Future UK Maritime Requirement to remain a secret
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: As close to beer as humanly possible
Posts: 75
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Top cover is deemed so important that no-one does it now; I suspect that the helos have better nav kit than they had when we were on RS60.
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.
Anyone else intrigued by the photograph that accompanies the HC Defence Ctte's new inquiry into the contribution of the Ministry of Defence (MoD) and UK Armed Forces to the UK’s future requirements for maritime surveillance?
New inquiry: Future Maritime Surveillance - News from Parliament - UK Parliament
New inquiry: Future Maritime Surveillance - News from Parliament - UK Parliament
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: 45 yards from a tropical beach
Posts: 1,103
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Grumman S2F Tracker was an ASW aircraft, known with affection as the 'Stoof.' The image in the Parliamentary document is of the E1 variant, the 'Stoof with the Roof' which is an AEW aircraft, more a poor man's Sentry rather than Nimrod. It just shows how much the pollies know about ASW.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 3,399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Neptunus
"The Grumman S2F Tracker was an ASW aircraft, known with affection as the 'Stoof.' The image in the Parliamentary document is of the E1 variant,"
"It just shows how much the pollies know about ASW"
Oh the irony.
"The Grumman S2F Tracker was an ASW aircraft, known with affection as the 'Stoof.' The image in the Parliamentary document is of the E1 variant,"
"It just shows how much the pollies know about ASW"
Oh the irony.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Somewhere flat
Age: 68
Posts: 5,560
Likes: 0
Received 45 Likes
on
30 Posts
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....
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....
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: u.k.
Posts: 54
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wensleydale, your sad comments sound like those from a sad individual who maybe has an axe to grind, or maybe someone who wasn't good enough to get into the maritime environment. As BS says you don't have to read this thread or even feel compelled to respond.
ONE,....TWO,... my infant son can count this far - and further! what kind of abstract crap is this. Does it give you a thrill??
Try to reflect your pseudonym and mature.
ONE,....TWO,... my infant son can count this far - and further! what kind of abstract crap is this. Does it give you a thrill??
Try to reflect your pseudonym and mature.
GRUMMAN
Grumman's 'Tracker' was originally the S2F, hence became known as the Stoof. Under the revised US aircraft designation scheme, it became the S-2.
Other variants were a COD transport, the TF-1 'Trader' (later the C-1) and a much modified AEW aircraft, the WF-2 'Tracer', the twin-tailed 'Stoof with a Roof' which became the E-1.
The E-1 was superceded by the E-2 'Hawkeye' and the C-1 by the C-2 'Greyhound'. Finally, in 1975, the S-2 was superceded in the ASW role by the Lockheed S-3 'Viking'. An ELINT version, the ES-3A, was known as the 'Shadow' which replaced the venerable EA-3B 'Skywarrior', a handful of which were still serving in Gulf War One.
The image in the parliamentary document shows an E-2.
Other variants were a COD transport, the TF-1 'Trader' (later the C-1) and a much modified AEW aircraft, the WF-2 'Tracer', the twin-tailed 'Stoof with a Roof' which became the E-1.
The E-1 was superceded by the E-2 'Hawkeye' and the C-1 by the C-2 'Greyhound'. Finally, in 1975, the S-2 was superceded in the ASW role by the Lockheed S-3 'Viking'. An ELINT version, the ES-3A, was known as the 'Shadow' which replaced the venerable EA-3B 'Skywarrior', a handful of which were still serving in Gulf War One.
The image in the parliamentary document shows an E-2.
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Torquay, England
Posts: 838
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
More to the point it highlights why our maritime requirements are being kept secret..
That picture was taken from the deck of our 'secret' aircraft carrier and shows this aircraft practising deck landing prior to the ship deploying to the South Atlantic!!
Be warned madame Fernández de Kirchner
That picture was taken from the deck of our 'secret' aircraft carrier and shows this aircraft practising deck landing prior to the ship deploying to the South Atlantic!!
Be warned madame Fernández de Kirchner
Jayand, I was responding to Duncan's post on the previous page.
Duncan D'Sorderlee
I did mark it as OT (meaning Off Topic) and appreciate that it may be a bit of thread drift too far, given that it's somewhat related to SAM's diversions ... I'll keep it to MPA in any further input, if any. 
Duncan D'Sorderlee
Lonewolf 50,
I'd ignore Sam; most other do.
Good point about the FBI/SS though; you got any contacts?
Duncs
I'd ignore Sam; most other do.
Good point about the FBI/SS though; you got any contacts?
Duncs
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Great Britain
Age: 51
Posts: 340
Likes: 0
Received 11 Likes
on
5 Posts
Armed Forces: Anti-submarine Warfare
Question
Asked by Lord West of Spithead
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether it is their intention that the United Kingdom's anti-submarine warfare, particularly passive anti-submarine warfare, techniques and training, should be based on nuclear attack submarines, Merlin helicopters and towed array frigate force.[HL15260]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Astor of Hever): The United Kingdom's anti-submarine warfare protection doctrine is designed to counter the threat faced in both deep water and littoral scenarios through the provision of a layered approach to detecting and defending against potential and actual threats. This is based on the utilisation of a range of assets, including nuclear attack submarines, Merlin helicopters and a towed array frigate force.
Question
Asked by Lord West of Spithead
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether it is their intention that the United Kingdom's anti-submarine warfare, particularly passive anti-submarine warfare, techniques and training, should be based on nuclear attack submarines, Merlin helicopters and towed array frigate force.[HL15260]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Astor of Hever): The United Kingdom's anti-submarine warfare protection doctrine is designed to counter the threat faced in both deep water and littoral scenarios through the provision of a layered approach to detecting and defending against potential and actual threats. This is based on the utilisation of a range of assets, including nuclear attack submarines, Merlin helicopters and a towed array frigate force.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: St Annes
Age: 68
Posts: 638
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Be fair, he probably only knew to include the Merlin, ASW frigates and SSNs 'cos they'd been mentioned in the question.
Being of an evil bent, had I asked the question it would have included something like 'Towed array Zodiacs' in the query, just to see who was still awake.
Being of an evil bent, had I asked the question it would have included something like 'Towed array Zodiacs' in the query, just to see who was still awake.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Somewhere flat
Age: 68
Posts: 5,560
Likes: 0
Received 45 Likes
on
30 Posts
ONE,....TWO,... my infant son can count this far - and further! what kind of abstract crap is this. Does it give you a thrill??
Perhaps your wit does not extend too far to understand the tone of my contributions to this thread. Buck up!
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Somewhere flat
Age: 68
Posts: 5,560
Likes: 0
Received 45 Likes
on
30 Posts
...yawn...
At least I got some bites from it. As an instructor friend once told me - he knew which personnel were recommended for Maritime because their training reports described them as "Agressively Average".
I will now reset my clock and test the theory once more.
