Do we really need an MPA?
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: netherlands
Age: 56
Posts: 769
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@GreenWings
Big UAV cannot do everything a Nimrod can. Nimrod cannot do everything a Eurohawk can. (e.g. hanging out 24 hrs, 5 hours out at 60.000 ft)
As I wrote, you probably need combined types. The time s societies were so uninformed and scared they were willing to put aside tens of billions to pay for home developed solutions for everything is gone.
Trying to put everything thinkable in 1 250.000lbs, Ex00.000.000, 10 crew, fifties airframe for 1 nation proved so out of touch it's hard to believe IMO. The lobby to get the plan approved must have been overwhelming.
E.g. Tanker/ Transports could do surveillance and SAR roles if necessary. An ASW platform too could be much smaller these days.
I think it will go that way. We see developments in the carrier, transport, AWACS areas already.
Big UAV cannot do everything a Nimrod can. Nimrod cannot do everything a Eurohawk can. (e.g. hanging out 24 hrs, 5 hours out at 60.000 ft)
As I wrote, you probably need combined types. The time s societies were so uninformed and scared they were willing to put aside tens of billions to pay for home developed solutions for everything is gone.
Trying to put everything thinkable in 1 250.000lbs, Ex00.000.000, 10 crew, fifties airframe for 1 nation proved so out of touch it's hard to believe IMO. The lobby to get the plan approved must have been overwhelming.
E.g. Tanker/ Transports could do surveillance and SAR roles if necessary. An ASW platform too could be much smaller these days.
I think it will go that way. We see developments in the carrier, transport, AWACS areas already.
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Great Britain
Posts: 163
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We are an island nation and have an area of responsibility regarding SAR that is far larger then that typical of any country: ie we in effect do the Eire patch for them and far out into the Atlantic. If the USAF pulled their Pavehawk out of the UK we could not meet out responsibility.
It will take a repetition of history to highlight the error that Govt has made in deleting this duty of care. For example, would our partners address UK needs in the likely event of another UK v Iceland Cod War. Mentioned because this is arguably a civil Govt matter not a military one and I doubt that UK Govt could mandate a military partner to involve itself in UK domestic affairs.
The Russian submarine commanders are probably mapping the UK coastal waters as we speak and I am led to believe from others in the know that their sub-aqua technology is years ahead of the wests.
The North Sea oilfield is, and always has been vulnerable to attack from terrorists and require an asset with a long duration on station that is able to operate in both aggresive and passive (rescue) mode. I am yet to see a C130J with depth charges and torpedoes.
We still have commitments amongst former colonies and the usual timeline is independence +50 years. Many of these countries are themselves islands.
Historically, many potential hotspots have been erased before being too serious based upon intelligence supported by evidence. The worlds sea lanes are often the source of such evidence. The pirates of Somalia could see copy-cat ops conducted by other third world nations directly affecting UK interests overseas.
......and that is before you start talking about some of the tasks that Nimrod completed that we do not talk about in public.
Therefore in summary: MPA requirement? YES without a doubt and in decades to come, the demise of MRA4 will be discussed in the same veign that TSR2 enjoys to this day. I am aware that a jet powered MPA has advantages over props in the anti-sub role but I also believe that BAe let themselves and the country down in the Nimrod fiasco and are reaping the benefit of what they sowed. The title "Nimrod 2000" will haunt them for many a year. The unforgiveable element of what we shall go through in the coming months is the removal of human expertise in the MPA area of Ops. After all, the Nimrod was never more then a host fuselage with jet engines and many other off the shelf airframes could quite probably do the job better.
It will take a repetition of history to highlight the error that Govt has made in deleting this duty of care. For example, would our partners address UK needs in the likely event of another UK v Iceland Cod War. Mentioned because this is arguably a civil Govt matter not a military one and I doubt that UK Govt could mandate a military partner to involve itself in UK domestic affairs.
The Russian submarine commanders are probably mapping the UK coastal waters as we speak and I am led to believe from others in the know that their sub-aqua technology is years ahead of the wests.
The North Sea oilfield is, and always has been vulnerable to attack from terrorists and require an asset with a long duration on station that is able to operate in both aggresive and passive (rescue) mode. I am yet to see a C130J with depth charges and torpedoes.
We still have commitments amongst former colonies and the usual timeline is independence +50 years. Many of these countries are themselves islands.
Historically, many potential hotspots have been erased before being too serious based upon intelligence supported by evidence. The worlds sea lanes are often the source of such evidence. The pirates of Somalia could see copy-cat ops conducted by other third world nations directly affecting UK interests overseas.
......and that is before you start talking about some of the tasks that Nimrod completed that we do not talk about in public.
Therefore in summary: MPA requirement? YES without a doubt and in decades to come, the demise of MRA4 will be discussed in the same veign that TSR2 enjoys to this day. I am aware that a jet powered MPA has advantages over props in the anti-sub role but I also believe that BAe let themselves and the country down in the Nimrod fiasco and are reaping the benefit of what they sowed. The title "Nimrod 2000" will haunt them for many a year. The unforgiveable element of what we shall go through in the coming months is the removal of human expertise in the MPA area of Ops. After all, the Nimrod was never more then a host fuselage with jet engines and many other off the shelf airframes could quite probably do the job better.
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Next door
Posts: 74
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Perhaps someone will help me here, but all this stuff (c**p) about 50s aircraft, and there unsuitability winds me up, as the Nimrod was built like a brick out house, and actually much better suited to low level operations over the sea, as it proved.
I know of a number of instances where the old girl reportedly was given as much credit for recovering from precarious situations, as the pilot was. KISS principle of aerodynamics may apply here. I certainly felt safe in her, even in some of the manoeuvres we got up to.
Some of these adaptations from commercial aircraft, would not last in these type of hostile environments?
Many of today's high bypass engines are not designed to be take the hammer that the Nimrod Spey's were subjected to. And as another poster has mentioned, high lift swept wings, are not the sort for this job?
In a spirit of moving on, the Japanese Kawasaki MPA, looks like the type of aircraft, and people we need to deal with, if we are ever to resurrect our LRMPA capability.
I know of a number of instances where the old girl reportedly was given as much credit for recovering from precarious situations, as the pilot was. KISS principle of aerodynamics may apply here. I certainly felt safe in her, even in some of the manoeuvres we got up to.
Some of these adaptations from commercial aircraft, would not last in these type of hostile environments?
Many of today's high bypass engines are not designed to be take the hammer that the Nimrod Spey's were subjected to. And as another poster has mentioned, high lift swept wings, are not the sort for this job?
In a spirit of moving on, the Japanese Kawasaki MPA, looks like the type of aircraft, and people we need to deal with, if we are ever to resurrect our LRMPA capability.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: St Annes
Age: 68
Posts: 638
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TOFO made some excellent points,
Keesje. with respect, what IS your experience of MPA? 'On' them 20 years ago - do you mean as MPA aircrew, actually doing this stuff?
UAV's do not currently have the capabilities so many people keep spouting about, it takes no brains whatsoever to blithely suggest UAVs can do ASUW, ASW blah blah, it's quite another thing to point to an actual UAV that CAN do it. Balloons - God give me strength, we're talking about airships... the Shackleton, which theoretically managed something like 300 mph, could leave one standing - I cannot conceive of ever trying to carry out meaningful ASW or ASuW in something dramatically slower than a Shack...you'd be trying to lay a pattern ahead of a sub while your engines redlined and you progressed slowly backwards.
Yes, you could carry out inshore coastguard duties using smaller aircraft. You could not carry out rig protection or major SAR control duties from one - you could of course decide to fly Sentries on that sort of thing. The day an airliner ditches in mid Atlantic we'll certainly feel the loss of an LRMPA capability.
Protection of SSBN - if a nuclear capability is deemed essential for national defence, which so far it has been, then it is downright foolish to remove a significant part of the mechanism by which our SSBNs deploy unhindered and untracked. I would imagine that these days the boomers rather expect to be trailled on exit. It isn't a deterrent if your prospective opponent is confident they can take out your BNs whenever required... and we don't have enough of them to be able to lose any.
Accepting that NImrod is dead, we still need pretty much what we're busy scrapping - to be blunt, had Nimrod 4 gone into service, with 9 aircraft, I think we'd also have needed a smaller inshore patrol aircraft to carry out the mundane stuff around the coastline. Now we need both platforms.
Dave
Keesje. with respect, what IS your experience of MPA? 'On' them 20 years ago - do you mean as MPA aircrew, actually doing this stuff?
UAV's do not currently have the capabilities so many people keep spouting about, it takes no brains whatsoever to blithely suggest UAVs can do ASUW, ASW blah blah, it's quite another thing to point to an actual UAV that CAN do it. Balloons - God give me strength, we're talking about airships... the Shackleton, which theoretically managed something like 300 mph, could leave one standing - I cannot conceive of ever trying to carry out meaningful ASW or ASuW in something dramatically slower than a Shack...you'd be trying to lay a pattern ahead of a sub while your engines redlined and you progressed slowly backwards.
Yes, you could carry out inshore coastguard duties using smaller aircraft. You could not carry out rig protection or major SAR control duties from one - you could of course decide to fly Sentries on that sort of thing. The day an airliner ditches in mid Atlantic we'll certainly feel the loss of an LRMPA capability.
Protection of SSBN - if a nuclear capability is deemed essential for national defence, which so far it has been, then it is downright foolish to remove a significant part of the mechanism by which our SSBNs deploy unhindered and untracked. I would imagine that these days the boomers rather expect to be trailled on exit. It isn't a deterrent if your prospective opponent is confident they can take out your BNs whenever required... and we don't have enough of them to be able to lose any.
Accepting that NImrod is dead, we still need pretty much what we're busy scrapping - to be blunt, had Nimrod 4 gone into service, with 9 aircraft, I think we'd also have needed a smaller inshore patrol aircraft to carry out the mundane stuff around the coastline. Now we need both platforms.
Dave
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Great Britain
Posts: 163
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Looks the part, but we have no history of defence trading links with Japan. Assuming it carries an aggresive payload and is more Lexus than Datsun, it may yet get to wear roundels with a dab of blue and white added. The problem is that Govt and UK Mil have become too Afghancentric and if Iraq is not forgotten yet (and for many it is) then we are too focused in affairs far away that the UK public does not care an iota about.
Wonder if the Japanese will send one to Farnborough (Trade) Airshow.
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: home: United Kingdom
Posts: 779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Do we really need an MPA?
Apparently not.
God help us; this government won't. And it's not going to get easier after PR11.
Duncs
PS I'd like to see how many sonobuoys the Euro Global Hawk carries.
God help us; this government won't. And it's not going to get easier after PR11.
Duncs
PS I'd like to see how many sonobuoys the Euro Global Hawk carries.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: On The Road
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Do we really need an MPA?
Yes, more than we need the number of Tornados and Typhoons we have, and when that becomes evident it will be too late. Unfortunately when it does become evident those who made the decision will not be held to account for what will surely be seen as tantamount to a criminally stupid act.
Forgive them, for they know not what they do.
Those that support the need for MPA (or LRMPA) on this thread know what they are saying in my opinion and have made some excellent points. Those proposing alternatives might be making suggestions that make sense to them, but only because they do not fully understand the problem.
I hope we get away with it, but can't see how we can.
Forgive them, for they know not what they do.
Those that support the need for MPA (or LRMPA) on this thread know what they are saying in my opinion and have made some excellent points. Those proposing alternatives might be making suggestions that make sense to them, but only because they do not fully understand the problem.
I hope we get away with it, but can't see how we can.
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: now in Zomerset
Age: 62
Posts: 124
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Forgive them, for they know not what they do.
Most of us go through some rigorous selection and training route to get to wield any sort of authority. This bunch of wasters seem to be immune from that requirement
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Europe
Posts: 414
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Keesje, please don't take offence but as has already been said were you actually a member of a P-3 crew?
If you were then I would be shocked by your opinions and would have to assume that you have spent far too much time having a shmoke and a pancake in the cafes of Amsterdam.
Was the picture of PC flight simulator A400 with a USCG paint scheme suggesting it's suitability for any of the MPA roles?
It doesn't matter how long a Eurohawk remains ontask at 60k it still can't do most of the MPA tasks. Just look at BAMS, the US have effectively re-written the requirement to cover the concepts limitations.
IMO your comments so far demonstrate that you lack any knowledge of the MPA, or the environment it operates in and are out of your depth. Maybe you should consider whether you wish to continue embarrassing yourself in public on this forum.
Back to MPA, you also have to consider your potential adversary. Your platform should be capable of defeating theirs (otherwise you will come second), e.g. he gets a stone, you get a stick, he gets a bigger stick, eventually he gets a SSN/SSBN force, you get a LRMPA Sqn, he makes the SSN/SSBN quiet, you upgrade your LRMPA sensors, etc. To be effective at this level requires investment in 'high end' military equipment, you could buy 200 CASA 235 but you would never find a deployed SSN/SSBN.
If you were then I would be shocked by your opinions and would have to assume that you have spent far too much time having a shmoke and a pancake in the cafes of Amsterdam.
Was the picture of PC flight simulator A400 with a USCG paint scheme suggesting it's suitability for any of the MPA roles?
It doesn't matter how long a Eurohawk remains ontask at 60k it still can't do most of the MPA tasks. Just look at BAMS, the US have effectively re-written the requirement to cover the concepts limitations.
IMO your comments so far demonstrate that you lack any knowledge of the MPA, or the environment it operates in and are out of your depth. Maybe you should consider whether you wish to continue embarrassing yourself in public on this forum.
Back to MPA, you also have to consider your potential adversary. Your platform should be capable of defeating theirs (otherwise you will come second), e.g. he gets a stone, you get a stick, he gets a bigger stick, eventually he gets a SSN/SSBN force, you get a LRMPA Sqn, he makes the SSN/SSBN quiet, you upgrade your LRMPA sensors, etc. To be effective at this level requires investment in 'high end' military equipment, you could buy 200 CASA 235 but you would never find a deployed SSN/SSBN.
Last edited by Ivan Rogov; 29th Jan 2011 at 20:14.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: St Annes
Age: 68
Posts: 638
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I once found a sheep whilst driving back from Arrochar to Faslane....
but with nowhere else to go but the loch or the centre of the A814, there really wasn't much of a choice once you'd fallen off the hillside I suppose....
I think my driveway is wider than the A814, come to think of it....
but with nowhere else to go but the loch or the centre of the A814, there really wasn't much of a choice once you'd fallen off the hillside I suppose....
I think my driveway is wider than the A814, come to think of it....
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: A 1/2 World away from Ice Statio Kilo
Posts: 404
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
keesje
If you think back to RADAR theory there is a slight problem with your Hawky bird
and what we want it to do. But then your RADAR was probably some version of AN/APS 115 so anything would be an upgrade
.
Euro forces showed their worth in FRY, especially the French
Charlie sends
If you think back to RADAR theory there is a slight problem with your Hawky bird
and what we want it to do. But then your RADAR was probably some version of AN/APS 115 so anything would be an upgrade.Euro forces showed their worth in FRY, especially the French
Charlie sends
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: netherlands
Age: 56
Posts: 769
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A few blinded politicians, destroying a key defense capability without understanding what they are doing.
Probably not. Many people looked at it from many different angles.
Nimrod: from a symbol of pride to one of decline | The Spectator
I was never a real crew member. Still I had a pretty good picture of what was going on. We shouldn't only look back to see the future. Maybe having been intensively involved & committed for a long time can cause blind spots. At least in the dutch case for years successfully fighting off real changes in a changing world played a role.
The dramatic reality is a democratic chosen government and majority in parliament decided to pull the plug all together. No doubt a damaging report / review will follow on how this all has developed.
Anger and disbelieve aren't going to solve anything. I watched the MR4 project in disbelieve and although I feel for the people involved and nobody likes a fleet being scrapped in this stage, it doesn't come as a total surprise. If it does, maybe there were blind spots.
Probably not. Many people looked at it from many different angles.
Nimrod: from a symbol of pride to one of decline | The Spectator
I was never a real crew member. Still I had a pretty good picture of what was going on. We shouldn't only look back to see the future. Maybe having been intensively involved & committed for a long time can cause blind spots. At least in the dutch case for years successfully fighting off real changes in a changing world played a role.
The dramatic reality is a democratic chosen government and majority in parliament decided to pull the plug all together. No doubt a damaging report / review will follow on how this all has developed.
Anger and disbelieve aren't going to solve anything. I watched the MR4 project in disbelieve and although I feel for the people involved and nobody likes a fleet being scrapped in this stage, it doesn't come as a total surprise. If it does, maybe there were blind spots.
The first time we try to do anything against someone with a submarine force it could get a bit interesting. That nice Mr Dinnerjacket has some and that fella Kim out east, plus Mr Mubarak bought some from the nice chinese man (even if they are knackered). Indonesia has some decent boats as well and funnily enough all of these are adjacent to maritime trade routes of some description. Longer memories will remember one of the contributors to the 70's oil crisis was closure of Suez.
Looks like it'll be down to someone else next time (potentially no bad thing), question is, who?
Looks like it'll be down to someone else next time (potentially no bad thing), question is, who?