EdLawIt also gives more options in terms of load-out – if you’re primarily facing surface ships, then you could carry more anti-ship missiles. If you are facing someone like North Korea, who would send lots of missile boats at you, just having eight Harpoons may not be enough, VLS Harpoon gives you more options. Ultimately, the idea is to simply build ships with as many VLS cells as possible for their size, and then load them with whatever fits the situation.
It is actually arguable that the situation vis a vis VLS cells has become akin to the old battleship guns argument, i.e. whichever ship has the largest number of VLS cells has the edge. It’s a poor argument, but there is a degree of truth to it. Lots of cells does give you more flexibility, depending of course on sensors, allowing for instance Tomahawks, SM-2s, SM-3s, ESSMs, ASROCs and Harpoons. The smaller the number of available cells, the smaller the mix you can carry, and given the need to carry a basic number of missiles for self defence, it may prevent you from carrying enough of a particular type.
EdLawHmm, for the firebases I would just increase their provision of 81mm mortars, heavy machineguns, and probably claymores. These would be the most effective in most cases for the last ditch. For hitting the Taliban further out, I would actually want to speed up the Nimrod MRA-4 procurement, since it is supposedly able to carry 16 500lb JDAMs internally, and should be able to carry four multiple ejector racks on the wings, each with six 500lb JDAMs. This would, theoretically, give it the ability to carry as many as 40 JDAMs (I’m not sure about other 500lb types, since LGBs are longer, due to the seeker head), which would come in very handy in Afghanistan…
I strikes me that this missile sounds like a good enough idea, though I always wondered why Britain never thought about putting something like Sea Eagle or Harpoon in a land based launcher. It would have given the Army a precision strike capability, out to around 150-200km, which would be a very useful ability! The real problem of course with this missile is that, being prop driven, it may have long endurance, but it will take a long time to reach the target…
EdLawDistiller: the problem with that is that the armour on the ship puts the cost through the roof. The US hasn’t really built an armoured ship in decades, and it boosts displacement a lot. The aim is not to build a new battleship, but to provide a service, i.e. fire support. The lower the cost, the better.
I would actually argue that the cheapest solution might be to simply put a small rocket launcher on a landing craft. Fundamentally, UAVs are probably going to be the best way to provide cheap fire support, combined with normal howitzers and naval guns. Even the small 76mm Oto Melara gun can provide some fire support, and could be carried on small patrol craft, which can travel around the coastline. The other real candidate for close-in fire support would be 120mm mortars, carried on landing craft, which could fire a few kilometres inland without problems.
EdLawAs far as I know, nobody does this, with the possible exception of wartime, and even then, I doubt many people would do it. It is possible that some of the helo-pad equipped corvettes (i.e. large missile patrol boats, with a helo pad on top, rather than the mini-frigate type corvettes) may do sometimes, but I doubt it. A number of helo pad equipped ships with no hangar may try to carry a helo, and just put a protective cover on it, but I suspect the only nations to try would be ones who can’t afford proper ships with aviation facilities. Try looking at some of the smaller Gulf states, or possibly some of the South American or Asian nations…
EdLawThere certainly used to be the show “Seawings” on Disco Wings, but I’ve not seen it listed for quite a while! They used to do great (if a little out of date) shows about specific types, e.g. F-14, S-3, P-3, A-6 etc… It’s a great loss if its not going to be shown again! 🙁
EdLawI hate to stand up to the evil Kopp, but a lot of the points are about the threat of Indonesian Flankers, not Chinese ones. Given Indonesia’s history and demographics, Australia does have reason to want a clear edge, which could be eroded if Indonesia goes ahead with new Flanker orders. Bear in mind that the Indonesians are currently buying a load of new equipment, Flanker numbers could well increase… Indonesia is currently not a threat to Australia per se, but those of us who remember East Timor, and especially the Konfrontasi, know that Indonesia isn’t always a great friend. One coup, or one bad decision by the Indonesian government, and things could well heat up.
As for China’s Il-78 numbers, they are actually trying to get a major new batch, with figures of 30+ being talked about.
EdLawI wonder whether a 62-cal version of the 8in gun could be developed for service now, ideally in a twin gun mount. A nice big hull, somewhere around 12,000 tons, with a pair of twin gun mounts could be worthwhile. Add in a nice large VLS installation amidships, and you would have a heck of a cruiser! At a rough guess, the enlarged 8in round could probably get out to 70km unassisted, and perhaps up to 250km with guided, assisted rounds.
I suspect that the best basis for this would be a very large, commercial spec ship, basically an enlarged Absalon class (i.e. cheap and big). If you can have four 8in guns, and perhaps 256 VLS cells, then you’ve got an excellent fire support platform, and hopefully without the massive price tag. Even if you complete the ship with an off-the-shelf SPY-1D radar, and Aegis systems, it should work out a heck of a lot cheaper than a DD(X). I suspect the unit cost would probably be around twice that of the Arleigh Burkes, but for a bigger ship, with more firepower, that’s not unreasonable. I would simply call them cruisers, and have them replace the Ticos.
None of the messing around with armour, its not going to help against modern anti-shipping missiles, and drives costs astronomically high. A better bet might be to simply compartmentalise the ship, and put in kevlar armour, and focus on excellent damage control. If the whole ship is properly divided into sections, it should make damage control relatively easy, and the ship relatively survivable. After all, the best defence is to stop the enemy hitting you in the first place, i.e. have air cover, good air defence missiles, and good close in defences.
EdLawI have to say, I agree with Turbinia that SAR should be handled by the civilian authorities. You could even set up the units as RAuxAF units, and have civilian crews, flying civilian aircraft, but with a handful of military guys around to check things are actually working!
As for battlefield helos, I always thought the great tragedy was that the UK didn’t just buy a Westland version of the ramp equipped CH-3 Sea Kings. They could have been bought instead of the Pumas, and provided high commonality with the whole UK fleet. Nowadays, we still have this opportunity, but with the EH-101 Merlin, which could be made the standard UK transport helicopter. It would be expensive, but probably worthwhile, and allow the UK to standardise on just a few types, e.g. Merlin, Chinook, Apache, and probably a genuine light helo, like the MH-6, EC-635 or Agusta A-109. I have never liked the Lynx – it’s too expensive to be a light helo, and yet it lacks the capabilities of a utlility/medium helo. It might make more sense to get a good size batch of genuine light helos, which would be fine for a lot of the missions the Lynx does, and yet cost a lot less!
EdLawI wonder if it would be possible to substitute a more modern engine for the J85s, in particular I am thinking of the FJ-44 engine. The Swedes switched to using a non-afterburning (I know the FJ44 is non afterburning anyway) FJ44 for their Saab Sk60s, and the Austrian Saab 105s (Sk60s for export) use J85s, so the dimensions are probably close enough. I suspect that if an afterburning FJ44 were used, the specific fuel consumption would be a fair bit better, and potentially boost overall performance. Lower engine weights, and possibly even more thrust would make a lot of difference, and considering that the F-5 has always been a pretty good performer, this might be worthwhile. A growth version of the FJ44, with an afterburner, could probably develop something like 5,000lb dry thrust, and 7,500 in afterburner, and still use less fuel!
EdLawIt shouldn’t be rocket science to ask them to fit them with, or for-but-not-with, mil-spec systems. The main problem is in terms of re-modifying them back to civilian specifications, which may be difficult, and thus make any lease deal more expensive. If they are built to be fitted out to military specifications as needed (the for but not with option), then it shouldn’t be too bad. Another alternative is to simply make it a very long term lease deal, with servicing contracts done as needed, i.e. getting the cheap long term fixed lease deal, then contracting out some maintenance.
EdLawThanks Shipmate, I was about to make the same remark, i.e. S-92s for northern areas, and AW-139s for the shorter range southern areas. It could be argued to make sense for the RAF to simply get COMR S-92s (civil owned, military operated). This has the benefit of not needing to buy the airframes upfront, but without a lot of the PFI nonsense – when its done right, its just a normal lease deal. PFI has been shown to be a disaster, but it remains very attractive for the government, since it effectively allows off-the-books borrowing. It does, however, cost much more in the long run, as they are finding now, as all the late ’90s Blair/Brown-esque PFIs are beginning to show just how much they’re actually costing!
I do hope there is a competition for medium helos next year, though I don’t hold out much hope, but I wouldn’t want any of them diverted to SAR use. The troops actually need the helos, deployable and usable, especially if the Pumas are withdrawn. I still think that one of the dumber decisions of the government was to buy the Future Lynx, which lacks both cargo/pax capacity, and real hot and high performance. A much better bet would have been either more Merlins, or something like NH-90s, or even a re-engined Puma (get IAR in Romania to build us a few new Pumas, with RTM-322 engines?). :diablo:
EdLawThe aircraft bears more than a passing resemblance to the Cessna 150/152…
EdLawThe main point here is that there are alternative ways to provide naval fire support (note I didn’t say naval gunfire support…). A modern ‘monitor’ needn’t be armed with a massive naval gun, instead, it could use much lighter rocket based systems. In addition, you can up-gun the existing surface combattants, i.e. frigates and destroyers, to use either newer 5in guns, or navalised 155mm guns. This offers the ability to improve normal naval gunnery, allowing the ships to maintain their distance from the shore, and provide more hulls with fire support capability.
It may not be simple to add these 155mm guns, but it is doable, and if we want to improve naval fire support, it is a lot cheaper to switch guns on frigates and destroyers, than to build new ships with big guns! I would probably take three or four destroyers, each with one 155mm gun, over a single DD(X) pretty much any day of the week!
What I advocate for the coastal fire support ship would be either the Austal Corvette:
http://www.austal.com/go/product-information/defence-products/multi-role-vessel
or the US Navy’s new Fast Sea Frame:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/x-craft-pics.htm
The idea is basically to have a cheap (i.e. $50-100m) ship, capable of carrying a couple of UAVs, and an MLRS launcher with lots of reloads. The ship would be capable of receiving a helicopter, but would not have one permanently assigned (so no spares etc…). The ship would be able to act semi-independently, zooming around the coast, and able to offload naval boarding parties, and provide them with fire support as needed. They would probably have no more than a CIWS, and probably a couple of pintle mounted 30mm cannon for armament.
This kind of ship would be useful for a lot of operations, and even be able to serve as a mother ship for riverine units.
EdLawOne thing to say is that if the UK and US wanted to, they could put up a lot of aircraft to probe Russian airspace, e.g. Nimrods, P-3s, B-52s, B-1Bs etc… It would be pretty interesting to see the Russian reaction to a like-for-like response. The real problem of course is that the Russians might well, as J Boyle points out, shoot them down, and ask questions never… 🙁
EdLawThe concern about them splitting up was more the fact that the RAF would struggle to actually send up enough aircraft to escort them all simultaneously. If not, they can start teasing the fighters, each making as if to enter UK airspace, then moving away, just as another does the same, forcing the fighters to run between them.
As far as I know (from the QRA at Leuchars anyway), the aircraft are held at something like 15 and 30-45 minute alert, i.e. a two-ship ready at fifteen, and two more at lower notice. I is certainly arguable that the RAF should look seriously at increasing the QRA numbers.
One major advantage is that once the JSF arrives, then all the RAF fighter units would be physically capable of doing QRA, even if they’re not air to air units. The RAF could, for instance, have the Typhoon units sitting normal QRA, and the Lightning units sitting a ‘relaxed’ QRA, just to back up the Typhoons.
If I were tasked with providing the UK response, I would look to the Nimrods, and make a big thing of using them as Storm Shadow missile carriers, then fly them to the Russian coast. The Nimrod fleet would be able to fly around the northern coast of Russia for many hours, and as long as they keep their distance, the Russians shouldn’t be able to do anything. Like for like!
Sign In
