masc
WEBF
If I may play Devil’s Advocate, the lack of an AEW capability was recognised as soon as Gannets were chopped. It took the Falklands to ram this home, and even then it was probably more of a political decision to hastily create the AEWs. While a phenomenal feat in management and engineering terms, the result was nothing like the capability the RN needed or wanted. Mk2 was upgraded piecemeal throughout the 80s and early 90s, but nothing substantial (except FN1110). It took until 2002/3, 20 years on from the Falklands, to deliver what the RN wanted (in fact, very much more than they asked for). I’m afraid the attitude in some influential beancounting quarters will be, you’ve got what you wanted (bearing in mind the RN INSISTED on retaining Sea King) so be happy – others haven’t got the basics, never mind a world leading capability.
Another factor will be industrial impact. At the time the (what is now called) ASaC was being contracted it was well publicised that the winning bid (which is a quite different thing from the best or most cost effective bid!) anticipated over 100 overseas sales. Have they achieved that? Make no mistake, the Industrial Impact Paper is one of the most important in the submission to the Equipment Approvals people (Ministers in this case). The time, cost and performance mantra becomes meaningless in the face of political lobbying. Given that overseas sales generate commercial exploitation income, not to mention jobs, someone in the Treasury is still waiting for their promised return on investment.
Something more basic. What is now ASaC was originally intended to be a relatively minor Radar upgrade to the AEW Mk2. At that point it was simply a modification to a legacy platform, and the resultant “mission system” was to have transferred to FOAEW, which was seen as the new platform/capability – perhaps Merlin or Osprey. As we know, AEW Mk2 evolved through many iterations into what, in some quarters, is seen as that new platform/capability. This may explain why MASC gets little attention – the ASaC programme is, in many ways, a victim of its own success. The RN has a brand new capability called ASaC, so lets consider that a success and look elsewhere to spend money. You may think this simplistic, but it’s the way people think.
Finally, who knows what the RN is actually asking for through their Constraints Working Groups? If current ASaC capability is not seen as a Critical operational constraint (and given the positive comments we read of, this is unlikely), then I’m afraid MASC drops down the pecking order. For as long as I can remember, the golden rule has been – if it’s not a “critical” you don’t get money, and even then its not guaranteed. It would surprise you how few criticals there are.
Like I say, Devil’s Advocate. I don’t necessarily agree with the short term view much of the above represents, but this is a fact of life in today’s political climate, where most of our forces are living from hand to mouth.