JonesyThanks lads. As you say Al its the harshness I find difficult to square off here – especially from a court-martial. It seems incomprehensibly easier for the MOD Police to get the pistol checked forensically for GSR to prove its not been fired – clearly supporting the contention this was a gift tucked away and not an active weapon.
If it was so proved the pistol is sent to the RMP Armoury for deactivation and then returned to the Sergeant with an invoice for work undertaken ‘on his behalf’. Shortly after he gets a letter in the post for his court-martial bollocking and slap-on-the wrist fine. He keeps his job, his family dont stand to lose their home and the taxpayer doesnt have to pick up the bill supporting the prison stay of a man who represents no threat to our society to require him be segregated from it.
JonesyNo Nick if we go through with the current concept of Successor bomber we get enough boats to maintain CASD and thats it. Our deployed deterrent platform is not going to go indiscrete, on patrol, launching a conventional strike.
JonesyWhat is indisputable is that US has not signed and therefore not ratified United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea that rules sea lanes, innocent passage, transit passage and its enforcement and safeguards.
Which is yet again nothing more than a mildly sensationalist soundbyte.
The US right wing does not like to sign agreements of binding international law and doesnt like the sound of laws that will impose licensing and taxation on commercial opportunities, that are being exploited right now, without those costs. I dont think that it constitutes any great surprise that US republicans would harbour such views and it has no bearing whatsoever on the USN’s pursuit of Freedom of Navigation and sea lane integrity.
If the US was dead set against UNCLOS you might have a point….though a weak one as it doesnt change the basic fact that safe sealanes and freedom of navigation serve all of us. The fact is though that the US is not dead set against it and UNCLOS has a great deal of support over there.
JonesyI guess you also like the idea about whoever with enough money coming into your town to install his own ”police” without any authorization.. The uncalled ”agency” will start to watch over civic safety, deal with criminals and also arbitrarily decide who is a villain and who is not, who is allowed to own a gun and who isn’t.. All this for the ”greater good of all citizens”.
…and we are reinforcing the display of abject naievete.
Its a nice emotive appeal to injustice MS, but, wholly incorrect as an analogy. The ‘town’ in this case is what is known as international waters. By your analogy its the USNs ‘town’ as much as anyone elses!. Not to mention the ‘sheriff’ usually calls in deputies from lots of other ‘parts of town’ see http://www.cusnc.navy.mil/IMCMEX/index.html.
The point you are missing, and its tragically commonplace, is that maritime trade is the foundation of the global economy. If it is allowed to be disrupted, by any means, to a significant degree all our economies suffer and we all, directly, suffer. That is unless, of course, you are a subsistence farmer, living in the developing world, who still uses oxen to plow his fields?. I’m assuming you aren’t…as I’d expect them to be a bit more pragmatic.
The choice is here between no-one performing Freedom of Navigation exercises or the USN doing it…usually in concert with others…the latter option is the better for the global economy and that one fact is indisputable.
JonesySurely thats an issue to do with the embargo not the overwatch of safe sea lanes?. An embargo would be enforced irrelevent to whether the sea lanes were protected or not!. So you are saying the US or NATO shouldnt be allowed to place embargoes on nations it deems warrant them?.
Countries that dont like constant US presence in their neighbourhood?. Paraguay?. You mean Panama perhaps?. Well, if so, you cited two countries that contain or are very close to one of the largest maritime chokepoints on the planet so there would be a heavy presence of general naval traffic anyway wouldnt there?. It would be equally tough for Egypt to complain, honestly, about the presence of US warships in its maritime approaches or Turkey complaining about Russian Navy presence in its!.
Vigilance over the integrity of the international shipping lanes is good for everyone who participates in global trade. No-one is objecting to those lanes, where they are in international waters, being patrolled so lets not let our antipathy for US naval hegemony get in the way of common sense eh?
Jonesy??? Do they have any authorization for this ”job”?
Who is there who doesnt benefit from safe sea lanes to object?
JonesyGot to agree with TR1 there. Signature management is about a lot more than a few angled hull plates. Acoustic and IR attenuation is every bit as important as radar cross section. As I understand it propulsion is a pair of big high-speed diesels…do we know if these are rafted or not etc?. They then appear to have copied the French concept of bolting a highly reflective SAM mount on the back of a ‘notional’ RCS managed design as well…which seems a touch odd if the intent is really to produce a properly RF ‘stealthy’ hull?.
Last thing can someone advise what this hull is for?. Its on the big side for coastal patrol detail but lacking key facilities that true-OPVs need…not least organic air?. The only role that this seems to fit is the old patrol corvette tasking and that levels the 056 more with the Russian Pr. 21631 than the larger and more capable 20380?. Why did China not simply go with an upgunned Pattani design if the requirement was for an armed OPV?.
JonesyNext up is the B-class for subs I thought?. We skipped W, X, Y, Z when we went to A-class for the current SSN build.
Plenty of good ‘B’ names to be had – Battle, Bellerophon, Boadicea, Brazen, Brilliant, Byron. Any four of them would do for me!.
JonesyJohn
The V Force provided the deterrent only for about 12 years to 1968, after that the huge amount spent on developing and building those bombers was wasted as regards the deterrent
What I’ve got says V-force deterrent stood up on Valiant with Blue Danube at Wittering in ’54 and stood down on Vulcan with Blue Steel at Scampton in ’69. Truth of it though is that whether its 12yrs or 15 its still a fair period and, regardless of Skybolt, the Valiants would have been phased out anyway and the fatigue issue may still have seen the Victors re-roled. The term you use ‘wasted as regards the deterrent’ is meaningless…the aircraft were either a waste of money or not. More than a decade in a strategic role and two further decades in tactical and support roles suggests a decent return on investment to me.
Skybolt would have kept the V Force current into the 80s, instead £156 million had to be found to build the four R class, plus the money for over 100 Polaris missiles.
The savings from the Skybolt program plus the savings from continued investment into the Vulcan to keep it viable offset the ‘4 boatload’ Polaris buy and warhead development. The costs for the R-class were largely pumped into Birkenhead and Barrow. I grew up in Birkenhead so I can tell you categorically that the investment that came from those orders was massively valuable to the local economy and put food on tables. For that ‘cost’ the Polaris system we ended up with was a massively more capable one than Skybolt.
The decision not to build CVA-01 was due significantly to the pullback from EoS and the costs of that program plus all the ancillaries that went with it. Had Polaris not been built CVA-01 still gets scrapped. The F-111K thing was spurious, though a good carrot to dangle to rally RAF support for the anti-carrier lobby. No, realistic, number of F-111K’s could replace the multiple roles a carrier air group could on EoS station so anyone suggesting that the F-111’s had a significant part of the CVA-01 demise is missing the point.
Entertaining as all of this is its moving us away from the core issue though. If you believe you are the keeper of the conspiracy theorist knowledge and know better thats fine I’m happy to leave it there.
JonesyRockall,
My assumption that it would take up to a decade to get an MPA into squadron service is based on a deep distrust of the military procurement system.
I suspect ‘deep distrust’ to be the edited-for-television version of what is actually not far from ‘open contempt’ if so you have found a pool of like minded individuals here!. Your view of the environment that could see the decade timespan is well detailed and, tragically, hard to argue with!.
The point about Reaper is an interesting one. I had, to be honest, assumed that part of the reason for the ready-binning of the ASTOR capability was that Reapers could provide enough of a function, in the GMTI role, more cheaply. They could fairly simply be pressed into an optronic surface recon role if cued by a nearby Sentry or similar radar platform though I guess. Bolting on a maritime search set of their own, like the US Guardians, could be an option to provide a more comprehensive capability ‘cheap’ but it looks like a pretty good way of strangling Mantis at birth. Seeing that we are meant to be developing that air-vehicle with the French thats going to be a contentious one politically.
MrMalaya,
As Swerve says that light tilt-rotor is quite unsuited to anything that we would find useful as an MPA or dedicated sub-hunter. I’ve seen it mentioned as a possible CSAR platform or to carry a pair of Vigilance arrays for ASAC tasking off a non-CAT carrier…as it has speed and altitude characteristics more favourable than rotary’s..but I doubt even they were really serious. Its a bit lightweight for either tasking and is sorely short on endurance. Its not a real option for either LR ASW or persistent Maritime Surface Recon.
JonesyBager
So somehow between 1945 and now submarine tech has regressed? Because I seem to remember German SSKs being a significant threat to the US coastline… and even into the Gulf of Mexico… with virtually no surface logistics support! Much of what they needed was supplied by other subs, and even without any resupply they were able to sail from their bases on the south-western coast of France or in north-western Germany/Denmark to the mid-Atlantic, patrol for a while, and return.
Yeah not really full submarines until the XXI’s came out were they though?. Modern SSK’s arent designed for the same surface-running-dived-attack profile that allowed the German boats that range are they?. I grant you that there are some blue water capable SSK’s out there…the Aussie Collins and the Japanese boats especially qualify in that regard, BUT, predominantly the 209’s, 212’s, Kilo’s, various Scandinavian designs, Agosta’s, Scorpene’s and pretty much most of the rest of the worlds in-service SSK’s are coastal boats.
So modern non-nuclear-powered subs can’t do that? Wow, you learn something every day!
Some can and do. Most cant and dont. In context of the discussion we were having the ones that UK forces would have to be concerned about would fall into the latter category. Are the USN worried about Chinese SSK’s off San Diego or in the South China Sea?.
JonesyRockall,
I am big believer in working smarter…not harder…though the Gerry Anderson point is well made as is the note of it being ‘somewhat ambitious’ as a concept!!.
There has been work done on LAPES-type deployment of RHIBs in a ready condition for SF insertion missions from conventional tail-ramp cargo types. Using an amphib, to my mind, is the logical extension of that allowing for launch and recovery of the unit though, I must concede, the mental image of a deeply miserable crew trying to fish the unit out of a 9ft swell without getting swamped is a stark one. The idea I had in mind to prevent that would be something like this:
The AN/WSD-1 I mentioned was a unique variant of the AN/WLD-1 that was entirely inspired by a fat set of fingers!. Proof reading being an entirely appropriate exercise that I didnt manage in this case!!!
I also like the multi-role aspect of the traditional MPA which even if we ordered it tomorrow would still take up to a decade to get into squadron service.
You sure on the decade?. If its something wild and mildly harebrained like a Thunderbird-2 amphibian….absolutely, but, something ‘off the peg’ seems to average about 4yrs from order to delivery going by the IN’s P-8’s and the AMI’s ATR72’s?. Workups to sqdn service isnt going to take 5 or 6yrs is it?
He was on Sunderland’s and told stories of Christmas on the Nile to a young impressionable ‘Rockall’ how nice it would be to see that again…
Different world and those stories are starting to get rarer…youre lucky to hear them now.
Which one of us is going to talk about the current lack of adequate Search and Rescue cover … ?
So same page on the hymn sheet there then!. Of course as well as ASW and SAR that amphibian would also be good at SF insertion, disaster assistance and perhaps even an odd slant at COD supporting the duty CVF group….just saying!.
JonesyYes, I’m afraid it was a huge financial blow, I don’t see why you are arguing the point.
I’m arguing the point because you are wrong on almost every key point here John.
The bombers had already been bought and paid for, the cancellation of Skybolt effectively meant that they were a waste of money.
Complete nonsense I’m afraid. The V-force provided 15yrs of deterrence and went on to serve in other roles after Polaris took over. The funding for Skybolt, its subsequent upkeep, and the money that would have gone on keeping the bombers viable into the 80’s was simply redirected into the R-class boats. The additional costs, for the submarines, was money spent in our economy and was nowhere near the magnitude of what you are trying to make it out to be. Polaris did not come at the expense of CVA-01.
As for your last point about economics, I’m afraid you are wrong, and badly so. Defence spending is a cost, it does not provide economic benefit.
Now you are generalising John. A nice try at obfuscation but not the point that was being made. I wasnt talking about defence expenditure in general I was talking about necessary expenditure going back into our own manufacturing sector instead of heading out of it. Your underlying point is wrong as well though I’m afraid.
Defence spending is necessary, at times vital, but it is not in itself a source of economic benefit to society. If it were, the government might just as well build 8 Trident boats, to make us twice as well off as we would have been with just the 4. I hope you can see the fallacy of your argument
Not at all I see you trying to modify the premise of the argument!. What you are trying to make out here is that defence spending doesnt generate new revenue and that it is just a drain on the exchequer right?. Off the top of my head there have been at least 4 classes of OPV and light frigate exported by BAE over the last few years….not prolific but definitely merchantable product sets supported in no small part by govt. spending.
In specific terms of this argument its an even starker economic decision. There is no current or solidly-planned future weapon that allows for a deterrent to be deployed from our SSNs, so, following on from Astute-7 is either nothing or something tied in to Successor SSBN. As of right now its that simple a decision matrix. Without Successor SSBN Barrow is closed.
So in addition to a billion in lost direct tax revenue the govt suddenly has to shell out billions in benefits and incentives to try and get businesses to start up in the region. Thats not money gone to get a capability we need….its just billions gone in dead money. Thats also before we get to the fiasco of the next SSN buy which weve covered before.
JonesyRockall
Whilst I believe that the ASW skills will need to come back. I completely agree with you that the Surface Reconnaissance capability needs to be restored pretty quickly. The reasons ought to be obvious to the Airships and Admirals if only they could stop squabbling and agree to get on with it.
I do, in fact, agree with you that, eventually, we will need long-range manned ASW again. Oceanic resources are already becoming things ‘claimed’ and patrolled by SSN’s today. There will be more on the way eventually and a full set of countermeasures to them is only prudent. I think were looking at a good decades grace, at least, before we get there though.
My feeling is that if we were to get back into the manned Maritime Reconnaissance role it would then be easier to add the ASW skills to these crews at a later date.
Interesting point. I know you are going to talk about the ability to grab a pair of binocs, look out the observation dome, and get a feel for the situational big-picture and I do appreciate that. For now though do you think the crew have to actually be in the aircraft to get the benefits you mention?. A lot of the kids in back of an MPA are watching screens anyway…sure they’ll have other tasks within the crew, but, the sensors report the same in the aircraft or ashore albeit with a slight time delay for one. I’m not so sure this factor cant be replicated ashore from UAV feeds.
The thread is about ‘Future UK MPA/ASW aircraft’ not just dismissing one part of it and discussing the rest as if it didn’t matter.
Very true on both counts. I think, as I said, we need to get Surface Recon at the rush and for my money thats ‘Mantis MR1’. I think that defining such a specific single-role surface recon asset allows us the luxury of a narrow focus on the ASW mission as well…just a bit further down the track. I’m with the group thats keen on an amphib for this mission and the Japanese US-2 does look to hold the trump card with 9ft wave height flight ops. This isnt any form of nostalgia I like the idea of launch/recovery of persistent USV’s from a suitably outfitted amphibian.
The concept would be something like a slightly lightened AN/WSD-1 semi-submersible, with a mounted Sea Talon/ULITE class ultralightweight towed array, hoist-launched out of an enlarged cargo door from the first amphibian on station with subsequent relays of sonobuoy/LWT carrying hunter-shooter aircraft taking the area search feed and, 24hrs USV endurance later, its recovered by the aircraft deploying its replacement. If you could get the MPA in and out fast enough that could even be a system you could use in an opposition littoral outputting to locally deployed naval ASW choppers!. SURTASS, backed by that kind of LR air capability, with T23/Merlin and A-class fleet subs is my idea of whole aspect, reactive, ASW. Team game as they say!
Other nations right now and I mean today and every day are carrying out ASW training somewhere in the world – are we the odd ones out because we are smarter than them? Or did the government screw up and remove a capability in an attempt to save money and look tough?
My view there would be that some nations face a greater submarine threat than we do…as I mentioned earlier Japan, Korea perhaps Australia. I think we absolutely should have people, under the auspices of SEEDCORN, out with those guys for every bit as long as they would allow us the opportunity to participate. I’m just not sure we have a big need to be spending a lot on blue-water ASW just now when our threat level, in that regard, is quite low.
It still remains a fact that the detail on the stereo images that used to be acquired for some tasks is currently outwith the capabilities of modern EO sensors…that said there will probably be a suitable sensor turret on the market by the time we can afford to get back in the business!
I thought digital imagery now does away with the need for stereoscopics….I’m no PI….but I do work with high bandwidth datalinks and imagery transmission and it was my understanding that a 2D image, specially if you get a few aspects, can be fairly easily software-rendered into a 3D ‘fly-round’ model. This kind of software is even commercially available going by a quick googling!.
Sadly I’m too old and knackered to be part of the next generation of MPA (or whatever). I just want it to work properly – always the optimist! Good to be in touch …
Not far off the former point there myself! Very much agree on the latter!
JonesyRockall
Jonesy, I’ve been reading your extraordinary stuff for years; do keep it up you make me smile … now you’ve made me reply.
Not sure if that is damning with faint praise or just faintly damning….thanks all the same though….I think!.
Radar equipped UAVs are the answer for a future UK MPA/ASW aircraft are they, really? Just because the US Navy are using the MQ-4C then that is the only answer – for everyone everywhere– is it?. Are we just going to ignore the fact that the US Navy is still using their P-3 and eventually P-8 aircraft as well as these UAVs and satellites and seabed sensors etc. Are you suggesting that we just buy the UAV bit and hope that it alone will do?
In fairness I tried to distill down something that requires a thesis into a couple of paragraphs to fit the given medium. There are states that share a littoral with SSK-operating threat neighbours and they have specific requirements that dont fit with drone technology. UAV’s do bring their own demands in airspace clearance, comms bandwidth, technical infrastructure etc, etc and that does mean UAV’s may be difficult to integrate where a basic manned aircraft could be a more suitable option…no argument there. I didnt mean to suggest that “we just buy the UAV bit and hope that it alone will do”. I had thought I made that distinction with my comment that about separating surface recon and long-range ASW?.
What I am saying is that, in the main, long-range ASW is a not a high priority requirement because the target set demanding it is just not there now or near-term projected.
Without that target set demand making an MPA more expensive to do ASW, when the UK has a real abiding need for maritime surface recon, is an absurdity and the UAV definitely CAN do the surface recon job…as proven in many instances. There cant be an argument that we, in the UK, aren’t looking at a major blue-water ASW threat at present. The decimation of the Russian submarine fleet isnt looking to be replaced by the Chinese and Indians any time soon. Chinese SSK’s may be an issue for the Japanese/Koreans (and I agree their requirement isnt one suited for UAVs) but its not an issue for us is it?. I’m sure if you asked the annointed in the light blue how far up their threat-planning Chinese SSK’s are you’d get a very funny look!.
Whilst it is true that a radar equipped UAV will be able to detect radar contacts over water, then what?
If it is determined to be a contact of interest I imagine it would be tracked and the high endurance of the platform will come into its own. I’m not blind to the limitations of surface search sets…even powerful ones. The stories of the Nimrod force repeatedly declaring they had ‘found’ the Argentine carrier in 82 only for contacts to be spurious are well known.
For the UAV follow-up EO imagery would also, naturally, be required for all the reasons you state. The beauty with a co-located AIS rx is that it can thin out the herd considerably and help prioritise those contacts that require the more intense scrutiny first.
Forgive me for asking but, do you have any idea of exactly what ‘open water surveillance’ involves?
Indeed. The wolf/sheep analogy etc, etc and the need to keep watching the sheep in case one turns into a wolf…heard it all. As I said though good sensors, good endurance, good comms are whats needed. That includes EO sensors to make the ID, no disputing it, I dispute the fact that there needs to be a man in the airframe to look at a FLIR display though. The same FLIR display can be distributed to a command facility able to correlate a theatre-wide surveillance picture and tie in to all the assets that may not be present in an MPA cabin. I specified ‘radar-equipped UAV’ not to insinuate that it would only carry a radar…just that EO sensors are commonplace on UAV’s and surface-search sets are not.
Even using the best EO/IR systems on current UAVs will not provide the same degree of detailed look at the target that the sensors and crew of an MPA can achieve.
You know…I’m looking at the imagery from the Wescam MX-15’s that were fitted to the Nimrods and the MX-20 mount thats on Mantis and I’m not seeing the huge difference you are talking about?. The ‘cheapo’ US Guardian drones also mount the same Raytheon MTS-B turret that is on the big MQ-4s and, though I claim no intimate knowledge of it, it looks comprehensive and claims to allow stand-off reading of ships names and the ability to pick out human-body targets at 8 miles…looks decent to me!?.
ASW training by MPA crews was done then as it is right now by many nations because as a skill it is still needed as long as the submarine is still being used as a weapon system.
To an extent I agree and I have no issue with the money currently being spent on SEEDCORN long may it continue. My contention is that we are a very long way from the Red Banner Fleet racing the GIUK gap. We no longer have patrol subs pootling back and forth up there for a reason. The threat level isnt there to justify it.
ASW MPA’s, as I clearly dont need to tell you, need cueing in to a contact to allow them to do the whole localisation and prosecution thing. I understand, being careful on comments, cueing support is not what it once was now and, certainly last I checked, all of the USN’s SURTASS boats are based in the wrong ocean to help us. I’m wondering then how much real ASW, against the modest ‘opfor’ SSN target set that is in existence, a dozen or so ‘bells & whistles’ MPA’s actually represents?.
If you think that we can simply wait and see the … “evidence of a blue water sub threat” … before we … “concern ourselves with it” … then I fear you are mistaken.
Agree to disagree on that one then. I see a Russian submarine build program that is replacing their obsolete hulls more than representing a ramping up of any significant threat to our SLOC’s. The Chinese and Indians are making great strides….but have great strides still to make. My view is that we need to improve our own ability to wide area detect, to back up the current sensors, before we need a long-range ASW capability. In ASW terms I want a couple of SURTASS boats of our very own so we can react smarter…not just faster. We have T23/Merlin and the SSN’s to cope with at most a couple of foreign SSN’s poking around. Especially when they are likely to focus their efforts at discrete locations in the UK…if they bother to come here at all!.
What is an issue is the need to dispatch a destroyer to keep an eye on a foreign task group sheltering in our waters because we have no ability to put a persistent overwatch on their activities any other way. For the MPA tasking my view is that ASW can take a back seat if it means pushing back a Surface Recon capability.
Equally quiet diesel-electric and AIP submarines can and do go wherever they like. They are all not going to hide in their own coastal waters under home fighter cover as you appear to suggest.
No they can go where they like within a very marked radius of action…otherwise they need surface logistics support. The SSK, despite the best efforts of builders all over the world, is little more than a mobile minefield and…if its staying discrete…not really all that mobile. You never caught a snorting diesel in your 40yrs?!. They have, in the main, a modest sensor envelope and no ability to run fast. SSK’s are dangerous in chokes and where a good CO can exploit local knowledge.
No amount of UAVs will ever find a submarine on patrol let alone do anything about it as many seem to suggest.
Happy that I can agree with you on one point at least.
Sign In
