Re: Future UK Maritime Patrol Options
Posted: 03 Nov 2015, 06:28
The story written in the Sunday Times has not been repeated by any other papers, or military sites. Can we assume that it was just another story without credibility?
News, History, Discussions and Debates on UK Defence.
https://ukdefenceforum.net/
Mercator wrote:@Gab
Australia went with the mk54 as well. And passed on integrating the MU-90 onto the P3s a few years ago because it was going to cost around A$200M. Consider what a high-alt stingray program would cost. It won't be cheap going it alone.
And what's the sense in going it alone with MPA anyway? It's usually a team sport. It never hurts for everyone to be able to use the same bouys and weapons. I get that it makes sense to go it alone on some national capabilities, but I don't think that case is as strong with MPA (who often deploy in coalition) and with so few aircraft. Save your money for something more useful.
Mercator wrote:@Gab
Australia went with the mk54 as well. And passed on integrating the MU-90 onto the P3s a few years ago because it was going to cost around A$200M. Consider what a high-alt stingray program would cost. It won't be cheap going it alone.
And what's the sense in going it alone with MPA anyway? It's usually a team sport. It never hurts for everyone to be able to use the same bouys and weapons. I get that it makes sense to go it alone on some national capabilities, but I don't think that case is as strong with MPA (who often deploy in coalition) and with so few aircraft. Save your money for something more useful.
Very nice in theory, but if governments do not put the money in that, it does not work.yes and close our production lines down and make our defence industry workers redundant? by making our own we also continue R&D more jobs and we spend our tax money within the country we aren't adding more to the import/export deficit. we could also export to other countries bringing in money to the country.....Need I go on!
Exactly, the only rumours have come from one source "Sunday Times" not the first time by a long shot that it has been miles off the mark.jimthelad wrote:No other credible outlest have jumped on the band wagon for P8 cancellation so either someone has been fitted with a .38 implant, the press has been muzzled (not really likely no matter how much we want it), or the 'leak' is more of a wet patch.
I dint think the leased airframes are more than a temporary lend until the serials come off the production line. AFAIK there is not the budget to allow the crewing for more than 1 sqn and 1 OCU.
What production lines? We don't make any of the MPA candidates here, or (currently) the systems which would need to go in them. We would have to set up new production facilities to do either.marktigger wrote: yes and close our production lines down and make our defence industry workers redundant? by making our own we also continue R&D more jobs and we spend our tax money within the country we aren't adding more to the import/export deficit. we could also export to other countries bringing in money to the country.....Need I go on!
I think that I'd add to that:Tony Williams wrote:What production lines? We don't make any of the MPA candidates here, or (currently) the systems which would need to go in them. We would have to set up new production facilities to do either.marktigger wrote: yes and close our production lines down and make our defence industry workers redundant? by making our own we also continue R&D more jobs and we spend our tax money within the country we aren't adding more to the import/export deficit. we could also export to other countries bringing in money to the country.....Need I go on!
In my view there are only three cases in which setting up factories to make our own weapon systems, instead of buying from abroad, makes sense:
1. There is nothing suitable, or anywhere near as good, available from elsewhere.
2. It is vital to national security to keep design and construction in house (the Trident subs being the most obvious example).
3. There is a healthy export market in prospect which will keep production running for the foreseeable future.
Otherwise we just find ourselves establishing factories to make a limited run of items at a high price, before closing them down again.
I think that is one of the most important points. Not all of our kit needs to be UK produced, but at least something from each sector should be. That way we have the ability to build whatever we want if we needed to.Pseudo wrote:4. To maintain a base of expertise that will allow for domestic development of future weapons systems or to take a major role in future multilateral development projects.
We are already reliant on US kit, Successor submarines have a very large input of US/UK equipment probably more than you think. The main weapons system is of US design/manufacture. No use of a British warhead without the means to deliver it.shark bait wrote:I think that is one of the most important points. Not all of our kit needs to be UK produced, but at least something from each sector should be. That way we have the ability to build whatever we want if we needed to.Pseudo wrote:4. To maintain a base of expertise that will allow for domestic development of future weapons systems or to take a major role in future multilateral development projects.
Suppose we are completely reliant on US kit, and then one day we are forced into a conflict the Americans don't agree with and refuse to sell us any more kit. Our defense would be seriously screwed. We need national capability. (Plus defense spending multiplies though the manufacturing industry many time)
Completely agree, and without a massive injection of taxpayers money any regeneration is out of the question.Only in a time of national crisis are the British public in the least interested in defence matters.bobp wrote:Sadly uk manufacture has been in decline for years. It has now got to the point where the education system is no longer turning out plumbers, electricians, painters, joiners, welders, machinists, fitters, technicians, engineers, and the list goes on. Any regeneration of manufacturing would therefore take years to accomplish.
We are reliant on many countries, that's globalization, and we should make the most of it.jonas wrote:We are already reliant on US kit, Successor submarines have a very large input of US/UK equipment probably more than you think. The main weapons system is of US design/manufacture. No use of a British warhead without the means to deliver it.
F35B completely reliant on the US.
Typhoon many critical parts sourced from the US, one of the reasons we cannot sell them to anyone we want without US approval.
Astute submarines, whilst not now reliant on the US, without their help we would still not be at the stage we are in the programme.
Whilst I agree we need a national capability, it is not going to happen. Do the maths in how we resurect our aircraft, shipbuilding, and heavy armoured industries that have all gone to the wall, then tell me we can do it.
Try telling a politician that.downsizer wrote: U.K. Armed Forces don't exist to provide jobs to British industry, we exist to win wars.
I think that it was Windows 2000 based, but that's come from some dim recess of my memory, so I might be misremembering.ArmChairCivvy wrote:I wasn't able to determine from your link which version this "W for Warships" was and is based on?
That's correct. There is some more information about how this was steamrollered through in the face of opposition from the technicians here - I think AMS is now called Aspyre or something like that.Pseudo wrote:I think that it was Windows 2000 based, but that's come from some dim recess of my memory, so I might be misremembering.ArmChairCivvy wrote:I wasn't able to determine from your link which version this "W for Warships" was and is based on?
That's bull. Go read about the last UK only war, the Falklands, and see what the British industrial base did to support the military. A smart military will care about maintaining an appropriate native industrial base otherwise it will soon become dependent on others for very basic stuff. And subject to military courses of action being dictated by foreign suppliers.downsizer wrote:I don't give a shit where it comes from, I want the best kit to do my job.
U.K. Armed Forces don't exist to provide jobs to British industry, we exist to win wars.
No these industries are not very strong, yes we are building warships reliant on the UK government orders. Yes we are building nuclear subs, but still with the help of the US. No we could not produce a 5th generation aircraft on our own, not without massive investment by the government, which we will not get.shark bait wrote:We are reliant on many countries, that's globalization, and we should make the most of it.jonas wrote:We are already reliant on US kit, Successor submarines have a very large input of US/UK equipment probably more than you think. The main weapons system is of US design/manufacture. No use of a British warhead without the means to deliver it.
F35B completely reliant on the US.
Typhoon many critical parts sourced from the US, one of the reasons we cannot sell them to anyone we want without US approval.
Astute submarines, whilst not now reliant on the US, without their help we would still not be at the stage we are in the programme.
Whilst I agree we need a national capability, it is not going to happen. Do the maths in how we resurect our aircraft, shipbuilding, and heavy armoured industries that have all gone to the wall, then tell me we can do it.
We don't need to resurrect those industries, perhaps with the exception of heavy armored, they are very strong.
We could produce a 5th gen aircraft by our self.
We are producing war ships by our self.
We will produce nuclear subs by our self.
Sure all of those will use foreign components, that doesn't mean its not a national industry.
I'm not saying we need to or should build everything its self, but I think the uk industry is strong enough to do so if we really had to.
Like typhoon, queen Elizabeth, brimstone ect ?downsizer wrote:No shit. I did not know that.
Thats why we keep getting lumbered with crap we don't want or need.