EdLawA quick question, and pretty relevant to the whole issue of C-1/-2/-3, how does the Insyte Artisan radar stack up against its rivals? I am especially thinking in terms of range, because all I seem to be able to find are silly statements about detecting a snooker ball at 20km… How does it stack up against radars such as the Herakles? :confused:
EdLawDo bear in mind that during the Kosovo conflict, a number of individuals in the UK who were re-tuning their satellite dishes found themselves watching video feeds from UAVs by mistake. This was brought to the USAF’s attention, but it would appear that this sort of mistake has not been fully fixed.
One particularly important question is why on earth the ROVER feeds are not properly encrypted? The terminals are a god-send for ground commanders, but they should be encrypted, in much the same way as the Blue Force Tracker (FBCB2) systems are…
EdLawI think one of the key things will be to have a plan for the conversion of Urgent Operational Requirements into ongoing operational requirements… A lot of the kit being bought is still valid for a shooting war, e.g. Mastiff is in many ways a replacement for Saxon, Husky gives an armoured patrol vehicle etc… There is nothing to say that equipment purchased under UORs cannot become core equipment, so long as there is a little foresite applied.
The retirement of the Nimrod MR.2s is one of the things that concerns me most. The government constantly says there is a reduced need for them, based on a reducing submarine threat, even though they are being used for more and more tasks. The problem is that the government has had a constant policy of running down real capabilities, on the fleeting promise of wonderful new expensive kit, which itself ends up being cut back to the bone.
The sad thing is that the public has finally come round to wanting to properly fund the armed forces, but unfortunately falls for cheap moves like the Chinook purchase. By putting all the focus on buying the Chinooks ‘for Afghanistan’, they take the focus off gutting the military; all to better fund things like Health and Education departments that they think will be vote-winners.
Hopefully the next government will at least be a little bit more principled, and realise the country is at war, so gutting the military is a really bad idea… I don’t hold out a whole lot of hope though. 🙁
EdLawSky News is reporting one new C-17 is very likely to be in the announcement. The Chinook purchase is a good move, but mention of ‘over ten years’ seems ominous – the first of them is only likely to be arriving in 2013!
Recruitment is to be cut back, Nimrod retired early, RAF Cottesmore closed, and probably RAF Kinloss (with the Nimrod retirement, MRA-4, if it is still bought, is likely to go to Waddington). Overall, it is not just robbing Peter to pay Paul, it is liquidating Peter, and maybe thinking about giving some of the money to Paul… 🙁
EdLawIn terms of the ‘big stick’ capability, the F-111 is definitely a show-stopper – it gave Australia a major capability within the region. It was the right aircraft, since no others could have done the same job as well. The other thing to remember is that, since Aussie missions were always going to be conventional, its ability to fly out a few hundred miles, and drop two dozen 500lb bombs (each) was crucial. The only other aircraft that could have come close would have been one of my personal favourites, the A-6 Intruder!
The Avon-engined Mirage would have been a major benefit, not only in terms of the reliability, but also in terms of commonality with the Avon Sabres and Canberras. I wouldn’t argue, however, that the Mirage was the most important, especially in light of the situation re: Vietnam involvement. This does make me wonder if a different type might have been a better option, but there aren’t all that many good alternatives. The F-104 had plenty of issues, the EE Lightning had some issues, especially range; the only type I would have loved to see in Aussie service would have been the Saab Draken! It already used the Avon, had an excellent radar, and excellent performance.
In terms of support aircraft, obviously the Hercules and Caribou would be the winners, given their sterling service over many years. Australia had a very sensible procurement strategy as well, buying twelve -A models, then twelve -E models, then twelve -H models, and finally twelve -J models. This meant that they maintained a good fleet, without the massive block obsolescency problems that some operators have had.
One final thing would be to mention the Canberra, since it proved to be so useful within the region, especially Malaya and Vietnam. I would have loved to see an Aussie built equivalent of the USAF’s RB-57F, which would have given Australia a major boost in terms of recon capability.
EdLawMy thing here is that as always with me and the C3. I want as many of them as possible.
I have seen that today a Cumberland the Type 22 frigate, returned from anti pirate ops in Somalia and that we have had an RFA ship conducting anti narcotics ops.
I want a basic ship with limited capabilities that can do this type of operations. If there is chances of engagements with serious threats like Subs e.t.c I wouldnt have this ship any where near it if possible.
Also today we had one magazine talking about how adaptable the type 45 is and how it can do many types of ops. well if we are lucky and we have 5 available at one time I dont wanna read that one of them is searching fast boats off the coast of Trinidad for heavens sake.
I agree wholeheartedly, I am in favour of keeping costs under control – actually, that is a good reason to stick with the Mk8 4.5in gun, because they are already in service. It may be possible to simply recycle them off current ships, but even if it isn’t, and new build ones are needed, it is still cheaper than introducing a whole new gun system. The Mk8 is very well known in service, any sailor going onto the C-3 from other ships in the fleet will know what they’re doing.
As for the adding of ASW systems, especially an ROV/AUV-based solution, this is not going to add costs; they are already intended to use these systems for the MCM role, it is just a slightly different model of ROV/AUV. Also, this wouldn’t need to be developed immediately, but rather could be added if this capability is deemed necessary. As for the possibility of a VDS, as long as we design the C-3 such that, with modification, we could bolt one on, then it shouldn’t really add anything to the cost of the ships. The possibility of carrying CAMM and Harpoon similarly shouldn’t make the ships ridiculously expensive – similar systems are to be fitted to the Project Khareef ships, and they do not carry too high a price tag. If, as BMT probably hope, we basically just take a slightly stretched/enlarged Khareef with a flex deck to carry all the gear for any specific mission, then we should get a very good balance of cost versus capability.
The important thing is going to be persuading the government that the numbers are needed, preferably by means of a long term, binding, rolling procurement. If the government is not persuaded to build more than ten ships (for example), then it really doesn’t matter whether the unit cost is £150m, £200m or £250m, they will still not buy more than ten! We need a wholesale change in the way things are done, otherwise we will end up with a force of a dozen pretty capable ships (Type 45 and C-1), and a dozen cheap glorified OPV(H)s! 🙁
EdLawI really like the design, though on the issue of the 57mm gun, although it is technically a BAE product, it is not a British weapon. It is relatively unlikely that the RN would choose to introduce a new gun just for the C-3 – it is far more likely that the Mk8 gun would be used. The ships are plenty big enough for the Mk8, and this woud give them total commonality with the rest of the fleet. If a smaller gun is chosen, either permanently or just as a substitute for the Mk8 (i.e. fitted for the Mk8, but with a smaller gun in its place), then the MSI DS30 or similar would be a likely candidate.
The interesting thing would be to see MSI Defence taking the older GCM-AO3 or even the DS30, and fitting the Mauser Mk30 cannon (firing the 30mm ABM airbursting ammo). This could be very useful since many essential ships in the fleet may not receive a true CIWS (e.g. Phalanx), and a more capable version of the current GCMs and DS30s could be very useful. This applies as much to Australia as the UK, with the potential to fit this gun system to both the Huon and Armidale, to boost their defensive and offensive capabilities.
It might be an idea to raise the flightdeck a little bit, just to allow for a continuous flexible deckspace below. This would allow ISO containers or RHIBs to be carried easily, all without disrupting the flight operations (e.g. by needing to use the hangar for storage); this shouldn’t boost size much, by the looks of it you would just need to raise the flight deck by a meter or so. As for ASW capability, this could probably be added if necessary, either by using ROV/AUVs, like the American LCS is going to use, or potentially even a VDS mounted right aft.
EdLawThe problem is that conscription simply doesn’t work for building a modern, capable Army. It results in having to dramatically lower training standards, and making overseas deployments very difficult. Sending off legions of poorly trained and poorly equipped troops to die on foreign lands is not just politically stupid, it is just plain stupid. The Army is much better off a bit smaller, but properly trained and equipped. The best thing that any UK government can do to improve things would be to increase the budget, which would allow for an increase in troop numbers and equipment. There is no real shortage of people willing to serve, as others have rightly pointed out; the problem is really just with the lack of budget.
As for the improvements in equipment, particularly helicopters, this is a little misleading. The comparison with 2006 figures is deliberate – the UK was primarily focussed on Iraq at that time, with Afghanistan being somewhat lower on the priority list. Also, with troop numbers increasing a lot, you obviously need more helicopters (and flight hours). Since there was a shortage before, with fewer troops, an increase in availability can potentially be a worsening of the shortage, if the troop numbers increase faster than helicopter availability.
Overall, the clear and present threat to the armed forces is effectively the budget. If the money is spent, properly, then many problems can be dealt with. Look at the armoured vehicle issue, where a couple of years of investment has genuinely helped a lot. The same can help with the helicopter issue – the six ex-Danish Merlins helped a bit (though could/should have been followed by an order for more from AgustaWestland), and more Chinooks may be on the way soon-ish…
EdLawLockheed Polecat would be my guess!
EdLawI’ve seen the advert, and I can see why some people could find it a little touchy. They could simply have re-worded the end part, to be a little more sensitive. It is not really a matter of political correctness, unlike many of the non-issues people take up, but rather a genuine issue of sensibility.
EdLawAnother option, and one which could get around the problems of spares support, would be to get a license for production in the US. There were plans to fit them with American engines and avionics already in the works, so it should be possible. In fact, the proposed engine for the western variant was to be the GE CF6-80C2, as used in the C-5M Galaxy. At the same time, all of the work done on the cockpit for the C-5M should be able to be integrated on the Antonov. This would simplify things a bit, allowing a lot of the funds spent on the C-5M can be applied to the An-124 as well.
Obviously the alternative would be to get Lockheed to restart production of the C-5 Galaxy, in limited series production. Again, all the work on the C-5M project would be applied, and it may be possible to integrate some of the work on composites and advanced production methods since the original design process.
EdLawThe attraction of the Chinook is it’s hot and high performance, and it’s load carrying capability. The Chinook, with the newer engines has plenty of power, hence excellent performance.
My worry is that the government will buy twenty Chinooks, and declare the helicopter problem has ended. The problem being that we still need to replace the RAF’s Puma fleet, and the Royal Navy’s Sea King fleet. We need more Chinooks, but not in place of a large chunk of the current fleet, which will need retired within the next ten years, maximum, with or without replacements.
My preferred option would be to get Agusta Westland to build a large batch of new EH-101s in the UK, and build us some new CH-47F equivalents, whilst the current Chinook fleet get upgraded/rebuilt to the same spec. Anyone caught suggesting we save money cutting corners by fitting a half analogue / half digital cockpit gets put before a firing squad! :diablo:
EdLawI’ve often read that Spain upgraded its Mirage F.1s considerably, but I’ve not been able to find a full description of the upgrade. Can anyone help? Does anyone know exactly what was done to them, what new equipment & capabilities they were given?
TIA
I seem to remember there was an article in Air Forces Monthy a few years back, I will try to dig it out tonight if possible! I did find some very limited info posted on this forum a while back, which I’ll repost here (if this works properly on my iPhone…
Did a littlme more checking and found the following from Jane’s Online (dtd. April 2001):
Spain – Final Mirage F1 upgrade delivered
Michael J Gething
The last of 52 upgraded Dassault C.14 Mirage F1 fighters was handed-over to the Spanish Air Force by EADS/CASA at its Getafe facility on 15 March, writes Michael J Gething.
The modernisation contract, valued at FFr700 million (US$96m), was awarded to Thomson-CSF RCM (now part of the Thales Group) in October 1996. It covered a servic- life extension programme (SLEP) and avionics upgrade for 48 F1CE/EE (C.14A/B) single-seaters and four F1EDA (C.14C) two-seat trainers.
Spanish companies Amper Programas, Indra and CASA (which became part of EADS in July 2000) acted as sub-contractors, together with ATE of South Africa (being responsible for the design and integration of the navigation, display and weapons systems).
Apart from the SLEP, the upgrade package includes a revised cockpit configuration with colour liquid crystal displays and a Smart HUD (from Sextant Avionique, now also part of Thales); a Sextant inertial navigation system with GPS interface; air-to-ground radar rangefinding; NATO-compatible Have Quick 2 secure communications; Mode 4 digital IFF; a defensive aids suite; and flight recorders.
The upgraded prototype (prepared by SABCA of Belgium) was test-flown in April 1998. The remaining aircraft being modernised in Spain by CASA. The first upgraded Mirage F1 was delivered in March 1999 and deliveries continued at the rate of two per month since.
The final C.14 Mirage F1 fighter, upgraded by Thales, was handed over to the Spanish Air Force last month. (Source: EADS/CASA)
http://www.janes.com/regional_news/europe/news/jdu/jdu010426_1_n.shtml
By the way, the link no longer works unfortunately…
EdLawIn which case ……. A10C is looking even better in comparison (nominally/average $12million according to wikipedia. Now listen don’t laugh at me for quoting wikipedia but do by all means post more accurate proce if you have it!)
Sadly I don’t have any pricing information on a new-build A-10, but I doubt the price for new-builds would be anything under about twenty million dollars. The Wikipedia price is almost certainly based on the quoted ‘unit replacement costs’ mentioned on fas.org or globalsecurity.org or government websites, which don’t really mean much. There are no new-build A-10s being ordered or mooted, so its probably darn near impossible to pin down a production cost.
If only a small number of A-10s are needed, then it may be easiest to simply take some of the mothballed AMARG A-10As out of storage, and refurbish them, and bring them up to A-10C specification. I’m not entirely sure about the number of available airframes in storage, but I suspect we could field a few dozen relatively quickly if the funds were made available. A future COIN fleet of, say, two hundred A-10Cs, two hundred OV-10Xs, and a hundred or so MC-12Ws would be very respectable. This fleet size would allow forty or fifty A-10s and OV-10s, and twenty or thirty MC-12s to be deployable at all times. All of this would probably not cost much more than one or two squadrons of F-35s for the USAF!
EdLawI do love the Skyraider, but I would be concerned about the sheer difficulty of taking a sixty-plus-year-old radial engined tail-dragger, and turning it into a modern turboprop engined CAS/COIN type. It would be my suspicion that building a modernised A-10 would actually end up cheaper. A new build A-10, but to the twin seat night attack A-10B spec, might actually be a good solution. The basic design is known, and modernised engines, A-10C cockpit, and probably some lighter armour, e.g. kevlar for some areas, titanium elsewhere. Although it would be expensive to re-start production of the A-10, there is at least existing parts supply and support.
As for the A-4 Skyhawk, I actually feel that it would be a perfectly valid option – the Marines used the OA-4M for close support and Fast FAC, and it was pretty successful. The fact is that close support doesn’t need to be performed by a slow-mover, the important bit is that the target acquisition is done properly. This can be helped by ground troops, UAVs or slow-FACs (e.g. the new MC-12Ws, or anything of that sort); so a fast mover isn’t necessarily a problem, the key for counter-insurgency is really efficiency. Using F-16s, F-15s, and in future F-35s for counter insurgency work is just not practical, we need aircraft that can fly around for hours, cheaply.
One thing to consider is that there is likely to be a combined approach to solving the COIN problem. Firstly, there will be more UAVs, with more capability, e.g. laser designators on smaller UAVs, down at company level in future. Secondly, manned aircraft such as the MC-12W and equivalents are likely to be increasingly prevalent on the battlefield. Thirdly, with more ground troops being trained to call in strikes, and with ground equipment like the ROVER terminals, air support is changing quite markedly.
Sign In
