Military AI Works

Jim, I'd come to the same conclusion about the pylons on the clean version. I'll remove them. Am I OK with the longer length SLAM missiles on the other version or should I install Harpoon D's?

John

Firebird wrote:Simples! Cost.
Cheaper to mod some civvie plane that exists than to build from scratch.

People tend to forget that is how the P-3 came into existence too.


Those are looking great John. Glad you decided to do the Advanced Airborne Sensor version.

John Young wrote:Jim, I'd come to the same conclusion about the pylons on the clean version. I'll remove them.

Might want to pull them on the Sensor version too since they wouldn't leave them hanging while the radar was in use.

Firebird wrote:From what I understand the RAF ones will be standard P-8As with standard US weapons initially but that is a couple of years away yet.

I assume they will have a RAF refuelling probe fitted at the Boeing facility at Lossiemouth. JY may want have that in preparation. I'm guessing the RAF will reactivate one of the Kinloss Squadrons.

This looks great again John !

You have added so much already to our FS world, many thanks !

VulcanDriver wrote:I assume they will have a RAF refuelling probe fitted at the Boeing facility at Lossiemouth. JY may want have that in preparation. I'm guessing the RAF will reactivate one of the Kinloss Squadrons.

I did check and there is no announcement yet. If they do activate one of the ex-Nimrod sqns it will most likely be 42 as it is the lowest number. The RAF have made a concerted effort to use the low numbers and go away from historical numbers so it could be one in the low 20s.

There has been no announcement on the probe aspect. The only thing they have said is standard A's with American weapons initially. You get the feeling that this is to get them into service quicker and reduce testing costs. My guess is that once in service they will talk about a refueling update if they find they definitely need one. Likewise Boscombe Down will likely be do the testing for altering weapon fits.

I do hope it's 42 as I have a family connection with the Nimrods at St Mawgen. There was a comment about the lack refuelling probe by a RAF officer who said on long range patrols we need it. I guess it will be retrofitted by Cobham aka Flight Refuelling at EGHH

I think that Boscombe Down will be busy with this plane. After all the Nimrods never had probes until the Falklands and that was designed, tested and fitted in 30 days.
My guess would be that it will be fitted as each aircraft goes through its first major.

clickclickdoh wrote:People tend to forget that is how the P-3 came into existence too.

Nimrod too.

Firebird wrote:

clickclickdoh wrote:People tend to forget that is how the P-3 came into existence too.

Nimrod too.

AFAIK the only MPA that weren't derived from "civilian" airframes were the Atlantic/Atlantique and the new XP-1.

Jim

Firebird wrote:

VulcanDriver wrote:I did check and there is no announcement yet. If they do activate one of the ex-Nimrod sqns it will most likely be 42 as it is the lowest number. The RAF have made a concerted effort to use the low numbers and go away from historical numbers so it could be one in the low 20s.

You mean like 617

Jim

John Young wrote:Jim, I'd come to the same conclusion about the pylons on the clean version. I'll remove them. Am I OK with the longer length SLAM missiles on the other version or should I install Harpoon D's?

John

I've seen photos of the "seedcorn" guys alongside a SLAM fitted airframe.
So either/both are valid options AFAIK..

Jim

jimrodger wrote:AFAIK the only MPA that weren't derived from "civilian" airframes were the Atlantic/Atlantique and the new XP-1.

Jim

There's a couple more, but not many. The P-2 Neptune, S-2 Tracker and S-3 Viking come to mind. The later two of course having to be clean sheet designs because slinging small civilian aircraft off of a carrier would be hilariously disastrous... providing you weren't in it when they tried.

jimrodger wrote:You mean like 617

Jim

For some reason they exclude 617, they also had various others that they would keep going for heritage reasons, like 92 and 111. However, even the golden oldies are now seen as fair game. 208 has now gone and if it comes back I am betting it will be as 19.
To my mind if you are going to have a policy then stick to it.

Jim, thanks for the Harpoon/SLAM input.

Steve, I assume the RAF P-8As will be paid for in US Dollars. Does that mean we lose one from the order in order to compensate for the drop in exchange rate?

John

Going back to the weapons.... I always liked this one And what might have been.... Jim

I doubt it, mate. For simple reason is that you don't pay up front. A down payment with the order and rest on delivery. So the rate of the pound at the moment is not that important.
The other thing is that 9 is a weird order number which means they have worked out exactly what resources they think they need. So dropping the number is not going to happen. What might get affected is in the future if they want to order more, like Aus and India, they may reject that as an option.

The UK order is spread over 3 production batches over 3 years. So again, the Brexit vote is not likely to be that important. Remember the price changes not only when the pound goes down but also if the Dollar goes up.

The other thing to take into account is that you can fix the exchange rate in the contract for precisely the reason of currency fluctuation a number of years in the future.

Gotta wonder how big of a part of the Airseeker program was to making this happen? Having RAF crews embedded with USAF crews out of Offutt AFB worked really well to stand up the three RAF Airseekers. My understanding is that the same will occur with the RAF P-8s as well.

MIKE JG wrote:Gotta wonder how big of a part of the Airseeker program was to making this happen? Having RAF crews embedded with USAF crews out of Offutt AFB worked really well to stand up the three RAF Airseekers. My understanding is that the same will occur with the RAF P-8s as well.

Seemingly the seedcorn guys in situ at the moment are going to be the core RAF trainers, they'll train the other non-P8 seedcorners in the US and then eventually any RAF aircrew that have maritime in their previous history had better get ready to move to Lossiemouth, to the point of pulling from other platforms as necessary.

Jim

The RAF have crew on the P-8s with VP-30