P8 MMA/MPA thread.

That would ultimately have left us with a working aircraft that would probably have been in service for several years now, and a competitor to the P-8 that might even have beaten it to market.

Given that the A-319 MPA idea seems to be gaining traction, it can't have been too terrible an idea.
Sorry, but I entirely disagree...even IF (and that is a VERY big ‘IF’!) we could’ve got a working MPA meeting our demanding requirements.

Think about the market place we’d have been competing in.

The USN are the World’s largest MPA operator and are buying 120+ P-8s; they would never have considered buying from Airbus. Inevitably, key allies would choose to follow the US lead to ensure compatibility, as we’re seeing with Australia, Norway with most likely South Korea soon and possibly the RNZAF following suite.

So straight away your market is very limited given that when we’d have been initiating development, France had no requirement.

The second largest MPA operator is Japan (with a requirement for around 80) who were also developing their own solution in the form of the P-1. So there’s another major market gone.

Realistically, the best opportunity would’ve been NATO nations. But few of these operate ‘high end’ MPAs and are content with coast guard ASuW only types as we see with ATR72MP etc.

It matters not that you claim the A319MPA idea is gaining traction (although I personally see no evidence of this). When development needed to start back in about 2000, there was no market.

Airbus have been rolling out artists renderings of A319, A320 and A321 MPA and multi-mission types for decades. There’s a reason why none have ever been produced let alone sold.

Regards,
MM
 
Last edited:
(...) Airbus have been rolling out artists renderings of A319, A320 and A321 MPA and multi-mission types for decades. There’s a reason why none have ever been sold.
There's only a handful of potential major customers and they buy a limited number of planes. The market opening for selling to them only comes around once every few decades. You can have the greatest and most wondrous MPA/MMA the world has ever seen, but if your product doesn't hit the market at the right time you aren't going to sell many.

Discussion of export potential for any major piece of military kit has to start with a market analysis. Who exactly (i.e. names of actual countries) are the potential customers, how many might they buy, and when are each of them going to be in the market for it?

As previously discussed, the French and Germans are starting to put together a project for a new MPA/MMA to go into service a decade hence. I rather suspect it will be based on a modified Airbus plane. Their project timing is based on knowing when each of their potential customers will be replacing their existing aircraft. They will launch with a known minimum sales volume and a good chance of having several more countries brought in as partners.
 
When does the RAF get its first Poseidon?
Late next year. However, the first one doesn’t come back to the UK for a few months.

Regards,
MM
 
That is an impressive photo, especially as its an antipodean filling station.

I saw a job advert today from Boeing to support Australian legacy hornets, thought they were as good as Canadian (apologies off topic).
 
And in a couple of decades time, the RAF will still be cursing the Aiirtanker PFI leaving them with the worst best option.... no boom, no cargo door, no cargo floor.
Unfortunately, the alternative was no tankers whatsoever.

Regards,
MM
 
“Unrealistic assumptions have been made about the ability of NATO allies to contribute to MPA provision and that at least 16 aircraft and a higher crewing requirement is needed to attain the necessary coverage.”

Which doubles down on the - thank **** Nimrod was cancelled as that was only ever going to deliver 8 aircraft by the time of its death with (even at max rose tinted optimism) little prospect of further airframes.
 
Last edited:
Question, based on the ‘one looks far sexier than the other, and photo opportunities are important’ mindset: would be be better getting (a few) fewer F-35s? What would serve us best?
 
Question, based on the ‘one looks far sexier than the other, and photo opportunities are important’ mindset: would be be better getting (a few) fewer F-35s? What would serve us best?
I've said before and I'll say it again, based on current and projected funding levels I'd personally chop an entire sqn of F-35s to resolve RAF (and RN) infra and manpower issues; once those are addressed, I'd certainly prioritise P-8 and AWACS well above F-35.

For better or for worse however, the F-35 is inextricably linked to the carriers which is totemic for HMG. The challenge is managing that dimension for the interests of the F-35 Programme let alone broader defence.

Regards,
MM
 
Last edited:
I've said before and I'll say it again, based on current and projected funding levels I'd chop an entire sqn of F-35s to resolve RAF (and RN) infra and manpower issues; once those are resolved, I'd certainly prioritise P-8 and AWACS well above F-35.

For better or for worse however, the F-35 is inextricably linked to the carriers which is totemic for HMG. The challenge is managing that dimension for the interests of the F-35 Programme let alone broader defence.

Regards,
MM
I’m suddenly back here and in particular post #15:

https://www.arrse.co.uk/community/t...failure-a-growth-mindset.278736/#post-8643839
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top