It's the sort of academic spraff that these guys knock up in the coffee break to get a bit of exposure. Eloquent and seemingly incisive, it is actually badly written (try and find the point they are making) badly structured and inconclusive.
They seem to be vaguely pointing towards the development of a UK asset tailored towards future as much as present needs. (albeit, I've read 4/5 times and I'm still not sure). If that is case surely a paragraph on the inherent dangers of further delay would balance the article a little more?? Or perhaps a balanced article is not their intent? Or perhaps they know, or care, little about skill fade and such like.
Significantly, do we invest our tax pounds in seeking solutions against a considered, predetermined requirement, or do we fall into camps, championing one piece of equipment against another? Because the latter scenario quickly defaults to a public relations campaign, the deployment of smart business development skills and the dark arts of customer-relationship management: all components of modern life, but we should be able to develop world-leading defence capabilities without these practices being to the fore.
I would suggest (no...I would state) that in trying unsuccessfully to develop a "world leading" defence capability called Nimrod 2000 AKA Nimrod MRA4, the dark art of customer-relationship management was very much front and centre in the mid nineties. Ditto AEW Nimrod in the 70s, as mentioned above (although we probably called CRM something else then) and probably every other bit of kit we ever bought.
See what I mean about academic spraff.
edited
So the 'seedcorn' guys are flying the P8 with the USAF
Good spot...complacent, casual academic spraff then.
Most likely as well as your post since the USAF does not own a single P-8A. The USN flies them.
GG2 knows this...he was being ironic...doh!