MPs to probe UK maritime surveillance

HAVE YOUR SAY

09 February 2012

Perhaps they should have thought of this when Labour stopped MR2 operations at least a year before the handful of MRA4s was due to enter service?
Oh, sorry! They were too busy with their expenses.
Why not ask the Yanks for some 2nd hand P-3s for the Harriers we're giving them - think of it as a sort of freecycling?
Chris - London

09 February 2012

No they won't, Ursula. Not until we have a modern MPA in service with a dedicated ASW/ASuW capability... Unless we're going to start heaving depth charges out of the back of Herks!
Andy Cole - Manchester

09 February 2012

Oh dear... how predictable. I thought there was meant to be a strategy behind the SDR. I'm sure they said the review was strategic, didn't they? After all, strategy is about long term...

To allow an "apples and apples" comparison however we need to bear in mind that the cost of the replacement to Nimrod should be added to the cost of scrapping Nimrod it to arrive at how much was "saved" in acquiring the replacement - not forgetting that part of the anti-Nimrod campaign was the cost of running it (which will, no doubt, be forgotten when the replacements arrive).

Yet again we have a government actively campaigning against its own manufacturers just for the sake of petty politics. Death of Handley Page anyone?
Michael - Hertfordshire

09 February 2012

"but said that the Ministry was confident that other platforms would be able to replace the Nimrod's capability."

!!! WHAT platforms???? It beggars belief they are allowed to get away with statements like that and not pinned to the wall for exact details. A Paxman grilling would not go amiss here.

I'm tempted to put in a FOIA request and insist on an answer myself.

Andy, the Hercs themselves are at full stretch!!

Apart from the obvious home and SSBN security issues with Nimrod being withdrawn the most serious in my opinion is the risk the RN now faces of putting ships into high threat areas with no Nimrod ASW cover.

I think the P3 idea is excellent. It's ok for other nations, why not for us? ( Would have prefered the MRA4 of course )
Daniele Mandelli - Guildford

09 February 2012

I think it's time Scotland Yard sent its drug squad to test our MP's. They live in cuckoo land and in the clouds, surely drug related!!
Seriously, somebody slap these people!
JC - UK

09 February 2012

Personal opinion is that we just need to bide our time until the P8 is ready...
Laskovar - UK

09 February 2012

Daniele -

I just got what is happening! They are looking at maritime surveillance and that just happens to coincide with the purchase of a new Globemaster! Either they are going to fling depth charges out of the back of that, or they bought it to free the Herks up to do it! :)
Andy Cole - Manchester

09 February 2012

Not a lot of options available are there? Sadly nothing as potentially capable as the MRA4 might have been and at least short term, only old technology if it's available.

Once again the really only viable 'off the shelf' (modern)solution appears to be the Boeing P8 'Poseidon' with quite a queue developing from potential customers already. Does the Airbus A-319 MPA provide a realistic alternative?
Could a relaxation of Japan's restrictions on military exports put the Kawasaki P-1 in contention?

We need something and sooner rather than later surely!!
Hereman - Wirral, England

09 February 2012

The MRA4 seems to have been scrapped just as it was coming right.
A fantasy UK solution would be a 21st C Shorts Sunderland using the wings/engines from the A400M.
More realistic would be to copy the Indian purchase of 8 P-8 Poseidon.
However some have suggested refurbishing the 10 short body RAF C-130J, when they are replaced by A400M. Give the C-130J the same radar & EO turret as the US Coastguard. Great for ocean patrol & SAR, with unique deep ocean rescue supply drop capability. Sadly no anti submarine capability though.
John Hartley - Woking/Surrey/UK

09 February 2012

".......but said that the Ministry was confident that other platforms would be able to replace the Nimrod's capability."

With What? Just how did that woman get her job?

David - New Zealand

09 February 2012

All these comments only go to show what I have always known,most of us with a brain in our heads know more about our maritime needs than our M.P's.Has P.U.S.Brennan been kept in a cupboard for the last few years?
Howard N - Farnborough,UK

10 February 2012

I was under the impression from a previous related news article, from a former RAF Nimrod pilot and BAE test pilot, that the MRA4 was an absolute nightmare anyway, I'm sure somebody will correct me but there were significant issues in trying to modify 1950's/ 1960's airframe with modern avionics, engines and all the other equipment we were planning on putting on it.

I agree we desperately need an MPA now and without wanting to upset Martin, I would have to go with an order right now for a minimum of 25 P8 Poseidons. It would be nice to wait for an A319 / A330 variant that would give UK industry a bite of production and provide commonility of parts with the Voyager, however we need to fill the MPA gap at the earliest opportunity and I think the Poseidon is the only way we can do that.
Rob - Telford

10 February 2012

Yes, Rob, someone will correct you as I'm sure no pilot whether RAF or BAE has said that. Indeed quite the contrary. Quoted in the BAE Systems in-house magazine and recorded on the monthly video the enthusiasm of the RAF for Nimrod MRA4 was underlined by the frequent visits of "top brass" and the numerous requests for flights. Amongst those flying in Nimrod MRA4 were:
•Group Captain Robbie Noel (Station Commander, RAF Kinloss) on 24th February 2009, who said: "I'm really privileged to have had the opportunity to fly on the MRA4. I've got to say, all my expectations were met and some more. The message I'll take back to Kinloss is very easy for me. BAE Systems has already done a fantastic job on what has obviously been a quite difficult project. It's got itself into a position now where it's in really good shape."
•Air Chief Marshall Sir Stephen Dalton, Chief of the Air Staff, flying on 2nd March 2010, who commented: "Nimrod MRA4 will provide the RAF with an important and potentially highly adaptable Combat ISTAR (Intelligence, Surveillance, Target Acquisition, and Reconnaissance) platform." The much publicised problems had all been solved.
Gerald - Lancashire

10 February 2012

Rob - Telford

Poseidon is based on the 737, which is based on the 707 minus two engines - 1950's technology also.

Yes there were problems I beleive with the rebuild of MR2's to MR4 standard. But I think they were largely sorted by the time of cancellation. As many people have commented - many of these problems were MOD self inflicted because they refused the option of all new airframes for the MR4 - there by getting into trouble because each 1960's vintage MR2 fuselage was different and hence each rebuilt airframe effectively needed seperate jigs/fixtures. This was a known and explained to the MOD before the project started, who ignored the advice becuase they wanted to kill of any chance of MR4 export (to Japan I believe).

We are were we are. But we could have stuck with it, have ended up with the MR4 platform for the surveilance kit - and a large complex aircraft design/build capability in the UK.

Now we are minus maritime surveillance and UK plc is minus a large complex aircraft design/build capability. The former may not have been MOD intent but I think the latter is UK MOD and treasury policy - namely to destroy the UK industrial base so that in the future buying off the shelf from abroad is the only option.

There is no other interpretation. We only have to look across the channel to see what a supportive government can do long term for its defence industry - i.e. the Rafale.
Martin Bayliss - Stroud

10 February 2012

Rob - Telford

The MRA4 was a disaster from the start we should have looked at a solution with Airbus and could have had a replacement for the MR2 and the Breguet Atlantic. Based on a commercial airbus frame they would have been new build and could have been produced in numbers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breguet_Atlantic

That opportunity is now lost and the best we can do is probably order around 10 or so P8 Poseidons and then that would be later in the decade as there is no money now.

The MRA4 should have been scrapped ten years before it was when it first got into difficulty remanufacturing 1950's airframes and putting new wings (*) on which made it fundementaly unstable should have spelt the end and we could have saved £3bn.

In future I expect the Scavenger UAV to be used in conjunction with a manned MPA like the P-8 however for now even leasing or buying half a dozen P-3 Oriaons would give some cover to our deterrent but will it happen? Doubt it with a £2Bn balck hole in PR12 !
Graham - High Wycombe

10 February 2012

Gerald - Lancashire

I wish I could find the entry and the gentlemans qualifications who made the comments on this site before christmas, his view having flown both the MR-2 whilst in the RAF and the MRA4 for BAE were totally different to the ones in your post.

I really do not know, I can only go by the views of people who are in a position to comment, I would put it to you though that the person I am describing is certainly someone whose comments can be believed!

The fact that you have quoted it from BAE, it is hardly likely that they are going to print bad comments about their own aircraft, I always remember while I was the Batch Test Troop Leader for Challenger 2 at Lulworth, some three star General telling the press that the tank was unbeatable and the best thing since sliced bread, he never had to work on the thing day in day out, he just drove it for about five miles arounfd the Bvington test track.
Rob - Telford

10 February 2012

Martin Bayliss - Stroud

I agree that the faults could and would have been overcome, and having spoken with a couple of RAF Warrant Officers down from Kinloss when I was teaching at RAF Waddington a couple of years ago, they thought they were getting a really good aircraft, my comments made earlier were based on a post made last year by someone who had worked on the MRA4 and explained the faults with the aircraft. I just haven't got the time to go and find them.

But as we are seeing with so many orders, cutting numbers does not cut the unit costs and the final figure of nine MPA aircraft was absolutely ludicrous.

As for the P8, granted the original 737 is old technology, however the airliner itself has been undergoing constant modifications throughtout its Civilian service, so it has established modern engines and avionics, the issue I suppose is whether the onboard mission systems can be integrated successfully into the airframe, I'm not saying it is perfect, I just think it will be the best MPA to get into service in the shortest possible time to plug this ludicrous capability gap for a Maritime Nation.
Rob - Telford

10 February 2012

Graham - High Wycombe

Thanks for clarifying the issue with Nimrod MRA4 stability, I have jsut been speaking with an RAF pilot about the P-8, he is hearing that if we do order P-8's they will also be used as the Sentinal replacement as the AN-APY-10 radar is on a par, if not better than the systems on the E-8A JSTAR's and Sentinal. The aircraft would be based out of Waddington as well.
Rob - Telford

10 February 2012

Rob - Telford

You are completely right about the MRA4 here is the statement from a 25 year plus Nimrod pilot on the MRA4

"Having flown Nimrod Mk 1 and 2 up until 2005 and worked close to the MRA 4 Programme I would like to make the following observations. Firstly 90% of the aircraft was not new build. The fuselage was Mk 2 and a surprising number of Mk 2 components were used in the MRA 4. Because the Mk 2 fuselage was used this led to several problems for the MRA 4. You cannot successfully put a larger wing on an aircraft with more powerful engines without moving the tail plane backward. It is simple mechanics and moments and because of this the MRA 4 had stability problems in pitch. Hence the need to incorporate an auto stabilisation device relatively late in the aircrafts design. This also led to a rather narrow C of G envelope. If you also fit engines with a higher thrust than that of the Mk 2 then to achieve acceptable yaw control in areas such as VMCG ( Minimum Control Speed on the ground where areodynamic forces provided by the rudder can keep the aircraft straight and prevent it departing the runway after engine failure) then you either have to move the rudder farther aft to increase its moment or make it bigger. Once again problems were found during testing and the solution was to incorporate a Gurney flap on the trailing edge of the rudder. This is a structure which causes the airflow to separate and artificially increase the size of the rudder in terms of aerodynamics. What happened next, the Gurney Flap caused rudder vibration at the aircrafts higher speeds probaly due to a phenomena known as Mach Shedding. This vibration would have put a considerable strain on the rudder post and rudder attachment points.

What am I saying here. When the project was first mooted in the early 90's several of us voiced our opinions that the concept for the MRA 4 was flawed. We were told to 'wind our necks in' by senior officers whose knowledge of aircraft let alone the niceties of aerodynamics, basic mechanics and aircraft performance was virtually nil. Hence 3.8 billion down the drain and no aircraft to show for it.

W Speight - Forres/ UK / Ex RAF"

I think he says it all, we should never have started the MRA4 program and gone with an Airbus airframe instead purhaps as a collaboration to replace the Atlantique and the MR2. Probably too late now with the P-8 cleaning up (There new builds Martin not 50 year old aircraft!)
Graham - High Wycombe

10 February 2012

Graham - High Wycombe

Your a star, I thought I had imagined the whole entry and was talking out of my backside, which wouldn't be the first time on this site I know. . . .
Rob - Telford

10 February 2012

Rob - Telford

I would rather we kept the Sentinel and ordered P-8 for MPA duties.

Hope the quote I found was the one you were referring to I think it is.
Graham - High Wycombe

10 February 2012

Graham - High Wycombe

Absoultely correct, we need a dedicated MPA, I suspect that if we did buy the P-8, there would barely be enough for Maritime Patrols, without diluting them to repalce an already capable (nearly new) aircraft which is now proven in an operational environment.

And yes that was exactly the quote I was looking for.
Rob - Telford

10 February 2012

Graham - High Wycombe

New Build MR4's could have been designed taking into account the quote - along with the jig/fixture issue.

The MR4 requirement and specification phase was botched by the MOD but BAE had worked through the problems in the end. It could have been done cheaper with a comet based aircraft if the airframes had been new build from the start and modified by design at the start. A larger buy of new build airframes would have made the program more economic too because of export potential - at the time it would have had no competition.

A bit like the Typhoon being delayed by forcing a collaborative program rather than a national one, the MOD and politics wrecked this project. It looks like the UCAV programs are going the same way.
Martin Bayliss - Stroud

10 February 2012

Presumably the issue here is yet another capability gap in the UK's defences? Obviously the one most frequently discussed here is that of 'carrier strike' or rather the lack of it with all that entails. Similarly there can be no doubting the need for a suitable maritime patrol aircraft. The fact that the MRA4 was conceived as a necessary asset cannot be denied, nor the fact that even when the numbers deemed necessary were drastically reduced, the aircraft was still considered essential, notwithstanding the escalating cost. At a stroke the SDSR dismissed this clearly essential requirement and £3.5Bn of taxpayer's money, clearly with no consideration of the alternatives. The best they've come up with so far being the suggestion that our nuclear deterrent can be protected by a Merlin helicopter working in conjunction with a Type 23 frigate!

It is fairly obvious this represents no solution whatever, indeed as was shown during the Libya operations, the UK was left without a Fleet Ready Escort, let alone a protective 'screen' for the SSBNs.

It would seem that at last the penny has dropped in certain quarters and perhaps the risks to national security brought about by elements of the SDSR have been realised.

As discussed the available 'off the shelf' options are pretty limited, with the P8 'Poseidon' receiving much comment as a potentially leading contender. The fact is that to date all orders for the P8 come from nations seeking to replace their existing maritime patrol aircraft. This is true for Japan with their own aircraft and no doubt in due course with other nations, notably France who will in time require a replacement for their Atlantiques. It might be fair to assume that France may well opt to back the EADS/Airbus A319 MPA alternative to the Boeing in the longer term, not least in protecting their own manufacturing base, indeed as has been already mentioned here, this choice could benefit the UK aerospace industry as well. Of course the delays and budget overruns ongoing with the A400M (reminiscent of the MRA4!) do little to inspire confidence in a speedy solution.

The simple truth is that UK stands almost in isolation as having no maritime patrol aircraft, nor even an ageing fleet in dire need of replacement and as we frequently remark, this is no state of affairs for an island nation, wholly dependent on the sea for our trade!!

I wonder if there is an alternative, tried and tested 'off the shelf' option available now?

What about the Airbus Military C-295 MPA? Okay not a P8 Poseidon but as an interim a lot better than what we have (or rather don't have) now. In use with several respected air forces world wide, including a variant used by the US Coastguard, it would certainly provide, at a reasonable cost, a far better safeguard both to the SSBNs and UK waters in general than a Merlin, a Type 23 and perhaps a C130 equipped with the Mk1 eyeball! Even as an interim solution while a more potentially capable option is considered, it would provide a degree of security we currently lack completely. As an Airbus product, it might be possible to arrange an agreement whereby the aircraft are purchased on a 'buy back' contract subject to the full development and operation of the A319 based aircraft. Either way, it would seem likely that a healthy second hand market would exist amongst developing nations when/if the aircraft became surplus to our requirements.
Hereman - Wirral, England

10 February 2012

We must aim to have an MPA with MRA4 capabilities in the medium to long term,and MUST update the spec regularly so that this can be achieved with state of the art equipment.I think cancelling the MRA4 after so much had been spent was an act of vandalism.The MOD procurement department needs radical overhaul we must be much better at getting maximum value from limited resources,new personnel are obviously required.
Alan Middlebrook - Harrogate

10 February 2012

Andy Cole - Manchester.

I just got what is happening! They are looking at maritime surveillance and that just happens to coincide with the purchase of a new Globemaster! Either they are going to fling depth charges out of the back of that, or they bought it to free the Herks up to do it! :)

Lol, nice one mate. Nothing would surprise me with the MoD, or government full stop actually.
Daniele Mandelli - Guildford

12 February 2012

Martin Bayliss - Stroud

If you want new build then base it on a modern airframe like an Airbus! Had we done that we could have got Germany, France and the Netherlands on board to replace their Atlantique's which would have given a production run large enough to bring the unit price down. Now the only safe bet is a dozen P-8's over the next 10 years while we are basically unable to defend our shores in the meantime.

The only good news is that the proposed Scavenger UAV will have a Maritime patrol variant.

Stop thinking you make new build VC10's, Buccaneers or Nimrod's as you have suggested in the past, you can't and you don't especially when there are modern far better airframes that are genuinely new build because they are in production and designed from the start to be far more advanced decades after the aircraft you mention were designed (and went out of production long ago and lost the necessary supply chain).

Read the post from the 25 year Nimrod pilot the MRA4 was fundamentally flawed. Also it would have required a new stall prevention system to be designed when it was canned (10 years and 3.8 billion too late!) so they had not "sorted" out the problems and we would have needed another billion to get these dangerous 9 aircraft in service. He knows more about Nimrod than you ever will.
Graham - High Wycombe

13 February 2012

I think the MRA4 was coming right. The problems with tail/rudder were faced in the 1940s/50s with the change from props to jets. Many tail/rudders were modified/enlarged. Just look up the old fixes from then. If all else fails, put a lump of lead in the tail to balance the aircraft. In short, most things can be fixed if you have the will to do it. Of course, if you hate a project, then glitches give you the excuse to cancel.
John Hartley - Woking/Surrey/UK

14 February 2012

A domestic solution would be the best option, versus another purchases of american P-8's.

Since the UK can no longer design and manufacture large aircraft, using an Airbus airframe is logic. I have offered an opinion before the A320 would be the best choice.

The aircraft could be fitted with the mission equipment from the defunct MRA4; which apparently was salvaged when these were scrapped last year. The simulator is also still around too.

I hate talk of the american option, since this comes at the expense of the domestic industry ability to support the UK forces. We all know when push comes to shove, the americans always charge a premium for their kit ('82 and the AIM-9L's and Phalanx CIWS comes to mind).

I have heard some of the flaws of the MRA4 too. Some must be taken in context - the more powerful engines and the yaw issues with the new wings for example. The aircraft did not need to use the extra power in normal operations, so typically this wasn't an issue for typical flight operations.
Shaun - Ex-RNZN

14 February 2012

Shaun - Ex-RNZN

There is definitely a choice to make:

1. Buy a dozen P-8's and get an industrial offset deal as we did with E-3D AEW which was actually successful (Boeing has a large operation in the UK and the 787 includes quite a bit of UK manufactured parts so offsets are a reasonable option).

2. Go with an A319/320 in which case this could either be a national project or collaborative if France, Germany and the Netherlands want to replace their Atlantique's. A national project would be quicker to implement especially if we used the kit from the MRA4.

Option 1 is risk free and the quickest to implement. If an offset is included then it is also beneficial. I think as BAE are largely to blame for the MRA4 fiasco a BAE led Airbus is probably less likely.

BTW Before Nimrod MRA4 was cancelled testing had shown up stability issues that had not been resolved and it would not have been able to enter service without a stall prevention system being designed and successfully implemented.
Graham - High Wycombe

15 February 2012

Graham.

I wan't suggesting going into another multi- national programme bungle.

Just buy the airframes (transport variants), and modify them in the UK with the MRA4 systems.

BAE amongst others should be able to carry out the modifications while providing UK jobs** to keep operations viable in the aerospace industry.

Risk 1. is not risk free as you suggest, as the supportability of foreign kit in a conflict the USA disapproves or does not support is major risk. e.g. Suez in 56. Organic capabilities provide options to the UK, not limitations.

The P-8 is based on the 737 not the 787.


**Employed skilled personnel pay more taxes than unemployed skilled personnel.
Shaun - Ex-RNZN

15 February 2012

Shaun - Ex-RNZN

Shaun I hear your argument, especially the way Obama has been talking recently, however many of the weapons and sonar buoys etc would be British in origin, but in this instance I would go straight in and buy a batch of eight or nine P-8's now, to restore this critical capability at the earliest opportunity.
Rob - Telford

17 February 2012

Shaun - Ex-RNZN

I don't think you read my post as I intended it:

"The P-8 is based on the 737 not the 787."

I was referring to the Boeing's operation in the UK participating in 787 production as a result of investments made from the E-3D offset deal.

"Just buy the airframes (transport variants), and modify them in the UK with the MRA4 systems"

I do say that either we could reuse the MRA4 kit in a national program or alternatively a collaboration.

As for dependency on the US you mentioned AIM-9L during the Falklands war yet didn't they give us these then new missiles from their own stocks. We are dependent anyway and as Rob points out a purchase of P-8 is the quickest option of getting this capability restored.
Graham - High Wycombe

17 February 2012

See Lockheed are launching the "sea herc" at Singapore Air show!! C130 with P3 sensors etc??
H Nelson - Portsmouth

17 February 2012

Further to my last...

http://www.defensenews.com/article/20120216/DEFREG03/302160008/Singapore-Lockheed-Unveils-Plans-2-C-130-Variants?odyssey=tab|topnews|text|FRONTPAGE
H Nelson - Portsmouth