UK Defence Forum

dmereifield wrote:fisheries access will be a condition

Newspapers say so; on which page in the draft WA does it say so?

Regardless what will eventually be agreed (as a coastal state, after leaving - in whichever way - we would still be part of the negotiations for access/ quotas... and the latter will need policing. Even if - hypothetically - zero access were to be agreed.

Some might ( ) still remember the winning slogan for the "No" side in the Norway referendum about the EU (then not named like that, yet):
"We fight to the last fish"

So as they are also a party, we could easily see an agreement emerging to cover the important areas of future tri-partite sharing of
A. the stocks (which are currently not codified... this is a bit like the question left out from the WA wording: will UK payment be based on the rebated history, or pre-rebate share... pretty sure that observable facts will win out... and even for fishing quotas the starting point is going to be the AGREED history) and
B. access arrangements.

The EU/Norway agreement in 1979 pioneered zonal attachment as the basis for establishing the resources (sustainability first,) in each exclusive economic zone and therefore the basis of national quota shares (and sharing then, as any % out of zero... will come out as zero).
- enough of counting fish?
- even though: keeping the three RB1s in reserve (was it £ 11 mln allocated, before the costs of actually taking them out for use, i.e. manning & running costs) was based on that potential need... to count the fish in more locations and with more visibility... arising!

ArmChairCivvy wrote:

dmereifield wrote:fisheries access will be a condition

Newspapers say so; on which page in the draft WA does it say so?

Where in the WA does it say that the sun will rise in the morning? Every single member state has a veto on the new FTA to be agreed to exit the backstop, it will come at a heavy price. Fisheries access will be one of them.

I actually agree with Poiuytrewq, access doesn't bother me per se, but I want the UK to be able to determine the terms and conditions.

dmereifield wrote: ArmChairCivvy wrote:

dmereifield wrote:
fisheries access will be a condition

Newspapers say so; on which page in the draft WA does it say so?



Where in the WA does it say that the sun will rise in the morning?

That's settled then.

We will continue in a fact-filled way

The Mail is reporting that HMS Mersey will join the Channel patrol alongside the UKBF Cutters from tomorrow morning

No scan eagle to search, no MPA, and no data link on the helicopters to send live video to the patrol vessels.

= Utterly unprepared.

Throwing more patrol boats at the situation looks like a real amateur response.

Obviously Tory leadership posturing continues apace all rather depressing really.

shark bait wrote:No scan eagle to search, no MPA, and no data link on the helicopters to send live video to the patrol vessels.

= Utterly unprepared.

Should be able to talk to the fishery patrol Cessnas and SAR helicopters, though - arguably more effective than a small rotary UAV. I would think that a P8 is better used elsewhere (when we get them)

BBC/MoD: HMS Mersey is ready to assist Border Force patrols in the English Channel.

shark bait wrote:No scan eagle to search, no MPA, and no data link on the helicopters to send live video to the patrol vessels.

= Utterly unprepared.

Throwing more patrol boats at the situation looks like a real amateur response.

Caribbean wrote:

shark bait wrote:No scan eagle to search, no MPA, and no data link on the helicopters to send live video to the patrol vessels.

= Utterly unprepared.

Should be able to talk to the fishery patrol Cessnas and SAR helicopters, though - arguably more effective than a small rotary UAV. I would think that a P8 is better used elsewhere (when we get them)

Sending camera image itself is not that difficult now. Japan coast guard is going well with non-military image data-link system onboard its helicopter.

Not good to send very expensive P-8 nor Wildcat (which are equipped with military datalink *1) for these "police" tasks. Islander/Defender level airplane is already too good, and a Cessnas will do well.

*1: I understand Wildcat do have data-link, but not Link16?

This is Japan Coast Guard cutter, as an example. Note that unlike US, Japan Coast Guard is a pure police force, not a military.

Kunigami class Patrol Vessel
96.5 x 11.5 m (narrow), 2x 6,600 kW diesel with a top speed of 23knots (exceeds 25knots in many cases).
42 crew, un-disclosed (but not so long) range/endurance,
20mm gun, optical FCS, 3 RHIBs, with (so-so) large flight-deck.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kunigami- ... rol_vessel They are built in shipyards making merchant, military and coast-guard vessels. It cost 5.7B yen = 39M GBP per hull (when ordered 16 in a row). Initial 2 costed 50M GBP per hull.

If channel and fishery patrols are important, I think UK shall better build dedicated ship like this. Cheap, capable, civilian standard, and so-so fast.

donald_of_tokyo wrote:Sending camera image itself is not that difficult now. Japan coast guard is going well with non-military image data-link system onboard its helicopter.

Yes, its neither difficult or expensive, but that doesn't stop the RN ignoring it.

Caribbean wrote:Should be able to talk to the fishery patrol Cessnas and SAR helicopters, though - arguably more effective than a small rotary UAV.

Do they still use light aircraft? And I don't know if they wold be more effective, some UAV's have SAR's on board specifically designed for spotting small attack craft.

shark bait wrote: Do they still use light aircraft? And I don't know if they wold be more effective

Depends how small the small rotary alternative would be.

Seen one of the Cessna 406s flying in the area; was too far to tell whether it had the fisheries protection paintwork. The Scottish side of that operation let out the contract in 2004 (then for 5 yrs):
"The Cessnas are manned by two pilots and one systems operator, and are equipped with a comprehensive suite of remote-sensing equipment to increase their effectiveness in both daylight and darkness. The airborne patrols involve extended low-level precision flying over the sea. The aircraft will often be away from base for several days at a time to minimise transit times to and from the patrol areas."

I would ask them first
- and the RAF next, should more be needed

dmereifield wrote: I want the UK to be able to determine the terms and conditions.

Ahh, the above must be a late edit? Replace "determine" with negotiate... and we are inching close to how the real world works.

shark bait wrote:Do they still use light aircraft

All operated by the Coastguard now. 5 fixed wing and 22 helicopters

Caribbean wrote: 5 fixed wing

Still the two-engines Cessnas?
- cheap to operate
- and no need to ditch straight after the smallest engine trouble

As far as a new UKCG ship goes maybe something like the 62 meter Vita with a Scanter 4100 radar would be a good fit with a 35 knot top speed room for 2 ribs maybe even a Hero or Camcopter S100 with I Master radar

ArmChairCivvy wrote:

Caribbean wrote: 5 fixed wing

Still the two-engines Cessnas?
- cheap to operate
- and no need to ditch straight after the smallest engine trouble

A variety of twin Cessnas, including the 406, contracted via RVL Group . The helicopters are provided by Bristows

Tempest414 wrote:As far as a new UKCG ship goes maybe something like the 62 meter Vita with a Scanter 4100 radar would be a good fit with a 35 knot top speed room for 2 ribs maybe even a Hero or Camcopter S100 with I Master radar

I'm afraid it is way too expensive. Damen 4207 will be much better; cheap to build, operate, and man. With one 62m-Vita, I think we can buy 3 Damen 4207.

Also do we need 35 knots, when we have 40knots RHIBs?

Perhaps some of the slightly larger Damen STAN designs would be more appropriate

Caribbean wrote:Perhaps some of the slightly larger Damen STAN designs would be more appropriate

Here you are.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sentinel-class_cutter

Sentinel-class cutter (or Damen 4708)
360t, 46.8x8.1 m, 28 knots, 24 crew.

donald_of_tokyo wrote: Sentinel-class cutter (or Damen 4708)

That's about it.

But the grass is always greener on the other side of the fence; we should have bought the whole class, instead of the 'singleton' HMC Protector. Slightly bigger, slightly slower:
Displacement: 434 t (427 long tons; 478 short tons)
Length: 49.7 m (163 ft)[3]
Beam: 7.3 m (24 ft)[1]
Draught: 3.65 m (12.0 ft)[4]
Installed power: 4,800 kW (6,400 hp)[1]
Propulsion:

Two Wärtsilä 12V200 engines [4]
One bow thruster

Speed: 22 knots (41 km/h) [1], as per Wiki

Now going back to how you operate "your own airforce" to direct these scarce assets in the most efficient and effective way:
"Six pilots and three operators will be employed to ensure year round crew coverage. It is anticipated that many of the crew will transfer over from the current contractor from 1st April. Highland Airways will also employ additional operations and engineering staff to support the new contract."
- that equates to the 1.5 crew rule, to maximise availability

And in the Scottish contract's case, the operator was qualified to do in-house maintenance, so the extra bods needed for the upkeep of two more a/c were not many

... RVL seems to be the operator currently (on the English side); don't have those details

Tempest414 wrote:As far as a new UKCG ship goes maybe something like the 62 meter Vita with a Scanter 4100 radar would be a good fit with a 35 knot top speed room for 2 ribs maybe even a Hero or Camcopter S100 with I Master radar

If we were to get any Vita's I would send them straight to Gibraltar....

(Save The Royal Navy) 4 Jan 2019

HMS Mersey sails from Portsmouth to join migrant patrols in English Channel - 3 January 2019

For now as long as we can get the 3 B1 Rivers , 4 42m cutters and 4 20m ribs fully manned it would be a good start