Dave Fleming Posted November 23, 2015 Share Posted November 23, 2015 I'm going to write to our CEO, I think we missed a trick here... easyASW? She's only find a way to monetise it - a £1 per ping? 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vlamgat9 Posted November 23, 2015 Share Posted November 23, 2015 Are they going to have MAD booms like the indian p-8i's? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Posted November 23, 2015 Share Posted November 23, 2015 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stever219 Posted November 23, 2015 Share Posted November 23, 2015 SqeezyJet won't get the maintenance contract as they're an all-A320 family operator. Shame the A321MPA probably won't see the light of day now... The weapons bay would have to be depressurised, if it is pressurised at all, in order to release weapons so I suspect that the rear cabin floor has been beefed up (I hope) both to carry the weapons and the pressurisation loads. I hope they've beefed up the fuselage crown skins and joints too after the incidents several years ago when a couple of Southwest Airlines' 737s started unzipping in flight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dambuster Posted November 24, 2015 Share Posted November 24, 2015 Are they going to have MAD booms like the indian p-8i's? I did read that the US deleted their MAD booms to save weight, so what did the Indians give up when it was reinstalled? Peter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Truro Model Builder Posted November 24, 2015 Share Posted November 24, 2015 Well, I'd rather have seen the Kawasaki P-1 in RAF roundels, but I am very glad to see that we will be getting back into the MPA business. The big question is which squadron? Though it ought to be a squadron with MR history I suspect that as the Tornado will be just about out of service by then it will be either No.9 or No.12. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpine_modeller Posted November 24, 2015 Share Posted November 24, 2015 I am still concerned that an aircraft optimised for cruising at 35-40,000 feet is not the right platform for maritime patrol. The Kawasaki P-1 looks more the part, but I guess making such a fundamental step change in procurement was beyond the minds of the MoD. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyot Posted November 24, 2015 Share Posted November 24, 2015 The big question is which squadron? Though it ought to be a squadron with MR history I suspect that as the Tornado will be just about out of service by then it will be either No.9 or No.12. Why not 201 or 202 Sqn,......after all the ex RNAS unit numbers (of course with a 2 added) are supposed to have equal seniority to the ex RFC units within the RAF, yet this seems to have been forgotten! Tony Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roland Pulfrew Posted November 24, 2015 Share Posted November 24, 2015 Tony Seniority, according to the rules, is a complex thing. A squadron only accrues seniority when it is an operational front line sqn. Time spent as RFC or RNAS counts towards seniority. Once a sqn is stood down it stops accruing seniority. Time spent as a reserve sqn also does not accrue seniority. Thus 42 Sqn is unlikely to be high up the seniority list bacause they stopped accruing back in the 90s when they became 42 (R ) Sqn whilst 201 and 120 continued operations. To complicate matters 120 is classed as a special case (along with 617) as they received their standard ahead of the minimum 25 years service because of their contribution to sub hunting in the Battle of the Atlantic. Being "special" does not necessarily trump operational seniority and 120 are quite junior. To further complicate matters, despite the supposedly pure operational seniority pecking order, past history can also be taken into account, thus it is unlikely that 9 Sqn would be considered for an MPA sqn when number plates such as 120, 201 etc are available and have a strong association with the role. I would say that there is no way that any of the P-8 sons will have an 800 series number as the aircraft will be operated by the RAF and they won't be co-manned by the FAA, so that should also rule out 360 - at least under current plans. There was a topic on number plates and seniority etc where XV107 explained much of the history and background and is probably in the archive. HTH Edited to add: here's the link to the previous topic: http://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?/topic/234960685-raf-squadron-designation-question/?fromsearch=1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiger331 Posted November 24, 2015 Share Posted November 24, 2015 Look like the P-8As are going to be shoehorned in at RAF Lossiemouth (makes sense…its the most northerly base on mainland UK…(for the moment). I'm as curious as most about the number-plating for this Squadron….I did not know about 120 Sqn's special status so it must be odds on to be the obvious choice but who knows in this day and age. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nigel Foster60 Posted November 24, 2015 Share Posted November 24, 2015 At this point I just hope they actually get delivered and into service without being cut back. I do wonder now how much the cancelation of Nimrod MR4 actually saved taking into account this purchase? Nigel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
XV107 Posted November 24, 2015 Share Posted November 24, 2015 ... To further complicate matters, despite the supposedly pure operational seniority pecking order, past history can also be taken into account, thus it is unlikely that 9 Sqn would be considered for an MPA sqn when number plates such as 120, 201 etc are available and have a strong association with the role. I would say that there is no way that any of the P-8 sons will have an 800 series number as the aircraft will be operated by the RAF and they won't be co-manned by the FAA, so that should also rule out 360 - at least under current plans. ... 360 is far too junior to be reformed and only came about because the RAF and RN couldn't agree over the numberplate - ISTR that the RAF proposed 207, but this was seen by some in the RN (remember that this was at the time when CVA01 was being cancelled) as nothing more than a crude bid to obscure the RN role (the files suggest otherwise, with various RAF officers clearly puzzled that their bid to recognise the RNAS wasn't being appreciated). As I noted in the C-130 vs P-8 thread, the plan for the 9 Nimrods was for 42 to be the OCU, 201 to be the lead squadron and 120 the second front line squadron. There was to be a total of 16 crews, with the 9 airframes shared between the three units. Since that plan was fairly well developed (201's CO had been appointed, and IIRC, someone had been told that they were to be the boss of 120), I'd suggest that the solution will be to dust that off, change various names and dates and proceed as planned... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnT Posted November 24, 2015 Share Posted November 24, 2015 Nah. If you want to be stealthy paint it in Ryanair colours. It'll blend in anywhere! And the RAF could get sponsorship too Trevor Aye but then they would all be based at RAF Lossiemouth yet land and take off from "nearby" Reykjavik 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhantomBigStu Posted November 24, 2015 Share Posted November 24, 2015 On a seperate note wonder if well see usaf forces return to Keflavik in the coming years with the Russian situation, having been their (during that famous week in 2010) there's plenty of room for a squadron of fighters, well away from the civilian activities Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stu Posted November 24, 2015 Share Posted November 24, 2015 On a seperate note wonder if well see usaf forces return to Keflavik We've never completely gone away https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Icelandic_Air_Policing At least this gap's now going to be (partially ?) plugged Stu 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
junglierating Posted November 24, 2015 Share Posted November 24, 2015 Anybody think we should have gone Japanese?? Dedicated and purpose built. Mind you it might look good but not good in reality. Just saying! 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grahamwalker Posted November 24, 2015 Share Posted November 24, 2015 just think they broke up the new airframes to save money now they are buying OLD USA clapped out junk, what away to save money Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VMA131Marine Posted November 24, 2015 Share Posted November 24, 2015 (edited) just think they broke up the new airframes to save money now they are buying OLD USA clapped out junk, what away to save money Er... you know these are new build aircraft right? But we could make you a deal on some slightly used P-3's (I'm sure we can work out an even lower price for the one on the right with no cockpit) Edited November 24, 2015 by VMA131Marine 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nigel Bunker Posted November 25, 2015 Share Posted November 25, 2015 just think they broke up the new airframes to save money now they are buying OLD USA clapped out junk, what away to save money If you are referring to the Nimrod MR.4, they were not new airframes but 40 year old fuselages with new wings. The P-8s will all be new build. Whoops, spelling! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geoff_B Posted November 25, 2015 Share Posted November 25, 2015 Anybody think we should have gone Japanese?? Dedicated and purpose built. Mind you it might look good but not good in reality. Just saying! And that's the reason why not its a specialist aircraft with its own unique engines designed and built in Japan on the other side of the globe designed specifically for the JMSDF, which means that whilst its a dedicated next gen sub hunter, all the systems, wiring, airframe and engines would need to be translated into English which is not that easy or quick to do, pilots, aircrew and ground crew would need to be trained in Japan and to maintain those systems and airframe it would require a dedicated supply chain to Japan !! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
junglierating Posted November 25, 2015 Share Posted November 25, 2015 Geoff, Fair one on supply chain....looks good tho. Mind you,you can talk about wiring have you ever worked apache wire bundles,super American idea. Mind you in all seriousness the P8 has been on the cards for a while. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geoff_B Posted November 25, 2015 Share Posted November 25, 2015 Annoyingly the fact Japan developed and built its own dedicated MPA whilst we fluffed around and eventually cocked up ours says a lot. In some aspects it would have been good to ditch the Nimrod and do a joint development with Japan as that could have created quite a viable and exportable MPA type but I don't think the Japanese constitution would have allowed it at the time. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dambuster Posted November 25, 2015 Share Posted November 25, 2015 If I hear some rumours correctly we are purchasing these from the US Navy, not Boeing. That, plus the design changes to the basic 737 airframe, should make the UK Airworthiness case interesting.... Peter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul J Posted November 25, 2015 Share Posted November 25, 2015 A Boing " Poop side down" then. Oh well. Clean up the airframe and it will make a nice airliner. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Max Headroom Posted November 25, 2015 Share Posted November 25, 2015 A Boing " Poop side down" then. Oh well. Clean up the airframe and it will make a nice airliner. I always thought the Nimrod would make a great airliner. Look at all that baggage space. Trevor Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts