It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

UK to acquire new Maritime Patrol Aircraft in response to Russian Submarine threat

page: 1
6
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 11 2015 @ 03:56 PM
link   
Having cancelled the long-overdue and over budget replacement for the old Nimroad in 2010, owing to the economic crisis, the UK Government is now looking at renewing the MPA ability of the RAF:



David Cameron and George Osborne will be persuaded to part with the cash to buy a fleet of jets to hunt Vladimir Putin's nuclear submarines, which have regularly been patrolling the coast of Britain in recent months.

Often the Russian underwater vessels have only been discovered after colliding with private boats and now Government ministers are eager to plug the gap in defences with aircraft to track them.

Around a dozen top of the range planes will be bought for the RAF over the next two years.

These are likely to include the US developed Boeing Poseidon P8, designed for 'long-range anti-submarine warfare' and worth around £150million each.

The P8 jets look for magnetic fields under the water's surface.

Despite the promise of more austerity cuts in the coming months, the Government has been persuaded to invest in submarine detection due to increased aggression by Putin's forces

Link


On another note, there are rumours that Tory backbenchers are planning a revolt against key legislation if the Government doesn't commit to the 2% minimum GDP spend on defence as required by NATO.




posted on May, 11 2015 @ 04:00 PM
link   
a reply to: stumason

There are very few actual MPA platforms out there. The P-8 is the best of them, as well as having a large support base with them being 737s.



posted on May, 11 2015 @ 04:12 PM
link   
Excellent, some more completely pointless military expenditure. How does tracking these submarines actually make us more secure?



posted on May, 11 2015 @ 04:13 PM
link   
a reply to: stumason

What amazes me is that being in NATO and allied with Western Europe we appear to be going it alone to track Russian Subs. I know the Swedish got their panties in a wad some time ago about Russian subs but surely Europe should be running some kind of collective monitoring system of all foreign subs around our coastlines? If we are governed together surely we monitor together -



posted on May, 11 2015 @ 04:14 PM
link   
a reply to: ScepticScot

It keeps your shipping safe, because of a war does kick off you know where the subs are and can deal with them. Otherwise we repeat the convoy disasters of WWII if something kicks off.



posted on May, 11 2015 @ 04:15 PM
link   
a reply to: Shiloh7

They're only just now starting to share resources. The Netherlands, Norway, and Poland are buying four Airbus tankers to share.



posted on May, 11 2015 @ 04:22 PM
link   
a reply to: ScepticScot

I'm curious as to what you find pointless about it?

The UK is, like few other nations, entirely dependent upon sea traffic to feed itself, and needs to be able to protect the sea lanes that carry that traffic.

Again, why pointless?



posted on May, 11 2015 @ 04:22 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58
Pretty sure if there is another major war it is not going to be a rerun of ww2.
Besides which tracking them is pretty pointless by itself. We can know where they are but doesn't mean there is anything we can do about it.



posted on May, 11 2015 @ 04:28 PM
link   
a reply to: ScepticScot

There's a lot that can be done about it if you know where they are and shooting starts. First the MPA itself carries torpedoes and other weapons. They can vector in ASW surface ships, or other subs. Even if shooting doesn't start, it can harass the sub until it leaves the area.

How do you think most of the equipment the US used in the Middle East got there? Or back to the US? Or anywhere else for that matter.

It wasn't by air. Knowing where subs are is incredibly important.



posted on May, 11 2015 @ 04:28 PM
link   
a reply to: seagull
Because it is an exercise is being seen to do something rather than actually doing something. The UK military has had major cut backs yet we still fund high end kit that really serves no practical use. (QE class aircraft carrier anyone)
Having Russian submarines off our coast really doesn't put us in anymore danger than if they are in the middle if the Atlantic. It just gets daily mail readers in a frenzy of indignation.



posted on May, 11 2015 @ 04:35 PM
link   
a reply to: ScepticScot

The US was able to put boats into Russian harbors to do Intel gathering. Knowing where they are is valuable.



posted on May, 11 2015 @ 04:37 PM
link   
a reply to: Shiloh7

As it happens, the UK has had to call in help from our NATO partners to track other suspected Russian incursions very recently.

They have also kept the skills alive under a project called the Seedcorn initiative which helps maintain the skills needed to operate MPA.


originally posted by: ScepticScot
Excellent, some more completely pointless military expenditure. How does tracking these submarines actually make us more secure?


It isn't "pointless" in the slightest. It is actually one of the more useful bits of kit we did have up until the 2010 SDR cut them.

a reply to: ScepticScot

The QE carriers will serve a very practical use. Just because you think they're useless it doesn't make it so - after all, you're not on the Chiefs of Staff Committee, are you?

And Russian subs do pose a danger, even in peacetime. They don't follow the procedures laid down to the RN and allied navies when navigating UK waters and pose a risk to shipping.



posted on May, 11 2015 @ 04:41 PM
link   
a reply to: ScepticScot

OK, I see your thinking here...

At this point in proceedings you're correct. Not needed, because peace has broken out all over.

But...

When/If that war comes? What then? As I understand it, and my understanding of UK military preparedness is sketchy, so feel free to correct me, RN/RAF ability to address this situation is, in a word, lacking.

A new maritime patrol plane, like the new Boeing, would go a very long way towards addressing that.

It is, if it works as advertised, both capable of detecting those subs, and then, as necessary, dealing with them.

These aren't a QE class aircraft carrier that may be seen as a bit of grandstanding, but IMHO, are absolutely necessary to protect the coast and sealanes of your country.

A country without these capabilities is, again in my humble opinion, asking for big trouble in the event, God forbid, of another war.



posted on May, 11 2015 @ 04:44 PM
link   
a reply to: seagull

Indeed... As some bloke once said, "The wise man who wants peace prepares for war"..

We got caught with our pants down in 1939 after hefty defence cuts and the assumption of "well, it's peaceful now" and were only saved by 22 miles of water from being overrun.

We almost got caught with our pants down again in 1982 - in fact, that is why the Argentines invaded as we had just announced more defence cuts - and had to cobble together a task force with ships coming out of mothball.

Assuming that because it is peaceful now, it won't be in a years time, or in 2 years time etc. It is the job of the Government and the MoD to protect the realm and by not being prepared, how can they be expected to do that?



posted on May, 11 2015 @ 04:49 PM
link   
two words proportional response.

the gov messed up and lost money scrapping the Nimrod fleet old as they were.
and now Russia has stepped up its probing of our coastline a response has to be seen
to be made even if it is somewhat pointless although Russia's probing is equally pointless
as they are well aware of our forces locations capability's and response times.

it is all part of the game of sabre rattling.



posted on May, 11 2015 @ 04:56 PM
link   
a reply to: stumason
The record of nato submarines with regard fishing vessel safety is hardly impeccable.
As for the QE carriers (even when they do finally get planes to fly of them) they are just a vanity exercise. To big, expensive and few to risk being used.
Actually agree with point that the UK needs a capable navy. But building giant floating targets like these when we don't have the other ships to protect them is just pointless. The money could have been much better spent but that wouldn't have suited the politicians egos as well.



posted on May, 11 2015 @ 05:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: stumason
The record of nato submarines with regard fishing vessel safety is hardly impeccable.


Which is exactly why those procedures I mentioned were brought it. I can link them to you if you want?


originally posted by: ScepticScot
As for the QE carriers (even when they do finally get planes to fly of them) they are just a vanity exercise. To big, expensive and few to risk being used.
Actually agree with point that the UK needs a capable navy. But building giant floating targets like these when we don't have the other ships to protect them is just pointless. The money could have been much better spent but that wouldn't have suited the politicians egos as well.


Hardly - they will have ample protection. Why exactly do you think they won't? Not only are there the T45's and the Astutes to protect the CBG, but there is also a new procurement of frigates (Type 26's) to replace the current Type 23's in the works. They are due to start construction of them next year and there will most likely be 13 of them.

Honestly, it seems you form your opinion about Military planning based on tabloid reports. Considering the plan is to have one Carrier at sea at any one time, the current fleet assets are perfectly fine for it's protection before we even think about the Type 26's.



posted on May, 11 2015 @ 05:14 PM
link   
a reply to: stumason
In order to have 1 carrier at sea at all times we would need both to be operational (no means a certainty). Supporting vessels will also have to be rotated increasing the total required and reducing assets available elsewhere. The Royal Navy simply isn't big enough to need or use such large carriers.
The tabloid press is overwhelming jingoistic about these ships so who is taking their line from the press?


edit on 11-5-2015 by ScepticScot because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 11 2015 @ 05:29 PM
link   
a reply to: ScepticScot

Just how many ships do you think are required? There are currently 16 Type 23's and 6 type 45's. A single Frigate can stay on deployment for months - sometimes as long as 18 months.

An example of a typical Royal Navy "Response Force Task Group", as they are known, is during Cougar 13 . This was based around HMS Bulwark and had 10 RN ships to escort her, with some additional RFA vessels in support. Of those RN ships, several were amphibious assault ships, not warships, of which there were only a few plus 1 submarine. They also had embarked a contingent of Apaches and an RM Commando Brigade.

The idea behind the RFTG is for it to be scalable, so they can vary in size and composition depending on the mission. The RN has already shown since the 2010 defence review it can deploy and maintain a sizeable force at sea for a wide variety of missions.

And no, I don't read the tabloids, or any paper really, for my defence news. I have other sources for that which are far more reliable and much less sensationalist. I recommend you do some reading, rather than firing from the hip with rather ill-thought out criticisms.

Response Force Task Group - Cougar 13

Some more info...

Cougar 14

Even more info...



The two capital ships in the UK’s Response Force Task Group – flagship HMS Bulwark and helicopter carrier HMS Illustrious – sailed back to their respective home ports (Devonport and Portsmouth) on Friday, bringing the curtain down on the two-month Cougar 12 deployment to the Mediterranean.

They are just two elements of a 16-piece ‘amphibious orchestra’ of warships and auxiliaries, Fleet Air Arm, RAF and Army Air Corps squadrons, Royal Marines of 3 Commando Brigade and 45 Commando and their supporting Army commando units, more than 320 vehicles ranging from Land Rovers to armour, plus nearly 30 amphibious landing craft.

The deployment, which involved nearly 3,000 sailors, Royal Marines, soldiers and airmen spread across six ships and five squadrons, was split into two distinct phases: firstly working with the French, before moving to the Adriatic to work with the Albanians in two fortnight-long major amphibious exercises.



posted on May, 11 2015 @ 05:33 PM
link   
Would the P-8s also be useful for search and rescue? I use to love seeing the nimrod with its huge search light switched on did always find it odd though as to why it had a big light on one wing. However if I was stranded at sea and saw a nimrod fly over it would give me a lot of hope.

I saw a p-8 at fairford last year. Didn't see it fly as it was on static .. Saw it take off for its departure though .. Nice aircraft

Edit: just had to mention I loved seeing the nimrods at air shows .. Proper old school Cold War aircraft, noisey and different looking.
edit on 11-5-2015 by ThePeaceMaker because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
6
<<   2 >>

log in

join