Cooperation Between UK and France

If the French are sharing refuelling aircraft with us and A400M’s with the German’s would it not make it difficult for the French to deploy rapidly their forces?

No reason why the French shouldn’t co-operate with both. They (& we) have done it before.

Does anyone know if the proposed Anglo-French cooperation has gone out the window, the reason I ask is I found this story about the French pooling resources with the Germans: http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=4721096&c=EUR&s=TOP

Aero went through the NIH tussle in 1960s. UK airframers and engine men accepted the position of the responsible UK Minister in submerging a solo-UK SST, BAC Type 223, into Concorde: Minister A.Jones visited Paris,6/59 and “suggested we jointly develop (an SST). I had become weary of Treasury’s cancellation of most aircraft projects (They) might find it difficult to cancel a (joint) project (Later) attempts were made to involve (US in it: ) I would have been opposed for I attached importance to the construction of (Euro-Aero) to compete more effectively with (US)” K.Owen:Concorde&the Americans, Airlife, 1997, P18, and (Ed), P54, ICBH Concorde Witness Seminar 19/11/98, pub.2002. UK Electronics Engineering Assoc. (an employers “Union”) believed they owned background “lifeblood” and resisted handing it free to help also-rans into any next-generation programme, so on (to be Tornado) in its Definition years sparks were revolting. a) they were deluded, b) these firms are now all subsumed into transnational Systems Houses.

The French believe Brits to be, and Brits know the French to (have been) perfidious, so much talk must precede the ditching of a solo option. The sole basis for decision-making must be: what course is in the best interests of the Project? That might slow down the Project’s early pace, and might increase its administrative cost: the payoff is the Fleet-in-Being: Tornado, UK/FRG/Italy, survived a dozen National General Elections during its early Development: at any one a solo project may well have been chopped.

If I were a new UK Cabinet Minister today, taking on pensioners and almost everyone as I hack and gouge at spend close to voters’ home, I would be looking forward to the dismantling in October,2010 of Defence’s interim “ring fence”. If I were involved in Astute, CVF or any UK-solo big ticket item, I would be more worried than my mate safely tucked up in a collaboration. 50% of a double-programme is better than 100% of a vulnerable solo one, and a third of a triple is yet better.

As in so many aspects, mariners could learn so much from aeronauts. You should have discovered marriage by 1970.

Actually the 4.5 has been around long before 1972, but ignoring that I am assuming you are suggeating that every frigate or destroyer we buy from now on has a Mk8 fitted. Following that the Tornado and Typhoon should have been fitted with Aden 30mm as that was what we had been using. If I was suggesting only one or two platforms with a 76 then you may have a point but I amsuggesting between 16 and 20 Frigates and up to 12 corvettes. Ammunition is no problen as we import most of our ammunition already and there is a substantial support system in place for the 76 around the world.

Updating the MRA4 and Astute to handle the Block 3 Exocet is not a major problem, but I would simply retain the Harpoon ffor the time being until their shelf life runs out. We have operated Exocet and Harpoon before so it isn’t an issue in fact equipping surface units with Exocet give more warshots to the RAF so maybe it could be integrated on the Typhoon for MAritime attack.

VSHORAD is actually light enough to be carried and operated by one or two personel and overlaps with MANPADS. I think you are confused with SHORAD which covers Rapier.

Remember these days it is all about Capability not platforms so if the FREMM can do the job, is available at less cost and quicker then there is no reason why the RN should not operate it.

Finally historically ASW and GP platforms have been classed as Frigates and AAW as Destroyers. Also one of the reasons Itally and France halved their orders for Horizon was because we banged out but they were only after 4 each anyway.

This post is about Co-operation with France (and Europe) I am simply putting a case fo rwhat could happen if we went down this road at full speed. I am not saying it is the only option but should be looked at properly with open minds. Change is comming in a big way and putting ones head in the sand and denying it get any debate nowhere.

Also important to note that CAMM is a cheap solution that provides for commonality across land, sea and air, which Aster isn’t.

The RN doesn’t want A15 at all, they only bought it as a gap filler until CAMM arrives.

It is a case of what the RN wants and what we can afford that will do the job even if only 90%. As for Exocat, the MM40 Block 3 is a totally different weapon to the old MM38 the RN used to use. It has greater range, far superior guidance and is designed to be very effective in littorial zones. It is equal if not better in some areas than the current version of Harpoon which the RN doesn’t actually have.

As for the 76mm, well I did mention a larger calibre if that was required but the 76 is a very good weapon and used in far more countries than the UK 4.5 and so is cheaper to operate etc. We are not talking shore bombardment here by the way but it can do the job at a greater range than the 4.5 with special ammunition and is on the whole a far more versatile system. Plus with 16-20 platfroms the 4.5 becomes the orphan when it comes to logistics and given the 76 would make a good gun for a C3/Corvette platform more so.

Regarding ASYER on land. I was syaing that a purchase of this system as used by the French would fill a gap in out AD capability and given its range and altitute envelope would cover much of what the Rapier currentlyu does allowing a much lighter VSHORAD system to be purchased to replace rapier, possibly based on an exisiting MANPADS.

It is all well and good to support the industrial base but it must produce equipment that provides the capability required at an affordable price. The MoD is going to be made to change its mindset regarding aquisition and bespoke solutions are going to become the exception not the norm unless industry and ther MoD develope programmes with a wider appeal than solely a bespoke UK one.

The Horizon would have met UK requirements but it was how the programme was run that scuppered things. In fact the Horizons in service are as capable as if not more so than the T-45 as they are fully fitted out unlike the Uks fitted for not with solution. FInally if we had stuck with Horizon we would probably have ended up with additional platforms and thewse would have been built in the UK just the same as the T-45.

that’s all very nice but I don’t see how ripping up a logistic system which has been around from 1972 (4.5 gun and system , the new one) and using a caliber which hasn’t been used for even longer and your expecting savings sorry I don’t see it at all. Yes in the various systems maybe better in some circumstances but your still trying to justify a more expensive system which would have unfortunate side effects such as a redsinge of the whole SSN plus MPA’s fleet to make them Exocet compatible (otherwise there’s no point) having to import ammo at a higher cost because that caliber isn’t made anymore in the UK.

You say by creating independent programs the MOD is wasting money but you want them to buy a system which they don’t want a land based large footprint VSHORAD system based on a bare minimum of 3 trucks replacing something that could be towed on landrover and was short ranged and simple to use. the MANPAD has been already dealt with thanks to STARSTREK in man and truck born forms, CAMM is the size up and should be able to be carried in a truck (an avenger system rather than a Patriot is the aim). See its cheaper this way.

The MOD is already do that look at team complex weapons programs, the various BAE UAV’s, even the QE class who’s design was bought by the French.

on the Horizon the RN Admiral running the program didn’t think it met the requirements to quote from the chief of staff at the time “it’s not common and it’s not a frigate!”. How would we have got more if the France and Italy found it too expensive they halved their order like the RN did with T-45. Its what you call fully fitted out because it radar is inferior its got a simpler more fuel inefficient drive system. Its also not the UK doctrine to fill up an AAW vessel with stuff not relating to defending HVT from air attack, T-42 only had hanger and TT RN 42 didn’t have Exocet launchers. Before you say Counties they were fitted after the T-42 were in service

It is a case of what the RN wants and what we can afford that will do the job even if only 90%. As for Exocat, the MM40 Block 3 is a totally different weapon to the old MM38 the RN used to use. It has greater range, far superior guidance and is designed to be very effective in littorial zones. It is equal if not better in some areas than the current version of Harpoon which the RN doesn’t actually have.

As for the 76mm, well I did mention a larger calibre if that was required but the 76 is a very good weapon and used in far more countries than the UK 4.5 and so is cheaper to operate etc. We are not talking shore bombardment here by the way but it can do the job at a greater range than the 4.5 with special ammunition and is on the whole a far more versatile system. Plus with 16-20 platfroms the 4.5 becomes the orphan when it comes to logistics and given the 76 would make a good gun for a C3/Corvette platform more so.

Regarding ASYER on land. I was syaing that a purchase of this system as used by the French would fill a gap in out AD capability and given its range and altitute envelope would cover much of what the Rapier currentlyu does allowing a much lighter VSHORAD system to be purchased to replace rapier, possibly based on an exisiting MANPADS.

It is all well and good to support the industrial base but it must produce equipment that provides the capability required at an affordable price. The MoD is going to be made to change its mindset regarding aquisition and bespoke solutions are going to become the exception not the norm unless industry and ther MoD develope programmes with a wider appeal than solely a bespoke UK one.

The Horizon would have met UK requirements but it was how the programme was run that scuppered things. In fact the Horizons in service are as capable as if not more so than the T-45 as they are fully fitted out unlike the Uks fitted for not with solution. FInally if we had stuck with Horizon we would probably have ended up with additional platforms and thewse would have been built in the UK just the same as the T-45.

As stated most defence companies are or are part of Multinationals. Yes money has been spent on CAMM, but other proven systems are available off the shelf. BAe Systems is a major employer in the UK but it employs far more overseas where it is noe concentrating its business after years or few if any firm orders from the MoD and especially now it looks like the MoD is going to either bang out of or renegociate its support contracts. We should not tie ourselves to UK manufactured equipment just for the sake of national ego.

The DIS is going to become a joke after the SDR as the number of new programmes and theri size is going to shift downwards quite drastically. For too long the UKs defence industry has taken its eye off the global market. It does produce some very saleable equipment but this has been through the aquisition on other companies and even nor it is losing out to competetors even in the UK market, the ASCOD win in the recent CVR(T) replacement programme.

What is important is that the UK’s Armed Forces has the best kit affordable in sufficient quantities. If we are woried about support then negociate licenced production though this can reduce the benefits by increasing overheads. WHere there is no alternative then fine a UK produced bespoke solution may be appropriate, but first the capability requirement should be re-examined to see if it is too tightly defind.

Whilst in this topic I am advocating closer co-operation with Europe the US should also be involved. There will not be a problem with tech especially regarding stealth as BAe has a substantial knowedge base on the subject up a BAe Warton.

Returning to the FREMM. With its ASTER 15 AAW it will have commonality with the T-45 and if Co-operative engagement sytems are installed along with the longer lauch system could act as an additional magazine as well being able to fire the SCALP. The Exocet MM40 block three is a state of the art system and an advance on the RNs current Harpoon. Whilst the Italian and French vessels are fitted with a 76mm main gun their is no reason a larger system could be fitted if really required. In fact I would recomment purchasing two variant for the RN, an ASW variant and a GP variant fulfilling both C1 and C2 roles. The capability requirement would have to be amended but a fleet of 8-10 of each type would bring the RN back up to strength with an affordable, capable solution with commonality with other NATO navies.

Except that the FREMM isn’t what the RN wants, they don’t like the Hull or the use of a non UK system CMS. Aster is too big and unwieldy as as a Rapier system replacement and frankly a bit too heavy for the requirement. 76mm gun wouldn’t require a whole new logistic train with no communality with the rest of the Fleet. Exocet missile a shorter ranged smaller warhead than Harpoon and been out of the fleet since the early 90s. Its expensive and is unsuited to RN requirements otherwise it might have been used.
The RN learned through project Horizon that their requirements forced them to go alone no matter how hard they tried.
Do you believe that the RN should have gone for the French and Italian Horizons as they were co developed rather than develop the T-45. You don’t keep an industrial base if you don’t risk it to develop new kit (sometimes its very successful export sometimes not but at least they are being developed and built in the UK)

As stated most defence companies are or are part of Multinationals. Yes money has been spent on CAMM, but other proven systems are available off the shelf. BAe Systems is a major employer in the UK but it employs far more overseas where it is noe concentrating its business after years or few if any firm orders from the MoD and especially now it looks like the MoD is going to either bang out of or renegociate its support contracts. We should not tie ourselves to UK manufactured equipment just for the sake of national ego.

The DIS is going to become a joke after the SDR as the number of new programmes and theri size is going to shift downwards quite drastically. For too long the UKs defence industry has taken its eye off the global market. It does produce some very saleable equipment but this has been through the aquisition on other companies and even nor it is losing out to competetors even in the UK market, the ASCOD win in the recent CVR(T) replacement programme.

What is important is that the UK’s Armed Forces has the best kit affordable in sufficient quantities. If we are woried about support then negociate licenced production though this can reduce the benefits by increasing overheads. WHere there is no alternative then fine a UK produced bespoke solution may be appropriate, but first the capability requirement should be re-examined to see if it is too tightly defind.

Whilst in this topic I am advocating closer co-operation with Europe the US should also be involved. There will not be a problem with tech especially regarding stealth as BAe has a substantial knowedge base on the subject up a BAe Warton.

Returning to the FREMM. With its ASTER 15 AAW it will have commonality with the T-45 and if Co-operative engagement sytems are installed along with the longer lauch system could act as an additional magazine as well being able to fire the SCALP. The Exocet MM40 block three is a state of the art system and an advance on the RNs current Harpoon. Whilst the Italian and French vessels are fitted with a 76mm main gun their is no reason a larger system could be fitted if really required. In fact I would recomment purchasing two variant for the RN, an ASW variant and a GP variant fulfilling both C1 and C2 roles. The capability requirement would have to be amended but a fleet of 8-10 of each type would bring the RN back up to strength with an affordable, capable solution with commonality with other NATO navies.

Or that we’ve already spent most of the Dev money.

I think he getting at replacing it with a french, German, US system(such as MICA, RAM,) which is in service. discounting the usefulness of a defense industrial policy and work for UK companies and having a system suited to the UK.

Not to mention dismissing the possibility that we may actually be producing a useful and exportable product for once.

So what replaces Sea Wolf?

CAMM is also the replacement for Sea Wolf.

I think he getting at replacing it with a french, German, US system(such as MICA, RAM,) which is in service. discounting the usefulness of a defense industrial policy and work for UK companies and having a system suited to the UK.

So what replaces Sea Wolf?

CAMM is also the replacement for Sea Wolf.

Given the current economic climate, and the type of operation being conducted a joint Corvdette programme may have more support this time around. Given its simplicity it would be easier for nation to adapt systems to their needs if they are determined to do so. Europe is determined to spend less on defence and so needs to change the way it procures equipment.

Looking to a Rapier replacement, I was infering if CAMM was cancelled then another system would fill its place for the Army and RAF. Land Based Aster would carry out the job other nations use Patriot for and because of its perfomance and engagement envelope the SHORAD system needed would only be for very short range engagement.

Most of Europes defence industries are multinational, I think it is time were began thinking along the same lines for procurement. Why run two or more programmes that do the same job. Keep doing that an we won’t have a defence industry or armed forces.

In addition to the above, a large Corvette meeting the C3 requirement would appeal to many other navies and if jointly developed with France and Italy I am sure other NATO navies would join the programme as there is a need for such a vessel. For once we would be part of naval building programmes that have a chance at export sales.

Tried that already, and failed a few times.

With the cancellation of UK programmes the UK could replace its Rapier with another system

CAMM

and even purchase the land based version of Aster.

What for? Against what threat?

The Sea Skua replacement programme could continue as it has a unique niche and would be ideal for other nations as part of the overall programme

Agreed.

In addition to the above, a large Corvette meeting the C3 requirement would appeal to many other navies and if jointly developed with France and Italy I am sure other NATO navies would join the programme as there is a need for such a vessel. For once we would be part of naval building programmes that have a chance at export sales.

With the cancellation of UK programmes the UK could replace its Rapier with another system and even purchase the land based version of Aster. The Sea Skua replacement programme could continue as it has a unique niche and would be ideal for other nations as part of the overall programme

What commonality does the RM have regarding propulsion at the moment though. If we went down this route surely we could adopt the same weaponry as France and Italy, cancelling programmes bespoke to the UK. I know this would mess up the T-23 upgrade but if theat was also cancelled to save money and the SCALP fitted to the T-45s along with the latest Exocet we would end up iwth a 2 platform fleet of escorts with economies of scale. Yes we wouldn’t have bespoke Radars etc but then neither would France or Italy. With other NATO navies needing new escorts the FREMM could become a common standard, at least it is in production unlike C1 or C2 so we could get units faster allowing the earlier retirement of the T-22B3 and early T-23. The first units could even br built overseas until capacity is available in UK yards.

The hull might do, but fit out is very different. The RN wants commonality in equipment (weapons, sensors, etc) across the fleet, as far as possible. Much of the equipment is either in inventory now, or ordered. That would have to be integrated on FREMM. Propulsion would probably also fall foul of commonality.

If anything the commonality there is more important than hull commonality. That’s where the real costs of ships lie.

How close is the FREMM to the UKs C1 or C2 requirements? Also are there any current European maritime programmes that could be used to fill the RNs needs with little alteration and excepting that they would not be 100% fits?

The hull might do, but fit out is very different. The RN wants commonality in equipment (weapons, sensors, etc) across the fleet, as far as possible. Much of the equipment is either in inventory now, or ordered. That would have to be integrated on FREMM. Propulsion would probably also fall foul of commonality.