Interesting take on MPA
Thread Starter
Interesting take on MPA
http://thinpinstripedline.********.co.uk/
Brief extract....
The main complaint though seems to be twofold – that a warship and not an aircraft was sent to investigate, and that it didn’t come from Scotland. In reality one has to ask whether an aircraft is really the best solution for this particular situation. Beyond overflying the hull to visually confirm that ‘yes there really is a Russian vessel out there’ the value of the MPA is limited to being able to say ‘we know you are there’. For the crews its likely to mean sustained sorties flying racetracks in foul weather, with long hours of discussions between kipper fleet members about the merits of different pies that they've tasted. Indeed a look on PPRUNE suggests that most MPA overflights in the past were limited to two or three direct overflights of a hull for various legal reasons. So, the best Nimrod could do would be to find the vessel, loiter with fairly obvious intent, and then land again. To support this around the clock would require a minimum of three airframes, a significant proportion of flight operations and support personnel and tie up the resources of a significant proportion of the station.[/I]
I've seen this blog linked to before. Ostensibly independent but a closer look reveals something close to MoD propaganda.
Brief extract....
The main complaint though seems to be twofold – that a warship and not an aircraft was sent to investigate, and that it didn’t come from Scotland. In reality one has to ask whether an aircraft is really the best solution for this particular situation. Beyond overflying the hull to visually confirm that ‘yes there really is a Russian vessel out there’ the value of the MPA is limited to being able to say ‘we know you are there’. For the crews its likely to mean sustained sorties flying racetracks in foul weather, with long hours of discussions between kipper fleet members about the merits of different pies that they've tasted. Indeed a look on PPRUNE suggests that most MPA overflights in the past were limited to two or three direct overflights of a hull for various legal reasons. So, the best Nimrod could do would be to find the vessel, loiter with fairly obvious intent, and then land again. To support this around the clock would require a minimum of three airframes, a significant proportion of flight operations and support personnel and tie up the resources of a significant proportion of the station.[/I]
I've seen this blog linked to before. Ostensibly independent but a closer look reveals something close to MoD propaganda.
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Sussex By The Sea
Age: 79
Posts: 264
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
long hours of discussions between kipper fleet members about the merits of different pies that they've tasted.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Somewhere flat
Age: 68
Posts: 5,566
Likes: 0
Received 45 Likes
on
30 Posts
If the ship has entered the Moray Firth to escape the Scottish storm, then it is likely that the MPA from Kinloss would also be grounded........ Pies and discussions in the crew room (Uckers?) waiting for a non-existent weather window rather than in the air me-thinks.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
If the ship has entered the Moray Firth to escape the Scottish storm, then it is likely that the MPA from Kinloss would also be grounded........ Pies and discussions in the crew room (Uckers?) waiting for a non-existent weather window rather than in the air me-thinks.
The Nimrod was never grounded through weather at Kinloss.
At the first hint of gales and crosswinds the stalwart crews would leap into their study beast and disperse to a more clement airfield. Usually at Prestwick where they could relax in a congenial hotel and, eschewing jock pies, partake of the finest Aberdeen Angus steaks.
There was one occasion, the crew gathered in the dining room having just ordered a light repast when they were scambled. One Harry N......s went in to the kitchen, grabbed the pile of steaks and the crew legged it leaving the Navy to sort out the bill and the luggage
Totally flawed argument.
Who ever said there was a requirement for continuous 24hr MPA coverage of transiting foreign warships? One MPA goes out, confirms the warships present, pennant numbers, photos etc, comes home, job done. One sortie costing £?,000 per hour.
If you had MPA, and the warship transit was during a normal non "stand down" period (i.e. not Christmas), then you could use an MPA to check on the foreign warships as merely a small part of a normal training sortie. Successive MPAs could make repeated checks as part of successive training sorties over the transit of the vessels through the UK area of interest. Direct costs attributed to the task of updating the warships - minimal!
Instead, we sail the "duty" RN vessel, and get it to stay at sea for what, 3-4 days. What are the operating costs per day of a RN warship? How many pies will the crew consume in 3 days...
How much extra value is gained by "holding hands" with the transiting warships 24/7? Like they're really going to deploy their "top secret" new gizzmo when there's an RN warship trailing them!!
This article, as indeed most are, was written with a distinct agenda!!
Who ever said there was a requirement for continuous 24hr MPA coverage of transiting foreign warships? One MPA goes out, confirms the warships present, pennant numbers, photos etc, comes home, job done. One sortie costing £?,000 per hour.
If you had MPA, and the warship transit was during a normal non "stand down" period (i.e. not Christmas), then you could use an MPA to check on the foreign warships as merely a small part of a normal training sortie. Successive MPAs could make repeated checks as part of successive training sorties over the transit of the vessels through the UK area of interest. Direct costs attributed to the task of updating the warships - minimal!
Instead, we sail the "duty" RN vessel, and get it to stay at sea for what, 3-4 days. What are the operating costs per day of a RN warship? How many pies will the crew consume in 3 days...
How much extra value is gained by "holding hands" with the transiting warships 24/7? Like they're really going to deploy their "top secret" new gizzmo when there's an RN warship trailing them!!
This article, as indeed most are, was written with a distinct agenda!!
Last edited by Biggus; 25th Dec 2013 at 09:54.
I find it amusing that people can 'see' MOD propaganda in private blogs which dare to suggest that things aren't as bad in some areas as some would have you believe, or that decisions aren't as black/white as people suspect. The idea that the MOD has the ability or vision to run a 'black ops disinformation blog' is quite amusing though!
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 3,399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Biggus
Not arguing for the veracity of the article, but you are being a bit silly re the cost of sailing the warship.
The crew eat the same whether they are "sailing" or not, and the cost are unchanged whether they are shadowing a Russian or loitering around the north sea waiting for something to happen. Warships do not just sit in port doing nothing. They go out, they come back for fuel or they RAS, they go out etc etc.
The idea that using a warship has the same cost increase as 24 hr MPA ops is silly. It may very well be inferior in many ways for the task, but it is not an expensive option. (except of course for the fact that warships are expensive to run, in port or out)
Not arguing for the veracity of the article, but you are being a bit silly re the cost of sailing the warship.
The crew eat the same whether they are "sailing" or not, and the cost are unchanged whether they are shadowing a Russian or loitering around the north sea waiting for something to happen. Warships do not just sit in port doing nothing. They go out, they come back for fuel or they RAS, they go out etc etc.
The idea that using a warship has the same cost increase as 24 hr MPA ops is silly. It may very well be inferior in many ways for the task, but it is not an expensive option. (except of course for the fact that warships are expensive to run, in port or out)
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: In the workshop, Prune-whispering.
Age: 71
Posts: 744
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
The Nimrod was far better placed for such an event. With the element of surprise, we would make far better collections of various types on such a sortie. As has already been mentioned, if they've got a RN tattle-tail, nobody's going glean much of any intelligence use!
On to more serious things though, the most I managed to eat on a 5.5hr sortie was only ONE pie, (plus 4 main meals and a quarter of a DCS!).
Ping
On to more serious things though, the most I managed to eat on a 5.5hr sortie was only ONE pie, (plus 4 main meals and a quarter of a DCS!).
Ping
Tourist,
My very point is that you don't need to use 24hr MPA ops!!
The cost argument is a comparison between a few hours of MPA use (say 6) vs 72-96 hrs of RN warship costs! I would suggest that the latter is likely to be the more expensive of the two.
The article that the OP linked to also referred to the "deployment of the Fleet Ready Escort", rather than employment or tasking. Maybe I read too much into the choice of word, but, given the time of year I assumed (possibly incorrectly) that this was in port on a "readiness to sail" type standby. Thus they weren't already "loitering about the North Sea waiting for something to happen".
Apart from that, I agree with your very last sentence!
My very point is that you don't need to use 24hr MPA ops!!
The cost argument is a comparison between a few hours of MPA use (say 6) vs 72-96 hrs of RN warship costs! I would suggest that the latter is likely to be the more expensive of the two.
The article that the OP linked to also referred to the "deployment of the Fleet Ready Escort", rather than employment or tasking. Maybe I read too much into the choice of word, but, given the time of year I assumed (possibly incorrectly) that this was in port on a "readiness to sail" type standby. Thus they weren't already "loitering about the North Sea waiting for something to happen".
Apart from that, I agree with your very last sentence!
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 3,399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think I need to make it clearer.
The warship costs very much the same in port or out.
ie it is expensive whether you use it or not.
The people are on board. The lights are on. The systems are running. It is like an MPA at the threshold engines running ready for takeoff.
There is little extra cost to setting it off to sea. Flying an MPA is an extra cost.
You cannot compare 72hrs of RN warship costs to MPA in such a manner. The money is spent whether you use it or not. An aircraft is different. It cost comparatively little in the hangar.
The warship costs very much the same in port or out.
ie it is expensive whether you use it or not.
The people are on board. The lights are on. The systems are running. It is like an MPA at the threshold engines running ready for takeoff.
There is little extra cost to setting it off to sea. Flying an MPA is an extra cost.
You cannot compare 72hrs of RN warship costs to MPA in such a manner. The money is spent whether you use it or not. An aircraft is different. It cost comparatively little in the hangar.
So you're saying that when, for example, a Type 23 is in port, the diesel generators and Speys are running, rather than taking power from ashore? I assume this must be so, as you equate it to an MPA at the threshold with engines running, as to opposed to an MPA parked with a ground power unit attached to allow systems to be run up.
As for the "flying an MPA is an extra" cost argument, how much of an extra cost exactly? If you don't fly an MPA, the crew are still being paid while at home, the airfield overheads are all still being paid, ATC, duty engineers, guard force, power, etc. The additional costs of flying are largely the "consumables", and the effect on the requirement for the next periodic serving and ultimately replacing the airframe.
I would suggest that MPA costs are not that dissimilar whether you use it or not. A force of 30 odd airframes, 3 Sqns to man it, simulator buildings and staff, an active airfield, 1500 odd people of various trades to support it, all cost a considerable amount even if all 30 aircraft are sat on the ground doing nothing.
You still come back to 6 hours of MPA "consumables" vs 72-96 hours of warship "consumables", and I still don't see why the latter isn't more expensive.
I haven't even returned to the fact that during non-holiday season the MPA could do the job as a minor part of a normal training event......
Have to agree to differ on what is, after all, a fairly pointless discussion, since the UK no longer has a viable MPA fleet!!
As for the "flying an MPA is an extra" cost argument, how much of an extra cost exactly? If you don't fly an MPA, the crew are still being paid while at home, the airfield overheads are all still being paid, ATC, duty engineers, guard force, power, etc. The additional costs of flying are largely the "consumables", and the effect on the requirement for the next periodic serving and ultimately replacing the airframe.
I would suggest that MPA costs are not that dissimilar whether you use it or not. A force of 30 odd airframes, 3 Sqns to man it, simulator buildings and staff, an active airfield, 1500 odd people of various trades to support it, all cost a considerable amount even if all 30 aircraft are sat on the ground doing nothing.
You still come back to 6 hours of MPA "consumables" vs 72-96 hours of warship "consumables", and I still don't see why the latter isn't more expensive.
I haven't even returned to the fact that during non-holiday season the MPA could do the job as a minor part of a normal training event......
Have to agree to differ on what is, after all, a fairly pointless discussion, since the UK no longer has a viable MPA fleet!!
Last edited by Biggus; 25th Dec 2013 at 14:50.
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: The US of A, and sometimes Bonnie Scotland
Posts: 549
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dervish.
If that's what you really think all the Nimrod did, I'm offended. I know this is a rumour site, but, frankly if you're going to post rubbish, think about your audience. No comment is better than ill-informed tripe.
If that's what you really think all the Nimrod did, I'm offended. I know this is a rumour site, but, frankly if you're going to post rubbish, think about your audience. No comment is better than ill-informed tripe.
Join Date: May 2013
Location: UK/ USA
Posts: 111
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How would you tackle 3 or 4 vessels of interest at say 200 miles separation . An MPA can update all 4 easily in one sortie. A single RN asset can trail one.
Each platform has benefits.
Each platform has benefits.
betty,
The comments from Dervish are not (necessarily) what he/she thinks personally. They are just an extract (hence the use of the words "brief extract") from the article you can read if you follow the link in the original post.
Be advised that if you do read the full article, I fully anticipate that you will suffer from highly elevated blood pressure.... enjoy!
The comments from Dervish are not (necessarily) what he/she thinks personally. They are just an extract (hence the use of the words "brief extract") from the article you can read if you follow the link in the original post.
Be advised that if you do read the full article, I fully anticipate that you will suffer from highly elevated blood pressure.... enjoy!
I couldn't open the link either but it's obvious from the short extract that the idiot is commenting on a subject they have no idea on. Frankly, an infantile perspective.
On second thoughts, maybe they work for HQ Air?
On second thoughts, maybe they work for HQ Air?
I couldn't open the link either, but fortunately my internet browser was clever enough to give me options...
If you replace the ******* in the link with:
t o p s g o l b
now reverse the letters, and lose the spaces between them, then it should work!
Alternatively put thin pinstriped line into the well known search engine that has become a verb in the OED!
Enjoy!!
If you replace the ******* in the link with:
t o p s g o l b
now reverse the letters, and lose the spaces between them, then it should work!
Alternatively put thin pinstriped line into the well known search engine that has become a verb in the OED!
Enjoy!!
Thread Starter
Could I just I point out I linked to a blog that is not mine.
As someone else said too, I thought the author of the article had an agenda. In general the blog is quite knowledgeable on Navy matters and seems to be written by someone in MoD. That pro-RN slant has been taken a little far in this particular article, which seems very anti-MPA. The detail in the various articles makes me think the author is not anonymous, and enjoys the tacit approval of MoD which, like other government departments is known to "float" ideas in semi-official announcements or leaks to gauge opinion. I may be wrong!
As someone else said too, I thought the author of the article had an agenda. In general the blog is quite knowledgeable on Navy matters and seems to be written by someone in MoD. That pro-RN slant has been taken a little far in this particular article, which seems very anti-MPA. The detail in the various articles makes me think the author is not anonymous, and enjoys the tacit approval of MoD which, like other government departments is known to "float" ideas in semi-official announcements or leaks to gauge opinion. I may be wrong!
Very, very wrong.
Having just re-read the entry, I really don't understand the panty-twisting that is going on. The 3 advantages of airpower - speed, height, reach - don't have the same advantages of maritime power - persistence and sustained range - in a situation like this. They are complementary capabilities. Indeed, the entry seems to be slapping around the Scottish contingent (the SNP's Defence lead for one), who complained that no surface ships in Scotland hazarded their defence, as well as some fatuous comments about MRA4.
Having just re-read the entry, I really don't understand the panty-twisting that is going on. The 3 advantages of airpower - speed, height, reach - don't have the same advantages of maritime power - persistence and sustained range - in a situation like this. They are complementary capabilities. Indeed, the entry seems to be slapping around the Scottish contingent (the SNP's Defence lead for one), who complained that no surface ships in Scotland hazarded their defence, as well as some fatuous comments about MRA4.