ASW and MPA
Guest
Posts: n/a
Well, yes. The position of the tunnel is well known. It should not be difficult to lay sufficient explosive on the sea bed, focussed downwards over the (relatively soft) chalk, to blow the concrete lined roof in. It's not exactly a U-boat pen, and we managed that (Tallboys ?)
But they wouldn't have to bother. The whole of Europe can't feed itself; the original idea of the Common Agricultural Policy was to make Europe self-sufficient in foodstuffs. Of course it produced butter mountains and wine lakes, but that's rather a restricted diet. We are reliant on Canadian wheat to make the bread for the butter (I believe the wine was mostly distilled into industrial alcohol).
That it became the boondoggle of all time is not the fault of the Founding Fathers. The idea was good, but......
D. (Armchair Warrior par excellance).
But they wouldn't have to bother. The whole of Europe can't feed itself; the original idea of the Common Agricultural Policy was to make Europe self-sufficient in foodstuffs. Of course it produced butter mountains and wine lakes, but that's rather a restricted diet. We are reliant on Canadian wheat to make the bread for the butter (I believe the wine was mostly distilled into industrial alcohol).
That it became the boondoggle of all time is not the fault of the Founding Fathers. The idea was good, but......
D. (Armchair Warrior par excellance).
Harpoon may not be discriminating but SLAM/ER is and the P8 can carry those too.
I am not sure if high altitude ASW is the way to go or not, but it would at least be less embarrassing than having to cadge aircraft from NATO allies.
I am not sure if high altitude ASW is the way to go or not, but it would at least be less embarrassing than having to cadge aircraft from NATO allies.
When the UK reinvests in MPA capability it will inevitably be a two or three tier system. ACAS intimated as much at DSEI last year by stating that a future capability would have a manned and unmanned component. Given the prediliction for the UK military to have the shiniest toys the P-8 seems a given; we have trained crews in place and have allegedly made discreet enquiries re costs / availability ahead of SDSR. But it's expensive to buy and fly. More pragmatic, perhaps, would be a wide area oceanic surveillance capability, constantly airborne, provided by a small fleet of Triton/Airlander style UAV/Optionally manned platforms with say 6-8 P-8s on call for reactive tasking, SAR and 'end game' ASW. The third tier remains the RN Merlin force, the proposed maritime upgrade to Sentinel and the long range SAR (of sorts) provided by the C130J (presumably to be taken on by Atlas?).
I don't think we'll be rushing to reopen Kinloss, St Mawgan and Ballykelly for hoards of Poseidons - more like squeeze them into Waddington or use the 'UAS Superbase' at Wittering, or spare space at Leeming.
I don't think we'll be rushing to reopen Kinloss, St Mawgan and Ballykelly for hoards of Poseidons - more like squeeze them into Waddington or use the 'UAS Superbase' at Wittering, or spare space at Leeming.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: various
Posts: 73
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'll second Jayand's response.
Given that all those likely to hold power after the next general election will look to protect health and education, all other government departments will take a disproportionately large hit; including defence. So, in order to get the force structure described above the services as a whole would have to absorb further eye-watering cuts (what would you get rid of considering what little we have left?), plus cutting something else in order to get the money and personnel for an MPA capability.
We are only a third into UK austerity, with genuinely eye-watering decisions on capability to be made in the next parliament. I really cannot see anything remotely like that described above happening - as much as the argument for regaining an MPA capability is watertight based upon real world events.
Bottom line is that, sadly, it is not going to happen.
I would love to be proved wrong though.
Given that all those likely to hold power after the next general election will look to protect health and education, all other government departments will take a disproportionately large hit; including defence. So, in order to get the force structure described above the services as a whole would have to absorb further eye-watering cuts (what would you get rid of considering what little we have left?), plus cutting something else in order to get the money and personnel for an MPA capability.
We are only a third into UK austerity, with genuinely eye-watering decisions on capability to be made in the next parliament. I really cannot see anything remotely like that described above happening - as much as the argument for regaining an MPA capability is watertight based upon real world events.
Bottom line is that, sadly, it is not going to happen.
I would love to be proved wrong though.
Jay, Random
Maybe; but the Govt has been embarressed by not being seen to be able to protect our own waters or contribute (quickly) to international efforts such as the MH370 search. There is no 'home grown' solution per se, save bodging the MRA4 mission kit into a used P-3 (high cost, high risk). P-8 is in production and we have trained crews, and I dare say Bubba Boeing is being constructive with financing / leasing options ("used by the UK" still has a cachet..). The dreamers are those thinking we'll be a 20+ Manned MMA/MPA fleet again....unless its C295.
I agree totally that the next SDSR will be finance driven - but, supposedly, Cameron was furious when he heard the full impact of the loss of the Nimrod capability, if not the airframe. Perhaps headroom will be found, maybe not. What would I cut? Depends if we buy or lease the P-8s I guess; a lease would be a smoother, lower profile so, perhaps, not a massive offset in the early years with an option to purchase later. Expensive when viewed as a whole cost, but attractive in the short term.
Maybe; but the Govt has been embarressed by not being seen to be able to protect our own waters or contribute (quickly) to international efforts such as the MH370 search. There is no 'home grown' solution per se, save bodging the MRA4 mission kit into a used P-3 (high cost, high risk). P-8 is in production and we have trained crews, and I dare say Bubba Boeing is being constructive with financing / leasing options ("used by the UK" still has a cachet..). The dreamers are those thinking we'll be a 20+ Manned MMA/MPA fleet again....unless its C295.
I agree totally that the next SDSR will be finance driven - but, supposedly, Cameron was furious when he heard the full impact of the loss of the Nimrod capability, if not the airframe. Perhaps headroom will be found, maybe not. What would I cut? Depends if we buy or lease the P-8s I guess; a lease would be a smoother, lower profile so, perhaps, not a massive offset in the early years with an option to purchase later. Expensive when viewed as a whole cost, but attractive in the short term.
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: West Midlands
Posts: 239
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well yes if someone is determined enough to put subs to sea I'm pretty sure they could shut the tunnel
A very good point. So, let me summarise. We are completely surrounded at sea, nothing can get through. The Channel tunnel is stuffed and modern airlift capability is completely incapable of alleviating the situation.
France, only 22 miles away, for some reason cannot be used as a source of supply - presumably because they have already been invaded and are occupied.
Sounds tough- but we have been there before.
Who is going to do this to us?
A very good point. So, let me summarise. We are completely surrounded at sea, nothing can get through. The Channel tunnel is stuffed and modern airlift capability is completely incapable of alleviating the situation.
France, only 22 miles away, for some reason cannot be used as a source of supply - presumably because they have already been invaded and are occupied.
Sounds tough- but we have been there before.
Who is going to do this to us?
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Sussex By The Sea
Age: 79
Posts: 264
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
but, supposedly, Cameron was furious when he heard the full impact of the loss of the Nimrod capability, His decision, wasn't it??
"I did brief a minister to point out this would cost £70 million to build new taxiways at Kandahar and that minister said to me 'Sherard ... I can't question the chief of the defence staff on this because I confess to you I don't know the difference between a Tornado and a torpedo'."
