Airbus pushes for UK maritime patrol contest

[Flyingmonster]

One of the potential bidders for a future UK maritime patrol aircraft requirement is calling on the Ministry of Defence to hold a competition, rather than “rush in” to a sole-source deal to buy Boeing’s 737-based P-8 Poseidon.

Airbus Defence & Space has been touting its multirole C295 as an affordable means of reinstating a lapsed maritime patrol capability for the Royal Air Force, proposing an acquisition of around 12 aircraft. A Portuguese air force example was on display at the Farnborough air show as part of the airframer’s promotional activity around the type.


Airbus Defence & Space

Pointing to a long-running consultation involving the Ministry of Defence and industry called the Air ISTAR Optimisation Study (AIOS), Richard Thompson, head of military aircraft UK for Airbus Defence & Space, comments: “All of a sudden there seems to be an urgency to replace the maritime component.”

Highlighting a pre-show concern that the MoD could be poised to order the P-8 as a successor to its retired British Aerospace Nimrod MR2s, Thompson says: “The P-8 is not the only off-the-shelf solution. There are alternatives.”

Twelve C925s equipped with maritime patrol and anti-submarine warfare equipment already used by the UK armed forces could be acquired for half the price of six P-8s, while life-cycle costs would be between one-quarter and one-fifth those of the larger type, he claims.

Several other systems are being promoted for possible UK application, including a Saab solution based on its 2000 turboprop and a Bombardier Q400 proposal backed by companies including L-3 Communications.

Thompson also believes that additional capacity on the UK’s A330 Voyager programme could be used to satisfy other future airborne command and control requirements. One potential application could be to adapt several aircraft to serve as replacements for the RAF’s Boeing 707-based E-3D airborne warning and control system fleet, he suggests.

“We have put forward what we think is a balanced set of proposals for overland and maritime surveillance, and to bring Voyager in in the fullness of time for airborne early warning and command and control,” Thompson says. “Now we need customer engagement.”

“The AIOS is one of a number of ongoing strands on analysis that will contribute to the Strategic Defence and Security Review 2015,” says the MoD, which during Farnborough announced funding to extend operations of the RAF’s Sentinel R1 and Shadow R1 surveillance aircraft until 2018.

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articl ... st-401924/

[Steven]

If we were sensible we'd buy the 295 or something very similar. But, as usual, we'll jump into bed with Uncle Sam and buy the P-8.

Steven.

[Thunder]

Doubt the -295 has the range or the endurance to conduct SAR missions far out into the Atlantic or over the Northern seas around Iceland. What about in the ASW/ASuW role does it boast the expected weaponry to counter these threats either ? At the moment there is only one contender that can come even close to reinstating what we had and that is the P-8. 12 P-8's and 5 MQ-5 Tritons would be ideal.

[seven]

P-1, once its up to scratch will be the best option for us. But itll never happen.

7

[the concerned]

I still think our best option is to re-role the c-130j's as and when they are replaced by a-400m's. If you have some type of palletised system then when it is required you could use them to provide extra transport when needed plus the other benefit is we already have these aircraft.

[Agent K]

P-1, once its up to scratch will be the best option for us. But itll never happen.

7

Sorry, lost me there, what's is a P-1?

[POL]

P-1, once its up to scratch will be the best option for us. But itll never happen.

7

Sorry, lost me there, what's is a P-1?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kb8tGX-HPQE

All well and good, but I'm not sure the electric motors work too well in the Atlantic...

[lowlevelRAF]

P-1, once its up to scratch will be the best option for us. But itll never happen.

7

Sorry, lost me there, what's is a P-1?

Kawasaki P-1 from Japan

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kawasaki_P-1

Myself, I think we will end up going P-8, plus after speaking with the British crews at RIAT, working over on the P-8, most of them ex- Nimrod crews, they believe it is the only thing that could fill the gap for us.

[seven]

P-1, once its up to scratch will be the best option for us. But itll never happen.

7

Sorry, lost me there, what's is a P-1?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kb8tGX-HPQE

All well and good, but I'm not sure the electric motors work too well in the Atlantic...

[Agent K]

P-1, once its up to scratch will be the best option for us. But itll never happen.

7

Sorry, lost me there, what's is a P-1?

Kawasaki P-1 from Japan

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kawasaki_P-1

Myself, I think we will end up going P-8, plus after speaking with the British crews at RIAT, working over on the P-8, most of them ex- Nimrod crews, they believe it is the only thing that could fill the gap for us.

Ah yes of course, the shrunken DC8 lookalike thingy, thanks for reminding me!

[wokka]

Sorry, I stopped at the line

calling on the Ministry of Defence to hold a competition, rather than “rush in”

Rush? How longs it been now?

[hertsman]

It is time to start the process of ending the capability gap that has existed since Nimrod MRA4 was cancelled. This programme was a prime example of the problems you can encounter when trying to support domestic defence businesses for strategic or political reasons ahead of military capability and effectiveness. With, I admit, a large slug of hindsight, it would have been far better to have co-developed the P-8 solution with the US in the first place.

Any new capability will still take years to introduce, but will benefit from much of the platform development work already being done, and so minimising the risk in the eventual buy. A smaller 295-based solution is attractive from a cost point of view, and if that were the decision taken then I would take the view that a 295 would be a lot better than what we have right now. But I think the longer-term and more future-proof solution is the Poseidon. Greater capability and lots of airframes to support capability improvements in future. Deployed Poseidons could potentially offer protection to the new carriers, given suitable basing options, and that would be a massive boost to carrier capability when feasible. As Thunder has already mentioned, future MPA capability will be at least partially supported by UAV's and the US, with Poseidon, is likely to be at the forefront of that development. It looks the overall best programme to tie our colours to, and sooner rather than later.

hertsman

[ArabJazzie]

Doubt the -295 has the range or the endurance to conduct SAR missions far out into the Atlantic or over the Northern seas around Iceland. What about in the ASW/ASuW role does it boast the expected weaponry to counter these threats either ? At the moment there is only one contender that can come even close to reinstating what we had and that is the P-8. 12 P-8's and 5 MQ-5 Tritons would be ideal.

I used to subscribe to what you say as well Scott, but i must be getting old as i cant see much past the Casa just now. Twice the number of aircraft for 1/2 the price while it will cost a 1/4 of the P-8s to operate!

And why should we go and wipe everyone elses erchie? We need to look after our own areas first before stretching out to cover SAR and MP in the Iceland gap. Saying that though, for long range SAR we need something like Osprey!
Arabest,
Geoff.

[Malcolm]

Doubt the -295 has the range or the endurance to conduct SAR missions far out into the Atlantic or over the Northern seas around Iceland. What about in the ASW/ASuW role does it boast the expected weaponry to counter these threats either ? At the moment there is only one contender that can come even close to reinstating what we had and that is the P-8. 12 P-8's and 5 MQ-5 Tritons would be ideal.

I used to subscribe to what you say as well Scott, but i must be getting old as i cant see much past the Casa just now. Twice the number of aircraft for 1/2 the price while it will cost a 1/4 of the P-8s to operate!

And why should we go and wipe everyone elses erchie? We need to look after our own areas first before stretching out to cover SAR and MP in the Iceland gap. Saying that though, for long range SAR we need something like Osprey!
Arabest,
Geoff.

Airbus are barking up the wrong tree.

(Civilian) SAR is not a MOD/RAF/RN task - it's HM Coast Guard / Maritime & Coast Guard Agency (or whatever they're called this week)
Similarly, patrolling for illegal fishing boats/tankers flushing their tanks etc is not a MOD/RAF/RN task - it's MAFF (or whatever they're called this week)

So the chances of the MoD/RAF/RN spending any of their budgets on assets dedicated to Civilian SAR/MARPAT is verging on nil.

MOD/RAF/RN tasks do include ASW/ASuW, and they will want the best technology and weaponry to perform these tasks. They need to cover the seaways in/out of the Nuclear deterant sub home port, to make sure our nuke subs don't get followed by a foreign hunter killer. And helping to protect the new carrier force could also be a task they're given in time of conflict. The best plane for this is, and will be for the foreseeable, the P-8.

Now once you've got the best ASW/ASuW asset you can afford, you do have a half decent asset that the MoD can/could allow to support MAFF or HMCG in their tasks, assuming you can work out who pays for what. Some of that cost can come out of the crew training budget, but ultimatley MoD will want (quite a lot of) money from MAFF or HMCG budgets if they're expected to provide permenent cover.

Cheers
Malcolm

[ArabJazzie]

Airbus are barking up the wrong tree.

(Civilian) SAR is not a MOD/RAF/RN task - it's HM Coast Guard / Maritime & Coast Guard Agency (or whatever they're called this week)
Similarly, patrolling for illegal fishing boats/tankers flushing their tanks etc is not a MOD/RAF/RN task - it's MAFF (or whatever they're called this week)

So the chances of the MoD/RAF/RN spending any of their budgets on assets dedicated to Civilian SAR/MARPAT is verging on nil.

MOD/RAF/RN tasks do include ASW/ASuW, and they will want the best technology and weaponry to perform these tasks. They need to cover the seaways in/out of the Nuclear deterant sub home port, to make sure our nuke subs don't get followed by a foreign hunter killer. And helping to protect the new carrier force could also be a task they're given in time of conflict. The best plane for this is, and will be for the foreseeable, the P-8.

Now once you've got the best ASW/ASuW asset you can afford, you do have a half decent asset that the MoD can/could allow to support MAFF or HMCG in their tasks, assuming you can work out who pays for what. Some of that cost can come out of the crew training budget, but ultimatley MoD will want (quite a lot of) money from MAFF or HMCG budgets if they're expected to provide permenent cover.

Cheers
Malcolm

So what happened before when we had an MPA asset that went looking for things like you describe and provided top cover SAR, sometimes all in the same mission? And we all know whatever service is told to purchase the new asset, they will just get on with it! And whatever way its dressed up, the MOD and whoever controls SAR and the like are just departments of the same government!
Arabest,
Geoff.

[Thunder]

You just have to look at the recent search for MH370, the only aircraft capable of even reaching the supposed crash site were your MPA's which were all operated by the Air Arms of Australia, Japan, S Korea, Malaysia, China, New Zealand and the USA. All these countries have civilian operated SAR in place for domestic operations but none of these have any capability when it comes to long range rescues except for the USA, which has the USCG which is actually the 5th armed service.

[wezgulf3]

Couldn't a few Modernised P-3's from AMARG do the job for a few years then pick up some P-8's when we are rolling in spare cash!!

Wes...

[scotty2681]

Maybe the MOD will lease like what they did with the C-17 http://www.defensenews.com/article/2014 ... -Model-P-8

[Tim Holden]

During WW2 there was a mid Atlantic gap in air cover. The U-boats had a field day. Eventually long range Liberators with radar finally managed to give complete coverage and the subs had nowhere to hide. To get a short range MPA just because its cheap is a false economy. Then again the MOD never learns from history. The big lesson from the Falklands was that you cannot operate without air cover, even if you had state of the art SAM's. It did not stop them from getting rid of the SHAR.

[Davef68]

WE were always going to buy the P-8, ever since the SDSR in 2010. It just had to be at a time when it was politically and financially acceptable,