MRA4 the future of (C)ISTAR
 

Siggie,

Fair comment, I seem to remember the Hon BD shedding crocodile tears and then executing a perfect and abrupt turn around, but then again he wasn't alone :=

My only hope is that writ large from CAS and therefore the AFB is the mantra that (C)ISTAR is the future of the RAF. Therefore, surely it would be folly to give up such a central pillar of the future strategy.

Parochialism and sentimentality are the enemies of progress and it just doesn't make sense to be getting rid of the MRA4 before several other venerable, dated and pass their "sell by date for future ops platforms". As I said before, lets get the RTS sorted, and everything else should follow......please!

As an aside, I would be more amazed if the RN agreed to let the MRA4 wither on the vine at SDSR..........they also have an immense amount riding on the success of this platform, to say otherwise would be a flagrant disregard of the truth.

DFM

I can see the discussion at MOD:

"Right First Sea Lord, we agree that your case for the MRA4 is valid. Which of your toys are you going to give up to retain it?"

Do ships have pedals?

If so, do they go backwards?

mra4eng
 

As a shareholder in Bae Systems (both privately held shares and via my private pension scheme) I personally object to you utilising Bae Systems time/effort/power etc to deliver your drivel.

Far from extolling the virtues of 'private companies' you overlook the fact that many members of the public (probably including a large number of members of HM Forces) as shareholders actually employ you.

Peter

Would it not be prude to share operations with the Navy on this one, there experience of shipping would be an ideal asset onboard a long range maratine aircraft. It would show willingness to join together and conduct a joint force, with enough spin on it you could say its the future and saving money. Just a thought really

We have a JFH & we have a JHC, why not a Joint Force Nimrod or even Joint Force Recce (Nimrod, AWACS, RJ, Sentinal) with Observers, Sonar operators, FCs, PIs - as appropriate - in the back.

Might even save some money by having just one training school for each role (or is that due under MFTS anyway?)

Having read the article in today's Telegraph, part of which suggests that the Nimrod might be vulnerable to being chopped, my fear is that she could be a victim of previous cost-cutting measures. It could be tempting for the axe-wielders to say that as there are only nine Nimrods, they cannot fulfil the tasks properly, so why persevere with such a small fleet?

That is so true.

But isn't that one of the main reasons why we went down the refurbished Nimrod route in the first place, as opposed to having twenty or so highly capable aircraft in-service a number of years ago?

That's not really so. The only other viable contender in the competition in the mid 90s was the Lockheed P7 which was eventually rejected by the USN & the whole project cancelled. Like the USN we would therefore still be waiting for the Boeing P-8A Poseidon. As the saying goes, 'caught between a rock & a hard place'.

What about the Atlantique II?

Was it not Dassault who, when they saw the BAE Systems bid, pulled out because they did not believe it was possible to supply a maritime patrol aircraft for that money. This turned out to be quite true.

I do wonder how many people, given subsequent events, now believe that it would have been better to have had a sizeable (compared to current numbers!) number of such aircraft in-service a number of years ago.

Not least because they might have survived the imminent cuts, and would surely have been better than nothing!!

Going (forward) without an aircraft
 

At last the practical aspect of Maritime/AEW work is coming to the surface.

If the country really NEEDED it we'd be in trouble because we don't have it. The longer this drags on, the more likely it is that the MoD & HMG will decide that we do not in fact need anything at all.

If the Fire Brigades up and down the UK were disbanded to save money, the impact would be people dying and premises destroyed. What if any negative effects has the UK suffered since the Nimrod was withdrawn, and how do the bean counters become convinced of the ongoing requirement?

To the people who say it is not required, this period without it has been a godsend. Perhaps those in favour of spending the money could take the time to consider the bigger picture. In the event that no substantial threat can be explained, then it may well be a lost cause, and a very expensive one at that.

Saying we need it because we used to have it is not going to win this battle. A need has to be proven and if that is difficult, it may be as a result of the need not actually being there.

I repeat VIABLE. Our deepwater MPA operations required a 4 engined platform, therefore the Atlantique was automatically disqualified.

Obviously engine technology has moved on by leaps & bounds, hence the birth of Boeing's Poseidon. I'd give my right nut for a go in that.

Well assuming that the Russians are modernising their surface & submarine fleets purely for peaceful reasons then you have a valid point. Oh, & of course the ever increasing Chinese navy is purely decorative. Maybe as junior partner to the US Cameron will rely solely on our special relationship to get us out of any future hole. After all he seems to think that's what happened in World War II!:ugh:

Airpolice,

Never mind all this crap about AFG being our highest priority - it's just a 'relatively' short term adventure. The primary task for UK Defence is the provision of an SSBN capability. All political parties have consistently signed up to this and as you are probably aware, whatever happens with SDSR, a Trident replacement is a given.

So if you start off with an almost blank sheet that has SSBN capability at the top, the next paragraph is that you need assets to support that capability - i.e, a secure base (Faslane), nuclear infrastructure, storage and support vessels etc.

Then you must have assets to 'defend' our ultimate deterrent, otherwise there is no point in having it, and this is regardless of what anyone considers the threat to be. Long range, fast and ASW capable = MPA. Full stop. In our case, having spent the money already, means we will have an MRA4 in service - eventually.

After all of the above, you can then step down to AD assets for the defence of the UK and roll on from there in deciding where the cuts should fall...

:)Fincastle, the Atlantique 11 was viable, The Tyne is as reliable as modern turbofans, and economical to boot. The 4 engine requirement was based on obselete thinking. When I said that to visiting VIPs at Kinloss about 1970, I was ordered by the boss to repair to the mess during any future VIP visits. We could have had a hugely less expensive maritme force with a lot more units on task. Still, its history now.

:)Sorry, I should have expanded my comments. The Nimrod has a much longer range of operations & endurance than the Atlantique. The French were never employed in those endless Trackexes out at 25W because of the limitations of its engines. It wasn't just endurance, it was also transit time.

Being realistic, there wasn't a cat in hell's chance of our buying from the French.:ok:

That's right, bacause you were constantly arguing for the Nimrod upgrade, which I would argue was a definitive case of

In the end that thinking may result in the UK getting nothing at all...........how viable is that compared to a fleet of Atlantique IIs?

Sometimes the military is its own worst enemy.

PN,

Just to clarify my earlier comment, I had no intention of minimising the significance or importance of our committment to the AFG campaign. My use of 'short term' was measured against the length of time, UK plc will be expecting to maintain a BM capability, i.e, 15 years v at least 100+ years.

Anyone else noticed that an anagram of MRA4 Eng is LOSER!:ugh:

The P7 had been binned well before SR(A)420 was circulated to industry for a Replacement Maritime Patrol Aircraft for the UK. Boeing were bidding the Orion 2000 which were new-build P3 ac with a Mission System very similar to what we have got in MRA4. Loral (bought out by Boeing shortly before the 'announcement') were bidding the Valkyrie which was based around refurbished P3s.

With the benefit of hindsight, I wish we'd gone for the Orion 2000 and steered well clear of "Waste-of-space".:ugh:

Fincastle, I can't remember the figures, but I think the Atlantique could spend longer on task east of 10 west. The Nimrod had to transit more than 500km to beat the Shack for time on task.