ASW and MPA

[TBM-Legend]

The UK should take note>>

Jane's Defence News
The Brazilian Navy confirmed long-term plans to build 15 diesel-electric propulsion and six nuclear-powered boats The navy has completed construction of the main facility for the submarine development programme, the facility at which an initial batch of conventional and nuclear boats

[Surplus]

I'd be concerned if it was Argentina.

[Jimlad1]

They had publicly stated long term plans for ssn's since the 1970s and got very little done about it. Why should this be different?

[The Old Fat One]

I would not wish to dilute the argument for restoring the MPA capability, but JimLad is spot on.

Also, last time I looked about 40+ navies owned submarines on paper. The vast majority of them would not have a clue how to operate them to any great effect.

The Indian's (who do ASW and operate submarines pretty well) have been working on their SSN/SSBN capability for 40 years plus and are still a fair way off...although they may well get there.

Brazil...probably 30 years behind them...so maybe 2040?

[Danny42C]

It is beyond belief that an island nation such as hours, which is absolutely dependent on imports of food for its very existence, and of raw materials for the purposes of manufacture and export, should so completely divest itself of the means of protection against seaborne attack on its supply routes.

The certain means of bringing this country to its knees (the submarine) has been well known for a century and more, and demonstrated in the two World Wars of the last mid-century. Kipling put it in words:

"The sweets that you suck and the joints that you carve
Are brought to you daily by all us Big Steamers,
And if anything hinders our coming, you'll starve.

This is literally true; Churchill said that it was the greatest worry of his wartime premiership. It came close to happening in '41, when tonnage was being sunk far faster than it could be replaced. It is arguable that without the trump card that Ultra put in the hands of the Admiralty, Kipling's grim warning may have proved true.

Hitler didn't need to invade us to win. All he needed to do was to put all his resources behind Grand Admiral Raeder and his U-boats (Bismarck and Tirpitz proved costly diversions in the end) and simply wait.

[Jayand]

Yeah, and those in charge have to make difficult decisions based on the frugal amounts of cash available. They have to weigh up threat vs risk, is it likely to happen? Can we afford to spend X as insurance against the X % chance of us needing them?

I can't answer that question but someone has to, you fancy being in charge of the beans?

[The Old Fat One]

Assuming your age to be true, with the utmost deference and respect, could I point that the following sentence is pretty much 100% wrong.

Hitler didn't need to invade us to win. All he needed to do was to put all his resources behind Grand Admiral Raeder and his U-boats (Bismarck and Tirpitz proved costly diversions in the end) and simply wait.

Yes he did (need to successfully invade to win). He didn't; that's one of the reasons he lost.

That said, you are completely correct sir, we should not have given up this capability. But we did, and I am pessimistic about the prospects of getting in back.

Merry Christmas

[Party Animal]

However Joe Public will be delighted to know the UK has a mitigation plan in place to deal with any future Brazilian threats....


Just be nice to them and stay friendly!


And if it really does go horribly wrong, just ask our allies for help (again)!

[Heathrow Harry]

While agreeing we need an MPA capability back ASAP I think the Marinha do Brasil is never likely to be near the top of the list in terms of possible threats to the UK's supply lifelines....................

[Jayand]

Unless you were defending some mineral rich, rocky outcrop in the South Atlantic Heathrow Harry?

[Surplus]

It's more likely that Brazil would use them against Argentina.

http://en.mercopress.com/2013/05/04/brazil-furious-with-cristina-fernandez-non-kept-promises-freezes-relation

[Lonewolf_50]

It's more likely that Brazil would use them against Argentina.

Brazil furious with Cristina Fernandez non-kept promises freezes relation ? MercoPress (http://en.mercopress.com/2013/05/04/brazil-furious-with-cristina-fernandez-non-kept-promises-freezes-relation)
It's a few much larger steps from being upset with one another to a shooting war. :cool:

[Martin the Martian]

But I guess Argentina won't be getting any Brazilian-assembled Gripens anytime soon though.

[Lonewolf_50]

No.

As this thread is about ASW and MPA, I'll point out that the advent of the AIP systems among various folks who operate diesel submarines renders the need for most nations to consider buying a nuke, and the very expensive support network required to keep them running and afloat, null and void.

First off, if most of your patrols are near your own territorial waters. you don't need nukes. Diesels are a fine "defensive sea denial" asset. AIP makes their indiscretion interval longer, and thus their being detected by non acoustic means less likely.

Secondly, even with extended patrols, very few nations need global reach. Regional reach suffices for most needs. An AIP can go on patrol for a few weeks and take advantage of how quiet a diesel electric sub is. I seem to recall that the Kilo sub (Russian) family had some of them backfitted with AIP kit. Likewise some of the German and Dutch subs. (Did the Swedes go final on that, or not?)

We are not in your father's ASW scenario. It's a far different one these days. That said, MPA ( like the P-8, or the Nimrod were it still among the quick) have a role to play in a multi capability sense. ASW is just one role to fulfill.

Here's hoping our friends on the eastern side of the pond can get some P-8's ... should make the NATO interoperability bit less vexing. Let the Americans and Ozzies sort out the first few wrinkles, and get your kit with a few improvements! :ok:

[KenV]

The UK and a few other nations view the P-8 as a "silver bullet" solution. Too much capability at too high a price. So Boeing is now offering a "poor man's" P-8 in the form of a Canadair Challenger 605 biz jet with lots of the systems developed for the P-8. It does not have the ASW capability of a P-8 nor the weapons carriage capacity, but it (allegedly) makes a great MSA (Maritime Surveillance Aircraft), which is not quite the same as an MPA.

[Danny42C]

The Old Fat One (ref your #7),

I'm afraid that aet 93 is all too true (and it is also true that "there's no fool like an old fool !")

I don't pretend to be a military strategist, but I would contend that my earlier statement that:

"Hitler didn't need to invade us to win. All he needed to do was to put all his resources behind Grand Admiral Raeder and his U-boats (Bismarck and Tirpitz proved costly diversions in the end) and simply wait".

has some merit. I pray in aid:

(Excerpts from) "Battle of Singapore" (Wiki)

"On 11 February, concerned by the prospect of being dragged into fighting in built-up areas, Yama****a called on Percival to give up this meaningless and desperate resistance. By this stage, the fighting strength of the 22nd Brigade—which had borne the brunt of the Japanese attacks—had been reduced to a few hundred men. The Japanese had captured the Bukit Timah area, including most of the Allied ammunition and fuel and giving them control of the main water supplies".

"The following day", (14 February) "the remaining Allied units fought on. Civilian casualties mounted as one million people crowded into the area still held by the Allies and bombing and artillery fire increased. Civilian authorities began to fear that the water supply would give out".

On 15th February, after only seven days fighting, Gen. Percival surrendered to a Japanese force half his size. There is little doubt in my mind that the water factor must have played a compelling part in his decision. 80,000 British and Empire troops went into captivity for the next three years. Winston Churchill called the ignominious fall of Singapore to the Japanese the "worst disaster" and "largest capitulation" in British military history.

Of course, thirst will kill a man far quicker than starvation but the end is equally certain, and it would have the attraction for Hitler that he avoided the casualties of a frontal assault against determined defenders.

And a Merry Christmas to you, Sir !

Danny.

[Roland Pulfrew]

The UK ... view the P-8 as a "silver bullet" solution.

Really? Got a source for that?

As for Boeing's MSA, no point in buying that if the primary role for your MSA is ASW and the ability to kill the target - you know; the Find, Fix AND Finish thing.

[Lonewolf_50]

Roland:
Agree on the three F's.
As to P-8 being a sliver bullet: prices factor into weapons buying decisions all the time, which I guess the end of Nimrod illustrates as well as anything could. If the P-8 is too expensive ... that's a shame. :(

[Hangarshuffle]

Some seniority that sir, you must have lived through and witnessed the last blockade.
But is this all hair splitting at times? We no longer have a merchant navy, any hostile nation that wants to starve us can basically order its flagged nations vessels to about turn and leave us to it. i.e. by commercial sanctions?

[KenV]

Quote: The UK ... view the P-8 as a "silver bullet" solution.

Really? Got a source for that?



“The U.K. isn’t looking for a silver bullet,” said one industry official, referring to aircraft such as the Boeing P-8 Poseidon or the Nimrod. “The aircraft has to be able to take on a wide variety of missions, be versatile, adaptable, interoperable and easily upgradable.”

U.K. Maritime Patrol Capability Re-Enters Fray | Defense content from Aviation Week (http://aviationweek.com/defense/uk-maritime-patrol-capability-re-enters-fray)


As for Boeing's MSA, no point in buying that if the primary role for your MSA is ASW.
That's a mighty big IF. And if ASW is not the primary role, an MSA may be just the ticket.

[Roland Pulfrew]

Ahh I see "an industry official" said.... So they are unlikely to know in any detail then!

But for the UK one of the biggest gaps in the arsenal is that left by the withdrawal of Nimrod and its primary role was........ ASW! Even CAS' statement indicates that.

As for “The aircraft has to be able to take on a wide variety of missions, be versatile, adaptable, interoperable and easily upgradable.” sounds very much like a silver bullet to me.

[KenV]

But for the UK one of the biggest gaps in the arsenal is that left by the withdrawal of Nimrod and its primary role was........ ASW! Even CAS' statement indicates that.


OK, Nimrod was too expensive and P-8 is too expensive. So apparently its better to have zero MPA and zero MSA capability than to have just an MSA capability.


Quote: “The aircraft has to be able to take on a wide variety of missions, be versatile, adaptable, interoperable and easily upgradable.”
sounds very much like a silver bullet to me.
Maybe. Or it may describe Boeing's MSA, which is NOT a silver bullet.

[Roland Pulfrew]

Ken

There is no pont in buying an MSA if you need an ASW platform - simples!

[KenV]

What one "needs" and what one can afford are two different things. Obviously the UK "needs" an MPA with a robust ASW capability. It has none. Would an MSA be better than the current nothing.

Referencing another thread, perhaps the UK "needs" a rotory wing AAR capability. It has none.

Referencing yet another thread, perhaps the UK "needs" CATOBAR aircraft carriers. It has none.

Referencing yet another thread, perhaps the UK "needs" a nuclear deterent such as Trident. Yet there's plenty of talk, some of it quite convincing, that that capability is a luxury and should be scrapped.

[sandiego89]

Several countries have long bantered about building SSN's, but the costs are tremendous. I recall a discussion over one not so favored nation declaring their intent to build some SSN's, and the opinion boiled down to: "good, I hope they try, it will bankrupt them for sure and ruin the rest of their Navy."

[Roland Pulfrew]

What one "needs" and what one can afford are two different things. Obviously the UK "needs" an MPA with a robust ASW capability. It has none. Would an MSA be better than the current nothing.


Well Ken that is of course a decision for any future government and a Strategic Defence and Security Review. But to answer your question, there are other assets that can do maritime surveillance, so it's not "nothing". Therefore what is needed is something that can do long range ASW; back to that SDSR thing I guess.

[LowObservable]

The Brazilians are quite serious about an SSN, having ambitions that cover large areas of the South Atlantic where there may be oil, and have been pouring concrete in 2013-14 with the aim of cutting metal in 2015 - but firstly, on the first of four Brazilian-French SSKs. The SSN is a long way off.

The "silver bullet" quote is quite old. On the other hand, Boeing has shown through the C-17 operation how it can efficiently sustain very small numbers of large aircraft, which could point to a mixed solution: a small number of P-8As and some MSAs for non-ASW tasks.

[KenV]

Well Ken that is of course a decision for any future government and a Strategic Defence and Security Review. But to answer your question, there are other assets that can do maritime surveillance, so it's not "nothing". Therefore what is needed is something that can do long range ASW; back to that SDSR thing I guess.

So you're saying that the UK already has an adequate maritime surveillance capability and only needs a long range ASW capability. If all you're doing is defending the islands, why is long range ASW so important?

[thunderbird7]

Because otherwise, when the war starts, you won't be able to import all those rubber dog turds from china in sufficient numbers to keep the country going.

Look up the definition of 'Island.' ;)

[Roland Pulfrew]

So you're saying that the UK already has an adequate maritime surveillance capability and only needs a long range ASW capability. If all you're doing is defending the islands, why is long range ASW so important?

I don't think I said that Ken; nope I've checked. I didn't. Of course if you knew anything about MPA and ASW you would know that we aren't "defending the islands", but there we go - those that know and those that don't need to know. I'm off now, there is Christmas Ale to be drunk :)

[Danny42C]

Hangarshuffle (your #19),

Indeed I did (my long and weary tale is told on "Gaining an RAF Pilots Brevet....." from Page 114, #2262 on).

Of course things were different in '41, Hitler's and Mussolini's "Flagged Vessels" were bottled up by the Navy; the rest of the world carried on sending us food, fuel and raw materials as usual (admittedly most of it was carried in British-registered ships). The US, our Dominions and pretty well everybody else were "on our side".

But all that counted for nothing if the ships went down: then as now this country can't feed itself: the Navy did a grand job but in '41 the Battle of the Atlantic was a losing battle until Bletchley Park turned the tables and (I believe) could provide the Admiralty with the daily position reports which every U-boat had to send back to base. This enormously simplified the task of finding them, and enabled us to route the convoys around their "wolf packs".

IMHO, the next WW will be non-nuclear (because of MAD - unless we are mad enough to get rid of Trident) and we may be in a like situation again.

Merry Christmas !

Danny.

[kaitakbowler]

D42C, the next war has started, and NKorea has won the first battle.

PM

[TBM-Legend]

A P-8 type aircraft even in limited numbers for the UK I would see as essential if you want to maintain sovereignty on places like the Faulklands. In these troubled times one never knows when the next pimple of the a$re comes up or exactly where. A P-8 is deployable to almost anywhere not just around the coastline which can be left to smaller air vehicles. Even has in-flight refuelling if you fit a couple of booms to your tankers [or use someone else's]..

[A4scooter]

Of course the UK with our commitments and having nuclear subs should have the P8 and we should never have lost the MPA capability.
We should never have purchased 2 x carriers when we are unlikely to have sufficient aircraft to operate from both ships and with only 19 frigates and destoyers
We shouldn't have used PFI for our AAR force with its restrictions or withdrawn the Harrier and the Invincible class carriers
Until the next SDR next year we have no idea what the government will decide to prioritise or what money will be available so everything is speculative and they may decide we have survived this long with a MPA fleet do we need one?

[ShotOne]

That's quite a shopping list, scoot. Are you buying?

[Heathrow Harry]

the problem is cash , cash and cash - there isn't any in the piggy bank

We should have retained MPA capacity but the RAF & the RN preferred to keep other capability - same arguments as in the late 1930's - MPA is a bit of a Cinderella to FJ jockies and Admirals RN

Not sure an MPA would help in the Falklands tho' - a decent set of anti-ship and long range AA missiles would be a better bet I suspect

[Lonewolf_50]

Just to set the record straight:
P-8 is a multi-mission platform, depends on what kit you choose to buy to stuff into it. This is consistent with how P-3 and EP-3 all added kit for multiple missions as time went on (and a lot of kit got smaller)

Beyond ASW, missions for MPA include SSSC, ESM ELINT, and other mission areas. Has for about a quarter of a century in the USN. P-8 had to be able to carry that in order to get the nod. I think the "modular" requirement is where you can best tailor the kit in an MPA to meet your given needs. (No, I do not work for Boeing, nor the P-8 program office).

The argument that P-8 is a single mission silver bullet is incorrect.

[GreenKnight121]

You mean like 4xHarpoon AShMs?

EXCLUSIVE: INDIA?S P-8I NEPTUNE SEEN BRISTLING WITH HARPOONS! | AviationIntel.com (http://aviationintel.com/exclusive-indias-p-8i-neptune-seen-bristling-with-harpoons/)

[Phoney Tony]

Harpoon is not a discriminating weapon, which I think would probabley be a requirement these days.

I would also say that P8 is not modular. Lockheed - Sea Herc, the L3- Q400 and others are if you believe the sales pitches.

Multi mission fleets will require enough platforms to service all the operational concurrency requirements. In the current climate this drives you to a cheap platform solution.

[Bigbux]

The certain means of bringing this country to its knees (the submarine) has been well known for a century and more, and demonstrated in the two World Wars of the last mid-century. Kipling put it in words:


A convoy of LGVs through the tunnel from France is out of the question then?

[jonw66]

Well yes if someone is determined enough to put subs to sea I'm pretty sure they could shut the tunnel

[Danny42C]

Well, yes. The position of the tunnel is well known. It should not be difficult to lay sufficient explosive on the sea bed, focussed downwards over the (relatively soft) chalk, to blow the concrete lined roof in. It's not exactly a U-boat pen, and we managed that (Tallboys ?)

But they wouldn't have to bother. The whole of Europe can't feed itself; the original idea of the Common Agricultural Policy was to make Europe self-sufficient in foodstuffs. Of course it produced butter mountains and wine lakes, but that's rather a restricted diet. We are reliant on Canadian wheat to make the bread for the butter (I believe the wine was mostly distilled into industrial alcohol).

That it became the boondoggle of all time is not the fault of the Founding Fathers. The idea was good, but......

D. (Armchair Warrior par excellance).

[Woff1965]

Harpoon may not be discriminating but SLAM/ER is and the P8 can carry those too.

I am not sure if high altitude ASW is the way to go or not, but it would at least be less embarrassing than having to cadge aircraft from NATO allies.

[Evalu8ter]

When the UK reinvests in MPA capability it will inevitably be a two or three tier system. ACAS intimated as much at DSEI last year by stating that a future capability would have a manned and unmanned component. Given the prediliction for the UK military to have the shiniest toys the P-8 seems a given; we have trained crews in place and have allegedly made discreet enquiries re costs / availability ahead of SDSR. But it's expensive to buy and fly. More pragmatic, perhaps, would be a wide area oceanic surveillance capability, constantly airborne, provided by a small fleet of Triton/Airlander style UAV/Optionally manned platforms with say 6-8 P-8s on call for reactive tasking, SAR and 'end game' ASW. The third tier remains the RN Merlin force, the proposed maritime upgrade to Sentinel and the long range SAR (of sorts) provided by the C130J (presumably to be taken on by Atlas?).

I don't think we'll be rushing to reopen Kinloss, St Mawgan and Ballykelly for hoards of Poseidons - more like squeeze them into Waddington or use the 'UAS Superbase' at Wittering, or spare space at Leeming.

[Jayand]

Eval8ter, cloud cuckoo land.

[RandomBlah]

I'll second Jayand's response.

Given that all those likely to hold power after the next general election will look to protect health and education, all other government departments will take a disproportionately large hit; including defence. So, in order to get the force structure described above the services as a whole would have to absorb further eye-watering cuts (what would you get rid of considering what little we have left?), plus cutting something else in order to get the money and personnel for an MPA capability.

We are only a third into UK austerity, with genuinely eye-watering decisions on capability to be made in the next parliament. I really cannot see anything remotely like that described above happening - as much as the argument for regaining an MPA capability is watertight based upon real world events.

Bottom line is that, sadly, it is not going to happen.

I would love to be proved wrong though.

[Evalu8ter]

Jay, Random
Maybe; but the Govt has been embarressed by not being seen to be able to protect our own waters or contribute (quickly) to international efforts such as the MH370 search. There is no 'home grown' solution per se, save bodging the MRA4 mission kit into a used P-3 (high cost, high risk). P-8 is in production and we have trained crews, and I dare say Bubba Boeing is being constructive with financing / leasing options ("used by the UK" still has a cachet..). The dreamers are those thinking we'll be a 20+ Manned MMA/MPA fleet again....unless its C295.

I agree totally that the next SDSR will be finance driven - but, supposedly, Cameron was furious when he heard the full impact of the loss of the Nimrod capability, if not the airframe. Perhaps headroom will be found, maybe not. What would I cut? Depends if we buy or lease the P-8s I guess; a lease would be a smoother, lower profile so, perhaps, not a massive offset in the early years with an option to purchase later. Expensive when viewed as a whole cost, but attractive in the short term.

[Bigbux]

Well yes if someone is determined enough to put subs to sea I'm pretty sure they could shut the tunnel

A very good point. So, let me summarise. We are completely surrounded at sea, nothing can get through. The Channel tunnel is stuffed and modern airlift capability is completely incapable of alleviating the situation.

France, only 22 miles away, for some reason cannot be used as a source of supply - presumably because they have already been invaded and are occupied.

Sounds tough- but we have been there before.

Who is going to do this to us?

[jonw66]

The gamble is nobody but a couple of Nimrods would still be nice.:E

[robin]

but, supposedly, Cameron was furious when he heard the full impact of the loss of the Nimrod capability,

His decision, wasn't it??

:ugh::ugh:

[nimbev]

but, supposedly, Cameron was furious when he heard the full impact of the loss of the Nimrod capability, His decision, wasn't it??
Yes, but the politicians dont understand, as evidenced by this quote from the SDSR 15 thread. So they only appreciate the enormity of their decisions AFTER the event when it is invariably too late.

"I did brief a minister to point out this would cost £70 million to build new taxiways at Kandahar and that minister said to me 'Sherard ... I can't question the chief of the defence staff on this because I confess to you I don't know the difference between a Tornado and a torpedo'."

[robin]

Quite

But it doesn't stop them from blaming the advisors and it doesn't stop them wriggling out from any blame