Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Aircrew Forums > Military Aviation
Reload this Page >

Future UK Maritime Requirement to remain a secret

Military Aviation A forum for the professionals who fly military hardware. Also for the backroom boys and girls who support the flying and maintain the equipment, and without whom nothing would ever leave the ground. All armies, navies and air forces of the world equally welcome here.

Future UK Maritime Requirement to remain a secret

Old 9th Feb 2012, 09:58
  #61 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: home: United Kingdom
Posts: 781
Well, no UK FW with SAR kit does it.

And if the Nimrod topcover didn't launch, the helo would still go.

Duncs
Duncan D'Sorderlee is offline  
Old 9th Feb 2012, 10:07
  #62 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: The Roman Empire
Posts: 2,334
Would it?

Or would something else be arranged/planned that you weren't aware of?

e.g. BBC News - Stornoway helicopter in long range fisherman rescue

Last edited by Biggus; 9th Feb 2012 at 10:19.
Biggus is offline  
Old 9th Feb 2012, 10:15
  #63 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: home: United Kingdom
Posts: 781
Biggus,

I think that we are in danger of taking this thread off at a tangent. All I am trying to say is that the speed of any replacement MPA is only one of a number of factors that has to be taken into account - and that it, IMHO, is not the major factor. I would rather see a slightly slower ac, with the correct kit, crew constituion, training and tactics etc than a very fast ac unable to complete the task.

That said, in the good old days when the SAR helos went out in twos, if the topcover Nimrod went u/s on start or ONSTA, they still went. There was nothing that I was aware of on RS60 (or quicker) to provide any other support. If you know of something else, I'd be interested to hear of it - off line if necessary.

Duncs

PS. Nice link. I was aware of HMCG; I was thinking along military lines - oops, that will teach me. However, it does illustrate that point that, if the FW goes u/s, the helo will crack on and do the job; albeit with less of a warm fuzzy feeling that they are being looked after.

Last edited by Duncan D'Sorderlee; 9th Feb 2012 at 11:12.
Duncan D'Sorderlee is offline  
Old 9th Feb 2012, 10:23
  #64 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: The Roman Empire
Posts: 2,334
DD,

I'm not interested in getting into a p*ssing contest - all I'm trying to do is ensure that people are discussing the situation with as accurate as possible information.

In terms of the requirement for a future MPA, you stated that top cover for SAR helos either isn't happening, or isn't important. All I was trying to do is correct that statement, by pointing out that it is, and it is!!


Enjoy the rest of the thread!
Biggus is offline  
Old 9th Feb 2012, 10:32
  #65 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: SWAPS Inner
Posts: 542
Thank you Pontious. I believe it was only 2, didn't know about those reasons, just remember seeing a picture of crews sitting on top of floating Atlantiques - who needs liferafts?
thunderbird7 is offline  
Old 9th Feb 2012, 10:38
  #66 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: home: United Kingdom
Posts: 781
Biggus,

Happy to be corrected. Moreover, I am certain that whatever platform is carrying out the task, they are doing it as professionally as an MR2 crew would have done.

However, my original point was that, generally, speed is not the limiting factor and that whilst topcover was an important part of Nimrod SAR role, I remain unconvinced that the time taken for an ac (any ac) to get ONSTA would have made a great deal of difference to the job. If it was the case, surely it would be equally important to ensure that our SAR cabs were the fastest available - I'm not sure that they are.

Duncs
Duncan D'Sorderlee is offline  
Old 9th Feb 2012, 10:50
  #67 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: The real world
Posts: 447
The big problem here is that the jobs the MR2 used to do were so diverse, it might have been harder to bin it if they layed all their eggs in one basket.
People are arguing on here now about SAR topcover, The government binned nimrod when the main argument was defence of the Nuke subs, ASW. then they argued that we need it for anti shipping and anti terrorist jobs, overland istar etc.
If you are hinging your argument for an MPA replacement on the need for SAR topcover then you have lost already (prob have whatever argument).
Speak to the SAR crews, and they will tell you whilst they liked nimrod present on long range jobs they would quite happily go without one and very often did.
Jayand is offline  
Old 9th Feb 2012, 10:56
  #68 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: YES
Posts: 779
with SAR about to be civilianised who will be responsible for the top cover then? could we see the coastguard having to operate an MPA?
NURSE is offline  
Old 9th Feb 2012, 11:06
  #69 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: home: United Kingdom
Posts: 781
Jayand,

A fair point - highlighted by DCINC Ops as well! (is that you?)

Topcover was only brought up as one instance whereby speed might be deemed important. I am trying to argue that speed is only one of a multitude of factors that needs to be addressed (I think that, realistically, the most important is cost!) when discussing any future MPA requirement.

Nurse,

Why not? USCG operates MPA. I'm not convinced that we could afford both the military and civil capability; but if there is no ASW threat, surveillance does, in my opinion, become an easier (cheaper) problem to solve.

Duncs.
Duncan D'Sorderlee is offline  
Old 9th Feb 2012, 12:00
  #70 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: SE
Posts: 63
Does the UK have any "military secrets" anymore? I think not given that several successive Governments have sold off our technology on the open market.

The UK is beholden to the USA to maintain our Trident nuclear deterrant. If the USA decided to part company with the UK (Highly likely if Argentina get nasty) then our SSBN's will become ineffective within 12 months or so.

There is an imminent US election & Obama will (thankfully) be gone. That will leave a power vacuum, filled by any one of the power mad idiots who can bring in the money. ...

2012 brings severe dangers to the world with the US elections allowing several "good ole' boys" from the deep south to be elected.

Sadly, this world can do without them. We could, of course, treat them like Bin Laden & ask Mossad to assasinate them before they cause International damage - but that ain't goin to happen

Good ole' USA - try extraditing me today - A Challenge
SAMXXV is offline  
Old 9th Feb 2012, 12:05
  #71 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: home: United Kingdom
Posts: 781
And I thought that I was dragging the thread off at a tangent!

Duncs
Duncan D'Sorderlee is offline  
Old 9th Feb 2012, 12:16
  #72 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: MARS
Posts: 1,035
jayand has hit the nail on the head. Every discussion about Nimrod ends up talking about SAR. Every paper written, had SAR featuring high and proud at the top. SAR was NOT the most important issue and should always be placed at the bottom of any argument for MPA otherwise, the capability gets cut, because there are other options. Concentrate on the things that only Militray MPAs can do and work from there.
Widger is offline  
Old 9th Feb 2012, 14:33
  #73 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: home: United Kingdom
Posts: 781
Widger,

You are correct that SAR is not, nor should it be, the highest priority for a military MPA. Although, whilst other options for that are available, I am not aware of any asset providing any sort of SAR cover at the extremities of the UK AOR - I standby to be corrected again!

That said, SAR does provide a high degree of media interest. More than any other tasking, I'd suggest.

I think that the capability requirement, or lack thereof, needs to be determined; we need to determine how much cash the Treasury will give us in order that we can realistically determine the options; then tell HMG what capability we would then posses with our preferential bid. It'll never happen.

Duncs
Duncan D'Sorderlee is offline  
Old 9th Feb 2012, 15:23
  #74 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 605
Sadly the RMPA situation gets worse as time goes on. I genuinely think Foxy understood the need for some form of MPA and would have been a good supporter when the MOD budget was back on line. Unfortunately, we now have a bean counter in charge who I'm sure will get the defence account in order but will probably resist any big ticket expenditures over the next 5 years. Additionally, the initial coalition predictions were that UK plc would be back on some form of economic track by 2015 and our next SDSR. This would probably have been the make or break point for a RMPA. With Foxy pushing and a little easing of finances, we stood a chance. Now the govt are slipping our economic recovery date to the right, we may realistically face a 2015 SDSR with even less money to manage and yet further cuts in capabilities.

Sorry to be a pessimist on here but I just can't see anything good wrt any form of MPA for at least a decade and maybe never again.
Party Animal is online now  
Old 9th Feb 2012, 15:55
  #75 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Texas
Age: 60
Posts: 5,446
A comment on this:
That said, SAR does provide a high degree of media interest. More than any other tasking, I'd suggest.
It isn't just media interest, it is political capital when you can provide a menu of support to a search and rescue operation in international waters, or to support a nation who is overwhelmed by a maritime catastrophe, or a rapid response is needed in international waters. (As an MPA SAR support to the AF447 crash ...)

It's not just PR, it's political capital.
==
The rest may not be of interest to MPA or SAR, but Sam needs correcting.
Sam:
The UK is beholden to the USA to maintain our Trident nuclear deterrant. If the USA decided to part company with the UK (Highly likely if Argentina get nasty) then our SSBN's will become ineffective within 12 months or so.
Not even close to true. Where do you come up with this stuff?
There is an imminent US election & Obama will (thankfully) be gone. That will leave a power vacuum, filled by any one of the power mad idiots who can bring in the money. ...
Not quite, Sam.
A. He may well get re-elected, as his opponents are doing his job for him, in terms of self-discrediting. (In that, your "idiots charge" has some merit).
B. But if he does not, our typical replacement of one President with another does NOT create a power vacuum. To describe American pols with the broad brush of "power mad idiots" is only partly true: if you didn't want power, you'd not be a politician. I don't think Romney is an idiot, though a few of the GOP in the hunt leave me unsettled. (Sorry about the derail)
That doesn't influence MPA much, however.
2012 brings severe dangers to the world with the US elections allowing several "good ole' boys" from the deep south to be elected.
Not likely. Santorum and Romney at the moment are looking electable, and Gingrich is hardly a "good ole boy" from the South.
Sadly, this world can do without them.
The world doesn't get a choice, American voters do. Deal with it.
We could, of course, treat them like Bin Laden & ask Mossad to assasinate them before they cause
Good luck with that, Sam, and if your post gets reported to FBI or Secret Service, do you think they'll have a sense of humor about it?
Lonewolf_50 is offline  
Old 9th Feb 2012, 16:29
  #76 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: home: United Kingdom
Posts: 781
Lonewolf 50,

I'd ignore Sam; most other do.

Good point about the FBI/SS though; you got any contacts?

Duncs
Duncan D'Sorderlee is offline  
Old 9th Feb 2012, 17:50
  #77 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Lancashire
Age: 71
Posts: 29
Defence Committee Enquiry into Maritime Surveillance

Looks like the House of Commons Defence Select Committee will be interested in some of this discussion. New inquiry: Future Maritime Surveillance - News from Parliament - UK Parliament

EG
Eminence Gris is offline  
Old 9th Feb 2012, 20:28
  #78 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: The Roman Empire
Posts: 2,334
I don't want to keep going on about SAR, as other people have pointed out SAR is a relatively minor, but easy to discuss openly with the public, role of any MPA. The UK has to decide what, if any, capabilities any future MPA requires. The highly specialized, complex and expensive capability of doing independent ASW, so we are talking a P-3, P-8 type aircraft, or a more limited economic zone surface surveillance type role, as fulfilled by something like a CN-235. A much more affordable option. Both types would be more than capable of undertaking SAR tasks...

However,......

As I have said before, I prefer it if people are discussing things based on facts, so I would offer the following input.

SAR is not just a "nice to have", a source of media interest, and political capital. At the end of the day, providing some form of SAR coverage out to 30W is an obligation of the UK government under international treaty, not just something we can simply decide to do or not do as required by the need to save money. I'm sure numerous governments around the world fail to fulfil obligations they have agreed to, perhaps even our own in some areas, but one would assume our politicians of all parties would want the UK to be setting a good example in order to maintain the moral high ground?
Biggus is offline  
Old 9th Feb 2012, 20:44
  #79 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Texas
Age: 60
Posts: 5,446
Biggus: that's a good point, about what has been signed up for via a legal obligation. Whether or not MPA is the platform you use to meet that obligation is a policy level decision.

OT, but possibly of interest For Duncan:

If you go to www.secretservice.gov, you can find a lot of ways to easily contact the security folks if you overhear or suspect a threat against the President, a judge, a Senator, ambassador, or a foreign official who may visit the US. You call the local field office, or a contact number.

If you were in a pub, say, in London, and heard someone discussing (hypothetical here) the First Sea Lord's upcoming visit to Washington (to discuss Naval stuff with his US counterpart, or some conference) and didn't like the tone of voice regarding "the surprise he was in for" or something that made the hair on the back of your neck stand up ... you can (this is all publicly available information) contact someone at a field office.
United States Secret Service: Field Office Contact Information
For each of the 50 states, they are listed at the link.

I was interested to find that contact numbers are listed for some of our allies.
CANADA
-MONTREAL 1-514-939-8400 x2092
-OTTAWA 1-613-688-5460
-TORONTO 1-416-640-8661
-VANCOUVER 1-604-689-3011
FRANCE (PARIS) 011-331- 4312-7100
FRANCE (INTERPOL / LYON) 011-334-7244-7198
GERMANY (FRANKFURT) 011-49-697-535-3763
ITALY (ROME) 011-390-64-674-2736
NETHERLANDS (EUROPOL / THE HAGUE) 011-3170-353-1533
SPAIN (MADRID) 011-34-91-587-2202
UNITED KINGDOM (LONDON) 011-44-20-7894-0846

The procedure would be: call and advise the PoC of the nature of what you think is a threat.
Example: "Some wag posted the following on the internet that I think is a threat to the (President / First Sea Lord visiting the US / Justice Stephens, whomever), here's the URL address ..."
What one expects is that such is then included in leads that the Secret Service would triage and decide to pursue, or let slide as "not a threat."

Sorry, not about SAR, or MPA, but who knows what one will hear about?
Lonewolf_50 is offline  
Old 9th Feb 2012, 20:54
  #80 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: The US of A, and sometimes Bonnie Scotland
Posts: 536
Ach Wensleydale. You poor wee man. Moaning about another MPA thread...
Tell you what, if you don't like it...well don't read it!!! You know, you've got a choice. And if you don't like it, don't reply! It's really really easy. There you go. Thanks for comin....
betty swallox is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.