Al, the more Astutes the better, we should have 12, but we never will now 🙁

I’d suggest that Barrow expands capability so that we can produce 12 and begin on the SSBN replacements. It has got to be one of the only British dockyards with more work than it can handle.

Yes very similar load to the Merlin. Both have a seated cap of 24, V22 can sling 15,000lb and Merlin 12,000lb. The ferry range of over 2 1/2 thousand miles is what makes it stand out along with a cruise speed 74 kts higher than the Merlins max. So a normal heli will not do what an Osprey will do at all.

That said I agree that given the price tag British built Merlins will do nicely thank you, just making the obs that while the merlin comes up time and again in AEW threads with regard to CVf it hasn’t even had a mention here.

PS With a rough working out of total cost to UK exchequer (4.65 Bil uk Pounds) divided by 78 aircraft delivered, that works out at 59.6 Milion pounds per merlin, which at current exchange rate is something like $95 Million. But i’m just being padantic….:D

What were those numbers for? A previous buy? There’s no way we spent that much on a Merlin.

As for the V22 being mentioned a lot in regards to AEW but not here, I guess that’s because the AEW purchase will be small and very specific where the extra range and speed are going to be much bigger factors than for the MCH buy we’re debating here. It’s not likely to be purchased for either, but the v22 was officially put forward for the AEW purchase and has several merit that might have allowed the MoD to stretch to the extra cost on the tiny small numbers being bought.

I can go with that idea, i’m a fan of stanflex, but an RN version (whatever that turns out to be ) is the right approach. And making it air portable has to be the way to ensure global coverage of hulls without the need to sail home to pick up the kit you need suddenly.

As for the far north.

It will be far quicker than suez (or other routes) from the far east (its why, in the 19th century the RN looked for it for so long) Japan is almost a straight line route to NW Europe. Its why many airlines take the polar route to North America and the far east. Civilian vessels will need some ice protection but the cost of fuel saved will more than pay for it.

As for standing patrols, i’m not neccesarily advocating that, BUT some consideration in procurement for the RN should take into account that involvement in arctic/antarctic is probably unavoidable.

Regards stability, it will be more stable than sailing past somalia, but has the potential to become a cold war style stand off. The possibility of RN (and other NW European navies) presence would go a long way to prevent that. Canada came to our aid in our 20th crisis and wars…would be a shame if we could not return the favour one day and expect them to look after our shipping into the bargin.

I don’t like the Stanflex idea, I don’t think it’ll work very well for the Rn and has many limitations. I meant that the equipment would be added to ships fairly easily during time in the UK. Unless we start basing ships abroad and rotating crews then flying a Stanflex container somewhere isn’t that useful.

Some thought has been given to polar needs, thus HMS Endurance.

For the polar route to actually become quicker from Asia, a vast amount of ice will have to melt and even more so for it to become safe for vessels that aren’t reinforced from the start. Also keep in mind that increasing numbers of good come to the UK from South East Asia, e.g Malaysia, Indonesia etc. rather than the traditional more northern Asian markets. (we’re into my professional speciality here).

As already mentioned, if we do need to support the Canadians against the Russians etc. then an SSN would be much more appropriate than a patrol vessel, plus they can already operate throughout the Arctic.

We can’t assume that Japan, S. Korea & China will always have the same significance as sources of manufacturing imports – and other countries have nothing to gain by shipping via the arctic. India, for example – Suez will always be shorter. Raw materials & agricultural products are unlikely to come via the arctic, except from Russia. And there we run into the big objection to an increased RN presence in the arctic: it’s pretty well covered by Canada, the USA, Denmark, Norway & most of all Russia. I can’t imagine RN anti-piracy patrols being needed, & what else would we do? War with Russia automatically closes the routes completely. We don’t have any EEZ to protect.

As for Antarctica – well, a couple of ice-strengthened vessels could be handy for EEZ protection, but as far as I can see, that’s it. Piracy is even more improbable, & the focus of any warfare would be much further north, in ice free waters.

Well said.

+1

The first putative invasion/liberation of the Falklands/Malvinas was abandoned/postponed due to an SSN setting sail, disappearing and enough hints dropped that it might be enroute to S Atlantic.

If our Canadian allies were genuinely facing a threat to economic wellbeing or self-governance I have no doubt that the RN would provide the opportunity for someone else to earn the right to fly the skull and crossbones from their conning tower.

First invasion? I hadn’t heard one was called off? Know anywhere I can read up on it?

And to be fair, the Argentinians were right to run away from our SSN’s, the Belgrano pretty much proved that.

I think you’re right, we’d not be the most likely candidate to help the Canadians if they needed it, especially with big brother US next door.

Do you see what I’m saying? I can’t see what the RN would actually do up there with these ships. The reasons we escort merchant shipping in some other areas don’t apply. No smugglers or pirates to chase, no EEZ to patrol – nothing. No responsibilities except NATO, & that’s not the business of lightly-armed patrollers. The littoral countries allied to us seem perfectly capable of looking after their own EEZs & territorial waters without our help. BTW, the Canadians have disputes with Denmark, the USA & France – will we intervene in them?

@bolded bit: Could be a laugh. 😛

To be fair we have sent warships to protect our merchant fleet from things other than pirates on occasion. At one end you have the Armilla patrol (although that wasn;t really for patrol vessels) but you also have the 3 Cod Wars.

Oh i’m sure it will never happen, more an observation. It is expensive but it does pack in a similar load to a Merlin/NH90, and in a Sierra leone style self deployment it would be a great craft to have in the armoury.

Similar load to a Merlin? And for just the cost of $68 million each. Personally i’d rather not see my tax money wasted on that for it to fill a job that a normal helicopter is perfectly suited for and will do just as well.

Agreed, at present our trade flows though suez and our oil comes from the middle east. I’m not talking about 2009. By the time we have put the “next fleet” fully into service much of our trade from the far east will take the shorter and less volatile route that is opening up in the Arctic. The Suez route will probably become very quiet by the middle of the century. As for the Oil…it ain’t going to last that long. Banking on the middle east being our strategic focus because of a single limited resource is not going to make long term sense. The next flow of oil that needs “protection” is likely to come from the far north or south and I assume BP and Shell will stake a claim…

I can accept some of the arguements about a thetis sized vessel being too small! But in crew size and adaptable space, size of helicopter facilities etc I think its just the sort of thing thats needed. A Flexi type system with modularised weapons and mission systems would appear to be the best way to get lots of hulls in service that are ‘costed’ to the mission. Why send a CAMMS armed vessel to do drug patrols? Why send a full suite of ASW kit to chase pirates? But have all the hulls available to accept these roles, perhaps in C17 sized modules….

If the far north route is going to be less volatile why would we need to patrol it much? Especially with other nations there to do that job i.e the USA, Canada etc. And if we do need to ice strengthen ships do pass tat way then the majority of trade will avoid it.

Remember that Gas from the Middle East will be around for some time and we are increasingly becoming reliant on it. Also, all our consumer goods come through Suez as most are manufactured in the Far East. The quickest route from The South-east Pacific is the Suez, not the far north.

As for the Stanflex issue you’re basically talking about, i’ve debated that a lot on another forum and don’t want to have to go over it all again here, but in short, I think it is not the right idea for the RN as a whole, but that adapting the C2’s for different roles from a baseline weapons package is the best option.

E.g the ship comes equipped with the weapons for basic patrol duties etc. and self defence from air, land and sea but then is augmented for specific duties, e.g adding a towed array sonar, MCM equipment or a LACM based on likely threats. Some of that could be containerised (MCM stuff), but most works best if it’s not and there are limitations.

Hmmm thats not quite true either. Read the report of the loss of GR7 ZD462 by, IIRC, CO 1 sqdn and you’ll note that there are unique challenges to putting even STOVL jets down on a ship. F35B will doubtless be a different proposition to GR7 but it will still present challenges especially if bringback does engender the adoption of SRL’s!. Of course a far reduced challenge from STOBAR/CATOBAR but noteworthy nevertheless.

Then their are mission considerations stemming from operating in the naval environment that dont apply to land-basing. Deceptive ingress/egress to the ship, commo procedures etc, etc. Actual strike planning may be almost the same and, along with RAF precedent, largely accomplished within the individual squadron but the operating environment does alter the equation somewhat.

One small alteration to planning strikes is the takeoff and landing procedure, with a ski jump you may have to carry less ordnance than taking off from a normal runway and you can’t carry too much that you don’t plan to use or you may have to ditch it to land again = wasteful.

Apart from that I pretty much agree with it all.

Out of curiosity, how often do the RAF pilots practice the vertical landing part of training since they’ll rarely if ever need to use it.

The question which should be asked is, how often are tanks transported by air, & what practical utility does it have?

They wouldn’t have carried tanks by air. There were thousands prepositioned in Europe, ready for crews to be flown in. Reinforcements of tanks would have come by ship. Yes, a C-5 could deliver one tank before a ship could, but one thousand? They could be delivered much faster by ship than by air.

IMO, C-5s would have been more likely to deliver bulky but not so heavy freight, that could be packed in without regard to the aircraft weight limits. Attack helicopters, for example, or radars, or SAM launchers.

It was just something i’d read, that the plan in place for when Vladimir and his tanks rolled into Germany an air bridge of C5’s could quickly increase tank numbers in Europe. 1 tank per craft doesn’t sound like much, but a 100 C5’s operating in big circle could certainly beef up numbers pretty quick compared to 100 tanks shipped in, by which point there could have been a hammer and sickle over Paris and London or worse, a smoking hole where London, Paris and Moscow used to be.

I know it’s not feasible but what part of the Cold War and MAD actually made sense.

We’ve ordered 25 (from an initial total of 180), but we have a larger workshare. The wings, a large proportion of the engines, & some other components (e.g. the refuelling kits, for those who want them) are made in the UK. The UK has a commercial interest in the success of the A400M.

The UK has little or no commercial interest in the C-17 or C-130J.

I know, I was talking pure UK govt. short term monetary loss. I wonder how much of what we put into the project (engine stuff etc) could actually be quickly replicated by someone else in the project if we were to pull out, or if they’d be forced to buy from us for awhile anyway. If that were to happen we might actually make money off the project.

…A guy can dream.

My statement for the Americans being on time was based on deliveries to the UK, which are usually pretty good, or at least quicker than an European equivalent might have been.

From personal experience issuing helm orders, not on the war-canoes though I hasten to add, I would beg to differ on that one!.

On hearing the shout from the lookout, in increasing pitch and tone, ‘Object in the water, fine on the port bow, CLOSE ABOARD!’

…and, subsequently, issuing the order to put 20 degrees starboard wheel on, at the rush, the very last thing I wanted to hear back from the wheelhouse was:

‘…..what?!’

Turned out to just be a semi-submerged old truck tyre that looked like someone had been using as a fender and hitting it was obviously a different proposition than aforementioned ‘big white block’ but the point still holds good!.

But you’re going to see Mr Iceberg at quite a distance right? It doesn’t matter either way I was just messing about with that last post, of course someone qualified should be at the helm of a multimillion pound warship.