nocutstoRAFJust to be controversial – but as far as I am concerned having nuclear weapons is good but it does not matter if you need to launch 10 nuclear missiles to score one guaranteed hit or 2, the value is in possessing them. Therefore I much rather have less capable nuclear deterrent and have the money pumped into conventional forces, quite frankly the RN is too small and personally I feel a lot happier if they used the $5 billion of the $20 billion for Trident replacement, moved away from a continuous deterrent, to ensure the two CVF’s are built and they can field two whole air wings
nocutstoRAFGreedy would be wanting your F-35 operational by 2018 🙂
But perhaps an off-the-shelf alternative capability for modernizing your anti-ship deterrence could include mating your GR4 launch platform w/ a modified, air-launched, supersonic ‘diving’ SM-6? (minus the booster). Maybe a configuration equipped with say a dual AGM-88E seeker + added IIR seeker (of the SM-2 IIIB)? Not sure how feasible… but anyway, just my 2 explosive cents..
Being greedy would be wanting the F-35’s in service by 2016 🙂
Assuming when you mean SM-6 you are referring to ERAM, then your plan sounds capable but rather expensive and sadly the UK Government is squeezing every last penny until it squeaks, so as far as an off the shelf solution we will be lucky if they buy the Joint Strike Missile (or the SDB II, or any of the other weapons currently being cleared for the F-35 🙁 )
nocutstoRAFI might be overplaying the capabilities of CIWS (suspect I am as Norway is happy with NSM and Sweden with RBS-15, both high sub-sonic) but it seems to me that modern CIWS are increasingly capable of dealing with current anti-shipping missiles, and one way of defeating them is super-sonic sea skimming missiles.
Given the draw down of subs in the RN it would be nice to have the ability to threaten an enemy task force with either a torpedo launched by an Astute class submarine or by F-35 launched anti-ship missile. I guess I am just greedy 😀
nocutstoRAFTrouble is: who gives anyone the money for all this?
Navy gets all F35B simply because there will never be enough of them, it seems. I hope no less than 70 are acquired, but it is not an easy bet to make, so we must be careful with the daydreaming.
As to switching back to air launched deterrence, it would end up costing 3 times the submarines if the Uk started building castles in the air with stealth bombers, air tankers to give them range, and supersonic cruise nuclear-tipped missiles.
At the most, we’d be looking at an half-assed air launched deterrent made up by a nuclear cruise missile, probably subsonic, and nothing more.
It would be a saving in terms of money, but it would be laughable a deterrent to say the very, very least.
– While budgets are in theory transferable between services I think it would be difficult to do – while it is logical that all the F-35 should be with the RN (and they should spend all there time on the carriers as well) it is difficult to see how they would do that financially. However, if they drop the Tornado then 5 – 6 squadrons of F-35 is what the UK will need collectively between the RAF and FAA to carryout strike missions.
– While I remain convinced of submarine route it seems to me that now Trident replacement is in the core budget and projected to be £20 billion this sounds like a lot of money for single capability which is unlikely to be used. If I was the head of the RAF I would see a stealthy bomber with good ISTAR capabilities as a wonderful multi-role platform that could also do nuclear strike, a return of the RAF to the glory days and give my service the share of the budget I believe it deserves. This not to say I agree with that assessment but it’s how I would think if I was in his shoes.
Plus most politicians are more worried about rouge states with limited nuclear weapons and air defences than they are about Russia or China, a nuclear tipped cruise missile is more than capable of dealing with Iran, North Korea, Burma and Syria (the last two have toyed with nuclear weapons), and as long as we do not screw things up with the USA, they have more than enough nukes to keep China and Russia from first striking us.
nocutstoRAFFrance has a supersonic air-ground missile, ASMPA: we could put a conventional warhead on it. It already has a range of 500-600 km, but the payload is a lot less than that of Storm Shadow.
An extended range Storm Shadow could be developed, or KEPD350 procured. The latter already claims a range of 500+ km, which the manufacturers say could be increased.
Given that the KEPD350 is already integrated on the Typhoon, and has a range of 500 km presumably it could be brought as is on UOR if the UK needs longer ranged cruise missile in the near future (such as if war with Iran breaks out in the next five years).
My main concern is lack of shorter ranged supersonic cruise missiles which can be used against ships – I presume that it is not the lack of a launching platform that has stopped RAF/FAA from acquiring them for Typhoon’s, Tornado’s and the F-35 but more to do with what the RAF/FAA see as the most appropriate platforms to launch anti-shipping missiles (i.e. a preference for the use of helicopters for ASW).
As an aside – I have tried to find this out but what happens to UK SEAD/DEAD capabilities if Tornado’s are retired early as suggested by some pundits? Is ALARM near the end of it’s service life? Will the UK buy HARM for it F-35’s?
nocutstoRAFAlso, such a long range strike missile….is undoubtedly a good target for the future.
But, realistically, at the moment the RAF will have massive troubles trying to justify the expense of designing such a missile in the current situation so we hare to realistically expect any work on such project to go “on hold” for a good few years.
It is time for the Fleet Air Arm to get the F35 for itself and deploy them at sea in the right way.
The Army should have the grip over the, say, Mantis drones for recon/close air support.
The RAF can retain the Typhoons and such. Disband the RAF is a no go… But for sure, the F35 should be Navy’s matter.
I think the RAF has to redefine itself, it no longer has the straight forward task of supporting a land battle in Germany while defending the UK from Russian bombers.
It could be argued that the strategic and tactical air lift, along with ISTAR and CAS are better handled by the Army, and that strike missions are better handled by the Navy, as most of the time they are going to be the first fighters in theatre. I can see pro’s and con’s of this happening, but it might be worth debating.
However, carrier operations are a perishable skill set so I would be pushing for the core areas of the RAF to be: 1) Air defence with Typhoon and 2) long range strike – best option a Taranis derived UCAV, as the days of long ranged manned bombers are drawing to the close. The RAF should then share some shorter ranged strike aircraft (like F-35) with the FAA, to allow for long term deployments so that the FAA does not have to land base and loose precious carrier skills, which is especially true if the carriers go CATOBAR. I would keep the structure of Joint Harrier Force, increase it to consist of two or three RAF squadrons and three FAA squadrons.
The Guardian story I posted in the UK to buy F/A-18 thread, mentions the idea again of cruise missiles instead of ballistic missiles as the basis of the nuclear deterrent – and says that some service heads are keen on the idea. I suspect the RAF in this, as I am sure they would love to get back the nuclear strike mission, along with budget to build stealthy bomber and super sonic nuclear cruise missiles. I could even see the Army colluding in this if they thought that the RAF would also have a bomber to provide long loiter time CAS like the B-1 Lancer’s have done in Afghanistan. Just imagine a large stealthy bomber with say payload of 30 SDB II’s and the ability to loiter for 8 – 10 hours.
nocutstoRAFAS for needing a weapon with a 600km range I think that definitely falls into the “Nice to have” catagory.
While a 600km cruise missile is nice now (I prefer they actually concentrate on supersonic missiles with ranges of 150km as a priority for the immediate future), I cannot but help feel it is in the long run essential for the future of the RAF – come 2024/5 the RAF needs to get their hands on 6 – 8 stealthy UCAV’s carrying a payload of long range, supersonic cruise missiles in order to be able provide global strike capabilities. It would be even better if the UCAV comes in maritime flavour as well, then the UK could carryout precise, prompt, deep strike from anywhere in the world.
nocutstoRAFCertainly looking more like Super Hornet, or, maybe F35C, rather than STOVL F35B.
If you believe this guy here http://www.arrse.co.uk/current-affairs-news-analysis/138705-r-n-buy-fa-18f-instead-jsf-30.html#post3414139, with his friend who is fairly senior at Boeing then Super Hornet is done, and the F-35B only challenger is the F-35C.
nocutstoRAF😀
The Small Diameter Bomb II is being acquired now… So, yeah, i think it can cover both roles envisaged for that part of the SPEAR requirement, while ensuring lower unit cost thanks to the fact that US alone plan to buy 17.000 (!) and thanks to the fact that it will already be “in the belly” of the F35, the B version too. Tri-mode seeker ensures maximum precision and the warhead is good to pick up your target without too much collateral damage. I think it fits with the SPEAR requirement quite heavenly.
.As to the RN having to buy a Mistral… i think it is sci-fi, to say it brutally. But you know my ideas enough to have probably realized already that, if in 2018 HMS Ocean was to bow out and be replaced by a Mistral ship, i’d be happier than on Christmas.
Thanks Liger – I think that SDB II is a fine weapon, but I still like to see (in parallel) a development of the Sea Skua II/FASGW(H) to be expanded to be used as a precision strike weapon in the 100 kg range.
Personally I prefer a BPE over a Mistral, but then I have cousins working in the yards at Ferrol who I am sure could do with the work 😀
nocutstoRAF@ nocuts -It would be far wiser to withdraw the Ocean, the Argus from service, and then place one of the Bay’s into cold storage; reason being the Albion and Bulwark are fairly expensive and ‘high end’ amphibs for the RN and they have considerable capability, the Bay class which there are the most of are fairly popular and in demand ships. The mothballed Bay can be used for parts or fully recommissioned at a later date.
Not going to disagree, but sadly we do not get to decide and the MoD has according to stories in the Portsmouth press decided to cut Albion, and either Bulwark or Argus, along with Ocean (look through the SDSR thread in the main forum for the link and more discussion). Personally if I was in charge the Army would be up for the cut backs, the RAF and RN would actually get more resources, though I would be re-configured. However one of my changes would be 30,000+ tonne LHD to replace Ocean and Argus.
nocutstoRAFNow the Guardian is getting in on the traditional Telegraph and Sunday Times territory of suggesting that the carriers will be refitted as CATOBAR:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/sep/12/catapult-cut-cost-aircraft-carriers
nocutstoRAFIsn’t one of the “Torygraphs” past headlines a proposal to cut the RAF fast jet force to under 200, based on 107 Typhoons and unreported number of F-35B’s. Based on the logic this gives an upper of ceiling of 92 F-35B’s. Lets be generous and assume the number does not include any of the RAF owned, FAA operated F-35B’s, and that the FAA get full three squadrons – it seems hard to see how they can afford 128 F-35B’s.
nocutstoRAFAn amazingly detailed analysis, including some areas where I do not know enough to discuss but I highlighted a few:
What is “funny” is to think of what will happen the one time Europe asks and America says “No”.
I think that the nature of NATO will change in a few years time, once US is out of Afghanistan, and our politicians need to be sensitive to it or they will find that America decides it days of covering European backsides are over and they will end up having to massively ramp up defence spending.
_FRES Scout: True, the Scimitar is old and torn, but the ASCOD is no replacement for the amazing scout capabilities of the small and extremely mobile Scimitar. And a buy of a new kind of light tank (that’s what ASCOD truly looks like) is a bit out of place while the armor fleet is axed so viciously as it seems to be about to happen.
While I cannot entirely understand the move to heavier reconnaissance vehicle, I understood the entire process has been driven by an analysis of Afghanistan and Iraq and a perceived weakness of a reconnaissance vehicle in the Scimitar weight class to IED’s and anti-tank mines. I predict however that following the induction of FRES Scout the Army will get in the medium to long term a light Scout for areas where mobility is more important than blast resistance.
_SPEAR requirement for RAF: drop large part of it. SPEAR capability block 3 is better served by buying Raytheon’s Small Diameter Bomb II, which will also ensure they are integrated from the very start with the F35. A job less to fund and do.
Capability Block 2 can be filled with a Longer Range, folding-wings Paveway IV and the Dual-Mode Brimstone once the modular insensitive warhead is fully designed.
Are you suggesting SDB II instead of the 100 kg and 50 kg programmes for guided munitions with ranges in excess of 75 km?
Proceed with the buy of the 22 new Chinooks, and there’ll be the needed helicopter mobility, much more effective.
_Puma and Gazelle out immediately.
I would have agreed with you a few weeks ago but I read the recent interview with the Air Commodore Simon Fella, former Deputy Commander and Chief of Staff for JHC – he makes the point that the Puma fills an important medium lift role currently, and when it retires they will have buy a small number of medium lift helicopters for urban operations (to quote page 59 of this months Combat Aircraft Monthly) “Following the retirement of Puma after 2022, current plans will also see us operating a small niche fleet of medium-lift helicopters for insertion for extraction in confined landing spaces.” – I guess this an important capability for the SAS and if you retire Puma now they will need to procure the helicopters ASAP or suffer a capability gap.
To ringfence at all costs:
_Both CVF and enough F35B or C to fully arm one at any one time, with PoW carrier available to replace Ocean and to take on Carrier Strike role when the QE is out for refit.
_Amphibious capability
Do you think that the price of cooperation with France will be for the RN to buy one of the Mistral’s that France built for economic stimulus reasons but did not really need?
nocutstoRAFPeople, this is nonsense! If CVF02 is cancelled, there will be no LHD order as compensation! Get real! The Royal Navy will have two carriers or one, but it won’t have one carrier and one or two LHDs. ?
Nonsense or not, the CEO of BAE has stated to the defence select committe that the options are carriers or alternate programmes, i.e. something else instead of the carriers. Now I am not privy to the contract signed between MoD and the BAE/Carrier Alliance as prime contractors but it is possible that the could agree a variation to the existing contract to allow for something else to be built with any uncommitted funds.
After all the treasury will likely agree to cuts of future uncommitted costs as well as committed costs as long as they occur within the appropriate time frame – so all we have to do is guess a requirement for the Navy that the absolutely need that could be filled by cancelling the long lead items for PoW, less any costs already incurred and altering the contract with the prime contractors, where by any residual funds are used to complete the new requirement, instead of drawing down additional funds for a future programme.
Isn’t the current figure something like 128 or so?
From what I read the number was 138 in 2009, but now numbers around 60 – 70 float around in the press, but given they tend to misunderstand the situation I would suspect that the plan was always an initial purchase of this sort of size with second purchase later on to bring the total to 138
nocutstoRAFRE: Geoff – there are rumours abounding that MoD will cut amphibious assault with three ships chopped: Ocean and likely Albion and Bulwark/or Argus (I have seen both suggested). It would be nice to think that in return MoD will find the cash to buy LHD plus the two CVF’s but given what is happening it makes a kind perverse (but ultimately useless and possibly harmful) sense to go for one CVF, accept a UK built LHD (assuming that the MoD can agree new terms), retire Ocean early, sell of Albion and Bulwark (or scarp Argus if it is retired and Bulwark retained).
To the paper pushers it would look like a saving as your replace the capacity of three ships with one ship and reduce the number of F-35B’s brought, and it would not be the paper pushers problem if major trouble kicked off and the QE was in refit and the RN had to send in a task force which had to choose to operate the LHD with either enough F-35B’s to provide minimal CAP but not CAS at the same time, or accept inadequate air defence to retain the LHD’s ability to put marines ashore.
Sign In
