British Future MPA
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Blighty
Posts: 177
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We're all living in the past!
Its:
UWW - Under Water Warfare
AWW - Above Water Warfare
AAW - Anti Air Warfare
Just to be pedantic.
As for the fit-for-role option... I cant see it working...
Looking at the size of kit, AQS-971 for example, it would take days if not weeks to re-role a jet for another task. There are so many boxes/cables/screens etc etc to plug in for each bit of kit. Indeed I know of wetties that would argue that the acoustics fit could help in AWW scenarios by proving extra SA using the screen symbology.
Looking at the MR2 as a prime example, and had it been in service today it would still arguably be the best MPA in the world. It's difficult to argue against having such an airframe with a basic fit of radar/acoustics/comms/esm and having role fit kit of EOS/DASS/Spec Comms. It's a system that wasn't pretty due to the aircrafts vintage, but worked remarkably well.
Its:
UWW - Under Water Warfare
AWW - Above Water Warfare
AAW - Anti Air Warfare
Just to be pedantic.
As for the fit-for-role option... I cant see it working...
Looking at the size of kit, AQS-971 for example, it would take days if not weeks to re-role a jet for another task. There are so many boxes/cables/screens etc etc to plug in for each bit of kit. Indeed I know of wetties that would argue that the acoustics fit could help in AWW scenarios by proving extra SA using the screen symbology.
Looking at the MR2 as a prime example, and had it been in service today it would still arguably be the best MPA in the world. It's difficult to argue against having such an airframe with a basic fit of radar/acoustics/comms/esm and having role fit kit of EOS/DASS/Spec Comms. It's a system that wasn't pretty due to the aircrafts vintage, but worked remarkably well.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: St Annes
Age: 68
Posts: 638
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Andyy,
no problem.
CM
The rationale for having inshore and long range under one military head is that then you can task the asset best suited to the job...
Example - your long range MPA tracks the baddie sub into the Atlantic, baddie sub proceeds inshore to loiter where he isn't wanted. Military CG style aircraft could be used to drive him away, or if things escalate to kill him - no need for expensive large MPA for ops in coastal areas. Can't do that if your CG aircraft is civvy.
By making it all military (whatever the service chosen) you have people who can do everything from police/customs to killing anywhere beyond the high tide mark, if you have a civvy CG then that's not so. By having one organisation you then have freedom to deploy the right asset where you want, that organisation can then have expensive MPA and the cheaper CG aircraft that would otherwise be split between a civvy CG and a military MPA outfit.
As I said before, I can see no advantage in splitting the task between different organisations, especially where one of them won't be able to kill the target.
Joint RN/RAF makes a lot of sense, as far as making use of the guys is concerned, although I'd do it by encouraging exchange tours - I had RN crew mates over the years, but not many, I think it should have been more evident to help pass ideas between the two - although there was a fair amount of chat between RN and RAF MPA over the years, the two did not go about their job in isolation from each other.
Dave
no problem.
CM
The rationale for having inshore and long range under one military head is that then you can task the asset best suited to the job...
Example - your long range MPA tracks the baddie sub into the Atlantic, baddie sub proceeds inshore to loiter where he isn't wanted. Military CG style aircraft could be used to drive him away, or if things escalate to kill him - no need for expensive large MPA for ops in coastal areas. Can't do that if your CG aircraft is civvy.
By making it all military (whatever the service chosen) you have people who can do everything from police/customs to killing anywhere beyond the high tide mark, if you have a civvy CG then that's not so. By having one organisation you then have freedom to deploy the right asset where you want, that organisation can then have expensive MPA and the cheaper CG aircraft that would otherwise be split between a civvy CG and a military MPA outfit.
As I said before, I can see no advantage in splitting the task between different organisations, especially where one of them won't be able to kill the target.
Joint RN/RAF makes a lot of sense, as far as making use of the guys is concerned, although I'd do it by encouraging exchange tours - I had RN crew mates over the years, but not many, I think it should have been more evident to help pass ideas between the two - although there was a fair amount of chat between RN and RAF MPA over the years, the two did not go about their job in isolation from each other.
Dave
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: North Yorkshire
Age: 82
Posts: 641
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Davejb
Thank you for your continuing input.
If I understand you correctly, you favour:
All military MPA and no civil coverage.
A multi (two?) platform solution with separate coverage of large long range and smaller coastal but all with ASW and ASuW capabilities.
The military taking on all civil coastguard, UKBA, commerce surveillance and policing airborne tasks in coastal waters with the smaller platform.
Joint ownership of the capability between RN and RAF.
Is that correct?
Thank you for your continuing input.
If I understand you correctly, you favour:
All military MPA and no civil coverage.
A multi (two?) platform solution with separate coverage of large long range and smaller coastal but all with ASW and ASuW capabilities.
The military taking on all civil coastguard, UKBA, commerce surveillance and policing airborne tasks in coastal waters with the smaller platform.
Joint ownership of the capability between RN and RAF.
Is that correct?
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: netherlands
Age: 56
Posts: 769
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As an outstander I'm wondering about this interservice rivelary and basicly still sticking to old world references and requirements as the benchmark.
Look where it has brought you/us.
I think the chances of some future European MPA operation are bigger then doing a facelift of how it used to be. The policies of the EC countries on international interests and issues are converging IMO.
A bigger platform and a smaller platform seem no brainers. E.g. A force spread out over 3 bases, 1 in Northern UK, Portugal and south of Italy seem logical. Funding and crews from all participating Nato / EC countries, standardarized platforms and procedures. Maybe it could be combined with e.g. AWACS, tanker, transport and SAR forces.
Overlapping capabilities would allow for major efficiency and effectiveness steps.
FYI the EADS offerings:
A-319
Imagine the UK had 10 yrs ago ordered 10 A319MPAs and 10 CN235s, no overspecification, of the shelve, instead of rebuilding the Nimrods. They would have been flying and paid for by the billions spend sofar on the MR4.
(to be clear I sympathise with the people around here that put a lot of life and energy in the Nimrod operations and now find themselves / families in uncertainty)
Look where it has brought you/us.
I think the chances of some future European MPA operation are bigger then doing a facelift of how it used to be. The policies of the EC countries on international interests and issues are converging IMO.
A bigger platform and a smaller platform seem no brainers. E.g. A force spread out over 3 bases, 1 in Northern UK, Portugal and south of Italy seem logical. Funding and crews from all participating Nato / EC countries, standardarized platforms and procedures. Maybe it could be combined with e.g. AWACS, tanker, transport and SAR forces.
Overlapping capabilities would allow for major efficiency and effectiveness steps.
FYI the EADS offerings:
A-319
Imagine the UK had 10 yrs ago ordered 10 A319MPAs and 10 CN235s, no overspecification, of the shelve, instead of rebuilding the Nimrods. They would have been flying and paid for by the billions spend sofar on the MR4.
(to be clear I sympathise with the people around here that put a lot of life and energy in the Nimrod operations and now find themselves / families in uncertainty)
Last edited by keesje; 14th Mar 2011 at 10:52.
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: home: United Kingdom
Posts: 779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
keesje,
I agree that the CN235 would have been in-service providing a level MPA activity. I'm still not sure about the A319; I did ask in an earlier post if it had actually flown as an MPA. Furthermore, I'm not too sure that you could say that it is off-the-shelf! However, if it does what it says on the tin, I'll have one!
Duncs
I agree that the CN235 would have been in-service providing a level MPA activity. I'm still not sure about the A319; I did ask in an earlier post if it had actually flown as an MPA. Furthermore, I'm not too sure that you could say that it is off-the-shelf! However, if it does what it says on the tin, I'll have one!
Duncs
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
1 in Northern UK, Portugal and south of Italy
The French have a larger Atlantic frontage than the Portuguese. They would also expect to have a Mediterranean presence too.
The Alboran Sea is particularly sensitive and I cannot see the Spanish accepting Portuguese based MPA operating in their own back yard.
The east Med also requires some attention especially with Indian Ocean states operating out of area.
Then remember the Russian merchant vessel that went missing.
Getsometimein,
apparently it's gone full circle from ASW to USW (undersea warfare) and back to ASW again.
In times of financial constraint, I'm glad we got the small stuff sorted out, after all it didn't cost much to change all the docs to reflect our overseas 'special relations' changes in acronyms/abbreviations/initialisations.
(Pedants, please feel free to STFU about which of the aforementioned is correct.)
apparently it's gone full circle from ASW to USW (undersea warfare) and back to ASW again.
In times of financial constraint, I'm glad we got the small stuff sorted out, after all it didn't cost much to change all the docs to reflect our overseas 'special relations' changes in acronyms/abbreviations/initialisations.
(Pedants, please feel free to STFU about which of the aforementioned is correct.)
"The INTRODUCER"
A319MPA is not flying (and realistically a company-funded, MPA/ASW jet for a speculative target is not on any airframer´s agenda) but has considerable attractions as pointed out above.
However, this C295 is certified and delivered (and can obviously pack a bigger punch than the much-discussed above CN235 - marvellous though that also is.)
And this P-3, which came shrink-wrapped out of the desert but is now a rather nice place to work, is about to get back to business - the first of a fleet of nine (and five for Spain.)
However, this C295 is certified and delivered (and can obviously pack a bigger punch than the much-discussed above CN235 - marvellous though that also is.)
And this P-3, which came shrink-wrapped out of the desert but is now a rather nice place to work, is about to get back to business - the first of a fleet of nine (and five for Spain.)
Anglo-French MPA?
Arguments over whether RAF, RN or Coastguard should have primacy over a future MPA are parochial.
I agree that we will have to have a new MPA in the not too distant future, but why not an Anglo-French venture, possibly financed by another PFI as in Air Tanker?
Given the rumblings of a joint Anglo-French SSBN nuclear deterrent in the future, the obvious conflict of interest is evaporating. Every other role is common.
I agree that we will have to have a new MPA in the not too distant future, but why not an Anglo-French venture, possibly financed by another PFI as in Air Tanker?
Given the rumblings of a joint Anglo-French SSBN nuclear deterrent in the future, the obvious conflict of interest is evaporating. Every other role is common.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: YES
Posts: 779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
arguments over who should provide the service should be put aside and it be provided between all interested agencies including RN/RAF/HMCG/HMRC/Fishery Protection and Border agencey
arguments over who should provide the service should be put aside and it be provided between all interested agencies including RN/RAF/HMCG/HMRC/Fishery Protection and Border agencey
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Here and there, occasionally at home.
Age: 56
Posts: 146
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TrimStab
The AirTanker PFI is apparently going to cost in the region of £400Mil per year to implement and that is with a fairly well defined set of requirements. MRA4 was binned because it was going to cost £200mil per year (and we had already paid for the hardware). How much is a complex Multi-mission aircraft going to cost under a PFI contract? More than we can afford it would seem.
If you don't need (read can't afford) complexity and flexibilty then a cheap buy of some CASA 235/239s or ATR72s will at least allow you to maintain some degree of capability whilst retaining skills and knowledge. Unfortunately, the hard won skills and knowledge focussed at Kinloss over the last 75 years or so is leaking faster than Japanese reactor.
If you don't need (read can't afford) complexity and flexibilty then a cheap buy of some CASA 235/239s or ATR72s will at least allow you to maintain some degree of capability whilst retaining skills and knowledge. Unfortunately, the hard won skills and knowledge focussed at Kinloss over the last 75 years or so is leaking faster than Japanese reactor.
