nocutstoRAFInteresting post – I think the best ways to deal with the situation are:
1)
Set up Somali coast guard, been tried before but did not work due to problems paying the coast guard. Also you would need to make sure the equipment you supplied did not end up in pirates hands. But if everyone clubbed together and brought dozen or so of swift ships patrol boats, and paid a salary to every coast guard of say $10,000 a year, you could at least train up a coat guard that could deter the pirates.
You would also need to regenerate the economy in the region, as this is also a major factor in turning pirate.
2)
Move away from using destroyers and frigates for anti-piracy work, what you need is a “mother ship” carrying lots of small boats, such as the CB 90, with good aviation capability. Use the helicopters to spot the pirate boats, then use CB 90’s to board. Unless actively engaged in piracy, or on if the crew are on a wanted list, simply confiscate all the weapons, and photograph all the crew. Next time if you catch them with weapons, take them into custody and sink their boat.
3)
Pass a UN resolution to allow the pirates to be tried under international law. To avoid jurisdictional issues, I would be tempted to set up a UN sanctioned enclave on the Somali coast guard by AU or UN forces, with a prison complex. Obviously the down side of this is it would create a visible presence for the war lords to attack, and may create a situation where they take ships to force the release of the prisoners.
4)
If you want a gun-ho solution (and therefore almost certainly doomed to fail) you could simply undertake the largest amphibious assault since WWII and sweep the main coastal towns where the pirates are based, clearing out the various gangs out of the towns. Of course I would hate to see the body count on this one, I think the NATO death toll in a few days would be coming in around the same as Afghanistan for a year.
nocutstoRAFThe Typhoon is not a great design for navalisation. You can find more about it here:
http://navy-matters.beedall.com/jca1-1.htm
Basically we studied it for STOBAR and decided against it.
nocutstoRAFI think that they will likely re-run SAR-H and add a requirement to the tender for fixed wing SAR top cover, and cover ASW from existing assets, I guess that the Beechcraft or a Dassault Falcon would come out top then. Otherwise I agree with Al over S-3’s though I understood the S-3’s have reached their limits for cat and trap cycles.
Though I question if we will get anything (even though they are back tracking now to suggest MRA4 was cancelled due to the amount it would cost to bring in service not the running costs) as they need Kinloss for bring back the Army from Germany.
The only other option I see is us agreeing joint operation of the Atlantiques with France, where we get one or two rotated through UK bases for top cover and to cover submarine transits, with mixed Anglo-French crew. If this happens I rather that we lease 10 Atlantiques from France, and give Dassault the maintenance deal, and agree to upgrade them in France to French standards. That would leave France with another 10 for their use, and 6 for spares for both fleets.
nocutstoRAFMaybe we can do a swap – some of our T1 Typhoon’s for your two Holland class OPV’s?
P.S. hope this does not come across to flippant, reduction in our respective armed forces is wrong, we are about to enter 10 – 20 years of unrest and Europe has decided that military spending is one area where the can definitely cut further. I find myself optimistically hoping that we buy refurbished S-3’s or P-3C from US to fill the gap left by cancelling MRA4, in the sure knowledge we will never be able to afford P-8’s.
nocutstoRAFThanks Swerve for outlining the key reason why we made the switch, and a point IMO that the AFM article failed to grasp (that CATOBAR gives us more options, even if it does have higher through life costs due to training)
nocutstoRAFI must admit I was rather surprised that they were also developing an Anti-Air variant, is this just for the international market, or an admission that we should have built more Type 45’s?
nocutstoRAFU.K., Canada Discuss Joint Frigate Development
http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=5593035&c=EUR&s=SEA
Also see here for details of the three variants (Anti-Submarine, GP and Anti-Air) of the Global Combat Ship – best to look at it after reading the news story.
http://www.baesystems.com/Businesses/SurfaceShips/PlatformsandProgrammes/GlobalCombatShip/index.htm
nocutstoRAFIgnoring the lack of performance of Orion P-3C even against Nimrod MR2, but would we be complaining now if the MoD had gone for 21 P-3C’s (using Pakistan as a guide, would have cost $2.5 billion)? Was the problem with MRA4 more about the fact that we wanted cutting edge performance and we did not have any good options if we wanted the level of performance promised by MRA4?
nocutstoRAFPossibly, but whenever I read something by those who worked on MRA4 they always describe the P8 as an inferior aircraft, and I assume “senior military sources” would agree.
I am not sure there are enough decent P-3’s left, and why wait three years, plus we want something with a good and relatively cheap support network and P3’s are just borrowing trouble. Given commonality in some of the systems can we recycle kit from the MRA4’s on any possible P8 purchase?
nocutstoRAFAre all the discussions of 12 out of 22 Chinook’s about additional numbers above an additional 14?
Answering my own post is likely the first sign of madness, but after a lot of research I am shocked to conclude that Flight Global made a mistake, the author of the article obviously got confused by the 12 new Chinook’s that are meant to be on order from 2009 and the previous order for 14 which has now been completed (and includes the 8 Chinook’s rebuilt to factory specifications as we could not certify their airworthiness).
Any more news on the Sea King’s retirement or the SAR-H programme?
nocutstoRAFI know that this is a thread about Sea King’s not Chinook’s was reading the Flight Global story on Project Julius and at the tail end is reference to 14 Chinook’s under contract – is this correct? Are all the discussions of 12 out of 22 Chinook’s about additional numbers above an additional 14?
nocutstoRAFThe JULIUS upgrade of the Chinook to HC4 standard is definitely safe, i think.
I think I may have not be clear in my points – I think JULIUS upgrade is safe, but as it going to cost a good chunk of money over the next 4 -5 years I cannot see them paying to upgrade 46 Chinook’s and buying another 12, it seems like to big a expenditure, especially if they are downsizing the army after Afghanistan.
Question, how much is true i.e. is there a gap between what is being saved and what was expected? They may get the nature of the cuts wrong, but I for one wouldn’t be surprised if more did come along.
I am sure there is no doubt that some of the cuts where a bit hazy in the SDSR so that now we are having to cut further than expected to make budget’s balance, but if you take all of the recent Telegraph stories we are apparently going to end up with 50 tanks, 200 odd Warriors which will not be upgraded until the end of the decade, no FRES SV or FRES Utility, many other army vehicles deleted or mothballs, 60 Tornado’s, reduced surface fleet and a massive drop in helicopter numbers.
nocutstoRAFPuma cancelled, 12 Chinooks confirmed (i think it would be hugely embarrassing to try and cancel the Chinook order, for obvious reasons…). Doing the opposite would be the greatest idiocy EVER.
Read the story – usual Daily Telegraph speculation, while they have about 40% success rate on guess cuts, so I do not think all the cuts will occur. I think the major driver to cutting the Chinook’s is the Chinook upgrade programme we have just started which is costing a pretty penny, combined with rumours floating around that both Sea King for SAR and Sea King MaSC are going to get life extended to take them into the next decade.
I would therefore not be surprised if they upgrade Puma and the Sea Kings, and leave the Merlin’s with the RAF to compensate for them loosing the extra Chinooks, and look to new helicopter programme around 2022 (which I would expect to be more Merlin’s).
nocutstoRAFIn terms for value for money and risks then IMO that an upgrade of the Sea King’s is the best way forward.
It is low risk as they have already, via UOR developed special Carson blades for the Sea Kings and a new tail rotor, and Carson Helicopters have done the hard work on the replacement engines and everything is off the shelf.
Therefore the sensible option would be to bin the Puma upgrade, leave the Merlin’s as is and upgrade Sea King, as it looks to me that converting the Merlin’s would be more expensive and higher risk.
However factors against this are as follows:
nocutstoRAFI am no expert but surely for the HC3 you will also need to change the rotors, and if they are doing a full life extension they will need to do the wiring, rebuild the engines and make changes to the cockpit and avionics (for example they will need to integrate cockpit aids for the ALS). Then on top of this you need to add lash points and other structural changes to allow you to stow the HC3 on Ocean.
Plus the RN Sea Kings already have Carson blades fitted (just found this out)!
Sign In
