Future Maritime Surveillance

Discussion in 'Royal Navy' started by Kromeriz, Sep 20, 2012.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. Interesting report. considering an aged T42 was sent to intercept the Russians off the coast of Scotland, I would have thought that the grown ups would have been looking nearer to home...

    Concerns exist about the MoD’s capacity to manage the risk created by the capability gap in maritime surveillance and about its ability to react to demand in the short and medium term, says the Defence Committee in its report, published today, entitled “Future Maritime Surveillance”.

    The Committee has serious concerns following the decision in the 2010 Strategic Defence and Security Review (SDSR) to cancel the Nimrod MRA4 maritime patrol aircraft (MPA) programme. Although the MoD’s own capability investigations have concluded that a MPA is the solution to the UK’s maritime surveillance requirements over the next 20 years, the MoD has postponed any decision on a further MPA until at least the next SDSR in 2015.
    The UK therefore now has no current or planned sovereign MPA capability (i.e. a capability that could be operated independently) and the MoD has acknowledged that the resultant capability gap cannot be completely covered by an existing single asset or collection of assets. The reduction in certain sovereign long range maritime surveillance capabilities also highlights the UK’s interim dependency on allies for support in protecting the increasingly important reaches of the UK as well as its wider defence and direct military capability.
    Chair of the Committee, Rt Hon James Arbuthnot, says,
    “We are unconvinced that the MoD has the capacity to respond to any escalation in the risks that may appear beyond the UK’s shores. Furthermore we believe the risk is likely to worsen in the medium term as further maritime surveillance capabilities are withdrawn or not yet filled.”
    The Committee is concerned that the MoD is sending mixed messages in respect of the need for a maritime patrol aircraft. On one hand it says that there is no requirement for such an aircraft and that it is not funded or in the programme but on the other hand it acknowledges that its absence is a risk and something may need to be done.
    Chair of the Committee, Rt Hon James Arbuthnot, says,
    “The MoD must explain why it is satisfactory to wait until 2015 or beyond before deciding how to close the capability gap in maritime surveillance.”
    The Committee is also concerned about the withdrawal of other maritime surveillance assets, such as the Type 22 Broadsword Frigates, and the potential for other capability gaps to occur in the future, for example when the Sea King (SKASaC) helicopter is taken out of service in 2016 to be replaced by Project CROWSNEST operating from the Merlin Mk 2 helicopter.
    However the report acknowledges the work the MoD has undertaken to explore the potential options for maritime surveillance in the longer term, such as unmanned systems, lighter-than-air vehicles and space technology.
    The report welcomes the establishment of the Maritime Security Oversight Group and the National Maritime Information Centre as first steps towards a more strategic and co-ordinated output and as a way of mitigating some of the capability gaps. The challenge is to develop these further. The Committee is keen to see a more prominent ministerial role in maritime surveillance, particularly given the number of cross-government interests that exist.

    Read more: UK’s Future Maritime Surveillance | Navy & Maritime Security News at DefenceTalk
  2. Cold_Collation

    Cold_Collation LE Book Reviewer

    Plenty on Pprune too, Krom...
  3. OTS buy of P-8's in 2015
    • Like Like x 1
  4. Or - buy some P-1's off Japan. They are building them now!


    Look familiar-ish?
    • Like Like x 2
  5. Did we get any dosh for it? If not, perhaps a few aircraft as a quid pro quo? Maybe lease a few P3s (airframe etc similar to Hercules) in the interim?
  6. The P3s are mashed. The P8 is the obvious solution, given as we already use Boeing E3Ds - and will be getting RC135s in the near-ish future. Of course, we could simply have kept the bloody MRA4, but... etc.
    • Like Like x 2
  7. Other than the genius thinking that had a 360 work its way through several billion quid in persuit of political expediancy?
  8. Guns

    Guns LE Moderator Book Reviewer
    1. The Royal Navy

    Also as individual service chiefs are responsible for their own budgets who's to say it will be a RAF asset.

    I throw that in for discussion.
  9. and that's exactly what the RAF are saying - "you want MPA, you can ******* well pay for them". Same same with the Army and 3 Cdo Bde. Now we can see where 1SL's priorities lie - and I bet it isn't MPA and 3 Cdo Bde.
    • Like Like x 2
  10. Exactly, it's the much fabled Sea Harrier FRS3! Or do tekidrag would led us to be! Like sunof states P8 of the shelf, the only question who are they going to?

    My money is on the crabs getting them as they would like the Royal Navy having more airframes!!
  11. The shenanigans the grown ups get up to.

    Said it 10 times, say it again. given the size of the armed forces at the moment, create one service.
  12. NO.Just take it back to pre 1st of april jokesters.

    N.B. No axe to grind it's just a logical solution to modern requirements.
    • Like Like x 1
  13. Bouillabaisse

    Bouillabaisse LE Book Reviewer

    We might see a carrier-launched fixed wing ASW aircraft though. Perhaps not as capable as Mr4 but a step in the right direction.
  14. It looks for all the world like a 4-engined, stretched, S-3 Viking!!!