Russian subs stalk Trident
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: UK, sometimes!
Age: 74
Posts: 436
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You called? 
People need to remember that MPA don't only do ASW. There are a lot of other vital tasks for an MPA, especially for an island nation like ours!
MadMark!!!
People need to remember that MPA don't only do ASW. There are a lot of other vital tasks for an MPA, especially for an island nation like ours!
MadMark!!!
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: St Annes
Age: 68
Posts: 638
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Trident and previous weapons of that ilk are political devices, and should be considered seperately from the mundane stuff that goes thud, bang and whizz... the government should fund it seperately IF they wish to retain the capability, as it's the politicians who will decide if and when to employ it.
Then give the armed forces the cash they need to do the job they are told to do with conventional weapons. I don't really give a hoot about SSBNs, simply because our conventional forces are becoming so tiny that nobody would need to go nuclear to push us aside anyhow...when your response is limited to nuking the opposition or doing nothing you've lost anyway.
Then give the armed forces the cash they need to do the job they are told to do with conventional weapons. I don't really give a hoot about SSBNs, simply because our conventional forces are becoming so tiny that nobody would need to go nuclear to push us aside anyhow...when your response is limited to nuking the opposition or doing nothing you've lost anyway.
Jayand,
Reference your post 55....
First of all PingDit got it wrong, it was CAS, not COS, that flew in an MRA4. As to when, and proof.....
The July 2010 edition of Frontline, a BAE Systems glossy newspaper, has, on its centre pages, a picture of CAS in a flying suit, with a Nimrod MRA4 (with an "A" on its nose) in the background. The caption says that CAS had just flown in "....the first production MRA4.....".
I have no reason to doubt the veracity of this article. As it is in the July addition, and given lead times for articles generally, I would surmise that the flight took place somewhen in the first half of the year.
Reference your post 55....
First of all PingDit got it wrong, it was CAS, not COS, that flew in an MRA4. As to when, and proof.....
The July 2010 edition of Frontline, a BAE Systems glossy newspaper, has, on its centre pages, a picture of CAS in a flying suit, with a Nimrod MRA4 (with an "A" on its nose) in the background. The caption says that CAS had just flown in "....the first production MRA4.....".
I have no reason to doubt the veracity of this article. As it is in the July addition, and given lead times for articles generally, I would surmise that the flight took place somewhen in the first half of the year.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Europe
Posts: 414
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Let's face it none of us knows what the SDSR will bring. For too many years we (Kinloss) have been guilty of hiding behind the SSBN requirement, under the illusion that it was a cast iron reason to keep MPA.
Canada, New Zealand, South Korea, Japan, Norway, Italy, Spain, Portugal, India, Pakistan, Argentina, Nigeria, Turkey, Singapore, Indonesia, Ireland, Mexico, UAE, Algeria, Brazil, Chile, Poland, Iran, Sweden, Peru, Thailand, Australia, Germany, Greece, Taiwan, Israel, Denmark, Egypt, South Africa, Oman, etc. don't have SSBN but they all have MPA.
As has been mentioned before, we (Kinloss) have historically remained tight lipped about our roles (quite rightly), most onlookers assumed we just did ASW which kept us out of the spotlight and have taken this to mean we weren't/aren't doing anything else, hopefully this is being addressed at a level where it matters.
70% of the world is ocean, MPA is the most effective way to dominate it, oh and it also operates over the other 30%
Canada, New Zealand, South Korea, Japan, Norway, Italy, Spain, Portugal, India, Pakistan, Argentina, Nigeria, Turkey, Singapore, Indonesia, Ireland, Mexico, UAE, Algeria, Brazil, Chile, Poland, Iran, Sweden, Peru, Thailand, Australia, Germany, Greece, Taiwan, Israel, Denmark, Egypt, South Africa, Oman, etc. don't have SSBN but they all have MPA.
As has been mentioned before, we (Kinloss) have historically remained tight lipped about our roles (quite rightly), most onlookers assumed we just did ASW which kept us out of the spotlight and have taken this to mean we weren't/aren't doing anything else, hopefully this is being addressed at a level where it matters.
70% of the world is ocean, MPA is the most effective way to dominate it, oh and it also operates over the other 30%
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: The real world
Posts: 446
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hang on a minute, some of those nations have a very limited, somewhat loosely termed MPA capability. We could, post SDSR fly half a dozen islanders fitted with EO and a half decent off the shelf radar and call it an "MPA", We know it would be BS but no worse than some just mentioned!
The roles that we do that aren't spoke about much, who's doing them just now? and thats exactly my point.
many of the roles are being carried out by other platforms quite happily and some others are being taken on risk, the government and the Head honcho's at MOD might just decide to carry on taking it on risk.
When was the last time an MRA 4 got airborne ? somebody on here must know, whats the big secret? I know it's embarrasing but really where is the project just now? the silence is deafening!
The roles that we do that aren't spoke about much, who's doing them just now? and thats exactly my point.
many of the roles are being carried out by other platforms quite happily and some others are being taken on risk, the government and the Head honcho's at MOD might just decide to carry on taking it on risk.
When was the last time an MRA 4 got airborne ? somebody on here must know, whats the big secret? I know it's embarrasing but really where is the project just now? the silence is deafening!
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Europe
Posts: 414
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nice try, but all those nations operate more than islanders fitted with an EO turret and radar. Granted a couple don't operate large fleets of long range aircraft (because their AOR doesn't require it), but they all dedicate a decent percentage of their defence budget to them and many are trying to improve. Even in homeland defence we have a million square miles of ocean to look after, the most effective and efficient way to do that is with long range MPA.
As for the rest, it is unfair to ask questions you know cannot be answered here. If you are really interested submit an FOI.
As for the rest, it is unfair to ask questions you know cannot be answered here. If you are really interested submit an FOI.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: The real world
Posts: 446
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The million square miles you refer to is a SAR commitment is it not?
And I am quite sure there is nothing secret about where the MRA 4 project is, it is hugely overbudget, extremely late and nowhere to be seen.
Every few weeks guys are told it will be here by date X only for it to slip yet again, there are a lot of mushrooms at Kinloss just now and the Farm has been closed for a few years.
And I am quite sure there is nothing secret about where the MRA 4 project is, it is hugely overbudget, extremely late and nowhere to be seen.
Every few weeks guys are told it will be here by date X only for it to slip yet again, there are a lot of mushrooms at Kinloss just now and the Farm has been closed for a few years.
Jayand wrote
The enthusiasts at Warton have noted a few ground runs of ZJ514 during August.
FighterControl • Home to the Military Aviation Enthusiast • View topic - log for August,2010
Recent post Fri Aug 27th
'The Nimrod ZJ 514 A was due to fly today but was cancelled.'
Some interesting angles on the MRA4s at Woodford
AVIATION NORTH-WEST - WOODFORD - NIMROD
TJ
When was the last time an MRA 4 got airborne ?
FighterControl • Home to the Military Aviation Enthusiast • View topic - log for August,2010
Recent post Fri Aug 27th
'The Nimrod ZJ 514 A was due to fly today but was cancelled.'
Some interesting angles on the MRA4s at Woodford
AVIATION NORTH-WEST - WOODFORD - NIMROD
TJ
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Here and there, occasionally at home.
Age: 56
Posts: 146
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jayand & Wensleydale
Just 'cos the Waddo mafia claim to be able to do all the Nimrod jobs between them does not actually make it true.
One of the most worrying aspects of all Defence Reviews is the increase in wildly inflated claims of capability whenever a platform feels threatened (and I include Nimrod in that). The BIG difference with Nimrod is that it proved, day in and night out, it could do the job. Everyone else just claims to be able to do it.
Whether or not MRA4 can do what MR2 did, only time will tell. But the initial indications are that, given the same level playing field everyone else seems to get, MRA4 will prove itself and then some.
And CAS definitely flew MRA4 earlier in the year, I watched him doing so from the jump seat 4 feet behind him. But whilst he was impressed with the flight deck, it was the integrated mission system and sensors that really got his attention (and gets everybody else's when they see it in the flesh).
At the end of the day the politicos will have the final say. If an Island nation chooses to abandon the protection of its SLOCs, abrogate its IMO SAR responsibilities, neglect its deterent's primary protection asset and genuinely does not want to continue with a platform that will form the central plank of CISTAR aspirations, then I would suggest that that country's political and military leadership really ought to decide what it is trying to achieve, who it is trying to protect and why.
If they do decide to bin MRA4, They won't have to worry about me, as I will have left to find a country of residence that still understands defence is not a cheap or optional requirement (not sure where that may be, but anywhere has to be better than watching the country and service you have spent 26 proud years serving disappearing up its own chuff).
One of the most worrying aspects of all Defence Reviews is the increase in wildly inflated claims of capability whenever a platform feels threatened (and I include Nimrod in that). The BIG difference with Nimrod is that it proved, day in and night out, it could do the job. Everyone else just claims to be able to do it.
Whether or not MRA4 can do what MR2 did, only time will tell. But the initial indications are that, given the same level playing field everyone else seems to get, MRA4 will prove itself and then some.
And CAS definitely flew MRA4 earlier in the year, I watched him doing so from the jump seat 4 feet behind him. But whilst he was impressed with the flight deck, it was the integrated mission system and sensors that really got his attention (and gets everybody else's when they see it in the flesh).
At the end of the day the politicos will have the final say. If an Island nation chooses to abandon the protection of its SLOCs, abrogate its IMO SAR responsibilities, neglect its deterent's primary protection asset and genuinely does not want to continue with a platform that will form the central plank of CISTAR aspirations, then I would suggest that that country's political and military leadership really ought to decide what it is trying to achieve, who it is trying to protect and why.
If they do decide to bin MRA4, They won't have to worry about me, as I will have left to find a country of residence that still understands defence is not a cheap or optional requirement (not sure where that may be, but anywhere has to be better than watching the country and service you have spent 26 proud years serving disappearing up its own chuff).
Last edited by ShortFatOne; 31st Aug 2010 at 23:01. Reason: Spelling man!
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Toronto
Age: 79
Posts: 118
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Communication with the rest of the world
If one assumes that the defensive (or offensive) forces of any nation exist at the pleasure of that nation's current government, I think it would be incumbent on critics of government defense policy to try to recruit support within the very much larger constituency of non-military personnel. Arguments replete with acronyms and parochial idiom (Waddo, CAS, COS) are meaningless to potential supporters for their cause. The committed preach to the committed and dismiss those who live outside of their cloister as non-professionals. There are many whose professions are in other fields but have a strong interest in defense matters. Given the ungrammatical and shallow verbiage of many of the contributions to this thread, observers of it might conclude that the commentators are Neanderthal yobs who are only interested in their approaching pensions. I don't believe they are but it might be of great benefit to their cause if they expressed themselves in standard English.
Last edited by kilomikedelta; 1st Sep 2010 at 01:06.
Originally Posted by Roadster280
If the boats are still in Faslane, why are the ASW Sea Kings no longer there?
KMD,
Sorry, but I respectfully disagree. This is a military aviation website, and although viewable by the general public, is not designed to be a place to make statements to gain public support. Rather it is where (mainly) current and ex military aviators exchange news, information and yes, opinions. I'm sure if you visted a doctors or nuclear physicists website it would be equally full of jargon. If I am going to write something intended for the wider public I will use more appropriate wording to match my target audience, and I wouldn't post it on pprune.....
The military, as I'm sure many other organizations are, is full of TLAs - try watching the start (or indeed all) of the Renaissance Man with Danny Devito.
We use them without thinking.
Are we supposted to explain what an F-18 is, an MPA, SSN, SSBN, F-35, JSF, etc? Where does it stop?
If you really want to know what a TLA, or other phrase, means then either simply ask (in the miltary we often say there is no such thing as a stupid question), or use your initiative as we often say to the 'wannabes'. As for your own queries, try using google to search for:
CAS RAF
COS RAF
Waddo RAF
TLA
and all will be revealed. CAS also has at least 2 common meanings in the RAF, normally it is obvious from the rest of the sentence which meaning is intended, which is unfortunately also the case with far too many TLAs these days
Oh, and in the military we say the troops are normally happy provided you don't mess with their food, pay and leave. Pensions come under the heading of pay - so most military people do take an active interest in their pensions!!
Maybe I should change my user name to "neanderthal"?
Sorry, but I respectfully disagree. This is a military aviation website, and although viewable by the general public, is not designed to be a place to make statements to gain public support. Rather it is where (mainly) current and ex military aviators exchange news, information and yes, opinions. I'm sure if you visted a doctors or nuclear physicists website it would be equally full of jargon. If I am going to write something intended for the wider public I will use more appropriate wording to match my target audience, and I wouldn't post it on pprune.....
The military, as I'm sure many other organizations are, is full of TLAs - try watching the start (or indeed all) of the Renaissance Man with Danny Devito.
We use them without thinking.
Are we supposted to explain what an F-18 is, an MPA, SSN, SSBN, F-35, JSF, etc? Where does it stop?
If you really want to know what a TLA, or other phrase, means then either simply ask (in the miltary we often say there is no such thing as a stupid question), or use your initiative as we often say to the 'wannabes'. As for your own queries, try using google to search for:
CAS RAF
COS RAF
Waddo RAF
TLA
and all will be revealed. CAS also has at least 2 common meanings in the RAF, normally it is obvious from the rest of the sentence which meaning is intended, which is unfortunately also the case with far too many TLAs these days
Oh, and in the military we say the troops are normally happy provided you don't mess with their food, pay and leave. Pensions come under the heading of pay - so most military people do take an active interest in their pensions!!
Maybe I should change my user name to "neanderthal"?
Last edited by Biggus; 1st Sep 2010 at 08:14.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: cheshire
Posts: 245
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TJ wrote:
Recent post Fri Aug 27th
'The Nimrod ZJ 514 A was due to fly today but was cancelled.'
And isn't that the most worrying aspect to this that the a/c appears ready and able to fly but is deliberately being held back for some reason?
Time will tell I guess....
Recent post Fri Aug 27th
'The Nimrod ZJ 514 A was due to fly today but was cancelled.'
And isn't that the most worrying aspect to this that the a/c appears ready and able to fly but is deliberately being held back for some reason?
Time will tell I guess....
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Aylesbury
Age: 58
Posts: 378
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, if you dont like it, KMD, what the hell are you doing here?
The door is that way >>>>>>>>
Dont let it hit you on the arse on the way out, theres a good chap.
The door is that way >>>>>>>>
Dont let it hit you on the arse on the way out, theres a good chap.
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Too close to the inlaws
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
kilomikedelta can KMA.
Look, the MRA 4 is not just a bloody Sub Hunter! The fact that it can and will do it as good, if not better than the MR2 is just one of the many feathers in its cap.
I suggest that some people on this forum read FASOC and note that MRA4 ticks the majority of the boxes whilst certain other platforms are left wanting.
Would someone please publish a certain Photo that a previous CAS wanted destroyed because it would threaten the rationale of having so many fast shiny static displays.
If MRA 4 is sacrificed then it will be a disaster not just for the RAF but all three services. I am FAA (and proud of it) and its noticeable that the capabilities of MR2/MRA4 are more appreciated and respected within the true Maritime community and the pongoes than within its own force.
Rant over, looking forward to some cutting replies but in the meantime I am off to the Horse and Jockey for a Pasty !
Look, the MRA 4 is not just a bloody Sub Hunter! The fact that it can and will do it as good, if not better than the MR2 is just one of the many feathers in its cap.
I suggest that some people on this forum read FASOC and note that MRA4 ticks the majority of the boxes whilst certain other platforms are left wanting.
Would someone please publish a certain Photo that a previous CAS wanted destroyed because it would threaten the rationale of having so many fast shiny static displays.
If MRA 4 is sacrificed then it will be a disaster not just for the RAF but all three services. I am FAA (and proud of it) and its noticeable that the capabilities of MR2/MRA4 are more appreciated and respected within the true Maritime community and the pongoes than within its own force.
Rant over, looking forward to some cutting replies but in the meantime I am off to the Horse and Jockey for a Pasty !
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: UK, somewhere
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I take it you're referring to the picture with 4 Storm Shadows on the wing pylons? Wonder what else could fit into the bomb bay? Moving on, the sensor-to-shooter loop would be a case of "Nav, EO, target..." - pretty quick I imagine!
Whilst Waddington have been selling themselves as Combat ISTAR pretty heavily, they're missing a trick - MRA4 can find targets and, given time and funding, can kill them too without needing another platform to act as weapons carrier.
Whilst Waddington have been selling themselves as Combat ISTAR pretty heavily, they're missing a trick - MRA4 can find targets and, given time and funding, can kill them too without needing another platform to act as weapons carrier.
I take it you're referring to the picture with 4 Storm Shadows on the wing pylons? Wonder what else could fit into the bomb bay? Moving on, the sensor-to-shooter loop would be a case of "Nav, EO, target..." - pretty quick I imagine!
W123,
Unless you have a former AEO in the Tacco 2 seat - in which case the i/c chat would be: Nav, EO, Tacco 2 - 365 degrees at 9 and a half knots, target!
FWIW, the weapons architecture is based on the F18 Weapons Control System and the datbus and wiring means that a huge plethora of weapons could potentially be carried. It would be great if someone could find the photo referred to above?
W123,
Unless you have a former AEO in the Tacco 2 seat - in which case the i/c chat would be: Nav, EO, Tacco 2 - 365 degrees at 9 and a half knots, target!
FWIW, the weapons architecture is based on the F18 Weapons Control System and the datbus and wiring means that a huge plethora of weapons could potentially be carried. It would be great if someone could find the photo referred to above?
I had been pointing out for years that it was MRA4, not MR4, and the "A" could provide massive opportunities for the RAF. Compare the potential weapons load and loiter time for 4 GR4s and a tanker vs one MRA4.....
I originally saw one major problem, but as I see it now there are two. First of all, with only 9 airframes compared to the original planned 21, there will probably never be enough MRA4s to provide any for a dedicated attack role. That is the new problem....
Secondly, without deliberately being disrespectful to the maritime world, overcoming the Nimrod mafia's maritime mindset. Having said that, this might well not be an issue. The MR2 community seemed to adapt readily enough to the overland role in the latter years of the fleet - mind you, I bet the MRA4 opens its bomb doors at the same distance as the MR2, which I was told (urban myth?) was a throw back to the Sunderland, and the amount of time (and therefore distance) required to wind the depth charges out from the fuselage to underneath the wings.....
I guess, as has already been pointed out, overcoming the FJ mafia vested interests would also have been a major issue!
I originally saw one major problem, but as I see it now there are two. First of all, with only 9 airframes compared to the original planned 21, there will probably never be enough MRA4s to provide any for a dedicated attack role. That is the new problem....
Secondly, without deliberately being disrespectful to the maritime world, overcoming the Nimrod mafia's maritime mindset. Having said that, this might well not be an issue. The MR2 community seemed to adapt readily enough to the overland role in the latter years of the fleet - mind you, I bet the MRA4 opens its bomb doors at the same distance as the MR2, which I was told (urban myth?) was a throw back to the Sunderland, and the amount of time (and therefore distance) required to wind the depth charges out from the fuselage to underneath the wings.....
I guess, as has already been pointed out, overcoming the FJ mafia vested interests would also have been a major issue!
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: 45 yards from a tropical beach
Posts: 1,103
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If and when all nine MRA4s become operational, it won't be long before Ivan sends a planned series of submarines south, at suitable intervals, to test the reaction and endurance of the MRA4 fleet. By endurance I mean the ability to maintain continuous coverage in the operational area.
"May you live in interesting times."
"May you live in interesting times."