Interesting take on MPA
Dervish
As ATG has 'outed' me, I can perhaps set to rest a few myths.
Firstly, I am enormously pro-MPA, adored the 'can do attitude' kipper fleet when I had the pleasure of working in Sandy places with it some years ago and saw the results it provided, and have worked with some great guys from the fleet. I would dearly love to see an MPA solution in service (having been in the back of a P8 I'd say its a 95% MRA4 solution and I'd love to see it in service in the UK).
The point of the article was that if you went down the line favoured by the DM of providing a 24/7 watch, then actually its probably far more efficient to have a ship out - its not just a case of putting one plane in the air, but that sustaining a long term 24/7 watch will involve the unsung efforts of a lot of the station to do this, and this is not often appreciated or valued.
The second point of the article was to point out that some of the complaints in the Scotsman contained some deeply misleading lines of argument, which also ignored realities like the existence of a Scottish OPV fleet and MPA capability today, which are all too easily forgotten.
Finally, I am happy to state for the record that the MOD does not, has not, and will not sponsor or push the PSL blog (or I believe any other blog which isn't hosted on Gov.uk) It is a private blog, done in my own time at home, and is nothing to do with MOD.
ATG knows me in real life, and I know that if he (or others who know me) for one second suspected this was not the case, then they would say so! If you want to chat further about this then PM me and we can exchange gsi addresses...
As ATG has 'outed' me, I can perhaps set to rest a few myths.
Firstly, I am enormously pro-MPA, adored the 'can do attitude' kipper fleet when I had the pleasure of working in Sandy places with it some years ago and saw the results it provided, and have worked with some great guys from the fleet. I would dearly love to see an MPA solution in service (having been in the back of a P8 I'd say its a 95% MRA4 solution and I'd love to see it in service in the UK).
The point of the article was that if you went down the line favoured by the DM of providing a 24/7 watch, then actually its probably far more efficient to have a ship out - its not just a case of putting one plane in the air, but that sustaining a long term 24/7 watch will involve the unsung efforts of a lot of the station to do this, and this is not often appreciated or valued.
The second point of the article was to point out that some of the complaints in the Scotsman contained some deeply misleading lines of argument, which also ignored realities like the existence of a Scottish OPV fleet and MPA capability today, which are all too easily forgotten.
Finally, I am happy to state for the record that the MOD does not, has not, and will not sponsor or push the PSL blog (or I believe any other blog which isn't hosted on Gov.uk) It is a private blog, done in my own time at home, and is nothing to do with MOD.
ATG knows me in real life, and I know that if he (or others who know me) for one second suspected this was not the case, then they would say so! If you want to chat further about this then PM me and we can exchange gsi addresses...
I admit I still haven't got the time or inclination to read the article BUT...
Dervish - just to clarify my earlier use of the word 'idiot' was absolutely not directed at you but at the author of the blog.
And,
I know for a fact that Angus Roberston is very pro MPA which is why the SNP Defence Plan includes MPA as a priority. Also, the senior operational leadership of the RN is also very pro MPA, so I'm fairly certain, there would be no criticism from their perspective.
Those who know what an MPA brings to the party know. Those who don't, show themselves up very clearly. Unfortunately for the maritime RAF contingent, the greater RAF leadership falls into the latter category.
Dervish - just to clarify my earlier use of the word 'idiot' was absolutely not directed at you but at the author of the blog.
And,
I know for a fact that Angus Roberston is very pro MPA which is why the SNP Defence Plan includes MPA as a priority. Also, the senior operational leadership of the RN is also very pro MPA, so I'm fairly certain, there would be no criticism from their perspective.
Those who know what an MPA brings to the party know. Those who don't, show themselves up very clearly. Unfortunately for the maritime RAF contingent, the greater RAF leadership falls into the latter category.
Thread Starter
JimLad
Thank you. I offered an honest opinion and reading some of your largely excellent pieces still think you sail close to the wind. MoD may not "sponsor or push" your blog, but they must surely tacitly agree to it? But well done you for writing it. If it gets people talking about serious issues then it is well worth it. I thought the pie-eating comment more than unfair. It isn't as if they could break out a hexamine cooker and brew up on the flight deck.
Party Animal
Thank you also. Yes I've noticed SNP's stance. You can hardly miss it! I also hear that SDSR15 is to be cancelled if we vote Yes next year, which I thought may have been behind the blog article. If true, that might have far reaching consequences for MoD, especially if another MPA replacement
was scheduled to be inserted in the equipment programme.
Thank you. I offered an honest opinion and reading some of your largely excellent pieces still think you sail close to the wind. MoD may not "sponsor or push" your blog, but they must surely tacitly agree to it? But well done you for writing it. If it gets people talking about serious issues then it is well worth it. I thought the pie-eating comment more than unfair. It isn't as if they could break out a hexamine cooker and brew up on the flight deck.
Party Animal
Thank you also. Yes I've noticed SNP's stance. You can hardly miss it! I also hear that SDSR15 is to be cancelled if we vote Yes next year, which I thought may have been behind the blog article. If true, that might have far reaching consequences for MoD, especially if another MPA replacement
was scheduled to be inserted in the equipment programme.
ATG,
'the value of the MPA is limited to being able to say ‘we know you are there’.
For the crews its likely to mean sustained sorties flying racetracks in foul weather, with long hours of discussions between kipper fleet members about the merits of different pies that they've tasted.
So, the best Nimrod could do would be to find the vessel, loiter with fairly obvious intent, and then land again. To support this around the clock would require a minimum of three airframes, a significant proportion of flight operations and support personnel and tie up the resources of a significant proportion of the station'.
For some reason, I cannot get the 'quote' button to work?
But,
Okay, I accept the quote was not meant in condescension or contempt. However, it shows an absolute lack of knowledge of the role of an MPA in ASuW and how they would operate on a routine basis. In simple terms, it is just plain wrong.
I also accept Jimlad1 is generally a well balanced contributor to pprune and his last post makes more sense of contextualizing the original entry. Therefore, I accept idiot is a bit strong.
My reason for not reading the full article is that the initial link didn't work and the 'how to' provided by Biggus reads like something from the Da Vinci Code!
'the value of the MPA is limited to being able to say ‘we know you are there’.
For the crews its likely to mean sustained sorties flying racetracks in foul weather, with long hours of discussions between kipper fleet members about the merits of different pies that they've tasted.
So, the best Nimrod could do would be to find the vessel, loiter with fairly obvious intent, and then land again. To support this around the clock would require a minimum of three airframes, a significant proportion of flight operations and support personnel and tie up the resources of a significant proportion of the station'.
For some reason, I cannot get the 'quote' button to work?
But,
Okay, I accept the quote was not meant in condescension or contempt. However, it shows an absolute lack of knowledge of the role of an MPA in ASuW and how they would operate on a routine basis. In simple terms, it is just plain wrong.
I also accept Jimlad1 is generally a well balanced contributor to pprune and his last post makes more sense of contextualizing the original entry. Therefore, I accept idiot is a bit strong.
My reason for not reading the full article is that the initial link didn't work and the 'how to' provided by Biggus reads like something from the Da Vinci Code!
Jimlad1,
From your blog:
I opine that this article does nothing positive and sits uneasily with your stated aim; indeed, you should reflect on what makes for poor quality defence journalism. You have posted far more balanced thoughts on this forum and I hope you choose to do so again.
From your blog:
...no agendas, merely serving as a collection of the authors thoughts on a range of matters... defence policy, complaining about poor quality of defence journalism.
Biggus,
Have you thought about applying for a job at Bletchley Park?
ATG,
Have you thought about getting your blood pressure checked?
Bet you used to love 3-2-1 with Ted Rodgers...
Ever heard of the K.I.S.S. principle?
Have you thought about applying for a job at Bletchley Park?
ATG,
Have you thought about getting your blood pressure checked?
Bet you used to love 3-2-1 with Ted Rodgers...
Ever heard of the K.I.S.S. principle?
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: The US of A, and sometimes Bonnie Scotland
Posts: 549
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My tuppence....
Surely it's also time to stop getting hung up on the MPA handle. I'd hope that were any discussion to be taking place, an aircraft capable of being a Multi-Mission Aircraft (MMA) would be a far better place to start...
Surely it's also time to stop getting hung up on the MPA handle. I'd hope that were any discussion to be taking place, an aircraft capable of being a Multi-Mission Aircraft (MMA) would be a far better place to start...
Nope, MPA only please. The biggest shortfall is the wet end of the MPA's skillset, and that is the only thing that will bring back that capability; trying to be the jack of all trades will simply see the exacerbation of the capability shortfall.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: various
Posts: 73
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Alfred.
Your comment above is 100% wrong. The ONLY thing that will see a reintroduction of a genuine long-range maritime patrol aeroplane type capability to the UK in the short/medium term is if the capabilities associated with the maritime missions are on a platform that can achieve them AND has a range of other capabilities as well.
The age of one-trick flying ponies, for the UK, is gone - we cannot afford them.
If people proceed with your mentality we will get nothing. The only argument, all things considered, is a MULTI MISSION AIRCRAFT, that can do all the maritime stuff and more. The day of the pure LRMPA has gone.
Your comment above is 100% wrong. The ONLY thing that will see a reintroduction of a genuine long-range maritime patrol aeroplane type capability to the UK in the short/medium term is if the capabilities associated with the maritime missions are on a platform that can achieve them AND has a range of other capabilities as well.
The age of one-trick flying ponies, for the UK, is gone - we cannot afford them.
If people proceed with your mentality we will get nothing. The only argument, all things considered, is a MULTI MISSION AIRCRAFT, that can do all the maritime stuff and more. The day of the pure LRMPA has gone.
Why would we need a long range MMA? The Gulf is short range, and is being done now by other aircraft types. Africa is being done by other aircraft types as well. Some of the capability will be lost, but the only thing we do not have, right now, is long range, sustainable (i.e. 24/7 ops), ASW focussed aeroplanes.
The problem with MMA is that it is the master of no trades. Why on earth was Nimrod MR2 in Afghanistan? There is enough of a recognised ASW threat to justify a small buy (<7 P8?) and keep it in use. I don't need, or want over land ISTAR from an MPA, and if it comes to it, I'd rather have a small number of ASW focussed MPA than a larger number of ISTAR/ASuW/SAR capable only MMA.
ASW and Wet Skills are hard enough to maintain without getting aircraft diverted on other tasking.
The problem with MMA is that it is the master of no trades. Why on earth was Nimrod MR2 in Afghanistan? There is enough of a recognised ASW threat to justify a small buy (<7 P8?) and keep it in use. I don't need, or want over land ISTAR from an MPA, and if it comes to it, I'd rather have a small number of ASW focussed MPA than a larger number of ISTAR/ASuW/SAR capable only MMA.
ASW and Wet Skills are hard enough to maintain without getting aircraft diverted on other tasking.
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: The US of A, and sometimes Bonnie Scotland
Posts: 549
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Alfred,
Wrong wrong wrong. It's 2013, not 1970. Things have changed, and moved on. I'm not suggesting jack of all trades, but jack of many. A single capability for one aircraft, IMHO, is not the way ahead. Look at MR2 in the latter days. She wasn't ONLY a dedicated MPA, she turned her had to much more. And MRA4 was never to be only an MPA!!
I do agree with your idea for a need of revitalisation of ASW/ASUW skills, but surely any platform ought to be far more broad.
Wrong wrong wrong. It's 2013, not 1970. Things have changed, and moved on. I'm not suggesting jack of all trades, but jack of many. A single capability for one aircraft, IMHO, is not the way ahead. Look at MR2 in the latter days. She wasn't ONLY a dedicated MPA, she turned her had to much more. And MRA4 was never to be only an MPA!!
I do agree with your idea for a need of revitalisation of ASW/ASUW skills, but surely any platform ought to be far more broad.
Perhaps an interesting question would be, had we not been on TELIC, or had the comms/ISTAR package that Nimrod provided for a certain period prior to other systems doing it been in place already, then would Nimrod have been binned earlier?
Is there an argument that TELIC/HERRICK were merely a stay of execution?
Is there an argument that TELIC/HERRICK were merely a stay of execution?
Is there an argument that TELIC/HERRICK were merely a stay of execution?
Interesting question but I think you have to look at why MRA4 was scrapped. The precise reason was known in 1994 when the programme was out to tender, and for some years before that on MR2. MoD chose to bear the known risks, which is fine up to a point. But these were not publicised, in fact they were actively concealed, which is not fine. It is illegal. And the staffs of the Inspector of Flight Safety were under strict orders not to speak to specialist staffs when compiling their reports.
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: The US of A, and sometimes Bonnie Scotland
Posts: 549
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh, here we go. Again. I was merely comparing capabilities. NOTHING to do with the whys and wherefores of the MR2/MRA4 withdrawal and cancellation.