UK Maritime Patrol Aircraft - An Urgent Requirement
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: The US of A, and sometimes Bonnie Scotland
Posts: 549
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well said!!!! Put this bl**dy nonsense to bed. We need an MPA/MMA. The end. The ridiculousness of half the posts and questions on here.....
Betty - if it gets your blood pressure up, why read it? Just carry on flying your P-8, having BBQs on the beach and dreaming of a UK MMA fleet.
INT ZKJ - how do you know what my security clearance is?
Many people reading this site, and posting on it, have no experience of operating an MPA, I have. They quite often mix up the military and non military roles - not surprising when you consider some countries use the same asset (military) to do both, indeed the UK used to. In response to some of the comments made I have been trying to educate and correct.
Heathrow Harry (HH) was of the opinion we might get an MPA type aircraft for the economic and environmental protection and monitoring of the waters around the UK. First of all this is not a military role and a direct responsibility of the MOD, rather it falls to other agencies in the UK such as Defra, the Coastguard, etc. I also tried to point out that airborne assets still carry out some of these roles in UK water. Civil companies are under contract to provide these services, and these services only. When mahogany bob (mb) said these aircraft couldn't "help the military" I genuinely asked him what he expected them to do. Was he seriously considering that you ask a civil company contracted to look for oil pollution to update a Russian task group off the Moray coast? In effect, he seemed to be saying that civil companies couldn't do the military tasks - which is not surprising.
Indeed mb said "we need MPA even if only to- check illegal fishermen,monitor drug/ arms runners,coordinate rescue operations,conduct maritime anti terrorist ops,prosecute polluters etc etc.". In none of these roles does MOD hold primacy. MOD assets may be used to support other agencies in their task, but the likelihood of the MOD using its budget to buy an aircraft for the sole purpose of supporting other agencies is zero!
So, both HH and mb seem (and I use that word deliberately) to be saying the military might get an MPA (MMA) to do non military tasks - highly unlikely in my opinion. While mb also seems to be saying civil aircraft can't do the military roles - true, but no great help in the argument for a necessity for an MPA.
As an aside, I should also point out that in the UK responsibility for the provision of SAR, as per international treaty, lies with the Department of Transport, not the MOD. The D of T has effectively being using MOD as a "sub contractor" to provide the assets to do the job. So, in terms of a future MPA (MMA), while such an aircraft could easily provide/conduct long range SAR, this is not a primary military task, and therefore unlikely to have much impact in terms of arguing for the acquisition of such an aircraft.
INT ZKJ - how do you know what my security clearance is?
Many people reading this site, and posting on it, have no experience of operating an MPA, I have. They quite often mix up the military and non military roles - not surprising when you consider some countries use the same asset (military) to do both, indeed the UK used to. In response to some of the comments made I have been trying to educate and correct.
Heathrow Harry (HH) was of the opinion we might get an MPA type aircraft for the economic and environmental protection and monitoring of the waters around the UK. First of all this is not a military role and a direct responsibility of the MOD, rather it falls to other agencies in the UK such as Defra, the Coastguard, etc. I also tried to point out that airborne assets still carry out some of these roles in UK water. Civil companies are under contract to provide these services, and these services only. When mahogany bob (mb) said these aircraft couldn't "help the military" I genuinely asked him what he expected them to do. Was he seriously considering that you ask a civil company contracted to look for oil pollution to update a Russian task group off the Moray coast? In effect, he seemed to be saying that civil companies couldn't do the military tasks - which is not surprising.
Indeed mb said "we need MPA even if only to- check illegal fishermen,monitor drug/ arms runners,coordinate rescue operations,conduct maritime anti terrorist ops,prosecute polluters etc etc.". In none of these roles does MOD hold primacy. MOD assets may be used to support other agencies in their task, but the likelihood of the MOD using its budget to buy an aircraft for the sole purpose of supporting other agencies is zero!
So, both HH and mb seem (and I use that word deliberately) to be saying the military might get an MPA (MMA) to do non military tasks - highly unlikely in my opinion. While mb also seems to be saying civil aircraft can't do the military roles - true, but no great help in the argument for a necessity for an MPA.
As an aside, I should also point out that in the UK responsibility for the provision of SAR, as per international treaty, lies with the Department of Transport, not the MOD. The D of T has effectively being using MOD as a "sub contractor" to provide the assets to do the job. So, in terms of a future MPA (MMA), while such an aircraft could easily provide/conduct long range SAR, this is not a primary military task, and therefore unlikely to have much impact in terms of arguing for the acquisition of such an aircraft.
Last edited by Biggus; 24th Jan 2014 at 07:22.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 1,515
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The ridiculousness of half the posts and questions on here.....
Unfortunately however, some of the "ridiculousness" is also coming from qualified kipper mates, whose attitude is basically, sob sob, someone took our toys away
Some of the posts, from those that should know better, about costs, timescales and especially defence budgetary priorities are right up there with some of the UAV cr@p.
We need an MPA/MMA. The end
But if it relieves stress, it's a good thing
So - a little hesitantly as this is hostile airspace - where we seem to be is that
- we need a proper MPA to do a proper MPA military job
- we're sceptical that the resources exist or will be found to do this
- while it's not true to say there is no money, it's hard to see how the unallocated pot will cover it and in any case running costs will still need to be found
- On the other hand, ministers have dropped heavy hints that the MPA issue is recognised and will be addressed in the SDSR
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Bury St. Edmunds
Age: 64
Posts: 539
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The real wickedness is that the government now spends more annually on servicing the INTEREST (with no capital repayments) of the national debt than it does on the WHOLE defence budget PLUS foreign & commonwealth office.
Sadly, for as long as this is the situation, any resumption to "Ops Normal" will be pie-in-the-sky.......
So much for Gordon Brown's promise to end the cycle of boom & bust and his lofty generosity to write off Third world debt! And could someone please tell me just where were the proceeds of the sale of our gold bullion reserves invested?
MB
Sadly, for as long as this is the situation, any resumption to "Ops Normal" will be pie-in-the-sky.......
So much for Gordon Brown's promise to end the cycle of boom & bust and his lofty generosity to write off Third world debt! And could someone please tell me just where were the proceeds of the sale of our gold bullion reserves invested?
MB
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Scotlandshire
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pouring oil on troubled waters and all that.
Expanding on my last post. Many of us ex-MPA guys on here would love to throw out into the open all of what was accomplished by the MR2 (warts and all) and thus expand the argument of why many of us feel strongly that a replacement should be brought into service. As we know the requirement and tasking for an MPA remains extant. It was the method of delivery (MRA4) was removed. This is where the problem lies. Even though much of the Nimrods tasks and endeavours have been hinted at and in some cases written about in privately funded books, I do not believe that the MOD has released the details of the Operations we were involved in and our achievements. On a public forum you cannot fully argue the relevance and requirement of an asset unless all the facts are taken into account. For obvious reasons this we cannot do.
During the aftermath of the SDSR announcement the House of Commons was briefed that the tasks accomplished by the MR2 would be taken up by other assets, both UK and selected foreign partners. I guess the question now should be “Are all those stated tasks being maintained to the same required level as were previously”.
Furthermore, shortly after the SDSR, Nick Harvey (Armed Forces Minister) visited Kinloss to listen to gripes and concerns. He was asked what was going to happen to the tasks that could only be accomplished by a UK asset. His reply was “that they may have to go undone”…..surprisingly honest for a Lib/Dem politician, but I would suggest not an ideal state for defence to get into.
I guess the bottom line is working out what you want to achieve with your platform, then matching your asset to your task. If you just want to work close to shore on a basic level then an all singing and dancing MPA/MMA is probably not what is required. We shouldn’t just be looking at our requirements now but how are we going to integrate and provide for defence post 2020. How are you going to operate with our new aircraft carriers as they operate around the world? With a reduction in the RN surface fleet, could more slack be taken up by an air asset providing ISTAR? If a more capable asset is required then that is going to cost. If the Govt want it, they’ll find the money – always do.
TOFO – We didn’t lose our toys, we lost our careers. Thanks for your compassion. Many of us have successfully retrained and moved our employability and skill sets to other areas and are getting on fine. But please don’t confuse wanting to move with having to move.
Expanding on my last post. Many of us ex-MPA guys on here would love to throw out into the open all of what was accomplished by the MR2 (warts and all) and thus expand the argument of why many of us feel strongly that a replacement should be brought into service. As we know the requirement and tasking for an MPA remains extant. It was the method of delivery (MRA4) was removed. This is where the problem lies. Even though much of the Nimrods tasks and endeavours have been hinted at and in some cases written about in privately funded books, I do not believe that the MOD has released the details of the Operations we were involved in and our achievements. On a public forum you cannot fully argue the relevance and requirement of an asset unless all the facts are taken into account. For obvious reasons this we cannot do.
During the aftermath of the SDSR announcement the House of Commons was briefed that the tasks accomplished by the MR2 would be taken up by other assets, both UK and selected foreign partners. I guess the question now should be “Are all those stated tasks being maintained to the same required level as were previously”.
Furthermore, shortly after the SDSR, Nick Harvey (Armed Forces Minister) visited Kinloss to listen to gripes and concerns. He was asked what was going to happen to the tasks that could only be accomplished by a UK asset. His reply was “that they may have to go undone”…..surprisingly honest for a Lib/Dem politician, but I would suggest not an ideal state for defence to get into.
I guess the bottom line is working out what you want to achieve with your platform, then matching your asset to your task. If you just want to work close to shore on a basic level then an all singing and dancing MPA/MMA is probably not what is required. We shouldn’t just be looking at our requirements now but how are we going to integrate and provide for defence post 2020. How are you going to operate with our new aircraft carriers as they operate around the world? With a reduction in the RN surface fleet, could more slack be taken up by an air asset providing ISTAR? If a more capable asset is required then that is going to cost. If the Govt want it, they’ll find the money – always do.
TOFO – We didn’t lose our toys, we lost our careers. Thanks for your compassion. Many of us have successfully retrained and moved our employability and skill sets to other areas and are getting on fine. But please don’t confuse wanting to move with having to move.
"TOFO – We didn’t lose our toys, we lost our careers. Thanks for your compassion. Many of us have successfully retrained and moved our employability and skill sets to other areas and are getting on fine. But please don’t confuse wanting to move with having to move."
I concur
As I sit here typing into a civvy keyboard, I'd rather be typing into the Tacco1/2 keyboard but thanks to SDSR, I don't have that option.
Interesting that the SNP have promised MPA in the new 'Free' Scotland - almost tempting...
(except my guess is it would be based at Prestwick - more jobs = more SNP votes in Labour areas...)
I concur
As I sit here typing into a civvy keyboard, I'd rather be typing into the Tacco1/2 keyboard but thanks to SDSR, I don't have that option.
Interesting that the SNP have promised MPA in the new 'Free' Scotland - almost tempting...
(except my guess is it would be based at Prestwick - more jobs = more SNP votes in Labour areas...)
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 1,515
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is no lack of compassion on my part whatsoever...as you would know if you knew of the depth of my involvement on the kipper fleet over they years.
You are confusing compassion with a need for reality. It is far from compassionate to spread false hope foundered on blinkered view of defence and public spending priorities. Indeed, creating poor expectations is the antithesis of leadership as taught to me on both the ITC and IOT.
I was always know for plain speaking (up and down the command chain) and it got me into hot water on many occasions, including several times when I stuck my neck a long way out for one or two miscreants under my command, so I'm afraid I'll take no lectures from you.
Two further points...
First, our careers (yes mine too) were not in the Royal Kipper Fleet, they were in the Royal Air Force. Downsizing, losing capabilities and the subsequent redundancies having been going on across the services since WW2. Anybody who joined the military in the last 30 years on the expectation of a job for life must have their head up their backside, so EVERYBODY should have had some sort of a plan B (and anyone who ever worked for me was briefed on that very frequently) including have an exit plan from maritime if they wished to stay in, and a civvy career plan if they did not....which brings me neatly to my second point.
Second, almost all the maritime aircrew (knockers or zobs) I ever worked with were top, top guys. Professional, talented and well-versed in the bitterly hard school of life. The vast majority will have moved on to better things.
So should some of you.
And on that note, I will take my leave.
I hope the UK gets its MPA capability back and if it does, I'll come on here and cheer loudly that I was wrong, and be delighted to be so proved.
Until then, safe flying and good luck one and all.
You are confusing compassion with a need for reality. It is far from compassionate to spread false hope foundered on blinkered view of defence and public spending priorities. Indeed, creating poor expectations is the antithesis of leadership as taught to me on both the ITC and IOT.
I was always know for plain speaking (up and down the command chain) and it got me into hot water on many occasions, including several times when I stuck my neck a long way out for one or two miscreants under my command, so I'm afraid I'll take no lectures from you.
Two further points...
First, our careers (yes mine too) were not in the Royal Kipper Fleet, they were in the Royal Air Force. Downsizing, losing capabilities and the subsequent redundancies having been going on across the services since WW2. Anybody who joined the military in the last 30 years on the expectation of a job for life must have their head up their backside, so EVERYBODY should have had some sort of a plan B (and anyone who ever worked for me was briefed on that very frequently) including have an exit plan from maritime if they wished to stay in, and a civvy career plan if they did not....which brings me neatly to my second point.
Second, almost all the maritime aircrew (knockers or zobs) I ever worked with were top, top guys. Professional, talented and well-versed in the bitterly hard school of life. The vast majority will have moved on to better things.
So should some of you.
And on that note, I will take my leave.
I hope the UK gets its MPA capability back and if it does, I'll come on here and cheer loudly that I was wrong, and be delighted to be so proved.
Until then, safe flying and good luck one and all.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
Anybody who joined the military in the last 30 years on the expectation of a job for life must have their head up their backside, so EVERYBODY should have had some sort of a plan B
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: somewhere flat
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Based on what happened with the last MPA programme, no decision maker (with their hands on the purse strings) in their right mind would touch the P-8 with a ten foot barge pole.
Too many awkward questions hanging over the project, no one will want history repeating itself on their CV. Plus, their shrewdness will see all the rose-tinted P-8 press for what it is and give far more weight to independent, unbiased reports from those without a vested interest.
Too many awkward questions hanging over the project, no one will want history repeating itself on their CV. Plus, their shrewdness will see all the rose-tinted P-8 press for what it is and give far more weight to independent, unbiased reports from those without a vested interest.
Too many awkward questions hanging over the project, no one will want history
repeating itself on their CV. Plus, their shrewdness will see all the
rose-tinted P-8 press for what it is and give far more weight to independent,
unbiased reports from those without a vested interest.
Teething troubles a few weeks into a type's inaugural operational deployment are the norm, rather than the exception. This aircraft will be in service for decades, and early glitches such as these won't affect that.
What's your vested interested QBF?
What a load of old tosh! Methinks you know hee haw about the P-8A program...
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: somewhere flat
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
dervish, thank you for your more balanced reading of my post. your assessment is pretty much spot on. if an impartial observer has doubts over P-8, then the scrutiny it would come under from those who make such decisions would be significant.
another X billion down the drain simply won't be allowed to happen. Even a whiff of risk (of under performance, lack of / inferior capability etc) is likely to scupper any proposal and there's more than a whiff surrounding P-8 at the moment
my only vested interest is to see tax payers get value for money
another X billion down the drain simply won't be allowed to happen. Even a whiff of risk (of under performance, lack of / inferior capability etc) is likely to scupper any proposal and there's more than a whiff surrounding P-8 at the moment
my only vested interest is to see tax payers get value for money
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: London
Age: 64
Posts: 238
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As far as the UK is concerned it must be affordable.
There are,IMHO ,too many questions about the P8.
It will be expensive, with a 1300 mile range and four hours on station.
Will that be enough for the UK's many miles of coastline ?
Unfortunately Lockheed did not produce the P7.
That leaves low time P3's (relatively) or C130J's ?
Marshall's claim they can do a good job on the C130J.
Even with the A400M arriving, will there be any C130J's available?
The yanks owe us one for giving them our Harriers on the cheap.
We will take a number of P3's. In a basic condition, refurbish them ourselves, and put in
our own radar and systems.
Let Marshall's do it. Keep BAe systems out of it.
There are,IMHO ,too many questions about the P8.
It will be expensive, with a 1300 mile range and four hours on station.
Will that be enough for the UK's many miles of coastline ?
Unfortunately Lockheed did not produce the P7.
That leaves low time P3's (relatively) or C130J's ?
Marshall's claim they can do a good job on the C130J.
Even with the A400M arriving, will there be any C130J's available?
The yanks owe us one for giving them our Harriers on the cheap.
We will take a number of P3's. In a basic condition, refurbish them ourselves, and put in
our own radar and systems.
Let Marshall's do it. Keep BAe systems out of it.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
It will be expensive, with a 1300 mile range and four hours on station.
Will that be enough for the UK's many miles of coastline ?
Will that be enough for the UK's many miles of coastline ?
At 440 kts (assumed) it could be on station in 3 hours vice Nimrod in 2.5, spend 4 hours on station, and return with a mission time of 10 hours some hour longer and 300 miles further out.
Fag packet stuff taking your 'poor' 1300/4 figures.