pjhydroIs this a valid example of effects based design, you look at what you want it to do, decide how to do it, and then build the ship?
In many ways the design is secondary. What do you want to achieve? What is the most cost (not necessarily just money) effective way to get there?
A real heresey on this web site would be to suggest that true effects based warfare would include spending money on aid and development i.e. buying off a potential problem and preventing a fight even occuring. It is very expensive and wasteful to send troops into battle. You have to do it sometimes but you might have acheived a better effect by spending smaller amounts of money on less obvious things. Had the world not abandoned Somalia to its fate would we have the current piracy issue we are now dealing with at great expense to our comerce?
In terms of warfare itself effects based ideas are about looking at the simplist way to achieve your goal with the least treasure/blood/damage.
pjhydroLove it, throw in a heresey and watch the fireworks!
To answer many comments.
I never said Frigates were multirole (i think Liger did?) I said they are poor at that. The discussion was about whether Fort Vic was a good choice for anti-piracy, everyone seems set on sending a frigate, I was suggesting it was actually a good, if not better choice, one that would create a better effect at lower cost.
Yes I agree you need a team to hunt subs, if i was standing on the school field picking my team I would grab other things before frigates, but they would be on the team. My point is everyone (especially senior officers) dribble over frigates and they are not neccesarily the best tool.
2087/2050 both are attached to a hull, they move slowly and have a predictable and fixed search range. An area covered by a T23 in an hour search will be covered by two or three helicopters in minutes, who will then move on to search another area. Yes you need persistence and a base for the helicopters, but when you consider that a vessel the size of Ocean has a frigate sized crew can carry a heap of helicopters and cost £154 Million to build and by its size and volume is infinately more flexible across a range of roles then you see where I am going. (yes before you all bleat I am aware of oceans designs etc, I said an Ocean sized vessel).
The story of sub hunting since the begining has been one dominated by aircraft. Profesor John Buckley’s ( http://www.wlv.ac.uk/default.aspx?page=11516 ) many articles and books on trade defence show quite clearly that when aircraft are present ships are safer, in fact in WW1 no convoy escorted by aircraft/airships was ever succesfully attacked. In WW2 the RAF damaged and sank more ships than the RN and the U-boat war was turned when the air-gap was closed. Cold war the best sub-hunters were those that carried multiple aircraft. There is a strong argument that the Invincible class was one of the finest anti-sub platforms built in the period (I said one of).
Frigates are useful, but their day as the primary weapon of a navy should be up. Nelson no longer applies.
pjhydroThought that might stir things up a bit….:D
Yes 2087 is a great sonar and no its not fitted to an RFA, i’m not suggesting it is or should be, but I am saying that a type t23 is not a great “multirole frigate”. I’m sorry it really isn’t, frigates are the obsession of navies and they bring so little for costing so much. A t23 relys on its helicopter because if its down to using its own torpedos against a sub then frankly its screwed. Its a very expensive platform for a single helicopter. Seawolf is for defending itself so brings little to the fight, it carries 8 harpoons which can’t be effectively used without airborne support and the less said about the Mk8 the better.
Also saying a 2087 is a great hull mounted sonar is comparing the best of a bad job, hull mounted sonars on surface ships are not the best way to hunt subs, totally reliant on favourable conditions while a sub or helicopter mounted sonar can just move to a better position or depth. In the end most hull mounted sonars essentially provide self defence for the ship itself, ie lastditch defence to protect the precious helicopter facilities.
Frankly the best way to hunt subs is aircraft, helicopters, satilites and OTHER submarines, definately not frigates.
As for the use of Fort Vic on anti-piracy, of course it offers better assitance to civil ships. It carries more boats, more SAR equipment, has more capacity, carries more transferable food and supplies and fuel….all in far greater quantities that a frigate and with the ability to not effect the ships own supplies. It can also tow a much much larger ship for a greater distance in more safety.
pjhydroSure, ideally your Bravo-Two-Zero SAS squad of 8 men shouldn’t go into Iraq with a 50+ seats Chinook, but while the Chinook can move both small and big teams, the small helicopter can’t do with big loads.
A chopper capable to move a lot of stuff is by any mean flexible and useful.
A small troop taxi is more for Special Forces than anything else…
Except that ignores range. The primary reason for using a bigger helicopter for SF is the range issue, most SF missions are conducted at long range so a smaller helicopter suffers and probably can’t do the job. A chinook with extra bags of fuel only carrying a small SF load is exactly the aircraft for the job. An AW149 could not have “done” the SF work in GW1, the various patrols would never have got to their start points in such a small helicopter.
A small troop taxi is more for the regular army, inserting SAM/AT/Recce/airborne command posts/short range CASEVAC, etc all stuff working around the line of battle.
pjhydroWe are skating around territory we have navigated before…effects based warfare.
The main point of all this is that the actual platform in many ways doesn’t matter, its what “effect” can be achieved with various tools at your disposal. People get very obsessed with this particular frigate/aeroplane/tank etc without looking at what is the result required.
Frankly the current frigates in the RN are pretty naff for most tasks really – what does a Type 23 actually do? Looking at it objectively its a huge cost in manpower (180 tars) and treasure to take to sea an updated WW2 gun, 8 subsonic last gen SSMs and some sonars. The SAMs it carries are purely for its own defence. It best contribution is the helicopter by far, which actually points towards a platform that carries more of them.
I would suggest that RFA Fort Vic is a good choice for the role in order to achieve the effect you want. Long range, self sustaining, has a smaller crew than a frigate but much larger and more sustainable flying facilities. Can provide much greater assitance to civilian ships in trouble AND makes a great base for SF if you required it during the mission.
pjhydroThey’re much better on the minutiae of benefit systems, education, NHS organisation, etc.
OOOO Handbags! 😀
pjhydroSo why is there so much apparant (i.e. reported in the press) “pressure” from the troops on the ground for UK to get Blackhawks – they are not exactly in the Chinook’s class when it comes to moving troops?
Is there actual pressure from the troops? Having a half dozen squadrons of them would be very nice, they are a great helicopter (though a bit low in head room). But (fortunately) troops don’t run the MODs budgets and don’t get all their wants. I am sure the troops want all sorts of things, but those who actually run doctrine and budgets know that we could not operate an “assault” helicopter fleet. I personally think Blackhawk would be a great puma replacement as I have done since Westland held the WS70 licence in the 1980s, but it would not be used in the same way the spanks use it, it would be crewed and used like puma – a flying ford transit minibus
pjhydroWe don’t have to be able to afford it at the moment. By far the most sensible solution is to extend their lives into the 2020s and take a decision on replacement in 2015, by which time an ideal world would have our deficit reduced significantly. A fifth Vanguard requires too much short term spending yet doesn’t reduce long term costs, at some point four more subs will still need to be procured; I think it would be much better to steer clear of nuclear submarines until all seven of the Astutes are built or in the act of being built, otherwise I could foresee a horrible clash of resources between the SSNs and the SSBNs.
Absolutely!
We might have even had a sensible debate about what the “deterrent” is actual for by then…
pjhydro1. Why are both the Chinook and Merlin (non-Navy) needed? Do their capabilities and roles not overlap?
Yes they do, but sometimes a Chinook is just too big, you need something smaller…why do haulage companies have different sized trucks? Its not cost effective to use the biggest type on all jobs, waste of money and capabilities.
2. Why is the RAF still operating helicopters at all? Better leave that to the Army and the Navy.
Its the ole’ whats an air force debate. In the UK the RAF is the right outfit to be operating Chinook. Its a big complicated machine that has more in common with a large transport type than a small battlefield helicopter. Its “ancestors” in the UK were HS Andover, Argosy, Valletta etc. In some ways don’t be blinded by the fact it has rotors (and therefore MUST be an army type) thats just how it gets about. The Chinook is a tactical transport type and if it had fixed wings the question would be rarely asked.
3. The Navy needs an updated Lynx. The Super Lynx 300 would do, but if the Lynx Wildcat is past the stage of ‘no return’, then it just be acquired, but only for the Navy.
My understanding is that despite the gumpf Wildcat is better and more capable than L300. But wh only for the Navy? Does the Army not need a multirole support/ISTAR/utility type as well??
4. The Army needs a basic flying truck to replace the Puma that can deliver a infantry squad with attachments – say 10-12 fully equipped soldiers – crewed by two pilots and two loadmasters/door gunners.
Well that depends on UK doctrine. The US Army with its large volumes of aircraft can afford such an “assault” type doctrine. The UK can’t, to move a single rifle company you would need a minimum of 10 such helicopters and a whole battalion assault (frankly the smallest credible size) requires well over 30 (once you add support company, HQ etc) The UK is never going to operate such a force that can be deployed, they would need 120+ machines in order to have a deployable force that could move a battalion about.
Soooo you might ask why does the UK have Puma? Well Puma is used to move small teams about in support of the larger types (Chinook/Merlin) inserting recce/AT/SAM teams etc. It also has a civil support role and has been used many times as the taxi service of the home and foreign office (hence it being owned by the RAF)
The UK focuses on bigger types in order to get more bang for the buck, three chinooks can lift a rifle company. We need a Puma replacement for small team work but in the end with these days of austerity its likely to be a job handed over the Lynx AH9 and Wildcat. What the UK doesn’t need is a manpower intensive small assault helicopter.
pjhydroYou are dreaming. Your post lacks any sign of realism and wisdom. You are exactly one of the people the UKNDA very rightly calls the “men of Little Britain”.
Right, you seem tense, angry..? My lack of posts from time to time has much to do with having a job, large scale responsibilities, being a parent, having a social life and generally not feeling the need to sit on a computer everyday going around in circles with the same lazy cliches and evidence less arguments.
As for being a “man of little Britain”…well, for a start I read the Guardian and believe in the EU and UN (as many here will be well aware of 😀 ), I am an old leftie educationalist who has worked around the world and frankly could not be further from “little Britain” if I tried. I think you will find your definition needs to be looked at again and as for anything those nutters at UKNDA have to say :rolleyes:
You have no real idea of the long term impact of such crazy proposals.
Long term impact of not spending 37 Billion we don’t actually have? Well I can give you a few ideas and they start with looking across the Irish Sea and the Ionian sea…
And sincerely, a RN menomated of its amphibious capability, of many of its fregates and hopefully with at least a carrier in half-time service but maybe not even that (depending on how many F35 are bought) is not even worth the italian navy. Confronting it with the french would be humiliating.
The RN will retain the only excellence of the Astute subs. When those go and need replacement, if this nation-sized downsizing trend gets started, the Uk will buy four diesel-electric boats and retreat in its pathetic state of new belgium.
These cuts are just rumour, just fantasy. Nobody here knows what is going to happen or what is to be cut, which was mostly my point.
ALSO, having a great deal of family in Belgium (many of which being jewish or lefties had relatives in various camps in the 39-45 chindig) I do take great offense at your description of it as “pathetic”.
Think many, many, MANY times before you start on the self destructive run.
self destructive run? Not sure i’m with you there?
pjhydroGood to see everyone is being optomistic here! Lot of hyperbole banding around and most of it unwarranted, especially with reference to the RN becoming a coastguard. I doubt anyone here would accuse the dutch, Spanish or Italian fleets of being coastguards and the RN even with quite savage cuts being muted would be bigger and more powerful than those fleets. Likewise with the RAF and certainly with the Army. Its not the 1950s, the UK is not running an empire that requires constant guarding and neither is our constant presence required or wanted around the world. A decent, flexible, “fire brigade” capability is exactly what the UK requires, not a large scale “bobby on the beat” force. The UK will still be one of, if not the most powerful armed forces in europe and given a dire world crisis the combined might of the EU, is still one of the most powerful around.
pjhydroOh, I think the deployment ratio should be much better, I just recall the Germans also having problems deploying their troops considering the personnel numbers they have. Was just indicating I don’t think it’s a British thing at all
Oh indeed, but I would not expect the Germans to be in a position to deploy great numbers for a whole raft of reasons, including lack of experience as a major one. As for the UK that doesn’t wash and something has cerainly gone wrong in the last couple of decades in organisation, logistics and leadership. The UK used to have units all over the globe and a myriad of long term counter insurgency ops on the boil.
Today the UK can’t send more than a reinforced brigade without whining it hasn’t got enough resources – yet the UK posesses 8 brigades within the structure of two “active divisions”, 2 “contingecy” brigades (3RMC and 16AA) and on top of that a third divisonal HQ that is active and then three reserve divisions posessing TEN brigades (some of which contain regular units.
SO an “Army” that has 10 regular active brigades and 10 reserve brigades can only muster one reinforced brigade for a long term op? I’m afraid a big cull of numbers has been on the cards for a while, its a very inefficent organisation frankly. yes the politicos have a share of the blame, but much of this is down to Colonel Blimp and chums.
pjhydroThat is on a long term sustained basis, it could surge 35,000 for a short term action. I’d be highly surprised if many other countries besides the US didn’t have logistics difficulties sustaining 10k of troops on the other side of the world for near on a decade.
You see I disagree, an Army of 100,000 should be able to deploy 10,000 troops on a long term basis with ease frankly. Bare in mind that the 10,000 deployed in Afghan also includes Navy and Airforce and that for large periods of time the Royal Marines (not included in the Army 100,000) make up a large portion of the numbers. Currently there are 6 infantry battalions there, one of which is RM. This is out of 36 availible. Going by a rule of 4 the army alone should be able to deploy 9 infantry battalions long term and not even rely on the RM.
pjhydroActually that is not true. These days they make them aim for the cockpit (so the pilot can’t come back with another plane). Also, the more accurate your missile is the smaller your warhead has to be.
Well yes and no. Aiming for the cockpit is always a bit of an aproximation and an AAM doesn’t have to even hit the target to achieve a kill, a grenade sized warhead going off next to a modern fighter will do serious often fatal damage. Warhead size has generally always been small on AAM targeted at single aircraft for that reason, so yes the more accurate your guidance the smaller the warhead, but with few exceptions (mainly designed for attacking large aircraft and formations) warhead size has always been pretty small. As for MMw guidance – you don’t need that level of accuracy on AAMs, you are not looking to place a missile on a particular weak spot like you are on a tank where the difference in where you hit really matters.
pjhydroMMw is useful when you look at hitting tanks where the important point is often ‘where’ you hit the tank in making a kill (or not) for AA this is less important, detonate some HE on or near any part of a modern fighter and it will more than likely kill or at the very least cripple it. The important factor in AA is seaker/guidance range rather than accuracy of the strike.
Sign In
