nocutstoRAFWell because they are an opinion pieces written by journo’s or politico’s with little knowledge of military systems development and happy to grind an axe over British defence procurement.
Of course there is a good argument that the UK should of gone for an AEGIS based solution but that would of been at the price of UK industry. Sampson/Sea Viper is an advanced system but will take time to fully bed in, it looks like this process is going far quicker then with Sea Dart on the Type 42.
Sonar was never part of the original fit but the PCO decided that in the modern world of littoral warfare that the ability to detect mines (primary role for this sonar) was useful.
As I said first of all in my opinion the main reason for Type 45 negativity is BAE Systems bashing by people who should know better.
Thanks Fedaykin – this answers some of my suspicions. There is one person who as well as blogging about how bad the Type 45 is also posting long angry posts all over the place who seems to have some sort of Navy experience and his anger appears to be that their are not enough Type 45’s, they are to expensive, and they are not capable enough as they lack CIWS, Harpoon or Tomahawk, torpedoes, its sonar was as not as capable as other sonar systems on similar ships, plus a bunch of other things that I am not sure I understood enough to repeat – basically he claimed the Type 45 was unlikely to deliver what it promised. However the volume of vitriol suggested to me that he had an anti-BAE bias.
Not to mention the fact that an Arleigh Burke derivative would have all but certainly have been fitted with the Mk 41 VLS and armed with SM-2s, ESSMs and maybe SM-3s. Assuming our Burke variant would have had the same 3 AN/SPG-62s mounted on it as the US’s does then this would give us the capability of engaging 3 targets at once, only a 50% improvement on the Type 42 they were supposed to be replacing. Compare that to the Sea Viper system which, theoretically due to the Aster missile’s active radar, could engage as many targets as the ship holds missiles all at the same time with up to 36 (not sure on this number, this program did say 36 but I’ve heard others saying only 12, more than 3 either way though) of those missile being directly controlled by Sampson.
This would give credence then to the claim by BAE (once a few additional systems are installed as expected over the next few years) that the Type 45 is the worlds most advanced air defence destroyer – Hurrah!!!
nocutstoRAFNavy matters is the best source for information about SAMPSON:
I should have clarified – based on what I had read about SAMPSON being cutting edge it seemed strange that so many opinion pieces have cropped up saying that the Type 45 is inferior. Some concentrate on the systems yet to be intergrated, others claim the sonar is rubbish and others generally appear to be a fan of all things American. Is there a reason for some much negativity about the Type 45?
nocutstoRAF….going back to the 1980s BAe proposed a Turboprop CAS platform under the title SABA (Small Agile Battlefield Aircraft)
Looks interesting any chance that something like this will be introduced in the UK, configured to carry Brimstone for precise strike? What sort of loiter time would a SABA type aircraft have?
nocutstoRAFAll the present aircraft programs originate from the Cold War times, when thousands of fighters would have clashed or strikers had to overcome formidable SAM-belts the firing capabilities of hundreds divisions of ground forces aside.
I think that the problem is that the end of the cold war has made the world less predictable and it far more likely for wars to break out. On top of this the end of the cold war is slowly destroying the purpose of NATO, and politics means there is never going to rational decisions on how to build NATO with each member contributing different elements. I think it explains a lot about the recent procurement policies of Western air forces.
Also I imagine that there is not a lot of profit for weapon manufactures in building very cheap fighters to tackle insurgents or OPV’s to tackle pirates.
nocutstoRAFMany airforces have successfully operated Hi-Lo fleets in the past. A classic example iis the West german Luftwaffe who operated Alphajets in the CAS role. The Hawk 100/200 series would be a good platform for this role and going back to the 1980s BAe proposed a Turboprop CAS platform under the title SABA (Small Agile Battlefield Aircraft)
Is there any chance of a move back to using Hi Lo mix – personally I would be happy if after the SDR the RAF started to purchase some low end fighters like Hawk 200’s but I think this is unlikely as the UK has wed itself to the F-35 come rain or shine for it is future CAS provision.
nocutstoRAFIf that was the case, I’d expect there to be queues for the second hand Su-25 & L-159 on the market, & Italy to be deluged with requests to sell the AMX it’s retiring early.
That’s one of those strange things – for example there have been a fair number of commentators who noted that the RAF could have really used the Jaguar’s they retired early in Afghanistan. It would be great if there was a fast jet pilot on the forum who had flown sorties recently who could chip in and give a better idea why NATO countries are tending to purchase high end multi-role fighters rather than a mix of high end fighter and low end single role aircraft (like ground attack fighters).
nocutstoRAFIn all the last conflicts a small portion of the RAF was sent only. If the RAF is 5% or 15% of all the NATO forces does not matter really. The UK has no shortage of Tornados or Typhoons, but it as shortage of suited aircraft for the asymmetrical wars involved today.
I did not claim a higher number of fighters by some extra smaller performance ones and cheaper to operate by that. I claim to reduce the number of “white elephants”, when the cheaper to operate fighters will take the less damanding missions more typical in every AF. The European NATO-members alone will operate over 800 Typhoons and Rafales to do what?! 😎
I do get your point – but I worry when the idea of asymmetric warfare gets pushed as it assumes a) that the near peer countries will not engage in conflict with NATO (whose remit does not cover all the situations where the RAF could find itself at war for example) b) that the level of asymmetry means that you will never need the higher capabilities of the current 4.5 and 5th generation multi-role fighters.
However I would agree that the RAF and other NATO forces need cheaper “mud movers” – maybe the F-35 might have filled that role if had not be so technological ambitious.
Personally I think that the Russian’s could make a killing re-starting the Su-25 Frogfoot production line or the Italians restarting the AMX production lines to produce cheap ground attack aircraft.
Finally, correct me if I am wrong but is not true that you need multiple squadrons to be able to guarantee that you can definitely field one squadron for combat duties.
It will be interesting to see what the UK Strategic Defence Review looks like, assuming it is not a complete waste of time, will it envisage radical changes in the RAF (personally I hope they change the Joint Helicopter Force to the Royal Helicopter Force and centralise and rationalise all helicopter usage in one force structure with an ex-Army pilot as head of that particular service but I think that is a different thread 🙂 )
nocutstoRAFI disagree. Over 90% of its life-time and the related tasks a national air force is not in need of a high performance fighter.
I think if the RAF was bigger they would agree, however I think that from the RAF’s point of view they do not have enough Hi end fighters to fill the 10% of the roles that Hi end fighters are needed for. I also think that if they went to the MoD okay we need half the Typhoons and Tornadoes and we will replace them with twice the number (as planes cut) of a $30 million dollar light fighter (call it the Midge 🙂 ) – the MoD would say no, even if this saved them money in capital costs as the MoD would have a real issue with increasing the size of the RAF due to the cost of ground crews and pilots and the associated support costs.
For example according to RAF year book 2010 (page 67) 1435 Flight has a personnel strength of 45 plus the pilots and this is significantly lower than when it flew the F3. So you are talking 45 personnel plus 4 pilots and 1 flight commander to support 4 Typhoons – obviously there are likely economies of scale that I simply unaware of.
Lets say that the average salary, with employers on-costs for 50 personnel is £30,000 per annum that means you are spending £1.5 million per annum just of salaries to support 4 fighters, over a 30 year life span and ignoring inflation that is £45 million or $1.125 million before you factor in spares, munitions, fuel and maintaining the airfield and the support roles (HR, catering, air traffic control) – all of this is obviously a load of b*llocks as I simply do not have access to decent informaition to give even a half realisitic estimate, but does illustrate that fighter purchase capitial costs (and a move to Hi Lo fighter operations) might only be an issue when an air force is a certain size.
nocutstoRAFBut , for example (and God forgive me to mention it, for the potential of flaming), India does have heavy fighters , the flankers, pakistan probably does not need them because their land is not as large as the indian territory
Just to check I am on the same page – it is not only a cost issue for Hi Lo fighter mixes, heavy fighters with their greater ranges are key to defending large territories while the light fighters provide localised defence?
Hell, at the risk of my own flaming, and to use a rather silly analogy to test my understanding – If tomorrow the UK government decided that it was going to transfer all the assets of the RAF to FAA, sell off the Typhoon and build another 9 QE Class carriers to match the USA as the SDR decided the UK should be a naval power again – then we would at this point have to adopt some sort of Hi-Lo mix for the carrier based fighters based on heavy multirole fighters for long range strike and light weight fighters for the sea-air defence of the carrier groups – this would be done in part for cost, and in part to configure the FAA to fill different roles.
I leave it to others imagination to work out what the perfect mix of aircraft would be!!!
nocutstoRAFAs far as I know, no, nobody has done that.
I agree, to calculate the real cost you need to know lifetime cost. But that is, unfortunately, both difficult to calculate & variable, based on usage & decisions made during the lifetime. Aircraft which are heavily used will cost more in maintenance than those which are lightly used. Choosing to upgrade a type adds cost. Even when money is spent matters, as I expect you know, as the earlier you spend it the more the money itself costs. Thus, the same type, bought at the same time, by two different air forces, can have very different costs. Adjusting these to a common basis to enable accurate comparisons between types . . . ? Hard work!
I figured as much – it is lot easier with say a road as you have lots of historical data to feed into the model to let you know how often you need to maintain the road, you work out your initial capitalisation, your periodic maintenance interventions (based on traffic predictions and road type) and then you get a prediction of the whole life cost.
That is not to say there are not flaws in the methods used in the methodology, for example you can play with the design life to spread out your depreciation costs of the capitalisation or refuse to include certain incidental costs with regard to maintenance which can be significant – which is a rather long winded way of saying that with something a lot simpler as a road it not all that straightforward so I am not surprised it is all but impossible to compare military aircraft procured in very different ways
nocutstoRAFFrom memory the RN has 80-90 commisioned ships. Define warship.
Sigh – I should learn not to quote a line from a Telegraph story which itself is based on a report by the RUSI. To be more clear the report published by RUSI is written by:
“Malcolm Chalmers is Professorial Fellow in British Security Policy at RUSI, as well as Visiting Professor of Defence and Foreign Policy in the Department of War Studies, King’s College, London. He was a member of the UK Defence Secretary’s Advisory Forum on the 2010 Green Paper ‘Adaptability and Partnership’. http://www.rusi.org/malcolmchalmers “
I have attached a copy of the table which shows how the paper’s author defined warships and where he himself got the figures from. I have not fully read the original report and I am fairly certain from the bits I have skimmed that I do not agree as it seems more of the doing the same with less that has been common over the last ten years.
nocutstoRAFI think Phalanx is a good choice considering the financial situation faced by the navy…..
Thanks everyone for correcting my lack of research (also on the UK is Going to Have a Defence Review thread where I have been informed that the OSD for the Type 22’s has been pushed back).
Given the mounting of Phalanx (and the other incremental improvements likely to be added in the next few years, plus ironing the bugs of the Aster 30) is BAE’s claim that the Type 45 is the best Air Defence destroyer in the world justified? Mostly all I can find is rather scathing opinion pieces that the UK should have brought Ageis which seems a little strange when read the spec of what SAMPSON can actually do.
Also, as an aside does anyone know which European country just ordered an OHP which is armoured for the first time since WWII and appears to be set up for littoral engagements as I found an article on it either in the naval news thread or on the internet but I had no luck finding it again last night when I searched for an hour or so.
nocutstoRAFIs not only about money, but logistics and time, at the end i think this discussion falls into the multirole debate..and the doctrine..
Do you want to lose a plane to save 1000 army’s grunts or do you want a perfect mission with 0 loses but with out any achievement?
The usefulness of the multirole airforce is quite limited IMO, but everything depends a lot on different aspects, a small airforce would find interesting a Typhoon with capability to drop bombs….
…defining the weight of the ‘low-tech’ plane depends on the required payload, number of sorties they want, the type of target, and a lot more of yadada. (for attack planes)
Depends a lot of how much area is wanted to cover, heavy fighters are not heavy because are heavy 🙂
There are requirements, 1 heavy fighter can do the task that 3 light fighters can’t, i’m not talking about kill rate, but, again, number of sorties, range desired, number of pilots you need to train, etc..this does not turn it superior BTW.
Not wanting to turn this thread into JF-17 Thunder versus Hal Tejas debate but are they both good examples of light fighters, where the respective air forces have decided to field aircraft of different sizes and capabilities? If so, is it a case say the UK does not go for a Hi Lo mix is more due to the fact that its limiting factor is not the capital purchase cost of the fighters but the recurrent costs of the pilots and ground crew therefore it make little sense to operate Hi Lo mix?
nocutstoRAFYeah – a bit over 1%. That increases the price of each Typhoon by about 0.25%. Then deduct what we get back from the EU, & it drops to 0.08%. Is that worth quibbling about?
We know the cost of the production contracts for Typhoon tranches 1 & 2. The latter works out at 55.1 million euros per aircraft, for all four partners, & is the nearest equivalent we have to a US ‘flyaway’ price. It’s half what the Pentagon pays in ‘flyaway’ price for each F-22. The USAF then pays about 20% on top for ancillary bits & pieces for each F-22 taken into service, which I think is pretty standard.
– To quote the accountants in the my 0.08% is not material 🙂
– Having opened up this can of worms and thought a bit more about the methodology used against say how you would calculate the whole life cost of a bridge or road that the only way to do a fair comparison is at the end of service life where you then have to normalise the unit costs based on the total cost from cradle to grave to a bench mark year and currency. Has anyone done something like this before for say 3rd generation fighters no longer in service?
nocutstoRAFI thought it was common knowledge that the OSD of the B3 type 22 had already been put back?
Not to me! Good to hear.
As a slight aside this story in the Telegraph does not make good reading for any of the armed forces
To keep it on topic the Royal United Services Institute predicted “The number of aeroplanes and helicopters operated by the three services would also fall from 760 to 550 [edited]. And the Royal Navy fleet of warships and submarines would drop from 57 to 45”.
Sign In
