Now where the heck did I put that MPA?
the only dedicated airframes built and designed from scratch for that purpose.
But not any more....
Danny 42C - Airships? You should know better than to play the Summons Leon Jabachjabicz card....
But not any more....
Danny 42C - Airships? You should know better than to play the Summons Leon Jabachjabicz card....
airships actually aren't bad idea for this purpose if you are tight on a budget, they can stay in air for much longer than planes and while they are quite slow they are still faster than subs 
also, they are cool
also, they are cool
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: The US of A, and sometimes Bonnie Scotland
Posts: 549
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cheers Gear,
Not really biting. Just venting!
But I'm surprised that he/she/it can even spell MR2 given the f*ckwittery of the comments...
And yes, airships ARE cool.
Not really biting. Just venting!
But I'm surprised that he/she/it can even spell MR2 given the f*ckwittery of the comments...
And yes, airships ARE cool.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 1,515
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So let us have a well structured debate, devoid of crass comments
I'm afraid we're now past the point of debating whether a maritime capability is essential or not. The recent news on this thread vindicates that. SDSR 15 looms ever closer. And we need the capability
But...
All parties are falling over themselves to state how they will reduce the deficit, against this background I can't see how SDSR 2015 will be anything other than another capability, for which read cost, cutting exercise.
Funding for new assets (such as MPA/MMA) is likely only to be feasible if something else is given up.
Funding for new assets (such as MPA/MMA) is likely only to be feasible if something else is given up.
So lets have the debate even shall we. What (out of the defence budget) are we for cutting to get the MPA/MMA capability back.
And don't even go down overseas aid/NHS rant road...because basically that is as crass as any other comment on here.
Here's my starter for 10
Bin everything PR related (Red's, BoB flight, all bands)
Outsource (to a private company...not the MOD CS) all of the following:
all medical and dental, all admin & HR, all legal,
Bin the RAF Regiment and give all its roles (including training) to the Army.
Target a 10 percent reduction in uniformed personnel thru the above cuts.
that might do it.
Or bin a big ticket item
The IND?
The Carriers?
I'm not suggesting any of the above is feasible. I'm suggesting finding the money out the defense budget to restore an MPA/MMA capability will hurt like hell.
And thinking the the defence budget will be increased to get it back is just fantasy land (or crass if you prefer).
Or bin a big ticket item
The IND?
The IND?
a. Don't need MPA
b. Buy something that doesn't have the cost of the P-8.
Win; win.
Hat, coat, taxi!
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 1,515
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
^^
I'm a last year kinda guy
...only use MMA to try and keep the peace.
Of course your logic is sound (much the same argument applies to the {CVA?}
Really just making the point that yes we need the capability back, but where the heck will we find the money. And any debate that does not acknowledge the extreme difficulty is neither balanced nor structured.
I'm a last year kinda guy
...only use MMA to try and keep the peace.Of course your logic is sound (much the same argument applies to the {CVA?}
Really just making the point that yes we need the capability back, but where the heck will we find the money. And any debate that does not acknowledge the extreme difficulty is neither balanced nor structured.
I would also argue that we cannot bin BBMF - they are the only types in the inventory with no OSD; we might need them on ops. How many Paveway IVs could you get in the Lanc's bombbay and the Hurricane made a pretty good CAS aircraft (although I would prefer a Typhoon (Hawker not Eurofighter))
)
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: The real world
Posts: 446
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Given the latest and loudest calls yet for austerity over the coming years it is pretty clear if it wasn't before (and it was ) that the MOD won't be procuring an MMA, MPA any time in the foreseeable future.
The perceived real or not need for the capability is sadly irrelevant with the future spending plans.
The cynic in me questions whether or not there was actually anything spotted off the West coast at all or was it actually a well timed piece of propaganda by the pro maritime brigade?
The larger question does remain, do we need the outrageously expensive Trident replacement?
Who exactly is it deterring? not the terrorists!
And can it be done with a modern, cheaper alternative? Surface, subsurface and air launched TLAM?
The perceived real or not need for the capability is sadly irrelevant with the future spending plans.
The cynic in me questions whether or not there was actually anything spotted off the West coast at all or was it actually a well timed piece of propaganda by the pro maritime brigade?
The larger question does remain, do we need the outrageously expensive Trident replacement?
Who exactly is it deterring? not the terrorists!
And can it be done with a modern, cheaper alternative? Surface, subsurface and air launched TLAM?
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: London
Age: 50
Posts: 87
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Even though the MMA/MPA is way up the agenda at high Wycombe, Northwood and Town, the financial outlook is dire. Personally, I think something will come out of the next SDSR and it will be painted as a huge win surrounded by some shocking reductions elsewhere. What exactly that capability will be is the big question but I venture it will be small, cheap and a long way from a P-8 squadron.
In terms of cuts to the reds and BBMF, this represents political folly. They will stay. Changes in funding structure may save a few pence.
3 bands left in the RAF I think. You can chop em but the army won't let you as they really like theirs and so does the queen. If we chop ours the army are likely to face similar pressure. Equally you would save pennies.
Whilst binning the 50 or so lawyers sounds attractive. It's a joint capability and we would still need lawyers so that's a large annual contract required to service. RAF lawyers are also in kinetic kill chains, not normally something we let civies do.
Admin and HR perhaps but again that will be a big serco contract to replace what is still left.
Bin the Regt and let the army do it. They don't want to and have just handed over the NBC regiment to the Regt. However, I do suspect this one will be on the agenda next year as in army eyes it may save regiments.
10% manpower reduction. Should save around 150m a year ish based on 3000 folks going. Such a reduction over 5 years will probably only keep the manpower bill flat vice offer up a tangible saving. ie its a given.
In essence there are lots of hard questions for next year and big numbers needed. Small trimmings like retiring the HS125 next year and shutting the rescue centre at kinloss are small beer. Affording any kind of decent MPA in the reducing mil budget will be very very hard.
In terms of cuts to the reds and BBMF, this represents political folly. They will stay. Changes in funding structure may save a few pence.
3 bands left in the RAF I think. You can chop em but the army won't let you as they really like theirs and so does the queen. If we chop ours the army are likely to face similar pressure. Equally you would save pennies.
Whilst binning the 50 or so lawyers sounds attractive. It's a joint capability and we would still need lawyers so that's a large annual contract required to service. RAF lawyers are also in kinetic kill chains, not normally something we let civies do.
Admin and HR perhaps but again that will be a big serco contract to replace what is still left.
Bin the Regt and let the army do it. They don't want to and have just handed over the NBC regiment to the Regt. However, I do suspect this one will be on the agenda next year as in army eyes it may save regiments.
10% manpower reduction. Should save around 150m a year ish based on 3000 folks going. Such a reduction over 5 years will probably only keep the manpower bill flat vice offer up a tangible saving. ie its a given.
In essence there are lots of hard questions for next year and big numbers needed. Small trimmings like retiring the HS125 next year and shutting the rescue centre at kinloss are small beer. Affording any kind of decent MPA in the reducing mil budget will be very very hard.
The experts are meeting again next week;
Defence Committee Select Committee Announcement 12 December 2014 For Immediate Release: FUTURE FORCE 2020 Wednesday 17 December 2014 The Grimond Room, Portcullis House Witnesses from the Ministry of Defence: At 2.30 pm * Rt Hon Michael Fallon MP, Secretary of State for Defence * Air Marshal Sir Stephen Hillier, Deputy Chief of the Defence Staff (Military Capability) * Peter Watkins, DG Security Policy This is the third session for this inquiry. On 2 July 2014 the Defence Committee announced a new inquiry into Future Force 2020. This followed the Committee's earlier work looking at the Future Army 2020. The 2010 Strategic Defence and Security Review set out the Government's plans for the Armed Forces called Future Force 2020. The Committee is particularly concerned about the relevance, size and quality of the Armed Forces. The Committee is particularly interested in examining. * The impact on the plans for Future Force 2020 of the challenging global political and security context, including in Ukraine, the Middle East and Africa and the changing size, structures and priorities of other international forces including those of the UK's usual allies. * Whether the implementation of Future Force 2020 will provide the flexible, agile and operationally capable force required. * The impact of the Levene Reforms on the Armed Forces, in particular, how the Joint Forces Command (JFC) will operate with the other three Services on operations and in providing contingent capability and the effect of the delegation of budgets to the three Services and JFC for equipment and other expenditure. * The costs of the reforms.
"The experts are meeting again next week" - is that the nocker's xmas lunch? 
Merry crimbo to all ex nimrod (MR2, MRA4 and R1) aviators and engineers. Looks like Op DenyXmas continues without us....(see other thread re allies helping out)
Merry crimbo to all ex nimrod (MR2, MRA4 and R1) aviators and engineers. Looks like Op DenyXmas continues without us....(see other thread re allies helping out)
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 1,515
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TBC Selatar (and I think I was)
I was not advocating any of the aforementioned cuts in my list...I was demonstrating that unless one is prepared to think the unthinkable, there is little point in discussing future MMA/MPA since there is no money to buy one.
That said, I think a rethink of PR is feasible in today's world.
Why do any of the armed forces need any PR whatsoever? It is the governments job to sell their public spending manifesto to joe public - let them do it and foot the bill. Bin every single job in the Armed Forces that's primary function is PR. Aside from getting rid of things like the Red Arrows, is should shift a hefty chunk of manpower and workload off the books.
Likewise if the country want a museum flight, let the Department of Culture fund it.
If we need the ultimate leaning exercise we need leadership that can front up with innovative, bold and courageous thinking.
I was not advocating any of the aforementioned cuts in my list...I was demonstrating that unless one is prepared to think the unthinkable, there is little point in discussing future MMA/MPA since there is no money to buy one.
That said, I think a rethink of PR is feasible in today's world.
Why do any of the armed forces need any PR whatsoever? It is the governments job to sell their public spending manifesto to joe public - let them do it and foot the bill. Bin every single job in the Armed Forces that's primary function is PR. Aside from getting rid of things like the Red Arrows, is should shift a hefty chunk of manpower and workload off the books.
Likewise if the country want a museum flight, let the Department of Culture fund it.
If we need the ultimate leaning exercise we need leadership that can front up with innovative, bold and courageous thinking.
And following on from Min(AF)'s statement that retired officers play no part whatsoever in formulating Defence policy;
Defence Committee Select Committee Announcement 12 December 2014 For Immediate Release: DECISION MAKING IN DEFENCE P0LICY Tuesday 16 December 2014 Committee Room 15, House of Commons Witnesses: At 10.00 am * Sir Sherard Cowper-Coles, former HM Ambassador to Kabul, and former Special Representative to the Foreign Secretary for Afghanistan and Pakistan At 10.45 am * Brigadier (Retired) Ed Butler At 11.30 am * Lieutenant General (Retired) Sir Robert Fry * Mr Desmond Bowen, former Director General of Policy, Ministry of Defence
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Oh Harry. I'm convinced you're just on here to pi$$ people off. And, frankly, you're not even that good at that.
I REALLY don't think you need post any more. You haven't a clue about maritime, MPA or any future MMA."
If you WANT to restrict the thread to those who just keep crying over the loss of heavyweight MPA capability (as opposed to a modified EADS CASA C-235) I understand.
Believe it or not I think the loss of the Nimrod capability was a criminal mistake for a country like ours and that something needs to be done ASAP to replace at least some of that capability.
HOWEVER - I live in the real world - I see what the politicians and press say, I listen to the average Joe in the street and TBH NO-ONE CARES ABOUT AN MPA
We have to try and convince, by hook or by crook, the Treasury to stump up for something new - we might succeed if we can keep the cost down - but wailing over what we had is never going to convince anyone.
Time to move on
If you want to celebrate the past there is always the History & Nostalgia pages
I REALLY don't think you need post any more. You haven't a clue about maritime, MPA or any future MMA."
If you WANT to restrict the thread to those who just keep crying over the loss of heavyweight MPA capability (as opposed to a modified EADS CASA C-235) I understand.
Believe it or not I think the loss of the Nimrod capability was a criminal mistake for a country like ours and that something needs to be done ASAP to replace at least some of that capability.
HOWEVER - I live in the real world - I see what the politicians and press say, I listen to the average Joe in the street and TBH NO-ONE CARES ABOUT AN MPA
We have to try and convince, by hook or by crook, the Treasury to stump up for something new - we might succeed if we can keep the cost down - but wailing over what we had is never going to convince anyone.
Time to move on
If you want to celebrate the past there is always the History & Nostalgia pages
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: London
Age: 50
Posts: 87
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Old fat one: clear whilst perhaps I was not. Let's say I was adding flesh to your pain and grief suggestions!
Regt deletion aside more substantial areas need to be tackled to match the cuts let alone find a large amount for a through life MPA/MMA. A large amount is heavily tied up in sustain contracts, procurement, PFIs, maintaining the estate ie renting and maintaining quarters, pensions, etc etc. All difficult to untangle but it is here where the money is. Well, and typhoon of course...
I'm not sure cutting a couple of hundred PR related blue suites (if that excluding the reds) will make much of a difference. All helps I suppose.
Regt deletion aside more substantial areas need to be tackled to match the cuts let alone find a large amount for a through life MPA/MMA. A large amount is heavily tied up in sustain contracts, procurement, PFIs, maintaining the estate ie renting and maintaining quarters, pensions, etc etc. All difficult to untangle but it is here where the money is. Well, and typhoon of course...
I'm not sure cutting a couple of hundred PR related blue suites (if that excluding the reds) will make much of a difference. All helps I suppose.
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: South Africa
Age: 87
Posts: 1,329
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ian16th,
Your link was effectively how this thread was started by the OP in post one.
Post 47 by TOFO effectively sums up the situation and the problem, a perceived military need vs no money available to meet it.
Solution? That's the hard bit. Answers on a postcard to UK MOD....
Your link was effectively how this thread was started by the OP in post one.
Post 47 by TOFO effectively sums up the situation and the problem, a perceived military need vs no money available to meet it.
Solution? That's the hard bit. Answers on a postcard to UK MOD....
No cuts just a change
I was going to stay out of this but ...
Someone asked a while back "What are we for cutting from the defence budget to get the MPA/MMA capability back?"
Then we all went into the usual gloom and doom mode "Oh no we cannay afford it - we're all Doomed I tell ye, Doomed!" etc.
Well as we all know it's people in uniform which costs the most. Buying the bloody aeroplanes is cheap by comparison the cost of running them. We will need people in established posts to run them. Establishing new posts will be an uphill struggle.
So look around ...
See if you can identify a squadrons worth of established posts in a unit whose aeroplane is not funded beyond 2018.
Got it?
Number Five (so-called Army Co-Operation) Squadron, the current Sentinel operators are ripe to be transformed into the new MMA Squadron. The number RAF posts will remain and I suspect the Army posts will be filled by Royal Navy personnel.
We could try to flog off the Sentinel Airframes and ground stations to some gullible customer, whom Raytheon could keep on supporting.
This will be politically acceptable as it will be no 'New' or increased personnel required. It will be seen as 'Old (single-role) aircraft out - new (multi-role) aircraft in'.
What we WILL get is of course a whole different topic. But hey - "Cheer up me old muckers." It's not as bad as some of you seem to think.
Someone asked a while back "What are we for cutting from the defence budget to get the MPA/MMA capability back?"
Then we all went into the usual gloom and doom mode "Oh no we cannay afford it - we're all Doomed I tell ye, Doomed!" etc.
Well as we all know it's people in uniform which costs the most. Buying the bloody aeroplanes is cheap by comparison the cost of running them. We will need people in established posts to run them. Establishing new posts will be an uphill struggle.
So look around ...
See if you can identify a squadrons worth of established posts in a unit whose aeroplane is not funded beyond 2018.
Got it?
Number Five (so-called Army Co-Operation) Squadron, the current Sentinel operators are ripe to be transformed into the new MMA Squadron. The number RAF posts will remain and I suspect the Army posts will be filled by Royal Navy personnel.
We could try to flog off the Sentinel Airframes and ground stations to some gullible customer, whom Raytheon could keep on supporting.
This will be politically acceptable as it will be no 'New' or increased personnel required. It will be seen as 'Old (single-role) aircraft out - new (multi-role) aircraft in'.
What we WILL get is of course a whole different topic. But hey - "Cheer up me old muckers." It's not as bad as some of you seem to think.