RockallWe would have got Brezhnev (etc) wherever he was hence the ‘he could not hide’.
Four boats is enough for the French to have a minimum deterrent force. Four being the minimum number required to guarantee a minimum of one boat at sea at all times.
I know it’s outside the thread title but would it be impossible to buy a force of ‘Le Triomphant’ class?
(going deep and silent expecting incoming anti-French noise…)
RockallThe Target
This still has nothing to do with US/UK SSBN news but –
The old target set of destroying Soviet nuclear weapon launch sites with multiple air delivered weapons was changed once Polaris came in.
The individual target then became the leader of the Soviet Union – the man (Brezhnev). The whole thing was designed to be clear and personal; if Brezhnev attacked us with nuclear weapons he could not hide he would die. Multiple warheads from our sole SSBN would have defeated their ABMs (and he knew that). That is why we no longer needed a fleet of nuclear armed bombers, however useful they may have been previously.
Out of interest the French SSBNs declared target was the agricultural land of the Soviet Union. Again it was a clear threat, if the Soviets attacked France with nuclear weapons they would eventually starve.
Significantly neither the British or French strategic nuclear weapons were for ‘first strike’.
Back on topic, what do we imagine the next generation of SSBN launched ballistic missiles will be targetted against?
RockallAlthough this has nothing to do with US/UK SSBN news – the cold war target for the UK SSBN’s was not simply Moscow. The target was the Soviet leadership (who just happened to be in Moscow). The threat was immediate and personal from one leadership to another.
RockallIt is rather heavy
Tu-142
At an empty weight of 90,000 kg (198,000 lb) and a max. takeoff weight of 185,000 kg (407,848 lb) coupled with a wide undercarriage track I’m not sure if the taxiways and hardstands in Lincoln would cope. The crews would no doubt feel at home in the overcrowded austere and rundown accommodation though. grin
RockallIt’s heavy
Obligatory,
Where would you put it?
RockallIt’s not LEGO
Djcross,
The SC-130J is probably not the answer as it is a modified role specific aircraft not simply a ‘click-on’ LEGO style equipment fit. We are unlikely to buy more aircraft of a type we are planning to dispose of.
All this talk of aircraft types is only seeing one part of the problem. Yes one of our Hercs (for example) can fly low over water for long distances. However if our crews are not trained for the role (and they are not) what is the point? Our hard pressed professional Herc force are excellent at what they do, you cannot simply tell them they are now in the Maritime Reconnaissance business and expect them to do that job as well. All those we had who knew how to do the job have gone. Some were retained in the RAF and are now doing other things; others are chopping down trees or bobbing up and down on survey ships around the world, or commenting on forums.
Buying a replacement MPA is the easy bit, whichever one you chose – getting it to work is going to take time
RockallHow long!
Jonesy,
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 was assuming that during the next two to three years the government will do absolutely nothing but talk. The current airships and politicians are almost in denial or pretend to ignore the significance of the loss of MPA surveillance capability. They will continue to perpetuate the myth that they can ‘plug the gap with other assets’.
We will have to wait until they all ‘move on’ and a fresh set of eyes can distance themselves from the ‘capability gap’ error. Maybe then actual progress may be taken, in practical terms this means after the 2015 SDSR.
However, this will be followed by a period in which ‘we explore all the avenues open to us using existing means’. By which they mean ‘What the hell are we going to do with all this theatre specific stuff at Waddington now that we’ve been kicked out of Afghanistan?’
Maybe we will just give the Afghanis the Shadow R Mark 1’s and get rid of them that way, along with all the expensive MRAP vehicles etc that we cannot afford to bring home.
Sentinel (ASTOR) however is another can of worms, this aircraft and its system remain now what it always was (post Cold War) ‘an aircraft looking for a role’. It is a perfectly adequate ‘detection system’ that is what it was designed to do – it is not an identification tool. There has been a submission from Raytheon to ‘convert’ the radar for maritime use (well they would wouldn’t they?), and several well meaning but ill informed observers think this is a good idea.
“But look what it did in Libya”. Yes I know what it did over Libya; it found ‘possible’ land targets which were subsequently identified by other more capable reconnaissance assets that is all. I point you to a highly critical classified article inadvertently leaked on 10th October to the Danish media organisation ‘Politiken’. If I may crudely summarise this as ‘NATO intelligence assets without those of the US don’t work.’
The Sentinel squadron is a high visibility much lauded example of army-air force cooperation, it is the RAFs largest squadron. Our excellent Int Corps are experts at propaganda – the first rule of which is “Don’t believe your own side’s propaganda.”
The other crowd bulking out the overstretched facilities at Waddington are the Reaper squadrons
What will they do after they get the ‘heave ho’ from Afghanistan? If the letter to the Online Magazine published by Michael Yon on 26th September is true then the armed mission for the Reaper (and all other air assets) over there is already over, having been banned from dropping weapons by the Afghan government. Has there been any mention of any weapons having been dropped in October? Maybe we should call them ‘Peepers’ now, as all they can do is look at the bad guys. Will they now be the saviours of our shores?
Back on topic (sorry), that takes us four maybe five years from now before they decide ‘oh hang on maybe we should order some “off the shelf” C-295s for now, just for the recce role and get ourselves a load of ASW Amphibians later.’ (Go on smile) We will then have to take our place in the production schedule and wait for the ‘planes to drip feed in. Boscombe Down will take its time getting it right for release to service. Meanwhile who will operate it and who will train them? Then the biggie where will it be based? Expect a long old bun-fight over that one!
Sadly I honestly think it will take up to a decade for the surveillance role and up to a generation for ASW, I wish it wasn’t so and I would love to be proved wrong.
RockallOn the step
Jonesey,
Wow an ASW Amphibian! I like the idea, however unrealistic it first appears.
I am unfamiliar with the AN/WSD-1 you mentioned, is that like the AN/WLD-1 (Remote Minehunting System) stuck on to some of the later Arleigh Burkes? A bit like Lockheed Martin Sea TALON kit the US Navy hope to launch out of the back of the LCS Ships?
I can see it being called ‘Thunderbird 2 and 4’ if it ever came to pass. I could imagine the remote thingy being launched from a ‘Flying-boat’ but getting it back in again would be a hoot!
Again we agree that the whole ASW game is very much a whole team effort we must all move forward together and avoid equipment programmes that clash or duplicate effort.
My last job, before it was axed was working with the SEEDCORN guys, we have done everything we could to help to recover the skills out to the point when their money runs out (2019) however.
If there’s nothing for them to come back to was it all worth it? Some of them might be happy to sit in front of a screen ‘attached’ to a Mantis and just do ‘one part of the job’.
Mantis looks a good piece of kit and if it is decided that a single role maritime surface asset is all that is required then it is hard to argue against that, after all anything is better than nothing as long as it works.
Most of those guys will see themselves as current experienced multi-role MPA/ASW specialists. I still feel that a limited ASW capability in our next generation ‘Surface Surveillance’ aircraft would be a way of retaining skills and provide a basis for future skill development. 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.
I have seen these software rendered fly-around images (my son is a games designer) they can look good but…While most are now in museums, I still have a stereoscope packed away somewhere!
I was thinking of the poor sod in a fast roping chopper at night hoping that someone had spotted the whip aerial on top of the tallest mast of the vessel they were about to board. – but it’s not my problem anymore.
May I add a note about my old (recently departed) mate Bill? He was one of the last ‘Observers’ in the RAF before they became Navigators etc. The winged ‘O’ badge used to be referred to as the ‘Flying R-sole’ he didn’t mind this as he used to say that the winged ‘N’ didn’t stand for Navigator but for ‘Not good enough to be a pilot’. 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…
Which one of us is going to talk about the current lack of adequate Search and Rescue cover … ?
RockallPing
Jonesy,
Thank you for your comprehensive reply, and yes I was praising you!
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.
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.
Of course nothing is perfect, the number of Nimrod crews calling “High conf snort!” for it to be later confirmed as a yacht testify to that. However the fact that the same crew/aircraft were very quickly able to quickly change the ‘snorting submarine’ into a sloop or a ketch is significant.
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. We are an island nation with long sea trade routes, submarines, particularly the AIP equipped ones remain a possible threat as long as they exist and we have very little to counter that threat. 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?
As to Wescam, clearly I have seen a lot of it, and it is very good at what it does (which is not always the same as what it sometimes claims to do). 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. We also need to be aware of the non-military threats around our coastline etc when considering platforms/sensors etc.
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! 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 …
RockallUK MPA/ASW or just another UAV?
Jonesy, I’ve been reading your extraordinary stuff for years; do keep it up you make me smile … now you’ve made me reply. I do have a high regard for you and most of what you write. However you have strayed into an area in which I have over forty years experience and as this is simply a discussion forum for ‘Armchair Admirals and Airships’ (to which I am new) I offer the following…
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?
Whilst it is true that a radar equipped UAV will be able to detect radar contacts over water, then what? Will it give any more information than systems like the AIS ‘the ship spotters website’ can provide? Will a radar image, even an SAR spot image show whether a merchant vessel is laden or not? Will it show any significant deck cargo? Or even something simple like the actual name of the vessel and its port of registration? No, and there are so many other questions which on occasion need to be asked.
What about small radar contacts, are they all fishing vessels, if so are they fishing or up to something else?
Forgive me for asking but, do you have any idea of exactly what ‘open water surveillance’ involves?
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.
But then UAVs are (supposed to be) cheaper to run, in those places where they are safe to fly and they are currently very trendy.
I loved your flippant line about ASW in the
… immediate post Cold War period where everyone just kept on doing what they’d always done because … ?
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. We in the UK no longer have that skill and it will take up to a decade, maybe even a generation to regenerate it.
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.
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. There are many ambitious submarine acquisition and construction programmes worldwide, both nuclear and conventional, there must be a reason for that.
For the foreseeable future the UK will have very little to detect any of them apart from a diminishing number of submarines, frigates and naval helicopters.
No amount of UAVs will ever find a submarine on patrol let alone do anything about it as many seem to suggest.
Politically I guess we will all have to wait for the 2015 SDSR to shape our forces after Afghanistan. I hope that ‘a review of the situation’ as it may be put, will allow us to get back in the job of controlling the seas around our shores and trade routes. Even a limited surveillance aircraft with decent sensors for the task and a properly trained crew would be a sensible first step.
Or we could buy another handful of UAVs (just because they appear cheap) and kid ourselves that they alone will be good enough.
They won’t.
Sign In
