nocutstoRAFThanks Maus92 – there are two articles in this months AirForces Monthly is about the Super Hornet and one of the points made in one of the articles is the F/A-18F ability to act a forward air controller (for reference it is the article “in combat with the Rhino”, based on an interview with Lt Cdr John Turner who flies a F/A-18E).
I found this months AirForces Monthly rather timely 🙂
nocutstoRAFAs to the Navy Wildcats, for ASsW work they are going to carry Sea Skua II and the Light Multimission Missile of Thales in two clusters of seven missiles each. Up to 4 Sea Skua and 14 LMMs at once, it seems from this photo below. The LMM being tailored exactly to destroy fast corvettes like the Iranian fast-boats, and the Sea Skua II for the up-to-1000 tons threats. (interesting to note that Sea Skua is considered “Heavy duty” by RN while the french plan to use it as “Light duty”. Makes you wonder what a ship like Type 45 or C3 could do, lacking Surface-Surface missiles, to counter a enemy frigate seen the limited power of the Sea Skua missiles of the embarked choppers…)
Also, 20 mm gunpods are a possible load reported for Wildcats, and rocket pods too, but should a need arise, laser-guided Hydra rockets and miniguns could certainly be fitted as well.
Thanks Liger – personally I am hoping at some point the RN buy a new anti-shipping missile for the F-35B like the Swedish Rbs.15F – of on a tangent again – what are the maximum speeds that the Sea Skua II or LMM’s can be launched at (i.e. can they be launched by a F-35B making an attack run) or are they both strictly designed for helicopter use.
EDIT: I should mention I did goggle it and it was mentioned that Sea Skua is primarily for the Lynx but I also know for example Brimstone is designed to operate of helicopters and from FJ’s and I wondered if the Sea Skua II or LMM can be extended to the F-35B
nocutstoRAFI got this from the F-35 thread:
Interesting article from the Armed Forces Journal about Marine Corps strategy and the F-35B. The author suggests buying fewer F-35B’s and supplementing them with F/A-18F’s – noting that you can buy 3 F/A-18F’s for the cost of one F-35B – and adding new capabilities at the same time.
Read the article, it is written by a Lt Commander flying F/A-18’s for the USN, clearly the three F/A-18F’s for one F-35B is based on the US situation where they have already factored in the training and ground crew costs for CATOBAR ops and is made worse by I appearing to compare a LRIP price for the F-35B to the current F/A-18F price thereby distorting the price comparison but you could see how an article like this if it is not rebutted could feed into the UK’s decision making process.
EDIT: Just found this well researched piece in the Sunday Express (please note the sarcasm) – the Times got it wrong it’s the F-35C the UK is thinking of buying http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/193323/Royal-Navy-pilots-sent-to-train-in-US
nocutstoRAFwell he knows nothing of the internal politics of it all, does he
the marines have point blank refused the fa-18 previously for this very reason of thin end of the wedge, once they have one, they will have many
they dont want it and want the f-35
Not sure how political a Lt Commander would be, and he is likely biased by the fact he flies F/A-18 C for (I assume) the Marines but he does make a valid point about the fact no-one is going to use F-35B in austere forward position that is vulnerable to enemy indirect fire – this is an issue that the USM, RAF/RN and the other F-35B users are going to have to address – likely by purchasing C RAM systems to protect their forward deployed F-35B’s if they want to get the full use out of them
nocutstoRAFI been wondering about this – when they say that PoW will be used as an assault carrier to replace Ocean – do they mean that literally or is it more a way of saying that prior to the SDSR the expectation was in time of war the RN could surge with two carrier carrying a full air wings each of F-35B but now the surge capability will be one full air wing of F-35B and one full complement of helicopters – in effect signalling a cut by 50% of the F-35B purchase, and a much more likely situation is that sustained combat operations would be a single carrier with may 2 squadrons of F-35B and increased complement of helicopters?
Of on a tangent but given the asymmetric threats to ships in congested littoral waters is possible to equip the upcoming RN Wildcats with mini-gun pods or laser guided rocket pods instead of their usual weapons, and use the Wildcat to kill any small, fast surface vessels (like Iranian speed boats or Al Queida suicide boats)?
nocutstoRAFWhile I cannot speak for Liger30 but my assumption on reading the various stories about cutting GR4 I would expect the joined up light/dark blue force of F-35B’s (or what ever the carrier strike force turns out to be – but that’s another thread) to pick up a lot of the GR4 roles, plus more investment in UAV’s for ISTAR. The way I read it is that to extend the GR4 to 2024 the MOD need to spend £10 million per plane for a mid life extension which could be spent on new kit instead.
nocutstoRAFWhile there are Blackhawk rumours (and it seems to have risen again) – I was actually referring to UH-72 Lakota (I concede it has a shorter range than Wildcat). A door gunner (or ramp gunner on the Chinnock) seems like a jolly useful addition on a utility helicopter otherwise they would not fit them to the Merlin’s and the Chinnocks. I might be wrong but it seems to me that in order to avoid operating two types of helicopter they have merged a requirement for a light scout helicopter with a medium utility helicopter and gotten something that is not quite a good as if they gone with two separate helicopters.
Finally, I was quoting this story http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2009/05/lynx-wildcat-whats-in-a-name/ when talking about manoeuvrability, the Wildcat weighs more than Lynx AH9 and has the same rotor system so the author of the article thinks it will effect manoeuvrability, it is the one area where my argument was weakest.
EDIT: Just seen your other post – AugustaWestland own info say 7 soldiers and the British Army Website says 9 solider for the Lyxn AH9 – this is a capability drop, due I think to massive increase in protection to the soldiers being carried in the armoured seats
nocutstoRAFI thought the issue most people have with the Army Wildcat is that it lacks a radar – which would be useful in its role as a target designator for the Apache, cannot carry two door gunners as well as 8 troops so is not completely useful as a utility helicopter, weighs more than the Lynx AH9 and will not be as manoeuvrable, and costs more than an off the shelf purchase of US made helicopter to fill the same role.
EDIT: Checked the AgustaWestland website and the Wildcat can only carry 7 troops and that is without any mention of door gunner(s)
http://www.agustawestland.com/sites/all/themes/custom/newagusta/print-new-product.html
nocutstoRAFNot really!. Shore based ops and sims can teach the approach profile and the technique to accomplish the landing. Translating that to an approach and landing on a pitching deck charging along at 25knts is a huge fallacy when one mistake can easily be fatal. Add in even modestly intemperate weather and those operations increase in difficulty tenfold.
No-one goes into CATOBAR ops half-hearted….thats why the Aeronavale sends Rafale’s to operate with US CVN’s when the CdeG is in for mending.
Okay, but then why in the past have the RN for example, built land based catapult and arrestor systems as from what you have said they seem rather limited in usefulness?
In addition how easy is it mix STOL with CATOBAR operations – I am asking as most proposed UAV and UVAC designs I have seen seem to be designed for CATOBAR operations and I wondered if it would cause serious problems for the RN (to the extent they might need a dedicated UVAC carrier), as IMO UVAC’s appear to be approaching at a lot faster rate than was even predicted two or three years ago.
nocutstoRAFCertainly you can set up a catapult & arrestor gear on land. It’s been done. Look up the ‘Naval Air Warfare Center’, Lakehurst.
Most Naval Air stations were equipped for ‘Dummy Deck’ arrested landing practice even in the UK as far back as the 1930s it was fairly common. RAE Bedford was also equipped with a Static Steam Catapult that was still in use to the end of the 1970s, pilots would usually have a few practice cat shots and arrested landings using a mobile (ie towed on a trailer) projector sight next to the runway arrestor wires before making their first trap aboard the carriers for real. RAE Bedford was closed quite a while ago and the static steam catapult is long gone sadly.:(
Thanks Swerve & Obi Wan Russell, it sounds like that if the UK wanted to pay it could keep it’s shore based squadrons fully qualified on Cat and Trap operations without worrying if the QoE or PoW was available. Still every work around seems to push up operational costs if you go down the F/A-18 route.
nocutstoRAFFull text of Liam Fox’s speech here:
Some nuggests:
Now, I didn’t come into politics wishing to see a reduction in our Defence budget.
Neither did David Cameron.
Indeed, we have both often argued in the past that in a dangerous world – the world in which we live – there is a strong case to increase our spending on national security.
But while we can never predict where events will take us or the unavoidable bills we will have to pay as a consequence, we must confront the ghastly truth of Labour’s legacy.
There is an unfunded liability in Defence of around £37 billion over the next 10 years.
The equipment and support programme alone makes up over £20 billion of this – that is equipment they planned without ever having an idea whether the budget would be able to afford it.
So we face the SDSR with unavoidably constrained finances.
There are three ways to conduct a Defence Review in the circumstances.
First, you could just cut a bit of everything.
This is what the Department sometimes refers to as the equal pain option across the Services.
We cannot continue living hand to mouth with endless salami slicing without any sense of security or stability in either the Defence industry or the Armed Forces.
That has too often been the solution in the past and we must do better now and in the future.
The second option is to protect current capabilities within a tight financial envelope and trim away any other spending including spending on innovative and future programs.
This would merely have the result of fossilising what we are currently able to do at the expense of capabilities we need to invest in for the future.
The third option is what I call the 2020 option.
It means looking ahead to the end of the decade and deciding what we want our Armed Forces to look like at that time based on the foreign policy goals we have set ourselves, our assessment of the future character of conflict and anticipating the changes in technology that we will need to incorporate.
We need to invest in programs that we will require to put our Defence on a sound footing for the years ahead and divest ourselves of the capabilities which we are unlikely to need in a world where the moral climate demands precision weaponry and where the battle space increasingly embraces the unmanned and cyber domains.
So the SDSR is not simply a random selection of cuts but the objective process by which we will shape the Armed Forces we will need at the end of this decade.
So, let me set out the process of analysis we are going through at the moment.
We are contrasting cost savings and the capability implications with the risks that we face in the real global security environment.
This means assessing any proposed change in a current programme or platform, against a series of criteria including:
First, the cost saving in years zero to 5, 5 to 10 and 10 plus.
Second, the capability implications – what capability will be lost as a result of this decision and what other assets do we possess that might give us the same or a similar capability?
Third, the operational implications – what operations that we currently undertake, or are likely to undertake, will we be unable to undertake as a result of this change?
Fourth, the ability to regenerate the capability, at what cost and in what timeframe.
And fifth, the risk in the real world that this capability currently protects us from or is likely to protect us from in the foreseeable future.
nocutstoRAFAs a base for training? Seems a remarkably extravagant base. What advantages would it offer over a land base to justify its huge maintenance & operating cost? What use would a ship be that couldn’t come alongside at any naval base in the UK?
If we really wanted a training ship, why not regenerate Invincible? It should be much cheaper.
A Tarawa would mean re-introducing very maintenance & manpower-intensive steam turbines, which the RN deliberately gave up using many years ago. It would mean training people in skills the RN no longer has, nor can use on any other ships. We could probably run on both Ocean & Ark Royal (as an auxiliary carrier/LPH) for the same operating cost – and they’re both newer. A Tarawa has about the same ship crew as an Invincible & Ocean combined.
That’s the great problem: the purpose of all these proposals is supposedly to save money, but they all involve considerable extra costs, & the introduction of ships which are older than those they’re intended to replace, & which have worked just as hard. Consider the Tarawa class ships awaiting disposal – they were all commissioned before HMS Invincible, let alone Ark Royal, & spent years longer in commission before retiring.
Agreed, it’s a bloody stupid idea and I can’t see how anyone could give it any credence at all.
Those Rum Rations postings look to be based on misinterpretations.
Shrug – I assumed that there must be something in the story as it came from Jane’s but the thread I posted it from even the original poster thought the idea was silly (and as we could not access the story on Jane’s it is hard to know what it exactly said) – is Jane’s prone to reporting on stupid ideas like giving a UK a US carrier?
Also if the story is wrong it must be based on something that Jane’s heard that was carrier related – is there anything that might be decomissioned from an old carrier that could be used in the the CVF construction?
nocutstoRAFI think Jonesy means that you do not need to put your F-35B pilot through a CATOBAR refresher course before deploying them unlike with the F/A-18, you would just re-deploy them and they would land on the carrier using the same skills they would use to land on a runway – a BBC journalist using a simulator was able to land the F-35B on a carrier.
However does anyone know if you could set up a catapult and arrestor gear on land or build a floating deck for training, there by keeping you shore based flight groups CATOBAR skills up to scratch ?
nocutstoRAFWe’d have to spend a fortune on infrastructure (how much to rebuild a base for it?), the running costs would be vastly higher than for the QE class, & then there’s what we’ve already spent on CVF.
I can’t see how it wouldn’t end up far more expensive than buying both QE & PoW, both in the short & long term.
I thought that part (US carrier) was nonsense – and why would we spend lots of money on an old carrier when we are building two new carriers? However Jane’s is meant to be reliable it’s not the Daily Sport after all – could the RN use a retired aircraft carrier as a base for training? Could it be a reference to a Tawara class to replace Ocean and maybe signal that PoW will not be built? I had a vague idea (if you could find someone to park it) that you could use a retired carrier to train the ground crew in handling large scale movements of aircraft and to train your pilots and it could be indicative of an early F-35B buy before QE is launched.
nocutstoRAFWeird story I cannot confirm and not sure it really belongs here, but picked this up on Rum Ration – they are referring to a story in Jane’s which is subscriber only – part is the bit we already know that lots of RN pilots in US training on F/A-18 but apparently it also says UK is going to get a US carrier as they draw down two carriers in the US – sounds like a load of silly nonsense unless the idea is to permanently moor the carrier and use it for training:
http://www.navy-net.co.uk/Forums/viewtopic/t=28701.html (this contains a link the Jane story but unless you subscribe you do not get any detail)
Sign In
