Maritime Patrol Capability: The SDSR’s Wolf Whistle
 

https://www.rusi.org/publications/de.../#.VfMq8-RVK1E

"The UK’s maritime patrol capability should be the result of an open competition, rather than a behind-the-curtains purchase of a preferred airframe"

discuss...

Did we not do that with the Nimrod AEW ??

Look what happened !!

So the 'seedcorn' guys are flying the P8 with the USAF. I wonder if the rest of the topic was equally researched to the same level.... Or was it just a few words from RUSI's sponsors?

Most likely as well as your post since the USAF does not own a single P-8A. The USN flies them.

It's the sort of academic spraff that these guys knock up in the coffee break to get a bit of exposure. Eloquent and seemingly incisive, it is actually badly written (try and find the point they are making) badly structured and inconclusive.

They seem to be vaguely pointing towards the development of a UK asset tailored towards future as much as present needs. (albeit, I've read 4/5 times and I'm still not sure). If that is case surely a paragraph on the inherent dangers of further delay would balance the article a little more?? Or perhaps a balanced article is not their intent? Or perhaps they know, or care, little about skill fade and such like.

Significantly, do we invest our tax pounds in seeking solutions against a considered, predetermined requirement, or do we fall into camps, championing one piece of equipment against another? Because the latter scenario quickly defaults to a public relations campaign, the deployment of smart business development skills and the dark arts of customer-relationship management: all components of modern life, but we should be able to develop world-leading defence capabilities without these practices being to the fore.

I would suggest (no...I would state) that in trying unsuccessfully to develop a "world leading" defence capability called Nimrod 2000 AKA Nimrod MRA4, the dark art of customer-relationship management was very much front and centre in the mid nineties. Ditto AEW Nimrod in the 70s, as mentioned above (although we probably called CRM something else then) and probably every other bit of kit we ever bought.
See what I mean about academic spraff.

edited

Good spot...complacent, casual academic spraff then.

GG2 knows this...he was being ironic...doh!

Always thought that RUSI spouted as much bolleaux as the 'academics' at Shriv...:ugh:

Wait. Time and again, the only thing I ever hear from people is that our biggest procurement problem is that some of our most important capabilities aren't put up for a proper tendering process; but now someone is saying we should hold a competition for an MPA replacement, and you're all saying its ridiculous!? The P8 may or may not be the best option, but that doesn't change the fact that we may well end up getting them without fully evaluating the other options.

But then the search for the perfect solution always takes ten times as long and is more expensive than the perfectly adequate solution. Gold plating is expensive.

you're about as accurate as the authors :ugh:

Where has any one said it (a fair competition) is ridiculous. The thrust of the posts is simply....crap piece of work.

The argument against holding an extended competition, and even more so designing something new is incredibly simple...

due to a decision taken in 2010 we are in 2015...out of time!

It would have been nice (not to mention academically sound) to have seen that problem more firmly represented in this flimsy POS.

As an aside:

Prof Louth is a former RAF officer.

Dr Roberts is a former RN officer (a PWO, IIRC)

Strange that in service careers which, between them, lasted for at least 30 years neither noticed who operated the American MPA force...

But then the search for the perfect solution always takes ten times as long and is more expensive than the perfectly adequate solution. Gold plating is expensive.

Ain't that the truth with knobs on?

Scribbler perchance? (IDK...but he was head of accountancy or some such)

Regarding the good 'Professor' - a quick squint at the London Gazette and it looks like he Commissioned in 1987 as an Admin Officer and had a meteoric rise (not!) to Sqn Ldr and retired in 2004 at his 16/38 point. Hardly a sparkling military career in my opinion. According to his various bios it seems he did a bit of non-senior work on accounting and funding for the IND and then left to get wrapped up in the self-licking lollipop called 'Academia'. Hardly gives him the right background to write some of the stuff on which he has seen fit to do; again, in my humble opinion.

I agree with B Word. Swindon Poly (aka the Defence Academy) is filled with equally unimpressive academics in my opinion. Also, RUSI seems to be a similar gravy-train that is allegedly funded by the UK Defence companies - hardly independent.

I stopped even reading RUSI papers and Service Doctrine years ago - written by walts and read by fools.

All in my humble opinion of course...:ok:

LJ

Oh dear, my daughter and SiL are there and our own Archimedes too.

Remember your academic tries to suggest both sides of an issue for you to come to a reasoned logical conclusion; it is not to give you the answer.

Pontificating and proposing a solution is what they put in papers and books to earn money.

GR, "The UK’s maritime patrol capability should be the result of an open competition, rather than a behind-the-curtains purchase of a preferred airframe"

You are assuming that anything can get near the P-8a system, to warrant having a competition. Otherwise it's just a waste of money and time.

"" quotation marks; now I actually know they teach this stuff in Aussie schools, so what’s your excuse?

I am assuming nothing, as MR is way darkside for me...

Apologies if a re-post but hard to sort the wheat from the chaff on this board sometimes.....

Lockheed Martin offers up Nimrod replacement - Telegraph

"...should be the result of an open competition, rather than a behind-the-curtains purchase of a preferred airframe." > could this be the F-35 as well?


Still wondering on basing options for a UK MPA procurement, best guess anyone?

Not a regular visitor to the mil forum then?

S-D

My ten pence worth say's

Buy a working system that the operators know and will restore the capablity NOW. Then go in for the competitive procurement malarky for the next generation platform/system + 1 (ie jump a generation).


It restores the capability quickly and takes the urgency out of the procurement process which should (hopefully) allow for a more focused procurement competition.

Oh and don't let the MoD contract writing 'experts' anywhere near the process....

Gr, change that to, Gr quoted. ;)

you could have quoted this from the article
"Joint Forces Command, supported by DSTL, has been undertaking an Air ISR Optimisation Study since 2012. This analysis attempts to understand the broader requirements for surveillance by air platforms out to 2030, including those for Persistent Wide Area Surveillance in the maritime domain. It is due to report before the end of 2015, providing evidence for a balanced set of requirements that might expand the remit of an MPA into a multi-mission set of tasks rather than just the simplistic like-for-like replacement that an off-the-shelf purchase might indicate. "

Hacking at people's service careers or focusing on a one-word error seems to be a way of distracting people from the point. If you think that Seedcorn, commonality, time and risk - backed up by the unspoken assumption that any competition or R&D program wlll inevitably be a shambles - dictate an off-the-shelf buy of a USN-spec P-8, say so.

Otherwise, it would make a lot of sense to sit down, define the post-2020 requirements for ISR, and work out a way of meeting them that represents a balance of operational and industrial/economic considerations. And be aware that the P-8 is an expensive aircraft to buy and to operate and is chock-full of costly US kit that European industry can make as well or better.

about the P-8, which is said to be the prefered option. I think the UK, like Aust. have done an initial evaluation on what is available and there needs. The japanese MMA wasn't in the UK for fun.

If anything could fulfill the UK needs. There may be a proper evaluation. Those that have been involved in such programs knows the amount of manhours involved. At this stage I think it's like 5th gen and 4th gen in fighters

"At this stage I think it's like 5th gen and 4th gen in fighters"

The triumph of marketing over logic?

Everyone should buy 6th gen Gripens, as Sweetman described them ;)

Perhaps the new Shadow S.ofS. for Defence should be asked for her views on this matter?

She'll say MPA should be handed to the Argentines along with the rest of the Falklands

But only if filled with bullion bars and letters of apology.

I'm an ex Herc mate and will defend that aircraft to the hilt, however it would make a fairly mediocre MPA for the UK, given the size of the sea space that must be patrolled.

I was in a headquarters role on Joint Warrior a while back and got chatting to a Danish submariner with a lot of time on their diesel-electric boats. The only MPA that they feared was the Nimrod as it was the only platform that had both the radar and speed combo to get a hit off their mast and dash into their location and put out an effective sonobouy pattern to lock them down before they went deep and silent and poked off on a random track. Atlantiques and P3s just didn't have the smash.

I flabbered his gasp when I told him that we'd scrapped them and their replacement.

The UK needs a 21st century jet MPA. That'll be a straight competition between the P8 and P1 (which I'm rather partial to).

Good job nobody did that then hey.

Good job some of us read the whole confused "paper" and pointed out it lacked balance, as in we are 40 knots behind the drag curve...perhaps worth a mention, no?

I could nae give a **** where we get an a capable MPA from, just so long as it is flying ops within 3 years.

I could nae give a **** where we get an a capable MPA from, just so long as it is flying ops within 3 years.

Translated: the great and wise can pick any MPA they want as long as it's a vanilla P-8A sustained by Mr Boeing and the USN.

Please don't do that, it's objectionable to the point of trolling. I try to go out my way these days to make my point crystal clear, so having them re-interpreted completely incorrectly is impolite to say the least.

The last MPA I flew in (5500 hours) was a Nimrod MR2 - a mighty fine MPA, flown by mighty fine crews. I left in 2003 - I know FA about the P8/P1 other than what I read on here. In my experience, the kit is less important than the crew that flies it anyway.

I make one sole point on this thread, which I believe I've made with absolute clarity...if we are re-establishing this capability we need to do so now. We cannot afford to delay one moment and the absolute priority for urgency is understated or omitted from that paper.

My personal, ex-professional opinion. That is all.

TOFO.

Thanks for that. What a fine comment to counter the previous crass post.

Well said!

So.

I hear rumours that Kinloss is going to re-open for the P8?

Tourist,

Was that rumour started by the landlords of the Kimberley, Crown and Anchor and Beastie, and the shopkeepers of Forres?

Start writing now
 

15 September 2015


For Immediate Release:


STRATEGIC DEFENCE AND SECURITY REVIEW


On 8 September, the Committee wrote to the Government expressing its concern about the imposition of a word limit of only 1,500 characters for online consultation responses to the Strategic Defence Review.


The Government has now confirmed that following feedback from interested parties, the online word limit has now been removed and that any length of response can be received (up to the maximum allowed by the software).

Anything that can be flying ops with the RAF in three years is by default a vanilla P-8A &c. There is nothing else that can meet that schedule. If that is crass I stand convicted, but it's also the objective truth.

I suspect Airbus, Kawasaki, Alenia, and Lockheed at a minimum could make powerful arguments against the above notion.

I love the way that the suggestion of an open competition gets lip service right up to the point when the possibility of procuring the thing rears its head. Then it's:

It will take too long
It will be over-specified
The bean counters will get involved
It'll be excessively expensive

and then the cream of the crop: We shouldn't bother to examine the requirement; we should just buy something now.

If you don't get the spec right in the first place - all the above will happen, and the MoD will blame the contractor.

KenV wrote: Not to mention BWoS - who would scour the world's scrapyards for some old wreckage which 't Bungling Baron would lobby 't MoD to convert into an MPA saving 't taxpayerrs' brass and lining his pockets.....:mad: