ArrowsI find it more than a little strange that ‘hot and high conditions’ are being advertised as plus points of Saab 2000. hot and high conditions refer to high ambient temperatures at an airfield at high altitudes and . what use does an AEW&C aircraft have of hot and high conditions ? AEW&C aircrafts are operated from well furnished bases in the interior, not forward bases in god-forsaken areas.
all major PAF bases are situated within a few hundred metres of sea level, where the saab-2000 will be operated from. none of those are ‘hot and high’. in fact PAF does not even have a need for hot and high performance from its fighters for the same reason. in fact I wonder where at all PAF tested the hot and high characteristics and why.
Sort of getting off topic, but if you google summer tempretures in Samunguli or Peshawar or you look up altitude at bases such as Skardu you will find the answer.
ArrowsWell the RAF does write off the P3, it would regard it as a significant retrograde step in performance. An upgraded P3 would be barely better in sensor performance to MR2 and significantly inferior in transit performance which is a major requirement for the RAF.
A jet powered ASW aircraft allows you to transit onto station far quicker then a turboprop. With the large area of operation over the North Atlantic and limited number of airframes even when they were procuring over twenty, P3 wouldn’t have cut it.
Anything but a jet would of been unacceptable to the RAF.
I do feel there is an argument for the UK to purchase a number of long range business jets to be operated by the coastguard to take on the long range SAR support and control role much the same as the French and other countries do. This would free up Nimrod for other tasks and extend service life of the airframes.
As I mentioned, I do realise jets are better then props, but thanks for pointing that out (again).
As you are aware, a P-3 is only as good as the sensors in it.
P-3C CUP and BMUP are very capable. US and German navies certianly think so.
Why do we need to cover the North Atlantic now? Russian subs still a massive threat?
ArrowsArrows4 SAAB 2000s will give me more availability then 4 EMB-145s, all things being equal.
At the end of the day it is what you need. PAF tested SAAB 2000 and others in hot and high conditions and found it suitable.
Also, think as the SAAB 2000 is bigger you can get a repalcement crew area/galley as opposed to the EMB-145, but could be wrong on this.
ArrowsDo you mean jobs for airframe fitters who are now losing their jobs at Woodford?
I agree the numbers are poultry and more would be good but we could never have justified 21 in such a benign submarine environment, this is just not the days of cold war sub hunting. As it is the RNs Merlins have a capability greater than the MR2 in sub hunting and can be deployed anywhere subs might be an issue. We now also have sentinel and Shadow doing much of the Nimrods recent work so actually in terms of manned ISTAR platforms the RAF will have 28 airframes. (9 Nimrod, 5 sentinal, 3 RC135, 4 shadow, 7 E3D) This of course doesn’t count 39sqn Reapers, the quantum leap in capability the Army has with Hermes/Watchkeeper, and of course Seaking ASaC 7 which is currently deployed in Afghan. With the likely hood of some sort of Mantis purchase in the medium term things are not as bad as all that. You have to look at the big picture.
Not really, P3 is an out dated airframe, going back to using props for this job would have seen a much less capable aircraft. The USN has gone down a jet airframe for a reason, partly to do with the RAFs experience of Nimrod.
Near current USN standard, so a generation or more behind Nimrod MRA4 and in many respects not as good as Nimrod MR2? That would be like celebrating a purchase of updated F4s or at best early model F15s.
Besides the Indian Navy has jumped ahead and bought P8 and the next gen of Indian subs will be difficult for P3 to find.
I agree that much of the Nimrod purchase was/is a bit of a scandal, but then we have hindsight. But you are comparing second hand Ford Escorts with brand new Ferrari.
Mantis is still not mature enough for production and didn’t exist when Nimrod 4 was ordered so unless you are crediting the skill of prescience to our politicians thats an arguement that is just hindsight. “Minister save your money and buy this UAV we haven’t even thought of yet….” And likewise for Global Hawk, it was still very much an infant when Nimrod was ordered in December 1996, in fact it didn’t fly until 1998 and besides its had at least a 25% cost over-run.
You are in fact making my arguement for me here. I agree, there is redundent capability elswhere, which makes the need to spend £3.6 Billion on 9 airframes particuarly bad waste.
Dont write off the P-3, packed with modern avionics it can still do a good job with any current threat. Germany boughtly all of Hollands airframes and the US will still use it in frontline for at least another 10 years. Granted jets are better then props.
I am not saying these would be better then the MR4, I have never stated that, but for just £600 million it would have saved the taxpayer alot and put money to good use elsewhere in the military.
We have to recognise at some point we cannot always insist on the goldplated solution.
Yes, I am actually criticising the lack of creative thinking and forward planning at the MOD.
In 1996 when we awarded the contract did we really not know about the potential future developments in UAV tech?
In 1996 we could have easily sourced 10 P-3 airframes, upgraded them and had them within service by 2000.
It is now 2010 and we dont have a fully MR4 in frontline service yet.
We are down £3.6 Billion.
Please do not tell me this is good for Britain.
The RAF have even realised this fiasco and switched to an off the shelf US RC-135 to replace the R1s. This is common sense prevailing.
ArrowsWhy not European alternatives? and what do you mean we wouldn’t have had the over-runs? US programmes are whiter than and never get delayed no? pants.
We would still be waiting for P8 years from now and any P3 alternative never got off the starting blocks (and frankly is a retrograde step).
So surrender our soveriegn design and devlopment capability to get a submarine many in the silent service are saying is slightly inferior to Astute.
The delay wasn’t huge (and was mainly to do with crew training and not engines), the cost over runs not great (again mainly the crew training issues) and we have ended up with an apache superior to the original, capable of flying with longbow fitted even in the height of the Afghan summer, which US and dutch apache’s can’t.
Why are you so down on UK equipment? Every nation has cost over runs and delays and UK equipment is very very good, sometimes worth the wait…. Spitfire had all sorts of issues with production delay and was almost cancelled, in your world we would have binned it and bought P-40s…..
I am not down with UK equipment, we have some of the best kit in the world. What I am down about is cost overuns that could have been avoided had we not had the cosy little club that the MOD/BAE seem to have goining on.
What I am down about is there being no budget for body armour and additional helicopters (being rectified now) when the RAF carrying on as if we seriously need 232 Typhoons, or the fact that we spend £400 Million on each MR4.
We have some serious world beaters in Challanger 2, Warrior, AS90, Type 42 (when they are finally ready), but no one else can even afford these!
The Spitfire was made in a time when BAE shareholders were not a prime consideration in the decision making process…
ArrowsI seriously doubt that the Virginia class would ever be available for export, look at the problems there still are about software etc for the F-35! Astute was a mess, but then there was such a gap between orders for SSNs and BAe tried to do a major step change in the manufacture and design in a very short space of time and tripped up.
There were problems with the WAH-64 but that was mainly doen to poor project management and the engines. The latter however are actually better than the original US ones and has allowed them to operate more effectively in Afghanistan. US AH-64Ds cannot operate over there effectively without removing the Longbow radar to save weight.
The E-3 with upgrades (We have cancelled the latest to pay fo rthe new chinooks) is still a very good platform, able to stay on station longer then most comparable platforms. In addition the requirements of range etc required a large platform and finally at the time the only readily available alternative was the E-2.
The arguement for buying off the shelf has been going on for years. Unfortunately until we get rid of the bespoke mentality within the MoD and the Political interference regarding jobs etc in the UK from the UKs Defence Industry it is difficult. UK exports of military hardware have shrunk dramaticaaly over the last decade with only the Typhoon standing out. Hopefully the SDR will sort out this issue, providing the best kit, at the best price for out military regardless of where it comes from.
Your last papragraph hits the nail on the head.
If the MOD stops its bespoke mentality we may not have had the situation where 8 Chinooks lay around in a shed for over 6 years whilst British soldiers die from injuries due to lack of airlift.
Also you are on the money with the fact that we have superb kit that no one else seems to want to buy. In fact it is usually only our wealthy arab allies who can afford it anyway.
ArrowsI agree that the Nimrod rebuild was a fiasco, but what US alternatives were there? P-8 didn’t exist. Hadn’t even been thought of. P-7 (a re-engined & upgraded P-3 – sound familiar?) had been canned by the USN, after costs went through the roof. Nimrod was competing against Orion 2000 – another re-engined & upgraded P-3. How viable was that, when a similar development had just failed? Remember, the UK would have to pay development costs, as with the Nimrod.
Apache re-engining I don’t know much about the costs of.
Ahhhh, the Nimrod fiasco. Where do I start. Never a clearer case of jobs for teh boys. Many of the MOD officials approving the cost overuns on this project went on to very lucerative careers at BAE. Funny heh?
Now we are only getting 9 planes, not 21. Considering how important they are for global opps and assuming some needed for training and maintence, that will leave us with barely 1 MAYBE 2 we can deploy.
There we many alternatives at the time, but national pride and BAEs clout ensured we went for another Nimrod. Dont get me wrong, we are getting a VERY good plane, but at a very high price and only 9 of them.
Pakistan Navy shopped around for 8 surplus P-3C planes and spent $900 million getting them upgraded to “near US Navy standard”. These should last till 2030
So $900 million 8 P-3Cs = £600 million.
9 MR4s = £3.6 Billion
With the money saved we could have then looked at unmanned alternatives like Global Hawk and BAE Mantis.
ArrowsSpain, Italy, Poland – all cutting defence expenditure, all covered by NATO AWACS. Italy decided against buying AEW aircraft a few years ago, on cost grounds – and that was when times were better. The others have never even expressed an interest.
Jordan? Who’ll pay for it for them? The USA won’t. Oman has never expressed any interest in its own AEW&C fleet, & has the luxury of being allied with Saudi Arabia, which has its own fleet. If 7 is overkill for the UK, 3 is insane for either. Oman has a smaller GDP than Wales, & Jordan a lot less. Both would have to hire expatriates to operate E-3s.
No, there aren’t any customers. Look around: what AEW aircraft are actually being bought? Erieye, Wedgetail, G550 Phalcon . . . AESA radars on newer, cheaper to operate airframes are the flavour of the decade. Why buy an ancient (if updated) behemoth?
Swerve
As you know, cutting expenditure does not stop new procurment projects
Poland is inducting brand new F-16s, Italy is on track for Boring tankers, F-35 and Typhoon, same for Spain ref Typhoon.
Greece, Turkey, France and UK are (in theory) all part of NATO E-3 group but also have or are aqquiring there own AWACs fleets.
Dont be suprised if other countries follwo suits, UK will be in prime position to offload 3 E-3s to Italy just like we lent them 24 odd Tornado ADVs.
Just because Oman is a Saudi Ally does not stop it acting indepenetly. The Arab nations are always keen to keep up with each other. Look at UAE with its plans for tankers and AWACs.
3 AWACs are the minimum number needed for ops so its not overkilll. Not when you have 12 F-16s and are also planning on a 24 aircraft Typhoon buy. I would say AWACS would be vital to make the most of these assetts right?
As for requiring contractors to support the E-3, name me one GCC Nation that does not require contractors to operate efficiently?
Oman is a keen purchaser of UK kit and an ideal place to sell surplus E-3s along with Typhoons.
ArrowsWhy would there not be a market for a NATO standard AWACS?
What about Spain,Italy, Poland,
These countries may not want to rely on the NATO E-3 fleet.
Take out UK sensitive equipment and Oman or Jordan
All these nations have purchased second hand kit.
Ex-UK ships sell well, noreason why AWACs would not
ArrowsThe point Swerve is making is the AWACS, Nimrod, Astute and I’m going to throw in Typhoon are paid for! There is no market for 3 E3D so I don’t see who you think we are going to sell them to. What we would do is push up the operating costs of the remaining four airframes. The only saving you make is on short term operating costs but you in effect write off the capital cost of the equipment and push up the operating costs over the remaining life cycle of the remaining equipment.
We going to play nicely now?
The point I was making about the programme overuns (I know these programmes are paid for/completed) is that we wouldnot have had the overuns in the first place had we gone for US alternatives.
Nimrod – P-3/P-8
Astute – Virgina class
WAH-64 – AH-64
ArrowsWe have a budget crisis now. If we can sort it out, we won’t have one in ten years. Buying less (or nothing) immediately, & postponing purchases until we can afford them, is logical.
There are two separate issues here, & a lot of people seem to be confusing them:
1) the immediate crisis.
2) sustainable defence spending in the long term.We should now be trying to work out how to get through 1), until we can settle on 2), not slashing & burning with no regard to the future. That is why I propose mothballing, & postponing purchases, or shelving them in favour of cheaper upgrades. Our capability will decline, but it should give us a better ratio of capability to spending than if we scrap en masse, & we still have equipment (albeit not as good as if we’d bought new) if we find ourselves in desperate need of it.
If we scrap (& that’s what we’d do with them: I can’t think of any potential customers) 3 E-3, we save operating costs – but we could save almost as much by spreading 4 aircraft worth of flying hours over 7 airframes, & save in the long term by not needing to replace aircraft as soon.
Spending money later rather than sooner is a real saving, unless by delaying you put up costs more than interest saved. Buying British (as long as it’s competitive, of course) helps stop the economy going even further down the toilet, which it is danger of doing.
Better body armour is a small cost, which could have been paid for by a less lavish refurbishment of the MoD building, or cutting the bloated number of generals & senior civil servants in the MoD. Too much central administration is being done, to too little purpose. Look at some of the horribly expensive non-procurements of recent years, where vast sums have been spent keeping thousands of people busy – but nothing has actually been bought. FRES non-procurement alone would have paid for all the better personal kit the army could do with, with loads to spare. That is where you should talk about cutting first, not the teeth.
Swerve
I am 100% with you. The MOD and brass are massively overbloated, yet cutting back these alone will not get the savings we need.
Thats what makes the whole governments defence argument scary, they have led us to believe there is this massive back end and top heavy animal we can cut, when in reality there have already been cuts to the back end, cutting that alone will not get the savings we need.
My point about the 7 AWACs. Currently hours spread over the airframes include international tasking as well as UK air defence.We need to ask ourselves can we afford tocarry out international AWACs duties?
If not,cut back the commitment and hence hours needed, as a result, 4 airframes will last as long as 7 and we can make good money on the sale.
In fact the sale and service support contract may get us enough money to pay forthe remaining service lives of the 4 remaining airframes, this helping
Mr Jones the tax payer.
Please do not get me wrong, all for buying British when it makes sense, but looking at Nimrod, Astute and Apache re-engining it borders on outrageous. The cost overuns on these programmes could have created many jobs on other areas of even paid for another carrier!
All when there were very viable US alternatives available.
ArrowsWhat debate?
I explained how your statement was incorrect…you felt otherwise. Nuff said, I have a life beyond this forum and I feel that I have expressed enough on the subject.
If you can’t handle the heat of a web forum then I suggest a different hobby.
Is this the whole online bullying thing teenagers are supposed to be doing?
I can handle (and have)much more then that.
You have a life? That’s good, and makes me slightly happier.
Next time you want to debate properly and explain your statements you know where I am.
ArrowsWell I save it for people who clearly haven’t got a clue what they are talking about…
Have a nice evening
Fella
You are the one who has actually not answered the question in the debate we just had and are heading off. That’s Cool and The Gang, but please don’t throw around insults and at the same time rush off.
ArrowsYes you are being patronising again, but admitting it is the first road to recovery.
Sign In
