PDA

View Full Version : MPA announced 2015?


Flyga
17th Nov 2012, 10:55
I realise the whole MPA thing has been overdosed on here but after the recent Defence Committee report on 5th Sep 12 does anyone think we can go much longer without one?

Refurbished P-3's? The impressive P-8? CN-295? or even Saab's venture into MPA land?

All hypothetical I know but surely something has to happen...One thing is for sure, it will be all about the money!

Pontius Navigator
17th Nov 2012, 11:59
Buy a job lot of 737 from different airlines and companies and mod them up?

We could have a Mk 1, Mk 2 and a Mk 4 all in one go. Some could be in full MPA rig, some could be part MPA/Pax and some could be Freight. After all the Mk 1 Nimrod was originally an MPA/AT, 46 pax wasn't it?

Siggie
17th Nov 2012, 12:09
Impressive P8? Really? I've seen the console demonstrators and it's a big step backwards from current platforms.

Flyga
17th Nov 2012, 12:26
Can just imagine the line at Waddo or wherever with the crews fighting for the 737-800 over the old Britannia 737-300...."you had the 800 last time, that's not fair"!

In what way is the P-8 a step back? genuine question

Finnpog
17th Nov 2012, 13:08
It is a step back from all of those current MPA options in service for the UK:E

Pontius Navigator
17th Nov 2012, 13:26
That O'Leary fellow might be interested in a buy and lease back option.

Siggie
17th Nov 2012, 21:11
FLYGA

1. The RADAR. (Similar to the old death ray)

2. Operating altitude: Yes, it can go low level, but a lot of mention is being made of High Level ASUW and ASW with all the baggage that brings.

3. A different variant, the P8 AGS will be needed to do overland ISR.

4. No MAD

quote from AOL Defence:

In particular, after some waffling back and forth, the Navy decided to leave off a sensor called the Magnetic Anomaly Detector (MAD), which can detect the metal hulls of submarines -- if the plane flies low enough. MAD was crucial to the P-3's traditional low-altitude tactics. Significantly, the P-8 variant that Boeing is building for the Indian Navy will still have it; only the US Navy P-8 will not. Both Rondeau and Boeing argue that the P-8 can more than compensate with more sophisticated sensors and by using its superior computing power to interpret their data.

The crews that saw it were unimpressed.

FINNPOG

It is a step back from all of those current MPA options in service for the UK

I never said MPA options in service for the UK, I said current platforms.

servodyne
17th Nov 2012, 22:56
The problem is always going to be money.
Having seen the house of commons fighting over Europe/aid/ and all things financial, defence will be the last thought on their minds.

MPA is important but unless the UK looks at other options they can afford, nothing will happen. The RAF needs to be able to justify 'bang for buck' and with the inter service infighting (to protect pet projects) which always happens when the purse strings are tightened their request must demonstrate cost against capability to stand out from the crowd.

The RAF could have a capable MPA, (maybe not the best) able to perform the role that is required and deal with current or potential threats whilst possessing the ability to expand its capabilities at a future date.

The UK already owns C130J aircraft,Lockeed have produced a good quality roll on roll off MPA package.This option could get the UK back in the air and provide a credible MPA capability at low cost. 4 kits would be cheaper than a P8 and readily available.

Everyone would like P8s, they are an outstanding aircraft but right now in the current political climate, they're too expensive to justify.

hanfimar
18th Nov 2012, 08:11
Well, how about Nimrod MRA4 - already paid for, and with only annual running costs to come, Oh, sorry....

From this weeks Northern Scot:

Sir,

I refer to the recently published report by the House of Commons Defence Committee on Future Maritime Surveillance.

It is a great pity that more attention was not paid to my letter, written to the Prime Minister at the time of SDSR, and before the Nimrod force was disbanded and Nimrod MRA4 destroyed at huge cost to the tax payer.

The lack of foresight and support from the upper echelons of the Royal Air Force was, and is also highly regrettable. The re-introduction of a manned Maritime Patrol Aircraft to protect our national interests should now be our number one defence priority.

and sent post SDSR:

Dear Mr Cameron,

I apologise for the open nature of this letter, but time is of the essence and the subject too important to allow for the luxury of private correspondence.

I refer to the cancellation of Nimrod MRA4 and the closure of Royal Air Force Kinloss to flying operations. The effect of this decision on local jobs, businesses and on the economy of Moray has been well aired, and rightly so. Of even greater concern to me and my family (despite the probable loss of my own job) is the effect this decision will have on the security and well being of the United Kingdom.

We are an island nation with the sea lanes still our main source of supply and trade. We are a nation active in world politics with ambitions for the future and a long history which has not endeared us to all members of a very mobile world population. In these days of international terrorism, drug running and our reliance on an underwater nuclear deterrent, it is utter folly to end our maritime patrol aircraft (MPA) capability.

We must have an airborne capability, even in these times of financial restraint. The need for long range reconnaissance, anti-submarine operations and a search and rescue capability has barely diminished, and the need for electronic and optical surveillance and intelligence gathering has increased to meet modern threats.

Why on earth then, have we cancelled Nimrod MRA4? Being late and over budget does not equate to being no good, and to summarily cancel without reference to current capability and future potential is unacceptable. MRA4 is a platform with 15 hours unrefueled flight duration, a 2,000 plus mile radius of action, 13 weapon hard points, radar range of 250 miles, is search and rescue capable, has advanced communications, superior electro optics for surface intelligence gathering and has very capable underwater detection systems. All integrated, working and demonstrated – AND ALREADY PAID FOR. At Royal Air Force Kinloss the training and support infrastructure is already in place and to disband such established facilities that support a very capable MPA is unforgiveable.

Unless this decision is reversed, people will die – as a result of unresolved search and rescue incidents, undetected drug and terrorist imports and missed intelligence. Our nuclear deterrent will be less secure and possibly rendered useless putting our whole nation at risk.

Mr Cameron, please hear these points from someone who has over 30 years military experience both within industry and the RAF. I have 5,000 flying hours as both Navigator and Pilot plus 5,000 hours of instructional experience in the Nimrod flight simulator. Approaching retirement, I have no axe to grind other than the well being of future generations, and of my country.

You say we cannot afford a maritime patrol aircraft capability. Prime Minister, the Nation cannot afford to be without.

Yours sincerely,


Hanfimar.

Pontius Navigator
18th Nov 2012, 09:14
Has that letter been sitting in the in-tray for months awaiting a quiet news day?

It is in the present tense MRA4 is a platform or near past when we all know that the dust has settled and the scrap merchants made a killing.

Heathrow Harry
18th Nov 2012, 09:21
I doubt anyone in a position of power is thinking of replacing half the supposed capabilities of the never delivered MR4

Given that the Russian Navy is a shadow of its former self that is understandable - we really don't require the capacity to chase SSBN's any more

A cheapish replacement for patrolling the country's Marine Economic Zone is what is required - off the shelf (i.e keep BAe away from it at all costs), cheap to run - some refurbed P-3's would be ideal but I suspect it'll be a small buy of P-8's with the maintenance outsourced to a UK commercial operator

Lima Juliet
18th Nov 2012, 09:37
There s a very good reason why P8 doesn't have a Magnetic Anomaly Detector (MAD) Boom - they don't need one! There are lots of more modern detction and remote sensing techniques that have been developed since MAD (I could tell you but then I'd have to kill you).

The outdated, overpriced and overdue MRA4 is dead - get over it.

Now, the idea of using the C130Js when the also overdue and overpriced A400M comes into service - now that is a cracking idea. In fact with more defence cuts looming in 2015's SDSR it might be the only 'good news' story that can be spun for the RAF.

LJ

Ivan Rogov
18th Nov 2012, 09:44
Harry, much of your post is wrong. I'm affraid you will just have to take my word on that.

Corporal Clott
18th Nov 2012, 09:46
What LJ said ^^^^ :D:D

Plus, whilst we're at it. Don't put any new MPA up in the back end of beyond in Moray. If the quote from Hanfimar that people will die from lack of SAR and drug/firearms running - then put the new aircraft in the middle of the UK so they can reach all of our sea borders with equal reaction time.

Also, using the C130J we could set up the use of Reservist aircrew to man the capability - never deployed but just looking after home interests. That would save a load of money.

CPL Clott

Pontius Navigator
18th Nov 2012, 10:11
Ivan, you said it more eloquently that I.

Ivan Rogov
18th Nov 2012, 10:39
Chaps, the C130J and A400 ideas are nothing more than concepts. Every future project I have seen promises the earth within budget, in reality they rarely, if ever produce the promised capabilities on time or in budget.

The cost isn't just in the airframes; you need a huge support train for a multi-sensor aircraft on top of the existing airframe support contracts. For C130J that would be, maintaining an ageing airframe (with probable legacy issues already) to operate in a low level maritime environment (fatigue and corrosion?), plus this miracle plug in pallet solution which will be massively harder to develop and maintain than the picture of a box on the concept drawing. Don't forget the crews need training and practice so you need mission simulators, as the airframes will hardly ever be available. All for a hugely compromised capabilities which would hardly ever be available, and not at the same time you require AT (like in a conflict perhaps?)

Haven't we learnt the false economy of recycling our airframes, and the massive issues it causes? Swiss army knife solutions normally end up as declared capabilities sat in the corner of a hangar that the engineers and aircrew know don’t work properly if at all.

Off the shelf developed hardware with future potential that is already being operated by others is the only sensible option, the only question is what is our requirement? If it remains high end ASW then P-3 or P-8 are the only sensible solutions.

We will be able to fit 8 – 10 at Waddington when the E-3D is cancelled next year and we join the NATO E-3 pool and forward base them :} (now that would save money, where is that GEMS form!)

Ivan Rogov
18th Nov 2012, 10:40
PN, thanks. That's the first time anyone has accused me of being eloquent ;)

Flyga
18th Nov 2012, 10:41
Have to agree with all in the letter and understandable why people are still annoyed and even in shock regarding such a folly decision by those in power.

But time has moved on hence the debate about what comes next. From has been documented and reading between the lines of the DC report an MPA must happen; it is a case of what do we need it to do?, how much? and when do we need it (now!)? P-8 seems logical with the UK input stateside but could we ever sustain such costs? C130J seems logical but they suffer massively from reliability issues, which leaves ;off-the-shelf alternatives. CN-295, SAAB 2000 may be more realistic??? So many more questions than answers but I think everyone agrees the need...

RileyDove
18th Nov 2012, 10:55
We can afford P-8 if we loose a platform. Therefore Tornado with an out of service date of 2019 would seem a good candidate for early retirement post Afghanistan.

aw ditor
18th Nov 2012, 11:01
Base in the centre(ish) of the UK? ISTR the Neptunes (P2s') were based at Topcliffe.>

Wensleydale
18th Nov 2012, 11:06
http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/badteeth.gif[/IMG]
(now that would save money, where is that GEMS form!)


Actually, not true....

The UK is a signatory of the NATO AEW Force. Our contribution to that force is 6 x E-3D aircraft. If we scrap the E-3D and "join" the NATO force then we will have to find money to contribute to the costs of the NATO E-3A, and considering the costs being incurred in their troubled mid-life update then I think that we would lose out on the deal (although much depends upon E-3D update costs in the next 10 years of course).

Flyga
18th Nov 2012, 11:28
RAF Waddington is a cert!

Sir George Cayley
18th Nov 2012, 11:36
Maybe a slight thread drift, but where does Pop Rivet fit in all of this?

SGC

Ivan Rogov
18th Nov 2012, 11:40
Wensleydale, was just starting a rumour but you raise a very important point

although much depends upon E-3D update costs in the next 10 years of course

and

NATO E-3A, and considering the costs being incurred in their troubled mid-life update

So basically they are almost through the problems that seem to hit most military projects, we haven't even started yet! And this time we don't have a blank cheque. I know where you are coming from re. the costs but I don't believe it would cost us as much as operating our own bespoke fleet with its support cost, etc.

Siggie
18th Nov 2012, 12:01
Re removal of MAD:

For some of the new sub-hunting technologies, Rondeau argued, going higher actually gives you a better look. Today, for example, one key tool is a kind of air-dropped buoy that hits the water and then explodes, sending out a powerful pulse of sound that travels a long way through the water and reflects off the hulls of submarines, creating sonar signals that other, listening-device buoys then pick up. (The technical name is Improved Extended Echo Ranging, or IEER). Obviously, an explosive buoy can only be used once, and the sonar signal its detonation generates is not precisely calibrated. So the Navy is developing a new kind of buoy called MAC (Multistatic Active Coherent), which generates sound electronically, allowing it to emit multiple, precise pulses before its battery runs down.

"It will last longer and you're able to do more things with it," Rondeau said. And because a field of MAC buoys can cover a wider search area, he said, "we need to stay up high... to be able to receive data from all these buoys and control all these buoys at the same time."

LJ, I assume that these are the 'more modern and remote sensors' of which you speak.

Hope the MAC buoys are really good - attack criteria is going to rely an awful lot on it.

BTW, I totally agree the MRA4 is dead, that is why we are discussing possible replacement platforms.

The Indians need to be informed that they are totally wrong in insisting that MAD be fitted.

hval
18th Nov 2012, 12:48
Heathrow Harry,

Given that the Russian Navy is a shadow of its former self that is understandable - we really don't require the capacity to chase SSBN's any more

1/ The Russians are not, and will not, be the only threat the UK need to face

2/ LRMPA is not just about those damn boats that keep sinking

3/ Russia is constructing submarines to replace those that go out of service as they come to the end of their life. These new submarines are proving to be quite effective. Have a wee read of this short article here (http://russiamil.wordpress.com/2012/03/06/a-new-push-for-nuclear-submarine-development/)

4/ The Chinese are developing their own fleet of modern submarines. China has stated that it wishes to be able to back up its status as a super power through projection of its military. To this end it is developing and upgrading all systems, including aircraft, aircraft carriers, submarines, destroyers, frigates etc.

5/ Russia and China are not the only potential aggressors for the UK.

6/ UK interests are not just the defence of the UK, but also the defence of UK interests. UK interests includes continuation of food supplies, protection of allies, intelligence collection

7/ LRMPA work well either above the sea or above land.

Lima Juliet
18th Nov 2012, 13:18
Nah, C-130J 'Sea Hercules' is the way to go... http://www.lockheedmartin.co.uk/content/dam/lockheed/data/aero/documents/global-sustainment/product-support/2011HOC-Presentations/Wed_1530-Maritime_Aircraft.pdf

Bags of radius, bags of time on task, AAR capable, good mission kit and who fancies Small Diameter Bomb, Hellfire, Harpoon and a 30mm cannon for those pesky drug smugglers?!!! :ok:

RAF Scampton, Leeming, Wittering or Cranwell aren't too busy and are pretty central.

LJ

PS. The J model was obviously so unsuited to Maritime roles that the US Coastguard have just placed another order for more last month! :ugh:

U.S. Coast Guard Adds To C-130J Fleet (http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=/article-xml/asd_10_02_2012_p04-01-502077.xml)

Lima Juliet
18th Nov 2012, 13:25
Siggie

LJ, I assume that these are the 'more modern and remote sensors' of which you speak.

Nope! :ok:

BEagle
18th Nov 2012, 13:48
Base in the centre(ish) of the UK? ISTR the Neptunes (P2s) were based at Topcliffe.

The Topcliffe-based Neptunes of 1435 Flt were not used for MPA work. Their cover identity was 'airborne early warning'; however, there is some speculation that they might have been used for more sensitive work.....

hval
18th Nov 2012, 14:20
BEagle,

Was that taking photographs of targets on the nudist beach at Winsen Aller near Celle?

Phoney Tony
18th Nov 2012, 16:42
The last deployment of a Nimrod to the Eastern Mediterranean provoked a tirade of stories from 142 Sqn’s Maritime Mac. Memories of his time on 204 Sqn, crew 10 flying out of RAF St Mawgloss provided an insight of his past exploits flying countless ASWEXs, TRACKEXs, CASEXs and SCALETRIXs. Clearly moved, he recounted how, almost single handily, his Sqn had kept he Soviet submarine hordes at bay flying aggressive diet defying patrols low over the blue and briny. It was obvious Maritime Mac had lost none of the banter, talk of little buoys, deployed in rows, braced against lines of penetration brought tears to his eyes. Unfortunately, hours of probing every crevice of the Soviet Navies Armour had taken made its mark on Mac, his mind being programmed to react, like Pavlov’s dog, to special words and phrases. ‘Mark Mark’ he shouts when startled from a quiet moment of thought. Looking around a little disoriented and embarrassed he explains to others in the boutique that he was sure he had spotted a Stork and Mask trying to evade capture.

Other members of the elite ex-maritime club joined Mac in the telling of Maritime Myths. Hours of fun on the Marlin Head, sandwich fillings, Mars Bars and Radar Homeboys. Joining the ASDA cue and being sent off to protect limiting lines of submerged approach and not really understanding what that meant but trying your best for Queen and Country. Quiet huddles where knowing glances and much touching of noses were seen on several occasions, signifying a mutual awareness of something special that non-ex-maritimers were not privy; Operation TAPESTRY, 8 hours of needle work and crochet or Operation COUNTERSTROKE, an even longer mission caressing the scruff bar’s top surfaces. See far shadow and near-field drop out jokes were a plenty as were stories of how much you can eat on SAR without having to pay a penny.

During the Akrotiri detachment Mac was also seen in the company of ex-maritime pilots who tell unbelievable stories of flying with engines turned off and using more than 7 degrees of bank. Maritime Mac reminded one gathering of salty dogs of a trip when they got airborne from RAF Mawgloss flew for only 2 hours and landed somewhere foreign. At this place they also had Nimrods but most of them did not work and the crewmembers were all called Duncan or Frazer and smelled of 70/-. All the women in this strange cold place had red hair and freckles. Nobody could remember where the place was but all agreed that they did not want to go back!

Hueymeister
18th Nov 2012, 17:31
Plug-in, roll-on/off kit requires lots of airframe mods and holes cutting in ac skins for aerials etc. Costly and time consuming..

Pontius Navigator
18th Nov 2012, 18:02
PT, you needed to be there :D:D

Flyga
18th Nov 2012, 18:36
seems everyone is at it...

FARNBOROUGH: Saab 2000 offered as Swordfish MPA (http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/farnborough-saab-2000-offered-as-swordfish-mpa-373987/)

Pontius Navigator
18th Nov 2012, 19:06
4/ The Chinese are developing their own fleet of modern submarines. China has stated that it wishes to be able to back up its status as a super power through projection of its military. To this end it is developing and upgrading all systems, including aircraft, aircraft carriers, submarines, destroyers, frigates etc.

It might be comforting to consider China as a threat that we need to defend against but that is a pipe dream. We withdrew from east of Suez many years ago and only returned to the middle east more recently. To consider a force capable of operations in the Pacific that is an even bigger pipe dream.

Any UK MPA should be established for a credible threat to the UK base and not for some notional global role.

hval
18th Nov 2012, 19:27
Pontious Navigator,

Plenty of goods that we import come from around the Pacific. If threatened there might be a requirement to provide some form of insurance. You are correct that we would be unlikely to deploy to the Pacific, for the reasons stated and due to the fact that we do not currently have the necessary resources, but who knows.


Something I did leave of my list was anti piracy coordination.

iRaven
18th Nov 2012, 19:34
Huey


Plug-in, roll-on/off kit requires lots of airframe mods and holes cutting in ac skins for aerials etc. Costly and time consuming..


But the drawings and development has already been done (Google SC-130J and Coastguard C-130J). Marshalls of Cambridge have agreed to do the work. It's cheap and when A400M comes on line we will have some surplus C-130Js.

Seems a no-brainer to me :confused:

iRaven

Hueymeister
18th Nov 2012, 19:52
Sadly no brainer and common sense rarely make an impact on 'Smart Procurement'...

Pontius Navigator
18th Nov 2012, 20:02
hval, indupitably. However in a resources race there is no obvious way that we could extend any significant or realistic military force against another world power.

Whilst a multi-capable maritime weapons system could effect anti-piracy coordination, do you need something like an MPA? There are plenty of other platforms that can do that.

Didn't someone just say that it was a nonsense piting a half billion pound warship against a rust bucket pirate ship and a skiff with an outboard motor. Add the astronomic cost of an MRA4 and you would be well into fairy land.

Ivan Rogov
18th Nov 2012, 20:11
LJ thanks for the link, it sounds so simple to build an MPA. It failed to mention ASW which is our core requirement, or compare the operating cost per hour with the various real MPA platforms.

Not much ground clearance to load the bombays shown in some photos, also looks like the radar is a compromise due to available space and not as capable as real LRMPA.

USCG have a very different mission requirement, we have a separate AT fleet. As for A2G weapons, we needed them 10 years ago but it never happened.

If it could actually do all the things LM say (and ASW) and our service were forward thinking enough to get all the options to give it all the extra capabilities it would be great, sounds very expensive though.

Re SAAB 2000 MPA, it also only exists on paper.

P-3 or P-8 are the only sensible option for our requirement, perhaps updated Atlantique 2.

I'm not the biggest P-8 fan but it will do what we want and a future force of ISR platforms based on the 737 airframe would make a lot of sense,
Lexington Institute (http://www.lexingtoninstitute.org/modernizing-the-air-forces-electronic-aircraft-fleet?a=1&c=1129)
MPA in 5 years, AEW in 10 years and ELINT/SIGINT in 15 years and we have a 'common' fleet with mahoosive savings in so many areas, another GEMS! It will never happen :(

Wensleydale
18th Nov 2012, 20:15
Ref E-3 updates....

The costs of joining the NATO fleet would be significantly higher..... NATO Mid-term still needs work as far as I am aware.

Lima Juliet
18th Nov 2012, 20:36
Ivan

If you want ASW then C-130J can do it...

http://www.lockheedmartin.com/content/dam/lockheed/data/aero/photos/c-130/Variants/M12-1166510A002%20SC-130J%20Sea%20Herc%20Bro%20Media.pdf

They'll even throw a MAD on the back for those that want/need it! :ok:

No, I don't work for LM, before anyone asks. I just want value for money and the C-130J would likely provide that and also keep Marshalls ticking along for a few years (and I don't work them either!).

LJ :ok:

reynoldsno1
18th Nov 2012, 20:51
MAD was crucial to the P-3's traditional low-altitude tactics

That's what they would like you to think, but "crucial" it wasn't. There is a big difference between detecting a submarine and tracking a submarine - and is very much dependent on the type of submarine involved.

Bannock
18th Nov 2012, 21:28
The unit cost of a P-8A Poseidon is $176.0 million (flyaway cost) or $197.8 million incl. support costs. The airframe costs $111.43 million, the two CFM56-7B (http://www.bga-aeroweb.com/Engines/CFM56-F108.html) engines cost $20 million ($10 million each), and the avionics costs $31.57 million.

I had a tour of a Canadian CP140 Aurora Block 3 last year at Trinats. It was very impressive. The sensors and mission suite all top drawer, new wings and four engines, good to go for another 20 years. 12 hours endurance using a fraction of the fuel the old Nimrod put away. All this for 30 million quid a pop.

Now do the maths.

One shiny new unproven jet or 6 modernised arse kickers.

Many thanks to the Canadian crew and its seedcorn lads for the hospitality.

iRaven
18th Nov 2012, 21:48
Bannock

I've done some more maths...

The unit price for the P8 including support is an absolute steal! That's about £120M per copy including support. If we had bought these instead of wasting time and money on MRA4 then we could have bought 30x P8s for the money...:eek::eek::eek:

The Govt were right to chop MRA4 - any more money to those shisters that claim they have British interests at heart would have been an absolute travesty!

:mad:ing w@nk€rs

Pontius Navigator
19th Nov 2012, 07:27
iRaven, there is of course the counter argument that one is money out of the country and the other is money that returns in taxes. That of course was the money saving driver on the F4, C130 and E3 deals where offset orders of British kit was installed.

Roland Pulfrew
19th Nov 2012, 08:05
PS. The J model was obviously so unsuited to Maritime roles that the US Coastguard have just placed another order for more last month!

LJ - The US Coastguard C130s may be absolutely brilliant at the surface surveillance piece, but that is only one part of the role for a proper MPA. And there is quite a bit of difference in performance when you start hanging additional kit on the outside of an airframe. Do your Js have hardpoints for 6+ ASW weapons? And at what cost to time and performance? Beware of snake oil salesmen promising everything (we might remember the issues that we had with the J when it came into service in its primary role). Do our Js have hardpoints that are plumbed and wired for weapons? And as to the SC130J Sea Herc MPA - can you imagine the costs involved in converting our Js into Sea Herks? I'm just not convinced that something that is a design concept will be much cheaper than the existing options - and a lot depends upon whether your government views your role as world player, or a second rate nation.

PN:

Whilst a multi-capable maritime weapons system could effect anti-piracy coordination, do you need something like an MPA? There are plenty of other platforms that can do that.



Are there? The reports that appear in Jane's seem to suggest that the one thing missing from anti-piracy ops (certainly in the Horn of Africa) is the availability of a properly equipped long-range MPA.

Heathrow Harry
19th Nov 2012, 08:06
Pontius - the point of ordering aircraft is that someone will actually deliver them - the "churn the money around inside the country " argument is normally disposed of in the first week of any Economics degree course

We'd have to make EVERYTHING here if that's the theory

Wensleydale
19th Nov 2012, 08:08
...there is of course the counter argument that one is money out of the
country and the other is money that returns in taxes. That of course was the
money saving driver on the F4, C130 and E3 deals where offset orders of British
kit was installed.


The problem with new British kit is that you arrange a price with the manufacturer - the MOD bean counter agrees the price then you find that you have to pay UK VAT on it (depending upon whether it is replacement or new capability). The treasury grumbles and there is a delay for a year while government departments argue about getting extra money that will be paid straight back into the same acount. I am sure that there are people more expert than I who know the applicable rules, but it is really frustrating when all seems arranged then this extra stumbling block of interpretation of the rules explodes in your face.

fincastle84
19th Nov 2012, 08:43
It looks as though the Soviets are starting to flex their muscles & underwater capabilities again. http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/wibble.gif

Sierra-2 Russian submarine: Navy detects Russian Northern Fleet attack sub off U.S. East Coast (http://wptv.com/dpp/news/state/sierra-2-russian-submarine-navy-detects-russian-northern-fleet-attack-sub-off-us-east-coast)

servodyne
19th Nov 2012, 09:08
The current quotes from Lockheed are that the C130 J will have systems from the latest P3 with the addition of open architecture to allow for system expansion or upgrades.

You can have full ASW/ASUW capability dependant on service requirements. Weapons bays are attached on the fuselarge as well as 4 wing hardpoints. The system is designed to be roll on roll off in a day.

The current bumf that Lockheed has released (even if it is the sales pitch) states that only minor testing is required for the system to be ready to progress to the installation phase. They also quote the UK as one of their primary targets for the equipment fit.

Could be the way ahead.

kbrockman
19th Nov 2012, 09:55
Didn't Japan change its defence industry laws recently to be able to be involved in international defense projects (ala JSF) and as such are now also able to sell some of their homegrown defense products to partnering nations?

So why not their Kawasaki P-1 MPA; (if its any good??).
Looks like a 21st century P3.
http://aviationweek.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/2007/06/03/1904px.gif

EW73
19th Nov 2012, 10:01
Servodyne, with respect you've got to be kidding...

The refurbished P-3C is a so much better alternative, and the Poms will get to fit their own internal kit.
It's the only one with a three-man flight crew, something that, believe me, is very, very important when you get to fly 12 to 14 hour missions, and also want to start shutting down engines inflight for fuel economy.
It's a proven platform, there's still many of them in use around the world, and they are available moderately quickly!
Anyone who wants to fly these types of very long missions with two crew, is advertising his ignorance of the issues involved!
That includes P8, C130J and AEW&C.

As an aside, hey brockman, I think it looks like an 18th century Argese!!

Pontius Navigator
19th Nov 2012, 10:09
HH, I was not advocating that economic theory. That I mentioned the F4 should have given a clue - British engines, British INAS - CoG problems, re-engineer the back end etc etc.

RP, the bit I was trying to focus on was multi-capable maritime weapons system as you need a good surface surveillance and comms fit but what else? A P3/P8 etc would be lugging a hugely expensive ASW kit around for much of the time. I know there is a potential use of sonics but I won't go there.

TurningFinals
19th Nov 2012, 10:17
Saab 2000 MPA (http://www.saabgroup.com/en/Air/Airborne-Solutions/Airborne-Surveillance/Maritime_Surveillance/Saab_2000_MPA/)

Much cheaper than the P8, they are little work horses, much smaller than the P8 so they'll need a much smaller space for a squadron and up to 9 hours endurance.

Flyga
19th Nov 2012, 10:30
I dare say a lot cheaper too and when it comes down to it, as has been demonstrated with previous decisions, money will dictate what the UK ends up with.

charliegolf
19th Nov 2012, 10:51
Can just imagine the line at Waddo or wherever with the crews fighting for the 737-800 over the old Britannia 737-300...."you had the 800 last time, that's not fair"!



An ancient Air Eng on 33 used to tell of his time on post-war Lancs- "We'd drive along the line before a trip, and say, 'That one!' It would be the one with the least oil all over it."

There was a choice in them days, evidently.

CG

TBM-Legend
19th Nov 2012, 11:09
Let's make a deal!

Swap some Typhoons for some P-1's. The Japanese do have a history of ASW and a rather large fleet of P-3's that followed an even larger fleet of P-2's and S-2's....or are we only interested in their cars and TV's??:rolleyes:

Heathrow Harry
19th Nov 2012, 11:30
EW73

Why do we need 12-14 hour missions?

I can see the need for persistence in ASW operations but for straight marine patrol surely it's the amount of sea you cover in one mission that is important and speed can make up for a lot of wandering about with engines switched off at a couple of hundred knots

If you can't land to pick anyone up most ASR really doesn't need someone turning circles over the "incident" all day every day until the surface fleet turns up

Wensleydale
19th Nov 2012, 11:37
Why do we need 12-14 hour missions?

The WSOps need that time to eat through all the Pies & DCS.

Flyga
19th Nov 2012, 20:01
A sufficient galley must be a key consideration in any future MPA!

Biggus
19th Nov 2012, 20:34
This thread is entitled "MPA announced 2015?". The question mark implies that it is actually a question - to which the short answer is NO! As to the long answer...


A couple of points to consider. First of all, the proposed SDSR in 2015. When exactly is this SDSR going to be held? The next UK general election is on 7th May 2015. So, is the SDSR held before then? If it is, and the current lot don't stay in power, then an incoming Labour government will wish to make its own assessment rather than follow a coalition plan. If an SDSR is delayed until after the election and Labour get in, they aren't obliged to hold one at all, and if they do it will at a time of their own choosing, which might not be until 2016/17. Even if the coalition get back in, I can't see them having an SDSR before the election, so it probably wouldn't be until very late 2015 even in this (unlikely) scenario.

Even if there is an SDSR around about 2015, it doesn't alter the fact that the country will still be broke, and defence isn't a vote winner. We will have pulled our troops back from Afghanistan by then, and I can only see more reductions being required in order to save money, such as cut backs to the Army, the SH, fleet, etc. Extra expenditure on a "new" capability just isn't going to happen.

So take off the rose tinted glasses. While the UK may indeed need some form of fixed wing, land based, maritime patrol aircraft, the reality of the situation is such that it is highly unlikely to be ordered as the result of a 2015 SDSR!

HAS59
19th Nov 2012, 21:00
there might just be a General Election before 2015

Flyga
19th Nov 2012, 21:24
Your opinion Biggus but there is evidence out there saying otherwise so I think your wrong. Oh, and I don't wear spectacles rose-tinted or otherwise!

Biggus
19th Nov 2012, 21:24
Maybe, but not very likely.....


Further evidence that we are still going to be broke in 2015:

Industry: 60% of U.K. ‘White Board’ Programs Could Be Cut | Defense News | defensenews.com (http://www.defensenews.com/article/20121117/DEFREG01/311170001/Industry-60-U-K-8216-White-Board-8217-Programs-Could-Cut?odyssey=tab|topnews|text|FRONTPAGE)

Indeed someones just started a new thread on the basis of this article!

pr00ne
19th Nov 2012, 22:57
BEagle.


The three squadrons of Neptune MR1's based along side Vanguard Flight st Topcliffe WERE used as MPA though.

betty swallox
20th Nov 2012, 00:54
Loving all the absolute tosh spoken about ASW on this thread! As they say, a little bit of knowledge...

Heathrow Harry, see the Fincastle 84 post...

The Old Fat One
20th Nov 2012, 06:39
Your opinion Biggus but there is evidence out there saying otherwise so I think your wrong. Oh, and I don't wear spectacles rose-tinted or otherwise!

Not quite sure what part of Biggus's post you think is wrong, but if your "evidence" suggests an economic turnround by 2015 its going to be more drug-induced than rose-tinted.

As has already been suggested on this thread - amongst all the usual tosh about MPA platforms - getting a new kite in is only a small part of the problem. An operational MPA force needs a support element of 2000-3000 people (perhaps a bit less if we re-establish the capability within RN). That's a whole lot of people to recruit/train and pay.

On the other hand I believe there is new ad out for recruiting WSOPs, including WSOPs for ASW duties...is this just a **** up, or does someone know something is in the offing??

QTRZulu
20th Nov 2012, 07:57
I second what Betty said:D

It's Life Jim 208
20th Nov 2012, 08:25
Beagle you were right the four Neptunes on 1453Flt were not MPA, however, they were not used for anything clandestine either.

They were conducting AEW trials from Jan 53 to Jun 56, I have been to Kew and have their trials report and version of the Fm540. Both make very interesting reading and their results are one of the main reasons that we didn't get an RAF overland AEW capabilty until 1972! Now there's a capability gap for you!

Ian

servodyne
20th Nov 2012, 08:34
EW 73
Being a 3rd seater myself I am well aware of the benefits of a 3 crew flight deck especially when operating low level in the Nimrod however, we were discussing low cost and quick procurement options for a UK MPA platform.

P3s are old aeroplanes that would require a refit and probably cost more overall with support equipment for the air vehicle as well as the on board kit not to mention the time scales involved.
The UK has already paid for the aircraft ( C130J) which means they would require the MPA fit only timescales would also be favourable. No one is suggesting they shut down engines like a P3 or a Nimrod, frankly shutting down perfectly serviceable engines whilst operating at 200' used to scare the S*** out of me! ;)

Wensleydale
20th Nov 2012, 08:57
Neptune...their results are one of the main reasons that we didn't get an RAF overland
AEW capabilty until 1972!


The Neptune used the same APS-20 radar as the AEW Shackleton - the radar only had an oversea capability. The UK had no overland AEW capability until the Sentry AEW1 arrived in 1991 (unless you meant land based AEW).

Flyga
20th Nov 2012, 09:45
- amongst all the usual tosh about MPA platforms -

Really surprised with all the MPA bashing that goes on. The question was an MPA in 2015? If you think the answer is no then fine but there is clearly a need for one as admitted by the Gov. and MOD so there is absolute logic as to why people may speculate on here about a replacement to Nimrod. After all the R in PPRUNE is 'Rumour'!!!

MFC_Fly
20th Nov 2012, 10:54
- amongst all the usual tosh about MPA platforms -Really surprised with all the MPA bashing that goes on. The question was an MPA in 2015? If you think the answer is no then fine but there is clearly a need for one as admitted by the Gov. and MOD so there is absolute logic as to why people may speculate on here about a replacement to Nimrod. After all the R in PPRuNe is 'Rumour'!!! I think B-S was commenting about people posting about the roles, capabilities, equipment, etc, of MPA when they don't have a clue what they are talking about. I have had quite a few chuckles to myself reading some of the misinformed drivel that some (with obviously no MPA experience) have come out with in this thread.

The sad part is that those in power seem to have the same total lack of knowledge :ugh:

Flyga
20th Nov 2012, 11:03
MFC Fly

Couldn't agree more!

betty swallox
20th Nov 2012, 14:26
...what MFC fly said!

The B Word
20th Nov 2012, 20:34
with obviously no MPA experience

Oh, it's such a difficult job that for years we sent our best people to that role (not!). How hard can it be to fly a large 4-engined jet around over the flat oggsplosh, throw a few sensors out and wait for them to report in, have a squint with the radar at a largely flat terrain for anything metal sticking out and look for large lumps of metal distorting the magnetic field. If it was such an involved job then you wouldn't find time to eat a crate of stew and a dozen dairy-cream sponges. Even the targets are slow at a maximum 40kts in most cases, nothing to hide behind apart from a large expanse of water horizontally or vertically; and those that want rescuing are polite enough to use flares or locator beacons to help our greatest aviators find them...:ugh:









http://www.outdoor-sport-leisure.net/images/fishing-2.jpg

...have I got one yet?

brokenlink
20th Nov 2012, 20:39
Yes but the crews in the back would have to stand up!

Pontius Navigator
20th Nov 2012, 21:06
B Word, almost, almost . . .

Duncan D'Sorderlee
20th Nov 2012, 21:07
B-Word,

I'll admit it. I (very nearly) took the hook, line and sinker. Bravo!

Duncs:ok:

The B Word
20th Nov 2012, 21:16
Need a bigger rod to catch some of those DCS-fed Master Aircrew...:ok:

http://www.jokeroo.com/tm.b5mv.9fba.jpg

Lima Juliet
20th Nov 2012, 21:49
To quote a famous movie..."You're going to need a bigger boat"!

pitotheat
20th Nov 2012, 22:40
If the RN aren't making a case for LRMPA then how can the RAF make the case? Move on there is nothing to see here.

orca
21st Nov 2012, 04:41
If I may. I am not a MPA type but have had a fondness for them throughout my career. I know not much of what they do. I tried to pay attention to the salinity and temperature stuff the metocs used to come up with...but never understood it. However:-

If I, being a carrier orientated type bloke, and a MPA sort were stood in front of CDS, the Queen or even the great fighter pilot in the sky - me in my dark blue smartest, the crab in his light blue, errr, 'smartest' and we were given the choice: Carriers or MPA. What would I do? I would offer the crab my hand and wish him well with his new machine then wander off to blub into my beer (again).

A nation with our great heritage of sea power and aviation having no carriers is an embarassment.

A small island nation having no MPA is retarded.

There you go, no help whatsoever to the debate but thought you ought to know. Fly safely everyone.

Party Animal
21st Nov 2012, 06:48
pitotheat

If the RN aren't making a case for LRMPA then how can the RAF make the case? Move on there is nothing to see here.


In higher circles, the RN are making a stronger case for LRMPA than the RAF, who incidentally, also have a few key players confirming the need. The capability requirement is fully recognised by all and sundry. SDSR did not scrap the requirement, it just scrapped the MRA4.

So the real and only question to be asked is can we afford to spend money on a replacement over the next few years? Probably not is the answer but the hope is that the next SDSR acknowledges the need a bit more strongly and the start of a replacement process can at least be baselined for the coming years.

HAS59
21st Nov 2012, 07:13
What Party animal just said ... the Nimrod MRA Mark 4 was scrapped not the role.
Our esteemed CAS (?) said to us all at Kinloss days after the scrapping announcement
"it's just the aircraft that has been scrapped, the role is extant."

Although this thread is about a new kite, the real struggle is going to be to get enough trained crews ready to resume the role.

The recent RAF recruitment ad may be an indication of this ... on the other hand it may just be a 'cut and paste' error. We will still need people in the back of the new Chinooks we are going to get post 2015 to transport soldiers we no longer have to places we no longer want to go to.

pitotheat
21st Nov 2012, 08:13
But if Party Animal were right and the RN still required its kit protecting by some form of LRMPA then it is being very quiet about it. I have not heard a single comment from a dark blue senior officer bemoaning this loss in capability. I would think with 2 flat tops being built and replacement SSBN being staffed and R & D there would have been some form of reaction from senior naval officers.

thunderbird7
21st Nov 2012, 09:01
Thats cos the Fish-heads want it to be THEIR trainset, when it arrives. They are setting a political ambush for when the role is revived. Why let common sense get in the way of politics.... They should stick to playing with their 'aircraftless' carriers.

Genstabler
21st Nov 2012, 09:25
Thunderbird
Why is is common sense for the crabs to operate LRMPA rather than the fisheads? It has always seemed to me, with my purple knowledge and experience and with no axe to grind, chip on shoulder etc, that common sense dictates that LRMPA is clearly a naval task.

Roland Pulfrew
21st Nov 2012, 09:28
pitotheat

What Thunderbird7 said.:D

Regrettably the RAF's senior leadership can only think in terms of "exquisite technology", fast jet numbers and UAVs (or the new latest Gucci toys - UCAS). Anything else is not worth worrying about and is viewed as an annoying sideline.

Genstabbler

You make a fair point and no doubt someone will soon be on here saying that all other nations MPA are run by their navies (except the Aussies, Canadians, Kiwis, Russians, Norwegians, Chileans, South Africans etc etc). The great thing about a properly equipped multi-mission platform is that it can be used in many more roles than just MPA - if needed. Think ISTAR rather than just MPA. I guess it doesn't really matter in the long run, as long as you have the required capability.

Genstabler
21st Nov 2012, 09:33
I rest my case!

althenick
21st Nov 2012, 09:37
Thunderbird
Why is is common sense for the crabs to operate LRMPA rather than the fisheads? It has always seemed to me, with my purple knowledge and experience and with no axe to grind, chip on shoulder etc, that common sense dictates that LRMPA is clearly a naval task.

Perhaps the way forward should be -

RN Budgeted - They want it, they pay for it
RN Controlled - Under CINCFLEET, they are regarded as "Flying Frigates" after all.
RN/RAF Operated - RAF Provide the Pilots and Maintainers. RN provide the WSO's and Plane Captain.

The Old Fat One
21st Nov 2012, 10:00
What Party animal just said ... the Nimrod MRA Mark 4 was scrapped not the role.
Our esteemed CAS (?) said to us all at Kinloss days after the scrapping announcement
"it's just the aircraft that has been scrapped, the role is extant

Not looking to pick a fight and agree with your thrust....however.

CAS does not have the final vote...politicians have that. And Fox is on parlimentary record as saying that the loss of the MPA capability could be mitigated (his words) by frigates, helicopters and C130. Which, as the MPA and RN community know is complete and total bull crap.

Bull crap that has now been exposed by the wider defence community.

PS

I am light blue biased and I do have an RAF chip on my shoulder...but I still know that an LRMPA should be operated by the RN.

Biggus
21st Nov 2012, 10:05
This is another example of the reality of the current financial situation, and what we can expect in the years to come:

BBC News - UK public sector borrowing worse than expected in October (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-20424492)

Note the comments at the end about longer term prospects....



With little or no MPs these days with military experience, for most, including famously Gordon Brown when he was chancellor/Prime Minister, their perception (right or wrong, it doesn't alter the fact that this is how they see things) is that the MOD simply represents a large budget that produces little in the way of tangible results.


You can argue about such things as protecting SLOCs, etc (and I don't disagree with you) till the cows come home, but the people that make the decisions are only interested in Health, Education, unemployment, Euro crisis, etc.....

That's why you won't be getting an MPA in 2015, no matter how logical your argument. It's time to wake up and recognize the reality of the world you are living in...

Pontius Navigator
21st Nov 2012, 10:47
A point about light blue owning the LRMPA which I espoused was the RAF had a larger gene pool of aircrew from which to select and train martime crews.

To some extent that remains true of pilots and to a lesser extent, now they aren't being trained, AEOps. With the rapid shrinkage of the front line and a reduction (?) in the number of pilots, that gene pool is shrinking rapidly.

If dark blue gained the MPA as well as trying to build up the FAA aircrew cadre, then they may well be able to sustain a larger pool of aircrew. One route might be similar to the AWAC route where seamen man positions on a couple of tours before reverting to their shipborne role.

HAS59
21st Nov 2012, 10:51
Surely no one really thinks that we are actually going to GET an MPA in 2015.

The thread says 'announced' in 2015, this might be likely but it will still take several more years before anything actually hits squadron service.

pitotheat
21st Nov 2012, 10:51
Perhaps if we as a country were ever in a position to afford LRMPA again and if RN wanted the capability then a mixed RN/RAF force might be the answer. It sort of worked with the Harrier. It could work with the Tac team sourced from RN Helo/Shipbourn ASW/ASUW operators and the drivers(airframes) and ground support from the RAF. However, there are a lot of ifs there and I suspect in the next 5-10 years the RN will learn how to operate without UK LRMPA. Perhaps other European/NATO partners will continue successfully to plug the gap. I do, however, think regardless of the arguments set down here and elsewhere that the UK will never again have a LRMPA force remotely similar to that which we had with Nimrod.
Perhaps as importantly at senior levels of the RAF there are no longer Officers from a maritime background who will put a strong argument forward for this role. The RAF has retreated into its core business of air defence and ground attack.

betty swallox
21st Nov 2012, 11:59
Ah. Excellent! More ill-informed tosh about what an MMA, yes folks, a Multi Mission Aircraft would actually do. An MMA would not only serve as an MPA, but a host of other duties. The claptrap about light or dark blue is, frankly, a dead debate.
Please move on.

HAS59
21st Nov 2012, 12:28
Nice one 'Betty' you are right (again) too many people just see MPA as a sub basher.

An unfortunate but true fact is that the senior RAF knobs never really understood what we all did with our MPA's (or cared much).

True dit:
On having been briefed on a recent and (relevant) 'Form Purple' at HQ STC (as was) the boss of the day (who clearly hadn't understood and couldn't be seen to say so) simply said "No more of these."

It is going to be a long careful and gradual rebuilding of capability. It may even take a generation before we get anywhere near what we lost in 2010.

betty swallox
21st Nov 2012, 12:36
......like!

Wensleydale
21st Nov 2012, 13:53
One route might be similar to the AWAC route where seamen man positions on a
couple of tours before reverting to their shipborne role.


There were three "exchange" slots allocated to dark blue on the Sentry mission crew back in the 90s. However, the RN decided to only take up one of them (the weapons controller slot). Apparantly, the RN wanted accelerated "promotion" straight into the Tactical Director seat (the chap in charge) rather than gain platform experience as a "worker" first, and so changed to an exchange with the Mission Support Wing briefing flight instead.

HAS59
21st Nov 2012, 14:01
The RN may have changed since my time on Invincible in '93 but...

Flying aeroplanes was seen by many 'career officers' as 'just' another specialist tour on the route on up to ship command. Maybe there are enough 'whole career' bods in the FAA who can afford to take a few years 'out' to help out the poor old airforce without risking their precious careers? Have things changed?

pitotheat
21st Nov 2012, 14:48
Alas these quaint ideas of saving MPA as a part of a multi platform asset disregard the fact that many of these roles are being fulfilled by UAVs with greater capability in the pipeline. The only reason to have aircrew in aircraft is where technology can't do the job. Some tactical roles fall into this category most strategic roles do not.
Anyway I will bow out of this now as I fear the subject has been pounded to death elsewhere and until UK plc recovers it is all rather irrelevant.

HAS59
21st Nov 2012, 15:42
no shortage of UAV dreamers around eh?
Look at all the countries around the world that have ditched their MPAs for UAVs

sigh

FODPlod
21st Nov 2012, 16:24
Blithe statements that UAVs are the panacea that will soon replace all manned aircraft remind me of the smug doom-mongerers of the last century who said that UUVs would soon replace all commercial divers. Several decades later, the demand for divers is as great as ever but people with the necessary saturation diving skills and experience are disappearing fast as they age off the plot. Sound familiar?More Than 2,000 Commercial Divers Needed to Meet Demands for Offshore Wind Sector (http://www.maritime-executive.com/article/more-2000-commercial-divers-needed-meet-demands-offshore-wind-sector)

pitotheat
21st Nov 2012, 17:36
HAS59.
The UAV comment was regarding having MMAs. Many of the roles that were formally thought to be within the ability of an MMA are now being done by UAVs. Therefore we are back to a platform which will predominantly be ASW/ASUW.
1. We ain't got no money
2. Politicians like UAVs cos they can't be held captive and paraded in front of a camera
3. Generals like them cos they are cheap so they can have more toys
FODPlod. WTF has UUVs/divers got to do with this? There are no parallels.

HAS59
21st Nov 2012, 20:14
Pitothead:

It's not about MMAs.

And many of the roles formerly carried out by MPAs can not be done by UAVs.

1. We have got money - we just spend it elsewhere.
2. Politicians know four fifths of fark hall about defence - they need guidance.
3. Generals are welcome to them - they can't seem to make them work anyway.

Roland Pulfrew
21st Nov 2012, 21:20
pitotheat

Many of the roles that were formally thought to be within the ability of an MMA are now being done by UAVs.

Really? I can think of only 1 role might have been taken on by a UAV, what's doing the rest? :rolleyes:

Flyga
22nd Nov 2012, 08:44
This "move on and get over it" nonesense is very narrow minded. Those that matter and have the power acknowledge the need, there is a budget to be spent therefore what is the harm in speculating about what might but should happen.

keesje
23rd Nov 2012, 09:01
I see the MPA discussion is fired up again. The proud, rightfully frustrated MPA community dismissing anything / everybody who wasn't there. Last yr I fought a lonely battle in another thread :ouch: More diverse opinions in this thread :D

IMO the ones in charge of RAF MPA's weren't willing to really adjust to a new world (1995-2010) and therefor got canned. Exactly the same way we did in the Netherlands; an old, proud, capable well equipped MPA force successfully defending their programs/ budgets / flying battleships, long after the cold war ended, until politics intervene and wipe it away completely.

I think the needs of the UK aren't that different then France's, Germany's, Spains and a few other naval countries. Earlier on I suggested setting up 3 main bases (Scotland, Portugal, Italy), create a powerful force and standardize on 2 or three aircraft types. A bigger one, medium one and small /cheap coastal one. Middle East Africa (overland), piracy, pinpoint attacks, network-centric operations and multirole are definitely on the table in any new requirement.

IMO such an organization could set out an RFP for a dedicated, just right long endurance MPA platform for the next 40 yrs (Germany, France, Italy and Spain need them too).

Last yr I made a few sketches of a general configuration, long range, multirole, medium sized concept (suggestions welcome)

http://i191.photobucket.com/albums/z160/keesje_pics/orionnewconceptmerlinII.jpg

http://i191.photobucket.com/albums/z160/keesje_pics/EuroMultirolepatrolaircraftconceptkeesje.jpg

Medium / smaller platforms can be bought in Europe / elsewhere, quick, off the shelve.
The maritime patrol variant can be fitted with the FITS mission system, which integrates the data from the sensors. - Image - Airforce Technology (http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/c295/c2959.html)