Grim901Thanks grim901, the apache took over some of the lynx’s anti armour capability i thought, allowing the AH-7 to be used more for moving troops round etc, i take it wildcat will just replace AH-7 lynx and not AH-9, with the AH-9’s being up-engined. The reason i thought they were being multi-tasked with all operations for navy and army was this article http://www.army.mod.uk/equipment/aircraft/11128.aspx
But i guess that could just mean the RM AH-7’s, but the nose gear is very similar to HAS-8.With my Griffin thoughts, i selected it because it wasn’t a new type for UK armed forces, with the training versions, SAR version and Belize versions all ready in service, besides the fact it has the skids may make a difference when using in hostile environments, i don’t know how messy these lease agreements, or short term ownership gets, but surely its a good way of filling the gap as i doubt my preferred choice of extra merlins/AW-149 will come on line soon enough to replace the puma’s if there not being upgraded
Yeh the Apache took some of the roles from the Lynxes, but that was usually a secondary function for them anyway, they weren’t replaced per se. Where as the Gazelles faded out and the Apaches came in.
I see what you mean about the article, but this quote helps a little:
The Army variant of Lynx Wildcat will perform a range of tasks on the battlefield including reconnaissance, command and control, transportation of troops and material, and the provision of force protection.
I assume that the chin mounted stuff will remain the same on both variants, or at least the space will be left there (empty) on the army version to allow the gear to be plugged in. But it won’t be carrying the stuff necessary to shoot at boats etc in army service.
Grim901+1 and underscored!.
You dont try and ice-strengthen your hull to play bumpsies with icebergs!. You have a radar watch set backed up with a regular rotation of lookouts and you keep the helm manned by someone who knows how to answer orders quickly and accurately!.
Or at the very least someone who understands that the big white block isn’t your friend and you shouldn’t go say hello. As long as you understand that any idiot can turn the ship to avoid it. The mid Atlantic doesn’t require too much precision manoeuvring…unless there’s an SSBN you desperately want to ram. 😛
Grim901Does anyone have an idea of the exact amount of both army and navy/RM lynx that are in service at present? had a look on line but have no definate answers.
I realise that apache has replaced some lynx/gazelle roles in both services and the navy use the merlin on a lot of ships now, but 62 wildcat to replace the whole fleet seems a little odd, and if someone can explain to an infidel how the aircraft can be transferred between small ship anti submarine to army roles, without needed to carry a load of kit for both missions?
The more i look at the Griffin’s use in belize/cyprus, the more i see it as an interim solution til more merlins/aw-149s can be brought in, already in service, familiar and performing well, plus the great winch capability that the british press complain we don’t have in afghanistan, seems like a great choice, how would the price compare?
There are 64 Lynxes in the RN and 99 in the AAC. The Apache is mainly for replacing Gazelle. Wildcat is not currently replacing all the Lynxes in service, several are also going in to be upgraded and re-engined for Afghanistan. I think a follow on order at some point in the future when the rest of the Lynxes start retiring will replace the rest of the Lynx force. They don’t actually need to retire yet.
They new Wildcats don’t carry the kit for both missions, the Navy and Army versions are considerably different as the current Lynxes are.
I certainly would not recommend we introduce the griffins as an interim purchase. Interim purchases have to be relatively cheap overall. Adding an entire new support structure for a new aircraft type is not cheap in any way which is why, even for the main long term purchase (not the interim) the Merlin is considered most likely, because we’re trying to cut down the number of helicopter types in service. A more likely interim purchase would be something similar to when we bought extra Merlin’s off the Danes.
Just as a side note: the Afghan helicopter issue is not as big of an issue now, the Merlins are being/have been redeployed there from Iraq to solve several issues.
Can’t argue with some of the above…
Obi Wan Russell: The hybrid Merlin as described is the very obvious RM Seaking replacement.
Likewise a Merlin of some description is probably the most cost effective (though perhaps not ideal) solution for MASC as well.In addition to more Merlins, I do think however that a direct replacement for the Puma is needed. The MOD or more precisely the Government currently have 4 AW139s on thier books, 1 at RAF Valley for SAR training with the other 3 with the Coast Guard on the South Coast. (Yes I know civvy operated).
Perhaps an order for AW 149s as a direct replacement for the Puma along with additional/follow-on orders (all under the umbrella of the coast Guard) for AW139s as SAR Sea king replacements, maybe even SAR versions of the AW149 as a longer range version for places such as Sumbrough or Stornaway.
Combining AW139 and AW149 orders would hopefully bring down the unit cost, and with a centralised maintenance “tail” that would be funded not just by the MOD but the CoastGuard agency as well.
Agree with the first paragraph entirely. As you’ve said, the Merlin is a good direct Seaking replacement, so why not replace the SAR Seakings with Merlins too? If we are going to order a Puma replacement, I think the AW149 is good, but i don’t think we should get more AW139’s for any role unless they are significantly cheaper otherwise we are just going back a generation for little reason.
Grim901lol, like they need 9 months (3+6) to ‘negotiate’
it’s pretty obvious that they’re simply stalling, hoping that it will progress so far that there will either be good news or that the political conditions in the partner nations will change or to simply outlast the C-17 so they have no alternative.
at the end of 6 months they will want another 12 months to ‘negotiate’ and then another and another until it’s eventually 10 years later and it’s finally ready
Too true. They probably wouldn’t be asking for another 6 months if the C17’s future wasn’t in doubt.
Halo.
It’s a bit OT, but I was wondering whether European nations have the ability to transport tanks (MBTs) by air?
It seems the A400M is too light for that purpose and I don’t know if any other European nation actually fielded a plane in C-17 class, apart from Russia…Thx, Cola
Yeh Britain has C17’s and NATO has just bought a joint pool for several European nations to use. The A400M is too light, but then tanks aren’t usually transported by air, they are sent by ship. The only major reason the USA has built planes to do it (C5) is so that they could quickly reinforce Europe during the Cold War.
Mmm, fair points. Sadly I think the best window for the A400M would have been as the C-130J was in development, not 10-15 years later. Cost aside though, as long as it appears soon, it’ll be a very capable aircraft plugging the gap between the C17 and the limits of the C130J (bearing in mind it’ll be a good few years before we can get any more of the Herc J), and the small hole left by the knackered Herc K fleet.
I think Lockheed have proposed more J’s because the US is open to giving up some production slots for us if it’s necessary to maintain the Afghan air bridge. If we didn’t get a replacement to fill the gap in the air bridge it’d probably just mean more American aircraft being needed.
I have my doubts whether we will be able to call the A400M very capable when it enters service since Airbus can’t get it to specification yet (still massively overweight etc). That’s why I think an interim purchase of more C17’s and J’s are important (and/or early FSTA or increased FSTA purchases) so that we don’t have to accept a less capable aircraft out of necessity.
Grim901More delays on another vital project!
How much would each nation stand to lose if they cancelled their orders? I take it there has been some sort of investment in the program from each nation?
I heard that British contribution is minimal and is a very good program for us to pull out of, unlike Eurofighter where there are massive penalties etc.
People wonder why we buy American over European, at least they deliver on time usually. As big a fan I am of the A400M’s potential I reckon we should pull out now, but C17’s and C130J’s again and wait until the next lot of transports need replacing (newer C130’s and the oldest C17’s) before we buy back into the A400M, to give it a chance to actually fly and meet the specifications we actually need.
Grim901“…a quarrel in a far away country between people of whom we know nothing…..” how very Nevile of you both.
1) Speaking as a person with some knowledge of this area, it will mean plenty more ice, broken pack ice, icebergs etc That means shipping is more likely to meet ice randomly, very dangerous.
2) So British shipping and business interests will not be involved in any enterprises north and south of the respective polar circles? May as well apply the same arguement to the Indian Ocean and The Med….so no point having an RN now.
The Arctic/Antarctic issues are going to be the next big game in town and it would seem a shame if we aren’t their to play our part.
If you read my post you’d see I mentioned the Antarctic, where I think we will be involved since we have a territorial claim to a massive area, a lot of which overlaps with Argentinian and Chilean claims. The Arctic however is not our business, we have no claim to it and have no reason to get involved in border disputes or trade disagreements up there unless the Russians decide to really act up and NATO member that IS involved asks for help.
And as there is going to be more free ice (icebergs etc) then building new Ice ships won’t make that much difference since they’re designed to cut through pack ice, not icebergs. Thanks to modern technology, it is now possible to spot and steer around icebergs so as not to need a strengthened hull.
If you argue that it helps to reinforce the hull against ice as a safety precaution as some people might, that’s fine if you plan on sailing through regions heavily dominated by it, but the RN doesn’t operate in areas like that and never has (-Endurance) because it doesn’t have reason to. It is an unnecessary cost in building ships that will spend most of their lives in either the Atlantic, Med, Indian Ocean etc. The most likely they are to meet ice is crossing the Atlantic to the USA and hit an iceberg like the Titanic did, and I don’t recall that having happened for a very long time.
In short, I just can’t see the point of preparing for a conflict we are unlikely ever to fight in an area where we have no interest whatsoever.
Grim901Out of curiosity anyone have any ideas of the numbers of aircraft actually being referred to here?
RAF Pumas
RM Sea kingsAnd what split between Merlin/AW149/AnOther would likely make up the replacements. As much as I’d like to see 1:1 financially I can’t see it happening even though the need is very clear.
The MOD suggests a total of 62 FLynx/Wildcat/AW159 split between Army and Navy.
Should that number be increased as a part measure to the medium lift requirement as well?
There’s 34 Pumas left in service and 71 Sea Kings in the Navy ( + 24 in the RAF, not sure if they’re included).
As for the split, it is far too early to tell. The aircraft being chosen hasn’t been selected, or the numbers to be bought, or even how many types will be purchased. If it were a 1:1 replacement, which might happen with the uproar over lack of helicopters that is going on (but of course those left with sense in the MoD may have become extinct by the time the decision is made).
And I would purchase more Wildcat’s but it probably won’t come under the same set of contracts, but a decision will probably be needed by that time for AW in Yeovil to work out what they’re doing and how much they can produce.
Grim901In other words, you have no specific arguments, & can’t cite any evidence. You just have a gut feeling which manifests itself in precise numbers.
Would you care to comment on the arguments put forward, or present any of your own with more substance than a gut feeling?
Beat me to it.
Grim901C2 needs to be cheap, I can’t see the USN doing anything cheap right now, after all, LCS was supposed to be cheap and plentiful wasn’t it?
Well compare it to the DDG1000’s and it will be cheap and plentiful by US standards 😛
@Swerve: I think that is the idea, that the Russians will be using the Arctic region more, but as far as i’m concerned, it’s not our problem or business. The US, Canada and the Scandanavians are the ones with the problems. We might need a couple more ice patrol ships for the Antarctic though with the overlapping territorial claims we have down there. But I can’t see us building more than one or 2 ships for that role anytime in the next 30 years since we can barely even keep one normal ship around the Falklands.
Grim901Agreed. For C1 the t45 hull and much of its outfit would work. For C2 it would be a lot of ship and we would see expensively fueled and crewed ships doing constabulary jobs, aka T42 on Windies drugs duties, that can’t be value for money.
Surely something more akin to a Danish The**** Frigate in crew size and design is what the RN needs for those jobs?
No, not for C2, the Thetis class is closer to our optimistic projections for C3. Note that the Thetis is actually classed as an ocean patrol vessel not a frigate and is too small at 3,500 tons. I think we’re more likely to see something of a similar size to the T23’s for C2 so that there is some room to upgrade and enough room to add systems for high intensity warfare if necessary.
Grim901Wishful thinking! :dev2:
Pessimistic thinking. :diablo:
Back up what you say and give reasons, at least those arguing against 123 total are trying to do that.
Grim901Surely you mean for the RAF as Puma replacements?
RN Seakings will need to be replaced at some time as well.
Yep sorry, meant RAF.
Forgot about the Naval Seakings, but then the split between AW149 and Merlin that I favour could mean that the RN just gets Merlins to complement the Wildcats.
Grim901Theoretically its too expensive. And it looks (and is) big
My view (oft repeated) is that building an existing, snagged design is cheaper than designing, tooling up for, building and snagging a theoretically cheaper design
That’s why I’d like to see T45s as C1 (and – I am only half joking – C2s) with changes limited to:
Not including modules (i.e. leaving off the aft mast and all of its gubbins)
Swapping out expensive electronics for cheaper versions (i.e. Artisan not Sampson)
Swapping out expensive modules for cheaper versions (i.e. stick to Sylver but quad-pack with CAMMs not fit Aster)I see no reason why a silo (which has already had all the design and tooling work done) with 16 CAMM in and lots of room (FFBNW) would be more expensive than a new custom made silo with the same number of cells but no room for growth
What I DON’T know is how much work would need to be done physically fitting a TAS and getting it to talk to C^3. I would guess that less and cheaper than starting from scratch but ’tis but a guess.
I like the idea, and allows for the incremental upgrades that they are now relying on to turn the ships into actual warfighters. I think for C2 it’s perfect for now, except perhaps doing something with the space left by the removed mast i.e adding a weapons deck or extending the hangar back for extra room.
Does the T45 have an aft mission bay where RHIB’s can be launched for? If so then the TAS shouldn’t be hard to fit. With the open architecture system not a lot of modification (software wise) would be necessary.
As for C1 I think a little more modification to the hull would be necessary, eg. torpedo tubes (no idea how much hassle that would be), definitely doing something with the space left by the removed mast etc.
So some questions:
– Does the t45 have an aft mission bay for launching RHIB’s etc?
– How much work would adding torpedo tubes create?
– How much space is left by the aft mast?
Oh and can someone find me one of those cool little diagrams of the T45 that people seem to keep finding and modifying?
EDIT: On the issue of the gun system (155/Mk8 etc.) that we were talking about earlier, I just read that the same mount is being used, so the 155 is just the Mk8, rechambered. Is that a big problem?
Also interesting is that until 2004 the T45 from 2012 was supposed to be upgraded as part of the incremental acquisition plan to include Stingray launch systems, 8 x Harpoon, 16-25 LACM and as of 2014, a new main gun i.e the 155 and a new inner layer CIWS (e.g RAM, now presumably CAMM). It doesn’t say how much of that has been cancelled but if they still do go ahead with it or any parts of it I’ll very happy indeed.
Grim901Having had the weekend sans internet to chew it over there was one obvious problem with the Aw149 that we have over looked. It doesn’t fold up…
I know Puma (and the first batch Merlin) doesn’t but if we are buying a new helicopter surely we should buy one that can at least fold up into a carrier hanger and perhaps one that folds nicely into the hanger of a frigate would be desirable….
Not a big issue considering they’re intended for the Army not the Navy, but since the AW149 hasn’t actually been built yet, it is something that could still be incorporated, especially if the UK asked for it to be in there.
Grim901The less loony conspiracy theorists had to back off from that (the more loony never back off from anything). IIRC it was a combination of metal fatigue & insufficient maintenance.
I know, I never thought that Taranis was the cause. I’m looking forward to see how it performs and how they plan to evolve the design for actual operational use.
Sign In
