Do we really need an MPA?
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: UK, sometimes!
Age: 74
Posts: 436
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Keesje:
I think it is obvious that those of us that were 'real crew member[s]' could tell that you were not (hence the questions to that effect) is that you clearly do not have 'a pretty good picture of what was going on', at least not in the UK MPA fleet with a wider range of tasks filled and a much larger AOR than the Netherlands patrolled 
I do get so fed up of the comments about other 'assets' being able to fulfil the roles that Nimrod MR1/2 did or 4 would have done. In my time I did many national 'jobs' that no other UK asset could have done and that no UAV could presently (or in the foreseeable future) do! As has been said many times, much of the Nimrod tasking is simply not talked about in open source (or in Number 10 by the look of SDSR!)
MadMark!!!
I was never a real crew member. Still I had a pretty good picture of what was going on.
I do get so fed up of the comments about other 'assets' being able to fulfil the roles that Nimrod MR1/2 did or 4 would have done. In my time I did many national 'jobs' that no other UK asset could have done and that no UAV could presently (or in the foreseeable future) do! As has been said many times, much of the Nimrod tasking is simply not talked about in open source (or in Number 10 by the look of SDSR!)
MadMark!!!
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Scotland
Posts: 217
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Picture of the A400M in Coastguard colours did make me chuckle. The US military flying an Airbus.
The MR2 was stealthy in its job and Im sure (dont quote me) had an element of surprise over the P3 as the vibrations of the P3 could be picked up by enemy submarines thus the Nimrod with speed and the best aircrew gave it an advantage.
Ok I know thats Sub warfare and the Nimrod carried out more essential tasks than any other asset in the UK inventory so yes the UK will miss what the Nimrod took to the party, Can anything fill that gap ...No and even if we had the P8 in service it is not designed for carrying out the other tasks that the Nimrod carried out.
The Government have made this decision they will be the ones that will be accountable when the first russian submarine sails down the Thames with the red flag waving, or might be an Iranian one how we shall all laugh.
The MR2 was stealthy in its job and Im sure (dont quote me) had an element of surprise over the P3 as the vibrations of the P3 could be picked up by enemy submarines thus the Nimrod with speed and the best aircrew gave it an advantage.
Ok I know thats Sub warfare and the Nimrod carried out more essential tasks than any other asset in the UK inventory so yes the UK will miss what the Nimrod took to the party, Can anything fill that gap ...No and even if we had the P8 in service it is not designed for carrying out the other tasks that the Nimrod carried out.
The Government have made this decision they will be the ones that will be accountable when the first russian submarine sails down the Thames with the red flag waving, or might be an Iranian one how we shall all laugh.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Kettering
Posts: 122
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Here and there, occasionally at home.
Age: 56
Posts: 146
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Just signalling the Thames Barrier boys to raise the barrier won't cost much."
They won't need to so long as it isn't an especially high tide. The barrier is open most of the time and generally only closes to protect London from the effects of high spring tides.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: netherlands
Age: 56
Posts: 769
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Picture of the A400M in Coastguard colours did make me chuckle. The US military flying an Airbus.
Chuckle on. US Coastguard fly Eurocopter Dauphins for ages, and the Army is introducing large numbers of Eurocopter helis (part of EADS just like Airbus).
I think programs like the armed Predator C Sea Avenger and the growing role of naval satellite surveillance might be some of the reason investing billions in a upgraded MPA platform for the next 30 yrs did get enough priority.
Dismissing everyone asking questions on the total MPA task package obviously did not work for the MR4.
Maybe the RAF ASW/MPA contingent was a bit too convinced of itself and how things would develop. Maybe they were a bit lazy on listening and looking around. We don't know yet, time and the commission will tell.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: The real world
Posts: 446
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I still think a cost effective future compromise could be obtained with a smaller aircraft that just covers SAR and basic ASUW.
The rest of the tasks are like I earlier stated just insurance against the extremely unlikely that we can't afford.
The Dutch seem to be managing.
There has been much scaremongering about how this decision will come back to bite us in the future, if you believe so then lets here some specifics because all the time we had the nimrod it didn't drop anything in anger, even the Vulcan managed that at the end of it's life!
And I am fully aware of the other tasks it carried out and was never scared of what might of been had they not been around.
It's no longer a great secret of their involvement against drugs and to be honest the money it cost might have been better spent on the Police.
The rest of the tasks are like I earlier stated just insurance against the extremely unlikely that we can't afford.
The Dutch seem to be managing.
There has been much scaremongering about how this decision will come back to bite us in the future, if you believe so then lets here some specifics because all the time we had the nimrod it didn't drop anything in anger, even the Vulcan managed that at the end of it's life!
And I am fully aware of the other tasks it carried out and was never scared of what might of been had they not been around.
It's no longer a great secret of their involvement against drugs and to be honest the money it cost might have been better spent on the Police.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: 4 Civvy Street. Nowhere-near-a-base. The Shires.
Posts: 559
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
A lot of pro-Dutch sentiment on here, but since when did they have a nuclear deterrent to protect?
Also, whose aircraft did they rent when unable to cover their own long range SAR commitment in the Carribean?
Kinloss' Nimrod MR2 of course.
CS
Also, whose aircraft did they rent when unable to cover their own long range SAR commitment in the Carribean?
Kinloss' Nimrod MR2 of course.
CS
Simple solution (for a RW mate anyway...).
Scrap the E3 and replace with French E3/E2 on a time share basis (ashore and afloat).
Buy a small force of Hoovers (great value out of AMARC) to cover the approaches to Faslane and deploy a flight on the CVF for ASW - again, share with the French. Turbo-trackers if you're being stingy....
Lease a small fleet of deicated USCG-esque patrol/SAR ac. A derivative of a CASA or C27J should do the job nicely and useful for MACP in an emergency. Oh, and stop faffing with SAR-H.
The days of having one-trick ponies are over (well, apart from Typhoon it seems....), a sensible mix of s/h and leased airframes should cover all of the bases and provide good value for defence.
Scrap the E3 and replace with French E3/E2 on a time share basis (ashore and afloat).
Buy a small force of Hoovers (great value out of AMARC) to cover the approaches to Faslane and deploy a flight on the CVF for ASW - again, share with the French. Turbo-trackers if you're being stingy....
Lease a small fleet of deicated USCG-esque patrol/SAR ac. A derivative of a CASA or C27J should do the job nicely and useful for MACP in an emergency. Oh, and stop faffing with SAR-H.
The days of having one-trick ponies are over (well, apart from Typhoon it seems....), a sensible mix of s/h and leased airframes should cover all of the bases and provide good value for defence.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: The real world
Posts: 446
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Long range SAR in the Carribean? oh is that what they were doing?
and they were working for the Americans not the Dutch!
I have covered the Nuclear deterrant argument, if we ever need to use it were ****** anyway and lets be hones 9 airframes wasn't really a credible force!
and they were working for the Americans not the Dutch!
I have covered the Nuclear deterrant argument, if we ever need to use it were ****** anyway and lets be hones 9 airframes wasn't really a credible force!
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: netherlands
Age: 56
Posts: 769
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A lot of pro-Dutch sentiment on here
Privat capacity was hired, F60s were converted, partners were paid to fill the gabs.
I think the UK will now have the opportunity to make a clean start, using smart new technology and cooperation to meet new requirements.
Maybe we can cooperate, within EC Cameron and Rutten seem to become best friends rather quickly at the moment.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: 4 Civvy Street. Nowhere-near-a-base. The Shires.
Posts: 559
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Jayand
If you'd spent 2 months staying in a crappy Dutch barracks in the Carribbean, I think you'd remember who you were working for and what the tasking was...
CS
CS
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Kinloss
Posts: 99
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A lot of mention has been made about the loss of longe range SAR. Well, there is one thing that needs to be made clear. Longe range SAR is not necessarily the responsibility of the MOD. We have the Maritime and Coastguard Agency who should bear the responsibility, given the resources, of course. The MOD needs only to look after its own men and machines. This, we have done with great success since the Battle of Britain and, of course, our military SAR assets have been made available to the MCA, whenever possible since then to meet our international commitment. Now that we are without Nimrod, the loss of long range SAR is no longer a MOD problem to resolve, except when we deploy our single engine fast jets overseas (oh, no we won't have any soon!). Perhaps it is for this reason that a central figure (the PM) was seen to take the decision to cancel Nimrod MRA4.
My second point is quite simply this: I sincerely doubt the RAF will ever again be tasked with a dedicated maritime air capability. Any replacement LRMPA will fall to the RN. Why would the RAF Board want to add to their problems by procurring and suporting a capability that has erstwhile been closer to RN ops than either land or air ops. I refer only to LRMPA. Of course, the MOD could try to buy a multi-role, adaptable, agile machine that operates over land and over sea and allocate it to the RAF. But we just tried that, didn't we?
My second point is quite simply this: I sincerely doubt the RAF will ever again be tasked with a dedicated maritime air capability. Any replacement LRMPA will fall to the RN. Why would the RAF Board want to add to their problems by procurring and suporting a capability that has erstwhile been closer to RN ops than either land or air ops. I refer only to LRMPA. Of course, the MOD could try to buy a multi-role, adaptable, agile machine that operates over land and over sea and allocate it to the RAF. But we just tried that, didn't we?
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: UK, sometimes!
Age: 74
Posts: 436
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Long range SAR in the Carribean? oh is that what they were doing?
and they were working for the Americans not the Dutch!
Also, whose aircraft did they rent when unable to cover their own long range SAR commitment in the Carribean?
MadMark!!!
p.s. Come on people, it's single R and double B
[Edited to add a reply to post by EdSett100]
Twenty or so Hoovers would be an interesting option (particularly if KS3 & ES 3 included), but where would the funds come from to bring them back?
70+ B frames at AMARC and must be some relatively low-timers among them.
70+ B frames at AMARC and must be some relatively low-timers among them.