EdLawThere are a number of issues here. The more expensive UAVs normally fly at altitudes where most IR-based systems would struggle, and some have self defence suites anyway. Some low-end UAVs fly at lower altitudes and are more vulnerable, yet don’t have expensive defence measures, for the simple reason that adding such systems would more than double their price! Basically, for some UAVs, it is simply not worth giving them expensive onboard systems. In other cases, the UAVs operating at low level will carry similar systems to normal military aircraft, i.e. defensive aids suites.
As was shown during the Portuguese bush wars, prop aircraft are no less vulnerable than the supposedly ‘hotter’ jets; in many ways, a lot more vulnerable, since they can’t escape the envelope fast enough. The fact is that just about any military aircraft flying around will be hot enough for a MANPADS to lock on. In the case of some UAVs, this is a consideration, and you have to do the calculations as to risk versus cost (since there is no pilot involved).
Why bother putting a $2m DAS onboard a UAV costing $200k! 😎
EdLawPart of the trouble is that the L/60 is really pretty old, and hence I suspect parts are pretty expensive. There are actually a lot out there, but mostly old ex-WW2 weapons, being used more for a lack of alternative than through conscious choice. My suspicion is that the 35mm Oerlikon, as used in the Millenium Gun, is the best bet, with much higher rate of fire than the 40mm Bofors, and yet still having a lot of advanced capabilities, like air-bursting.
Another possibility could even be to switch to the Bushmaster “Super Forty” round, which uses the same basic weapon as the 30mm, but with a new barrel (the case diameter and length are the same as the 30mm). This might solve the problem.
Nobody really seems too clear on what the problem was, i.e. the round (not designed to fly down from 20,000ft!), or the mounting (not rigid enough). The new round might solve the first possible problem, but obviously not the second.
EdLawThinking about the replacement of the Bofors 40mm (I presume they were surplus M1 anti aircraft guns similar to the L60) I have wondered why they haven’t considered the Bofors L70. It should fit in the same hole with little change and offer better performance and new ammunition types (the 3P-40 comes to mind http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aq_y6kkDO7Y).
Also to show you the power of the L70 against ground targets have a look at this video of the cv9040:
The problem may be the increased recoil from the more powerful L/70 – and of course compatibility problems with the existing L/60s of the AC-130 fleet. It would be pretty effective, but I think part of the reasoning with the 30mm Bushmaster was that it could effectively replace both the 25mm (high rate of fire) and 40mm (good down-range effects). Depending on what the problem was, I wouldn’t be entirely surprised if they opted for just a slightly different 25-35mm weapon, e.g. the 35mm Oerlikon. The Bofors has a lot going for it, but as it is, the rate of fire isn’t impressive; and the 25mm GAU-12s simply don’t have the desired range, hence the aircraft has to be low and vulnerable to use the smaller guns. The 30mm was supposed to allow the Spectre to sit above the MANPADS envelope, and yet have the ability to put a lot of lead on the ground. The 35mm might be a good option though, and possibly not suffer from the same problems as the 30mm, though I worry that the whole thing may go nowhere, and the 25mm and 40mm will have to go on being used.
There were also proposals a while back to switch the AC-130s from using the 105mm (effectively an old Vietnam-era M101 howitzer) to a 120mm mortar. This had the prospect of having less recoil, and lower weight, and importantly, having commonality with modern systems. Though the C-27 is unlikely to be able to cope with such a system, it might not be impossible – a smaller mortar might not be a problem, e.g. an 81mm mortar. Alternatively, the C-27J may be able to carry something like Hellfire or Viper Strike, to allow heavier weapons to be used.
EdLawI think you have to distinguish between the different forms of outsourcing versus in house. There are three main forms:
– Totally in-house: the aircraft are military owned/registered; being flown and maintained by military personnel.
– Civil-owned military registered and operated: the aircraft are provided and maintained by a civil company, either on a by-the-hour or simple contract; but the aircraft are military registered, and flown by military pilots.
– Civilian owned and operated: the whole operation is handled by civilians, though often flown by ex-military pilots. The military simply contracts for a certain number of people to be trained per year.
The first option is often the least efficient, cost-wise. The third option is often criticised because the instructors are not always ex-military pilots, and hence are not imparting their personal experiences to the students. The second option is sometimes criticised, but it is basically the best of both worlds – saving money, and yet still using military instructors and training programs. Sometimes outsourcing is simply better financial management!
Sometimes it is genuinely cheaper to have the military handle things, especially in less economically developed countries. In some of these countries, local industry is more expensive. In most western countries, military personnel are actually relatively expensive – pensions, recruiting and training etc… Whereas civilian or ex-military personnel often will have been trained by someone else (or paid for some of it themselves), and though sometimes paid better, tend to get less generous pensions etc…
As for the issue of who still does it in-house: the US does to an extent, though often with contractor involvement, i.e. military aircraft, but with maintenance outsourced. Britain goes for the second option mostly, i.e. civil-owned but military registered and flown. In some European countries it is in the midst of a transition from in-house to outsourced, e.g. France, Germany, Italy.
EdLawIt is unlikely to be the 30mm, and I’d not be sure about the C-27’s ability to cope with the Bofors 40mm. It is a great pity that the 30mm Bushmaster didn’t work out, it was a pretty impressive prospect. The C-27 would have been able to carry two in all likelihood, i.e. equal to the AC-130, minus the 105mm. I wonder if there will be a new project to replace the existing 25mm and 40mm.
EdLawSorry Ja, but I think you’re wrong here. The shelter has been talked about for many years – in fact, it was always intended to be an option for fitting later. The emphasis in the RN has always been on the LPH carrying the helos, and the LPDs and LSDs/LSLs carrying troops and supplies respectively. The Bay class had always been intended to be useable for other missions. The deployment of them makes a lot of sense, since they are relatively lean manned (compared to a T-42 or T-22/23), and cheap to run. It is arguable that they should be focussing on buying more of these in future, since they have a lot of potential!
You were also a bit sharp with Super Nimrod et al over the shelter issue. It is clear that the shelter has been fitted, and it is unlikely to be a one-off. It may well be removed for some purposes, but I suspect they will find it useful enough to justify keeping it fitted long term. It is a pity that the Bay class (and the Albions for that matter) didn’t get the proper hangars of their Dutch equivalents. It is quite likely in future that the number of helos needed on a major amphib operation will be sufficient to warrant spreading them around, with some on the LPDs and LSDs, and some on the various other RFAs.
Frankly, I don’t follow your argument about Britain ending up with no Navy.
emphasises the point that soon the UK will have no navy
The fact remains that Britain is getting two new aircraft carriers, six world class destroyers, has an LPH, two new LPDs, six new LSDs; is getting a load more RFAs over the next decade or so, and six to eight brand new SSNs. Britain may be cutting back on numbers, but it is certainly not going to end up with no Navy. It is also likely that the whole ‘C-1/2/3’ project will result in a mix of high end (C-1) and low end (C-2 and C-3) surface combattants, potentially in respectable numbers. Defence as a whole is getting squeezed, but attitudes in the UK do seem to be changing, with somewhat more ‘vocal’ members of the forces (Dannatt especially) coming forward. I sincerely hope that the RAF and RN get somebody to come forward in the same way, and present a united front.
EdLawHere’s the link for the company that makes the CQ-10 Snow Goose by the way!
EdLawIt can either be air-dropped or ground launched, from the back of a Humvee or a trailer. It makes a heck of a lot of sense really. The only problems I can see are the likely costs – it may be viable for special ops support, or emergencies, but I doubt it could be viable for normal units. I is pretty limited in payload, of course, whereas JPADS is scaleable for loads of up to 60,000lbs, i.e. enough to potentially drop vehicles, or drop enough supplies to completely resupply a pretty major combat position. Just look at the recent operations in Afghanistan, where the Brits and Americans have had small platoon or company sized units, and had real difficulty resupplying them due to ground fire at any helos. It would now be possible to load up a JPADS-equipped pallet, with anything and everything the unit needs – ammunition, water, replacement weapons, anti-tank missiles, even mortars or howitzers if the need was there! If necessary, you could even drop such a unit a couple of armoured vehicles to let them drive their way out of danger! :diablo:
EdLawNot really a glider in the true sense of the word, but combining GPS guidance with those wing/matress-parachute could make for interesting aerial supply systems. Droppable just like normal parachute loads are dropped, but with a vastly increased range and accuracy of delivery.
You have effectively just described the JPADS (Joint Precision Air-Drop System) to a tee. It is a GPS guided airdrop system, using exactly that type of parachute, to guide a cargo pallet to ground forces. It has the massive benefit over normal paradrops that it can actually sense when it is going off course, and correct it (subject to the wind of course), so it lands on friendly forces. It has always been a risk that if you drop ammunition and supplies to friendly units near the forward edge of battle, the supplies could drift off and effectively resupply the enemy. JPADS goes a long way to solving this.
http://www.jfcom.mil/newslink/storyarchive/2005/pa060605.htm
Another excellent system in this general trend is the CQ-10 Snow Goose? Though it has a small engine (Rotax 914, 110hp, which is small in military terms), it is basically the same sort of idea, and has the benefit that it can actually fly to a point, rather than just relying on a steered descent.
EdLawNo, the reactor uses a very compact steam turbine – but because of the liquid metal coolant, it can produce much higher ‘quality’ steam (i.e. a lot hotter). The steam is around 500’c, rather than the normal 250 degrees or so from a PWR. The steam plant is quite small, and pretty efficient. The point about the unit generating electricity directly is that the whole unit can effectively be a sealed unit. It is nothing like a nuclear battery, and uses existing technologies, though applies them in novel ways.
The reactor can be fail safe without being a PBR; in ones like the Toshiba 4S, it uses a negative temperature coefficient of reactivity (as it gets hotter, the power actually reduces). There are plenty of other ways of achieving a fail safe design – the term fail safe itself doesn’t really mean much. Basically, all you want is the ability for the reactor to shut itself down automatically if the reaction goes out of control.
EdLawThe whole project was a nightmare in slow motion. So much new technology, and yet real questions as to whether it was actually the right solution. For instance, the 155mm guns: developed at huge costs, and yet there really was not good reason for doing it; the Mk45 Mod 4 had the potential to fill all the naval gunfire support roles. The PVLS – again, an innovative solution, but an answer looking for a question; the current Mk41 is good enough, and very versatile.
It would have made a lot more sense to just develop improvements that could be applied to other ships. For example, fund improvements to the current 5in gun, and its ammunition, or a ‘drop in’ replacement for it. Another example is the radar – it should have been possible to simply develop it as a replacement for the SPY-1D used on the current destroyers. It may not be glamorous to just make incremental improvements on existing designs, but in the long run, it can make a lot more sense.
For the stealthy AAW role, perhaps we could have had a version of the GD/Austal LCS, enlarged a bit; with a 5in gun on the bow, a Mk41 VLS amidships, and a suitable radar and Aegis-type suite fitted. It would have been more interesting, and possibly had more export potential.
EdLawNot really sure about the Brazilian plan – they’ve been talking about it since the ’80s, but there don’t seem to be any concrete details available. They seem to be hoping to use their existing Tupi type (i.e. the German Type 209) as a template. This is a bit surprising, since the 209 is very much at the lower end of the size range. It is possible that they might intend to use what would amount to the forward half of a 209, but with a new aft section. They seem to be hoping for tech transfer from France, but that could be troublesome. I wouldn’t be surprised if they ended up with something very similar to the original French Rubis class, if they ever actually get the subs at all. A lot of grandiose plans are made by Brazil, but without the funding to actually do it properly. Just look at the Brazilian carrier Sao Paolo, which they got almost free from the French, and obtained a load of Skyhawks to fly from her; and yet they end up unable to afford to run it. I don’t say this to knock them, merely to point to recent examples of their ambitious plans falling apart due to the lack of money.
EdLawNo, it’s not reinventing the Alfa class – they used the reactors to drive a steam plant, driving a shaft. In the tea-kettle concept, the reactor unit just provides electrical power, which is then used to power an electric propulsor unit. The whole point is that is takes up a lot less space, and is much less maintenance intensive than using a normal drive shaft.
Also, the problems of the reactor can be dealt with; there are a number of ways of avoiding coolant solidification, or dealing with it should it occur. The reactor can, obviously, sit on standby; but it is also possibly to keep the cooland artificially ‘warm’, and even re-melt the metal. Similarly, though many of the liquid metals are corrosive, that isn’t necessarily a problem, since there are materials that can be used that will not corrode. This is especially true of lead-cooled fast reactors, since they do not need to be pressurised, hence there are a number of alternative materials that are viable.
The aim, as I have stated, is not to build small nuclear submarines, but rather to build cheaper nuclear submarines. The size of these subs would likely be in the 3-4,000 ton displacement range, with crews of 50-70 (still large enough to have proper shifts, and maintain full damage control capability). A lot of the smaller submarines have small crews at the expense of capability. For instance, many can only muster a full set of crew when needed, i.e. by borrowing crews from the off-duty shift; which only works for short periods. With fifty or so, you can have two full shifts, with everyone that is needed for a tactical situation. This is one reason why, despite automation (etc…), the Collins has over forty crew, and the Japanese subs have even more, with around seventy crew.
EdLawIt does seem to have completely escaped some posters on this forum that a very limited defensive system does not justify threatening nuclear war. The concept that a few interceptor missiles justifies a response of installing offensive nuclear missiles in forward locations is completely insane! If the Russians want to instal a dozen more ABMs, then fair enough (though as already explained ad nauseam the interceptor missiles are incapable of threatening Russian ICBMs). Simply trying to massively raise the stakes just to try to bully your neighbours is not good statesmanship. If the Poles and Czechs want to work with the US, then that is their prerogative. The Russians have no right to veto anything, especially not things which are not covered by treaty. Frankly, I hope that the US at least helps Poland and the Czech Republic to improve their defences, lest the Russians decide to go nuts and bomb the radar and interceptor missile sites!
EdLawUnfortunately true. Even secondhand A330s aren’t cheap, demand being what it is at present. There are, however, secondhand A300s, A310s & Boeing 767s out there which aren’t expensive, which are newer than the RC-!35s (not sure about flight hours or landings, though), & to which the R.1 systems could be fitted.
I agree, there could well be better options out there – frankly, a Boeing 737 or A-320/321 could be better choices, being much newer, and having enough space and range. I suspect an A-321 would be a good choice, being large enough to accomodate plenty of equipment and personnel; yet still being reasonably affordable.
On the A-310 issue, it was my understanding that there weren’t all that many decent airframes left. The A-310 had been the favoured option for the RAF back before the A-330 deal. Perhaps a better option could have been to pick up some 767s or A-310s on the used market, and have them operated by someone like Omega on a per-hour basis. The RAF would agree to buy 50% of their total usage, with the rest free to be rented out to other users, but with the RAF having right of first refusal. The RAF would own the aircraft, and provide crews, but with power-by-the-hour contracts etc… This would allow the RAF to mitigate the costs of the fleet, yet not be subject to the ridiculous clauses in the A-330 deal. The current dealgives the RAF a mere fourteen aircraft, only eight or so of which will actually be available day to day, replacing nearly 30 VC-10s and Tristars! If this path had been followed, the RAF would have had more like 32 A-310s or 767s (as had originally been planned), with some available for other forces to borrow, yet still RAF aircraft!
That way, the RAF would have aimed to pick up around 36 used 767s or A-310s, converting four into Nimrod R.1 replacements. Even the list price on new 767-200ERs (just for the actual aircraft though) is only around $130m now, so 36 would come out at around $4.7bn, i.e. around £2.5bn at current exchange rates. I know this is just for the bare aircraft, with no modifications, but since the Airbus A-310 MRTT conversions only ran to around €32m each for the four German aircraft, we can make some assumptions. The approximate price would only have been something on the order of £120m each, i.e. £3.9bn for the 32 tankers. Even if you then factor in as much as £400m for each Helix-equipped aircraft, we would have been looking at £1.6bn, plus the £3.9bn for the tankers, i.e. £5.7bn to completely transform the UK’s entire tanker and ELINT fleets! We would obviously then need to add in support contracts, but the potential to have totally transformed an important part of the UK’s aircraft fleet would have made it very tempting!
This would have yielded a worthy successor to the Nimrod R.1s, potentially years ago! An A-310 or 767 would have had more than ample space for the role, even allowing them to include more extensive command facilities, making them airborne command posts. As it is, we have a bunch of very elderly airframes, being replaced by….. elderly airframes! :diablo:
Sign In
