LordJimI can see the benefits of space when it comes to small and medium vessels but aren’t we talking about the T-26 which could be almost as large as the T-45 so space should be an issue. For the smaller classes yes CAMM makes perfect sence if we ever build them.
As for the Land based version, of course the is bigger and heavier, considering Rapier was one of the smallest SHORADS systems developed, but we are not talking defence of fixed points and a Land Based Aster as used by the French can cover a far greater area and far greater altitude bracket. It can also engage multiple targets at once, more than the 2 which Rapier FSC can engage. As for minimum range well anything inside it will be in range of Starstreak teams which would work in conjunction with them. The launchers can also take the larger Aster 30 if required. How many would we need? well possible 1 regiment of 3-4 batteries would cover all our needs
So is we choose Aster ten we have a common missile not just amongst out armed forces but also our allies. It has finished developement in both versions and is available now with ZERO risk and if we follow the example of support for the AIM-9, and European support structure would keep maintneance costs down. It is more capable than the Systems it would replace and CAMM.
That would leave RAM to fullfill the Point Defence and CIWS roles on naval platforms to replace Phanlanx and Goalkeeper.
However if the arguement is for defending the British Defence Industry then all of the above is mute bit I have always believed the UK’s Armed forces should be equipped with the best kit affordable, whether it is manufactured in the UK of overseas. Yes Governments are partially to blame for programme C@@@ Ups but we have to look to the future. BAe Systems for example earns the majority of it revenue from its overseas assets. If it cannot produce the goods on time and budget it should get the contracts. On the other side the MoD needs to sort out its requirements and adhere propoerly to the CADMID cycle and the Government needs to ensure programmes are propoerly funded or stopped.
Will get off my soap box now!
LordJimMany nations that looked at ASRAAM thought it to be both overkill for the WVR role and expensive compared to the AIM-9X and IRIS-T.
Saying that given what is going to be a late entry into the field isn’t CAMM going to end up another UK bespoke piece of kit. Rapier sold because it was at the head of the line with Roland in the SHORAD market but land based CAMM will probably only be used by a few nations.
Although more expensive per unit I do think ASTER 15 should be seriously considered for ship board use in the T-26 in whatever form it takes and could even be used in its land based form to replace Rapier. I know the system is bigger but then again each battery would cover a signifantly larger area then a single Raper battery.
RAM is a good system especialy the latest Mod and should be seen as a alternative to existing CIWS, a role it is assuming in the USN. I think it should also be looked at for the T-26 in this role and for a C3 platform should it become reality.
LordJimThis is the thing that bothers me when it comes to the F-35 and stealth. Whenever somebody says that the F-35 is overkill for a mission type someone else always rolls out the what if senario of an opponenet being equipped with large numbers of double digit FSU SAMs.
How many nations actually operate these and of these how many can be reasonably be identified as possible adversaries and how many systems do they have.
Double Digit SAMs have become the bogeyman for the stealth lobby. Yes they a believed to be effective but most are over a decade old and I wouldn’t be surprised if many nations have intel on their capabilities and developed active countermeasures.
Militaries around the world seem to be in ignorance of the financial problems now and the fact that their budgets are going to be squeezed more and more. the USMC in particular has fixated on this over the horizon assault capabilty for years and has poured billions into very high tech programmes like the V-22, EFV and the F-35.
But how many opposed amphibious assault against well equipped opposition have the USMC conducted since Korea? I cannot think of one. Chances are that if the Cold War had hotted up these sort of operations would have been few with the USMC being moved to theatres like Norway and fighting as convention formations. Operations against high level opposition will not be conducted without USN CVNs in support and lower level operations like Somalia etc can be more than adequately supported by rotary assets. The USMC needs to look beyond historical practices and adjust to present and future operation. With only so much money in the pot they need to used it where it will make a real difference.
LordJimI understand the wartime issues but even if you deduct the 1-3 years of wartime the time taken to complete these vessels is too long. Even the French managed to build 2 carriers when they had only built 1 so so design before in less time. The fact that their construction as so stop start is part of the problem and seems to be a British tradition when it comes to building major warships.
LordJimGiven that the Carriers were supposed to be as simple to build as possible using as much civilian design ideas for materails and construction, the fact that Cunard has built 3 super liners just as complicated as the CVF and yet not a single CVF as even been launched over the same timeframe is telling. Each Cunard vessel is unique and has been designed and built efficiently and to high standards with the last, the Queen Elizabeth taking just over a year. The delays in the design and construction of the CVFs IS indefensible. Cunard needed world beating ships built on time and budget so that they could put them in service and start reaping the rewards. Why shouldn’t the same criteria apply to a military project such as the CVF? A year is too short obviously but 20+ years is a disgrace for the UK.
LordJimStealth and CAS have always seemed at odds to me. If operating in daylight a CAS Platform is not invisible from the ground and is vulnerable to AAA amongst other things unless future SAC involves staying above 15.000′ and dropping JDAM and LGB which can be done by a UAV/UCAV now. So why the need for a all singing all dancing stealth platform? Yes it can be used for other missions but that is expanding the roles of Marine aviation to cover those currently carried out by units based on CVNs and ashore. But when are the USMC going to conduct a medium or large operation without the support of a CVN Battlegroup?
Retaining the Harrier and improving it does have some merit. It does fall victim to the Speed Mafia but on load carrying it is near the top of the class and its range is acceptable given how near to the front it can be deployed.
The F-35B in my mind is overkill for the CAS role and in other roles is duplicating capabilites that already exists within the USN. With budgetary stress on going there must surely be other programmes more relevant for which the funds could be used on.
LordJimSorry bad mistake, HMS Eagle was 9 Years.
LordJimI think it is a absolute disgrace the length of time it is taking to get these carriers built and in the water. The UK seems to have serious problems when it comes to major naval unit construction;
HMS Eagle – Laid down; 24 Oct 42 Launched; 19 Mar 46 Completed; 01 Oct 51 = 19 Years
HMS Ark Royal – Laid down; 03 May 43 Launched; 03 May 50 Completed; 25 Feb 55 = 12 Years
HMS Hermes – Laid down; 21 Jun 44 Launched; 1 Feb 53 Completed; 18 Nov 59 = 15 Years
HMS Tiger – Laid Down; 01 Oct 41 Launched; 25 Oct 45 Completed; 18 Mar 59 = 18 Years
Compare this to the US;
US Forrestal – laid down; 14 Jul 52 Launched; 11 Dec 54 Completed 01 Oct 55 = 3 Years!!
And even the French;
Foch – Laid Down; Feb 57 Launched; 28 Jul 60 Completed; 15 Jul 63 = 6 Years
During the time line I have given the UK still had a major ship building industry yet it took at least twice as long to build a major vessel compared to the other. The Invincible class which are much smaller carriers took between 6 and 7 years but again Italy took 5 years to complete the Giuseppe Garibaldi, though Spain did take 9 years to build the Principe De Asturias.
Is the UK simple bad at managing large projects of any type? Given the imprtance being placed on the CVFs shouldn’t everything be being done to speed their construction and reduce costs?
LordJimThe SOSUS network as almost totally been dismantled and the SURTASS has been discontinued to the best of my knowledge thougn I am not infallible as is my spelling. Tracking Russian submarines is no longer the big issue it once was, as the rarely conduct long range patrols into the Atlantic or Pacific any more and their numbers are far fewer.
Turning to the Hawkeye, if the UK decides to follow this path, creating a joint maintenance and support structure would make sance, together with the possibility of training. Both navies need to be able to deploy 2-3 when their carrier deploys so we would be looking at a force of around 8. Is the USN rebuilding all its E-2C into E-2D version or are they purchasing new build. IF they have any spare airframes couldn’t we purchase 4-6 and pay for them to be fed into the existing upgrade programme, where they are re-build to zero hours, re-engines and have all their electronincs replaced. If this is possible would it be cheaper? especially if we kept any bespoke equipment to the bare minimum.
LordJimRoles carried out by Civil Servants within the MoD are;
-The vast majority of engineering support for all three services
-Purchasing new equipment and managing its maintenance
– Issuing and tracking of the spares/supplies to all three services.
-Manning the meteorlogical office
-providing administration back up in all headquarters, bases etc.
– The MoD police, which are vital for the security of Defence establishments but they are supported now by the MoD Guard Force, sort of Comminity Support Officers with guns.
As I have stated before many of these roles were carried out by the Military but were civilianised to save money. However many of the Management positions especially in areas 1 and two are still manned by comissioned military personnel to maintain a certain number of posts at a given rank, maintaining the career struture.
Contracting out support for platforms has reduced the number of support posts but whether these are true value for maney has yet to be seen. AS far as reductions have gone the MoD has already cut iys civilian manpower by over 20,000 over that last few years.
There must be reform in many areas but it must be across the spectrum. It is mainly the processes used by the MoD and unstable programme budgets that have caused many of the porblems in the past. Often support budgets have been frozen or cut at short notice as the funds are needed elsewhere. The ongoing review into procurement will hopefully identify many of the issues affecting the MoD’s performance especially in procurement but whether it can be done all at once is a matter for debate.
LordJimGiven that at least 2 F-35 squadrons training will need to be current for effective carrier ops I wouldn’t be surprised if the RAF has actually outsmarted itself and loses out on the initial buy of these planes, with them instead going to the FAA. The RAF would have to wait for a follow up order (If one is made) to stand up its own F-35 squadrons, or future reviews could determine that the RAF should only have the Typhoon as its fast jet force, suplimented by UCAVs (possibly a joint programme with the FAA!)
Until someone at the top actually has an understanding of defence and its resourse needs, our Armed Forces are going to continue to shrink with every review as more funding is requied for more politically sensitive areas
LordJimExactly, as I a said above many roles within the MoD previously done by service man and women are now done by civilians. This both saved money and allowed military personnel to be kept at the front so to speak. It also allowed a reduction in the size of the military.
Most of the post are essential and to remove civil servants will require their replacement by a similar workforce. Yes with the reduction in the Military to tail can be reduced but to concentrate on civilians is a grave error.
LordJimI am getting sick and tired of the MoD Civilian numbers being bashed about. The numbers of civilians within the MoD was greatly increased during the S to replace service men and women in order to save money. Numbers increased again as more and more micro management skills were needed to track costs and contracts though I am speaking mainly from what was the DLO point of view.
Simply reducing civilian numbers is not the answer. A root and branch review is required especially with in the DE&S and this has now begun. Remember it is civilians who purchase and issue all the spare, ammunition, clothing etc to the troops on the front line and manage the contracts to purchase said items. On a side not the average low level civil servant earns around £16k per year which compared to equivalents in companies do similar jobs is good value for money, more so when compared to the senior NCOs they replaced.
Yes reform is needed but blaming civilian numbers and advocating a bulk cull will achieve nothing.
LordJimMarham is pretty crowded, with 2 squadrons in the HAS complexed and the remaining to using Temp shelters on the hard stand. For one of either Lossimouth or Marham to close the force really needs to drop to 4 squadrons which wouldn’t be a bad thing.
Except for UORs for Afghanistan little or no extra money should be spent on the Tornados, the RAF needs to concentrate on bringing its Typhoons up to spec. These are going to be the core of the RAF up to 2020 as the RN should be getting 2 of the 3 planned F-35 Squadons to ensure the CAW is viable with sufficent qualified pilots. The RAF may get additional F-35s post 2020.
LordJim8-12 airframes is more than enough to meet the requirements of a single detachment. Even more so with most support structure centralised and no longer with individual squadrons.
I think we all agree that this was a review in name only, being a cost cutting exercise in reality and need to stop refering to it as the former. It is the next review in 2015 regardless of announcemnt of a rolling review that will determine the size and ability of the UK’s Armed Forces. This of course is assuming the reason for this fudge job is sorted out by the cuts and other actions carried out by the curretn Government as they have predicted.
Sign In
