Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Aircrew Forums > Military Aviation
Reload this Page >

UK Maritime Patrol Aircraft - An Urgent Requirement

Military Aviation A forum for the professionals who fly military hardware. Also for the backroom boys and girls who support the flying and maintain the equipment, and without whom nothing would ever leave the ground. All armies, navies and air forces of the world equally welcome here.

UK Maritime Patrol Aircraft - An Urgent Requirement

Old 21st Oct 2014, 16:51
  #701 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Outside the Matz
Posts: 219
"AFAIK Canada has been operating with 18 Aurora plus 3 Arcturus"

Nope. Arcturus is long gone. 18 was a long time ago. Someone needs to invest in a new Janes.
My point is, irrespective of how many toys they have, they are operating with a lot fewer crews( as a ratio to aircraft) than we ever did or indeed aspire to. Over a pint those in the know will tell you how many crews were at ISK in 2004 on 4 Sqdns sharing 12 jets.

Last edited by Bannock; 21st Oct 2014 at 19:52. Reason: Only had a couple of mins before briefing so didnt have long to compose an adequate response. Scrub Dances - They work!
Bannock is offline  
Old 21st Oct 2014, 17:23
  #702 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 1,905
2017 for 1st aircraft and initial crew(s).
Just This Once... is offline  
Old 21st Oct 2014, 17:27
  #703 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Sussex By The Sea
Age: 75
Posts: 263
Thanks Bannock, I stand corrected.
nimbev is offline  
Old 23rd Oct 2014, 12:23
  #704 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Outside the Matz
Posts: 219
"where are we supposed to conjure up 10, 15 crews for the anticipated MMA fleet when most of the specialists now work in the oil & gas industries"



Military Aircraft

Question

Asked by Lord West of Spithead

To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the Written Answer by Lord Astor of Hever on 26 September (HL1820), how many ex-Nimrod aircrews are still serving in maritime patrol aircraft appointments worldwide; and how many are flying in other roles in the United Kingdom.[HL1950]
15 Oct 2014 : Column WA42
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Astor of Hever) (Con): There are currently 32 personnel deployed overseas in Maritime Patrol Aircraft roles under the Seedcorn initiative with a further seven on traditional exchange programmes. 115 personnel are currently operating in other flying roles in the UK.
Bannock is offline  
Old 23rd Oct 2014, 13:24
  #705 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: scotland
Posts: 494
Can't we just 'lease lend' two squadrons of P3's from the USA.
KPax is offline  
Old 23rd Oct 2014, 13:45
  #706 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 3,946
I am not sure just how much Air ASW expertise the RN will be able to bring.
Oh, do have a word with your self importance, purlease!







Oh, and they should be getting these in 2015 I believe...



LJ
Lima Juliet is offline  
Old 23rd Oct 2014, 14:26
  #707 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: 4 Civvy Street. Nowhere-near-a-base. The Shires.
Posts: 560
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Astor of Hever) (Con): There are currently 32 personnel deployed overseas in Maritime Patrol Aircraft roles under the Seedcorn initiative with a further seven on traditional exchange programmes. 115 personnel are currently operating in other flying roles in the UK.
So thats 39 then - 4 crews.

Unless anybody thinks the other fleets will be happy with a major reduction in manpower to spring the 115 (who probably don't all wish to move anyway)
camelspyyder is offline  
Old 23rd Oct 2014, 14:33
  #708 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 1998
Location: England
Posts: 1,870
So thats 39 then - 4 crews.
Or more than enough to be able to crew the 1 aircraft we are likely to be able to afford now that all of major parties have started promising to throw more money into the black hole/sacred cow that is the NHS.
Roland Pulfrew is offline  
Old 23rd Oct 2014, 14:37
  #709 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Ice Station Kinloss
Posts: 26
It would be interesting to have a break down of the 39 + 115 as to trade.
KonfusedofKinloss is offline  
Old 23rd Oct 2014, 15:56
  #710 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Sussex By The Sea
Age: 75
Posts: 263
LJ

Oh, do have a word with your self importance, purlease!
Nothing to do with self importance - just quoting very senior officer (do not wish to 'out him') from Illustrious prior to her final deployment. The point I am making is the lack of submarine contact time which (as I am sure you know ) is all important in ASW.
nimbev is offline  
Old 23rd Oct 2014, 17:05
  #711 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: 4 Civvy Street. Nowhere-near-a-base. The Shires.
Posts: 560
you can call it 39 + 113 if you like.

I know 1 who's leaving in January and 1 who wouldn't fly the P-8 if it arrived tomorrow.
camelspyyder is offline  
Old 23rd Oct 2014, 17:31
  #712 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: The Roman Empire
Posts: 2,334
You also have to ask what the age breakdown of the 39 + 113 is?



I believe that one of the 39 was 48 when he started the seedcorn programme. Therefore, extensions not withstanding, he has minimal longevity in any future UK MPA fleet.

Someone has already asked what the trade breakdown of the 39 + 113 is. I know of at least 2 ex Nimrod air engineers still serving, who would have no flying role in a UK MPA fleet.
Biggus is offline  
Old 23rd Oct 2014, 18:50
  #713 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: 4 Civvy Street. Nowhere-near-a-base. The Shires.
Posts: 560
48 would have been the absolute maximum age for seedcorn because applicants were ineligible if they had less than 7 years to serve.

The NEM might help here because those approaching 55 may have the opportunity to go on to 60 soon.
camelspyyder is offline  
Old 23rd Oct 2014, 19:14
  #714 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 1,519
Unless anybody thinks the other fleets will be happy with a major reduction in manpower to spring the 115 (who probably don't all wish to move anyway)
This

The RAF did away with it's effective aircrew reserve when it replaced many of the aircrew in ground appointments with the introduction of the ops support branch.

No way will all the 40 odd seedcorn become operational on a future MPA in 2017. You'll be lucky to get half that number.

And, outwith seedcorn, I don't think there are many wetties floating about (no pun intended).

When I mentioned ASW skills, I meant it "relatively". No one anywhere has the ASW skills we had in the cold war, because no one has the in contact time. Technology will make up for some of this gap however.

In sum, 90 odd percent of any of a new MPA force will have to be recruited and trained from scratch.

And I don't think anybody in the know is under any illusions about that.
The Old Fat One is offline  
Old 23rd Oct 2014, 22:25
  #715 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: The US of A, and sometimes Bonnie Scotland
Posts: 537
Leon. There no doubt the RN can do the job. That's not the point. The point is, out to how far?
betty swallox is offline  
Old 24th Oct 2014, 04:50
  #716 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 1,519
BS

I think you've missed the nature of discussion (maybe LJ did too IDK). We are not discussing who does ASW in capability terms (now or in the future), but who would have to operate the acoustics in a future MMA/MPA. Some of us contend that the RAF is close to losing its entire ASW expertise forever. Thus if/when an MPA capability is restored (fingers crossed hey), the aircraft would be operated either by, or with, the RN because they still have plenty of acoustics operators (airborne, surface or subsurface). The RAF soon won't have any (or at least none with anything approaching currency).

And by soon, I mean when seedcorn ends.
The Old Fat One is offline  
Old 24th Oct 2014, 06:37
  #717 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 3,946
TOFO - exactly.

BS - my point was not to say that the helicopters are long reach assets, but they have plenty of 'expertise' to man the sensors and to also fly a long range MPA should one be profured. As TOFO so rightly points out, there are people in dark blue that are current, competent and probably willing to do the job too.

Nimbev - that is not what you said in your original statement about a lack of "Air ASW expertise" which seemed to completely discount the Royal Navy's WAFU 'pingers'.

LJ
Lima Juliet is offline  
Old 24th Oct 2014, 07:25
  #718 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 605
BS - you bit!!
Party Animal is offline  
Old 24th Oct 2014, 08:04
  #719 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 1998
Location: England
Posts: 1,870
or with, the RN because they still have plenty of acoustics operators (airborne, surface or subsurface)
Exactly
Well not exactly actually. Despite the undoubted ASW skills present within the FAA Merlin force, the simple fact is that the FAA are struggling to man their own force. If they divert people to a future MPA/MMA then they stretch an already stretched force, probably beyond breaking point.

The simple fact is, most of the Armed Forces of the UK are now one brick thick. We have, as TOFO mentioned, shot ourselves in the foot by removing aircrew from as many non-flying (but flying related) posts as possible. We are about to handover another 200 or so "flying branch" posts to other branches (not sure where they are going to find more people to fill them though).
Roland Pulfrew is offline  
Old 24th Oct 2014, 13:30
  #720 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 1,519
Just to nail this one and put it to bed...Roland and Camelspyder...I concur (ooh dejavu)

I'm not suggesting (and I don't think anybody else is either) that any outfit can cough up spare bodies...nobody has spare bodies these days.

I'm suggesting that sooner rather than later, the RN will be the only outfit in our military system capable of producing acoustics operators...in fact that may be the case already.
The Old Fat One is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.