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?