Interesting take on MPA
Betty, 2014 might look a lot more like 1970 than 1998.
ASW is on the up, trust me on this. Anyway, who's to say that the MPA will be operated solely by the RAF?
ASW is on the up, trust me on this. Anyway, who's to say that the MPA will be operated solely by the RAF?
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: various
Posts: 73
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Alfred
"Why would we need a long range MMA? The Gulf is short range, and is being done now by other aircraft types"
The Gulf is not short range. The bit to the left of the straights of Hormuz yes. But how about the Arabian Sea? Have a look on a map and note the size of the area that extends to the west coast of India and around to Yemen, Socotra etc. You appear to be focusing on Ops in the gulf area; how about the rest of the world - who knows where we may have to get involved in the future (especially as nations begin to fight over energy), or where our carriers may deploy?
"Africa is being done by other aircraft types"
This reminds me of work I completed with the USN regarding deconfliction for said theatre. The ATOs etc were mostly filled with the likes of P-3 and Atlantiques. All aircraft could operate at range; a key feature to achieve this particular mission.
"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."
You do need overland ISTAR from a future MPA - there is no money to obtain a platform that can complete only a comparatively small portion of the wide range of ISR tasks.
"ASW and Wet Skills are hard enough to maintain without getting aircraft diverted on other tasking."
Do you mean diverted onto a task in the national interest? A platform that can re-tasked in the air from one task to another is exceptionally flexible. How about from a maritime training mission to an overland UK terrorist threat response? ASW skills can be maintained at an adequate level (not superb) alongside other tasks.
You also appear to think that overland ISTAR is flying in a circle pointing a camera at something talking to people on the ground via a radio. you may wish to broaden your thinking. For example, have a look at the link below from an unclassified source.
Boeing Assessing Effect Of Advanced Sensor On P-8 Life
"Why would we need a long range MMA? The Gulf is short range, and is being done now by other aircraft types"
The Gulf is not short range. The bit to the left of the straights of Hormuz yes. But how about the Arabian Sea? Have a look on a map and note the size of the area that extends to the west coast of India and around to Yemen, Socotra etc. You appear to be focusing on Ops in the gulf area; how about the rest of the world - who knows where we may have to get involved in the future (especially as nations begin to fight over energy), or where our carriers may deploy?
"Africa is being done by other aircraft types"
This reminds me of work I completed with the USN regarding deconfliction for said theatre. The ATOs etc were mostly filled with the likes of P-3 and Atlantiques. All aircraft could operate at range; a key feature to achieve this particular mission.
"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."
You do need overland ISTAR from a future MPA - there is no money to obtain a platform that can complete only a comparatively small portion of the wide range of ISR tasks.
"ASW and Wet Skills are hard enough to maintain without getting aircraft diverted on other tasking."
Do you mean diverted onto a task in the national interest? A platform that can re-tasked in the air from one task to another is exceptionally flexible. How about from a maritime training mission to an overland UK terrorist threat response? ASW skills can be maintained at an adequate level (not superb) alongside other tasks.
You also appear to think that overland ISTAR is flying in a circle pointing a camera at something talking to people on the ground via a radio. you may wish to broaden your thinking. For example, have a look at the link below from an unclassified source.
Boeing Assessing Effect Of Advanced Sensor On P-8 Life
Once again this is yet another thread slowly drifting back to the subject of the UK getting back into the MPA (MMA?) game.
While I would be among the first to welcome such a situation, I feel the realities of life outside an MOD establishment often pass by many who discuss this subject. I would recommend reading post 52 of this thread for some thoughts on the pitfalls ahead of funding for any new aircraft, no matter how much people of light and dark blue uniforms may wish otherwise :
http://www.pprune.org/military-aircr...-air-show.html
Even Labour is now finally saying that public spending needs to restrained, although still somehow trying to blame the coalition for the deficit Labour would inherit if it won the next election!!!! This is a new approach Labour trotted out just before Christmas, when Parliament had broken up, and the papers were occupied elsewhere, trying to avoid any scrutiny - since it represents a MASSIVE U TURN from their "spend our way out of recession" argument that they have been making up until now in opposition!
Ed Balls aims to identify spending cuts in Labour review - FT.com
'Tough but necessary savings 'will make me "unpopular" says Labour's Ed Balls | Western Daily Press
While I would be among the first to welcome such a situation, I feel the realities of life outside an MOD establishment often pass by many who discuss this subject. I would recommend reading post 52 of this thread for some thoughts on the pitfalls ahead of funding for any new aircraft, no matter how much people of light and dark blue uniforms may wish otherwise :
http://www.pprune.org/military-aircr...-air-show.html
Even Labour is now finally saying that public spending needs to restrained, although still somehow trying to blame the coalition for the deficit Labour would inherit if it won the next election!!!! This is a new approach Labour trotted out just before Christmas, when Parliament had broken up, and the papers were occupied elsewhere, trying to avoid any scrutiny - since it represents a MASSIVE U TURN from their "spend our way out of recession" argument that they have been making up until now in opposition!
Ed Balls aims to identify spending cuts in Labour review - FT.com
'Tough but necessary savings 'will make me "unpopular" says Labour's Ed Balls | Western Daily Press
Last edited by Biggus; 28th Dec 2013 at 18:17.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: various
Posts: 73
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Biggus,
You are quite correct. The bottom line is there is no new money; but that is not to say there are alternative ways and means. Or, that the UKs ISTAR resources could not be reconfigured to increase capability without increasing footprint.
You are quite correct. The bottom line is there is no new money; but that is not to say there are alternative ways and means. Or, that the UKs ISTAR resources could not be reconfigured to increase capability without increasing footprint.
The answer will be 5 - 7 P-8s, and they'll be tasked primarily with ASW. IF they have spare capacity, then they'll do that, but their primary mission will be ASW.
.... and the money will come from.....?
What will you give up in exchange?
Random,
I can't quite see E-3Ds, Sentinels, Reapers or Shadow doing the sort of ASW Alfred is after!!
What will you give up in exchange?
Random,
I can't quite see E-3Ds, Sentinels, Reapers or Shadow doing the sort of ASW Alfred is after!!
RB
while I would welcome the MMA capability, given Nimrod 2000, the difficulty in choosing an option other than Rivet Joint as a Nimrod R1 replacement and the MRA4 debacle, its not as simple as finding the money or reconfiguring a current ISTAR platform. If you think it is, I would be interested to hear your thoughts about which current ISTAR platform you think would be easy to reconfigure without losing or degrading that platform's capability.
while I would welcome the MMA capability, given Nimrod 2000, the difficulty in choosing an option other than Rivet Joint as a Nimrod R1 replacement and the MRA4 debacle, its not as simple as finding the money or reconfiguring a current ISTAR platform. If you think it is, I would be interested to hear your thoughts about which current ISTAR platform you think would be easy to reconfigure without losing or degrading that platform's capability.
Maybe we should have a permanent, or at least long term, MPA (MMA?) thread running. It would stop repeating the same information on a different thread every month or so... 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: various
Posts: 73
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TS,
I did not mention reconfiguring a current platform. I mentioned reconfiguring the UKs posture, from an Air Platform perspective. i.e. obtain an MMA that can complete all the required maritime tasks and the missions currently completed by one trick ponies, thus allowing aforementioned pony to be retired.
I did not mention reconfiguring a current platform. I mentioned reconfiguring the UKs posture, from an Air Platform perspective. i.e. obtain an MMA that can complete all the required maritime tasks and the missions currently completed by one trick ponies, thus allowing aforementioned pony to be retired.
RB
in which case which one trick pony platform would you get rid of?. Understanding the intricacies of each platform with respect to something as simple as flight profile, never mind the vast technical difficulties involved in configuring a MMA, would make this MMA quite an expensive project!
Betty
I think you misunderstand. I welcome a thread concerning this important subject. I think that when other threads sidetrack onto this subject it detracts both from that thread and from the MMA/MPA issue. I am most certainly not bored.
in which case which one trick pony platform would you get rid of?. Understanding the intricacies of each platform with respect to something as simple as flight profile, never mind the vast technical difficulties involved in configuring a MMA, would make this MMA quite an expensive project!
Betty
I think you misunderstand. I welcome a thread concerning this important subject. I think that when other threads sidetrack onto this subject it detracts both from that thread and from the MMA/MPA issue. I am most certainly not bored.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: various
Posts: 73
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gents, for now, I will retire from this Fred. Biggus, I mean gain access to a MMA to use at the exact time and discretion of UK PLC. TS, there is more than enough information out there, open source, that you can use to deduce my thoughts.
Good discussion though Gents.
Regards
RB
Good discussion though Gents.
Regards
RB
Biggus - the money will come from in year underspend(s) carried over (plus a little bit of new money from reducing the size of the Army), the P-8 will be utterly stock, i.e. no-UK PLC mods whatsoever, it won't carry weapons and it will arrive in low numbers to start off with.
Small aspirations with an in-service aircraft doing exactly what it is supposed to do, nothing more, nothing less.
Small aspirations with an in-service aircraft doing exactly what it is supposed to do, nothing more, nothing less.