PhelganGordie isn’t the sort of bloke to order something in July, then cancel it in October. He tends to be somewhat inflexible, unlike his predecessor. Orders for long-lead items have been signed in the last couple of weeks.
No, I think the carriers are safe. But I can’t say the same for anything that hasn’t yet been ordered.
Long-lead ordering doesn’t make a great deal of difference. It didn’t help CVA-01….
Phelgan…germany ist the 14th biggest world population and the 3th largest world econemy.
What does you mean? Does the UK still trying to rule the world (after U.S) ?
having a strong navy=ruling the world?
Many countries gets more and more powerful (most of them from asia) and i think it´s okay and important to try to consolidat with other European navies to build an strong Europe against other regions or countries.
And who controls this wonderful super navy of the future? Do you see the French agreeing to send a task force to the Falklands (perhaps if they could get an exocet sale out of out…:diablo: )?
The rest of Europe has been no different from the UK in degrading its capabilities for decades – letting the US take most of the strain during the cold war. Do you really thing a combined European fleet will be anything more than a glorified coastal force, perhaps with a token unit or two to support the US?
PhelganOh and Hawk: Mate why call your self Hawkdriver and have pics of Eagles in formation 😉
The question I’ve always wanted to ask:D
PhelganMinor piece of information Logan, the Mk.41 can fire the Harpoon according to a Boeing feasibility study ,but a fully integrated firing system has not been developed. The first user prepared to pay the costs will get this feature plus future royalties but so far no takers.
I asked whether Harpoon could be launched from VLS and now I have the answer. Would there be any benefits, apart from some deck space saved (no dedicated launchers?
Regards,
P
PhelganA Yak-141 derivative, perhaps?
Is that still being kicked around?
PhelganSuch a ship is optimised for supporting ground forces and amphibious ops in areas where sea and air superiority has been established sufficiently to allow combined naval-land operations. So the ship can be pretty basic (read cheap), doesn’t need to be especially fact (c.18knots to keep pace with modern amphibs and commercial vessels) and would require no more than CIWS for self defence, such as a Phalanx on either beam. Basically a modern interpretation of the WW1 and WW2 monitor, a cheap and disposable means of getting heavy fire power into position to support the army and marines, no more.
I don’t think it has to be quite so narrowly focussed. Uses in anti-piracy, anti-trafficing have already been mentioned, but perhaps also in limited military operations, such as strikes against terrorist camps/facilities or even a “conventional” opponents infrastructure, or similar to Israeli naval operations against Hezbollah/Lebanon – and in that case I’d think I’d keep the RAM 🙂
PhelganTyphoons on a 25,000 tonne CV
Curious piece on Navy Matters (http://navy-matters.beedall.com/jca1-1.htm)
The UK was not the only potential customer for a navalised Typhoon, Eurofighter GmbH (the consortium which builds and sells Typhoon) is reported to have briefed the Italian Navy during 2000 about a low-cost, reduced weight, arrestor landing/angled deck variant of the Typhoon that could operate from the Italian Navy’s new 25,000 tonnes carrier, Conte di Cavour, which is due to enter service in 2006/7. The company has also offered another customer (probably India) a “more radically modified naval version of the aircraft”, presumably the STOBAR variant studied for the UK.
Doesn’t go into how many they might have embarked….
PhelganIs there any chance that the British might build a new model Harrier? and if so, what improvements would you like to see?
The chance for that passed in the early 1990’s. The attached is a BAe concept for a Harrier III shown at Farnborough way back in 1990. Problem was they didn’t think that the development costs would be much less than being involved in the JSF (in hindsight, technology transfer might have less of a hot potato!) as it would have involved a radical reworking if it was to have performance remotely comparable to JSF concepts.
From a national perspective it should have been considered (I don;t think it even made any of the early JCA studies), but there you go.
Our history of selling aircraft recently hasn’t been so good either, so not sure how much export potential it would have had, especially in competition with an F35 with a larger domestic home order (and discounting any chicanery wrt US-technology in the airframe).
Of course, this thread has perhaps highlighted a market for a simplier (read “less capable”) VSTOL than F35, so may be a design aiming for something less developed (reduced stealth features?) would have had a niche after all…..
PhelganTo be honest, the best bet would be to simply build a catamaran hull, and park a GMLRS on it, delivering accurate fire, out to a decent distance. If you go with a flat topped Cat, as has been mooted by Austal et al, then you could add in UAVs like the Hermes 900 or even Predator, and have the ability to park a few helos as well, as needed. A 125m Cat, with a flat deck, would be able to carry two dozen light UAVs, a pair of light helos (e.g. Eurocopter Squirrels), and carry a pair of MLRS launchers. Ammunition wise, it should be able to carry, say, 12 ATACMS (12 pods), 288 GMLRS (48 pods), a few hundred Hellfire or Viper Strike, and enough fuel for all of these, for a few days ops. This would be ideally suited to a lot of peace enforcement operations, e.g. British forces in Iraq. You could park a couple of these near wherever you’re operating, and they would be able to keep an eye on things. They would actually be very useful for naval interdiction missions, e.g. the anti-piracy and counter-terror operations in the Horn of Africa.
I agree with the MRLS, but adding in flight ops would push the costs up and away from the cheap. If you’re going to park airframes on it, the pressure to protect that investment will lead to add-on defensive systems.
A single chopper, marine complement and a couple of Ribs might be better. For anti-terror/piracy a good old fashioned gun of some sort (76mm?). An OPV with MRLS?
Phelganhttp://www.domain-b.com/aero/Aug/2007/20070825_build.htm
Russia to build six nuclear aircraft carriers
25 August 2007Russian Admiral Vladimir Masorin recently said his fleet would get six new nuclear powered aircraft carriers in the next 20 years, in a path breaking increase and modernisation of the country’s maritime power. While three carrier groups would be assigned to the Pacific fleet, the remainder would serve with the northern fleet in European waters.
Masorin also said Russia should establish a permanent naval presence in the Mediterranean, to protect its strategic interests in the area. He had earlier announced Russia was building new bases in its Far East territory for surface ships and missile-armed submarines.
While there is the factor of the Russian parliamentary elections this December and the presidential elections in March 2008 behind the sabre rattling, Russia’s plans for a stronger navy seem serious.
Russian President Vladimir Putin said on 18 August that the Russian air force would resume regular, long-range patrols by nuclear-capable bombers over the world’s oceans, including the Pacific, after a 15-year span.
Russia’s oil and gas exports are now fetching record prices, and financing the country’s military modernisation, along with arms sales to China, India and other big buyers. The ongoing US-Russian impasse over a proposed missile shield in Eastern Europe seems to be behind Russia’s announcing these major hikes in its military budget.
The widening gulf between the two nations comes as Russia seeks to parlay its hydrocarbon wealth into an expanded role on the world stage and recently made claims to Arctic which may contain huge resources of natural gas.
Me thinks they are optimistic. Not just 6 carriers (and presumably and expansion of the escort fleet to protect them), but nuclear-powered as well? Okay, “they” have built nuclear-powered ships before, but seem to be trying to jump the scales a bit. Of course it could just be balony 🙂
PhelganWell, if the Japanese purchase the landbased F-35A. Will the F-35B be more or less be a given for the JMSDF?:rolleyes:
You’re not on commision are you? 🙂
Phelgan[QUOTE=TinWing;1156004]
Nobody has suggested navalising the Hawk 200. The suggestion was navalising the in-production Hawk 120 series, & perhaps producing a single seater version, which would bear the same relationship to the in-production Hawk 120 as the Hawk 200 did to the Hawk 100. [/QUOTE
Oh, pardon me.
You are still talking about burdening the T-45 with all of the weight from the late production Hawk?
Keep in mind that the T-45 is already far heavier than the Hawk 60 that was based on, and if you add in the additional structural and avionicsweight of the Hawk 100 or LIFT, you would have a tremendously heavy combat aircraft of very limited performance, but with huge development and production costs.
Yes, that is precisely what I am suggesting. Would the Indonesians have purchased the Hawk 200 if further F-16 sales hadn’t been embargoed?
As a fighter, the Hawk is dramatically inferior to the old Hunter, and even inferior to the A-4. The range of the Hawk is limited, the weapons load is limited, but the initial unit price was startlingly high.
To the contrary, the L-159 program has failed for many good and sufficient reasons. The L-39 started life as a very limited performance basic trainer, and the same aerodynamics have limited the performance of the far more expensive and complex L-159. Production has ended, and the Czech government is quite correct in removing most of the fleet from service for disposal.
The L-159 represents a dead end.
Given the limited pool of apparantly suitable aircraft, the choice would be more out of “best of a bad bunch” than inherently good qualities. Whether that would defeat the point of the operation in the first place…. (how badly would someone want to build a small CTOL carrier?).
Saab has apparently made design studies, and even announed in 2006 that a model would be shown at Farnborough – although no such model has been seen in public.
However, there is no conceivable export customer for a navalized Gripen, short of a very unexpected turn of heart in India.
CVF after another tech-transfer debacle?:diablo:
Okay, UK government wouldn’t have the guts to cancel F35B, but if they did would Gripen have a shout? I suspect, given the money already invested in F35B, it would be more likely to be a Rafale.
The naval LCA remains an unlikely prospect as well. Assuming the LCA program ever gets on track, export sales prospects appear limited because of the relatively high costs, limited capabilities and generally poor reputation.
It is also clear that the various N-LCA models shown over the years have featured a series of aerodynamic modifications, reflecting the unsuitably high approach speed of the basic LCA and other negative attributes for carrier operations. In short, the transformation from the LCA to the N-LCA will not be simple, cheap, quick or free from risk.
Its a shame really as this was a chance for India to develop something a bit unique and perhaps establish itself as a defence supplier.
PhelganI thought this was a naval aviation forum?
I guess subs “fly” through the water? :confused:
Nice pics though….
There’s got to be a development proposal in there somewhere…
PhelganSorry Matey but the RN has been doing it for many many years (single ship deployments) and fully operational T42’s have been doing it, been there seen that as they say and T45’s will be doing it too as it is also showing the flag which is still a big thing for not just the RN but the UK around the world. I expect T45’s will be sent off to the far east soon as they go operational on their own. It is a good bit of kit and best shown off to those around that the RN can still go anywhere on the high seas. Don’t forget T42’s did knock the stealth out of the USAF in the first Gulf War and that was using old techno stuff, they are still very capable units but getting old as you say due to there very much over use over the years, many units have done multi back to back trips away unlike many other both RN and NATO units. I suspect the T45’s with their expected increased availablity be doing the same, lets watch and see OK. 😉
I’d be surprised, nto because of they’re high-value/tech units, which obviously would be good advertising (but no one could afford?), but because
with so few units I’d expect them to be tied up with duties relating to the Amphibous and CV force.
PhelganCommon misconception. Ask anyone in the Argentine Navy if they felt menaced by the presence of RN SSN’s off their coast in 82!. Now that an SSN can precisley place a 1000lb warhead anywhere across hundreds of miles of territory with scant warning the SSN, to anyone without an evolved ASW capability, is a very considerable menace.
For the side deploying the submarine its even better because the vessel doesnt even actually need to be off the target coast to make the threat. It just needs not to be seen anywhere else for a week or so!.
Perhaps, but the Argentinian Navy felt confident enough that a SSN wasn’t there to launch the invasion. Of course, she knew there wasn’t a surface vessel of note to contest the landings, but if an SSN had been there? By not being visible it had failed in the deterrent stakes anyway.
The addition of a TLAM capability would give the T45 a secondary ability in this regard, not necessarily while operating as part of a CVBG (or amphibous group) – of course given that they may never get nos 7 and 8, I don’t suppose they’ll be doing many single ship deployments.
I agree that when it comes to the shooting, the sub is a better option, but given the number of SSN the RN has/will have, a few extra TLAM-capable hulls won’t go amiss.
Sign In
