ASW and MPA
Ahh I see "an industry official" said.... So they are unlikely to know in any detail then!
But for the UK one of the biggest gaps in the arsenal is that left by the withdrawal of Nimrod and its primary role was........ ASW! Even CAS' statement indicates that.
As for
sounds very much like a silver bullet to me.
But for the UK one of the biggest gaps in the arsenal is that left by the withdrawal of Nimrod and its primary role was........ ASW! Even CAS' statement indicates that.
As for
“The aircraft has to be able to take on a wide variety of missions, be versatile, adaptable, interoperable and easily upgradable.”
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But for the UK one of the biggest gaps in the arsenal is that left by the withdrawal of Nimrod and its primary role was........ ASW! Even CAS' statement indicates that.
Quote: “The aircraft has to be able to take on a wide variety of missions, be versatile, adaptable, interoperable and easily upgradable.”
sounds very much like a silver bullet to me.
sounds very much like a silver bullet to me.
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What one "needs" and what one can afford are two different things. Obviously the UK "needs" an MPA with a robust ASW capability. It has none. Would an MSA be better than the current nothing.
Referencing another thread, perhaps the UK "needs" a rotory wing AAR capability. It has none.
Referencing yet another thread, perhaps the UK "needs" CATOBAR aircraft carriers. It has none.
Referencing yet another thread, perhaps the UK "needs" a nuclear deterent such as Trident. Yet there's plenty of talk, some of it quite convincing, that that capability is a luxury and should be scrapped.
Referencing another thread, perhaps the UK "needs" a rotory wing AAR capability. It has none.
Referencing yet another thread, perhaps the UK "needs" CATOBAR aircraft carriers. It has none.
Referencing yet another thread, perhaps the UK "needs" a nuclear deterent such as Trident. Yet there's plenty of talk, some of it quite convincing, that that capability is a luxury and should be scrapped.
Several countries have long bantered about building SSN's, but the costs are tremendous. I recall a discussion over one not so favored nation declaring their intent to build some SSN's, and the opinion boiled down to: "good, I hope they try, it will bankrupt them for sure and ruin the rest of their Navy."
What one "needs" and what one can afford are two different things. Obviously the UK "needs" an MPA with a robust ASW capability. It has none. Would an MSA be better than the current nothing.
The Brazilians are quite serious about an SSN, having ambitions that cover large areas of the South Atlantic where there may be oil, and have been pouring concrete in 2013-14 with the aim of cutting metal in 2015 - but firstly, on the first of four Brazilian-French SSKs. The SSN is a long way off.
The "silver bullet" quote is quite old. On the other hand, Boeing has shown through the C-17 operation how it can efficiently sustain very small numbers of large aircraft, which could point to a mixed solution: a small number of P-8As and some MSAs for non-ASW tasks.
The "silver bullet" quote is quite old. On the other hand, Boeing has shown through the C-17 operation how it can efficiently sustain very small numbers of large aircraft, which could point to a mixed solution: a small number of P-8As and some MSAs for non-ASW tasks.
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well Ken that is of course a decision for any future government and a Strategic Defence and Security Review. But to answer your question, there are other assets that can do maritime surveillance, so it's not "nothing". Therefore what is needed is something that can do long range ASW; back to that SDSR thing I guess.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: SWAPS Inner
Posts: 567
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Because otherwise, when the war starts, you won't be able to import all those rubber dog turds from china in sufficient numbers to keep the country going.
Look up the definition of 'Island.'
Look up the definition of 'Island.'
So you're saying that the UK already has an adequate maritime surveillance capability and only needs a long range ASW capability. If all you're doing is defending the islands, why is long range ASW so important?
Guest
Posts: n/a
Hangarshuffle (your #19),
Indeed I did (my long and weary tale is told on "Gaining an RAF Pilots Brevet....." from Page 114, #2262 on).
Of course things were different in '41, Hitler's and Mussolini's "Flagged Vessels" were bottled up by the Navy; the rest of the world carried on sending us food, fuel and raw materials as usual (admittedly most of it was carried in British-registered ships). The US, our Dominions and pretty well everybody else were "on our side".
But all that counted for nothing if the ships went down: then as now this country can't feed itself: the Navy did a grand job but in '41 the Battle of the Atlantic was a losing battle until Bletchley Park turned the tables and (I believe) could provide the Admiralty with the daily position reports which every U-boat had to send back to base. This enormously simplified the task of finding them, and enabled us to route the convoys around their "wolf packs".
IMHO, the next WW will be non-nuclear (because of MAD - unless we are mad enough to get rid of Trident) and we may be in a like situation again.
Merry Christmas !
Danny.
Indeed I did (my long and weary tale is told on "Gaining an RAF Pilots Brevet....." from Page 114, #2262 on).
Of course things were different in '41, Hitler's and Mussolini's "Flagged Vessels" were bottled up by the Navy; the rest of the world carried on sending us food, fuel and raw materials as usual (admittedly most of it was carried in British-registered ships). The US, our Dominions and pretty well everybody else were "on our side".
But all that counted for nothing if the ships went down: then as now this country can't feed itself: the Navy did a grand job but in '41 the Battle of the Atlantic was a losing battle until Bletchley Park turned the tables and (I believe) could provide the Admiralty with the daily position reports which every U-boat had to send back to base. This enormously simplified the task of finding them, and enabled us to route the convoys around their "wolf packs".
IMHO, the next WW will be non-nuclear (because of MAD - unless we are mad enough to get rid of Trident) and we may be in a like situation again.
Merry Christmas !
Danny.
Thread Starter
A P-8 type aircraft even in limited numbers for the UK I would see as essential if you want to maintain sovereignty on places like the Faulklands. In these troubled times one never knows when the next pimple of the a$re comes up or exactly where. A P-8 is deployable to almost anywhere not just around the coastline which can be left to smaller air vehicles. Even has in-flight refuelling if you fit a couple of booms to your tankers [or use someone else's]..
Of course the UK with our commitments and having nuclear subs should have the P8 and we should never have lost the MPA capability.
We should never have purchased 2 x carriers when we are unlikely to have sufficient aircraft to operate from both ships and with only 19 frigates and destoyers
We shouldn't have used PFI for our AAR force with its restrictions or withdrawn the Harrier and the Invincible class carriers
Until the next SDR next year we have no idea what the government will decide to prioritise or what money will be available so everything is speculative and they may decide we have survived this long with a MPA fleet do we need one?
We should never have purchased 2 x carriers when we are unlikely to have sufficient aircraft to operate from both ships and with only 19 frigates and destoyers
We shouldn't have used PFI for our AAR force with its restrictions or withdrawn the Harrier and the Invincible class carriers
Until the next SDR next year we have no idea what the government will decide to prioritise or what money will be available so everything is speculative and they may decide we have survived this long with a MPA fleet do we need one?
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
the problem is cash , cash and cash - there isn't any in the piggy bank
We should have retained MPA capacity but the RAF & the RN preferred to keep other capability - same arguments as in the late 1930's - MPA is a bit of a Cinderella to FJ jockies and Admirals RN
Not sure an MPA would help in the Falklands tho' - a decent set of anti-ship and long range AA missiles would be a better bet I suspect
We should have retained MPA capacity but the RAF & the RN preferred to keep other capability - same arguments as in the late 1930's - MPA is a bit of a Cinderella to FJ jockies and Admirals RN
Not sure an MPA would help in the Falklands tho' - a decent set of anti-ship and long range AA missiles would be a better bet I suspect
Just to set the record straight:
P-8 is a multi-mission platform, depends on what kit you choose to buy to stuff into it. This is consistent with how P-3 and EP-3 all added kit for multiple missions as time went on (and a lot of kit got smaller)
Beyond ASW, missions for MPA include SSSC, ESM ELINT, and other mission areas. Has for about a quarter of a century in the USN. P-8 had to be able to carry that in order to get the nod. I think the "modular" requirement is where you can best tailor the kit in an MPA to meet your given needs. (No, I do not work for Boeing, nor the P-8 program office).
The argument that P-8 is a single mission silver bullet is incorrect.
P-8 is a multi-mission platform, depends on what kit you choose to buy to stuff into it. This is consistent with how P-3 and EP-3 all added kit for multiple missions as time went on (and a lot of kit got smaller)
Beyond ASW, missions for MPA include SSSC, ESM ELINT, and other mission areas. Has for about a quarter of a century in the USN. P-8 had to be able to carry that in order to get the nod. I think the "modular" requirement is where you can best tailor the kit in an MPA to meet your given needs. (No, I do not work for Boeing, nor the P-8 program office).
The argument that P-8 is a single mission silver bullet is incorrect.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: by the Great Salt Lake, USA
Posts: 1,542
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You mean like 4xHarpoon AShMs?
EXCLUSIVE: INDIA?S P-8I NEPTUNE SEEN BRISTLING WITH HARPOONS! | AviationIntel.com
EXCLUSIVE: INDIA?S P-8I NEPTUNE SEEN BRISTLING WITH HARPOONS! | AviationIntel.com
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Worcestershire
Posts: 305
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Harpoon is not a discriminating weapon, which I think would probabley be a requirement these days.
I would also say that P8 is not modular. Lockheed - Sea Herc, the L3- Q400 and others are if you believe the sales pitches.
Multi mission fleets will require enough platforms to service all the operational concurrency requirements. In the current climate this drives you to a cheap platform solution.
I would also say that P8 is not modular. Lockheed - Sea Herc, the L3- Q400 and others are if you believe the sales pitches.
Multi mission fleets will require enough platforms to service all the operational concurrency requirements. In the current climate this drives you to a cheap platform solution.
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: West Midlands
Posts: 239
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The certain means of bringing this country to its knees (the submarine) has been well known for a century and more, and demonstrated in the two World Wars of the last mid-century. Kipling put it in words:
A convoy of LGVs through the tunnel from France is out of the question then?
A convoy of LGVs through the tunnel from France is out of the question then?