Boeing P-8 Poseidons on the way
Discussion
Simpo Two said:
Eric Mc said:
The normal practice is to go for the lowest squadron number available - unless there is an overriding historic reason to go for a higher number.
The lowest unused number appears to be '19' - disbanded in 2011. It has good history too.
Eric Mc said:
Can it not fly low?
According to the RAF chappies I spoke to, the airframe has been considerably beefed up compared to an airliner 737.
It is interesting that no matter what aircraft is chosen for a job, there will be always dozens of people who will claim it is the wrong aircraft.
As far as I can see, it's better than what we have at the moment - which is nothing.
Not according to the USN who are finding it has a number of problems or compromises, caused by the airframe and its inability (or at least reduced performance) to operate in the same way as say a P3 or Nimrod might i.e. lots of turning, altitude changing and low level flight.According to the RAF chappies I spoke to, the airframe has been considerably beefed up compared to an airliner 737.
It is interesting that no matter what aircraft is chosen for a job, there will be always dozens of people who will claim it is the wrong aircraft.
As far as I can see, it's better than what we have at the moment - which is nothing.
PanzerCommander said:
UK Government in short sighted blunder shocker.
By that you mean the decision to fart around refurbishing old Nimrods, rather than building completely new ones? I don't really blame the Government for canning Nimrod, it seems to have been an open-ended money-pit.Shar2 said:
Not according to the USN who are finding it has a number of problems or compromises, caused by the airframe and its inability (or at least reduced performance) to operate in the same way as say a P3 or Nimrod might i.e. lots of turning, altitude changing and low level flight.
Of course, both the Orion and Nimrod are also based on older airliner designs. Maybe they just make airliners more weight efficient these days i.e. they are not over engineered.What existing airframe could they use as an alternative (ignoring the Japanese design which is probably not for export anyway) - given that they would have to start from scratch designing a brand new maritime patrol aeroplane.
Simpo Two said:
PanzerCommander said:
UK Government in short sighted blunder shocker.
As ever. The problem is that you have politicians/civil servants making military decisions, and they are not only largely incompetent at most things, but have to obey other factors that push them towards making decisions that are ultimately wrong. In practice this doesn't matter because (a) they lose the next election/get a different job (b) Joe Taxpayer pays for the mistakes.The Commands, Air, Navy and Land, will develop the requirement which is then measured against what the Govt are willing to pay, what the UK Contractors can deliver and what DE&S are resourced to deliver. I now Civvie bashing is a hobby for some but remember that an awful lot of MoD civvies in acquisition and support are ex-Forces too....
So will this have/be tasked any SAR capability in the way that Nimrods did previously?
ISTR also an instance of a Nimrod arresting a foreign vessel of some kind out at sea, and believe they also used to be able to drop liferafts in SAR guise?
It is certainly great news for my home area of Moray to have more planes based there.
ISTR also an instance of a Nimrod arresting a foreign vessel of some kind out at sea, and believe they also used to be able to drop liferafts in SAR guise?
It is certainly great news for my home area of Moray to have more planes based there.
Yertis said:
PanzerCommander said:
UK Government in short sighted blunder shocker.
By that you mean the decision to fart around refurbishing old Nimrods, rather than building completely new ones? I don't really blame the Government for canning Nimrod, it seems to have been an open-ended money-pit.- All the current in service (old) airframes.
- The airframes that were undergoing flight test.
- The airframes that were in build
- All the jigs
- All the tooling
- The site they were built on.
But the project was in BIG trouble - mainly because the re-engineering required was proving to be massively more difficult and expensive than originally envisaged. They were having real trouble putting what had essentially been hand built aeroplanes back together again. No two airframes were the same.
Eric Mc said:
But the project was in BIG trouble - mainly because the re-engineering required was proving to be massively more difficult and expensive than originally envisaged. They were having real trouble putting what had essentially been hand built aeroplanes back together again. No two airframes were the same.
Because HMG/MOD didn't want to do the new build - too expensive (even though the USA were very keen to buy Nimrod, providing that they were new build) instead of P-8......so BAe were forced to provide a cost cutting exercise - hence the "well we could refurb existing fuselages instead of new build"Seems like a plan says MOD.
Of course, as said the problem came when trying to mate new build wing assemblies, that were all CAD designed and fabricated to uniform modern tolerance and be all alike, to refurbed and modded existing fuselages that were all slightly different as they had been built the 'old way'.
No one part of the project is to blame, it was a collective f**k-up all through....but you had to feel sorry for the poor buggers on the shop floor at Woodford that closed afterwards...and had to watch as largely new aircraft were cut up.
aeropilot said:
I would assume, one of the old Nimrod sqn no's would be re-activated.....120 would be my bet, as historically, this was one of the old Coastal Command squadrons, and has pretty much been maritime use only in it's existence.
The Senior Maritime Sqn was 42(TB)Sqn. The TB standing for: Torpedo Bomber.Another spinning bowtie extravaganza in the making; specifically procuring for the purpose of sanitising the western approaches, a job which requires tooling about at low altitude in North Atlantic clag, an aircraft which doesn't do any of that at all well but is really good for exchange visits to the US, instead of the cheaper purpose-designed airframe from Japan which does do the low altitude noodling quite well. Well done the airships, clearly some knighthoods and lucrative Boeing consultancy and directorships in the offing.
Eric Mc said:
I'm sure it will be involved in SAR work. The Aussies were using their P-8s in the hunt for MH370.
They've been using E3s in a limited way for SAR as top cover and as a comms relay.I am quite closely connected with my local RNLI boat and "MAGIC EIGHT-ZERO" was a very welcome help on one recent shout.
The P8 makes sense. There's no perfect solution but buying off the shelf from a US production run should speed things up if the MoD don't piss around too much with the specification as they usually do.
When will ZZ737 or whatever she'll be numbered enter service?
As far as alternate platforms are concerned the Kawasaki aircraft is the only new aircraft on offer. It makes a lot of sense but it is an unknown quantity and the U.K. Defence budget can't really be a gamble with cash so tight.
There is an MPA version of the C130 on offer I understand.
I think there is a MPA version of the ATR turbo prop airliner but only two engines and not very long legs od guess.
Have Airbus Mikitary not created an MPA version of the A400M?
Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff