Maritime Patrol Capability: The SDSR’s Wolf Whistle

[glad rag]

https://www.rusi.org/publications/defencesystems/ref:A55F2F3DEC4FBC/#.VfMq8-RVK1E

"The UK’s maritime patrol capability should be the result of an open competition, rather than a behind-the-curtains purchase of a preferred airframe"

discuss...

[PICKS135]

Did we not do that with the Nimrod AEW ??

Look what happened !!

[Guernsey Girl II]

So the 'seedcorn' guys are flying the P8 with the USAF. I wonder if the rest of the topic was equally researched to the same level.... Or was it just a few words from RUSI's sponsors?

[dat581]

Most likely as well as your post since the USAF does not own a single P-8A. The USN flies them.

[The Old Fat One]

It's the sort of academic spraff that these guys knock up in the coffee break to get a bit of exposure. Eloquent and seemingly incisive, it is actually badly written (try and find the point they are making) badly structured and inconclusive.

They seem to be vaguely pointing towards the development of a UK asset tailored towards future as much as present needs. (albeit, I've read 4/5 times and I'm still not sure). If that is case surely a paragraph on the inherent dangers of further delay would balance the article a little more?? Or perhaps a balanced article is not their intent? Or perhaps they know, or care, little about skill fade and such like.

Significantly, do we invest our tax pounds in seeking solutions against a considered, predetermined requirement, or do we fall into camps, championing one piece of equipment against another? Because the latter scenario quickly defaults to a public relations campaign, the deployment of smart business development skills and the dark arts of customer-relationship management: all components of modern life, but we should be able to develop world-leading defence capabilities without these practices being to the fore.

I would suggest (no...I would state) that in trying unsuccessfully to develop a "world leading" defence capability called Nimrod 2000 AKA Nimrod MRA4, the dark art of customer-relationship management was very much front and centre in the mid nineties. Ditto AEW Nimrod in the 70s, as mentioned above (although we probably called CRM something else then) and probably every other bit of kit we ever bought.
See what I mean about academic spraff.

edited

So the 'seedcorn' guys are flying the P8 with the USAF

Good spot...complacent, casual academic spraff then.

Most likely as well as your post since the USAF does not own a single P-8A. The USN flies them.

GG2 knows this...he was being ironic...doh!

[The B Word]

Always thought that RUSI spouted as much bolleaux as the 'academics' at Shriv...:ugh:

[Bastardeux]

Wait. Time and again, the only thing I ever hear from people is that our biggest procurement problem is that some of our most important capabilities aren't put up for a proper tendering process; but now someone is saying we should hold a competition for an MPA replacement, and you're all saying its ridiculous!? The P8 may or may not be the best option, but that doesn't change the fact that we may well end up getting them without fully evaluating the other options.

[Wander00]

But then the search for the perfect solution always takes ten times as long and is more expensive than the perfectly adequate solution. Gold plating is expensive.

[The Old Fat One]

but now someone is saying we should hold a competition for an MPA replacement, and you're all saying its ridiculous!?

you're about as accurate as the authors :ugh:

Where has any one said it (a fair competition) is ridiculous. The thrust of the posts is simply....crap piece of work.

The argument against holding an extended competition, and even more so designing something new is incredibly simple...

due to a decision taken in 2010 we are in 2015...out of time!

It would have been nice (not to mention academically sound) to have seen that problem more firmly represented in this flimsy POS.

[Archimedes]

As an aside:

Prof Louth is a former RAF officer.

Dr Roberts is a former RN officer (a PWO, IIRC)

Strange that in service careers which, between them, lasted for at least 30 years neither noticed who operated the American MPA force...

[Rosevidney1]

But then the search for the perfect solution always takes ten times as long and is more expensive than the perfectly adequate solution. Gold plating is expensive.

Ain't that the truth with knobs on?

[The Old Fat One]

Prof Louth is a former RAF officer.

Scribbler perchance? (IDK...but he was head of accountancy or some such)

[Lima Juliet]

Regarding the good 'Professor' - a quick squint at the London Gazette and it looks like he Commissioned in 1987 as an Admin Officer and had a meteoric rise (not!) to Sqn Ldr and retired in 2004 at his 16/38 point. Hardly a sparkling military career in my opinion. According to his various bios it seems he did a bit of non-senior work on accounting and funding for the IND and then left to get wrapped up in the self-licking lollipop called 'Academia'. Hardly gives him the right background to write some of the stuff on which he has seen fit to do; again, in my humble opinion.

I agree with B Word. Swindon Poly (aka the Defence Academy) is filled with equally unimpressive academics in my opinion. Also, RUSI seems to be a similar gravy-train that is allegedly funded by the UK Defence companies - hardly independent.

I stopped even reading RUSI papers and Service Doctrine years ago - written by walts and read by fools.

All in my humble opinion of course...:ok:

LJ

[Pontius Navigator]

Oh dear, my daughter and SiL are there and our own Archimedes too.

Remember your academic tries to suggest both sides of an issue for you to come to a reasoned logical conclusion; it is not to give you the answer.

Pontificating and proposing a solution is what they put in papers and books to earn money.

[a1bill]

GR, "The UK’s maritime patrol capability should be the result of an open competition, rather than a behind-the-curtains purchase of a preferred airframe"

You are assuming that anything can get near the P-8a system, to warrant having a competition. Otherwise it's just a waste of money and time.

[glad rag]

"" quotation marks; now I actually know they teach this stuff in Aussie schools, so what’s your excuse?

I am assuming nothing, as MR is way darkside for me...

[Wrathmonk]

Apologies if a re-post but hard to sort the wheat from the chaff on this board sometimes.....

Lockheed Martin offers up Nimrod replacement - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/industry/defence/11859872/Lockheed-Martin-offers-up-Nimrod-replacement.html)

[Haart]

"...should be the result of an open competition, rather than a behind-the-curtains purchase of a preferred airframe." > could this be the F-35 as well?


Still wondering on basing options for a UK MPA procurement, best guess anyone?

[salad-dodger]

Still wondering on basing options for a UK MPA procurement, best guess anyone?
Not a regular visitor to the mil forum then?

S-D

[Always a Sapper]

My ten pence worth say's

Buy a working system that the operators know and will restore the capablity NOW. Then go in for the competitive procurement malarky for the next generation platform/system + 1 (ie jump a generation).


It restores the capability quickly and takes the urgency out of the procurement process which should (hopefully) allow for a more focused procurement competition.

Oh and don't let the MoD contract writing 'experts' anywhere near the process....

[a1bill]

Gr, change that to, Gr quoted. ;)

you could have quoted this from the article
"Joint Forces Command, supported by DSTL, has been undertaking an Air ISR Optimisation Study since 2012. This analysis attempts to understand the broader requirements for surveillance by air platforms out to 2030, including those for Persistent Wide Area Surveillance in the maritime domain. It is due to report before the end of 2015, providing evidence for a balanced set of requirements that might expand the remit of an MPA into a multi-mission set of tasks rather than just the simplistic like-for-like replacement that an off-the-shelf purchase might indicate. "

[LowObservable]

Hacking at people's service careers or focusing on a one-word error seems to be a way of distracting people from the point. If you think that Seedcorn, commonality, time and risk - backed up by the unspoken assumption that any competition or R&D program wlll inevitably be a shambles - dictate an off-the-shelf buy of a USN-spec P-8, say so.

Otherwise, it would make a lot of sense to sit down, define the post-2020 requirements for ISR, and work out a way of meeting them that represents a balance of operational and industrial/economic considerations. And be aware that the P-8 is an expensive aircraft to buy and to operate and is chock-full of costly US kit that European industry can make as well or better.

[a1bill]

about the P-8, which is said to be the prefered option. I think the UK, like Aust. have done an initial evaluation on what is available and there needs. The japanese MMA wasn't in the UK for fun.

If anything could fulfill the UK needs. There may be a proper evaluation. Those that have been involved in such programs knows the amount of manhours involved. At this stage I think it's like 5th gen and 4th gen in fighters

[LowObservable]

"At this stage I think it's like 5th gen and 4th gen in fighters"

The triumph of marketing over logic?

[a1bill]

Everyone should buy 6th gen Gripens, as Sweetman described them ;)

[aw ditor]

Perhaps the new Shadow S.ofS. for Defence should be asked for her views on this matter?

[Davef68]

She'll say MPA should be handed to the Argentines along with the rest of the Falklands

[Rosevidney1]

But only if filled with bullion bars and letters of apology.

[Father Jack Hackett]

I'm an ex Herc mate and will defend that aircraft to the hilt, however it would make a fairly mediocre MPA for the UK, given the size of the sea space that must be patrolled.

I was in a headquarters role on Joint Warrior a while back and got chatting to a Danish submariner with a lot of time on their diesel-electric boats. The only MPA that they feared was the Nimrod as it was the only platform that had both the radar and speed combo to get a hit off their mast and dash into their location and put out an effective sonobouy pattern to lock them down before they went deep and silent and poked off on a random track. Atlantiques and P3s just didn't have the smash.

I flabbered his gasp when I told him that we'd scrapped them and their replacement.

The UK needs a 21st century jet MPA. That'll be a straight competition between the P8 and P1 (which I'm rather partial to).

[The Old Fat One]

Hacking at people's service careers or focusing on a one-word error seems to be a way of distracting people from the point.

Good job nobody did that then hey.

Good job some of us read the whole confused "paper" and pointed out it lacked balance, as in we are 40 knots behind the drag curve...perhaps worth a mention, no?

I could nae give a **** where we get an a capable MPA from, just so long as it is flying ops within 3 years.

[LowObservable]

I could nae give a **** where we get an a capable MPA from, just so long as it is flying ops within 3 years.

Translated: the great and wise can pick any MPA they want as long as it's a vanilla P-8A sustained by Mr Boeing and the USN.

[The Old Fat One]

Translated: the great and wise can pick any MPA they want as long as it's a vanilla P-8A sustained by Mr Boeing and the USN.

Please don't do that, it's objectionable to the point of trolling. I try to go out my way these days to make my point crystal clear, so having them re-interpreted completely incorrectly is impolite to say the least.

The last MPA I flew in (5500 hours) was a Nimrod MR2 - a mighty fine MPA, flown by mighty fine crews. I left in 2003 - I know FA about the P8/P1 other than what I read on here. In my experience, the kit is less important than the crew that flies it anyway.

I make one sole point on this thread, which I believe I've made with absolute clarity...if we are re-establishing this capability we need to do so now. We cannot afford to delay one moment and the absolute priority for urgency is understated or omitted from that paper.

My personal, ex-professional opinion. That is all.

[betty swallox]

TOFO.

Thanks for that. What a fine comment to counter the previous crass post.

Well said!

[Tourist]

So.

I hear rumours that Kinloss is going to re-open for the P8?

[Biggus]

Tourist,

Was that rumour started by the landlords of the Kimberley, Crown and Anchor and Beastie, and the shopkeepers of Forres?

[dervish]

15 September 2015


For Immediate Release:


STRATEGIC DEFENCE AND SECURITY REVIEW


On 8 September, the Committee wrote to the Government expressing its concern about the imposition of a word limit of only 1,500 characters for online consultation responses to the Strategic Defence Review.


The Government has now confirmed that following feedback from interested parties, the online word limit has now been removed and that any length of response can be received (up to the maximum allowed by the software).

[LowObservable]

Anything that can be flying ops with the RAF in three years is by default a vanilla P-8A &c. There is nothing else that can meet that schedule. If that is crass I stand convicted, but it's also the objective truth.

[KenV]

Anything that can be flying ops with the RAF in three years is by default a vanilla P-8A &c. There is nothing else that can meet that schedule.

I suspect Airbus, Kawasaki, Alenia, and Lockheed at a minimum could make powerful arguments against the above notion.

[Bigbux]

I love the way that the suggestion of an open competition gets lip service right up to the point when the possibility of procuring the thing rears its head. Then it's:

It will take too long
It will be over-specified
The bean counters will get involved
It'll be excessively expensive

and then the cream of the crop: We shouldn't bother to examine the requirement; we should just buy something now.

If you don't get the spec right in the first place - all the above will happen, and the MoD will blame the contractor.

[BEagle]

KenV wrote: I suspect Airbus, Kawasaki, Alenia, and Lockheed at a minimum could make powerful arguments against the above notion.

Not to mention BWoS - who would scour the world's scrapyards for some old wreckage which 't Bungling Baron would lobby 't MoD to convert into an MPA saving 't taxpayerrs' brass and lining his pockets.....:mad:

[LowObservable]

I suspect Airbus, Kawasaki, Alenia, and Lockheed at a minimum could make powerful arguments against the above notion.

I'm sure that they would. But "flying ops in three years" means "flying ops in three years" in the Queen's English. Since nobody appears to have started on the process of having a competition or evaluating anything (other than the P-8A's eval-via-Seedcorn) the process would have to begin by writing a requirement. inviting bids and evaluating them. Airframes would have to be built or modified, and tested to the extent that any OTS system available matches the requirements. Three years is a ludicrous impossibility, which is why "we must have capability in three years" = "buy P-8s".

[tucumseh]

bb

If you don't get the spec right in the first place - all the above will happen, and the MoD will blame the contractor.

Long time since MoD were allowed to write specs; or indeed consciously employed anyone trained to. What happens is you get a fanny URD from London and quietly, without telling anyone, draw up a "clarification paper" (spec) and slip it in the envelope to bidders. And just hope it's a fatter envelope than that tabled during the "political impact" lobbying.:E

In the mid-90s I spent 2 years on a competition for a new Mark of aircraft. Only one of 4 bidders was remotely compliant. One withdrew because it was too difficult. On the verge of awarding the contract to the runaway winner, a political overrule came down - it was to be awarded to a company who hadn't bid, but who happened to be (conveniently) relocating to a constituency whose MP had lobbied best. They were then bought out by the company who'd withdrawn. Each spent millions not realising they were in an unfair competition. Bidding for that job meant they couldn't bid for others. (Who has multiple bid teams for whole aircraft?) They recouped the cost by simply increasing the price next time. Good job we had Boscombe and Westland to step in and do most of the job. I've lost count of how many "RMPA/N2000/MRA4" and "Chinook HC3" gold standard cock ups we'd have had without those two.

[HAS59]

Buying the airframe is the easy part ...

It will probably take up to three years to train sufficiently capable crews to operate whichever jet we get.

There has been ample time since the capability was 'gapped' for enough studies into which jet it should be to be completed.

The decision process does not start on the date that the SDSR report is made public, enough time has already been lost.

Just get on with it ...!

It's a plain as the nose on your face what's going to happen ... :ok:

[The Old Fat One]

The decision process does not start on the date that the SDSR report is made public, enough time has already been lost.

A point well made; a point lost on many, including the hapless authors.

To be specific...

The last operational MPA we flew was the Nimrod MR2 (retired 2010)

The requirement to replace that aircraft (ASR 420) was issued in 1993.

That was 22 years ago.

We're still waiting.

[KenV]

Three years is a ludicrous impossibility, which is why "we must have capability in three years" = "buy P-8s". If Airbus, Kawasaki, Alenia, and Lockheed can't do it in three years, then what is so special about Boeing that they can? In my opinion, if the former can't do it, neither can the latter. Conversely, if the latter can do it, then the former should be able to as well. I personally don't see the P-8 or its manufacturer possessing anything special in this arena.

[WhiteOvies]

HAS59 - and there in lies one of the strengths of the P-8, we have trained crews in the US, who have been involved in the development and intro to service with the US Navy.

I believe some of the Seedcorn crews went to fly P-3 with other friendly nations, so maybe we have a cheaper prop option available too.

Increased Defence links with Japan allows the Kawasaki a look in but we have no-one ready trained in how to fly/fight it.

[triboy]

As much as the MOD/JFC/RAF may have a view on the capability gap and its solution, it is ultimately funded by the Treasury. They will want to be satisfied on the vfm of buying a U.S. or Japanese aircraft rather than one that supports British industry. Equally they will take a view on "off the shelf" vs "new platform" and the likely success of certifying it to MAA regs. I don't know the answer but I do know it will not be in service (all DLODS) before the next election!

[LowObservable]

If Airbus, Kawasaki, Alenia, and Lockheed can't do it in three years, then what is so special about Boeing that they can?

First, I think it's generally agreed that for many reasons, including Seedcorn and a long history of operating U.S. aircraft, the P-8A is the only type that the UK would ever select without a competition.

Second, Boeing has a hot production line and the USN has a substantial inventory and backlog. This opens up many options (such as leasing aircraft initially).

However, the tenor of discussions at DSEi this week suggests that nothing (at least nothing permanent) is going to happen soon.

[ORAC]

However, the tenor of discussions at DSEi this week suggests that nothing (at least nothing permanent) is going to happen soon.

Industry: Let's Compete for UK Maritime Patrol (http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/show-daily/dsei/2015/09/20/industry-lets-compete-uk-maritime-patrol/72393226/)

[Heathrow Harry]

Holding a competition has the great benifit (in the eyes of the Treasury) of kicking the decision several years down the road.........

"of course we want an MPA but taxpayers would expect us to aim for a full and open competition and evaluation - nothing less will do"

The only was we'll get an MPA quickly is to buy Boeing

[Jayand]

Define Quick? can't see anything flying in UK colours in the next ten years.

[Heathrow Harry]

only took three years to get the Rivert Joint into the RAF..............

[Biggus]

HH,

So in the case of the RJ it was three years from which event to "flying in UK colours"? Was that mention in parliament, firm orders being placed, what?

Also in terms of the RJ, presumably the back up support systems for an aircraft conducting that role were largely carried over from the R1, so were already in place with manned and experienced staff. How many 51 Sqn aircrew were ready to convert, enough to man the whole fleet of RJs maybe.

Now look at a new MPA/MMA. How many trained, experienced support staff, with the right equipment are ready to go. How many trained and experienced aircrew are available, 20-30 maybe. There has already been a 5 year gap in UK MPA ops, and most (but not all) of the experienced UK MPA aircrew no longer wear a blue suit.

Comparisons between the R1 to RJ transition and the MR2 to ?? "capability gap" closure are not valid - in my opinion.

[msbbarratt]

The only was we'll get an MPA quickly is to buy Boeing

Any particular reason why the Japanese offering couldn't be got hold of quickly?

[camelspyyder]

I think 51 Sqn manning had been run down somewhat, but they were often still serving. It seemed like everyone and their dog who'd worked there previously was dragged back to Waddo to staff the RJ.

Unfortunately the similar maritime cadre would have to be retrieved back from their big money jobs in the oil and gas industries, which would be more difficult I feel.

On aircraft choice, would the fact that RAF aircrew have been embedded in the P-8 Test/Eval unit for several years speed up it's introduction into UK service (compared with other types)?

[Ivan Rogov]

Jayand Define Quick?

3 years from order to Ops with 3 or 4 crews is quite possible. Platform is off the shelf, nucleus of trained crews exist, Ops support can be done by existing A2 and A3 planning set up (with slight uplift in manning). It won't be the same as we used to do it but it would work. The rest of the outfit would follow, precedent has been set by platforms introduced in the last decade.

[KenV]

3 years from order to Ops with 3 or 4 crews is quite possible. Platform is off the shelf, nucleus of trained crews exist, Ops support can be done by existing A2 and A3 planning set up (with slight uplift in manning). It won't be the same as we used to do it but it would work. The rest of the outfit would follow, precedent has been set by platforms introduced in the last decade.

May I ask if the above assumes a particular platform or would the above be possible with platforms from either Airbus, Kawasaki, Alenia, or Lockheed, as well as from Boeing?

[AQAfive]

Alas the fact we have serving personnel on P8 will have no bearing on procurement. If we do go the route of a new ac, it will use the standard procurement process of Requirement et al. No where is there facility for asking serving members their opinion. To do so would be to solutionise, one must use the procurement process properly. After all, the answer may not be an aircraft!!

Solutionise, the process of writing a requirement around a known product. i.e. I want an aircraft to defend the skies of Britain, therefore I need a fighter. But no, lets do the job properly and examine the requirement closely and look at all the options objectively. Oh look, the answer is a missile defence system, does the same thing only cheaper.

Well that's how it all seemed to me, but that was 14 years ago, it may have changed.

Of two exchange officers I knew, one Brit WSO one USN pilot. The Brit came back and was posted to a maritime sqn, he complained that no one de-briefed him on his return as to what he had learned. The posting was just another posting. The USN chap was a very good pilot, in much the same way his next posting in the US was as a deck officer on a frigate. His experience this side of the pond was of no interest, logic would have thought a training post on VP30, but no. He, of course, had a transferable skill and I, believe, now flies for an airline in the States.

So all of you who think logically about the subject, forget it. It will be done, if at all, by process.

Mind you, Mr Boeing will offer a complete package in a way that Abbey Wood will find hard to resist.

[Davef68]

Solutionise, the process of writing a requirement around a known product.

Like the one that got us the C-17 at the second time of asking

[Rossian]

.....have a look at how HIS exchange experience on the Mig 29 was used by his service and all his follow on Exchange officers were employed by the USAF. It isn't only in the maritime world that these missed opportunities occur.
Two exchange officers of my acquaintance were asked what two items they found of most use during their tours in the sun. Link and mode 4 IFF was their answer.

Nah we don't need any of that was the reaction.

Oh until we needed to interact with US forces in the gulf all of a sudden.

The Ancient Mariner

PS where did we find that wank word "solutionise!"

[Avtur]

From the Yank word "Solutionize"?

[AQAfive]

Any organisation with too much time on their hands who talk about rather than do seem to come up with such buzzwords.

It was closely followed by followership (I think), roughly translated as subordinates making up for their leaders lack of leadership.

You can imagine how team building days were.
:ugh:

[Ivan Rogov]

Hi KenV, my comments were based on a P-8 purchase as I consider this the only sensible and least risky option to regenerate the capability. For any other option I would add at least another 3 years, however there are other factors to consider if it drags on that long such as the loss of remaining experience (not just those on seedcorn).

In my opinion this should be seen as a UOR and P-8 purchased ASAP, piggy back off the USN if practical (OCU, Sims, servicing, weapons, etc.), then bring it into core later.

IF (Big if), we get P-8s they look more expensive initially, however with their growth potential (including benefiting from US R&D) it is highly likely that they will be around for 50 years plus. I can't see any of the less capable platforms coming close to matching that.

[Phoney Tony]

The arguement of what to buy will be driven by one major factor - cost of ownership. The P8 is an expensive first world capability, we are no longer in that league and can not afford to own enough platforms to provide a viable force capable of several concurrent ops including soveriegn ops.

Unless the rules have changed UORs are funded to support an operation....what operation are we currently involved in that would allow such an acquistion.

The E3 experience has shown us that developing and deploying our own capabilities on Boeing platforms requires an additional expensive premium. RJ is not so bad as we have bought into the program and as such we get the regular upgrades. I think a P8 acquisition would unfortunately be more like E3 than RJ.

US R&D solves US problems....we have allowed our R&D capability to fade. The P8 option will snuff the residual capability out.

The RJ experience has shown how massively expensive training crews in the states is. I believe it has cost more than twice the amount originally budgeted, and I fear they are still not fully manned with a UK based trg solution still not in place.

Why will a Sea Herc, C27J, Saab, Airbus 235/95 or a Q400 not last 50 years?

[Ivan Rogov]

I'm guessing there are some standing UK Ops that require the capability, plus enduring Ops in the Gulf area and Mediterranean, contingency Ops and .... I would also suggest that our relationship with Russia has rapidly deteriorated and we have a gap in capability that needs filling urgently.

I understand in a classic context UORs have supported direct kinetic type Ops, but think there have been a few that have stretched the 'rules' as bigger and more ambitious purchases. Second Reaper purchase took 3 years for Afg and is now over Syria? Sentinel became a UOR for Lybia, etc.

There is some suitably ambiguous language on UORs, rapid procurement and single-source contracts here
House of Commons - Defence Acquisition - Defence Committee (http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmselect/cmdfence/9/909.htm)

Ref. the platform choice, only one of those is actually real, the others are powerpoint presentations, models and empty promises from salesmen who will say anything to secure the deal. Based on the performance of procurement programs from the last 20 years they will run in to delays, significant cost increases, removal of essential support and training packages to try and get back on budget and a dumbing down of the requirement to meet poor performance. Also all those platforms have a huge flaw when it comes to ASW, current generation subs wouldn't struggle to hide from them, future ones could potentially destroy them.

Ref. E-3D, I believe the problem is we have created a bespoke UK fleet and now have to do all the development, support cost are therefore very high. Better to have kept to a US or NATO standard and benefited from shared R&D and reduced cost, even if that capability wasn't quite as good in 1990. However through 30 years plus the capability retains effectiveness rather than becoming rather dated:ugh: The future is common standards with other nations for larger fleets and shared R&D, see Reaper, C-17, C-130J, AH-64E, F-35,....P-8?

I am aware of the training issues of using the US and believe they only look expensive as the initial costings were naive or disingenuous. When set against the full cost of a UK training solution (building Sims and infrastructure in the UK and providing all the staff to man an OCU, provide airframes that we don't have, fuel costs, etc.) I would guess they are actually cheaper, however UK training is required long term to control the content and output.

I would argue that UK defense procurement needs stop making the same mistakes by getting wrapped up in legacy and dogmatic processes, getting outsmarted by companies who's priority is their shareholders and become more flexible and able to adapt quickly to the real world.

The argument for getting the high end solution is the same as the FJ rational, the requirement is to win against a high end capability, to do that you need to overmatch their capability. This is a basic principle of warfighting, go in at parity or below and you stand an equal or worse chance of coming second :ouch:

Still this is all hot air, hopefully SDSR will settle this one way or the other :ok:

[The Old Fat One]

Article in the FT quoting the spraffing tossers who inspired this thread. If the article is to be believed the decision will be "influenced" by...

Academics with a questionable/marginal maritime knowledge
Business Development Managers (double glazing salesmen to you and me)
Politicians with highly vested interests and agendas
And the military folk that helped scrap it in the first place.

Cynical...me :=

[LowObservable]

Ivan,

Ref. the platform choice, only one of those is actually real, the others are powerpoint presentations, models and empty promises from salesmen who will say anything to secure the deal.

That's a bit of an overstatement. Airbus for one has delivered ASW aircraft to Brazil, Spain and Chile - in some cases using the Merlin HM2 acoustics or a version thereof.

Also all those platforms have a huge flaw when it comes to ASW, current generation subs wouldn't struggle to hide from them, future ones could potentially destroy them.

I haven't seen any sub-based air defense systems deployed, although they've been played with since the 1970s. It's still poor odds, particularly against a platform with DIRCM (which is pretty standard on large military aircraft). If you don't succeed with the first shot you are toast.

That said, I have occasionally heard this as a reason for doing high-altitude ASW, but it's not the one I hear most often.

[a1bill]

you might be talking to the wrong people
Boeing to make flying torpedoes able to attack enemy submarines from 30,000 feet - Military & Aerospace Electronics (http://www.militaryaerospace.com/articles/2013/04/Boeing-flying-torpedo.html)
Airborne weapons experts at the Boeing Co. got the go-ahead Wednesday to start building add-on kits for the U.S. Navy Mark 54 lightweight torpedo that will enable the weapon to glide through the air from altitudes as high as 30,000 feet and enable the Boeing P-8A Poseidon maritime patrol jet to attack enemy submarines from long ranges.

http://www.militaryaerospace.com/content/dam/mae/online-articles/2013/04/HAAWC%204%20April%202013.jpg

[LowObservable]

Sorry, but where does that story talk about evading submarine-launched missiles? Since it doesn't, do you have some kind of point?

[Heathrow Harry]

timeframe - Helix was the 2003 programme to look at how to extend (maybe) the R1 to mid/late '20's

They added Rivet Joint into the study in 2008

The MR4 was cancelled in 2010 and that left the Rivet Joint as the only show in town so three were ordered in March 2010 - first one arrived in late 2013 - crews had been on training attachment since Jan 2011

So IF we go with Mr Boeing we have crews already training, a working production line - three years to delivery looks possible

If we go the full on spec, competitve bid road it'll be a lot longer - and plenty of time for the next govt to change it's mind......... which is the big risk IMHO

[a1bill]

LO If they don't foresee missiles, why do you think they are bothering with high alt and stand off torpedos?

Just because you aren't aware of a deployed missile system, it doesn't mean they aren't deployed.

[Heathrow Harry]

As designers go to enormous lengths to make subs as quiet as possible it seems a bit odd that you'd fire off a couple of SAM's and broadcast your exact position to the whole world

Unless you came up to take a peek (visible or radar - ye gods) you'd never be sure how many aircraft were up there and where they were - maybe listening woud give you an idea but you could very easily be horribly embarrassed if they were flyng in pairs............

[LowObservable]

a1troll - Why don't you read something about MAC and the reasons for high-altitude ASW, instead of wasting bandwidth and oxygen?

Let me explain this in very simple terms. I am well aware of high-alt ASW, including the gliding torpedo. However, the most often stated reason for doing it is that multistatic active coherent acoustics and very large sonobuoy loads allow you to cover a wide search area, and you therefore stay high to keep your buoy field within line of sight.

Yes, I have heard the argument about defeating sub-based missile defenses, but not as often as the other one. And in case you have the wrong impression that is not the only reason for a gliding torpedo - it's to drop the fish in the right zip code.

[The Old Fat One]

SLAMs versus MPA - discuss. Remember having a massive drunken heated argument about that when I was kipper noob, round our pad in Forres at 3am, with a bunch of other kipper noobs (no available women in Forres:()...when would that be, oh I don't know....1977.

Just because you aren't aware of a deployed missile system, it doesn't mean they aren't deployed

The technology has existed for 40 years or more. The reason they are not deployed is because (as any submariner will tell you) it is an insanely stupid idea for precisely the reason HH just posted.

Talking of insanely stupid ideas...why do I keep posting in MPA threads.:{:{:{

[Wensleydale]

Ivan,
Ref bespoke E-3D fleet....the mission systems were very compatible with US and NATO fleets until the mid-life updates (I have operated all three). The US solution was considered too expensive and the NATO mid-term has a few issues which may well lead to similar solution to US model. Cash, as always, is the deciding factor.

[KenV]

a1troll - Why don't you read something about MAC and the reasons for high-altitude ASW, instead of wasting bandwidth and oxygen?
Is it just me, or did that sound harsh? And unnecessarily so.

[LowObservable]

My tolerance bank is running low because it is Friday. If you don't know, ask. Don't make snippy comments about "talking to the wrong people" and then cite something that would actually answer your own question (in this case, why do hi-alt ASW) if you read it.

[a1bill]

AFAIK, LO said he was a reporter and as such would have no clearance to what is OPSEC and if and when a missile system is deployed within the CONOPS life of the P-8A.

Wouldn't it be simpler to fly within range the sub and drop the torpedo, let the parachute deploy, than to add a standoff winged kit to the kill chain?

[Jackonicko]

From an interested outsider's point of view, it strikes me that the replacement of Nimrod R by Rivet Joint was much more than a simple change of platform, and that comparisons with P-8 are perhaps not very useful.

Quite apart from the different balance between Elint and Comint on the two aircraft (and the different way in which Elint was undertaken) it strikes me that big chunks of UK infrastructure were closed down in favour of a much closer operational integration with the US.

We seem to have gone from operating a fully independent (but linked in) Sigint system to operating three aircraft that are essentially effectively UK-manned elements of the 55th Wing - seemingly a rather easier proposition, and surely rather quicker to change over to?

I know that at times you might just as well have painted the stars and stripes on the side of the Nimrod R, since it was integrated into their flying programme, used their Int data bases, etc., and could even be tasked by US commands. But 51 could do independent ops (Falklands, anti-IRA, etc.) and I wonder whether it could still, and whether the UK could ever use RJ completely autonomously without the planning, the targets, the "take" and the results going straight (and first) to the US, whereas previously I guess it used to go to the UK (Cheltenham? etc.) first? There are a whole bunch of unanswerable questions - Where is the inflight data downloaded to now? Do the US now even have a veto on when and where and how the UK deploys the aircraft?

Do the UK need an independent, sovereign MPA/ASW capability, or do we want to invest and integrate into the US MPA force? Either could be done with P-8, but other platforms could fulfil the first aim, including the Japanese P1, which promises to be cheaper than P-8 but equally (or perhaps more) capable.

And if we do want the independent, sovereign MPA/ASW capability, then can we afford sufficient P-8s to actually do that? Airbus claim that you can buy twice as many C295 MPAs for half the cost - or four times as many for the same cost. So four P-8As, or 16 C295 MPAs? Eight P-8As or a staggering 32 C295s.

[malcrf]

And if we do want the independent, sovereign MPA/ASW capability, then can we afford sufficient P-8s to actually do that? Airbus claim that you can buy twice as many C295 MPAs for half the cost - or four times as many for the same cost. So four P-8As, or 16 C295 MPAs? Eight P-8As or a staggering 32 C295s.

I'm firmly of the realist school that says we can't afford gilt-edged everything, so choose carefully what has to be state of the art.

For MPA I feel that something is distinctly better than the nothing we have now, and that reasonable numbers of something decent is better than low numbers of the gilt-edged. So 16 C295s please!

[HAS59]

Oh dear,
malcrf, if you think that all we need is an old style coastal MPA then go on – buy a couple of dozen C-295’s.
But that’s not what we need is it? Nor would we buy that number – we couldn’t afford to support them.
They would indeed be 'better than nothing' but as to being 'decent' - I'm not sure about that. For some jobs maybe ... However,

What we do need is an MMA with ASW capability and the potential for future sensor growth.
One that will be able to operate quietly enough to avoid counter detection.
One that is in series production, where we may be able to take aircraft from the line currently allocated to the host nation’s navy.
One that is familiar to some of our highly trained (and competition winning) experienced crews.
What we need to do is get on with it and stop wasting more time.

[Royalistflyer]

Why do I have this persistent feeling that we need full independent control of the defence of our own country not subject to veto or possible withdrawal of vital support? In the future, there is no reason to believe that our interests and those of the USA or EU will always coincide. The world is evolving.

[Heathrow Harry]

bit late Royalist.... think back to B-29's, Polaris, Trident etc etc

our armed forces are all very very closely integrated with the US and have been for years

We cross-post staff, we have Brits involved in long-term planning at RAND, we used to test our N weapons near Las Vegas. The US runs acres of the UK as "RAF XX" bases and also effectily owns Ascension and Diego Garcia.

TBH we're almost as close (and a lot more tractable) than the US Marine Corps to the US military effort

[LowObservable]

Royalist - You haven't been watching the F-35, have you?

HAS59 - Airbus has produced full-on ASW aircraft - C295s for Chile, and completely refitted P-3s for Spain and Brazil. No, they are not P-8s, but are they the classic 80 per cent solution? Or if you do want P-8s, does it make sense to operate a small force of those aircraft for ASW, plus something with a fraction of the CPFH for MPA?

Could you amplify what you mean by "quiet enough to avoid counter-detection"? This sounds like the fourth reason I have heard for high-altitude ASW:

1 - Boeing/US Navy: Because MAC and a big sonobuoy load allows you to drop a big pattern, and you want to be high to be in LOS.
2 - (Various): You don't want to get shot by an IDAS or similar popping unexpectedly out of the water.
3 - (HAS59): Sonar will detect a low-flying prop job at tactically useful range.
4 - (Various cynics): The USN has loaded the P-8 with provisions for giant radars, cruise missiles, mines and a million sonobuoys to the point where any low-alt operation drops the TOS into the :mad:er.

Maybe we should start a poll. Personally I would put these in descending order of relevance as 1,4,3 and 2.

[camelspyyder]

A turboprop can be detected from underwater at FL200 or more.

A jet can get away with maybe a tenth of that altitude, so thats hardly a reason for high alt ASW for P-8 is it?

It's a good reason for C-295 to have to work at high altitude though.

[pr00ne]

Phoney Tony,

We are no longer in the first world category?

What a ridiculous statement that totally ignores and flies in the face of the size of our defence budget, our economy and the actual inventory of our armed forces both in terms of quality and quantity, not to mention capability.
We axed our MR capability because we made a total horlix of a replacement programme and a Political party wanted to make a gesture.

[LowObservable]

Camel - I should think that depends on size and design. (Although the old C-133 could be detected and ID'd at any altitude at >10 miles, WUUUmmm-WUUUmmm-WUUUmmm.)

And while I hate to play the SUMMONS LEON JABACHJABICZ card, if you want something quiet that can patrol at speeds compatible with a boomer sneaking out to the ocean...

[Phoney Tony]

Military mass is important. We might have a good economy but we need military FEAR in sufficient numbers to project, persist and execute in at least 3 or 4 concurrent ops. We can not do that at the moment in any domain.


In terms of being counter detected, may be with a good ASW capability it does not actually matter any more. Just do the maths.

[camelspyyder]

I'm getting the impression no other poster on this page has ever flown ASW.

[Pontius Navigator]

CS, was in the TSC when a P3 crew was incandescent at the previous MPA. It had on topped the buoy in contact approaching CPA and blotted out the grams.

Certainly would have been counter detected. Not so sure an orbiting jet would escape detection today.

[Phoney Tony]

Camel,

Some of the posters on this site have never flown in anything. Let alone a MPA.


I doubt a P3 ontop a buoy would have blotted out the grams, Raised the broadband AN for an instance and drawn a few discrete tonals. No doubt the sub would know the pelican was there.

[LowObservable]

Having been diagnosed with a life-threatening allergy to pies in my youth, I have never flown MPA.

I do believe that ASW is important. However, having watched the procurement and force-structure merry-go-round for many years, I can't over-emphasize the importance of a community having a consistent story to tell the people who sign the cheques, particularly if they're pushing for the Mercedes-Benz (if not the Maybach) solution and there are people peddling Toyotas or Citroens.

And I don't recall (even in PPrune threads) being told that avoiding detection is a reason for high-altitude ASW, until the last few days. Indeed, I think there have been a few people insisting that the P-8A is too super-good at low altitude.

But if counter-detection is important, then what's the spec? What are the standards? Are there any? Because I would be willing to bet that a little C295 with modern six-blade props has one heck of a lot different signature from the P-3 with those four-paddle-blade things. And the Treasury is not interested in anecdotes.

[The Old Fat One]

I'm getting the impression no other poster on this page has ever flown ASW.

Only now, where have you been :ok:

[camelspyyder]

Having been diagnosed with a life-threatening allergy to pies in my youth, I have never flown MPA.



But if counter-detection is important, then what's the spec? What are the standards? Are there any? Because I would be willing to bet that a little C295 with modern six-blade props has one heck of a lot different signature from the P-3 with those four-paddle-blade things. And the Treasury is not interested in anecdotes.

Given that acoustic detection of submarines often focussed on the sounds created by the prop, isn't it fair that they can detect aircraft the same way. Any prop (4 blade or 6) emits detectable discrete frequencies, jets make more of a white noise blend which is less easy to identify.

[LowObservable]

I totally believe it's possible. But there are degrees in all things, air-to-water coupling is not perfect (or consistent, I would guess, being affected by surface conditions), and I would bet that Bear>P-3>C-295. Moreover, turbofans (including the CFM56) can have their own quirky bees-in-an-oil-drum noises, particularly in the front sector.

And until you can quantify that I don't think that the people approving the spec are going to give it much weight.

[malcrf]

HAS59

But that’s not what we need is it? Nor would we buy that number – we couldn’t afford to support them.

Is it not what we need?

Don't we need to clear the routes to deep waters for our SSBNs? Don't we need to keep an eye on the Russian ships navigating their way through the GUIK or the Channel?

And I understood that the C295 had a serious sensor suite plus the ability to deploy a reasonable amount of ordnance. How many subs are we expecting an MPA to sink on any one mission?

And as for not being able to afford to support them...............I understood they were considerably cheaper to operate than the P8 (as well as to buy), so if we can't afford to operate the C295, what chance the P8!

We'll have to agree to disagree

[Pontius Navigator]

Quantification is easy. The evidence is on your own jez grams or whatever.

[HAS59]

malcrf,
we might see things from a different point of view, but I expect we both want to see something in the air - and soon.
I was rather keen on seeing the C 295 as an ASW OCU type aircraft which would also be good at doing the short range stuff. Buy half a dozen now and get on with it, sort of thing.
While also seeing a P-8 Squadron bought a short while later as the front line unit doing the more 'serious' and long range sorties.
However, that is a view from 'cloud cuckoo land' given the government priorities these days.

I guess we'll just have to wait and see. What I hope is that we do not have to go through a long and expensive tendering process followed by an even longer airworthiness safety accreditation.

[malcrf]

we might see things from a different point of view, but I expect we both want to see something in the air - and soon.
I was rather keen on seeing the C 295 as an ASW OCU type aircraft which would also be good at doing the short range stuff. Buy half a dozen now and get on with it, sort of thing.

True indeed.......................the present situation is farcical, so some C295s now to at least plug some of the gap, and some P8s (or P1s later) I'd live with.

[SwitchMonkey]

Jackonicko commented:

I know that at times you might just as well have painted the stars and stripes on the side of the Nimrod R, since it was integrated into their flying programme, used their Int data bases, etc., and could even be tasked by US commands. But 51 could do independent ops (Falklands, anti-IRA, etc.) and I wonder whether it could still, and whether the UK could ever use RJ completely autonomously without the planning, the targets, the "take" and the results going straight (and first) to the US, whereas previously I guess it used to go to the UK (Cheltenham? etc.) first? There are a whole bunch of unanswerable questions - Where is the inflight data downloaded to now? Do the US now even have a veto on when and where and how the UK deploys the aircraft?


There's one other thing to consider, relevant to UK RJ and any Poseidon buy, and that is the reliance on Boom tankers - which we don't have - for AAR.

[Heathrow Harry]

Tory party Conference next week

Bit worrying there are no "leaks" of increased spending on the Armed Forces yet..........

If nothing is announced /leaked by the end of their Conference it probably means the SDSR is a ways off - and not very encouraging either..........

[Jimlad1]

How on earth did you reach that conclusion when you've just had DSEI where all the Service chiefs and SofS set out their stall.

It would also be a bit silly to leak news of an announcement when the review is in full swing, thus prejudging the findings of the review before its actually done.

[Roland Pulfrew]

Tory party Conference next week

Bit worrying there are no "leaks" of increased spending on the Armed Forces yet..........


You've obviously missed the Government's announcement (fudge) that they are committing to 2% of GDP then. Or were you expecting more?

[Pontius Navigator]

Jimlad, leak during a review, oh never, what an idea.

Our political masters are past masters at leaking just to test the waters.

[Heathrow Harry]

JimLad - DSEI means nothing to Joe Public

and the SO's "setting out their stall" is exactly correct - getting their lobbying in first but they don't take the decisions - we'd be better off listening at the Treasury key-hole I think

what I'm looking for is a sign that our political lords and masters have decided anything....... and so far its very very quiet.................

[cokecan]

HH,

its almost certain that the politicos are/were waiting to see how Labour and Corbyn faired at conference - every bugger knows that the PLP and Corby are completely at ods over defence, and the Tories are waiting to see if Labour implodes all by itself or needs a push.

it looks like they'll need a push - Corbyn has quite sensibly 'back-burnered' his Defence agenda and is waiting for Conference 2016 (which will be the first conference under which his rules on policy making will apply) to start setting policies that he knows the PLP won't stomach.

the tories take the view that his domestic economics stuff - housebuilding, taxation etc... will be pretty popular with the electorate, so they need to throw a spanner in his works before he can start making real traction with those proposals. so, (in my political opinion) expect a series of votes on defence/FP issues that will split Labour assunder...

MPA, Trident, Syria, SDSR etc.. all will make Labour look utterly divided and spending its time decending into interminalabe interniccene infighting.

[Heathrow Harry]

interesting idea - ............. tho not sure that defence swings many votes TBH

[Wensleydale]

"tho not sure that defence swings many votes TBH".

It did in the past though!!

http://bodley30.bodley.ox.ac.uk:8081/MediaManager/srvr?mediafile=/Size1/ODLodl-6-NA/1015/oulis2006-bzm-0507-0.jpg&userid=1&username=insight&resolution=1&servertype=JVA&cid=6&iid=ODLodl&vcid=NA&usergroup=CPA_Poster_Collection-6-Admin&profileid=27

[cokecan]

actually, to update my view of just two days ago, Labour have imploded over defence - all on their own and with no help from anyone.

the tories may now not see the need to add to the conflagration with announcements on MPA etc... perhaps they'll feel that they should keep such things is reserve, just in case Labour somehow manages to plaster over the schisam thats developed over defence policy/posture when they can helpfully be used to re-ingnite Labours civil war...

[Heathrow Harry]

been travelling - can'tsee any defence announcements in the headlines.............

[cokecan]

HH,

there was a bit at the start of the conference - the replacement of our reapers with twice the number of new reapers, and some fluff about SF.

the MPA stuff has obviously been left to the SDSR, it makes it more 'fireproof' politically, and its obvious (politically) that the Tories have no need to intrude on Labours public grief over all things defence. that hornets nest is buzzing all of its own accord, theres no need to waste a stick that might be useful in the future on it.

[Exnomad]

Sounds as if P8a would be a hell of lot better than nothing, which is the present position.
What else is there, and how soon could we get any.

[Heathrow Harry]

I agree with you

but read the posts earlier in the same thread - alternatives have been discused to death..........

[Heathrow Harry]

see our Lords & Masters have agreed to buy a much needed new research/patrol vessel for Antarctica -

there must be some spare cash around after all - here's hoping

[Biggus]

HH,

Corbyn made a comment not long after becoming Labour leader about coming to a negotiated agreement with Argentina over the future of the Falklands, including joint governance.

A slightly biased link, but it gives the background to Corbyn's stance:


Jeremy Corbyn's Falklands plan tantamount to surrender to Argentina, warns wounded veteran Simon Weston - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/11833264/Jeremy-Corbyns-Falklands-plan-tantamount-to-surrender-to-Argentina-warns-wounded-veteran-Simon-Weston.html)


I noticed that the Tories made a comment, no doubt in response, that the Falklands was safe on their "watch". Perhaps the new patrol/research vessel is in part making good on that commitment?

[Frostchamber]

HH do you mean HMS Protector? I ask because though she's relatively new to UK plc she was chartered in 2011 and bought outright in 2013. Or is there something else recently announced that I've missed, in which case do you have a reference pse?

[skydiver69]

This one? Cammell Laird in Birkenhead 'to build' polar research ship - BBC News (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-34504399)

[andyy]

Not RN, though, so not being paid for out of the Defence budget.

[Heathrow Harry]

indeed but it shows there is cash for capabilities in desperate need of renewal

we can but hope it stretches to some sort of MPA............

[Frostchamber]

This one? Cammell Laird in Birkenhead 'to build' polar research ship - BBC News (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-34504399)


Thanks, that would be it.

[Jimlad1]

The research ship is intended to complement / replace extant capability. It may come as a shock but there is more to Govt than just defence spending...

Ultimately its down to the RAF and RN to make a coherent case for MPA, to show why it needs funding, and why its more important than other equally pressing priorities. If it is, then it will be funded.

[Davef68]

Not the only publicly funded research ship either.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RRS_Discovery_%282013%29

[The Old Fat One]

This is doing the rounds on FB

MoD sinks £2bn sub-hunter jet deal | The Sunday Times (http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/news/uk_news/article1627241.ece?CMP=OTH-gnws-standard-2015_10_31)

[Heathrow Harry]

hope they are wrong but ................

[Flap Track 6]

Here's an idea ...

With the USAF about to vacate Mildenhall, arrange for a joint UK/US squadron of P-8s to be based there, jointly funded by the UK and US. The RAF supplies the base, including all upkeep and maintenance. USN supplies the aircraft (perhaps on a TDY basis) with USN, RAF and RN crew members. UK pays for the fuel. The base is already to US standards with the necessary bowling alley. The squadron commander is USN with a British deputy. The whole thing is declared to SACEUR, so under ultimate US control.

Everyone's a winner and a damned sight cheaper than an outright purchase.

[Courtney Mil]

Here's my fear. Osborne is back to the wall over his tax credit reform. Opposition to Trident replacement is mounting - the £B 167 figure is scaring the horses. The Government has gone very quiet on F-35 costs. A few other things that you don't need me to tell you about. So how is another big spending announcement going to go over?

If existing programmes survive SDSR in tact I shall be pleasantly surprised. It's not too hard to see where savings might be made within the RAF. The Army losing "boots" is simple to politicians. Cuts to the Navy are more difficult for me to understand, but the capital commitment (carriers, some fixed wing assets and the Trident thing) is bound to be attracting attention.

It's all too much, no matter what the sensible thinkers here would wish for. If the 2% thing stands, someone needs to start getting out their calculator and find enough savings to balance the committed spendings and another new programme.

P.S. Don't shoot the messenger. I feel the same angst as you. We need an MPA.

[The Old Fat One]

^^

You're spot on CM. I would add that I don't think its political...as a country we are either going to (try to) balance the books or we are not. Those political entities which are not so bothered about expenditure, don't exactly have defence high up their list!

I would also add that we need some innovative thinking here...pooled resources with our allies could be one option. In this instance a NATO MPA, force as has already been mentioned on pprune, would be worth a look at.

I'm not sure looking at a cheaper airframe is going to make that bigger difference to the overall cost of restoring the capability, so somebody needs to get there thinking caps on before this falls through the net forever.

And...

P.S. Don't shoot the messenger. I feel the same angst as you. We need an MPA.

...me too.

[Cows getting bigger]

.... and the longer this drags on, the more weight is added to the "we've done fine without the capability" argument.

[Wensleydale]

The problem with a NATO MPA force is that it would probably be tasked by NATO and not the UK, much as in the same manner as the AEW&C Force. As such, the RAF would not have the ability to task the aircraft and would have to bid for protection through the NATO tasking system....not ideal if you need flexibility to protect your Trident replacement.

[The Old Fat One]

^^

Of course, and I can think of a ton of other objections as well. But I can also see a military that comprises of the special forces, the IND & the Red Arrows and a few bands (and I'm only half joking).

We need new thinking and we need it now.

[glad rag]

Here's my fear. Osborne is back to the wall over his tax credit reform. Opposition to Trident replacement is mounting - the £B 167 figure is scaring the horses. The Government has gone very quiet on F-35 costs. A few other things that you don't need me to tell you about. So how is another big spending announcement going to go over?

If existing programmes survive SDSR in tact I shall be pleasantly surprised. It's not too hard to see where savings might be made within the RAF. The Army losing "boots" is simple to politicians. Cuts to the Navy are more difficult for me to understand, but the capital commitment (carriers, some fixed wing assets and the Trident thing) is bound to be attracting attention.

It's all too much, no matter what the sensible thinkers here would wish for. If the 2% thing stands, someone needs to start getting out their calculator and find enough savings to balance the committed spendings and another new programme.

P.S. Don't shoot the messenger. I feel the same angst as you. We need an MPA.


At a "guess"

....'Fin doomed, 2019 scrapheap...

...High, millions, quote to go to ensure typhoon can do it all, even if appears physically, digitally, nearly, almost, perhaps, impossible.

Industry, seeing opportunity, bit like [still] useless grey flattops, says this is the plan.

See F-35.

Kershring.

MPA resurrected as a flight sim on a [high end] PC.



PS I hope I am completely out of the box with all of the above.

[5aday]

I feel the same angst that Courtenay has mentioned but I refer to a previous thread, the MPA will not happen and all the seedcorn guys might as well retire,or stay where they are if the hosting nation wants them.
Face facts guys - the MPA is gone.

[siddar]

I predict a polite conversation between Boeing UK government. Where Boeing explains how much business it does with UK companies and that it would be a shame if they had to shift some of that business else where. Because of the need to synergisticly leverage supplier purchases in a direction that rewards those buying Boeing products.

In the end I expect UK will be getting P8 after all.

[a1bill]

What about a Cessna and a pair of binoculars?

[Exnomad]

Many years ago, when I worked in this environment, we were already deep in the do-do.
No surface ship we had could keep up with a enemy nuclear sub in rough seas, so was dependent on its Helio to deliver a weapon. Helios were already getting very elderly by then, and no Sea King replacement even now.

[Martin the Martian]

no Sea King replacement even now

Umm, what are those big grey helicopters I see buzzing around the skies most days?

But I am slowly coming to the conclusion that if -and it is still a big if- an MPA is bought, it will sacrifice the ASW capability and we will have a C.295/ATR42 etc solution. I also remain to be convinced that both carriers will enter service, particularly if the government can line up a potential buyer for one of them.

[Heathrow Harry]

What do you think Mr Xi was offered on his recent visit??

[Courtney Mil]

^^ I dunno. What do you think he was offered?

[althenick]

What do you think Mr Xi was offered on his recent visit??

I would like to think not but I am pretty sure The Current government would sell their granny's to make a fast Buck.

:(

Q&A: South China Sea dispute - BBC News (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-13748349)

[Royalistflyer]

I can't help but think that the Japanese requirements for maritime surveillance should be very much like our own. Both island nations surrounded by sea, off a major continent where there are/could be problems emerging. So surely the P1 could well be set up pretty well exactly as we would want it - as it comes off the production line?

[TorqueOfTheDevil]

I can't help but think that the Japanese requirements for maritime surveillance should be very much like our own. Both island nations surrounded by sea, off a major continent where there are/could be problems emerging. So surely the P1 could well be set up pretty well exactly as we would want it - as it comes off the production line?

You're not making the mistake of believing that an aircraft would be selected chiefly for its technical merit, are you? The P1 no doubt has various merits but how many British jobs depend either on that airframe or the relationship between our Govt and the nation whch produces said airframe?


Umm, what are those big grey helicopters I see buzzing around the skies most days?


That's right - the ones that have just been upgraded to keep them at the top of their game, having taken over from the Sea King quite some years ago!

[Bastardeux]

At a "guess"

....'Fin doomed, 2019 scrapheap


[/SIZE]

Against every rumour in the Air Force then...

[ChristianR354]

What are the rumours? OSD 2020+?

[Bastardeux]

Yeah, as late as 2025...how they're rumoured to be planning on manning the back seats, I have no idea. All rumours of course...

3 weeks and counting to some much needed certainty.

[Willard Whyte]

Well, perhaps if '35 will be as good as it's purported to be it could do maritime patrol too...

[Pure Pursuit]

Very unlikely IMHO. As soon as typhoon hits P3E... Tornado will go.

[Tiger_mate]

I have just returned from overseas and the US news held several storylines of concern over MPA capability even with a country with an enviable MPA fleet. It appears that Russian submarines have taken to tracking underwater communications cables, paying particular attention to locations upon which repair of a damaged cable would be very difficult, and thus render international communications 'at risk'. Now the cynic in me does wonder why such hostile attention is not being given around the UK where we rely on Cold War underwater listening facilities. Though in all likliehood we ARE also under such a threat. I hasten to add that this is all in the US public domain being overtly voiced by the military hierarchy in protest against austerity in the US Navy.

The timeline for a UK MPA always was decision in 2015 for a resource online by 2020. There is still time for that to happen. FWIW; if we are to leave Europe, we could do a lot worse than restore the pre-WWII military exchange with Japan. The Japanese Navy in those days was steered by UK advisors. Having seen the Japanese MPA at RIAT: I quite liked it, even if it is physically smaller than Poseidon. Four engines = insurance when required / Two engines = worried about the effects of salt ingestion with limited options should an engine fail at very low level.

[Mach Two]

Against every rumour in the Air Force then...

I suspect "spoken thoughts" might be a better term. Not too many rumours like that going round the bases right now. We've been surprised before and frontline opinion clearly doesn't make policy.

Fallon recently said something along the lines of the Chancellor giving us the opportunity to put savings back into the the frontline. To most, a coded message about savings required to invest elsewhere. He also listed a number of big commitments that aren't open for discussion and a number of "ring fenced" spending commitments. The maths are looking increasingly chilly.

Continuing Typhoon improvements need funding from somewhere and the move to a single type to cover all the fast jet type commitments is hard to argue against. The 'Fin' (with its associated rear seat manning issue) may be in someone's sights.

Against every rumour in the "Air Force"? Please tell me more.

In line with the thread topic, that ain't going to pay for a new MPA.

Pure Pusuit, your point is well made.

[fincastle84]

Prior to our Remembrance Day church service in our small New Forest community I noticed a young RN submariner in uniform, a rare sight here. I went & introduced myself & he told me that he was at present serving on a T-boat.

When I told him that I was ex Nimrod he burst forth with " these days we are desperate for Nimrod assistance !! "

Need I say more Mr. Cameron???

[Lima Juliet]

I thought P3E was being rolled out in 2019. Let's put the obligatory BAe slip in there and we're probably looking at a 2021 fleet-wide embodiment in Typhoon. So my guess is Tornado to go in 2022 (40 years since ISD!!!).

LJ

[Party Animal]

Mmm,

Call me a pessimist but £2Bn just announced as extra funding for SF in addition to a huge increase in spook numbers, seems like a similar cost to a new MPA/MMA.

I also hear rumours of 'Unfair lack of competition' being touted against a direct P8 buy.

However, the good news is we only have one week to find out. Keeping fingers crossed...

[fincastle84]

It's just been announced that the HMC&E Maritime Patrol contract for the Dornier 228 operated most successfully by FRA at Hurn for over 20 years will cease wef 6 Jan 2016.

At least there's an additional £4million towards a Nimrod replacement!!:ugh:

[Arclite01]

Party Animal

That sums it up. We are arguing about 'unfair competition' while the terror organisations wander around various locations unchallenged........rather than just buying what we want/need. I'm all in favour of competition but for simple things like cleaning services - not frontline capabilities - we should have the kit we need.

BAes need to realise that they won't win everything. That is business I'm afraid. You SHOULD win if you supply the best offering, not the most politically loaded............... (mixed naivety here):}

Arc

[pmills575]

Britain calls in French to hunt Russian sub lurking off Scotland - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/12010438/Britain-calls-in-French-to-hunt-Russian-sub-lurking-off-Scotland.html)

[oxenos]

"A French Atlantique II maritime patrol plane has been searching for the submarine for at least 10 days"

Impressive endurance.

[Dan Gerous]

That Putin in a Sub pic is sure to end up in the Cap Comp.

[alfred_the_great]

we need to you to man the RAF's 9 x P-8A.

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/pm-pledges-178-billion-investment-in-defence-kit

[ihoharv]

St Mawgan or Lossiemouth? or....?

[The Old Fat One]

In early because I doubted this would happen to the end, and I'm oh so happy I was wrong to be pessimistic.

:ok::ok::ok::ok::ok:

[cokecan]

haaaaaalllllllllllllaaaaaaaiiiiiiiuuuuuuuuuulllllllllllaaaaa aaaaaaa!!!!!!!

depending on how the rest of the day goes, i may well be offering to felate the PM on the fourth plinth in Trafalgar Square, live on tv while the choir from Kings College sings 'Zadog the Priest'.

[ShotOne]

Nine P8's it says.

[Surplus]

Excellent news.

[Phoney Tony]

Well done. A positive decision.

[Ddraig Goch]

A report on the BBC this morning:

An RAF plane is "conducting activity" off the Scottish coast, the Ministry of Defence says, amid reports of a Russian submarine being spotted in the area.
A Royal Navy Frigate and submarine are also thought to be involved in the search, along with Canadian and French maritime patrol aircraft.
The Telegraph reports (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/12010438/Britain-calls-in-French-to-hunt-Russian-sub-lurking-off-Scotland.html) the French plane has searched for the submarine for at least 10 days.
The RAF currently has no maritime patrol aircraft of its own.
But according to the BBC's defence correspondent Jonathan Beale, this lack of patrol aircraft is expected to be addressed in Monday's Strategic Defence and Security Review.
The submarine was detected north of Scotland. The Ministry of Defence did not confirm it was looking for a foreign submarine.
"We can confirm that allied maritime patrol aircraft based at RAF Lossiemouth for a limited period are conducting activity with the Royal Navy," a statement said.
"We do not discuss the detail of maritime operations."
There have been previous concerns (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-34639148) that Russia could be developing plans to have submarines sever key internet communications during future wars, following a spike in its naval activity near the locations of undersea cables.



The timing of the story makes the cynic in me think there will be an order for MPA in the SDSR this week.

Fallon anounces 7.50 on BBC Breakfast, the goverment will order Boeing P 8 along will other Army/ Air force news.

[fincastle84]

Yes, I also heard Fallon's interview. I'm absolutely amazed, & delighted, that Cameron has swallowed his pride & decided to purchase the P8. I'm just really sad that I'm too old to fly in them. :{

[thunderbird7]

What,,, the fellating promise or the P8s?

[TorqueOfTheDevil]

I'm absolutely amazed, & delighted, that Cameron has swallowed his pride & decided to purchase the P8


Never mind Cameron, three cheers for Vladimir!

[Davef68]

Not so sure about swallowing pride, I still have a suspcion that was the first thing pencilled in for SDSR 2015, in October 2010

[cokecan]

thats chimes with everything i've seen or heard - no one cancelled Nimrod because they didn't think it was important, they cancelled it because the f*&king thing wouldn't fly and they was no way within the currently accepted laws of physics to make the f*&king thing fly.

given the political and financial option, Cameron would have ordered P-8 the day after he signed off on scrapping Nimrod.

[alfred_the_great]

As an ASW practioner, you can guess quite how happy I am about this all. Well done CAS and 1SL for forcing this through.

[MAINJAFAD]

St Mawgan or Lossiemouth? or....

...RAF Lincolnshire :ugh::ugh::ugh:. Lossie is full and Newquay Airport doesn't belong to the MOD. Could always kick the army out of Kinloss.

[Selatar]

News saying lossie

[Davef68]

I've said on here before, I heard Liam Fox say as much on Radio Scotland the day after SDSR 2010 , but he never repeated that elsewhere - I suspect Mr Coulson shut him up.

[Roland Pulfrew]

Well done CAS and 1SL for forcing this through.

ATG, without wishing to appear picky you may wish to add Com JFC. As this is a joint capability it's one of his programmes; ably supported by CAS and 1SL I'm sure.

[Eminence Gris]

So Cameron admits his mistake.........should resign!

EG

[Eminence Gris]

Suggestions that there was any problem with MRA4 were only brought out after those who could refute it had moved on and were not in a position to do so. The only reason given in SDSR 2010 for cancelling MRA4 was to save £2bn over 10 years, money now spent on an aircraft with only half the range and capability.

EG

[teeteringhead]

admits his mistake.........should resign!

But pollies don't do resignation any more.

And "news" reports no longer seem to say what Ministers said, but what they will say.

Curious.

In 1947, Hugh Dalton - Chancellor of the Exchequer - resigned after having (probably inadvertently) revealed one sentence of his Budget Speech minutes before he delivered it in the House......

...... o tempora o mores..... :(

[Eminence Gris]

Suggestions that there was any problem with MRA4 were only brought out after those who could refute it had moved on and were not in a position to do so. The only reason given in SDSR 2010 for cancelling MRA4 was to save £2bn over 10 years, money now spent on an aircraft with only half the range and capability.

EG

[Jackonicko]

So Japan, a maritime, island nation (but one which does not have a submarine-based deterrent) thinks it needs upwards of 70 P-1s.

While we're getting NINE P-8s.

I remember when we had 46 Nimrod MR.Mk 1s, equipping five frontline squadrons, and later 35 MR.Mk 2s equipping three squadrons. In the latter case there never seemed to be quite enough of the damned things, and it seemed to be a regular refrain that we really could have used the airframes that had been diverted to the ill-starred AEW.Mk 3 programme.

One can't help but wonder whether the usual desire of senior officers to have the newest, shiniest toy, with all the bells and whistles has again resulted in us not having quite enough assets? Whether the holy grail of 'harmonisation' with the US has not led to us overlooking more sensible, arguably modest solutions that would have allowed us to maintain a more realistic force structure?

I never got the impression that there had been any serious consideration of the alternatives to P-8. Airbus Military said that you could afford to buy and run double the number of C295 MPAs half the money that a given number of P-8s would cost (or four times the number for the same cost, in other words?). It was estimated that even the four-jet P-1 cost roughly half as much as the P-8.

Obviously the P-8 can do many things that a C295 (or Saab 2000, or whatever) cannot, but it cannot be in four different places simultaneously.

Nor am I entirely confident that the P-8 can do everything that it says on the tin, nor even that it will ever be able to do so. I'm uncertain as to whether the aircraft will ever be able to prosecute contacts at low level, or whether doing everything from medium level will be possible or cost effective.

I wonder whether the RAF will specify a MAD, like the Indian P-8s (which also seem to have expanded low level and overland options), or whether we will get an aircraft identical to the US Navy aircraft?

It's obviously welcome news that we're going to get new MPAs at all, but my personal joy is tempered by the tiny (inadequate?) number of aircraft, and at another apparent example of buying the latest (unproven and immature) US kit without even considering cheaper and more practical solutions.

[Sandy Parts]

wot he (EG) said! If it couldn't 'fly' all those hours the guys spent over the Irish Sea conducting ASW during Neptune Warrior must have been a mirage... Yes, it wasn't perfect but read the books about most of our favourite military aircraft - neither were they when entering service! Anyhoo - moving on....
I'm glad to eat humble pie and admit I'd never thought this day would come. Shame the RAF chucked me a wad to bugger off when they binned MRA4, however, I'm still well 'geographically placed' (to use the lingo) given the basing decision :ok: Congrats also to the ex-MR Wg Cdrs and Sqn Ldrs pushing the case during the 'wilderness years'.

[alfred_the_great]

The OA run supported 8 - 9 P-8. We could of course use more, but we are getting what we could justify and ask for.

[alfred_the_great]

Roland - fully get that, but until Cdr JFC gets Full Command and the delegated budget for all Joint Enablers*, he could only ever be the Supporting Commander, not the Supported Commander!

*Which may not be a bad thing in my view...

[Cubanate]

Wouldn't it also be sensible and cost-effective to base the P8s at Kinloss, with the REs remaining there as a lodger unit? Loads of space for Joint Warrior, long runway, simulator, BFIs, maritime-related accommodation, new-ish sqn HQs and it would provide a DIV for Lossie. Inverness Airport has recently agreed to act as DIV for armed Typhoons and the natives are nervous!

[dervish]

EG

IIRC, the official reason for cancelling MRA4 was it could never get a certificate of airworthiness. Any "savings" were not the reason, they were the product. One defence minister wanted BAES in court but had to calm down after seeing the evidence.

[Royalistflyer]

The problem as I see it is: We need something out there NOW - not in five year's time. So what is the most immediate thing we could possibly do (apart from contracting the French) to get eyes in the sky around our seas? Even if not equipped with the latest bells and whistles.

[Duncan D'Sorderlee]

:D

Duncs :ok:

[BEagle]

Another slight turd in the MoD's water pipe is the lack of UK AAR capability to support the P-8A, which requires a boom system for AAR.....

The Voyager KC3 can refuel the Sentry using the FRU, but as the only A330MRTT variant not to have a boom, the Voyager cannot refuel the RC-135W or the P-8A. Surely such a lack of capability has been addressed?

:hmm:

[Easy Street]

So Cameron admits his mistake.........should resign!

Eminence Gris's location: Lancashire. Connected to a certain large defence contractor, perchance? ;)

Scrapping Nimrod MRA4 was not a mistake. The programme was a shambles. I for one am glad that BAES' bluff was called and I am sure that many others will agree, especially as it now looks like we will be getting the all good bits of MRA4 (the mission kit) with none of the bad bits (the bodged and potentially uncertifiable airframe). :ok:

A benefit of membership of multilateral organisations like NATO is that your allies can help you out and stop you being threatened or held hostage. A good lesson of the last few years is that that applies as much to equipment procurement as it does to military operations.

[Trim Stab]

Has it been announced where they will be based?

[CptDesire]

Excuse my ignorance please people, but being ex-RAF myself I'm still entirely clueless to the difference in capability between an air to ground surveillance capability such as Rivet Joint or Sentinel to that of MPA? I'm assuming it must be something related to the technology it utilises' ability to penetrate depth of water and a wider area surveyed? Anyone care to enlighten me please?

[LowObservable]

JN - Very true.

It's sad that a nation with an excellent capability in ASW and most of its components - acoustics, radar and EO - ended up unable to do anything except buy U.S. off-the-shelf, while paying a substantial price and performance penalty for capabilities (AAS radar and ASuW weapons) that we don't intend to use.

[Easy Street]

Rivet Joint listens to comms and electronic signals and can auto-triangulate to locate their origin as well as analysing their content. Sentinel uses a radar to produce detailed ground maps or indicate moving targets on land. There is no overlap between these capabilities. Maritime patrol aircraft use a combination of the aforementioned techniques to monitor surface vessels and the periscope / communications masts of any submarines that may be exposing them, although constraints of space mean that the neither the radar nor the comms intercept kit is as powerful as its "single-role" brethren. For subsurface reconnaissance, combinations of sonobuoys (air-dropped sonar buoys which transmit signals back to the aircraft) and magnetic anomaly detection help to pinpoint submerged submarines. When you consider that most MPA need also to employ weapons like torpedos, depth-charges and anti-ship missiles, and be able to drop survival equipment like dinghies, you can see that they have to be a "jack of all trades" just to fill one role!

Nimrod was given an overland capability by fitting an electro-optical WESCAM, basically giving it something like a Predator's capability. This won't happen to P-8! The maritime radar can be made to produce a poor man's imitation of a Sentinel or JSTARS capability with some specific coding. References to using the P-8 as a replacement for Sentinel in the overland surveillance role are based around its expansion potential as shown in the concept image below, where it would carry a dedicated land surveillance radar as an aftermarket add-on.

http://www.ausairpower.net/USN/Boeing-P-8-AGS-2.jpg

[Biggus]

Very good news!

Now you just have to find the personnel to man the fleet properly.

1.5 crews per airframe perhaps? Plus sim staff, OCU staff, Staneval, etc. Probably 200 aircrew. Seedcorn will give you about 30-40. We also don't have a WSO training system any more (do we?), assuming the P-8 actually needs WSOs (which personally I don't think it does). Then there's the groundcrew, ops support staff, etc.

I haven't seen any news of retirements of other aircraft, couple this with a run on of Tornado, extra Typhoon Sqns etc. Presumably there are manning issues here?

[Surplus]

It's obviously welcome news that we're going to get new MPAs at all, but my personal joy is tempered by the tiny (inadequate?) number of aircraft, and at another apparent example of buying the latest (unproven and immature) US kit without even considering cheaper and more practical solutions.

Cheaper and more practical solutions... A brief history lesson of the most recent quests for cheaper, more practical and most importantly BRITSH solutions:

Nimrod AEW (Ended up by buying E3D after wasting >1 Billion quid)
Nimrod MRA4 (No further comment needed.)

So you want a competition, where we end up with Sweet FA after millions go into the tendering process.

Personally, I'd rather pay an overseas company to deliver aircraft on time and on budget, than give another penny to BWOS.

We will spend some money, we will get airframes, they will come into service and do the job.

None of this can be said for British Waste Of Space's efforts.

If we'd bought off the shelf in the first place, we'd probably have a lot more P8's than 9.

The 'Nay sayers' said that the P8 was the 'Gold plated solution' - well Dave has admitted the mistake of the 2010 SDSR and we're now getting the gold plated option.

[CoffmanStarter]

Presumably it's a mistake ... But did anyone else notice that the 9 P-8's were listed under Naval Assets in The Times today ... :oh:

[just another jocky]

Presumably there are manning issues here?

And everywhere else and an under-resourced training system undergoing the upheaval of change to MFTS (can it survive?) means I don't know where they are coming from. :uhoh:

[oldmansquipper]

Zut alors....but why not?

Jack is unlikely to get all the little grey boats he wanted...so I our nice politicians could try and placate him with big anchors painted over the roundels

Now there`s an idea that has never been done before....

;)

[bluetail]

So which Squadrons (I,m presuming at least two, x1 OCU & x1 Operational) number plates do we think will be resurrected.

With 206(R)Sqn probably out of the game under current rules, 201 & 120 Standards both now formally laid up, I am assuming that previous Nimrod Squadrons with strong Maritime traditions may not be in the frame.

Could we see 202 Sqn reborn with 203(R)Sqn as the OCU

[pr00ne]

No chance!

5 and 22.

Remember it goes on seniority. Nothing else.

[skibeagle]

How about 803 ? tsk tsk - you're assuming they will be RAF units !

[Above The Clouds]

An excellent decision :ok:


Before I close down, my final thought - should the UK not be looking at securing the actual safety of its own citizens within its own coastline first?
I mean before it again begins very expensive and much limited-use Air Expeditionary Warfare over Syria?

Above The Clouds
How about heavily investing in a robust airborne and maritime coast guard to patrol our borders and coastlines, working with the police, customs and armed forces to protect our citizens and country.

I wonder if they had learned something from my post in the "Paris Attacked" thread :E

[thunderbird7]

201 surely? No 1 Sqn RNAS and the premier maritime squadron? Any fule no that... ;)

[Lonewolf_50]

Congrats, the return of MPA is a good thing. :ok:

[Genstabler]

Presumably it's a mistake ... But did anyone else notice that the 9 P-8's were listed under Naval Assets in The Times today ...
LRMPA aircraft are naval assets, even when (if) the RAF operate them.

[Jackonicko]

Surplus,

There are plenty of cheaper and more practical solutions to P-8, even without involving BWoS (as you amusingly refer to them).

Airbus Military are delivering C295 MPAs as though they were going out of style, while Alenia are churning out MPA versions of the ATR 42 and 72.

Saab have a number of off-the-shelf solutions available, and Lockmart have proposed a solution based on the C-130J.

Then you have the Japanese P-1, 70 of which are being built for another maritime island nation….

And what do all of these alternatives have in common? All are cheaper to buy, operate and sustain than the P-8, and none of them rely on the unproven concept of delivering buoys and weapons from FL Nosebleed.

One gets the impression that the P-8 decision was made without serious consideration of any alternative, and I fear it has been made in pursuit of the goal of harmonisation.

[alfred_the_great]

One gets the impression that the P-8 decision was made without serious consideration of any alternative, and I fear it has been made in pursuit of the goal of harmonisation.

Wrong. Dead wrong.

[Shackman]

As much as I am pleased to see the resurrection of a Maritime role (:D) 9 aircraft is hardly sufficient for one squadron, let alone two plus OCU. More likely is one sqn with an internal OCU of whatever number, although I would be more than happy to see any of the 'old' maritime numbers. There is also the likelyhood that this may be a joint RAF/RN Squadron - so 360 anyone?

Of more worry is the supply of the crews to man them (and the other ac announced), as well as the infrastructure. A major ramp up of flying training to produce more pilots - that'll be easy with all our eggs in one (Valley) basket under MFTS, and as for the supply of WSOPS...........! Engineers for the aircraft, Armourers for the weapons (and storage) and all the other trades involved - and who will supply all the pies!

As for base; thanks to SDSR 2010 we have/are closing bases to concentrate everything (what lovely targets) in airfields that are now full to overflowing, and adding the full maritime package will not sit easily, even less so with the lack of married quarters.

I'm glad that our lords and masters have seen sense, but the fun and games are only just beginning.

'Oh what a tangled web we weave'

[CptDesire]

Easy Street, excellent reply thank you. Just to confirm would P-8 carry a anti-submarine capability to interdict hostile targets such as depth charges etc?

[TorqueOfTheDevil]

A major ramp up of flying training to produce more pilots - that'll be easy with all our eggs in one (Valley) basket under MFTS


Most of what you say is spot on, but ME pilots won't be going anywhere near Valley under MFTS. Just the same as it is now.

[RileyDove]

I reckon the P-8 was chosen because its the best platform available and can operate over sea and have flexibility over land if called for .

Buying turbo prop because its cheaper is hardly the solution to what we need!

[Easy Street]

pr00ne,

5(AC) Sqn is currently in service!

The 'rules' on seniority have been repeatedly broken over many years, either to secure a sensible long-term outcome or to meet senior officers' whims. A good recent example was the transfer of the II(AC) numberplate from the Tornado to Typhoon forces, which broke rules whether you looked at it as a disband - reform (in which case II(AC) should not have been disbanded as it was the most senior Tornado squadron at the time) or as a transfer of number plate away from a squadron which then continues under a different number (which is expressly prohibited). Playing by the rules would have brought 12(B) in as the fifth Typhoon squadron and consigned II(AC) to an uncertain fate at Tornado's retirement, so their airships quite sensibly fudged matters to secure II(AC)'s continuation on a long-term basis.

We'll see something similar with MPA, I'm sure. Seniority is not the only factor and there are guidelines to do with historic association with particular roles. The fact that 120 Sqn was presented with its standard early in recognition of its critical role in the Battle of the Atlantic (putting it in a very select group of sqns) is supposed to count, as well. If we were only going to get one MPA squadron, I would be steeled for a political argument over whether to go for 120 Sqn (probably the RAF's choice) or 201 Sqn (as a sop to the RN and the 200-series's RNAS legacy). My bet would be 2 squadrons instead.

[Davef68]

As much as I am pleased to see the resurrection of a Maritime role (:D) 9 aircraft is hardly sufficient for one squadron, let alone two plus OCU.

Sentry Force had two squadrons on 7 aircraft

[It's Life Jim 208]

I must admit I have a vested interest here, where will the P-8’s go then? To Waddington (I start work there on Wednesday) with it’s soon to be nice new extended runway or Scotland? ;);)

[Davef68]

Lossiemouth according to the press up here, although I find it that a slightly strange decsion

[WhiteOvies]

Easy,

Pretty sure that the USN have already flight tested a WESCAM fit on P-8 as well as a radar under the forward fuselage for GMTI (as shown in your pic). The USN is looking to turn the P-8 into a true replacement for all the specialist versions of the P-3 so there are all sorts of interesting lines of development that the UK can piggy back onto.

CptDesire,

The P-8 has a weapons bay in the aft fuselage for torpedoes and chutes for sonobuoys.

The UK has had some of its team that were testing Nimrod MRA4 heavily involved with the USN testing and intro to service of P-8 for some years.

[melmothtw]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shackman View Post
As much as I am pleased to see the resurrection of a Maritime role () 9 aircraft is hardly sufficient for one squadron, let alone two plus OCU.

Sentry Force had two squadrons on 7 aircraft


Same for Voyager (9 aircraft, notwithstanding the 5 'surge' platforms)

[Just This Once...]

Wrong. Dead wrong.

Indeed. A lot of good people have worked very hard to get the best capability at the best price and at a delivery speed that is just stunning. Oh, and they did it quietly and professionally. Well done to them.

[melmothtw]

The Voyager KC3 can refuel the Sentry using the FRU, but as the only A330MRTT variant not to have a boom, the Voyager cannot refuel the RC-135W or the P-8A. Surely such a lack of capability has been addressed?

...or the C-17 or even the Voyager itself, and while the UK doesn't currently have plans for the F-35A there has been talk of a split-buy for those operations that don't need to be flown off a carrier. No AAR capability for those either, though.

The sooner they address the boom-on-the-Voyager issue, the better really.

[WhiteOvies]

Lots of questions about WSOp training for MPA and yet I'm sure I saw an article recently showing RAF WSOps going through the MFTS Observer training down at RNAS Culdrose. Green shoots of recovery perhaps....

[Jackonicko]

"A lot of good people have worked very hard to get the best capability at the best price and at a delivery speed that is just stunning. Oh, and they did it quietly and professionally. Well done to them."

Jolly good. So it should be a simple matter to explain that, and to allay the fears of people like me, who follow defence matters fairly closely, and who have come to conclusions that are:

Wrong. Dead wrong.

[LowObservable]

Likewise, JN. If there was a detailed evaluation of different options it was apparently done without asking anyone who was offering a non-P-8 option, and was furthermore conducted in a locked hangar at Akrotiri, next door to the place where they keep the weather balloons.

[Tourist]

Jolly good. So it should be a simple matter to explain that, and to allay the fears of people like me.

It probably would be, but why on earth should we bother?

This modern wish to tell the public everything has totally failed to help us in living memory, so why don't we just keep secrets and not bother?

We all know what we want, and public trials have singularly failed to get us the kit we need.

[LowObservable]

If you want AAS to replace Sentinel you'll need some vital supporting hardware:

http://img0118.psstatic.com/163541360_dinky-toys-275-usa-brinks-truck-new-old-stock.jpg

[LowObservable]

WO - The P-8 has two Wescam fits. It usually carries one under the nose, but it is pallet-mounted so that, when the AAS radar is installed, it can be slotted into an alternate bay just behind the MLG.

[Jackonicko]

Because we live in a democracy, and in such a system, those who pay the bills (the taxpayers) have a right to know how and why their money is being spent.

Moreover, it is surely much better that the taxpayers and voters know that decisions costing billions of pounds have not been arrived at lightly or casually, since otherwise, defence spending will become a lower priority in the public mind. The services who explain their requirements and procurement priorities most clearly will be those who gain greatest public support, and politicians will find it easier and more popular to spend money on those programmes.

The RAF have not done a good job in this area, and as a result, its priority programmes probably enjoy less public support than (say) the Navy's carrier programme, or the Army's Special Forces, and even it's battle to save particular 'cap badges'.

[Jackonicko]

LO,

With the money being spent by Lockheed promoting it's C-130-based solution, presumably that company thought that there was a real competition……?

[Tourist]

The RAF have not done a good job in this area, and as a result, its priority programmes probably enjoy less public support than (say) the Navy's carrier programme, or the Army's Special Forces, and even it's battle to save particular 'cap badges'.

Erm, did you just see the SDSR?


Because we live in a democracy, and in such a system, those who pay the bills (the taxpayers) have a right to know how and why their money is being spent.


Remind me where this right is written down? We have been a democracy for an awful long time, and we certainly never used to tell everybody....

[Tourist]

The public image has no effect on spending, as the demise of harrier showed.

[LowObservable]

Really, Tourist?

Do you remember how the whistle got blown on AEW3? That's certainly within living memory (I'm not dead, for one).

[Widger]

So for the advocates of propeller of other solutions how many of them have the ferry range to fly from Wideawake to Mount Pleasant in a single hop, or the combat radius to cover thousands of square miles of the South Atlantic? The UK has a global presence and needs to have a global capability to protect its interests.

[Davef68]

EasyStreet,

Not just a concept image

http://defense-update.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/p8a_aas.jpg

[Eclectic]

Will our P-8s use the 737 Max airframe?
There is a considerable improvement in payload/range.

[fincastle84]

A very special thanks should go to Andy Roberts for the many hours he spent lobbying the government.

Moving on, the 1st 3 Poseidons are planned to be in service by 2020.:)

[WhiteOvies]

LO,

Many thanks for the clarification. :ok:

[Hueymeister]

When is the ISD/FOC? Training Command is going to have to spin up to cater for F-35/FGR4/P8 aircrew posts...

[ORAC]

Will our P-8s use the 737 Max airframe?
There is a considerable improvement in payload/range.

Please :roll eyes:

Off the production line, joint modifications and upgrades - and certainly no UK one-off additions or spec changes. We'd end up paying more for the mod and it's maintenance than the rest of the programme......

[alfred_the_great]

Because we live in a democracy, and in such a system, those who pay the bills (the taxpayers) have a right to know how and why their money is being spent.

Moreover, it is surely much better that the taxpayers and voters know that decisions costing billions of pounds have not been arrived at lightly or casually, since otherwise, defence spending will become a lower priority in the public mind. The services who explain their requirements and procurement priorities most clearly will be those who gain greatest public support, and politicians will find it easier and more popular to spend money on those programmes.

The RAF have not done a good job in this area, and as a result, its priority programmes probably enjoy less public support than (say) the Navy's carrier programme, or the Army's Special Forces, and even it's battle to save particular 'cap badges'.

Feel free to point to any other OA done in the public eye to support a major buy, and then you can FoI the OA for the P-8 buy.

Forgive me - and this is a genuine question, as I don't hang around PPRUNE much - are you a journo? I don't care either way frankly.

[fincastle84]

I'm just so very happy that we will be back in the MPA game, operating a very competent & proven airframe.

I'm just jealous that I won't get the chance to have a go.

[CoffmanStarter]

BEagle raised a valid question earlier @#17 with respect to AAR for our P-8's. I was surprised to see this 'info graphic ' just released by the MOD ...

http://i1004.photobucket.com/albums/af162/CoffmanStarter/image_zpsnozqz01o.jpeg

Apparently AAR is N/A :confused:

Is this true :suspect:

[betty swallox]

Jackonicko

The P-8A does NOT drop buoys at FL nosebleed. It can, but doesn't routinely.

The platform is wonderful at low level.

No point in spouting on here, hoping for a reaction.....

Although you just got one!

[pr00ne]

CoffmanStarter,

The UK MR force operated without AAR for most of its life, and Nimrod MR only acquired AAR capability because of the Falklands. Why is it a must have now?

[salad-dodger]

The UK MR force operated without AAR for most of its life, and Nimrod MR only acquired AAR capability because of the Falklands. Why is it a must have now?
Why don't you write and ask the USN and Boeing instead of asking such daft questions on here. All the P8s ordered so far come with an AAR capability, can't really see ours being any different can you? But then you probably already knew that!

S-D

[camelspyyder]

True, they do fly with 750...so now a whole 5 Students have passed out of the sensor stream since 2010.

[PhilipG]

CoffmanStarter,

It makes some sense that the P8 cannot do AAR. It is a Navy Asset when in US service, as far as I am aware the USN and USMC do not have any boom equipped tankers.

It would seem strange to me if the USN wanted to be able to AAR the P8 that they would want to rely on the USAF.

I cannot see the UK needing to do longer missions than the USN will no doubt be doing over the Pacific.

[Random Bloke]

My money's on CXX because it's seniority(not necessarily age) is greater than that of 201. 201 is also available as well so there could be 2 squadrons. Mind you, could 201 survive without the bloody Sunderland float?

[pr00ne]

Easy Street,

It may be in existence NOW, but how significant is the fact that in the SDSR document each and every ISTSR asset at Waddington has a specific extended OSD of either "2030/at least 2030/2035" except Sentinel which is "extended into the next decade?

That would mean it surviving until P-8 enters service, so maybe the second squadron? 5 Squadrons seniority would trump everybody else's.

Seniority only comes into play when a squadron number is resurrected, it has no input or affect on disbandment decisions.

[MFC_Fly]

Mind you, could 120 survive without the bloody badges? :E

[camelspyyder]

Joint Ops Philip.

The USN do not need to own any boom tankers.

[pr00ne]

salad-dodger,

Charming!

Seeing as the USN do not routinely utilise AAR for the P-8 fleet, their P-3 fleet is not AAR equipped, I think my point is perfectly valid and the USN answer would be rather obvious!

[MFC_Fly]

CoffmanStarter,

It makes some sense that the P8 cannot do AAR. It is a Navy Asset when in US service, as far as I am aware the USN and USMC do not have any boom equipped tankers.

It would seem strange to me if the USN wanted to be able to AAR the P8 that they would want to rely on the USAF.

I cannot see the UK needing to do longer missions than the USN will no doubt be doing over the Pacific.

I'm no AAR expert, but looks a lot like an AAR vagina above the cockpit to me :oh:

http://defense-update.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/p8a_aas.jpg