….

It seems rather too good to be true. This is not the MoD we know & hate: this is sensible. A wide range of weapons which the armed forces actually want, with the forces driving the requirements; co-ordination between projects, re-use of technology, a determination not to re-invent the wheel, & modularity so we don’t fall into the Brimstone trap (a great anti-armour weapon, but until modified, of little value in the wars we’re now fighting). Most of these products also look very exportable.

Comments?

Very well put 😀

I’ve always been frustrated by the narrow mindedness of UK defence spending. So many opportunities to save money and get kit into service have been thrown away because of an unwillingness to compromise.

….Maybe Brimstone could be fitted with the laser guidance fins from the APKWS to make it a dual mode weapon?

APKWS (Advanced Precision Kill Weapon System) thread http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showthread.php?t=44890&highlight=APKWS

Looks like a dual mode Brimstone could soon become a reality. http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2008/06/23/224861/mbdas-brimstone-missile-to-enter-raf-combat-duty-with-new.html

The UK might get a dual mode ASM before the USA!!! 😀

I always prefered the Boeing concepts but I’m quickly warming to the F-35B. I still think it’s way too complicated but it’s fascinating to watch in action.

http://www.jsf.mil/video/f35test/BF-1_Hover_Pit.wmv

Gulfstream Aerospace telescopic ‘Quiet Spike’ sonic boom mitigator on a NASA F-15B testbed aircraft. http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/Gallery/Photo/Quiet_Spike/index.html

At first observation here SteveO’s point about building a bare-bones Type45 hull without sensors or much in the way of weapons seems sensible. Follow the production run of full-bore T45’s and make the rest that little bit cheaper by virtue of numbers.

Tinwing’s got it nailed though that building the bigger ship with is full-size ship propulsion plant and crewing costs, plus the need for the redesign to accomodate the larger aviation group etc, would probably end up nearly at the same cost (in whole life terms) as building a fully fitted-out, more capable, light frigate design. The issue that must be remembered that its not necessarily acquisition costs that are the problem. We do have a funding crunch in progress with lots of big-tickets due at once, but, its the pressure on the O&M budget thats driving this kind of requirement.

Simply put the RN need a lean-manned, fuel-efficient, extended range vessel that can keep up with a CVF group. It must be capable of mounting a modest 3D search set as high up a mast as possible and offer enhanced aviation capabilities over that currently found in the escort fleet and thats about it!. Unfortunately no platform has been offered off-the-shelf yet that meets those criteria.

I agree that the ideal solution is a purpose designed OPV, but that will take years to get into service and will no doubt have to be funded at the expense of other programs.

Buying ”bare-bones” T45’s with all gun armament is the compromise solution, it’s the easy option because it’s in production, it can be easily upgraded as necessary with off the shelf equipment and of course there would be savings from a larger production run and commonality of training, maintainance, etc.

A ”bare-bones” T45 could even be loaded with 48 cruise missiles when operating with a surface group.

It could also prove desirable not to give major upgrades to ”full capability” T45’s and instead upgrade the ”bare bones” T45’s to leap frog their capabilities.

I think people here are getting hung up on the idea that a ship is built for a particular role, equipped for that role, & that’s that. I have one word to say –

STANFLEX!

Steel is cheap. Weapons, sensors & crews are expensive. Lightly armed ships, fitted for but not with additional weapons, lightly crewed, could perform many roles that are currently done (expensively & very wastefully) by fully-equipped warships. With some reserve crews, & stocks of weapons & additional sensors for immediate use (& more could be bought much more quickly than new ships could be built!), a fleet of oceanic patrol vessels could do most of the peacetime roles of DDGs & FFGs, at lower cost, reducing wear on the expensive warfighters, yet still be available to support them in an emergency.

I think ”fitted for but not with” is the key to the RN’s current situation.

Take a standard T45 hull, leave out all the expensive AAW and ASW stuff, keep the 4.5inch gun and place a single CIWS on top of the hangar. This gives you a global range OPV that can be upgraded to a real warship when needed.

Douggie – have you got any info on the spectar? had a look on the net but couldn’t see much

Some info on SPECTAR can be found here http://frn.beedall.com/sampson.htm

BAE Systems has also studied multi-face versions of SAMPSON with three, four and even five arrays, including a zenith array looking straight up. More realistically, a half-size version of SAMPSON (for use on smaller warships such as corvettes) is being promoted for export under the designation SPECTAR, and this will comprise a single active array, identical in size, shape and number-of-moduleso the array of which SAMPSON will have two. The company says that the single-face SPECTAR configuration would require less below-decks equipment and lower power, being a cost-effective option for medium-range systems.

I think the F-15E was the right choice for the competition but in my opinion the F-16XL was to good to go to waste. Imagine the savings in reduced tanker support if the USAF had brought F-16E/F’s with superior range/payload instead of F-16C/D’s.