dark light

Sintra

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 2,026 through 2,040 (of 3,443 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: RAF Tornado retirement set #2340717
    Sintra
    Participant

    Did you miss the Raytheon info? It is contracted and is actually at the Pit-Drop stage.

    btw, the latest info (as of March 2012) specifically shows ASRAAM and PWIV as part of IOC Blk3.

    http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2012annual_psr/WERTH.pdf

    Blimey, yep, missed it, thanks for the update.

    Considering that 2020 is 7.5 years away, there is pleanty of time for MBDA & LM to get a lot done re:integration. They could even put UAI into MBDA systems to speed the process up.

    Another option is to put emulation modes into newer weapons so no software has to be changed in order for it to fly. IIRC, they did this with JASSM-ER to get it to fly on JASSM platforms.

    Undoutebly, but the issue is not related with the F-35 per se, the issue is lack of money in GB MOD.

    btw, to complete the same mission that now requires the Tornado & CASOM only requires and F-35 with JSOW

    Thats a bit disputable, but the the fact is that the RAF has more than eight hundred Storm Shadows and no JSOW in their inventories.
    But on a “pinch”, i am quite sure that the USAF would be more than happy to lend a few JSOW´s to the Brits, something like what i´ve mentioned before (“someone starts a “holly big pile of s****t” around some very sensitive hot spot for GB PLC”).

    Cheers

    in reply to: RAF Tornado retirement set #2340762
    Sintra
    Participant

    I’m not talking short term, but Late LRIP/FRP deliveries.

    @Sintra, So you consider FOC to be operational with every weapon planned and not simply a ship full of IOC F-35Bs?

    Off course, FOC by definition is not IOC, and certainly in the context of discussing the Tornado retirement date and whatever substitutes the long range ATG mission for the RAF circa 2019/20, the minimal capability over the table must include CASOM, Brimstone and EPIV.

    And by the way “a ship full of IOC F-35Bs” (thats around 36 of them) for the RAF/RN with trained pilots will be atained when? In 2009 those kind of numbers would be received by UK PlC around 2020/21 (39 airframes), now the MOD will take a decision on how much airframes they need around 2015, that means that instead of 19 airframes contracted till them, there will be only three…

    —-Update—
    A lot more is being done re: UK weapons than you might be thinking of.

    http://www.jsf.org.uk/JSF-UK-Industry-Team/MBDA.aspx

    http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/2012-07-08/theres-no-escaping-mbdas-meteor-missile
    July 8th, 2012

    http://www.upi.com/Business_News/Security-Industry/2007/08/01/Raytheon-wins-24M-Paveway-contract/UPI-61801185985766/
    Aug 2007

    http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/raytheon-nets-60m-uk-paveway-iv-order-370322/
    Apr 2012

    The only weapon wich is contracted for actual integration is the AIM-132, feasibility studies have indeed been carried on (and payed partly by the MOD, partly by the Industry, specificaly by MBDA for Meteor) for CASOM, METEOR and EPWIV but they are not contracted for actual integration.

    Cheers

    in reply to: RAF Tornado retirement set #2340919
    Sintra
    Participant

    Do you have a schedule handy of when the UK will be getting their F-35Bs?

    What do you consider FOC?

    The original schedule has gone considerably to the right.

    By comparing the current state of the art with the “ANNEX A
    ESTIMATED JSF AIR VEHICLE PROCUREMENT QUANTITIES
    AS OF 10 NOV 2009″ document, right now, for the British JSF, the program is three and a half years late, looking at the quantity of money that the British MOD has ring fenced for the entire JCA program (bit more than two billion pounds, NAO “Ministry of Defence: The Major Projects Report 2011”) , taking into acount that more than half that sum is already spent, with a lot, lot, lot of luck the first RAF sqn will atain something similar to IOC a decade from now (that or a diamond mine is discovered below Whitehall City of Westminster, SW1A 2HB).

    FOC in this case could be considered something like “PWIV, BRIMSTONE/SPEAR, STORM SHADOW, METEOR, AIM 132 integrated and operationaly capable”, of these only one is contracted. With the kind of money that the MOD will probably have for the next decade, unless someone starts a “holly big pile of s****t” around some very sensitive hot spot for GB PLC, the kind of FOC mentioned above will probably be atained closer to 2030 than 2020.

    Cheers

    in reply to: RAF Tornado retirement set #2341017
    Sintra
    Participant

    I didn’t say it was. I was simply responding to mrmalaya’s statement that read

    “I rather suspect we will see Typhoon reach as close to its full potential by then”

    Which is wishful thinking based on how badly the upgrade path has been managed so far, both from a technical and financial perspective.

    I see, i´ve misunderstood you. Tend to agree, the development path has been glacial.

    in reply to: RAF Tornado retirement set #2341075
    Sintra
    Participant

    Lord no, there’s hardly any chance they’ll even have an AESA fitted and working in it by that time and if they do it’ll be a limited A-A mode only job. The Typhoon upgrade path has been a massive failure.

    Yep, an AESA is an absolute must/necessity to replace the Tornado in the ATG job…

    Sintra
    Participant

    True, but the dividing line between FAC and OPV are rather grey for some much like Corvettes.

    Agreed

    Subs and Aircraft are more expensive.

    You are correct on the subs, but on the rest it depends on the FAC, on the aircraft (a higher up FAC, something like a Skjold will be right on the CN295 FITS equiped ballpark), and if we throw Heli and UAV into the mix…

    Cheers

    Sintra
    Participant

    I think jonesy has picked up most of the points but just to throw in my two penneth worth.

    In the end FAC work well in certain niche roles:

    Patrolling your coastline, with diesel engines and crewing back at some of base they are very cheap to operate in that role. The sensors and armament are more then enough to deal with fishing violations and generally criminality. Even the Royal traditionally a blue water navy operate some types in that role most notably the Archer, River and Scimitar class. Arguably the River class especially HMS Clyde start blurring the line with small Corvette but nevertheless they suit a niche.

    Fedaykin

    Aint you describing an OPV?

    Active defence of your coastline, using the coastline to shadow an approach before racing out to deploy something like an anti ship missile at a larger attacking vessel.

    Wouldnt flying (or underwater) hardware be much better at doing that?

    Cheers

    Sintra
    Participant

    Can a swarm of fast attack craft replace large escorts?. I’d say the answer is yes they can, but, its entirely contingent on your definition of what makes a Fast Attack Craft and what you class as a swarm.

    All the problems have been well covered on the thread already….such as self-deployment…FAC’s traditionally dont do too well anywhere above Sea State 4….open ocean transit is right out. UK rules dictate 90m minimum hull length for tolerable pitch response in oceanic waters. Then there are the problems of weapons or sensors but not both in the hull and rotary air, the invaluable asset for looking OTH, is right out. Then you have endurance, habitability and even things like durability. Small hulls tend to suffer from pounding effects more heavily than larger hulls so you have increased shock loads on electronics, missiles, nerves etc!.

    There is a way around this though…..that would be semi-SWATH and the Fast Sea Frame. The US’s FSF-1 Sea Fighter. Even modified (as per diagram below) you have a hull thats at most tipping in at ballpark $180mn if built in numbers. Seeing that a major fleet unit like a Flight IIA Burke averages about $1.8bn according to the US Congress you are looking, rule-of-thumb, at a 10-1 ratio of Sea Fighters to Burkes. I’m not sure is 10 is exactly a swarm, but, you would likely deploy more than a single Burke at a time so, if you were deploying three Burkes, that makes 30 Sea Fighters!. Much more swarm-like!.

    It is stretching things calling a 79m hull a fast attack craft I suppose but if modified similar to this:

    http://img19.imageshack.us/img19/5545/fsf1x.png

    …its definitely got the potential to take the sensor and weapon fits required. The diagram there has it with a very limited modification moving the bridge superstructure forwards to add a raised VLS deckhouse. New kit is a pair of Millennium guns forward, 4 self-defence length VLS modules and a pair of Hitrole-G turrets on the aft quarters. A new 3D TI radar and directors for the guns would be spotted otherwise its the same as the experimental hull on trial now.

    Dependent on role the missile decks either side of the VLS deckhouse could take angled SSM launchers or IAI Jumper or MBDA Sea Spear missile packs etc. Plus you have the mission bay to garage a pair of 11m USV’s or even, perhaps, a pair of Finnish NEMO mortar LCP’s and still have room for couple of radar-carrying MQ-8B’s.

    With 10 hulls in your per-Burke flotilla you could have 2 with an ASW fit with a 2087 type towed array containerised deploying out of the bay door with operator vans in the bay itself. Maybe this mission role has an RN Bay style aircraft shelter and supports an organic Merlin class helicopter. You have 2 configured for surface action with two or four quad SSM mounts, a pair of 11m USV’s and a pair of MQ-8B’s in the bay, plus another 2 configured for anti-swarm with 4 6-pack Sea Spear launchers in place of the SSM’s on each beam. Then the final 4 in the flotilla embarking the mortar LCP’s plus 4 Jumper missile packs per side in place of the SSMs.

    There is not much chance of doing area air defence without the kind of radar array that these size hulls wont support. What these hulls can embark though is an Artisan class 3D TI radar and FLAADS or a point weapon like VL MICA/Umkhonto. FLAADS offering quadpack and horizon range coverage, but, even VL MICA is going to put 32×10 active SAMs in the immediate region of the flotilla. Thats going to soak up a lot of antiship missile fire.

    With FLAADS, conceivably, thats 128 missiles per ship and, over the 10 Sea Fighters replacing the one Burke, means that you are deploying 1200+ horizon range SAMs instead of 80 or so SM-2’s. Long range area air defence perhaps a bit irrelevant?.

    So you have, instead of your Burke, a self-deploying 4000nm-ranged flotilla of vessels capable of deploying a pair of large ASW choppers, at least 8 radar-equipped MQ-8Bs for persistent theatre surveillance, 8 11m USV’s, 8 NEMO-LCP’s, up to 32 medium SSMs, 96 short range SSMs, 250+ short range land attack missiles and, at least, 300 potentially over 1000 short range SAMs plus 20 Millennium guns and another 20 50cal gatlings. Team all that up with an UNREP vessel with a decent sized flight deck and hangar for 3 or 4 more large helo’s and I think there is an interesting expeditionary capability there!.

    Jonesy, excelent text, but is it me or you´ve just described the LCS program including the capability creep and the costs escalation?! 😀

    Sintra
    Participant

    Hmm good point, so the only way to hide it or to make it effective would be to have the “swarm” already in the waters? like patrol boats that can go to a certain location?

    Yes, that could do the trick. In a scenario in wich you create a normal presence for months/years of a lot of smallcrafts on a small parcel of water at the same time… That could indeed do the trick, but only once.
    This topic is an interesting one, i´ve recently read a series of texts (some of them in the “Torre do Tombo”, the Portuguese National Archive) written around the end of the 19th century by naval officers (Portuguese and British) that discussed the “Big Ship versus the small attack craft”, and a great big chunk of the of the topics are still pertinent today.

    Look at this “modern” weapon, it could appear on some magazine describing the latest Iranian “wunderweapon”, could it not? 🙂
    http://www.cityofart.net/bship/torpedo_frame_c1876.jpg

    Cheers

    Sintra
    Participant

    What would the range of the missiles on those helicopters be?

    8 km´s if we are talking of THALES LMM, around 30 km´s if we are talking about MBDA Brimstone

    how many surface combatants could they track do you think?

    Around 80 within a 100 NM radii.

    Also how long could they be on station to find a bunch of boats spread out over a few tens of miles

    One hour and a half to two hours, but that question is a bit irrelevant, a swarming naval attack is preceded by literaly dozens and dozens of small craft leaving ports at the same time, that kind of movement is detected by a number of other means.

    Cheers

    Sintra
    Participant

    Yes, literally hundreds. FAC’s were quite successful in both World Wars, for starters.

    Well, main armament of most today’s missile boats are exact same missiles used by frigates & cruisers….

    It’s not the lack of offensive power, but staying power, which is the issue.

    Staying power and sensors (lack off).

    An interesting side discussion is whats the utility of this class of ships in today´s world?
    They are entirely green water pieces of hardware, in open waters their utility is zero, the staying power is almost nill, and the word “Fast” could be well aplied to 1912, but in 2012, 40 or 50 knots is snail speed. Doesnt this entire class utility been entirely taken by flying pieces of hardware?
    And before someone thinks something like “but in WWII…”, the obvious answer is in WWII there were not PGM´s (well, sort off).
    For all the bruah that Lt. Gen. Paul K. Van Riper got at “Millennium Challenge 2002” with swarming tactics, i can only imagine how that scenario would end up with only a few of these (below) at hand:

    http://media.defenseindustrydaily.com/images/ORD_LMM_FASGW-L_AW159-SCMR_and_AH1_Apache_Thales-UK_lg.jpg

    Cheers

    in reply to: Typhoons evenly matched with F-22's #2342530
    Sintra
    Participant

    What did I say in the last paragraph?

    What kind of warhead does the Aim-9 have? :rolleyes:

    Your are becoming frustrating.

    That doesnt discount the fact that he´s correct, an ASTER, a Meteor, a Starstreak will look for a direct hit, the detonation will be on impact (or milisseconds before it).

    in reply to: Typhoons evenly matched with F-22's #2342576
    Sintra
    Participant

    Therefore, without detonation, the missile will naturally pass behind the aircraft.

    .

    No.
    Try such a trick with almost any recent AAM or SAM and you are going to receive a phisical direct hit.

    in reply to: Typhoons evenly matched with F-22's #2344498
    Sintra
    Participant

    Not too long ago, armies used to be composed of spearmen who stood shoulder to shoulder and advanced towards their enemies. Fortunately, tactics and weapons have changed.

    Not too long ago?!
    You mean that 27 April, 1522 was recent?

    in reply to: TAI pimped up F-16 v HAF pimped up F-16 #2349640
    Sintra
    Participant

    This topic smells of “Flame baiting” 100 miles away…

Viewing 15 posts - 2,026 through 2,040 (of 3,443 total)