Future Maritime Patrol

Think DefenceUK Defence Issues and the oddcontainer or two

Home / Journal / Future Maritime Patrol Part 4 (C295 and Comparable Options)

Future Maritime Patrol Part 4 (C295 and

Comparable Options)Posted on February 3, 2014 by Think Defence in Journal with 125 Comments

If we accept that the Future Maritime Patrol requirement may well have to be redefined in

order to meet smaller budgets there are a number of cheaper options to consider.

These are generally characterised by being smaller and shorter ranged than the options

examined in the previous two posts on the P8, P3, P1, 319 and ATL.

Contents [hide]

Airbus Military C235/295 MPA

Others

The Rest of the Series

Share this:

Airbus Military C235/295 MPA

The C295 is often seen in suggestions for the a future UK Maritime Patrol Aircraft, it is a

logical off the shelf choice if the P-8A is unaffordable, it must be said, Airbus Military are

pushing it hard as well.

Many have also suggested it as a stop gap until the P8 matures or other options become

available.

The problem with stop gaps is two fold, you have to demonstrate a compelling need for a

stop gap, difficult, and two, stop gaps tend to become full time.

If the C295 MPA is to come into UK service it will be as a final answer to the capability gap.

C295 Maritime Patrol Aircraft (MPA)

A word from our sponsors

Subscribe to Think Defence

Enter your email address to subscribe to Think De-

fence and receive notifications of new posts by

email.

Join 374 other subscribers

Email Address

Subscribe

HOME HIGHLIGHTS CONNECT COMMENTS

SUPPORT

Future Maritime Patrol Part 4 (C295 and Comparable Options) - Thin... http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2014/02/future-maritime-patrol-part-4-c...

1 of 36 18-07-2014 06:26

C295 ASW

The Airbus Military C295 MPA is a derivative of the well established C295 twin turboprop

transport in service with many forces worldwide.

The C295 is a stretched version of the C235 which also has a maritime patrol version; notable

users include the US Coastguard (C235), Chile, Oman and Portugal (C295)

The MPA version has the fully integrated tactical system mission suite (FITS) configured with

four operator stations, sonobuoy dispenser, MAD boom, self defence equipment, 6 under

wing hard points and an electro optical turret.

Airbus Defence and Space C295 Maritime Patrol Aircraft (MPA) & Anti-Submarine Warfare (ASW) [480p]


2 of 36 18-07-2014 06:26

C295 FLIR

Click here for the FITS page

FITS is the same system as fitted to the Brazilian P3-AMs

Endurance is reportedly 11 hours or 6 hours on station at 200nm range.

Compare that with 4 hours at 1,200nm ballpark for the P8, A319MPA, P1 and P3 and it should

be obvious where the difference lies.

Stores capacity is also lower, and so is speed and altitude.

It can (and has) been fitted with a refuelling probe though.


3 of 36 18-07-2014 06:26

C295 IFR Probe

Airbus Military are continually improving the basic design, most recently the adoption of

winglets in the C295W.

C295 Winglet

These are said to deliver and extra 30-60 minutes endurance or 1,000kg payload, improved

altitude, hot/high performance and reduced fuel costs.

Lets not fool ourselves; the C295 MPA is no P-8A but then it is not trying to be, the question

the UK has to answer is a simple one, are its limitations acceptable or not.

What does the C295 bring?

Two things, cost and versatility.

As usual, it is difficult to pin down costs but I have seen several reports that point to a 50m

unit cost and very low running costs, or put another way, 3 for the price of one P8. Airbus

themselves offered uo the 50m price tag in a submission to the House of Commons

Defence Select Committee.

It could be a thousand for the price of one but if it doesnt meet the military requirement it

would still be poor value for money but three to one is hard to ignore.

One of the great strengths of the C295 MPA is its versatility, the rear cargo door and

palletised mission systems allow the same aircraft to be used for a number of roles.

Standard 463L pallet compatibility means that in an expeditionary deployment it can carry its

own spares or other stores, as an example.


4 of 36 18-07-2014 06:26

This doesnt really become a useful feature unless you have more airframes than mission

systems and this is where those secondary implications come in. In the previous posts I have

looked at how selecting one airframe or the other can have cost and/or capability

implications across other areas and it is here that I think the C295 scores pretty well.

If we buy into the C295 for maritime patrol then the established logistics and maintenance

arrangements could support an increased number of C295 without the disproportionate cost

of unique types.

When I looked at the A400M in a 5 part series (start here) I made the case for a C235/295 to

occupy the space between Chinook and the A400M. When the A400M comes into service it

will eventually supplant the C130 and leave a fairly large gap between its 30 tonne payload

and the 10 tonne (but very expensive to operate and slow) Chinook.

The C295 would provide about the same lift as a Chinook but in a package that is faster,

much longer ranged and significantly cheaper to operate. Any view on whether such an

aircraft would be worth investing in would come down to that balance of the costs of such an

aircraft fleet and the cost of using the A400M Atlas at payloads far below its capabilities.

For years ISAF has been using contractors to provide air transport and air despatch using

smaller aircraft like the Airbus C212s and AN25s.

The development of low cost air despatch /air dropping equipment has allowed these cheap

aircraft to be of much greater usefulness. Studies by the USAF and Army have shown that for

a very high percentage of short range, intra theatre transportation tasks in ongoing

operations the payload utilisation figures are very low.

It can carry 9 tonnes in its very long cargo hold, 12.7m. This means 71 seats or 5 463L pallets

to a maximum range at full payload of 1,300km, plus it comes with this rather snazzy pallet

loading system.

C295 MPA Palletized Version


5 of 36 18-07-2014 06:26

There are all manner of roles you could use a plain old C295 for; parachute training, intra-

theatre lift and communications.

C295 Parachute

Airbus have also flown a AEW demonstrator

Airbus Military CN235-C295 Pallet Transfer System


6 of 36 18-07-2014 06:26

C295 AEW

Plus of course there is always this bad boy to consider

C295 Gunship

Just sayin!

If we are looking at different versions, greater utility, a large user base and low costs, the

C295 has a lot to offer.

Airbus Military/Elta C-295 AEW Paris 2011


7 of 36 18-07-2014 06:26

Others

There are a couple of other alternatives.

Bombardier and Elta have proposed a Special Mission variant of the Dash

8 Q-400 commercial passenger aircraft. The Q400 MPA variant is equipped with

and EL/M-2022A maritime search radar electro optical turret and range of supporting

electronic systems.

Elta Bombardier Multi Mission

The Dash 8 series are adaptable aircraft and many special. variants exist in small numbers.

Alenia and Thales have the ATR72-ASW which might be considered broadly similar to the

Bombardier aircraft.


8 of 36 18-07-2014 06:26

Tagged

Defense Industry Daily has the full details on the Turkish ATR72-ASW order, click here

Both the ATR72 and Q300/400 would offer a modest performance uplift in comparison with

the C295 because they are larger aircraft but arguably not enough if the wider possibilities of

a C295 selection are considered.

The ATR72-ASW provides a 7 hour at 200nm patrol endurance for example.

An interesting set of options though.

The Rest of the Series

Future Maritime Patrol Part 1 (Challenges and Missions)

Future Maritime Patrol Part 2 (Dedicated Long Range Aircraft P-8A Poseidon)

Future Maritime Patrol Part 3 (Dedicated Long Range Aircraft P3, P1, ATL, 319)

Future Maritime Patrol Part 4 (C295 and Comparable Options)

Future Maritime Patrol Part 5 (Business Jet and Unmanned Options)

Future Maritime Patrol Part 6 (Sea Atlas and Sea Hercules)

Future Maritime Patrol Part 7 (Summary)

Share this:

ELI-3360 MPA Maritime Patrol Aircraft

C4ISTAR Maritime Patrol

About Think Defence

Think Defence hopes to start sensible conversations about UK defence issues,

no agenda or no campaign but there might be one or two posts on

containers, bridges and mexeflotes!


9 of 36 18-07-2014 06:26

125 thoughts on Future Maritime Patrol Part 4 (C295 and

Comparable Options)

View all posts by Think Defence

Derek February 3, 2014 at 9:42 pm

The Q300/400 should be interesting as much because of the scope of some of themodifications that have been made. Including the installation of long range tanks.

Get over the airframe commonality thing, its really not relevant- especially givenwhere the rest of the uK special mission/transport fleet is in its procurement cycle.

There are ongoing rumours that both ATR and bombardier may pursue largerturboprop airliners (90 seaters), if this happened that would make great MPAplatforms.

Peter Elliott February 3, 2014 at 10:01 pm

From the left field how about rolling Airbuss FITS pallets on board the AntonovAN74?

Comperable to the C-295 for range and payload but being a jet can go significantlyfaster and higher.

Got a cargo ramp. There was even an AEW variant of this airframe (AN71) too

Mark February 3, 2014 at 10:21 pm

The q400 next gen offer improvement in perhaps the single biggest weakness for thecn295 speed, it cruises at 350kts pretty similar to the p3 Orion, while offering similarmission capabilities to the cn295. So if it were to be decided that a turboprop andthe flight profiles they excel at is what the mpa should do then it would be my frontrunner in this field.

as February 3, 2014 at 10:37 pm

Bombardier make the CRJ700, CRJ900, and CRJ1000 series seating between 78and 104 in one class seating and are similar to the Embraer ERJ 145 family butlarger. The Embraer family that the make various military versions but the airline willonly seat 37 to 50.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombardier_CRJ700_series

The other two options are the Bombardier C-Series and Embraer E-Jet family thatwill compete with the 737 and A320.There is also the Embraer KC-390.There are lots of airframe options.

TED February 3, 2014 at 10:57 pm

295 all the way for me as we can have as you said a common fleet which I thinkreally does stand for something. Even if just cost savings from training but I suspectthere are more.

However 6 hours at 200nm range with a max endurance of 11hrs. So its endurancespeed would appear to be around 80kts.

Ive said before if the issue is its endurance at range why not AAR? Yes its costlybut merely planning to AAR gives I feel greater flexibility over P8 which would beexpected to operate alone.


10 of 36 18-07-2014 06:26

martin February 4, 2014 at 1:36 am

The problem with stop gaps is two fold, you have to demonstrate a compelling needfor a stop gap, difficult,

Would a Russia Carrier Battle Group showing up of the coast of Scotland for asecond time count?

Seems everything is okay though as the MOD has been using Twitter to keep trackof those pesky Russians as they swan around our oil fields. And we only had a gapof 39 days last year for the Fleet Ready Escort so all is well. Lets keep investing inmassive armys to invade other peoples countries and rely on social media toprotect our EEZ.

http://www.scotsman.com/news/uk/mod-used-twitter-for-russian-warship-information-1-3292763

Seriously though given that our main potential belligerent has increased defencespending by 44% over three years. Is claiming pretty much everything North ofShetland to be theirs and is planning to spend a whopping $700 billion over tenyears on modernizing equipment (much of it naval) should we not be taking homedefence more seriously. We spend a not insignificant GBP 35 billion a year ondefence but the vast majority of it is tied to defending others or intervening in otherpeoples wars. Yet we cant even have a permanent warship stationed in our ownwaters and we have little ability to track what is going on just off our coast.

The MODs absolute number 1 priority must always be protection of the UK but afterenjoying a benign environment for so long this seems to be lost on the department.Not only do we not have MPA but we have little if any ability to conduct naval airstrikes from fixed wing platforms and other than a handful of SSNs we have littleability to actually sink a modern warship if it shows up off our coast.

There is also a good chance that the T45 sent to escort the Russian Carrier has notanti ship capability beyond a 4.5 gun and a Lynx armed with Sea Skua.

Give the press this gets for the Russians I am guessing we can expect it to happenevery time their carrier transits the North sea.

Norway is already bricking it and matching defence spending with the threat. Itseasy to forget stuck down in Whitehall that other parts of the UK are quite close toNorway.

Mercator February 4, 2014 at 2:47 am

What happens if the powers that be start to split up some of the potentialemployment for these types of MPA? In the parliamentary inquiry it was clear thatthe civil functions of EEZ surveillance, oil spill and possibly SAR were up for grabs ina coast watch style contract across several departments. The capital costs of theaircraft and through life support cost of the aircrew are much cheaper in thisconstruct. If another aircraft picks up these jobs it takes away a lot of the shortrange employment that a one size fits all MPA might have otherwise been doing a lotof. All thats left for a military MPA (deprived of this civil employment) is thelong-range, long endurance and most probably expeditionary employment.

Its tricky, especially if both requirements (civil and military) currently reside indifferent buckets of money. The CN295 is a good compromise for a one size fits allMPA, but it doesnt look quite so attractive when all the low-end stuff is taken up byan even better aircraft (and cheaper aircrew).


I think the C295s main failing is range. The wing tips are a good start for boostingthis but I wonder if it would be possible to go further. Possibly having enlarged fueltanks or extra under-wing tanks. Its not a small aircraft and one has to guess thatwith just four crew stations there must be a fair bit of room on board. With extrarange then the C295 would be quite close to an optimal MPA solution and in someways better than the P8.

Also the inclusion of an AAR probe could go some way to offsetting the range issues


11 of 36 18-07-2014 06:26

and given just how many AAR tankers we have for a relatively small force of FJmaybe thee range issue is not such a big one.

East_Anglian February 4, 2014 at 5:56 am

The only thing you get with less, is less.

The C295 is ideal for EEZ patrol, SAR and Coastguard type duties. It isnt a seriouscontender for expeditionary ops.

Id rather see the Coastguard take on the roles mentioned above, using somethinglike a C295 releasing the real MPA for long endurance ASW/ASuW. With the fewhulls available to the RN, we need a high end ASW/ASuW asset like the P-8/KwakerP-1 armed to the teeth, in order to their bit.

dave haine February 4, 2014 at 7:16 am

A couple of things that crossed my mind, whilst reading this.

Derek has a point about airframe commonality- It shouldnt be a factor in buyingstuff, unless the procurement cycles fit.

The only problem with our AAR assets, is the fact that theyre also part of the airtransport fleet (How typical of the MOD that a useful secondary ability ends up beingthe sole capability). Get an overseas deployment, and all of a sudden, well bestruggling for tankers.

I think that airframes such as the C295 and Q400, whilst useful, and if we ever hadto go to a full-on nasty war a good additional airframe, wont answer the question-We have a vast area to cover and we need the range, and we need the high endcapability. You can use a P1/A319/P8 to do the EEZ/SAR stuff, but you cant use aless capable asset out in the middle of the atlantic hunting down a Russian carrier,or a sub.

And lastly, TD makes a good point about having a small airlifter fleet. Handy to keepheli assets where they need to be, supporting the army. A small turboprop with acargo ramp, would be cheaper to run than a small jet. Shame we got rid of theAndovers

Jules February 4, 2014 at 9:13 am

@East_AnglianA good way fwd in my opinion, It does not always have to be about more Warshipsand Bombers, simply take some of the more Civvy roles away from the Navy/RAF,decrease the M.O.D. budget by as little as possible and either get some more cashout of Europe for border policing (were on the edge you know!), or take it out ofsomewhere else like the old overseas development budget, which would not exist ifmost on here had their way! Give the Rivers and Clyde to the HM Coastguard andgive em 10-12 Turboprops for SAR and fining Fishing Boats.You can let the Navy/RAF onto the Planes when required and indeed marines on tothe boats when needed. That would give us the training required in those roles, whilewe go about getting an MPA in an orderly fashion, not an interim solution but apermanent one, Navy for fighting, UK Borders/Coastguard for policingWould get legs in a government thats hell bent on stopping any foreigners getting inat all it would seem, and bashing non British passport holders is unfortunately a votewinner it seems

Simon February 4, 2014 at 9:39 am

So as long as we can get the C295 to do 2500nm with enough newer lighterweight sonobuoys that is where my money would go.

I didnt realise theyd done an AEW (demo) version. Brilliant!!!

Its got to be one of the most useful planes out there at the mo.

wirralpete February 4, 2014 at 9:50 am


12 of 36 18-07-2014 06:26

@Dave Haines & JulesCouldnt agree more on size, range, payload etc with HM coastguard paying for30-50% of procurement cost and running cost for guarenteed 24/7 in SAR coverageof uk eez, just as fisheries protection manning and ship costs are paid for out of ithink enviroment dept budget and MOD pay for remaining % to deliver defencecapability to uk and any forward deployed support to the RFTG on cougardeployments etc .Much rather armed forces personnel be used for training purposes for deliveringsuch capability.This principle could also be applied to the public duties of the army in london, or redarrows and various display teams of the three services, perhaps from same sourceas the monarchy is funded now (crown estates), thus freeing up funding to increasemanning in areas that all of us can see need filling out (navy, raf, 16AAB, 3CDO etc)

Tom February 4, 2014 at 9:54 am

I cant help but think of the C295 in the same way as Corvettes/MTBs/etc; great forlocal low end work, but considerably less useful for expeditionary operations.

As others have stated, I dont think C295 is the answer. I would rather we reducedthe need for a MPA by having its civil missions taken over by a CoastWatch /Coast Guard set-up and have a small fleet of high-end MPAs that can operateseamlessly with our likely allies (the US/Oz/etc). Also:

- Supplement the capability both of these types with area surveillance by Sentineland Sentry, and possibly a Reaper.- Equip the Patrol fleet with Scan Eagle, etc to boost their capability.

All that said, there is a compelling argument for a lighter transport to supplement theAtlas/C-17 fleet once the C-130s leave service. But I imagine that it would be verymuch a Nice To Have, rather than essential.

Mark February 4, 2014 at 10:22 am

Capabilty requirement number 1 is budget for all other capability requirements referto number 1

Engineer Tom February 4, 2014 at 10:40 am

@ Wirralpete

One problem with funding the military units on ceremonial duties through themonarchy, you would have to increase the cost of the monarchy overall and thatwould also put the military elements in that pot at the most risk of cuts that are likelyto come, it is a very easy pot to cut.

mickp February 4, 2014 at 10:53 am

I see no benefit in creating another layer of infrastructure for a tooled up HMcoastguard. Local inshore SAR is outsourced, fair enough, in terms of helos andRNLI. I think the RN / RAF should retain responsibility for broader EEZ patrol(encompassing longer range SAR if necessary).

I dont think we need high end MPA yet nice to have yes but needed?

What I think we need is a 24/7 EEZ patrol capability (UK and FI) out to decentrange, decent ASW capability, CASD protection. In addition we need to restore andretain the various skill sets that requires. I cant see what element of this the mostup to date version of the C295 cannot provide

I think there is a strong case for the C295 as a small airlifter, supplementing theA400m, replacing a few other types

Im not persuaded yet on P8, would like to see it mature. Additionally I think weshould have just strive, ultimately for one type to cover future deployabilityrequirements longer range MPA, AEW, surveilliance etc. Maybe 737 can do allthose or maybe its a longer term view on an Airbus type


13 of 36 18-07-2014 06:26


@engineer tom.. alls im sayin is fund public duties from same place as monarchy(duchy of lancaster ie crown estates) cant see any govt cutting that with amount ofrevenue from tourism etc that is brought into the country from ceremonial displays inlondon and big events such as jubilee etc


think spam monster at me@Mark Totally agree which is why i suggested resource funding for manpowercoming from other depts of government ie HM coastguard, and funding public dutiesand display teams from crown estates. public duties, display teams (2 inf batt, 4incremental coys, HAC, HCR mounted regt, Red Arrows, AAC display, RAF battle ofbritain memorial flight etc etc ) must have 2.5 3.5 thousand service personnelfunded from mod budget?THEN procurement costs can come from spreadsheet phils 8bn headroom inequipment budget oh and also the 4bn set aside for overspend in individualprojects if he is as good at hammering down on overspends as he seems to bethats a fair old chunk of money that hes built into equipment budget over the next 8years til 2022 to be still allocated?Admit ongoing running costs of equipment may need some thought but was off theback of a fag packet after a particularly tough night shift


@ mark did give lengthy reply to your comment but spam monster ate mebut in a nutshell totally agree with you which was why was trying to give anexample of where manpower funding could come from and that spreadsheet phil hasaprox 12bn still to allocate over next 8 years from equipment budget? Have notworked out ongoing costs of equipment but was off the cuff after a hard days night(shift) lol

dave haine February 4, 2014 at 11:45 am

@ Wirralpete

Id have to admit I hadnt considered the option of the MOD being a capabilityprovider- and being paid a proportion of the cost of the service- given a sensibleService Level Agreement it could help both parties- good for crew currency and HMcoastguard and legalised mugging service, get a decent service without having topay for their own fleet.

I wonder what the coastguard had to say when the nimrod was canned? Apart froma sharp intake of breath all seemed to very quiet-

You could also use the same funding arrangement for the Navy OPVs.although Istill like the partly RNVR manned model as well.


@ Wirralpete

But are they going to be willing to increase the percentage of the crown estates thatgoes to the monachy to encompass these new responsibilities.


@Mick p could see the need for a longer range MPA ahead of an RFTGcomprising a new QEC aircraft carrier in the next 6 years?As @Dave Haine says a high end P8/P1/A319 can do that but a C295 cannot


@Engineer Tom but it aint going to the monarchy per se, its going to fund publicduties? not the same thing from where im standing or am i missing something?


14 of 36 18-07-2014 06:26

Radish293 February 4, 2014 at 11:50 am

C295 has some interesting features. I like the ability to role change with palletisedrole equipment. I also think that a lighter transport aircraft would be an advantage.

Im not a fan of hiving off responsibility to civilian roles. It still has to be paid for sothere is a likely cut in in defence budget.

It happened when the HIGHWAYS AGENCY Traffic officers were introduced. Policewere withdrawn from routine. Motorway patrols. The budget was cut and officershave lost the skills of Motorway policing. The reported set up costs for the HATOwas reportedly 53M. Not good value for money.

East_Anglian February 4, 2014 at 12:07 pm

@radish293 Not good value for money? Using expensively and highly trainedaircrew to rescue yachtsmen isnt a particular good use of cash either.

High end MPA for the crunchy stuff especially when we dont have many hulls inthe surface fleet, and a submarine based deterrent to support..

Jules February 4, 2014 at 12:25 pm

Roll on part six

mickp February 4, 2014 at 12:42 pm

@wp could see the need for a longer range MPA ahead of an RFTG comprisinga new QEC aircraft carrier in the next 6 years?

Use other assets perhaps?!

Seriously, assuming a coalition op RFTG in theory will have SSN, organic ASW etc.We can supply AEW (E3 and crowsnest) / Airseeker / Sentinel assets. not tomention AAR, C17 airlift, amphib assets, TLAM, F35s etc. Couldnt someone elsechip in with high end MPA?

Im not saying we ultimately may not need a high end MPA, but I dont see acompelling case for high end now. What I do see is a large gap in our basic corecapabilities, loss of skillset, overstretch of other assets that needs filling with ahighly decent MPA. C295 fits the bill I think.


6-8 of the auxillary motherships to take over counter piracy/nacotics and FIs stuffalong with other routine deployments. You then have your T45 T23/26 and otherfighty vessels available for proper war fighting. Not chasing people in wooden boatsbetween islands.

That degrades your need for a large fleet somewhat and selling off the low end rolesto the coastguard decreseases costs further. Then you might buy a few P8. But thatis an aircarft less flexible for 3 times the price.

From: http://www.c295.ca/wp-content/uploads/2011-06-28-DP-295-MP-DATA-POSTER-GEN-EN.pdf: Mission @ 200 nm Over 8 hours. More than 1800 nm patrolled.More than the 6 stated earlier. How much more is it now they have the new winglets.Also consider AAR if we had 22 A400m as well as 14 coyager surely we could usesomething from that pool. Also could the 295 have a buddy tanker capability? Itslexibility of basing means it could also be based closer to the required area.

You have that filler between the Chinook and A400 and Im sure the speckle farceswould love one or two of these to play around with. Plus AEW variant. I questionhow it would be a worse battlefield asset than P8a. I would have thought a flexible,relatively short take off and landing turboprop would have the edge over what isessentially a pimped airliner.


15 of 36 18-07-2014 06:26

IF the figures are correct and you can have 3 295s for every 1 P8 then rangebecomes less of an issue. 1 295 is converted to a buddy refueller. Refuel buddywhen they get on station and heads for home. Buddy stays on until he has divert fueland heads back to find the now refueled tanker for return journey. The beauty ot thatwould be two fold. 1)you have much longer time on task (probably not more than aP8) 2) you still have a spare aircraft to do what you like with!

Simon February 4, 2014 at 1:05 pm

If ASaC, Merlin ASW with Blue Kestrel, Wildcat with Seaspray, F35 and a one-billionquid Astute class SSN cant police the ocean ahead of the RFTG, theres no point inthe Royal Navy

Engineer Tom February 4, 2014 at 1:07 pm

@ Wirralpete

If we were to have two pots coming out of the crown estates then yes it would bepossible, but if it was going to be one pot of money for the ceremonial military stuffas well as the current funding for the monarchy then at least one newspaper editorwill immediately say that it is giving more to the monarchy, it is an easy target.

wirralpete February 4, 2014 at 1:10 pm

@mickp yeah see where youre coming from there friend as regards allies in acombined ops scenarioHowever still think if were goin to be US go to partner no question asked in our partof world, or supporting our commonwealth friends around the world, goingshort/medium term interim capability to uphold our skill sets increases costs inprocurement and training, if ultimately as you say goal would be high end (p8/p1/a319).Also if we order P8 then like aussies we get to plug into the US sustainability &spiral development effort much like C17 contract with boeing and rivet joint spiraldevelopment.Better to be at top table ala F35 influencing decisons and development, and gettingbig payoffs for UK industry in the long run, workshare r+d etc?


The C295 might actually be a better expeditionary aircraft as well, what is thecomparison in runway length with that and the P8.


@engineer tom yeah thats where i was coming from crown estates paying intotwo pots, one for monarchy and one as @dave haine so succintly puts it crownestates paying mod as capability provider for public duties/raf and army displayteams


@simon good one lol

dave haine February 4, 2014 at 1:26 pm

Ooh dear.see what happens when you question the carrier.theyll be forming upa boarding party, armed with cutting wit and sarcasm, supported by the boardinggrappels of power projection and forward defence. Wont be long before they startquestioning whether we need the RAF.

Now, Remind me, how long did it take the andrew to react to the Russian Carriersheltering of the Moray Firth24hrs to get a Destroyer there? If wed had an MPA,that would have been 2hrs, or even probably intercepted in the North Sea.

So actually Im with Wirral Pete. Were seeing increasing numbers of russian aircrafttesting UK response times, the russian fleet have been coming into British watersmore and more. We need to maintain the security of the home nation, and thatneeds an MPA with a decent, offensive capability and a decent range. If nothing else


16 of 36 18-07-2014 06:26

to demonstrate serious intent.

Simon February 4, 2014 at 1:32 pm

Dave Haine,

how long did it take the andrew to react to the Russian Carrier sheltering of theMoray Firth24hrs to get a Destroyer there? If wed had an MPA, that would havebeen 2hrs, or even probably intercepted in the North Sea

So, basically youre saying its the RAFs fault for wasting money on the Nimrodupgrade?

Nice of the Royal Navy to bail them out though heh


I like the C295, great utility but I Still think we should eventually just bung everythinginto the A400, on the subject of Merlin, those three Indy ones are lying idle with nosparesCheeky but what the hellRoll on part six


Last comment got eaten!Anyway I like the C295 but I still think the A400 is the way to goeventually, and wecould design it with our new bosom buddies in Paris (Well Toulouse).On the subject of Merlin those three indy ones are now languishing without spares,how about a real cheeky offer???

monkey February 4, 2014 at 1:46 pm

The Future Strategic Tanker Aircraft (our version of the Airbus330MRTT) ,could it beused as a mother ship for a fleet of low/medium level flying UCAV in theMPA/AEW/AA role out in the mid Atlantic. The FSTA would act as a refuelling stationfor the UCAVs and house the UCAV controllers on palletized work stations (fitted ona RORO basis to any of the fleet). FSTA would orbit up high usually but could droplower for Direct Line Of Sight control if needed (WHEN the satellites are taken downby one of the two big high capability potential enemies Russia or China) Thebudget(?) would be spent on additional FSTA aircraft predominately (to give overallflexibility to that essential service of mid air refuelling / high speed logistics) and theremainder on the UCAVs .using the existing FSTA design would improvecommonality and the UCAV weapons delivery package is inevitable on multi missionprofile whether Air /Land / Maritime Attack .


@simon am sure youve got scouse blood in you gotta get some kip beforeanother shift buildin cars and battin away scouse wind up merchants !!!! crack on chaps later lol

Oscar Zulu February 4, 2014 at 2:32 pm

While Australias commitment to the P8 Poseidon is well known and has beencommented on in the MPA discussion threads a number of times, less well known isthat Australia also operates a fleet of 14 modified Dash 8 aircraft that complementthe RAAFs 19 AP3C aircraft. You could argue that in practice the Dash 8s tend toact as the first line of defence of Australias EEZ.

The Australian Customs Service uses a private sector provider for the Coastwatchprogram contracting out to Surveillance Australia Pty Ltd which is a subsidiary ofNational Jet Systems (and ultimately owned by Cobham plc.).

The Coastwatch program is the worlds largest aerial civil maritime surveillanceoperation involving 170 personnel, flying 20,000 hours per year from 4 fourpermanent bases (Broome, Darwin, Horn Island and Cairns) around Australiasnorthern coast.


17 of 36 18-07-2014 06:26

It is an interesting model that might also work in the UK and not unlike in some waysthe outsourced arrangement that the RAF has in place for their Voyager tankers.

The Dash 8 Q300s were equipped with additional fuel tanks in the fuselage,providing an additional 4,000 lbs. of fuel capacity in addition to their standardlong-range tanks. The Dash 8s are equipped with Raytheons SeaVue radar, L-3Wescams MX-15 EO system and a new SIM system based on Galileo AvionicasATOS. SIM will automatically capture and integrate surveillance information fromthese surveillance aircraft, and transmit in near real time between other aircraft andthe National Surveillance Centre in Canberra.

http://www10.giscafe.com/blogs/tatukgis/2011/03/06/salex-galileo-uses-tatukgis-products-for-australian-coastwatch-air-surveillance-system/

Since most actions in peacetime turn out to be relatively benign contacts (currentlypeople smugglers cramming hundreds of desperate asylum seekers in unseaworthywooden Indonesian fishing boats have overtaken illegal fishing as their mainsurveillance mission) it is fairly cost effective way of using a relatively inexpensiveplatform to do the lions share of the day-to-day maritime patrol.

It frees the AP3Cs up for their primary ASW mission and the Coastwatch aircraftcan always handover more complex or military contacts to the AP3Cs to prosecute.

While the AP3Cs remain a handy piece of kit, especially following their 2002upgrade, the RAAF has operated P3s since 1962 and the current crop of airframeshave been working hard on military missions including overland ISR missions inAfghanistan and ASW taskings in addition to increasing border protection missions.

Notwithstanding the ADFs own budgetary pressures, there doesnt seem to be theshould we or shouldnt we debate about the need for an MPA in Australia it justappears to be a given. The only argument is likely to be the numbers and mix ofplatforms/capabilities.

There are at least two reasons for this, besides the current hysteria among thepolitical classes about asylum seekers and securing Australias borders againstthis invading horde.

Firstly the sheer size of Australias EEZ makes for a compelling case for an MPAcapability. Australia has the third largest EEZ in the world of just over 10 millionsquare kilometres. Tellingly just over 6 million square kilometres is contiguous withthe Australian mainland, with the remainder accounted for by Australias remoteisland and Antarctic territories.

While the UK has a sizeable (5th largest) EEZ with just over 6.8 million squarekilometres only a little over 10% or so (722,891 sq km) is contiguous with mainlandUK, the rest comprising your far flung territories which makes for a different equationentirely. The UK would need a very sizeable forward deployed number of MPAs tomount anything like continuous surveillance of all of your territorial waters (let alonean ASW capability). And therein lies the dilemma at the heart of the spirited debateon these threads. Its a different equation really to Australia.

Secondly the Australian AP3Cs are not only employed in the ASW role (Mk 46 / MU90 torpedoes) they also have a handy ASuW maritime strike capability (AGM-84Harpoon air-to-surface missiles). Together with the RAAFs classic FA18 Hornets itprovides the ADF with 90 platforms capable of launching Harpoon missiles a notinsignificant deterrent for a small air force against any regional aggressor.

In theory the RAAFs 24 Super Hornets are cleared for Harpoon (USN employHarpoons off FA18E) which would bring total Harpoon platforms to 114 but myunderstanding is that their initial maritime strike weapon is the AGM-154C JointStand-off Weapon (JSOW). In any case maritime strike is a fundamental RAAFdoctrine and capability, so the P8s ability to launch AGM-84H/K SLAM-ER (orequivalent) is a baseline requirement for an Australian MPA. Whereas this doesntseem to be the case in the UK which opens up many more platform options.

The Australian doctrine seems to be to employ a combination of manned and UAVplatforms. The likely mix is around 8 P8s, with the Chief of Air Force openlyadvocating for up to 12 and a commensurate reduction in the number of unmannedMQ-4C Triton from 7 to as few as four. This combination also allows the RAAF to


18 of 36 18-07-2014 06:26

use a USN BAMS style operating model or even become an integral part of the USBAMS network.

All of which would provide Australia with a layered maritime patrol/responsecapability Triton, Dash 8 and P8 from as early as 2017 or 2018.

wf February 4, 2014 at 2:34 pm

@dave haine: we all knew it was there. But since we lack a North Sea base, a shipwill take a day to arrive from Portsmouth, and even a fighty MPA isnt a substitute.Distances matter, even for aircraft. Hence those pesky aircraft carriers

Ace Rimmer February 4, 2014 at 2:39 pm

Reading the above comments, the general consensus appears to high end jets orsmall turbo-props, Ive just been perusing the interweb looking at the USCGHC-130J. As funding is obviously the problem, Im thinking along the lines of utilisinga baseline, reduced capability SC-130J model in a similar vein to the HC-130J,which can then be upgraded to the full-on SC-130J when the money becomesavailable.

This way were not lumbered with a fleet of small, unusable airframes, and neitherare we committed to buying an uber-expensive aircraft like the P-8A. Am I the onlyone who thinks the future lies with the SC-130J?

Simon257 February 4, 2014 at 2:56 pm

As the Russians had sailed from Northern Russia, wouldnt/shouldnt the Norweignshave monitored the passage of the Russian force. Seeing as they would havepassed through the Norweign EEZ. As Norway is part of NATO, would they not havegiven us a heads up warning what was coming our way?

We should have had plenty of time to have a vessel off the coast of Scotland, readyto greet them!

martin February 4, 2014 at 3:06 pm

@ TedBuddy stays on until he has divert fuel and heads back to find the now refueledtanker for return journey.

Yeah but you would have to pay airtanker a penalty every time you did this.

@ MonkeyThe Future Strategic Tanker Aircraft (our version of the Airbus330MRTT) ,could itbe used as a mother ship for a fleet of low/medium level flying UCAV in theMPA/AEW/AA role out in the mid Atlantic. The FSTA would act as a refuelling stationfor the UCAVs and house the UCAV controllers on palletized work stationsOr maybe we could get the star ship Enterprise to hover over the area. Soundscheaper and easier to do.


Im still not convinced that the C295 range is that big an issue. With AAR this can beextended when needed. Alot of the issues we seem to be having aka RussianCarriers showing up on Twitter just of the coast of Inverness seems to be closer toshore anyway.

Could another option also be to consider using airfields in the North Atlantic as wellsuch as Iceland. Maybe is a very Nimrod Centric view to have all our MPA coveragefrom a single base in the North of Scotland.

Also given that the P8 does not come with an AAR system we can use and its rangeis not that great compared to MRA4 is the P8 the real heavy weight contender.Other than Range and Speed is their any advantage in the P8 over the C295. TheC295 certainly seems to have the edge in the ability to move low and slow over thewater and use shorter runways. All major advantages for an MPA.


19 of 36 18-07-2014 06:26


Mlud, I rest my case.

@ SimonNo, I blame the succession of defence secretaries of either stripe, from about theeighties (Knox/ Heseltine) on, who despite being continuously told the Nimrod wasknackered and needed replacing, chose to ignore the RAF. (Remember the RAFpreference was for the lockheed P7, not a Nimrod re-build)

@wfWhilst the carriers have immense strategicetc, etc yada, yada, yada. Whatgood are they if the RTFG is in the Med, or the Indian Ocean, or the Caribbean,undertaking photo pose- sorry, retention opportunities, and the threat appearssuddenly in the North Sea?

BTW, the crowsnest being brought forward was good news at least.

@MartinUnfortunately, Nimrod rather spoilt us capability wise and operationally.

wf February 4, 2014 at 3:38 pm

@dave haine: of course we dont need a carrier to patrol the North Sea, I wasreferring to anywhere more than an hours transit time from a RAF base. But just asthe QRA role cannot be filled by a SAM battery, you need a physical ship to patrolthe sea, and having them all based 1000km plus from their area of operations issuboptimal.


Both times the Russian Carriers showed up in the Murray Firth it would literally havebeen on the Nimrods flight path.

@ Dave Haine Is CROWSNEST being stepped up I had not heard anything.

Simon257 February 4, 2014 at 4:21 pm

@ Martin. The Crowsnest news was announced yesterday. It was posted inFebuarys Open Thread. But save you searching.

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/new-surveillance-system-for-royal-navy-aircraft-carriers


@martin Yeah but you would have to pay airtanker a penalty every time you didthis. maybe buy 2 for each p8 and use the rest to buy out of FSTA!


@ Observer

One thing about Aus that I have noticed is border sercurity is a huge issue, howmany other western countries conduct armed covert military patrols within theirborders permanently.

@ Ace Rimmer

I thought we were supposed to be doing away with C-130s so if anything it wouldhave to be a A400m and then I am yet to see what advantage an MPA variant of aC-130 or A400m has over a C295 for example, unless you put a bomb bay in andthen the cost go up and then the cost goes up till it would be just as easy to go for atop end dedicated MPA airframe.

I think a high/low mix is where we need to end up, with eventually the funding for dayto day operations of the low end i.e. C295 being funded through other channelswhilst retaining RAF crews and the ability to drop weapons such a stingray.


20 of 36 18-07-2014 06:26

To me this means we start with C295, with the aim to have our low end fleetcomplete by 2020, and then spend 5 years planning the high end fleet with the firstaircraft being handed to the RAF in 2025 and the last by 2030. A mix of maybe 6P8/P1 to 12 C295 hopefully with all 18 aircraft coming in at around a total of 2 billionspread over 15 years. (fantasy I know, but just one possible route we could godown.)


Engineering Tom: I think the advantage of the C-130 is the rugged, proven airframe.Theres no need for a bomb bay per se, rather conformal weapons bays forward ofthe undercarriage pods. The underwing pylons can already take a host of weapons,including Hellfire, and the Herc has been used as a makeshift bomber on more thanone occasion. The USCG use it for long range surveillance and rescues and thenumber of differing versions the whole family has provided over the last 50 yearsmore than demonstrates its capability. These models include the WC-130 JHurricane Hunters. I thought we were supposed to hang onto a few for SF work? Ifwere doing away with it completely, then more fool us.

Can the P-8A and C-295 produce a better pedigree than that?

Observer February 4, 2014 at 5:25 pm

*points to self*

Me? I didnt say anything yet!

Tom, think their problem is the boat people and asylum seekers probing their bordersvia Indonesia, Philippines etc. Its an ongoing problem, hence their rather denseMPA patrols. Doubt they do it fully armed though, no call for clocking up weaponmaintenance hours. They usually just mark and vector a customs vessel to interceptpeople smugglers and ship them to the offshore island processing centre (stupidspellcheck, center is a word), cant remember the name at this point in time. Theyllprobably arm if the threat level goes up, but on a normal day, there really is no call topack so much firepower.

P8 makes sense for them, huge coastline to guard.

The Other Chris February 4, 2014 at 8:26 pm

One of the reasons that the de Havilland Comet was selected for the Nimrod wasallegedly due to a distinct resonance from propeller aircraft that could be detectedby a submerged submarine.

Any truth to this? Is it a problem? A piston only phenomenon? Mitigated byturboprops and/or operating procedures? Still a problem?

Steve February 5, 2014 at 12:18 am

@T_O_C.One of the reasons that the de Havilland Comet was selected for the Nimrod wasallegedly due to a distinct resonance from propeller aircraft that could be detectedby a submerged submarine.

Yes P-3s had to track Soviet SSN/SSBN at altitudes above 15,000Ft because thepropeller drone could be heard by the subs below that altitude. As long as the C295can operate above that altitude it should be OK as it should make less noise than 4Alison T-56 props.

However even turbofans make a distinct hum between their blades and statorswhich could be just as vulnerable to counter-detection by subs.

@OZ. RAAF got its first P-3Bs in 1968 RNZAF were the first P3 export customerin 1967 with the lighter weight capacity landing gear RAAF waited for heaviercapacity upgrade a year later



21 of 36 18-07-2014 06:26

good news about CROWSNEST the joys of having a funded equipment plan withcontingency budgets. Lets just hope that couch in Phils office in Whitehall hasanother billion quid down the back of it so we can start an MPA program.

@ Engineer Tom

To me this means we start with C295, with the aim to have our low end fleetcomplete by 2020, and then spend 5 years planning the high end fleet with the firstaircraft being handed to the RAF in 2025 and the last by 2030. A mix of maybe 6P8/P1 to 12 C295 hopefully with all 18 aircraft coming in at around a total of 2 billionspread over 15 years.

Sounds like a sensible plan. The main problem with it is that the P8 is due to ceaseproduction by around 2019 and Boeing wont re-open production lines for just 6aircraft. If we really want the P8 then we need to be ordering it pretty soon. Alsooperating a mixed fleet will come with additional expense. I would also say that if wehad the P8 then the C295 may be too high end for the coast guard role and theC235 makes more sense.

The more we go through this debate the more I am leaning towards a re-winged P3.Could be delivered with a similar price to the C295 yet offers much of theperformance of the P8. 15,000 hours of airframe time should last long enough for usto either A) Develop something new in conjunction with EU partners i.e. A400M orA319 or B) possibly UAVs maybe more capable of fulfilling the role by then.

If it was up to me then it would be P8 but I just cant see any government in 2015being willing to embark on any new projects in the billion plus range. We might beable to get a fleet of 9 P3s for around $500 million which seems doable and I think itwould easily fulfil our requirements for a decade or so.

Whatever we select it has to have ASW capability, be a ready to go off the shelfsolution and come in at a reasonable price tag sub $100 million. That suggest to methere are only two options C295 or re-winged P3 so the question is which would youprefer from these two.

The Other Chris February 5, 2014 at 9:06 am

Thanks @Steve.


@ Martin

A couple of quick replys to your thoughts, if P8 is set to finish production in 2019then maybe P1 would be the option to go with, both are currently unproven andfacing issues, but with time at least one of them will solve these issues anddemonstrate that it is the option to go with. Also regards the C295 being too highend for CG duties, my thinking was that for the 15 year ramp up period until we haveour high end capability in place we would need the capabilities the C295 providesover the C235, and then after this time they would always be a reserve force toconduct military operations in a time of war, so, yes they are too high end for CG butthey arent purely CG aircraft, or at least that is how I think it should work.

Pab February 5, 2014 at 12:24 pm

If there was an option to lease some C295 from Airbus this would give us a reducedcapability in the short term and then work with Airbus to develop the A319 MPA forthe longer term.

This would give us full control over development and provide a considerableindustrial share. Its relatively low risk as the airframe is already in production, usethe FITs CMS and we have sensors on a shelf somewhere from MRA4 or they canbe easily purchased.

Other EU members will need a capable MPA in the next 10 years and theys preferto buy European that US.

All it will take is a bit of political backbone and industrial co-operationoh


22 of 36 18-07-2014 06:26

Brian Black February 5, 2014 at 12:26 pm

We chose to participate in the A400 to give us a one-size-fits-all tactical/strategicairlifter. So winding up with A400, C17, and C295 by the end of the decade has akind of perverse logic that makes it seem inevitable.

Is it practical to pick up the C295 in small numbers as a quick, cheap and risk-freeMPA, while also pursuing the A319? Have the C295 to keep the capability tickingover while we bring the A319 into service. Might some of the C295s more militaryequipment then be transferable to the A319 during fit out, leaving the smaller aircraftavailable for refit to a simpler coastguard standard for a (civilian operated)domestic SAR service?


@Brian Black Yes a few to coastguard if required but also we could do with thesurge capability that we could keep and also keep a tactical airlifter. For instance Imsure its cheaper to train paras on a 295 than an A400.

@Others I dont have any problem with 295 stop gap being implemented long term ifit proves to be capable.


Steve, good point about prop noise, thanks for the heads up, also it reminds of thatold adage about the C-130, Theyve cured the noise problem on the Hercules,theyve put it all on the inside.

James Bolivar DiGriz February 5, 2014 at 5:20 pm

@Ace Rimmer

That reminds me of the newly qualified doctor on an RAF base who examinedsomeone and thought that the chap had a rare, and hence interesting to the doctor,white fungal growth in his hear.

The newly qualified doctor gets a senior and more experienced colleague to comeand look at this. This colleague then asks the patient if he has recently come backfrom abroad and if so how did he travel.

Upon being told Yes and In a C130 the more experienced doctor got a pair oftweezers and removed the cotton wool from deep in the patients ear.

Jim


And yet amazingly its one of the most comfortable planes to sleep on. No joke.


James, I can remember having to remove a yellow, foam plug from a staff sergeantsear with a pair of snipe nosed pliers from the toolbox, after hed been working undera Lynx rotor, definitely needs a steady hand!

Observer, true, memories of drifting off in the troop seats (with the other ranks),while the officers and their wives were sat in the 1st class seats (if you can callthem that!). Nothing like them and us trooping flights. Also fallen asleep in the back ofa Lynx in flight, man I was tired!

The Ginge February 6, 2014 at 12:12 am

Guys can we all be a little realistic. The problem is money. The Coast Guard or anyother department is not going to give you a penny for long range SAR as the Frenchdo this for free nor any other type of work as they try and defend there must doparts of their department. They are not going to give x million to RAF or FAA whilstsacking their own staff. The plus point for doing long range SAR is its good trainingand youd be burning the fuel anyway so limited extra cost. Puts real world pressure


23 of 36 18-07-2014 06:26

on crews and pilots etc.The fact is the P8 only works if you buy into US high level/drone/glidding torpedo setup. All with long maintenance tail and costs, plus getting getting the plane at $250m apop is not it youve got all the other equipment as well. Plus finding someway ofrefueling it. The only reason the Aussie went with it was at the time the only game intown with the range they need and they use boom refueling already.Secondly the Government is not going to buy either an old 2nd hand P3 and replacewings too similar to nimrod and the P1 has its own problems with engines etc.The more you look at it the C295 makes sense, it can drop by parachute stingrays,can use existing sonar bouy stocks, can be refueled by voyager and if you have$2bn thats 20 purchased plus another $1bn to upgrade systems to world class aswlevels with stuff built and working on nimrod or merlins or intergrate harpoon ir otherweapons or overland radar/suveilance. As its all on pallets. That is at least 10 readyto rock and roll at any one time. $2bn gets you eight P8s with no money forupgrades to sting ray or drones so probably 6 bought and thats only 3 ready to use.Just not enough.Using c295 also allowes SF to use instead of retaining knackered c130s all with adecent sized fleet for maintenance/flight training etc.So C295 I think it is not as a stop gap but as the answer. P8 too expensive, P3 toold, P1 in trouble, airliners dont like having holes cut in them such as A319 and allthe other solutions just too plain difficult to maintain, train, base, provide sateliteband width for etc etc.It boils down to money, end of discussion.The Ginge.PS A little of topic but as anybody ever thought why we have never developed acomputer controled, airofoil parachute drop system. I can see a rather cheap way toreplenish troops without risking helicopters, a computer controlled parachute systemshould be able to land in the space of chinook takes with no risk to anybody beingshot. Chutes and control system rapped up and recovered by a lynx once a week.Darn better than driving there and a c295 could do 10 or 20 drops a day. Thoughts ?

DavidNiven February 6, 2014 at 12:24 am

@The Ginge

The Americans have a system called Joint Precision Aerial Delivery System(JPADS)

http://www.airborne-sys.com/pages/view/dragonfly

Think Defence February 6, 2014 at 12:30 am

I know I keep doing this

http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2010/09/airdop-logistics/

http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2010/08/more-thoughts-on-logistics-containers-again-sorry/

Observer February 6, 2014 at 2:21 am

David, think the UK uses that too. I know we do.

The Ginge February 6, 2014 at 10:07 am

So my next question is to all those who answered (thanks my knowledge improvesagain) is does it work ? ie does it land 90% of the time where you want it so youdont get shot up retrieving it and the planes dont get pinged when they do the drops? Or is it a good idea on paper but in practise drops you ammunition or rations 750maway right on top of the guys youre fighting ?I have no idea but Im sure people on this board do ?My thought was with the C295 you have a tactical airlifter as well, if you need it, soif another politician famously says we expect not to fire a shot in anger and provides2 helicopters (I know more were used right from the off in Afganistan but sitting in theUK it looked that way) for the mission we at least have a way of delivering stuffquickly (and not waiting 5yrs for more helicopters to be built) by pulling out the aswkit and using it to do this. Making the c295 option even more useful. Add in someoverland radars, communication terminals, targeting terminal pallets etc to provide

Post author


24 of 36 18-07-2014 06:26

another use ? As it seems to be the mantra of multi use is the game of the day tojustify spending money ? And if anybody can come up with a plane that doesnt mindhaving holes cut in it, plus can do regular low level to high without stressing theairframe to bits you could even bring down the 50m price tag by buying secondhand, but not sure of a candidate. Because unfortunately its all about money as Isaid earlier. Thats all the treasury worries about.The GingePS :Sorry for the length of reply but I do find the info on here very informative andpeoples views very interesting.


@The Ginge,I agree that the C295 would have more utility than the P8, perhaps we need to starttruly realising that high end is not always affordable for our armed forces anymore,and in certain environments 80% is good enough. Would it be possible to replacethe BAE procured under UOR with the C295 to have an inter theater lift on acommon airframe, with the possibility of parachute training and SF support? Yes, butwould the light/dark blue go for the C295 (personally Id guess at no)

The JPADS is not in the same league as precision of a LGB, it is in the region of 50 75m so is good for air drops in a field but not for a FOB. It does allow the cargocarrier to stand off and at height though to evade enemy weapon systems.

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/jpads-making-precision-airdrop-a-reality-0678/http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/wsh2013/188.pdfhttp://www.army-technology.com/contractors/logistics/airborne-systems/

For a another Afghan type of operation then I think the K Max unmanned helicopteris what you are looking for (or as a milk run replacement to free up the supporthelicopters for moving men and casevac)

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/usmc-looks-for-an-unmanned-cargo-helicopter-06672/

Think Defence February 6, 2014 at 11:03 am

David, I dont want you to think I am a stalker, but

http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2013/04/kaman-k-max-unmanned-indefinite-extension/

http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2010/02/unmanned-k-max/

http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2011/09/unmanned-k-max-making-progress/

http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2009/09/unmanned-logistics-getting-the-delivery-through/

Post author


25 of 36 18-07-2014 06:26

Did you read this as well

http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2010/09/airdop-logistics/


Thanks TD,

Always forward thinking thats why I like this site

Observer February 6, 2014 at 11:58 am

This ones for the kiddies to sucker them into signing up so dont shoot me over howjuvenile it is.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z-Z9Pe_OL7w

Suspect some footage is even taken from Fireflys promo vids, but at least it givesan inside look into how the system looks like and some ground control.

Still bloody embarrassing.

Challenger February 6, 2014 at 12:23 pm

@DavidNiven

I agree that the C295 would have more utility than the P8, perhaps we need to starttruly realising that high end is not always affordable for our armed forces anymore,and in certain environments 80% is good enough

My thoughts exactly, P8 sounds lovely but realistically C295 would be good enoughand offer a lot of utility in other roles rather than procuring a gold-plated air-frame forone quite narrow role.

DavidNiven February 6, 2014 at 1:10 pm

@ Challenger,

If we were considering the MPA as a single entity then Id probably go for the P8, butit will be part of a number of systems,

Sonar 2087, Artisan ( both world class) equipped shipsAstute SSN ( world class )Wildcat ( world class )Merlin ( world class )

Its not as if there is a huge gap in other areas to justify the price of the P8 when a80% solution is available at a much cheaper cost and also offers more utility in otherareas. Personally I think the reason that we dont go for the 80% option ( when thereis a argument to justify it, and the system is part of a whole and not a stand aloneasset ) is vanity and conservatism.

James Bolivar DiGriz February 6, 2014 at 2:13 pm

Re the idea of an 80% solution (passim).

There is an adage in the software world that to get 80% of the desired function youspend 80% of the budget and then to get the other 20% of the function you spendthe other 80% of the budget.

I suspect that this applies in the case of a top-class MPA as well.

Jim

All Politicians are the Same February 6, 2014 at 2:31 pm

Of course when the 80% solution cannot do probably the single most important taskthat the asset would have is it really an 80% solution?


26 of 36 18-07-2014 06:26

Several Libya ISTAR missions so not even with a torpedo warhead had to beadapted due to CN295 range and endurance limitations, it offered nothing like theflexibility of the US P3 or Canadian Aurora we had.Now that is fair enough but please do not try and pretend that a CN295 would offer asuitable platform for Atlantic MPA tasking in support of the deterrent.


@James Bolivar DiGriz,

Sorry mate dont agree, I dont think the systems are that much less capable (someone in the know will put me straight if they are ) The airframe (hardware) iswhere the biggest compromise is, and there are ways of working around that.


@ APATS,

I dont think any one is arguing that are they? hence the 80%


@ David Niven

Is it an 80% solution though if they cannot achieve their most important mission.They would also be limited in terms of deployed support to the fleet. If an MBTcannot kill an enemy MBT but can do everything else is it still an 80% solution?I think the table that was linked to in one of the previous posts sum up which platformcan achieve what and the short range small MPA column did not do too well.Just for once if we were going to buy something as compromised as a CN295 Iwould like people to admit what it cannot do.


@APATS,

Just for once if we were going to buy something as compromised as a CN295 Iwould like people to admit what it cannot do.

I couldnt agree with you more and its that type of discussion that gets lost in all thefancy systems and fantasy fleet talk. Now if someone was to give a good reasonwhy something like the P8 is our only option, and that its that important we arewilling to sacrifice X ( we all know theres no pot of gold at the end of the rainbow)then can someone give it.

I will add one more thing to the mix, when things like this come up I always ask myparents and their mates what their opinion is? They are all retired and are in thedemographic that always votes and still have some interest in defence issues. Couldyou explain how you would justify wasting billions on scrapping Nimrod to spendmore billions, a few years down the line on its replacement?


Its that long MRA4 shadow again. Were used to having *the* premier MPA. Eventhe P-8 is short-legged without boom refuelling


@ David Niven

Nimrod was a hugely troublesome project and was it ever going to work? SDSR2010 was taken at a time of real economic troubles.

Now if we accept that if we have MPA its 2 primary tasks are support to thedeterrent and support to deployed Fleet ops then yes something like P8 can andCN295 cannot. Our allies have taken up a lot of our slack in the former but can theydo so indefinitely?If we decide those 2 roles are not required then we can buy a smaller design.


27 of 36 18-07-2014 06:26


@APATSNimrod was a hugely troublesome project and was it ever going to work?

If I was to give that as answer then all that would do is open up more questions, whywas it allowed to go for so long etc?

SDSR 2010 was taken at a time of real economic troubles.

And now you think we have got more money to waste?

I only ask because we are all interested in defence, so we may argue the finerpoints but generally we agree that we need to spend money on it. However we livein a defence bubble and the rest of the country does not, so its them that we need topersuade as well.

well Id say that fleet ops could still not be supported with AAR and aided by otherassets of the fleet? The support to the deterrent is a bigger obstacle to overcome.But could we live without not being able to do that one mission?

rec February 6, 2014 at 3:56 pm

Why not Marshalls converting some BAE 146s


Very interesting question on having money to waste. May I indulge in a thoughtexercise?

SDSR 2010 cuts were as much about exceptionally poor project management as thestate of the nations funds.

One form of capital stimulus in the Treasurys arsenal for economic recovery hasbeen in the realms of defence investment, but instead of investing at the point ofSDSR 2010 the government canned projects.

Were now at a point where the MOD appears to have a balanced book, fundedroadmap, a contingency fund, confidence in asking for new-build systems, and anunderspend.

In addition the MOD is starting to deliver successful projects and are even able tobring some projects forward, closing capability gaps and reducing cost of delivery.On top of this we have a number of feel good industrial breakthroughs in thecountry of late: Pre-coolers, Car Industry / EV expertise, Taranis, Space Industry, toname only a few headline grabbers alone.

If you view the Government and Treasury as a long term investor with stimulusinterests, the MOD is starting to look like a candidate for serious investment withsovereign economic benefits once more.

The simplistic viewpoint being the For every 1 invested in Project X or Program Y,the country will see Z returned from associated spin off technology and supportinginfrastructure as a goal.

Maybe this is a time to start feeling optimistic about the future and for us beginthinking in terms of asking for funding for fully capable systems once more?


@The Other Chris

If you view the Government and Treasury as a long term investor with stimulusinterestsAre our armed forces large enough and do we buy sufficient quantities of equipmentto view the MOD as such, or was that one of the problems? Not knowing what weshould produce our selves and what to buy of the shelf?


28 of 36 18-07-2014 06:26

As I said earlier we are visiting this site because we are interested in defence, theaverage person on the street sees the headlines. How do you argue that a P8equivalent (expensive) would be value for money over the C295 equivalent (cheap)?

Gloomy Northern Boy February 6, 2014 at 5:26 pm

@The Other Chris a very good point having prepared the Country for currentaccount austerity until 2020 {benefits/services)and created more jobs in theprivate sector than those lost in the public sectorand talked a good game onre-balancing the economythere could be no better task for a bold Chancellor thanpush on with high-tech manufacturing investment like defence, infrastructure andenergy security (green AND fracking).

But he wont because it is a less certain way to buy votes than tax cuts or benefitincreases

Gloomy as always


@David Niven

How do you argue that a P8 equivalent (expensive) would be value for money overthe C295 equivalent (cheap)?

By pointing out that a P8 can do Atlantic ASW in support of the deterent and deployto support expeditionary operations, can be used for overland ISTAR and do all thiswith more weapons and sensors than a CN295 can. Also point out the developmentroute of P8 and its future utility in various spheres.then get a map and point out the areas that the countries that operate CN295operate in compared to their own country and get a map of the world and show themthe areas we do in relation to the UK.people are not stupid.


@APATS,

people are not stupid.I never said they were, but the media on the other hand are, and its their headlinesthat will drive perception. And lets face it the public perception of the MOD when itcomes to spending money is not great at the best of times. I just think its going tobe a hard sell to get people to agree on spending money on P8 after scrappingNimrod.


@ RecRange, it always comes down to range..the UK has the 5th biggest EEZ to cover(thanks to Oscar Zulu for info).This is why I dont think C295 is the answer, either.

The coastguard do not operate their own fleet- RVL run them under contract. Andeven then its a bit of a token fleet- a Titan, Caravan 2, Electra and Dakota. The lasttwo are for pollution spraying/ control. Defra have two more Caravan 2 for fisherieswork, operated by Directflight.(Just for contrast, Marine Scotland have two Caravan 2s, as well as three MarineProtection Vessels, and two Marine Research Vessels.

We have a gap in our national security, which so far weve got away with, but with aresurgent Russia, Chinas stated aim of capability parity with the west, increasinginstability in Africa and therefore the atlantic and Med and the prospect of moreexpeditionary operations, all of which have a maritime dimension. We will need anMPA, sooner rather than later.

The money is there, without taking from other projects, if a sufficiently compellingcase can be made. Which means we have to get sufficient utility out of the MPA todemonstrate value.


29 of 36 18-07-2014 06:26

The Multi-agency approach is one way- the MOD supplies the capability, the othergovment agencies buy time or missions from the MOD. From DEFRA, or theCoastguards point of view, the situation will be little different to now, except itspossible that the service provided will be much enhanced. It may be more efficientfor the RAF to operate DEFRA or coastguard tasks as part of a normal patrolmission, and just bill on a time on task basis. The benefit to the RAF will be training,and value added operations.

I think if we went down the palletised mission equipment idea, for instance on aC295, I think wed end up with the aeroplanes ending up permanently on one or theother task, with I suspect the MPA mission kit ending up at the back of a hangercovered in a large, moth-eaten tarpaulin (or rather, a specifically over-designed,special gold plated, impact proof, dust and water protective covering system).

The other factor we perhaps should be talking about, isnt so much what platform weuse, more what mission kit gets chucked on to it. after all the airframe isnt the mostexpensive bit of the dealthatd be the electrickery and gadgetry that gets bungedon. Maybe there is some mileage in taking a second hand airliner and putting inAirbus Militarys FITS system in with a COTS radar. As another poster pointed out-there are plenty of A319s with 25,000hrs+ left, available (roughly $15m a pop). TheA319 is a good one to pick because theyre all plumbed for long-range tanks, and itsnot a major job to install the tanks (they go in the rear of the forward hold). From theinformation on the airbus military site the weapons bay is simply a question ofconverting the rear hold.


Quite frankly nightmare rumbling about the deterrent cut very little ice. The deterrentwas there in 2010 and the rn said yep fine no problem chop the nimrod. We built athuge cost a uber stealthy ssbn more uber stealthy ssns not to mention world leadingasw type 23s and world leading merlin helicopters if they cant protect the deterrentagainst an almost non existent russian ssn threat then quite frankly we need a realhard look at what were doing. If the deterrent is priority number 1 then the rn shouldbe assigning units to it before anything else, if the above asw assets cant provideeffect defence to the deterrent then which ones are we giving up to pay the billionsrequired to purchase and run the extremely expensive p8 whose capability is lessthan the last overspecd aircraft we attempted to build as an mpa so that it iseffectively protected. Because that is the question no one is prepared to answerwhat goes to pay for it, is it the aircraft carriers, the AWACS fleet, the c17 fleet, theamphibious fleet what?

Or should this been seen as another cost added to the deterrent bill and weighted upif uk defence can continue with a triple gold plated sea borne deterrence or one is ittime to go.

Weve taken up slack in other area for our allies so perhaps its time for our allies tohelp protect the NATO deterrent because no one else other than Russia isthreatening it.


@ MarkWe have been round the houses on this and I respect your opinion but stronglydisagree with it, as do a lot of pretty senior Officers not all RN by any means. OurAllies have been taking up the slack and if you believe the Russian threat is nonexistent with the money they are spending, well that is again up to you.As for what goes, well that is why we have a review in 2015 where we look atpriorities and what we are going to spend money on, everything and nothing is onthe table


@APATS

A couple of thoughts; a C295 can be used for overland ISTAR and expeditionaryroles, might need a extra stop along the way.

The whole point is can we afford a high end MPA, a high/low mix or only a low end


30 of 36 18-07-2014 06:26

MPA, I personally favour a high/low mix as it gives us more time to buy the high endMPA and spread costs.

For a low end MPA I see the best option being the C295 as it exists and seems towork as advertised. Any variant of C130 or A400 is just adding to much risk to theissue when compared to C295.

Finally if we go high end, what would we get, and personally I feel that the P8 isntthe way to go for four reasons; 1) it has some serious issues, 2) as has been saidthey will cease production in 2019 so will require a immediate commitment, 3) it willbe too the US spec and any changes will be hugely expensive, 4) I dont think it isthe best option even if the previous points didnt exist. I favour the P1 as it is adedicated MPA airframe, I feel that Japan would be more inclined to do change at alower cost, and also we wouldnt be a tiny part of a huge project as if we weredealing with the US. Also a outside chance is Airbus but it would have to be a maturedesign before we could risk anything on it. (Personally I favour an open competitionfor the various manufacturers to try and sell us a product rather than us go to them.)


@ET

I base my assessment of what they can and cannot do on the report to parliamentwhen they were marked as incapable of these tasks.

If we have to go high low my solution would be as TAS suggested a mix of a longrange bus jet that has the radar, great optics and a Merlin C2 system combined witha few buoys offering the range and capability we need 95% of the time and a tricklebuy of P8 for real ops and when the shit hits the fan?

P1? has its own issues and we have never tried cooperating with Japan, out ofproduction in 5 years for an aircraft not in front line service yet?


@ Eng. T

If we set some minimum operational radii and standards, insist on a certain amountof british industrial participation, I think a competition would be a cracking way to go.

I wonder if the russians would put in with a version of the IL38?


Apas

That is all very true. But all I will say the recently updated and release of the nationalsecurity strategy hasnt really changed since the last sdsr in 2010. With thecapabilities currently in use which have no funding post 2015 it will be a very hardsell.


@ APATS

Last time I said we should trickle buy a high end, I got told that wasnt possible asthey finish the production run in 2019, not that I was actually talking about P8specifically, and as it was about the 3rd time someone had insisted on that being anissue I am inclined to believe that is when production (not handover, but ratherfactory production of the airframe etc.) will end.

And in 30 years (a guess) when the Low end needs replacing then a biz jet might bethe route to go as the high end would be in place, but I would rather have, for theintial low end, something that can carry weapons such as C295, I am also thinking ina situation when we have to defend UK waters a dual layer of weapon carryingMPAs might be handy.

@ DH


31 of 36 18-07-2014 06:26

One of my pet hates is that we are still stuck in a cold war mentality, both sides are,why cant we buy Russian weapons. I think in 20-30 years this might start tochange, but for now I know there is no hope of Anglo-Russian defence sales.


@ET

I am also thinking in a situation when we have to defend UK waters a dual layer ofweapon carrying MPAs might be handy

If we had to defend UK waters it is a NATO op and who on earth is going to get thatclose? Surely better to have the range to at least help protect the deterrent and actas part of a team on expeditionary operations?


@ APATS

Yes a situation like that was extreme, and hugely unlikely, but I still like the idea ofthere being a low end backup if the S*** hits the fan.

Red Trousers February 6, 2014 at 8:16 pm

After about 7,000 comments, has anyone actually answered the question that if theMPA capability was deleted in SDSR 2010, by a Joint decision (no matter fromwhere the proposal originated), and there is no new money, and the threat has notchanged, why on earth might it suddenly be funded in SDSR 2015?

Until that metric changes, no new MPA.


@RT

There is almost definitely new money and seed corn was designed in 2010 toregenerate MPA capability, add that to the fact that our Allies will not cover for usindefinitely and that the feeling is very much we need to regenerate it and yes themetrics have changed.Enough?


@APATS

The seed corn is being provided on American aircraft? Do you think that makes theP8 more likely to be chosen as a replacement?


@ David Niven

I believe we have personnel with the Us, Canada, Australia and NZ.


David, yes, because it would mean that YOU wont have to provide the money forR&D which in turn drives down cost and makes the unit price lower and moreattractive, hence making it more attractive for buyers. A C295 frame may becheaper off the bat, but add in R&D and design costs and you might seriously end upwith a near tie in terms of final cost, something to consider. Just because the frameis cheap does not mean the end result is cheap. Shit happens.

Case in point, someone once posted a comparison between the NZDF getting theBen-my-Chree/Canterbury civilian lift ship vs an all up Endurance LPD and thoughthe Ben was initially cheaper, after the conversion and rectification works, the pricedifference was somewhere along the lines of the LPD being more expensive by only13M USD, about a 10% price difference for a serious difference in firepower. Its the


32 of 36 18-07-2014 06:26

final cost that counts, not the initial.


@Observer,

How was asking if the fact that the seed corn training was being done on Americanaircraft, that it may sway the procurement decision, loaded or snidey in any way?

John Hartley February 6, 2014 at 10:32 pm

RT. If a Russian sub runs aground in the Clyde, or a Mumbai terrorist attack occurson the streets of Britain, or a cruise liner sinks in the British rescue zone of theAtlantic, would you like to be the Government minister explaining why we thought wedid not need an MPA?

kernit February 6, 2014 at 10:39 pm

Im probably missing something but, what is the problem with a mixed buy? The RAFcould get a small number of P8s and a larger fleet of C295s which they can use astransports or re-role to support the P8s as necessary.

x February 6, 2014 at 11:11 pm

re-role to support the P8s as necessary

From where does the worked up crew come? That is the trouble with all this moduletalk in a lot of cases there will be no crew to ma

Future Maritime Patrol

Documents

Transcript of Future Maritime Patrol