UK Maritime Patrol Aircraft - An Urgent Requirement
 

About time we had another MPA thread I think. Can't let such an important issue go quiet for too long can we..................................

UK MARITIME PATROL AIRCRAFT - AN URGENT REQUIREMENT


Introduction
Over the years, MPA have played a substantial but often unrecognised part in a wide variety of conflicts, operations and emergencies across the world. Because of the very highly classified nature of some of their activities (for example, those in support of the UK's Strategic Deterrent) few, even within the Services, have been aware of the full extent of the contribution MPA have made to the defence of the UK. Sadly, there is reason to believe that ministers may not have been fully briefed on the more sensitive aspects of MPA operations before the peremptory SDSR 2010 decision was made to eliminate the Nimrod MRA4.
The SDSR decision to cancel the wide area surveillance and attack Nimrod MRA4 resulted in not just the cancellation of a specific aircraft project but in the removal of an entire military capability. This has resulted in not only a huge reduction in the UK’s overall maritime surface surveillance and attack capabilities but, arguably of even greater significance, an important element of its ability to conduct anti-submarine operations. This has resulted in an unacceptable risk for the protection of the UK's vital interests. As the size of the general purpose surface and submarine fleets reduce to only 19 frigates/destroyers and 7 Astute submarines, the need for MPA as a component of our maritime capability has become more urgent.
Potential Threats
Since the decision to cancel the MRA4, there has been no reduction in the risks involved; indeed, they have increased. International crises (eg, the Arab Spring, Syria, Mali, etc, and other events in North Africa) are rarely predicted and the need, at short notice, to be able to deploy strategic assets capable of surveying wide areas of land and sea at very short notice is self-evident.
Whilst the overall number of submarines world-wide has decreased as older boats have been taken out of service, the number of countries operating submarines has increased. In excess of 40 nations now have submarines, including some (eg, India) with nuclear boats. A number have invested in conventional submarines of considerable capability; Iran, for example, has the very capable KILO-class submarine and is now producing a new class to its own design. These submarine fleets represent potential threats not only to naval forces but also to the commercial sea lines of communication on which the UK is so dependent.
Under President Putin, the Russian Navy is known[i] to be continuing with the development of the most advanced under-water technologies, presenting an increased potential threat to the UK and, in particular, to its strategic deterrent. The Russian Navy is now procuring new, more stealthy, submarines and has resumed deployments to areas of the Atlantic of critical importance to western nations, as was illustrated by press reports in both 2010 and 2012[ii].
No less significant is the evident intention of the Chinese, under President Xi Jinping, to develop a full 'blue water' naval capability in support of its stated aim of dominating the South China Sea - an area in which we have treaty obligations - and, no doubt, to be able to operate further afield in due course. Within the last 10 years, the Chinese have bought 12 KILO submarines from Russia and, with its existing fleet of diesel submarines, also plan to produce 2 nuclear boats per year of their own design.
Over 90% of the UK’s exports and imports continue to rely on commercial shipping, much of which needs to pass through straits and other areas of potential danger where, even in peacetime, such shipping will be vulnerable to piracy and other threats.
Unexpected threats to UK interests, requiring a very rapid response for surveillance (and, where appropriate) enforcement are bound to continue to arise. For example, the threat to the Falklands could again require rapid reinforcement of the islands, requiring surveillance in advance of, and during, naval force deployment, and to provide defence in depth against both surface and sub-surface threats. Closer to home, in addition to the protection of the deterrent, there continues to be a need to react swiftly to any threats which may arise within the UK’s 2.5 million square mile EEZ, and to provide adequate cover within the UK’s wide area of responsibility for search and rescue (out to longitude 30º west) under the Chicago and other international conventions.
MPA Tasks
UK MPA are required for:

• Protection of the UK's strategic nuclear deterrent.
• Protection of UK naval forces engaged in either power projection or expeditionary operations, and of sealift supporting forces already deployed ashore.
• Protection against threats to commercial and other shipping, including counter-piracy.
• Protection of our EEZ, including oil rigs and shore facilities, against potential threats, including assistance in maritime counter-terrorism operations.
• Protection of our 14 overseas territories, including the Falklands with its potential oil resources off-shore.
• Operations in such areas as the Caribbean in support of counter-drug operations.
• The gathering of acoustic and electronic/photographic intelligence.
• Search and rescue in aid of shipping and aircraft in distress.

Attributes of the Maritime Patrol Aircraft
The Government, rightly, puts particular emphasis on the need for agility, flexibility and capability in its armed forces. MPA have the huge political and military advantage of being able to deploy very rapidly across the globe in reaction to unexpected threats, with a high speed of search on arrival and the ability to discriminate at a distance between types of vessel (both surface and sub-surface).
By virtue of their considerable weapon and sensor carrying capabilities, the larger MPA are inherently flexible and adaptable. As was demonstrated when British MPA (Nimrods) were needed for surveillance in Kosovo, Iraq and Afghanistan, these aircraft can be modified quickly to be effective in both the maritime and overland environments, a considerable advantage when operating near littoral states. With the appropriate equipment fitted, future MPA will be able to provide comprehensive wide-area surveillance for land operations. For example, the Block 2 Poseidon P-8 aircraft, about to enter service with the US Navy, will be so equipped from the start and have already been designated as 'Multi Mission Aircraft' (MMA), rather than as pure MPA.
For anti-submarine (ASW) operations, speed of reaction to fleeting detections and in reaching the last known position of a submarine can be of critical importance. Frequently, it is only the MPA that can take full advantage of such intelligence in sufficient time, not only when operating independently but also when assisting naval forces, and especially when assisting an SSN into, or to regain, the trail of an opposing submarine. For surface surveillance using its maritime radar, the area an MPA can search in one hour is over 100 times that of a surfaced SSN, twenty times that of a surface vessel and seven times that of a helicopter[iii]. Thus, the MPA is a very important 'force multiplier' when naval forces are limited.
Gaps and Deficiencies Likely to Remain in 2020 in the Absence of UK MPA
The withdrawal of MPA impacts severely on three critical RN capabilities: ensuring the security of the nuclear deterrent; contributing to the security of the future Queen Elizabeth class aircraft carriers; and maximising the effectiveness of the few remaining frigates and destroyers.
To protect the deterrent, the need is to detect and track potentially hostile submarines collecting intelligence or posing a threat so that our SSBNs can take appropriate evasive action in good time. With reduced acoustic advantage, and with few UK SSNs now available, it will become increasingly difficult to locate the newer generation of 'enemy' submarines. Whilst it has been possible to use helicopter surveillance in support of the deterrent close to its base at Faslane, the range/endurance of the helicopter is relatively limited. Adequate cover therefore becomes more difficult further out and may be impracticable in SSBN patrol areas. The amount of noise generated in the water by a helicopter can be counter-detected by any opposing submarine, which can sometimes be a significant limitation in such operations when covert tracking by MPA can be an advantage. Shortly before its withdrawal from service, the Nimrod force demonstrated that, when no RN assets were available, it was by itself able to track one of the latest Russian submarines successfully over a considerable period of time. The lack of such support by British MPA now must therefore be a matter of very considerable concern for the safety and credibility of the UK deterrent.
The protection of high-value iconic targets such as the UK’s aircraft carriers will require defence in considerable depth. Even in distant waters, one of the most difficult threats with which to deal is the submarine, with its ability to fire not only torpedoes but also stand-off missiles. The UK will still have a range of surveillance resources available in 2020, operating in the audio, visual and electronic spectra, from satellites, airborne and surface platforms (both afloat and ashore) and, in some areas, sensors on the ocean floor. However, a comprehensive picture from which potential threats can properly be assessed requires both the precise position and the identity of those threats to be accurately and quickly determined if appropriate counter-measures are to be taken in time. Use of MPA will sometimes be the only means of achieving this.
The UK's anti surface unit warfare capability has also been seriously reduced. In this area, the absence of the MPA-mounted maritime radar, with its unique ability to discriminate between different types of surface contact and to identify potential targets at ranges beyond 200nm, even in crowded environments and high sea states, is no longer available - again, to the detriment not only of our overall maritime surveillance capability but also of the safety of naval forces and friendly shipping generally.
In the absence of fully-equipped MPA, our capability to survey the whole of the UK's EEZ and coastal areas rapidly at short notice has been markedly reduced.
During the 1970s and 1980s, Nimrods covertly shadowed fishing vessels gun-running for the IRA - operations which would now be much more difficult to undertake. In the Caribbean, the Nimrod, with its specialised long-range radar, was often the only system capable of detecting, classifying and tracking from long range small drug-running speedboats; this capability has now been severely reduced by the withdrawal of MPA from the front line.The absence of MPA has also resulted in a significant reduction in our ability to contribute to surveillance of the dangerous waters off Somalia and West Africa where piracy is rife or, more recently, to give rapid support to operations off Libya. For search and rescue operations, the coordination and tactical control of ships and helicopters assisting in rescue operations following both the 1988 Piper Alpha oil rig and the earlier Fastnet yacht race disasters graphically illustrate the comprehensive search and rescue capabilities of MPA. Such operations will be far more difficult without MPA.
Thus, our capacity to police and secure our maritime borders and overseas interests, and to participate with allies in counter-piracy, drug protection and counter-terrorism operations, has been greatly reduced. The recent cross-Government Department initiative to integrate surveillance capability under the auspices of the Maritime Security Oversight Group is a welcome development in terms of surveillance of the UK’s EEZ. However, the limited numbers of aircraft available can provide only a fraction the overall surveillance requirement and the absence of MPA, with their specialised equipment, represents a marked reduction of our overall capabilities in this context.
The assertion that, given the combination of Submarines, Frigates, Merlin helicopters, AWACS aircraft, the C-130 Hercules and Unmanned Air Vehicles, the lack of a UK MPA represents a 'tolerable risk' for UK defence is wholly unconvincing[iv]. The capability gap in our maritime front line resulting from the cancellation of the Nimrod MRA4, especially with a reduced surface and submarine fleet, has undoubtedly decreased the UK's maritime surveillance and attack capability to below an acceptable level. It is significant that, shortly after the results of SDSR 2010 were announced, the then First Sea Lord was reported in the Press to have said that the Nimrod MRA4 decision was the aspect of the savings measures with which he was most uneasy.
Collaboration with Allies
In order to economise in the use of assets for maritime surveillance, it has long been the practice to collaborate with NATO allies. However, over recent years, platform availability has become more limited and recent experience in conducting such operations has cast considerable doubt on the extent to which the UK can now rely on the ability of allies to provide adequate MPA support when required. Even the United States has had to warn its European allies that, following its decision to concentrate more on the Pacific at the expense of the Atlantic, US maritime surveillance support in the Atlantic will in future be more limited than hitherto. This reduced support is likely to apply equally to the UK as to other allies and emphasises the importance of the UK acquiring its own fleet of MPA.
Decline in Experienced Maritime Aircrew
MPA effectiveness is especially dependent on operator expertise and experience, particularly in anti-submarine warfare. Until the cessation of Nimrod operations in March 2010, such experience was a key factor in UK MPA crews excelling by comparison with their allied counterparts. Once such expertise is lost, it takes many years to regain. Although a few experienced RAF MPA aircrew have been retained to serve with allied maritime air forces under the ‘Seedcorn Initiative’, they will shortly reach the end of their tours of duty and the scepticism with which the House of Commons Defence Committee greeted[v] the MOD’s assertion that this programme could be sustained until 2019 is undoubtedly justified. On this account alone, the need to reintroduce MPA into the UK front line before this essential seed-corn of expertise is lost is therefore very urgent. A decision in principle is required before 2015.
Cost-Effectiveness
The cost of even a small fleet of new MPA would be high. For example, the cost to India of buying its first batch of 8 P-8 aircraft from the USA is reported as being $2.1 Bn. However, though large, this sum compares favourably with the unit cost of just a single nuclear submarine (SSN) at $2Bn, or even a single frigate at £350m. As the HCDC was told during a visit to the Northwood Headquarters to look at the problems of maritime surveillance, "one Nimrod is the equivalent of 12 ships in terms of our capacity ... to look forward [and] gather information"[vi]. Given the particular attributes of MPA as set out above, provided an aircraft with sufficient range and endurance to be able to fulfil all the required tasks is acquired, even quite a small fleet could be very cost-effective.
Conclusion
For an island nation such as Great Britain, with its world-wide interests and dependence on the sea, no longer to have an MPA capability is quite extraordinary, and has resulted in undue risk to our maritime interests. The need to reintroduce this capability into the UK’s front line is extremely urgent. Action to acquire at least a few MPA should be set in hand without delay.


Relative Radar Coverage in One Hour (target height 15 ft)

Platform
Op Altitude
Radar Range
Radar Footprint
Speed
Search Rate
Submarine
(Surfaced)
Surface (50ft mast)
13nm
591 nm2
10k
791 nm2/hour
Ship
Surface (100ft Mast)
17nm
908 nm2
26k
1,792 nm2/hour
Helicopter
10,000 ft
128nm
51,472 nm2
120k
82,192 nm2/hour
MPA
35,000 ft
235nm
173,494 nm2
420k
370,894 nm2/hour




Ships, submarines, helicopters and fixed-wing aircraft each have their own strengths and weaknesses. Experience strongly suggests that modern maritime warfare, especially ASW, is best undertaken using a 'layered approach' with a mix of platforms. Even with the latest technology, this is likely to continue to be the case.
Submarine. Modern submarines, such as the Astute class, have sophisticated hull-mounted and towed array sensors, and are able to detect surface and sub-surface vessels over long ranges. They are particularly effective ASW platforms. They are inherently covert, although the firing of any weapon, be it torpedo or missile, can betray their position and thus leave them open to counter-attack. However, they are not able to deploy over long distances as rapidly as can MPA and there are too few of them. At some $1-2Bn each, they are very expensive.
Frigates. Like submarines, frigates have the advantage of persistence on task. Modern warships equipped with variable-depth towed arrays can also detect and identify low noise sources over considerable distances. In cooperation with other platforms, they can sometimes triangulate to locate a target. However, to localise with sufficient accuracy to be able to attack a submarine successfully, they usually need to employ either an ASW helicopter such as the Merlin or an MPA. Again, numbers are limited and they are not able to deploy over long distances as rapidly as can MPA.
Helicopters. Helicopters, with their powerful active sonars, can be particularly effective in inshore waters. However, even if they and their mother ships or suitable land bases are available, they suffer from the disadvantages of relatively limited range and endurance (forcing them to come off task to refuel after about 3 hours when operating at a range of 50nm from the mother ship), limited space for equipment, sensors and weapons, and counter detection from the amount of noise they generate in the water.
AWACS. The RAF’s Sentry aircraft are fitted with very powerful radars and with comprehensive tactical air control, communications and electronic facilities. However, they do not carry weapons or anti-submarine sensors and their effectiveness as a maritime surface surveillance platform is very limited by sea state and their inability to classify any contact they may detect.
The C-130 Hercules. Although of long range and duration, the C-130 has to rely on its short-range weather radar and visual lookout, giving it a very limited search and rescue capability. The fleet is already over-tasked in its primary Air Transport role and any maritime operations would be at the expense of its primary task. It would certainly be unable to coordinate multiple search activities in response to any major incident at sea as effectively as can the MPA. Its replacement, the A-400M, of which there will be fewer, will be little better in this context.
UAVs. The potential of UAVs has been examined in some depth by the MOD. Suffice it to say here that UAVs, as an alternative to MPA, would have a number of severe operational and technical limitations. Some, such as data transfer rates and the ability rapidly and accurately to deploy weapons in response to a fast-moving tactical situation, are likely to be insurmountable, even in the longer term. As has recently been illustrated by the USAF's decision to ground its Block 30 Global Hawk in favour of extending the manned U-2 aircraft in service, the combination of UAVs and their support system can be very expensive indeed. The introduction of the Boeing Insitu ScanEagle as a maritime unmanned air system (MUAS) will be a welcome addition to the Royal Navy’s tactical surveillance and force protection capability, as will be the Triton to supplement the USN's P-8 force for surface surveillance over the vast areas of the Pacific. However, in the short to medium term, current or envisaged UAVs would simply not be a practicable alternative to the MPA in meeting all their required operational tasks.
As Rear-Admiral Corder, Comd (Ops) CINCFLEET, said in oral evidence to the House of Commons Defence Committee when discussing the withdrawal of the Nimrod[vii],
"The uniqueness of the MPA is in its accumulation of a number of attributes. It is about persistence to a degree, by comparison with a helicopter, for example, but it is also about speed and altitude, and the capability that it can carry is significant. It is about the intelligent use of that capability, because of the crew you have on board. That is the totality of what an MPA brought to the equation."



[i] For example, see Sunday Times, 12 January 2014, page 15

[ii] Daily Telegraph, 27 August 1010 and Daily Mail, 15 August 2012

[iii] See Appendix A

[iv] See Appendix B

[v] 5th Report of Session 2012-13, HC 110 - Future Maritime Surveillance, Conclusions paragraph 17

[vi] Oral evidence before the HCDC, 8 June 2011, Q509

[vii] Oral evidence before the HCDC, 17 April 2012, Q45

There is no money.....I say again......



and the Government will just change the threat assessment to meet the capability anyway, as Governments of all colors have for the last 20 years.

AVM Roberts

Bolleaux - Sir. I know of 2 types of UAV, one of which in British service, that can find, fix and then prosecute a target without any problem - this target is an insurgent, with an AK47 and suicide chest rig, riding a motorbike at 60mph through an urban environment. I would call that an "ability rapidly and accurately to deploy weapons in response to a fast-moving tactical situation"!

Granted no-one has yet developed a MAD equipped depth charge carrying UAV, but I would not be so bold as you have been to say that its development is "insurmountable". There are some very nice people with the initials G and A in California who would more than willingly build you a technology demonstrator (probably based upon their Guardian maritime search UAV) if you would care to stump up some money?

...and there's the problem - like F3WMB said - THERE IS NO MONEY!!!

LJ

Having read complaints in various threads about VSOs keeping schtum, not rocking the boat etc to protect their careers, Knighthoods and pensions etc it seems odd that, when one does say something, he is instantly advised
"THERE IS NO MONEY", and is talking Bolleaux.:ugh:

A good piece of staff work but who read it and who was it directed at? Largely meaningless until you know that.

Here we go again - another MPA thread which will, no doubt , expose the lack of maritime awareness of the majority of the RAF.

LJ statedLR , I dont know your background but this, IMHO, illustrates one of the glaring shortcomings in much of the c**p that is put out on this website about ASW by the non-maritime RAF. Great, your UAV can take out a guy on a bike, the point being that the UAV can SEE its target which is not the case in ASW.

Perhaps Coastal Command should have gone dark blue after WW2, then it would (perhaps) have been protected. In another 5 or 10 years when this relatively short term conflict in the sand finishes and we get back to our traditional Northern European scenarios I think we will regret all the money that has been thrown at the Army to the detriment of our maritime forces.

And most kipper mates are too blind to read a whole post...:ugh:

I know that an EO camera and Hellfire is sod all use against a submarine, I was trying to point out that a UAV could give a "response to a fast moving tactical situation". I still disagree that it is "insurmountable' to build an ASW UAV as the AVM so keenly points out. :=

In terms of (serving) VSOs keeping "schtum", and possibly (I say possibly) the authors knowledge of modern UAV technology, I think I should point out that it is probably Air Vice Marshal Andrew Roberts (Retd.).

At least there was an Air Vice Marshal Andrew Roberts who (as a Gp Capt) was Stn Cdr of Kinloss 1977-79, so do the sums......

So can anyone correct me, is this AVM Roberts a currently serving officer and the identical rank and name with a predecessor is just a coincidence? Or is this a paper from a long retired officer - which in itself is no crime, but will mean it has even less impact on MOD thinking?

This picture is from 2004:

Coastal Command and Maritime Air Association, The Service at St Eval Church.




Never underestimate the power of that well known search engine!

Oh - by the way, THERE IS NO MONEY!

Perhaps indeed. But then again at the end of the 90's the RN would (probably) have removed the capability themselves in order to pay for HMS QEII and HMS PoW! ;)

Nimbev

While LJ's follow up post kind of proves your point, in that simply adding a MAD boom etc nowhere near makes a UAV an MPA platform, maybe someone can build one. It would need to be much much larger than current UAVs and carry lots more kit and stores on board. A good addition would be a few crew members too to be in 'direct contact' with forces on the ground when needed' or when bandwidth is missing or removed/interfered with. Maybe this UAV should have two or four engines like other current MPA platforms.

Just as we are all used to the 'there is no money' argument we might need to get used to the 'UAVs aren't free to fly over all areas' argument too, as nimrods were used everywhere and not just over the sea. If a new MPA/sensor platform can't fly over London etc to gather intelligence (money won't be forthcoming for an overwater only aircraft) then its of no use IMHO.

It is a reasonable piece, but as others have said one cannot avoid the unpalatable truths;
By avoiding these issues, he comes across as critical of Government for the decision. Perhaps a little honesty would serve better, like acknowledging the root cause was well known and advised in the early 90s, and those who knew were just waiting for it to happen. And if those papers have been "lost", you only have to read prune archives! After all, this is MoD's main source of Corporate Knowledge these days!

Right,

Where to start?

1. An excellent paper by AVM Roberts that clearly lays out why the UK needs an indigenous MPA. It is slightly out of date now when it mentions the Chinese 'developing' a blue water capability. They are now there.

2. AVM Roberts (Rtd) is indeed the man in the photo provided by Biggus.

3. No nation or defence company are going down the road of developing or even thinking about a wide area search, long range ASW capable UAV at this moment in time. Of course, to do so would not be insurmountable but the costs are prohibitively expensive in the short to medium term. The UK could also design and launch a space station in theory if money was no object but we all know it is and therefore, forget the ASW UAV argument till at least 2030. BAEs might argue that they could do the whole thing in 5 years but having seen them take 15 years to try and re-wing Nimrods with total failure, that is probably a good indicator of them as a whole.

4. Back to the paper above. The argument and need for a UK long range, manned MPA/MMA is fairly easy to substantiate and lots of work and recent operational experience is starting to build up as supporting evidence. The RN are far stronger supporters by the way than the light blue. The requirement has not gone away. It was just the MRA4 that was scrapped.

5. Finally the money question - which is the real issue. I think we're all equal in our own views and thoughts on this one and who knows how the MOD will prioritise it's requirements from 2015 onwards. I do think SDSR 15 will be critical for the whole Seedcorn project though. We will either re-engage with a new aircraft off the shelf or park the whole thing for at least a decade before starting again from scratch. I wouldn't even like to guess on the odds at this stage?

Money
 

You guys ...

you keep on saying "There is no money"
and yet ... there is a huge amount of money which the government is using ... for other things. Often wasteful or downright foolish.

If we just look at "Defence Money" we are still spending huge amounts on a distant war which many believe we have already lost.

There is money for UK Defence, we just need to adjust the priority. We should consider scaling down the expeditionary intervention regime-change aspect and rebuild robust defence of what is important.

The RAF equipment balance looks all wrong, we seem to be awash with Chinooks to carry soldiers ... where exactly after Afghanistan? There is also an awful lot of UAV/RPAS capable of finding a thug on a motor-bike ... where are we going to use these after Afghanistan? do we have any reconnaissance assets capable of operating in anything other than a benign air environment? After the RAPTOR on Tornado goes I think not.

The AVM (ret'd)'s paper is indeed dated but in places still relevant - and it does raise the 'MPA' topic in (yet) another thread.

Maybe we will look seriously at the feasibility of leasing Block II P-8A's. We should not wait until the (proposed) 2015 SDSR happens before we at least consider this.

It is my hope that whenever the next SDSR comes along it will provide the opportunity to re-shape our defence forces to do that - Defend.

I would like to think that a Multi-Mission Aircraft would find a place in the RAF/RN. And the money? There is Government money, if they stopped wasting it we would all see the benefits.

I don't know what the group structure was at the time but surely the senior maritime officer would have pushed for such a briefing?

I agree! QED it is not "insurmountable".

As for the benign "air environment" and UAVs - people forget that they flew quite successfully over Bosnia/Kosovo with the threat from MiG29, Super Galeb and Orao, then later over Iraq before they buried their MiG29s, MiG25s, MiG23s and Mirage F1s in the desert in 2003! These things have been flying globally with the CIA for well over 15 years! So the current Afghan use is a poor comparator.

LJ

PS. Anyone noted that there's no money? :E

A fine and more or less unarguable paper - unless you are a politician. As we all know, any politician can interpret any situation to suit their own narrow political view and they have the uncanny knack of ignoring inconvenient realities. To claim that eliminating MPA did not seriously erode the safety and security of the country is manifest nonsense - but not to the politicians. They know, or think they know, that the country as a whole cares more about health, welfare etc than defence. To say we don't have the money is also nonsense - it's just a question of priorities but priorities are a question of votes.

And, as is inevitable, when over time this country finds itself having to accept unpalatable realities such as less friendly but more aggressive nations being granted advantageous mineral, trade, sub sea extraction rights and rights of access by weaker states because we, and others, are no longer able to provide a counter-balance to implicit military threat, the politicians will just shrug their shoulders and say it's not their fault or will try and dress it up as though it actually was beneficial to us. And that's how it will happen - there may not be a hot war, because we won't be able to fight one, so we will gradually retreat from supporting our friends and guaranteeing our trade routes and we'll find ourselves accepting disadvantageous trade agreements and more expensive raw materials, and the politicians will blame everyone but themselves.

Who knows? That is the problem with short-term thinking.

The same sort of short-term thinking that led to the MPA capability being given a 'holiday' could also lead to squaddies being vulnerable to IEDs in some future conflict where those seemingly easily discarded Chinooks may have been quite handy.

Who'd have guessed back in 2000 that fourteen years later we'd be trying to drag ourselves out of yet another meatgrinder of a conflict in the North West Frontier? Where may our ground forces be operating in another fourteen years?

Utter bl**dy hoop I'm afraid! According to this site, the UK Govt has some £719 Billion per annum to spend. A new MPA may be around £2B for a good quality system. There is money available, it just requires a change in direction. Whilst £2B is a lot of cash, this does not exclude innovative options such as lease purchase of aircraft using the C-17 model, which although more expensive in the longer term would allow for a less expensive introduction to service. Who knows, under this model, the first aircraft could be funded from Defence's current underspend.

It is insurmountable - we do not have that amount of money to waste on a platform that (now or in the near to meduium term) IS NOT viable. Perhaps you should see if you can dig out the Dstl report into the viability of the UAV as an MPA/MMA. :ugh:

:D:D:D

In the maritime air environment the senior bloke at the time was probably.................

a group captain. Do you seriously think that a gp capt could get in to brief those who should have known better? The halcyon days of a proper group structure ended when 11 and 18 were amalgamated in the mid/late 90s.

Basil,

I think a better question may be along the lines of:

From the paper that the Group senior maritime officer provided, articulating in great deal all of the roles conducted by Nimrod; how much of this was left in the final paper that was used to brief the minister?

Cut and paste (without the paste) - is so easy to use nowadays!

Perhaps we should say there has been no money voted to MoD for such a requirement, except the previous requirement which became, apparently, an ex-Requirement.

I'm all in favour of avoiding deliberate waste of MoD funds, and I live in hope that one day Minsters will change their mind and agree with me. But, at present, the stated policy is to condone it.

Bernard Gray is up before the HCDC again on 7th February. Thumbs up those who have been asked to give formal evidence. :ok:

Nope, the requirement is still extant, it never became an ex-requirement, just the solution to the requirement was "not brought into service". Which leads me to:

The quoted line at the time was that not bringing the MRA4 into service would save £2B over 10 years ie a savings measure (and also a wet finger in the air); now if you know different..............

There is no money, people keep saying.

Yet, there is enough money to donate to India, a country with nuclear weapons and a space program, enough money to cover their purchase of a fleet of brand new MPAs.

There's something wrong with our priorities.



DN

The endorsed Requirement (RMPA) was met to the entire satisfaction of a raft of senior officers and officials, who signed at every stage to say they were content. It is now an ex-requirement; it has expired because the money (and more) has been poured down the pan and there is no longer an endorsed requirement to replace this replacement.


Unfortunately, in signing off these milestones these senior staffs ignored professional advice from every other quarter in MoD, that only a complete idiot would sign the RTS, and until one could be found it couldn’t enter service. Post Haddon-Cave, and especially post-MoK (when Lord Philip confirmed ACAS had made a false declaration when signing the Chinook RTS), no one willing to make such a declaration stepped forward. Therefore, the programme could not be completed, because there was no valid safety case or Master Airworthiness Reference. The Mk2 didn't have them, and was known not to have them in the early 90s, and neither did the MRA4. These were known risks from Day 1; the mandated mitigation (stabilisation) was ignored. Yet, the same risks existed on other programmes in the same Directorate General, and were successfully mitigated. That is where any inquiry should start.


It is perhaps true that £2Bn would be saved in Through Life costs, but that "saving" was not the reason for cancellation. It was merely a notional change to the balance sheet as a result of cancellation. Spin in other words!



I fully agree money CAN be found, but it would require Minsters (and the Head of the Civil Service and PUS) to insist on implementing the mandated regulations and procedures for avoiding waste. They won't. Flatly refuse. No way. And DE&S are on record as agreeing. Instead, they chop programmes and cut staff and capability. That, my friend, is called a bloody great elephant in the room. I hope a means of circumventing it can be found.

OK, the slightly longer version.
There is no money for new defence aircraft, especially replacing one which has just been cut.

Further details.
If priorities are readjusted with no change in threat:
Whoever cut Nimrod now looks like an idiot.
Anyone who admits their bit of Defence could be cut in favour of a new MPA knows they will find their bit cut, and there'll still be no MPA.

Or, the longer version

Will a new MPA help the current government get re-elected better than other things they could spend that cash on? No

Quite a bold statement given that I have a fair idea who some of the other contributors are. Oh and I have a damned good idea who I am and where I work; I tried to lie to myself but my integrity seemed to get in the way.

107.

I have a bit of spare time, I'm bored. I'll bite.

It doesn't matter what the RN are doing. I'm sure the RN are planning behind the scenes that contains an element of paroachialism to get one over on the RAF (just like the RN tried to scuttle the RAF Seedcorn project when it was in the planning phase "we should be doing that"). Sadly, this is the type of behaviour that got the country's defence into this mess in the first place.

The studies that will inform a decision are being conducted on a national defence asset basis- not single service. it would not be in the interest of the country for a future MMA to be operated in isolation by either the RAF or the RN; it would be a Joint asset. it is also not in the interest of the country to procur a MPA - we need an airplatform that can deliver more than just what people know as the more traditional maritime type capabilities.

As for the Seedcorn folk, I wouldn't get too focused on them staying very long beyond their return of service (certainly not long enough to train ab initio RN personnel), because the majority will not.

Incidently, I'm quite happy that I managed to write a post without mentioning that there is no money. Oopps.

I've read again and again "there is no money" ignoring the inconvenient fact that joe Taxpayer has in fact already paid enough to equip several squadrons of new maritime patrol aircraft and the money has been utterly wasted. This is not entirely the fault of service chiefs but neither are they blameless!

It's very easy to throw up ones hands and say "they" are to blame but until the procurement system is sorted, we will continue to waste billions. If any company had bungled a procurement to this extent, most of the board and top management would have been dismissed. Has anyone been censured, let alone sacked..? It would be nice to think that the lessons have been learned but I wouldn't bet on it.

Quite.

Lacking a public inquiry into the waste, my recommendation to anyone here is to write to your MP and ask him to acquire the Nimrod RPMA/N2000/MRA4 Post Project Evaluation (PPE) report. It is mandated, and PPEs are the method by which MoD (allegedly) "learns lessons".

Only they don't. Why?

First, PPEs are thrown in the bin if they contain any embarrassing truths. Right up front in an accurate MRA4 report would be the FACT that the actions of a few 3 Star RAF officers (e.g. successive AMSOs) in the late 80s/early 90s denuded MoD of both funds and staff to permit such a programme to be stable or viable. For example, funding to maintain Safety Cases was withdrawn, which is why the MR2 one was pants, meaning MRA4 had no stable baseline.

To make it stable the programme manager (and because it was an RAF programme this would be a relatively senior person - the RN and Army are generally happier to have competence over rank in charge, whereas the RAF equates the two) would have to highlight the actions of his senior predecessors, which seldom happens. He hamstrings himself from Day 1 through this self preservation. It also creates a difficult tension in his team; for example, on RMPA there was an immediate outcry from very experienced RAF and civilian engineers who predicted exactly what would go wrong. When this happens, motivation is hard because you're just waiting for the inevitable sh**storm. There is a constant outflow from the programme because if is dispiriting knowing you are going to fail, through no fault of your own.

I still have the PPE I wrote in 2000 on a related programme, that warned the mutual 2 and 3 Stars of these very points. It detailed every single activity required to make the programme viable, and how it overcame the fact that the resources had been declined by the same 2 Star. It concluded the programme was successful because the 2 Star was completely ignored.

It merely repeated many previous reports. I was carpeted, and told that it would not be recorded or actioned because there was a new rule requiring PPEs only to be submitted two years after completion; whereas hitherto it was a living document and problems were reported immediately. This was the same ethos that scuttled the constant reporting and feedback mandated in the Safety Management System. In other words, the person who knew what to put in the PPE would have to be recalled from his next post to write it, which as you know is never going to happen. To make sure it didn't, the files would be destroyed. That is why I don't think there is an accurate MRA4 PPE. Too many people, especially some named and praised by Haddon-Cave, would be exposed.

So, not only do MoD refuse to learn from successful programmes (i.e. the majority), the act of protecting the guilty means they can't learn from mistakes either.

Yes, the procurers made some relatively minor mistakes on Nimrod, and it is great sport castigating them, but as ever the Services (especially the RAF) only look at the final act. The Systems failure that undermined their ability to do the job left procurers floundering from the outset. Of course, MoD personnel policy (jobs for the boys, no experience required) meant many didn't realise they were floundering. Again, that is a systems fault, not individual. It needed one person with balls to declare planning blight at this stage and you would still have an MPA capability. And it would have been delivered more or less on time (around 2004, as per original plan; given a pre-requisite programme had an ISD of 2003 it was never earlier despite the N2000 moniker). That ISD was achieved, 5 months early, 30% under cost and to a better spec, but no-one asks why. Again, too embarrassing.

There is a common thread here folks and the solution involves streamlining the entire procurement/acquisition system, empowering the programme manager (instead of him often being a junior in the "team") and chopping out at least 2 levels of "management" from DE&S and DEC. For a start, where was the management oversight on Nimrod (and Chinook Mk3 - same person)? His primary role was to review at least the top 10 risks each month, and oversee mitigation. Well, from 1995-2001 he was also my 2 Star and the only times I spoke to him he told me gross, deliberate waste, fraud and unsafe aircraft were "of no concern to MoD(PE)" and he was not interested in hearing of risks. Right, strip out that line of management. Next.....

There's always money to be had when our political masters need it. The problem is that defence is not a high enough priority at the moment and that it doesn't affect the possible voting patterns of the electorate in the same way that spending on the NHS, Education and Social Security has. For that reason we always end up sucking the hind tit........unless there is a "patriotic" war to be fought e.g. the Falklands War as distinct from other "interventions" of late such as Afganistan or Libya.

Our political masters still think we can deliver where it matters and this is dangerous IMHO as we could all too easily find ourselves engage in Syria or some other scrap. Even a UN peace-keeping job in somewhere like South Sudan or the C.A.R. would stretch us to breaking point.

All D.C.'s talk about having two aircraft carriers under construction will not cut any ice unless they are fully crewed, by people with the right experience/training, AND a full complement of aircraft plus all the paraphernalia that goes with putting ships like that to sea, with stores ships and tankers in support, with hopefully a frigate/destroyer/SSN in support.

With HM Treasury sanctioning over £375Billion of quantantive easing to stimulate the UK's economy all it would take would be say 5% of that total to be injected into the defence budget and we would be able to procure new MPA's, additional F-35's AND stop the loss of trained personnel through forced redundancy which is leaving the armed forces with critical skill shortages esp. in aircrew, engineering and medical branches.

Just my 2c's worth. Rant over.

MB

PS

Do this and the government might also persuade me to vote for them in 2015!:ok:

So you just want another £18.75 Bn spent on defence.....

Whatever it is you're smoking or drinking, I should stop it if I was you.

I defy anyone on either side of the debate to tell me that this thread has bought anything new to the party.

If I was a Mod here, I'd be deleting new MPA threads and insisting people stick to a central one. That way we would only be getting posts with a better percentage of new and/or relevant information.

Everything (of value) in this thread has been posted many, many times before.

This does not help the debate...it dilutes it. This is an important issue...it deserves better.

tofo

Know what you mean but isn't it sad that despite knowledgeable people posting facts on the threads there are still those who don't accept them. When that happens you probably need to repeat them otherwise they might just be the next ones to make the same old mistakes. Lacking a public inquiry, posting here is probably the best of any debate. At the very least, you learn how easy it is for MoD propaganda to become accepted fact.

Another key aspect is this. Many purport to know what happened with MRA4 and other failures, but I'd like to know how many met their legal obligation to report the systemic failings through their management chain. When I did, I was told I was the only one in MoD who thought as I did. Still got the letter, and last month MoD confirmed they stand by it (which has led directly to me being called to give evidence to the HCDC). I knew that to be wrong, because at least 3 colleagues did the same. Also, of course, the RAF Inspector of Flight Safety chipped in, numerous times. Had Haddon-Cave mentioned IFS's reports, his own Nimrod Review would only have needed to be a few pages! As a civilian I was used to being ignored, but ignoring IFS is something far more sinister.

Moving On
 

TOFO

I too had a look at this thread to see if there was something new, and like you said...

So, try and move things along a little, there *are* options for the UK to reconstitute an MPA force, but not if the rationale starts with "we need P-8s to fight China".

There is not no money - there is only some money - so instead of hankeringfor gold-plated unobtainable solutiuons, like we do every time, we need to take a cold, hard look at some cheap and un-sexy solutions that will let us get back into the air and protect our seas.

Objective No. 1 is to reinstate the capability and the force 'footprint' at whatever minimum level is attainable. Accept and tackle the budget problems head-on and there is still an opportunity to get acquire new aircraft and get flying. Do that - and thyen take stock.

Endless rehashing about who done what to MRA4 and gazing across the pond at P-8 (which is not a happy programme) will get us nowhere. Time for something smaller, cheaper and real.

In fact there's a deliberately unallocated pot of around £8bn (from memory) and a whiteboard of candidate projects to use it. Ministers have been dropping increasingly heavy hints that the MPA issue is recognised and will be addressed in the SDSR. Hammond says technological advances have opened up new options for the mix of platforms, so it sounds to me like something based around a slack handful of manned airframes complemented by some UAVs doing whatever they are able to do could be on the cards. The treasury could always snaffle back the unallocated pot as savings of course but that would be sending a difficult signal about how fiscal rectitude is rewarded. Then again there's an election looming too. But those risks aside, the current trajectory suggests that some form of MPA will emerge from the SDSR.

I'm confused. If the RN are to take over MPA, who is going to staff the Staff Requirement, or whatever its called today? Will they ask the RAF to do it all and append an Admiral's signature? Will they ignore the past and start afresh as if nothing has happened? Will the beancounters allow this? As tuc rightly says, it will be a minefield because of long memories in political circles about the trouble Nimrod caused all parties over the years. AVM Roberts' piece is irrelevant as this is nothing to do with establishing a requirement. It is everything to do with explaining why the RAF wasted so much and ended up with nothing. If I were the RN I'd steer clear.

Well said... :D:D:D:D

Ah, the Silver Fox.

Now how have we managed with out an essential MPA since . . .

On the Chinook now versus MPA in the future (force balance), how would we have managed in WW2 is we had said we won't need all those Lancasters in the 50s but we will need lots of Lancastrians. We should balance our forces.

The Chinook is needed NOW. Year after next it should not be needed in as large a number so the older ones should be scrapped. The money saved stopping running redundant helicopters can then be diverted to MPA or whatever.

That is reality.

Maybe, although the reality is also that one lesson of history is that you don't know what your next conflict is going to be. The idea (and possible public perception) that because we're not currently using something in anger means we don't need it is a tricky one.

Frost, my point is that rebalancing must come after a current conflict to try and guess what will be needed next time round. Indeed the CVS is really one such. I think the RN is in such a balancing phase as they are only peripheral to Afg are they not?