Project Seedcorn - MPA Skill Retention
 

As reported on Flight International

Not sure if this has already been discussed on the forum. If it has then Mods please delete or merge as appropriate.

A small price to pay in the overall context but for just how many years will the project need to run?

And how many will leave/PVR before the replacement?

I seem to remember hearing it comes with a fairly hefty return of service to avoid that sort of thing. Something like 3 or 4 years for the tour followed by 3 or 4 years afterwards.

Only 3-4 years after tour length?...obviously not enough time for a reasonable return of substantial investment.

Should be more like a minimum of 5 and onwards after return to UK. MOD should learn to get real and treat all its people in a more cost-effective way.

There is no gentle way of paying debts or getting your money's worth back from employees.

Nice idea Rigga, but make the terms too onerous and you won't get the volunteers you need.

While I'm sure many signed up to this totally willingly, it only came about because the head sheds (past and/or present) screwed up big-time.

Rigga
 

There is not a problem. Most LRMP aircrew are dedicated professionals who view their job as the best in the Air Force, or Navy, depending on which country you reside. Besides which, the 'Desk Officers' would surely be most circumspect when deciding who to send, weighing up experience versus current time to serve.

What is more, if any did 'Jump Ship,' they would be going to the old Commonwealth countries, who all helped dear old Blighty out in the past.

Quid pro quo?

Well, there's nothing new about the exchange system. It does a great job. But when I was selected for mine there was no hint of strings attached. Nor with many of my colleagues that are doing it now. Desk officers are far more concerned with selecting the people with the right quals, etc, and how long they appear to have to serve. Anyone can change their mind afterwards if they feel so inclined.

All good points - and I understand the niceties - but I don't think you're getting the beancounters view...

I don't really understand who would sign up for an exchange tour with a tour plus five year return of service.

I am guessing that these guys are experts and are/were probably qualified Nimrod guys. Would a three year tour really be enough to get you to agree to a 8 year (total) return of service at that stage in your career?

I doubt it. But a promotion or specialist pay scale or (dare I say it) FRI might.

Less stick, more carrot!

There was a queue.

Dedicated professionals all, a good investment/gamble.

A good investment? Let's say these guys do (reasonably) 3-4 years with a 3-4 year RTS at the end of it.

First of all, who are we going to send in 3-4 years to replace the first tranche? All the MPA dudes will either be gone or well out of currency.

What are we going to do with the guys who come back? How long do we realistically think it's going to be before we get a new MPA? If Hammond announces a balanced budget in a couple of weeks' time, then that guarantees there is no money until at least 2022. Far better to save the dosh for a decent build up programme when we do have a planned MPA on its way.

A nice sop to those Kinloss guys who've been treated like poo, but let's not kid ourselves that this is a rational investment.

RLE, I was thinking the same thing. It's just too early to give people experience with the expected delivery date do far in the future. Rather like starting to get people carrier experienced so far ahead of all the deliveries required to have our own capability.

Scuttled, I'm pleased to hear it. I didn't mean to suggest they wouldn't be, more that peoples' circumstances change and so do conditions in the Service - as we're seeing.

Could some elements of seedcorn be covered by using the FAA They are still in the ASW Business?

Ever the optimist; is there a chance that the books balance in PR12 that runs for 10 years that has provisioned for an off-the-shelf purchase?

It is a good investment. 3 million a year is peanuts to keep the skills of those personnel current whilst we work out what our plans are mpa wise.

There are 4 pilots in the pool in the USA alone. What does a pilot cost to train today? If we were doing so......

The maritime skills are perishable. Quickly perishable. If we buy off the shelf, these guys are the - wait for it - 'seed corn' that the new fleet will be built around in the near future. If it is to be the P8, they are involved in development of the aircraft - that's their role.

And if it all goes wrong and we get nothing, so what? We'll have gambled pennies for a few years and the personnel with a broadened skill set can move on elsewhere.

All the other boys and girls from isk have run away, mostly out, and are doing very well by all accounts. There aren't many maritime experts left, and we may need them in a few years.

With potential pension changes very soon , can these guys still apply to pvr if the terms change enough for them too loose out financially. I just ask as its a big unanswered question that I dare say many are considering.

This is a thoroughly good scheme at a low cost to UKMOD and repairs Commonwealth links that have been allowed to wither, of late. A couple of points:

- ROS is practically impossible to enforce, even if imposed.
- those out there will undergo the same cuts to allowances (especially LOA). COL in Oz is particulalry high!
- spouse employment opportunities are likely to be limited, especially in OZ.
- a not insignificant number of RAF pers will elect to stay...

Many RAF Officers who exchange to Canada decide to stay, I'm sure that the MPA guys would be no different. Anyhow, I'm told the RCAF is looking for MPA experience right now to populate the CP-140 fleet, any takers?

CWD

A few references here to an "exchange" posting when they are clearly not! They are secondments to other air forces in fact as those air forces are not sending an equivalent number on a return posting. Not a lot of point in doing so I would have thought!

Surely the commonsense approach to a rebirth of a British long range maritime air force would be to make it a branch of the Royal Navy.
This would result in a single language force unlike previous manifestations and also solve the captaincy election by making them the senior rank on board.
;)

Incoming...
 

Matelot Bomb launched there:eek: :E

I agree totally. We would probably still have an mpa if it were crewed by the dark blue.

The senior rank bit is up for debate.

I dont know about being crewed by the dark blue but there is certainly a strong argument for the RN holding the operational control & MPA budget ie Like when coastal command was brought under the direct control of the admiralty during WW2.

If the mpa capability were resurrected, objectively why not go the whole hog and give to the navy.

Most other countries do, it's really just the ones who stuck with the original RAF structure who have not.

And yes, this is turning into yet another repetitious MPA thread before the usual comments appear.

Only problem I see with this is Sea time. Anyone who gets streamed into MPA at the start of their career would never go to sea with the possible exception of WSO's. Meanwhile the rest of the FAA have to serve up to 9 months at sea.
Better having it as an RN asset under an RN budget with maybe RN personell Fighting the Aircraft and the RAF Flying and maintaining it. I think the Dutch did it this way until the demise of MPA.

And of course, the 'senior rank' is always the most switched on cookie on board.... :rolleyes: Typical Navy!

This question is being dealt with at the moment. If rumours are anything to go by, the RAF want to keep the putative money for an MPA, but are unwilling to commit to an MPA. This is not to say there aren't lots of RAF guys rooting for a future MPA capability, but the RAF as an entity isn't convinced.

This follows some fairly bad behaviour by the RAF in PR11 regarding money in budget saved by deletions of capability, so unsurprisingly the RN are pushing very hard for the entire MPA capability (and associated funding) to be transferred to 1SL's budget, and he is then held to account for the capability he chooses to invest in.

and would the 1st SL then use that money for a MPA or catapults for his big boats?

Alfred,

You imply that there's a pot of gold with 'MPA capability' written on the side of it, ready to be transferred to the Service with the best argument.

I don't think that's the case at all - post PR11, Defence had a set of outputs which did not include MPA, and PR12 has shown that there is still insufficient money for those outputs that PR11 did include.

Thus, there ain't no money to fight over.

Then 1SL would be held to account by the SoS for the decisions he makes, about money he owns, for capability he is to provide.

IF 1SL decides that he can do all the stuff an MPA can/should do, but with something else, he makes the case, elucidates the risk and will carry the can. If the SSBN is compromised, or an MCT event fails, and that risk is realised, then he gets the blame.

At the moment, all that happens is no-one is really blamed, and no one is held to account.

It's exactly the same for things like helicopters - CAS will be held to account to provide a certain capability. If he thinks he can do that with a load of Puma (or whatever), and invests the rest in shiny fast jets, that's great. But the day he can't provide the capability then he gets a kick up the pants.

H2A (as the MoD buzz-word bingo has it) is a great thing, as long as it's done properly. Unfortunately there are some toes that are going cold in 'Town' about it all, so expect to see fudges galore.......

But there's a whiteboard, and PR13+ money to get, and an SoS who is reputedly sympathetic to the entire idea. Why do you think Seedcorn was signed off in the first place. It's not like CAS just called up his oppo's and asked for a couple of spare seats. Don't forget, FF2020 did indicate that an MPA capability might be required.....

I agree with you that the aspiration still exists. A lot will rest on how the whiteboard argument gets played out but MPA is unlikely to fare well against the whiteboard items in the near term (not least due to political embarrassment of yet another U-turn), and once capability is delegated out to the FLCs then the programme will be full for at least the next 10 years.

But while the 1SL makes that decision to can MPA because he likes big boats, the land domain loses an ISTAR component. However, he could tell CAS that he doesn't need it and then he can by fast pointy things or hydraulic palm trees

MR2 was not designed for Land ISTAR, neither was MRA4 (and same same with P8 for example). The only reason they were there was to try and justify themselves during the Iq/Afg years....

AtG

Are you trying to say that if it was not for Afg/Ir then there was no requirement for an MPA for the last 10 years? Why would 1SL keep MPA money safe if that was the prevalent point of view?

A.T.G

That's a fairly inflammatory statement....

from someone who would appear not to be in possession of all the facts....

I'd suggest that Nimrod (and Sea King ASAC 7) was used in Afghan and Iraq because it had a capability that was as useful over land as it is over the sea. It may not have been designed to do that particular role but when it works then why not use it?

My first contact with the MPA world was on long trails to the US and Malaysia where the Nimrod provided SAR for our jets. Very useful and comforting it was too to have that sort of asset close on hand if the worst happened to our single engined aircraft.

In the UK our Armed Forces have always had to make best use of any and all assets available and both recent theatres have ben rather large for Sentinal (which was designed for the job) to take on alone.

As far as I know the Nimrod force still provided all the usual benefits of an MPA to the UK and other areas (V boat protection, long range SAR, over water ISTAR etc) at the same time as Telic and Herrick. For a maritime nation, which we are due to the fact that there is water on all sides, to not have an MPA is very odd. It does not matter who owns it, and there are both dark and light blue already involved in P8, it is a capability we need if the Treasury will ever let us.

The sentinel most certainly was not designed to do the job that the MR2 did in either Iraq or Afghanistan. Nor is it doing them now, predator however....

AtG, the US, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, France and others also use their MPA for overland ISTAR, your statement is simply wrong.

It just so happens that an airframe with long range, endurance, extra capacity (space, electricity, crew positions) and bunch of sensor operators is quite good at being adapted at short notice and low technical risk to do lots of other rolls. The term MPA should be put in the history books, MMA (Multi Mission Aircraft) would be a much better description of what they are.