UK Maritime Patrol Aircraft - An Urgent Requirement
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: North Yorkshire
Age: 82
Posts: 641
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Migrated from an earlier thread, but perhaps worth reposting.
I confess that my knowledge of MPA is limited. That said, my reading of the core maritime patrol capabilities, as a minimum insurance cover, that we, as an island trading nation with overseas dependant territories and a submarine based nuclear deterrent, need to possess are as follows:
Military capabilities. Long range maritime patrol; surveillance, detection and attack of surface and sub-surface threats. Interoperability with and protection of friendly air, surface and sub-surface assets far from land, including coordinating long range search and rescue tasks.
These tasks could only be planned and carried out by the military. While the RN is a more logical military owner of the these capabilities than the RAF, in the end the owner is not so important provided the required result is delivered. A civilian organisation, however, could not deliver the required result.
Non-military tasks. Littoral commerce surveillance and policing. Coordination of and assistance with Short Range search and rescue tasks.
Logically these tasks would be carried out by civilian Coastguard/Border Agency aircraft. The military could meet these tasks but it would not be economical for them to do so.
The real difficulties hinge on defining realistically the scale, sophistication and ultimately affordability, if at all, of the military hardware, role equipment and associated support, while avoiding being over ambitious.
I confess that my knowledge of MPA is limited. That said, my reading of the core maritime patrol capabilities, as a minimum insurance cover, that we, as an island trading nation with overseas dependant territories and a submarine based nuclear deterrent, need to possess are as follows:
Military capabilities. Long range maritime patrol; surveillance, detection and attack of surface and sub-surface threats. Interoperability with and protection of friendly air, surface and sub-surface assets far from land, including coordinating long range search and rescue tasks.
These tasks could only be planned and carried out by the military. While the RN is a more logical military owner of the these capabilities than the RAF, in the end the owner is not so important provided the required result is delivered. A civilian organisation, however, could not deliver the required result.
Non-military tasks. Littoral commerce surveillance and policing. Coordination of and assistance with Short Range search and rescue tasks.
Logically these tasks would be carried out by civilian Coastguard/Border Agency aircraft. The military could meet these tasks but it would not be economical for them to do so.
The real difficulties hinge on defining realistically the scale, sophistication and ultimately affordability, if at all, of the military hardware, role equipment and associated support, while avoiding being over ambitious.
Last edited by Clockwork Mouse; 12th Jan 2015 at 23:58.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Tennessee - Smoky Mountains
Age: 55
Posts: 1,602
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Migrated from an earlier thread, but perhaps worth reposting.
I confess that my knowledge of MPA is limited. That said, my reading of the core maritime patrol capabilities, as a minimum insurance cover, that we, as an island trading nation with overseas dependant territories and a submarine based nuclear deterrent, need to possess are as follows:
Military capabilities. Long range maritime patrol; surveillance, detection and attack of surface and sub-surface threats. Interoperability with and protection of friendly air, surface and sub-surface assets far from land, including coordinating long range search and rescue tasks.
I confess that my knowledge of MPA is limited. That said, my reading of the core maritime patrol capabilities, as a minimum insurance cover, that we, as an island trading nation with overseas dependant territories and a submarine based nuclear deterrent, need to possess are as follows:
Military capabilities. Long range maritime patrol; surveillance, detection and attack of surface and sub-surface threats. Interoperability with and protection of friendly air, surface and sub-surface assets far from land, including coordinating long range search and rescue tasks.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: North Yorkshire
Age: 82
Posts: 641
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Possibly, but please note my final sentence:
"The real difficulties hinge on defining realistically the scale, sophistication and ultimately affordability, if at all, of the military hardware, role equipment and associated support, while avoiding being over ambitious".
"The real difficulties hinge on defining realistically the scale, sophistication and ultimately affordability, if at all, of the military hardware, role equipment and associated support, while avoiding being over ambitious".
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
I confess that my knowledge of MPA is limited. That said, my reading of the core maritime patrol capabilities, as a minimum insurance cover, that we, as an island trading nation with overseas dependant territories and a submarine based nuclear deterrent, need to possess are as follows:
Military capabilities. Long range maritime patrol; surveillance, detection and attack of surface and sub-surface threats. Interoperability with and protection of friendly air, surface and sub-surface assets far from land, including coordinating long range search and rescue tasks.
Military capabilities. Long range maritime patrol; surveillance, detection and attack of surface and sub-surface threats. Interoperability with and protection of friendly air, surface and sub-surface assets far from land, including coordinating long range search and rescue tasks.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
These tasks could only be planned and carried out by the military. While the RN is a more logical military owner of the these capabilities than the RAF, in the end the owner is not so important provided the required result is delivered.
Maybe ownership (Opcom) could reside with dark blue but light blue providing a cadre of aircrew, either temporarily or permanently. A precedent existed with the F4K, Buccaneer and Gannet.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 1,515
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So what do we think then, the long term MPA ppruners?
Some rhetorical questions...
2015 - will this year kick off the RAF maritime patrol end game?
Surely the SDSR will go ahead swiftly after the election? Whoever gets in is going to need to address all aspects of public spending promptly given what is happening right now and the inevitable policy stagnation that will set in prior to the general election.
Surely also, if no decision is reached at the next SDSR, the window closes forever? It's coming up to five years since we last flew an MPA. There's nothing and nobody to replace seedcorn with. Most of all if there are legacy resources costing money for something we don't do anymore, surely they will first in the firing line come the next set of inevitable cuts?
For me, 2015 is do it or be done time. What do you think?
Some rhetorical questions...
2015 - will this year kick off the RAF maritime patrol end game?
Surely the SDSR will go ahead swiftly after the election? Whoever gets in is going to need to address all aspects of public spending promptly given what is happening right now and the inevitable policy stagnation that will set in prior to the general election.
Surely also, if no decision is reached at the next SDSR, the window closes forever? It's coming up to five years since we last flew an MPA. There's nothing and nobody to replace seedcorn with. Most of all if there are legacy resources costing money for something we don't do anymore, surely they will first in the firing line come the next set of inevitable cuts?
For me, 2015 is do it or be done time. What do you think?
There's nothing and nobody to replace seedcorn with
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: various
Posts: 73
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ATG,
You are wrong. Seedcorn personnel in overseas flying posts are SQEP that have a credible CV so as to be accepted by a host nation. The pool of SQEP that can replace them is very thin, in certain branches/trades this is VERY thin, as is being discovered at present.
Also, We (as in the UK) are not capable of training any AB-initio MPA crew at this time.
You are wrong. Seedcorn personnel in overseas flying posts are SQEP that have a credible CV so as to be accepted by a host nation. The pool of SQEP that can replace them is very thin, in certain branches/trades this is VERY thin, as is being discovered at present.
Also, We (as in the UK) are not capable of training any AB-initio MPA crew at this time.
Best you tell that to those briefing the fact that MPA crew - much like F-35 and C-17 crews - can be trained in the country awarded the contract (or currently hosting seedcorn) until there is suitable level of personnel to generate our own training in the UK.
I see no reason why we can't send ab initios abroad to train, beyond perhaps some parochialism.
I see no reason why we can't send ab initios abroad to train, beyond perhaps some parochialism.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 1,515
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hoping to kinda focus on the main topic - "2015 is this the year". And hoping also not get into a semantical debate....but...
Sending ab initios overseas to train is certainly viable (we've done it before), but it isn't "Seedcorn" is it, or anything like it. Seedcorn, as stated in parliament, is an initiative to retain core skills. You can't retain the core skills of ab-initios - they don't have any to retain.
Sending ab initios overseas to train is certainly viable (we've done it before), but it isn't "Seedcorn" is it, or anything like it. Seedcorn, as stated in parliament, is an initiative to retain core skills. You can't retain the core skills of ab-initios - they don't have any to retain.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: various
Posts: 73
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You are missing the point.
Those on Seedcorn are SQEP. It is very difficult to replace them as the pool of SQEP elsewhere in the RAF is exceptionally small and going overseas will not suit the vast majority due to realities of life. You cannot replace them with AB-initio guys as the deal with the various host nations is that they get experienced personel that will enhance their programmes in return for a non-reciprocal post.
In the meantime, until something is announced (a very big IF), the UK is not going to spend money on sending AB-initials overseas to train on MPA when there is no requirement to generate more such personnel, or give them 6 years experience and then train them as instructors, ready to train future UK personnel.
It is also a brave assumption to assume that other nations training systems have the capacity to train another nations aircrew. This would be a very good question for the UK to ask yesterday........
Those on Seedcorn are SQEP. It is very difficult to replace them as the pool of SQEP elsewhere in the RAF is exceptionally small and going overseas will not suit the vast majority due to realities of life. You cannot replace them with AB-initio guys as the deal with the various host nations is that they get experienced personel that will enhance their programmes in return for a non-reciprocal post.
In the meantime, until something is announced (a very big IF), the UK is not going to spend money on sending AB-initials overseas to train on MPA when there is no requirement to generate more such personnel, or give them 6 years experience and then train them as instructors, ready to train future UK personnel.
It is also a brave assumption to assume that other nations training systems have the capacity to train another nations aircrew. This would be a very good question for the UK to ask yesterday........
In the meantime, until something is announced (a very big IF), the UK is not going to spend money on sending AB-initials overseas to train on MPA when there is no requirement to generate more such personnel, or give them 6 years experience and then train them as instructors, ready to train future UK personnel.
I have no doubt the USN would be amiable to putting in a small number of people to the training pipeline to continue this key strategic capability.
Alfred countries like NZ do not have a huge training mechanism and the training they do is for their own people, if you want UK a personnel trained that will stop a local getting a job who will be useful for his whole career not someone who will leave when there is a requirement elsewhere.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
After 3 weeks in NZ I would have been happy to stay.
Could a 'trainee' be obliged to return to UK?
However as ferggy says, someone filling a foreign billet for a number of years would leave a hole when eventually repatriated.
Could a 'trainee' be obliged to return to UK?
However as ferggy says, someone filling a foreign billet for a number of years would leave a hole when eventually repatriated.
Alfred. What do you think Seedcorn is doing as we speak
