Nimrod MRA.4

[dervish]

Even back in the 80's we were saying that after years of Salami slicing, if there was another major cut in funding, the RAF would have to lose a Role. With the end of the Cold War and the Soviet submarine threat it was obvious that the maritime role would be the one to go.

I’m not sure I follow that argument. Why in that same period (entire 90s and 00s) did the RAF fight to retain MR2 and then upgrade to MRA4. And then fight for Billions over the original budget when costs spiraled. And politicians of both main parties agreed. The capability was lost because of something that emerged far more recently.

[Biggus]

betty,

I'm sure the "seedcorn" are all highly talented and motivated individuals doing the best they can at their level - just don't be surprised if you're all back in the UK in 2 years time, in non maritime related jobs, and the UK has made no real attempt (i.e. spent any serious money) to regenerate an MPA capability.......






But at least you'll have some good stories to tell when you work for Easyjet!

[Lordflasheart]

Seedcorn ?? GM or Organic ???

"Easyjet" ..... Best get with FR, then you can moonlight on the P-8K.


LFH

[The Old Fat One]

Which begs the question as to what happens when they need replacing. Where are the next generation of seedcorners coming from?

Question already posed some while back. Pretty much unanswerable...except for the obvious and currently politically unacceptable answer.

Nowhere.

As to the bigger question...are these beasts going to soak up more of the ever-shrinking, austerity driven, defence budget (and I suggest the NAO will have the final say on that)? Relatively speaking, the budget just got smaller (or stayed the same if you buy into some the views above). For the life of me, I can't see how this development has done anything to improve the prospects of a replacement MPA.

[Party Animal]

Which begs the question as to what happens when they need replacing. Where are the next generation of seedcorners coming from?

Seedcorn is not about buying a new MPA. It is about having some ability to regenerate capability in a more reasoned timescale should UK plc decide to re-enter the game. But it is also a one shot game based on SDSR 15 and it is highly unlikely that individuals will be replaced because there is no generation of new seedcorners.

If there is no mention at all of obtaining a fixed wing ASW capable platform in SDSR 15, then Seedcorn is done. Individuals overseas will quite rightly consider all the potential options that are best for themselves before deciding their own futures.

If, on the other hand, there is something substantial in print about a future MMA within the next decade, then at least we have the makings of a Joint Trials Team and OCU instructor cadre. This may involve extending individuals to the age of 60 or various other clever retention means but we would not be starting from scratch.

Finally, knowing how the UK works, we may have nothing in SDSR 15 but good news in SDSR 20. This is where the real extent of lost ASW knowledge and skills will become apparant and it really will be hard work to get back to a reasonable level of effectiveness. Unless of course, technology does it all for the operators.

[Party Animal]

Surplus,

37 years of contributing to pprune?? Leaving a bit early aren't you?

[Chugalug2]

Surplus, that is a lot of time and a lot of duty done. Thank you. As a mere trucker, I for one know the importance to this nation of Maritime Air, and that we will surely have dire need of it again and probably sooner rather than later. Why did we ever lose it? I think that someone should square up to dervish's point made above:-

The capability was lost because of something that emerged far more recently

That is the elephant in the room. That is what the Royal Air Force must confront before it loses anymore of its capability. As long as we remain separately Truckers, FJ's, AARs, wets, or whatever, we can squabble amongst ourselves to no avail. We have to confront the elephant and hobble it before it rampages further. That will not be welcome news to the RAF High Command that first let it in and would rather you carried on ignoring it. Will you?

[The Old Fat One]

PA

Yours is a good, accurate post...but you need to let the cynic out a bit more.

Seedcorn is primarily political. A flimsy cloak for big players to hide behind. As are statements that no capability was lost (Fox) and that the capability (that has not been lost) is not needed anyway, post cold war (also Fox).

Basically Biggus has it spot on.

And the end of the cold war was massively important in the demise of the MPA...don't overthink the logic in these decisions. Very little that happens in the UK occurs through logic. The vast majority of strategic events that occur in the UK result from political and commercial expediency.

Take energy for example. Our energy policy is run by politicians and big business. Norway's is run by scientists and economists.

We are energy gubbed and getting more so. Norway is 100% self-sufficient and has a 400 billion dollar sovereign wealth fund, derived from energy sales home and abroad.

Love it or hate it, that's UK PLC for you.

[Party Animal]

TOFO,

Agree Biggus is right in principal however, I would add to the line:

just don't be surprised if you're all back in the UK in 2 years time, in non maritime related jobs

None of the Seedcorners are naive enough to expect overseas tfn and they should all know exactly where they stand in the reality tables. I think it should be tweaked for the RAF to not be surprised if the RCAF and RNZAF have some new recruits and the RAAF suddenly finds itself with a brand new P8 OCU instructor cadre!

But for those who do come home, Biggus is correct to suggest that there will be nothing left of maritime.

[The Old Fat One]

PA

To utilise a much favoured expression of mine....

I concur

[Party Animal]

Which matches your other favourite expression of 363 Degrees at 7 knots!!

On a positive note, it will be fun to teach the Navy the 'Doppler Loop' when they receive CN295's in 2025.

[Jayand]

I think there is some green eyed monster talk going on here. Good luck to the seedcorners, none of them appear naive to believe they're coming back to a shiny new aircraft and in fact most of them believe it highly unlikely. They and there families are however making the most of a fantastic opportunity, many of them will come back to non maritime posts with their eyes wide open, others will find new jobs in their current countries and the rest will leave and make successful transitions into civvy street. Sounds alright to me. :-)))

[Frostchamber]

On future prospects, here's what the SoS said in the House during the debate on yesterday's announcement about the carrier contract and shipbuilding etc:

"...we are conscious of the gap in maritime patrol aircraft capability. It is one issue that will be addressed in SDSR 2015 and we will manage the gap in the meantime through close collaboration with our allies. We are considering all the options, including, potentially, the use of unmanned aerial vehicles in a maritime patrol role in the future."

I could be wrong but that sounds to me a bit more positively nuanced than statements made previously.

[Roland Pulfrew]

The cynic might say that

maritime patrol

is quite a lot different to anti-submarine warfare. Unfortunately I don't think SofS realises that (and nor do quite a lot of seniors across the military). But we have done UAVs doing ASW to death in recent times, so may I make a plea not to restart the debate?

[Party Animal]

Good pickup Frostchamber. There is certainly a note of optimism in that comment. The worst possible outcome for the MPA (what's left of it) community is that there is absolutely no mention of the capability gap in SDSR15 and the issue is just ignored or passed over. SoS has made clear that at least the words MPA will feature in the review. This may of course be good or bad news but at least there should be a clear signpost to what can be expected for the next decade and we will know where we stand.

It would be interesting to know exactly who the "We" are that is considering all the options though and how badly their judgement may be influenced by senior leadership who have no real idea of what they are talking about. Or, even worse, shysters like BAE making offers that are completely untenable but seemingly very affordable.

[Frostchamber]

Roland - I agree re not re-starting that debate. My intention was purely to highlight the notably more positive tone in the words the SoS used.

Party Animal - I'm not sure exactly who the "we" is other than that the MoD is currently conducting an Air ISTAR Optimisation Study (AIOS) and maritime surveillance falls within that. Here's how they described what's currently under way in a Dec 2012 response to the Defence Cttee:

"...The study into Wide Area Maritime Underwater Search (WAMUS) concluded that in the near term the most appropriate solution to a potential underwater surveillance requirement was a manned aircraft, but the Department's longer term objective is to merge as many surveillance requirements as possible into single equipment builds (e.g. radars that can operate in multiple modes and in all environments) and to further refine platform types, capabilities and numbers to achieve maximum effect at minimum cost. As such, those requirements previously covered by the Nimrod MR2/MRA4 capability are now integrated in the Air ISTAR portfolio and work is underway in the form of the AIOS to understand how these requirements can be best covered from the current and planned Air ISTAR Fleet.

The initial findings of the study will be reported to the Military Capability Board (MCB) in April 2013. Those options that appear to merit further investigation will then be developed to inform a MCB Genesis Option Decision Point prior to CSR15/SDSR15.... In the meantime, we have investigated what military off-the-shelf capabilities exist. For comparison, generation of the AIRSEEKER ... will have taken just under five years from the identification of the requirement to reaching Initial Operating Capability. Should the situation warrant it, adoption of off-the-shelf platforms, coupled with the Seedcorn personnel, could establish a capability in significantly less time."

[The Old Fat One]

Much thanks FC for making my point...

If seedcorn was not primarily political the MOD study would have read...

Should the situation warrant it, adoption of off-the-shelf platforms, coupled with the Seedcorn personnel and/or RN personnel, could establish a capability in significantly less time."

Why would they not mention that the RN could be and should be a massive part of bringing back an MPA capability?

Probably because they are sh1t scared of some bright spark posing the following question...

Well if it's a COTS solution, and pilots are generic, and the RN can do maritime ops, sensors and comms, WTF is seedcorn bringing to the party?

Obviously some additional value if we go with a COTS the seedcorners are currently flying...but if it's some cheapo twin turboprop???

Still I guess we will find out in 2015. Don't hold your breath.

[Frostchamber]

Looking at the latest language being used I'm now starting to think that we will see something come out of SDSR 2015, but as to precisely what that might be, God only knows. I'm guessing some sort of manned / unmanned mix as Hammond has now several times hinted that technological developments are proceeding at such a pace that other delivery options are opening up. P8 for the manned element would presumably be the best outcome but at this stage I'm struggling to envisage the budget stretching to that. At the other end, a small manned element comprising some CN295s or even using re-roled Sentinels?

[alfred_the_great]

CDS, in his evidence to the Defence Select Committee, mentioned MPA by name as something being considered by the SDSR15 team.

[phil9560]

Clueless.I'm cross so will say no more.