"Nine MRA4s was often said to be inadequate, so the minimum fleet of P8s with half the range/endurance must be around 20"

I'd have thought 8 was better than zero...............

RP,

£3Bn also represents approx. 6-7% of current interest payments on the UK national debt (approx. £40Bn) and by 2017, when we might be looking to get our first airframe if ordered in 2015, approx. 4% of interest payments (expected to be approx. £70Bn, or over twice the defence budget, by then).

As HAS59 said, there is money being spent all over the country, that's why we are still borrowing about £120Bn a year!! :ugh::ugh:

Yes, we could spend £40-50Bn on defence, and could reinvest in MPA, but the politicians have set a smaller budget, which the military has to work within. If we want to get back into the MPA game (and I'm not saying we shouldn't), given the current budget, something else has to go? What?

US Navy debuts the P-8A Poseidon at the Dubai Air Show
 

Election May 15. Sdsr Oct 15. Project startup Apr 16. Initial gate Apr 17. Main Gate Sep 18. Contract award Jan 19. 1st aircraft that uses US sonobuoys/weapons etc (as it is off the shelf) 2022. 8 aircraft 2025. Tell me you know of a similar value/complex project that delivered quicker?

All salient points but, i think you may have addressed your reply to the wrong person...;)

-RP

1.2 Trillion in debt ?


You're just an amateur, try 17 going to 20 with no end in sight.


Too big to fail, that's freedom :E

Rhino,

Sorry, I was replying to a comment made by Roland Pulfrew - too many RPs!

A comment which has since vanished!

Thought I been got by the PC fairies, but it's still there at #40.

All very salient points, and I don't disagree. My point was, the money is there, it's just there are no votes in Defence, the NHS is a Sacred Cow and despite IDS' best efforts the SS budget is still way too large.

RP ;)

Basically what Biggus keeps posting +1. I can't add anything worthwhile to the somewhat bleak reality he has nailed down.

As Biggus (and previously, yours truly) has noted, getting a platform is the easiest and cheapest part of restoring a capability lost.

March 31st 2014 will be the four year anniversary of the dark day when the RAF gave up "coastal", maritime, the kipper fleet, call it what you will. A capability introduced circa 1937 and previously deemed essential to our island nation. (note for the semantics out there...31st March 2010 is the date we actually last had an operational aircraft to do the job, so in my book that is when we stopped doing it)

I suggest that anniversary would be a good date to take stock. To see what has gone (almost all of it) and what is left (precious little more than the square root of **** all). I'll do a little research and see what I can come up with.

PS

I do like the expression "sweetcorners" though :E

US Navy debuts the P-8A Poseidon at the Dubai Air Show
 

OFO - can't disagree with any of what you say!

Biggus

Yet your link is suggesting we will undershoot our borrowing forecast by as much as £15 billion...making 2013 borrowing £105 billion, which as a raw figure is pretty terrifying, but considering it was knocking on the door of £180 billion (off the top of my head) 3 years ago, then that's actually quite re-assuring. Furthermore, the deficit doesn't have to be £0 before the overall national debt starts falling. Additionally, inflation, exceptionally low interest rates and a comparatively strong pound will have a very strong part to play in devaluing the long-term bonds and securities that the government has and will continue to issue. Contrary to popular opinion, moderate amounts of debt are positive - like the 40% stated - for sustaining aggregate demand in a modern, globalised economy; the UK is extremely unlikely to ever get to 0% national debt.

Plus, maybe the MoD might be able to afford more gear than we initially thought if we continue to undershoot our own budget by £2 billion a year...

And finally, the point was made that any purchase would be looking at IOC in the 2020s...I'm very confident that money will no longer be under the lock-down that it is at the moment.

Just my 2 cents

Bastardeux,

Your points have some validity, although I could argue against some of them, and you are obviously well informed - but I don't want to turn this thread into a long winded economic discussion, if for no other reason that people wouldn't read it! I was simply trying to point out to the "....lets go out and spend £3Bn on MPA, base them at Waddo, it'll be done by 2020, job done...." fraternity some of the economic and political constraints that any major expenditure on Defence is actually working within, i.e. what its like in the real world.

In the real world:

There's an election due in 2015, before any SDSR presumably. The next government could well be Labour, or Labour/Liberal Democrat. In which case all previous bets on Defence spending/priorities could be off/re-assessed/delayed considerably while they think about it.

SDSR 2015 isn't a given, just a plan the current government is working towards.

Money for the Defence budget is tight, and is at risk of its own project overruns (final cost of the 2 carriers, cost of JSF, etc....). There are also assets already in service, I'm thinking mainly Sentinel, that aren't funded post 2015, but CAS wishes to try to maintain. Trying to keep these could soak up any "spare" money in the Defence budget, if there is any!! (It now looks as though you can add buying a 9th C-17 to the list of items which could use up any "spare" money)

A "yes" vote in the 2014 Scottish vote for independence would have a major impact on the Defence budget, apart from simply decreasing it, in terms of what assets go where, paying for base closures, redundancies, the possible cost of re-basing SSBNs in Plymouth, etc. Separation would also have economic impacts, it could also effect the strength of the pound, especially if some sort of Sterling Zone is formed, the remainder of UK might end up shouldering a higher proportion of national debt than expected after the split, etc

Defence simply isn't a vote winner. Any spare cash, whichever party has a hold of the purse strings, is likely to go into the standard sacred cows of Education and NHS, with the new priority of "upping peoples living standards" by trying to put money back in their pockets (perhaps by funding green policies from general taxation as opposed to fuel bills, upping personal allowance, dropping basic rate of tax or VAT, etc). For example:

BBC News - Nick Clegg pushes for £1bn income tax cut

Government Deficit reduction remains a political priority, and we aren't out of the woods yet.


This is the sort of background, and with no perceivable maritime threat as far as the public are aware, against which people are envisaging finding £3Bn+ to fund a new aircraft, infrastructure, support system, recruit and train crews, etc, without losing anything else from Defence to pay for it!

I just think the rose tinted specs need to come off. I think it highly unlikely that against the background I have highlighted, Defence will be able to "find" the funds for a major buy of up market MPAs, as opposed to 4 Casa-235s. If you want MPA, what big ticket item are you willing to lose in exchange, E-3D, SH fleet, etc? All of these are sacred cows in their own right, and, although the situation with MRA4 maybe made the decision easier, this trade off decision is one which the MPA has already lost once in SDSR2010.

And of course there is a leasing option? Well proven with C17 until money can be found downstream.

Absolutely agree though that something would have to go in the meantime.

MMA not MPA
 

Well if we agree that 'something has to go' then perhaps we should look at the P-8A as a multi-mission aircraft and not simply a replacement MPA.
It could replace the dated concept (radar only) Sentinel R Mk1 in the broad area surveillance role adding other sensors with on-board analysis, doing the job better. Leasing aircraft from the production line shouldn't be out of the question, the US Navy have already indicated that 'we' could take some of their allocated slots.
The current 5 Sqn organisation could be retained, replacing the current 'brown jobs' with Dark Blue uniforms and renumbering it 201 Sqn. (201 was the former 1 Sqn RNAS before 1918) it might even keep everyone happy. The 'green slime' could move in with 14 Sqn when they replace the Islander/Defender ... oh hang on I'm not the CAS. Let's wait and see what happens...
;)

I'd have thought 8 was better than zero...............

Smacks of the 1909 slogan, "We want eight, and we won't wait", but the difference compared with the present day is that all eight Dreadnoughts were eventually built. If only ......:(

Jack

"We want eight, and we won't wait",

Nice allusion!

As Churchill wrote:-

In the end a curious and characteristic solution was reached. The Admiralty had demanded 6 ships, the economists (ie the Treasury) offered 4 and we finally compromised on 8 ships"

Bloke down the pub said 'quantity has a quality of its own'.

Boeing reveals low-cost Challenger to own P-8
 

On Flight Global:-

A low(ish)-cost compromise?

Who says we don't need an MPA/MMA??!!

http://rt.com/news/stealth-submarine...orossiysk-451/

the Russian shipyards would be hard pressed to deliver 6 tin trays in 2 years TBH

Betty,

I'm not sure who is saying that we don't need an MMA/MPA, I'm not!

I'm just saying that in the current financial situation we won't be able to afford one without either a major rethink of Defence as a priority, or priorities within Defence!!

Likewise Betty

Not saying we don't need one.

Saying we haven't got one, and we are very, very unlikely to get one.

Also saying, I hope I am wrong.

No chance at all of getting an MPA.

However, there is growing high level support for an MMA that could find it's way into SDSR 15.

Bit like the navy were never going to get support for carriers at the time Illustrious and Invincible were being spun up. Fortunately, they did get 'through deck cruisers' for those who remember that far back!

Which, rumour has it, will be cancelled if the Jocks vote Yes!

I refer you to post 52 on this very thread....

just maybe ...
 

I humbly refer you esteemed gentlemen to post 54. It might just be possible.

HAS59 & BS

I wrote a peer-reviewed paper (which was published :)) focussing on the threat posed by advanced virtually undetectable SSK back in 2001. Even if we had a fully monty MPA with all the trimmings, finding these buggers in coastal waters would be one hell of a challenge.

As it is we have given up the fight, so these beasts are effectively silver bullets now.

...but we shouldn't give up the fight.

TOFO,

Is your paper available for more to read.

I assume you are talking about detection by passive acoustics. What about radar detection/ deterrence opportunities, active acoustic techniques.


The fight is growing.

Paper was published in an academic defence journal in April 2001, after being cleared for release by the MOD. Not sure if it can be found online without one of those research paper search applications?? In any event, I'd blow my pprune cover if I did find a link to it. I might do that anyway, but if so I'll go for it March 2014...the 4 year anniversary of the end of our nation's long range fixed wing maritime patrol capability.

The basis of the paper was...

Modern SSK do not need to use the surface for any reason. Air Independant Propulsion, fuel cell and advanced battery technology has removed the need to snort. Data fusion technology has removed the need for periscopes for attack solutions and comms can be completed submerged. Bear in mind this was all valid 15 years ago (with something like the German T212), so we have come on aways since. They also have no MAD signature.

Radar, MAD and passive acoustics are useless against a modern SSK, so the best hope for the future (as I wrote in 2001) lay with long range active sonar, such as multi static active (also known as extended echo ranging). This has the added advantage of being hyper aggressive and putting a lot of sound in the water...which will **** up the submariners whole day.

The yanks have had a buoy for this for yonks...

AN/SSQ-110/A Extended Echo Ranging (EER) Sonobuoy


... and I assume development continues, but I've been out the game for 10 years.

This is the sort of capability we would need in any modern fixed wing ASW capable aircraft whatever label you hang on it.

And to be clear...we are not fighting to keep a long range fixed wing ASW capability...that has long since departed.

We are fighting for the funds to start building a new one.

Again, I believe we have no chance and again, I hope I'm wrong.

word of advice...anybody out there whose livelihood is wrapped up in this...make damn sure you have a plan B

AIP subs are fine once they arrive on station but it's not very effective to use it in transit - it takes forever to get there

Also coastal subs are small and therefore are smwhat restricted as to endurance - look at the German Type 212's (best of the bunch right now) - crew of 27, 57m long, 1450 tonnes on the surface

Track them on the way in seems to be the answer

Chin up OFO
 

Dearest OFO,

You will be aware that modern AIP SSK’s cannot remain undetected all of the time and advances in several non-acoustic detection areas have kept pace with their development.
;)
Modern ASW is not easy - and it will not be easy for the UK to do from a start-up position. But we have overcome difficult situations in the past and will continue to do so in the future. Because it is difficult should not be the end of it, it should be the starting point.

There still remains a sizable body of ‘Maritime Air’ knowledge within both the RAF and RN (or RN and RAF if you prefer). Add to this the recently ‘retired’ but prepared to ‘chip in’ again and it is not all a bleak picture, although of course the clock is ticking.

It will never again be what it was, the world is not as it was, and no-one should assume a Centre of solely ASW Excellence will be established. A true multi-mission aircraft can be used by crews of differing areas of expertise within the same unit. This must be recognised if we are to avoid being diluted too far from the outset.

It is my belief that we need to take the first steps back to assuming control of our coastal waters first and build upon that. A stepped approach building on experience will work far better in our situation than to go for full capability with the first course on the OCU.:8

What is currently lacking is a ‘Champion’ in the right place to pick up the cause and make it happen, there are several routes back to a robust capability. I hope it does happen, it would be a shame to think that the seed corn had been sown on ‘stoney ground’ and will not bear fruit. But who knows? The political situation in the UK will certainly be different in 2015, we shall just have to wait and see.

I enjoyed your paper in 2001 (was it really that long ago!) But not being of the ‘wet’ persuasion I will admit that some of it was ‘above my head’, it did point to some of the problems I seem to remember. Which is always the best place to start to solving them, or at least nullifying their advantage.

We would doubtless recognise each other but our Pprune names preserve our anonymity, which may befor the best. There are after all (ahem …) several Old Fat Ones around from those days …

:ok:

HH, I'm talking about the littoral environment and if you want to know how effective a "coastal" submarine is, I'd start by interviewing a Swedish submarine captain for few hours (I did..it was a sobering reminder that the submarine is, and always will be, the master of its element).

HAS59

I agree with every word of your post, including the bits where reading between the lines is required, and yes RN first RAF second would be my preferred choice.

I agree - for close in work in the Baltic (or the Falklands) they're just the job - why risk a zillion $ SSN there????

But they have their limitations - not least the low numbers that will be deployed by any one navy - a couple of AIP subs won't provide an awful lot of coverage in (say) the S China Sea

The problem with ASW is that just as it gets interesting, it gets classified....

It's not as bad as you fear, but it's not all good either.

Good point, alfred.....
 

.......which may point to why ASW/MPA didn't get the attention from the high-powered help at the time - because they had little idea about it or what it involved. I remember giving a brief on MR2 capabilities to a recently promoted two* from a different part of the air force. At the end he turned to his PSO and asked "Why didn't I know anything about any of this?" He was genuinely amazed at what we did and what the A/C could do.

Reflects a bit too in the earlier thread about the TV prog. "The Silent War". We couldn't talk about it.

The Ancient Mariner

Don't worry, the right dits are being spun to the right people at the right time nowadays.

OFO... could you give a short description of why SSKs have no magnetic signature?