MPA Seedcorn

[Red Line Entry]

I hear that 30 plus ex-Nimrod folk are off to various overseas climes to retain an MPA seedcorn capability. While pleased for the individuals, it doesn't strike me as a sensible use of taxpayers' money. Do any of us really think that they will come back in 3 years' time to a UK MPA aircraft? And where will we find suitable people to replace these guys overseas in 2015?

[Siggie]

ASW, ASUW and OISR skills are fragile, if you don't keep doing it, you lose it.

If the UK decides it really does need an MPA after all, however distant in the future that may be (now the pariah that was Nimrod has been 'removed'), who will train the 'new guys'?

Will the Seedcorn cadre need replacing in 2015? You're assuming that the overseas tour will be 3 years, it would make more sense to leave them there until they are needed back in the UK.

Replacement MPA options have already been investigated and the reports are back with the MOD/Government.

Most people in the know realise that, as an island nation, we do need a multi role maritime aircraft capable of long range SAR/SASS. It would be a shame if the delay in replacing the MPA was necessary to spare the Government/MOD more embarrassment by having to admit that they got it wrong in the first place.

Before I get angry ripostes about using the terms 'pariah' and 'Nimrod' in the same sentence, I don't agree with that sentiment, it's just the way that it seems, after the MRA4 were put beyond use with JCBs with what may seem to be indecent haste.

Nor am I commenting on the capabilities of the MRA4, there are plenty of other threads already devoted to that matter.

[Pontius Navigator]

it would make more sense to leave them there until they are needed back in the UK.

Bit of a high risk there.

[dctyke]

The question is will these folks be young thrusters with lots of return of service or 'old mates' who will enjoy the tour then run for the door. And of course we will need the obligatory new 1* post and retinue to look after it all:).

[Pontius Navigator]

dctyke, I suggest it would matter not aged or thruster. If they assimilate well in their host country . . .

I served with two ex-RAAF exchangers and I think both would have jumped in the present climate.

[Siggie]

PN, Depends on whether the HN is hiring or not. People already on exchange overseas have been info'd that their tours may be longer than originally planned, no reason to suspect that Op Seedcorn would be any different.

Dctyke, does the Return Of Service/PVR/NGR period change with the redundancy pay changes to 3 months?

[Pontius Navigator]

Siggie, very true however as the visitor will have been looked at for 2-3 year the HN is in a very good position to decide whether to hire them or not.

Of course there may also be unwelcome catches such as having to take promotion exams etc in order to progress.

[Wensleydale]

MPA Seedcorn


Is there a grain of truth?

[Biggus]

It strikes me that so far nobody posting on here actually has any knowledge regarding:

The numbers involved (I think 30 may be an over estimate)

The roles they will undertake in their respective HN (not all are flying posts)

The T&C attached to being considered for seedcorn (do you really think it hasn't occurred to the RAF that people will jump ship if they can easily do so!)

Therefore just about everything being written is speculation, but I guess that is most of what pprune is about!!

I will offer one fact, and then some speculations of my own. Fact - some of the people going overseas as seedcorn are WSOs. One has to wonder why? The WSO trade is dead. We are not recruiting any more, the training school is shut (indeed some of the WSOs still going through training were recently made redundant as part of the SDSR - needless to say, it didn't make the headlines in the way the sacking of baby trainee pilots did) and the pool of remaining WSOs is quite small and shrinking (over the past 5-10 years most WSOs have been recruited on short service commissions). Therefore, if we are to buy a new MPA in a few years time, with a projected life of 25-30 years, how do we plan to put WSOs in the back of it? Recruit off the high street and put them through RN Observer training? Or do we not plan to have officers in the back of any future MPA -indeed, WHY SHOULD WE? Or will the next generation of UK MPA be run by the RN, in which case, what price RAF seedcorn!

So, if we don't plan to man any future MPA with WSOs, why retain them as seedcorn? All I can suggest is that they will be used as instructors, training the next generation of TACOs, whatever rank and trade they might happen to be!

Speculating now - I can't see HN wanting to take people on indefinitely, don't forget, these aren't exchange posts, we have no MPA slots of our own to offer in "exchange". They are doing us a favour, and hold all the cards in the deal. Also I would expect the RAF to be reluctant to leave people overseas indefinitely, the RAF would no doubt be concerned about the impact on peoples careers! The RAF is strange like that!

For what it is worth, I personally consider the seedcorn concept to be something of a sop/figleaf, so the minister can imply the capability can be regenerated at short notice. I would expect the "seedcorn" to slowly whither on the vine with the passage of time, with anyone who returns, gets promoted, etc not being replaced - but that is my speculation!!

[Just This Once...]

Biggus, the WSO school and the Dominies were going anyway and SDSR only hastened their demise. The original plan was the WSO / WSOp trg was moving to MFTS along with RN Observer trg. If the RAF continues to have a WSO / WSOp requirement then it will (as it only ever was going to be) be done under MFTS.

Not saying that I like or endorse the above but as you started drifting towards 'facts' I thought you may appreciate some.:ok:

[Donna K Babbs]

The total numbers haven't been posted as the USN posts have still to be confirmed. Off the top of my head there were 6 aircrew went to Canada on loan (retrospectively annotated as Seedcorn), 7 to New Zealand, and 2 to Australia as acoustic liaison officers.

The Aussie seedcorn aircrew are not in a flying role. All selected personnel were required to sign a return of service of their overseas tour plus 2 years on return to the UK.

The USN seedcorn selection is still a work in progress.

Although the Seedcorn initiative may be merely a token gesture, the experience would definitely required should the UK procure a MPA in the next five year or so.

[Biggus]

JTO

True - but surely (I know, stop calling me surely) the RAF first has to decide if it wants to train WSOs, and then let a contract under MFTS to get somebody to provide such training.

To the best of my knowledge the RAF is not planning to re-start WSO training under MFTS, and if it were to change its mind at a later stage would any civil company be willing to set up the required infrastructure for potentially very small numbers of students?

In my opinion the WSO trade is dead and buried, and any future training requirement for RAF rear crew officer specialists will probably piggy back on RN Observer training - which I believe is still continuing under MFTS!

But thanks for your input...! ;)

[Ivan Rogov]

No reason why the future WSOs couldn't come from the WSOp cadre, it would also provide something to aim for instead of promotion blight after FS. A few years of sensor and tactics experience before moving to the capacity sapping seat would be very useful. It always seemed wrong to me that we put new baby Navs in the Tac Nav seat and wondered why they struggled, especially when many WSOp leads knew exactly what was required as they had the capacity and experience.

[Just This Once...]

No problem but the RAF is planning on restarting WSO training under MFTS, together with the RN, in the not-too-distant future. The IPS figure required by the RAF should be well within the capacity of MFTS.

Again, I have no opinion regarding the above just adding the odd fact to the thread.

[Biggus]

JTO,

Thanks for the update. I thought Observer training under MFTS had already started, hence the demise of the RN Jetstream trainers discussed on pprune a while ago, and the arrival on scene of Ascent and modified King Airs.

Our Mission (http://www.ascentflighttraining.com)


RC - Rear Crew Training | Ascent Flight Training (http://www.ascentflighttraining.net/index.php/flying_training/rc_rear_crew_training)

By comparison I thought that WSOp training for the RAF had yet to be formulated, and had heard no mention whatsoever of RAF WSO training.

But then again, this is not my particular area of expertise.






Ivan,

Why do you need commissioned operators in the back of an MPA?

[Just This Once...]

Biggus, you are quite correct and the WSO/WSOp element of MFTS has a little way to go and the RN have the lead. The RN seem to be doing quite well in crafting MFTS to meet the requirements and compared to other elements of MFTS this bit is doing ok.

[Biggus]

It's nice to get something right occasionally...!

[Ivan Rogov]

Biggus, I was only trying to give an example of where future WSO could be drawn from. I would also suggest they were commissioned on ability and performance in the air otherwise there would be no advantage over the old system.
Re the commissioned rear crew, why commission the front end either?
Personally I can understand having someone theoretically more responsible making the important decisions. I also think a flight deck captain for aircraft safety and mission captain (rear crew) for tactical operation would improve the way we did things, it would prevent each trade wanting it's share of captains and create a more consistent and focused crew. The idea of MRA4 flight deck captains getting suckered into the tactical picture worried me.

[OilCan]

The idea of MRA4 flight deck captains getting suckered into the tactical picture worried me.

Actually, the Mk2 was the same; it was the Engineer that (often) made the difference. :)

[timzsta]

There was a piece in this weeks Flight International in the Defence Section, about an MPA variant of the Twin Star being developed by Diamond. It said something about it being capable of flying a mission of typically 6-8hr endurance, but would be capable of 12 hours endurance.

Not for weak bladdered!

[Pontius Navigator]

Re the commissioned rear crew, why commission the front end either?

By front did you mean the Navs? If so it was because of the dustbin. Now as there are no dustbins and no multi-stranded roles there is probably no reason why they should not be NCOs.

One small stumbling block would be if they tried to resurrect the trade as a fallback for chopped pilots who would already be commissioned.

Now here's a thought (thread drift), u/t pilots were commissioned and given flying instructional pay as an inducement. Then it was realised they didn't need FIP as an inducement so they stopped it. It would save a fortune if they commissioned at the wings stage too. This would not be as novel as it may sound for although DEC officers were commisioned after 4 months the career stream officers at Cranditz served 3 years before commissioning,

[BBadanov]

Commissioning at the wings stage always made sense - it is what happens here in Oz.

I remember in the RAF, a Graduate would join as a "green shielder" FLTLT. Go through OTS, BFTS, Valley, TWU and OCU (with delays in between) could sometimes take 3 years. Do first tour, and ready for promotion to SQNLDR.

Crazy !!

[The Old Fat One]

For what it is worth, I personally consider the seedcorn concept to be something of a sop/figleaf, so the minister can imply the capability can be regenerated at short notice. I would expect the "seedcorn" to slowly whither on the vine with the passage of time, with anyone who returns, gets promoted, etc not being replaced - but that is my speculation!!


Good post Biggus

Seedcorn poses far more questions than it answers. ASW skills "perished" a long, long time ago. Even before I left (also a long, long time ago) there were Tac Nav captains on the fleet who had never tracked a real nuc (of any country). What was being maintained mostly comprised a mixture of simulations and contrived (ie start with an RV) mutual training. Better than nothing, but far short of the real thing.

Nowadays the skill sets are far more "kit specific" than generic. In the massively unlikely event that we ever get anything like an MPA again (which would hopefully be operated by the RN anyway), the skills required will depend on the kit provided.

Ever since I heard about Seedcorn I wondered what the purpose was...I wonder still? But it does have the whiff of politics about it.

Great postings though.

[Samuel]

I'm inclined to agree. There are worse experiences in life than a three-year posting to to the RNZAF, but I doubt they'll get much experience chasing submarines, if, in fact, 5 Sqn still spend time doing that! The RNZAF Orion P3K2 is much modified and digitalised these days, so it will be a good experience to have, but you have to wonder why!

[NUFC1892 Mk2]

From yesterday's Hansard

Seedcorn Initiative

Angus Robertson: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence

(1) how many personnel are taking part in the Seedcorn initiative; what the location is of each; and with what equipment they are training; [81671]

(2) what capabilities are being maintained through the Seedcorn initiative; [81672]

(3) what estimate he has made of the cost to the public purse of the Seedcorn initiative in each of the next five years. [81673]

Mr Gerald Howarth: The Seedcorn initiative will sustain the Ministry of Defence (MOD)'s capability to operate high level fixed-wing Maritime Patrol Aircraft (MPA) and maintain the associated skills of its personnel. Qualified RAF aircrew will be on exchange with a variety of Allied MPA forces, where they will maintain their anti-submarine and anti-surface warfare, long-range search and rescue, and Intelligence, Surveillance, Target Acquisition and Reconnaissance (ISTAR) skills.

The estimated cost of the initiative on average is £2.4 million per year for the next five years; this includes salary and allowances.
Retaining skills and MPA knowledge is vital if the United Kingdom is to be in a position to regenerate our own MPA capability at some point in the future.

The number and location of personnel and equipment to be used is as follows:

Location
Aircraft
Number of personnel

Canada

Royal Canadian Air Force Greenwood
CP-140 Aurora
7

New Zealand

Royal New Zealand Air Force Base Whenuapai
P-3K Orion/P-3K2 Orion
5

Royal New Zealand Air Force Base Ohakea
Beech King Air B200
1

Australia

Royal Australian Air Force Base Edinburgh
AP-3C Orion
4

United States

Naval Air Station Norfolk
Non-flying appointment related to maritime operational staff duties.
1

Naval Air Station Patuxent River
P3C Orion
2

Additionally, discussions are ongoing with the US Navy on an exchange initiative for fully qualified RAF aircrew to support the US P-8A Poseidon programme.

[Party Animal]

"Exchange initiative" ? what are they going to do over here?


The days are long gone whereby exchange tours were a direct one for one swap. Seedcorn will be run under exchange protocols but there will not be an influx of Commonwealth and US MPA aircrew to the UK as you rightly question. In this case, it is all one way traffic.

[Jayand]

"Exchange initiative" ? what are they going to do over here?

[timzsta]

Please explain Minister, why you canned Nimrod, and are now spending £2.4m per year to keep aircrew current in the Nimrod role?

Oh you can't. You weren't the Minister at the time. Blah de blah de blah, the previous Government. Useless bunch of fooking half wits:mad:

[Siggie]

RAAF - 2 originally on exchange plus 2 extra as Seedcorn. (If they're all Seedcorn - how come they're on different allowances and rental conditions?)

Retaining skills and MPA knowledge is vital if the United Kingdom is to be in a position to regenerate our own MPA capability at some point in the future.


Closest thing we're ever likely to hear in the way of an admission of "Er, we may have got it wrong."

So soon after the decision too.

[kiwi grey]

New Zealand
[snip]
Royal New Zealand Air Force Base Ohakea
Beech King Air B200
1

Can anyone explain to me what a tour at Ohakea on the King Airs, presumably as a QFI, has to do with maintaining the RAF's ASW capability? :confused:

It'll be a good posting, weather's not too bad, good skiing within a couple of hours by car, the schools are OK and Massey University in Palmerston North is only 40km away.
The beaches are lousy though. No, I remember West Wittering: the beaches near Ohakea are OK ;)
But it's not ASW, they do that in Auckland, where the other 5 people are going!

[iRaven]

£2.4m is cheap at half the price. 20x crew at £120k each - that's about the cost of 2x training sorties for 20x Typhoon Pilots! :ugh:

I don't believe that this Govt made the wrong decision. Those idiots in the North West of England that claim to be aircraft manufacturers were fleecing us and with no real possibility of delivering anything like the capability that was promised. The guy who came up with the Seedcorn plan was also the senior desk officer who told me all about this total procurement cock up - the audit and fraud team should be crawling all over this. Wouldn't it be nice to have a MPA at around the original cost (let's say within 15%) and then there would be a couple of Billion in the bank to pay for either the 5,000 we're making redundant or not have the pay/pension freeze or not make all those Civil Servants redundant? Instead, the shareholders made a mint and nu-labour bought off a whole bunch of voters in the North West. The whole thing stank of a very mouldy and minging kipper and I for one am glad it was chopped.

God speed to the Seedcorn bunch and the sooner the Coalition sort out this country's finances then the sooner we can look at filling the capability gap - gaps in finances and capability that can be firmly laid at the foot of Labour not "making hay when the sun shone" and borrowing during a time of economic growth :ugh:

I hope that idiot Ed Balls reads this - you sir, are a complete twunt of the highest order, and God forbid if you ever make it into power, you are the next disaster waiting to befall this country.

iRaven

[TorqueOfTheDevil]

the arrival on scene of Ascent and modified King Airs


Wouldn't King Hangar be a more appropriate name for the RN's newest aircraft?

[betty swallox]

timszta.

Bang on!!! You got that just right!!!

[Mend em]

iRaven,

Whist I accept that you are entitled to your opinions, as one of the 'idiots in the North West' who does claim to be an aircraft manufacturer, I take absolute exception to your claim that you or anyone else were being fleeced and that the MRA4 programme was some sort of pre-arranged super job creation scheme. I for one would welcome an audit or investigation, if only to clear up the perpetuation of wrong information - 'bring it on'!

I can only presume that you have been rubbing your hands with glee at the news of all of the redundancies in industry, the closure of manufacturing capability and the ceding to the USA of all future significant military investment. I guess you are content with becoming the 51st state so that we in the UK can have a second tier set of US government approved capabilities, tied into us going to war exactly when and where it suits our US bosses to send one of its minor brigades, and voting exactly as instructed at the UN.

For what it's worth (I doubt you'll worry too much what an idiot thinks) I absolutely agree with you on your Ed Balls comments.

[Eminence Gris]

iRaven,

The outturn costs of Nimrod stand comparison with those for the P-8 Poseidon given on the US GAO website. P-8 costs are estimated as $7.35bn (£4.9bn) and $202m (£134m) per aircraft, which makes $9.2bn (£6bn) for a nine aircraft fleet. £4bn for Nimrod MRA4 is cheap by comparison, particularly when you consider that one MRA4 is as operationally capable as two P-8s. I suggest therefore that MRA4 would have been excellent value for money. Not to be forgotten (and you do seem to have done so) is the fact that it was subsidised to over £1bn by the ever generous shareholders of BAE Systems through several write-offs.

In terms of the programme I'm sure things could have been done quicker (perhaps saving 3 years) but 15 years from contract to service is not unusual these days. Certainly it is better than Eurofighter Typhoon (a vastly simpler aircraft) and, let’s face it, better than what the USN has achieved with MMA/P-8. It should not be forgotten that the USN initiated its P-3 replacement programme (P-7) in 1989 and cancelled it due to cost overrun in 1990. Thus with the P-8 not yet in service and still with a number of hurdles to get over (which RAF aircrew have now been dispatched to help with), the USN has waited even longer than the RAF to replace its cold war MPAs.

Ultimately the BAE Systems Team produced a world-beating product at a non-unreasonable price and in the sort of timescale one might have expected. The main thing that went wrong with the MRA4 project was the expectations set in the 1995 Bid. Certainly all those on the programme sweated blood to achieve the programme, but it was mission impossible from the start and merely a question of time how long the "conspiracy of optimism" would last.

EG

[rjtjrt]

As the Americans say, I have no dog in this fight.
However.....
It seems unfortunate that, from the last 2 posts, those close to the MR4A program seem to have limited insight into what went wrong and why the customer ditched it, and thus there seems little prospect of the UK aircraft industry addressing what must be significant issues that look like slowly leading to said industry eventually dissappearing (probable with bewildered staff wondering what did we do wrong).
There looks to be a significant/major amount of head in the sand if those close to the program maintain that it was all going along swimmingly, especially compared to other comparable programs.
If it was all going so well, why is there so much critisism and eventual cancellation?
Perhaps it would be healthier to look from the inside with an attitude of lets address the issues that led up to this situation of cancellation, and learn from it.
John

[Doptrack]

rjtjrt

The customer didn't cancel it, the Prime Minster did

Big difference

[Ivan Rogov]

I think most have already said why they think MRA4 was binned in other more appropriate threads, throwing more mud with so many on all sides losing jobs will not help. Good luck to them ALL and fingers crossed 2012 brings better prospects.

One post got me thinking, the RAF (masses) can't understand why it cost more than originally stated and BAE can't see why that is a problem. To be fair to them it wasn't on previous projects, however the rules appear to be changing and MRA4s timing was bad. In the future we must be financially savy on both sides, the RAF can only buy what it can afford and industry must give accurate quotes not contract winning estimates. I know safe guards were written into the MRA4 contract, they were not applied and therefore worthless, maybe we would have implemented the penalties if we were dealing with Boeing or did BAE offer something they knew would over run because we had taught them it didn't matter as long as the money remained in the UK.

[Lazer-Hound]

Mend em.

Given that we're utterly dependent on the USA for our 'independent' nuclear weapons, I fail to see how becoming dependent on the USA for MPAs makes the slightest jot of difference.

[iRaven]

Ultimately the BAE Systems Team produced a world-beating product at a non-unreasonable price and in the sort of timescale one might have expected.

Errr? No it didn't, no it didn't and no it didn't!

QED?

iRaven

[fergineer]

Back to seedcorn which is what the initial topic was about. Hope the guys that come to NZ enjoy the lifestyle here..... havnt been out of shorts for 3 years now apart from formal occasions and when I ride the motorbike. You will have a great time here, I have loved every minute of it and would not be looking at going back. If any of the guys coming down here have any questions about expat life in NZ, not life in the RNZAF feel free to ask.

[iRaven]

Not to be forgotten (and you do seem to have done so) is the fact that it was subsidised to over £1bn by the ever generous shareholders of BAE Systems through several write-offs.

Oh, boo hoo :{, they made a mint when the share prices went up each time the program was either awarded or amended. How about next time those "ever generous shareholders" give the MoD back all the dividends and vast profits they earn when we pay for the underperforming, over-expensive and late equipment? No, I thought not. Shareholders aren't exactly in business to give their money away - their in it to accumulate!

Nuff said?

iRaven

[Biggus]

If this is about to become a thread dedicated to the pros/cons of the MRA4, perhaps someone would like to start a....

"The decision to axe the MRA4 was bonkers" thread.

After all, why should WEBF have all the fun.... ;)

[Lazer-Hound]

Also, where exactly are these shareholders? I thought many if not most were non-UK now. Certainly BAE as a company sees its future in the US, not the UK now. Every penny gouged from the UK taxpayer in recent years has been spent acquiring second and third tier US defense contractors.