EdLawSadly, I think it is, from what I’ve heard on the grapevine. 🙁
Last years one was good, albeit the rain did make it a bit miserable. Hopefully this year will be better, even if it is the last airshow!
EdLawIt could be that the mention of the F/A-18C/Ds is with regard to cross decking with the US Navy, who of course operate these. Overall, it would make sense for them to cooperate with the UK on this, given the similarity in size etc… Who knows, perhaps they could do a deal to buy one or two slightly modified CVFs, and the UK buys a batch of P-X maritime patrol aircraft?
EdLawMy understanding is that FLAD/CAAAMMM/FLA/AS is intended to do both ESSSSSM and RAM’s jobs.
It is supposed to be bolt on (like RAM) and active so needing no dedicated tracker/illuminator (like active ESSSSM and arguably like SeaRAM).
I suppose the argument could be made that it neither be as effective as ESSM for local area (smaller, lighter and thus shorter range) nor as numerous for point defence as RAM (bigger, heavier,possibly more expensive thus less carried). But since realistically RN were only going to get one system FLAADS looks like the least worst option to me.
I agree that that is the general idea with it, but my problem is that, as you say, it doesn’t do it in quite the same way. What I mean by that is that although the active seeker obviates the need for the illuminator, the need for the VLS pretty much do away with the advantage. Equally, the ESSM has much greater range than CAMM, and in fact a bit more than even Aster 15 (according to the official figures). As such, it isn’t necessarily ideal building the Type 26 with just CAMM, versus a rival frigate equipped with ESSM (or even SM-2MR).
With the RAM, it can be bolted onto anything big enough to physically fit it, and any ship that can take a Phalanx can take RAM (in SeaRAM form). This makes it a possible fit for the fleet auxiliaries, which are very unlikely to be able to be rapidly fitted with a VLS! Also, the RAM is supposed to be getting a larger diameter motor, which is meant to boost its range and capability, possibly elevating it beyond point defence…
Overall, I would have liked to see the UK go down the Dutch route, taking a proven set of systems (Aegis, ESSM, SM-2 etc…) and then adapting it to use your own, better, radars. That way they side stepped the need to simultaneously develop the ship, radar, systems, launcher and missile. Just look at the development of Horizon, Sylver, PAAMS, Aster 30 – not a tremendous example of an on-time on-budget project!
EdLawIn many ways I would have liked to see the UK going down a slightly different route, more like the Dutch, Spanish and German navies. It would have been quite attractive to see Britain putting an active seeker on ESSM and then basically adopting the RIM-116, ideally with a British built missile as a slot-in replacement for the actual RIM-116 itself (keeping the launcher).
The attraction of the RIM-116’s launchers (11-cell and 21-cell launchers) is the ability to quite readily bolt them onto ships, as opposed to needing to find space to install a proper VLS. This would have allowed them to be added to far more of the RN’s ships, and even the RFA’s support ships. In particular, fitting a small bolt-on trainable launcher on the CVF’s sponsons would have been easier than having to give up deck space for a VLS.
Bear in mind this is just an idle wish, and there would obviously have been issues in terms of British industry and getting US permission to produce variants of their missiles…
EdLawEurope should develop independents from US. However UK is to closely connected to it. Basically UK doesn’t like the rest of Europe. That’s why they will not develop new fighter if there is France involved. Well, maybe in future under different government. And France is the only country in Europe which needs carrier born fighter.
The problem with this statement is that it conflates three issues of the British relationship with Europe:
– Britain’s broad relations with the EU as a whole, which have been somewhat variable over the years.
– Britain’s bilateral relationship with most EU nations, including Germany, Italy, Poland, and many of the Eastern European countries. These relations have actually been pretty positive as a whole, whether on military or civil issues; just look at the Tornado and Typhoon joint projects over the last 40 years! Britain has often opted for joint projects with other European countries.
– Britain’s bilateral relations with France, which have been very variable, ranging from cold detachment, mild hostility, and indeed cosy friendship, and that’s just the last thirty years or so!
As such, the proposition that the UK, as good ‘Europeans’ need to switch suppliers from the US has a lot of problems. Britain has had a very close, and generally very positive relationship with the US, often to the chagrin of many on the continent! So why change that, in the hopes that relations with Europe will suddenly improve to replace that relationship!
Buying the Super Hornet may not deliver 100% of the Rafale’s capability; however, it also offers a lot of commonality with the USN and RAAF. It also offers some things the Rafale doesn’t, e.g. EA-18G conversion capability, especially in the later Blocks…
Do not misunderstand, I am not anti-European in any sense, but the relationship with Europe is pretty complex, and any procurement must reflect the best interests of the UK, and not the interests of Europe…
EdLawI might be little late on this, Why OV-10X project can’t get attention from US ? OV-10 is much proven COIN than Super Tucano. Potential of OV-10X will be very interesting for capabilities which seems back in demand on the market.
I agree, it does boast a proven track record, can carry more, and was effectively designed from the ground up as a combat aircraft; whereas even the ALX was evolved from a training aircraft. Another potentially useful advantage of the OV-10’s design would be the sponson mounted guns – it may be possible to mount the Rheinmetall RMK-30 recoilless 30mm cannon. This would actually be a sort of return to the original OV-10 concept – which envisioned using recoilless guns, before this switched to conventional guns.
The RMK-30 packs a massive punch, firing more powerful rounds than even the A-10’s gun (obviously at a lower rate of fire), and yet would be a viable for aircraft mounting due to its recoilless nature. Add to this the ability to fire large airbursting 30mm rounds, and you have a sort of mini A-10, at a fraction of the cost!
EdLawOne thing I wish they could do would be to switch the wing mounted guns from the AN/M-3 12.7mm/.50cal to something more like the GIAT M621 20mm cannon. Obviously the 20mm would be a bit bigger, but it would be a very useful change – a fair bit more punch, and more standoff range for strafing runs. As it is, you can only carry the 20mm cannon on the centreline without the FLIR, or so I was told in a previous discussion of the ALX.
Ideally, I would love to see an optionally piloted version of the OV-10X Bronco, it would make a brilliant UCAV/COIN aircraft! The ability to carry either a 20mm M197 cannon or M230 30mm cannon on the centreline, which can be slewed to targets. Add to that the ability to carry a good warload, and proven ruggedness. Imagine having the ability to have a UAV/UCAV flying overhead, able to effectively do a strafing run, without having to carefully manoeuvre into position first. Add to this, the ability to airdrop small loads from the cargo space in the rear (or just carry extra fuel of course), enabling you to drop medical supplies or ammunition to units using something like the Copterbox…
EdLawOne potential advantage of the B-1R (or indeed pretty anything of that sort, e.g. B-2C) would be the possibility of carrying larger missiles, e.g. an air-launched SM-6 ERAM.
This would allow a mixed fighter force, or in this case, mixed air defence force, with a mix of F-22s and F-35s up front, and others further back. There would then be B-1Rs/B-2Cs carrying very long range missiles further back, cued by AWACS aircraft.
Equally, the same could be said of UCAVs, with F-22s/F-35s using their sensors, combined with AWACS aircraft to cue the UCAVs to launch their missiles. As such, you could have the UCAVs closer to the enemy, but flying without any emissions to give them away, relying on datalinked targeting data.
EdLawIdeally something like the Norwegian design would be chosen, but perhaps with some nominal troop carrying capability (as with the original Endurance) added. The hangarage for two helicopters is obviously a must have, but I would certainly aim for them to be able to accomodate a pair of Merlins, even though the Lynx would normally be embarked. This would be specially important for SAR, since you could carry something like a Sikorsky S-92, the logical replacement for the existing Falklands SAR Sikorsky S61s.
As for armament, I wouldn’t necessarily delete all of it, but instead make some provision on the old FFBNW basis, allowing you to add armament later. At the very least, the ships should be carrying a DS-30 mount, for pretty obvious reasons. If you could make provision for a little more, then it might be useful, but unfortunately cost reasons make that very unlikely…
EdLawThe acquisition of a modified Principe de Asturias would make the most sense; the only concern was that, although the PdA was launched in ’82, it didn’t enter service until ’88. This may be a problem, since Melbourne really needed replacement before then. If this could be avoided, perhaps by using an existing command system (perhaps a transplant of the Perry class systems?), then this would help a lot. One or two PdA class carriers would make things a lot more interesting, and would allow the RAN to maintain a very forward-looking strategy.
The Sea Harrier is probably the only game in town if you want a radar equipped Harrier, since the AV-8A was never air-defence oriented. An order for, say, twenty to thirty Sea Harriers would be more than enough to provide an air wing for both carriers. The Sea King AEW would then enter service as soon as possible, with the carrier air wing probably consisting of around 8-12 Sea Harriers, 3-4 Sea King AEW and possibly a couple of Sea King ASW helos. As a regional deterrent, this would have been pretty potent from the ’80s right through until today, with a simple switching over to the AV-8B+ during the ’90s.
The RAN may have been able to retire the three Perth class in favour of an extra pair of Adelaide class frigates. This would leave a force of two carriers and eight air-defence frigates. This may alleviate some of the manning issues as well, and reduce operating costs by retiring the steam-driven Perth class in favour of a common LM2500 fleet.
EdLawAnother option for Israel would be to buy the F-15 Silent Eagle, combined with stealthy UCAVs. The F-15SE would be pretty potent, offering the choice of F-15I type weapons loads, and a low(er) observable fighter. This would make it a logical direct replacement for their older F-15As/Cs. Add in a stealthy UCAV, along the same lines as Dassault’s Neuron, BAE Taranis, Northrop X-47 or GA’s Avenger. This could easily be done in-house by IAI, with the major benefit of allowing relatively free export.
Though the F-35 is the best aircraft they are likely to be able to get hold of for many years, there may be an alternative way to go. If they can get one hundred F-15SEs and a bunch of UCAVs, that may end up better than seventy-five F-35s…
EdLawIn terms of the surface ships’ missile launchers, one option I have often thought about is to use a modified version of the ASROC launcher. The ASROC box launcher carried the RUR-5 ASROC missile, which was approximately 4.5m long; this is in the same ballpark as missiles like the Sea Dart and Harpoon/Exocet. As such, a modified version of the 8-round box launcher could potentially be used as a standard launcher across the board, for all the main surface combattants. It would also have the major benefit of having eight missiles ready to fire, compared to one or two on the arm type launchers.
These launchers would be put on all the new escort cruisers (ideally along the lines of the Italian Vittorio Veneto helicopter cruiser), destroyers and frigates. All of them would carry at least one, and on some two, of the box launchers; the frigates wouldn’t necessarily carry Sea Dart, but they would still be able to use the launchers for all the other weapons.
For the shorter range self defence missile, i.e. what became Sea Wolf, I would aim to make it fit a modified version of the existing Sea Cat launcher. The big benefit would be that it would make it easier to integrate across the fleet, since many ships were fitted with Sea Cat already, yet Sea Wolf wasn’t fitted or retrofitted to anything other than frigates. As such, we went into the Falklands conflict with many critical ships, e.g. the amphibs, being stuck with the outdated Sea Cat. The other major benefit of making the new missile compatible with Sea Cat is for the Army, since the Sea Cat was also in Army service as the Tigercat. This would allow a common missile for both RN and Army, allowing both to benefit from upgrades etc…
With all of this factored in, I would probably aim for something like this:
– Escort Cruisers: big enough to either escort the carriers for ASW/AAW screening, but also capable of independent deployments. They would be similar to the Vittorio Venetto class, with excellent aviation facilities, capable of carrying at least four Sea Kings. Two ASROC-type box launchers, each with Sea Dart, Sea Martel and ASROC missiles, plus the modified Sea Cat-Sea Wolf launchers.
– Destroyers: basically a downsized version of the cruiser, systems-wise. They would be equipped with the same sort of hangar size as the Canadian Iroquois class, such that it can carry two Sea King helos. These would have one box launcher, with Sea Dart, Sea Martel and ASROC, plus Sea Wolf launchers.
– Frigates: a bigger more modern version of the Leander class hull, with gas turbines, sort of like the Type 22, with the large hangar, capable of carrying either one Sea King, or two Sea Lynx type helos. They would carry the same box launchers as the destroyers and cruisers, just without necessarily including the Sea Dart missiles. They would carry the Sea Wolf on the modified Sea Cat launchers, along with all the usual guns.
EdLawActually, there are quite a few valuable uses for the Vikings, even now, should they be brought back.
– Overland surveillance: they can carry recce pods on their hardpoints, with the benefit of being able to carry observers to analyze the pictures, not just beam them down to ROVER terminals. They were working very hard over Iraq, doing anti-IED sweeps.
– Littoral ops: they could easily detect the sort of small boat threats that we face in the Gulf, or in many other parts of the world. They could carry either Hellfires or Mavericks to deal with these threats, or direct the helicopters onto the targets.
– Maritime patrol: this is especially relevant for the US Navy, which seems to be having some problems with the P-3 Orions, for the timeframe between now and P-8s taking over the bulk of ops. This is, obviously, a temporary situation, but it will be close to a decade before the P-3s can finally start their final years.
Personally, I still wish they had gone for the new-build Grumman A-6F Intruders back in the ’90s, with its F404 engines and extra hardpoints. This would have given us an excellent set of capabilities:
– A medium bomber with excellent range
– A very capable buddy tanker
– A new airframe to replace the EA-6Bs with new-build A-6Cs, with airframes fit for service for the next forty years
Such a shame that this was never taken up, since the design work was already done, and it was, thanks to the Grumman Iron Works, an incredibly rugged aircraft. 🙁
EdLawJa: re: the LCU-2000, I was mostly suggesting it because it is basically a direct replacement for the LCH. If you want to go bigger, then obviously something like an enlarged BATRAL/Caimen or even Besson type LSV would be options. A combination of the Caimen 200 and a couple of Austal HSVs would give excellent regional lift capability.
As for the submarine problem, I think the only option is going to be nuclear, either a proper nuclear sub, a la Virginia, or a tea-kettle type using a small reactor for base-load running. The best option might well end up being to simply persuade either the US or UK to license one of their designs. Any alternative option, e.g. trying to turn the Collins design into a nuclear sub is likely to cost a heck of a lot more.
EdLawDear EdLAw, I am an aviation researcher from Brazil and the FLIR you mentioned is installed inside the AT-29B’s lugagge only. The AT-29B is the biplace version of ALX, and as the FLIR is not ejectable, the only external loads permitted are a pair of underwing fuel tanks, while the weapons are limited to a pair of Browning .50 machine guns inside its wings. The speed and load factors are 280 knots (Mach 0.56) and -2,5 a 5,0 G respectively. I hope have solved your doubts;););)
Sérgio “ZUYEV” Santana.
Many thanks Zuyev! 🙂
Sign In
