harryRIEDLAbsolutely, DCNS and MBDA have been scurrying around trying to make Sylver as versatile as possible, hence Scalp, VL-MICA and VT-1 on top of the ASTER series.
and CAMM.
Could Fireshadow be used as a basic UAV to mark targets for F35 or Stormshadow/TLAM. Seems a neat missile system
harryRIEDLMarines’ Raiding Craft is up-armoured and up-gunned
Royal Marines from 539 Assault Squadron put on a display of their latest up-armoured and up-gunned Offshore Raiding Craft in the choppy waters of Plymouth Sound yesterday, Thursday 22 January 2009.
Marines, whose traditional role has always been to maintain law and order on the high seas, put the new mid-console variant of their Raiding Craft, known as the ‘racing car’ of the amphibious fleet, through its paces at speeds of more than 20 knots.
The Royal Navy has a large amphibious fleet and the Raiding Craft represent the smallest and most manoeuvrable elements of this fleet. Their role is to allow Royal Marines from the fleet to close with the enemy either at sea or on land. With the latest upsurge in piracy this role could not be more pertinent.
But protection is just as important to maritime equipment as it is to equipment used in the land environment, especially when undertaking dangerous engagements such as intercepting potential pirates. And the new craft have been designed following experiences in southern Iraq, when Marines came under attack from local insurgents, with improved armour and more firepower added.
Colour Sergeant Baz Fowler gave his thoughts on the new craft:
“The main difference for me is that there is better all-round visibility from the craft. We now have 360-degree arcs of fire all round, which we can bring down to within a metre of the craft. In a river or sea environment we can produce intimate fire support close in. Modifications have added weight to the craft but the fire support we can now provide is a good trade off.”
Manufactured by Holyhead Marine in Anglesey, the lightweight air transportable boats are powered by twin Steyr diesel engines linked to Rolls Royce waterjets. They cost around £200,000 each, can be carried by C-130 Hercules aircraft or underslung beneath a Chinook helicopter.
The new craft carry a crew of seven, with two coxswains now situated in the centre. Two gunners are at the front, using twin general purpose machine guns, while there are three more gunners on the stern, two on the guns, one on fire control:
“For the two coxswains aboard, the craft gives better protection all round,” says Lance Corporal Tom Lockyer. “And having them further forward has given them better visibility. It will be fantastic when we start using the craft for what they were designed to do.”
At the stern the craft carry more general purpose machine guns along with 0.5-inch calibre heavy machine guns or grenade machine guns depending on mission requirements:
“This is a good bit of equipment,” says Captain Matt Pinckney. “It is very manoeuvrable and ideal for what we need to do. It moves at 20 knots one minute, and then can stop dead still to allow us to lay down effective fire.
“Royal Marines’ landing craft are always at the forefront of military operations in the river environment. Now we have a much greater capability to take the fight to the enemy. The guys can feel very confident of going into these areas to complete the tasks they have been set.
“There was a sense of urgency after Operation Telic where there was a huge threat environment and we needed more armour and firepower. Equipment is improving all the time with investment from the Government. Royal Marines are training to go into any situation – we can now go in and do an even better job.”
Introduced into service in 2005, the Raiding Craft have proved a success in the squadron’s tasks of landing from sea on hostile shores and providing support and reconnaissance to other UK forces in the river environment.
Two of the new fast craft will be debuted on Exercise Taurus in the Far East in February:
“Our initial feedback is that we are certainly heading in the right direction,” continues Colour Sergeant Baz Fowler. “The craft and its weapons systems have never been in doubt. It’s now a case of putting them all together in operational use.”
any idea if they could replace the large RIB’s on ship’s on anti piracy missions or gulf ops
harryRIEDLLemme see – LM say they can deliver F-35B starting 2014. First CVF ready 2015 or 2016. IOC of F-35B 2017.
Where’s the clash? You deliver the first aircraft, start working up, carrier ready, work up on ship, achieve IOC.
2017 is a bit disappointing, but I don’t see the discrepancy between that, the start of deliveries, & the carrier schedule.
Don’t see the point of the Times having a defense editor as they seem as useless as any other jerno on defense:mad:
harryRIEDLJust wondering, though nothing more, what if?
The yanks went from F18 to super hornet. Why didn’t/couldn’t the RN top brass go for a super SHAR after the Falklands war? I mean larger airframe = medium range missiles, radar etc.
Short fall in SHAR, a mighty winner against allegedly superiors, replaced by P1154 type in size & performance. Though 15-20 year old design it could’ve been updated & still fly of light carriers. Wasn’t the RAF version almost ready to fly when cancelled & turned to p1127?
forget the old argument, money. Would it have been possible or not given the will power?
I thought the supersonic harriers had issues with the plenum chamber. which use alone would make it a challenge for the use of the carriers it would be so much hotter which could cause the surface to warp and melt. Of course with enough money and time they should have been able to make it work.
The harrier 2 compared with the original is the same jump between F18 classic and the super hornet. New Engines, new wings new radar system (on most models. I think it also altered the fuselage it was a new plane in all but name.
harryRIEDLWell, really Nuclear Power is the way to go for large Super Carriers! Let’s also not forget the PA-2 (N) would be able to carry more Aircraft Fuel, Weapons, and Sustain Flight Operations for Longer Periods! With that being just the tip of the Iceberg…………so to speak!:D
CDG or CDG replacement still has the island in the wrong place too far forward.
the CVF/PA2 still has a lot more deck space to play with as beamer. The smaller islands is also more beneficial to efficiency
harryRIEDLgreat news and at long last took forever but now its started. Airwing next then logistic’s and escorts
harryRIEDLAny country which conducts it commercial business over the deep blue sea, needs a carrier to protect their interests & free trade. How-ever they are an expensive piece of kit. 99.9% of the time you won’t really need one so the bean counters won’t give you one, then when you really need it their arn’t any and you end up spending more dosh replacing everything you have lost.
It’s the British way of doing things! (commie, socialist, liberal, establishment way to be exact)!!!
do mean all countries im sure Cuba need’s one and the Caribbean nations:dev2:. I see a Carrier as necessary if your country is an expeditionary nation and needs air support off shore. Of the listed nations Brazil is the one i have issues justifying as they have an old fleet of frigates which could be replaced or updated with the maint budget of San Paulo
harryRIEDLsomewhat related to IN.
India Plans Homeland Security Buys Worth $10 Billion
http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=3882647&c=ASI&s=LAN
I presume that the Trevor gun is actually a Tavor
harryRIEDLI don’t their is any need for a Larbord lift as the USN have deleted them since the JFK Kittyhawk class as they found moving the plane back to the lift after it had landed much harder than moving it forward. Likewise they found the Larbord lift to interupt the landing cycle when moving planes up to the lift.
The CVF is capable of 28kn so if you can Class CdG as a medium carrier the same applies to the CVF.
Distillier keeping the lifts on one side eases aircraft movement as all carriers since JFK have proven[im counting only deck edge carrier].
harryRIEDLA troubling development indeed when the RN can’t apparently spare one single Frigate for this work.
However I would not draw too many comparisons between the withdrawal of HMS Endurance in 1982 and this particular redeployment. In 1982 the defenses of the Falklands was essentially a company of Royal Marines I Believe. Today there is significant defensive infastructure there including Tornado F.3’s (soon Typhoons) and the ability to fly in reinforcements directly from the UK. Argentina is not going to sail into San Carlos Water tomorrow because of this, but it is a troubling development nonetheless.
that’s because it isn’t frigate work Argentina can’t do anything there anyway its OPV work for the Falklands what more do you need there not an expensive frigate
harryRIEDLlink please
harryRIEDLI go ditto on that, not that I think we are buying enough anyway.
On another note the Falklands based VC10 replacement is problematic, frankly the a330 is too big for the role and a waste of a limited resource.
The a400 with refueling pods has a similar offload to the VC10 but again would be a waste of a limited resource. For me the best solution would be to contract out to a civilian provider which would be fine during peace time and if things got hot we would have ample time to fly down an a330 mrtt to take over.
I do like the idea of an A400 in the Falklands even not an A400 a KC130[might be worth ordering if A400 is delayed futher] might make sence if there has to be a mil tanker their
harryRIEDLThe carrier case is well put but should be more properly expanded to ‘we dont know on whom we may rely or for how long we can rely on those we know’. In the situation where local base-in becomes untenable through changing political and cultural scenes in ‘friendly’ states the option could be carrier or go home. If those are your options and the political will has been set for intervention how can ‘go home’ be an option.
If the proposal is to turn the RAF into a global reach force in line with the USAF’s hopes and dreams in that regard the story would be marginally different. It isnt though and shows no sign of becoming so – the RAF is still focussed on Air-Land 87. Sure there has been some tinkering round the edges but it is STILL setup to contest the European air battle and deliver ordnance at ranges sub-strategic. Lee Mallory and his big wings and all that, very good for the RAF self-image, not so good for the old exped warfare what!.
This brings us to your ‘we’re broke’ point. If we cant afford it then why are we building tactical fighters that no-one wants or needs, save for the RAF ‘Eurofighters at any cost’ brigade, you think we cant use a carrier what use a Tranche 3 Typhoon. The next Red Flag where it can get clobbered by Raptors?. Oily Spratly’s – nope can’t get there?. Falklands patrol countering Argentine Fightinghawks?. Keeping those pesky Stuka’s and 109’s off Biggin, Ginger???.
FOAS is/was the important project the RAF can contribute to 98SDR where is it?. Astor/battlefield surveillance likewise key assets the RAF can bring to the party. What did we get….something useful like a Global Hawk derivative able to stay on station 18hrs or more….no a bizjet without AAR capability. Jobs for the boys though. Its a racket Ken no more no less.
I like ASTOR is its different from the Global Hawk just because there the Global Hawk the USAF dosn’t get rid of its JSTAR’s there different things different tools for different trade you don’t get the information dissemination of the Hawk you need to filter it there and them and end them through link and Bowman on the second you can’t do that from a hawk as it just expands the Hawk couldn’t do the job of a JSTAR’s. and ASTOR is a just a UK JSTAR on more efficient platform.
harryRIEDLYour completely wrong what ever goverment policy was around at the time with so many british citizens around the world and Hong Kong still in British hands at the time it was essential to have a force that was capable of operating anywhere in the world and without air cover this is impossible. Government policy’s are often short sighted and what ever you say the guys on board the ships that were lost in the Falklands i am sure would have wished aircover was available, The Falklands proved how bad that policy was.
The UK government was desperate to get shot of them the agreement with China over Hong Kong and in the 80s a change to the UK citizenship shows that the Gov wanted to get shot of those concerns
Im SLL here its very difficult to justify a carrier when there’s two figher inflation and three day weeks and no electricity. I don’t believe you could comfortably buy a big carrier unitll the mid 80s when there’s the money
harryRIEDLI agree – it is all very well and good saying that the RN was going to be the third most capable fleet, but as OWR says, it wouldn’t last five minutes without air cover. For pure GIUK ops, then fine, you can rely on Phantoms from land bases for most of the time (though even that may not suffice if the balloon had gone up). For anything outside of GIUK, then you really need aircover, as operations in the Falklands showed – good AAW destroyers and good ASW frigates may look good on paper, but they simply didn’t cope without air support (especially AEW actually, not just fighters).
Arguably, a better bet would have been a two tier fleet, with a semi-dedicated fleet for GIUK ops (e.g. Leanders and T-22s), and an expeditionary fleet, using cheaper frigates (e.g. T-21s) and carriers. There are benefits to this approach, and it should still have been affordable.
As for the whole ‘withdrawal from East of Suez’, it was partly a recognition of the limits of funding (going on at the ’50s levels was unsustainable), and partly an abdication of responsibility. Even a two carrier fleet (either Eagle+Ark, or CVA-01+02) would have been enough to repeat most of the post war RN ops. For most of the genuine East of Suez ops, keeping Hermes as a CTOL carrier (probably with some cheap A-4s or similar) would have been plenty! Frankly, I don’t buy the lack of money argument – the money was there, but the willpower to use it wasn’t. The money was tight, sometimes very tight, but with proper prioritisation, the main projects could have been funded.
But in the 1970’s it was only the GIUK ops there was nothing even on the radar[bar a few colonial gunboat roles] as another ops the navy would be doing their would be precious few people who know where the Falklands are never mind a plan to protect them. The RN role wasn’t to bring the fight to the Sovs it was to protect the GIUK gap and reforce Norway. These requirement’s didn’t require a Fleet Carrier it required lots of pingers and AAW to protect them which was the T-42 and T-22 fitted to the letter. Fleet carriers would be a liability for Norway [it would be reminiscent of Norway 1940 bring in big carriers which would be horribly vulnerable to a Russian counter attack]. I like SeaLord have trouble justifying a big Fleet/Supercarrier in 1975.
keeping Hermes CTOL anf buying A4 what advantages dose that bring to the harrier? [same speed, similar load, roughly the same foot print, day attack only, similar range, No STOVL] just the ability to keep the Gannet AEW but that hasn’t got a particularly Stella radar set in the 1980’s and wouldn’t add much except more preuser on logistics
Sign In
