EdLawAnother blast from the past, alongside the excellent OV-10: a new build A-4 Skyhawk! It was incredibly tough, due to its very rugged design, and could be updated quite easily. Singapore modified their old Skyhawks to use a non-afterburning F404 engine, so it seems highly likely that a new-build version could use a non-afterburning F414 for commonality with the Super Hornet. The cockpit could easily be modernised, probably based on an existing cockpit design. It would be perfectly capable of carrying an AESA radar in the nose, for target acquisition, and it should also be possible to add in a conformal laser designator.
The wings were very strong, and could carry heavy bomb loads, e.g. six 500lb bombs on the centreline and inner wing hardpoints, and three on the outer ones. With more modern weapons, leaving the centreline free for a drop tank, this could easily be translated to:
– 12x Brimstone/Hellfire (the British three round launchers on the wings)
– 4x 500lb JDAMs on the outer wing, and 4x 1,000lb JDAMs inner
– 4x JSOW or JSOW-ER for first day of war ops.
A new buid A-4 Skyhawk may not be glamorous, but it would be an excellent and rugged aircraft, well suited to the close support role.
In fact, given the USAF requirement for a regional bomber, how about we resurrect the A-6F Intruder? Take the EA-6B’s fuselage, using the extra space for more fuel. It would be capable of carrying a very healthy bomb load, taking some of the stress off the B-52 fleet.
Ahh the joys of realising that the older aircraft designs got it right, and can still hold their own!
EdLawDont use them in a high tech environment, sure these would not be as fast as fast jets but they would be faster than an average helicopter.
Nothing and i mean nothing can replace the A-10C but the RAF does not have any such aircraft, i would presume most of the army’s CAS is by way of the apaches etc..
Also what would be the cost of these aircraft? 1 million pounds at most? Well thats the cost of the missile that is fired by the British Apaches so that they can use their cannons.
if these cant be used park them, but when they can be used use them and save the RAF a lot of money in terms of fuel costs etc and also save on the life of the fast jets.
I would much rather go down the Embraer ALX direction, or the Beech AT-6 route; these could perfectly easily be used as an extension of the primary trainer fleet. This would allow the aircrews to progress directly to the aircraft, just doing weapons delivery training, then a combat unit. This would enable us to field squadrons pretty quickly – order an initial batch of ~50 aircraft, and they should be able to be fielded within about two years.
Furthermore, even after withdrawal from Afghanistan, there would still be plenty of roles for the aircraft well into the future. They would be very well suited to simply switching to the tactical weapons training role, downloading some of this job from the Hawks. In addition, they would still be well suited to escorting combat search and rescue helicopters, since they can carry the same defensive aids as combat helos.
In essence, I have little faith in the idea of the armed crop-duster concept, they truly would find themselves out of a role as soon as the mission ends. They wouldn’t be very suitable for the weapons training role, and wouldn’t be all that well suited to helicopter escort roles.
If you want true capability, and aren’t too keen on the vanilla ALX or AT-6, then the Boeing proposal for the OV-10X Bronco is a really good way to go. It is a very well proven airframe, tough, rugged, and very capable. It carries an excellent warload, e.g. four 500lb bombs, a 20mm or 30mm cannon and four-to-eight Hellfires. In British service, this could translate to four Paveway IV, six Brimstone (two three-round launchers) and the same 30mm cannon as used on the Apache. They could also be fitted to carry ASRAAM, with helmet-mounted sights, for self defence, and for use against enemy helos.
As for unit cost, if you want the aircraft to be properly equipped, with a full sensor and defence suite, then you are looking at more like $10m + per aircraft, i.e. something like £7m or more, each. This is not necessarily a major problem, since the existing Tucano fleet is meant to be replaced in the relatively near future. If we make the choice to buy either the T-6 or ALX for the basic unarmed primary trainer role, then making the first batch an armed variant might make sense.
EdLawActually, another option for the land attack role would be a different containerised missile system… The KEPD-350 Taurus missile launched from a standard TEU shipping container has been proposed by its manufacturer. Since this would tend to suggest we may be able to do pretty much the same with the Storm Shadow (the Taurus just uses an inline booster stage), it could be an option. Since the C-3 (and ideally C-2) will most likely have deck space for a couple of containers aft, then this could be a major capability boost. It would allow us to rapidly fit the ships with a true land attack capability, without the need for the full A70 launcher (which is obviously completely out for the C-3 anyway). By using a standard shipping container footprint, we could either ship them, or if the need arose, fly them out to be fitted to our forward deployed ships. At the very least, it should be possible to fit something like the Harpoon missile (with land attack capability, and ideally the wings of the SLAM-ER) into a containerised launcher.
Basically, this would allow us to have our ships forward deployed, in the Falklands, Mediterranean, Gulf or wherever, and rapidly increase their capability. By using standard containers, we make it possible to fit them with new systems pretty quickly, hopefully in a sort of plug-and-play fashion.
EdLawI was reading around this area over the last couple of days, and I came across something interesting! The LCU-2000, which is operated by the US Army for intra-theatre logistics, could be ideal for the job, if we are to stick to a pretty straightforward LCH replacement. The LCU-2000 can transport five M1A1 tanks, or 12 ISO containers (24 if double stacked). The crucial thing, and the whole reason for me suggesting this, is that (as I just discovered) the LCU-2000 can be transported on the deck of a RoRo. The MV Strong Virginian embarked four LCU-2000s, and moved them from the UK to Diego Garcia. This ability could be very useful, allowing them to be moved rapidly in support of overseas deployments.
This could allow them to be deployed alongside the new Canberra class amphibs and whatever replaces the last Kanimbla/Manoora. The first waves come ashore by helicopter and the LCMs carried by the LHDs, the second wave would hopefully come from a (big but cheap) LPD/LSD (e.g. the British Bay class, but with a bigger dock). The heavy logistics support and reinforcements can then come ashore on the roll-on roll-off ship, using these LCUs/LCHs.
They could also be deployed to support humanitarian missions, such as regional disaster response (e.g. Indonesia, Samoa and the Philippines at the moment) on the deck of a single RoRo. The RoRo deploys with them on deck, arrives, offloads the LCUs and then uses them to shuttle support ashore, without needing access to proper port facilities, which may be unavailable.
I am not necessarily saying that the LCU2000 itself is perfect, but more that a very similar design, built from the start to be capable of being lifted onto the deck of a RoRo, would be ideal for the job.
[Images are US DoD public domain ones]
EdLawI would ideally like to see all of the ‘C-X’ types carry facilities for the maritime interdiction role, since any of them may be called upon to perform these missions. If the C-1s, C-2s and C-3s could all have space for a pair of RHIBs, and space for a detachment of Marines, then that would be a major benefit. Ideally there would even be sufficient space to accomodate the MCM modular gear intended for the C-3. This could allow a series of modular sets of equipment and personnel to be embarked, on any of the ships that will make up the bulk of the surface fleet.
Although this would increase costs for the C-1 and C-2 a bit, it would give a very welcome boost to capability. The RN could therefore maintain a number of MCM units, Marine boarding parties, and any other modular units that are needed. These units would almost certainly be capable of being deployed on anything from a C-130J or A-400M to a chartered airliner (e.g. a 737).
EdLawActually, this could prove very useful, given the state of the Airbus A400M program! The A400M has a rocky year ahead now, with the possibility of some members pulling out, due to concerns about in-service dates, but also the cargo capacity (e.g. the ability to carry tracked IFVs like the CV90 and Puma). It is quite possible that this could result in a need for C-17s as well as C-130Js. By keeping the C-17 program alive, you give a viable alternative to the A400M!
[The point with the tracked IFVs is due to the A-400M being several tons overweight, which is quite likely to push payload capacity below the 30 tons mark, which is a problem for both CV90 and Puma]
EdLawNo, actually there was a great deal of political cost, not just in terms of its relations with Russia, but actually with other European countries who were not keen on the system. In addition, it was pretty contentious with regards to internal politics. The proposed installation of the system resulted in the Russians threatening to deploy nuclear missiles right onto the Polish border. This understandably concerned the Polish government, and yet they still agreed to the installation, to support the US.
Just dismissing all of this, is in such a rude manner, as not being worth consideration shows a distinct lack of understanding of the issues.
EdLawThe sad thing is that Poland and the Czech Republic have been thoroughly screwed over. They were persuaded, at great diplomatic cost, to accept the system, and now Obama just cancels the project, leaving them high and dry. Their diplomatic positions will not just immediately recover just because of Obama’s decision. It will take years for them to undo this damage, and they will find it a lot harder to trust the US when it comes to any future projects. They may also find it a lot harder to justify providing troops for Afghanistan in light of this! 🙁
EdLawNomad: I’ve had a look at the Gowind designs and I feel that they are just a little too big for the OPC role, now granted there are smaller designs on the board, I feel that these vessels might actually be better proposed as the replacement Frigate vessels of which we need a new design to replace the Anzac class and which have been stated they must be bigger- one proposal on the board is the F-100 modified without the SPY-1 radar. This would bring commonality to the fleet and allow a huge reduction in costs of logistics support, but could that really be a proposal?
As for the replacement Seahawk helo, From what I am hearing with my contacts in defence- the NH-90 NFH is going to be the winner due to the strict compliance with the Air 9000- specifically to reduce the number of different types operated- besides, the NFH does offer better quallities than the Seahawk in any form- especially in growth potential!
On the issue of the ACPB replacement, my concern would be the loss of hulls, by increasing the costs and thus risking smaller numbers being bought. I would certainly look at something along the lines of the Danish Knud Rasmussen class offshore patrol ships. These would be affordable, relatively, and yet could be up-gunned for other tasks. This would allow the normal EEZ patrol duties to be performed with limited armament such as the Typhoon mount. At the same time, they could be forward deployed, to support peacekeeping missions, up-gunned to include a 76mm gun, a couple of Harpoons and a modest defensive anti-air capability using RBS-70 or similar.
This modular fit would allow them to be bought relatively cheaply, and then work on increasing the number of armament ‘kits’ available. Obviously I wouldn’t necessarily just copy the Knud Rasmussen, but with modest changes it should still be pretty cheap. It would need the space for MCM gear, mounted in shipping containers, and a pair of good size RHIBs, plus space for UUVs aft.
As for the ANZAC replacement, I do like the idea of an Aegis-less version of the Hobart class, rather than a whole new design. Ideally, though, these should still be pretty darned capable ships, with the CEAFAR radar, a good size VLS. By using pretty much the same design as the Hobart, crews can move around within the fleet with few problems. It makes support a lot easier, and overall would help with streamlining of the fleet.
In terms of the replacement of the Balikpapan class LCHs, a large question is the actual rationale behind their operation. If you are looking for a straight replacement, albeit a bit bigger, then a modern BATRAL would be okay. If you are looking for an ability to deliver heavy equipment throughout the region, then a modified version of the American Frank Besson class could be ideal. It may be possible to take the Besson class, and add in davits for a couple of LCMs, as will be used on the Canberra class. The size would allow them to carry a useful load ashore, in support of amphibious ops, or move heavy engineering gear for disaster response ops.
EdLawMy guess would be that Brazil will manage to keep São Paulo in service for another ten to fifteen years, probably with overhauled A-4s on deck for most if not all of that time. A replacement, perhaps one of the Indian-produced carriers in CTOL form, will probably emerge, if nothing else than to maintain Brazil’s role in the region.
The logical replacement for the A-4, in my mind, would be the Dassault Rafale, probably as part of a much wider deal (as France loves). This could take the form of Rafales and ex AdlA Mirage 2000s (interim fighters, pending more Rafales) for the FAB; Rafale Ms and new ships for the Navy, and all the other equipment that France is always eager to sell! I wouldn’t be entirely surprised to see Brazil ending up building something like Singapore’s Formidable class, but equipped with Umkhonto and Umkhonto-NG (the projected extended range version) or even the Israeli Barak 2.
As for the A-4, one thought I had was regarding the ability to use twin launch rails for Sidewinder-class missiles, as the Sea Harrier, Hawk (etc…) used. If this could work, then it would be a major boost – perhaps allowing them to carry two A-Darter and two Derby missiles on the outboard hardpoints, while still carrying two drop tanks (and perhaps a jamming pod on the centreline).
Another modification that springs to mind, if the Skyhawk is to remain in service for a while, would be to do what the Israelis did, and switch out the two Colt Mk12 20mm cannon for the DEFA 30mm (as used by Brazil already).
EdLawIdeally, I would actually like to see the UK re-orient its submarine strategy – go for commonality of components, without compromising on suitability. The RN would hopefully get the original target of 12 SSNs. We then replace the Vanguards with six boats, with enough Tridents for four boats, and SSGN kits (i.e. a plug-in Tomahawk/Scalp Naval multi-round launcher) for two or three boats. This would allow the UK to always have at least one deterrent boat on station, and a second boat either on its way, or returning from patrol; this should allow for at least one or two SSGNs to be surge deployed for ‘first day of war’ duties.
In addition to these, I would ideally like to see us joining a tripartite project, with Australia (Collins replacement) and Canada (Victoria replacement), to build a long range conventional sub. This would allow us to keep the SSNs assigned to the tougher tasks, while still filling in the more basic roles. For example, it would allow us to keep a sub stalking around in the South Atlantic, Mediterranean and Indian Oceans, at all times…
I know, all this is completely implausible, but I did say ideally!
EdLawOr longer-range stand-off weapons would be needed.
Hence they would be more likely to use shorter ranged, cheaper, standoff weapons, e.g. the JSOW, or even the JDAM-ER (the wing-kit equipped versions).
The other serious consideration is the future of tactical strike missions, namely the high probability of using unmanned stealthy types for penetration strikes. As such, even with all its stealthy attributes, it is open to debate as to whether such expensive (and manned) platforms would be used in preference to a UCAV. If the UCAV becomes the dominant strike platform, which seems quite likely, then going for Gripen might not have been such a problem.
In essence, the Norwegian ‘evaluation’ might as well have specified that the aircraft to be chosen had to be called the F-35 Lightning…
EdLawA more sensible explanation is the fact that the AGM-86 CALCM is needing to be replaced, so the JASSM and JASSM-ER will need to be available in good numbers. Since the US strategy, sensibly enough, is to try to degrade enemy IADS before even trying to fly stealthy aircraft in, then you need a lot of cruise missiles. In addition, a large multi-year purchase brings down unit costs quite a bit.
Basically, these missiles will not just be for use from the F-35s, but more likely from B-52s and B-1Bs!
EdLawA more practical option in the future, should there be no massive boost in Brazilian defence spending, would be to go down the unmanned route. Given the pace at which UAV design has been progressing, even a modest sized carrier, a la Sao Paulo, could operate an air wing of stealthy UCAVs.
The General Atomics Avenger (Predator C) is allegedly intended to be ready for marinisation, with G.A. having designed it to accept folding wings, tailhook, etc… A UCAV capable of carrying a pair of AShMs or a few LGBs would be viable, and not push the limits of a small-ish carrier; the ability to carry a few BVR missiles would, of course, be a big benefit. As long as you can datalink the missiles, you can effectively use the UCAVs as if they were SAM batteries (but with better range).
By going down the UCAV route, you can probably squeeze more aircraft onto the ships, meaning a carrier the size of the Sao Paulo could carry a very meaningful airwing. Going down the manned route is much harder, you either need a very expensive carrier (CATOBAR) and pretty expensive aircraft (Rafale etc…), or cheaper carrier (STOVL) and very expensive aircraft!
EdLawEd, you might want to check some prices because I think you went way over budget.
For the Danish frigates, i was under the impression that they were basically an Absalon minus the vehicle deck.
Regarding the Collins place, apparrently a lot of the build problems were a result of some swedish errors, sine they basically scaled up Gotland IIRC and it didn’t quite work right. Problems had to be sorted out with US aid. The requirements for the original combat system were beyond the possible with the available technology for the time, which caused all sorts of problems, they now have the combat system used in Virginia.
For Modified ANZAC or something similar, it has to be quite a bit larger then ANZAC, T23 size minimum, T22 size would be better (they are having massive topweight problems from what i’ve read on other forums). Stanflex on a frigate? Why? :confused:
The Danish Iver Huitsfeldt is based on the Absalon hull, but is actually pretty different. It has double the power, and a much higher speed; it has the same basic radar suite as the De Zeven Provincien (hence pretty decent AAW capability). The crucial point is the cost – the Iver Huitsfeldt costs a fair bit less than equivalents, somewhere around 400m Euros, so even with a few extra VLS cells and some design mods, shouldn’t break the £500m mark. As such, even a dozen of them should be around the £6bn mark.
As for the smaller ships, the idea of using the Standard Flex design methodology is more for ease of equipping. The Danes have really done a bloody good job with naval construction, arguably out-Mekoing the Meko (the original benchmark for adaptable warship design). The idea was simply to do a ship somewhere around the C-2 or C-3 mark, closer to the well-armed C-3 proposals discussed previously. I would certainly aim to cap costs around the £200-250m mark, so again, even a dozen shouldn’t be more than around £2-3bn.
The three Juan Carlos, even with CIWS and radars added shouldn’t be more than around £500m, so ~ £1.5bn.
In terms of submarines, the Collins type would be the upper end of options, and I would happily opt for an alternative, e.g. Scorpene or Type 212/214. The costs in the Collins class blew out in large part because it was an unfortunate mix of bespoke and off the shelf, trying to enlarge a modest size coastal sub into a mini-SSN (minus the reactor). As such, there were problems all over the place – something which hopefully will be avoided with Collins II. With regards to this scenario, the subs would be off the shelf, with as few changes as possible, e.g. using a different torpedo, integrating IDAS and AUVs. The Scorpene, 212 or 214 seem to be around the £300-400m mark, so six should be around the £2-2.5bn mark.
The LSDs, AORs and RoRos should average out at less than £200m each (the LSDs a little more, but not massively so given the Enforcer’s pricing). As such, six LSDs, three cheap-ish AORs and three RoRos should come to around £2.5bn max.
Overall, that comes to ~£15.5bn at the upper ranges of those prices.
For the aircraft, obviously these push the prices up a fair bit, however I wouldn’t count the Marine airpower in the total, as nobody else has accounted for these either!
The 50 or so F-35s should come in somewhere around the £3-4bn mark, and even the total of around 110 EH-101s should be ~£4bn. As for the P-3 Orions, these would, by definition, be second hand, merely overhauled and shouldn’t break the £1bn mark – heck, if they did, they would be pretty poor value! Furthermore, since many other posters have left this role with their Air Force, this figure is somewhat unnecessary.
So, counting all the Fleet Air Arm, that comes to something like £7-8bn, so combined with the shipping, it’s a total of £23.5-24.5bn. Okay, this does break the revised figure of £18bn allowed, but is nowhere near the £35bn mark originally mooted. The figures could also be massaged down a fair bit, e.g. buying straight off the shelf (e.g. you could probably shave over a billion off the surface combattants, a few hundred million here and there on the LHDs, LSDs, AORs and RoRos, and probably a couple of billion off the helo budget.
So, not necessarily way over budget!
Sign In
