EuroAEGIS

Perhaps add some Bell 412s, even marinised ones – they could do most of the Lynx roles, but be a lot cheaper! They could handle vertrep, and lighter recon, and generally supplement the existing fleet. In a lot of the missions in Iraq at the moment, a Bell 412 would be as good as a Lynx, but would cost a lot less, both to purchase and to run. They could even perform the light gunship role, when the Apaches are not available. It would, of course, be a cheap way for the UK to sort out its major helo shortage – buy another dozen Chinooks, a couple of dozen Merlins, and a hundred or so Hueys.

If you want to modernise things of course, you can simply buy AW-139 or -149s instead of the Hueys!

For simplicity’s sake just those 3 would of course be good, however for the foreseeable future its going to look more like this ( and I am probably missing half anyway):

Future Light Utility Helicopter replacing Squirrel and Gazelle
Battlefield Utility Helicopter replacing Puma and Sea King HC
Battlefield Reconnaissance Helicopter (FLynx)
Maritime Surface Attack (FLynx)
Various Legacy Lynx versions and possibly even Sea Kings
Merlin HC
Merlin HAS
Chinook HC Mk 2

For over water ASW or similar naval operations Merlin with 3 engines and longer endurance looks a better fit, and the FLynx will be a good option for some naval utility tasks, but there is still a gap that the NH90, able to fit and go places where the Merlin and Chinook cannot, should fill. And with AgustaWestland part of the NH team, a share of production should also be possible. But then there are so many other options, and this thing called AW149

For UK purposes, it would be better to stick with the EH-101 as a ‘universal’ helo, buying it in very large numbers for all the forces! It would make a much better option than the NH-90, which is much smaller. Particularly for the UK, buying the EH-101 makes a lot more sense, since it is a partly British product, rather than the NH-90, which is not. Particularly in the case of the British Army, if given EH-101s in decent numbers, they would be very happy! I would argue in favour of the RN getting more (in place of the future Lynx), perhaps 80. The RAF should get perhaps 40, to support special operations and CSAR, and the Army and Royal Marines should get 120+. This would mean a total of 240 helicopters, which would make for an excellent force, and keep the entire helo fleet to just three main types – Merlins, Apaches and Chinooks! Perhaps add in some cheap Bell 412s, to be used on less major operations, and you have an excellent boost to UK helo forces!

Alrighty then, it’s the Rafale for both sea and land based fighter.

Nic

Hi,

No, no, no! EH-101 & NH90 are different enough to keep for different roles. EH101 is quite a lot bigger.

I knew that this would stir up some emotions:-))) It is bigger, it has a longer range and it is more expansive. Fact remains do we need both especially do countries like the UK and Italy need both (or in case of the UK Lynx and EH-101) or wouldn´t reduction in models make a lot of sense for them too? I think the later. Besides NH-90 with Merlins ASW set would be great as well, don´t you think? Anyway …. (see below)

Since any sensible all-European naval co-operation deal would involve completing the CVFs & PA02 to the same CTOL standard, why go to the trouble & expense of developing a Sea Typhoon? Rafale as the carrier fighter, Typhoon as the land-based fighter. Commonality of systems where appropriate. Otherwise, we’re re-visiting procurement decisions from 20 years ago, which I think is going back a bit too far.

Ok I can agree on all that especially considering the last sentence which is also true for the choppers above. For the sake of argument though (sorry cannot resist ;-)) one fighter in two configurations would have been better than two different models.

Thanks for the good discussion,

Regards.

….

What I find truly amazing is that no one of the UK fraction spotted the different helicopter on the second Super Duke. (Now comes the mine field:-)) In my effort to harmonize systems I killed the EH-101! Ok, calm down everybody I killed Rafael too! All choppers will be the NH-90 (the EH-101 will be, in a different guise the Chinook & Stallion replacement) and all fighters will be the Typhoon. France will get the job of navalizing the Typhoon (I know not easy but sure as hell cheaper than development a totally new fighter!).

Ok, shoot me know:-))

Regards.

No, no, no! EH-101 & NH90 are different enough to keep for different roles. EH101 is quite a lot bigger.

Since any sensible all-European naval co-operation deal would involve completing the CVFs & PA02 to the same CTOL standard, why go to the trouble & expense of developing a Sea Typhoon? Rafale as the carrier fighter, Typhoon as the land-based fighter. Commonality of systems where appropriate. Otherwise, we’re re-visiting procurement decisions from 20 years ago, which I think is going back a bit too far.

One thing worth noting is that the Meteor missile is of a smaller diameter than the ESSM, so it may be possible to quad-pack them. I am not sure if this would work with the Sylver launchers, but it should work with the Mk41. It may well work with the Sylver though, which could make it an attractive option for France, the UK, and potentially a variety of other countries.

Hi,

Cheat! 😀

Yeah, I tend to do that. One other thing that would need to be different from the onset is APARs capability for Aster missile uplink capability. If I remember my radar guru 7seas correctly, APAR could be used for that task but would need one of its pencil beams for each missile uplink therefor decreasing its surveillance capability. So that would need to be different as well. Though both issues could be feasibly solved.

Of course, if the NSM is partly American (I’m not sure) it might be possible to substitute non-US competitions.

Now that would be possible. If the NSM program would be targeted at a much larger market (all European Navies for the next 20 years!) it might be possible without US corporate involvement. Its settled than (Why cheat only ones?!)

Agreed about Mistral. Not in the same league as IRIS-T or RAM. Mica-VL & VL Seawolf are nearest, but a bit bigger, heavier, & probably more expensive.

Seawolf is out of the question. While being a good SAM it needs separate illuminators and I´d like to prevent that. VL Mica would work however it would again increase France work share over the other nations share. That´s why I opted for Iris-T SL in the first place.

What I find truly amazing is that no one of the UK fraction spotted the different helicopter on the second Super Duke. (Now comes the mine field:-)) In my effort to harmonize systems I killed the EH-101! Ok, calm down everybody I killed Rafael too! All choppers will be the NH-90 (the EH-101 will be, in a different guise the Chinook & Stallion replacement) and all fighters will be the Typhoon. France will get the job of navalizing the Typhoon (I know not easy but sure as hell cheaper than development a totally new fighter!).

Ok, shoot me know:-))

Regards.

Hi again,
You are right. I would just assume that the two different boosters were envisioned from the onset of the project:-))

Cheat! 😀

I hadn´t considered that for NSM because I didn´t know. That would indeed be disadvantageous for exports. Ok, than if we choose another all European missile that will end up larger anyway increasing the need for a smaller helicopter launched ASM even more. A Brimstone derivate is fine with me. What about the heavy SSM than. I really like the RBS-15 mk3 though it wouldn´t fit in my idea of spreading work share between partner nations since Sweden isn´t a partner. MM-40 block 3 Exocett is looking good too, though it would mean even more work share for the French industry. Leaves the outsider Otomat Teseo mk2 block IV (?). That would work since I´d really like to have a VL Milas for the ASW ships;-))

Regarding RAM, you are right of course. But what are the alternatives for a ILMS? Mistral, no thank you. I think RAM would be good as an interim solution until Iris-T SL is fully operational in the next decade. Besides there wont be many exports for these high-end ships anyway as shown in the real world. Those would have to make due with the PAAMS and the Sea Guard systems.

Thoughts?

Regards.

No big arguments. I expressed concern about US content not with thoughts of exporting the ships, but the missiles, for mounting on other platforms. If one type was generally adopted, it would marginalise the others, harming their sales prospects. Of course, it the NSM is partly American (I’m not sure) it might be possible to substitute non-US components.

Agreed about Mistral. Not in the same league as IRIS-T or RAM. Mica-VL & VL Seawolf are nearest, but a bit bigger, heavier, & probably more expensive.

[edited for brain fart]

Hi again,

great input, thanks a lot.

One quibble there: developing a new Aster 15 booster would take some time, so would put that outside your timescale as well.

You are right. I would just assume that the two different boosters were envisioned from the onset of the project:-))

Yes, NSM looks like a good candidate for a single replacement for all the heavy missiles. I disagreed with it as a replacement for Sea Skua because they’re in complementary classes, rather than competing. …
My only caveat is whether NSM has significant US components. It would be unwise to subject the only anti-ship missile to US restrictions. That’s also an overwhelming disadvantage of Hellfire as the light missile for helicopters & a UAV missile, & RAM as the sole short-range naval SAM. What about exports?

I hadn´t considered that for NSM because I didn´t know. That would indeed be disadvantageous for exports. Ok, than if we choose another all European missile that will end up larger anyway increasing the need for a smaller helicopter launched ASM even more. A Brimstone derivate is fine with me. What about the heavy SSM than. I really like the RBS-15 mk3 though it wouldn´t fit in my idea of spreading work share between partner nations since Sweden isn´t a partner. MM-40 block 3 Exocett is looking good too, though it would mean even more work share for the French industry. Leaves the outsider Otomat Teseo mk2 block IV (?). That would work since I´d really like to have a VL Milas for the ASW ships;-))

Regarding RAM, you are right of course. But what are the alternatives for a ILMS? Mistral, no thank you. I think RAM would be good as an interim solution until Iris-T SL is fully operational in the next decade. Besides there wont be many exports for these high-end ships anyway as shown in the real world. Those would have to make due with the PAAMS and the Sea Guard systems.

Thoughts?

Regards.

Hi,

thanks for responds.

Yea I know that it is much larger. It also has a much longer range. It is also the only large SSM that can be launched by the NH-90 helicopter. My goal was to replace as many different systems with as few as possible to make each new developed system affordable. You are right that the need would be there for an additional smaller missiles that could also be launched from UAVs. Brimstone is a good example, Hellfire or PARS 3 LR would be another. Still I thing that NSM would be a great European replacement for air and surface launched SSMs like Harpoon, Exocett, Otomat, Kormoran etc.

You are right. Aster 15 cannot be dual packed. I should have added that the Aster 15 booster I envisioned is the same LENGTH as the Aster 30 booster but much smaller in width. I tried to convey that in the drawing but I should have told you, sorry.

Well first of all RAM is a 50/50 joint venture between Germany and the USA. So it is more European than ESSM is right now. Iris-T SL is a great concept and would fir in nicely with my idea of generalizing land and sea based AAW assets. Sadly Iris-T SL would not have been ready for the generation of warships I presented here. I would suggest that Iris-T SL replaces RAM on the next generation of ships.

Scalp Naval would not be ready for those AAW ships as well. Besides I think there would be little space left for additional vls cells (look at the real world F100, LCF or F124). But in my opinion that is not really a drawback. Let those AAW ships be AAW ships. The next Generation should be oriented toward land attack and asymmetric warfare, just as my alternate F125:

Looking forward to your answer.

Regards.

That all makes sense. You’re right, I’d missed your idea of a new, slimmer booster for Aster 15, & didn’t appreciate your timescales. One quibble there: developing a new Aster 15 booster would take some time, so would put that outside your timescale as well.

Yes, NSM looks like a good candidate for a single replacement for all the heavy missiles. I disagreed with it as a replacement for Sea Skua because they’re in complementary classes, rather than competing. Sea Skua (like As.15TT) is carried by smaller helicopters, & in larger numbers, for use against smaller targets. Yes, PARS 3 LR is another candidate, but I’m concerned about its short range.

My only caveat is whether NSM has significant US components, as Penguin does. It would be unwise to subject the only anti-ship missile to US restrictions. That’s also an overwhelming disadvantage of Hellfire as the light missile for helicopters & a UAV missile, & RAM as the sole short-range naval SAM. What about exports? I’m not sure if Brimstone suffers from that problem (the head of the development team once said it shares one rivet with Hellfire 😀 ), but it’s something that should be borne in mind. Remember that the USA has not been above refusing or delaying export licences so that a US product wins an export contract instead of a non-US product with US components, & these are markets where European producers currently have significant business.

Hi,

thanks for responds.

NSM isn’t really a suitable replacement for Sea Skua. NSM weighs 3 times as much as Sea Skua, which is a light, short-range weapon for blatting small vessels. Could be replaced by a development of Brimstone, perhaps.

Yea I know that it is much larger. It also has a much longer range. It is also the only large SSM that can be launched by the NH-90 helicopter. My goal was to replace as many different systems with as few as possible to make each new developed system affordable. You are right that the need would be there for an additional smaller missiles that could also be launched from UAVs. Brimstone is a good example, Hellfire or PARS 3 LR would be another. Still I thing that NSM would be a great European replacement for air and surface launched SSMs like Harpoon, Exocett, Otomat, Kormoran etc.

I’m pretty sure you can’t dual-pack Aster 15 into Sylver A50. A50 is the same width as A43, which is the Aster 15 launcher, & AFAIK the Aster 15 booster is the same width as (but shorter than) the Aster 30 booster. You might be able to quad-pack a smaller missile, e.g. VL Mica or Iris-T.

You are right. Aster 15 cannot be dual packed. I should have added that the Aster 15 booster I envisioned is the same LENGTH as the Aster 30 booster but much smaller in width. I tried to convey that in the drawing but I should have told you, sorry.

BTW, the Iris-T SL might be a better candidate for a German short-range SAM than RAM, which is rather American.

Well first of all RAM is a 50/50 joint venture between Germany and the USA. So it is more European than ESSM is right now. Iris-T SL is a great concept and would fir in nicely with my idea of generalizing land and sea based AAW assets. Sadly Iris-T SL would not have been ready for the generation of warships I presented here. I would suggest that Iris-T SL replaces RAM on the next generation of ships.

What about Scalp Naval?

Nice drawings.

Scalp Naval would not be ready for those AAW ships as well. Besides I think there would be little space left for additional vls cells (look at the real world F100, LCF or F124). But in my opinion that is not really a drawback. Let those AAW ships be AAW ships. The next Generation should be oriented toward land attack and asymmetric warfare, just as my alternate F125:

Looking forward to your answer.

Regards.

German Frigate Class F125

NSM isn’t really a suitable replacement for Sea Skua. NSM weighs 3 times as much as Sea Skua, which is a light, short-range weapon for blatting small vessels. Could be replaced by a development of Brimstone, perhaps.

I’m pretty sure you can’t dual-pack Aster 15 into Sylver A50. A50 is the same width as A43, which is the Aster 15 launcher, & AFAIK the Aster 15 booster is the same width as (but shorter than) the Aster 30 booster. You might be able to quad-pack a smaller missile, e.g. VL Mica or Iris-T.

BTW, the Iris-T SL might be a better candidate for a German short-range SAM than RAM, which is rather American.

http://www.diehl-bgt-defence.de/index.php?id=560&L=1

What about Scalp Naval?

Nice drawings.

FANTASTIC:D 😀 😀 😀
i love your work

Hi again,

fantastic drawings MConrads

how about the BPE and Absalon Class 😀 😀 😀 😀

Thanks Jezza. Well I am sorry about the BPE but if there is the new Danish Patrol Ship there sure will be the Absalon as well, wont there? Here you go:

Oh and as I said those ship classes should be evolved versions of most navies 90s era designs (except for the Dutch of course). Here is what I had in mind:

http://i90.photobucket.com/albums/k279/shipbucket/Ship%20Charts/NatoFrigateEvolution.gif

I have a different all European suggestion as well, based on what I would call PAAMS(EU): Aster 30 and dual pack Aster 15 missiles in the A50 Sylver, PAAMS combat management system and the APAR/Smart-L/SIRIUS surveillance package. Ok this might need some explanation: The recommendations of the NRF90 research were active missiles and and L-/x-band radar combination. So I why not take the best of both European systems? If we take that hole concept one step further there could really been some money saved in development, procurement and operatively if that common AAW system would be transfered to the land based air defense as well. The question would be work share between the partner nations. Here is my take at it:
UK: PAAMS combat management system
France: Aster missiles (and corresponding vls?)
Italy: large naval guns (127mm) and small automated heavy MGs (12.5mm)
Germany: ILMS (RAM) and CIWS (Sea Guard system: Millennium guns)
The Netherlands: APAR, Smart-L, SIRIUS (the last two together with Canada)
Norway & Denmark: SSM (NSM which could replace all other air, surface (and subsurface once developed) launched surface missiles like Harpoon, Exocett, Otomat, Sea Skua, Penguin etc.)
Spain: ???
Aster 30 would replace all other long range AAW system (like Patriot) in European service. Millennium guns could be used as C-RAM (German Army will procure two systems next year).

Here is a representation of what I have in mind:

Thoughts, comments?

Regards.

fantastic drawings MConrads

how about the BPE and Absalon Class 😀 😀 😀 😀

Hi,

Thanks guys, glad you like them. In case some of you have wondered here is a little info on each ship:

The Royal Navy ship is based on a VT proposal of a Aster 15 armed stretched Duke class (dubbed Super Duke). The Norwegian design is based on the APAR equipped Meko A200 that Blohm & Voss offered in the Nansen contender against Bazan´s F85 design. The Italian is a stealthyfied Luigi de la Penne class. The Canadian design is actually based on a proposed stretched and mk-41 vls equipped batch II Halifax class. Finally the Spanish ship is based on an official drawing that was made before Spain opted against the APAR an in favor of the Aegis system.

Any comments on the scenario as well?

“have you ever drawn the NFR 90?”

Sure but it doesn´t look all that good:

Regards.

Hi Mconrads, great to see more of your work here.

I check your site regularly as well.

Cheers

Uncorn

McConrads have you ever drawn the NFR 90?