I was SO determined not to post on this thread,
but I've been reading it and there's the same level of rubbish here as on all the other Nimrod threads.
1 - (To paraphrase) 'we'll have carriers, so we might as well have an MPA asset onboard' is quite the worst reason I have yet seen for having an MPA sometime in the future. You determine the requirement, then decide how to fulfill it, anything else is complete nonsense.
2 - Civvy inshore capability and a military long range one: Nothing in human history has ever been improved by having two organisations for one role, outside of dodgy videos. Inshore/LRMPA overlap - who will protect SSBN inshore? CG? Where does the miltary LRMPA take over? Why complicate the matter? Make it all military, then you don't have a civvy crew inshore with no ammo when the BN deploys and you find a hostile SS/SSN waiting.... by all means have subdivisions for inshore/LRMPA, but one organistaion to control both and interoperability to maximise platforms where possible.
3 - F16 etc 'jack of all trades' - last I saw the F16 was an A-A, A-G fighter, whilst the proposition for the MPA was tanker, transport, MPA, limo service and "helo lift as soon as we can bolt the extra rotors on".... Nimrod was not dedicated ASW Keesje, the MRA4 was a damn sight more 'jack of all trades' than any of the aircraft you mention - by a very long way. You list several aircraft that can do tanker and transport, as if that's somthign wonderful, while the Nimrod did ASW, ASUW, SAR, Coastguard, Customs, ISTAR... I would suggest the Nimrod was going to be a damn sight more 'multi role' than anything you've mentioned.
Sorry CM, but if I had a gun I'd shoot this post in the head, it's full of the same bollocks as all the other Nim threads, from the same bunch of suspects! (including me).
Give it to the navy - as soon as ANYONE starts trying to 'do' ASW etc they'll discover the crews were the important part of the capability, not the platform.
Dave