BAE RAF P3 procurement feasibility report
No extra money, certainly - but perhaps a re-prioritisation on what assets are most important to Defence. Particularly if some of the assumptions that went into SDSR 10 have now shown up to be flawed. Obviously that would be robbing Peter to pay Paul but you never know. Although personally I'm not optimistic, at least we will be prepared through the adoption of Seedcorn.
SDSR 10 Flawed????
Surely not.
Those nice politicians insist it is the way ahead and they never lie.....
Surely not.
Those nice politicians insist it is the way ahead and they never lie.....
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Back in Geordie Land
Posts: 492
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A great forum, full of typical Maritime humour, love it.
Back on topic - the P3 is a great aircraft and I would have no problems with us operating it however....
If BWOS are involved in any way at all - forget it! It will end up a disaster, and...
Whilst I wouldn't have an issue with the aircraft, I'm not sure that the MAA and the other 'safety' people wouldn't have an issue. After all, it is old technology.
I do hope that something can be sorted out soon. More importantly, it mustn't involve BWOS.
Back on topic - the P3 is a great aircraft and I would have no problems with us operating it however....
If BWOS are involved in any way at all - forget it! It will end up a disaster, and...
Whilst I wouldn't have an issue with the aircraft, I'm not sure that the MAA and the other 'safety' people wouldn't have an issue. After all, it is old technology.
I do hope that something can be sorted out soon. More importantly, it mustn't involve BWOS.
There have been many emotive comments about regenerating UK MPA capability, much of which are frankly rubbish. So let's examine, hopefully logically, a few of the issues:
What type of aircraft? The two most obvious options are a "high end spec" MPA, or a "low spec" option. For the first we are looking at something like the P-8, fully capable of carrying out the full range of MPA tasks, including autonomous ASW. For the second we are looking at something more like the CN-235, for a reduced number of roles. Which do you go for? Well it's the classic trade off between capability and cost. Does the military requirement call for an MPA that is capable of all roles - and can the budget afford it? Personally I think that if (AND IT'S A BIG IF!!) the UK gets back into the MPA role it will more likely at the lower spec end, purely on cost grounds. Maybe 5-6 CN-235s?
When? Everyone talks about the 2015 SDR being the decision point. Lets discuss that. First of all, it's the very earliest a decision would be made. But when will the 2015 SDR take place? The next UK general election is set for 7 May 2015. Personally I can't see the SDR taking place before the election, so we are talking mid to late 2015, assuming the Tories get back into power - if Labour win they aren't committed to holding an SDR that year, if at all, that was a Tory pledge. Assuming the current lot get back in, what will be the state of the nations finances? Well, their original plan was to halve the UK annual deficit by 2015. That now isn't going to happen until at least 2017, and Cameron and Osborne have both talked about austerity measures going on until at least 2020. So, money will still be very tight, no great extra pot of money is likely to be available. Given what I used to know about MOD procurement budgets, there used to be a 10 year core spending plan - if MPA provision isn't already in it then either more money will have to be found, or something else will have to go. In terms of "something else going", they are already talking about keeping Sentinel beyond 2015, which wasn't in the original plan, and will need to find it's own funding stream to continue, even more reason why funding for an MPA would be problematic. Most likely outcome in this scenario - put things off until the 2020 SDR? Finally, if some sort of MPA was ordered in late 2015, when would it arrive? Well, the Indians were due to receive their first P-8 3 years after their initial order, so, unless the US gives us priority in the production line, we are talking 3 years, 2018, for first aircraft delivery, more like 2020 until in service, maybe quicker for a lower spec aircraft.
Who will operate it? Firstly RAF or RN? I have no issues with the RN operating MPA, many navies around the world operate their nations MPA, and it makes logical sense. However, depending on the fleet size, and number of crew per aircraft, can the small FAA produce the number of aircrew that may be required in the relevant timescale? If the RN does operate any future UK MPA, it makes the RAF seedcorn initiative fairly pointless, which isn't in itself a reason not to do so. If the RAF do operate a future MPA, then who will they man it with, in terms of rearcrew? The seedcorn consists of WSOs and AEOps (I know they are all technically WSOps - but they have AEOp training and experience) with Nimrod experience. Well, we no longer have a WSO trade, we don't recruit or train, and the available pool will be pretty small by 2020, especially for an aircraft with a 20+ year lifespan. Start recruiting again? Is a training system for the very few that would be required cost effective? Do they do RN observer training prior to an RAF MPA OCU? Is the back end manned purely by SNCO aircrew (why not?). In terms of AEOps, once again the training system is closed (basically all WSOp training these days is effectively LM), and the vast majority of AEOps were made redundant. Start recruiting and training again?
So, in summary. We probably can't afford as a nation to go "high spec" MPA again. No decision will be made until at least 2015, at which point the country will still be broke, and we may have just had a change of government. If the decision was to proceed the earliest we are likely to have anything in service would be 2020. Neither the RAF or RN are particularly well placed to man any future MPA, although they would have a few years to prepare. The RAF have in place a seedcorn initiative of redundant trades who, while they might form the basis of an OCU staff, probably aren't sufficient in numbers, or young enough (average age of seedcorn personnel?), to provide any long term front line experience on a new aircraft - FTRS until 60 anyone?
All in all a pretty bleak picture - but some out there still believe.
See post 25 for my opinion of seedcorn - it represents little more than an excuse for ministers to say the capability can be quickly regenerated.
What type of aircraft? The two most obvious options are a "high end spec" MPA, or a "low spec" option. For the first we are looking at something like the P-8, fully capable of carrying out the full range of MPA tasks, including autonomous ASW. For the second we are looking at something more like the CN-235, for a reduced number of roles. Which do you go for? Well it's the classic trade off between capability and cost. Does the military requirement call for an MPA that is capable of all roles - and can the budget afford it? Personally I think that if (AND IT'S A BIG IF!!) the UK gets back into the MPA role it will more likely at the lower spec end, purely on cost grounds. Maybe 5-6 CN-235s?
When? Everyone talks about the 2015 SDR being the decision point. Lets discuss that. First of all, it's the very earliest a decision would be made. But when will the 2015 SDR take place? The next UK general election is set for 7 May 2015. Personally I can't see the SDR taking place before the election, so we are talking mid to late 2015, assuming the Tories get back into power - if Labour win they aren't committed to holding an SDR that year, if at all, that was a Tory pledge. Assuming the current lot get back in, what will be the state of the nations finances? Well, their original plan was to halve the UK annual deficit by 2015. That now isn't going to happen until at least 2017, and Cameron and Osborne have both talked about austerity measures going on until at least 2020. So, money will still be very tight, no great extra pot of money is likely to be available. Given what I used to know about MOD procurement budgets, there used to be a 10 year core spending plan - if MPA provision isn't already in it then either more money will have to be found, or something else will have to go. In terms of "something else going", they are already talking about keeping Sentinel beyond 2015, which wasn't in the original plan, and will need to find it's own funding stream to continue, even more reason why funding for an MPA would be problematic. Most likely outcome in this scenario - put things off until the 2020 SDR? Finally, if some sort of MPA was ordered in late 2015, when would it arrive? Well, the Indians were due to receive their first P-8 3 years after their initial order, so, unless the US gives us priority in the production line, we are talking 3 years, 2018, for first aircraft delivery, more like 2020 until in service, maybe quicker for a lower spec aircraft.
Who will operate it? Firstly RAF or RN? I have no issues with the RN operating MPA, many navies around the world operate their nations MPA, and it makes logical sense. However, depending on the fleet size, and number of crew per aircraft, can the small FAA produce the number of aircrew that may be required in the relevant timescale? If the RN does operate any future UK MPA, it makes the RAF seedcorn initiative fairly pointless, which isn't in itself a reason not to do so. If the RAF do operate a future MPA, then who will they man it with, in terms of rearcrew? The seedcorn consists of WSOs and AEOps (I know they are all technically WSOps - but they have AEOp training and experience) with Nimrod experience. Well, we no longer have a WSO trade, we don't recruit or train, and the available pool will be pretty small by 2020, especially for an aircraft with a 20+ year lifespan. Start recruiting again? Is a training system for the very few that would be required cost effective? Do they do RN observer training prior to an RAF MPA OCU? Is the back end manned purely by SNCO aircrew (why not?). In terms of AEOps, once again the training system is closed (basically all WSOp training these days is effectively LM), and the vast majority of AEOps were made redundant. Start recruiting and training again?
So, in summary. We probably can't afford as a nation to go "high spec" MPA again. No decision will be made until at least 2015, at which point the country will still be broke, and we may have just had a change of government. If the decision was to proceed the earliest we are likely to have anything in service would be 2020. Neither the RAF or RN are particularly well placed to man any future MPA, although they would have a few years to prepare. The RAF have in place a seedcorn initiative of redundant trades who, while they might form the basis of an OCU staff, probably aren't sufficient in numbers, or young enough (average age of seedcorn personnel?), to provide any long term front line experience on a new aircraft - FTRS until 60 anyone?
All in all a pretty bleak picture - but some out there still believe.
See post 25 for my opinion of seedcorn - it represents little more than an excuse for ministers to say the capability can be quickly regenerated.
Last edited by Biggus; 7th Mar 2013 at 12:19.
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 70
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
All in all a pretty bleak picture - but some out there still believe.
However tempting, and however much expectations have been raised by measures designed to soften the Nimrod blow, it is utter fantasy to believe that the UK is going to be able to afford to resurrect this capability in any shape or form.
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Norfolk
Posts: 1,057
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree - an excellent post by Biggus.
More to the point at the moment is the lack of long range SAR for me which no one really mentions but which in peacetime is a really key role for the platform.
Just how capable is P8 or 239 in this scenario ??
Arc
More to the point at the moment is the lack of long range SAR for me which no one really mentions but which in peacetime is a really key role for the platform.
Just how capable is P8 or 239 in this scenario ??
Arc
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Home alone
Posts: 295
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
it is utter fantasy to believe that the UK is going to be able to afford to resurrect this capability in any shape or form.
Biggus, you're getting confused between debt and deficit, my friend. The coalition's goal was to have eliminated the deficit and halved the national debt by 2015, which it has now pushed back to 17, after which budgets start to rise in line with economic growth...the single biggest reason the MoD was only guarenteed a 1% increase in its budget after 2015 was because no sane government would guarentee a bigger increases without knowing what the long term growth rate is going to be.
And by the looks of things, defence may well escape another hit, if the economy is growing at 2.5% a year after 2016, what reason is there to believe that all budgets wouldn't increase by 2% a year...we would still be paying down the debt, but departments would be seeing real increasing budgets!
The mood on the last few posts makes me want to hang myself, Jesus!
Last edited by Bastardeux; 7th Mar 2013 at 14:08.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 154
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
EGDG if you came across as not having a major chip on your shoulder then you may earn more credibility.
As for £22m its not much in the overall great scheme of things. What the seedcorn guys bring to the P8 programme will bring benefits to the UK, who do you think will be operating in our back yard in the time to come. The one thing that the UK were world leaders was MPA operations, Ops and Exercises have all the evidence of that over the years. Note I said MPA operations not just ASW. The experience our guys take to the programme can only lead to a better operated product.
If we want to talk about cash being wasted, then why not discuss A400M, Voyager, Astute, Type 45, Bowman and JSF to name but a few. How late and how much more than originally planned are these for starters. How much additional costs are there from changing the spec then changing it back to the original. Then there are all the little things, I went to a meeting once were some software was being discussed, the item was accepted into service with some known faults, I would expect these to be resolved by the manufacturer after all if you had a car and had an issue then it would be rectified. But no, thats not how MOD contracts work, the company charged for the software to be rectified. I stated that this was ridiculous only to be told that "its always been done this was", I saw it as being charged twice for a product. Total bollocks I know, but try multiplying this with the thousands of minor items like this and it all adds up. At least we get something back from seedcorn, even if its not hardware.
Ask the MOD how much it spends on so called specialist advisors, then we have the so called wet behind the ears ministerial advisors, having met some they had no life experience and very little if any practical experience on the subject matter. How many times do you see an article on defence that you know it total spin and blantantly misleading.
So EGDG why dont you go off and have and immature rant on some of those subjects, or just come clean on what you do and why the chip on your shoulder.
As for £22m its not much in the overall great scheme of things. What the seedcorn guys bring to the P8 programme will bring benefits to the UK, who do you think will be operating in our back yard in the time to come. The one thing that the UK were world leaders was MPA operations, Ops and Exercises have all the evidence of that over the years. Note I said MPA operations not just ASW. The experience our guys take to the programme can only lead to a better operated product.
If we want to talk about cash being wasted, then why not discuss A400M, Voyager, Astute, Type 45, Bowman and JSF to name but a few. How late and how much more than originally planned are these for starters. How much additional costs are there from changing the spec then changing it back to the original. Then there are all the little things, I went to a meeting once were some software was being discussed, the item was accepted into service with some known faults, I would expect these to be resolved by the manufacturer after all if you had a car and had an issue then it would be rectified. But no, thats not how MOD contracts work, the company charged for the software to be rectified. I stated that this was ridiculous only to be told that "its always been done this was", I saw it as being charged twice for a product. Total bollocks I know, but try multiplying this with the thousands of minor items like this and it all adds up. At least we get something back from seedcorn, even if its not hardware.
Ask the MOD how much it spends on so called specialist advisors, then we have the so called wet behind the ears ministerial advisors, having met some they had no life experience and very little if any practical experience on the subject matter. How many times do you see an article on defence that you know it total spin and blantantly misleading.
So EGDG why dont you go off and have and immature rant on some of those subjects, or just come clean on what you do and why the chip on your shoulder.
Last edited by Hoots; 7th Mar 2013 at 14:31.
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 70
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry Bastardeux but I can't agree. Military equipment inflation will eat up a 2% increase in defence spending and then some. See the F35 thread for further details! Wage inflation (because at some point the pay freeze/chill will end) will do the same with the other big element of the budget - the people. Even a 2% real terms increase will see us cut numbers or outright capabilities, not add new ones. And we are a long way off a 2% real terms increase.
Pessimistic maybe, but you have to face facts.
Pessimistic maybe, but you have to face facts.
Last edited by Jacks Down; 7th Mar 2013 at 14:30.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 1,515
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
we're 3 years out of the worst recession we've experienced since the end of WW1
I'm sure we all salute Bastardeux and his admirable optimism...but back to reality for one moment.
Biggus, nice post and spot on re Seedcorn.
I don't think anybody is big headed or arrogant enough to say never will we have another MPA, but those with a firm grasp of reality understand it is a dim and distant prospect at best.
Trying to talk it up has something of the King Canute about it.
PS
In case you are wondering...
The recession trough was over five years ago.
We were still in it one year ago (and probably, we are in it still)
The worst recession in the last 100 years took place after WW1 and was a sh1tload worse than the current one.
Last edited by The Old Fat One; 7th Mar 2013 at 14:45.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Temporarily missing from the Joe Louis Arena
Posts: 2,131
Received 27 Likes
on
16 Posts
....let the RN keep it as their core business.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 1,515
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hoots,
I can well imagine why you are being defensive about Seedcorn (although methinks thou dost protest too much), but many believe the wider MPA debate trumps a wee bit 'o vested interest.
However, if you want a grown up rationale on Seedcorn, read on...
Operating an MPA takes a number of skills, specifically:
Maritime Ops knowledge...Seedcorn not required, RN has this in abundance.
Piloting skills...Seedcorn not required, RAF quite good at this.
Generic sensor skills...Seedcorn might help a wee bit, but most of this stuff is taught in basic flying training schools, like what was NAAS (or AEELS in my day).
Specific aircraft skills...Again Seedcorn might help a wee bit, if we end up with something similar, but plenty of new aircraft have been brought into service throughout the history of the RAF without any such Seedcorn type project.
Here's a none Seedcorn route back to capability.
Buy/lease some ac (for arguments sake let's say P8)
Buy some training off the spams...ie send two crews (mixed RN/RAF whatever) out to the States and run them through an OCU.
Bring them back and they kick off an OCU whatever.
Point is it's not rocket science...it's pretty bloody obvious and that's why Seedcorn has obviously had a political edge to it from day one.
I'm a gambling man...I'll give you evens, they will come home at the end of their tours and it will be allowed to quietly whither.
And you know what, I really, really hope I'm wrong.
I can well imagine why you are being defensive about Seedcorn (although methinks thou dost protest too much), but many believe the wider MPA debate trumps a wee bit 'o vested interest.
However, if you want a grown up rationale on Seedcorn, read on...
Operating an MPA takes a number of skills, specifically:
Maritime Ops knowledge...Seedcorn not required, RN has this in abundance.
Piloting skills...Seedcorn not required, RAF quite good at this.
Generic sensor skills...Seedcorn might help a wee bit, but most of this stuff is taught in basic flying training schools, like what was NAAS (or AEELS in my day).
Specific aircraft skills...Again Seedcorn might help a wee bit, if we end up with something similar, but plenty of new aircraft have been brought into service throughout the history of the RAF without any such Seedcorn type project.
Here's a none Seedcorn route back to capability.
Buy/lease some ac (for arguments sake let's say P8)
Buy some training off the spams...ie send two crews (mixed RN/RAF whatever) out to the States and run them through an OCU.
Bring them back and they kick off an OCU whatever.
Point is it's not rocket science...it's pretty bloody obvious and that's why Seedcorn has obviously had a political edge to it from day one.
I'm a gambling man...I'll give you evens, they will come home at the end of their tours and it will be allowed to quietly whither.
And you know what, I really, really hope I'm wrong.
Last edited by The Old Fat One; 7th Mar 2013 at 15:09.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 154
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thats a bit more reasonable egdg, however what we need is the younger guys to get experience now from the older ones, which is whats happening to a degree. Not all seedcorn guys are due to be retired in 10 years time. I do think the RN has something to offer, hence the reason that RAF rearcrew are possibly going to be utilising RN facilities in future. Of course rearcrew were not forgotten about much when MFTS was thought of.
I will be surprised if we get a MPA replacement within the next 10 years if at all. But dont rule out future simulator instructors, ground instructors etc with current modern MPA experience if we do get one. What we can not afford is an interservice bun fight, which sadly I see far too often. Although I have also seen inter-cap badge fights also in todays climate with each fighting to take over jobs to preserve their corps identity. I know I will be accused of bias, but from what I have witnessed recently the RN and Army need to embrace jointness and not fight to take over jobs which will just cause the barriers to up.
I agree with you old fat one, but if you ask me joint is the way forward, as an aside Im not on seedorn, just expressing my view as an ex MPA person
I will be surprised if we get a MPA replacement within the next 10 years if at all. But dont rule out future simulator instructors, ground instructors etc with current modern MPA experience if we do get one. What we can not afford is an interservice bun fight, which sadly I see far too often. Although I have also seen inter-cap badge fights also in todays climate with each fighting to take over jobs to preserve their corps identity. I know I will be accused of bias, but from what I have witnessed recently the RN and Army need to embrace jointness and not fight to take over jobs which will just cause the barriers to up.
I agree with you old fat one, but if you ask me joint is the way forward, as an aside Im not on seedorn, just expressing my view as an ex MPA person
Last edited by Hoots; 7th Mar 2013 at 15:14.
Bastardeux,
I'm afraid you're the one that's confused. The coalition was attempting to halve the national annual deficit, from £160 Bn odd a year down to something like £80 Bn a year. See the first graph in this article for recent annual deficits:
Deficit, national debt and government borrowing - how has it changed since 1946? | News | guardian.co.uk
However, even if they had achieved that, then over 5 years the national debt would have gone up by say £160Bn + £130Bn + £110Bn + £95Bn + £80 Bn. They won't even manage that, the situation is worse than planned and all the while the national debt continues to rack up:
UK National Debt - Economics Blog
It's current about £1,145 Bn and rising every year:
UK National Debt Clock - No-nonsense Guide to Britain's Debt Crisis
The coalition had no ambitions to halve the national debt, that would have been impossible!! That would require us to have annual budget surpluses and pay off some of the national debt!!
With regard to the national debt, the major economic issue is what percentage of GDP it represents, most countries owe say 40% of their GDP, when that figure rises significantly markets get very twitchy, and borrowing becomes very expensive. The coalition might well have been attempting to reduce the growth of the national debt (by bringing down annual deficits), while hopefully expanding the size of the economy so that the overall debt when measured as a % of GDP decreased, even though the actual size of the debt had still increased!! However, their main stated aim was halving the annual deficit!!
I'm afraid you're the one that's confused. The coalition was attempting to halve the national annual deficit, from £160 Bn odd a year down to something like £80 Bn a year. See the first graph in this article for recent annual deficits:
Deficit, national debt and government borrowing - how has it changed since 1946? | News | guardian.co.uk
However, even if they had achieved that, then over 5 years the national debt would have gone up by say £160Bn + £130Bn + £110Bn + £95Bn + £80 Bn. They won't even manage that, the situation is worse than planned and all the while the national debt continues to rack up:
UK National Debt - Economics Blog
It's current about £1,145 Bn and rising every year:
UK National Debt Clock - No-nonsense Guide to Britain's Debt Crisis
The coalition had no ambitions to halve the national debt, that would have been impossible!! That would require us to have annual budget surpluses and pay off some of the national debt!!
With regard to the national debt, the major economic issue is what percentage of GDP it represents, most countries owe say 40% of their GDP, when that figure rises significantly markets get very twitchy, and borrowing becomes very expensive. The coalition might well have been attempting to reduce the growth of the national debt (by bringing down annual deficits), while hopefully expanding the size of the economy so that the overall debt when measured as a % of GDP decreased, even though the actual size of the debt had still increased!! However, their main stated aim was halving the annual deficit!!
Last edited by Biggus; 7th Mar 2013 at 15:27.
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Home alone
Posts: 295
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Three factual errors in one sentence. Good effort
I'm not here to wave dicks about economics; my argument was not to let the financial situation of what is 5 years in the 300 year history of the United Kingdom lead you to believe that as a country surrounded by water on all 4 sides, we aren't ever going to be able to find £2billion? a year out of a £680 national budget, to spend on regenerating a MPA capability. I'm not in anyway suggesting it's starting back up in 2014, but the early 2020s? Perhaps.
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Hertfordshire
Age: 74
Posts: 133
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
http://www.pprune.org/military-aircr...ml#post7709650
A link to my post in another thread that may be pertinent to the discussion of future MPA options. Apologies if it has already been debated in this thread.
LF
A link to my post in another thread that may be pertinent to the discussion of future MPA options. Apologies if it has already been debated in this thread.
LF
egdg
Fella.
Same could be said about the RN keeping people fast jet qual'd / deck current for F35/QEII operations (using a launch/land system that won't even be on our carriers....). And when are the Carriers expected ..... 2017? 2018? 2019?
I doubt he even knows the meaning of seedcorn, nor given the amounts involved, is even interested in it. Bigger fish (heads) to fry! 
Fella.
the RAF has memories of those type of Ops, they were good at them,possibly the best.......but Seedcorn! Forget it, maybe 2015 would have justified it, but like everybody seems to acknowledge, the guys will be too old to start up the generic/ specialist/ conversion/ PFA side of things- let alone a bit thin on numbers.
Seedcorn is likely to go the day Ed moves in.
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Home alone
Posts: 295
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Biggus, I'm sorry I didn't see your post.
The coalition's policy from 2010 was always to eliminate the budget deficit by 2014/15, which has now been pushed to 2015/16
BBC News - UK economy: Deficit
This again, isn't true I'm afraid, the original plan was always to have national debt falling after 2013/14, which like the deficit elimination, has been pushed back by a year. It is possible to have a deficit and see debt falling in the short run, so long as government bonds reaching maturity are cumulatively worth more than the deficit.
Admittadly, I got overzealous in claiming that the government would half the national debt by 2015, but you'll find that as soon as a surplus is reached, debt can fall very rapidly yada yada yada
The coalition's policy from 2010 was always to eliminate the budget deficit by 2014/15, which has now been pushed to 2015/16
BBC News - UK economy: Deficit
However, even if they had achieved that, then over 5 years the national debt would have gone up by say £160Bn + £130Bn + £110Bn + £95Bn + £80 Bn
Admittadly, I got overzealous in claiming that the government would half the national debt by 2015, but you'll find that as soon as a surplus is reached, debt can fall very rapidly yada yada yada