UK Maritime Patrol Aircraft - An Urgent Requirement
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Whilst this is said with somewhat tongue in cheek, perhaps the RAAF could have a detachment in the UK. was not that long ago we lent you a whole squadron of Sunderlands.
The AP3 is a great performing model and maybe other countries might like to come on board.
Seems like non of us can by ourselves afford the costs anymore.
Regards
Col
The AP3 is a great performing model and maybe other countries might like to come on board.
Seems like non of us can by ourselves afford the costs anymore.
Regards
Col
PN
I'm not in violent disagreement and won't presume to mention that capabilities aren't so quick and easy to acquire and regenerate these days. Eg I'm conscious that siren voices might ask what we need all those C17s for once we no longer have an airbridge. That said I can see some cautious rebalancing may be in order, it's getting the balace right that's the tricky bit. Seven front line FJ sqns anyone?
I'm not in violent disagreement and won't presume to mention that capabilities aren't so quick and easy to acquire and regenerate these days. Eg I'm conscious that siren voices might ask what we need all those C17s for once we no longer have an airbridge. That said I can see some cautious rebalancing may be in order, it's getting the balace right that's the tricky bit. Seven front line FJ sqns anyone?
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
FC, I think we are in broad agreement. While I hold no brief for Lord West, I think his lordship had it right when he said the SDSR was not strategic at all.
C17? Actually the whole heavy fleet, C130, A400, Voyager.
Voyager probably fine. The others, like Chinook, need to be balanced against the strategic assessment. Oh for a nice bit of dry desert somewhere.
C17? Actually the whole heavy fleet, C130, A400, Voyager.
Voyager probably fine. The others, like Chinook, need to be balanced against the strategic assessment. Oh for a nice bit of dry desert somewhere.
C17? Actually the whole heavy fleet, C130, A400, Voyager.
So when in 2015 peace breaks out what do you think we are going to do? Sit inside the shores of this island nation and do nothing? Or maybe start exercising with allies and in good training areas again? The likes of BATUS and BATUK, the Falkland Islands and Cyprus? Do we all think that the humanitarian missions (a la Philippines) or the NEOs (a la S Sudan) are going to stop? And just because we didn't do Syria doesn't mean we won't get involved by the next one.
We need to retain what we've got and argue for those capabilities we have lost. We certainly shouldn't be saying we don't need this or that anymore because there lies madness. Afterall, not long ago we said we didn't need Sentry and then came the Balkans and Libya; then we didn't need Sentinel until Aghanistan and Libya: and the Comms Fleet? Oh no need that for all sorts of ops. We need what we've got AND we need to replace what we've lost. That's the thing about Defence, it really is the fully comprehensive policy and you just don't know what you're going to need or when.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: The Fletcher Memorial Home
Age: 59
Posts: 303
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hercman, I think you will find the RAAF are thinking of phasing out the AP-3C as it is getting too old to keep flying. So a detachment may not be on the cards, but if the UK wants some MPA for a knock down price, once careful owner.......
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: by the Great Salt Lake, USA
Posts: 1,542
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Which is why, as someone else mentioned earlier in the thread, the RAAF are working on buying 8 P-8s and 7 MQ-4Cs to replace the AP-3s...
P-8A Poseidon - Royal Australian Air Force
Defence Materiel Organisation
Australia signs A$73.9m deal to participate in P-8A development - 10/5/2012 - Flight Global
http://www.navyrecognition.com/index...k=view&id=1154
P-8A Poseidon - Royal Australian Air Force
Defence Materiel Organisation
Phase 1B - Multi-mission Unmanned Aerial System (MUAS) - is intended to acquire High Altitude Long Endurance Unmanned Aerial Systems for maritime patrol and other surveillance.
Phase 2B - Maritime Patrol Aircraft - is intended to provide the manned component of the ADF maritime patrol capability that will replace the AP-3C Orion aircraft.
Phase 2B will acquire a manned Maritime Patrol Aircraft system capable of performing maritime patrol and response tasks. Phase 2B is being driven by the Life-of-type of the AP-3C. The life-of-type for the AP-3C is determined by the increasing cost of addressing airframe fatigue and corrosion, aircraft system supportability and mission system obsolescence. The airframe and aircraft systems, including engines, hydraulics, electrical and fuel systems will become more costly to support as the aircraft ages. AIR 7000 Phase 2B gained first pass approval on 16 June 2007 to acquire a fleet of eight Poseidon P-8A aircraft through Government to Government program with the USN.
IOC for the P-8A is scheduled for the period FY17-18 through FY19-20.
Phase 2B - Maritime Patrol Aircraft - is intended to provide the manned component of the ADF maritime patrol capability that will replace the AP-3C Orion aircraft.
Phase 2B will acquire a manned Maritime Patrol Aircraft system capable of performing maritime patrol and response tasks. Phase 2B is being driven by the Life-of-type of the AP-3C. The life-of-type for the AP-3C is determined by the increasing cost of addressing airframe fatigue and corrosion, aircraft system supportability and mission system obsolescence. The airframe and aircraft systems, including engines, hydraulics, electrical and fuel systems will become more costly to support as the aircraft ages. AIR 7000 Phase 2B gained first pass approval on 16 June 2007 to acquire a fleet of eight Poseidon P-8A aircraft through Government to Government program with the USN.
IOC for the P-8A is scheduled for the period FY17-18 through FY19-20.
07:27 05 Oct 2012
Australia has signed a A$73.9 million ($81.1 million) agreement with the US Navy to participate in the further development of the Boeing P-8A Poseidon maritime patrol aircraft (MPA).
The signing formalises Australia's participation in the development of the Increment 3 P-8A Aircraft and marks Australia's continued commitment to the project to acquire a new manned MPA, says Australia's Department of Defence.
Australia has signed a A$73.9 million ($81.1 million) agreement with the US Navy to participate in the further development of the Boeing P-8A Poseidon maritime patrol aircraft (MPA).
The signing formalises Australia's participation in the development of the Increment 3 P-8A Aircraft and marks Australia's continued commitment to the project to acquire a new manned MPA, says Australia's Department of Defence.
Thursday, 18 July 2013 13:39
According to the head of the Royal Australian Air Force, Air Marshal Geoff Brown, Australia is currently considering an increase in the number of P-8 Poseidon it plans to procure which would reduce the number of MQ-4C Triton drone it originally planned to purchase.
According to the head of the Royal Australian Air Force, Air Marshal Geoff Brown, Australia is currently considering an increase in the number of P-8 Poseidon it plans to procure which would reduce the number of MQ-4C Triton drone it originally planned to purchase.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
RP, not at all. You have succinctly stated potential requirements in s Strategic Defence Review.
The point though is that a force that has grown around Herrick - Chinook and C17 - may well be far in excess of the assets needed, or affordable, to meet the strategic requirements.
You mention
I presume these have not been ignored for the last decade 
thus the assets needed for Afg are in excess of those needed for the other tasks.
If you make a case that post-Herrick all the existing assets will enable the other tasks to be met with out stretch or over-stretch then the treasury would immediately seek cost saving to tight up the slack.
The E3 force may be a case in point with airframes bleeding away.
The point though is that a force that has grown around Herrick - Chinook and C17 - may well be far in excess of the assets needed, or affordable, to meet the strategic requirements.
You mention
The likes of BATUS and BATUK, the Falkland Islands and Cyprus?
thus the assets needed for Afg are in excess of those needed for the other tasks.If you make a case that post-Herrick all the existing assets will enable the other tasks to be met with out stretch or over-stretch then the treasury would immediately seek cost saving to tight up the slack.
The E3 force may be a case in point with airframes bleeding away.
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Erehwon
Posts: 1,146
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Apparently there's no money.
I sincerely hope the cost of NOT having an MPA doesn't exceed the contingency costs and 'headless chicken antics' that will occur when someone realises we DO need this capability.
It will then cost more and those with the continuity skills will be gone.
I sincerely hope the cost of NOT having an MPA doesn't exceed the contingency costs and 'headless chicken antics' that will occur when someone realises we DO need this capability.
It will then cost more and those with the continuity skills will be gone.
If we could lift our heads out of the Boys Bumper MPA Catalogue for just a moment, I think we might find we have a problem in getting our basket from the view to the checkout phase. Why didn't MRA4 or Rivet Joint sail through that process? Because post Philip no-one will sign off the RTS! You have to confront the elephant in the room as tuc says:-
If your credit card keeps being rejected everytime you try to order something new online, then stop shopping until you sort it out. The MOD's credit rating is pants. Unless and until the MAA mans up and reveals why MRA4 wasn't granted an RTS and names names, then that credit rating will remain pants and the catalogue items a distant dream.
I suggest that the first step down the long road of reform should be the immediate separation of the MAA and the MAAIB from the MOD and from each other, and then watch the sparks fly!
Many purport to know what happened with MRA4 and other failures, but I'd like to know how many met their legal obligation to report the systemic failings through their management chain.
I suggest that the first step down the long road of reform should be the immediate separation of the MAA and the MAAIB from the MOD and from each other, and then watch the sparks fly!
If your credit card keeps being rejected everytime you try to order something new online, then stop shopping until you sort it out. The MOD's credit rating is pants. Unless and until the MAA mans up and reveals why MRA4 wasn't granted an RTS and names names, then that credit rating will remain pants and the catalogue items a distant dream.
I presume these have not been ignored for the last decade thus the assets needed for Afg are in excess of those needed for the other tasks.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
Not according to my army opposite numbers. Training has been Afg focused for many years and the routine training has been allowed to wain. C17s will be needed for the foreseeable future (have a look at any of the 2020 plans, as will Voyager (different roles to C17), as will A400 (different roles to C17 and Voyager). As for Chinook, useful in a broad range of roles, will be our main medium/heavy lift hello for the foreseeable future, particularly once the green Merlin's replace the Junglies.
Roland
True about bags of new equipment, but I think much of it may be Military off the Shelf or simple top up buys or long awaited modifications. These simple successes can't be allowed to obscure the Nimrod and Chinook disasters that have brought MoD to its knees financially, or that many are trying to rewrite history ("Nimrod was savings measure" etc.) When you try to rewrite history, time to reacquaint with the facts, which I think is another way of saying what Chug did!
True about bags of new equipment, but I think much of it may be Military off the Shelf or simple top up buys or long awaited modifications. These simple successes can't be allowed to obscure the Nimrod and Chinook disasters that have brought MoD to its knees financially, or that many are trying to rewrite history ("Nimrod was savings measure" etc.) When you try to rewrite history, time to reacquaint with the facts, which I think is another way of saying what Chug did!
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
Another thought, there's no money .
No what I mean is that a lot of expenditure in Afg has not come core therefore it won't mean 'plenty' or 'less pressure' or 'more assets' but will be in competition for whatever saving are indeed available.
The Army is probably going to want a fair chunk of that to bring its nice new vehicles home and keep them.
.No what I mean is that a lot of expenditure in Afg has not come core therefore it won't mean 'plenty' or 'less pressure' or 'more assets' but will be in competition for whatever saving are indeed available.
The Army is probably going to want a fair chunk of that to bring its nice new vehicles home and keep them.
which I think is another way of saying what Chug did!
It is all very well for the MAA to pout and refuse to issue RTS's, but it will only have creditability if it enforces the regulations instead of rewriting them as a workaround. The only way that it can enforce the regulations is to confront why they have remained unenforced for so long. The only way it can do that is to attain true independence of the MOD, by being outwith it and having a civilian DG. Ditto all of the above for the MAAIB, which needs also to be independent of the MAA. Then and only then can RTS's indicate that the subject aircraft are released in accordance with the regs, ie that they are airworthy! Which is why the MRA4 is not a separate issue, Roland, but absolutely central to the problem posed by the OP.
Self regulation doesn't work and in aviation it kills!
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: The US of A, and sometimes Bonnie Scotland
Posts: 549
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So, moving swiftly on, and there are numerous threads on MRA4, MR2 and RTS....
We need a replacement...right?
Glad we can all agree on that....
Retreating behind the sandbags.
We need a replacement...right?
Glad we can all agree on that....
Retreating behind the sandbags.
I think on a thread like this, which repeats aspects of other threads, there is nothing wrong with establishing the basic facts. So, just to be clear, MRA4 was cancelled because, as predicted and advised many yonks ago and at every opportunity since, there was no valid safety case reflecting a maintained build standard and so, by definition, no valid RTS could be signed. The most obvious examples of the same failure are ZD576, XV230, XV179, ZG710..........., in which invalid RTSs were signed. Even MoD agrees with this, not least because they accepted this very criticism from Lord Philip and Haddon-Cave, both of whom simply repeated the above warnings from the 90s.
As discussed above, scrutineers of any aspiration for an R2MPA will want reassurance this organisational failure will, as far as humanly possible, not be repeated. This will not come from the MAA. I wish the Staff Officer with the task all the best, not least because he probably doesn't realise, yet, the sheer number of VSOs, serving and retired, who are lined up against him.
Let us hope Scotland votes No and SDSR15 can proceed, with a properly staffed and robust MPA (or MMA) requirement.
As discussed above, scrutineers of any aspiration for an R2MPA will want reassurance this organisational failure will, as far as humanly possible, not be repeated. This will not come from the MAA. I wish the Staff Officer with the task all the best, not least because he probably doesn't realise, yet, the sheer number of VSOs, serving and retired, who are lined up against him.
Let us hope Scotland votes No and SDSR15 can proceed, with a properly staffed and robust MPA (or MMA) requirement.