EdLawFor God’s sake, Star, go and read a book!
Hong Kong was on a lease, from China, and that lease agreement expired. There was no question of fighting China for Hong Kong, it wasn’t ours to fight for. In contrast, the Falklands are British islands, and not on any form of lease or subject to any other agreement. It is in no way, shape or form the same situation, and the very suggestion that it is demonstrates a very poor knowledge of international affairs.
EdLawaccording to DID they will be fitted with Probs along with the Helix kit http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/Death-Spiral-for-HELIX-Britain-Wants-RC-135-Rivet-Joint-Planes-05102/#more-5102
seems to make sence the deal as they can be integrated in to the E3 mant system and they share some parts so transition shouldn’t have a massive jump.
its a shame the Nimrods can’t solider on till 2025
On the other hand, DID isn’t the most reliable source for such things (they mostly seem to piece various articles together, and make suppositions based on these various sources). I suspect the probe mention is based on speculation, and the HELIX part seems quite suspect. HELIX is meant to be an update/upgrade of Nimrod R.1 systems, and migrating it to Rivet Joint systems would be quite odd, unless the new aircraft are to use the R.1’s systems. It is more likely that some components developed for HELIX are going to be installed, where other kit would be installed on a USAF RJ.
My hope remains that this will fall through, and we will end up installing the kit on the far more capable A-330 airframe. They have sufficient room in the hold to fit pretty much all the systems, plus extra fuel, allowing the cabin to be used for consoles, and even have space for a full command and control suite. In time, I would also hope to see the E-3s replaced by a new AESA radar mounted on the A-330 airframe.
EdLawDoes any country have shore launched torpedo defense anymore? I know Norway did in WW2, didn’t do them much good except for helping sink Blucher, but in a tight strait…modern torpedoes…just thinking out loud! Could male trying to break into the Med a very costly affair!
If you wanted to go down that route, you would probably be better off deriving it from something like VL-ASROC or MILAS, i.e. a torpedo-carrying rocket/missile. That way it can be launched quite a distance, before entering the water, and would also allow it to be fired from a modest distance inland. Using just a torpedo, it would need to be in the water the whole time, and swim out, giving a lot more warning to the enemy. A ‘lofted’ torpedo system allows it to enter the water almost on top of the target.
EdLawThere may well also be some ITAR problems, knowing current mess-ups! We risk ending up replacing an indigenous, and very well regarded, with a poor-mans version of the Rivet Joint. 🙁
EdLawWell, we all know now where the awards for ‘most ridiculous post‘ and ‘most ridiculous poster‘ are going! :diablo:
EdLawIt is a real shame that we have finally signed the deal for FSTA, which of course ties us to it for 27 years! Mind you, since the companies involved could probably be given other deals as compensation for canning it, there might be some slim hope. Of the companies, EADS would get the actual orders for the tankers anyway, whether under the PFI or a direct sale. Rolls would get the engine and power-by-the-hour deal. Cobham would get the tanker conversion deal, again, PFI or no PFI. Thales UK could probably get something else, since they’re already getting a heck of a lot of UK contracts! VT Group, well, as we’ve discussed on the naval threads, they are likely to get the deals for at least some of the new C-1/2/3s. As such, there might still be some scope to get out of this awful PFI deal. We could always hope that the whole thing falls through from the financing deal falling apart, since some of the banks financing it are not in the best of situations (Bank of Scotland, Fortis)!
EdLawNo, it could not pass through the sound barrier without AB. When passing the transonic range it was able to accelerate in dry to Mach 2 in a slow way and did consume more fuel by that, when doing so without the support of minimum burner. 😉
But maybe you have a first hand report of a BA or AF pilot. I remember about that in Flight International, but that was from the 70s.
That the excellent inlet system/outlet system and trim system did allow to stay around Mach 2 related to atmospheric conditions is not in question.
I think he meant punch through the transsonic range, which includes passing the sound barrier; basically, the transsonic range means about M0.9ish to M1.3ish. The Concorde was capable of going past this range without reheat, but it was much less efficient, since you spend much longer in the rough inefficient transsonic speed range. It saved a lot of fuel using AB to push past that speed range, and into the relatively smooth speed range Concorde was happiest in. Frankly, Concorde was an amazing aircraft, it was just a real shame that it wasn’t commercially viable.
EdLawA CVS is a sure way these days to loose all your ASW helicopters in a single sub attack. Putting your financeable tonnage into just a few large units is suicidal, something that only appeals to peace-time bean-counters. Plus even with a boat load of AW101 you can’t really cover a lot of acreage. The last time CVS’ were used, they had Trackers aboard. For the RN’s in the North Atlantic Nimrods would be a more efficient way to do the job. But give it some AMRAAM capability!
I agree, up to a point, but there is value in having large helo carriers supporting ASW ops. They would never be ‘alone’, but rather act as part of a small taskforce; in effect, you would have a few towed array sonars pinging away, and have a deck full of Merlins ready to prosecute targets. Obviously air support would be used as well; it is one of the reasons why I have argued for building a lot more Nimrods, or a Nimrod-alternative. We will need a lot more than the currently planned dozen, especially if we want to be able to keep using them for more than pure maritime patrol. In future, we’ll be using them for ISTAR duties, and potentially as cruise missile carriers. We also need the ability to maintain detachments of them outside of the UK, e.g. Falklands, Gulf, possibly the Med etc…
I do agree, though, that adding AMRAAM might not be too insane; they aren’t going to be used as fighters, but giving them the ability to defend themselves is essential. During the Falklands, AIM-9s were pretty much sufficient, but against the Russians, Meteor/AMRAAM makes a lot more sense. It would also be useful to be able to have them shadow the slower Russian aircraft (e.g. Tu-95s/-142s), to save putting hours on the Typhoons. Otherwise the Russians could tie-up our entire QRA force for a day at a time, just by sending in a load of Bears with full fuel tanks!
One major benefit we have now, thanks to Trident, that we didn’t have with Polaris/Chevaline is range. During the ’70s and ’80s, we basically needed to park our SSBNs pretty close to GIUK, in order to actually reach our targets. This put them very much in the danger zone, in an area we really couldn’t guarantee to be free of Soviet subs. Now, in contrast, we could sit the Trident subs in the Irish Sea, and still hit all our assigned targets. Heck, we could just about send them across the Atlantic, sit off New York, and still hit targets in Russia! Unfortunately, the same goes for the Russians, they don’t need to enter the GIUK playground, they can just sit in the White Sea, and still microwave our meals…
EdLawOuch! Ober $1bn, as Swerve says, if far from cheap! It might be better to start afresh, and mount the Nimrod R.1’s gear, plus the Helix systems onto a new airframe. Even if it cost more, it might still be worth it! Even fitting out an Airbus A-330 might be more sensible (with the dual benefits of being new, and also common with the new tankers). When this was proposed originally, it had been mooted as a possible interim option, using existing USAF RC-135s dual-manned (i.e. USAF aircraft, leased by the UK, flown by mixed US/UK crews). This seems to be a completely different proposition, and not necessarily a good one!
It might have been better, in the long run, to cancel the FSTA PFI deal, and instead just buy the A-330 tankers outright, along with half a dozen extras, for the tanker and ISTAR roles. Switch the deal to a fleet support and maintenance deal (e.g. ‘power-by-the-hour’), and just buy the aircraft outright. In the long run, we will need to be replacing the AWACS fleet as well, and it would make a lot of sense to just focus on the A-330 as the basis for these variants.
EdLawSorry, I was talking in terms of land based weapons, e.g. ATACMS. It was my understanding that the intermediate range nuclear forces treaty (INF) had made it difficult to deploy land-based weapons of more than 300km range. If not, then I apologise! 🙂
EdLawYip, mines. The Bosporus can’t be passed without Turkish consent. Even an amphib ops (good luck in Istanbul!) can’t secure it, as Turkey just needs to sink a couple of ships in the shallowest passage and nobody goes anywhere for the next half year at least.
But the Russians might already be out, e.g. in Syria.
They may be able to base some equipment in Syria, but they would be pretty limited by that. If this were the RN thread, I would suggest putting a couple of Nimrods and Typhoons on Cyprus, to go out and sink them. Since this is the MN thread, I suggest pretty much the same thing; put a couple of Atlantiques on Cyprus (or similar) along with a few Rafales. Even if they put submarines in their Syrian base, that can be dealt with, a combined Turkish, Greek, Italian, French, Spanish, British and American effort would see literally dozens of MPAs flying over the whole of the Mediterranean. In effect, with modern sensors, I don’t expect a few Russian subs to last very long in the enclosed waters.
In effect, we can, for a variety of good reasons, pretty much discount the Russian Black Sea and Baltic fleets, and any potential Mediterranean fleet. The two fleets that actually represent any true threat are the Northern (Atlantic) and Pacific fleets. Pacific fleet will be left to the Pacific nations, and there are plenty there. The Northern fleet is the true threat, and it still faces a heck of a lot of difficulty doing anything. They face a much better equipped Norwegian fleet, probably the German, Dutch and even Danish fleets, plus the British, American, Canadian, French and even Spanish fleets. Unless the Russians can assemble the kind of fleet they had in the bad old days, then it can be dealt with.
EdLawDunno.
My most ambitious proposal in this regard was having two LPHs (which is how we seem to function now, when Ocean, Illustrious & Ark Royal are all operating), because I thought that the more floating helicopter decks the better, and big floating hangars with maintenance facilities could be a useful backup to the ASW ships. i.e. do what the Invincibles were originally intended for, IIRC, but LPHs rather than Ise-style dedicated ASW helicopter carriers because they’d also be useful when the RN isn’t fighting bears.
I can’t see the sense behind big increases. I reckon the RN has plenty of amphibious ships. Short of almost everything else, though.
I agree entirely. There is no need for a massive boost to amphibious forces; but as Swerve says, getting the two LPHs would help a lot. The LPHs would be perfectly capable of both amphib and ASW roles, embarking either transport helos, or ASW helos respectively. They would also potentially be able to embark a squadron or so of F-35Bs if we chose to go that way; this would not be their normal role, but it might take some strain off the large carriers. This would make sense for low level ops, e.g. a re-run of Sierra Leone, allowing us to park a cheaper LPH off the coast, yet still have some naval tacair. Arguably, a pair of good LPHs/LHDs along the lines of the Spanish/Aussie Juan Carlos/Canberra class would be more use than a third CVF. I might at least be tempted to go for the originally planned six Bay class as well, just to round out the amphib forces (since buying more LPDs is unlikely). This basically would mean buying a total of two new LHDs, and two more Bay class LSDs; not too unreasonable, and a pretty impressive boost to capability.
Overall, if the RN is given the opportunity to regain some of what it has been forced to give up over the last few years, then we should probably take it!
As for dealing with the air threat, there are a few options, some better than others. Typhoons would probably suffice, though obviously it might be an idea to provide some tactical air refuelling for them – A-400Ms (if it ever actually flies!) being one option. Another option could potentially be to install some tactical refuelling capability on the Nimrods, which carry plenty of fuel. As such, when a QRA is launched from, say, Leuchars, Kinloss would launch a Nimrod (which would be kept on a sort of relaxed QRA). The Nimrod could be given air surveillance capabilities, possibly through tweaking of a Searchwater. As such, instead of needing to launch an E-3 from Waddington and a VC-10 or Tristar from Brize Norton, we just launch one Nimrod from Kinloss. Hopefully we would then be able to get more Nimrods, so we can actually have decent numbers available. The tactical refuelling role would be very much a tertiary role, just used when appropriate, to extend out QRA/CAP capability.
Another issue would be whether, given Russian moves towards re-deploying IRBMs, we should look again at our own non-Trident nuclear capability. If the choice were taken, we could look at a range of options, e.g. something like the French proposed ASLP (Air Sol Longue Portee, basically a 1000km range supersonic missile). We could also look at our own non-nuclear tactical missile capability, if the 300km limit is effectively removed. Something like the Scalp Naval might be an option, perhaps mounted on something like large Oshkosh 1070 Heavy Equipment Transporter. This might be a cheap way to deal with a resurgent Russian threat.
EdLawI do like the Mantis, though obviously there is a limited amount of information about it. If fitted with the Seaspray, and perhaps a MAD, they should be reasonably capable as maritime patrol platforms.
I really like the SURTASS system, from what is publically available about it. One issue would be what to fit it to – should we put it on a broadly civilian-sourced hull, or put it on something like a MARS ship, or Bay class? This would help us to deploy it, which could come in very handy for expeditionary ops. The ability to put a Bay class (for example) SURTASS ship in with a deploying battlegroup would be pretty useful. The other thing could be to make sure there are good helo facilities onboard (okay, a heavily modified Bay class…); this could allow them to act as ASW sentries.
Overall, the ‘management strategy’ for dealing with the submarine threat in GIUK would probably be pretty simple. A couple of SURTASS ships sit offshore, perhaps one pushed halfway to Jan Mayen (should ideally still be within QRA range of the UK mainland…), and one nearer the Faroes. Add in some ‘pingers’, possibly just modestly capable C-2s retrofitted with a towed array sonar. Add in a couple of nominally assigned Astutes, probably in part as forward scouts, and partly to just follow up on suspected contacts picked up on SURTASS. The RAF would then have a mix of Nimrods and Mantis UAVs, swarming over the area when needed.
As for controlling the UAVs, we should aim for a UK-based command centre, but a lot of data from UAVs near UK airspace could be routed through airborne relays, to save satellite bandwidth. At the same time, the UK should really be looking at cheap but effective ways to get good sat bandwidth, e.g. through acquisition of a semi off the shelf sat, like the American Wideband Gapfiller Satellite program. Perhaps this could become a de facto Skynet replacement, or Skynet 6?
EdLawWith the Rafale, the Brazilians might be hoping to strike a deal for more ex-AdlA Mirage 2000s as well. For example, purchase twenty Rafales, and get enough for twenty to forty Mirage 2000s, i.e. enough to replace pretty much everything in service. It is one thing the French really have in their favour in the contest. With upgrades, a mix of Mirage 2000s (2000-9 upgrade perhaps?) and Rafales would be a pretty good match for the Venezuelan Flankers.
EdLawThis is patent infrigement! :diablo:
The main question is the scenario of threat, i.e. assuming it is basically a re-emergement of a quasi Soviet-style threat from Russia, then is it Mediterranean or Atlantic, or both? If it is primarily in the Med, then there is less need to switch to major open-ocean type ASW ops. You could just beef up the numbers of FREMMs, in an AAW/ASW mix, supplemented by a cheaper, less capable ship, more like the Gowind corvettes. If the threat is in the Atlantic, you need to just focus more on the FREMMs, with a slightly higher ratio of AAW versions. If the threat is in both Atlantic and Med, then you just combine the two, and buy FREMM AAW / FREMM ASW / Gowind corvettes in a ratio of perhaps 1:2:2-4.
Boost the submarine fleet, probably with a simple follow-on to the current Barracuda orders – minimum of two more (8 total), possibly at most the same again (12). This could either be accompanied by orders for new conventional subs, especially if only two more Barracudas; or use the opportunity to go purely nuclear. I would bet on conventional subs, especially for use in the Med, since they would be good enough for most work there. Perhaps even develop a Soviet-esque bastion concept, using the Bay of Biscay; a few FREMMs, some ASW-roled Gowinds, a couple of the Barracudas and a few SSKs would probably be sufficient.
Obviously, the opportunity would probably be used to boost the carrier fleet, with PA2 at the least, and associated aircraft. The AdlA would similarly push for more Rafales, new Neuron UCAVs, and plenty of Airbus tankers and transports.
Sign In
