US Navy debuts the P-8A Poseidon at the Dubai Air Show

[Blue Bottle]

US Navy debuts the P-8A Poseidon at the Dubai Air Show, with an RAF FS doing all the talking on the clip

BBC News - US Navy debuts the P-8A Poseidon at the Dubai Air Show (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-25006275)

If we get it, where will go and how many is the smart money on....

[TOWTEAMBASE]

Probably not.......they must have something due to be scrapped that we can buy and operate for another 30 years!!!!

[Blue Bottle]

yep, and leave it in their colours rather than repaint it in our's

[Heathrow Harry]

BAe will only charge £ 500 million for painting them in RAF colours..........

[Blue Bottle]

It's a buyer's market out there, lots of aircraft paintshops around the world. Where were the T*'s repainted again ?

[TOWTEAMBASE]

It seems they painted part of our RC135, the bottom half looks "nimrod" colour rather than the grey on the US version

[Jayand]

Said FS is obviously enjoying the US rations available lol

[NorthernKestrel]

Another interview with RAF 'Seedcorn' aircrew on the P-8A here - complete with ominous warning about what happens when all the experienced guys get moved on....

Dubai Air Show 2013 - Day 3 | Aerospace | The Royal Aeronautical Society (http://media.aerosociety.com/aerospace-insight/2013/11/20/dubai-air-show-2013-day-3/8797/)

[Ken Scott]

I'm sure we could buy the P8A - but it will need new engines (Rolls Royce), new avionics (Ferranti?) - I'm sure BAE will manage the contract for the MOD, they can have it on frontline service in less than 10 years from the USA getting it, at only 3 times the price and half the effectiveness - think of all the jobs in marginal constituencies it could support. Hang on, is there a suitable factory in Scotland that could get the contract? That might persuade a few more of the Jocks to vote for the Union, plus it could be based at the place in Scotland which did all the maritime stuff? What, it closed? Well, what about that other place, in Cornwall? Oh, we shut that too?

[Sandy Parts]

Good old WS - "when you were on Radar, you were Radar" - certainly not Radios anyway - unless it was on a transit! - :) I hope all the sweetcorners manage to get what they want in 1.5 years time - If not, at least it sounds like they are representing the last of the UK LRMPA community with distinction (any enjoying it to boot).

[MAD Boom]

If a mugshot in RAF News is worth a crate, how much beer does Slimesy owe for a BBC interview!

[Sideshow Bob]

Good old WS What happened to his hair could of sworn it was brown lol.

It seems they painted part of our RC135, the bottom half looks "nimrod" colour rather than the grey on the US version No, it was definitely grey when I left the office earlier; unless someone's done a quick spray job in the last 3 hours! :ok:

[Party Animal]

If we get it, where will go and how many is the smart money on....


Purely my guess - 7ac based at WAD. :8


The anti-submarine and anti-ship aircraft is in its last stages of testing and is making its first trip outside the US.


More crap, lazy, cheap and wrong journalism. :rolleyes:

[Arclite01]

Is the Poseidon the aircraft of choice now then for UK MRP ??

Seems like a reasonable package for the money we have to spend. What is more important - numbers of MRP or capability ??

Arc

[Seafurysmith]

Why can't the BBC get its facts right? - 'making its first trip outside the US' this will be the same P8 then that I have seen at Lossiemouth twice in the past year or so then? Certainly not its first trip............... hope the RAF do end up with a few though.

[Biggus]

Arc,

How do you know how much "money we have to spend"?

Please reveal the figure, it would be of interest to some of us viewing here.

[Party Animal]

What is more important - numbers of MRP or capability ??




Arc - it's always about capability. Once you have defined what you need, the numbers will fall out to achieve it. i.e, if you need 24 hour coverage of something and the options available include an aircraft type that can fly for 24 hours versus one that can only fly for 3 hours, then clearly you would need less of the former.

Once that is established, you can then look at costs.

[Arclite01]

Hi Biggus

The line entry in the DE for Nimrod MR4 in 2008 was around £1.6B.That was the only figure I could find.

I like the idea of 20 Poseidon out on the Pan but frankly that's not going to happen so would 7 be enough ??

I actually think we won't get any since the 'capability holiday' will become a 'capability removal' and that will be that.

For a Maritime nation it's a disgrace and a massive risk/loss. No other way to package it.

Arc

[TOWTEAMBASE]

Sideshow

There is a pic of ZZ664 on airliners.net looking deceptively sandy underbelly, that's what made me say it

[betty swallox]

...which has absolutely nothing to do with P-8A...

[Sideshow Bob]

"nimrod" coloursandy

You're risking the wrath of the maritime community calling the colour 'sandy' lol :E. They were hemp old chap (well apart from when they were painted grey).

[Roland Pulfrew]

And the undersides of the Nimrod have always been "light aircraft grey" not "beige"!! As for the RAF RJ it's been painted exactly the same as the USAF RJs (apart from national markings). End of debate!!

Now back to he P8, my money is on neither the RAF nor the FAA ever operating them!!:{

[moggiee]

I'm sure we could buy the P8A - but it will need new engines (Rolls Royce), new avionics (Ferranti?)
You mean like the E3 and rivet Joint? Oh wait, they were almost identical to the USAF spec ones so you must mean the Tristars that were re-engined? No, those are still on the original engines so you must mean Europrop equiped C130Js? No - those are still powered by the same engines as the US model.

The kind of modifying madness to which you refer is a POLITICAL issue, not a BAE Systems one. They are a commercial entity and will build what you ask for - hence the Tornado F2 and Spey-equipped F4 and Nimrod AEW3. Ask for the wrong kit and you'll get the wrong kit.

I was at BAe Prestwick at the time that the MR4 project began. We were told that the company advised that new-build aeroplanes would be the way to go and advised against rebuilding the shagged-out old airframes. Now, we may have been told an untruth but it is EXACTLY the kind of stupid stunt that MoD pulls all the time.

[Sideshow Bob]

You mean like the E3 and rivet Joint? Oh wait, they were almost identical to the USAF spec ones
Not quite right, we re-engined the E-3Ds and changed a couple of other things, most notably ESM (by most notably, I mean they look different from an outside glance).
we may have been told an untruth
By a shear coincidence, someone involved in this told me the story yesterday. You are quite correct, it was the MOD who insisted on using the old fuselages. BAe even offered to build new and make it look like a Nimrod as this would of been easier (and possibly cheaper).

[Rhino power]

Not quite right, we re-engined the E-3Ds

Not really, the CFM-56s were already a reliable retro-fit on other 707 based types, its not like we chose an entirely new engine type... ;)

-RP

[TOWTEAMBASE]

Jesus Roland, chill out. If you don't like the discussion, don't read it. It was merely an observation from a picture I saw

[betty swallox]

...or just obtain P-8 COTS. Just sayin...

[clicker]

And of course there's the aircraft that India have had delivered this year. They clearly escaped from US airspace.

[moggiee]

Not really, the CFM-56s were already a reliable retro-fit on other 707 based types, its not like we chose an entirely new engine type... ;)

-RP
Not only that, they were fitted by the airframe manufacturer during its build

[Sideshow Bob]

they were almost identical to the USAF spec ones
Not only that, they were fitted by the airframe manufacturer during its build
However, not to USAF E-3's though. Fitted to the US Navy's TACAMO but not fitted to the USAF E-3.

[Eminence Gris]

Moggiee & SsB,

It's truly amazing how much posted on here about MRA4 is complete rubbish. The BAe proposal to MoD for RMPA was only ever based on a refurb of the MR2 fuselages. The only plan for new build fuselages was for the USN MMA, when an agreement was reached that McDonnell Douglas would build new fuses.

EG

[Heathrow Harry]

I really would have thought we could afford $1.5 Bn for around 8 P-8's for the RAF

as long as we keep the up-grade merchants at BAe away from them .. perhaps subcontract them to Easy-Jet or RyanAir

[Rhino power]

.. perhaps subcontract them to Easy-Jet or RyanAir

easyjet don't fly 737s any more, might be a lack of type-rated pilots there these days... ;)

-RP

[Party Animal]

Back to the original post, I thought DM comes over very well as both a meeja lovie and an ambassador for the RAF. Quite a good video clip too. Hope some of our hierarchy get to see it.

Apart from aircraft numbers, we could also debate future sqn manning between crabair and WAFUs. I could see 5 Sqn remaining but with a 50% mix between light and dark blue. Utilising the current 5 Sqn building but with P8's parked outside. Anyone else care to chip in?

[Biggus]

PA,

Here's my chip.


The UK economy is improving, however:

BBC News - UK public finances improve in October as economy grows (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-25030293)

The UK government is on course, despite budget cutbacks, to borrow £120Bn more than it earns next year. As a country we owe £1.207TRILLION, a figure that just keeps rising!! That represents 75% of GDP, where a figure nearer 40% of GDP is generally considered sustainable in the long term (as the economy improves, i.e. GDP increases, then the % of GDP owed figure will decrease, even though the TOTAL AMOUNT owed remains unchanged - but this effect won't produce significant decreases in the figure of 75%).

Overall, as a country, the UK is still broke. The USA may go on borrowing like there is no tomorrow, funding 11(?) odd carrier groups, but the current UK government is trying to reduce the debt burden.

All of which can be summed up as - THERE IS NO MORE MONEY. CAS is trying to keep Sentinel (already in place, crews trained, support system available), which has apparently proved its worth in recent conflicts, but which is not funded beyond 2015. Where is the money going to come from to buy a new aircraft, recruit/train crews, set up support contracts, infrastructure, expendables (e.g. sonobuoys) etc (all of which costs a lot more than just the price of the airframe!! :ugh:) without something else major going to fund it.

Which will have priority, keeping something we already have, which works, or reinvesting in something we have lost. And there probably isn't the money to do either!!

[Party Animal]

Biggus,

Don't hit me with those negative waves man!!

But essentially you're right and there will be no extra money. Therefore, it will all come down to priorities. The dark blue leadership are now very strongly supporting the need for a UK MPA within the political circles. Although the light blue wouldn't choose to give anything away, currently in use, the decision may be made for them. In other words, our politicians will direct MOD on what is essential and what isn't. Right now, the most sensible and influential bunch are the HCDC and I think they can see our last CAS' defend Tonka at all costs input to SDSR 10 for exactly what it was.

In terms of priorities, what other island nation on this planet puts bombers ahead of maritime security? Having said that, I personnaly think it will be a very close call for a future MMA to appear in SDSR 15. Fingers crossed eh?

[Eminence Gris]

Let's not forget that MRA4 was cancelled to save £2 bn over 10 years in support costs. Nine MRA4s was often said to be inadequate, so the minimum fleet of P8s with half the range/endurance must be around 20, so it's looking like an investment of knocking on £3 bn to buy the aircraft, set up the base/infrastructure, provision spares, train the crews etc etc. As Biggus said, where does the money come from? .....anyway the Conservatives have already said the gap can be covered by "other assets". Yes, the HCDC talks a lot of sense, but an appeal by one member for a stay of execution on MRA4, while the HCDC reviewed the decision was roundly rejected by Cameron.

EG

[HAS59]

mmm Mr Biggus,

you ask should we "... keep something we already have, which works, or reinvest in something we have lost ...?"

Well if the something we have, (Sentinel) allegedly 'works' producing only wide area radar coverage over land - but for which there may be limited future requirement for (or political appetite for).

Then reinventing something we clearly lack but need makes a lot of sense to me.

Skint are we? There seems no end of money being squandered around the country. I feel it is a balancing act of available funds that will be needed to provide the necessary insurance we need to secure our maritime environment.

[Roland Pulfrew]

£3 bn to buy the aircraft, set up the base/infrastructure, provision spares, train the crews

2.7% of the health budget and only 1.88% of the social security budget - just saying! :E

[TomJoad]

priorities, priorities, what to do!

[Heathrow Harry]

"Nine MRA4s was often said to be inadequate, so the minimum fleet of P8s with half the range/endurance must be around 20"

I'd have thought 8 was better than zero...............

[Biggus]

RP,

£3Bn also represents approx. 6-7% of current interest payments on the UK national debt (approx. £40Bn) and by 2017, when we might be looking to get our first airframe if ordered in 2015, approx. 4% of interest payments (expected to be approx. £70Bn, or over twice the defence budget, by then).

As HAS59 said, there is money being spent all over the country, that's why we are still borrowing about £120Bn a year!! :ugh::ugh:

Yes, we could spend £40-50Bn on defence, and could reinvest in MPA, but the politicians have set a smaller budget, which the military has to work within. If we want to get back into the MPA game (and I'm not saying we shouldn't), given the current budget, something else has to go? What?

[triboy]

Election May 15. Sdsr Oct 15. Project startup Apr 16. Initial gate Apr 17. Main Gate Sep 18. Contract award Jan 19. 1st aircraft that uses US sonobuoys/weapons etc (as it is off the shelf) 2022. 8 aircraft 2025. Tell me you know of a similar value/complex project that delivered quicker?

[Rhino power]

RP,

£3Bn also represents approx. 6-7% of current interest payments on the UK national debt (approx. £40Bn) and by 2017, when we might be looking to get our first airframe if ordered in 2015, approx. 4% of interest payments (expected to be approx. £70Bn, or over twice the defence budget, by then).

As HAS59 said, there is money being spent all over the country, that's why we are still borrowing about £120Bn a year!!

Yes, we could spend £40-50Bn on defence, and could reinvest in MPA, but the politicians have set a smaller budget, which the military has to work within. If we want to get back into the MPA game (and I'm not saying we shouldn't), given the current budget, something else has to go? What?

All salient points but, i think you may have addressed your reply to the wrong person...;)

-RP

[stilton]

1.2 Trillion in debt ?


You're just an amateur, try 17 going to 20 with no end in sight.


Too big to fail, that's freedom :E

[Biggus]

Rhino,

Sorry, I was replying to a comment made by Roland Pulfrew - too many RPs!

A comment which has since vanished!

[Roland Pulfrew]

A comment which has since vanished!

Thought I been got by the PC fairies, but it's still there at #40.

All very salient points, and I don't disagree. My point was, the money is there, it's just there are no votes in Defence, the NHS is a Sacred Cow and despite IDS' best efforts the SS budget is still way too large.

RP ;)

[The Old Fat One]

Basically what Biggus keeps posting +1. I can't add anything worthwhile to the somewhat bleak reality he has nailed down.

As Biggus (and previously, yours truly) has noted, getting a platform is the easiest and cheapest part of restoring a capability lost.

March 31st 2014 will be the four year anniversary of the dark day when the RAF gave up "coastal", maritime, the kipper fleet, call it what you will. A capability introduced circa 1937 and previously deemed essential to our island nation. (note for the semantics out there...31st March 2010 is the date we actually last had an operational aircraft to do the job, so in my book that is when we stopped doing it)

I suggest that anniversary would be a good date to take stock. To see what has gone (almost all of it) and what is left (precious little more than the square root of **** all). I'll do a little research and see what I can come up with.

PS

I do like the expression "sweetcorners" though :E

[triboy]

OFO - can't disagree with any of what you say!

[Bastardeux]

Biggus

As HAS59 said, there is money being spent all over the country, that's why we are still borrowing about £120Bn a year!!

Yet your link is suggesting we will undershoot our borrowing forecast by as much as £15 billion...making 2013 borrowing £105 billion, which as a raw figure is pretty terrifying, but considering it was knocking on the door of £180 billion (off the top of my head) 3 years ago, then that's actually quite re-assuring. Furthermore, the deficit doesn't have to be £0 before the overall national debt starts falling. Additionally, inflation, exceptionally low interest rates and a comparatively strong pound will have a very strong part to play in devaluing the long-term bonds and securities that the government has and will continue to issue. Contrary to popular opinion, moderate amounts of debt are positive - like the 40% stated - for sustaining aggregate demand in a modern, globalised economy; the UK is extremely unlikely to ever get to 0% national debt.

Plus, maybe the MoD might be able to afford more gear than we initially thought if we continue to undershoot our own budget by £2 billion a year...

And finally, the point was made that any purchase would be looking at IOC in the 2020s...I'm very confident that money will no longer be under the lock-down that it is at the moment.

Just my 2 cents

[Biggus]

Bastardeux,

Your points have some validity, although I could argue against some of them, and you are obviously well informed - but I don't want to turn this thread into a long winded economic discussion, if for no other reason that people wouldn't read it! I was simply trying to point out to the "....lets go out and spend £3Bn on MPA, base them at Waddo, it'll be done by 2020, job done...." fraternity some of the economic and political constraints that any major expenditure on Defence is actually working within, i.e. what its like in the real world.

In the real world:

There's an election due in 2015, before any SDSR presumably. The next government could well be Labour, or Labour/Liberal Democrat. In which case all previous bets on Defence spending/priorities could be off/re-assessed/delayed considerably while they think about it.

SDSR 2015 isn't a given, just a plan the current government is working towards.

Money for the Defence budget is tight, and is at risk of its own project overruns (final cost of the 2 carriers, cost of JSF, etc....). There are also assets already in service, I'm thinking mainly Sentinel, that aren't funded post 2015, but CAS wishes to try to maintain. Trying to keep these could soak up any "spare" money in the Defence budget, if there is any!! (It now looks as though you can add buying a 9th C-17 to the list of items which could use up any "spare" money)

A "yes" vote in the 2014 Scottish vote for independence would have a major impact on the Defence budget, apart from simply decreasing it, in terms of what assets go where, paying for base closures, redundancies, the possible cost of re-basing SSBNs in Plymouth, etc. Separation would also have economic impacts, it could also effect the strength of the pound, especially if some sort of Sterling Zone is formed, the remainder of UK might end up shouldering a higher proportion of national debt than expected after the split, etc

Defence simply isn't a vote winner. Any spare cash, whichever party has a hold of the purse strings, is likely to go into the standard sacred cows of Education and NHS, with the new priority of "upping peoples living standards" by trying to put money back in their pockets (perhaps by funding green policies from general taxation as opposed to fuel bills, upping personal allowance, dropping basic rate of tax or VAT, etc). For example:

BBC News - Nick Clegg pushes for £1bn income tax cut (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-24976305)

Government Deficit reduction remains a political priority, and we aren't out of the woods yet.


This is the sort of background, and with no perceivable maritime threat as far as the public are aware, against which people are envisaging finding £3Bn+ to fund a new aircraft, infrastructure, support system, recruit and train crews, etc, without losing anything else from Defence to pay for it!

I just think the rose tinted specs need to come off. I think it highly unlikely that against the background I have highlighted, Defence will be able to "find" the funds for a major buy of up market MPAs, as opposed to 4 Casa-235s. If you want MPA, what big ticket item are you willing to lose in exchange, E-3D, SH fleet, etc? All of these are sacred cows in their own right, and, although the situation with MRA4 maybe made the decision easier, this trade off decision is one which the MPA has already lost once in SDSR2010.

[Party Animal]

And of course there is a leasing option? Well proven with C17 until money can be found downstream.

Absolutely agree though that something would have to go in the meantime.

[HAS59]

Well if we agree that 'something has to go' then perhaps we should look at the P-8A as a multi-mission aircraft and not simply a replacement MPA.
It could replace the dated concept (radar only) Sentinel R Mk1 in the broad area surveillance role adding other sensors with on-board analysis, doing the job better. Leasing aircraft from the production line shouldn't be out of the question, the US Navy have already indicated that 'we' could take some of their allocated slots.
The current 5 Sqn organisation could be retained, replacing the current 'brown jobs' with Dark Blue uniforms and renumbering it 201 Sqn. (201 was the former 1 Sqn RNAS before 1918) it might even keep everyone happy. The 'green slime' could move in with 14 Sqn when they replace the Islander/Defender ... oh hang on I'm not the CAS. Let's wait and see what happens...
;)

[Union Jack]

I'd have thought 8 was better than zero...............

Smacks of the 1909 slogan, "We want eight, and we won't wait", but the difference compared with the present day is that all eight Dreadnoughts were eventually built. If only ......:(

Jack

[betty swallox]

Poseidon's inaugural deployment starts Friday | Navy Times | navytimes.com (http://www.navytimes.com/article/20131127/NEWS04/311270015/Poseidon-s-inaugural-deployment-starts-Friday)

[Heathrow Harry]

"We want eight, and we won't wait",

Nice allusion!

As Churchill wrote:-

In the end a curious and characteristic solution was reached. The Admiralty had demanded 6 ships, the economists (ie the Treasury) offered 4 and we finally compromised on 8 ships"

[Jet In Vitro]

Bloke down the pub said 'quantity has a quality of its own'.

[Lyneham Lad]

On Flight Global:- (http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/dubai-boeing-reveals-low-cost-challenger-to-own-p-8-393234/)

Boeing has used the Dubai air show to formally launch an offer to supply customers unable to afford its 737-based P-8 surveillance aircraft with a modified Bombardier Challenger 605 business jet instead.
Also involving modification specialist Field Aviation, the Boeing-led programme will be ready to deliver a 605-derived maritime surveillance aircraft (MSA) from 2015. Field is currently adapting a Boeing-owned 604-model aircraft as a demonstrator, with this to be flown in early 2014 and to be made swiftly available to support customer evaluations.

“The MSA brings to the global market a cost-effective solution based on P-8 technology, with the 605’s unique performance of speed, payload and endurance,” says Tim Peters, Boeing Defense, Space & Security’s vice-president for mobility, surveillance and engagement.

Boeing will supply the platform’s mission system equipment, with the 605 to be flown with two operators positioned at consoles inside its cabin. Potential buyers will be offered a wide range of payload options, says Peters, with the demonstrator to fly with a Selex ES Seaspray 7300 maritime surveillance radar and a FLIR Systems Star Safire 380 electro-optical/infrared sensor.

“We’re well under way with modifying the demonstrator, and will fly in the new year,” says Field chief executive Daniel Magarian. The adapted 605 will have a flight endurance of 9h, and a range of 2,500nm (4,630km), he adds.

“We think a customer base exists worldwide for an aircraft with the capabilities of the 605 and the P-8 mission system,” Peters says. Other roles for the type could include border surveillance, search and rescue support, exclusive economic zone protection and anti-piracy tasks, he adds. “We’re talking to a number of different customers,” he adds, mentioning potential buyers in the Middle East and Asian regions.

Noting that more than 40 Bombardier aircraft, including Challengers, have previously been modified for intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance applications for multiple users, Bombardier’s president, customer services and specialised aircraft Eric Martel comments: “We see a lot of potential for this programme.”

A low(ish)-cost compromise?

[betty swallox]

Who says we don't need an MPA/MMA??!!

http://rt.com/news/stealth-submarine-russia-novorossiysk-451/

[Heathrow Harry]

the Russian shipyards would be hard pressed to deliver 6 tin trays in 2 years TBH

[Biggus]

Betty,

I'm not sure who is saying that we don't need an MMA/MPA, I'm not!

I'm just saying that in the current financial situation we won't be able to afford one without either a major rethink of Defence as a priority, or priorities within Defence!!

[betty swallox]

P-8A Aircraft Program Achieves Initial Operational Capability (http://www.navy.mil/submit/display.asp?story_id=77993)

[betty swallox]

U.S. Navy deploys new reconnaissance planes to Japan ? CNN Security Clearance - CNN.com Blogs (http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2013/12/02/u-s-navy-deploys-new-reconnaissance-planes-to-japan/?hpt=hp_c3)

[The Old Fat One]

Likewise Betty

Not saying we don't need one.

Saying we haven't got one, and we are very, very unlikely to get one.

Also saying, I hope I am wrong.

[Party Animal]

No chance at all of getting an MPA.

However, there is growing high level support for an MMA that could find it's way into SDSR 15.

Bit like the navy were never going to get support for carriers at the time Illustrious and Invincible were being spun up. Fortunately, they did get 'through deck cruisers' for those who remember that far back!

[tucumseh]

SDSR 15


Which, rumour has it, will be cancelled if the Jocks vote Yes!

[Biggus]

I refer you to post 52 on this very thread....

[HAS59]

I humbly refer you esteemed gentlemen to post 54. It might just be possible.

[The Old Fat One]

HAS59 & BS

I wrote a peer-reviewed paper (which was published :)) focussing on the threat posed by advanced virtually undetectable SSK back in 2001. Even if we had a fully monty MPA with all the trimmings, finding these buggers in coastal waters would be one hell of a challenge.

As it is we have given up the fight, so these beasts are effectively silver bullets now.

[betty swallox]

...but we shouldn't give up the fight.

[Jet In Vitro]

TOFO,

Is your paper available for more to read.

I assume you are talking about detection by passive acoustics. What about radar detection/ deterrence opportunities, active acoustic techniques.


The fight is growing.

[The Old Fat One]

is your paper available for more to read.

I assume you are talking about detection by passive acoustics. What about radar detection/ deterrence opportunities, active acoustic techniques.

Paper was published in an academic defence journal in April 2001, after being cleared for release by the MOD. Not sure if it can be found online without one of those research paper search applications?? In any event, I'd blow my pprune cover if I did find a link to it. I might do that anyway, but if so I'll go for it March 2014...the 4 year anniversary of the end of our nation's long range fixed wing maritime patrol capability.

The basis of the paper was...

Modern SSK do not need to use the surface for any reason. Air Independant Propulsion, fuel cell and advanced battery technology has removed the need to snort. Data fusion technology has removed the need for periscopes for attack solutions and comms can be completed submerged. Bear in mind this was all valid 15 years ago (with something like the German T212), so we have come on aways since. They also have no MAD signature.

Radar, MAD and passive acoustics are useless against a modern SSK, so the best hope for the future (as I wrote in 2001) lay with long range active sonar, such as multi static active (also known as extended echo ranging). This has the added advantage of being hyper aggressive and putting a lot of sound in the water...which will **** up the submariners whole day.

The yanks have had a buoy for this for yonks...

AN/SSQ-110/A Extended Echo Ranging (EER) Sonobuoy (http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ship/weaps/an-ssq-110.htm)


... and I assume development continues, but I've been out the game for 10 years.

This is the sort of capability we would need in any modern fixed wing ASW capable aircraft whatever label you hang on it.

And to be clear...we are not fighting to keep a long range fixed wing ASW capability...that has long since departed.

We are fighting for the funds to start building a new one.

Again, I believe we have no chance and again, I hope I'm wrong.

word of advice...anybody out there whose livelihood is wrapped up in this...make damn sure you have a plan B

[Heathrow Harry]

AIP subs are fine once they arrive on station but it's not very effective to use it in transit - it takes forever to get there

Also coastal subs are small and therefore are smwhat restricted as to endurance - look at the German Type 212's (best of the bunch right now) - crew of 27, 57m long, 1450 tonnes on the surface

Track them on the way in seems to be the answer

[HAS59]

Dearest OFO,

You will be aware that modern AIP SSK’s cannot remain undetected all of the time and advances in several non-acoustic detection areas have kept pace with their development.
;)
Modern ASW is not easy - and it will not be easy for the UK to do from a start-up position. But we have overcome difficult situations in the past and will continue to do so in the future. Because it is difficult should not be the end of it, it should be the starting point.

There still remains a sizable body of ‘Maritime Air’ knowledge within both the RAF and RN (or RN and RAF if you prefer). Add to this the recently ‘retired’ but prepared to ‘chip in’ again and it is not all a bleak picture, although of course the clock is ticking.

It will never again be what it was, the world is not as it was, and no-one should assume a Centre of solely ASW Excellence will be established. A true multi-mission aircraft can be used by crews of differing areas of expertise within the same unit. This must be recognised if we are to avoid being diluted too far from the outset.

It is my belief that we need to take the first steps back to assuming control of our coastal waters first and build upon that. A stepped approach building on experience will work far better in our situation than to go for full capability with the first course on the OCU.:8

What is currently lacking is a ‘Champion’ in the right place to pick up the cause and make it happen, there are several routes back to a robust capability. I hope it does happen, it would be a shame to think that the seed corn had been sown on ‘stoney ground’ and will not bear fruit. But who knows? The political situation in the UK will certainly be different in 2015, we shall just have to wait and see.

I enjoyed your paper in 2001 (was it really that long ago!) But not being of the ‘wet’ persuasion I will admit that some of it was ‘above my head’, it did point to some of the problems I seem to remember. Which is always the best place to start to solving them, or at least nullifying their advantage.

We would doubtless recognise each other but our Pprune names preserve our anonymity, which may befor the best. There are after all (ahem …) several Old Fat Ones around from those days …

:ok:

[The Old Fat One]

AIP subs are fine once they arrive on station but it's not very effective to use it in transit - it takes forever to get there

Also coastal subs are small and therefore are smwhat restricted as to endurance - look at the German Type 212's (best of the bunch right now) - crew of 27, 57m long, 1450 tonnes on the surface

Track them on the way in seems to be the answer

HH, I'm talking about the littoral environment and if you want to know how effective a "coastal" submarine is, I'd start by interviewing a Swedish submarine captain for few hours (I did..it was a sobering reminder that the submarine is, and always will be, the master of its element).

HAS59

I agree with every word of your post, including the bits where reading between the lines is required, and yes RN first RAF second would be my preferred choice.

[Heathrow Harry]

I agree - for close in work in the Baltic (or the Falklands) they're just the job - why risk a zillion $ SSN there????

But they have their limitations - not least the low numbers that will be deployed by any one navy - a couple of AIP subs won't provide an awful lot of coverage in (say) the S China Sea

[alfred_the_great]

The problem with ASW is that just as it gets interesting, it gets classified....

It's not as bad as you fear, but it's not all good either.

[Rossian]

.......which may point to why ASW/MPA didn't get the attention from the high-powered help at the time - because they had little idea about it or what it involved. I remember giving a brief on MR2 capabilities to a recently promoted two* from a different part of the air force. At the end he turned to his PSO and asked "Why didn't I know anything about any of this?" He was genuinely amazed at what we did and what the A/C could do.

Reflects a bit too in the earlier thread about the TV prog. "The Silent War". We couldn't talk about it.

The Ancient Mariner

[alfred_the_great]

Don't worry, the right dits are being spun to the right people at the right time nowadays.

[GreenKnight121]

OFO... could you give a short description of why SSKs have no magnetic signature?

[Party Animal]

if you want to know how effective a "coastal" submarine is, I'd start by interviewing a Swedish submarine captain for few hours


And how do you know when a submarinner is lying?....




His lips are moving! ;)

[The Old Fat One]

OFO... could you give a short description of why modern SSKs have no magnetic signature?

eerrr...coz there's no iron in em

Knock yer self out...

Type 212 submarine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_212_submarine)

PS

FYP

[alfred_the_great]

OFO - but there are moving electrical parts, and thus a magnetic signature.

[Heathrow Harry]

wikipedia..

"The ship and internal fixtures are constructed of nonmagnetic materials, significantly reducing the chances of it being detected" (my emphasis)

[nimbev]

And how do you know when a submariner is lying?....During the briefing for a NATO exercise, Norweigan submariner gave talk on his boat's capabilities in coastal waters - said he had never been detected during freeplay and he wouldn't be in this exercise. We subsequently bounced and attacked him. At debrief he provided evidence to show he was nowhere near the alledged attack position. However in addition to his acoustic signature, we had tapes of a decoy deployed by our target, just happened to be the type used by RNoN subs and he was the only one in the exercise. Do submariners lie.....not much!

[GreenKnight121]

So they have a "significantly reduced" magnetic signature... NOT "no" magnetic signature.

[Heathrow Harry]

that's what it says

there is a detailed review of the Type 212A class in the latest (2014) edition of World Naval Review

it says

"Fabrication..... makes extensive use of non-magnetic steel. This is supplemented by the use of lightweight glass-fibre reinforced plastics for some structures including some outer hull coverings and large parts of the fin"

The British Stainless Steel Assoc state:-
Is stainless steel non-magnetic?

It is commonly stated that “stainless steel is non-magnetic”. This is not strictly true and the real situation is rather more complicated. The degree of magnetic response or magnetic permeability (http://www.bssa.org.uk/topics.php?article=4) is derived from the microstructure of the steel. A totally non-magnetic material has a relative magnetic permeability of 1. Austenitic structures are totally non-magnetic and so a 100% austenitic stainless steel would have a permeability of 1. In practice this is not achieved. There is always a small amount of ferrite and/or martensite in the steel and so permeability values are always above 1. Typical values for standard austenitic stainless steels can be in the order of 1.05 – 1.1. See Composition effects on the magnetic permeability of austenitic stainless steels (http://www.bssa.org.uk/topics.php?article=5)
It is possible for the magnetic permeability of austenitic steels to be changed during processing. For example, cold work and welding (http://www.bssa.org.uk/topics.php?article=6) are liable to increase the amount of martensite and ferrite respectively in the steel. A familiar example is in a stainless steel sink where the flat drainer has little magnetic response whereas the pressed bowl has a higher response due to the formation of martensite particularly in the corners.
In practical terms, austenitic stainless steels are used for “non-magnetic” applications, for example magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). In these cases, it is often necessary to agree a maximum magnetic permeability between customer and supplier. It can be as low as 1.004.