JonesyYou’ve just given examples yourself John. All members support their own agendas us included. Your point about the Euro is moot…all it means is that the prophets of doom you talk about were wrong in that case thats all. Every single economic view of UK exit sees a real terms drop in GDP as unavoidable. The governer of the Bank of England, an apolitical commentator, says it and he’s widely regarded as one of the brightest men in the world of international finance….though he is another ‘bloody foreigner’ I guess?!!.
There is very, very little appetite in European populations for a superstate. If you believe otherwise you are wrong…its that simple. Get over to the continent. Expand your frame of reference. Spend some time with the ‘bloody foreigners’ you think are trying to invade us and weaken our god-given stiff-upper-lips. You’ll be surprised John….pleasantly so!.
JonesyI think you are understimating the general intelligence level of the UK populace charlie. I dont think there are that many Brits mad enough to believe the “evil EU overlords” twaddle and no-one with half a brain could honestly expect to see a single European superstate no matter how many Bonapartist French politicians wet themselves over the dream of running it. Too many see that were not part of the Euro and were not part of Schengen….we do get a rebate which knocks back our ‘massive’ contributions to the EU significantly. We have demonstrably exerted our will over the EU jackbooted masses awaiting to enslave us all.
The fact is that the Leave argument is weak and appeals to those who dont know any better. The government’s stated position is that we will be better off in Europe pulling the levers….as opposed to being outside having our chain yanked. Why would they not fight that cause….they are the government we elected….I’d demand they fight for a position they believed in….that was what they were elected to do after all!.
I mean lets face it….this, below, is the level of the average Leave supporter:
https://www.facebook.com/elwyne1/videos/1015102811871497
….look at the comments. People who dont actually know what they are looking at in even the vaguest historical sense. One even compliments the acting!. Hey we may push the UK economy back into technical recession, but, hey that Angela Merkels really ugly isnt she!.
Wish I’d never seen the film ‘Idiocracy’ now….
Jonesy… or you could just ‘plug in’ to the many satellite based ISTAR products and get a near real time picture from space. (Yes they are available) Of course there are also anti-satellite weapons out there too so even that is, what did you call it? … ‘Attrition Tolerant Platform’ … or Vulnerable as we say in English.
Vulnerable isnt the correct fit…..the proper distillation would be ‘replaceable’ in all likelihood.
Problem with satellites for imaging is that its damned tricky to get them to hover over the top of the place you want to see. They’re no good for wide area surveillance as they scan strips of surface and dont really work to build up the surface plot and, unless you have VERY expensive optronics, its quite difficult to get them to zoom in close when a UAV always has that facility to decrease altitude and go in for a closer look.
Satellites can do much but theyre not attrition tolerant as such. Bit too expensive buying them and then putting them on station when you dont have a spacelaunch facility of your own. For Reaper type UAVs likely we could buy or borrow from US inventory and deploy them to theatre, in crates, with a C-17 in a day or two. RAF can handle that. Not sure that we could buy a couple of KH birds off the shelf and get the RAF to stick them up?
JonesyIt’s interesting to see where this thread went …
A lot of talk of what is an ‘…attrition-tolerant platform…’
Well really … guess what?
Everything that flies can be shot down …
Everything that floats can be sunk …
It’s not always easy though and that’s the trick. Tactics, Intelligence, Experience, Cunning and a good deal of luck all come into it.
Remember, a war without casualties isn’t a war – it’s an argument. Deaths will occur on all sides, some of them unintentional. It’s hard, it hurts and it rarely solves the problem, but when we serve we do it anyway.
When it comes down to it we will have to fight the next fight with what we’ve got, not what we want or even what we need.
All true of course….but…..the key point is making the other side suffer worse than your side does. In the pursuit of that goal ‘attrition tolerance’ is a new, though admittedly bullsh*t-bingo, buzzword!. What does it mean?.
Simple. It talks about a capability that is survivable and ‘easy’ to regenerate after taking the kinds of losses you note are near guaranteed in the course of armed conflict. In the context above, ISTAR, one proposal was to use ASAC choppers and land based AWACS and MPA as well as advanced strikefighters to generate ISTAR product…..manned platforms available in very modest numbers and, in most cases, with other tasking commitments. Attrition of those airframes would not easily to replace…loss of the trained people would be even harder…loss of the airframe for its other taskings would multiply the impact of the attrition.
Compared to that the alternate proposal was MALE UAV based. More attrition prone than the manned type, individually airframe-to-airframe less capable than the manned type it could be argued. Off-the-shelf purchase to replace though. Expensive to an extent perhaps….and not disposable in any sense, BUT, in an embarked ISTAR squadron of Reaper type drones the loss of a couple of the squadron calls for a VERTREP transfer of a few large crates from a fleet auxilliary or STUFT transport to the carrier. Then a bit of overtime from the lads in the hangar assembling the replacement airframes. Squadron is now back to full strength. That is attrition tolerance….the ability to take the hit, absorb it, and regenerate full capacity quickly and seamlessly. The side that achieves this to the higher degree likely wins!.
JonesyCIWS is designed for multiple attackers. Doubt they would use up a magazine of 1600 rounds on one inbound. 🙂
Not really Max.
Some CIWS are designed to be able to cope with a streaming attack…..thats not the same as ‘multiple attackers’ though. A streaming attack is a rapid reoccurrence of a single threat inbound!. Light calibre guns CIWS for all the sexy multiple barrels, muzzle flashes and streams of bullets are only ever firing on one, single, target on one, single, threat axis at any one given point in an engagement. This is why, in part, some navies go to town with mutiple mounts and, where offmount directors are employed, multiple FCR’s.
Larger calibre CIWS may be able to schedule a burst pattern to encompass multiple simultaneous inbounds….but the single threat bearing, or narrow variation thereof, still applies.
The fire and forget ‘local-area’ SAM is a new concept in really dealing with the kind of saturation threat posed, but, in an attrition fight its going to be lots easier for the F-35B to go back and get another 8 missiles than it would be for a frigate to go back and reload with a new complement of VL Mica or Ceptors!. SPEAR3 will be a hell of a lot harder to programme a good counter to than any kind of same strike formation-sized attack with BrahMos, C80x, AM39 or Harpoon!
JonesyPostTue May 17, 2016 4:34 pm
If you had the job as an AAF general,And are
Faced with the prospect of facing down a QE
F-35B combo, what do you do?
Easy. The 2012 population of the islands was just under 3000. I go to my government and tell them to offer every one of those 3000 people a sum of £3mn to effectively pack themselves up and disappear within a 3 month period. All it needs to be a success is enough islanders to go for it that the remaining community isnt large enough to be viable. I tell my government to play the long game and go back after a year with a new offer of £3.5mn to each remaining islander to get lost…or accept a lesser amount and stay within the new more vibrant and viable planned Argentine community.
Cost £9-10bn. No need to buy an additional bullet let alone spend those billions in rebuilding my military infrastructure that, once I’ve taken the Falklands back and have UK aquiesence, I have no use for….save to make some of my neighbours nervous!.
UK get to declare that the wishes of the locals have been upheld at every turn and are free to negotiate constructive mineral exploitation contracts with Argentine companies…which the Argentine Govt has been offering as a sweetner all along….and cut out a big chunk of expenditure from their defence budget. Argentina gambles the spend against finding the mineral wealth to make the whole exercise worthwhile whilst wrapping herself in the flag. Google start changing names on maps!.
I beat the F-35B by making it irrelevant in my operational theatre.
JonesyFixed bases cant go anywhere, and many are subject to the countries they are in.
Fixed basing does, however, address the one key problem that aircraft carriers generally have. Space. Room for logistics storage, extensive workshop and maintenance facilities, entire blocks for personnel housing, hospital facilities….including access to those of the host country in some cases etc, leisure and sports facilities etc, etc. All things that support deployed forces and would be a significant limitation where they removed.
JonesyWell, since we have a number of aircraft carriers that can sail to a trouble spot, how about closing at least half of the foreign bases, that cost billions. That would more than cover the cost of a new ultra modern fighter.
The logistics support for the deployed carriers channels through many of those overseas bases you want to close. What you’re, in effect, saying it that you want to place greater empasis on afloat assets whilst chopping their support out from under them. All to get a fighter which, from the slow pace of 5th gen fighter development in general, is not a response to any direct threat.
JonesyCan we then sum up our two positions like this—————-I want our Navy pilots to be the the best fighter possible that technology can provide, and you want to do nothing.
BTW I wonder why what our Navy does to develop a new fighter is any business of someone in the UK?
No our two positions can be better summed up like this. You want to spend money your Navy doesnt have on a threat that doesnt exist in any real timeframe because you watched Top Gun too many times as a kid. Against this I dont want your Navy to do this as I know they have vastly more important stuff to spend the money on and, generally, you dont like to see your major allies doing stuff that is hurtlingly stupid….it would shake ones faith in the wisdom of your allies where they to act as you suggest.
Whats more here is that you know your Navy has vastly more important stuff to spend the money on too as you’ve been carefully avoiding anything like an answer to a real question put to you. You’re doing this because you are trying very hard to hold on to the blissful daydream that all you need is a few bars of ‘Danger Zone’ and the bad guys are packed back in their boxes until you need another enemy to give a good beating to.
Its my business as, last time I looked, your country was a NATO member state. My country is also a NATO member state….coincidence hey?. That means I’m interested in what your services do in capability terms….just as I am what the Germans do….just as I am what the Italians do….all for the same reason.
I’m sure Logical there are forums where fantasists post their wishlists. Its not done so much here….too many here know the wider realities for ‘playtime with Maverick and Goose’ to go unremarked on.
JonesyI think this explains why the UK should leave the party while every one is laughing…
Got 3 minutes in and he’s already said that it wasnt a mistake joining the common currency……this is gibberish?!
JonesyI guess the bottom line question is maybe in 7 years would you want to be a Naval Aviator going into a battle or dog fight in an inferior fighter?
Great. Save for the fact that in 7yrs time its difficult to identify the 5th gen threat that is in service, in sufficient strength, to present an F-35C/E-2D CAW team with an unassailable Fleet Air Defence threat. Its hard to see any of the Chinese or Russian designs being in service, fully trained-up, and at regiment-level establishment levels in that timeframe from what I see of the status quo today.
To be fair though it would be brave stating that -35C would be fully spun up at that point as well. Any determination that a US naval pilot will be at any more of a disadvantage going forwards, than he has been in the recent past, is entirely spurious and a matter of conjecture.
Rii,
Mwah!
JonesyThanks
WHat I meant was that some ASM are built for combat specifically in littorals like the sweedish RB40, komoron and penguin but the Harpoon seems like built more for blue water naval battles so was wondering how effective it was in the clutter
Performance in the littorals from the seeker in question was modest at best. In truth that was the same for most ARH’s of the day and I’d assume still many today. Harpoon was originally conceived as a weapon to engage surfaced submarines (preparing cruise missile launches) so, while the target could be reasonably modest in absolute RCS terms (compared to a frigate etc) it would be a high contrast target i.e low….low….low….high….high….low and you were flying for the high bit….in very basic terms. The seekers were capable of working with that. Clutter would be a problem though….you can run as many clever algorythms you like on the returning pulses but you’ll never get much more resolution than the frequency allows. If you widen your seeker arc you have to process more return signal so resolution suffers and if you narrow it you limit your FoV so, on seeker activation, you have lower chances of target capture…or a need to have a very definite target fix prior to launch which makes the weapon harder to deploy.
An attempt to get more target definition with this kind of seeker, that could have aided littorals engagement, was made possible by use of range profiling. I’m not sure its public source which missiles had/have the capability….though there is US documentation online discussing the technique in reference to antiship missiles and published in the early-80’s timeframe. Dont know if, perhaps, Mercurius might know whats public source and whats not?. I know there was one other similar system that definitely could do range profiling that was operational in the wider 80’s timeframe.
Range profiling effectively set a very narrow rangegate in the seeker head of maybe a few tens of metres and then advanced that rangegate toward a contact to attempt to determine the RF profile of the target by looking at small chunks of it and how high the return signal is. If target aspect is correct it can be possible to pickout a dual peak profile of a warship foremast/mainmast or for’d superstructure and after deckhouse/hangar. With that it could be possible to separate warship from tanker or chaff cloud from warship….but the wrong target aspect or a profile ashore matching a ‘familiar’ pattern could send the missile off on a tangent. So not really any great shakes and not a great enabler for shooting active radar missiles into cluttered waters.
JonesyAs for ‘oily politicians’. they’re all tarred with the same brush ! Self serving, self seeking, carpetbaggers.
Different discussion but it does, continually, amaze me that, when MP’s salaries are about the same as a technical middle manager, we wonder why the people attracted to the job arent the skilled, experienced, capable administrators and problem solvers who would really represent quality leadership. These being the people that pull down, and earn, 6 figure salaries and bonuses in the private sector.
Pay peanuts etc……!!!
JonesyThanks Jonesy.
One last question about the Australian Shortfin Barracuda.
Will the choice of a torpedo be dictated exclusively by the type of combat management system (CMS) & its associated torpedo fire-control system on the Shortfin Barracuda? Or will they be able to use torpedos from other countries like the US, for example the Mk 48?
The reason I ask this is because French submarines like the Scorpene, generally use the SUBTICS CMS that are all programmed to accept only certain type of torpedoes for example Black Shark.So maybe they won’t be able to use other torpedoes like Mk 48, DM2A4 or the Spearfish.
That being said I checked the website of Atlas Electronik and they state that the ISUS-100 CMS is a COTS PC based modular open system architecture. This means it can be configured for any type of submarine.
https://www.atlas-elektronik.com/what-we-do/submarine-systems/isusr-100/
I suspect the French CMS on board the Shortfin Barracuda is not based on open architecture which is why the Aussies will have to stick with French torpedoes like the Black Shark/F-21.
I’d say, and maybe Aussienscale can corroborate this, that its impossible to see the new boats main torpedo armament will be anything other than the Mk48mod7. The CBASS was a joint US/Australian development so they have every vested interest in keeping it in the fleet. As far as I understand it the build programme here will be split for hull, propulsion and habitation going to France and all the ‘fighty bits’ going to the US.
Dont see there will be a lot of scope, at this point, for French HWT’s, SM39 or SCALP though I imagine that there will be ‘suggestions’ all through build that Thales and MBDA could streamline into build very efficiently and at highest bang for buck. Especially if cost overruns start creeping in!
Jonesy“Legitimate programs” smacks of the revolt of the Admirals, when the Air Force wanted all the money for A bombers. The Air Force thot their program was more legitimate than the aircraft carrier the Navy wanted to build.
So why do you think your other “legitimate programs” are more important than having our Naval Aviators flying the absolute best next generation fighter?
Again I go back to your argument saying “what threat” and that is exactly the point, just because you cannot see the threat right now, I maintain we need to be prepared for ALL threats.
A question here————do you have some skin in the game for your “legitimate programs” or are they just your opinion?
Yes because the only important task of a Navy is to transport Tom Cruises’ mates round for them to go off and naval aviate. Rii put this so superbly subtly that I fear it was lost on you old boy. Me and him dont always see eye-to-eye but respect goes where it is due and I find I cant put it any better than he did.
Read what he wrote again and really try to think about the message ok?.
Sign In
