the concerned
Active Member
Wouldn't one of the priorities be to gain some sort of recon capability for the jsf'b. Does anyone know if this is being developed,also would we purchase the sdb 2.
The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter overlander
- Start date
It would have to be agreed at Hammond level, but I don't think it would be unreasonable, if a service thinks the capability is so vital they are prepared to make sacrifices elsewhere that they should retain control over the assets. Particularly as the other service has been happy in the past to ditch the capability. As for headcount/budget transfer is just book keeping. The issue would be the contractual commitment to BAE of ship numbers, although I'm sure everything is up for negotiation.
As for the P8, they are based on 737, I suspect the RN could get a better deal outsourcing to a civil operator than the RAF building a capability around a handful of aircraft.
The RN are acutely aware for the necessity to get things like the T26 on budget to keep the numbers they have allocated now (already cut down from initial requirements as is normal). It would be considered a big blunder for them voluntarily sacrifice numbers on possibility of getting something else which would then be up for its' own round of cutting.
Better to keep them separate and stand more of a chance of keeping what they are asking for - if the T26 numbers go down the unit price for the remainder will go up, which will equate to less value for money, putting more pressure to cut costs further - and the overall saving may well be cancelled out.
kev 99
Member
You want to outsource operation of P8s to a civil operator or your want to outsource maintenance?
It's not a matter of headcount, or budget transfers, but of reassignment of personnel who signed up for one service & would be transferred to another one. Many of them would not be happy about that. They joined a particular service because they wanted to be in that service.
The decision to ditch the Nimrod MRA4 was not made by the RAF, but the MoD. The RAF routinely opposes all cuts, & I doubt it was happy to lose it. At most, it may have accepted it as a less disastrous alternative to losing some other capability.
Sorry it was unclear, but I did mean maintenance, the RAF do outsource a lot of maintenance on some aircraft and a civil design in fairly widespread service would be logical.
kev 99
Member
Wouldn't be able to do all the maintenance though, probably restricted to engine and routine airframe, lots of stuff baiscally everything that makes it a P8 and not a 737 would still need to be done via military staff/defence contractors.
Actually I was thinking of a defence contractor such as Babcock/RR (they are 2 or the 3 in the MRTT PFI), but I guess right a pure civil contractors could look after the 737 bit.
It is such a pity we did not go down the Airbus route in the first place, but now I would want a low risk option available asap
kev 99
Member
Using an Airbus as the basis for an MPA would have been just as problematical for us as the P8 was for the USN but without the benefit of a massive budget to get the job done. The project would have been extrememly expensive and would have resulted in a modest number of airframes.
Probably, but a fraction of the cost of the radical reconstruction of a 1st generation commercially based design like Nimrod, with very limited available air frames restricting any additional participants. I think an Airbus version would have attracted interest, I would not be surprised if the French eventually go down that route....in the distant future.
Last edited:
kev 99
Member
It would be just as bad, possibly worse as we already know the Nimrod airframe worked, it would still be a radical reconstruction, you have to cut lots of holes in the aircraft for weapon bays, sonar bouy despensors, possibly a MAD boom, underwing hardpoints, strenghtern the fuselage and then do all integration of all the sensors etc, add in-flight refueling capability..........
This is one of the reasons that the P8a Poseidon programme r & d costs are $8b+.
Basically you are talking about doing the same thing Boeing have done but on a much smaller production run.
Boeing P–8A Poseidon | Info, Avionics, Costs/Budget, Specs
Building our own MPA would always be very expensive no matter how it was done.
Last edited:
Get real they hacked the wings of the Nimrod and built new larger ones that didn't fit... Even people in BAE admitted it would have been cheaper to have built a new aircraft from scratch. We are not going to agree on this one and I am firmly in the camp of buying c6 P8s now, so lets close a pointless debate.
kev 99
Member
Yes and they would have to have cut massive holes in your Airbus A330s and spend a huge amount of time strengthening and reconstructing the fuselage, wind tunnel tests, flight tests etc. Turning an airliner into a military MPA is not a cheap job and never will be.
It probably wouldn't as bad as the Nimrod programme but it wouldn't be the cheap replacement for MR2s that you think it would have been.
I never said it would be cheap but it would have been a product that could have been exported. I think a similar plane might have been the a320/321, the P8 was not a cheap conversion.
kev 99
Member
No but you did say a fraction of the cost.
The reason the Nimrod contract got the go ahead in the first place was based on the idea that it would be cheaper than building a new aircraft, more than a decade later we know that was cobblers. With you're Airbus MPA you're going the new aircraft route and it would have fallen at the first hurdle as there's no hiding the fact that it would be expensive.
To move the thread forwards, RN has requested follow-on support packages for the Tomahawk weapon system for USD $170m...
http://www.dsca.mil/pressreleases/36-b/2013/UK_13-09.pdf
Wonder if these include kits to bring all remaining RN Tomahawk weapons up to Tactical Tomahawk Block IV standard? Only say this because of the non-specific " missile modification" mention in the announcement?
http://www.dsca.mil/pressreleases/36-b/2013/UK_13-09.pdf
Wonder if these include kits to bring all remaining RN Tomahawk weapons up to Tactical Tomahawk Block IV standard? Only say this because of the non-specific " missile modification" mention in the announcement?
Good spot - no mention of any missiles being bought and we should be running at about 60 right now. I guess bringing them all to Block IV would be a possibility - or maybe there's spares to convert some to VLS (random passing thought that perhaps we might get some surface shooters for TLAM)
Either way, it's interesting.
Either way, it's interesting.
kev 99
Member
There was also another contract for a further 4 Tomahawks (yes you read it correctly) that came to light last month:
Pentagon Contract Announcement
Pentagon Contract Announcement
Yeah, it's probably a consquence of them budgeting and planning everything out and being left with X amount of change which isn't large enough to do something substantial so they make basic, simple & important purchases like this.
IMO can't have too many sub-TLAM units, when we need them then the Astutes will gobble them up no trouble.
IMO can't have too many sub-TLAM units, when we need them then the Astutes will gobble them up no trouble.