We have discussed this a number of times and to add further to those discussions the House of Commons Defence Select Committee has published its fifth report, Future Maritime Surveillance.
Click to visit
http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/defence-committee/news/mps-publish-report-on-future-maritime-surveillance/
Lots of interesting comments and the written and oral evidence is also illuminating.
In summary
The Committee has serious concerns following the decision in the 2010 Strategic Defence and Security Review (SDSR) to cancel the Nimrod MRA4 maritime patrol aircraft (MPA) programme. Although the MoD’s own capability investigations have concluded that a MPA is the solution to the UK’s maritime surveillance requirements over the next 20 years, the MoD has postponed any decision on a further MPA until at least the next SDSR in 2015. The UK therefore now has no current or planned sovereign MPA capability (i.e. a capability that could be operated independently) and the MoD has acknowledged that the resultant capability gap cannot be completely covered by an existing single asset or collection of assets. The reduction in certain sovereign long range maritime surveillance capabilities also highlights the UK’s interim dependency on allies for support in protecting the increasingly important reaches of the UK as well as its wider defence and direct military capability.
Chair of the Committee, Rt Hon James Arbuthnot, says,
“We are unconvinced that the MoD has the capacity to respond to any escalation in the risks that may appear beyond the UK’s shores. Furthermore we believe the risk is likely to worsen in the medium term as further maritime surveillance capabilities are withdrawn or not yet filled.”
The Committee is concerned that the MoD is sending mixed messages in respect of the need for a maritime patrol aircraft. On one hand it says that there is no requirement for such an aircraft and that it is not funded or in the programme but on the other hand it acknowledges that its absence is a risk and something may need to be done.
Chair of the Committee, Rt Hon James Arbuthnot, says,
“The MoD must explain why it is satisfactory to wait until 2015 or beyond before deciding how to close the capability gap in maritime surveillance.”
The Committee is also concerned about the withdrawal of other maritime surveillance assets, such as the Type 22 Broadsword Frigates, and the potential for other capability gaps to occur in the future, for example when the Sea King (SKASaC) helicopter is taken out of service in 2016 to be replaced by Project CROWSNEST operating from the Merlin Mk 2 helicopter. However the report acknowledges the work the MoD has undertaken to explore the potential options for maritime surveillance in the longer term, such as unmanned systems, lighter-than-air vehicles and space technology.
The report welcomes the establishment of the Maritime Security Oversight Group and the National Maritime Information Centre as first steps towards a more strategic and co-ordinated output and as a way of mitigating some of the capability gaps. The challenge is to develop these further. The Committee is keen to see a more prominent ministerial role in maritime surveillance, particularly given the number of cross-government interests that exist.
It will be business as usual of course, the Committee issues a strongly worded report, the MoD look concerned, write a response and carry on normal jogging.
The video below encapsulates the MoD’s response
A possible option I’ve not heard much of is to take the mission suite from the Nimrod, in put it into a CS100.
1) The Canucks want to replace the CP140 Aurora. A domestic solution is something they’d like and you are getting into minimum airframe numbers required
2) Part of the CS100 is built in the UK so good for public relations
3) Not the swiftest selling airframe, there are slots of the production line
4) Modern with fuel efficient engines and composite airframe making it more resistant to maritime corrosion from the start.
5) The airframe is big enough that this variant or the larger CS300 could form the basis for a replacement AEW solution, an ELINT/EW solution, a VIP replacement for the BAE146 and if the Sentinel was retained, possibly a chance for similar air crew ratings.
6) Potential significant export opportunities as it provides a jet alternative to the P8 and P99. There undoubtedly will be other nations with a MPA requirement for whom the P8 is too much but who want something that offers more than the P99 or the turboprops
Here is an article that CASR did about this possibility
http://www.casr.ca/id-aerospace-daly-cseries.htm
All you need for maritime patrol is the acceptance that fixed wing aircraft can at best press subs below water (suppress their snorkeling for a few hours), but not really kill subs in situations where other forces couldn’t kill them without MPA support.
Once you accept that you can go with a few Gulfstream V and their incredible range:
Add a radar suite with side-looking capability (wave pattern analysis, SAR to identify ships, rudimentary AEW), add a normal ESM suite (detection of radar emissions), add a gimballed IRST (for search and rescue, identification close-up) with E/O (identification of painted ship names, red crosses etc), add a naval datalink suite with relay functionality and you’re almost done already.
@S O, that almost sounds like what Embraer did with their P99/ERJ145 variant though additionally qualified for underwing hardpoints.
I don’t think HMG is really concerned about defending the home islands. The Norwegians have a home guard and a coast guard. They are miles from anyone and upset nobody. We are part of one of the most densely populated continents with good transport infrastructure. And we go off to help the US invade other countries and occasionally indulge in a bit of assisted regime change ourselves. I suppose the lack of incidents supports HMG’s position that we don’t need a yeomanry or militia, or in the instance a RNXS like organisation with a patrol operating out of every major port.
A good MPA can isolate and kill a submarine without assistance if it carries suffcient buoys and a weapon.
MoD/RAF f**cked Nimrod up, they should have gone with new-build airframes from the outset, as BAE offered and suggested; the failure to do so was incompetence on an epic scale. The aircraft was cancelled because it need more money to get to service and then a dollop of money every year in O&M so cancelling it was easy. MoD/RAF and innumerable external critics are now finding that the hard part is living without it. Within the confines of the SDSR keeping it would have required losing something else, probably more fast jet squadrons which is a difficult argument to make given that they were cut by a third as it was.
Of course this underscores the problem with the SDSR, in order to spare the Army it went excessively after the RAF the extent it has gutted the strike capability, halved the lift fleet, killed the MPA capability and left a huge question mark over ISTAR capability. Its all f**ked.
I think our only hope for a decent MPA is A400m. I am worried with P8 that experts seem not to rate its low level low speed performance.
Lean manned TAS tugs, some Merlin capable OPVs, and a squadron of cheap aeroplanes for visual idents. Separate out the capabilities? HMG don’t care. How do you say to Mars! in Hindi?
“A good MPA can isolate and kill a submarine without assistance if it carries suffcient buoys and a weapon.”
Really?
Are you aware that NATO was most concerned since its Atlantic convoys scheme could not work during the 80’s because the escorts would run out of lightweight torpedoes (the false alarm rate was excessive)?
How would he aircraft detect the sub?
Would it plaster the Atlantic with short-range sonobuoys against whose sound frequency anechoic tiles are effective (to further reduce the effective range)? There are neither enough sonobuoys onboard nor in depots for that.
Diesel sniffer? Obsolete by the 60’s because of millions of diesel trucks and because of nuclear power.
MAD? Only effective 100-400 m to the left and right, and only so if the sub is huge. Small SSKs have an entirely non-magnetic hull. Similar problem with electrostatic sensors.
SOSUS data? SOSUS can be crippled, and even if it’s not, it is entirely passive and practically useless against SSKs, likely even against good SSN/SSBN when they avoid the proximity of SOSUS.
Radar vs. snorkel? Useless against SSN/SSBN/SSGN, and still useless against SSK, for SSKs first use a tiny antenna to determine radar activity and only raise the snorkel when it’s safe. They reduce the speed to minimise wave effects and the snorkel is using radar stealth materials.
In the end, a ASW MPA can press subs below water (their preferred depth anyway), disrupt snorkeling (an annoyance, only serious in very confined waters such as the Baltic Sea) and it might assist if some low frequency sonar has made contact. ASW MPAs will hardly ever find a sub on their own, and then they can’t tell it from false contacts.
Keep in mind the wreck of a Italian WW2 battleship was found only recently in the Med and we keep finding unknown wrecks even in the Cold War hotbed Baltic Sea. THAT is the state of affairs in regard to active sonars. After decades of Cold War and sonar advances we still didn’t even detect all non-moving metal objects in even confined waters, much less the Atlantic.
@ SO
In TD World aircraft based ASW systems have magical capabilities, where ASW systems in ships are haphazard and near ineffectual. :)
SO
I am not even going to bother with a lot of it as I would be pretty close to talking about stuff I really cannot post on here ref radar performance, sosus, LFAR and buoys vs tiles etc.
Notice the words isolate and kill, the beauty of an MPA is it keeps the sub away from where you do not want it to be. They are not designed to fly randomly around looking for subs, tothey are designed protect areas routes, chokepoints and prosecute detected submarines.
APATS said “They are not designed to fly randomly around looking for subs, tothey are designed protect areas routes, chokepoints and prosecute detected submarines.”
Trouble is some here don’t understand that…
APATS, X,
Forgive my ignorance, but if you say that an MPA is not supposed to “go looking” for subs but are designed to protect routes then what’s the point?
Any route can be kept open with a frigate. Any detected submarine can be prosecuted with the thing that detected it?
Surely Britain’s maritime safety means search-and-destroy a lurking enemy sub?
Its thunderously obvious that you can’t use a plane to randomly scour the Earths Oceans. It makes complete sense to create bastion where you don’t want them to be at certain times and places. They don’t even have to sink the thing just mess with it enough that they can’t prosecute an attack.
@ Simon
There is difference between not knowing and advocating that aircraft can do everything. :)
A good example of a need for route surveillance is the need to patrol the route for a deploying or returning SSBN. The boat will leave and follow a known route before slipping off the continental shelf into the abyss to who knows where. MPA patrols the SSBN route area, then MPA goes off to photograph trawlers, do SAR, or whatever.
Simon,
A submarine is an offensive weapon and whilst you want to sink them you only hunt them when they offer threat. So if they are trying to get close to somewhere or something you do not want them to. E.G a Port or Unit/TG. This lowers the geographical area that you have to cover.
Nothing is designed to “go looking for subs without having some idea where to start”.
It is the speed and range at which they can respond as well as the are they can cover. For instance investigation of a SOSUS contact. Long range land based MPA can provide ASW support to a TG or convoy operating hundreds of miles offshore.
It can whilst operating in support of afore mentioned TG/Convoy remain on station to prosecute a detected submarine whilst the TG/Convoy continues enroute or evades and once finished still get ahead of the convoy to drop buoys in a potential choke point before the TG/Convoy even arrives. This saves you losing one of your valuable ASW escorts.
A Frigate cannot cover anywhere near the same amount of ground as an MPA which at height can monitor strings of buoys set well apart. It can even hand over monitoring to organic helo assets or ships and move on to drop more.
Let’s not forget the great fact that it is far better to clear or flush an area you will be passing through with a weapon system that is invulnerable to a sub than barrel through and try and engage them on far more equal terms with torpedos on escorts.
It makes sense to me for MPAs to act as beaters and shooters and the organic weapons and sensors of the escort group acting as resilience and a second layer of defence.
All a sub can do is hide from an MPA which means its harder to prosecute an attack on ships. But a sub can fight other ships and especially go for very valuable assets.
Here’s a mad idea from a man with no idea about how to successfully prosecute a sub :-)
Seeing as we cannot “sweep the enemy from the seas” or keep designated lanes open as we lack the resources, sonobuoys and MAD are not effective enough, why don’t we develop a loitering, slow speed (with dash capability) UUV armed with lightweight torpedos that can be airdropped ahead of a task force or in a choke point, which can then search autonomously for subs, being recoverable via ship, helicopter or Fulton STARS? Might make a C130/A400 MPA rather useful :-)
APATS,
Thanks.
So are we saying that MPA plays no part in the hunt for SSBNs? It’s only for SSN/SSK attacks on convoys, ports, etc?
Phil,
Makes sense, I just thought that something like 2087 had a 50+nm range per reflection. Engaging with MPA then certainly makes sense (as does a flight of Merlin).
@ S O
“Really?
Are you aware that NATO was most concerned since its Atlantic convoys scheme could not work during the 80′s because the escorts would run out of lightweight torpedoes (the false alarm rate was excessive)?”
Interesting, as far as I am aware this led to a change of NATO tactics when it came to ASW warfare in the event of WW3.
Rather then operate a convoy system NATO ASW forces in the North Atlantic would create as best as possible a sanitised corridor that the fast RoRo and container ships carrying reinforcements for the European front would race through. The ASW forces would operate in that corridor whilst the cargo ships raced through, I presume an attrition rate was built into that.
Looking at the modern situation as I have said elsewhere we really need to break down the different roles that the Nimrod performed. The fact is the RAF inherited the ASW and MPA tasking after the second world war and moved it into one type. When it comes to ASW and ASuW there is a strong argument that the role be performed by platforms operated by the navy. When it comes to maritime surveillance and SAR support then the Coast Guard is probably a better solution with a long range business jet. As for overland surveillance then the Army and RAF should knock their heads together…and keep R1 Sentinel along with various drones! An interesting thing to note is after conversation with Sentinel crew recently, now the Satcom upgrade has gone through there is room for surveillance optics and an over water surface search capability is a software update away to boot!
@ X
They are miles from anyone and upset nobody. We are part of one of the most densely populated continents with good transport infrastructure.
They share a boarder with Russia and they are linked by road to the densly populated continent which we are not.
@ simon
Any route can be kept open with a frigate. Any detected submarine can be prosecuted with the thing that detected it?
The sub can kill the frigate
@ Martin
Only by one bridge via Sweden. And they are adept at keeping the Russians contained. If the bridge is a problem then so is the Chunnel.
Unless you are saying that if Norwegians have a coast guard and a home guard then we need them too only more so. As I have said here before if we had a home guard proportionate in size to the Norwegians it would have a full time strength of 80,000 and a reserve strength approaching 750,000. We have 3 OPVs, the Norwegian CG has 14 vessels.
@Bob
‘Of course this underscores the problem with the SDSR, in order to spare the Army it went excessively after the RAF the extent it has gutted the strike capability, halved the lift fleet, killed the MPA capability and left a huge question mark over ISTAR capability. Its all f**ked’
Don’t get me wrong, I’m no fan of the SDSR and I’ll give you MPA, but the rest of it, really?
The RAF didn’t really care about the Harrier in the end, I’m sure they are rather pleased at managing to retain the Tornado fleet at near full strength (even a cut of 2 squadrons didn’t dent it’s personnel or front-line power), at being able to pour billions in-to an excessive number of Typhoon’s (despite being very sluggish on it’s upgrade path) and at looking ahead to the bright glint of Lightning on the horizon.
The lift fleet, how has it been halved? The older Hercules were always going to be out of service by around now and they have actually purchased additional C17 and BAE 146 as opposed to cutting back. Yes the review nominally ditched the C130J, but I wouldn’t say this represents half of the potential capability, and as discussed on here before I wouldn’t be surprised if a few were retained for SF use.
ISTAR, well yes they made the lunatic decision to axe the Sentinel, but that could well be more to do with the bitter pill of Army cooperation and prioritisation of other RAF assets than anything else (plus it’s all but confirmed that now the Sentinel has proved it’s worth it will be preserved as part of the NATO surveillance commitment, a fact that will probably be very quietly leaked to save face post Afghanistan).
The Army was temporarily ring-fenced, I wouldn’t call a 20% drop in personnel by 2020 ‘being spared’.
The RAF took it’s fare share, perhaps in the short-term more than it’s fair share of the pain. However it’s just not good enough to paint the picture of an innocent, suffering bystander being cut to pieces in favour of others, it’s way too simplistic. Id say it’s future is far clearer and secure than either the RN or the Army. They sacrificed the stuff they didn’t particularly care about in the short-term to preserve the cherished assets for the long-term, they played a very clever game and others have suffered as a result.
Fedaykin; the problem that surface ASW units are too loud & fast at normal freighter cruise speeds (close to 15 kts and more) certainly played a part in making convoys less attractive, too.
@challenger, correct!
(and that’s without going into options for change which culled many in the early 90’s and then mike jackson KCB (keep cutting battalions) did a stealth cut late 90’s-early 00’s.
In the words of max boyce “i know because i was there”
PS to stay on thread have you seen the range and speed of the new gulfstream? quick excerpt from the article;
“The test program included a flight on May 2, 2010, in which the aircraft flew at its maximum operating speed of Mach 0.925 for the first time, and a high speed cruise in October 2010 when a test aircraft completed a 5,000-nautical mile (9,260 km) lap at Mach 0.90 over the Atlantic Ocean in 9 hours and 45 minutes.”
full article here, it’s gulfstreams biggest aircraft to date
http://www.gizmag.com/gulfstream-g650-faa-type-certification/24104/
and from the gulfstream site (note the range 12,950km)
http://www.gulfstream.com/products/g650/
@Paul g
Thanks!
I think the crux of my long and rambling argument is that the RN lost a lot in the short-term, and the Army will lose a lot in the long-term.
The RAF however didn’t in my opinion do too badly. They ditched or attempted to ditch the stuff they didn’t really care about, mostly cooperative assets which were of more use to other services. In doing so they preserved what they cherished and Nimrod was not one of them.
I’m sure the RAF would do a good job with a resurrected MPA capability if they actually got it, but lets not pretend that they actually care either way.
Paul g,
The problem with the Gulf Stream is that it is small and has a useful load of 800kg when fuelled. It is designed to get 8 people with suitcases and lap tops between continents quickly.
Also remmeber that any frigate on ASW task to protect those areas would mean -1 for the convoys and attacking/defence strength of a task force (remember re ‘inner defence ring’ for our carrier?).
Re Challenger with BAe146, its a pants aircraft at the taticle stuff, I wouldn’t call it much an ‘increase’ in capablity, more liason and light transport, just dont use it for paras…
Also re Harrier, SirH on his blog did a good series on the realities on that score.
I read somewhere (atm cant find the source :/ )that the DfT has asked for proposals on Maritime survillance with UAV providers – some years away yet and small scale, but was interesting to see MPA being looked at in that sense. Of course doesnt protect assets much… but as with SAR; DfT footing the bill sounds like a good start for the Home waters survillance part, or its maybe just to replace the HM CG’s fixed wing survillance in the future.
Yep that as well S O!
It would of been a huge task even if the corridor was a couple of miles wide … it represents a massive chunk of ocean to keep sanitised! I suppose the newly emerging GPS would of been vital for any such tactic as well! Any contact or loss of ship would of required ASW forces to swarm to that part of the corridor. Presumably the idea was to present so many fast moving targets that Soviet forces would of struggled to keep up with it. Also to take and adapt a line from “The Hunt for Red October”!: NATO forces to keep the Soviets bottled up behind the GIUK gap would of dropped enough sonar buoys so that a man could walk from Greenland to Iceland to Scotland without getting his feet wet.
“it represents a massive chunk of ocean to keep sanitised!”
Now, one could deduce that viz Soviet naval forces, it could actually have been done and done done in many different ways – perhaps we knew a lot about them and their disposition and could track their submarines very well. Maybe that is why the plan was adopted because we knew we could deal with those subs using that concept because we knew where most of them were at any one time and were confident about being able to stop a lot of them getting anywhere near the sea lanes which I imagine would have been as far as south as was practical.
Now planning might have been completely divorced from reality and capability in this instance, but I doubt it in this case as its a very particular and unsexy capability that doesn’t exactly grab headlines or have a massive political implication.
Theres a more fundamental problem and its one I picked up from somewhatinvolved on another post whats the plan for the surveillance fleet period? Gents a big bill is coming and be sure its a bill that will need paying as these are the key assets of future warfare. When we leave afghan shortly we will have in surveillance
defenders/king air/diamond/sentinel/awacs/airseeker/seaking/merlin?/reaper potientally a future mpa and a several other things beside but what the hell are we doing!!!
Some of these will need upgraded some will go some need replaced. WE need a clear thought through plan and this needs to be goal number 1 of SDSR. For example why is the consoles in a merlin not also the consoles in a mpa aircraft only more off them. Why cant similar consoles using a different “app” analyzing data from different sensors in our awac or sigint aircraft?
We then get to aircraft for what type of jobs and what they do. Martime patrol a/c ours and other nations have been very useful over land ect there appears plenty of cross over so can we use the same base aircraft for multiple roles but each a/c has a different equipment fit. Crew size is very important in the awacs, sigint and mpa could this be reduce as the tactical aircraft merlin/f35/reaper gain a much improved situation awareness and battle picture over high capacity networks.
Why are we trying to build a MALE uav with france when we have a perfectly good one at the minute. Has afghan lulled us into some what of a false impression that these a/c are expecting to operate in a totally benign air environment is the iraq operation or libya a better gauge of future surface to air threat?.
Could reaper melin f35 (in there various field) support a larger fleet of biz jet type a/c (global express) doing single role fit wide area surveillance and all feeding in to a small number of much larger battle management a/c (a330) on land or at sea.
Dont know the answer and I dont think ive yet seen a a/c that ticks all the boxes for mpa to be honest, so it may have to be combination of assets for the land littoral or open ocean roles. What ever it is we need to see a future long term plan for both the system/network and aircraft or were going to waste a lot of money on a real bodge, this will only get better if we have a clear thought through goal to achieve I maybe doing MOD a disservice and a plan exists which we haven’t seen but I fear there isnt.
Maybe so Phil, SOSUS and SURTASS at full strength is a capability we will never fully know. I guess the idea was to keep the Russians bottled up as much as possible and use SOSUS/SURTASS as a kind of trip wire along the sanitised corridor.
@All Politicians are the Same, which is why I am suggesting the CSeries.
Its cross section is big enough to allow the crew to spend more time in comfort. Its composite materials make it more corrosion resistant, and extra fuel tanks as well as an internal bomb bay can be added in much the same way as the P8/A319. It is part UK built (Shorts,Belfast) and there is an ally with a similar need and potentially strong interest (Canada)
As an aside when you look at biz jets and weight ect its important to note the interior of some the gx/gulfsteam type jets weights about 6500lbs and youd also remove most of the windows these are heavy and could potentially save several thousand pounds more. Youll still have to be careful not to try and do to much in 1 airframe but there is potential there.
“SOSUS and SURTASS at full strength is a capability we will never fully know.”
It’s my guess that it was probably far better than anyone realises, especially since we still don’t know really how good or bad it was I think it was either very good or very bad and considering the sonar technology we have at the moment I can’t see it having been very bad.
The Soviets were at a massive disadvantage when it came to launching submarine warfare in the N Atlantic. They’d have needed to surge them through the gaps before the shooting started and that would be a major combat indicator that something was up. And I doubt it would have particularly stopped us tracking them.
It seems to me too that it would have been very easy to simply lazily plan to use whatever escorts were available to protect super-convoys and just try and smash them through. That something else was developed, another solution evolved, suggests to me we had something up our sleeves or a combination of things up our sleeves.
Could be wrong. But it’s a hunch.
@ wf – its a USV but simlar concept…
http://bitterendblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/Piranha_AirDrop_g-300×214.jpg
http://www.zyvexmarine.com/piranha-usv
@Mark
To accentuate the positives of what you say: by withdrawing a lot of the worn out and obsolete legacy assets you listed we can free up a lot of operating budget for the replacement.
A lot of crew, fuel and maintenance lines that can go twards the operating costs of a new fully flexible Land/Sea/Air ISTAR platform.
My hunch is that with advances in data sharing and miniturisation it can be smaller than an airliner with no more than 4 or 5 mission crew on board. That will help acheive long endurance for less expense.
By making the consoles and equipment pods detatchable you also achieve a lifelong upgrade path. Payloads not platforms etc.
I don’t think that the MOD has any real current concern about killing subs – whose would they be? The real problem naval problem is the “knife fight in a telephone box “of the straits of Hormuz scenario………… unfolding any time soon.
While Nimrod might have seemed great if it had happened, I believe it would have never lasted long as a state of the art capability that would have justified the expense of buying and running it.
While It may not have been intentional; the MOD may have delivered a long term gain by cancelling Nimrod MPA, I think that I’d much rather wait for the UAV/ USV technology to mature a bit and then invest in a range of capabilities- massive radar search from a large hybrid airship, high speed strike from a deployed missile with Perseus type multiple targeting and a future UAV with the ability to cover continental distances at high mach and then deliver a UAS into the water that is both hunter and killer.
Which I know most will think SCI FI but I just don’t believe that the alternatives to manned ASW will take all that long to mature.
I’d much rather save my money while the threat is low and then pile into new technology when funds for many others will be limited and we can have first mover advantage.
A hybrid airship with a payload of 100 tons and endurance of weeks and speed of 100 knots is not new technology it’s just writing the contract; touch down at Ascension every once in a while and it could deploy all sorts of payloads and not run short of stock while using small UAV sensors at great range.
MPA as we are used to it is a flawed concept,……. in that the target is slow and enduring and the response is quick and tires. Much better match up is endurance in theatre and rapid and final munitions.
What in God’s name is the purpose of sona buoys and then small torpedoes, much better to deliver a killer hunter/ under water/ UAS at range (from your airborne command vessel) and kill it when you see it.
Well we have the sci fi option. Perisher will be suspended immediately due to unmanned UUV being able to do the job.
The enemy will never shoot down our air ship or jam our signals.
On a serious note RW, once you let a capability go rebuilding it is not as simple as buying new kit. The training and experience involved in ASW Ops is extensive.
You are also face with the original problem of detecting the submarine in order to know where to deploy your hunter/killer vehicle.
Well I suppose the advantage of a sanitised corridor is the escorts don’t have to come in to meet up with super convoys. They all stay out only coming back for supply and refit. That the maximum number of ASW types are out and the harbour facilities are not overwhelmed all at once with lots of escorts sitting like eggs in a basket! The ASW types are spread out along the corridor and the choke points responding to SOSUS/SURTASS hits. Not forgetting the major NATO ASW frigate types also had towed arrays, performance of those is probably best in open water rather then in close proximity of a large convoy.
Of course the real Soviet naval punch was those huge numbers of Badger and Backfire anti ship bombers. They had them in huge numbers many with Supersonic anti ship missiles.
Convoy defence was a major concern of DK Brown. Which is why he wanted to maximise the number of ASW helicopters and hulls with a DDH/Corvette hi-lo mix and believed the convoys would go far south (same latitude as Canary Islands?) – this increased the distance for Soviet bombers, increasing their risk of interception and for their refueling tankers, which he believed would be very vunerable.
Martin,
“The sub can kill the frigate”
I hope not, I’ve spent ages on the T26 threads here ;-)
@ X
“As I have said here before if we had a home guard proportionate in size to the Norwegians it would have a full time strength of 80,000 and a reserve strength approaching 750,000. We have 3 OPVs, the Norwegian CG has 14 vessels.”
What would we do with this reserve and coast guard. We don’t have sufficient funds for our current military. Wasting billions on a massive reserve and coast guard would decimate our existing force structure. It would provide zero benefit to the country. We scrapped national service for a reason and it was the right thing to do even in the cold war. Going back to it now just seems silly.
@ Martin,
Leave the EU and suddenly our waters would become restricted ground (or waters). That might justify a coastguard of some degree. If they operated the MPA/SAR that would free up funds in the MoD. At least in theory.
Can’t see us leaving the EU and if HMG ain’t going to cut health, benefits or DFID then the money for the Coast Guard is going to come from defence.
It would be nice to take a long look at all ISTAR platform’s and come up with a coherent plan covering fewer platform types. However given the widely different jobs these platform’s perform and the way they do it I suspect we would come up to a set up very like what we have.
We can pin hopes on UAV’s etc but the current systems like the Global Hawk BAMS are far more expensive (and in many ways less capable) than a cheaper manned alternative like re winged P3 or M295 etc.
We are where we are and we can ill afford another sci fi type project that will take billions of pounds and years to deliver for such a crucial capability. Lets just go out an buy something cheap and off the shelf. If we have to flog it on in 10 years for some magic new UAV then we can do that.
@ Martin re coastguard and militia
Never said we needed one or the other; OK we need a coastguard we always need more ships. My point was different countries put difference emphasis on different aspect of defence for different reasons. It is interesting to compare who does what and why. Um. An illustration. Another aspect of that argument is does the UK need a large army because of the Channel? Historically for two prosperous centuries GB had the world’s best navy and was defended. The Continental powers with land borders fielded large armies. Different emphasis because of geography. What I wonder is why the Norwegians have no difficulty in fielding a well motivated and trained reserve force (a field force not specialists), while the UK struggles do similar. Why are Norwegians different to the British? Clausewitz’s triangle of government, army, and the people etc. etc. and so on. Um. And there are different aspects to defence as I said. It seems, and we have to not take the lazy Left wing view of it being scare tactics (such views are prevalent amongst those who went through the tertiary system during the New Labour era and held by those too young to remember a time before mass immigration and are too stupid to question the alarm of their elders), that we have no control over our borders. One could cay the UK Border Agency is a defence organisation that is poorly funded. It could be argued that HMG doesn’t care about military force to protect the home islands nor does it care about the borders, if the first duty of a government is to defend the state then it is failing to do so, and is consequently not fit for purpose. Security is very wide and varied field.
Well its not so much that we need a Coast Guard…we already have one.
They already perform MPA work using fairly small types, there is a VERY strong argument that the long range SAR support and MPA work formorly performed by the Nimrod should be performed by the Coast Guard.
A number of countries use their Coast Guard in that way and operate longer legged types in the role. Something like a long range business jet in the long range MAP and SAR support role and a high wing commuter airliner twin turboprop closer in. A good pairing would be the Dassault 900MPA and the Bombardier Dash 8 operated on a turnkey COGO (Contractor Owned, Government Operated) basis.
As for for ASW and ASuW I see an argument for the blue water side of the role to be performed by ships and helicopters already in service whilst brown water should be performed by a type like the EADS C-295 ASW/MPA. The RN should operate them with sensor operators pulled through from the Merlin training stream and pilots converted from helicopter operations along with a number rotating from the FAA fast jet community. Actually its a way for the FAA to maintain a larger pilot pool by moving them between F35B and MPA/ASW type.
How about this
http://www.casr.ca/ft-fwsar-dorschner-3.jpg
Supported by this
http://www.casr.ca/id-aerospace-daly-cseries-4.jpg
As a lo-hi mix
@ X – I am sure as with the Norwegians if we had been a pacifist neutral nation in 1940 and subject to the humiliation of occupation by a foreign power not to mention being a resource rich nation with a contentious boarder with Russia that we to would be prepared to have a large standing army of reservists. But we were able to defend ourselves in 1940 and eventually win that war.
I take your point about UK boarder agency. If we are all being honest in the modern world this is the point were the UK is most at risk from attack and I think we should increase the forces capability. However unlike countries in the med of the USA I don’t think we have a big issue with illegal immigrants coming to the UK on a boat. Most of ours either smuggle in on trucks and trains or simply over stay there visa’s. I don’t think a bigger coast guard will help.
I see very little of the UK military required for home defence. Our emphasis has always been and should always be expeditionary warfare. Taking the fight to a potential adversary a long way from home. Politics of the 20th century took that luxury away from us. However now its back and we should exploit it primarily with a bigger Navy and a more expeditionary army which could become in effect the USMC of Europe.
Whilst I doubt it will be ever built Dave the CSeries based MPA/ASW type is rather interesting. I like the large cargo door, if the consoles are palletised the aircraft could be re-rolled fairly easy.
@ Martin
I suppose the occupation theory has some merit. I am off to look at Dutch and Belgian reserve forces now. But it doesn’t explain say the Swiss…
I have given up trying to explain the swiss. No idea how watches and coco clocks can generate such a high per capita GDP :-)
The Belgians and Dutch had large reserves in 1940 (much good it did them)I suppose they learned a different lesson i.e. join the EU to stop France and Germany fighting.
Our lesson was keep the USA on side and never trust the French. One that call me Dave me be about to forget. :-)
martin says “coco clocks”
Was that deliberate or an amusing accident? :)
an amusing accident, Its Friday night and I have had a few beers :-)
Coco clocks think of the possibilities LOL
What hasn’t been picked up on here yet folks is what the Nimrod actually did for us. It protected the nuclear deterrent, a central pillar of UK strategy and influence on the international stage. We may all want to ditch the bomb and live in trees, but the nuclear card still buys us a seat at the top table. We have hardly any frigates left and the numbers of Merlin are being chopped, so how the hell do you guarantee the independent deterrent capability? Russia is not a friendly nation and their navy is getting back on its feet with some still very capable nuclear powered attack submarines.
For those arguing the toss about using business jets instead of an MPA, we’ve gone over this more times than I care to remember. MPA’s work – but they need buoys, MAD, intel and support from FFTA’s. I’m in the business – trust me. By all means split the SAR requirement out and find some sort of long ranged Coastguard plane to locate lost sailors and drug runners, but we need a proper MPA. They don’t randomly criss-cross the ocean hoping to spot a careless Russkie, but I’m not going into nuclear vs. conventional ASW again.
Unfortunately the discussion is entirely moot because the detail can’t be discussed. There is still a threat. Anyone who says otherwise had better be a high level MOD civil servant or maritime expert, or else you have no idea what you’re talking about (and certainly not on this site).
What staggers me is how an RAF AVM can admit to a Defence Committee that as far as MPA is concerned, “They are not actively being considered, because we have not decided whether we have a requirement”. This idiot is either blind drunk, stupid or playing a bizarre political power play game. As I said before, the only ones pushing for MPA are the RN at the moment – but since the numbers of T26 are under threat again, we have plenty of other tigers to fend off.
Here’s a question. If there is no need for an MPA capability, then why do Portugal, Spain, France, Germany, Norway, Canada and the US still maintain an active MPA capability – which, by the way, we have to request on a frequent basis to conduct tasking in the North Atlantic? Even Portugal flies P3’s – and they’re broke!! We are the only idiots on the shores of the North Atlantic (apart from the Dutch) who have failed to procure an MPA.
My kingdom for a joined up strategy!!
@ SI – I suppose its the issue of the RAF flying MPA. They don’t really give a s**t. Hopefully we will get an MPA at some point soon after 2015 and hopefully it will be in Fleet Air Arm hands. If we were to pon of the civilian role to the coast guard how many would we need for vital tasking? Could we get by with say three?
My main issue is that if the navy has to pay for it which looks likely then no doubt they will have to horse trade away something else (not that there is much else to trade off).
I still really like the re-winged P3. Surely a by of 3 or even 6 of these is with in uncle Phils rainy day fund.
@ Somewhat
I mentioned SSBN further up……..
@SI
“We may all want to ditch the bomb and live in trees”
No! I want my floating Project Utopia style Stromberg Palace!
– Layout
– Another article
I don’t know about P-3 airframe availability, but as I’ve mentioned before, in a pinch there’ll always be the fallback option of a few French Atlantiques. There’s at least 9 surplus Atlantiques for sale, plus all the maintenance & training facilities aren’t very far away, in Brittany.
My main problem when people talk about using existing assets to cover the MPA problem is the immediate question of availability.
We hear discussions about Merlin’s off of aviation ships, T23 patrols, re-role Sentinel’s Hercules conversions, A400m conversions etc…
Maybe a combination of these methods would efficiently bridge the gap, who knows! Before I even think of the potential capability I get a shudder of horror at the possibility of using existing assets in this way. Every service is already being pushed to breaking point, their just aren’t the resources the go around.
I defiantly believe that multi-role airframes are the way forwards as opposed to single role ‘bespoke’ stuff like the Poseidon. I just hope and pray that if we do go down the former route that it is an extension of an existing fleet with new airframes and not squeezing yet more utility out of pre-existing ones.
Surely whilst we’re not actually at war we should use our military assets for something of use (other than training)… As long as they still retain their projected life.
Merlin, Sentinel or Shadow for MPA makes a lot of sense (to me), at least as a platform to be replaced when they grow too old. Why not get maximum use out of older airframes for something that is not 100% completely critical (I’m working on the fact that if it was critical it would actually exist already).
@ TOC – Someone watched too much Bond as a child… Would chat longer but I must return to my desert island nuclear powered underground base…
The report mentions the MOD studying lighter than air – any info on that available?
Martin, I think you need more than that. I would be picking numbers truly at random here but lets assume you need one available 24/7, a second at some hours notice and a third in case of failure. Normally you need to triple or quadruple that number to address long term maintenance, sustainability and surge capacity plus of course the need to train train train to become effective. But I’m not on familiar territory here – maybe 6 could be just as effective. We were only due to get 9 MRA4’s.
That said I still think the SAR requirement would best be addressed by retaining 3 or 4 Hercs and extending their life. The radar in the J is advertised as being sea search capable, and I would suggest that you don’t need a SAR aircraft in the air all the time. So 3 or 4 in Coastguard service would do fine. I would concede that a long ranged business jet, suitably modified, could also do the same role but the ability to air drop liferafts and/or emergency supplies and fly low with a searchlight to spot survivors/debris would tend to favour the turboprop Herc rather better.
France will need to replace it’s Atlantiques soon. It would be fascinating to get some insight on their future requirements and future MPA.
“We have hardly any frigates left and the numbers of Merlin are being chopped, so how the hell do you guarantee the independent deterrent capability?”
Hide them in
(1) Irish Sea
(2) English Channel
(3) Northern Mediterranean (Especially Adriatic Sea)
These regions can be 99% defended against surface and aerial threats, and relatively few low frequency active sonars suffice to seal them off against hostile subs of any kind.
You need no ASW MPA for this.
SI,
I concur fully with you on some form of SAR Herc. Are you suggesting an Anglo French MPA buy?
Wasn’t it 5 Nimrods to have 1 available?
@ST
That made me chuckle, excellent!
@Somewhat Involved
I can help you out with some sortie rates. I’m an ex-P3 Nav/Tacco ( from Oz). Obviously for something relatively short-term, three aircraft means that you always have a spare when one goes U/S but as you start to extend the range a little and you extend the duration of the task, more aircraft become necessary. I recall one exercise in the 90s that involved keeping track of a potentially hostile sub for a couple weeks as the exercise hostilities slowly ramped up to open conflict. In that case we needed six aircraft and still occasionally suffered a break in coverage as aircraft maintenance issues began to bite.
And that’s the reality of how these sorts of things will kick off. There will be lots of surface and subsurface targets to keep track of and too few assets and you will be wearing them out for months, if not years, before hostilities. (Australia has had 2 P3s in the Middle East continuously since 2001). If your threat is a relatively serious one and the bad guys can generate more than two submarines, you’re sure to need more than a dozen MPA, and that’s without considering a whole host of other duties these aircraft will have to be prioritised against.
Since I’ve stopped lurking and actually made a comment, I should just say something about P-8 that’s been bugging me as I have read through the discussion. Basically, I think you guys are giving it a bad rap and writing it off as a cost-effective option. It has reasonable low level performance now that the bank angle has been increased to 60% (as planned). It has demonstrated a parachute-retarded Mk54 drop at 500 feet, which means it’s likely that any other light weight torpedo is probably also compatible with the aircraft.
Also, the reason why a high altitude/stand off Mk54 is planned is not really aircraft performance, but the threat imposed by submarine launched SAMs. After all, if you drop the weapon and score a hit, the performance of the aircraft doesn’t matter anymore because you can go home. It’s also why trawling around at low level doing MAD runs is a bad idea. In addition, in some circumstances, particularly against nukes, there’s a lot to gained from a long-range, high level launch of the weapon beyond the range where the submarine can hear the aircraft approaching. But the big one is the threat. It’s just a different sort of ball game these days. The days of running in and investigating Riser-Sinkers at lower levels are just gone.
Wait until increment2 though to place your order. I concede the initial version is very basic and not really an advance on the current AP-3C, for example.
@ SI – My issue with the herc’s is it seems to be a plan very much aimed at search and rescue rather than hunting subs. If the navy has to invest in a platform (looks like no one else will) then it should be purely devoted to war fighting needs. Given the present staff and money being expended on seed corn (most of who are flying P3’s anyway) and the wide availability of P3 airframes and training facilities a UOR for a couple of hundred million could get us three of four operational P3’s very quickly. They could me initially manned with RAF personal incorporating FAA pilots on training so relatively quickly the navy could once again have an MPA capability. It would not be great but it’s better than nothing. If HMG identifies a need for long range air sea rescue then the RAF or the Coast Guard can worry about that.
This may then allow us to participate with European partners at some point in the future when they replace there MPA fleet’s
The UK is the only country I can think of that can identify a need in the SDR 1998 to have the world’s best MPA aircraft bar none then in 2010 decide that it does not require any form of MPA what so ever. I really must ask the question of what changed between 1998 and 2010.
The obvious reason is lack of money. The men at the ministry should just simply come out and say that. We really need it but can’t afford it. Not all this BS about surplus to requirements etc etc.
@ SO
“Hide them in
(1) Irish Sea
(2) English Channel
(3) Northern Mediterranean (Especially Adriatic Sea)”
I once proposed an idea for a diesel electric missile sub using AIP on a monthly patrol carrying SLBM’s. The sub could simply hang around the Irish sea or west coast of Scotland inside a protected box. It’s obviously not as survivable as the present platform but probably good enough and it would save us spending tens of billions on a weapon that only really has political value.
@Fedyakin – well the Canadians do have 21 P3C variants which need replacing. At our lowest ebb we were going to get 9 Nimrods. So that’s 30 airframes for an MPA … Airbus said it needed an order of 20 plans to launch the A319.
And I think there are some nations out there who think the P8 is too much bird, but wanted something a bit more than a TP.
As for a Q400, the Canadians might go for a FWSAR variant and there is already a paper MPA awaiting an order
As scraping nimrod was a result of the very bad raf what did the navy offer up to save it?
Why are the US navy removing mad from there patrol aircraft if its a must have?
C-series commercial a/c price is similar to that of a 737. It gives all of the same problems with conversion and operation but with a much smaller world wide network not to mention its still a uncertified paper plane. As for it being composite well it’s exactly the same as the a400m in that regard. We cant afford p8 we can’t afford c-series. We may all want a nimrod esq capability but we cant afford it so we will need to compromise on some capability or continue as we are.
Maintaining 3 or 4 hercs would be very expensive. And p3 conversion while an option is not a quick fix see air seeker for time line. In the end all 3 service chiefs signed this off for it to comeback which I think it should it will be very different to what left.
TOC
Shh that’s TD’s lair where he sits stroking his light blue cat Mr TEU, and plotting the demise of the FAA and CVF….
Welcome to TD Mercator
Martin said “I once proposed an idea for a diesel electric missile sub using AIP on a monthly patrol carrying SLBM’s.”
Once a surface ship displaces more than 8000t the space required for various type of propulsion system is roughly equal for a given performance. That is to say diesels, gas turbines, steam, nuclear, or combination of those all take up the same amount of volume within hull though that volume will be distributed in different ways.
Another odd fact that as a general rule of thumb the space available in a submarine is about 2/3 that of a ship of a similar displacement (that is surfaced displacement not submerged).
The idea of a 16 tube AIP SSBK is truly sublime. Of course the anti-nuclear bods hate the propulsion systems as much as the weapon. But what an idea. I have visions of Typhoon-esque design…..
The answer must be the A400MM (second M for Maritime).
We are buying the thing anyway, it has good range and can carry loads. Massive amounts of space inside, we could have a T23 ops room up front of hold for the RN and an Indian Restaurant aft for the RAF.
Seriously though, let’s talk to our new best mates in Paris get a hold of those 13 air frames the krauts do not want and design an MPA variant using off the shelf modular tech.
We went from Biplanes to jets between 1939 and 1945 am I to believe now we could not manage a means of deploying weapons and buoys from the hold if required.
This will have the double benefit of filling our MPA gap and increasing the export potential.
I would also ensure that the MPA variant can be refueled extending its endurance to fully take advantage of its capacity to carry weapons and sensors.
@ Martin
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_K_class_submarine
@ All
A400m is the way to go. But 12 x £100m
(base cost with out the wizardry) would buy you a squadron of large ASW helicopter (for SSBN route control), some long range fixed wing capability for surveillance and search (without the need for ASW gubbins), and some RFA hulls to act as lily pads for the ASW helicopters (with the range of a Merlin-like helicopter that is questionable).
(Actually a decent fast escort towing a noise maker could cover the SSBN in and out…)
EDIT: When I say escort I mean it more in it is dictionary sense and not frigate or destroyer or surface combatant. :) )
X,
But then we still would not have an MPA capability?
Maybe before we go: “We need this because everyone else has it.” or “We need this because we’ve always had it.”, we might want to think of WHY MPA is needed. If as proposed, the job was to protect your strategic assets as they exit, both MPA and ship escorts do the job well enough, so having MPA for a job duplicated by the Navy is a waste of resources unless for some reason you want capability redundency.
The important question would then be “What can MPA bring to the table that ships cannot?” I’ve nothing against redundency, but first, there must be a coherent plan as to the roles being played and how it intergrates into the Armed Forces framework.
I can see MPA as a QRF force to sprint to an area and dropping a torp/harpoon on a contact reported by Navy ships which are not quite in position, or the reverse, MPA being used as pickets who will then guide ships to intercepts. How you want to do it plays a part in equipment selection. For the former, you’d primarily want speed, for the latter, you’d want endurance. So it’s not just “Woo nice plane! Let’s buy it!”, but how you want to play the game as well.
Observer, It offers the best combination of speed, endurance, range and flexibility within a single platform. Therefore making it an extremely useful platform for any Commander when planning ASW action.
Their ability to drop buoys and monitor them can deter a sub or herd it or locate and attack it.
As for the SSBN thing, SI has already stated that Ships and Helos do not offer the same level of service. I agree with him.
@ APATS
Yes. I am just devoicing the ASW part to helicopters (to protect the SSBN) and SS work to a simpler platform. A EMB145 say with just radar would cost what about £25million? For the price of 4 A400m we could have 12. Just waffling on, don’t mind me. :)
An MRA400 was the RAF’s first choice from the start – they only went with the bodge of rewinging Nimrod because they were worried about the delays to the A400 meaning their first choice would lead to a gap in MPA capability from around 2010. So that plan worked….
@Observer
Planes give you speed, which can be vital if your sensor network (SOSUS, SSN etc) picks up fleeting contacts out in the convergence zones. A Nimrod could get somewhere in 6 minutes that it would take a frigate 2 hours to reach, and that makes a big difference to the area you have to search at the other end.
They also have a big weapons load compared to a helicopter, which is handy considering the relatively small no-escape zone of a lightweight torpedo. Escape is much harder if there’s two torpedoes coming at the sub from different directions. Multiple torpedoes are also really handy against big buggers like an Oscar or SSBN, which are unlikely to be killed by just one or two Stingray. Extra weapons are also really handy if (as is likely) you have an SSN escorting it.
The USN are looking at drones to complement MPA, to take on the boring task of keeping track of subs. They’ve funded a tech demonstrator for the ASW Continuous Trail Unmanned Vehicle (ACTUV) trimaran from SAIC to trail diesel subs.
http://media.saic.com/videos/unmanned-autonomous-vehicles-and-vessels
I kinda like the idea of a couple of Global Express as a near-term maritime sensor platforms (whether a Sentinel derivative or not) with some rudimentary ability to help in SAR and then a longer term plan for a bigger torpedo dropping plane. Get some second-hand A340 and stick 1-2 rotary launchers in there which can also take Storm Shadow, your ASW plane can double as FOAS….. Obviously it would need a proper “Avro” name with a maritime twist – the Lytham or Blackpool?
@Mark … the list price of a CS100 is US$58m. The list price of a B737-800 is US$84.4m. The Boeing is 30% more expensive as a basic airframe.
Additionally the wings on a CS100 are built in Belfast and of course there is export potential whereas if we buy an off the shelf P8 Poseidon we get no benefit with this plus we would have to rework all the plumbing for inflight refuelling.
The CS100 also has more modern and fuel efficient engines
Mercator, welcome and thanks. That’s a great insight into the P8 and sortie rates. There has been talk that the P8 is more suited to the Pacific task but I for one cannot see much different between the North Atlantic and Pacific patrol tasks. Clearly Australia sees the P8 as a viable replacement but I still have my reservations, probably doctrinal as much as anything. Fascinating that you think the sub-SAM threat is more significant – I would regard it very much as a weapon of last resort, as it gives away your position and makes a fairly convincing case for a hostile act. As for numbers, sounds about right. We need plenty of pelicans in the skies if we have a long-duration tracking exercise – I know a couple of Nimrod TACCO’s who happily got through 2-300 buoys on a couple of missions, and my Dad was a Nimrod pilot for many years and shares the same thoughts.
An Anglo-French MPA wouldn’t be a bad thing but the cost of modifying a civvy airliner to a military task is not inconsiderable. My question was simply to see if anyone had any insight into French plans to replace their Atlantiques any time in the near future – rumours are that they are all pretty much knackered and the availability rate is poor.
martin, I think you misunderstand me. I absolutely want to divorce the SAR task from the MPA task and from the military as a whole. The Hercs must be painted red and white with COASTGUARD on the side, and have civvy crews. I want a proper Coastguard that flies helicopters and fixed wing who are solely responsible for SAR in the UK Sea Areas and I want us to take our responsibilities for the safety of mariners seriously for a change. I also want a proper Coastguard that operates a number of surface ships who will not only rescue mariners but also stop drug runners, illegal immigrants and Spanish fisherman from raping our seas. I want a Coastguard that guards our bloody coast!
I want a Navy that projects power overseas and assures the independence of the nuclear deterrent. I want an MPA that can operate in support of both Navy task groups operating in hostile littoral waters with a significant SSK threat, and which can defend our home waters approaches and protect the strategic nuclear deterrent from a foreign SSN. I want an RAF that understands the aviation requirements of BOTH Army and Navy and procures aircraft and devises a grand strategy that actually fulfils that. I do NOT want an RAF that continually tries to prove that wars can be fought and won from the air alone.
Mark, what a barking comment to make. “As scraping nimrod was a result of the very bad raf what did the navy offer up to save it?” It’s not our f***ing job to tell the RAF how to deliver an integrated UK military aviation policy. However, the project wasn’t cancelled because the RAF failed to put up a case to save it. It was cancelled because the MOD and RAF as a combined entity singularly failed to procure a project to a reasonable budget or timeframe and completely, utterly and totally failed to deliver even a vague hint of project management capability. That also is not our job. We have a Navy to run – we expect the RAF and Army to know how to do their jobs.
You cannot hide a 16,000 ton SSBN in the Irish Sea or Channel. An SSBN needs to disappear. It can never so much as raise a periscope during a patrol. The Irish Sea and Channel are too shallow, too busy and too noisy for a submarine to safely navigate for months on end. They must disappear off the continental shelf and hide in great ocean currents, eddies and fronts, protected by the SOSUS network and our forces. We don’t ride shotgun on them – we respond to foreign incursions that may threaten the safety and security of the bomber. And an SSBK? Great – your nuclear deterrent is nice and secure – until it has to snorkel to charge batteries. Honestly you must all think we’re best buddies with everyone in the world, who would possibly want to do anything nasty to the Brits?
@El Sid
I know about the speed factor of the MPA, that was one of the “styles” of engaging the enemy I was talking about, the QRF (quick reaction force). I’m just pointing out that it’s hardly the only way to play the game.
@APATS
I do agree MPA does have pros and cons, I was just pointing out that operational tactics should drive equipment requirements rather than the other way round.
Personally though, I have my doubts about a MPA A400M being the last word in MPA. For one, it’s expensive, not to mention actually overspecced for the job (which also feeds into the price tag). There is also the problem of wing pylons, especially when the 4 blades totally block any flightpath of a wing launched weapon, and if you want a bomb bay, you’ll need to redesign the underside all over again. Of course you can chuck sonobuoys out the back, as well as fit in rear firing torpedos, but anti-ship missiles would be a harder proposition, your radar is facing the wrong way, and it would have to overcome the initial “drag” of flying the wrong way before it can start accelerating to the target, reducing the range.
I’m betting something smaller and cheaper like the converted bizjets suggested or small cargo planes might be a better proposition. Twin engined to clear the outer edges for wing pylons or tail-mounted engines. Small, cheap, handy, flexible. And if old, easily sold as cheap surplus to other countries that can’t afford big ticket A400s.
@ Somewhat re SSBK
One was joking. The idea of huge diesel powered submarine just tickled me.
Further I am the one here who always wants to up the deterrent’s defence. Unlike you navy bods with your soft kill and lets not put missiles on a ship just in case it offends.
Observer, The job of my MPA is ASW, frankly any ASuW capability is a bonus. Nimrod did not carry Harpoon for a long time before was taken out of service. I will leave it to the geeks to work out if it can carry an AShM, more worried about Ships potentially not carrying them.
I do not want a small business jet that can barely carry 2 tonnes or a slow short range cargo planes. I want to be able to stay airborne for a long time doing my ASW job. See SI point about buoy usage. Pitching up with 2 hours endurance and 30 buoys is just wasting tax payers money as it is operationally inconsequential.
Nimrod MRA4 was going to cost 400 million a pop, A400M will be under that. Especially if we utilise the German airframes they do not want.
If the design is modular enough to allow the airframe to be used for cargo, even with limitations it will aid export orders and export orders equal rebates!
Edit
X, When I have I said that a Ship should not have an AShm capability?
x, I know you were joking but others might not!
The A400M is no MPA-design, and we are short of transports anyway.
Maybe the software developer in me tells me, that applying the separation of concerns pattern is highly appopriate to solve maritime surveillance (and indeed any surveillance).
We have this tiny little BAE Mantis. With a little imagination…
1) Would it be possible to come up with 20 of them configured with a SeaSpray 7500 (for commonality), a MAD or sonobuoys to get a “explorer”-node?
2) Would the same be applicable to AEW through equipping them with Vixen radar or a Vigilance-pod?
3) Would it be possible to get a further 20 to be armed with Stingray, FASGW-H, SPEAR Cap 3, maybe a simple chain-gun or even laser-guided bombs to get a “killer”-node?
4) What aircraft & comms are required to get flying command-post as a backbone? Wouldn’t Sentinel be appopriate?
5) Why not use the SSBN connected to it’s own guard-UAV through satellite comms as a command post?
6) Five years down the road, can they be equipped with a lift-fan and folding wings, to make them available to the RN?
Just asking…
SI
Why barking? You listed all the things that an mpa does which all have a bearing on the Navy funny enough so if when all the chiefs got round the table and someone said lets ditch nimrod why didnt the first sea lord say hold on a minute I need this capability and along with or independent of the RAF come up with a way to pay for it. Most navys have a mpa (much like the FAA fly merlin asw) or was it a case of I really want a mpa as long as it comes out of the rafs operations budget. RAF said we cant afford such an asset solely for maritime patrol(due to numbers being reduced so far) navy said nor can we so the man from the treasury said its cut then.
Mark,
You ignore the fact that the Detterent although maintained by the Navy is a central strategic asset.
It would be typical of the RAF to play inter service Politics by offering up the Nimrod in the hope that the RN would offer a saving elsewhere and then scrap it 4 years later to buy some shiny Typhoons.
It takes a long time to forget moving Australia!
McZ, Why can we not have an MPA version of an A400?
Mantis is a demonstrator at the moment and whilst I think it has incredible potential in ISR and even light surface strike it cannot carry anywhere near the payload required to be a uselful ASW asset. It would take 30 of them to try ands simply fit a useful buoy load for a single mission.
Making the nuclear detterent constantly transmit is one of the stranger ideas I have ever heard.
@APATS
ROFL, you still remember the moving Austraila incident?! That was such a long time ago. Amusing though.
Think the quoted price for an A400M (off wiki, so no idea how reliable it is) was 136M Euros, this is the stock version.
Pakistan bought 8 2nd hand P-3s from the US for 970M USD IIRC. That’s ~100M Euros per. Not too bad a deal for a plane that’s designed to do MPA from the get go. As long as the frames are good, 2nd hand is nothing to sniff at.
@ APATS
‘RN would offer a saving elsewhere and then scrap it 4 years later to buy some shiny Typhoons.’
If I read Mark’s comment right I think he meant, the navy making savings and paying for the lot from then on for MPA, thus no-one else would be able to cut it (Treasury apart).
‘It takes a long time to forget moving Australia!’
Fancy a peak at that map? ;)
The short term option to regain the MPA capability would be to lease a number of ex-US P3’s to cover the gap until a permanent solution is found. The French decision is probably the most relevant to us as all other operators are using P3’s which have at least a decade of service life remaining. Seedcorn is well placed to regenerate such a capability.
Mark you are so far from the truth of SDSR that it’s unreal. There was no ’round the table’ discussion. The SDSR was implemented by MOD and the Defence Secretary, not the Services. In any event, the RN wasn’t even able to save the four Type 22’s, an LPD, LSD(A) and Ark Royal, so what makes you think they had a hope in hell of persuading them to retain Nimrod? And the term ‘maritime patrol aircraft’, funnily enough, is extremely relevant to the Navy which is why I quote Navy tasking. What else do you think maritime patrol aircraft do – deliver ration packs to the front line? Search and rescue is NOT a military task – it is a civilian task and should be done by a civilian agency. Same applies to fishery protection.
A maritime patrol capability is a critical part of our defence posture, inherently bound up in both the strategic deterrent and the ability to project power overseas by naval assets. The decision to eliminate it was done for the right reasons – financial – but there were, in my opinion, plenty of other assets that could have been, and should have been cut before the MPA capability was cut without replacement.
@ APATS re AShM
SI knew I was being silly, why not you?
@ SI
An SSBK would be a monster of a thing. But I am determined to get a working concept. Even if it displaces 100,000t…..
X,
Not sure I yet have your blessing to address you in posts let alone point out you are being silly? :)
SI
Well if the heads of the 3 services were not involved in sdsr then there’s something seriously wrong with how defense is run. Exactly the point im making as mpa is extremely relevant to the royal navy why didnt it take it over, I guess it could afford it either.
I can see why nimrod went the numbers became so small im not sure we actually had a deployed capability and should one have crash ect we could not have replaced it. The name nimrod and the connection with the crash in afghan probably had some political consideration. It was linked to all that was bad with defense procurement and would have been quite expensive to run. When the overland role was taken over by other assets and afghan being top priority I can start to join dots especially as it was reported the nimrod wasn’t doing much mpa prior to cancellation due to reduced numbers.
@ APATS
Never take me throwing a wendy too seriously. I never ever mean it.
@ Mark
‘The name nimrod and the connection with the crash in afghan probably had some political consideration. ‘
No ‘some’ about it, one of the impacts of HC. How much is up for debate, very few will know exactly how much but to my mind there’s little doubt it was an issue. The name itself carried political baggage.
How long have we been without MPA now, how many years?
I think over 2 years now. What are you hinting at?
I think he is hinting about whether we need it or not.
Of course we don’t know how many times the Russian SSNs have been close to a V-boat on patrol.
X, unless you are suggesting an Akula 2 has a passive range advantage over a V boat and can deploy undetected I am going to say none.
Yes and no X, the longer we go without the longer it becomes a difficult proposition to justify. I think the cancellation of MRA4 was criminal, despite the problems but I can understand the thought train.
This is one of those subjects where there are so many permutations and combinations, makes for a very interesting discussion
@TD how often have we provide intel for or given missions to other friendly MPA assets that we would normally have undertaken ourselves?
Wasn’t one of the major issues with MR4A simply how much it had cost and how delayed it was?
@APATS
“McZ, Why can we not have an MPA version of an A400?”
We will not get a dedicated design. The cargo-aircraft-program is still far above £5b over budget, and Airbus will have no appetite for a risky development path just to sell maybe 30 aircraft. That would be mad.
So, all our hopes are a possibility to add modular stuff, which is hard to imagine in case of the sensors. Which means, we maybe get more A400Ms through, but as we will become short of cargo aircraft around 2020, they will not act as MPAs. If this possibility existed, we would have already converted a couple of Hercs.
And – last but not least – I think we simply cannot afford them. If we could, the P-8 would look like a bargain compared.
“Making the nuclear detterent constantly transmit is one of the stranger ideas I have ever heard.”
The main part of communication would be passive. For the few occasions of sending, as long as the enemy is called ‘russian SSN’, what are the odds against using relatively low-energy directed sat-com?
My point was thinking out of the current ‘one platform must fulfil all needs’-pattern. I think, we are doing us harm if we tie too much expectations into one airframe not even in service in its intended role.
On Mantis, I actually guess, you don’t understand my concept. It could also be done by using MQ-9 Reapers. It would be a UAV-version of the old hunter-killer-concept. Basically like the P-8/BAMS-combo, but both UAVs, with one manned command node or a ground station as a backbone. (Btw, having a command-post A400M including an abiltity to refuel UAVs is absolutely feasible, as no changes to the airframe are needed.) On payload, Mantis should eventually match at least a Wildcats load, which is sufficient for two torpedoes or four FASGW-Hs.
@ Chris B
I understand that the platform had all sorts of issues. Someone will undoubtedly know the details.
@ Chris B
That would have been a consideration, it was certainly the language from the gov at the time from what I can remember. How much that actually matter is up for debate but the issues, along with the fallout from HC, you raise wouldn’t have helped it.
@ APATS
I very much doubt they have had a sniff of a V-boat; even if they sailed right passed one by chance. What I was getting we the public, and probably most of the RN outside the submarine service, don’t know for sure what happens out there. As you say it all is very secret squirrel for good reason; we don’t know if there is a threat or not. It isn’t like QRA chasing Bears over the North Sea. The pictures of a V-boat dodging an Akula aren’t going to appear in the Mail or Express with some jingoistic headline.
If they are going to track a V-boat the time to do it is when it deploys. But that would be so tricky even in these days of mass communications that unless your surname is Clancy you wouldn’t believe it possible.
@ TD
Yep.
I mean nine years late and getting on towards a billion quid over budget can’t have helped. And if I remember, there was much doom and gloom talk that the fuselages were so different that the project wasn’t even close to completion.
If the paper specs had worked out though… would have been a beauty.
@ x
‘The pictures of a V-boat dodging an Akula aren’t going to appear in the Mail or Express with some jingoistic headline. ‘
Unless it didn’t dodge it and it was French…
Topman,
Now I am not going to comment on that other than to say if 2 SSBNs can get so close as to be unable to avoid each other, how difficult would it be to track one from range?
Nimrod fuse brackets ect was designed on cad with .010″ tolerance then before it was sent to manufacture 1 or 2 inches of extra material was added all round for trimming on assembly as a condition of supply to ensure it was “common to all a/c”
@ APATS
Just a bit of piss taking :) aren’t you lot supposed to have a sense of humour? ;)
@topman
We do and the ribbing the people onboard at the time got was pretty intensive, I should have edited my post to indicate that but I merely highlighted the technical point it made.
They also had to suffer the indignity of a 0300 move back to the ship lift and scaffold put on a sister boat on an outside berth so the press got no pics. They were buying beers in the back bar for a couple of days.
@SomewhatInvolved
I know Sub-SAM sounds fanciful. I thought so myself the first time I heard it. The problem is I first heard 15 years ago and every trade show since has featured some sort of concept for it. Putting aside what you occasionally hear the Russians have been up to, someone is bound to have created something by now and been quietly flogging it off. If you’re in the business of chasing after subs, you have to seriously consider the possible threat.
Sub-SAM would be a weapon of last resort, but if a MPA is overhead dropping bouys, it’s time to use it because a weapon might not be far behind. And it’s not like leaving a flaming datum is something new to the submariner. It’s core business. Assuming that there is anybody about to even see it. Most of the time MPA should be well over the horizon, otherwise a helicopter could handle it. And yes, that probably also puts a question mark over the viability of helicopter based ASW as well. If you start to see ASROC making a comeback, you’ll know that’s about.
@ Mark
“Why are the US navy removing mad from there patrol aircraft if it’s a must have?”
The P8 can’t operate with a MAD boom due to the high speed of the aircraft. They are developing a UAV system for the P8 to deploy MAD. However after the P 8 drops it the UAV will have to fly back to land (sounds expensive to me over the mid atlantic)
The Indians have chosen to fit MAD booms to there P8’s
@ Observer – The Portuguese paid the Dutch EUR 271 million for 8 P3’s with simulators and spare parts. This is the type of capability we can afford on our shoe string and it will give us much of what we had before.
We simply can’t afford to embark on any type of development program like an MPA A400M. we lack the time or the money.
@Martin
Self evidently, given that you just noted they are putting one on the P-8I, there are no speed limitations on putting one on a P-8. And that probably won’t even be a big boom — modern sensors are much more noise tolerant and don’t need to be as isolated from the airframe. There is a space premium at the tail end of the aircraft though (for ESM, etc), so for that and weight reasons I guess the US decided to go without. But if you really want one, you could have it and a rear facing radar just like the Indians. Did you read what I mentioned about it earlier in the thread (yesterday) in the context of low level flight? There are other considerations.
Also, some sonobouys are very expensive — often thousands of dollars and anecdotally one type I’m familiar with was said to be almost $10,000. In a garden variety training sortie you could easily clock up $100,000 worth of expended ordnance. It’s an expensive hobby. Given that, even a moderately expensive expendable MAD UAV could be viable in the grand scheme of things (say, more than $100,000 but less than $1 million?). After all, you don’t need to use one every day in training and if it was the real thing, you wouldn’t care how much it costs if it helps you bag a sub. And don’t forget that MAD is not a search sensor. If you are using it, you already know with some degree of accuracy where the submarine is likely to be (probably good enough for a weapon). You are just using it to confirm your other sensors or refine your tracking. It’s a nice to have sort of gadget but I would not write off an entire aircraft over it.
McZ
On Mantis, I actually guess, you don’t understand my concept. It could also be done by using MQ-9 Reapers. It would be a UAV-version of the old hunter-killer-concept. Basically like the P-8/BAMS-combo, but both UAVs, with one manned command node or a ground station as a backbone. (Btw, having a command-post A400M including an abiltity to refuel UAVs is absolutely feasible, as no changes to the airframe are needed.) On payload, Mantis should eventually match at least a Wildcats load, which is sufficient for two torpedoes or four FASGW-Hs.
I understand perfectly the kill concept but pray tell me how you are going to find the submarine in the first place from a UAV?
The main part of communication would be passive. For the few occasions of sending, as long as the enemy is called ‘russian SSN’, what are the odds against using relatively low-energy directed sat-com?
Any odds at all are too high.
So, all our hopes are a possibility to add modular stuff, which is hard to imagine in case of the sensors. Which means, we maybe get more A400Ms through, but as we will become short of cargo aircraft around 2020, they will not act as MPAs. If this possibility existed, we would have already converted a couple of Hercs.
Let us wait and see shall we, a decision has to n be made. the reason we have not converted a herc is that we have not decided to reinstate the capability.
Martin, Unfortunately we missed out on the crazy dutch fire sale. Did they not sell all their MBTs as well?
RE: A400M carrying weapons useful for MPA.
What is there in front of the wheels in the undercarriage pods? Could they be made longer so they reach almost to the front side door giving space for missiles, fuel?
I’ve done a very rough bodge of what it might look like using an image from Wikipedia.
@APATS
Yes, the MBTs were sold to the Indonesians pending final approval.
What do you think of the idea of getting 2nd hand P-3s?
@McZ
A sub controlled UAV limits the sub to near the surface depths, radio/radar simply don’t penetrate water worth a damn, which is why sat comms for subs use the ultra-low frequencies. With really bad transmission rates in the realms of 1 word every few minutes. Try realtiming a UAV, with video no less, on that. Not likely, unless you want to surface entirely, which kills the purpose of a sub in the 1st place.
“And don’t forget that MAD is not a search sensor. If you are using it, you already know with some degree of accuracy where the submarine is likely to be.”
Which also implies that a MAD UAV is going to be near useless for hunting subs since to use a MAD, you already know the sub’s in the general area, and if you don’t, the MAD’s useless anyhow.
I’m still thinking the cheapest and lowest risk option if MPA really is reinstated is the 2nd hand P-3 buy. Old, reliable, works. Saves spending a bomb on something only to find it impractical or simply duplicated existing off the shelf tech.
The pen is mightier than the sword, but budget cuts are the WMDs of the modern world.
Observer,
Yes a 2nd hand P3 buy give us back a certain capability. It would have to be at a good price though as would have to replace them a decade or so later but if we could get them in service from 2015 or so at the right price then definitely.
The Dutch are crazy. A small nation that trades globally and with colonial obligations as well so what do they do? Sell their armour and concentrate on the navy. Ha! Thankfully our MoD knows the future is rapid reaction armour. Don’t worry Japan will be coming to your rescue with our Chally2’s…… :)
APATS
“I understand perfectly the kill concept but pray tell me how you are going to find the submarine in the first place from a UAV?”
As I see it people are talking about 2 clear requirement streams…..high persistence surface ISTAR and short reaction ASW endgame. The first I get the second I’d have questions about to be honest….arent we looking at the wrong part of the kill chain here?. All very well and good lamenting the lack of the localisation/shooter asset, but, are we not also lacking in the theatre detect assets?.
Delousing bombers doesnt absolutely require MPA’s and the presence of the Nimrod force never stopped the Zapadnaya Litsa Sailing Club trying to stake out the Firth of Clyde!. To get the V boats out into deep water clear and free then doesnt seem great justification, by itself, for an ASW heavy MPA.
Routinely reacting to SSN detects, by scrambling MPA’s any time we get a sniff on one near a bomber, doesnt strike me as a great plan either. I always understood the idea was not to tip the hand on what our real detection capability was?. Letting the opposition KNOW that we could track them was something that got the Walkers rightly jailed. Why would we be in such a hurry to give the game away ourselves?.
So, if the deterrent doesnt absolutely need MPA’s and we arent chasing the 33rd Submarine Division all round the western approaches I’ve got to say I’m not seeing the dire need for the prosecute/shoot MPA asset. Surveillance is a different story in my view. I’ve long been of the belief that we should be deploying a sovereign SURTASS capability. After all if we can track the opposition nice and early we can determine whether its a threat and take the necessary steps to minimise that threat. If we know the oppositions SSN is 200km away from our bomber and heading the wrong way why do we need to set a Nimrod on it?!
The surveillance thing brings us back to that persistent surface recon element. A radar-equipped unmanned patroller that can stay up for upwards of a day has to be all sorts of use for the actual work we do today. EEZ surveillance, GWoT intel gathering, even SAR (air drop lifesaving kit is hardly new) plus the more warry taskings like watching errant foreign carrier battlegroups from a nice safe range, SIG/COMINT etc all things that a properly configured Mantis could handle. The usefulness of a couple stationed at Gib and a 5 plane det at Mount Pleasant is hard to understate in my view…not least if we end up responsible for the security of some valuable oilfields down south.
Its true Mantis is currently no more than a demonstrator, but, BAE have already shown a mockup with a ventral radar dome of the right size to fit a Seaspray 7500 class set. The thinking for an MPA tasking has already been done then it seems…which seeings that its being done with Heron, Mariner, BAMS/RQ-4 UAVs for years is no surprise I guess!.
Jonesy the SSBN do not even dive until they are out of the Clyde! No further comment on that.
Routinely reacting to SSN detects, by scrambling MPA’s any time we get a sniff on one near a bomber, doesn’t strike me as a great plan either
We do not scramble if they only go near an SSBN it is Western policy to track SSN incursions into the Atlantic. The benefits of practice against a live foreign asset massively outweigh any risk of giving away capability.
UAV for surface surveillance is a good idea but if we can only have UAV or MPA we are back in the position where the MPA can do ISTAR and ASW and possibly ASuW but the UAV cannot do ASW.
Back from hols – note to self: next time you go to sunnier climes, stay in the shade!
A lot of catching up to do:
European army – no. Infantry Weapons Update – guns. Vigor OPC looks like a VW Beetle. That about covers it.
Welcome Mercator, someone who really knows his stuff is always welcome here. I said that with a straight face.
” Search and rescue is NOT a military task – it is a civilian task and should be done by a civilian agency. Same applies to fishery protection.” – wasting your breathe here SI, I’ve said the same about chasing drug runners; any excuse to build more frigates!
Re MPA – we want something to sit over the egress routes of our SSBNs as they head out on patrol, something that can sit there for hours/days while carrying a good payload. How come no one has mentioned airships? Or have I got sunstroke?
Lighter than air has been mentioned in passing.
Martin 737 also can fly slow there just draggy doing it so ill go with mercators reasons.
I know most dont like it but considering costs and we need a capability back take a gloabl express with 2 pilots, 3 crew stations and provision for 2 additional observers. Fit the seaspray 7500E, an ESM suite, a satcom and link 16, a DASS, a westcam mx-20 and a sonar bouy launcher use the astor fairing configuration so new a/c qualification required. I would consider a single hard point under each wing for pods or a torpedo but may comprise range too much. They would need to operate in pairs for high end tasking but maybe a cheaper way back.
Mark,
It is not that I dont like it it is that it will not work. A Global Express XRS has a useful load of 800kg. So 1 Stingray and 4 buoys maybe? They also cost 30 million pounds each.
@Jonesy
How does a UAV do sonar? MAD can’t detect deep dived subs, so you need sonobuoys, which are almost the size of the UAV itself. And if it can only carry one, you might as well forget about it, you need more than 1 to search. Dipping sonar? Even bigger than the UAV and locks you into the rotary wing class, with corresponding pros and cons.
And isn’t the term boomer? Bomber is the one that flies.
@x
The Netherlands don’t have a big history of first strike intervention, mostly international peacekeeping after the battles, so it really does make more sense for them to go wheeled AFVs than MBTs. Different strokes for different folks.
Observer,
The US call them Boomers, the RN call them Bombers.
I think the French call them dodgems.
APAS
No its doesnt you have significantly more weight margin than that once its striped down to basic a/c configure unless you want the vip interior and all the windows
APATS
“Jonesy the SSBN do not even dive until they are out of the Clyde! No further comment on that.”
Irrelevent whether they do or not. The point is that ‘other peoples’ SSN’s have been found in positions where we would rather not have them. I used the term ‘stake out the Firth of Clyde’ to be deliberately vague. I didnt mean to suggest Russian SSN’s were driving up Gare loch!. The fact remains that getting the nuclear deterrent out does not look to be sufficient justification, by itself, for an ASW heavy MPA.
“We do not scramble if they only go near an SSBN it is Western policy to track SSN incursions into the Atlantic.”
We do not scramble at all any more. Provided we have the ability to pick up the SSN incursions in the first place that is the key to the game. My view is that this is where we need to focus our effort – in the wide area detect…not the prosecution. SSN’s can be localised and prosecuted by other assets than MPA’s especially when you can hold contact on them at extended ranges.
“The benefits of practice against a live foreign asset massively outweigh any risk of giving away capability.”
Matter of opinion I guess. I think anything that fosters the other sides confidence they can operate unmolested, while they are actually being tracked, is to be promoted as strongly as possible. Sic’ing a hunting MPA on an unwitting SSN in the middle of nowhere might be great jollies for the warfare team, but, it makes for a far more alert opposition. Double-edged sword that one…especially when you can get training for the MPA warfare team on ‘friendly’ SSN’s that can be equally taxing…albeit not employing opfor systems/tactics.
I see your point on the UAV vs MPA, but, I dont think its necessarily a valid one. UAV is cheap to run apart, perhaps, from a bit of satellite bandwidth and has a mission right now. I know SI is adamant that ASW MPA also has a mission now, but, hard as I try I see ‘nice to have but not essential’.
Mark, Do you think pulling out the interior will not be offset by fitting, radars, link 16, military comms, ESM, WESCAM etc? Then we have the core ASW terminals and command sytems to monitor the buoys etc.
Ignoring size and space a useful load for an MPA in terms of Sonobuoys and 3 Stingray would weigh in excess of 6000kg.
@Jonesy
Think the UAV part came from a totally unworkable idea of having a sub deploy it’s own UAV. Other than having to surface to launch it, being underwater actually cuts bandwidth down to near non-existent levels, so you can’t hope to control a UAV.
On a surface ship, yes, it can work, but I see it only as valid for small corvettes and for tracking surface targets only, any larger ship would use a helo which is more capable and flexible. The only time I can see a destroyer or frigate use UAVs in lieu of helos as standard would be something like a strike frigate or assault destroyer where the anticipated operating environment is so hostile that you expect to lose any scouting helo, and would rather lose a bunch of UAVs instead. That is a very rare niche though, so it’s not likely.
Irrelevant whether they do or not. The point is that ‘other peoples’ SSN’s have been found in positions where we would rather not have them. I used the term ‘stake out the Firth of Clyde’ to be deliberately vague. I didn’t mean to suggest Russian SSN’s were driving up Gare loch!. The fact remains that getting the nuclear deterrent out does not look to be sufficient justification, by itself, for an ASW heavy MPA
Perhaps not on its own but it is definitely a factor and the area they are most useful in cannot be covered by Ships or rotary wing assets very easily but we have struggled by.
The benefits of practice against a live foreign asset massively outweigh any risk of giving away capability.”
Matter of opinion I guess. I think anything that fosters the other sides confidence they can operate unmolested, while they are actually being tracked, is to be promoted as strongly as possible. Sic’ing a hunting MPA on an unwitting SSN in the middle of nowhere might be great jollies for the warfare team, but, it makes for a far more alert opposition. Double-edged sword that one…especially when you can get training for the MPA warfare team on ‘friendly’ SSN’s that can be equally taxing…albeit not employing opfor systems/tactics.
Not only is it excellent training opportunity, it builds up our database of acoustic information, allowing far more intel based tracking of individual hulls.
Allows use of EXTACS in a real life situation. Develops the ability to track passively not letting the SSN know it is being tracked and also lets them know we can find them. It is not just MPAs involved but they make the game much easier.
Everyone is entitled to an opinion but I am afraid that I have to side with SI on this one.
You do not answer my question about a UAV being able to do ASW, it cannot so to have some shiny new UAVs (because they are fashionable) you are content to disregard an asset that is multi role.
APAS
All told you would looking at around 11000lbs of usable load prior to eating into fuel, westcam and seasprey each weight about 200-250lbs sonobouy and crew stations would be were the bulk of the load weight is and no youd be no where near the 200-300 bouys you want assuming a bouy weight of 16lbs you would be at 100 or slightly less.
France have proposed something very similar on the falcon 900.
It wouldn’t be carrying weapons could be an option but not on long range missions.
Mark, Sorry if I am being stupid but do you mean 11000lbs of usable load to fit in all the gear? So basically a stripped down G600 with windows removed gives us lets call it 5,500kg to play with?.
@ Observer
Somebody always bites. My fault I should have mentioned the Channel, nuclear weapons, etc. Sometimes I am guilty of not taking jokes far enough…….
APATS,
“Not only is it excellent training opportunity, it builds up our database of acoustic information, allowing far more intel based tracking of individual hulls.”
Not really. The detect is from an offboard source. All the MPA is doing is localise and prosecute to shoot. How is an MPA dropping active sonobuoys, for example, developing the acoustic threat database?. If you want to profile a target hull use the appropriate asset….your own SSN with far better transducers than those on a little battery powered passive buoy!.
“You do not answer my question about a UAV being able to do ASW, it cannot so to have some shiny new UAVs (because they are fashionable) you are content to disregard an asset that is multi role.”
I dont know whether they are that new?. The Indians and Israeli’s have been using Herons for years. Even the US Coastguard is now using a variation of the Mariner drone that lost the BAMS deal. I was a considerable proponent of the Mariner system at the time as we were already playing with Reaper. Mantis just gives us a sovereign capability in the same regard – actually better for overwater by virtue of the twin-engine configuration!.
Also I would consider our ASW better served by a different asset than the MPA, which is only good for a limited scope of the ASW mission…and not the important bit, so I’m not really concerned if the UAV cant do ASW (which I agree it cant). The roles which it can do are equally as important as the ASW and need providing whether the ASW is there or not.
Jonesy.
Not really. The detect is from an offboard source. All the MPA is doing is localise and prosecute to shoot. How is an MPA dropping active sonobuoys, for example, developing the acoustic threat database?. If you want to profile a target hull use the appropriate asset….your own SSN with far better transducers than those on a little battery powered passive buoy!.
The MPA can get to a point faster and deploy buoys. New passive buoys are good and other assets can be vectored e.g. TAPS or SSN. ASW is a team sport.
I did not mean that UAVs are new but that you wanted to buy new ones.
Also I would consider our ASW better served by a different asset than the MPA, which is only good for a limited scope of the ASW mission…and not the important bit, so I’m not really concerned if the UAV cant do ASW (which I agree it cant). The roles which it can do are equally as important as the ASW and need providing whether the ASW is there or not.
So what important bit of an ASW mission is an MPA not good at? What other asset better serves it? The MPA can provide maritime recon and do ASW. All the UAV and I am a big proponent of them brings to the party vis an MPA is endurance and operating costs.
It loses out on payload, having a human actually there and versatility. So yes to UAVs for mar recon but not instead of MPA.
APATS
“The MPA can get to a point faster and deploy buoys. New passive buoys are good and other assets can be vectored e.g. TAPS or SSN. ASW is a team sport…So what important bit of an ASW mission is an MPA not good at? What other asset better serves it?”
Agreed its a team game but without the cueing system, whatever that may be, the MPA stays on the bench.
The key part of the game is that cueing system…the thing that gets the detect at range in the first place…TAPS, SSN etc can do it but, for me, I think we need better especially with decreasing numbers of tactical array vessels. The Japanese bought into SURTASS because they were serious about ASW…I think we are missing a trick not doing the same. Even more so if the Yanks are looking to focus their efforts more intensely in the Pacific.
If we are worried about ASW then, for me, focusing on the last phase (MPA’s) of the tasking is arse about face.
Apas
Yes the interior of a vip global is anything from 6500-7500lbd routinely removing the windows and the window beam down both sides another 2000lbs and then another 2000lbs for general payload you usually see quoted all told about 11,000lbs. Thats what youve got to fit in your gear you can go higher but you trade off fuel.
The global has a 100,000lbs max take-off weight of which up to 50% of that figure can be fuel.
SURTASS vessels do operate in our AOR. Without geting myself into trouble the monitoring of Non NATO Submarines is a full time job that utilises multiple assets in all 4 environments among many countries.
We like to pretty much know where they are most of the time. I guess what I am saying is that the cueing section whilst not perfect, what ever is, exists.
What thhe MPA gives us that next step, the ability to quickly react, localise, track and if required prosecute a submarine.
All the cueing in the world does you little good if you have no assets that can quickly react to the cueing they receive.
Mark thx.
It is difficult to find figures on how much seats etc and consoles weigh. Though consoles are generally bloody heavy and all the comms, esm gear etc come in steel boxes.
I tried to find the difference in empty weight between a Grey and Green Merlin but could not find it anywhere.
I think we may need more crew as other MPA seem to have a crew between of 11 and 12. Simply to deploy weapons and allow people time away from staring at consoles on long flights.
In terms of useful load.
P3 and Nimrod about 9-10k kg.
295/235 500okg or so.
W have 5,500kg but need to put in all our consoles, comms, ESM,radar,Link,WESCAM etc before any of it is useful. I am just not convinced that it is viable.
They also cost 30 million a pop. I think that i would rather look at 2nd hand P3C in short term with longer term solution perhaps combining with the French when they replace their Atlantics perhaps with an A400 derivative.
what would you drop the buoy? I assume from an under fuselage store. I wouldn’t think you could put a great deal under the wings. Are there any pods on the market now that could be use/ easily modified?
Apas
You would lose crew and there would be no crew rest. I think the p8 only has a mission crew of 5. You need to see these operating as a pair I think. I would agree that’s we’re the weight is.
This was the French proposal
http://www.dassault-aviation.com/en/defense/multi-mission-falcon/falcon-900-mpa/features.html?L=1
You can get more weight than 5500kg but you need to knock off fuel. The requirement for how much more weight you have will be determined by the requirement x endurance at x range. This is we’re weight became critical in the Astor when the aar prob was deleted and its altitude requirement. P3 would be gd but I can see politics and maa being difficult. The biz jet is quiter faster and higher flying for the survelliance req than a cn295 which is why I’d go biz jet if that was the choice.
Topman rotor launcher thru the floor would be my guess under the wing on the global would be difficult. The global has a pressure floor with only about 18 inches underfloor space so it should be possible.
@ APATS – “It is difficult to find figures on how much seats etc and consoles weigh.”
Last time we discussed this i found some figures which seemed to indicate the weight of the cabin furnishings.
can’t find the comment or the source now.
@ Mark
Wouldn’t 18 inches be a bit tight I think you’d need a bit more space than that? If it is you would need the whole underfuselage surely. I would think something like the BL755, a container you could carry as a role item. Although I now that would have issues with drag (and others) but if we had a pylon set up, other role items could be added on as and when we want which gives it greater options in the future. I know you would need to modify the a/c to have a pylon fit, but it would be quicker and cheaper than modifying the floor I would think.
RE: MPA airships.
http://www.worldskycat.com/markets/skypatrol.html
http://oai.dtic.mil/oai/oai?verb=getRecord&metadataPrefix=html&identifier=ADA483334
@ST – thanks for the HAMR link – too much for one sitting (I jumped to the conclusions/recommendations) but will wade through it in time.
Some may scoff at the notion of airships but I’m sure I’ve seen a US army sensor carrying airship project as well, meant to fly at very high altitude, a sort of poor man’s surveillance satellite.
How practical an airship would be for sub-hunting off the Scottish coast I have no idea, but hey, where would we be without a bit of wild speculation?
Jonesy and others,
You’re all trying to make a convincing case for retiring MPA’s from deep-ocean ASW in the game of protecting our SSBN’s against a specific threat. This is not the only theatre of ASW. Out territorial integrity for one relies on being able to prevent a threat submarine from roaming free, and an MPA can act both offensively (searching and as a deterrent) as well as defensively for a task group or convoy.
US, NATO and RN doctrine in particular place heavy emphasis on the use of MPA’s to detect and prosecute submarines at range. Standoff ASW is critical because the surface ship is at a significant disadvantage when it comes to localising and neutralising submarines. Towed array sonars, particularly active types, offer some advantage but these are easily negated by adverse oceanographic conditions and are a bitch to manoeuvre with. And long-ranged passive operations are utterly pointless against SSK’s when trying to find them in the littoral environment. If any of you can accept that we need Merlin to find submarines, then by default you must accept that an MPA is equally valid, more so because it can fly further, faster, for longer, see more and further and with more weapons. Helicopters are bound to ships and have short range, so the loss of the MPA instantly reduces your offensive range by a large percentage.
MPA’s are not one-tool wonders but are valuable in many different ASW missions. This is why SO MANY OTHER COUNTRIES USE THEM, NEED THEM AND CONTINUE TO BUY NEW ONES. We are the only modern Western military capable of global influence that does NOT have an MPA capability, except the Dutch (and their logic is even more screwed up). Can none of you see that the solution to the majority of ASW threats is a fifty year old, slow turboprop ex-airliner with bags of range and hours of endurance? We are sitting here debating half-assed alternatives based on tiny airliners, hot air balloons and still theoretical networks of automated drones when the easy, fast, cheap, reliable and proven solution is staring us in the face. Even the US is going down the same old route with the P8 – I would be willing to be the only reason it isn’t a turboprop is because nobody makes commercial long ranged turboprops anymore. All-arms ASW requires multiple platforms to get right – and MPA is as crucial as the helicopter and ASW frigate.
APATS – have a look at the Wiki on SURTASS please and see how many examples are cited of Atlantic operations.
Mercator, there have been lots of good ideas on sub-SAM but I’d be willing to bet even the IDAS would have real problems trying to chase a P3. These weapons are really aimed at countering the rotary wing threat, especially given that a submarine’s situational awareness of the aerial environment is so poor. No doubt they will get better, but given the cost and complexity it seems to me to be unlikely that these will proliferate significantly in the next thirty or forty years. For most of the threat nations, just keeping the boat at sea is a challenge.
Topman
I didnt express that very well. The launcher would be in the cabin launching thru the bottom of the jet. The 18 inches comment was more about the gap between cabin and fuse skin it would need to traverse. Can you launch them sideways thru the fuse?. There is a image of the one in the merlin but it would link to a certain italians site which TD doesnt like and i dont know if you can use the same one in a jet.
Pylons I would certainly consider for the reasons you say 1 under each wing.
@ Swimming Trunks
The real answer for litorals is a class of 1200t-ish GT 30kt frigates like the Soviets used to build with an ASW mortar. (Some nice 3in rapid fires guns too.) Or some big hovercraft for route surveillance. Wizard stuff.
RE: Sub Sam’s.
http://newwars.wordpress.com/2010/04/18/navy-tests-advanced-sub-missile-launcher/
@SI – “hot air balloons” – what idiot suggested such a thing :-)
Are you saying we should buy second-hand P3s then?
@ST – how would a sub track and target a helo or jet to fire a missile at it? Or is this one of those things we can’t talk about?
RE: Hovercraft. There was some interest in using them for ASW;
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=oEwOAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA197&lpg=PA197&dq=hovercraft+ASW&source=bl&ots=rIUWC05JOl&sig=i7yofduC3-ra73IWL7UJhVayLMQ&hl=en&sa=X&ei=V4NfUJTAFeLR0QW9kIDYBg&ved=0CCsQ6AEwAQ
But they appear better suited to patrol and MCM:
http://www.indianexpress.com/news/bsf-to-get-two-hovercraft-for-coastal-survei/445296/
http://www.holset.co.uk/mainsite/pics-related/2_2-applications/18.htm
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=8MwyTX-iA2wC&pg=PA202&lpg=PA202&dq=hovercraft+mcm&source=bl&ots=J1zKunlOTn&sig=L0ljEIUymebyiAjBg1cUiiOgBdw&hl=en&sa=X&ei=IoRfUMKfNIix0QWZz4DgAQ&ved=0CFEQ6AEwCA
http://144.171.11.39/view.aspx?id=450145
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=IKaAHRH5C4QC&pg=PA178&lpg=PA178&dq=hovercraft+mcm&source=bl&ots=AwbZPUfin_&sig=QQCpZswXVVUzOZWjnu-sMl_2W1w&hl=en&sa=X&ei=BIVfUOGCMaKp0QXqtYHoDQ&ved=0CEkQ6AEwBzgK
http://www.hovercraft-museum.org/images/concept3.jpg
@Wiseape
I would fill the sub with clergy. With so much prayer, there might be a miracle and a random firing of an AIM-9 might just hit something. ;)
On the surface, at least the sub has an option to use radar, and give a general bearing to launch an IR-seeker, but below water? Not bloody likely. And if you’re going to surface anyway, you might as well have a Stinger/Blowpipe mast. And we all know how well SAM masts turned out.
@ Wiseape – no idea! Just thought people would be interested in the concept. Could a sub get a barring on an aircraft/helicopter via sonar? Would that be enough for an active radar/IR seeker?
We have been close to this before.
When I was a lad MPA was provided by Shackleton a late variant of the Lancaster Heavy Bomber. (Think RAF Memorial Flight).
By the time I became engaged 30 years ago its replacement Nimrod (based on the Comet airfame – obsolescent even then ) was way over budget and over due. {Mrs DV used to visit the office of the Air Commodore who was Project Manager for Nimrod procurement, and found his walls coved in photographs of the Shackleton, he may even have had a model on his desk, to embarass BAE when they popped in to explain the delays}.
@somewhatinvolved I am interested in what you envisage as the Land Force contribution to All-Arms ASW. In the late C19 the Royal Engineers (TI take note) had the responsibility for Submarine Warfare but this consisted of land based Brennan Torpedoes intended to attack surface vessels. Other than that I was in the RE TA,, I have no dog in this fight.
I realise I have contributed nothing to the debate – I was going to suggest that reopening a Lancaster production line could be a cheaper option than many quoted above, but do not want @SomewhatInvolved to have a fit.
There are advantages:-
Heritage and tradition.
Technopunk is in vogue.
The RAF already have aircrew and ground crew trained to operate the Lancaster.
It worked before so why re-invent the wheel.
Modern electronics are much smaller and lighter than the old vacuum tube variety but the limited room for the equipment would prevent (expensive) project bloat.
He is probably right . The best option to retain the existing MPA (ASW) capacity is to re-run the original Nimrod decision with a contemporary airframe, but lets learn the lessons of the past to have an MPA to budget and on-time.
@SomewhatInvolved
I would not like to be the first P3 guy chased by IDAS, you know…
And if you were, and survived, or if the Intelo briefed it as a possibility, would you still run in on every Riser/Sinker?
If you could change your operating profile to avoid the dilemma and still deliver a weapon, I’m sure you would. And that’s what the US is trying to do with the P-8 and the high-level Mk54, it seems. Seems prudent to me.
I absolutely agree with your mini rant too, BTW. The UK might not have had any MPA of their own for a couple of years, but that doesn’t mean you have not been using somebody else’s and will continue to do so in the future. Maybe Europe should pool their assets, or something. Like AWACs, perhaps. Either way, though it is hard to describe the breadth and complexity of this in a blog comment, the mission for MPA isn’t going away.
If you’re hellbent on some old P-3s though, make us (Oz) an offer. After the deal you did us on the Largs Bay, we owe you one. :) You won’t find anything better in the boneyard over in the US. That junk has been turned over many times before and you will truly be scraping the bottom of the barrel. We did it ourselves about 15 years ago when we wanted some airframes for circuit training. They were a disaster and we retired them just a few years later. Anything you find, here or the US, will probably need to be re-winged if you want another 10 years out of them.
Personally I think you’d be better off doing it once and doing it right with new airframes, even if you start with fewer.
@ Somewhat Involved
To answer your question about French MPA plans, the Atlantique 2 is being MLU’ed to stay in service until 2032, at a cost of €20 to €50 million per airframe (sources differ on the exact amount). This will pay for basically all-new electronics – new displays, mission system, acoustic processor, radar, FLIR, ESM, ECM, comms (link 16/22), GPS-based navigation etc.
This doesn’t seem like such a bad option, since the Atlantiques (unlike the MRA4 disaster) still have plenty of airframe life remaining. The average Atlantique is only ~19yrs old, with <6,000 flight hours… compare to the average P-3C (16,000 hours!) and 19,000+ hours for some Nimrods! Not to mention, there are 9-10 stored Atlantique airframes for spare parts/resale… (MoD, I’m talking to you ;-))
All in all, only the RR Tynes are getting rather long in the tooth, being already well into their 6th decade of service!
Touching on various themes such as Motherships, Patrol Vessels, Unmanned systems and Stand-off detection, USS Ponce is operating UUV (Kingfish) and UAV (ScanEagle) systems [1] for surface and sub-surface work (including stand-off mine detection).
Worth keeping an eye on operations. Although not directly tied in with MPA the skills, equipment, procedures and basic ingredients match some of the options you’re discussing on unmanned MPA.
[1] gCaptain article
What’s wrong with the A321 as a platform for MPA?
It’s about the right size/weight (substantially less than the massive A400 and larger than the Atlantique). Isn’t it essentially the European 737 which is what the P8 is based on?
Shove all the kit from the Nimrod in it and hey presto, a newer example of a computerised de Havilland Comet.
The only thing that concerns me about these MPA is that it would be nice (technically difficult) to merge AEW functions into the same airframe. That way the same aircraft will see the SAM coming. Is it possible these new radars designed to snap onto the Merlin (crowsnest?) could be used on the sides of a jet?
TD’s own article on the Lockheed Martin Vigilance Pod. Well worth reminding yourselves of the capabilities.
Mounting on a Mi-17, CN-235 and a C-130 have also been proposed.
No reason why not technically. Interoperability with ASW systems both from a technical point of view and operationally would need to be considered.
Basic questions such as do they interfere, can they be used at the same altitudes and speeds, does one provide operational concerns such as detectability in return, are they expensive, does the Vigilance have the detection Range to cover its positional changes in the ASW role, is it intended to be just another “Vigilance/F-35 detection grid node”, etc?
@ TOC – mothership news is always good.
Liked this quote: “We’ve seen a Volkswagen Beetle on the bottom, tires, microwaves — you name it,” he said. “A lot of things get thrown overboard. Sorting out the garbage from the mines from the natural environment is, of course the challenge. That’s why we’ve brought so much technology to bear.”
Anybody fancy producing mines shaped like VW beatles?
APATS
If you follow the link at http://www.iusscaa.org/history.htm then scroll to the bottom. There is an UNCLAS report from admiral blah and such (retd) regarding the development, and contraction, of the wide area acoustic surveillance mission. The slide, near the end, as to SURTASS basing in 2010 is illuminating. I know they do deploy to LANTFLT and they’ve supported a few exercises in the region, but, I think its an asset we need to have a bit more availability with.
You contend that having the wide area search capability is valueless without the ability to short-latency localise and prosecute. I disagree wholeheartedly I’m afraid. If we can get a detect on a contact, even if only throwing a target box around him 30nm on a side, we can adapt to his presence. If the opfor SSN sits on station with nothing coming into his sensor footprint then he’s no threat. Even good SSNs balance speed and discretion rate so, once we know where he roughly is, we can manage the threat he poses even if we arent dropping torpedos on him. Looking at the reverse situation, if we have MPA’s but no wide area cueing sensor plaform, we can screen our assets or cover chokes, but, we are using a lot of effort, flight hours and sonobuoys to do it.
SI
“US, NATO and RN doctrine in particular place heavy emphasis on the use of MPA’s to detect and prosecute submarines at range.”
Prosecute yes, but, the detection has to come from somewhere else. The only real ‘wide area’ ASW sensor on an MPA is the ESM/CESM fit and thats hardly a reliable source of detection. If you know a sub is going to transit a specific choke point within a rough timeframe you can set up a few buoy lines as a tripwire but thats hardly the same thing. Other than that you are down to putting down lines screening targets of interest, i.e your assets, to try and catch the other guy moving in for position. ASW MPA is a great asset to have but, without cueing, its like having a really great interceptor in your airforce…but no ASAC capability. I dont see the point of worrying about the MPA’s ASW capability until we have all the pieces in place to properly do ASW in the context of bluewater/Atlantic.
“Standoff ASW is critical because the surface ship is at a significant disadvantage when it comes to localising and neutralising submarines.”
Helicopters being the organic solution to this in the event no MPA is around and, again, before you localise and neutralise first you have to wide area detect. MPA alone offers little ability to do this.
“Towed array sonars, particularly active types, offer some advantage but these are easily negated by adverse oceanographic conditions and are a bitch to manoeuvre with. And long-ranged passive operations are utterly pointless against SSK’s when trying to find them in the littoral environment.”
Yep thats why no-one does long range passive detection against SSK’s in the shallows. Thats where the LFA projector comes in and, anecdotally, is dramatically effective. Certainly that goes for 2087 as the Yanks are scrambling to get it aboard their LCS’s. Long range VLF passive IS good for bluewater against the SSN/SSGN threat. This being the threat alluded to that is directed against the UK national deterrent on this thread?.
“If any of you can accept that we need Merlin to find submarines, then by default you must accept that an MPA is equally valid, more so because it can fly further, faster, for longer, see more and further and with more weapons. Helicopters are bound to ships and have short range, so the loss of the MPA instantly reduces your offensive range by a large percentage.”
Not really. The helicopter offers a different capability set and its short range is offset by the closeness of its base and the fact that its ‘base’ can be more than cooperative in the hunt!. The helicopter is not necessarily a solo asset in the context being discussed here. The point being made, and correct me if I’m reading this wrong, is that MPA is uniquely valuable as it can range out quicker and farther than a surface unit or sub to chase down a contact. If the MPA is dependent on the surface unit or sub for the initial detect why isnt the detecting unit capable of prosecuting?. The MPA can help and be extremely valuable doing it, but, there is localisation and prosecution in the oparea without it.
“Towed array sonars, particularly active types, offer some advantage but these are easily negated by adverse oceanographic conditions and are a bitch to manoeuvre with.”
Tactical towed arrays are the principle tool we have for the initial detection of a contact for any platform to prosecute. Without them your MPA is doing, relatively, very little in ASW terms. You are right in that they are limited by environmental conditions and do oblige the towing ship to obey the rules for the array. More worryingly for us though is the fact that we have relatively few ships fitted with arrays!. This is why I am so fixated on SURTASS…exactly to make up for that lack of tactical arrays.
“Can none of you see that the solution to the majority of ASW threats is a fifty year old, slow turboprop ex-airliner with bags of range and hours of endurance? We are sitting here debating half-assed alternatives based on tiny airliners, hot air balloons and still theoretical networks of automated drones when the easy, fast, cheap, reliable and proven solution is staring us in the face.”
I’ve no problem with 50yr old turboprops doing ASW…a design with that longevity is usually solid to the point of being hewn from granite. In the environment I’d take that over a civvy-spec plane with underslung turbofans every day of the week…the first P-8 crew unlucky enough to see an even unluckier albatross head into one of said turbofans may well bear testament to that as well.
The issue I have is with the ASW component, that we are coping without, getting in the way of the surface recon capability that we really are missing. I’d love us to operate an MPA to support the fleet…I cant tell you about the shameful and messy dreams I have about license-built anglicised Beriev A-40’s, along the lines of the RR Be200 concept. If the funds dont allow for that MPA ASW capability I dont want to see a potentially very powerful tool like a notional ‘Mantis MR1’ dismissed because it doesnt do ASW.
Ultimately I think a MALE UAV like Mantis could be a hugely useful adjunct to a future MPA with part of the MPA’s tasking being ‘mother’ and comms-relay for a group of UAV’s. Can you imagine the footprint such a formation could cover overwater and ashore?. To me Mantis is there now as a flying air vehicle…its going to be trialling in UK airspace shortly to validate unmanned platforms in controlled airspace. BAE have done the airframe design work for adding a ventral search array, so, most of the components are in place to lead-in to a real persistent wide area surface surveillance capability and one that is relatively inexpensive and a UK product.
@ Simon
Just a point of order. You detect incoming SAM with RESM, or IR systems, not AEW radars.
A common MPA / AEW frame would be interesting and has been done with both P3 (the USCG operate some AEW variants for counter-narcotics in the Caribbean) or the B737 (P8 and Wedgetail).
The real winner for a common (not combined) AEW and ASW frame would be for carrier-borne applications. What was the Common Support Aircraft (CSA) programme ten years ago. Would happily do AAR as well.
Simon said: “What’s wrong with the A321 as a platform for MPA?”
Ted Rogers would approve.
The A319 MPA is no longer on the Airbusmilitary.com website but webarchive has a copy of the page. I wonder why they dropped it.
Jonesy,
We are never going to agree but a couple of points on your last post.
In shallow littoral waters LFAS is not as good as higher frequency sonars.
In terms of FF/DD and helos prosecuting submarines. They are known as escorts for a reason and will be far more likely to attempt to avoid the Submarine and continue to screen the MEU.
The advantage of an MPA here is that they can stay and prosecute the sub and then easily re-position to support the TG.
ON Surface Surveillance. One of the best assets used for this is the E3, it has spent a lot of time in the Med where it can cover huge swathes of water and in conjunction with an AIS receiver establish a good picture.
In combined “high boy” “low boy” Ops with MPA aircraft “non shiners” and contacts of interest are identified. It is able to detect small targets at long range from 30,000ft.
A UAV or 3 operating with an E3 would be even more effective.
Tangent: Why is a Frigate an FF and a Destroyer a DD? Understand the use of appropriate letters, but why the double characters in these cases?
TOC
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hull_classification_symbol
Although I am being lazy as an FF is far more likely to actually be an FFGH.
There is nothing “wrong” with using an A320 as an MPA platform. There is just not money or demand to put one in service. It is probably overkill for the more continental European nations. Germany is mostly worried about the North Sea and Baltic and 1,000 KM’s will cover that whole area. The extra speed of a P-8 or A320 will only save you about 25 minutes over a 1,000 KM course. France seems to be going down its own path. A full on MPA is probably overkill for Italy as well.
The market for the bigger, faster and rangier MPA’s is already being taken by the P-8 in my view. That speed and range really comes into its own in the Pacific and Australia and India are already headed down the P-8 path.
Japan is building its own replacement that seems to be hitting rough development waters but they will likely make work. It shares systems with the P-8 so if it falls through you know where they are going to default to as well.
The UK would buy what, a dozen MPA’s at the absolute most? That just can’t fund the development necessary to create the things. There is not enough of a European market left to support it, particularly when it is going to run against a P-8 program that will run at least 120-150ish examples if not more. For anyone ordering just a handful of these aircraft it makes no sense to get into a new program at this point.
My AIP ballistic submarine will just be an SSB, not SSBK. Should have checked first.
@APATS
Ahh, since 1920, US based, and intended to always have a minimum of two characters for readability.
Prior to 1920 a bog-standard Destroyer was just a single D.
Appreciated, thank you.
Not to mention that Americans had 2 types of destroyers, the DD that we are familiar with nowadays and DEs (Destroyer-Escorts) which are analogous to frigates in other navies, so if they didn’t specify DD or DE, they might end up sending a 3,000 ton ship to do a 6,000 ton ship’s job. :)
FF is not an American classification, but IIRC, it was shorthand for Fast Frigate. New subclasses include a G at the back for guided missile frigates -FFG in other words. Not sure if they add a H at the back since it doesn’t carry helos as a job, but instead have the helo help the ship do it’s job of subhunting/shipkilling. I doubt it though, so it’s more likely plain FFG.
Options beyond an off the shelf P8 are limited, comes down either to second hand P3 which as many have already pointed out are shagged (technically speaking of course)and will cost to get to RAF acceptable standards; Atlantique is a possibility but they have tendency to fall out of sky, the Dutch and Germans swapped theirs for P3’s. Only other firm option on the table is from Marshalls to retrofit the Nimrod’s Searchwater 2000 radar into Hercules. However, there is a problem, many existing Hercs are also close to being out of hours and are desperately needed elsewhere and thus not available for conversion. An A400 with the Nimrod’s Searchwater fitted is a realistic engineering possibility, and perhaps ultimately the best all round solution but not any time soon. It will be years until there are enough A400 spare airframes to convert. My guess is SAR will go to a private company operating C295s or similar thus reducing the number of MPAs needed to a more manageable (financially) number. Buddy up with the Canadians and or Norwegians for training and crewing maybe even sharing airframes and P8s become doable even with very small numbers. To me it seems there is only one game in town and that is the P8.
“…a dozen MPA’s at the absolute most? That just can’t fund the development necessary to create the things…”
I don’t wish to sound rude but what is so difficult in putting electronics in an existing airframe (e.g. A321)? We knocked up Sea King AEW pretty quickly didn’t we? Just because most MoD projects are overbudget and late doesn’t mean they all have to be!
Jonesy, a lot of badly argued points I’m afraid which don’t stand up in real operations. We are coping without MPA’s for one reason alone – we are using everybody else’s. Whether it’s US, Canadian, Norwegian or Portuguese P3’s in the Atlantic or NATO, Turkish, US and Australian aircraft in the Med and Gulf, MPA’s are crucial maritime assets. Nobody seriously thinking about true maritime operations can work without them. Our ability to conduct serious ASW needs them. I made that point by listing every nation on the coast of the North Atlantic that operates an MPA capability – which is everyone except us. If you wish to ignore the evidence and argue for the sake of arguing, fine – nothing I nor anyone else will say will make a blind bit of difference. But the lack of an MPA now has nothing to do with a lack of requirement and everything to do with high level power play bollocks in MOD and an unwillingness to focus on what the genuine needs of Defence really are.
Mercator, I can’t disagree with you really. I wouldn’t want to run away from an IDAS either, and certainly wouldn’t want you to have to! I harbour many concerns about the additional layer of cost that is being added by the decision to raise the operating altitude, particularly the need to add GPS guidance and extra retardation systems to torpedoes and buoys to make it work. And I’ll happily have your P3’s – but did we really do you a favour with the Bay? I thought we broke it for you?
H_K, thanks – so long live the Atlantique then. Fair enough – takes away any option for developing a credible, affordable new large MPA and leaves us with the same old options – P3, P8 or, well, not a lot really. I think Mercator is right – a very small buy of Batch 2 Poseidon’s sometime in the near future will be the only viable option unless we get off our arses and lease us some P3’s. After all, everyone crows about the Merlin filling the gap, but when they all go out of service this year and next to be upgraded to HM2 standard, we’re still f***ed whichever way you look at it.
Deja, erm kinda meant all-arms ASW not all-Services ASW! But feel free to stake out a nice spot and watch for periscopes with binoculars!! Every little helps!!
Going slightly off topic. But it’s being reported today, on a number of websites that when the RN’s Sea King AEW force, is withdrawn from service in 2016. The current radar system WILL NOT be transferred onto spare Merlin HM2’s.
So we now have another Capability Gap, until the Crows-nest system comes into service in the 2020’s!
I have decided to reinstate the K into the designation of my AIP ballistic missile submarine. As the base design approaches 30,000t it would be able to run over anything hunting it so it deserves the K back again. And the newly added 8in deck guns look lovely too…..
@Waddi
Your idea of grafting ASW kit onto A400 sounds attractive to me. Able to fly low and slow. Good range and endurance. Strong enough to carry a big load of both secret sensors and disposable stores.
Aren’t the FITS consoles that are being offered for C-295 also compatible with the A400? That would take care of the interior mission equipment and sonorbuoys could presumably be posted out through some sort of Derringer Door.
That just leaves heavyweight torpedos to consider. If all else fails why not bolt a cradle onto the back ramp so you can drop the tailgate and just roll them out? We drop stores on low level flypasts so why not torpedos? Cheap, cheerful and effective fix.
In the interstes of commonality any new ‘large’ airframes we buy really ought to be common with either Voyager or Atlas and there are probably plenty of our Eurpoean partners who are skint enough just now to trade us Atlas production slots at a discount rate.
@ Peter Elliott
From memory, I have not checked it out so may be totally wrong but I think was a plan to do just that with Storm Shadows? Ejected from a rack using drogue parachutes. I think the USMC have such a system?
Ref: Searchwater and crowsnest
Yes – I saw that and its worrying. Just becuase Lusty will have gone and QE is not _planned_ to be deployable before 2020 doesn’t mean we don’t need AEW.
Ocean will still be around in the LPH role and should not be sent out unprotectd. And what happens if there’s a crisis and we pull QE out of trials to go somewhere dangerous with a couple of squadrons of USMC on board?
The classic FI scenario where either Ocean or QE gets shot up and we end up bodging an emergency capability together a month too late.
@Simon
It takes engineering hours and work to do it and there is more involved than you thing in turning an airliner into an MPA aircraft. A bomb bay is not just a hole in the bottom of the thing after all. You are going to have to strengthen the airframe because you are cutting a big ass hole in it. Radars and other sensors and communications are all going to take more power to run so you have to deal with that issue. You need to rewire the plane for it. You need to cut holes for buoy ejectors.
All of that cost money. It all has to be tested. None of it would be any cheaper than what happened with the P-8 but it would be spread out over many many fewer airframes. That math on this one is pretty simple.
They still don’t discuss what CROWSNEST will actually move forward with:
Searchwaters, Vigilance, something else?
But four years to transfer those Sea King radars over onto some rails? Sounds like a new piece of kit to me and commonality with the F-35 sets seems sensible.
@TOC
Hopefully when they check down the back of the sofa they will find the money to put even just 6 Searchwaters onto Merlins to give us an austere capability for Ocean from 2016-2020.
I think we’ll be lucky if we get anything. But it does appear that the end is nigh for Searchwater – what a waste.
Following along the lines of P-8, there’s talk that the only reason the boom was deleted was to save weight? So what again is wrong with it? Seems like probably the best option looking long term.
@TOC + Peter Elliot
With the subject of Crowsnest on Merlin’s….
Recent information seems to suggest that only 8 of the spare airframes will be converted.
What about the other 4 that are apparently in storage, can they not be used as either additional AEW platforms or for the Commando force? Can we assume it’s merely costs that prevents every available Merlin from being utilised?
A drop from 13 Sea King to 8 Merlin would be yet another painful reduction that it seems to me could be easily avoided.
The MAD boom was deleted in part to save weight but mostly because the USN didn’t see it as being worth having and using in most operations. They would rather have additional time on station which is a good tradeoff in my view. Sonarbuoy tech is only going to improve while MAD is going to be limited to detecting hunks of metal close to the surface and even then can be drastically cut down in capability by some pretty basic techniques.
For the USN in particular in makes sense. The main function of the P-8 is going to be to keep the enemy away from USN assets. Prosecuting and killing is a nice bonus but you really have done the job if you simply keep the other side on the their side of your ASW barrier.
With the love in with Canada regarding shared diplomatic facilities, could we look at a defense arrangement:
Type26 developed to meet their SCSC requirement – we do the Aster/Sea Ceptor variant, they do the APAR/Essm version for domestic use and export – 28 hulls. The French have offered the FREMM.
BAE developing their LHD to meet their amphibious ship requirement – eventually we get one to replace Ocean. The French have offered the Mistral.
The MARS AOR to meet their Auxiliary required as they are currently looking at the Berlin and Cantabria variants.
and we jointly develop the CSeries to replace the RCAF CP140 (18+3) and Nimrod (12).
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/31/CS100_CS300_3view.jpg
The CS100 variant is 30% cheaper than the B737-800, the bigger CS300 is 21% cheaper as a basic airframe.
The airframe is 46% composite so better to avoid corrosion. The PW1500G engines are 15% more fuel efficient than those used on the P8 Poseidon.
The airframe could be future developed into an AEW variant to compete with the Wedgetail and also an ELINT/EW variant
SI,
MPA’s are crucial maritime assets when we have a major bluewater ASW threat. I’m more concerned when we are having to dispatch destroyers to watch Russian carrier groups as we have no means of deploying persistent surface recon than I am worried about the handful of competitive SSN’s in what remains of the Russian Northern Fleet.
As you said, in every theatre we deploy to, we have allies with MPA capability. We have precisely one ally with wide area surveillance capability and they’ve indicate that their focus isn’t our AOR. There are always the fixed wide area arrays but they are just that…fixed!. To me that doesnt make ASW MPA our biggest concern for trying to keep tabs on a few Russian SSNs in the Atlantic.
You talk about being serious about ASW?. I’d say the Japanese are serious about ASW and it’ll take a lot more than a couple of squadrons of MPA’s to put us in the same league!. That goes the same for many of those states you mention, but, if you want to make out that Portugal or Norway are serious about ASW because they have a handful of P-3’s thats a viewpoint I dont share mate.
As you say I dont think we have any chance at agreeing on this so its likely best left there.
I’m no expert on the subject of MPA but I have been following this discussion with interest and it seems to me that a few simple but important factors need to be kept in mind when future replacements are suggested…
1. We didn’t can a project that cost several billion too much and was a major headache for all those involved only to start up a brand new one in it’s place. When you factor in the European cooperation angle and the likelihood of retrofitting or ‘slicing and dicing’ existing commercial or military products it’s easy to see just how hazardous and costly this would become.
2. Even if a European MPA project got off the ground their are serious questions to be raised over how sustainable such an initiative would be. As many have argued already their just doesn’t seem to be enough of a home-grown demand with which to propel such a project forwards, let alone the global market space to make it a long-term success.
3. We are broke! I think most of us would agree that the UK should have an MPA solution, but that is likely to translate in-to a residual capability at best. This means something like 5 airframes as an absolute minimal force, or perhaps something like 8-12 if we catch a lucky break and find the extra cash and political will to force it through.
4. We can already see some very interesting and effective aircraft on the market. Off the shelf purchases offer several benefits to the would be buyer as opposed to the ‘do it yourself’ approach which in many of the more complex cases seems to offer precious little except cost overruns and a monumental headache for all those involved.
Conclusions….No idea, I’ll leave that to someone else!
@Dave
I don’t think the C series is viable anytime soon. The plane has not even flown yet. Bombardier is up to their elbows just trying to get the civilian ones up and flying. You can’t go chopping up the airframe without a ton of engineering support. The 737 and A320 are well understood creatures at this point with huge companies behind them.
That might work if your time frame is 10 years from now or more to even start on the project. There is a reason that most of these civilian airliner to military plane projects end up on older, established models rather than 787’s or A350’s and the like. The C series is just not mature enough to consider any time soon.
Jonesy
You talk about being serious about ASW?. I’d say the Japanese are serious about ASW and it’ll take a lot more than a couple of squadrons of MPA’s to put us in the same league!. That goes the same for many of those states you mention, but, if you want to make out that Portugal or Norway are serious about ASW because they have a handful of P-3′s thats a viewpoint I dont share mate.
The Japanese have their own distinctive ASW requirements and they have some good kit but an inference that they are in a different league is a bit of a joke.
For starters all their extremely capable surface assets are noisy GT only designs. They operate a quite capable SH60 J but it is not as capable as HM1 never mind HM2.
Of note, they do have 80 P3 MPA and are looking at a domestic replacement (though that project has issues).
You are quick to degenerate someone like the Norwegians but they have decades of experience tracking and interdicting Soviet and Russian SSKs and SSNs.
Edit
Jeremy MH
Indeed the military aircraft do generally end up on more mature air frames. Though with things like the 767 tanker option that has more to do with keeping production lines open.
Might the other best time for a military option to be considered not actually be in the design phase?
@APATS
Sure, that would be ideal but the C Series is not in design phase, it is in the “oh crap we have to solve all these issues to get it flying and delivered and no burn our own ass” phase. They are not going to take on any major additional task when EIS is supposed to be in 2013 and the thing has not flown yet.
The other problem with that is almost none of the framers are going to let you do that. You don’t compromise a production line that produces thousands of planes for a few dozen military ones. They are going to build an airliner first and an MPA second. What you want will have to fit in what they have. Or you can pay to have them build you a custom airframe.
APATS
They have ‘some good kit’?. You did note the rather large helicopter carrying ‘destroyers’ replaced by the Hyuga class which can only be termed through-deck cruisers or the 20 towed-array equipped SSK’s?. Maybe its worth mentioning the 80 P-3’s again or the indigenous SURTASS platforms.
Essentially they, independently, have the full scope of detect, localisation and prosecution assets in quality and quantity covering BOTH littoral and deep-water disciplines. You, seriously, think that we’d compete with that…even if MRA4 was seen through and in deployment now?.
“You are quick to degenerate someone like the Norwegians but they have decades of experience tracking and interdicting Soviet and Russian SSKs and SSNs.”
Its a nice try at spin but no I didnt denigrate the Norwegians at all. I denigrated the idea that a handful of P-3’s made them a nation serious about ASW. You’ll note I didnt bring the Norwegians in to the discussion…because their tactical situation doesnt warrant, really, blue water capability so they couldnt be expected to be a major ASW player.
Being objective though, in direct comparison to the JMSDF, despite all their experience and skills Norwegian capabilities are modest and fall off precipitously as you get further from their coastal regions. Thats not being mean to the Scandinavians its just simple fact.
Jonesy,
Perhaps you may note my phrase “The Japanese have their own distinctive ASW requirements”.
They are set up to operate in a distinct geographical area against a certain threat. Hence the equipment they have. what they are not so interested in or equipped for is the ASW Defence of deployed Task groups projecting power. I never slighted the Japanese ability simply pointed out what it was tailored for and that it is hardly a different league.
I did not the 80 MPAS, In fact I highlighted them.
The exact phrase you used ref the Norwegians was ” you want to make out that Portugal or Norway are serious about ASW because they have a handful of P-3′s thats a viewpoint I dont share mate”
The clear inference being that they do not take it seriously.
A serious question as I do not know the answer, how many sovereign SURTASS hulls have they procured?
Japan has 2 of them. Hibiki class I believe. They are clones of the SWATH types the US uses.
Gents, let us be honest, threat assesment also plays a large part of how much money a government is willing to spend on a certain capability. Currently, Japan is sitting on one of the world’s most worrying hot spot, after Iran and North Korea. The worry that the guy next door is going to lose it and lob a few rounds in your direction is a big factor in their thinking. The UK is fortunate (or unfortunate) in that it lacks such a driving force after the cold war. Add this to the fact that Japan relies heavily on imports and that they had experience in having their supplies cut by sub action during WWII and you can see why they’re a bit anal about it. To be honest though, even with history, if China doesn’t have subs, I have a sneaky suspicion their ASW capabilities would not be so pronounced, due to a lack of “percieved need”. Of course, this is moot, as China DOES have subs and they do have problems in their relations with Japan.
It actually also has a lot to do with the “purely defensive” doctrine. Anti-submarine warfare is about as defensive as you can get and it is also what the US wants to supplement its strike ability, so the Maritime Self-Defense Force concentrates on that – it is the most “politically acceptable” option.
The United Kingdom has more scope for distractions, such as getting strike carriers :-)
It really is gearing up around the East and South China Sea’s.
If you have a spare few minutes have a quick Google for materiel procurement in the last two years alone.
Even forgetting future development such as the South Korean F-X there’s subs, aircraft, warships and the recent announcement of Apaches to be used covering the Straights of Malacca.
Wonder if there’s any UK based involvement or even just inspiration from a marine Apache point of view.
US Navy has just ordered 11 more P-8’s for $1.9b (£172m per unit) in their third phase LRIP.
Doing a bit of digging, the first phase of the LRIP for 6 units cost $1.6b ($266m each). The second batch of 7 ordered last year cost $1.7b ($243m).
India have ordered 12 at a cost of £220m each (£2.6b) and plan to order 12 more at a later date.
The end target for the US alone is to expand to 117 units.
Boeing consider the UK a prime potential customer (AirForces Monthly, August 2012, p5)…
Contrast with Nimrod MRA4 which rose from £3.6b to £4.4b ($6.6b, 9 units down from 21 equating to $733m each).
Has anyone heard more on the committee that The Time supposedly reported on in February 2011:
“The Royal Navy is looking to buy a fleet of maritime patrol aircraft for up to £1 billion just weeks after the MoD scrapped the new Nimrod aircraft at a cost of £3.6 billion.
The MoD confirmed last week that the navy wanted to buy its own maritime patrol aircraft to track enemy submarines replacing the Nimrods, which are being broken up for scrap.
The new RAF Nimrod MRA4s had not even come into service when the prime minister announced last October that as part of the strategic defence review he was scrapping Nimrod.
The navy, which was furious that RAF bosses had agreed to get rid of Nimrod, has already set up a team to buy a replacement and ensure that it is flown by the Fleet Air Arm.
The programme is being run by Commodore Simon Kings with a team made up of naval officers.
Navy chiefs have expressed concern about the loss of a maritime surveillance aircraft at a time when many countries, including China and Iran, are increasing their number of submarines.”
Given the Indian and latest USN LRIP phase, that £1b ($1.5b) could potentially procure 7 P-8 units at $200m each and with production and support continuing for the foreseeable future additional orders could be made in coming years similar to the C-17 approach.
Watching the LRIP is a good indicator for how continued long term production, even at low rates, helps industry settle into reasonable cost reductions over a period with each order:
$266m -> $243m -> $220m -> $172m.
(Note that the Indian order I listed above should have been in dollars $, not pounds £, apologies.)
Isn’t there a notional budget heading of £1b for a future MPA?
If the price of the P8 drops to £140 in six years time can we just buy seven and be done with it?
@X – “And the newly added 8in deck guns look lovely too…..” – muzzle loaders?
@TOC – “Boeing consider the UK a prime potential customer (AirForces Monthly, August 2012, p5)…” – “I pity the fools.”
@TOC – if it was in a UK paper then the odds are it’s complete b@ll@cks – I’ve stopped reading them. £1billion might buy you some aircraft but what about crew training, testing, basing, maintenance, etc. Anyone whose ever bought a car knows the expenditure doesn’t stop there! The only point of committees is to keep senior management in jobs until they retire. Or give backbenchers something to claim expenses for. If there is a £1 billion budget for MPA it’ll probably just about cover the costs of the committee looking into it.
Exactly what is that £8 billion that Spreadsheet Phil has “set aside” for? If it’s for a rainy day then have a look outside – don’t bother if you’re a tax exile I mean expat. :-)
Dave said “With the love in with Canada regarding shared diplomatic facilities, could we look at a defense arrangement:”
I don’t see it as something new, more as restoration of normal relations. We left the Canadians (and Australians and New Zealanders) they didn’t leave us.
Indian figure is the only figure which would be applicable to a uk buy. You CANNOT judge the price based on us buying us equipment. In my view if we’re actually doing this then 16 a/c is the min requirement.
@jedibeeftrix
My thoughts too. Get some capability back, expand the fleet as required in the future?
P-8 may or may not be ideal, but is this a case of any plan is better than no plan?
There’s also masses to be said for commonality not only with the USA in the Atlantic but also with India EoS.
@WiseApe
The figures quoted for India are fairly full implementation costs (training, initial maintenance tooling, etc). It’s not a pure unit cost only an order fee divided by units to give an indication. Salaries, etc, would still be additional costs which is to be expected, though remember we’re still paying for SEEDCORN which includes MPA as well as Air Seeker.
@Mark
Loud and clear.
Interested in your figure of 16 units as I think it’s the first mention of minimum’s in the comments so far, especially given the 21 down to 9 MRA4 scenario, could you expand on reaching that figure please?
Hypothetically, would an approach of 7 now and additional units over time building up to (and beyond?) 16 be sufficient for your concerns?
From TD’s link page – P-8 part of the US “net”:
http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=/article-xml/AW_09_03_2012_p04-486383.xml
Yeah, the P-8 is going to do a hell of a lot more than ASW work that is for sure. The USN is going heavily in on the network enabled environment. I think it is the right decision to make as well. 15 years ago the technology probably didn’t exist but it does now and it looks like it all should work. CEC and the networked military is where any high intensity conflict will be won or lost in the next 30 years in my view.
@X – “We left the Canadians (and Australians and New Zealanders) they didn’t leave us.” – isn’t it ironic that our “special friends” are now trying to cosy-up to the Aussies and New Zealanders. And aren’t the Canadians considering a pivot towards the Pacific? Martin did a good post about the dearth of strategic thinking in the UK beyond how can we ingratiate ourselves with the USA. I think our recent agreements with France are a pointer to our future – much more constrained by European “co-operation.” If we want to get anything done without US aid we will be relying on a consensus between ourselves and continental Europe. A recipe for success. :-o
Can’t sink a sub with it but might still be of interest to some here. Same site has an article about JLENS trial – including crucial role of “hot air balloons.” You didn’t think I was just going to let that lie did you, SI?
http://www.defencetalk.com/china-to-promote-drones-for-marine-surveillance-44730/
@jedibeeftrix
‘Isn’t there a notional budget heading of £1b for a future MPA?
If the price of the P8 drops to £140 in six years time can we just buy seven and be done with it?’
I think the notional budget is somewhere around the billion mark, no idea where that would come from though.
I’m not sure where you get you’re figure of 7 from, but I do absolutely agree that if the price is right then the P8 is the best choice. Fixed price, commonality with the Americans, a hugely capable system, no hassle this side of the pond.
When it comes to this sort of very complex system in which we have no firm footing ourselves I believe off the shelf is the way to go.
The figure of 7 purely comes from our rough and ready sums:
$1.5b notional budget (1.5 Dollars per Pound exchange rate) divided by a ball-park $200m P-8 unit cost.
@ Wise Ape
The Canadians don’t have to pivot they are there already. The Canadian problem with “Global warming” they are having to think about 3 sea flanks not 2. I suppose you could say the “pivot” is between the Arctic and Atlantic, and not the Atlantic and Pacific.
As I like to say in 1973 we swapped markets, raw materials, and global presence for competing industry, no raw materials, and European presence. Sell cow, buy magic beans.
@The Other Chris
The figure of 7 makes more sense now, thanks.
However, will the P8 still be $200m per unit even when we will want it in 2015 or 2020? Surely the price could drop as the production line ramps up? The American’s are buying over 100 after all.
@x
We defiantly missed a trick when we totally and utterly moved away from the Commonwealth and towards Europe in the 1970s.
I’m not suggesting that more cooperation and trade with Europe weren’t good things, but we really should have kept our hand in with these Commonwealth cousins of ours.
From a defence angle their was so much wasted potential, the Commonwealth Division in Korea and ANZUK in Malaysia are just a couple of examples of how we should have been shaping the future, not waving a final farewell to the past.
@ Chally
No trouble with trade Europe or other co-operation. Canada had troops in Germany, she didn’t need to be part of a European project, did she?
I believe good fences make for good neighbours.
How many P8s? India have ordered 8, Australia have also ordered or are about to order 8. No doubt after consultants have been appointed and an expensive feasibility study undertaken etc. etc. we will order 8 as well.
@x
I wasn’t disagreeing with you at all, I totally agree that one can have trade and cooperation without political unity.
In my view we should have pursued a Commonwealth policy alongside a European one, especially from the defence point of view.
Commonwealth divisions, bases, squadrons, diplomatic pacts etc could have allowed us to really punch above our weight, but then and now. I’m not advocating total integration, just closer cooperation in areas of mutual interest.
Didn’t think you were disagreeing.
@Waddi
India exercised their clause to increase their order to 12 P-8I’s in February 2011 and intend to order 24 in total.
EDIT:
141 total units in the Boeing pipeline to date (117 US, 24 India). Still digging to find details on any progress made pitching the P-8 AGS for the USAF.
Suggest the P-8K Manannán/Mannanin for the UK variant…
TOC
The last time there was a defence review with nimrod mr2 still in service it said 16 was the minimum requirement to allow standing uk commitments and deployed operations to take place at the same time so it would be a gd starting place.
I thought the spare money was there to cover contingencies in the current program and any sudden operation changes over the next ten years. If this cant be funded over that period then are we not into the order now hope the money appears mantra?
If the 1b pound is to buy the a/c and bring it into uk service and provide basic training and initial spares testing ect then its prob 5 or 6 a/c and your looking at and a 10 year support bill of an additional 450m pounds at least going by US figures. P8 is an option if your going the 737 route for e3 and airseeker replacement but these will not solely be mpa a/c given the procurement cost and something else will most likely need to go to pay for them and it will be a big program.
Or if you going with a more networked approach with smaller more numerous a/c providing a grid type system with no single critical node then its maybe not the way to go. Do we have have the same requirements as a pacific facing US Navy?
Somebody above mentioned a figure of 5 Nimrods for 1 to be available.
X,
5 Nimrods to keep 1 in constant ASW action over the contact or have 1 in direct support 24/7 to a TG.
Jeremy M H,
“It takes engineering hours and work to do it and there is more involved than you thing in turning an airliner into an MPA aircraft. A bomb bay is not just a hole in the bottom of the thing after all. You are going to have to strengthen the airframe because you are cutting a big ass hole in it. Radars and other sensors and communications are all going to take more power to run so you have to deal with that issue. You need to rewire the plane for it. You need to cut holes for buoy ejectors.”
All that seems like a walk in the park for someone like me. Shame everyone else subscribes to the BAe view that “ooh, aah, that’s going to cost you mate”. Just hand a A321 to me, give me access to the engineering department at a southern university and I’ll have one ready just as soon as I’ve done the FEM on the bomb bay and the CFD on the airframe when the things rotated into position (yup, I’d use the rotating bomb bay concept, that should please TD). This all relies on Airbus providing me with the mesh for the computing. ;-)
@ APATS
To have one “available” for normal patrol work.
Simon
Youll need the necessary certification signatures as well. Boeing was selected in 2004 for the P8.
Casts the reduced number of nine MRA4’s in a certain light, eh?
X, I do not think so. Just checked with a good friend of mine who was a NIMBAT aircraft captain and he has confirmed for me.
A nice little article that lays out the bare bones of the MPA problem if anyone who hasn’t seen it wants to take a look…
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/in-focus-uk-left-exposed-by-nimrod-cancellation-report-says-376998/
It makes me warm to the C295 a bit more. I’m not sure how credible the info about 4 C295 for 1 P8 is. However if their is any shred of truth to it then it would mean we could get up-to 28 of these for our billion instead of 7 higher end platforms.
Yes please!
@ Chally
I have already it. Clearly the message is buy more ships is it not? :)
I am not sure about the P8. All I can think is that the USN wouldn’t buy a lemon would they?
The C295 is nice, but I would think 4 engines is better than 2 for an MPA.
@x
‘I have already it. Clearly the message is buy more ships is it not?’
Apologies I’m not sure what you mean?
I do agree though that with the P8 the American’s wouldn’t buy a lemon, it will be a very capable aircraft, I’m thinking (backed up by the article) that it’s perhaps too capable/expensive for our needs.
Deja Vu suggested a re-run of Nimrod with a contempary airframe, Simon seems on that track too.
An A330 perhaps? Fit FITS (Brazilian and Spanish P3 have FITS, I assume the system is at home on most any aircraft). For the weapons bay, Nimrod avoided cutting ‘a big ass hole’ in the fuselage by grafting on more fuselage – the bomb bay is in the long belly blister. The A330 has a wide body and widely spread undercarriage which may allow a similar arrangement.
You’ve got a whopping airframe on which to nail other AESA, IRST, ELINT sensors, and in which to host workstations. A probe on the front, and the drogue kit at the back – you’d have everything you need to support your carrier group in one aircraft. I’ll get BAe on the phone, they can send the invoice to the next government.
How would a MPA like the C295, cope with a disaster, like Piper Alpha? Not that I am questioning it’s ability as a MPA.
Would it be able to command and control a major disaster, whilst also being able to stay on Station for a considerable time? Because, we really need an aircraft that can do that.
C295? Isn’t that just the Airbus version of the C-2 Greyhound?
Perhaps we should have built CVF as a CATOBAR afterall ;-)
Just think, we could have had decent AEW, COD and MPA from a single airframe type. Wow! Just think of the savings!
“Perhaps we should have built CVF as a CATOBAR afterall” – how does that Hives song go? Ah yes: “Hate to say I told you so, alright!”
@Simon
The C-295 has no folding wings, it’t height is 8.6m, and even if me manage to make both fold, the width over engine nacelles would eat tons of precious hangar space.
It happens, that a V-22 carries nearly the same cargo, is fully compatible with CVF and is both carrier-, escort- and (rough)terrain-capable. Having a ASW-Osprey is definitely a game-changer, it would double or triple the effective range of our ASW-screen.
So, no need to go CATOBAR.
http://www.navyrecognition.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=633
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=brSCdjn9dGs&feature=plcp
What about using a swing role aircraft/UAV instead of obe dedicated to the MPA role:
” Proteus is an “optionally piloted” aircraft ordinarily flown by two pilots in a pressurized cabin. However, it also has the capability to perform its missions semi-autonomously or flown remotely from the ground. Under NASA’s Environmental Research Aircraft and Sensor Technology (ERAST) project, NASA’s Dryden Flight Research Center assisted Scaled Composites in developing a sophisticated station-keeping autopilot system and a satellite communications (SATCOM)-based uplink-downlink data system for Proteus’ performance and payload data.”
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scaled_Composites_Proteus
@Swimming Trunks – well it’s certainly got the endurance but it doesn’t look capable of lifting much payload. Also, really skinny so where would you put hundreds of sonar buoys?
My bad – when I said MPA role I was refering to alternative to something like BAMS – if you “pod” the sensors you can switch between roles like Naval or Land ISTAR, AEW, comms relay, etc. Common pool of optionally manned aircraft and equip with the relevent sensor pod(s).
You could always carry your sonobuoys in a ship……
….flying boats for the RAF? I’m surprised at you X.
Oh dear no! Wot a thought, somebody get the smelling salts……
No I was thinking they could fly their rinky dinky model aeroplane off something like this,
http://img.ezinemark.com/imagemanager2/files/30003693/2011/08/2011-08-04-12-40-45-9-built-by-a-spanish-shipbuilding-company-the-royal.jpeg
Of course as it would be flying off a ship to monitor the sea we might as well move the model aeroplane club, sorry squadron, to the RN….
How much to build and operate a very basic CVS/DDH compared to a DD/FF? I read somewhere an Invicible class was 3 times the cost of a destroyer to operate, even before its air group was included. Would a smaller “carrier” be cheaper?
@ x
Ahh the mighty Sunderland, good idea let’s bring back Maritime Command while you’re at it. Is that pic a line up of all the FAA?
@ Swimming Trunks
I was joking about the ship, I just couldn’t let WiseApe’s cutting remark (one wounds so easily) go without a repost.
The ship is the HTMS Chakri Naruebet. As for operating costs it all depends what you want to do doesn’t it? Launching Harriers means expensive GT. Military level manning means a big crew. Twin screw or one screw? What you asking for is a half-sized Ocean, single screw, operating off a pair of medium speed diesels.
McZ (some time ago ;-)),
V22 vs E2/C2 – range, endurance and ceiling?
Although I get your point somewhat, V22 is certainly something we should be pursuing a lot more… ASW, AEW, COD, MPA, Tactical Troop Transport (is TTT recognised as the TLA for this?).
A German yard produced a series of off shore helicopter carriers, one was shown to Thailand for their HTMS Chakri Naruebet requirements but the Spainish design was chosen instead.
http://m90.photobucket.com/albumview/albums/shipbucket/Ship%20Charts/BremerVulkanHC500PC.gif.html?o=13
Design for Thailand:
http://m90.photobucket.com/albumview/albums/shipbucket/Ship%20Charts/BremerVulkanHC600PT.gif.html?o=14
A take on why a P8 is an improvement on a P3:
http://defense.aol.com/2012/10/02/navys-p-8-sub-hunter-bets-on-high-altitude-high-tech-barf-bag/
1) Flexible wings=smoother ride especially at low altitude and
2) Compressed air sonobuoy launch= less gunpowder stench
equals less vomiting in the back
3) More processing power and
4) Multistatic Active Coherent (MAC) buoys (a kind of networked active sonar array?)
equals less need to come down low anyway, and less need for a MAD boom too.
“For some of the new sub-hunting technologies..going higher actually gives you a better look. Today, for example, one key tool is a kind of air-dropped buoy that hits the water and then explodes, sending out a powerful pulse of sound that travels a long way through the water and reflects off the hulls of submarines, creating sonar signals that other, listening-device buoys then pick up. (The technical name is Improved Extended Echo Ranging, or IEER). Obviously, an explosive buoy can only be used once, and the sonar signal its detonation generates is not precisely calibrated. So the Navy is developing a new kind of buoy called MAC (Multistatic Active Coherent), which generates sound electronically, allowing it to emit multiple, precise pulses before its battery runs down.
“It will last longer and you’re able to do more things with it,” Rondeau said. And because a field of MAC buoys can cover a wider search area, he said, “we need to stay up high… to be able to receive data from all these buoys and control all these buoys at the same time.”
An early version of MAC will go on P-3s next year and on P-8s in 2014, but only the P-8 will get the fully featured version, as part of a suite of upgrades scheduled for 2017.”
we will buy 8 p8a in 2016/2017 then a further 8 about 2022/2023 and then a further 10/12 airframes for aew and replacment rivet joint rhis ties in nicly with project seedcorn this will also tie in nicly with a french/german order at the same time just remeber were all the service personal are in project seedcorn usa p8a
australia p8a and canada about to order p8a i rest my case
Been waiting for this to come out for some time
“So, the cat is out of the bag — just maybe not with as much fanfare as Boeing had hoped for its budding partnership with Canadian business jet maker Bombardier.
For more than a year, Boeing has been playing coy on who is the manufacturer of its top choice of a mid-sized business jet on which it house its Maritime Surveillance Aircraft concept of a scaled down P-8 for international partners. ”
http://www.aviationweek.com/Blogs.aspx?plckBlogId=Blog:27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7&plckPostId=Blog%3a27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3a429b01ea-6298-4818-bc36-27a7eb71c2a5
Here’s one for the cognoscenti to revive. What opinions would you all have on creating an MPA capability along the same lines as the AirSeeker/Rivet Joint partnership, i.e. UK leases US aircraft and flies UK missions in a big mixymablob thingy? Maybe with BAMS/Triton thrown in as well? The Seedcorn personnel form the core of the new crews, and according to some rumours have even been involved in flight development of the P8.
Awaiting comments with interest.
SI, how many airframes can be bought and sustained for how much and at what range from your mainland? That is probably the biggest question of all.
I’m wondering if smaller, cheaper and more airframes can be procured if we split the information processing and flight requirements? We can have flight crew only on the planes with the info being transmitted to a ground based processing station. With 3 aircrew only and the mission staff on the ground, can the plane be made to fly further, faster, longer? With a vid link feedback to the pilot to inform him of anything found and maybe a basic plot indicator for flight crew overall situational awareness, it might be able to keep everyone working together even if they are not really together.
Ideas, ideas… hmm…
Obs, given that the UK and US still have a mutual interest in the North Atlantic there is scope to share capability. SOSUS is still there and operational, this could be seen as a larger part of that whole ASW solution. The nuclear deterrent has to be protected whether it be UK or US, and they are US missiles in the back of the Vanguard. I think that the AirSeeker model offers a fascinating alternative to the traditional purchase of large fleets of sovereign aircraft, an option perhaps only possible because of the technological capabilities, ASW skills and shared heritage that exists between the UK and the US.
SI
We have bought the rivet joint aircraft they are not leased. Like the c17 they will go back to the US to be upgraded and reman common with the US aircraft. I could see something similar working for p8 buy they ain’t cheap to buy so a couple of billion would need to be found as purchasing the aircraft would be important.
With shadow, reaper still a uor (I hope they will be brought into core) and Astors future looking unsure despite its unique capability I’m not sure outside of f35 budget were well get the cash.
Which makes an interesting question about trade offs, would you keep the F35 fleet at 50-60 in order to spend on a P8 MPA, more ISTAR and perhaps more AT?
Cancel FRES? :p
“I’m not sure outside of f35 budget were well get the cash.”
TD
It does but look at the equipment budget for the next 10 years baring doing something with the humongous sub budget there nothing else left. When I mean the f35 budget its the 48 we have included in it between now and 2022 which is the only thing in the airside not formally on contract. shove f35 out to 2027+ for isd (I would have done it in 2010) ordered only the 3 for our part in the test program and without a doubt bought p8 and increased the shadow and reaper fleets and included them in the core budget.
Mark, actually in my opinion, the Reapers/Predators are one of the things you can easily do without.
There no shortage of offers it would seem even mock up models with uk markings.
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/riat-airbus-military-steps-up-c295-mpa-offer-to-uk-388594/
Industry sources say a UK air ISTAR [intelligence, surveillance, target acquisition and reconnaissance] optimisation study is set to soon enter a second phase, following an analysis of initial engagement between potential bidders and the Ministry of Defence. If progressed, this could lead to the latter seeking to establish a funding line by April 2014 to conduct work leading to a possible future purchase.