Discussion
Ryan T said:
So short term we lease an old airframe the Americans are retiring, which would cost more than a new airframe to maintain, to then buy once again an untested newer aircraft?
It woud cost more than a new airframe how exactly? Just because the Spams (and the Aussies) are getting rid of P3 doesn't mean that all the other operators are immediately binning it. Furthermore, the fact that the Spams are retiring it means there would be a glut of airframes available.I would suggest that the Kawasaki P1 is way more tested than P8. For a start it can do ASW, P8 has not proven that capability yet and is severely limited in its ability to operate at low level (which is actually a fairly crucial part of being a LRMPA).
Ryan T said:
Also in regards to subs, you argued they dont have the range of a LRMPA. Care to explain that theory?
Please state where I mentioned 'range'? Edited by Ginetta G15 Girl on Wednesday 10th December 17:22
Ginetta G15 Girl said:
Ryan T said:
So short term we lease an old airframe the Americans are retiring, which would cost more than a new airframe to maintain, to then buy once again an untested newer aircraft?
It woud cost more than a new airframe how exactly? Just because the Spams (and the Aussies) are getting rid of P3 doesn't mean that all the other operators are immediately binning it. Furthermore, the fact that the Spams are retiring it means there would be a glut of airframes available.I would suggest that the Kawasaki P1 is way more tested than P8. For a start it can do ASW, P8 has not proven that capability yet and is severely limited in its ability to operate at low level (which is actually a fairly crucial part of being a LRMPA).
Ryan T said:
Also in regards to subs, you argued they dont have the range of a LRMPA. Care to explain that theory?
Please state where I mentioned 'range'? Edited by Ginetta G15 Girl on Wednesday 10th December 17:22
The P3 is coming to the end of its life, the Argentinians struggle to even get theirs serviceable. So you suggest the Kawasaki which is having teething issues over the P8 which is untested.
What I can establish from that is there will always be a compromise its just about deciding what you want to compromise on.
Also can we bin off all the acronyms Eric's probably having a seizure with the amount being thrown around!!!
What I can establish from that is there will always be a compromise its just about deciding what you want to compromise on.
Also can we bin off all the acronyms Eric's probably having a seizure with the amount being thrown around!!!
Hooli said:
I'm going to guess this is because they can head somewhere at 400+knots rather than about 40knots.
Exactly.ecsrobin said:
So you suggest the Kawasaki which is having teething issues over the P8 which is untested.
The Kawasaki can go low level with no issues, P8 can't - so much so that there are all sorts of issues with deploying sonobuoys let alone weapons. ecsrobin said:
What I can establish from that is there will always be a compromise its just about deciding what you want to compromise on.
Indeed.ecsrobin said:
Also can we bin off all the acronyms Eric's probably having a seizure with the amount being thrown around!!!
Acronyms or abreviations? 
Actually I think you will find that I defined them in the first post in which they were used. Having done so, then I will continue to use them (they are after all fairly accessible to anyone with a passing interest in defence matters), I don't think even Eric can complain at that!With regards to my point with subs, I meant that our waters are not unguarded completely, if they weren't im sure the pesky Russians would have been playing silly buggers, like recently in Swedish waters (allegedly)
Subs can't help the SAR bit though.
Another question with the Kawasaki - are the Japanese allowed to sell military kit?
I was gutted Nimrod was scrapped, but unfortunately it was, can't go back now. BAE Have a hell of a lot to answer for that.
Ginetta G15 Girl said:
Acronyms or abreviations? Actually I think you will find that I defined them in the first post in which they were used. Having done so, then I will continue to use them (they are after all fairly accessible to anyone with a passing interest in defence matters), I don't think even Eric can complain at that!
Well an acronym is an abbreviation Actually I think you will find that I defined them in the first post in which they were used. Having done so, then I will continue to use them (they are after all fairly accessible to anyone with a passing interest in defence matters), I don't think even Eric can complain at that!I didn't notice your first post had defined them for Eric.
DMN said:
keep up at the back? 
RobGT81 said:
Ginetta G15 Girl said:
In the short term I'd be looking at leasing P3s. In the long term I'd be looking at the Kawasaki P-1.
This. I'm sure there are plenty of reasons why not, but there are probably plenty of reasons why any particular airframe should or should not be the bass for an LRMPA and I guess there has to be a decision made based on a number of compromises.
Edited by andy97 on Wednesday 10th December 20:52
The decision to euthanase the Nimrod MRA4 was little to do with party politics and everything to do with them being near death-traps with the list of unairworthy snags running into the many hundreds, which 'for a price' the preferred defence contractor would fix.
Even the 'for a price' price was little more than guesswork and was being revised upwards as the clock hands ticked around.
Knocking the programme was not necessarily a bad call.
However - the early 'gapping' of the MR2 and the 'capability holiday' we are currently enjoying of a LRMPA is cringeworthy and shameful.
The ISTAR style assets may be effective within their role(s) - but if you want an 'action' out of that - something else is required.
The Kawasaki is an interesting proposition, as is P8. The Sea Herk concept would be a chuckle - however, it is only a concept. Although when one considers what the USMC has delivered through the palletised Harvest HAWK capability - it might have some merit..
Unfortunately, that Kwak and the Sea Herk are not exactly Off The Shelf propositions. P8 or uprated P3s are the only long range games in town I believe.
Even the 'for a price' price was little more than guesswork and was being revised upwards as the clock hands ticked around.
Knocking the programme was not necessarily a bad call.
However - the early 'gapping' of the MR2 and the 'capability holiday' we are currently enjoying of a LRMPA is cringeworthy and shameful.
The ISTAR style assets may be effective within their role(s) - but if you want an 'action' out of that - something else is required.
The Kawasaki is an interesting proposition, as is P8. The Sea Herk concept would be a chuckle - however, it is only a concept. Although when one considers what the USMC has delivered through the palletised Harvest HAWK capability - it might have some merit..
Unfortunately, that Kwak and the Sea Herk are not exactly Off The Shelf propositions. P8 or uprated P3s are the only long range games in town I believe.
Ginetta G15 Girl said:
While I agree that Labour couldn't manage a piss up in a brewery, Cameron binned a project that was up and working. In doing so the money that had been spent was wasted. At the end of the day however, Nimrod is dead. We can argue the ins and outs of budgets (and £billions of overseas aid) but it's all rather moot in that we have lost a core capability that we are unlikely to ever regain. As I said before, for an Island nation this is scandalous.
Completely agree with you about the scandal of the loss of capability.Was Nimrod a project that was really up and working?
An ongoing project, but was anything being delivered?
Surely at some point you've got to look at a project that was running 9 years late and massively overbudget and say "they've never hit time or budget yet - why do we believe the latest forecast?" or "will this ever deliver a usable product?" or "how much more good money are we going to throw after bad?"
Ginetta G15 Girl said:
I have no doubt British WasteofSpace reamed the Government over MRA4.
Wow, bit broad brush isn't it 
The real crime with Nimrod for me was seeing something that was so far gone turned into the MRA4, arguably the most capable aircraft of its type in the world. Then came the Strategic Defence Review and Nimrod (and a stack of other projects) was scrapped overnight. The brand new, effectively hand made airframes (minus kit) were bulldozed to shreds on a sunny day in Cheshire. Then lots of really talented people lost their jobs and Woodford ceased to exist. So yeah, reamed I guess...
I'm not going to defend BAE Systems too much, but I'm curious as to that hate - both institutions have learned a great deal and if you look to something like the Typhoon availability work and upgrade programmes they're world class with very happy customers.
And as for this cracker, not sure where to start...
Ryan T said:
I was gutted Nimrod was scrapped, but unfortunately it was, can't go back now. BAE Have a hell of a lot to answer for that.
andy97 said:
I wonder if you could develop an LRMPA from the A400, or the C17, or even the BAe/ Avro 146 (yes a BAe product, again, I know). Would all have better low level performance than the P8.
I'm sure there are plenty of reasons why not, but there are probably plenty of reasons why any particular airframe should or should not be the bass for an LRMPA and I guess there has to be a decision made based on a number of compromises.
You beat me to it!I'm sure there are plenty of reasons why not, but there are probably plenty of reasons why any particular airframe should or should not be the bass for an LRMPA and I guess there has to be a decision made based on a number of compromises.
Edited by andy97 on Wednesday 10th December 20:52
The 146 has been suggested as an MPA. It does have its roots in a military design from long long ago.
Something based on an A400M or C130 would potentially be a cheaper option where you'll install mission systems on rafts into the back. Fit stuff like Cerbrus out of the soon to be retired ASaC-7 Sea Kings.
It's still not going to give you all a Nimrod could.
Plus there is the inevitable MoD fannying around making stuff UK spec, clearing the airframes to carry and deploy weapons and other stores.
In the mean time, I just think we have to accept we have very limited capability and make the most of it. A Type 23 frigate should in theory be on duty as the UK TAPS (Towed Array Patrol Ship) A 23 with a 2087 sonar and a Merlin is a pretty formidable bit of kit and can offer a great deal of protection to the Trident subs entering/departing Faslane.
Not as flexible as Nimrod and the RN is over stretched as it is.
A C130 can do SAR and comms. Not as good as Nimrod .
Rivet Joint and the ASTOR equipped Global Express jets can do a lot of what the Nimrod R1 did as well as surface search. Same shortcomings as above, plus no weapons.
We do therefore kind of have the Nimrod capability still but it's not always as good or as flexible as having it all wrapped up in one airframe as we did with the R1 and MRA4.
The best thing to do long ter, would be to buy off the shelf from Japan. It may not completely fit the bill, but better have something in service then gradually upgrade it to what we want than have nothing.
Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff