Future UK Maritime Requirement to remain a secret
Cause and Effect. There is no money because Mr Brown and that nice Mr Blair before him have spent it all trying to buy votes. Something has to give. Take a deep breath, accept that it has happened - constant harping will not change things.
Much as I detest Blair, demonstrably the problems started before he took power. Policy after policy encouraged wanton waste in MoD on a grand scale; supported with gusto by the Nimrod 2 Star, CDP, the RAF Chief Engineer and more. Not once was I ever short of funding to pay a fair and reasonable price for a project I initiated; and not once did I breach that limit. The trick is agreeing the requirement and a fair and reasonable price for it in the first place; the dismantling of the sections who specialised in this was one of the above wasteful policies. Had RMPA and AML simply followed mandated rules, a new platform would have been selected and been in service for the last 10 years.
You are right; what is done is done. But unless someone harps on about it, those now in power won't be able to learn from successes; it seems they are already incapable of learning from mistakes.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Somewhere flat
Age: 68
Posts: 5,566
Likes: 0
Received 45 Likes
on
30 Posts
Some of us care about the maritime security of our island nation! If it is of no interest to YOU then FOXTROT OSCAR and don't read the thread
Something has to give
By all means sack BAe, but to simply walk away from the capability is little short of negligence.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Glasgow
Age: 61
Posts: 909
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A question for you all.
We talk about protection of UK shorelines, coastlines and seas. What do we do if we are already "contaminated" within our shores, on our home land? Is there any point protecting our shores? After all, the damage is already done
We talk about protection of UK shorelines, coastlines and seas. What do we do if we are already "contaminated" within our shores, on our home land? Is there any point protecting our shores? After all, the damage is already done
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Somewhere flat
Age: 68
Posts: 5,566
Likes: 0
Received 45 Likes
on
30 Posts
By all means sack BAe, but to simply walk away from the capability is little short of negligence.
Yes, the loss of capability is a great concern, but the lack of a quick/cheap way ahead gave the Gov't little option within the budgetry constraints which were not of their making - its not really negligence in the true sence of the word.
There I go, adding this point once more to a similar thread yet again..... Its a bit like "Dave" on digital television: there are some really good programmes, but I don't want to watch the 5th repeat in a week.....
Russian Strategic Subs to Resume Routine World Patrols | Defense | RIA Novosti
February 4 (RIA Novosti)
Russian strategic nuclear submarines will resume routine extended patrols in international waters around the world in June 2012, Russian Navy Commander Adm. Vladimir Vysotsky said.
“On June 1 or a bit later we will resume constant patrolling of the world’s oceans by strategic nuclear submarines,” Vysotsky said at a meeting with naval personnel on Friday.
The annual number of extended patrols performed by Russian strategic nuclear submarines and nuclear-powered attack submarines has dropped from more than 230 in 1984 to less than 10 today.
The Russian military believes, though, that the submarine fleet is still the backbone of the Russian Navy, and that it will continue to play an important deterrent role in the future.
Russian strategic nuclear submarines will resume routine extended patrols in international waters around the world in June 2012, Russian Navy Commander Adm. Vladimir Vysotsky said.
“On June 1 or a bit later we will resume constant patrolling of the world’s oceans by strategic nuclear submarines,” Vysotsky said at a meeting with naval personnel on Friday.
The annual number of extended patrols performed by Russian strategic nuclear submarines and nuclear-powered attack submarines has dropped from more than 230 in 1984 to less than 10 today.
The Russian military believes, though, that the submarine fleet is still the backbone of the Russian Navy, and that it will continue to play an important deterrent role in the future.
Teej
That's an interesting thread.
All
So just how was a fleet of a dozen or so MRA4s going to monitor GLOBAL Russian submarine patrols? Also, with the range of their missiles, just how important is it to know where all of the submarines are close to our "island nation"? That's the value of our bombers surely, and the RN have already said that they can manage with SK ASW, DDs and FFs. Also, the Argies don't have a big fleet at present, so maritime recce isn't exactly tricky!
So far, we seem to be managing without MR2 and MRA4 in these days of £1tn deficit (thanks to Bliar and Broon) - so is it such a world shattering loss that we don't have an MPA for now? There are other ways of watching subs and also providing LRSAR.
Unless, of course you're one of the poor souls that have lost the job that you thought was there for life. Sadly, it os either time to move to a new fleet or suck up redundancy.
Finally, I'm pretty sure there are bigger skeletons in the Coallition Govt's closet than the cancellation of a late, over budget, under performing asset that we can live without for now.
LJ
That's an interesting thread.
All
So just how was a fleet of a dozen or so MRA4s going to monitor GLOBAL Russian submarine patrols? Also, with the range of their missiles, just how important is it to know where all of the submarines are close to our "island nation"? That's the value of our bombers surely, and the RN have already said that they can manage with SK ASW, DDs and FFs. Also, the Argies don't have a big fleet at present, so maritime recce isn't exactly tricky!
So far, we seem to be managing without MR2 and MRA4 in these days of £1tn deficit (thanks to Bliar and Broon) - so is it such a world shattering loss that we don't have an MPA for now? There are other ways of watching subs and also providing LRSAR.
Unless, of course you're one of the poor souls that have lost the job that you thought was there for life. Sadly, it os either time to move to a new fleet or suck up redundancy.
Finally, I'm pretty sure there are bigger skeletons in the Coallition Govt's closet than the cancellation of a late, over budget, under performing asset that we can live without for now.
LJ
Leon,
while your logic is entirely reasonable, i would question its basis.
do we really believe that the Navy would give any answer other than 'we can manage' to questions about the security of the SSBN programme - both from an operational point of view and a political one?
if the Navy was genuinely, seriously concerned that the integrity of the SSBN concept had been compromised by the loss of Nimrods capability and the susbsequent reliance on FFG/ RW ASW, do you really believe thay would make such a concern public?
likewise, if a problem with Typhoon's AIM-120's was discovered, compromising the whole of the UK's AD capability, do you believe that the RAF would make it public?
i don't, and i don't believe RN statements to the contrary, much like i don't believe senior Army officers saying they've got enough troops and helicopters in Helmand, or senior crabs saying they've got enough Typhoon/GR4, Tankers, AWACS, ELINT, or transport to cope with the myriad demands placed upon them by our glorious political class.
while your logic is entirely reasonable, i would question its basis.
do we really believe that the Navy would give any answer other than 'we can manage' to questions about the security of the SSBN programme - both from an operational point of view and a political one?
if the Navy was genuinely, seriously concerned that the integrity of the SSBN concept had been compromised by the loss of Nimrods capability and the susbsequent reliance on FFG/ RW ASW, do you really believe thay would make such a concern public?
likewise, if a problem with Typhoon's AIM-120's was discovered, compromising the whole of the UK's AD capability, do you believe that the RAF would make it public?
i don't, and i don't believe RN statements to the contrary, much like i don't believe senior Army officers saying they've got enough troops and helicopters in Helmand, or senior crabs saying they've got enough Typhoon/GR4, Tankers, AWACS, ELINT, or transport to cope with the myriad demands placed upon them by our glorious political class.
More bang for your buck
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: land of the clanger
Age: 82
Posts: 3,512
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I suspect that a modern version of SOSUS would be/is a lot cheaper than a fleet of MPAs, and who knows for certain the capabilities of Argo floats. And of course there are surveillance drones that can stay airborne for days.
Or we could just rely on our European brethren to come and fill the gaps when a foreign SSN comes round the corner to play.
France - sorry can't come.
Germany - ditto.
USA - we can be there in two weeks.
Not quite good enough when you've got Boomers to protect.
France - sorry can't come.
Germany - ditto.
USA - we can be there in two weeks.
Not quite good enough when you've got Boomers to protect.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
Leon/GG
The UK MPA never pretended to patrol the whole of the Atlantic but was part of the multi-national effort. Assuming the Nimrod 2000 (sic) was better than the Nimrod 2 by a factor of 2 then the proposed numbers would have been sufficient.
GG
SOSUS usually knew where the submarines were and generally which boat was which. Even a greatly improved version would only have increased the accuracy of the where and what. The whole ASW mission is also to deter and if required destroy.
The lack of a high speed and accurate delivery system creates a hole in the total coverage.
The UK MPA never pretended to patrol the whole of the Atlantic but was part of the multi-national effort. Assuming the Nimrod 2000 (sic) was better than the Nimrod 2 by a factor of 2 then the proposed numbers would have been sufficient.
GG
SOSUS usually knew where the submarines were and generally which boat was which. Even a greatly improved version would only have increased the accuracy of the where and what. The whole ASW mission is also to deter and if required destroy.
The lack of a high speed and accurate delivery system creates a hole in the total coverage.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: St Annes
Age: 68
Posts: 638
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So far, we seem to be managing without MR2 and MRA4 in these days of £1tn deficit (thanks to Bliar and Broon) - so is it such a world shattering loss that we don't have an MPA for now?
Dave
*Except for those times I watched US P3's operating from Kinloss due to the total lack of UK MPA, of course...funny how the RN didn't tell them to go home as they weren't required....
*Except for those times I watched US P3's operating from Kinloss due to the total lack of UK MPA, of course...funny how the RN didn't tell them to go home as they weren't required....
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Europe
Posts: 414
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Leon, most of the guys and girls did not get the opportunity to go to another fleet; almost all of the rest of your post has been discussed on previous threads. I can't argue with your logic, we do not need MPA because we have not used them since we got rid of them, genius 
There are many roles and missions we would have used an MPA (Long range multi sensor platform) for since the MR2s demise, it has and does leave a gaping hole in our daily defence capabilities at home and globally.
GG very wrong I'm afraid
There are many roles and missions we would have used an MPA (Long range multi sensor platform) for since the MR2s demise, it has and does leave a gaping hole in our daily defence capabilities at home and globally.GG very wrong I'm afraid
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: The real world
Posts: 446
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think the point is and in case you have not noticed we are broke, brassic, skint!
Buying or paying for an expensive insurance policy isn't top priority right now.
Have a good time to those lucky ones on seedcorn, not conviced you will come back to anything different though.
Buying or paying for an expensive insurance policy isn't top priority right now.
Have a good time to those lucky ones on seedcorn, not conviced you will come back to anything different though.
Thread Starter
Buying or paying for an expensive insurance policy isn't top priority right now.
You're wrong; the military is the politicians insurance policy.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: South of England
Age: 74
Posts: 627
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
4 Posts
Take a look at HQ's initial post:
".....Now I'm not one for conspiracy theories, but is it possible there has been an awkward, embarrassing discovery? or could this be characterised as a normal process?"
There could have been an awkward, embarrassing discovery. However, for the MOD to withhold the results of a capability review, notwithstanding all the surrounding public opinions, is and always has been a normal process. Duh!
".....Now I'm not one for conspiracy theories, but is it possible there has been an awkward, embarrassing discovery? or could this be characterised as a normal process?"
There could have been an awkward, embarrassing discovery. However, for the MOD to withhold the results of a capability review, notwithstanding all the surrounding public opinions, is and always has been a normal process. Duh!
Jayand - exactly
We are skint, can't afford anything right now, we've got away with it so far (2 years IIRC), we've got a plan (well seedcorn and some "studies" on what we might do in the future) and we've not got a white elephant like MRA4 hanging around our necks sapping the defence budget even more.
As for long range multi ISTAR we've got other assets for that which doesn't involve putting 12-14 people over a target area to do the job of 2 people remotely can do. Plus it can strike if required. The use of MR2 in the overland ISTAR role was a lash-up job that went on far too long for what was supposed to be a stop gap - it cost some very good people their lives.
LJ
We are skint, can't afford anything right now, we've got away with it so far (2 years IIRC), we've got a plan (well seedcorn and some "studies" on what we might do in the future) and we've not got a white elephant like MRA4 hanging around our necks sapping the defence budget even more.
As for long range multi ISTAR we've got other assets for that which doesn't involve putting 12-14 people over a target area to do the job of 2 people remotely can do. Plus it can strike if required. The use of MR2 in the overland ISTAR role was a lash-up job that went on far too long for what was supposed to be a stop gap - it cost some very good people their lives.
LJ
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
aislinn, please credit DaveJB with the ability to recognise an Orion from an Aurora.
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: U.K.
Posts: 459
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Looking at it from a fianacial point of view, a huge amount of money was spent developing and building the Nimrod, then reskinning the early models, then again with the mk4. If we had taken the Atlantique option we would have had many more units on task in a superb maritime aircraft at a fraction of the cost and would be able to afford a maritime fleet now. I had two tours on Shacks, one on the Nimrod. A high point on my career was being banned by Wingco ops from speaking to visiting VIPs expressing the above opinion.