Somebody should have gone to specsavers, those rose tinted specs need replacing.

This, and similar comments about operating intent and use, gets to the nub of the problem.

Very few of these "add ons" were reflected in the Build Standard, and hence Safety Case, and the longer it took to accept this the more difficult and expensive it became to regress. It is invariably cheaper in the long run just to do the job properly in the first place.

Not rose-tinted, just knowledge of the facts. :cool:

SC-130J
 

I must have missed this walking around a fortnight ago at Farnborough, but just thinking a Herk down Stanley Way did have a secondary role of limited maritime patrol so I read once.


Cheers

Sea Herk - an interesting concept, particulalry the conformal weapons bays.

If you could also bolt in the Harvest Hawk package it could cover a number of roles, including martime interdiction of the piracy problems (if there was the political will).

I wonder if LM are just raising it up the flag pole to see if they get a salute.

Jayand,

As RP has already stated it is fact. If we accept your argument that it was not needed/wanted/desired why was the capability built into the MRA4 as a KUR from day one?

I'm not just talking mission specific rolefit stuff here either as much of the kit you allude to was catered for in the original design. Any other additional kit was catered for via a dedicated role fit station which provided an element of future proofing and was intentionally designed that way.

That to coin RP is fact!

Perhaps wearing your rose tinted specs, you see it as the designers at BAE just coming up with it on a whim and thinking 'I know, lets shove all this expensive kit in, bill the customer, hope they don't notice and oh create a load of work for ourselves!' - plausible but not very likely!

what is the price of some of those P-8's?

We could subcontract their running to Ryanair ................. at least we'd get some hours out of them that way

Qtr, I never said it was not needed or not wanted but simply stated that it was an add on that ended up being used in theatre for far longer than it should have (procurement issues of better suited platform)
If we get an MPA it won't be nearly as capable, I reckon we will be lucky to get much more than a coastal ac that covers SAR and basic Asuw.

The Sea Hercules concept with P-3 derived mission system has been kicking around for a while and it looks a pretty good option for some markets.

http://www.stratpost.com/wp-content/...4/SC-130J2.jpg

http://www.stratpost.com/wp-content/...-600-x-337.jpg

Please please please stop banging on about SAR. SAR was and is, a tertiary role for an MPA and IMHO the concentration on 'SAR' of much of the argument for retention of an MPA capability was it's main downfall. It is an easy argument to undermine and was, leading to the loss of MRA4 without any planned replacement. That is not to say there were no issues with MRA4 but just that the programme was cancelled without any idea what was going to replace it. There are other far more important reasons than SAR for MPA capability.

There are a lot of reasons for having a fully capable MPA and SAR is only one of them, you can argue that SAR is not the most important but I believe that what the MOD will get will be not much more than a Littoral Asuw ac with SAR responsibilities and capabilities. I think ASW, overland EO and any other roles have gone forever in an "MPA" that this country will see.
just my opinion.

Whilst SAR might have been a lower priority role, it is high profile. Yes, yes, MPA/ASuW(search and warn?) went on throughout Cold War, but it's story untold - or at least not heard by the general public. Whereas SAR occurs on a more 'acute' basis, but then grabs headlines and the public's imagination.

I expect we in the RAF will feel regret at the outcome of the decision to cut the RAF's MPA and SAR capability at some time in the future. Unfortunately, the public will probably either not know (ASuW) or care (SAR) for very long.

Batco
PS. I thought of raising the C-130J frames that will be available, but thought better of starting another 'MOD procurement nightmare' thread. You know, the one where we are offered a COTS/MOTS MPA/SAR solution but then decide it would be cheaper to recycle our airframes and then discover that it wasn't.

I think a Sea Herc would be another heritage, large, can do all, coldwar 4 hauler, like the Orion, Nimrod, Bear and Ill-38.

Its just not the route MPAs seem to be going. Smaller multirole platforms as part of complicated networks seem to have the future.

E.g. EADS added/ is adding inflight refuelling, AEW, anti ship missiles, guns, Mk46s, winglets to its C295 platform.

The maximum take off weight of the C295MPA is 23,200kg. More then 4 times as low as the MR4s (105k)..

Adversaries are not the same / at the same place they were in the Nimrod/ P3C era. IMO a Sea Herc provides an answer to a big requirement that isn't there anymore, just like the MR4. Neither are the budgets.

Search and Rescue (SAR) | c295
http://www.defenceweb.co.za/index.ph...812&Itemid=107

http://www.abload.de/img/c295-torpf6p2.jpg

Thread duplication
 

MPA is of central importance and interest to UK defence so will continue to feature prominently on these forums. However, would it not be sensible to extend this excellent one rather than generate yet another?

I've Got It. I've Got A Cheap, Effective Solution To MPA.
 

Gentlemen,

I think it is time for us to think outside the box with some blue sky mind mapping.

This is what I came up with.

Who has LRMPA in the regions we need? Top of my list was Russia. The French wont help, nor will the rest of Europe as we keep upsetting them. The USA is focussing on the Pacific, that leaves Russia.

Can we not ask them to keep an eye out for submarines? Even offer to share the costs.

Some Tu-142's??

great idea.... that'll fix the people who complain about the noise of the odd Hercules...............................

Heathrow Harry,

Those TU 142's do not even have to land in the UK. Crewed and maintained by the Russians. If they spot any Russian subs they just have to let us know. :O

Indded - but it's an easy job - most of them are on the surface asking for help these days -

But we'd probably have to incentivise them a little - for a $100 a proven contact we'd get REAL service I think

They 'd probably split it 50:50 with Northern Fleet so the boats surfaced regularly at fixed locations........

Shades of milominder bender. Just think how much money we could have saved in the cold war. Instead of bumping the opposition miles from home we could have agreed a mutal bump in home waters. Save all that hassle.

Also arrange to scuttle a sub outside the harbour after evacuating the crew :)

Or running aground on the Isle of Wight rather than Lord Howe island.

Nuckle rap!
 

This is a deadly serious topic! Please take it seriously! Who knows who may be reading it. :O

Genstabler,

Whos ays that we are not being serious.

Think of the budget savings. Would also impress the public and them upstairs at how good the R.A.F. is at submarine detection.

Pontius

maybe they need to investigate the RN - running that Astute ashore at Broadford sounds just like the arrangement I was suggesting with our ex Allies ('41-'45) in the East