Almost immediately after the cancellation of the Nimrod MRA4 was announced in the SDSR there were persistent rumours of a reinstatement of the capability at some point in the future. What that ‘point’ would be depended on what newspaper you were reading but the suggestion of anything substantial would have to wait until a suitable period after the cancellation of MRA4.
The MoD had just wasted somewhere south of £4 billion on MRA4 and we should note that at this point, the final costs of cancellation have not yet been announced. So, public discussion of a replacement was therefore about as welcome as a turd in a swimming pool but time has passed and almost everyone agrees that for a nation with a long coastline, extensive search and rescue obligations, a submarine based nuclear deterrent and an expeditionary capability that forms the likely core of any future military strategy it is a capability that is not a luxury.
After the usual collection of leaks and rumours, this was confirmed in a number of Defence Committee evidence sessions and subsequently the RAF’s Seedcorn Initiative was revealed in a November 2011 Parliamentary answer;
Angus Robertson (Moray, Scottish National Party)
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence
(1) how many personnel are taking part in the Seedcorn initiative; what the location is of each; and with what equipment they are training;
(2) what capabilities are being maintained through the Seedcorn initiative;
(3) what estimate he has made of the cost to the public purse of the Seedcorn initiative in each of the next five years.
Gerald Howarth (Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (International Security Strategy), Defence; Aldershot, Conservative)
The Seedcorn initiative will sustain the Ministry of Defence (MOD)’s capability to operate high level fixed-wing Maritime Patrol Aircraft (MPA) and maintain the associated skills of its personnel. Qualified RAF aircrew will be on exchange with a variety of Allied MPA forces, where they will maintain their anti-submarine and anti-surface warfare, long-range search and rescue, and Intelligence, Surveillance, Target Acquisition and Reconnaissance (ISTAR) skills.
The estimated cost of the initiative on average is £2.4 million per year for the next five years; this includes salary and allowances.
Retaining skills and MPA knowledge is vital if the United Kingdom is to be in a position to regenerate our own MPA capability at some point in the future.
The number and location of personnel and equipment to be used is as follows:
Location, Aircraft, Number of personnel
Canada, Royal Canadian Air Force Greenwood, CP-140 Aurora, 7
New Zealand, Royal New Zealand Air Force Base Whenuapai, P-3K Orion/P-3K2 Orion, 5
Royal New Zealand Air Force Base Ohakea, Beech King Air B200, 1
Australia, Royal Australian Air Force Base Edinburgh, AP-3C Orion, 4
United States, Naval Air Station Norfolk, Non-flying appointment related to maritime operational staff duties, 1
Naval Air Station Patuxent River, P3C Orion, 2
Additionally, discussions are ongoing with the US Navy on an exchange initiative for fully qualified RAF aircrew to support the US P-8A Poseidon programme.
A total of 33 personnel are serving overseas
So personnel have been cast to the four corners of the world to maintain their varied skillsets, again, another sign, if any were needed, that the maritime patrol capability gap was a temporary one. I think it is apparent that the Seedcorn initiative has a limited life span, there is little point in it if we have no intention of regenerating the capability.
At a cost of £12m for a 5 year programme it has a significant cost, more when one includes other associated costs such as allowances and travel, not included in the answer above.
With the early withdrawal of the MR2 and focus on overland operations prior to that it is debatable how much realistic ASW and ASuW training had been carried out anyway and with Seedcorn, given the dispositions, again, how many of these perishable skills will be maintained?
Whatever the answer to these questions, in March this year another Parliamentary Answer revealed the following
Mrs Moon: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence pursuant to the answer of 22 March 2011, Official Report, column 947W, on military aircraft, when he expects to publish the findings of the capability investigation on maritime surveillance capability; and if he will make a statement. [92528]
1 Feb 2012 : Column 654W
Peter Luff: The Ministry of Defence has completed its capability investigation into its long term requirements for maritime surveillance capability, but I am withholding the information as its disclosure would, or would be likely to prejudice the capability, effectiveness or security of the armed forces.
In February this year the Commons Select Committee for Defence announced they would be holding a session on just the subject, Future Maritime Surveillance
Despite the delaying and facing saving ‘it’s secret’ position from a few months ago it has been reported that an announcement will be made this month, maybe another one of those ghost announcements that never seem to happen but who knows!
So what of the requirement?
Contents
Missions and Requirements
It is a diverse bunch.
SEARCH and RESCUE
At extreme distances the Nimrod provided top cover for vessels in distress and could drop lifesaving equipment as needed.
The UK has a very clear international obligation in this regard and is coordinated by the Department of Transport. A very good document that details in some depth the UK Search and Rescue framework can be found here.
The key functions of UK SAR are to co-ordinate:
a) Maritime SAR in offshore, inshore and shoreline areas
b) Aeronautical SAR over land and sea
c) Inland SAR
Across the area in the diagram below, covering 1.25 million square nautical miles of sea and over 10.5 thousand nautical miles of coastline
UK Search and Rescue Region
With the collapse of the UK SAR PFI in 2011 the SAR PFI in February 2011, in which the Soteria consortium were named as the preferred bidder, an interim or gap contract was placed with CHC and Bristow Helicopters.
The Department for Transport today, Wednesday 8th February 2012, announced that Bristow Helicopters Limited has won the contract to provide Search and Rescue (SAR) services in the north of Scotland.
Bristow will provide SAR services starting July 2013, using Sikorsky S-92 helicopters based in Stornoway and Sumburgh. Operations under the contract are expected to run for four years, until the long-term future provision of such services are secured.
Bristow Helicopters are also part of the FB Heliservices joint venture with Cobham that provides helicopter training to the MoD via the Defence Helicopter Flying School, the contract was extended for another 4 years only last month, a brochure can be read here.
The Soteria website is no longer maintained and the long term future of UK helicopter SAR still in some doubt but current plans still indicate some sort of public private partnership is preferred, the interim contract runs until 2015, conveniently co-terminus with the next SDSR.
We have been relying on a combination of C130, E3, the French and crossing our fingers to provide long range SAR cover out to 30W but comparing the number of long range missions that were carried out before the MR2 was withdrawn and recently using the C130/E3 combination it would seem that the Atlantic has miraculously become a much safer place.
Police helicopters and to some degree the various Air Ambulance aircraft also have some limited part to play in the search and rescue matrix.
OFFSHORE ECONOMIC PROTECTION and SECURITY
The UK offshore environment is a very complex subject, informed by a number of national and international laws and conventions. Broadly speaking it is divided into 4 areas, internal waters, territorial sea, EEZ and continental shelf.
Other states have many rights within this area such as innocent passage and in some regards the UK has relatively little legislative jurisdiction, fishing for example. A number of international conventions also complicate matters, the OSPAR Convention on waste dumping for example.
UK EEZ
Devolution of power to Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales also contribute to the patchwork of legislation that governs the UK EEZ.
British Overseas Territories and Crown Dependencies that are not part of the EU, such as the South Atlantic, also have EEZ’s. Combined, the UK has an enormous EEZ, the fifth largest in the world at over 6.8 million square kilometres.
UK Territorial Waters
Beyond the obvious fisheries protection and pollution monitoring role there is also a more security focussed need for protection of offshore infrastructure such as oil and gas rigs.
Smuggling interdiction, general policing support and other counter terrorism roles complete this broad section and in some circumstances, these might take place some distance from the UK, anti-piracy for example.
INTELLIGENCE GATHERING and AREA SURVEILLANCE
The Nimrod MRA4 had a very capable ESM system and the MR2 at one point in Afghanistan was one of the few platforms able to provide full motion video to ground forces. A maritime patrol aircraft can provide a wide range of sensors and the crew to analyse and disseminate useful intelligence to other elements of any joint force. Their long endurance and ability to operate in non-segregated airspace provides a valuable persistent capability.
Radar, passive electronic detection, electro optical and sonar technologies are often combined onto a single aircraft.
This is a general requirement that supports the others.
ANTI SUBMARINE and ANTI SURFACE WARFARE
There are a number of pure military tasks that might be carried out by a maritime patrol function, namely anti-submarine and anti-surface warfare either in support of an expeditionary force or to protect the UK’s national deterrent.
The current threat levels to the SSBN force could be argued to be relatively low and this might have been instrumental in the risk based decision to cancel MRA4. We cannot be certain the threat will remain at the current nuisance levels. In an expeditionary context the rapid advance and proliferation of both quite air breathing submarines and a number of associated technologies mean that submarines will likely comprise a much larger threat in the future. If we are to retain freedom of movement the threat of enemy submarines must be taken seriously.
Modern submarines are very difficult to find and destroy and there is increasing use of improvised and mini submarines that should give naval planners reason for concern.
Operating as part of a complex system of systems, a maritime patrol aircraft would provide outer layer protection.
Anti-surface warfare seems to have almost gone out of fashion in recent times but it remains a valid role.
The basic military requirement is to detect, classify, deter and if necessary, destroy enemy submarines and surface vessels.
It is these roles that differentiate the military from the security and safety and pushes costs up.
Stakeholders
Unlike some military capabilities there is a veritable menagerie of interested parties, the MoD, Maritime and Coastguard Agency, DEFRA, devolved administrations, EU, various police services and agencies, security services and the UK Border Agency amongst others.
Also to be taken into consideration is the UK’s increasing cooperation with France, India, Brazil, the USA and Japan, whilst not direct stakeholders they all have a direct or indirect interest.
The UK has recently established a single National Maritime Information Centre at Northwood as a single point of contact and information fusion, analysis and dissemination but without a range of assets it is difficult to see its potential maximised.
It is a broad picture made more complicated by the similarly broad span of requirements.
The Span of Requirements Problem
There is a paradox at work here, on the one hand search and rescue is not necessarily a military task and given the MoD is about to (again) outsource the search and rescue helicopter capability to a civilian organisation the MoD would agree, but, a long range military ASW/ASUW patrol aircraft is well suited to the SAR role.
The problem with those ‘do everything’ military aircraft is they are eye wateringly expensive.
For those expecting a P8 Poseidon in UK service, can we reasonably expect them to be providing top cover for a stricken racing yacht whilst carrying an expensive ASW sensor set, weapons and crew?
This is not a new problem, it is one we face across any number of domains but the trend would seem to me at least to be moving away from one size fits all and outsourcing or civilianising where we can sensibly do so.
Maritime patrol is one of those areas where I think we can do likewise so the fisheries protection, maritime security, EEZ protection and Search and Rescue functions can be discharged by a non-military aircraft, thus preserving the high end roles of anti-submarine and anti-surface warfare for specialist aircraft, in smaller numbers.
The Fightiness Ladder
The diagram above, from an earlier series on a possible RN vessel design, shows the span of requirements and it is applicable to this area as well.
As we ascend the ‘fightiness’ ladder things inevitably get more complex and expensive but we might argue that the majority of time is spent at the lower rungs, safety and security rather than combat.
Issues and Predictions
We have to be careful about being too specific equipment centric when looking at options, instead of fixating on a like for like Nimrod replacement could a mix of equipment offer more for less?
Questions about the contrast between buying off the shelf or collaborating with our new special friends such as France have to be addressed.
The span of requirements and varied stakeholders complicates matters greatly and the issue of cost cannot be ignored either, in fact, it is central to any solution.
The conventional approach would be simply to buy a dozen P8 Poseidon’s from the USA or enter into a collaboration with France and one or two other EU partners to develop something based on the A320 family (even though Airbus Military no longer list the A319 MPA on their website) to replace the Atlantique and P3’s currently in service.
Buying the P8 would be the quickest option and at least mean that the Seedcorn money was not wasted, going down the Airbus development route means a long period during which the UK would have very little or no capability and those involved with Seedcorn would have likely left the RAF, the money therefore being wasted.
Buying surplus Atlantique’s and operating a joint capability with France does have a certain appeal but this should be seen as having a limited lifespan, perhaps providing a breathing space for a longer term development.
So if we are to have a capability within a meaningful time frame and a more or less like for like replacement for Nimrod then the P8 Poseidon is the only practical alternative.
If we look into the future it can be seen that eventually, the E3 Sentry will need replacing and whatever comes after Rivet Joint likewise. The US would obviously look at the Boeing 737 as the donor airframe for these, after the P8 Poseidon. The Royal Australian Air Force have now bought into service the Wedgetail AWACS aircraft. What might put the brakes on the UK eying these large ISTAR aircraft projects is the European dimension and our investment in the A330 for the FSTA programme.
From a commonality perspective it would make sense to stay with Airbus for these longer term projects. Even if the A330 is not used as the donor airframe for a maritime patrol or AWAC’s because it could be argued that it is too large, the training and logistics benefits of using the same family of aircraft would be immense.
An MPA, AWACS and ELINT development of an Airbus airframe would necessarily require significant development effort and expenditure but much of this would remain within the EU and UK, delivering a range of industrial benefits and making sure that there remains a viable European alternative to US products, at least in this sector.
Surrendering the market to Boeing is the simple alternative.
For the UK it would seem we are yet again in a difficult place, the sensible military option is to stay with Mr Boeing for MPA, future AWACS and future ELINT but there are powerful industrial and political influences that would point the order book to Airbus.
A simple case of deciding!
This assumes that the ‘answer’ is a simple one for one replacement with no change in the stakeholder mix or span of requirements, there are other options.
I do not think we can have £120m military aircraft using up valuable and finite airframe hours on EEZ protection or search and rescue tasks. With the outsourcing of helicopter SAR the MoD would seem to think along similar lines so the requirement should therefore be split.
The complex patchwork of agencies and other stakeholders is long overdue for rationalisation but there is little political appetite for this and we are therefore unlikely to see the emergence of a coherent national agency with sole responsibility for matters of offshore security and safety.
Perhaps the answer that will emerge is a military capability built around a small scale purchase of P8’s and the other capability areas being met by an extension of the Rotary SAR contract; that would certainly be my favoured option.
Other potential solutions include a hi-lo mix, the P8 with a larger number of twin turboprops like the Airbus Military C295MPA for example and even UAV’s and Lighter Than Air aircraft options may emerge.
Raytheon have suggested the Sentinel may also provide a useful surface search capability; the speed and extreme range of the Sentinel would certainly be useful in the SAR top cover role but these would seem like a case of straw clutching to stave off the announced withdrawal of Sentinel, however much it seems like this will actually not now happen. The French use the Falcon 50 in this role and the US Coastguard operate the Falcon 20, called the Guardian. Incidentally, the USCG also operates the CN235A, called the Ocean Sentry.
Given the risk aversion and severe cost pressures within the MoD I think a short term purchase of the C235MPA/C295MPA with the longer ranged and more capable P8 scheduled for the medium term aspiration has a good chance of becoming reality. The UK/French Medium Altitude Long Endurance UAV collaborative programme may also incorporate some of the MPA tasks and participation in some form of EU wide sharing should never be ruled out either.
Some might think the C295/235 is a big step down from MRA4 and they would be correct, but in these financially difficult times it would keep the capability relatively current, provide transit protection for the Vanguard SSBN’s, relieve pressure on other ASW capabilities and provide an economic SAR service.
The problem with the slower turboprop aircraft at long range is transit time, when responding to, for example, a ship in distress, speed counts. On the longer endurance and continual missions where an enduring presence is needed at distance, lower transit speeds mean a greater number of aircraft and crew. Turbo props are cheaper to operate so those costs may be balanced out, as ever, careful examination of the numbers would be required.
But it is a mature and immediately available solution and if seen as a stop gap until a small purchase of P8’s could be made then would it be such a bad decision, better a modest capability that is fully supported and can be built upon than no capability.
There are many conflicting requirements with the maritime patrol and many options to deliver against the requirement, some requiring thought beyond simple equipment choices; that said, equipment would form the basis of any capability delivery.
Equipment options
In order to provide some basis for discussion the equipment below might be considered as part of a layered maritime patrol capability, both military and civilian, offshore and inshore, short and long range.
They are loosely ordered on cost and complexity, some suitable for the complete spectrum of operations, some only for the safety and security roles.
BOING POSEIDON P8A
Coming into service with the US, Indian and probably Australian forces this is perhaps the only sensible alternative to the MRA4 with an equally troublesome development history, several compromises and in a number regards, possessing inferior performance but it really is the only game in town if we want an off the shelf all singing all dancing long range maritime patrol aircraft. There is little point bemoaning what could have or should have been with the MRA4, whether the MRA4 might have been better than the P8A (I think it would have though), comparing it to the P3 Orion or reflecting on the loss of £4b.
P8A Poseidon
P8A MMA
Based on the 737-800 fuselage and 737-900 wing it is a heavily modified and strengthened aircraft with a whole host of the latest and greatest sensors, communications equipment and weapons.
The main advantage of the P8 for the UK, despite probably having to modify certain systems to accommodate national priorities, is the ability to tap into the large development, maintenance and support infrastructure that comes from volumes.
Initial Operating Capability for the US Navy P8A’s is 2013.
The P8 is designed to work in tandem with the Broad Area Maritime Surveillance (BAMS) UAV but it is unlikely the UK would purchase any of these, maybe some integration with Watchkeeper and Telemos would be able to extend the functionality. The Indian versions will come with a Magnetic Anomaly Detector (MAD) that is not present on the US version
The point of the P8 is that it is multi mission but if we consider its roots and the mission focus of the USN and USGC it is very much a military system, the US version of the P8 for example, does not have any provision for SAR equipment.
One of the problems that will prove rather thorny is in-flight refuelling, unrefuelled, the P8 can transit for 1200 miles, remain on station for 4 hours and return. This is much less than the MRA4 and even the P3 although it will be quicker than the latter, in-flight refuelling might therefore be considered something high on the optional extras list. Although the US version does not have an in-flight refuelling capability the base design is equipped with something called the Universal Air Refuelable Receptacle Slipway (UARSSI) that can take fuel from a boom.
Ah, bit of a problem there.
Given that we opted to go for the stripped down baseline spec for the FSTA, unlike Australia and other customers, it will not be fitted with a boom refuelling system. We will therefore have to modify the FSTA aircraft, modify the P8 or say, oh look, we didn’t need it after all.
Suspect it will be the latter.
Another issue is that of weapons and sensor integration, in order to reduce airframe stress and fuel burn, and of course, to compensate for the simple fact that 737’s are not designed for low altitude tight turn flying, the concept of operations developed means that anti-submarine detection, classification and attack is carried out at a medium altitude (hence the omission of a MAD detector which is only of use at low levels and to save weight). To support this, the US has developed a wing kit for the Mk 54 lightweight torpedo, called the High Altitude Anti-Submarine Warfare Weapons Concept (HAAWC) that might also be developed to allow a sonobouy pattern to be deployed from higher altitudes.
The US Navy has also contracted Boeing to develop an air launched UAV that will carry a MAD sensor. The UAV will be based on the Boeing/Insitu Scan Eagle, called the MagEagle Compressed Carriage (MECC) and carried in the bomb bay or wing pylons with recovery by surface vessel or on land. It is an interesting and neat concept, but we don’t use the Scan Eagle.
A lot of work has gone into compensating for the lack of low level capability, or to provide a stand-off distance for the aircraft, depending on how cynical you are.
The UK does not use the Mk54 torpedo, but the Stingray, therefore, if we are to adopt the same concept of operations we will either have to create such a wing kit for it, or swap to the Mk54.
If we want to integrate other weapons such as Storm Shadow or Brimstone for example, then that would be an additional cost.
The Thales Searchwater 2000MR radar from the MRA4 may be possible to transfer although how this would compare to the Raytheon AN/APY 10 radar fitted to the P8 and cost differentials is uncertain. In addition to the usual collection of HF/VHF/UHF radios, satellite connectivity and Link 16 it will have the Common Data Link system.
The sticker price for the initial Indian P8I buy is $2.1 billion for 8, roughly $260 million each inclusive of initial logistics and support. As ever, these headline process should come with a health warning and extrapolating that figure to a UK purchase price would be fraught with uncertainty, it does provide a useful rough guideline though, £160 million.
So it should be obvious that because the concept of operations with the P8 is different and it has a range of integrated and complimentary systems just buying the aircraft might not be enough.
AIRBUS A319 MPA
Still very much at the PowerPoint stage and not a great deal has been heard about it for some time.
Airbus was attempting to keep the risk low by using its FITS mission system which is already in use on other aircraft. The A319 would be very capable with extra fuel tanks for long endurance, an 8 weapon station bomb bay plus four underwing hard points but at the recent select committee investigation Airbus Military did not even mention it in their written submission, sniffing the obvious mood they instead espoused the off the shelf benefits of the C295/235 MPA.
Airbus A319-MPA
KAWASAKI P1
An interesting outside bet would be the Japanese Kawasaki P1, their indigenous MPA.
Click here for more information.
BREGUET ATALANTIC 3
French forces operate 22 Atlantic 2 from a 27 aircraft group which might be considered comparable to the Orion (although many would argue not) and operating a joint pool with the French might not be an altogether bad idea.
There was some discussion in 2010 of an upgrade to the Atlantic 2’s, including integrating the Thales Ocean Master system, to take the out of service date to post 2030, I think 22 of the 27 will be upgraded. The upgraded ATL2’s are due in service in 2015.
ATL2
They were also due to be augmented with a long range maritime surveillance platform known as AVion de Surveillance et d’Intervention MARitime (AVISMAR), likely based on a Dassault Falcon 2000.
The turbo prop MPA and ultra-long range business jet derived surveillance combination is an interesting take on delivering against the requirement.
P3 ORION UPGRADE
A number of nations have taken delivery of surplus P3’s and contracted for upgrades.
In 2003, the Germans obtained 8 surplus Dutch P3’s for 271 million Euros, Brazil obtained 12 ex USN Orions for not a great deal and in 2005 contracted with Airbus for a comprehensive upgrade package valued at 320 million Euros.
This would be a realistic option, many airframes are available, but unlikely to be considered for a number of reasons.
AIRBUS MILITARY C295MPA
The Airbus Military C295 MPA is a derivative of the well established C295 twin turboprop transport in service with many forces worldwide. The C295 is a stretched version of the C235 which also has a maritime patrol version; notable users include the US Coastguard. For the MPA version changes made from the baseline transport design includes the installation of the fully integrated tactical system mission suite (FITS) configured with four onboard operator stations, sonobuoy dispenser equipment, magnetic anomaly detector boom, defensive systems, 6 under wing hard points and a FLIR sensor turret.
The FITS mission system is mature and extremely capable, including search radar, electro-optic / infrared sensors (EO/IR), electronic support measures (ESM) / an electronic intelligence system (ELINT), COMINT, a magnetic anomaly detector (MAD), an IFF interrogator, a SATCOM, a datalink and a Link-11. Endurance is reportedly 11 hours or 6 hours on station at 200nm range.
One of the great strengths of the C295 MPA is its versatility, the rear cargo door and palletised mission systems allow the same aircraft to be used for a number of roles. Standard 463L pallet compatibility means that in an expeditionary deployment it can carry its own spares or other stores, as an example.
The basic aircraft might have lost out to the C27 in a number of tactical airlifter competitions with the smallest tactical airlifter due to be in service with the UK being the A400, I have thought for some time that there exists a requirement for something smaller and why not the C235/C295?
It can carry 5 463L pallets or up to 71 personnel, plus it comes with this rather snazzy pallet loading system.
The C235/C295 is a mature aircraft family and Airbus military have recognised when they are on to a good thing and have an interesting development roadmap including the AEW version in the video below;
And even a gunship version
C295 Gunship
The C295 is no Poseidon but what if we can’t afford the latter, the flexibility and reasonable capabilities on offer from the C295 at a rough cost of £50m each would seem to be just about right, maybe with a small number of ultra-long range SARbusiness jet derivatives to provide outer edge surveillance and top cover.
ATR72 ASW
More or less in the same class as the C295 MPA is the ATR72 ASW which is a more combat oriented derivative of Alenia’s ATR72 maritime patrol aircraft, itself a stretched version of the AT42. The launch customer was Turkey and Italy has also started to purchase them in small numbers.
Endurance is comparable with the C295MPA, 7 hours at 200nm and is equipped with a rotary sonobuoy launcher, magnetic anomaly detector, defensive system, weapon hard points and a full range of sensors and mission equipment. Although they can be converted to carry cargo there is no rear cargo ramp like the C295 which makes them slightly less versatile but the reported cost of the 10 to Turkey was 260 million Euros.
SAAB 2000 MPA
Equipped with a full suite of sensors, mission and weapons systems the Saab 2000 MPA is in the same category as the C295MPA and ATR72 ASW.
EMBRAER EMB 145 MP
Renamed from the P99, the EMB 145 MP fits neatly within the other EMB145 special mission aircraft including the AEW and Multi Intel.
EMB-145-MP
Instead of turboprops it is based on the turbofan powered ERJ 145 so this delivers greater transit speeds.
The EMB145 ISR family provides a neat solution for a range of requirements without trying to create a single aircraft that does everything.
ELTA/BOMBARDIER DASH 8
The Bombardier Q Series Multi Mission Aircraft (it has its own web site) has been adopted by a number of users and the Q400 has a speed of 360 knots, longer fuselage and longer range.
Q400 MPA
Teaming up with Elta, Bombardier are offering the Q400 MPA variant equipped with EL/M-2022A maritime search radar, Electronic Support Measures and MOSP type electro-optical sensor, and, additional communications intelligence COMINT array. The aircraft also mounts a side-mounted gun pod, aft-mounted countermeasures dispensers and side-mounted containers which could carry various stores, for search and rescue missions or other tasks.
SENTINEL R1
If the Sentinel is being withdrawn then the airframes could be repurposed by removing the radar housing and replacing it with a Searchwater 2000 type radar and electro optical turret.
High transit speeds, altitude and endurance would allow the aircraft to provide outer edge SAR top cover and the sensors, combined with excellent communications equipment could provide benefits in other mission areas.
The logistics system is already in place, the airframes are paid for and if conversion costs were contained then out could provide one part of the maritime patrol jigsaw, although obviously not ASW or ASuW.
Air droppable survival equipment could be door launched for example, there are a number of such equipments available from Airborne Systems and Life Support International
A good overview of the Airborne Systems equipment can be found here
BOMBARDIER 415 MPA
As we move down the fightiness ladder there are many options if search and rescue and maritime security patrolling are the main requirements.
Bombardier 415 MPA
An aircraft with a very long track record the 415 MPA from Bombardier is a versatile aircraft and can be configured to carry a specially designed jet boat (see the video) for sea rescues and able to operate in Sea State 3 conditions.
TECNAM MMA
The Tecnam Multi Mission Aircraft might be on the small side with a modest payload of just less than 150kg but capital and operating costs would be very low, it is claimed they have the lowest operating costs of any similar aircraft.
BRITTEN NORMAN DEFENDER 400
The UK Coastguard, Manchester Police already and MoD already operate the Defender in one form or another so introduction would not be difficult but whilst cost is very low, performance is not exceptional for the role, perhaps too short legged.
HAWKER BEECHCRAFT KING AIR 350
We already operate the King Air 350 for training and in the guise of the Shadow, using a maritime patrol variant would not unduly stress the logistics system.
Costs are a variable with a wide variety of equipment and support options but performance is good, especially endurance and speed.
VIKING TWIN OTTER GUARDIAN 400
Viking of Canada recently resurrected production of the venerable DHC Twin Otter and have been getting some serious orders from customers as diverse as the Vietnamese Navy and Zimex Aviation in Switzerland.
Viking Twin Otter Guardian 400
There is no doubt that we cannot afford to gap this capability indefinitely but there are a wide variety of solutions available, not all of them obvious, and many influencing factors that serve to make any decisions complex.
Who fancies what then?
ADDITION
If anyone is reading this after clicking from a PPRUNE thread on the Airbus A400M as a Maritime Aircraft, you might like this
http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2012/09/the-airbus-a400m-atlas-part-3-a-multi-purpose-platform/
Or maybe not!
And these on the FSTA PFI
http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2011/07/the-pros-and-7-cons-of-an-raf-voyager/
http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2013/03/on-that-fsta-raf-voyager-exclusivity-thing/
http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2013/03/raf-voyagers-piling-on-the-pounds/
Some older Think Defence posts on Nimrod and MPA
http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2011/06/nimrod-strikes-back/
http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2011/07/the-reason-nimrod-was-cancelled/
http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2011/12/a319-maritime-patrol-aircraft/
http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2011/03/a-spare-billion-for-mpas-what-shall-we-buy-then%E2%80%A6/
http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2011/01/the-future-of-the-raf-13-%E2%80%93-istar-07-maritime/
Well a very gd over view of capabilities. The us has mentioned going biz jet based for its future jstars requirements as Crew ext are getting smaller the p8 and wedge tail are now between 5-10 people. So the future here I think is less clear cut sentry will be here for some time.
I think the a319 mpa has disappeared because there is no capacity to deliver it. It would have to come off the a320 series production line and there maxed out a 42 a/c per month till 2020 at the earliest.
For me cn295 offers the best choice for the reasons you suggest. I would couple this with sentinel again for the reason you suggest. This a/c will stay I believe like reaper will be a joint army airforce funded program. Global express will probably replace the bae146/125 communications a/c at some point also so I would bring this up to 8 in the astor/mpa role with a possible future 4 in communications role. And 16 cn295s for roles envisaged all come in for that mythical 1b that we found down the sofa.
How about a mix and match? A few CN295s for low end, day-to -day stuff and a squadron of tooled up P8s for war scenarios.
TD, “P-3C Orion upgrade: This would be a realistic option, many airframes are available, but unlikely to be considered for a number of reasons.”
Namely, they aren’t shiny and new? Stick a new pair of wings on them and they’re good to go. It’s used by many of our allies and is a proven design. Ok, I’m probably just been pedantic and its late, but don’t write it off just yet.
Worth a read….
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/P-3-Recovery-Plan-Tries-to-Keep-the-Fleet-in-the-Air-05051/
TD, forgot to add, great article by the way…..
Agree they should be seperate but the priority at the moment has to be SAR capability, it will be so embarassing if we have an incident in our area we cannot respond to. A purcahse of 3 HC 130 J would close the capability gap and the cost shared amongst at least 2 or 3 budgets!
Another great round up TD.
I’ve been looking at the possible combination of cargo aircraft and palletised systems and it looks very interesting. The USCG use their CN-235-300 for maritime patrol, law enforcement, Search and Rescue (SAR), disaster response, and cargo and personnel transport. But as you point out, it can carry weapons and it would be simple enough to swap out the palletised system and install more military pallet(s). We’d also get a very useful transport plane.
http://www.uscgnews.com/go/doc/786/194887/
Some links about palletised systems for C-130′s:
http://www.navair.navy.mil/index.cfm?fuseaction=home.PrintNewsStory&id=2401
http://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/products/senior-scout.html
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/lockheed-seeks-to-export-shadow-harvest-spy-system-for-c-130s-333319/
There is also concepts for Float equiped Herc’s and even an old design fora C-130 amphibian:
http://warships1discussionboards.yuku.com/topic/19505#.T4N_cNkkYpc
There’s an AC/DC song from the Golden Age, “Down Payment Blues”: “Got myself a Cadillac but I can’t afford the gasoline”. Always one of my faves.
If, as NZ budget numbers suggest, a P-3 costs £40K/flying hr, buy a CASA or a Falcon. The USCG recharges the cost of an HC-144 at c. £10K/hr and an HU-25 at c. £8K/hr (but a shiny new and thus undepreciateed Falcon 900 would come out nearer £12-14K I think).
Killing off the Nimrod was one thing but leaving the UK with no real Maritime Patrol capability was one of the worst SDSR decisions.
Keeping a handful of personnel current by scattering them around the world is little more than a figleaf. A few of the deployed guys decide to join a new airforce or simply pull the plug and its going, going, gone.
Your current situation is as much about manpower as it is about the aircraft choice and the longer the capability gap stays open the worse the situation will become. The 5 years òf the Seedcorn project is very suggestive of the time someone in your system thinks it will take to get ‘back in the air’.
For my vote, a core number of an off an shelf solution, get back in the air and build from there. Definately no paper or ‘in development’ planes.
Great and timely post by the way.
“[P-8 poseidon]…work in tandem with the Broad Area Maritime Surveillance (BAMS) UAV but it is unlikely the UK would purchase any of these …”
Why wont the UK consider maritime patrol UAVs? Maritime surveillance should be layered and scale-able.
Hi milner,
Compare this with the 5-year span of Seedcorn (one year is up already?):
- 3 proper BAMS UAVs on production line, after the demonstrators on older UAVs and manned aircraft
- USN IOC 2015
- export slots available “shortly after” but orders will need to be placed now
Also string these places from this article along the world map (Indian Ocean side of Australia already agreed, but not specified in the article; funny as it is from an airshow held in Oz)
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=defense&id=news/awst/2011/03/07/AW_03_07_2011_p30-293755.xml&headline=null&next=10
and the gap East-West (rather than for the polar regions)is quite obvious
I like the Kawasaki P1 as an outside bet. It’s in production, four engined, has a bomb bay, sufficent range etc. Buying a dozen or so could be a great way of starting our new defence relationship with Japan, as well as giving us a badly needed “full fat” MPA capability.
The C295 seems the way to go. We would get around 5/6 for one P8, and thats not just from reading this but I have thought that for some time. Consider also the AEW Sentry fleet will need replacing at some time and the airframe could replace 32 (Royal) Squadrons BAE125s, BAE146s for VIP transport with an added cargo carrying capability. As you have said there is nothing smaller than a C130 (or A400M) at present for carrying that vital small piece of equipment. It also comes with a AAR probe so no problem there.
There would be obvious savings in training aircrew and groundcrew on one type and the spares and supply chain would be simpler.
Forgot to add this but am I alone in thinking some of the cost for this should come out of the HM Coastguard budget?
Good summary TD and nice overview.
The Aussies have it right – whilst I could understand almost every decision made by SDSR, the one that had absolutely no grounding, justification or logic was the cancellation of Nimrod. A truly epic scale fuckup. The only reason I have heard so far that fits the facts is the RAF trying and failing to play brinkmanship politics with Liam Fox – they gambled Nimrod was too valuable to cancel so offered it up. Epic fail.
I think you’re dismissing the UAV element too quickly. The BAMS, which is basically GlobalHawk, offers persistent surveillance over oceanic ranges. It is interoperable with the US, who are the biggest players in the N Atlantic on our side. And it gives you the necessary surveillance and communications relay capability for SAR operations, with rapid response as a jet based aircraft, as a mature and functional system.
The most complex ASW problem facing our forces today is not Russian nukes but any number of diesel-electric boats around the world, Iran as a prime example. Finding them is most effectively done by non-acoustic sensors – radar, electro-optical, etc. With the proposed radar set and EO capability the BAMS could conceivably deliver capability there as well. That said protecting the deterrent (not an option unfortunately) still requires a proper MPA to support the T23/Merlin/SSN protection.
The best asset in counter piracy ops today is, unsurprisingly, an MPA to detect, track and ID vessels of interest. Again, the BAMS platform works with that sort of requirement. Three for three.
I would like to see BAMS procured alongside a dedicated MPA, because whatever the capabilities of BAMS you need man-in-the-loop to carry out the warfare tasks as well as a bigger aircraft to drop liferafts or whatever in SAR ops. The Poseidon is, as TD says, eye-wateringly expensive, which is odd because it uses the same mission system as was proven in the MRA4, which when attached to a civilian airframe should have been uncomplicated. But the US compromised by choosing the 737, because it cannot go low enough or slow enough to drop buoys or weapons, hence the major faff with wing kits etc. Turboprops and Nimrod could do that, which together with its range and 300-sonobuoy capacity made Nimrod such an awesome MPA. Remanufactured P3′s or C295 make sense in smaller numbers – they can be at alert ready to react to either intel cueing or BAMS cueing. You could even have a C130 or A400 ready to go for SAR ops while the MPA goes subhunting with our existing set of sonobuoys and torpedoes. But that’s only going to be a stopgap for 10 years or so, until the Sentry/Sentinel/Rivet Joint/MPA replacement issue comes to the fore.
Some of the other options like bizjet-based surveillance or a remanufactured Sentinel ought to be compared to the cost and range benefits of BAMS – for the endurance alone I would lean towards BAMS.
Careful Jim, I suggested a way back that HM coastguard should be more proactive in UK waters and got shot down big style!
Allegedly the MR4A had serious aerodynamic issues that were caused by lengthening the fuselage, the odd tail arrangement was an attempt to make it flyable. Whilst the airframes were crushed the sensors weren’t and are supposedly in storage. A proposal came from Marshalls to retrofit the radar and other sensors to Hercules airframes.Maybe another solution would be to do this with A400 rather than tired Hercules.
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/paris-marshall-aerospace-offers-c-130j-maritime-patrol-conversion-358490/
The other thing to be said about a long range ASuW capability is that it is a force multiplier for our now very limited number of SSN.
If we can gain thratre situational awareness of the SSN / SSK threat then it is much easier to prioritise tasks the 1 or 2 Astutes that we might have available.
With a clear picutre we can send them out actively to intercept the enemy subs at arms length from our task force. If we can verify that the enemy sub threat is low we can confidently retask our Astutes to from defensive ASuW to offensive AShW or TLAM bombardment. Without this situational awareness some of our most potent attacking weapons are badly hobbled.
I agree with others that an OTS purchsase of C-295 is probably the most cost effective way to get up and running.
Just re-read ACC’s link, and a nice comment from the US supporting a BAMS purchase:
‘When asked if export customers for BAMS could base their UAS at Guam, Dishman replies, “I would say definitely. If a country purchases a BAMS capability, it should be able to leverage off the U.S. Navy and use U.S. Navy BAMS sites.” After all, that is what being in a coalition is all about, he adds.’
A slightly left-field suggestion is whether a Magnetic Anomoly Detector, Dipping Sonar and something like FITS could be installed in a V-22 Osprey?
That would allow the QEC to field its own organic ASuW cpabaility from 2016. The tiltrotor combination of range and STOVL would allow it to replace Merlin ASuW in the embarked squadron, and offer longer range MPA capabilities as well.
@ Peter – can the Osprey carry standard pallets? if so then it could in theory carry some of the pattetised systems used by aircraft such as the C295?
@TD
Another great post, TD. An amazing amount of research has gone in here. A thoroughly enjoyable read.
One of the possibilities you list is the Bombardier 415 MPA. It looks as if it could be a useful amphibian, able to land in certain sea states and effect rescues etc. I don’t know whether it is the same aircraft the Spanish use for firefighting but, if it is , that could be another string to its bow.
On a more negative note, I think the RAF did an in-depth study of amphibians (or flying boats) about 30-odd years ago. I think they were wondering whether they could possibly introduce a flying boat to succeed that wonderful old aircraft, the Sunderland. They concluded, I think taking into account the lack of suitable landing areas of water and certain sea states, that it was not then the correct choice. I have a rather romantic/nostalgic feeling for an amphibian – it is a very flexible kind of aircraft and useful in so many ways, but I suppose I am being unrealistic.
In connection with that point, I see that East Anglian sugests that the Kawasaki P1 could be a dark horse. I think that that is a conventional aircraft, as opposed to the aircraft it is supposed to succeed, the P3C, which is an amphibian, isn’t it?
I do like some aspects of the C-295, both as a maritime patrol aircraft, and a low end transport (to supplement the A-400M when the Hercs are retired early in the next SDSR…). They would be cheap enough to allow us to buy plenty of them, avoiding stretching them too thinly like the Nimrod force.
The downside of the C-295 for some other roles, notably AWACS, is the small cabin, but equally importantly, operating altitude. The E-3Ds can fly pretty high, carry a large and powerful radar, and plenty of operators. The C-295 is a fraction of the size, can’t fly as high, smaller radar, and far fewer operators. As such, it would be a pretty major step down from the E-3D. The counter argument would be that if the RN gets the carriers in CTOL form, they could get E-2Ds, and the RAF could take the AN/APY-9 radar, and stick it on the C-295s, giving a high degree of commonality. As such, we could then potentially just get some more EC-295 AEWs in order to offset the reduction in capability.
One potential advantage of the C-295 would be the modular cabin, with the ability to slide in consoles for different roles. They could also be used to carry pods on the wings (in place of AShMs), e.g. the DB-110 sensor, or something like the French ASTAC ELINT pod. As such, we could have a fleet of maritime patrol aircraft, a fleet of modular ISTAR aircraft, special forces versions (a poor mans MC-130!), and transport versions.
Another option would be the Bombardier Global Express, as discussed by CASR:
http://www.casr.ca/bg-cp140-replacement-global-express.htm
These would be able to fly a lot higher, and faster, and could benefit from commonality with the Sentinel R.1s if they don’t get canned. Again, smaller cabin that the E-3Ds, but still pretty big anyway.
As for the role of UAVs, I wouldn’t go for the US Navy’s MQ-4 Global Hawk BAMS solution. I would go with the General Atomics Mariner UAV, which is essentially the same UAV as our current MQ-9 Raptor fleet. They would cost a fair bit less, and thus we could have more of them to do the job. UAVs do have an important role in maritime patrol, but are not an alternative to manned aircraft, they are complementary. The ability to fly one of them in orbit over a disaster site for a day or so each would be very useful, and hard to replicate with manned aircraft.
great article, and spooky that the kawasaki comes up the day all the main chnnels are reporting DC in japan and defence contracts are one of the main topics.
@gaereth, why convert a herc, with a large chunk of it’s airframe life gone when there are purpose built aircraft from beriev, who already have a partnership France already using the BE-200 for fighting duties. Somebody injured out in the ogin? rather than hoofing out med supplies, land alongside and pick ‘em up! overwatch for SSN/SSBN, just land in the loch when on support (has wheels as well for normal runway landings.
I think a hi/lo mix of 295 and P1 would work, especially as it could open the door for all the variants of the 295 that were listed to come on board.
As sidenote all the talk of V-22 going on the QEC i would like to see the augusta 609 looked at for SAR/ASW, smaller would/could have brit involvement through westlands and also could be used for VIP, probably a wee bit cheaper to run as well, AW claim they are on for an ISD of 2016.
bugger bit of the comment went missing, beriev have a partnership deal with EADS. It was EADS who put the digital “western certified” cockpit in which is why france have been able to fly in european airspace
Is this all pie in the sky or is the MOD really going to spend some money on a Nimrod replacement, the media will have a field day especially with all the Harrier/Carrier stories recently.
@JWD
If we rushed out and splashed a bag of cash on a dozen Poseidons then the media would be right to kick up a fuss.
But if we go for something that is significantly smaller and better value then I see no contradiction of the decision to cancel MRA4.
Regarding UAVs, I did read up on NATO UAV control proceedure, and I’m not so sure it’s really a good idea. UAVs apparently need 3 shifts of crew to deploy, a “launching” crew, a “transit” crew and the local “Ground control center”.
That’s 3 crew as compared to a single shift for conventional MPAs. Not really an option for a manpower strapped armed force.
This is for the big UAVs like the Reaper and the Global H. Smaller ones like the Scan E are launched “on site” and need only the GCC.
A plane that could cover all “low and high” specs and add some very interesting operational concepts is unfortunatly not on your list,however your PM is currently in Japan and perhaps is asking about the availability of the ShinMaywa US-2.It can actually pick up survivors from the sea ,provided waves are not higher than 3.5 meters.Also you do not need an airfield to operate this plane.As for sub hunting this plane might actually be fitted with a lightweight vds,imaigine the possibilities here for a moment.
Cheers,
JJ
PS;great blog!!
Observer, calling the RAF a manpower strapped force is stretching it a bit, isn’t it?
Think the p8 will be a joint warrior Next week along with the p3 so we can do research
Excellent post and one that shows that its a buyers market as far as MPA is concerned. Personally I would go with the mixed fleet option outlined above, C295′s for maritime security and SAR missions plus a P-8 squadron for ASW and ISTAR work.
@ SI
‘Observer, calling the RAF a manpower strapped force is stretching it a bit, isn’t it?’
He’s right in the context, UAVs soak up manpower and we’re hardly flush right now.
@paul g
“beriev, who already have a partnership France already using the BE-200 for fighting duties.”
Paul, I had no idea that France was using the Beriev Be200. I know that Portugal was leasing some a few years ago, for fire-figting duties I think. France has not been using them for something similar, has it? You just say “fighting duties”. I agree about the flexibility of an amphibian equipped with wheels for normal runway landings, though.
Cracking article as ever TD – I think the Nimrod piece is one which most of the seniors in MOD feel was a problem, and is a sorely missed capability, but equally it was clear that the MRA4 probably wasnt going to deliver.
The problem is that the Nimrod fleet barely did ASW for much of the noughties as a much smaller fleet was heavily committed to operations in the Middle East. Its probably fair to say that the level of experience that existed in SDR was massively reduced compared by 2010, when the Nimrod was switched off, even as the ability to conduct ISTAR grew.
The seedcorn initiative represents a fairly sensible measure where personnel can keep skills going for a little longer, and allow seniors time to make some fairly tough decisions. My personal take is that the desire is there to see something, but its not clear what that is. Of course, the RN could try to fund something under the new budget arrangements
see link at my blog on this – http://thinpinstripedline.blogspot.co.uk/2012/04/time-of-change-reflections-on-new-navy.html
So, who knows where we’re going to be in a few years, but I’m more comfortable with the seedcorn existing than with it not existing.
@ SI, Topman, Observer,
I take my unashamed speculation further:
- even the USN and USAF aim to share the bases out of which BAMS/ Global Hawk are (to be) operated, them being a rather complex beast (any foreign buyer will receive a similar offer)
@ ACC I saw that as well, sounds like a good idea for all concerned. Cuts costs and reduces unit price and gives the buyers access to US support.
Hi Topman,
It is not a surprise (from the economics point of view, though the tech being shared is sensitive; that thought is for the stage one past who gets it… once they have it, sharing is a good idea)
- block 10 already retired, flying as test frames (e.g for BAMS)
- block 20; still going?
- block 30; all to be retired… this is the gist “THE INFRA IS going to be SUPPORTING A FRACTION OF THE NUMBERS ENVISAGED, AND IT NEEDS TO BE GLOBALLY DISPERSED”
- block 40… well, NATO is getting it… in due course… not too soon
Without BAMS Global Hawk would be dead in the water… sorry about the play on words
- BAMS… maritime
ACC, I refer you to my 1131 post as well.
Hi SI,
Yes, absolutely, this quote
“‘When asked if export customers for BAMS could base their UAS at Guam, Dishman replies, “I would say definitely. If a country purchases a BAMS capability, it should be able to leverage off the U.S. Navy and use U.S. Navy BAMS sites.” After all, that is what being in a coalition is all about, he adds.’”
But it is being very shy (even though he speaks about buyers in that geography), because
1. both the UK and Australia have expressed an interest (at one stage or another)
2. Basing and data exchange have always been part of the discussion (this is not a cheap game – even the USAF and USN have agreed to share as for basing!)
3. Both of the the two under (2.) above are in the public domain for Australia (without a defined time frame)
4. What do we know here? Nothing… we’ll probably get a Twin Otter, no ! Two, so one will be at the ready
going by the recent nato purchase a block 40 global hawk will set you back $260m each plus a similar amount each to operate it for 10 years. Can we afford it?
Mark
Even if we could afford to flash the cash for something ‘top of the range’ it would be better spent on a proven manned platform like the Kawasaki XP-1.
As it is the C-295 fits both my perception of the requirement and the budget, as well as giving lots of future development potential.
(The decision to retain R1 instead of joining the Global Hawk spend-fest is looking cannier by the day.)
Hi PE,
Without taking sides (the economist in me says “more is better”):
“retain R1 instead of joining the Global Hawk spend-fest is looking cannier by the day”
- the first decision is from now to 2015
- the second decision is from 2015-2016 onwards
- as R1 have flown so much over A-stan, they might not be good for much more? Without knowing, the ‘set’ onboard is optimised for on-land, anyway
… the rest, I am sure, is in the presentation by the provider, to the Parliamentary Committee, that we have had linked here already
@ mike w, yes sorry for some reason when writing that comment the gremlins were hard at work moving or removing words! It should’ve said fire fighting, although it gives me a chance to add the EADS version (BE-200RR) would be engined with the 715 ie the same engine used in the nimrod MR4.
found the link it was just training and evulation flights, however it was used to fight fires in israel.
http://www.beriev.com/eng/core_e.html
Astor is till quite new its not had the punishment of repeated take-offs and landing from desert strips like herc ect so no life issues. The SAR radar on astor is very similar to that on the P8 so with tweaks for the surveillance role if must not be too bad.
If we want the high low mix and p8 is too expensive this very recent video may look appealing
P-3 Orion Desert to Delivery
As for P8 it is certainly expensive, but it is the lack of range that turns me off it.
The only real justification for the UK to buy an airliner based solution would be super-long range: but the P8 doesn’t have it.
Happy to use our existing R1 Sentinel for sea surface surveillance so long as we also have something else able to look under the water.
TD’s post is a little cryptic on why we wouldn’t buy refurbushed P3.
Anyone able or willing to fill in the gaps?
When the 10 RAF short body C-130J are replaced by A400M, it would be logical to refurb & convert them to USCG HC-130J standard. Cannot hunt submarines, but ideal for deep ocean patrol & low level, precise drop of survival supplies. Not fighty, but perhaps we could add the Hellfire bomb rack from the USMC KC-130J. I think the threat is pirates & Mumbai style terror attacks , rather than SSNs.
Retiring Sentinel early, is madness. Adding an EO turret, could make it more multi role & keep it in service.
A few P8s could be added later, if SSNs do become a threat.
Tabloids would have a field day on another nimrod re-wing ect I suspect. Also I think the P3 modernization was a option when we selected nimrod mr4a way back when.