House of Commons Defence Committee Report on Maritime Airborne Surveillance
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 40
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
House of Commons Defence Committee Report on Maritime Airborne Surveillance
This may be of interest to some of you. Whilst the title is "Surveillance" as in MSA it in fact covers a lot of MPA stuff:
House of Commons - Future Maritime Surveillance: Government Response to the Committee's Fifth Report of Session 2012-13 - Defence Committee
Hopefully the link works!
MM
House of Commons - Future Maritime Surveillance: Government Response to the Committee's Fifth Report of Session 2012-13 - Defence Committee
Hopefully the link works!
MM
The MoD has stated that it regrets cancelling the Nimrod MRA4 programme and that in an ideal world it would have preferred to acquire a maritime patrol aircraft
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Belgium
Posts: 254
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rather than blame Typhoon for everything you could blame the MRA4 programme which was massively late, over budget, still not working and only glossy brochure promises to keep it going.
I think getting rid of an MPRA for an island nation was a terrible idea (I think everyone admits that now) but the real mistake was deciding to replace Nimrod with Nimrod. I would be interested to know what the MOD recommendation was for that.
I think getting rid of an MPRA for an island nation was a terrible idea (I think everyone admits that now) but the real mistake was deciding to replace Nimrod with Nimrod. I would be interested to know what the MOD recommendation was for that.
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Norfolk England
Posts: 247
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A Long Way from the Cheapest!
Toxteth,
If I recall correctly the figures that came into the public domain it was a very long way from being the cheapest, and that was before the contract was re-negotiated twice and the number of airframes ended up being halved! The USA is not alone in having "pork barrel politics".
If I recall correctly the figures that came into the public domain it was a very long way from being the cheapest, and that was before the contract was re-negotiated twice and the number of airframes ended up being halved! The USA is not alone in having "pork barrel politics".
I'm working from memory now (but I've got a pretty good memory) but I seem to remember that the decision to go for MRA4 as a Nimrod MR2 replacement took place against the following background.
There were 3 big defence procurement decisions being made at around that time, the selection of an attack helicopter for the AAC, a replacement for the C130K, and a replacement for the MR2.
The choice of attack helicopter was between the Eurocopter Tiger, and the Apache. A case of Europe vs USA. The decision was made to go with the Apache. Whatever the benefit to Westlands may have been (indeed the Westlands factor may have swung the decision), the general perception, certainly among the masses, was that this was a US buy.
The choice of C-130K replacement was between the A-400M and the C-130J. Another apparent Europe (with a strong UK input to A-400M at the time) vs USA contest. BAE were lobbying strongly for the A-400M, to the extent that there were full page adverts in such papers as the Telegraph and Times, talking about job, and engineering skill, losses in the UK if the A-400M wasn't chosen. I seem to remember one advert had a picture of a 12 year old boy, saying he wanted a future in aviation engineering in the UK, and he wouldn't have one if the A-400M wasn't selected. The eventual winner was the C-130J, another win for the USA (in this example I have ignored subsequent delays to the A-400M, as they were irrelevant at the time, at least as far as public and political perceptions were concerned).
Finally there was the Nimrod MR2 replacement decision. The two options were MRA4 and refurbished P-3s. Once again an apparent UK vs USA contest. The ironic thing was, the apparent view was almost 180 degrees out. In the case of the MRA4, BAE was in charge of the airframe. So there were 21, subsequently 9, airframes to be converted, with no possible export sales. However, the mission system was built by Americans, IBM to start with I believe, with potentially large worldwide exports in terms of updating P-3s around the world with a new mission system derived from that created for the MRA4. Conversely if the P-3 option was selected the plan was to get UK companies to create the mission system, which might have created export sale options for the UK. However, the general perception to the laymen (for which read career politicIan and member of the public) was UK (MRA4) vs US (P-3). It is my personal belief that having just given (apparently) 2 big orders to the US (Apache and C-130J) that there was intense pressure (albeit possibly self generated) among the politicians to be seen to be giving an order to UK workers - hence a strong bias towards selecting MRA4. However, that is just my personal opinion.
I won't even go into considerations of whether or not some companies are allegedly guilty of putting in a low bid until they have got the contract and then subsequently coming out with the real cost downstream with a "pay up or cancel" comment.
However, at the end of the day it is a fact of life that procurement decisions are not just about buying the best piece of equipment for the task, there are always other political/economic influences (e.g PC-9 (best aircraft for the job but to be built in Switzerland) vs Tucano (license built by Shorts of Belfast, a firm trying to survive in an unemployment blackspot at the time)). It happens just about everywhere I'm afraid!
There were 3 big defence procurement decisions being made at around that time, the selection of an attack helicopter for the AAC, a replacement for the C130K, and a replacement for the MR2.
The choice of attack helicopter was between the Eurocopter Tiger, and the Apache. A case of Europe vs USA. The decision was made to go with the Apache. Whatever the benefit to Westlands may have been (indeed the Westlands factor may have swung the decision), the general perception, certainly among the masses, was that this was a US buy.
The choice of C-130K replacement was between the A-400M and the C-130J. Another apparent Europe (with a strong UK input to A-400M at the time) vs USA contest. BAE were lobbying strongly for the A-400M, to the extent that there were full page adverts in such papers as the Telegraph and Times, talking about job, and engineering skill, losses in the UK if the A-400M wasn't chosen. I seem to remember one advert had a picture of a 12 year old boy, saying he wanted a future in aviation engineering in the UK, and he wouldn't have one if the A-400M wasn't selected. The eventual winner was the C-130J, another win for the USA (in this example I have ignored subsequent delays to the A-400M, as they were irrelevant at the time, at least as far as public and political perceptions were concerned).
Finally there was the Nimrod MR2 replacement decision. The two options were MRA4 and refurbished P-3s. Once again an apparent UK vs USA contest. The ironic thing was, the apparent view was almost 180 degrees out. In the case of the MRA4, BAE was in charge of the airframe. So there were 21, subsequently 9, airframes to be converted, with no possible export sales. However, the mission system was built by Americans, IBM to start with I believe, with potentially large worldwide exports in terms of updating P-3s around the world with a new mission system derived from that created for the MRA4. Conversely if the P-3 option was selected the plan was to get UK companies to create the mission system, which might have created export sale options for the UK. However, the general perception to the laymen (for which read career politicIan and member of the public) was UK (MRA4) vs US (P-3). It is my personal belief that having just given (apparently) 2 big orders to the US (Apache and C-130J) that there was intense pressure (albeit possibly self generated) among the politicians to be seen to be giving an order to UK workers - hence a strong bias towards selecting MRA4. However, that is just my personal opinion.
I won't even go into considerations of whether or not some companies are allegedly guilty of putting in a low bid until they have got the contract and then subsequently coming out with the real cost downstream with a "pay up or cancel" comment.
However, at the end of the day it is a fact of life that procurement decisions are not just about buying the best piece of equipment for the task, there are always other political/economic influences (e.g PC-9 (best aircraft for the job but to be built in Switzerland) vs Tucano (license built by Shorts of Belfast, a firm trying to survive in an unemployment blackspot at the time)). It happens just about everywhere I'm afraid!
Last edited by Biggus; 19th Dec 2012 at 10:27.
I would observe that the term 'regret' does not imply that a different decision would have been made in hindsight. You can regret something and do it anyway, e.g. "I regret to inform you that...". So I wouldn't necessarily infer that some grand awakening has occurred - although happy to be proved wrong.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: As close to beer as humanly possible
Posts: 75
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The phrase "NATO collaboration" appears a few times in the response, together with "off the shelf" options.
IF the UK is to get a replacement MPA, it would seem that a RPV/UAV option will not be seriously considered. I think a UK owned C295 or Combined Service P8 looks much more likely.
With the reference to the Seedcorn role not remaining the same, I would imagine that the the April 2013 report will give a strong indication of what to expect in the next SDSR.
IF the UK is to get a replacement MPA, it would seem that a RPV/UAV option will not be seriously considered. I think a UK owned C295 or Combined Service P8 looks much more likely.
With the reference to the Seedcorn role not remaining the same, I would imagine that the the April 2013 report will give a strong indication of what to expect in the next SDSR.
My take on the answers given by the government is:
We now accept that there is a capability gap with the lack of a UK MPA, but it's too soon to admit we were wrong to get rid of it, wait until summer 2013 and we'll admit just a little bit more that we need an MPA. We can then blame changing circumstances on the fact that we need an off the shelf replacement and not that we trod on our d***s when we cancelled the MRA4.
We now accept that there is a capability gap with the lack of a UK MPA, but it's too soon to admit we were wrong to get rid of it, wait until summer 2013 and we'll admit just a little bit more that we need an MPA. We can then blame changing circumstances on the fact that we need an off the shelf replacement and not that we trod on our d***s when we cancelled the MRA4.
''(e.g PC-9 (best aircraft for the job but to be built in Switzerland) vs Tucano (license built by Shorts of Belfast, a firm trying to survive in an unemployment blackspot at the time)''
The RAF PC9s - had they been ordered - would have been built by BAe at Brough. Belfast/Hull - both not doing well econimically and not much to chose between them. And as for the 'better aircraft', there wasn't much to chose between them. I've flown both and (in my opinion) the Tucano is slightly better on balance.
The RAF PC9s - had they been ordered - would have been built by BAe at Brough. Belfast/Hull - both not doing well econimically and not much to chose between them. And as for the 'better aircraft', there wasn't much to chose between them. I've flown both and (in my opinion) the Tucano is slightly better on balance.
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: North of the UK's no.1 aircraft carrier parking spot
Posts: 53
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Biggus - your points are quite correct, though there were two P-3 teams (one offering new build and the other with refurbed airframes). The fable goes that not even BAe (as it was then) thought they'd win, and the day after announcement the MAD men at Warton convened an emergency meeting to flesh out exactly how they were going to bring MRA.4 off the drawing table.
All very sad, and the SEEDCORN insurance doesn't provide for actual MPA coverage in these times, as those that have seen surface and sub-surface targets near UK shores in the past 18 months will attest.
All very sad, and the SEEDCORN insurance doesn't provide for actual MPA coverage in these times, as those that have seen surface and sub-surface targets near UK shores in the past 18 months will attest.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Tennessee - Smoky Mountains
Age: 55
Posts: 1,602
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
How much of the "not working" was actually true?
They had built several of the early airframes, and had been testing them for years, so I find it hard to believe that the basic airframe had too much wrong with it.
On the mission system, again they had been building it and testing it for years. So even if not quite all the I's were dotted and T's crossed, they had some semblance of an MPA.
Could it not have been brought into service in a limited manner and then modded with the bits that were not yet up to speed? C130J was quite limited when it came into service. Not aircraft, but another big equipment program, Ptarmigan, the equipment that went out of service a year or two back was a very different beast to the one introduced 20 years previously in terms of capability.
Or were the issues too fundamental to do even that?
They had built several of the early airframes, and had been testing them for years, so I find it hard to believe that the basic airframe had too much wrong with it.
On the mission system, again they had been building it and testing it for years. So even if not quite all the I's were dotted and T's crossed, they had some semblance of an MPA.
Could it not have been brought into service in a limited manner and then modded with the bits that were not yet up to speed? C130J was quite limited when it came into service. Not aircraft, but another big equipment program, Ptarmigan, the equipment that went out of service a year or two back was a very different beast to the one introduced 20 years previously in terms of capability.
Or were the issues too fundamental to do even that?
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Bristol
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As much as we like the idea of incremental acquisition we do not have a process that supports it.
We have Defence Strategic Direction (DSD) which says that we should fight wars on Mars. We know that we only have the technology to fly to the Moon for £xM but that doesn't meet the requirement by a long way as the URD/SRD/OA is based on Mars. By doing studies we accept the risk that the capability gap to Mars is too far and won't do anything until 2025 until Mars aircraft become available.
In contrast we believe good practice is UORs where users say we want that thing and we will operate differently to use that thing. Its available today at a known price but has no link to DSD or OA.
The answer to the Maritime ISTAR question is not what you would ideally like to do but given an off the shelf platform what could you do. Sadly that is not the way it is sold on VFM grounds.
We have Defence Strategic Direction (DSD) which says that we should fight wars on Mars. We know that we only have the technology to fly to the Moon for £xM but that doesn't meet the requirement by a long way as the URD/SRD/OA is based on Mars. By doing studies we accept the risk that the capability gap to Mars is too far and won't do anything until 2025 until Mars aircraft become available.
In contrast we believe good practice is UORs where users say we want that thing and we will operate differently to use that thing. Its available today at a known price but has no link to DSD or OA.
The answer to the Maritime ISTAR question is not what you would ideally like to do but given an off the shelf platform what could you do. Sadly that is not the way it is sold on VFM grounds.
Its been mooted a few times, and knowledgeable people have agreed, that no one was willing or able to sign the RTS due to a lack of audit trail. Surely that is pretty fundamental? Its like building a house on a bog and not bothering with foundations.
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: The US of A, and sometimes Bonnie Scotland
Posts: 549
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There's REALLY no point in going over this all again.
The aeroplane could have been fantastic. We'll never know, so let's just leave it at that. I'm not being niaive by claiming there were no problems; show me a plane that hasn't had in it's infancy.
So, the MRA4 COULD have been a world-beater, but the chance was denied. The whys and wherefores have been covered (ad nauseam) elsewhere on this site.
Have a Merry Xmas.
The aeroplane could have been fantastic. We'll never know, so let's just leave it at that. I'm not being niaive by claiming there were no problems; show me a plane that hasn't had in it's infancy.
So, the MRA4 COULD have been a world-beater, but the chance was denied. The whys and wherefores have been covered (ad nauseam) elsewhere on this site.
Have a Merry Xmas.
Last edited by betty swallox; 24th Dec 2012 at 17:00.
start again
What Betty said, The Nimrod MRA Mark 4 COULD quite possibly have been a world-beater but … leave it alone.
We are now no longer capable of operating such an all encompassing multi-role Maritime Patrol Aircraft, the corporate knowledge has gone. We need to build our skills back up from almost zero, to do that we need to start simply and add to our experience as we progress. However we start and with what I just hope it’s sooner rather than later.
Merry Christmas
We are now no longer capable of operating such an all encompassing multi-role Maritime Patrol Aircraft, the corporate knowledge has gone. We need to build our skills back up from almost zero, to do that we need to start simply and add to our experience as we progress. However we start and with what I just hope it’s sooner rather than later.
Merry Christmas