nocutstoRAFSurely the best way to deal with the problem of misinterpretation is to have a unique platform for the Nuclear attack role. If the UK went with nuclear cruise missiles I think they should be confined to a nuclear-powered guided missile cruiser (which would need to be built) and/or to stealthy strategic bombers (also need to be built), obviously at this point the option is horribly expensive and we revert back to a replacement for Trident 😀
nocutstoRAFA larger RN once had nightmares with a bunch of Exocet. Now, at least in terms of technology, the armed forces are light-years more advanced than back then.
But the rivals also have got better stuff in most cases, and this shouldn’t be happily overlooked every time.
While I admire your passion for the RN to be adequately equipped is there not a danger of turning this thread into a RN versus Venezuela shouting match? I have seen similar things happen with Falklands threads.
Can we not just conclude that the RN needs more kit but is pretty better than 90% of the world’s Navies? Yes it is a shame the retired Sea Harrier, and it is shame that the GR7/9’s do not carry radar. It will be interesting (in the meaning of the Chinese Proverb) to see what happens with Harrier post SDSR – I suspect that the RAF might try to transfer ownership so that the high operating costs fall on the FAA, the question becomes then if FAA gets ownership is there anything they can afford to do to remedy the lack of a radar.
As for Venezuela, I am more worried about Venezuela causing an arm’s race in South America and a more assertive Venezuela causing trouble in the Caribbean than them backing up Argentina.
nocutstoRAFFor the “new production Harrier II” crowd…
13 years since the last new whole airframes were produced, and 7 years since the last new airframe components were produced
All the subcontractors who built the airframe components have long since gone to building other things….
Sigh – I kinda knew that, but it still seems to me that there is still a market for a basic STOL fighter given the fact that the US is a) going to be careful who they allow to buy the F-35B and b) the cost of modern top spec planes is out of a lot of buyer’s pockets.
nocutstoRAFFrom what I was reading today the con’s of delaying for five years are mainly due to having to pay to keep key skilled staff which is offset by needing to carryout life extension if they want to delay. On the other hand it would synchronise Trident replacement with Ohio replacement which rather handy! Now if I can find the pesky link again to the story so that I can actually back up what I have said.
nocutstoRAFThere would be some continuation of skills as they would need to spend between £0.75 – £1 billion on life extension if they where to delay decision for 5 years.
nocutstoRAFThe bit that is logical is that is to late to change QE to CATOBAR if they where planning to.
It is also logical to assume they are not going to both operate F-35B and C due to the cost, though I would like to see both and a larger navy with the two CVF’s and one or two LHD’s.
Could Richard Beedell have some inside information? Does he have the kind of background that would see him consulted on SDSR?
nocutstoRAFI would think any project to restart Harrier poduction would require Boeing support. A significant proportion of Harrier II structure came from MACAIR (now Boeing).
Whilst there has been significant new structure work for the US AV8B remanufacturing program new build is another kettle of fish. I would think Boeing is in the Business of trying to sell new Super Hornet so it isn’t going to help make new Harriers financially attractive.
As for Bae Systems they would see any Harrier II construction as eating into potential F35 work…
Anyway, about Harrier modernization ideas, they are old: in 1990 BAe had proposed the “Harrier III” and there was even suggestion of a largely re-engineered Super Harrier.
The reason I asked is, beyond a study which appears to be in excess of 20 years ago no-one appears to have looked at the possibility of new build Harriers for a while, and it seems timely to look at it again. All the talks about F-35B have made me realise that there are a number of countries where a STOL fighter would be of benefit, but who are unlikely to be considered for the F-35B. As I see it two of the benefits of STOL are the ability to operate smallish carriers and to be able to deploy to FOB’s in the event an enemy launch’s all out attack to cripple your infrastructure with ballistic or cruise missiles. There is a reasonable sized un-tapped market and if Boeing and BAE could get one core order they could likely have a good opportunity for exports.
For example if the USMC was to accept that they will not get F-35B’s in service by 2012 they could order a small number of new Harriers to replace some of the older Harriers reaching the end of their service lives, likewise if UK follows the “road map” as laid out in the editorial on Navy Matters then it makes sense to buy new built Harriers rather than F-35B’s for QE and then if the idea is go CATOBAR with PoW they can choose F-35C then. Then once there was an initial order, we could try to sell them to Middle Eastern countries (like Saudi Arabia) who would not get F-35B, and be unlikely to be sold a ballistic missile defence system but who face an potential enemy who is building up their ballistic missile capabilities.
Alternatively if BAE could pitch a 30,000 – 40,000 tonne carrier based around an air group of Harrier’s as well as smaller LHD with Harrier’s as there seems to be a reasonable market there, especially if you are going to transfer technology like the recent Brazil deal http://www.janes.com/news/defence/jni/jni100916_1_n.shtml
My main doubts would be that changes to the air craft, such as introducing new materials, adding a more power APU to power the AESA radar, digital FBW, ORST, and the ECM systems, possible a more powerful engine, and the urge on the part of Boeing to tweak the aerodynamics based on lessoned learned during the JSF competition would result in enough changes that they would have to go through a full expensive development and testing programme. In addition in I would expect it to be hard for BAE to sell the smaller carrier without building one to prove it operationally, and I cannot see in the current situation that the UK would build a third small carrier just so that BAE could get export sales.
nocutstoRAFCan I ask a dumb question – I know there has been lots of discussion of refurbishing Harrier’s but has a study been done in say the last 10 years of how much it would cost to do a limited run of new build Harriers and if so did it ever make it into the public? Also was there any consideration given to transferring the technology to India or Thailand so they could re-capitalise their Harrier fleets?
nocutstoRAF2. The FY2011 F-35Bs were only $14 mill more than the F-35As and were much cheaper than the F-35Cs (but this was the first year for the Cs). The JPO has said that the B&C models will be about the same in price.
While I will wait until the contract is actually signed to completely believe it, but LM said recently “Burbage stuck to the company’s line that the final price of the airplanes will be roughly 20 percent below Pentagon estimates from December 2009, which predicted the jets would costs as much as $76 million each in 2010 dollars”.
That makes the price roughly $61 million a plane if you reduce the price by 20% in 2010 dollars, I suspect this is the average for the entire LRIP and that the F-35A will be cheaper than this and the F-35B is more expensive, but it does suggest the price difference between the F-35 and the F/A-18 will be marginal.
nocutstoRAFI hate to break this to you, but if you are fighting the Pakistan Armed Forces, technically that means you are at war with Pakistan.
While I was not going to comment too much on the Pakistan scenario as it obviously an issue that is close to your heart, to be fair the suggestion in the scenario is that there is a civil war in Pakistan with elements of the military refusing to obey the legitimate government following an election to resolve military rule.
In that particular scenario, what is in effect a civil war, if the legitimate Government of Pakistan asked for assistance then it seems a reasonable response for the UN to assist and UK to be an important part of it.
Why there might be a re-instatement of military rule or how likely it is, is something I neither qualified or comfortable talking about.
nocutstoRAFThe scenario’s are rather exaggerated IMO – take the Uganda one – sure there are going to be resource shortages but it basically suggests that in response to a possibility of nationalisation of business set up in Uganda to supply UK’s mineral and food needs, combined with riots against the embassy that the government has failed to curtail, we overthrow the government of Uganda and put in a military dictatorship (thereby inferring that the previous government was democratically elected).
nocutstoRAFI particularly liked the Uganda scenario – it seems to be right out of the colonial power hand book – prop up a African government, buy all their food and minerals cheap, when they wobble, send in a show of power followed by a nice military coup and everyone goes home for tea (apart from the previous government who all end up shot or in exile in Cuba). As far I can tell the author is stuck in the 1960’s 😀 – still it is interesting in terms of the range of operations and how ready the UK is for them.
nocutstoRAFAn interesting article in the Telegraph outlining four possible future conflict secanrio’s and how ready the UK will be for them:
nocutstoRAFIn all seriousness are we not more likely in the future to need either different or, even better, an additional nuclear deterrent? Iran’s slow, sure and likely unstoppable acquisition is going to open the door to everyone having them.
At that point I would like the option of having a deterrent we can wave in our foes faces (yes it would be on the basis of my one is bigger and better than yours), submarines invisibly deployed under the Artic ice sheet are not quite as impressive (though a lot surer) than the PM ordering the Nuclear Strike Squadron to embark on QE to rain hot nuclear death on any jumped up dictator with a modified scud with a crude nuke attached who thinks that one of our overseas territories would make a nice addition and that we will not defend them as “the tin pot dictator” has managed to scrape together a kilo of weapons grade uranium wrapped in plastic explosives and ballistic missile system from the 70’s to launch them.
While this is an argument for why we still need a continuous deterrent at sea, it is also an argument for the UK to get its own version of ASMP because unless you are Russia (or possibly China) you are not necessarily going to be able to verify that our subs are at sea.
nocutstoRAFWell over on Think Defence the suggestion is that the decision to move Trident into the core defence budget is a cunning way of filling the Liberal Democrats pledge to avoid a like for like replacement of Trident while stopping the more right wing Conservatives from rebelling.
http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2010/09/back-door-disarmament/
Personally I think it is slightly more clever than that – Conservatives know if they win the next election they will do so without the Liberals, and at that point their own back benchers will expect Trident replacement to go ahead and then the Treasury will cover the costs.
However saying all that I think it certainly worth looking at who is deterred by the nuclear deterrent and what their capabilities will likely be over the next 20 years to decide what is the best system. For example will the French and German policy of engagement with Russia pay off, will Russia eventually become a key ally of EC – who knows (I think it is unlikely, but maybe we will see Dassault and Sukhoi team up for French-Russian 6th Generation fighter project in the future).
Sign In
