Future UK Maritime Requirement to remain a secret

[Harley Quinn]

Having spectacularly axed the Nimrod fleet the government have decided to not publish the future requirement taken from Hansard (http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201212/cmhansrd/cm120201/text/120201w0001.htm#12020185000051);

Mrs Moon: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence pursuant to the answer of 22 March 2011, Official Report, column 947W, on military aircraft, when he expects to publish the findings of the capability investigation on maritime surveillance capability; and if he will make a statement. [92528]
1 Feb 2012 : Column 654W
Peter Luff: The Ministry of Defence has completed its capability investigation into its long term requirements for maritime surveillance capability, but I am withholding the information as its disclosure would, or would be likely to prejudice the capability, effectiveness or security of the armed forces.

Now I'm not one for conspiracy theories, but is it possible there has been an awkward, embarrassing discovery? or could this be characterised as a normal process?

[Obi Wan Russell]

To my ears it sounds like he's saying "We have no plans, we have no budget for it anyway, go away and stop asking questions that expose the incompetence of the Government!"

But that's just how it sounds to me:uhoh:

[alfred_the_great]

Sounds reasonable enough, especially given the capabilities has to protect.

[Biggus]

There are a variety of possible interpretations...

No doubt people will use this statement as a way of reinforcing their own point of view on the matter, irrespective of any alternative option!

[Martin the Martian]

Actually, in response to the question he put his hands over his ears and said loudly, "la la la, not listening".:E

[MrBernoulli]

No doubt people will use this statement as a way of reinforcing their own point of view on the matter, irrespective of any alternative option!
My experience of the military, coupled with the cock-up that is the MoD, leaves me in no doubt that it is because the government has something embarrassing to hide. Plain and simple.

[cokecan]

Biggus,
on the balance of probabilities, which is more likely: that the Russians/Chinese/North Koreans/Iranians/baddy-of-choice don't watch Sky news and therefore don't know that our Nuclear deteterant is vastly less protected than it was 2 years ago, or that the government would be embarared by the document and have therefore decided to give it the 'security isn't a dirty word, Blackadder' treatment?

answers on a postcard to:

Rt. Hon i should be shot for my incompetance MP
Rm 407b
Ministry of Defence
Land of the Moron

[Pontius Navigator]

Did he answer the question?

on military aircraft, when he expects to publish the findings of the capability investigation on maritime surveillance capability; and if he will make a statement.
MoD has completed its investigation into its long term requirements for maritime surveillance capability,

Subtle difference here.

withholding . . . disclosure . . . prejudice the capability, effectiveness or security of the armed forces.

She asked about maritime capability - clearly rather limited with only short range air assets.

He said the MOD had looked at the long term requirement - nothing about the now.

Clearly highlighting the capability now - limited - would indeed be prejudicial now.

Wonder what Private Eye would make of this?

[chopper2004]

Shhhhhh the Aurora is the long term secret strategy :cool::cool::cool::{:mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad:

http://i57.photobucket.com/albums/g209/longranger/739-IMG0025.jpg

[Cows getting bigger]

No no no, you're all wrong. The master plan is to pour a few billion tons of concrete, making the nation an integral part of the continental mainland thus negating the need for a maritime capability.

Simples.

[GalleyTeapot]

Seedcorn Initiative: 24 Nov 2011: Hansard Written Answers and Statements - TheyWorkForYou (http://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2011-11-24a.81671.h)

[Sir George Cayley]

With tensions increasing in the south Atlantic, their Lordships better make their minds up asap.

SGC

[The Old Fat One]

Anybody remember the MP Michael Mates? Many, many moons ago I listened to him being interviewed on the radio during a long, boring road trip. He had been on a defence committee and he explained that whenever he asked a question the MOD did not want to answer, they simply claimed the information was "classified" and prejuducial to national security. Could have been about the cost of NAAFI biscuits...made no odds.

Given that context, yer mans answer is as unwaveringly a "standard response" as all the others over the past few decades. Roughly translated it means "too difficult, go away".

[tucumseh]

Could have been about the cost of NAAFI biscuits...made no odds.

I remember the day an RAF officer was trying to tell our 2 Star that MRA4 was NOT on target (as the 2 Star had claimed), it had just slipped 4 years. The 2 Star (Director General Air Systems 2) dismissed him and turned to a more pressing matter. The cost of bananas in the Abbey Wood canteens.

[glojo]

For those of us that used to watch 'Yes, Minister' or 'Yes, Prime Minister' will see straight away what is going on. Those programs are as relevant today as they were the year they were broadcast.

The Official Secrets Act is not to protect secrets, it is to protect officials.Stage One: Refuse to publish in the public interest saying
1. There are security considerations.
2. The findings could be misinterpreted.
3. You are waiting for the results of a wider and more detailed report which is still in preparation. (If there isn't one, commission it; this gives you even more time).

Stage Two: Discredit the evidence you are not publishing, saying
1. It leaves important questions unanswered.
2. Much of the evidence is inconclusive.
3. The figures are open to other interpretations.
4. Certain findings are contradictory.
5. Some of the main conclusions have been questioned. (If they haven't, question them yourself; then they have).
Excellent TV series (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=90f9Qm60tU8&feature=related)

[Jayand]

Nearly choked on my cornflakes then (late riser) (not riser sinker!)
Thought somebody was taking the subject of a maritime replacement aircraft seriously for a second!

[Wensleydale]

Oh goody....Another thread on MPAs - it must be at least 10 days since the last six threads on the same subject.

[Melchett01]

Oh goody....Another thread on MPAs - it must be at least 10 days since the last six threads on the same subject.

Maybe that's because as an island nation, it's quite important, and the Govt and MOD have made a total cock-up of it but seem unwilling to rectify the problem.

[Wensleydale]

Maybe that's because as an island nation, it's quite important, and the Govt and MOD have made a total cock-up of it but seem unwilling to rectify the problem


Cause and Effect. There is no money because Mr Brown and that nice Mr Blair before him have spent it all trying to buy votes. Something has to give. Take a deep breath, accept that it has happened - constant harping will not change things.

[MFC_Fly]

Oh goody....Another thread on MPAs - it must be at least 10 days since the last six threads on the same subject.

Some of us care about the maritime security of our island nation! If it is of no interest to YOU then FOXTROT OSCAR and don't read the thread :ugh:

[tucumseh]

Cause and Effect. There is no money because Mr Brown and that nice Mr Blair before him have spent it all trying to buy votes. Something has to give. Take a deep breath, accept that it has happened - constant harping will not change things.


Much as I detest Blair, demonstrably the problems started before he took power. Policy after policy encouraged wanton waste in MoD on a grand scale; supported with gusto by the Nimrod 2 Star, CDP, the RAF Chief Engineer and more. Not once was I ever short of funding to pay a fair and reasonable price for a project I initiated; and not once did I breach that limit. The trick is agreeing the requirement and a fair and reasonable price for it in the first place; the dismantling of the sections who specialised in this was one of the above wasteful policies. Had RMPA and AML simply followed mandated rules, a new platform would have been selected and been in service for the last 10 years.

You are right; what is done is done. But unless someone harps on about it, those now in power won't be able to learn from successes; it seems they are already incapable of learning from mistakes.

[Wensleydale]

Some of us care about the maritime security of our island nation! If it is of no interest to YOU then FOXTROT OSCAR and don't read the thread


One!.........

[Melchett01]

Something has to give

Yes, and based purely on national security considerations, the Army should have been restructured a long time ago to tighten up the huge logistical chain associated with the Cold War 'heavy metal' structures that aren't used these days. Not getting rid of the long range eyes and ears of a maritime nation.

By all means sack BAe, but to simply walk away from the capability is little short of negligence.

[hval]

A question for you all.

We talk about protection of UK shorelines, coastlines and seas. What do we do if we are already "contaminated" within our shores, on our home land? Is there any point protecting our shores? After all, the damage is already done

[Wensleydale]

By all means sack BAe, but to simply walk away from the capability is little short of negligence.


The problem was affording the capability... How much was it going to cost? The uncertainty of the project to replace Nimrod did not help the maritime cause. At the end of the day, the MOD budget had to be trimmed and a project that had already over-run in both cost and time was a prime candidate - especially with uncosted/expensive replacements for MR4 needed. Nimrod was seen in the media as a potential death-trap with major design flaws and a danger to its operators (again, lots of threads about this in the past) and it was too expensive to rectify.

Yes, the loss of capability is a great concern, but the lack of a quick/cheap way ahead gave the Gov't little option within the budgetry constraints which were not of their making - its not really negligence in the true sence of the word.

There I go, adding this point once more to a similar thread yet again..... Its a bit like "Dave" on digital television: there are some really good programmes, but I don't want to watch the 5th repeat in a week.....

[TEEEJ]

Russian Strategic Subs to Resume Routine World Patrols | Defense | RIA Novosti (http://en.ria.ru/mlitary_news/20120204/171127327.html)

February 4 (RIA Novosti)

Russian strategic nuclear submarines will resume routine extended patrols in international waters around the world in June 2012, Russian Navy Commander Adm. Vladimir Vysotsky said.

“On June 1 or a bit later we will resume constant patrolling of the world’s oceans by strategic nuclear submarines,” Vysotsky said at a meeting with naval personnel on Friday.

The annual number of extended patrols performed by Russian strategic nuclear submarines and nuclear-powered attack submarines has dropped from more than 230 in 1984 to less than 10 today.

The Russian military believes, though, that the submarine fleet is still the backbone of the Russian Navy, and that it will continue to play an important deterrent role in the future.

[Lima Juliet]

Teej

That's an interesting thread.

All

So just how was a fleet of a dozen or so MRA4s going to monitor GLOBAL Russian submarine patrols? Also, with the range of their missiles, just how important is it to know where all of the submarines are close to our "island nation"? That's the value of our bombers surely, and the RN have already said that they can manage with SK ASW, DDs and FFs. Also, the Argies don't have a big fleet at present, so maritime recce isn't exactly tricky!

So far, we seem to be managing without MR2 and MRA4 in these days of £1tn deficit (thanks to Bliar and Broon) - so is it such a world shattering loss that we don't have an MPA for now? There are other ways of watching subs and also providing LRSAR.

Unless, of course you're one of the poor souls that have lost the job that you thought was there for life. Sadly, it os either time to move to a new fleet or suck up redundancy.

Finally, I'm pretty sure there are bigger skeletons in the Coallition Govt's closet than the cancellation of a late, over budget, under performing asset that we can live without for now.



LJ:confused:

[cokecan]

Leon,

while your logic is entirely reasonable, i would question its basis.

do we really believe that the Navy would give any answer other than 'we can manage' to questions about the security of the SSBN programme - both from an operational point of view and a political one?

if the Navy was genuinely, seriously concerned that the integrity of the SSBN concept had been compromised by the loss of Nimrods capability and the susbsequent reliance on FFG/ RW ASW, do you really believe thay would make such a concern public?

likewise, if a problem with Typhoon's AIM-120's was discovered, compromising the whole of the UK's AD capability, do you believe that the RAF would make it public?

i don't, and i don't believe RN statements to the contrary, much like i don't believe senior Army officers saying they've got enough troops and helicopters in Helmand, or senior crabs saying they've got enough Typhoon/GR4, Tankers, AWACS, ELINT, or transport to cope with the myriad demands placed upon them by our glorious political class.

[green granite]

I suspect that a modern version of SOSUS would be/is a lot cheaper than a fleet of MPAs, and who knows for certain the capabilities of Argo floats. And of course there are surveillance drones that can stay airborne for days.

[Siggie]

Or we could just rely on our European brethren to come and fill the gaps when a foreign SSN comes round the corner to play.

France - sorry can't come.

Germany - ditto.

USA - we can be there in two weeks.

Not quite good enough when you've got Boomers to protect.

[Pontius Navigator]

Leon/GG

The UK MPA never pretended to patrol the whole of the Atlantic but was part of the multi-national effort. Assuming the Nimrod 2000 (sic) was better than the Nimrod 2 by a factor of 2 then the proposed numbers would have been sufficient.

GG

SOSUS usually knew where the submarines were and generally which boat was which. Even a greatly improved version would only have increased the accuracy of the where and what. The whole ASW mission is also to deter and if required destroy.

The lack of a high speed and accurate delivery system creates a hole in the total coverage.

[davejb]

So far, we seem to be managing without MR2 and MRA4 in these days of £1tn deficit (thanks to Bliar and Broon) - so is it such a world shattering loss that we don't have an MPA for now?

So we haven't needed it* since cancellation, which was SUCH a long time ago it's fine to extrapolate the idea of never needing it?

Dave

*Except for those times I watched US P3's operating from Kinloss due to the total lack of UK MPA, of course...funny how the RN didn't tell them to go home as they weren't required....

[aislinn]

*Except for those times I watched US P3's operating from Kinloss due to the total lack of UK MPA, of course...funny how the RN didn't tell them to go home as they weren't required....

Perchance may they have been Canadian variants of the P3. I love Forres, Elgin, Findhorn(sp), Newquay(sp) and assoc. pubs. We were jailin Spanish trawlers while you lot were lettin them rape yer cod stockings off back in blighty:)

[Ivan Rogov]

Leon, most of the guys and girls did not get the opportunity to go to another fleet; almost all of the rest of your post has been discussed on previous threads. I can't argue with your logic, we do not need MPA because we have not used them since we got rid of them, genius :D There are many roles and missions we would have used an MPA (Long range multi sensor platform) for since the MR2s demise, it has and does leave a gaping hole in our daily defence capabilities at home and globally.

GG very wrong I'm afraid :ugh:

[Jayand]

I think the point is and in case you have not noticed we are broke, brassic, skint!
Buying or paying for an expensive insurance policy isn't top priority right now.
Have a good time to those lucky ones on seedcorn, not conviced you will come back to anything different though.

[Harley Quinn]

Buying or paying for an expensive insurance policy isn't top priority right now.

What price Trident and its' replacement?

You're wrong; the military is the politicians insurance policy.

[SOSL]

Take a look at HQ's initial post:

".....Now I'm not one for conspiracy theories, but is it possible there has been an awkward, embarrassing discovery? or could this be characterised as a normal process?"

There could have been an awkward, embarrassing discovery. However, for the MOD to withhold the results of a capability review, notwithstanding all the surrounding public opinions, is and always has been a normal process. Duh!

[Lima Juliet]

Jayand - exactly :D

We are skint, can't afford anything right now, we've got away with it so far (2 years IIRC), we've got a plan (well seedcorn and some "studies" on what we might do in the future) and we've not got a white elephant like MRA4 hanging around our necks sapping the defence budget even more.

As for long range multi ISTAR we've got other assets for that which doesn't involve putting 12-14 people over a target area to do the job of 2 people remotely can do. Plus it can strike if required. The use of MR2 in the overland ISTAR role was a lash-up job that went on far too long for what was supposed to be a stop gap - it cost some very good people their lives. :(

LJ

[Pontius Navigator]

aislinn, please credit DaveJB with the ability to recognise an Orion from an Aurora.

[Croqueteer]

Looking at it from a fianacial point of view, a huge amount of money was spent developing and building the Nimrod, then reskinning the early models, then again with the mk4. If we had taken the Atlantique option we would have had many more units on task in a superb maritime aircraft at a fraction of the cost and would be able to afford a maritime fleet now. I had two tours on Shacks, one on the Nimrod. A high point on my career was being banned by Wingco ops from speaking to visiting VIPs expressing the above opinion.

[Yellow Sun]

If we had taken the Atlantique option we would have had many more units on task in a superb maritime aircraft

Having flown in the Atlantique on a number of occasions I cannot agree with your comments.

YS

[davejb]

We are not broke, we (the UK) have quite a decent income, so much so that we can afford to give rather large amounts to other countries.

It's simply that the govt choose to spend varying proportions of our cash on a wide variety of different things - many of which are expensive - which prevents us from having everything we want.

Personally I think we need an MPA, buty I can't prove it - equally you can't prove we don't need one.

Dave

[MFC_Fly]

Quote:
If we had taken the Atlantique option we would have had many more units on task in a superb maritime aircraft
Having flown in the Atlantique on a number of occasions I cannot agree with your comments.

YS

Having flown on the Atlantique during an exercise and directly interacted with and supported their crews on multiple exercises and operations over the years I must agree with YS!

[XV277]

Capability Review -yes we need an MPA (Fox said so in a radio interview on Radio Scotland the day after Nimrod was cancelled, just that Nimord was the wrong one!) but we can't afford to buy one now.


Personally, I suspect we will hedge our bets until 2016/17ish then get a P-8/BAMS combo.

[Pontius Navigator]

We have had 3 experts views 1:2 for the Atlantique. Where did the Atlantique fall down where the Nimrod did not?

Was it range, endurance, speed etc, ie an airframe limitation or was it kit which could have been revised?

[thunderbird7]

Mainly, it's Frenchness :}

[Pontius Navigator]

TOFO, agreed, I was hoping the other antagonists would respond too as they seemed Atlantique specific.

IIRC the Atlantic floated quite well too. I like the nose position as well.

[Croqueteer]

As far as I remember, only one Atlantique ditched. Four engines didn't help the Nimrod in Roseisle forest. The Tyne is a reliable and economic engine, I would have felt much safer behind two Tynes than I did behind four Griffins! The break even point for time on task between the Shack and the Nimrod was a transit of 500nms to the task area. Its a pity the Vanguard jigs were broken up when a shack replacement was being found, as that looks like it would have made an ideal maritime aircraft.

[thunderbird7]

2 Atlantiques ditched - one French, one Dutch - shortly after, the Cloggies bought their P3s IIRC. Something to do with an electrical problem that caused a double hush???

[Milo Minderbinder]

"Comet or Trident"
Would the VC10 not have been a better bet? Larger, more range, four rear-mounted engines and reasonably quiet inside as a result. Any idea if it was considered? Especially as the RAF already had some on order

[Pontius Navigator]

T7, one cloggie Atlantic ditched but it was the deployment of an air brake/wing spoiler wot did it.

The engine cowling was hinged at the rear IIRC and opened in flight with predictable consequences. Does that make 3 total?

[Croqueteer]

OFO, Not true. a buoy pattern would be monitored at a reasonable ht so a couple or even four Tynes would be unlikely to be heard on a sonobuoy. I don't think "we lead the world" as we were using old US gear, although we did have the capability to get attack criteria as I experienced on a Shak detatchment to the States where the Orions could get contact then gave it to us to localise. The US sub skippers would chuck up a yellow candle which is something I never saw an RN skipper do!

[Mad_Mark]

Even a P3 or Atlantique at height can be heard on-topping buoys!

[Duncan D'Sorderlee]

Personally, I think that the platform is (almost) irrelevant; it's the kit inside and the crew that operate it. And, of course, the tactics that they employ. So what if the MPA is slow - take off earlier! Providing the crew don't overfly the target they (probably) won't be heard.

That said, having flown an Atlantique, I'd have taken a Nimrod every day of the week. But I would say that, wouldn't I?

Duncs:ok:

[Mad_Mark]

So what if the MPA is slow - take off earlier!
So when being scrambled on long range SAR you want the crew of the vessel in distress to give you a heads up that they are about to get into distress to give you more time to get to them? :ok:

MadMark!!! :mad:

[Duncan D'Sorderlee]

MM,

That's why I said 'almost'.

Speed is, of course, a factor for short notice tasking - especially at range (less so in the North Sea or anywhere else close by, I'd argue). That said, I'm not too sure how many times in the last 40 years it would have made that much of a difference.

Duncs:ok:

[Yellow Sun]

So what if the MPA is slow - take off earlier!

Increase the transit time for the same time on task and you require more airframes to meet the task. A simple cont. ops example:

Transit out: 1.00
Time on task 4.00
Handover overlap: 0.15
Transit in: 1.00
Turnround time: 1.30

No of airframes required: 2 (Sortie 1 turns round into sortie 3)

Now increase the transit time by 25% , i.e. 1.15 and 3 airframes are needed to obtain the same result as first slot that Sortie 1 can turn round to meet is Sortie 4.

Incidentally, 25% is not far off the difference in Nimrod\Atlantique transit speeds.

YS

[Donna K Babbs]

That said, I'm not too sure how many times in the last 40 years it would have made that much of a difference.

Most topcover sorties! Based on an average of 50 Nimrod SAR sorties per year while the fleet maintained RS60 (latterly RS120) you'd be talking about 2000 SAR sorties in total.

More than half were topcover or sinking vessels so speed certainly does make a difference for a significant number of rescues. SAR crews being SAR crews they will now often take the risk of going without cover when life is at risk.....rather than wait for the Cessna 404 to catch up (assuming it can reach the area)!

[Duncan D'Sorderlee]

YS,

My maths might be (is!) crap; but if you have 4 hours ONSTA, then, for a 24 hour period then you have 6 ac (plus one in and one out). What difference does the transit time make? Unless you are assuming constant range; therefore less time on task for the slow ac. I am not sure how valid that point is.

I've just RTFQ! You are right that more frames are required - but only if the plan is for one 24hr patrol with nothing spare. I suspect that an ATL (or a CN295) is aslo 25% cheaper than a P8 so we could afford it.

Donna,

Top cover is deemed so important that no-one does it now; I suspect that the helos have better nav kit than they had when we were on RS60. I was thinking about situations where the late arrival of the MPA would have meant loss of life. I can't think of many; in fact, only one that I flew on - and they were all dead before we arrived on scene.

Don't get me wrong, the removal of the capability was barking mad; however, there are no Nimrods now and we have to think of a potential replacement. I think that we should weigh up all the options. If we stick our heels in for the P8 - nothing else is suitable - the answer may be NO.

Duncs:ok:

[Biggus]

DD,

"...Top cover is deemed so important that no-one does it now..."

To put it simply - WRONG!!!

[Duncan D'Sorderlee]

Well, no UK FW with SAR kit does it.

And if the Nimrod topcover didn't launch, the helo would still go.

Duncs:ok:

[Biggus]

Would it?

Or would something else be arranged/planned that you weren't aware of?

e.g. BBC News - Stornoway helicopter in long range fisherman rescue (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-highlands-islands-16666864)

[Duncan D'Sorderlee]

Biggus,

I think that we are in danger of taking this thread off at a tangent. All I am trying to say is that the speed of any replacement MPA is only one of a number of factors that has to be taken into account - and that it, IMHO, is not the major factor. I would rather see a slightly slower ac, with the correct kit, crew constituion, training and tactics etc than a very fast ac unable to complete the task.

That said, in the good old days when the SAR helos went out in twos, if the topcover Nimrod went u/s on start or ONSTA, they still went. There was nothing that I was aware of on RS60 (or quicker) to provide any other support. If you know of something else, I'd be interested to hear of it - off line if necessary.

Duncs:ok:

PS. Nice link. I was aware of HMCG; I was thinking along military lines - oops, that will teach me. However, it does illustrate that point that, if the FW goes u/s, the helo will crack on and do the job; albeit with less of a warm fuzzy feeling that they are being looked after.

[Biggus]

DD,

I'm not interested in getting into a p*ssing contest - all I'm trying to do is ensure that people are discussing the situation with as accurate as possible information.

In terms of the requirement for a future MPA, you stated that top cover for SAR helos either isn't happening, or isn't important. All I was trying to do is correct that statement, by pointing out that it is, and it is!!


Enjoy the rest of the thread! :ok:

[thunderbird7]

Thank you Pontious. I believe it was only 2, didn't know about those reasons, just remember seeing a picture of crews sitting on top of floating Atlantiques - who needs liferafts? :)

[Duncan D'Sorderlee]

Biggus,

Happy to be corrected. Moreover, I am certain that whatever platform is carrying out the task, they are doing it as professionally as an MR2 crew would have done.

However, my original point was that, generally, speed is not the limiting factor and that whilst topcover was an important part of Nimrod SAR role, I remain unconvinced that the time taken for an ac (any ac) to get ONSTA would have made a great deal of difference to the job. If it was the case, surely it would be equally important to ensure that our SAR cabs were the fastest available - I'm not sure that they are.

Duncs:ok:

[Jayand]

The big problem here is that the jobs the MR2 used to do were so diverse, it might have been harder to bin it if they layed all their eggs in one basket.
People are arguing on here now about SAR topcover, The government binned nimrod when the main argument was defence of the Nuke subs, ASW. then they argued that we need it for anti shipping and anti terrorist jobs, overland istar etc.
If you are hinging your argument for an MPA replacement on the need for SAR topcover then you have lost already (prob have whatever argument).
Speak to the SAR crews, and they will tell you whilst they liked nimrod present on long range jobs they would quite happily go without one and very often did.

[NURSE]

with SAR about to be civilianised who will be responsible for the top cover then? could we see the coastguard having to operate an MPA?

[Duncan D'Sorderlee]

Jayand,

A fair point - highlighted by DCINC Ops as well! (is that you?)

Topcover was only brought up as one instance whereby speed might be deemed important. I am trying to argue that speed is only one of a multitude of factors that needs to be addressed (I think that, realistically, the most important is cost!) when discussing any future MPA requirement.

Nurse,

Why not? USCG operates MPA. I'm not convinced that we could afford both the military and civil capability; but if there is no ASW threat, surveillance does, in my opinion, become an easier (cheaper) problem to solve.

Duncs. :ok:

[SAMXXV]

Does the UK have any "military secrets" anymore? I think not given that several successive Governments have sold off our technology on the open market.

The UK is beholden to the USA to maintain our Trident nuclear deterrant. If the USA decided to part company with the UK (Highly likely if Argentina get nasty) then our SSBN's will become ineffective within 12 months or so.

There is an imminent US election & Obama will (thankfully) be gone. That will leave a power vacuum, filled by any one of the power mad idiots who can bring in the money. ...

2012 brings severe dangers to the world with the US elections allowing several "good ole' boys" from the deep south to be elected.

Sadly, this world can do without them. We could, of course, treat them like Bin Laden & ask Mossad to assasinate them before they cause International damage - but that ain't goin to happen:sad:

Good ole' USA - try extraditing me today - A Challenge:ok:

[Duncan D'Sorderlee]

And I thought that I was dragging the thread off at a tangent!

Duncs:ok:

[Widger]

jayand has hit the nail on the head. Every discussion about Nimrod ends up talking about SAR. Every paper written, had SAR featuring high and proud at the top. SAR was NOT the most important issue and should always be placed at the bottom of any argument for MPA otherwise, the capability gets cut, because there are other options. Concentrate on the things that only Militray MPAs can do and work from there.

[Duncan D'Sorderlee]

Widger,

You are correct that SAR is not, nor should it be, the highest priority for a military MPA. Although, whilst other options for that are available, I am not aware of any asset providing any sort of SAR cover at the extremities of the UK AOR - I standby to be corrected again!

That said, SAR does provide a high degree of media interest. More than any other tasking, I'd suggest.

I think that the capability requirement, or lack thereof, needs to be determined; we need to determine how much cash the Treasury will give us in order that we can realistically determine the options; then tell HMG what capability we would then posses with our preferential bid. It'll never happen.

Duncs:ok:

[Party Animal]

Sadly the RMPA situation gets worse as time goes on. I genuinely think Foxy understood the need for some form of MPA and would have been a good supporter when the MOD budget was back on line. Unfortunately, we now have a bean counter in charge who I'm sure will get the defence account in order but will probably resist any big ticket expenditures over the next 5 years. Additionally, the initial coalition predictions were that UK plc would be back on some form of economic track by 2015 and our next SDSR. This would probably have been the make or break point for a RMPA. With Foxy pushing and a little easing of finances, we stood a chance. Now the govt are slipping our economic recovery date to the right, we may realistically face a 2015 SDSR with even less money to manage and yet further cuts in capabilities.

Sorry to be a pessimist on here but I just can't see anything good wrt any form of MPA for at least a decade and maybe never again. :{

[Lonewolf_50]

A comment on this:
That said, SAR does provide a high degree of media interest. More than any other tasking, I'd suggest.
It isn't just media interest, it is political capital when you can provide a menu of support to a search and rescue operation in international waters, or to support a nation who is overwhelmed by a maritime catastrophe, or a rapid response is needed in international waters. (As an MPA SAR support to the AF447 crash ...)

It's not just PR, it's political capital.
==
The rest may not be of interest to MPA or SAR, but Sam needs correcting.
Sam: The UK is beholden to the USA to maintain our Trident nuclear deterrant. If the USA decided to part company with the UK (Highly likely if Argentina get nasty) then our SSBN's will become ineffective within 12 months or so.
Not even close to true. Where do you come up with this stuff?
There is an imminent US election & Obama will (thankfully) be gone. That will leave a power vacuum, filled by any one of the power mad idiots who can bring in the money. ...
Not quite, Sam.
A. He may well get re-elected, as his opponents are doing his job for him, in terms of self-discrediting. (In that, your "idiots charge" has some merit).
B. But if he does not, our typical replacement of one President with another does NOT create a power vacuum. To describe American pols with the broad brush of "power mad idiots" is only partly true: if you didn't want power, you'd not be a politician. I don't think Romney is an idiot, though a few of the GOP in the hunt leave me unsettled. (Sorry about the derail)
That doesn't influence MPA much, however.
2012 brings severe dangers to the world with the US elections allowing several "good ole' boys" from the deep south to be elected.
Not likely. Santorum and Romney at the moment are looking electable, and Gingrich is hardly a "good ole boy" from the South.
Sadly, this world can do without them.
The world doesn't get a choice, American voters do. Deal with it.
We could, of course, treat them like Bin Laden & ask Mossad to assasinate them before they cause
Good luck with that, Sam, and if your post gets reported to FBI or Secret Service, do you think they'll have a sense of humor about it? :eek:

[Duncan D'Sorderlee]

Lonewolf 50,

I'd ignore Sam; most other do.

Good point about the FBI/SS though; you got any contacts?:ok:

Duncs:ok:

[Eminence Gris]

Looks like the House of Commons Defence Select Committee will be interested in some of this discussion. New inquiry: Future Maritime Surveillance - News from Parliament - UK Parliament (http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/defence-committee/news/new-inquiry-future-maritime-surveillance/)

EG

[Biggus]

I don't want to keep going on about SAR, as other people have pointed out SAR is a relatively minor, but easy to discuss openly with the public, role of any MPA. The UK has to decide what, if any, capabilities any future MPA requires. The highly specialized, complex and expensive capability of doing independent ASW, so we are talking a P-3, P-8 type aircraft, or a more limited economic zone surface surveillance type role, as fulfilled by something like a CN-235. A much more affordable option. Both types would be more than capable of undertaking SAR tasks...

However,......

As I have said before, I prefer it if people are discussing things based on facts, so I would offer the following input.

SAR is not just a "nice to have", a source of media interest, and political capital. At the end of the day, providing some form of SAR coverage out to 30W is an obligation of the UK government under international treaty, not just something we can simply decide to do or not do as required by the need to save money. I'm sure numerous governments around the world fail to fulfil obligations they have agreed to, perhaps even our own in some areas, but one would assume our politicians of all parties would want the UK to be setting a good example in order to maintain the moral high ground?

[Lonewolf_50]

Biggus: that's a good point, about what has been signed up for via a legal obligation. Whether or not MPA is the platform you use to meet that obligation is a policy level decision.

OT, but possibly of interest For Duncan:

If you go to www.secretservice.gov (http://www.secretservice.gov), you can find a lot of ways to easily contact the security folks if you overhear or suspect a threat against the President, a judge, a Senator, ambassador, or a foreign official who may visit the US. You call the local field office, or a contact number.

If you were in a pub, say, in London, and heard someone discussing (hypothetical here) the First Sea Lord's upcoming visit to Washington (to discuss Naval stuff with his US counterpart, or some conference) and didn't like the tone of voice regarding "the surprise he was in for" or something that made the hair on the back of your neck stand up ... you can (this is all publicly available information) contact someone at a field office.
United States Secret Service: Field Office Contact Information (http://www.secretservice.gov/field_offices.shtml)
For each of the 50 states, they are listed at the link.

I was interested to find that contact numbers are listed for some of our allies.
CANADA
-MONTREAL 1-514-939-8400 x2092
-OTTAWA 1-613-688-5460
-TORONTO 1-416-640-8661
-VANCOUVER 1-604-689-3011
FRANCE (PARIS) 011-331- 4312-7100
FRANCE (INTERPOL / LYON) 011-334-7244-7198
GERMANY (FRANKFURT) 011-49-697-535-3763
ITALY (ROME) 011-390-64-674-2736
NETHERLANDS (EUROPOL / THE HAGUE) 011-3170-353-1533
SPAIN (MADRID) 011-34-91-587-2202
UNITED KINGDOM (LONDON) 011-44-20-7894-0846

The procedure would be: call and advise the PoC of the nature of what you think is a threat.
Example: "Some wag posted the following on the internet that I think is a threat to the (President / First Sea Lord visiting the US / Justice Stephens, whomever), here's the URL address ..."
What one expects is that such is then included in leads that the Secret Service would triage and decide to pursue, or let slide as "not a threat."

Sorry, not about SAR, or MPA, but who knows what one will hear about?

[betty swallox]

Ach Wensleydale. You poor wee man. Moaning about another MPA thread...
Tell you what, if you don't like it...well don't read it!!! You know, you've got a choice. And if you don't like it, don't reply! It's really really easy. There you go. Thanks for comin....

[Donna K Babbs]

Top cover is deemed so important that no-one does it now; I suspect that the helos have better nav kit than they had when we were on RS60.

....and our survey said....

if the FW goes u/s, the helo will crack on and do the job; albeit with less of a warm fuzzy feeling that they are being looked after.

In excess of 150nm from land the decision is not with the Op Capt - it goes significantly further up the food chain.

[Not_a_boffin]

Anyone else intrigued by the photograph that accompanies the HC Defence Ctte's new inquiry into the contribution of the Ministry of Defence (MoD) and UK Armed Forces to the UK’s future requirements for maritime surveillance?

New inquiry: Future Maritime Surveillance - News from Parliament - UK Parliament (http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/defence-committee/news/new-inquiry-future-maritime-surveillance/)

[f4aviation]

Better than a Nimrod image, I guess!

[Neptunus Rex]

The Grumman S2F Tracker was an ASW aircraft, known with affection as the 'Stoof.' The image in the Parliamentary document is of the E1 variant, the 'Stoof with the Roof' which is an AEW aircraft, more a poor man's Sentry rather than Nimrod. It just shows how much the pollies know about ASW.

[Tourist]

Neptunus

"The Grumman S2F Tracker was an ASW aircraft, known with affection as the 'Stoof.' The image in the Parliamentary document is of the E1 variant,"

"It just shows how much the pollies know about ASW"


Oh the irony.

[Not_a_boffin]

And the coppery and brassy as well....

Obviously it ain't just the pollies that don't get it!

[Jayand]

Lonewolf wtf are you on about?

[Wensleydale]

Ach Wensleydale. You poor wee man. Moaning about another MPA thread...
Tell you what, if you don't like it...well don't read it!!! You know, you've got a choice. And if you don't like it, don't reply! It's really really easy. There you go. Thanks for comin....


Two..........

[pipistrelle]

Wensleydale, your sad comments sound like those from a sad individual who maybe has an axe to grind, or maybe someone who wasn't good enough to get into the maritime environment. As BS says you don't have to read this thread or even feel compelled to respond.
ONE,....TWO,... my infant son can count this far - and further! what kind of abstract crap is this. Does it give you a thrill??
Try to reflect your pseudonym and mature.

[BEagle]

Grumman's 'Tracker' was originally the S2F, hence became known as the Stoof. Under the revised US aircraft designation scheme, it became the S-2.

Other variants were a COD transport, the TF-1 'Trader' (later the C-1) and a much modified AEW aircraft, the WF-2 'Tracer', the twin-tailed 'Stoof with a Roof' which became the E-1.

The E-1 was superceded by the E-2 'Hawkeye' and the C-1 by the C-2 'Greyhound'. Finally, in 1975, the S-2 was superceded in the ASW role by the Lockheed S-3 'Viking'. An ELINT version, the ES-3A, was known as the 'Shadow' which replaced the venerable EA-3B 'Skywarrior', a handful of which were still serving in Gulf War One.

The image in the parliamentary document shows an E-2.

[glojo]

More to the point it highlights why our maritime requirements are being kept secret..

That picture was taken from the deck of our 'secret' aircraft carrier and shows this aircraft practising deck landing prior to the ship deploying to the South Atlantic!!

Be warned madame Fernández de Kirchner ;)

[Lonewolf_50]

Jayand, I was responding to Duncan's post on the previous page.
Duncan D'Sorderlee

Lonewolf 50,
I'd ignore Sam; most other do.
Good point about the FBI/SS though; you got any contacts?
Duncs

I did mark it as OT (meaning Off Topic) and appreciate that it may be a bit of thread drift too far, given that it's somewhat related to SAM's diversions ... I'll keep it to MPA in any further input, if any. :O

[Corporal Clott]

Armed Forces: Anti-submarine Warfare

Question
Asked by Lord West of Spithead

To ask Her Majesty's Government whether it is their intention that the United Kingdom's anti-submarine warfare, particularly passive anti-submarine warfare, techniques and training, should be based on nuclear attack submarines, Merlin helicopters and towed array frigate force.[HL15260]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Astor of Hever): The United Kingdom's anti-submarine warfare protection doctrine is designed to counter the threat faced in both deep water and littoral scenarios through the provision of a layered approach to detecting and defending against potential and actual threats. This is based on the utilisation of a range of assets, including nuclear attack submarines, Merlin helicopters and a towed array frigate force.

From Hansard this month - no chance of a new MPA I would say...

[Duncan D'Sorderlee]

Cpl Clott,

Using typical 'political speak', I'd argue that Lord Astor of Hever didn't actually say anything about the Government's intention.

Duncs:ok:

[davejb]

Be fair, he probably only knew to include the Merlin, ASW frigates and SSNs 'cos they'd been mentioned in the question.

Being of an evil bent, had I asked the question it would have included something like 'Towed array Zodiacs' in the query, just to see who was still awake.

[Wensleydale]

ONE,....TWO,... my infant son can count this far - and further! what kind of abstract crap is this. Does it give you a thrill??



Three...........

Perhaps your wit does not extend too far to understand the tone of my contributions to this thread. Buck up!

[betty swallox]

...yawn...

[Wensleydale]

...yawn...


Yep... Thats what I thought about this whole thread. We finally agree.

At least I got some bites from it. As an instructor friend once told me - he knew which personnel were recommended for Maritime because their training reports described them as "Agressively Average".:E

I will now reset my clock and test the theory once more.

[Duncan D'Sorderlee]

I've been 'Aggressively Low Average' in the past - note: check spelling.

Does that count as a bite?

Duncs:ok: