JonesyJonesy, wasn’t the Shortfin Barracuda also offered to Brazil by DCNS? Though IIRC the Brazilians went for a nuclear submarine which is supposed to be derived from the Barracuda Class.
The deal with the French was back in 09 as I remember it. At the time the suggestion was that SSN-BR would be something that evolved out of the Marlin SSK project. Itself a larger evolution of the Scorpene. I’m not sure Shortfin had actually arrived as a concept back then. It seems that SSN-BR has now shifted more towards a Barracuda class than the quasi-Rubis that wouldve resulted out of the originally mentioned concept. Not sure there’s much solid in the public domain about the deal.
There was a poster here with a defence site solely keyed into the Brazillian scene, Zone Militar think it was called, perhaps he can offer a bit more insight?
JonesyNot really John no. Joining the Euro was never on the UK agenda and I dont recall the likes of those speaking against Brexit speaking in favour of the Euro. I imagine part of the reason we chose our own path within Europe was because of those bright lads.
If you note the link I added theres one of your oily politicians right there…..which side is Farage on John?. How about good old Boris?. Oily enough?. Who’s brain trust are they associating themselves with John?. If that was my company old boy….as it is yours….I’d look forward to alone!.
JonesySame point John. Ignorance, xenophobia, poor education. When the likes of Mark Carney and Stephen Hawking are giving the financial and technological reasons for staying in and Boris Johnson and Nige Farage are chest-thumping their overly emotive monologues of the joys of being out its easy to see where the smarter folk are on this.
I say again….easy to see where the smarter folk are on this!. Et tu Donald…..
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36219612
JonesyAnyone that dont think we should be developing a new air superiority fighter for the Navy remind me of one thing in history. About 1900 there was some talk of closing the patent office because they thot everything that could be invented had been.
I’m not sure I see the point you are aiming at there?. Are you saying that because they were stupid in 1900 they should be consistently stupid now and draw funds from legitimate programmes to go towards nebulous ones?.
JonesyMy point was that you keep presenting the F-35C as being developed from the get go to meet the Navy requirements, rather then in a way being a USMC size restricted platform enforced on the Navy and then adapted as much as possible to suit their needs better. Will they be able to get by with it, yes, probably, but that’s besides the point here.
I think its fairly safe to say that the Navy’s requirements were a driver in the F-35’s genesis. Other services had their input of course, but, I dont wish to get into a lengthy dead-horse-flogging over that particular project. The term ‘will they get by with it’ could also be stated as ‘it meets the requirement’. If we concede that it will…..whilst offering the kinds of single-type efficiencies that the naval environment benefits from disproportionately….we have the reason why, in reference to the original point, a single-role air dominance type in the CAW is a fantasy.
Rii,
You might want to avoid the new Independence Day film…
….one of the funniest things I’ve read on this site.:highly_amused:
JonesyThe F/A-XX is intended to be the replacement for the F-18E/Fs.
F/A-XX last I read (below) is gone and NGAD has appeared in its place. Something that is so nebulous and open-ended that it could throw up almost anything!
JonesyYou say “to meet what threat? That is my point. You just failed in your argument not to develop a pure air superiority for the Navy, because you dont know what the threat might be. As the Boy Scouts say always be prepared. The Navy like all the military needs to stay one step ahead of any possible enemy.
I note you left out the part of my response that asked which capability you axe to meet this nebulous requirement?.
I would point out the fact that you are suggesting a course of action that would steal funds from actual threat-justified systems, figured in to the wider capability set, and instead spend on a system that would be a poor fit to the evolving carrier deck and could, theoretically, be rendered obsolete by DEW/unmanned air before its even fully deployed.
Perhaps think that one through again?.
JonesyJust my two cents to clarify a few things 🙂
Firstly DCNS has not been awarded the contract to build the 12 Subs, the have won the exclusive right to negotiate with the CoA on the 12 Future Subs. That is what the CEP process was all about, death by powerpoint so to speak. The Shortfin Barracuda has not even remotely been designed, it is a powerpoint, vapourware design concept only.
…and now the pieces fall into place. So this wasnt a traditional maingate decision…..it was a downselect for a preferred bidder pre-maingate.
That makes vastly more sense. This one was just so far out of left field as a maingate decision as to defy all sanity!
JonesyHow France sank Japan’s $40 billion Australian submarine dream
If that is the truth then the Aussies have just gone for the best dog & pony show regardless of vapourware content. Really hope, for their sake, the DCNS lads can deliver or they’re going to redefine the definition of ‘mugs’.
JonesyI still say the Navy needs a next generation pure air superiority fighter to protect the fleet.
To meet what threat in what timeframe Logical?. At what expense….is it worth taking funds from the Virginia class TLAM augment?. Is it worth cutting back the frigate programme?. Maybe its more important than the LSD build programme?. Maybe the USN can do with a dozen fewer DDG’s?.
Then you have the question of the carrier deck. Ford class designed for lean-manning…at least the USN’s concept of such….now you want to introduce multiple aircraft types with varying logistics, sparing and training overheads?.
All on the basis that you dont think swingrole works….ironically after it being USN Hornets that were one of the spearhead types for the concept!.
JonesyAgreed that Australia actually has an SSN requirement Fed….not an SSK one. In their position I’d take 6 Barracuda over 12 of any of the designs on offer. French nuclear tech is generally top drawer as well.
Seeings that they dont seem to want to bite that bullet the questions are how close to nuclear can conventional get and how much risk will you accept to get it. Comparative to a completely on-paper design, with a propulsion system thats also still on-paper, I’d be far happier moving ahead with a modification to an as-built hull personally. In terms of technical risk DCNS is the highest, has to be, as the German hull was at least conceived as a conventional boat. Any way you cut it the Japanese boat is the least risky.
The 20yr stated lifespan of the Japanese boat, on paper, looks like a limitation. My question would be, knowing Japanese build quality, is whether that is an arbitrary 20 years to fit in with their industry build cycle or whether 20yrs actually represents a genuine hardware limit. I’d believe the former to be honest…though I cant substantiate it. Everyone smart usually builds in a bit of a margin anyway to cope with a few extreme events (like Swiftsures’ early ‘deep’ dive!) without too severe an impact in hull operational lifespan. I wonder if that 20yrs, in reality, is actually more like 25 and whether that would change the nature of that point a bit.
Other than that the only issue realistically, as the French and German performance figures are theoretical at this point and likely to come down not go up, is Japanese inexperience in overseas project management.
Has to be said that is a very legitimate concern. It is one that is commonly encountered in business though. If you think you are going to have problems entering a market culturally or technically you build an interface. In this context engaging a 3rd party project consultancy…someone like BMT…or a US equivalent (if the US were so keen on the deal ask them to facilitate!) and let them handle the detailed project management. Essentially you outsource for the skills you dont have. Adds a little to the bottom line of the deal, but, you are further reducing risk.
Coming back to performance its fascinating, to me, that the Japanese are actually moving away from AIP. The Stirling AIP system that the current Soryu’s have seemingly being replaced with advanced batteries. AIP does seem to have this near-mythical status that its somehow nearly as good as a nuclear reactor. In truth its very complex technology just to charge the batteries in a generally quite modest manner!. It’ll be interesting to see if the Japanese continue the move away from AIP with their Soryu follow-on.
Appreciate this is all musings anyway Fed…as anything is going to be at this stage!. The amount of risk, built on risk, with the French boat though is quite remarkable in my view. Whoever got this across the line for DCNS must have been one hell of a salesperson!.
JonesyThat may or may not be true at this time. However we need to be prepared for future situations so we are not caught with our pants down like we were at the beginning of WWII.
Speak softly but carry a big stick!!!!!
Just because the Navy had to compromise with the F-35, doesn’t mean that that they wouldn’t prefer something better.
In both cases the answer is the same. You develop a requirement to meet a threat….you evaluate the plausible scenarios likely in a given time frame and you get your threat gradient.
Theres nothing in that matrix that presents a threat that F-35C fleet air defence cant meet. At least in the context of plausible fleet operations.
I’d suggest that threat capabilities are somewhat longer in gestation now than when they were back in the mid 30’s. When will potential threat states stand up their first regiment of gen5 fighters?. When will the need to make AShBM deliver drive fleets of MarPat MALE/HALE UAV’s into regular high-volume squadron service?. When will a ‘threat’ multicarrier force stand up to full operational status matching E-2/F-35C force-on-force.
Answer those questions and you see why ‘caught with pants down’ and ‘navy prefer better’ are both irrelevances.
JonesyThe thread title is the big question. Why havent we heard plans for a new generation fighter for the Navy?? IMO the Navy needs a pure fighter to fly top cover for the fleet.
Simplest answer is that there’s no requirement for such a type now.
There’s no AVMF Backfire Regiments and no SIOP for them to be needed. Threats to a battlegroup now are mainly subsurface or based around heavily missile-laden strikefighters which, being heavily missile laden, aren’t great air-air performers. The need for more than F-35 type fleet air defence is not really there.
Jonesyvery interesting commentary. Does anyone else get the feeling though that if the teething issues are not to great this will put DCNS in favor for any future bid for Canada when it comes time to replace the Upholder class?
Thank you.
Its going to depend on the actual Canadian requirement I guess. At the risk of sounding like a cheerleader for the Japanese submarine industry I’d think that the willingness of the Japanese to sell might be just as impactful on Canadian thinking.
Canada has no submarine building industry as far as I’m aware and they are noted for their appreciation of saving a few coins where they can. The word ‘metronomic’ is used in music and in reference to Japanese submarine builders almost exclusively!. If the Canadians are willing to allow construction in Japan it could be they get their hulls very reasonably indeed. I read somewhere that Japan had suggested a Soryu purchase to Taiwan at something like US$500mn a throw. I dont know how legit that story is but, at that price, I’d have snapped their hands off at the elbow doing the deal.
Then the submarine itself. Soryu is a semi double hull design. This means she’s strong and has good reserve buoyancy. If I wanted to run ops in ice-strewn northern waters I would be looking favourably on those qualities.
Of course if the Canadian requirement details the need for roving oceanic patrols far out from their coast…on paper…the French boat has to be, following a successful RAN service entry, a very viable candidate. Strictly for northern waters though I’d want the smaller, (theoretically) more nimble double-hull though.
Jonesy:applause: :angel: 🙂 😉
So lads the bbc article says the problem is a lack of education and you’re proposing we withdraw the funding for at least some of their education programmes?. Shining wisdom there!.
John, I know how you like questions in unanswered paragraphs re-iterated over and over again. I’ll make this easy for you….it seems to be one you missed?
In reality its extremely unlikely it would….rather it would go to debt reduction. You dont really care about that though do you John. You just dont like the idea of us giving money to foreigners period.
What do you reckon?
Sign In
