers to the fleet, either by modifying existing aircraft or by getting new ones (possibly on a replacement basis) but of course as it's a PFI deal, costs willbe considerable ('Change control' always costs!)

Hmm I got an idea.....since they are meant to be hired out to make the shareholders money when those RAF chaps have stopped messing about with non business transactions....you could fit the probe and use it as in flight entertainment for the punters. ..even charge extra for a window seat:like::plane:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


×