EdLawNo, I don’t mean an ESBWR, as I said, I mean a compact liquid metal (typically liquid sodium) reactor. These are small enough for mounting in a sub, and are not too heavy.
The French nuclear subs were small because of the limitations of the French nuclear technology of the time, with larger reactors going for their SSBNs.
As I have already said, the diesel electric subs I am talking about are of the Collins size class, i.e. over 3,000 tons submerged before modification. I am not talking about trying to fit reactors to small coastal subs, e.g. the U212/214 or similar.
The actual concept has been applied before, and is in use on the Russian B-90 Sarov hybrid nuclear teakettle technology demonstrator submarine. This one doesn’t use a proper compact reactor, but the basic concept is there.
The Toshiba 4S reactor, for instance, is supposed to be around 20ft x 6ft (by 6ft I believe); this is the perfect size, and though a civil reactor, I strongly suspect that it could be adapted for military use. The reactor produces around 10MWe, which would be enough for a Collins class size sub, and the reactor would be scaleable anyway. The Collins has a 5.25MW rated main motor, so 10MW should be plenty for the sub’s propulsion, sensor and general electrical needs. Such a modification to the Collins would yield a sub with a modern combat system (it uses the AN/BYG-1 as fitted to USN SSNs), speeds in excess of 20 knots (officially, so probably a bit more) etc…
As for Americium batteries, these are very large, and only generate a couple of hundred KWs (150KW for your example, which only lasts 80 days!). In order to generate the equivalent sort of power to the compact Toshiba 4S, at 10MWe, you would be needing around 70 such batteries. All of these would need to be totally replaced after every 80 days, and rely on a man-made element that is difficult to generate. The 70 batteries, at 10 tons each would weigh in at around 700 tons, and that is just for the actual batteries!
EdLawOrko: I am not actually suggesting a direct COTS solution; I am merely pointing to the fact that there are relatively small and cheap examples of what I am proposing. The actual design would be purpose designed, but draw on the technologies developed for these ‘stand alone’ reactors – they require basically no human intervention (they rely on natural circulation, hence no coolant pumps etc…). Some are liquid sodium reactors, which are well suited to the role, being basically inherently fail-safe, since the reactor automatically shuts down in the event of a failure. These reactors can be incredibly quiet as well, since there are no pumps, and they merely provide electrical energy to drive an electric propulsor, hence no massive drive shaft and gearing.
I know most diesel electric subs only make around 12 knots typically, but the sensors are often related to or at least similar to the systems used on the modern SSNs. There should be no need to modify the subs systems heavily for the new capabilities – in effect all it changes is the endurance at speed.
Distiller: I am not talking about the Pebble Bed Reactor, but rather the small liquid metal reactors. These are perfectly well suited, in size and weight, for installation. Also, as I said, these would be suitable for the larger submarines – the U212 is not one of these, being only 1,500-1,800 tons displacement. I am talking about submarines more like the Collins class, i.e. 3-3,500 tons displacement. Another example would be some of the Japanese subs, like the Oyashio, which displaces around 4,000 tons submerged!
As for the diesel engines, these would probably be removed, and replaced with a much smaller diesel engine (even SSNs have auxilliary diesels for emergencies). The extra space freed up by removing the large diesels, and some of the batteries, would just end up being filled with other things. The spaces would probably end up housing more berthing, or an area for special forces personnel/equipment; or potentially even a dedicated lock-out chamber like on the Virginia class.
Austin: thanks, it’s been an interest of mine for a few years, and has a lot of potential. Though they would still prove expensive, the actual result is remarkably similar to the Tango Bravo concept:
– Full electric propulsion, eliminating the huge propulsion shaft and gears
– Much smaller crew, with much more automation
– Much lower costs compared with current SSNs
– Largely unattended automated reactor
The crew size would most likely be around 50-70, i.e. a massive reduction when compared to the current SSNs. The reactor can be designed with very low life cycle costs, and requires basically no maintenance, so potentially actually results in lower maintenance compared to the normal diesel electric!
EdLawIt all just depends on the terms. This would appear to be a genuine purchase of the airframes, not just a lease on some pooled aircraft, to be shared with the USAF. They may well end up just being RAF aircraft – potentially no USAF involvement beyond spares and maintenance. They could make a lot of sense, especially if the UK can rip out some of the existing equipment, install the more modern, more compact consoles, and fit decent numbers of personnel aboard.
We would all love for the UK to be buying A-330s or similar, and the quantum leap in size would be very welcome; but the budget simply isn’t there. To buy three or four A-330s would set the UK back at least a few hundred million pounds, and thats before you even fit the mission systems. The A-330 solution would probably end up costing the UK well over a billion pounds! Now, as part of an ongoing procurement deal, e.g. the UK buying a few A-330s per year, over a decade or so, things might be a little different. That way, the UK would end up with, say, thirty A-330s over ten years, converting 24 to tankers, four as the Nimrod R.1 replacement, and two more for VIP use. However, there is little chance of this happening!
EdLawThis is more than a little unwise – all Russia is doing is making it’s neighbours more and more worried about its intentions. The fact that NATO has expanded Eastwards is due to the fact that those nations actually chose to join NATO. Why on Earth should countries like Poland, Czech Rep, Romania (etc…) be stopped from joining NATO, just because Russia doesn’t want them to. Nobody with even the slightest degree of sanity honestly believes that NATO wants to attack Russia, or represents any real threat to Russia militarily.
The more Russia tries to escalate things, the worse things will get – the US will have more reason to improve its ABM and air defences. Heck, the USAF would absolutely love for a squadron of Tupolevs to be based in Cuba; it would be a great reason for them to get a few hundred more Raptors, and more JSFs, and even a renewed AWACS fleet! All in all, the idea of putting Tupolevs on Cuba to scare the US is just about the worst idea possible.
Are we sure that this isn’t just a USAF planted story? :diablo:
EdLawYes, but there is a world of difference between a sequal done in 1986, and one done in 2008 – the fact that Tom Cruise’s career is not quite as…. dynamic! :diablo:
EdLawGiven the recent complaints from the JSF program members (a USAF Lt Gen Charles Davis I believe), I suspect that any involvement of the Super Hornet would result in some bloodshed! He has been complaining about Boeing trying to steal the limelight, and sales of course, from the JSF. He alleges that Boeing has been making claims about the Rhino being on time and on budget, while claiming the JSF is both delayed and increasing in price. The fact that all of this is true doesn’t seem to mitigate his problems with the alleged statements…
Unless they are using CGI for pretty much everything, I very much doubt that the JSF will be the platform. I rather suspect that Boeing will be very to lend a Rhino or two for the filming, and the Navy will be happy to provide loads of stock footage of the Rhino! It would be more difficult to lend JSFs for the project, though mockups could be used for most purposes.
Overall, I don’t see much need for a Top Gun II, but in a sense, it might be nice to see it made properly – real Migs this time too (Mig 21s would be very easy, Mig 29s might be possible, and CGI Flankers would obviously be possible…).
EdLawA better bet would be:
– Improve the pay and conditions for those serving
– Decrease the rate of deployments (i.e. more time between deployments)
– Allow people from allied countries to join if they want to
– Improve the public perception of the forces (better publicity – not spin doctoring, but genuinely just making sure people know about the positive things the forces do)
– Boost funding for cadet and university schemes (these are very effective recruiting tools, giving people a positive perception of the roles of the forces – but G.B. has basically been cutting funding again and again, meaning they get less and less money to fund the better bits, i.e. range time and exercises for Army guys, and flying time for the air guys)
– Provide the troops with a personal equipment budget to allow them to get their own gear, e.g. the best boots, ammo/gear pouches, cooling gear, clothing etc…
– Replace the current shocking hospital facilities for recuperating soldiers! Say, three or maybe four large facilities, on the site of existing NHS facilities (saves money, and allows them to share facilities/staff as needed – e.g. MoD-owned CT scanners and MRI machines could be rented out to the NHS when available). These facilities would have MoD staff, and be properly equipped for the job, with genuine rehab facilities.
Basically, just give the troops what they actually need and deserve! The happier the current troops are, and the better the perception of the military, the easier it is to recruit. If people see troops dying because of pure penny-pinching and inadequate equipment, they will not be very quick to sign up!
EdLawI don’t think there would be anything wrong with having Poles serving in the Army, and it might be better to not have a separate Brigade. As long as it is a modest number of Poles, serving in a British unit, then it is difficult to portray it as a foreign legion. On the other hand, if you go creating a Polish Brigade or similar, you could run into problems. During WW2, it wasn’t a problem, because they were Polish, French, Norwegian (etc…) units that were parented by Britain. They had their own way of operating, even though they generally used British equipment and training. After the war, those units went home – look at the Dutch Air Force, which still uses its RAF squadron numbers.
The big problem I can see would be with the actual nations you are recruiting from! I suspect the Polish forces would be pretty annoyed at having some of their best and brightest potential recruits signing up with the British forces because of better pay (hah!).
I also fear that this sort of ‘solution’ would allow the government to ignore the real issues, i.e. pay, accomodations etc… If you can just get in ‘cheap’ recruits easily enough, you will be less likely to properly invest in keeping them in the service long term. The old hands are some of the best resources we have – they have the training, experience, and can impart this onto the more junior personnel. If we keep losing them en masse, then standards will fall, which risks costing lives!
EdLawBut those unemployed youth don’t want to join the army! Nor do they want to pick fruit, or any of the numerous other jobs which are going begging, but that’s another matter.
We never stopped recruiting Irish citizens, right through the Troubles. The average Pole is not exactly pro-Russian. Why more of a security risk?
The majority of the overseas recruits to the British armed forces at present do not have British citizenship, have never lived here, & have English as a second language. Almost half are from non-Commonwealth countries, which have no military alliance with us. Why apply different standards to our NATO & EU allies, such as Poland?
Sorry Swerve, my mistake! I forgot that a number of the Commonwealth nations had switched away from having the Queen as head of state.
Do not get me wrong, I have no problem with allowing non-Commonwealth persons to join the forces! I think that a level playing field would be a good idea; my only concern would be the ‘risk’ of turning the Army into a form of foreign legion (which could raise serious questions in a future conflict). Remember the situation in the Falklands? The Argentines tried to make a lot of political fuss about the Ghurkas, arguing that they were effectively mercenaries!
I also didn’t mean to suggest that any Poles would be pro-Russian (I was actually referring to Latvians/Lithuanians, a number of whom are of Russian descent, and quite a few remain pro-Russian). It is just that it is a consideration – background checks are very difficult to do anywhere, least of all in nations with totally different systems.
Basically, I am just suggesting that we be a little wary of seeing the EU as ripe recruiting grounds, especially on a purely economic basis. This is especially because of the improving economies in many of these countries, making joining less attractive over time. There is no single answer to the forces recruiting problems – one of the biggest issues is actually retention! As long as retention problems remain, recruitment will struggle to meet demand. If we fix retention issues, i.e. housing, pay, benefits, pensions, injury settlements etc…, then we can finally get our house in order.
I relayed the arguments against increased non-British percentages because Planeman asked – I don’t happen to agree with them. Frankly, given the excellent work ethic of most of the Poles I’ve met, I would love to have them serving this country!
EdLawWhy so?
The Commonwealth nations have a genuine link with the UK, and, of course, share a common head of state! On the other hand, recruits from within the EU are not going to have the same kind of ties to Britain, and will generally be joining due to the opportunities it offers. There is nothing wrong with non-Commonwealth people signing up, but it has to be understood that there will be concerns as to loyalty.
As for the concerns expressed about the increasing percentage of non-Brits in the forces, this is for a number of reasons. Firstly, there is simple concern about the falling numbers of Brits joining, threatening the long term numbers (since political or economic reasons could potentially suddenly decrease the numbers of non-Brits joining). Secondly, there is concern about the identity of the Army, since it does decrease the ‘Britishness’ of it.
EdLawIt is certainly arguable that the UK could increase its use of non-native Brits, but this is a long way from just letting anyone in. Britain already recruits in other commonwealth countries (though there is already a degree of concern being addressed at this, with the rising non-native percentage), but this is totally different to recruiting in the whole EU. I also suspect that many Eastern European nations might be a bit miffed if Britain started poaching their recruits with offers of better pay!
For the Army, there is always the possibility of recruiting more Ghurkas, though there may be treaties (there was certainly an agreement with India upon independence there to divide the Ghurka units). They are excellent troops, utterly loyal, and frankly, they are some of the best troops to have served the UK. Every year, thousands try out for a few hundred places in the Ghurkas, despite many more being perfectly fit for duty (there is just the lack of spaces paid for by HMG). If you want to increase manning, bring in more Ghurkas, treat them a darn site better, and just in general, treat the troops better.
For the Navy, there are many reasons why people join up, and many reasons why people don’t. Jonesy is infinitely more qualified that myself to comment on this though. It generally seems to come down to the basics – pay, accomodations, and the problems of being away from your family for months at a time. Some of these can be addressed, notably accomodations, both aboard ship (as Jonesy says, the T-45s have brilliant accomodations in relative terms), and ashore. Some, however, cannot be easily solved; if you join the Navy, you are always going to be faced with long absences from family life, which is hard on anyone. There are ways of improving this, e.g. improving communications, extended port calls in friendly ports (where you could meet your family), e.g. Gibraltar or Cyprus.
Basically, you need more than just physical people to fill jobs, you need loyal people, and this can be incredibly difficult to establish. The last thing you need is to be recruiting, for instance, a Lithuanian of Russian descent, who may be a Russian plant, or may switch allegiance the next time there is a UK-Russian clash! It is rather less likely that this sort of thing would happen with, say, a Bermudan or Jamaican.
EdLawPlease stop spamming this thread with endless posts, especially ones which don’t contribute to the discussion!
This thread has been derailed by this nonsense, and this must stop now.
EdLawFair enough, we can but hope it works! I did not mean to imply that I disagree with the system, it was just concern for how ‘gently’ the policy will be implemented! 🙂
EdLawThis does seem a little dangerous – we’ve all witnessed discussions become a little heated, but they generally calm down pretty quickly. It might be better for the Mods to just intervene in the topic (as does happen from time to time). With good moderation, many of the more contentious issues can be discussed properly – look particularly at the various discussions on anything Russian, Chinese or French (etc…); there will always be some nationalistic bias, but they can be very interesting threads!
As they say, prevention is better than cure, and banning users needs to be a tactic of last resort.
EdLawIt may be twice as much cash, but for a brand new, much larger, much more capable carrier. The fact is that Gorshkov is going to cost less to buy, but more to run, and more to maintain. They have obviously never heard of whole life costing, i.e. recognising that short term savings on a project can actually turn out to be worthless when the project ends up costing more over time.
I think we (with some exceptions) agree on the following:
– The Russians, whether deliberately or not, quoted a massively underestimated cost for the project.
– The Indians should have recognised this when conducting due dilligence.
– The project has ended up massively over budget and delayed.
– It is likely that the resulting carrier compares unfavourably with its alternatives, e.g. a European-built carrier, or an accelerated IAC.
– The resulting carrier, despite the refurbishment, will end up costing a lot to run, and may still end up costing more to complete.
– The Russians are risking upsetting the Indian defence officials.
Sign In
