Oh FFS, why can't people read posts properly before flying off the handle?!!!
Phoney Tony, Ombit, etc,
I DID NOT suggest that the E-3D, Sentinel or UAVs could supplant the Nimrod in its traditional maritime role!!! Therefore, comments about an E-3D down at 200ft over the sea, its manoeuverability, or the deterrent factor of a large manned MPA verses a UAV in a similar environment are irrelevant. The USN are looking increasingly likely to employ Global Hawk to supplant some of the the Orion's maritime tasks, and the USCG have also purchased UAVs for the maritime environment (albeit in a very different role to the Nimrod is used). However, I remain convinced that a jet powered, manned platform such as the Nimrod or proposed MMA is the way forward due to their speed and reduced acoustic signature.
As stated, my comments regarding alternatives to the Nimrod referred PURELY to its overland tasks. This is not the forum in which to discuss what those roles specifically are. However, just for the record, I would suggest that the E-3D could adopt only one or 2 of these. We may have a maritime radar capability, and we may have loads of space on board. But an E-3D could never replace an MPA, nor 'do everything'.
Biggus is absolutely correct to point out the fact that assets such as E-3's can only be in one place at a time. Likewise, commanders would indeed be very wary of increasing the risks to their limited numbers of AWACS, SIGINT and JSTARS/Sentinels. However, will these argument hold with the Treasury with the huge financial challenges that lie ahead over the next 18 months? Likewise, whilst the Sentinel could be viewed as a very specialised platform, I guarantee that it's role will expand very rapidly once it's in service, just as the JSTARS did. Sentinel's main problem about such task expansion is weight management.
The argument regarding risk arguably lends more weight to the UAV option. Phoney Tony raises some valid points about UAV ops in European airspace, and bandwidth issues. I would agree that much work has yet to be done regarding the legal issues. Were we to purchase UAVs, it may be that we have to maintain a sqn in the States for trg (just as the Singaporean AF and Luftwaffe do with manned ac). Bear in mind however, that assets such as Predator can be and are flown remotely from anywhere in the world. However, the technical challenges (whilst still present) are rapidly being overcome. Shooting down a UAV may well be seen as a risk worth taking during TTW to an enemy. Similarly however, I would suggest that a commander would be more comfortable employing UAVs at a similar time rather than risking the loss of a dozen + aircrew at a sensitive period. UAVs are arguably also more covert and 'deniable' in such circumstances.
Beagle,
Suitable only for very few applications
I am impressed by your Jurassic vision regarding the future of Air Power. Did your forefathers also argue strongly that 'the only use for the aeroplane in the military is in reconnaissance'?!!
Yes US have had a high loss rate in their early UAV ops. However, this is because such ops presented major technological challenges and were often done in deployed, combat conditions. US Gnat, Predator, and Global Hawk ops over the last 10 years in Croatia, Bosnia, Albania, Kosovo, Serbia, Afghanistan and Iraq have proved the reliability and utility of such assets.
Ombit,
a UAV is no more threatening than a remote control aeroplane.
I wonder if the family of the Al Queda leader who died in a Predator Hellfire strike in Yemen last year, or the other targets of armed UAVs in Afghanistan and Iraq would agree? Clearly, Predator's payload is small. However, Global Hawk and the next generation of UCAVs will pack considerably more punch. The advent of the US Small Diameter Bomb programme reinforces this.
As Maniac55 suggests, the MRA4 could be a superbly versatile piece of equipment if it works, which promises to augment other ISTAR assets well, and also offer an impressive strike capability. However, unless it does work, and does so PDQ, I can only see some of its sensors and systems being integrated into the MR2. The question if that, were this to be considered, how many spare MR2 airframes are there which have not been cut up ready for conversion to MRA4? If the programme does get the chop, I would imagine that you cannot convert an MRA4 shell back into an MR2. Shades of the AEW3 airframe waste! The only other option would be to lease some second hand P-3Cs, Atlantiques or S-3B's. Given the problems with the MRA4, I often wonder if Shorts should have been allowed to develop a westernised Beriev A40 Albatross amphibian...then again, let's take another look at the MRA4!
And if we think we've got problems, look at the state of the USN P-3C fleet! Basically both the USN and our own MPA programmes have been in trouble ever since the P-7 got chopped.
Regards,
M2