Interesting take on MPA

[dervish]

http://thinpinstripedline.********.co.uk/


Brief extract....



The main complaint though seems to be twofold – that a warship and not an aircraft was sent to investigate, and that it didn’t come from Scotland. In reality one has to ask whether an aircraft is really the best solution for this particular situation. Beyond overflying the hull to visually confirm that ‘yes there really is a Russian vessel out there’ the value of the MPA is limited to being able to say ‘we know you are there’. For the crews its likely to mean sustained sorties flying racetracks in foul weather, with long hours of discussions between kipper fleet members about the merits of different pies that they've tasted. Indeed a look on PPRUNE suggests that most MPA overflights in the past were limited to two or three direct overflights of a hull for various legal reasons. So, the best Nimrod could do would be to find the vessel, loiter with fairly obvious intent, and then land again. To support this around the clock would require a minimum of three airframes, a significant proportion of flight operations and support personnel and tie up the resources of a significant proportion of the station.[/I]



I've seen this blog linked to before. Ostensibly independent but a closer look reveals something close to MoD propaganda.

[nimbev]

long hours of discussions between kipper fleet members about the merits of different pies that they've tasted.dervish I really must take exception to your remark. One would think from your post that the kipper fleet was composed of a lot of pie eating ruffians who flew round in circles to justify their flying pay. I would have you know that our conversations centered on far more erudite subjects than pies ...... steak, salmon, even sex sometimes.

[Wensleydale]

If the ship has entered the Moray Firth to escape the Scottish storm, then it is likely that the MPA from Kinloss would also be grounded........ Pies and discussions in the crew room (Uckers?) waiting for a non-existent weather window rather than in the air me-thinks.

[Pontius Navigator]

If the ship has entered the Moray Firth to escape the Scottish storm, then it is likely that the MPA from Kinloss would also be grounded........ Pies and discussions in the crew room (Uckers?) waiting for a non-existent weather window rather than in the air me-thinks.

Oh ye of ignorance and little faith.

The Nimrod was never grounded through weather at Kinloss.

At the first hint of gales and crosswinds the stalwart crews would leap into their study beast and disperse to a more clement airfield. Usually at Prestwick where they could relax in a congenial hotel and, eschewing jock pies, partake of the finest Aberdeen Angus steaks.

There was one occasion, the crew gathered in the dining room having just ordered a light repast when they were scambled. One Harry N......s went in to the kitchen, grabbed the pile of steaks and the crew legged it leaving the Navy to sort out the bill and the luggage :)

[Biggus]

Totally flawed argument.

Who ever said there was a requirement for continuous 24hr MPA coverage of transiting foreign warships? One MPA goes out, confirms the warships present, pennant numbers, photos etc, comes home, job done. One sortie costing £?,000 per hour.

If you had MPA, and the warship transit was during a normal non "stand down" period (i.e. not Christmas), then you could use an MPA to check on the foreign warships as merely a small part of a normal training sortie. Successive MPAs could make repeated checks as part of successive training sorties over the transit of the vessels through the UK area of interest. Direct costs attributed to the task of updating the warships - minimal!

Instead, we sail the "duty" RN vessel, and get it to stay at sea for what, 3-4 days. What are the operating costs per day of a RN warship? How many pies will the crew consume in 3 days... :=

How much extra value is gained by "holding hands" with the transiting warships 24/7? Like they're really going to deploy their "top secret" new gizzmo when there's an RN warship trailing them!! :ugh:

This article, as indeed most are, was written with a distinct agenda!!

[Jimlad1]

I find it amusing that people can 'see' MOD propaganda in private blogs which dare to suggest that things aren't as bad in some areas as some would have you believe, or that decisions aren't as black/white as people suspect. The idea that the MOD has the ability or vision to run a 'black ops disinformation blog' is quite amusing though!

[Tourist]

Biggus


Not arguing for the veracity of the article, but you are being a bit silly re the cost of sailing the warship.


The crew eat the same whether they are "sailing" or not, and the cost are unchanged whether they are shadowing a Russian or loitering around the north sea waiting for something to happen. Warships do not just sit in port doing nothing. They go out, they come back for fuel or they RAS, they go out etc etc.


The idea that using a warship has the same cost increase as 24 hr MPA ops is silly. It may very well be inferior in many ways for the task, but it is not an expensive option. (except of course for the fact that warships are expensive to run, in port or out)

[PingDit]

The Nimrod was far better placed for such an event. With the element of surprise, we would make far better collections of various types on such a sortie. As has already been mentioned, if they've got a RN tattle-tail, nobody's going glean much of any intelligence use!


On to more serious things though, the most I managed to eat on a 5.5hr sortie was only ONE pie, (plus 4 main meals and a quarter of a DCS!).


Ping

[Biggus]

Tourist,

My very point is that you don't need to use 24hr MPA ops!! :ugh::ugh:

The cost argument is a comparison between a few hours of MPA use (say 6) vs 72-96 hrs of RN warship costs! I would suggest that the latter is likely to be the more expensive of the two.

The article that the OP linked to also referred to the "deployment of the Fleet Ready Escort", rather than employment or tasking. Maybe I read too much into the choice of word, but, given the time of year I assumed (possibly incorrectly) that this was in port on a "readiness to sail" type standby. Thus they weren't already "loitering about the North Sea waiting for something to happen".

Apart from that, I agree with your very last sentence!

[Tourist]

I think I need to make it clearer.


The warship costs very much the same in port or out.


ie it is expensive whether you use it or not.


The people are on board. The lights are on. The systems are running. It is like an MPA at the threshold engines running ready for takeoff.


There is little extra cost to setting it off to sea. Flying an MPA is an extra cost.


You cannot compare 72hrs of RN warship costs to MPA in such a manner. The money is spent whether you use it or not. An aircraft is different. It cost comparatively little in the hangar.

[Biggus]

So you're saying that when, for example, a Type 23 is in port, the diesel generators and Speys are running, rather than taking power from ashore? I assume this must be so, as you equate it to an MPA at the threshold with engines running, as to opposed to an MPA parked with a ground power unit attached to allow systems to be run up.

As for the "flying an MPA is an extra" cost argument, how much of an extra cost exactly? If you don't fly an MPA, the crew are still being paid while at home, the airfield overheads are all still being paid, ATC, duty engineers, guard force, power, etc. The additional costs of flying are largely the "consumables", and the effect on the requirement for the next periodic serving and ultimately replacing the airframe.

I would suggest that MPA costs are not that dissimilar whether you use it or not. A force of 30 odd airframes, 3 Sqns to man it, simulator buildings and staff, an active airfield, 1500 odd people of various trades to support it, all cost a considerable amount even if all 30 aircraft are sat on the ground doing nothing.

You still come back to 6 hours of MPA "consumables" vs 72-96 hours of warship "consumables", and I still don't see why the latter isn't more expensive.

I haven't even returned to the fact that during non-holiday season the MPA could do the job as a minor part of a normal training event......




















Have to agree to differ on what is, after all, a fairly pointless discussion, since the UK no longer has a viable MPA fleet!!

[betty swallox]

Dervish.

If that's what you really think all the Nimrod did, I'm offended. I know this is a rumour site, but, frankly if you're going to post rubbish, think about your audience. No comment is better than ill-informed tripe.

[Jet In Vitro]

How would you tackle 3 or 4 vessels of interest at say 200 miles separation . An MPA can update all 4 easily in one sortie. A single RN asset can trail one.

Each platform has benefits.

[Biggus]

betty,

The comments from Dervish are not (necessarily) what he/she thinks personally. They are just an extract (hence the use of the words "brief extract") from the article you can read if you follow the link in the original post.

Be advised that if you do read the full article, I fully anticipate that you will suffer from highly elevated blood pressure.... enjoy! :)

[betty swallox]

Sure! I will. Couldn't open earlier.

[Party Animal]

I couldn't open the link either but it's obvious from the short extract that the idiot is commenting on a subject they have no idea on. Frankly, an infantile perspective.

On second thoughts, maybe they work for HQ Air?

[Biggus]

I couldn't open the link either, but fortunately my internet browser was clever enough to give me options...

If you replace the ******* in the link with:

t o p s g o l b

now reverse the letters, and lose the spaces between them, then it should work!

Alternatively put thin pinstriped line into the well known search engine that has become a verb in the OED!

Enjoy!!

[alfred_the_great]

Apart from the fact JimLad1 is one of the good guys in Town, and amazingly for the internet, actually has a clue about what he is talking about.

[dervish]

Could I just I point out I linked to a blog that is not mine.

As someone else said too, I thought the author of the article had an agenda. In general the blog is quite knowledgeable on Navy matters and seems to be written by someone in MoD. That pro-RN slant has been taken a little far in this particular article, which seems very anti-MPA. The detail in the various articles makes me think the author is not anonymous, and enjoys the tacit approval of MoD which, like other government departments is known to "float" ideas in semi-official announcements or leaks to gauge opinion. I may be wrong!

[alfred_the_great]

Very, very wrong.

Having just re-read the entry, I really don't understand the panty-twisting that is going on. The 3 advantages of airpower - speed, height, reach - don't have the same advantages of maritime power - persistence and sustained range - in a situation like this. They are complementary capabilities. Indeed, the entry seems to be slapping around the Scottish contingent (the SNP's Defence lead for one), who complained that no surface ships in Scotland hazarded their defence, as well as some fatuous comments about MRA4.

[Jimlad1]

Dervish

As ATG has 'outed' me, I can perhaps set to rest a few myths.

Firstly, I am enormously pro-MPA, adored the 'can do attitude' kipper fleet when I had the pleasure of working in Sandy places with it some years ago and saw the results it provided, and have worked with some great guys from the fleet. I would dearly love to see an MPA solution in service (having been in the back of a P8 I'd say its a 95% MRA4 solution and I'd love to see it in service in the UK).
The point of the article was that if you went down the line favoured by the DM of providing a 24/7 watch, then actually its probably far more efficient to have a ship out - its not just a case of putting one plane in the air, but that sustaining a long term 24/7 watch will involve the unsung efforts of a lot of the station to do this, and this is not often appreciated or valued.
The second point of the article was to point out that some of the complaints in the Scotsman contained some deeply misleading lines of argument, which also ignored realities like the existence of a Scottish OPV fleet and MPA capability today, which are all too easily forgotten.

Finally, I am happy to state for the record that the MOD does not, has not, and will not sponsor or push the PSL blog (or I believe any other blog which isn't hosted on Gov.uk) It is a private blog, done in my own time at home, and is nothing to do with MOD.

ATG knows me in real life, and I know that if he (or others who know me) for one second suspected this was not the case, then they would say so! If you want to chat further about this then PM me and we can exchange gsi addresses...

[Party Animal]

I admit I still haven't got the time or inclination to read the article BUT...


Dervish - just to clarify my earlier use of the word 'idiot' was absolutely not directed at you but at the author of the blog.


And,


I know for a fact that Angus Roberston is very pro MPA which is why the SNP Defence Plan includes MPA as a priority. Also, the senior operational leadership of the RN is also very pro MPA, so I'm fairly certain, there would be no criticism from their perspective.


Those who know what an MPA brings to the party know. Those who don't, show themselves up very clearly. Unfortunately for the maritime RAF contingent, the greater RAF leadership falls into the latter category.

[alfred_the_great]

I admit I still haven't got the time or inclination to read the article BUT...

But you still call the author an idiot.

Strong.

[dervish]

JimLad

Thank you. I offered an honest opinion and reading some of your largely excellent pieces still think you sail close to the wind. MoD may not "sponsor or push" your blog, but they must surely tacitly agree to it? But well done you for writing it. If it gets people talking about serious issues then it is well worth it. I thought the pie-eating comment more than unfair. It isn't as if they could break out a hexamine cooker and brew up on the flight deck.



Party Animal

Thank you also. Yes I've noticed SNP's stance. You can hardly miss it! I also hear that SDSR15 is to be cancelled if we vote Yes next year, which I thought may have been behind the blog article. If true, that might have far reaching consequences for MoD, especially if another MPA replacement :ugh: was scheduled to be inserted in the equipment programme.

[Jimlad1]

Dervish - check your PMs :ok:

[Party Animal]

ATG,


'the value of the MPA is limited to being able to say ‘we know you are there’.
For the crews its likely to mean sustained sorties flying racetracks in foul weather, with long hours of discussions between kipper fleet members about the merits of different pies that they've tasted.


So, the best Nimrod could do would be to find the vessel, loiter with fairly obvious intent, and then land again. To support this around the clock would require a minimum of three airframes, a significant proportion of flight operations and support personnel and tie up the resources of a significant proportion of the station'.


For some reason, I cannot get the 'quote' button to work?


But,


Okay, I accept the quote was not meant in condescension or contempt. However, it shows an absolute lack of knowledge of the role of an MPA in ASuW and how they would operate on a routine basis. In simple terms, it is just plain wrong.


I also accept Jimlad1 is generally a well balanced contributor to pprune and his last post makes more sense of contextualizing the original entry. Therefore, I accept idiot is a bit strong.


My reason for not reading the full article is that the initial link didn't work and the 'how to' provided by Biggus reads like something from the Da Vinci Code!

[Just This Once...]

Jimlad1,

From your blog:

...no agendas, merely serving as a collection of the authors thoughts on a range of matters... defence policy, complaining about poor quality of defence journalism.

I opine that this article does nothing positive and sits uneasily with your stated aim; indeed, you should reflect on what makes for poor quality defence journalism. You have posted far more balanced thoughts on this forum and I hope you choose to do so again.

[alfred_the_great]

Does this board's owners have a vendetta against b l o g s p o t?

(good grief, it turns the complete word into ***s!)

[Biggus]

Alfred,

Hence my allegedly "Da Vinci" code type work around...... which I didn't think was that hard to resolve!!

[alfred_the_great]

bloody hell....

bl og sp ot
b l o g s p o t
blog spot
blogsp ot
bl ogspot
b logspot
bl o gspot
blo g spot

I mean, seriously?

wordpress

[Party Animal]

Biggus,


Have you thought about applying for a job at Bletchley Park?


ATG,


Have you thought about getting your blood pressure checked?


Bet you used to love 3-2-1 with Ted Rodgers...


Ever heard of the K.I.S.S. principle?

[betty swallox]

My tuppence....

Surely it's also time to stop getting hung up on the MPA handle. I'd hope that were any discussion to be taking place, an aircraft capable of being a Multi-Mission Aircraft (MMA) would be a far better place to start...

[alfred_the_great]

Nope, MPA only please. The biggest shortfall is the wet end of the MPA's skillset, and that is the only thing that will bring back that capability; trying to be the jack of all trades will simply see the exacerbation of the capability shortfall.

[RandomBlah]

Alfred.


Your comment above is 100% wrong. The ONLY thing that will see a reintroduction of a genuine long-range maritime patrol aeroplane type capability to the UK in the short/medium term is if the capabilities associated with the maritime missions are on a platform that can achieve them AND has a range of other capabilities as well.


The age of one-trick flying ponies, for the UK, is gone - we cannot afford them.


If people proceed with your mentality we will get nothing. The only argument, all things considered, is a MULTI MISSION AIRCRAFT, that can do all the maritime stuff and more. The day of the pure LRMPA has gone.

[alfred_the_great]

Why would we need a long range MMA? The Gulf is short range, and is being done now by other aircraft types. Africa is being done by other aircraft types as well. Some of the capability will be lost, but the only thing we do not have, right now, is long range, sustainable (i.e. 24/7 ops), ASW focussed aeroplanes.

The problem with MMA is that it is the master of no trades. Why on earth was Nimrod MR2 in Afghanistan? There is enough of a recognised ASW threat to justify a small buy (<7 P8?) and keep it in use. I don't need, or want over land ISTAR from an MPA, and if it comes to it, I'd rather have a small number of ASW focussed MPA than a larger number of ISTAR/ASuW/SAR capable only MMA.

ASW and Wet Skills are hard enough to maintain without getting aircraft diverted on other tasking.

[betty swallox]

Alfred,
Wrong wrong wrong. It's 2013, not 1970. Things have changed, and moved on. I'm not suggesting jack of all trades, but jack of many. A single capability for one aircraft, IMHO, is not the way ahead. Look at MR2 in the latter days. She wasn't ONLY a dedicated MPA, she turned her had to much more. And MRA4 was never to be only an MPA!!

I do agree with your idea for a need of revitalisation of ASW/ASUW skills, but surely any platform ought to be far more broad.

[Jimlad1]

Perhaps an interesting question would be, had we not been on TELIC, or had the comms/ISTAR package that Nimrod provided for a certain period prior to other systems doing it been in place already, then would Nimrod have been binned earlier?

Is there an argument that TELIC/HERRICK were merely a stay of execution?

[tucumseh]

Is there an argument that TELIC/HERRICK were merely a stay of execution?


Interesting question but I think you have to look at why MRA4 was scrapped. The precise reason was known in 1994 when the programme was out to tender, and for some years before that on MR2. MoD chose to bear the known risks, which is fine up to a point. But these were not publicised, in fact they were actively concealed, which is not fine. It is illegal. And the staffs of the Inspector of Flight Safety were under strict orders not to speak to specialist staffs when compiling their reports.

[betty swallox]

Oh, here we go. Again. I was merely comparing capabilities. NOTHING to do with the whys and wherefores of the MR2/MRA4 withdrawal and cancellation.

[tucumseh]

If you don't understand the history, you cannot hope to avoid the same mistakes or know your enemy!

[alfred_the_great]

Betty, 2014 might look a lot more like 1970 than 1998.

ASW is on the up, trust me on this. Anyway, who's to say that the MPA will be operated solely by the RAF?

[betty swallox]

Tucumseh. I resent that. I know the history as intimately as anyone.

[RandomBlah]

Alfred


"Why would we need a long range MMA? The Gulf is short range, and is being done now by other aircraft types"


The Gulf is not short range. The bit to the left of the straights of Hormuz yes. But how about the Arabian Sea? Have a look on a map and note the size of the area that extends to the west coast of India and around to Yemen, Socotra etc. You appear to be focusing on Ops in the gulf area; how about the rest of the world - who knows where we may have to get involved in the future (especially as nations begin to fight over energy), or where our carriers may deploy?


"Africa is being done by other aircraft types"


This reminds me of work I completed with the USN regarding deconfliction for said theatre. The ATOs etc were mostly filled with the likes of P-3 and Atlantiques. All aircraft could operate at range; a key feature to achieve this particular mission.


"I don't need, or want over land ISTAR from an MPA, and if it comes to it, I'd rather have a small number of ASW focussed MPA than a larger number of ISTAR/ASuW/SAR capable only MMA."


You do need overland ISTAR from a future MPA - there is no money to obtain a platform that can complete only a comparatively small portion of the wide range of ISR tasks.


"ASW and Wet Skills are hard enough to maintain without getting aircraft diverted on other tasking."


Do you mean diverted onto a task in the national interest? A platform that can re-tasked in the air from one task to another is exceptionally flexible. How about from a maritime training mission to an overland UK terrorist threat response? ASW skills can be maintained at an adequate level (not superb) alongside other tasks.


You also appear to think that overland ISTAR is flying in a circle pointing a camera at something talking to people on the ground via a radio. you may wish to broaden your thinking. For example, have a look at the link below from an unclassified source.


Boeing Assessing Effect Of Advanced Sensor On P-8 Life (http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=/article-xml/asd_03_25_2013_p04-01-562416.xml)

[Biggus]

Once again this is yet another thread slowly drifting back to the subject of the UK getting back into the MPA (MMA?) game.

While I would be among the first to welcome such a situation, I feel the realities of life outside an MOD establishment often pass by many who discuss this subject. I would recommend reading post 52 of this thread for some thoughts on the pitfalls ahead of funding for any new aircraft, no matter how much people of light and dark blue uniforms may wish otherwise :

http://www.pprune.org/military-aircrew/528176-us-navy-debuts-p-8a-poseidon-dubai-air-show.html



Even Labour is now finally saying that public spending needs to restrained, although still somehow trying to blame the coalition for the deficit Labour would inherit if it won the next election!!!! This is a new approach Labour trotted out just before Christmas, when Parliament had broken up, and the papers were occupied elsewhere, trying to avoid any scrutiny - since it represents a MASSIVE U TURN from their "spend our way out of recession" argument that they have been making up until now in opposition!

Ed Balls aims to identify spending cuts in Labour review - FT.com (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/409bc2f0-6805-11e3-a905-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2onW9AIpB)

'Tough but necessary savings 'will make me "unpopular" says Labour's Ed Balls | Western Daily Press (http://www.westerndailypress.co.uk/Tough-necessary-savings-make-unpopular-says/story-20343634-detail/story.html)

[RandomBlah]

Biggus,


You are quite correct. The bottom line is there is no new money; but that is not to say there are alternative ways and means. Or, that the UKs ISTAR resources could not be reconfigured to increase capability without increasing footprint.

[alfred_the_great]

The answer will be 5 - 7 P-8s, and they'll be tasked primarily with ASW. IF they have spare capacity, then they'll do that, but their primary mission will be ASW.

[Biggus]

.... and the money will come from.....?

What will you give up in exchange?





Random,

I can't quite see E-3Ds, Sentinels, Reapers or Shadow doing the sort of ASW Alfred is after!!

[RandomBlah]

Alfred,


I hope you are correct.

[Toadstool]

RB

while I would welcome the MMA capability, given Nimrod 2000, the difficulty in choosing an option other than Rivet Joint as a Nimrod R1 replacement and the MRA4 debacle, its not as simple as finding the money or reconfiguring a current ISTAR platform. If you think it is, I would be interested to hear your thoughts about which current ISTAR platform you think would be easy to reconfigure without losing or degrading that platform's capability.

[Biggus]

Maybe we should have a permanent, or at least long term, MPA (MMA?) thread running. It would stop repeating the same information on a different thread every month or so... :)

[Toadstool]

I agree Biggus as this debate is going to run and run and quite a few threads seem to revert back to this subject.

[Biggus]

Toadstool,

Thanks - it's not very often someone agrees with me on pprune. I still can't see it happening though (the long term MPA/MMA thread I mean)!!

[betty swallox]

Doh!! Well that is the title of the thread!!
If you're bored by it, don't read!!

[Toadstool]

Biggus


thats two! I also agree with you ref the difficulty in finding the money for a new MPA/MMA or reconfiguring a current ISTAR platform.

[RandomBlah]

TS,


I did not mention reconfiguring a current platform. I mentioned reconfiguring the UKs posture, from an Air Platform perspective. i.e. obtain an MMA that can complete all the required maritime tasks and the missions currently completed by one trick ponies, thus allowing aforementioned pony to be retired.

[Toadstool]

RB

in which case which one trick pony platform would you get rid of?. Understanding the intricacies of each platform with respect to something as simple as flight profile, never mind the vast technical difficulties involved in configuring a MMA, would make this MMA quite an expensive project!

Betty

I think you misunderstand. I welcome a thread concerning this important subject. I think that when other threads sidetrack onto this subject it detracts both from that thread and from the MMA/MPA issue. I am most certainly not bored.

[Biggus]

Random,

Can you expand on "obtain" an MMA?

[RandomBlah]

Gents, for now, I will retire from this Fred. Biggus, I mean gain access to a MMA to use at the exact time and discretion of UK PLC. TS, there is more than enough information out there, open source, that you can use to deduce my thoughts.


Good discussion though Gents.


Regards


RB

[Toadstool]

RB

thats a shame buddy, you obviously have some good thoughts and opinions on this subject.

Kind regards

[alfred_the_great]

Biggus - the money will come from in year underspend(s) carried over (plus a little bit of new money from reducing the size of the Army), the P-8 will be utterly stock, i.e. no-UK PLC mods whatsoever, it won't carry weapons and it will arrive in low numbers to start off with.

Small aspirations with an in-service aircraft doing exactly what it is supposed to do, nothing more, nothing less.

[Toadstool]

ATG

we live in hope. I also hope it comes before all our experts' skills have atrophied. This seedcorn initiative, if the P-8 ever comes into fruition, will have been an excellent idea.

[Biggus]

Alfred,

I admire your optimism. Time will tell.

Your "underspend funding" just has to survive a Scottish independence referendum, a national election, the political will of the next government to carry it out, the funds not disappearing in cost over runs on Carriers, JSF, or being used for an extra C-17, retention of Sentinel and other UOR funded goodies, etc. Then there's the matter of a long term funding stream for all the extra support and infrastructure for a new aircraft type, extra manpower, training, simulators, etc.... Buying the aircraft is the relatively cheap bit, longer term support eats the money....

Anyway, as I said, time will tell.....

[tucumseh]

I’d love to see the first page of any submission from D/Air Staffs to resurrect MPA. They would have to be very careful over the “Background” section. They’d almost certainly have to seriously mislead, and probably lie.

1. We had an MR2 which we knew to be unairworthy, but ignored IFS and cracked on.
2. We endorsed a replacement, but then agreed to merely upgrade the already unairworthy MR2, knowing it could never satisfy the regulations we are bound by. We ignored IFS and our own technical specialists and cracked on.
3. At (Reference A) we stated we did not agree with the Coroner.
4. At (Reference B) we stated we did not agree with the Secretary of State.
5. At (Reference C) we stated we did not agree with the briefings to Mr Haddon-Cave or his confirmation of their veracity.
6. At (Reference D) we agreed MRA4 should be scrapped because all of the above advice proved correct, but we still agree it was worthwhile pissing £4Bn down the pan because we didn’t want our VSOs to be imprisoned. Please don’t abate our pensions.
7. Please give us more dosh so we can try again, but don’t ask awkward questions or call the old bill. (Not that they’ll do anything, the fix is in, but that lot on pprune will publish the truth anyway).

The overarching process is called Requirement Scrutiny. It MUST ask the question “WHY?” to each of the above statements, and take corrective action to prevent recurrence. But if the “new” requirement is endorsed then approval will be given and funding provided, regardless. Fine, I've no problem with that.

As Biggus rightly says, support is around 80% of through life costs and this will be difficult to explain away given it was actually one of the relatively successful parts of MRA4 and much was delivered years before cancellation, highlighting even more waste. The typical Staff solution is to omit support costs, get approval and then insert – called “entryism”. One would hope the EAC is wise to this now. But they’ve rolled over in the past, making me wonder if these costs are included in the £4Bn headline waste we hear of.

All of the above, albeit slightly tongue in cheek, achieves one thing – it reveals gross misconduct on the part of some very senior staffs over a number of years, and directly links their conduct to deaths and waste. I’m not entirely sure D/Air Staffs will want to get this particular paragraph correct and, as we know, a number of their retired predecessors still exercise influence. But the staff officer who gets it right, by which I mean he protects the VSOs but not necessarily MPA capability, will surely be destined for higher office.

[alfred_the_great]

And what does any of that MR2 stuff have to do with a P-8? Why does it need to go into a "background" section at all?

Edit - it won't be submitted by "D/Air Staff", the capability requirement will likely be done by JFC, probably the Joint Warfare Staff.

[Party Animal]

Tuc,


Looking forward, there are realistically only 2 options; P-8 or CN295. Both are already in use by other countries and would come off the shelf and fully certified. History of Nimrod issues would have absolutely no part to play in the process other than an MMA rubber stamp to confirm that they would be good to go.


To my mind, the real challenge would be to ramp up a sqn or 2 with all the supporting elements (e.g. MAAU etc.) that could fully utilize the aircraft in the timescale that the aircraft could be delivered. From signature to delivery could be within 3 years. In that time, the RAF and/or RN would have to recruit significant numbers of WSO/Ops/WAFU's and put them through a realistic training system (USA or AUS perhaps?). Do-able, yes but it would take senior leadership decisions that would need to be fast and robust to make it happen.


Alternatively, we could have lots of aircraft parked in a hangar waiting for the RAF to collect them some time in the future.

[betty swallox]

Party Animal,
I'm sure there are a bunch of folks on Seedcorn round the world that would be a good start.

[Party Animal]

BS,

Seedcorners will be good for the OCU staff and maybe the standards unit. Not sure what the recognised crew: aircraft ratio is nowadays but in my time on the MRA4, we were using 1.75:1. Do the maths and thats a lot of fresh blood required for 7 aircraft? Plus the enablers, MDAG, MAOC, int, ops support etc,. Let alone the ground engineers who will be starting from scratch.

[Pontius Navigator]

PA, in the 70s the ratio was 8:10 with 3 in use reserves unestablished.

I guess the number of crews would depend on the number of patrol cycles and whether it was a 24 hour cycle.

[alfred_the_great]

Most of the tri-service enablers still exist.

[Party Animal]

PN,

Do you mean 8 crews with 10 aircraft or 10 crews for 8 aircraft? In 1998, the STC (as it was then) ratio was 17.5 crews for 10 aircraft on the heavies.

[Just This Once...]

One would presume that a P-8 order would be mirrored by a co-manning arrangement as per Rivet Joint, in order to accelerate the capability and preserve the retained experience.

Just need to shake the money tree.

[Party Animal]

Alfred,

There are approximately 66 WSO/WSOps left in the RAF with maritime experience. At the end of the MR2, the MAOC had an establishment of 18 to support 24/7 ops. MDAG had about 10. MAAU had a similar number. Int used to have about 8 WSOps. A3 had several WSOps plus half a dozen Ops Support officers. Eng Wg (in old money) had 800 ground engineers to support the fleet. The MSS office soaked up several more WSOps etc. - you get the picture.

Bottom line is that Kinloss alone had about 1800 people to support 21 aircraft. Cutting that number by a third still leaves a lot of people to find, to support haf a dozen. If you want to do the job right.

Assuming, the aircraft would be joint manned with the dark blue, the Fleet Air Arm manning figures are just as bad. There is no fat anywhere in the system anymore.

[Jet In Vitro]

If you put the MPA/ MMA at RAF Waddington you would not necessarily need to find all the support staff you quoted. There are a whole load of people supporting the ISTAR platforms already there.

[Biggus]

PA,

I don't know where you get your figure of 66 from, neither am I questioning it's accuracy, but I know of at least half a dozen ex-maritime WSOs/WSOps who are already in their 50s....

If your figure of 66 is correct, I would say it will be below 60 in the not too distant future, well before any new airframe might (and it's a very big "might") appear on the horizon. :{

As for the issue of finding multi engine pilots for a new fleet, just read any of the retention threads to see how many first and second tourist RAF ME pilots are already taking their ATPLs.

The situation isn't rosy anywhere!

[Guernsey Girl II]

Jet, that's news to most of us not on E3D please post details :8

[Jet In Vitro]

GG II,

Spread across all the whole stn and at JSSU there are loads of mission support staff. Trouble is they are all supporting stove piped systems. There are more E3D support staff than we had a Kinloss where we flew 24/7, unlike the E3Ds.

[The Old Fat One]

Let's have the discussion in the real world, shall we?

What you can do is pull every economies of scale, job deskilling & synergy trick in the book, to reduce your support requirement to the absolute minimum (kinda JEEP style - just enough essential parts)

What you cannot do is parachute a sqn and a half of MPA (or whatever you want to call it) into Waddington and say..."here, get one with operating that with your existing LUE". That's just nonsense.

To a large extent, the support manpower requirement will be determined by how you conduct, 1st, 2nd & 3rd line servicing on the beast. The Nimrod has NLS, AEF & NMSU. Perhaps an engineer could suggest a modern equivalent - i confess I know nothing of such matters, other than the rather obvious fact that it takes a sh1tload of people to fix and maintain military combat aircraft.

Then, of course, you have all the adjacent engineering tasks...weapons, sensors, comms etc etc.

Bottom line is that Kinloss alone had about 1800 people to support 21 aircraft. Cutting that number by a third still leaves a lot of people to find, to support haf a dozen. If you want to do the job right

My fag packet figures are not a million miles from PA's. I would be surprised if you could get any maritime beast into service in the RAF, or the RN, without an increase of circa 1000 posts in somebody's LUE.

[downsizer]

We could bin Tornado early in SDSR15 thus freeing up plenty of manpower for an MPA fleet...:ok:

[Just This Once...]

Yep, if you give-up Tornado early, remove 1 squadron of Reaper, actually delete Sentinel and commence co-manning with US-hosted trg we may actually be able to scrape together a credible MMA FE.

I think it would be worth it but opinions will vary - and rightly so.

[downsizer]

In all seriousness binning tornado would free up a LOT of people across many branches and trades.

[dragartist]

I don't believe freeing up any people from Tonka, Sentinel or any other capability will provide the manning to support any MPA.
Just look how times have changed. New capabilities are introduced with support being provided by the platform main contractor. the staff being mostly ex Service. take C130 - the majority of the support being provided by MA at Cambridge and Brize. Rivet Joint - As I understand L3 will provide most of the 2nd, 3rd and 4th line support including staff based at Waddington. Raytheon already support the Sentinel at Waddington. I think this is the model for the future. Gone are NMSU, EWAD, St Athan and many of the MUs that we once had. I think the seedcorn initiative will kick off any rear end aircrew requirement (the formation pie eating team) but certainly not the support.
The problem with this in the UK is that the pool of trained and suitably skilled manpower will soon dry up. All very short term. I think this model has been effective in the US. I cite the SR71 programme which had industry experts close to the front from the start.

[downsizer]

I don't believe freeing up any people from Tonka, Sentinel or any other capability will provide the manning to support any MPA.

Why not? All those engineers that do 1st line on the tornado can do 1st line on the new MPA and as you say the seedcorn covers the early aircrew manning.

[Biggus]

downsizer,

How do you then plan to man your JSF Sqns, especially when you consider that the first of them is due to stand up well before any MMA/MPA Sqn could/would be formed?

[dragartist]

I'm with you Downsizer. That is how it should work. But not how it appears to work. The bean counters worked out that it was cheaper for Defence to outsource. unfortunately I have never been sharp enough to work this out.

[downsizer]

How do you then plan to man your JSF Sqns, especially when you consider that the first of them is due to stand up well before any MMA/MPA Sqn could/would be formed?What, the one RAF sqn we will have? And maybe an OCU? :E:}

Shouldn't be too hard to find 1 sqn's worth of manning out of the tonka remants (and lets not forget the considerable blue presence at 2nd line helping BAe) allied with the C130 drawdown and binning of merlin.

I'm not being really serious here I hasten to add, just a bit of light hearted spit-balling. But then there is an awful lot of servicemen keeping tornado in the air.

[Biggus]

Are you aware of the recent PVR rate at Lossie...?

[downsizer]

Yes mate I am.

You are aware I said it was a bit of light hearted spit-balling?

[Biggus]

Yes I am..... it's just that you still then went on to say "there is an awful lot of servicemen keeping tornado in the air".....



Anyway, keep 'spit-balling'..... and Happy New Year! :ok:

[The Old Fat One]

To clarify (not that it should be needed)

It matters not a jot whether your engineers (1st line, 2nd line whatever) are military dudes or civilian contractors. They is still all people and they all has to be paid, or paid for, from somebody's budget. Know what I mean.

Unless somebody out there has a working model for providing engineering support to combat military aircraft from some sort of charitable young offenders outreach programme :confused:

[downsizer]

It would be interesting to see tornado costs to 2019 and how far that money would go towards setting up an MPA capability.

[betty swallox]

Start using MMA, not MPA!! This is the key!!!

[Joe Black]

Agree completely Betty but I seriously don't think there is much chance of an off the shelf MMA (P-8 or C295). As a former Kipper fleet member I think if it does come back it will be headed by the RN.........in my opinion this is probably better long term. The RAF will always support the fast pointy things and the assets it sees which supports them. E-3 will remain and Sentinel could be our MMA!!! Who knows, but I think many of us are now losing the hope that a true MMA with a long range ASW/ASuW capability will happen within the next 5 years.

[nimbev]

I must confess to having problems understanding the practicalities of the seedcorn programme. Could someone please fill me in on the numbers of 'seedcorners' that are currently deployed with a breakdown by pilot/nav/AeOp. When did the bulk of them take up their postings and are they on 2 or 3 years stints? Thanks in anticipation.

[HAS59]

Well a Happy New year to all concerned with the future UK MMA capability …

And cheer up – it can be done but we need to be sure what we need.

Do we need all our E-3 fleet as it currently equipped and manned? Is Sentinel going to remain – if so doing what and where, for whom?

Are we sure we need two squadrons of Reapers that we probably won’t be able to use in the UK?

How many FJ people do we need for future F-35 plans – if there are any?

Does anyone who knows anything actually have a plan? Or are we going to have to fund yet more ‘feasibility studies’?

‘Joe Black’, you are close when you say Sentinel may be our next MMA. Of course it won’t despite all the spin, it remains a simple wide area radar only tool. However, the money currently spent on funding 5 Squadron could be used to support a joint RN/RAF MMA. Flog the jets back to Bombardier lease some P-8’s and let’s get on with it.

‘Nimbev’, you asked about my mates on Seedcorn. They are on a three year loan … this may be extended of course. They are unlikely to be replaced as we have no current folk to replace them – it was a one-off shot. They consist of front and rear crewguys, some of the best we had left.

No one pretends that this will be easy … few would argue that it is not necessary.

[betty swallox]

Battle stations! Navy scrambles destroyer to challenge Russian warship off British coast (but it takes 24 hours to make 600-mile journey from Portsmouth base - was Putin testing our response time?) | Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2533846/Battle-stations-Navy-scrambles-destroyer-challenge-Russian-warship-British-coast-takes-24-hours-make-600-mile-journey-Portsmouth-base-Putin-testing-response-time.html)

[Jet In Vitro]

BS you beat me to it. An MPA based, in say an airfield near Forres, could have made an initial welcoming party at over 1000 miles north.

The Russians are now doing what we used to do to them. We did it because we had the assets, were confident in our ability and considered them as a spent force.

[Just This Once...]

Does anyone else think how nice the Russians are being to the RN?

If they really wanted to be difficult they could have waited until Defender had got within 150 miles or so and then buggered-off on an anti-clockwise lap of the UK in a kind of low-speed police / Benny Hill style chase back to Portsmouth…

[dragartist]

The article makes reference to the RAF having followed the ship. so we must have some limited capability. I noticed the Grobs active over Grafham Water just before Christmas.

[reynoldsno1]

There was one occasion, the crew gathered in the dining room having just ordered a light repast when they were scambled
I remember it well - I think everybody ordered the same lobster & steak repast ... and made the same comment that we were bound to be scrambled now ...:hmm:

[Party Animal]

The article makes reference to the RAF having followed the ship. so we must have some limited capability.


I know you were joking with the Grobs line but don't believe everything you read in the papers... :oh:

[Norma Stitz]

No one at any point seems to have indicated that a NOTAM went out in December for the carrier, albeit to play 'out west' but presumably the weather encouraged them into the North Sea. Needless to say the Daily Mail wouldn't want to know this sort of information as it would make them look stupid, almost as stupid as the folk making comments on their online article :)

[nimbev]

J in V said
The Russians are now doing what we used to do to them. We did it because we had the assets, were confident in our ability and considered them as a spent force. 'spent force'? you must have missed the cold war then??

[TEEEJ]

Russian TV footage of the Kuznetsov Task Force off Scotland. HMS Defender is shown in the footage.

Russian TV footage (http://tvzvezda.ru/news/forces/content/201312311332-ix85.htm)

Task Force support vessels have since been noted off the East Coast of the UK and passing through the English Channel

Tug Nikolay Chiker from AIS.

http://goo.gl/maps/bIi3v

Live Ships Map - AIS - Vessel Traffic and Positions - AIS Marine Traffic (http://www.marinetraffic.com/en/ais/home/oldmmsi:273543910/zoom:10/olddate:lastknown)

Tanker Osipov from AIS

http://goo.gl/maps/2lEXN

Live Ships Map - AIS - Vessel Traffic and Positions - AIS Marine Traffic (http://www.marinetraffic.com/en/ais/home/oldmmsi:273546000/zoom:10/olddate:lastknown)

Tanker Vyazma has been sending Morse Code weather since leaving the Barents and is likely heading for the English Channel? Noted in the North Sea as of 12 GMT, 7th January. The international weather contains the position, course and speed.

8345 Kilohertz

RMP DE RAL46 07121 99560 10038 22241 @1231Z

56.0N 03.8E Heading South at 1-5 Knots

http://goo.gl/maps/C72eQ

[TEEEJ]

http://c69011.r11.cf3.rackcdn.com/2907bad831724edda3b7adba07299b60-576x0.jpg



09/01/2014

HMS Defender has returned to Portsmouth today after ensuring a number of Russian ships had a safe passage along the UK coastline at short notice over Christmas.

One of the UK’s newest and most powerful Type 45 destroyers, HMS Defender began her 700 mile journey from Portsmouth to the North East of Scotland on December 19 to meet the Russian task group.

As the Fleet Ready Escort, HMS Defender was the Royal Navy’s high readiness warship over Christmas and New Year meaning she stands ready to respond to a wide range of short notice tasks from search and rescue duties to maritime security patrols.

The Portsmouth-based destroyer sailed through high sea states and storm force winds to welcome the group of six vessels, including a 65,000 tonne aircraft carrier.

Due to bad weather the Russian fleet anchored in the Moray Firth before heading down the East coast of the UK. As a sign of the friendship between the two navies, good will messages were exchanged between the ships on New Year’s Eve.

The Minister for International Security Strategy, Dr Andrew Murrison, said:

“The UK and Russia enjoy a good relationship and the deployment of HMS Defender, one of our newest destroyers, as Fleet Ready Escort underlines the Royal Navy’s modern day utility in UK interests.”

HMS Defender’s Commanding Officer, Commander Phil Nash, said: “As a maritime nation the security of the seas around our coastline remain vital to our national interests. This tasking has demonstrated the Royal Navy’s enduring commitment in home waters and readiness to undertake tasking at any time of the year.

“I am extremely proud of each and every one of my sailors; they have tackled this mission with utter professionalism and dedication to duty, whilst also being separated from their families at short notice over Christmas and New Year.”

HMS Defender’s Operations Officer, Lieutenant Commander Mark Mason, added: “This high readiness tasking demonstrates the Type 45 Destroyer’s flexibility and agility.

“These highly capable warships are prepared for high end warfighting, but are equally adept at conducting interdiction operations, disaster relief missions and patrolling the nation’s coast line.”

http://c69011.r11.cf3.rackcdn.com/1025e1689c7b433ea914152d55c26047-576x0.jpg

Summer Sabin (Left) spots her father on HMS Defender with her mum Sarah Sabin as HMS Defender returns home to Portsmouth. Image by LA(Phot)Ian Simpson

Destroyer meets Russian Task Force along UK coastline | Royal Navy (http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/News-and-Events/Latest-News/2014/January/09/140209-HMS-Defender-Russian-Task-Force)

[Surplus]

Good photo op, shame Kuznetsov and the Boris were anchored, kinda makes the aggressive manouevring superfluous. :rolleyes: