UK Maritime Patrol Aircraft - An Urgent Requirement
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 1,515
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is more chance of my growing a pair of breasts than of any incoming government purchasing any form of MPA, end of!
But if you check back a couple of pages and find the reference to staffwork - it is credible. In other words, serious work continues from within. Bits of training continues, staffwork continues, as well as the now famous Seedcorn.
So I guess we can be forgiven for thinking there could be some substance in all this endeavour, no?
I guess that's why I'm pressing the point, more than I should. If it does not bear fruition this time around it is indeed all bull, and those involved can make informed choices based on that knowledge.
PS Re breasts...you're still a lean,mean fighting machine in your dotage then?
There is more chance of my growing a pair of breasts than of any incoming government purchasing any form of MPA
Just as a matter of interest, is "Operation Seed Corn" still going?
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
TOFO, it would be remiss not to have on going staff work while the seedcorn is still growing.
Like the TSR 2, there was parallel staffing with the F111. And what did we get? Buccaneer.
Like the TSR 2, there was parallel staffing with the F111. And what did we get? Buccaneer.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: SALISBURY
Age: 76
Posts: 706
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm so pleased that I have managed to bring a little levity to this otherwise worthy topic.
To answer a couple of questions:
1. Yes, I'm still "lean & mean" & feeling happy with life although I still miss the odd 9 hours on an Oedipus, obviously "hot"!
2. No HRT, just copious quantities of Becks & good wines.
To answer a couple of questions:
1. Yes, I'm still "lean & mean" & feeling happy with life although I still miss the odd 9 hours on an Oedipus, obviously "hot"!
2. No HRT, just copious quantities of Becks & good wines.
Just as we're thinking about how to reproduce an MRA4-type capability with the P-8, here comes the CSBA's house bubblehead to complicate the issue:
http://csbaonline.org/publications/2...ersea-warfare/
Clark sees less and less utility for passive acoustics. MAC (P-8A Increment 2/MRA4) is OK, but limited in range, and over-reliant on cueing by passive systems. The way to go in his view is medium- and low-frequency active, and using new technology to exploit known but previously impractical approaches such as Kelvin wakes on the surface.
He's also down on P-8A (relative to the USN which sees it as the mainstay of ASW) because it can't operate in contested airspace. (By the way, others take the view that the entire purpose of the Chengdu J-20 is to expand said contested airspace and take out HVAAs and tankers.)
He's up on UUVs using LFAS.
http://csbaonline.org/publications/2...ersea-warfare/
Clark sees less and less utility for passive acoustics. MAC (P-8A Increment 2/MRA4) is OK, but limited in range, and over-reliant on cueing by passive systems. The way to go in his view is medium- and low-frequency active, and using new technology to exploit known but previously impractical approaches such as Kelvin wakes on the surface.
He's also down on P-8A (relative to the USN which sees it as the mainstay of ASW) because it can't operate in contested airspace. (By the way, others take the view that the entire purpose of the Chengdu J-20 is to expand said contested airspace and take out HVAAs and tankers.)
He's up on UUVs using LFAS.
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
He's also down on P-8A (relative to the USN which sees it as the mainstay of ASW) because it can't operate in contested airspace. (By the way, others take the view that the entire purpose of the Chengdu J-20 is to expand said contested airspace and take out HVAAs and tankers.)
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: NC, USA
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And ever since 1941 when the Prince of Wales and Repulse were sunk by Japanese aircraft, you don't send important assets where you don't already have air supremacy.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: by the Great Salt Lake, USA
Posts: 1,542
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
*&^%$$
Destroyers and frigates are ESCORTS, whose job it is to "go in harm's way"!
Note the RN kept Invincible, Hermes, and the RFAs assigned to keep the warships fueled, armed, and provisioned out of range of said Argentine aircraft.
Destroyers and frigates are ESCORTS, whose job it is to "go in harm's way"!
Note the RN kept Invincible, Hermes, and the RFAs assigned to keep the warships fueled, armed, and provisioned out of range of said Argentine aircraft.
All very true. But things start to change when the adversary fighter changes from a Dagger to an Su-35 or J-20. In that case, contested airspace can extend a long way offshore.
Random What-If: How would the Falklands campaign have been affected if Argentina had a few tankers?
Random What-If: How would the Falklands campaign have been affected if Argentina had a few tankers?
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Waiting to return to the Loire.
Age: 54
Posts: 386
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If the Argentinians had had AAR - then the more complex air battle position might have required an SF strike (if not a Black Buck) onto a certain airfield on the mainland in order to mitigate / make dead the threat.
They did have a few tankers, and used them to increase the range of the super Etendards in order to bring the nucleus of the fleet in range when Woodward thought he was outside of the Etendards range following the Sheffield attack. They got very close on the 25th when Atalantic Conveyor was unfortunate enough to have the missiles lock on to it. At the time it was very close to the carriers.....
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 1,515
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
reality check time
From the IFS today
Main points
There has been no real reduction in spending on social security
Capital spending has been cut in real terms only about half as much as planned
Protecting health, schools and overseas aid would double cuts in other departments
On current plans tax receipts will be 1% of GDP lower in 2019/20 than 2007/08
The last five elections have been followed by net tax rises of more than £5bn a year in today's terms
BBC article
BBC News - IFS says worst of UK spending cuts yet to come
Main points
There has been no real reduction in spending on social security
Capital spending has been cut in real terms only about half as much as planned
Protecting health, schools and overseas aid would double cuts in other departments
On current plans tax receipts will be 1% of GDP lower in 2019/20 than 2007/08
The last five elections have been followed by net tax rises of more than £5bn a year in today's terms
BBC article
BBC News - IFS says worst of UK spending cuts yet to come
TOFO,
This shouldn't come as a surprise. Anyone who has been reading independent economic articles in some of the more grown up newspapers for the past year or so should be aware that austerity isn't over, indeed it will probably need to be more severe after the next election than it has been so far. Both main parties are falling over each other in at least preaching deficit reduction (what they will actually do in power may be another thing), while still preserving the budgets of certain favoured departments, such as Education and the NHS. This will mean disproportionate savings in other department budgets, such as the MOD.
This thread has been running over 1 year, with over 1,000 posts. However, in my opinion, it boils down to the comment made at the very beginning, literally in POST 2. What was that comment? Well, in terms of a new MPA/MMA, it was quite simply "..there is no money..."
This shouldn't come as a surprise. Anyone who has been reading independent economic articles in some of the more grown up newspapers for the past year or so should be aware that austerity isn't over, indeed it will probably need to be more severe after the next election than it has been so far. Both main parties are falling over each other in at least preaching deficit reduction (what they will actually do in power may be another thing), while still preserving the budgets of certain favoured departments, such as Education and the NHS. This will mean disproportionate savings in other department budgets, such as the MOD.
This thread has been running over 1 year, with over 1,000 posts. However, in my opinion, it boils down to the comment made at the very beginning, literally in POST 2. What was that comment? Well, in terms of a new MPA/MMA, it was quite simply "..there is no money..."
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Outside the Matz
Posts: 220
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And coming up on the outside with two furlongs to go.....
Maritime Patrol - Choices Choices Choices - Think Defence
Para 4 has some interesting links.
Maritime Patrol - Choices Choices Choices - Think Defence
Para 4 has some interesting links.
the sweet-shop could have the best selection of tempting goodies in the world, but if the naughty schoolboy (UK MoD) hasn't been given his pocket money, our teeth are safe (even if our deterrent is less so..)
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Europe
Posts: 414
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is always money, we just have to decide what to do with it!
The Defence Equipment Plan 2014
Para 11,
e. retain unallocated headroom of £8bn.
EP Headroom. The headroom is in addition to the funding
required to deliver the Core Equipment Plan and will allow us
to fund, incrementally and flexibly, a number of additional
programmes that are a high priority for Defence, when they
are required and when we can be sure that they are
affordable.
https://www.gov.uk/government/upload...ersion-2-1.pdf
The Defence Equipment Plan 2014
Para 11,
e. retain unallocated headroom of £8bn.
EP Headroom. The headroom is in addition to the funding
required to deliver the Core Equipment Plan and will allow us
to fund, incrementally and flexibly, a number of additional
programmes that are a high priority for Defence, when they
are required and when we can be sure that they are
affordable.
https://www.gov.uk/government/upload...ersion-2-1.pdf
Ivan,
If you read the document obtained by your own link, and look at the graph and table for ABC 14 on page 9, you will see that none of your contingency and headroom funding is available until FY17/18 (£345m) and significant funding only becomes available in subsequent years. Classic jam tomorrow which we will trumpet today.
Such a plan also assumes the "promise" of a 1% above inflation growth for the "equipment plan".
You have to plan on something, but whether this plan will actually be achieved?
First of all you have a possible (likely?) change of government. Then there is an SDSR with possible (likely?) changes in funding allocation. Then there are alternative uses for any "spare cash" (call it contingency/headroom or whatever) such as cost overruns (carriers, F-35, etc, etc), retention of equipment beyond planned retirement (Tornado, Sentinel), bringing UOR equipment into core funding, purchasing new equipment other than an MPA/MMA, etc, there's always something.....
Yes, under this plan there may be some money for new equipment (let's not even mention manpower or infrastructure) by about 2019, which might or might not be an MPA/MMA. But the important word in that sentence is "may".
If you read the document obtained by your own link, and look at the graph and table for ABC 14 on page 9, you will see that none of your contingency and headroom funding is available until FY17/18 (£345m) and significant funding only becomes available in subsequent years. Classic jam tomorrow which we will trumpet today.
Such a plan also assumes the "promise" of a 1% above inflation growth for the "equipment plan".
You have to plan on something, but whether this plan will actually be achieved?
First of all you have a possible (likely?) change of government. Then there is an SDSR with possible (likely?) changes in funding allocation. Then there are alternative uses for any "spare cash" (call it contingency/headroom or whatever) such as cost overruns (carriers, F-35, etc, etc), retention of equipment beyond planned retirement (Tornado, Sentinel), bringing UOR equipment into core funding, purchasing new equipment other than an MPA/MMA, etc, there's always something.....
Yes, under this plan there may be some money for new equipment (let's not even mention manpower or infrastructure) by about 2019, which might or might not be an MPA/MMA. But the important word in that sentence is "may".