Despite the UK vetoing a permanent European military permanent headquarters recently the move tow greater sharing of resources continues unabated.
The bilateral agreements with France signalled the start of increasing resource sharing, agreements on A400 support, joint training, discussions about the FSTA programme and other aspects also show the clear direction of travel.
Expect more announcements towards the end of September after a seminar and series of ministerial meetings are held in Poland to discuss a reported 300 potential areas for resource pooling.
Reported in defensenews today was a statement from a Polish defence official;
For this moment, there are no new specific programs to be launched soon by Poland in cooperation with other nations in the framework of pooling and sharing. However, we will be seeking opportunities to tighten cooperation in some areas like training and education, logistic support, medical support, satellite reconnaissance, counter ID or strategic transport.
I wonder if one of the factors in the Nimrod cancellation was the notion of some EU pool of maritime aircraft that we would buy time slots in.
Other ideas on the table reportedly include maritime auxiliary ships, CBRN detection, simulation networks and academic institutes but whilst it is one thing to pool support facilities this caught my eye from a German defence official, something entirely different in character;
Using the European Air Transport Command as a template, a management structure for the coordination of maritime patrol resources and capabilities could be established, bringing together partial, fragmented national capabilities into a European pool
We are moving close to a single European defence identity with the supposed financial benefits of resource sharing being used to grease the tracks.
Inexorably we move from cooperation to sharing and on to dependency, the UK will be increasingly unable to engage in military operations without European support at all but the smallest scale and shortest of duration.
Watch for the headlines next month
Yes, well we have had a full and informed national debate about this, haven’t we?
We had a full debate before entering into treaty obligations with the French, didn’t we?
The MoD is supposed to be into a new era of “accountability” as well as responsibility.
So who is to be held accountable for the unravelling dogs breakfast of SDSR?
But, it has to be said, that with German global hawks and other new (or proposed maritime) assets it is questionable what level of double and treble coverage of the European seas will result if all NATO members aspire to similar capabilities.
I would rather the UK deployed maritime reconnaissance at the strategic level and used allies for the local European area, we are all (European countries) reliant on each other for commercial air transport I don’t think it’s that big a change to develop a more military and maritime version of this cooperation, given that it is conducted by air assets.
Granted there are issues with the nuclear deterrent putting to sea but I suspect that one could send “dummy subs” out and request coverage to fog the detail of what was being checked for shadowing subs etc..
If there is the possibility to spend resources outside the European waters (Atlantic, Pacific, Indian Ocean, etc..) on UK specific maritime missions I think it is worth some cooperation on the local area where others are still willing to contribute funds.
As to Nimrod I still firmly believe it was junked because it was junk! it was great in theory and fine on paper but a plane with no (proven installed and certified) wings is a useless pipe dream, and I don’t believe the development aircraft had addressed the issue. Could be wrong, could have been an inability to integrate with the Boeing software but something was SNAFU or it would have broken cover as a stronger capability and fought harder to survive.
Any project that is that willing to go so quietly has been dead a long time.
Hear, hear
“Any project that is that willing to go so quietly has been dead a long time”
- just a good day (SDSR) to bury the news
The co-operation depends on the willingness of other nations to get involved in conflict , the GERMANS and the ITALIANS are not to willing at the moment , is it really going to come down to the fact that if we need to access some piece of kit we’ve de-commissioned were going to have to ask our EU partners if we can borrow it , what if they say no !!! which because its us they surely will , thanks prime minister .
the way to go about is surely as with AWACS
- get some of your own (sovereign decision making)
- share more pieces within NATO/ other multi-lateral framework
- reap the training & support benefits from an agreed standard?
@armchaircivvy, interesting idea, although we will then be compelled to buy a European-agreed platform in many cases- or at least have reduced choice over the platform selected.
Yes, “be compelled to buy a European-agreed platform ” – and, often American provided!
- but at least in many areas (UAV, UCAS, missiles) there is still some life left in the European industries
- I am afraid, in strategic surveillance (other than for satellites) the game is over (and it is so expensive anyway that commonality across the Atlantic, not just within Europe, is called for)
Off on a tangent but I don’t think the lease on the Rivers will be renewed as I think there will be some EU fudge to replace them. (Eek! Imagine paying the Spanish to do it……..)
I might be proven wrong, but i do not expect the UK to follow the German proposal.
Not even now that there is no national MPA.
We’ll see, though.
A modified Global Express could do some of the maritime patrol/SAR jobs. Not as good as a Nimrod MRA4, but low cost & low risk.
Would then make sense to keep Sentinel in service.
Nimrod had been operationally near-useless for decades, was based on an early jet age airframe and incapable of making use of modern high bypass turbofans.
It was probably just a near-useless, expensive platform despite all the expenses.
Although I’m not a fan of European Defence Cooperation, because its usualy more expensive and less capable, its unfair to paint this as anything new.
Except we’re replacing NATO jointery with EU jointery.
Interesting comments SO as the engines on nimrod mr4 are used on the global express and gulfstream 550 modern biz jets and and it’s wing was as modern as a a330 age airliner. Well not know for sometime why this decision was taken.
Maybe a european wide a319mpa maybe what’s being hinted at but with airbus order back log on that type we better get a move on. The only thing that concerns me about a pooled approach is how we get acces to these assets for a national operation other nations don’t agree with. But surely if we have a euro force the uk takes the naval forces side of things as were surround by sea an all:)
we wil l have to see whether that one billion for mpa turns up…………..
If it is not a small slice of BAMS, which Wiki summarises in this way (57 ordered, so 40 in constatnt rotation is a pretty impressive availability):
“Broad Area Maritime Surveillance (BAMS) is a UAV system, which will provide continuous maritime surveillance for the US Navy and complement the 737 based Multimission Maritime Aircraft (MMA), the P-8A Poseidon.[1]
The system is expected to enter service around the end of the decade. Around 40 UAVs will be based at five sites – Hawaii; Diego Garcia; NAS Jacksonville, Florida; NAS Kadena, Japan; and Sigonella, Italy.”
Put those dots on the map and add UK and Oz?
- UK participation was officially terminated very early
- what I last read was that Australia is still in negotiation (could get the data in return for a base, rather than having any of its own to operate?)
@mark i thought the backlog was for the A320, i know that some of my friends are banging the hours out doing the wings for this as orders are coming in thick and fast. On the airbus website it states that 1470 A319′s ordered and 1275 delivered as of june ’11, whereas the A320 has 5080 ordered and 2704 delivered. The new engine for the 320 family (318,319,320,321) gives it a extra 500Nm range with an extra 2 ton payload. If airbus get it right with the MPA version it could be a serious contender, bigger orders, lower price. (oh and it keep my mates in a job!!)
@Mark; compare the P-8′s engines with the Nimrod’s engines…bypass ratio is 4.2 vs. 5.1+.
A P-8 could even be equipped with LEAP-X or PW1000G – bypass ratios or 10 or 12.
The Nimrod’s layout simply restricts engine diameter and thus fuel efficiency.
Paulg
Yes that’s true but a318,319,320,321are all a series the main difference being fuse plugs put in or taken out to get different passenger numbers they all come off the seem supply lines so difficulty in getting orders turned round is an increasing issue
SO
That is true they are higher bypass ratio but they may not be best for an mpa. They were designed for high altitude cruising which is one of the draw back of using p8. They can’t fit those engines to p8 with out signifant changes to the airframe and landing gear the 737 is a 1960,s design after all
737 being from the ’60s
“Boeing has a new sales pitch for the international version of its P-8 submarine hunter: Buy soon before the commercial side of the company retires or significantly changes the design of the 737 airliner fuselage that forms the foundation for each P-8.
Boeing is scheduled to deliver 117 P-8A aircraft to the U.S. Navy starting next year and running through about 2021, but part of the company’s business plan rests on brisk international sales. So far, India has signed up for eight planes to be called the P-8I for India, with an option for four more. India’s first plane is under assembly in Renton, Wash. Boeing expects Australia to sign on soon as the next customer.
Any changes to the 737 airliner would not impact P-8 deliveries over the next 10 years, but the company is offering no guarantees after that.
“When we talk to our customers, we say … you need to come on sooner rather than later,”
source:http://www.c4isrjournal.com/story.php?F=6904900
Re ArmChairCivvy, 30 July. Australia’s current MPA plans are to replace 19 Orions with 8 P-8A Poseidons and ‘up to 5 BAMS’. Straight FMS buys. The Poseidons are intended to be spiral 1 upgrade status ordered around 2015. The government withdrew from formal participartion in BAMS development because of cost escalation but intends to order once cost settles. The RAAF Orions form 2 batches ordered 10 years apart and are in reasonable condition, particularly the second batch. Serviceability is not driving early orders.
Hi Johnno,
The good news for Poseidons is that Boeing has, to secure a BIG order from American Airlines, undertaken to protect the airframe from radical changes, so well into the future with the derivative then, as well. It is all about by-pass ratios, engine diameter and, hence, acceptable ground clearance.
- I just posted a piece a couple of days ago re what they have been saying in this respect todate (being vague, that is, buy soon if you want any…)
Do you know where the basing is planned to be for BAMS. Taking in Hawaii, Japan and Diego Garcia, I would bet on somewhere between Perth and Darwin?
ArmChairCivvy 1 Aug. Homeplate for both Poseidon, and BAMS command and control, will remain at RAAF Base Edinburgh in South Australia. The BAMs are intended to forward deploy to Townsville QLD, Darwin NT or RAAF Learmonth WA as needed. South Australia is a bit like Scotland. Both main parties here have been vote buying in SA with Defense facilities as the state has largely a light manufacturing base which is slowly moving to China. Sound familiar?
Personally as we are introducing the A400M and the Yoyager if a deal could not be done to get a launch price for the A319MPA … plus eventually a deal to replace the JointRivet and Sentry with a A320 variant. Any launch customer gets a discount and all of a sudden, Airbus has a competitor v the P8, Wedgetail and any B737 SIGINT variant. France, Spain, Germany to some extent, the Middle East, South Africa, Canada all have requirements but all the moment it is either Boeing or Embraer. We could negotiate an attractive launch deal. Airbus reckon they need a 16 Airframe order to launch the MPA
@dave i’ve just sent a link to TD, hopefully he’ll do his magic and put a case across, the beriev A-42PE turboprop has a massive range (11,500km) and has the advantage of being amphibious so can just “bob” in the water dangling sonar kit, the smaller BE-200 is fully licensed for european airspace and promoted by EADS, time to “dare to be different”?