In a previous post, ‘Looking South: an Alternative Slant’, the subject of the retirement of the Nimrod MR.2 and the delay of the MRA.4 into service attracted some discussion and debate. Having concerns about this lack of airborne maritime cover I contacted my MP to raise the issue at a higher level, and received the following response from Bill Rammell, Minister of State for the Armed Forces.
‘Thank you for your letter of 4 March 2010 enclosing correspondence from your constituent, Mr Richard Stockley, in which he enquired about maritime reconnaissance and patrol capabilities around the Falkland Islands on the retirement of the Nimrod MR.2 fleet.
The introduction of the Nimrod MRA.4 will bring a substantially more capable aircraft than the MR.2 into the RAF’s fleet. In the period of transition until the MRA.4 enters service we intend to use other assets, as available, in the long range search and rescue and maritime reconnaissance roles. For obvious reasons, we do not comment on more sensitive operational matters, including capability levels. I would also note that while embarked on a ship, all Royal Navy rotary wing aircraft, such as Merlin, are Search and Rescue capable.
Her Majesty’s Government is responsible for maintaining the security and territorial integrity of the Falkland Islands, and the UK’s other dependent territories. You will understand that I cannot comment on the capabilities we retain for this purpose, but I can assure you and Mr Stockley that we take this responsibility very seriously.’
I was somewhat disappointed with the response, as it unsurprisingly maintained the line of ‘sensitive operational matters’ and ‘other assets’, with a passing reference to air sea rescue capabilities, rather than the, “Thank heavens you contacted us Richard, we never realised we’d made such an error of judgement, we shall postpone retirement of the MR.2 forthwith,” I would have preferred. It should be noted that the main crux of my letter was long-range, maritime strike capability.
Nimrod MRA4
With regard to other assets, the UK doesn’t have any other airborne, long-range maritime patrol/attack capability like the Nimrod, unless you count a C-130 Hercules and a pair of binoculars. Due to this and the amount of times I’ve been left shaking my head in disbelief at some of the decisions the Government has made in relation to defence, I will have a nagging doubt in the back of my mind until the MRA.4 becomes fully operational. When it eventually does, I believe it will be a case of, “We were lucky nothing serious happened in the mean time,” rather than, “We had that base well and truly covered.”
Being a mere mortal, I do not get to confer with the likes of Bill Rammell MP on a daily basis, but as we will still live in a democracy (despite the attempts of Tony Blair et al) I will continue to raise issues such as this at a higher level, as I believe anyone with a keen interest in defence should.
Which leads me onto my next point:
The UK is to purchase a total of Nine Nimrod MRA.4’s, what isn’t widely known is that a total of eleven MRA.4 airframes will have been manufactured. Prior to the manufacture of the production aircraft, three development aircraft were constructed, these being PA01, PA02 and PA03. PA03 will be fed into the production line and become an operational aircraft.
The remaining airframes PA01 and PA02 are currently in open storage at BAE Systems’ Woodford Aerodrome pending a decision on their fate. It should be noted that Woodford is due to close at the end of 2012, so a quick decision would be somewhat prudent.
Following completion of the test programme, PA01 (ZJ516), has 913 hours on the clock, and PA02 (ZJ518) has 753 hours. As fatigue lives go, these aircraft are still in their infancy. They may have a couple of bumps and scrapes received during their flight trials, but there is nothing to suggest they aren’t in sufficient condition to be fed into the production line like PA03 (ZJ517). As an aside, ZJ517 accumulated only 205 hours during the development phase.
A number of commentators on this blog have remarked that the UK isn’t buying enough Nimrod MRA.4’s or that the RAF should utilise them as an R.1 replacement instead of the Rivet Joint. So, what should be done with these two remaining aircraft?
- Strip for spares and then scrap
- Feed them into the production line and have two additional MRA4’s
- Utilise them for another role
Come the May 6th election, as soon as I find out who my new MP is I’ll be sending them a letter highlighting these two spare aircraft and suggesting what to do with them.
The question is, what will you do?
Digg it!
Add to Delicious!
Share on Facebook!
Share on Reddit!
Stumble it
Add to Technorati
29 Comments
Productionize them !
9 aircraft is hardly worth the time or effort. Would we ever have more than 6 available ? It is as my grandmother would have said, “cutting your nose off to spite your face” – i.e. spending what is still a considerable amount of cash for very little overall effect. Better to spend some more to increase the overall effect surely ?
Perhaps as soon as the wing join issue was discovered we should have jumped on the P8 band wagon ? Or even talked with LM about an aircraft based on C130J (commonality with the transport force). BUT we did not, so we have Nimrod MR4A, lets invest enough to have a ‘critical mass’ of them !
It came out a couple of weeks ago that the 2 remaining prototypes would become part of the fleet, but active airframes would remain at 9, meaning they’ll be rotational reserves.
The P8 wasn’t an option when the MRA4 program was started, and as for numbers, you do realise the primary mission of the Nimrod has essentially ended don’t you? Frankly with UAVs coming on stream, Shadow, Sentinel and the much maligned Rivet joint R1s, I think we do quite well got recon birds, I just hope we do something about our E3s
Richard, I think the Nimrod decision ranks alongside the one to retire the Sea Harrier at least six years early, thus creating a yawning gap in the air defence of the Fleet. This Government is taking terrifying risks over defence of the realm.
What prompts them to make such ghastly errors? It is, I feel, a combination of a desire to squeeze the last amount of savings out of the defence budget and a total failure to understand the dangers involved.
Jed is absolutely right when he says that it a matter of “cutting off your nose to spite your face” and that having only nine aircraft means that we lack “critical mass”.
There was an idea quite prevalent in RAF circles a few years ago to use Nimrod not only in the long-range search and rescue and maritime reconnaissance roles but also possibly as a long range “bomber” (equipped with a suitable missile). The latter idea, given the fact that the numbers have been reduced to nine) must now be considerable risible!
No disrespect meant towards Bill Rammell I’m sure he’s a nice guy but I wish they would cut the party political arse covering hiding behind other words included in the bullshit bingo and sensitivity. If you want to know stuff it’s out there on the Internet and you can glean quite a bit from places like PPRuNe or simply by sitting at the crash gate at kinloss with a pair of binoculars. Anyhow I agree with Jed ‘Productionize them !’ :-) and maybe sell some however unlikely that is in reality.
The Nimrod fleet are not as active hunting subs but they still did go and keep tabs on the odd Russian submarine alongside general maritime patrol missions all over the place. The instances of saying hello to Ivan have AFAIK have been increasing again as the Russians plow the majority of their cash into submarines. I could also use the same argument against just about anything really but I think of defence as an insurance policy so just because my house is unlikely to catch fire does not mean I don’t have home insurance.
Grey, I missed that one completely, the info I was working with is obviously a couple of weeks behind. Have you got a link to this info?
Although, it still highlights the fact that we could be have eleven operational aircraft instead of nine.
I wouldn’t say the primary mission for the Nimrod has ended though, as the other aircraft you mentioned cannot launch a Harpoon anti-ship missile.
I wouldn’t feel so bad about the lack of Nimrods if we invested a little in some relatively cheap options for the maritime role, namely adding Harpoon (or a similar missile) onto Typhoon and perhaps in future adding maritime patrol sensors to one of our UAV types. Global Hawks can do it, one of our current ones or BAE developed ones must be able to as well.
That way the Nimrods are left for the top priority missions whilst our other assets can be tasked as necessary. Not sure whether the UAVs could perform SAR, so Nimrods could still do that (although the coastguard should really do that and get some aircraft of their own).
Grim, if we had radars on our Harriers they could carry Harpoon as well. We used to have Sea Eagle capable Tornado’s but as the Sea Eagle became obsolete that role was taken up by, er, Nimrod with the Harpoon.
If only we had more Nimrods…..
Grey said: “you do realise the primary mission of the Nimrod has essentially ended don’t you? Frankly with UAVs coming on stream, Shadow, Sentinel and the much maligned Rivet joint R1s….”
WTF ? The primary mission of the Nimrod has essentially ended ? Because no one is building subs anymore and 90% of trade does not move by sea… ??? !!! Do you realize how handy a few Nimrods flying from Oman would be for the anti-piracy task forces ?
What is going to patrol newly discovered southern ocean oil fields from RAF Mount Pleasant ?
What UAV’s ? Where is the ‘maritime’ UAV in the UK’s plans ? There is not one. Even if there was, I am not aware of any UAV that is currently able to drop sono-bouys and analyse the signals.
Shadow and Sentinel – nothing to do with the maritime domain. Rivet Joint could of course be useful against any electronic OEBAT, including naval targets, so I will give you that one…..
Here you go Richard
http://www.janes.com/news/defence/air/jdw/jdw100319_1_n.shtml
Thanks for that Grey,
…note to self, read Jane’s more often!
Would like…
Does this actually mean they will be retained?
Well I would say most definitely not as Officers working with the nimrods would obviously say that they wanted them to be used in some form and well they are RAF Officers which explains that story in my mind. Anyhow good points made by other folks especially Jed with slight tone to his comment, not that I mind in the slightest.
I wouldnt bother with Nimrod buy some of the Airbus series and stuff them with sensors, maybe the A321. Start with a clean sheet, the Nimrod is a old airframe,what we want is numbers in the air not hanger queens on the ground.
Admin, very good point. I’ve just read the Jane’s article again,
“RAF officers have told Jane’s they would like them preserved as attrition reserves for the small fleet of operational MRA.4s.”
The MOD hasn’t actually made the decision yet by the looks of things.
The post election letter to my MP is back on!
Hi, I’m new to this blog so I hope you don’t don’t mind me adding my input.
We are stuck with the nine nimrods for the foreseeable future but I was thinking how we could improve our maritime defences, .I have come up with a option which is to buy six Casa 235 Persuader MPA and issue them to a non RAF unit, people have touted about turning HM coastguard into a paramilitary unit but this will bring too many problems as it too civilian so I think it should remain an out and out SAR service, but I thinking of the new UK Border Agency its still in its infancy but it has taken over the 5 HM Customs cutters so adding surveillance aircraft to its assets would not be a problem so would turn it into a actual border force.
They would perform the normal SAR and maritime surveillance for the Coastguard, drug and immigration duties, EEZ monitoring and would relive much of the pressure off the nimrod crews who should be honing their anti submarine skills.
These aircraft are paid for and maintained by the UK Border agency but crewed by RAF personnel on secondment so in times of war they be taken over by the RAF and used.
One should based in the Falklands to relieve the Hercules which is not up to the job as its getting busier and busier with the discovery of oil.
The aircraft will be maritime search and SAR should be quickly upgradeable to ASW and surface strike if the need arose.
Hi Ian,
The 235 has been mentioned before in comments on a previous post,
http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2010/04/2596/
so I’m sure your suggestion will have some support. I suggested utilising converted BAe 146 or BAe ATP’s in the role purely because they’re British, although I would prefer them to remain in RAF hands as it would be just another agency to try and co-operate with. I think there’s enough agencies already.
Hi Richard,
We all want a decent Maritime patrol fleet but MPA and ASW aircraft fall far down the RAFs budget and they dont want a non high spec aircraft (aka the COIN aircraft) so if someone runs it and pays for it, we might actually get something and if a shooting war occurs the RAF can ‘borrow’ them.(should the RAF and Navy be tasked for EEZ,SAR and Maritime Surveillance any way?)
I suggested the 235 because everybody is buying them cheap as chips not a expensive conversion because it is british
The 235 is definitely flavour of the month. The BAe ATP was suggested as a maritime aircraft back in the eighties but nothing came of it and it’d cost a packet to convert.
The 235 is definitely more flexible with its rear ramp, so at least it can haul cargo and drop para’s when not looking for druggies. It can also carry Harpoon and Exocet, which is a bit of a bonus!
Andy Barret I would most strongly disagree the Nimrod basic airframe may be an old design but it is a proven design at its job whereas the A321 is not proven in the role. Furthermore the Nimrod also has a new bigger more efficient wing design as well as oh yes 4 engines important in my opinion not just for safety. If the MRA4’s turn into hangar queens it will simply be down to the fact that the RAF and/or the Treasury are too tight fisted to pay for them to operate routinely which would be rather silly. As for cost we could argue either way but I believe it would be cheaper to produce new build MRA4’s which are already 90+% brand new vs going through all the R&D and purchase cost of A321’s. Then for some there is also the point that Nimrod is made in the UK and the A321 is made by Airbus all over the place and we only make the wings and possibly the engines. Grumble over with:-)
Welcome IanB I’m sure I’ve seen that name before but hey. Operating a smaller Maritime patrol aircraft would ideally be the responsibility for a Coastguard as it would conflict with the RAF and their Nimrods as well as being a more expensive and confusing route of operating them. I think we should have Department of Homeland security which would be part of the Home Office and would be responsible for well you can guess. The Border Protection Agency would come under its control and would be responsible for everything ashore such as Airports and major rail terminus etc as well as partly responsible for ports. Alongside them would also be a paramilitary coastguard again partly responsible for ports but also for the EEZ and territorial waters including all duties and roles within them. At a time of unrest it would come under the Authority of the Ministry of Defence and would essentially operate alongside the Royal Navy to secure the United Kingdom’s maritime domain.
As for what Aircraft I’m not too sure but my first choice would be the slightly larger C-295 which has a longer endurance probably needed for doing the full EEZ up to 200NM and SAR slightly further out. Other options would of course be the proven CN-235 well known and sold all over the place or various others such as the ATR-42/72. If we bought enough of them maybe 2 dozen or so with half going to the RAF or even the Army then yes they could also be used for parachute training freeing up larger A400M’s.
I think my comment is rather rambling and probably off topic as I’ve said much of this before but feel free to ignore me :|
Euan, “Operating a smaller Maritime patrol aircraft would ideally be the responsibility for a Coastguard as it would conflict with the RAF and their Nimrods as well as being a more expensive and confusing route of operating them.”
How? The RAF operates a number of recce aircraft of differing types, why should operating two differing maritime aircraft suddenly become more complex? I would argue that it would create more problems trying to operate two different aircraft from two different agencies than just using one.
The RAF has access to a diverse array of weapons and a large pool of experienced personnel to call on at short notice. Something a new paramilitary agency wouldn’t have. If you want a slightly different organisation to operate the aircraft, call it RAF Coastal Command but still keep the RAF in overall control.
Richard it would be confusing as the people who make the decision will be looking at it and saying hmmm we have 2 MPA’s why do we have 2 and why does one cost under £50 million while one is 4-6 times that. Sorry maybe not the best way to put it across but it would put the Nimrod at further risk by operating two aircraft types with massively differing costs and capabilities. Yes the RAF does operate a number of different Recce aircraft but they all have their own roles with very little overlap whereas the 2 Maritime patrol types would have replicated capabilities. The two agencies would have completely different roles the Coastguard would concentrate on EEZ duties including SAR and they would also operate in support of their own ships. While the RAF would be free to do what it wants mainly tasked in support of the Royal Navy but also available for SAR missions out to the full extent of the UK SAR area. So there would be a clear dividing and outlining of tasks and responsibilities each agency had to perform but they would of course cooperate with each other and the Royal Navy to secure the EEZ.
As for the RAF’s resources yes they have all that hence why RAF aircrew and other personnel would rotate through so they are familiar with the Aircraft. However during a time of crisis the aircraft would more or less be operated by the RAF as the Coastguard would be under the control of the MoD. Maybe we don’t agree here or maybe I’m not putting it across well enough but they would not be Alien to each other but would have different tasks and duties which would be clear and known by each. Frankly though I would much prefer the Nimrod’s to be part of the Royal Navy and tasked by them as MPA are Navy operated in most nations we just have history and politics in the way.
The aircraft themselves would if I had my way be the C-295 airframe with belly mounted radar from Selex alongside an excellent EO/IR system and a basic ESM fit alongside the usual stuff such as radios etc. There would be a removable life raft dropping system fitted to the ramp so the aircraft could be used for other things if needed such as airlifting someone from one of the Islands or moving something. The aircraft would not have sonobouys and an acoustic system etc or a weapons capability as standard however it could be fitted at some point if needed as the EADS FITS system is ready for it. I think a defensive aids system should also be included just in case someone from a ship attempts to have a pop with a MANPADS system or something daft like that but not a must IMHO. There would be a dozen of them based at 3 locations each with 4 aircraft each at existing airports using existing airport facilities which should be supportable as help and spares could easily be flown in.
EADS CASA C-295 Persuader: http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:8bNdpmYITegJ:www.eads.net/1024/en/casa/publications.html%3Fdisplay_media%3D/xml/content/OF00000000400004/7/04/32294047.pdf+C-295+persuader+pDF&hl=en&gl=uk&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESh9hF8vf3YRS8_9CiBMw_33PclvMfi-jkXZqZb0kZ_ULSNVNwIGxwrXBEaTNRkJlJS6ieHpxUrwXcxIXsgOLB6lFE5tUHaDMCpdZU2GWsXONerAszGAgbgmCd6lB-W6wekxFw-H&sig=AHIEtbRjE3t9Vr7mdahL0EEF-PtEB7rcpg
Richard,
Its all about budgets and realistic plans, with RAF budgets tight and with other more pressing demands such as more Reapers, shadows etc i think the desire for more MPA/ASW is not great. As alot of the work done by Nimrod is non-military tasking it can be done by a non-military force with police powers(and its own budget).
I think its a waste using a very expensive but superb hunter-killer like nimrod to track a fishing boat when they should be training to hunt submarines or used in Astan as ELINT/SIGINT platforms.
Euan, i agree with what you say but i wouldnt use HM Coastguard it would be impossible to change such a civilian organisation into a paramilitary one or even a police one. It would be too much of a mind flip to change a fourth emergency service to one that carried guns, best left to SAR, implementing sea bylaws and sea safety.
Thats why i suggested the UK border Agency (not a pretty title perhaps UK Border Patrol) they already have police powers of arrest (coastguard dont) and they already work out to sea in their cutters.
But i am still not sure about their crews both ships and aircraft wether they use their own people or use RN/RAF on secondment in case they get shot at or have to shoot somebody.
In case of the falklands i would paint one white and orange crewed by RAF that could fire harpoons if the Argies tried anything( just slap a sticky RAF roundrel on the side so we dont break any laws as we send those ships to the bottom of the atlantic lol)
Euan, sorry just repeated your post but heyho
Hello, Yes it would be a major change going from a Coastguard that basically does cliff rescue and rescue coordination alongside sea safety to being a proper emergency/military service. However it would be expanded quite a bit and would essentially be an entirely new organisation so change could be implemented. Although they would be armed as an organisation they would not all be armed only trained boarding teams on vessels and some crew for operating weapons would be armed or have access to weapons. As for arresting folks well the people to do that would come from the amalgamation of all the current agencies and organisations that already have those powers such as the maritime part of the Border Agency. The current MCA employees would carry on doing the same jobs such mentioned before but just as part of a much larger organisation.
The Border Agency would no longer be responsible for anything not land based as the Coastguard would be intercepting illegal immigrants and drugs at sea as its name suggests, they would both work at ports though. It really depends how it is all structured at the end of the day but in my head I know how I would do it and get it to work although I’m no expert.
Ok, you pursuaded me, I’m buying in. The agency would be in effect be a coastguard in all but name, but have a greater paramilitary role like the USCG. I would go further and transfer the RN’s fishery protection vessels across and expand their capability if necessary to fit.
The 235/295 do look like seriously good aircraft though, now might be a good time to purchase a few.
Its time the Government realised the Afghan campaign isn’t keeping our streets safe from terrorists, but an effective ‘coastguard’ agency would.
Turn them into R5′s to replace the R1′s.
Common fleet, common airframe = Pounds saved.
9 x MR4s is dangerously small. It may have escaped notice, but we operate a submarine based deterrent. A few more MR4 airframes would be very useful in protecting that deterrent
Oh dear! Looks like the RAF will now do its reconnaissance with Google earth.
<>
Hehe! And that will no doubt need rebooting at the critical moment.
This crazy decision reminds me of… wait for it..
another crazy decsision that cost us lots of $$$ in cancelled replacements and a whole industry of engineers migrating to the States 45 years ago
.. yes The TSR2 cancellation (are they also going to destroy all the jigs in front of the staff and burn the prototype like tha vandals did in ’65, and then deny it?).
Back to the old philosophy of contracting out, this time to the 28 Dassault-Bregeut Atantique’s. Lucky French to have such obliging partners.