True

But it still counts as a success on the other criteria, namley fitting the bill, world class and combat proven.

True of recent frigates, but on the past The Leanders and Daring class did well.

If we were deciding whether to buy the Nimrod or the P-3C, then that might be a valid argument.

But, we have ALREADY paid for the Nimrod. What you are proposing is to scrap the more capable system that is FINISHED and ALREADY PAID FOR, and spending MORE MONEY on an entirely new system that we have no experience operating, would have to wait even longer to get into service and create an entirely new support chain.

How do you propose to save money in doing this?

That is not what I was proposing. If you READ my posts, I agreed, they are already paid for and we should go ahead with them.

I was suggesting what we should have done.

Where we buy off the shelf kit and amend it to our own needs we have come off very well.

E-3
WAH-66

Where we go through our flawed prcurement process and try and keed BAE Systems shareholders happy that is where it often goes wrong.

All I am saying is that this situation need not have occured…..

To cancel MRA4 now would be insanity, the money has been spent, the aircraft are being delivered, the OCU is up and running and the RAF have clearly stated they don’t want to loose it.

Have you looked at a map? The GIUK gap is a vast patrol area! Faster and further is very important for a country that can only field a small number of aircraft for a large tasking area.

As far as the RAF were concerned there were no decent alternatives, P-8 wasn’t even a concept when the MR2 replacement program was launched (and is also inferior to the MRA4) the alternative Atlantique 3 or Orion derivative were inferior.

The only money saved now is through life operating costs and that would be eaten up buying an inferior alternative.

My Geography is fine.

So, please tell me, why do we need to constantly patrol the GIUK gap?

The Cold War is long gone.Russian subs roaming around are certainly not the existantial threat they once were.

I do not deny the MRA4 would be the most capable MPA in the world, my point was do we really need the most capable MPA in the world anymore?

If it is to just defend UK Waters, as mentioned P-3C is fine for the interim.

“RAF have clearly stated they don’t want to loose it”

The RAF do not want to lose a type of plane. No real news there.Were you expecting them to say they did? I dont want to lose going our for dinner on saturday night, but if I need to save money I make do…..

I do not deny that we have spent far too much and in all logic we actually should induct the MRA4, it is, as you rightfully point out, an awesome aircraft.

The point I was making was about the very system and procurement process that got us into the mess. If that does not change, we may well see many more cases where we

1) Do not purchase a foreign alternative
2) Instigate a domestic programme that will have little chance of export success thereby lowering costs
3) Keep redefining the requirements leading to more and more delays and costs overruns
4) Accept the almost criminal excuses of the defence manufacture for avoidable ovveruns
5) A set up where the very people overseeing such projects actually go on to have jobs with the very people they are supposed to be overseeing on behalf of the British taxpayer.

Unless all the above changes, we may well be in another situation where the country, taxpayer and the armed forces are left short changed.

because we find the RAF in a situation where it has nothing.

Latest versions of the P-3C equip USN, Japan, Germany, Australia.

Could we not have made do with these?

Some capability would have been better then none…..

I said it once and I will say it again. Should have gone for a few used P-3Cs and upgraded them. Not saying they would be as capable, but P-3C III would have been a fraction of the MRA4 cost while providing a large portion of its capabilities….

Aspis, Arrows was talking about the AIM-9M deal that the Pakistanis signed up for..they got JHMCS with their 18 new F-16 Block 52s, and bought 500 AIM-120C6’s but not the AIM-9X. They instead went in for the AIM-9M.

As for the Iraqi’s, it’s quite clear that $4 billion for 18 F-16s and outdated weaponry like the AIM-7 and older variants like the AIM-9M when more modern versions are available is quite a rip off..It’s a pity that the IrAF is not going to look to EU for the Gripen NG with Meteor/IRIS-T/ASRAAM..would be a far more capable airspace defender.

It is the C5 AMRAAM, not the C6.

There are barely enough AIM-9Xs for US forces at the momment so waiting for them may take a while, in the meantime the M is more then enough for most air to air threats close in threats, or perhaps all of NATO is wrong on that?

Almost every NATO nation still uses the M. It is a VERY capable missile, once production of the X is ramped up, it will still take time to replace all Ms.

Similar to the situation in the 80s/early 90s with the L/M gradually replcaing the P

If we exercise all options this should bring our 412 fleet up to 56 choppers.

WASHINGTON, September 15, 2010 — The Defense Security Cooperation Agency notified Congress on 14 September of a possible Foreign Military Sale to Pakistan of BELL 412EP Helicopters as well as associated equipment and services. The total value, if all options are exercised, could be as high as $397 million.
The Government of Pakistan has requested a possible sale of up to thirty BELL 412EP Helicopters, spare and repair parts, support equipment, ferry services, air worthiness certification, publications and technical data, personnel training and training equipment, U.S. Government and contractor logistics, engineering, and technical support services, and other related elements of logistics support.

http://www.dsca.mil/PressReleases/36-b/2010/pakistan_10-28.pdf