Radleigh Posted July 22, 2015 Author Share Posted July 22, 2015 Check out that underside, clean as a whistle! P-1 details. by Radleigh Bushell, on Flickr 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thomastmcc Posted July 22, 2015 Share Posted July 22, 2015 nice photo mate , the bomb bay doesnt look big ? i wonder if there could be hardpoints fitted under the wings . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Truro Model Builder Posted July 22, 2015 Share Posted July 22, 2015 Check out that underside, clean as a whistle! P-1 details. by Radleigh Bushell, on Flickr Won't be like that for long! I noticed on the RAF Atlas, which is the most recent to be delivered, that there was a long streak of some kind of fluid from a port on the starboard outer engine. Really ruined the paint job. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vickers McFunbus Posted July 22, 2015 Share Posted July 22, 2015 Hopefully with the personnel in the US arm of Seedcorn embedded in the P-8 the prudent decision will be made and purchase now, off the shelf, even to the extent of doing a similar deal to that done with the C-17 initially. The 737 commonality will make life far easier too, and more attractive to serving personnel. Start looking elsewhere and not only will the competition cost an arm and a leg but it will also take the best part of a decade before we receive any sort of operational capability. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andyf117 Posted July 22, 2015 Share Posted July 22, 2015 (edited) Content withdrawn - I will NOT be threatened by a moderator, simply because I queried the actions of another... Edited June 27, 2020 by andyf117 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhantomBigStu Posted July 22, 2015 Share Posted July 22, 2015 indeed, also sure there is some kind of exception for other foreign aircraft which makes the soil the aircraft is on temporary soverign to the nation in question, prety sure I've seen have seen armed guards at RIAT in the past with AK47's Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jabba Posted July 22, 2015 Share Posted July 22, 2015 I believe the police officer who gave who made the statement in your PPS was incorrect - though now at 'care and maintenance' status for use as a 'standby' airfield and with no permanently-based military personnel, RAF Fairford is still under US jurisdiction, and technically, therefore, not British soil. So as with the 'active' bases and facilities, American military personnel are allowed to be armed on the site (and also in its immediate vicinity) - I recall when the B-2 made it's first appearance on the ground at RIAT, it had USAF Security Police guards complete with M-16s and dogs.... And so did the F-117s. I am also sure that the SR-71 got armed guards after one got daubed at Greenham Common, even if it was not at Fairford it might have been another show. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Max Headroom Posted July 22, 2015 Share Posted July 22, 2015 I like the look of the P1 but as a total non-expert I cannot see the MOD buying anything other than the P-8. Commonity with a NATO ally etc, based on a well proven airframe etc, economies of scale etc. One thing that just occurred to me however, is that if the MoD was to outsource maintenance of the airframe, there are any number of commercial operators who operate 738's and who could look after the airframe itself, leaving the black boxes to service types. Correct me if I'm wrong but I'm sure that 4, maybe 6 airframes has been mentioned as being the number required. Seems rather small to me? Trevor Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitey8251 Posted July 22, 2015 Share Posted July 22, 2015 (edited) Every time I walked past the P-8 (on two days) there were always a number of fully armed British Police in attendance. I used to work for Boeing, turning wrenches on the P-8 here at NAS Patuxent river during the testing phase...each bird had a security guard on board who'd check your credentials each time you came aboard to do a job...regardless of how many times you'd been in and out of the aircraft and the fact that you eventually knew them personally. It's just a Boeing thing. At any rate. It is interesting to read the debate between the P-1 and P-8, not only from a Yanks perspective but a Yank who was a P-3 Orion flight engineer while serving in the USN and then a P-8 mechanic. Within the USN P-3/P-8 communities there is plenty of friendly and not so friendly banter back and forth over which aircraft is better suited for the job of MPR. I'm biased and agree that the P-3 is, simply because it can perform down low and stay on station longer (P-8s are yet to be certified for in flight refueling and even when they are, you're still going to have to break contact, go find the tanker, get gas, get back on station and try and find your target again...) while the P-8 is horrible at low altitudes because it was never designed as such, nor were the CFM56 engines designed to gulp up massive quantities of sea salt air. Now, neither was the P-3, having been developed from the airliner L-188 Electra, however the nature of aircraft design at the time lent to its low altitude capabilites (turbo prop engines, straight box wing design) and fuel economy, further enhanced by loitering engines while on station...P-8 will not be doing that, at least not on purpose. As for the P-1. I'd take it over the P-8 as well for many of the same reasons. It has been designed to be down low on the water. Look at the photo of the two next to eachother...someone mentioned the larger flight station windows on the P-1. There's a reason for that. Visibility. Like the P-3, the P-1 windows are designed so that you can see the vast horizon and open sea. This is important when manuvering down low at 200 knots. Depth perception is gone, so in the bank it is nice to pick up your horizon in order to maintain altitude, those overhead windows play a big part in that. The P-8 windows, you can blindfold that thing with a hanky. The 737/ CFM56 combo is a great aircraft...for what it was designed to do (get high, go fast, burn less fuel) and the P-8 "gubbins" (love the Brit slang!) is a great package as well...not a fan of those air pressurized sono launchers though, prone to malfunction often...but they've been stuffed into the wrong package. In the end, if your military does get back into the MPRA game, I think it will be with the P-8 because Boeing is good at selling and politicians are good at lying. Edited July 22, 2015 by Whitey 7 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flankerman Posted July 23, 2015 Share Posted July 23, 2015 Speaking of armed guards and BS......... Back in 2004 at Fairford on a warm Sunday, Northrop-Grumman were displaying their J-UCAS (later the X-47) unmanned aircraft - complete with 'Use of Deadly Force authorised' signs and fully armed British police - count them ....SIX (that's my taxes!)....... Later that day, the crowd was moved back, the fences were taken down and it was towed away - still under armed guard - because it had to go to Farnborough...... Still later, as I was leaving the show, I spotted the X-47 being dismantled to be put on a low-loader for transport to Farnborough...... The whole thing was a woooden mockup !!! What a load of BS !!! - armed police, maybe prepared to kill me if I stepped over the line - all for a wooden model !!! Ken PS - I visited Farnborough on the Monday - and there was the re-assembled J-UCAS at a press conference with lots of 'suits' in attendance........ all praising and congratulating each other for the co-operative way they had produced the design. Note - not a guard in sight and all within touching distance of the public - in fact I managed get past the fence to blag a baseball cap. !!! No wonder I'm an old cynic 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seahawk Posted July 23, 2015 Share Posted July 23, 2015 In the end, if your military does get back into the MPRA game, I think it will be with the P-8 because Boeing is good at selling and politicians are good at lying. Ain't that the truth (x2). And that's still a mighty big if: believe it when I see it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Giorgio N Posted July 23, 2015 Share Posted July 23, 2015 To be fair to Boeing, they may be good at selling (they sure are) but it should be said that their products have generally been pretty good. Good marketing only works up to a point if the goods for sale are bad Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colin Posted July 23, 2015 Share Posted July 23, 2015 As others have said, Boeing have always been good at selling. Lets make sure we have loads of armed guards around it, make the politicians/public think it's very important and worth the millions we're asking for it, even if it's totally wrong for what they need. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Truro Model Builder Posted July 23, 2015 Share Posted July 23, 2015 indeed, also sure there is some kind of exception for other foreign aircraft which makes the soil the aircraft is on temporary soverign to the nation in question, prety sure I've seen have seen armed guards at RIAT in the past with AK47's The aircraft itself may be sovereign territory, as too would be a foreign registered airliner, but it is on British soil -even at a USAF base as they rent the land from the UK. The police always used to carry MP5s, though I think they are using something else now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Truro Model Builder Posted July 23, 2015 Share Posted July 23, 2015 I used to work for Boeing, turning wrenches on the P-8 here at NAS Patuxent river during the testing phase...each bird had a security guard on board who'd check your credentials each time you came aboard to do a job...regardless of how many times you'd been in and out of the aircraft and the fact that you eventually knew them personally. It's just a Boeing thing. At any rate. It is interesting to read the debate between the P-1 and P-8, not only from a Yanks perspective but a Yank who was a P-3 Orion flight engineer while serving in the USN and then a P-8 mechanic. Within the USN P-3/P-8 communities there is plenty of friendly and not so friendly banter back and forth over which aircraft is better suited for the job of MPR. I'm biased and agree that the P-3 is, simply because it can perform down low and stay on station longer (P-8s are yet to be certified for in flight refueling and even when they are, you're still going to have to break contact, go find the tanker, get gas, get back on station and try and find your target again...) while the P-8 is horrible at low altitudes because it was never designed as such, nor were the CFM56 engines designed to gulp up massive quantities of sea salt air. Now, neither was the P-3, having been developed from the airliner L-188 Electra, however the nature of aircraft design at the time lent to its low altitude capabilites (turbo prop engines, straight box wing design) and fuel economy, further enhanced by loitering engines while on station...P-8 will not be doing that, at least not on purpose. As for the P-1. I'd take it over the P-8 as well for many of the same reasons. It has been designed to be down low on the water. Look at the photo of the two next to eachother...someone mentioned the larger flight station windows on the P-1. There's a reason for that. Visibility. Like the P-3, the P-1 windows are designed so that you can see the vast horizon and open sea. This is important when manuvering down low at 200 knots. Depth perception is gone, so in the bank it is nice to pick up your horizon in order to maintain altitude, those overhead windows play a big part in that. The P-8 windows, you can blindfold that thing with a hanky. The 737/ CFM56 combo is a great aircraft...for what it was designed to do (get high, go fast, burn less fuel) and the P-8 "gubbins" (love the Brit slang!) is a great package as well...not a fan of those air pressurized sono launchers though, prone to malfunction often...but they've been stuffed into the wrong package. In the end, if your military does get back into the MPRA game, I think it will be with the P-8 because Boeing is good at selling and politicians are good at lying. A very, very interesting post, and one which echoes much of the thinking about MPAs on PPRuNe at the moment. Sadly, I agree with your conclusion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nigel Foster60 Posted July 23, 2015 Share Posted July 23, 2015 If I have understood all the above items then the P-8 cannot do certain parts of the traditional MPA role. That of flying low over the sea and for want of an expression, patrolling the sea lanes, let alone pursuing targets. What happens in the civilian support role of looking for survivors and wreckage. Is there a technological answer to this problem or is it just lost? Can it only engage from some considerable altitude. Nigel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Radleigh Posted July 23, 2015 Author Share Posted July 23, 2015 Speaking of armed guards and BS......... Back in 2004 at Fairford on a warm Sunday, Northrop-Grumman were displaying their J-UCAS (later the X-47) unmanned aircraft - complete with 'Use of Deadly Force authorised' signs and fully armed British police - count them ....SIX (that's my taxes!)....... What a load of BS !!! - armed police, maybe prepared to kill me if I stepped over the line - all for a wooden model !!! Wood love to know what they would of done if you went up to them and said, "Why are you are protecting a wooden mock-up?" Total BS though... always makes me laugh at the guards around the P-8.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Julien Posted July 23, 2015 Share Posted July 23, 2015 Interesting they are using Police these days. I remember back when the F-117 came close for a photo call (was a UK Pilot flying it) they had armed USAF security personnel round it. Maybe the Police were there because of the perceived threat to US bases at the moment? Julien 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitey8251 Posted July 23, 2015 Share Posted July 23, 2015 (edited) If I have understood all the above items then the P-8 cannot do certain parts of the traditional MPA role. That of flying low over the sea and for want of an expression, patrolling the sea lanes, let alone pursuing targets. What happens in the civilian support role of looking for survivors and wreckage. Is there a technological answer to this problem or is it just lost? Can it only engage from some considerable altitude. Nigel Don't get me wrong, the P-8 can operate down low, just not as efficiently as the P-3 could. A good friend of mine and former pilot I used to fly in P-3s with, was out there off the Aussie coast doing the search for the Malaysian Airways flight and spent a significant amout of time cruising over the waves searching with both the Mk. 1 Eyeball and systems gear. I never asked him directly, but I'm willing to bet they wished they had a flight engineer with them up front to assist in keeping an eye on things while they did the flying. I'm sure people smarter than me have studied this far more extensively ( I hope) but I think the wear and tear on the engines will become a factor as the service life of the P-8 moves on. We had three test aircraft here at Pax River when I worked over there, one of which was dedicated for flying the traditional maritime patrol/down low mission profiles. The corrosion evident on the inlet cowling and fan was pretty extensive for the short time it was here playing that role. When it comes to sub hunting, the P-8 will do it at a higher altitude (drop buoys, etc.) and then come on down low to make the attack. The weapons bay doors are limited to how long they can stay open so they swing on in, pop them open, drop the fish and climb back up. Where as the P-3 would stay low on station with weapons bay open the whole time ready to drop the fish while the guys in back did their listening and tracking...ultimately leading to us bubbahs up front spotting the "feather" in the water (subs periscope wake) and calling contact! The P-8 will do the job. But as the USN maritime patrol community is learning, they way they conduct operations changes going from P-3 to P-8. The crew make up is completely different. In the P-3, you had two flight engineers (FEs) and an avionics technician (IFT) who could independantly maintain the aircraft on the road when deployed as well as the three "scope lickers". Traditionally the scope lickers are not maintainers of any kind but as part of the crew they got the basics of how to run up the APU, assist in fueling and other general duties. In the P-8, the FEs and IFT are gone, it's just the scope lickers, Tactical Officer and two pilots. If they independantly deploy, then maintenance folks (ground pounders) are going to have to come with them. I don't know what their plans are for what to do if they break on the road some where and don't have maintainers with them. We in the FE community always said that at a minimum they should have a "Crew Chief" position on board, I'm sure a lot of the former P-3 pilots would agree. But, the P-8 was sold on the concept of doing more with less. Less what? Now you need an entire maintenance detachment to go on a simple cross country hop?? Glad I'm retired out, though I do miss the flying. * A quick add on; While with P-3s back in the mid 2000s ('06/'07??) I had the plaesure of deploying over to RAF Kinloss for a couple of weeks. Let me say that we all had a great time there in the UK and the RAF guys doing the hosting treated us fantasticly as did any of the locals we met while out and about touring around Scotland. Good times! Edited July 23, 2015 by Whitey 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GMK Posted August 2, 2015 Share Posted August 2, 2015 http://www.dote.osd.mil/pub/reports/FY2014/pdf/navy/2014p8a_poseidon_mma.pdf May be of interest. 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