MPA Seedcorn
 

I hear that 30 plus ex-Nimrod folk are off to various overseas climes to retain an MPA seedcorn capability. While pleased for the individuals, it doesn't strike me as a sensible use of taxpayers' money. Do any of us really think that they will come back in 3 years' time to a UK MPA aircraft? And where will we find suitable people to replace these guys overseas in 2015?

ASW, ASUW and OISR skills are fragile, if you don't keep doing it, you lose it.

If the UK decides it really does need an MPA after all, however distant in the future that may be (now the pariah that was Nimrod has been 'removed'), who will train the 'new guys'?

Will the Seedcorn cadre need replacing in 2015? You're assuming that the overseas tour will be 3 years, it would make more sense to leave them there until they are needed back in the UK.

Replacement MPA options have already been investigated and the reports are back with the MOD/Government.

Most people in the know realise that, as an island nation, we do need a multi role maritime aircraft capable of long range SAR/SASS. It would be a shame if the delay in replacing the MPA was necessary to spare the Government/MOD more embarrassment by having to admit that they got it wrong in the first place.

Before I get angry ripostes about using the terms 'pariah' and 'Nimrod' in the same sentence, I don't agree with that sentiment, it's just the way that it seems, after the MRA4 were put beyond use with JCBs with what may seem to be indecent haste.

Nor am I commenting on the capabilities of the MRA4, there are plenty of other threads already devoted to that matter.

Bit of a high risk there.

The question is will these folks be young thrusters with lots of return of service or 'old mates' who will enjoy the tour then run for the door. And of course we will need the obligatory new 1* post and retinue to look after it all:).

dctyke, I suggest it would matter not aged or thruster. If they assimilate well in their host country . . .

I served with two ex-RAAF exchangers and I think both would have jumped in the present climate.

PN, Depends on whether the HN is hiring or not. People already on exchange overseas have been info'd that their tours may be longer than originally planned, no reason to suspect that Op Seedcorn would be any different.

Dctyke, does the Return Of Service/PVR/NGR period change with the redundancy pay changes to 3 months?

Siggie, very true however as the visitor will have been looked at for 2-3 year the HN is in a very good position to decide whether to hire them or not.

Of course there may also be unwelcome catches such as having to take promotion exams etc in order to progress.

Is there a grain of truth?

It strikes me that so far nobody posting on here actually has any knowledge regarding:

The numbers involved (I think 30 may be an over estimate)

The roles they will undertake in their respective HN (not all are flying posts)

The T&C attached to being considered for seedcorn (do you really think it hasn't occurred to the RAF that people will jump ship if they can easily do so!)

Therefore just about everything being written is speculation, but I guess that is most of what pprune is about!!

I will offer one fact, and then some speculations of my own. Fact - some of the people going overseas as seedcorn are WSOs. One has to wonder why? The WSO trade is dead. We are not recruiting any more, the training school is shut (indeed some of the WSOs still going through training were recently made redundant as part of the SDSR - needless to say, it didn't make the headlines in the way the sacking of baby trainee pilots did) and the pool of remaining WSOs is quite small and shrinking (over the past 5-10 years most WSOs have been recruited on short service commissions). Therefore, if we are to buy a new MPA in a few years time, with a projected life of 25-30 years, how do we plan to put WSOs in the back of it? Recruit off the high street and put them through RN Observer training? Or do we not plan to have officers in the back of any future MPA -indeed, WHY SHOULD WE? Or will the next generation of UK MPA be run by the RN, in which case, what price RAF seedcorn!

So, if we don't plan to man any future MPA with WSOs, why retain them as seedcorn? All I can suggest is that they will be used as instructors, training the next generation of TACOs, whatever rank and trade they might happen to be!

Speculating now - I can't see HN wanting to take people on indefinitely, don't forget, these aren't exchange posts, we have no MPA slots of our own to offer in "exchange". They are doing us a favour, and hold all the cards in the deal. Also I would expect the RAF to be reluctant to leave people overseas indefinitely, the RAF would no doubt be concerned about the impact on peoples careers! The RAF is strange like that!

For what it is worth, I personally consider the seedcorn concept to be something of a sop/figleaf, so the minister can imply the capability can be regenerated at short notice. I would expect the "seedcorn" to slowly whither on the vine with the passage of time, with anyone who returns, gets promoted, etc not being replaced - but that is my speculation!!

Biggus, the WSO school and the Dominies were going anyway and SDSR only hastened their demise. The original plan was the WSO / WSOp trg was moving to MFTS along with RN Observer trg. If the RAF continues to have a WSO / WSOp requirement then it will (as it only ever was going to be) be done under MFTS.

Not saying that I like or endorse the above but as you started drifting towards 'facts' I thought you may appreciate some.:ok:

The total numbers haven't been posted as the USN posts have still to be confirmed. Off the top of my head there were 6 aircrew went to Canada on loan (retrospectively annotated as Seedcorn), 7 to New Zealand, and 2 to Australia as acoustic liaison officers.

The Aussie seedcorn aircrew are not in a flying role. All selected personnel were required to sign a return of service of their overseas tour plus 2 years on return to the UK.

The USN seedcorn selection is still a work in progress.

Although the Seedcorn initiative may be merely a token gesture, the experience would definitely required should the UK procure a MPA in the next five year or so.

JTO

True - but surely (I know, stop calling me surely) the RAF first has to decide if it wants to train WSOs, and then let a contract under MFTS to get somebody to provide such training.

To the best of my knowledge the RAF is not planning to re-start WSO training under MFTS, and if it were to change its mind at a later stage would any civil company be willing to set up the required infrastructure for potentially very small numbers of students?

In my opinion the WSO trade is dead and buried, and any future training requirement for RAF rear crew officer specialists will probably piggy back on RN Observer training - which I believe is still continuing under MFTS!

But thanks for your input...! ;)

No reason why the future WSOs couldn't come from the WSOp cadre, it would also provide something to aim for instead of promotion blight after FS. A few years of sensor and tactics experience before moving to the capacity sapping seat would be very useful. It always seemed wrong to me that we put new baby Navs in the Tac Nav seat and wondered why they struggled, especially when many WSOp leads knew exactly what was required as they had the capacity and experience.

No problem but the RAF is planning on restarting WSO training under MFTS, together with the RN, in the not-too-distant future. The IPS figure required by the RAF should be well within the capacity of MFTS.

Again, I have no opinion regarding the above just adding the odd fact to the thread.

JTO,

Thanks for the update. I thought Observer training under MFTS had already started, hence the demise of the RN Jetstream trainers discussed on pprune a while ago, and the arrival on scene of Ascent and modified King Airs.

Our Mission


RC - Rear Crew Training | Ascent Flight Training

By comparison I thought that WSOp training for the RAF had yet to be formulated, and had heard no mention whatsoever of RAF WSO training.

But then again, this is not my particular area of expertise.






Ivan,

Why do you need commissioned operators in the back of an MPA?

Biggus, you are quite correct and the WSO/WSOp element of MFTS has a little way to go and the RN have the lead. The RN seem to be doing quite well in crafting MFTS to meet the requirements and compared to other elements of MFTS this bit is doing ok.

It's nice to get something right occasionally...!

Biggus, I was only trying to give an example of where future WSO could be drawn from. I would also suggest they were commissioned on ability and performance in the air otherwise there would be no advantage over the old system.
Re the commissioned rear crew, why commission the front end either?
Personally I can understand having someone theoretically more responsible making the important decisions. I also think a flight deck captain for aircraft safety and mission captain (rear crew) for tactical operation would improve the way we did things, it would prevent each trade wanting it's share of captains and create a more consistent and focused crew. The idea of MRA4 flight deck captains getting suckered into the tactical picture worried me.

Actually, the Mk2 was the same; it was the Engineer that (often) made the difference. :)

There was a piece in this weeks Flight International in the Defence Section, about an MPA variant of the Twin Star being developed by Diamond. It said something about it being capable of flying a mission of typically 6-8hr endurance, but would be capable of 12 hours endurance.

Not for weak bladdered!