MPA announced 2015?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MPA announced 2015?
I realise the whole MPA thing has been overdosed on here but after the recent Defence Committee report on 5th Sep 12 does anyone think we can go much longer without one?
Refurbished P-3's? The impressive P-8? CN-295? or even Saab's venture into MPA land?
All hypothetical I know but surely something has to happen...One thing is for sure, it will be all about the money!
Refurbished P-3's? The impressive P-8? CN-295? or even Saab's venture into MPA land?
All hypothetical I know but surely something has to happen...One thing is for sure, it will be all about the money!
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
Buy a job lot of 737 from different airlines and companies and mod them up?
We could have a Mk 1, Mk 2 and a Mk 4 all in one go. Some could be in full MPA rig, some could be part MPA/Pax and some could be Freight. After all the Mk 1 Nimrod was originally an MPA/AT, 46 pax wasn't it?
We could have a Mk 1, Mk 2 and a Mk 4 all in one go. Some could be in full MPA rig, some could be part MPA/Pax and some could be Freight. After all the Mk 1 Nimrod was originally an MPA/AT, 46 pax wasn't it?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Can just imagine the line at Waddo or wherever with the crews fighting for the 737-800 over the old Britannia 737-300...."you had the 800 last time, that's not fair"!
In what way is the P-8 a step back? genuine question
In what way is the P-8 a step back? genuine question
FLYGA
1. The RADAR. (Similar to the old death ray)
2. Operating altitude: Yes, it can go low level, but a lot of mention is being made of High Level ASUW and ASW with all the baggage that brings.
3. A different variant, the P8 AGS will be needed to do overland ISR.
4. No MAD
quote from AOL Defence:
The crews that saw it were unimpressed.
FINNPOG
I never said MPA options in service for the UK, I said current platforms.
1. The RADAR. (Similar to the old death ray)
2. Operating altitude: Yes, it can go low level, but a lot of mention is being made of High Level ASUW and ASW with all the baggage that brings.
3. A different variant, the P8 AGS will be needed to do overland ISR.
4. No MAD
quote from AOL Defence:
In particular, after some waffling back and forth, the Navy decided to leave off a sensor called the Magnetic Anomaly Detector (MAD), which can detect the metal hulls of submarines -- if the plane flies low enough. MAD was crucial to the P-3's traditional low-altitude tactics. Significantly, the P-8 variant that Boeing is building for the Indian Navy will still have it; only the US Navy P-8 will not. Both Rondeau and Boeing argue that the P-8 can more than compensate with more sophisticated sensors and by using its superior computing power to interpret their data.
FINNPOG
It is a step back from all of those current MPA options in service for the UK
Last edited by Siggie; 17th Nov 2012 at 21:42.
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Brisbane Queensland
Age: 65
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The problem is always going to be money.
Having seen the house of commons fighting over Europe/aid/ and all things financial, defence will be the last thought on their minds.
MPA is important but unless the UK looks at other options they can afford, nothing will happen. The RAF needs to be able to justify 'bang for buck' and with the inter service infighting (to protect pet projects) which always happens when the purse strings are tightened their request must demonstrate cost against capability to stand out from the crowd.
The RAF could have a capable MPA, (maybe not the best) able to perform the role that is required and deal with current or potential threats whilst possessing the ability to expand its capabilities at a future date.
The UK already owns C130J aircraft,Lockeed have produced a good quality roll on roll off MPA package.This option could get the UK back in the air and provide a credible MPA capability at low cost. 4 kits would be cheaper than a P8 and readily available.
Everyone would like P8s, they are an outstanding aircraft but right now in the current political climate, they're too expensive to justify.
Having seen the house of commons fighting over Europe/aid/ and all things financial, defence will be the last thought on their minds.
MPA is important but unless the UK looks at other options they can afford, nothing will happen. The RAF needs to be able to justify 'bang for buck' and with the inter service infighting (to protect pet projects) which always happens when the purse strings are tightened their request must demonstrate cost against capability to stand out from the crowd.
The RAF could have a capable MPA, (maybe not the best) able to perform the role that is required and deal with current or potential threats whilst possessing the ability to expand its capabilities at a future date.
The UK already owns C130J aircraft,Lockeed have produced a good quality roll on roll off MPA package.This option could get the UK back in the air and provide a credible MPA capability at low cost. 4 kits would be cheaper than a P8 and readily available.
Everyone would like P8s, they are an outstanding aircraft but right now in the current political climate, they're too expensive to justify.
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Lossiemouth IV31 6RS
Age: 75
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, how about Nimrod MRA4 - already paid for, and with only annual running costs to come, Oh, sorry....
From this weeks Northern Scot:
Sir,
I refer to the recently published report by the House of Commons Defence Committee on Future Maritime Surveillance.
It is a great pity that more attention was not paid to my letter, written to the Prime Minister at the time of SDSR, and before the Nimrod force was disbanded and Nimrod MRA4 destroyed at huge cost to the tax payer.
The lack of foresight and support from the upper echelons of the Royal Air Force was, and is also highly regrettable. The re-introduction of a manned Maritime Patrol Aircraft to protect our national interests should now be our number one defence priority.
and sent post SDSR:
Dear Mr Cameron,
I apologise for the open nature of this letter, but time is of the essence and the subject too important to allow for the luxury of private correspondence.
I refer to the cancellation of Nimrod MRA4 and the closure of Royal Air Force Kinloss to flying operations. The effect of this decision on local jobs, businesses and on the economy of Moray has been well aired, and rightly so. Of even greater concern to me and my family (despite the probable loss of my own job) is the effect this decision will have on the security and well being of the United Kingdom.
We are an island nation with the sea lanes still our main source of supply and trade. We are a nation active in world politics with ambitions for the future and a long history which has not endeared us to all members of a very mobile world population. In these days of international terrorism, drug running and our reliance on an underwater nuclear deterrent, it is utter folly to end our maritime patrol aircraft (MPA) capability.
We must have an airborne capability, even in these times of financial restraint. The need for long range reconnaissance, anti-submarine operations and a search and rescue capability has barely diminished, and the need for electronic and optical surveillance and intelligence gathering has increased to meet modern threats.
Why on earth then, have we cancelled Nimrod MRA4? Being late and over budget does not equate to being no good, and to summarily cancel without reference to current capability and future potential is unacceptable. MRA4 is a platform with 15 hours unrefueled flight duration, a 2,000 plus mile radius of action, 13 weapon hard points, radar range of 250 miles, is search and rescue capable, has advanced communications, superior electro optics for surface intelligence gathering and has very capable underwater detection systems. All integrated, working and demonstrated – AND ALREADY PAID FOR. At Royal Air Force Kinloss the training and support infrastructure is already in place and to disband such established facilities that support a very capable MPA is unforgiveable.
Unless this decision is reversed, people will die – as a result of unresolved search and rescue incidents, undetected drug and terrorist imports and missed intelligence. Our nuclear deterrent will be less secure and possibly rendered useless putting our whole nation at risk.
Mr Cameron, please hear these points from someone who has over 30 years military experience both within industry and the RAF. I have 5,000 flying hours as both Navigator and Pilot plus 5,000 hours of instructional experience in the Nimrod flight simulator. Approaching retirement, I have no axe to grind other than the well being of future generations, and of my country.
You say we cannot afford a maritime patrol aircraft capability. Prime Minister, the Nation cannot afford to be without.
Yours sincerely,
Hanfimar.
From this weeks Northern Scot:
Sir,
I refer to the recently published report by the House of Commons Defence Committee on Future Maritime Surveillance.
It is a great pity that more attention was not paid to my letter, written to the Prime Minister at the time of SDSR, and before the Nimrod force was disbanded and Nimrod MRA4 destroyed at huge cost to the tax payer.
The lack of foresight and support from the upper echelons of the Royal Air Force was, and is also highly regrettable. The re-introduction of a manned Maritime Patrol Aircraft to protect our national interests should now be our number one defence priority.
and sent post SDSR:
Dear Mr Cameron,
I apologise for the open nature of this letter, but time is of the essence and the subject too important to allow for the luxury of private correspondence.
I refer to the cancellation of Nimrod MRA4 and the closure of Royal Air Force Kinloss to flying operations. The effect of this decision on local jobs, businesses and on the economy of Moray has been well aired, and rightly so. Of even greater concern to me and my family (despite the probable loss of my own job) is the effect this decision will have on the security and well being of the United Kingdom.
We are an island nation with the sea lanes still our main source of supply and trade. We are a nation active in world politics with ambitions for the future and a long history which has not endeared us to all members of a very mobile world population. In these days of international terrorism, drug running and our reliance on an underwater nuclear deterrent, it is utter folly to end our maritime patrol aircraft (MPA) capability.
We must have an airborne capability, even in these times of financial restraint. The need for long range reconnaissance, anti-submarine operations and a search and rescue capability has barely diminished, and the need for electronic and optical surveillance and intelligence gathering has increased to meet modern threats.
Why on earth then, have we cancelled Nimrod MRA4? Being late and over budget does not equate to being no good, and to summarily cancel without reference to current capability and future potential is unacceptable. MRA4 is a platform with 15 hours unrefueled flight duration, a 2,000 plus mile radius of action, 13 weapon hard points, radar range of 250 miles, is search and rescue capable, has advanced communications, superior electro optics for surface intelligence gathering and has very capable underwater detection systems. All integrated, working and demonstrated – AND ALREADY PAID FOR. At Royal Air Force Kinloss the training and support infrastructure is already in place and to disband such established facilities that support a very capable MPA is unforgiveable.
Unless this decision is reversed, people will die – as a result of unresolved search and rescue incidents, undetected drug and terrorist imports and missed intelligence. Our nuclear deterrent will be less secure and possibly rendered useless putting our whole nation at risk.
Mr Cameron, please hear these points from someone who has over 30 years military experience both within industry and the RAF. I have 5,000 flying hours as both Navigator and Pilot plus 5,000 hours of instructional experience in the Nimrod flight simulator. Approaching retirement, I have no axe to grind other than the well being of future generations, and of my country.
You say we cannot afford a maritime patrol aircraft capability. Prime Minister, the Nation cannot afford to be without.
Yours sincerely,
Hanfimar.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
Has that letter been sitting in the in-tray for months awaiting a quiet news day?
It is in the present tense
or near past when we all know that the dust has settled and the scrap merchants made a killing.
It is in the present tense
MRA4 is a platform
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I doubt anyone in a position of power is thinking of replacing half the supposed capabilities of the never delivered MR4
Given that the Russian Navy is a shadow of its former self that is understandable - we really don't require the capacity to chase SSBN's any more
A cheapish replacement for patrolling the country's Marine Economic Zone is what is required - off the shelf (i.e keep BAe away from it at all costs), cheap to run - some refurbed P-3's would be ideal but I suspect it'll be a small buy of P-8's with the maintenance outsourced to a UK commercial operator
Given that the Russian Navy is a shadow of its former self that is understandable - we really don't require the capacity to chase SSBN's any more
A cheapish replacement for patrolling the country's Marine Economic Zone is what is required - off the shelf (i.e keep BAe away from it at all costs), cheap to run - some refurbed P-3's would be ideal but I suspect it'll be a small buy of P-8's with the maintenance outsourced to a UK commercial operator
There s a very good reason why P8 doesn't have a Magnetic Anomaly Detector (MAD) Boom - they don't need one! There are lots of more modern detction and remote sensing techniques that have been developed since MAD (I could tell you but then I'd have to kill you).
The outdated, overpriced and overdue MRA4 is dead - get over it.
Now, the idea of using the C130Js when the also overdue and overpriced A400M comes into service - now that is a cracking idea. In fact with more defence cuts looming in 2015's SDSR it might be the only 'good news' story that can be spun for the RAF.
LJ
The outdated, overpriced and overdue MRA4 is dead - get over it.
Now, the idea of using the C130Js when the also overdue and overpriced A400M comes into service - now that is a cracking idea. In fact with more defence cuts looming in 2015's SDSR it might be the only 'good news' story that can be spun for the RAF.
LJ
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Great Britain
Age: 51
Posts: 340
Likes: 0
Received 11 Likes
on
5 Posts
What LJ said ^^^^ 
Plus, whilst we're at it. Don't put any new MPA up in the back end of beyond in Moray. If the quote from Hanfimar that people will die from lack of SAR and drug/firearms running - then put the new aircraft in the middle of the UK so they can reach all of our sea borders with equal reaction time.
Also, using the C130J we could set up the use of Reservist aircrew to man the capability - never deployed but just looking after home interests. That would save a load of money.
CPL Clott
Plus, whilst we're at it. Don't put any new MPA up in the back end of beyond in Moray. If the quote from Hanfimar that people will die from lack of SAR and drug/firearms running - then put the new aircraft in the middle of the UK so they can reach all of our sea borders with equal reaction time.
Also, using the C130J we could set up the use of Reservist aircrew to man the capability - never deployed but just looking after home interests. That would save a load of money.
CPL Clott
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Europe
Posts: 414
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chaps, the C130J and A400 ideas are nothing more than concepts. Every future project I have seen promises the earth within budget, in reality they rarely, if ever produce the promised capabilities on time or in budget.
The cost isn't just in the airframes; you need a huge support train for a multi-sensor aircraft on top of the existing airframe support contracts. For C130J that would be, maintaining an ageing airframe (with probable legacy issues already) to operate in a low level maritime environment (fatigue and corrosion?), plus this miracle plug in pallet solution which will be massively harder to develop and maintain than the picture of a box on the concept drawing. Don't forget the crews need training and practice so you need mission simulators, as the airframes will hardly ever be available. All for a hugely compromised capabilities which would hardly ever be available, and not at the same time you require AT (like in a conflict perhaps?)
Haven't we learnt the false economy of recycling our airframes, and the massive issues it causes? Swiss army knife solutions normally end up as declared capabilities sat in the corner of a hangar that the engineers and aircrew know don’t work properly if at all.
Off the shelf developed hardware with future potential that is already being operated by others is the only sensible option, the only question is what is our requirement? If it remains high end ASW then P-3 or P-8 are the only sensible solutions.
We will be able to fit 8 – 10 at Waddington when the E-3D is cancelled next year and we join the NATO E-3 pool and forward base them
(now that would save money, where is that GEMS form!)
The cost isn't just in the airframes; you need a huge support train for a multi-sensor aircraft on top of the existing airframe support contracts. For C130J that would be, maintaining an ageing airframe (with probable legacy issues already) to operate in a low level maritime environment (fatigue and corrosion?), plus this miracle plug in pallet solution which will be massively harder to develop and maintain than the picture of a box on the concept drawing. Don't forget the crews need training and practice so you need mission simulators, as the airframes will hardly ever be available. All for a hugely compromised capabilities which would hardly ever be available, and not at the same time you require AT (like in a conflict perhaps?)
Haven't we learnt the false economy of recycling our airframes, and the massive issues it causes? Swiss army knife solutions normally end up as declared capabilities sat in the corner of a hangar that the engineers and aircrew know don’t work properly if at all.
Off the shelf developed hardware with future potential that is already being operated by others is the only sensible option, the only question is what is our requirement? If it remains high end ASW then P-3 or P-8 are the only sensible solutions.
We will be able to fit 8 – 10 at Waddington when the E-3D is cancelled next year and we join the NATO E-3 pool and forward base them
(now that would save money, where is that GEMS form!)
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Have to agree with all in the letter and understandable why people are still annoyed and even in shock regarding such a folly decision by those in power.
But time has moved on hence the debate about what comes next. From has been documented and reading between the lines of the DC report an MPA must happen; it is a case of what do we need it to do?, how much? and when do we need it (now!)? P-8 seems logical with the UK input stateside but could we ever sustain such costs? C130J seems logical but they suffer massively from reliability issues, which leaves ;off-the-shelf alternatives. CN-295, SAAB 2000 may be more realistic??? So many more questions than answers but I think everyone agrees the need...
But time has moved on hence the debate about what comes next. From has been documented and reading between the lines of the DC report an MPA must happen; it is a case of what do we need it to do?, how much? and when do we need it (now!)? P-8 seems logical with the UK input stateside but could we ever sustain such costs? C130J seems logical but they suffer massively from reliability issues, which leaves ;off-the-shelf alternatives. CN-295, SAAB 2000 may be more realistic??? So many more questions than answers but I think everyone agrees the need...