Interesting take on MPA
ATG
we live in hope. I also hope it comes before all our experts' skills have atrophied. This seedcorn initiative, if the P-8 ever comes into fruition, will have been an excellent idea.
we live in hope. I also hope it comes before all our experts' skills have atrophied. This seedcorn initiative, if the P-8 ever comes into fruition, will have been an excellent idea.
Alfred,
I admire your optimism. Time will tell.
Your "underspend funding" just has to survive a Scottish independence referendum, a national election, the political will of the next government to carry it out, the funds not disappearing in cost over runs on Carriers, JSF, or being used for an extra C-17, retention of Sentinel and other UOR funded goodies, etc. Then there's the matter of a long term funding stream for all the extra support and infrastructure for a new aircraft type, extra manpower, training, simulators, etc.... Buying the aircraft is the relatively cheap bit, longer term support eats the money....
Anyway, as I said, time will tell.....
I admire your optimism. Time will tell.
Your "underspend funding" just has to survive a Scottish independence referendum, a national election, the political will of the next government to carry it out, the funds not disappearing in cost over runs on Carriers, JSF, or being used for an extra C-17, retention of Sentinel and other UOR funded goodies, etc. Then there's the matter of a long term funding stream for all the extra support and infrastructure for a new aircraft type, extra manpower, training, simulators, etc.... Buying the aircraft is the relatively cheap bit, longer term support eats the money....
Anyway, as I said, time will tell.....
I’d love to see the first page of any submission from D/Air Staffs to resurrect MPA. They would have to be very careful over the “Background” section. They’d almost certainly have to seriously mislead, and probably lie.
1. We had an MR2 which we knew to be unairworthy, but ignored IFS and cracked on.
2. We endorsed a replacement, but then agreed to merely upgrade the already unairworthy MR2, knowing it could never satisfy the regulations we are bound by. We ignored IFS and our own technical specialists and cracked on.
3. At (Reference A) we stated we did not agree with the Coroner.
4. At (Reference B) we stated we did not agree with the Secretary of State.
5. At (Reference C) we stated we did not agree with the briefings to Mr Haddon-Cave or his confirmation of their veracity.
6. At (Reference D) we agreed MRA4 should be scrapped because all of the above advice proved correct, but we still agree it was worthwhile pissing £4Bn down the pan because we didn’t want our VSOs to be imprisoned. Please don’t abate our pensions.
7. Please give us more dosh so we can try again, but don’t ask awkward questions or call the old bill. (Not that they’ll do anything, the fix is in, but that lot on pprune will publish the truth anyway).
The overarching process is called Requirement Scrutiny. It MUST ask the question “WHY?” to each of the above statements, and take corrective action to prevent recurrence. But if the “new” requirement is endorsed then approval will be given and funding provided, regardless. Fine, I've no problem with that.
As Biggus rightly says, support is around 80% of through life costs and this will be difficult to explain away given it was actually one of the relatively successful parts of MRA4 and much was delivered years before cancellation, highlighting even more waste. The typical Staff solution is to omit support costs, get approval and then insert – called “entryism”. One would hope the EAC is wise to this now. But they’ve rolled over in the past, making me wonder if these costs are included in the £4Bn headline waste we hear of.
All of the above, albeit slightly tongue in cheek, achieves one thing – it reveals gross misconduct on the part of some very senior staffs over a number of years, and directly links their conduct to deaths and waste. I’m not entirely sure D/Air Staffs will want to get this particular paragraph correct and, as we know, a number of their retired predecessors still exercise influence. But the staff officer who gets it right, by which I mean he protects the VSOs but not necessarily MPA capability, will surely be destined for higher office.
1. We had an MR2 which we knew to be unairworthy, but ignored IFS and cracked on.
2. We endorsed a replacement, but then agreed to merely upgrade the already unairworthy MR2, knowing it could never satisfy the regulations we are bound by. We ignored IFS and our own technical specialists and cracked on.
3. At (Reference A) we stated we did not agree with the Coroner.
4. At (Reference B) we stated we did not agree with the Secretary of State.
5. At (Reference C) we stated we did not agree with the briefings to Mr Haddon-Cave or his confirmation of their veracity.
6. At (Reference D) we agreed MRA4 should be scrapped because all of the above advice proved correct, but we still agree it was worthwhile pissing £4Bn down the pan because we didn’t want our VSOs to be imprisoned. Please don’t abate our pensions.
7. Please give us more dosh so we can try again, but don’t ask awkward questions or call the old bill. (Not that they’ll do anything, the fix is in, but that lot on pprune will publish the truth anyway).
The overarching process is called Requirement Scrutiny. It MUST ask the question “WHY?” to each of the above statements, and take corrective action to prevent recurrence. But if the “new” requirement is endorsed then approval will be given and funding provided, regardless. Fine, I've no problem with that.
As Biggus rightly says, support is around 80% of through life costs and this will be difficult to explain away given it was actually one of the relatively successful parts of MRA4 and much was delivered years before cancellation, highlighting even more waste. The typical Staff solution is to omit support costs, get approval and then insert – called “entryism”. One would hope the EAC is wise to this now. But they’ve rolled over in the past, making me wonder if these costs are included in the £4Bn headline waste we hear of.
All of the above, albeit slightly tongue in cheek, achieves one thing – it reveals gross misconduct on the part of some very senior staffs over a number of years, and directly links their conduct to deaths and waste. I’m not entirely sure D/Air Staffs will want to get this particular paragraph correct and, as we know, a number of their retired predecessors still exercise influence. But the staff officer who gets it right, by which I mean he protects the VSOs but not necessarily MPA capability, will surely be destined for higher office.
And what does any of that MR2 stuff have to do with a P-8? Why does it need to go into a "background" section at all?
Edit - it won't be submitted by "D/Air Staff", the capability requirement will likely be done by JFC, probably the Joint Warfare Staff.
Edit - it won't be submitted by "D/Air Staff", the capability requirement will likely be done by JFC, probably the Joint Warfare Staff.
Tuc,
Looking forward, there are realistically only 2 options; P-8 or CN295. Both are already in use by other countries and would come off the shelf and fully certified. History of Nimrod issues would have absolutely no part to play in the process other than an MMA rubber stamp to confirm that they would be good to go.
To my mind, the real challenge would be to ramp up a sqn or 2 with all the supporting elements (e.g. MAAU etc.) that could fully utilize the aircraft in the timescale that the aircraft could be delivered. From signature to delivery could be within 3 years. In that time, the RAF and/or RN would have to recruit significant numbers of WSO/Ops/WAFU's and put them through a realistic training system (USA or AUS perhaps?). Do-able, yes but it would take senior leadership decisions that would need to be fast and robust to make it happen.
Alternatively, we could have lots of aircraft parked in a hangar waiting for the RAF to collect them some time in the future.
Looking forward, there are realistically only 2 options; P-8 or CN295. Both are already in use by other countries and would come off the shelf and fully certified. History of Nimrod issues would have absolutely no part to play in the process other than an MMA rubber stamp to confirm that they would be good to go.
To my mind, the real challenge would be to ramp up a sqn or 2 with all the supporting elements (e.g. MAAU etc.) that could fully utilize the aircraft in the timescale that the aircraft could be delivered. From signature to delivery could be within 3 years. In that time, the RAF and/or RN would have to recruit significant numbers of WSO/Ops/WAFU's and put them through a realistic training system (USA or AUS perhaps?). Do-able, yes but it would take senior leadership decisions that would need to be fast and robust to make it happen.
Alternatively, we could have lots of aircraft parked in a hangar waiting for the RAF to collect them some time in the future.
BS,
Seedcorners will be good for the OCU staff and maybe the standards unit. Not sure what the recognised crew: aircraft ratio is nowadays but in my time on the MRA4, we were using 1.75:1. Do the maths and thats a lot of fresh blood required for 7 aircraft? Plus the enablers, MDAG, MAOC, int, ops support etc,. Let alone the ground engineers who will be starting from scratch.
Seedcorners will be good for the OCU staff and maybe the standards unit. Not sure what the recognised crew: aircraft ratio is nowadays but in my time on the MRA4, we were using 1.75:1. Do the maths and thats a lot of fresh blood required for 7 aircraft? Plus the enablers, MDAG, MAOC, int, ops support etc,. Let alone the ground engineers who will be starting from scratch.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
PA, in the 70s the ratio was 8:10 with 3 in use reserves unestablished.
I guess the number of crews would depend on the number of patrol cycles and whether it was a 24 hour cycle.
I guess the number of crews would depend on the number of patrol cycles and whether it was a 24 hour cycle.
One would presume that a P-8 order would be mirrored by a co-manning arrangement as per Rivet Joint, in order to accelerate the capability and preserve the retained experience.
Just need to shake the money tree.
Just need to shake the money tree.
Alfred,
There are approximately 66 WSO/WSOps left in the RAF with maritime experience. At the end of the MR2, the MAOC had an establishment of 18 to support 24/7 ops. MDAG had about 10. MAAU had a similar number. Int used to have about 8 WSOps. A3 had several WSOps plus half a dozen Ops Support officers. Eng Wg (in old money) had 800 ground engineers to support the fleet. The MSS office soaked up several more WSOps etc. - you get the picture.
Bottom line is that Kinloss alone had about 1800 people to support 21 aircraft. Cutting that number by a third still leaves a lot of people to find, to support haf a dozen. If you want to do the job right.
Assuming, the aircraft would be joint manned with the dark blue, the Fleet Air Arm manning figures are just as bad. There is no fat anywhere in the system anymore.
There are approximately 66 WSO/WSOps left in the RAF with maritime experience. At the end of the MR2, the MAOC had an establishment of 18 to support 24/7 ops. MDAG had about 10. MAAU had a similar number. Int used to have about 8 WSOps. A3 had several WSOps plus half a dozen Ops Support officers. Eng Wg (in old money) had 800 ground engineers to support the fleet. The MSS office soaked up several more WSOps etc. - you get the picture.
Bottom line is that Kinloss alone had about 1800 people to support 21 aircraft. Cutting that number by a third still leaves a lot of people to find, to support haf a dozen. If you want to do the job right.
Assuming, the aircraft would be joint manned with the dark blue, the Fleet Air Arm manning figures are just as bad. There is no fat anywhere in the system anymore.
Join Date: May 2013
Location: UK/ USA
Posts: 111
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you put the MPA/ MMA at RAF Waddington you would not necessarily need to find all the support staff you quoted. There are a whole load of people supporting the ISTAR platforms already there.
PA,
I don't know where you get your figure of 66 from, neither am I questioning it's accuracy, but I know of at least half a dozen ex-maritime WSOs/WSOps who are already in their 50s....
If your figure of 66 is correct, I would say it will be below 60 in the not too distant future, well before any new airframe might (and it's a very big "might") appear on the horizon.
As for the issue of finding multi engine pilots for a new fleet, just read any of the retention threads to see how many first and second tourist RAF ME pilots are already taking their ATPLs.
The situation isn't rosy anywhere!
I don't know where you get your figure of 66 from, neither am I questioning it's accuracy, but I know of at least half a dozen ex-maritime WSOs/WSOps who are already in their 50s....
If your figure of 66 is correct, I would say it will be below 60 in the not too distant future, well before any new airframe might (and it's a very big "might") appear on the horizon.
As for the issue of finding multi engine pilots for a new fleet, just read any of the retention threads to see how many first and second tourist RAF ME pilots are already taking their ATPLs.
The situation isn't rosy anywhere!
Last edited by Biggus; 29th Dec 2013 at 21:36.
Join Date: May 2013
Location: UK/ USA
Posts: 111
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
GG II,
Spread across all the whole stn and at JSSU there are loads of mission support staff. Trouble is they are all supporting stove piped systems. There are more E3D support staff than we had a Kinloss where we flew 24/7, unlike the E3Ds.
Spread across all the whole stn and at JSSU there are loads of mission support staff. Trouble is they are all supporting stove piped systems. There are more E3D support staff than we had a Kinloss where we flew 24/7, unlike the E3Ds.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 1,515
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Let's have the discussion in the real world, shall we?
What you can do is pull every economies of scale, job deskilling & synergy trick in the book, to reduce your support requirement to the absolute minimum (kinda JEEP style - just enough essential parts)
What you cannot do is parachute a sqn and a half of MPA (or whatever you want to call it) into Waddington and say..."here, get one with operating that with your existing LUE". That's just nonsense.
To a large extent, the support manpower requirement will be determined by how you conduct, 1st, 2nd & 3rd line servicing on the beast. The Nimrod has NLS, AEF & NMSU. Perhaps an engineer could suggest a modern equivalent - i confess I know nothing of such matters, other than the rather obvious fact that it takes a sh1tload of people to fix and maintain military combat aircraft.
Then, of course, you have all the adjacent engineering tasks...weapons, sensors, comms etc etc.
My fag packet figures are not a million miles from PA's. I would be surprised if you could get any maritime beast into service in the RAF, or the RN, without an increase of circa 1000 posts in somebody's LUE.
What you can do is pull every economies of scale, job deskilling & synergy trick in the book, to reduce your support requirement to the absolute minimum (kinda JEEP style - just enough essential parts)
What you cannot do is parachute a sqn and a half of MPA (or whatever you want to call it) into Waddington and say..."here, get one with operating that with your existing LUE". That's just nonsense.
To a large extent, the support manpower requirement will be determined by how you conduct, 1st, 2nd & 3rd line servicing on the beast. The Nimrod has NLS, AEF & NMSU. Perhaps an engineer could suggest a modern equivalent - i confess I know nothing of such matters, other than the rather obvious fact that it takes a sh1tload of people to fix and maintain military combat aircraft.
Then, of course, you have all the adjacent engineering tasks...weapons, sensors, comms etc etc.
Bottom line is that Kinloss alone had about 1800 people to support 21 aircraft. Cutting that number by a third still leaves a lot of people to find, to support haf a dozen. If you want to do the job right
Yep, if you give-up Tornado early, remove 1 squadron of Reaper, actually delete Sentinel and commence co-manning with US-hosted trg we may actually be able to scrape together a credible MMA FE.
I think it would be worth it but opinions will vary - and rightly so.
I think it would be worth it but opinions will vary - and rightly so.