Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Aircrew Forums > Military Aviation
Reload this Page >

Missing MPA and Russian sub threat

Military Aviation A forum for the professionals who fly military hardware. Also for the backroom boys and girls who support the flying and maintain the equipment, and without whom nothing would ever leave the ground. All armies, navies and air forces of the world equally welcome here.

Missing MPA and Russian sub threat

Old 29th Dec 2014, 07:46
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: In front of a computer
Posts: 2,350
Received 66 Likes on 29 Posts
Missing MPA and Russian sub threat

From the Pink...


"The sight of diggers tearing apart a multibillion-pound fleet of maritime patrol aircraft at an airfield near Manchester in early 2011 epitomised the severity of the cuts on Britain’s armed forces, imposed as part of the government’s austerity drive.

More importantly, the diggers also ripped a large hole in Britain’s military capabilities, including its ability to ensure the safety of the country’s nuclear deterrent carried by its Vanguard-class submarines.

The aircraft, known as the Nimrod MRA4s, were due to replace the ageing Nimrod MR2s that had just been taken out of service; the new fleet had a crucial role in ensuring no foreign submarines could track the Vanguards as came they came in and out of their base.

In a 2010 assessment of the UK’s biggest weapons projects, written just before the decision was taken to scrap the aircraft, the National Audit Office spelt out what their loss would mean. It would have “an adverse effect on the protection of the strategic nuclear deterrent, the provision of which is one of the Ministry of Defence’s standing strategic tasks”.

But politicians and civil servants were set on getting rid of the new Nimrod fleet because it would save £200m a year in aircraft operational costs. The Nimrod was a throwback to the cold war, they believed, designed to counter a threat that no longer existed. And it was a relatively easy target for their cuts — the programme was late and had been hit by large cost over-runs.

Moreover, the Royal Air Force was under severe pressure to find cuts and was already being forced to scrap one of its three main types of frontline combat aircraft — the Harrier.

Just as those decisions were being made, Russia was stepping up both air and naval patrols. And according to defence analysts, the Kremlin has chosen to focus much of its efforts on rebuilding the submarine force, a capability where Russia has always been on par with, or had an edge over, NATO forces.

A recent US intelligence assessment also drew attention to China’s plans to build a large submarine force, including expanding its fleet of ballistic missile submarines carrying long-range nuclear weapons.

“There is a revival in underwater warfare,” said Peter Roberts, who until January 2014 was a Royal Navy officer and who worked closely with the US military and intelligence services.

“If you look at the Asia-Pacific [region] there are 120 submarines due to come into service in the next decade, many of them Chinese — and then you have a resurgent Russia. They are seriously talking about a fifth generation ultra-quiet attack submarine that would be very hard to detect.”

Sue Robertson, a long-time adviser to the Ministry of Defence and one of the country’s leading specialists in electronic warfare systems, was so concerned by the decision to scrap the Nimrod MRA4s in October 2010, she immediately wrote to David Cameron, prime minister, urging him to think again. Her letter was to no avail and the diggers closed in less than three months later.

Four years later, the hole in the UK’s defences remains and Russian naval forces are becoming more active. For Ms Robertson the decision rankles to this day: “It is of grave concern that we are not protected properly. We have no way of knowing what is going on around our coastline now and the rest of the world know we have no idea.

“This is key in terms of loss of capability and we have lost credibility in the eyes of the rest of the world.”

Ms Robertson mixes regularly with the senior military personnel of some of Britain’s closest allies. The first question she is asked, she says, is about the scrapping of the MRA4 and the failure to replace it: “What are you guys doing?”

Ms Robertson is not alone in hearing disquiet from allies, particular in Washington, where the UK’s anti-submarine warfare expertise is still valued.

“The American naval officers I have met have been aghast that our politicians would take as great a risk with our independent nuclear deterrent as we have,” said Mr Roberts, who is now an expert on naval warfare at the Royal United Services Institute think-tank.

“As an island nation not only reliant, but dependent on the sea for food, fuel and economic survival, it is staggering that politicians have been so blasé about the security of our sea lanes and our national responsibilities in terms of policing the UK’s EEZ [exclusive economic zone],” he said, referring to the 200 nautical mile maritime exclusion zone recognised by the UN as the sovereign territory of any coastal nation.

The MoD declined to comment on specific issues raised by the Financial Times but said it was reviewing maritime surveillance requirements.

It said: “Tough decisions had to be taken in order to rebalance the defence budget, which included removing the Nimrod MR2 from service. However, maritime surveillance is provided through a combination of layered capabilities including surface ships, submarines, and air assets.”
ETOPS is offline  
Old 29th Dec 2014, 10:04
  #2 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Sussex By The Sea
Age: 79
Posts: 264
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
maritime surveillance is provided through a combination of layered capabilities including surface ships, submarines, and air assets
A classic piece of MOD 'motherhood'. Shame that all three capabilities are inadequate - but hey, let's not go there
nimbev is offline  
Old 29th Dec 2014, 15:23
  #3 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Lincolnshire
Posts: 177
Received 4 Likes on 3 Posts
As my dear old mum used to say at the back of Church on a Sunday, "we're b*ggered".
reds & greens is online now  
Old 29th Dec 2014, 16:10
  #4 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Outside the Matz
Posts: 220
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Weird. Two attempts to post a comment have been deleted. Off to Egoat then. Bye guys!
Bannock is offline  
Old 29th Dec 2014, 16:41
  #5 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 314
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
“Tough decisions had to be taken in order to rebalance the defence budget"
The miracle is that a country which is broke/ heavily in debt has as many top state of the art efficient military assets as it has.

The job now is to plug the gaps with complete new hi-tech as opposed to hanging on to out-dated platforms.

Gaps mean risks but taking measured risks to occupy the high-ground is what we have always done.
Albert Driver is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.