ASW and MPA
 

The UK should take note>>

Jane's Defence News

I'd be concerned if it was Argentina.

They had publicly stated long term plans for ssn's since the 1970s and got very little done about it. Why should this be different?

I would not wish to dilute the argument for restoring the MPA capability, but JimLad is spot on.

Also, last time I looked about 40+ navies owned submarines on paper. The vast majority of them would not have a clue how to operate them to any great effect.

The Indian's (who do ASW and operate submarines pretty well) have been working on their SSN/SSBN capability for 40 years plus and are still a fair way off...although they may well get there.

Brazil...probably 30 years behind them...so maybe 2040?

It is beyond belief that an island nation such as hours, which is absolutely dependent on imports of food for its very existence, and of raw materials for the purposes of manufacture and export, should so completely divest itself of the means of protection against seaborne attack on its supply routes.

The certain means of bringing this country to its knees (the submarine) has been well known for a century and more, and demonstrated in the two World Wars of the last mid-century. Kipling put it in words:

"The sweets that you suck and the joints that you carve
Are brought to you daily by all us Big Steamers,
And if anything hinders our coming, you'll starve.

This is literally true; Churchill said that it was the greatest worry of his wartime premiership. It came close to happening in '41, when tonnage was being sunk far faster than it could be replaced. It is arguable that without the trump card that Ultra put in the hands of the Admiralty, Kipling's grim warning may have proved true.

Hitler didn't need to invade us to win. All he needed to do was to put all his resources behind Grand Admiral Raeder and his U-boats (Bismarck and Tirpitz proved costly diversions in the end) and simply wait.

Yeah, and those in charge have to make difficult decisions based on the frugal amounts of cash available. They have to weigh up threat vs risk, is it likely to happen? Can we afford to spend X as insurance against the X % chance of us needing them?

I can't answer that question but someone has to, you fancy being in charge of the beans?

Assuming your age to be true, with the utmost deference and respect, could I point that the following sentence is pretty much 100% wrong.

Yes he did (need to successfully invade to win). He didn't; that's one of the reasons he lost.

That said, you are completely correct sir, we should not have given up this capability. But we did, and I am pessimistic about the prospects of getting in back.

Merry Christmas

However Joe Public will be delighted to know the UK has a mitigation plan in place to deal with any future Brazilian threats....


Just be nice to them and stay friendly!


And if it really does go horribly wrong, just ask our allies for help (again)!

While agreeing we need an MPA capability back ASAP I think the Marinha do Brasil is never likely to be near the top of the list in terms of possible threats to the UK's supply lifelines....................

Unless you were defending some mineral rich, rocky outcrop in the South Atlantic Heathrow Harry?

It's more likely that Brazil would use them against Argentina.

http://en.mercopress.com/2013/05/04/...eezes-relation

It's a few much larger steps from being upset with one another to a shooting war. :cool:

But I guess Argentina won't be getting any Brazilian-assembled Gripens anytime soon though.

No.

As this thread is about ASW and MPA, I'll point out that the advent of the AIP systems among various folks who operate diesel submarines renders the need for most nations to consider buying a nuke, and the very expensive support network required to keep them running and afloat, null and void.

First off, if most of your patrols are near your own territorial waters. you don't need nukes. Diesels are a fine "defensive sea denial" asset. AIP makes their indiscretion interval longer, and thus their being detected by non acoustic means less likely.

Secondly, even with extended patrols, very few nations need global reach. Regional reach suffices for most needs. An AIP can go on patrol for a few weeks and take advantage of how quiet a diesel electric sub is. I seem to recall that the Kilo sub (Russian) family had some of them backfitted with AIP kit. Likewise some of the German and Dutch subs. (Did the Swedes go final on that, or not?)

We are not in your father's ASW scenario. It's a far different one these days. That said, MPA ( like the P-8, or the Nimrod were it still among the quick) have a role to play in a multi capability sense. ASW is just one role to fulfill.

Here's hoping our friends on the eastern side of the pond can get some P-8's ... should make the NATO interoperability bit less vexing. Let the Americans and Ozzies sort out the first few wrinkles, and get your kit with a few improvements! :ok:

The UK and a few other nations view the P-8 as a "silver bullet" solution. Too much capability at too high a price. So Boeing is now offering a "poor man's" P-8 in the form of a Canadair Challenger 605 biz jet with lots of the systems developed for the P-8. It does not have the ASW capability of a P-8 nor the weapons carriage capacity, but it (allegedly) makes a great MSA (Maritime Surveillance Aircraft), which is not quite the same as an MPA.

The Old Fat One (ref your #7),

I'm afraid that aet 93 is all too true (and it is also true that "there's no fool like an old fool !")

I don't pretend to be a military strategist, but I would contend that my earlier statement that:

"Hitler didn't need to invade us to win. All he needed to do was to put all his resources behind Grand Admiral Raeder and his U-boats (Bismarck and Tirpitz proved costly diversions in the end) and simply wait".

has some merit. I pray in aid:

(Excerpts from) "Battle of Singapore" (Wiki)

"On 11 February, concerned by the prospect of being dragged into fighting in built-up areas, Yama****a called on Percival to give up this meaningless and desperate resistance. By this stage, the fighting strength of the 22nd Brigade—which had borne the brunt of the Japanese attacks—had been reduced to a few hundred men. The Japanese had captured the Bukit Timah area, including most of the Allied ammunition and fuel and giving them control of the main water supplies".

"The following day", (14 February) "the remaining Allied units fought on. Civilian casualties mounted as one million people crowded into the area still held by the Allies and bombing and artillery fire increased. Civilian authorities began to fear that the water supply would give out".

On 15th February, after only seven days fighting, Gen. Percival surrendered to a Japanese force half his size. There is little doubt in my mind that the water factor must have played a compelling part in his decision. 80,000 British and Empire troops went into captivity for the next three years. Winston Churchill called the ignominious fall of Singapore to the Japanese the "worst disaster" and "largest capitulation" in British military history.

Of course, thirst will kill a man far quicker than starvation but the end is equally certain, and it would have the attraction for Hitler that he avoided the casualties of a frontal assault against determined defenders.

And a Merry Christmas to you, Sir !

Danny.

Really? Got a source for that?

As for Boeing's MSA, no point in buying that if the primary role for your MSA is ASW and the ability to kill the target - you know; the Find, Fix AND Finish thing.

Roland:
Agree on the three F's.
As to P-8 being a sliver bullet: prices factor into weapons buying decisions all the time, which I guess the end of Nimrod illustrates as well as anything could. If the P-8 is too expensive ... that's a shame. :(

Well done Danny42C
 

Some seniority that sir, you must have lived through and witnessed the last blockade.
But is this all hair splitting at times? We no longer have a merchant navy, any hostile nation that wants to starve us can basically order its flagged nations vessels to about turn and leave us to it. i.e. by commercial sanctions?

“The U.K. isn’t looking for a silver bullet,” said one industry official, referring to aircraft such as the Boeing P-8 Poseidon or the Nimrod. “The aircraft has to be able to take on a wide variety of missions, be versatile, adaptable, interoperable and easily upgradable.”

U.K. Maritime Patrol Capability Re-Enters Fray | Defense content from Aviation Week

That's a mighty big IF. And if ASW is not the primary role, an MSA may be just the ticket.