New MPA?
JTO - I doubt that we'll ever see a MMA or MPA in UK Service, at least not in the ASW sense. ASuW and SAR (or ISTAR), quite possibly, but ASW, not so much.
Unless we have some 'modular' idea, which will work as well as the last time that was tried.
Unless we have some 'modular' idea, which will work as well as the last time that was tried.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Worcestershire
Posts: 305
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have seen a couple of maritime capabilities which are funded, but not committed that are currently assigned to seaborne platforms. These capabilities could be done by airborne platforms. If we had clever and forceful leadership in the RAF we could direct the funding to support the MMA case and provide a platform with wider utility than could be delivered by a ship/ boat.
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Waiting to return to the Loire.
Age: 54
Posts: 386
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think Alfred, that you mean?
I guess that the Politicians and the CS will be chuckling that the military is committing fratricide once again in the sake of hubris and Stellar career opportunities.
And a return to intercine rivalry that would be matched only by the SHAR debacle.
And a return to intercine rivalry
I doubt that we'll ever see a MMA or MPA in UK Service, at least not in the ASW sense. ASuW and SAR (or ISTAR), quite possibly, but ASW
RP - because ASW is hard and requires continued practice. And a MMA will be used for lots of other things first - cf Nimrod in Afg, T23 in the Gulf - before it's allowed to crack on with it's "core" role.
The only thing that will change that if we enter into a sustained period of operations against a SM using country that actually use their SMs properly.
The only thing that will change that if we enter into a sustained period of operations against a SM using country that actually use their SMs properly.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: The sandpit
Posts: 77
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting thread here, and it's good to see more and more consideration regarding MMA. My fear is that we have already identified the platform; some interesting stuff in the August Air Forces Monthly on Sentinel as a maritime platform.
A MMA must be capable of ASW, ASuW inc MCT, SAR, MTI and have an ELINT capability of sorts. It must have range, speed and an ability to carry ample bouys, whilst also being able to Process and Disseminate vast amounts of information in a timely manner. Talk of smaller interim choices merely to fulfil the ASW role would be a mistake. The UK must wake up to this - it's time to move on from ageing fleets with limited potential......there's no reason why said MMA could not fulfil the role of the E-3D also. Undoubtedly, lack of money will be the stopper but replacing 2-3 fleets of aircraft which require significant overhauls, with a more stream-lined and flexible mission system must be the way forward.
The threat from submarines is as strong as ever.......I would argue that it's increasing with the wider proliferation of AIP technology.
A MMA must be capable of ASW, ASuW inc MCT, SAR, MTI and have an ELINT capability of sorts. It must have range, speed and an ability to carry ample bouys, whilst also being able to Process and Disseminate vast amounts of information in a timely manner. Talk of smaller interim choices merely to fulfil the ASW role would be a mistake. The UK must wake up to this - it's time to move on from ageing fleets with limited potential......there's no reason why said MMA could not fulfil the role of the E-3D also. Undoubtedly, lack of money will be the stopper but replacing 2-3 fleets of aircraft which require significant overhauls, with a more stream-lined and flexible mission system must be the way forward.
The threat from submarines is as strong as ever.......I would argue that it's increasing with the wider proliferation of AIP technology.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"must"?????
that's the sort of thinking that's got us where we are today
We need a PATROL Aircraft to start with - not an ASW platform . It would be nice indeed if we could afford one but it's clear we can't (or won't) fund a proper Nimrod replacement
According to the current "World Naval Review" the threat from submarines is NOT the same as it was in the '70's & '80's for example - Russia has only 1 post 2000 SSBN in service as of mid 2012 and a ragbag mix of 1970's and 1980's boats
Their surface fleet comprises around 22 warships of Frigate size and above - about the same as the RN - but without the maintenance plus its a 4 sea operation
that's the sort of thinking that's got us where we are today
We need a PATROL Aircraft to start with - not an ASW platform . It would be nice indeed if we could afford one but it's clear we can't (or won't) fund a proper Nimrod replacement
According to the current "World Naval Review" the threat from submarines is NOT the same as it was in the '70's & '80's for example - Russia has only 1 post 2000 SSBN in service as of mid 2012 and a ragbag mix of 1970's and 1980's boats
Their surface fleet comprises around 22 warships of Frigate size and above - about the same as the RN - but without the maintenance plus its a 4 sea operation
Any future UK MPA (if/when there is one - which is still up for debate) will be operated by the RN.
The RN still considers the role important, the RAF (at senior levels) does not, or at least not sufficiently to be willing to give up anything in order to achieve it.....
The RN still considers the role important, the RAF (at senior levels) does not, or at least not sufficiently to be willing to give up anything in order to achieve it.....
Glad the man who knows what all the RAF top brass think is here.
Not sure when major spends became single service either. Does the RN have a massive pile of cash that the Joint Capabilities Board does not know about?
Or how about you set aside the divisive posts and embrace capabilities that are good for the UK Armed Forces, rather than just an individual service?
Not sure when major spends became single service either. Does the RN have a massive pile of cash that the Joint Capabilities Board does not know about?
Or how about you set aside the divisive posts and embrace capabilities that are good for the UK Armed Forces, rather than just an individual service?
As someone who is in the RAF, at least for a while longer, I don't consider saying that the RN will carry the role forward (if it goes forward at all) to be a divisive post, or individual service oriented.....
So keep your 's to yourself thank you!!
So keep your
's to yourself thank you!!
We need a PATROL Aircraft to start with - not an ASW platform
And just as an aside, doesn't MPA/MMA sit in the Jt Forces Cap area not within the Air or Navy command cap area?
egdg,
I really don't know why I respond to your inflammatory posts, especially as they stand in stark contrast to the tri-service team (yep, Army too) trying to bring an MMA to meet the UK's needs.
I don't care and the SRO does not care who operates this future Joint capability. No single service is pushing hard to be the prime provider of crews either. Indeed, with the manning picture as it is each service has strong reasons as to why finding crews would be problematic.
All the problems point to a large rationalisation of all the ISTAR assets (predominantly those operated by the Army and RAF). The first part of this is underway through the AIOS - again, a tri-service effort and this will probably influence what types are kept in any specific role in the future. Nobody in the ISTAR community expects any future platform to be a pure MPA. The future is with platforms that can deliver across multiple roles - we have no space for one-trick aircraft.
You are correct that whoever operates the aircraft will have to be trained and sustained. This could be an expansion of the MFTS contract or it could be provided by someone else. The existence of the MFTS contract providing trg at Culdrose does not make it a given. Please do not think the RN is in a position to provide any additional crews through the existing contract above and beyond its funded line; it exists to support the current requirement, even if it recognises the potential requirement to grow. In equal regard the maritime community dispersed around the RAF, RN and Seedcorn is not going to be enough either. All MMA aircraft soak-up relatively large numbers of personnel, groundcrew & aircrew alike.
I'm sorry I don't see the rivalry you allude to, but it just isn't there. The requirement is being driven by the UK's needs, not an individual service. My RN colleague sipping beer next to me thinks I am mad to respond to your post. He has a habit of being right.
I really don't know why I respond to your inflammatory posts, especially as they stand in stark contrast to the tri-service team (yep, Army too) trying to bring an MMA to meet the UK's needs.
I don't care and the SRO does not care who operates this future Joint capability. No single service is pushing hard to be the prime provider of crews either. Indeed, with the manning picture as it is each service has strong reasons as to why finding crews would be problematic.
All the problems point to a large rationalisation of all the ISTAR assets (predominantly those operated by the Army and RAF). The first part of this is underway through the AIOS - again, a tri-service effort and this will probably influence what types are kept in any specific role in the future. Nobody in the ISTAR community expects any future platform to be a pure MPA. The future is with platforms that can deliver across multiple roles - we have no space for one-trick aircraft.
You are correct that whoever operates the aircraft will have to be trained and sustained. This could be an expansion of the MFTS contract or it could be provided by someone else. The existence of the MFTS contract providing trg at Culdrose does not make it a given. Please do not think the RN is in a position to provide any additional crews through the existing contract above and beyond its funded line; it exists to support the current requirement, even if it recognises the potential requirement to grow. In equal regard the maritime community dispersed around the RAF, RN and Seedcorn is not going to be enough either. All MMA aircraft soak-up relatively large numbers of personnel, groundcrew & aircrew alike.
I'm sorry I don't see the rivalry you allude to, but it just isn't there. The requirement is being driven by the UK's needs, not an individual service. My RN colleague sipping beer next to me thinks I am mad to respond to your post. He has a habit of being right.
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: The US of A, and sometimes Bonnie Scotland
Posts: 549
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Surely that is the whole point of Seedcorn?!
Baby steps, given the scaling back that we've experienced, but, arguably, it's at least a start.
Baby steps, given the scaling back that we've experienced, but, arguably, it's at least a start.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 1,515
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
good post GD107.
Whatever it might look like to those still serving, seedcorn is a political fix. Something politicians and senior MOD bods can hang their hat on to be seen to doing something given the awkward reality that they have conjured up a capability gap in a maritime nation's security.
Whether it mutates into something better depends on...
a. Someone in power getting the message.
b. That someone having the budget to do something about it.
With regards to the latter, I refer you all to the latest OBR sustainability report, released just a couple of days ago.
That the would be the one predicting a growing deficit towards 2020, unless government expenditure is cut further or taxation is increased or both
It's probably best if we all live in the reality of the present. The RAF getting an MPA again is probably (never say never) not going to happen.
As I've said before, I would love to be wrong.
Whatever it might look like to those still serving, seedcorn is a political fix. Something politicians and senior MOD bods can hang their hat on to be seen to doing something given the awkward reality that they have conjured up a capability gap in a maritime nation's security.
Whether it mutates into something better depends on...
a. Someone in power getting the message.
b. That someone having the budget to do something about it.
With regards to the latter, I refer you all to the latest OBR sustainability report, released just a couple of days ago.
That the would be the one predicting a growing deficit towards 2020, unless government expenditure is cut further or taxation is increased or both
It's probably best if we all live in the reality of the present. The RAF getting an MPA again is probably (never say never) not going to happen.
As I've said before, I would love to be wrong.
Last edited by The Old Fat One; 23rd Jul 2013 at 07:51.