Maritime Patrol Capability: The SDSR’s Wolf Whistle
Roland - fully get that, but until Cdr JFC gets Full Command and the delegated budget for all Joint Enablers*, he could only ever be the Supporting Commander, not the Supported Commander!
*Which may not be a bad thing in my view...
*Which may not be a bad thing in my view...
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Highlands
Posts: 58
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wouldn't it also be sensible and cost-effective to base the P8s at Kinloss, with the REs remaining there as a lodger unit? Loads of space for Joint Warrior, long runway, simulator, BFIs, maritime-related accommodation, new-ish sqn HQs and it would provide a DIV for Lossie. Inverness Airport has recently agreed to act as DIV for armed Typhoons and the natives are nervous!
EG
IIRC, the official reason for cancelling MRA4 was it could never get a certificate of airworthiness. Any "savings" were not the reason, they were the product. One defence minister wanted BAES in court but had to calm down after seeing the evidence.
IIRC, the official reason for cancelling MRA4 was it could never get a certificate of airworthiness. Any "savings" were not the reason, they were the product. One defence minister wanted BAES in court but had to calm down after seeing the evidence.
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: UK on a crosswind
Posts: 262
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The problem as I see it is: We need something out there NOW - not in five year's time. So what is the most immediate thing we could possibly do (apart from contracting the French) to get eyes in the sky around our seas? Even if not equipped with the latest bells and whistles.
Another slight turd in the MoD's water pipe is the lack of UK AAR capability to support the P-8A, which requires a boom system for AAR.....
The Voyager KC3 can refuel the Sentry using the FRU, but as the only A330MRTT variant not to have a boom, the Voyager cannot refuel the RC-135W or the P-8A. Surely such a lack of capability has been addressed?
The Voyager KC3 can refuel the Sentry using the FRU, but as the only A330MRTT variant not to have a boom, the Voyager cannot refuel the RC-135W or the P-8A. Surely such a lack of capability has been addressed?
Originally Posted by Eminence Gris
So Cameron admits his mistake.........should resign!
Scrapping Nimrod MRA4 was not a mistake. The programme was a shambles. I for one am glad that BAES' bluff was called and I am sure that many others will agree, especially as it now looks like we will be getting the all good bits of MRA4 (the mission kit) with none of the bad bits (the bodged and potentially uncertifiable airframe).
A benefit of membership of multilateral organisations like NATO is that your allies can help you out and stop you being threatened or held hostage. A good lesson of the last few years is that that applies as much to equipment procurement as it does to military operations.
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Scotland
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Excuse my ignorance
Excuse my ignorance please people, but being ex-RAF myself I'm still entirely clueless to the difference in capability between an air to ground surveillance capability such as Rivet Joint or Sentinel to that of MPA? I'm assuming it must be something related to the technology it utilises' ability to penetrate depth of water and a wider area surveyed? Anyone care to enlighten me please?
JN - Very true.
It's sad that a nation with an excellent capability in ASW and most of its components - acoustics, radar and EO - ended up unable to do anything except buy U.S. off-the-shelf, while paying a substantial price and performance penalty for capabilities (AAS radar and ASuW weapons) that we don't intend to use.
It's sad that a nation with an excellent capability in ASW and most of its components - acoustics, radar and EO - ended up unable to do anything except buy U.S. off-the-shelf, while paying a substantial price and performance penalty for capabilities (AAS radar and ASuW weapons) that we don't intend to use.
Last edited by LowObservable; 23rd Nov 2015 at 12:24.
Rivet Joint listens to comms and electronic signals and can auto-triangulate to locate their origin as well as analysing their content. Sentinel uses a radar to produce detailed ground maps or indicate moving targets on land. There is no overlap between these capabilities. Maritime patrol aircraft use a combination of the aforementioned techniques to monitor surface vessels and the periscope / communications masts of any submarines that may be exposing them, although constraints of space mean that the neither the radar nor the comms intercept kit is as powerful as its "single-role" brethren. For subsurface reconnaissance, combinations of sonobuoys (air-dropped sonar buoys which transmit signals back to the aircraft) and magnetic anomaly detection help to pinpoint submerged submarines. When you consider that most MPA need also to employ weapons like torpedos, depth-charges and anti-ship missiles, and be able to drop survival equipment like dinghies, you can see that they have to be a "jack of all trades" just to fill one role!
Nimrod was given an overland capability by fitting an electro-optical WESCAM, basically giving it something like a Predator's capability. This won't happen to P-8! The maritime radar can be made to produce a poor man's imitation of a Sentinel or JSTARS capability with some specific coding. References to using the P-8 as a replacement for Sentinel in the overland surveillance role are based around its expansion potential as shown in the concept image below, where it would carry a dedicated land surveillance radar as an aftermarket add-on.
Nimrod was given an overland capability by fitting an electro-optical WESCAM, basically giving it something like a Predator's capability. This won't happen to P-8! The maritime radar can be made to produce a poor man's imitation of a Sentinel or JSTARS capability with some specific coding. References to using the P-8 as a replacement for Sentinel in the overland surveillance role are based around its expansion potential as shown in the concept image below, where it would carry a dedicated land surveillance radar as an aftermarket add-on.
Last edited by Easy Street; 23rd Nov 2015 at 13:19.
Very good news!
Now you just have to find the personnel to man the fleet properly.
1.5 crews per airframe perhaps? Plus sim staff, OCU staff, Staneval, etc. Probably 200 aircrew. Seedcorn will give you about 30-40. We also don't have a WSO training system any more (do we?), assuming the P-8 actually needs WSOs (which personally I don't think it does). Then there's the groundcrew, ops support staff, etc.
I haven't seen any news of retirements of other aircraft, couple this with a run on of Tornado, extra Typhoon Sqns etc. Presumably there are manning issues here?
Now you just have to find the personnel to man the fleet properly.
1.5 crews per airframe perhaps? Plus sim staff, OCU staff, Staneval, etc. Probably 200 aircrew. Seedcorn will give you about 30-40. We also don't have a WSO training system any more (do we?), assuming the P-8 actually needs WSOs (which personally I don't think it does). Then there's the groundcrew, ops support staff, etc.
I haven't seen any news of retirements of other aircraft, couple this with a run on of Tornado, extra Typhoon Sqns etc. Presumably there are manning issues here?
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: cardboard box in't middle of t'road
Posts: 745
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
It's obviously welcome news that we're going to get new MPAs at all, but my personal joy is tempered by the tiny (inadequate?) number of aircraft, and at another apparent example of buying the latest (unproven and immature) US kit without even considering cheaper and more practical solutions.
Nimrod AEW (Ended up by buying E3D after wasting >1 Billion quid)
Nimrod MRA4 (No further comment needed.)
So you want a competition, where we end up with Sweet FA after millions go into the tendering process.
Personally, I'd rather pay an overseas company to deliver aircraft on time and on budget, than give another penny to BWOS.
We will spend some money, we will get airframes, they will come into service and do the job.
None of this can be said for British Waste Of Space's efforts.
If we'd bought off the shelf in the first place, we'd probably have a lot more P8's than 9.
The 'Nay sayers' said that the P8 was the 'Gold plated solution' - well Dave has admitted the mistake of the 2010 SDSR and we're now getting the gold plated option.
Originally Posted by Biggus
Presumably there are manning issues here?
Coff...
Zut alors....but why not?
Jack is unlikely to get all the little grey boats he wanted...so I our nice politicians could try and placate him with big anchors painted over the roundels
Now there`s an idea that has never been done before....
Jack is unlikely to get all the little grey boats he wanted...so I our nice politicians could try and placate him with big anchors painted over the roundels
Now there`s an idea that has never been done before....
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: NEAR TO ISK
Posts: 208
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So which Squadrons (I,m presuming at least two, x1 OCU & x1 Operational) number plates do we think will be resurrected.
With 206(R)Sqn probably out of the game under current rules, 201 & 120 Standards both now formally laid up, I am assuming that previous Nimrod Squadrons with strong Maritime traditions may not be in the frame.
Could we see 202 Sqn reborn with 203(R)Sqn as the OCU
With 206(R)Sqn probably out of the game under current rules, 201 & 120 Standards both now formally laid up, I am assuming that previous Nimrod Squadrons with strong Maritime traditions may not be in the frame.
Could we see 202 Sqn reborn with 203(R)Sqn as the OCU
No chance!
5 and 22.
Remember it goes on seniority. Nothing else.
5 and 22.
Remember it goes on seniority. Nothing else.