Who were you quoting, there TOFO? So much easier to follow if folk say where that random blue box comes from.

quotes on this site are generally chuff.

Back onto point - there is no need for all 8 aircraft to be able to fly from day 1, with full crews. I suspect an IOC with 3 aircraft and 3 or 4 crews might be achievable in a couple of years, working up to FOC within a decade. That is enough time to open up the manning pipeline. Add in some innovative solutions (cross train RN Surface and SM ratings and Officers to man the wet, dry and WSO posts - some would stay, some would go back to surface/SM ASW after 1 tour) and I think we could do it.

However, if parochialism (by any party) gets in the way, we might as well all go home now.

ATG, why do you think that?

Which bit?

The parochialism? Because ASW is truly all-arms. I've spent too long puking my guts up in the NWApps supported by non-Brit MPA to think that it can ever be solved solely by a RN or RAF only answer. People like Gp Capt Tom, Capt Nick, Sqn Ldr Tim and many others worked hard to keep seedcorn on the straight and narrow, as well as RN ASW, for it to be f*cked over by silly arguments over Sqn numbers or where we get the people from.

RN ASW operators are threaders with the lack of in-contact time, but they are trained on passive sonar and radar (depending on branch). The manning overhead to get them in the sky would cost the RN something, but at the same time, as a ASW focused CO, I'd welcome some guys in my Ops Room who have a flying badge and experience on live ops. It's a bit like the RN exchanges to teh E3 Fleet. Plus, it'd be a huge retention draw for people to work slightly out of the ordinary, can you imagine the dits they'd get to spin once they get back onboard?

We have a huge opportunity, lets not f*ck it up!

That was my point exactly. Without explaining who or what, a quote, isolated statement or question is meaningless. Especially if the quote is removed from its origin by a couple of other posts. Get it? They may be chuff, but you can easily help us stupid ones follow the thread. If you care to.

I genuinely had no idea what your quote about contracted engineering was about.

But there are some easy ways for the site admins to change the way you quote, but automatically tagging the quote as you make it.

ATG, so your idea is to put RN surface and subsurface operators in the air because it would be nice for them and retention draw?

From what I remember all the RN exchange guys I worked with on the MPA fleet in the past were all FAA?

The idea of wasting the valuable experience on single tourist is ridiculous and demonstrates a very poor understanding of what is required to generate and maintain an effective MPA force. RAF NCA WSOps spend most of their careers flying and build up a wealth of knowledge and experience, this is enhanced by cross pollination from other fleets. They are selected for the job at OASC on their potential abilities and aptitude to operate in the air. If you are advocating replacing these people with others from trades with less stringent selection processes you will not get the same quality output in the air.

The RAF didn't drop MPA in the SDSR, the MRA 4 position was untenable for a number of reasons and was a government decision (rightly or wrongly). The RAF provided an extremely effective force and it and would want to regenerate it again if it can be funded. In addition to ASW and other Maritime roles UK MPA were capable of many other roles, any new platform would do the same so little point providing someone who is just and acoustics operator.

There is no reason to reinvent the wheel on this, the RAF training pipeline can provide greater output if/when required, RN FAA operators will come on exchange. If aircraft are purchase they won't all arrive at once, skills and experience will build, provided people remain on the force :rolleyes:

BTW which part of this All Arms ASW involves Land?

Ivan, your points are spot on. And the bottom line is that neither the RN nor the FAA have the personnel to spare, nor can they generate them They need to work up to one (maybe two) new big ships and aircrew for their aircraft. Finding and training crew members of fixed wing, large, MPA isn't in the RN/FAA box of tricks right now.

Ivan

Whilst not entirely disagreeing with what you say, I think you are not thinking through the possible benefits of using non RAF/FAA badged operators in some roles.

Submariner sonar operators will obviously have enormous amounts of useful knowledge to bring to the party when hunting submarines, and conversely, imagine how useful it might be to have airborne trained operators back in the sub fleet post airborne tour.

Aside from that, do you actually have any idea what "stringent selection processes" submariner sonar operators go through or are you just making assumptions of superiority?

Do you honestly believe that the finest sonar operators are in aircraft rather than on subs which depend on it to stay alive?

I know that ex nimrod people tend to look down upon others in the field of ASW, but I think you need to grow up a little.

Incidentally. What RAF pipeline are you talking about? There is only an RN pipeline for rearseaters now, and it has plenty of spare capacity since it was set up with the expectation of all RAF WSOs coming through it. What we don't have is enough people in either service right now.

Could be plenty of manpower freed up depending which (multiple?) platforms get the chop in sdsr. Sentinel, shadow, puma, e3 cuts, tornado....??

And given that all 5 of my Senior Rates have done (and passed) the same AAAC that 'Wet' operators do, perhaps they might be a little bit SQEP?

Tourist, agree entirely. And to be clear the RN has the only ASW/ASuW training courses of any of the 3 UK services, whether aircrew or not. But, in the spirit of Jointery, if any one from the other 2 Services whats to do the relevant courses and become SQEP in those skill sets then they should be allowed to!

Ivan Rogov wrote: Are you sure about that?

:hmm:

Oh! So I imagined the sensor section teaching acoustics and sonar the last 3 years at Cranwell then!

Camelspyyder, I wouldn't waste your time using facts. After these last few responses and the diatribe on the Nav thread recently, we are obviously inept and should keep quiet and listen to the experts :D

Ivan,

I suspect you refer to the NCA/Officer Aircrew sub-plot that has emerged on the Nav thread. Unfortunate - not my debate. The main discussion there and here should be about the MoD's ability to put people in the P-8's seats.

Don't be discouraged.

From the perspective of manning P-8 I would make the same points that I have done on "the other thread". The purchase and delivery of a new platform into the UK inventory will take a dreadfully long time. So the MPA thread doesn't need to give up just yet. Part of the discussion ahead of any announcement and ahead of SDSR will include manning, support, basing, etc, etc.

So, for every airframe the RAF shall require two pilots and five rear crew. No Nav. There is a small cadre of RAF folk in the USA keeping the LRMPA dream alive. 45 Sqn are training a couple of colours of WSOps and the U.S. Training System may well be a part of the deal - the RAF could probably do without having to set up its own OCU. As many have stated here already, there is no LRMPA training school in the UK so kicking off this new platform may well need to tap into the established US system as well as the "seed corn".

The point is, this will be under the microscope and the likely lead time will allow for ramped up manning and training.

I say again, resurrecting the vital UK LRMP capability may well come at a cost to the Forces. The books will need to be sufficiently balanced to include crew training.

Hi CM, you suspect correctly and I know you avoided it. As you say it will take sometime to build the force back up, 5 years in my opinion. If it happens there will challenges, but as ever we will overcome them :ok:
TBH there is nothing new being said that hasn't been covered in the many MPA threads in the last 5 years or so. There are far bigger issues to consider which I do not intend to introduce to a public forum, none of them are insurmountable but they are the real secret to regenerating the capability and as important as crews and platforms.
I go now...

Ivan

Nice try to come across as the injured party:=

Nobody said you are inept.

You, however said

"RAF NCA WSOps spend most of their careers flying and build up a wealth of knowledge and experience, this is enhanced by cross pollination from other fleets. They are selected for the job at OASC on their potential abilities and aptitude to operate in the air. If you are advocating replacing these people with others from trades with less stringent selection processes you will not get the same quality output in the air."

Clearly you think that non Aviator operators are inept.

I merely pointed out your error.

...plus

Spraff.

We are talking about a procurement decision and in the absence of a hot war cost will always be a the biggest factor and manpower will always be the biggest component of cost, as every single serviceman and woman is made aware at some time in their careers.

There will of course be all sorts of operational imperatives, some of which may be classified, but until the shooting starts (for real), cost will decide the outcome and it was ever thus.