Al.No I think the concept was a submersible ‘sled’ style underwater platform. Tow into position behind an SSN into suitably shallow water, plenty of shoal waters around the islands, slip the tow and the sled, complete with encapsulated sub-TLAM pack, streams an antenna buoy and patiently sits on the bottom waiting for an activation signal. That the operational concept
if that is the question then it removes one of my concerns (security of the container platform not only from standard air strikes but also blatant or covert boarding actions)
It also has a certain reciprocal elegance (the Castles were informally marked as mobile hazards to shipping due to their questionable ability to range more than x km from the safe sheltered waters around the FI this would instead be a stationary and unmarked threat)
I do think that the comms issues and environmental threats might make it a non starter
No reason that one could not sink a couple of container ships as artificial reefs (for environmental Eco benefits you know) and let slip footage of some containers bolted to their decks and unusual buoys and trailing antenna just to sow suspicion, rather like an SSN submerging with dark rumours about it heading down South when tensions rise
Al.If we take it at face value that B52 has to win
Al.I the Army will bring in Jamie oliver to start a campaign to outlaw cheese possessed.
Ah auto-correct and the rich linguistic legacy of the English Language
Al.As I look into my crystal ball I see …….. the number six
Options to take Astutes 7 and 8 will formally not be taken up leaving us with six
Confirmation* will be made that no more T45s will be ordered leaving six
* I think we are all pretty clear on this anyway but it will be clarified and the tools and drawings destroyed and design engineers involved will be made redundant
Four squadrons** of F35 will be finalised each of six
** 1 for the flat top in service, 2 for the RAF and 1 as flying spares
Six MPA will be ordered (P8 I suspect purely because I would prefer P1)
T26 will be capped at six
Six OPVs-that-look-like-frigates will be ordered (not as many OPVs-that-look-like-frigates as could be bought by cancelling six T26, six in total)
SSBN fleet will be cut to three (coz with Port and Starboard crews for each that will need six crews)
Each SSBN will carry ‘no more than’ six Trident (each with six warheads) (and also six Spearfish each with the reload space left empty for ‘improved buoyancy reserve and to provide essential room for future improvements’)
Trident-replacement and Vanguard-replacement will both get another six years added to their feasibility studies (since that will take it past the next election date)
Red Arrows will continue with six Hawk T1s
Typhoon T1s retired, Tornados retired, 60 Typhoons retained
Planning and assessment and feasibility study of offspring-of-Taranis will be given another six years (again since that will take it past the next election date)
I suspect that reducing the A400M order will be too embarrassing and probably involve expensive penalties so six A400M operational with the remaining sixteen on ‘extended readiness’ (rotting away in a poorly dehumidified hangar)
I do not have any real knowledge of the British Army other than one brief secondment a very long time ago but that will not stop my wild, pessimistic speculation so down to six Corps, six Regiments and six Brigades/Divisions it will go
Six land CAMM will be ordered
The term FFBNW will fall out of favour (as it suggests some kind of looking forward and planning) and ‘Doing More With Less’ will be repeated ad nauseum
Following on from the PFI **** up with IFR, Hospitals and Schools all Armed Forces bases will be sold for peanuts to a contractor and hired back at above the odds for a fixed term 60 year (16 for the optimists in the audience) contract with horrific early cancellation clauses
Al.I wondered if there was a way to sink a container type launcher with 6/8 tomahawks with a data connection to ops room in Falklands.
From the context I think I know the answer to this, but will just check as otherwise I will not be asking the question posed. Did you mean ‘sync’ and got attacked by the dreaded auto correct?
Al
Al.[ATTACH=CONFIG]234435[/ATTACH]
Wow a stealth design which looks pretty!
Al.“The RAF should have bought modular equipment that would make an A400M perform the MPA role, instead of trying to upgrade a prehistoric airframe.” [despite chronological differences which would have required visionary foresight.]
MOD PE should have actually acted upon their own report which concluded that upgrading Nimrod was the worst of the four options which they looked at
Al.My vote for hindsight goes to the people who are building the biggest warships the RN has ever had who then decided to restrict the aviation component to STOVL fixed wing and helicopters. Dumb de dumb de dumb.
See STOVL does offer some big advantages on naval aviation but not keeping the capability to fit cats and traps (or even why not just bloody fit them anyway?) seriously constrains the whole oepration of the flat tops and reduces negotiating position when purchasing the fast pointy things to fly off them
If i may be permitted to say so that stupid decision reflects all that is wrong with the UK today. The ******** politicians (and i included senior military in that) want to play at the big boys table but are not prepared to stand up the funding to do so as that may impact their chances of getting re-elected / a nice cushdy job.
Oh its worse than that. I could almost stand it if we had the wrong kit and stoopid contracts due to an unwillingness to spend
But we DO spend, huge amounts, inefficiently and still have inadequate kit coz the money was spent on the wrong things at the wrong time
UK defence spending is the very epitome of pennywise pound foolish
Al.One problem with that list. Japan had a complete ban on arms exports when the Collins class was ordered & built.
There’s another one then; Japan should have reversed that policy long ago.
Al.And the Mirage 2000 production line when it was offered.
Plus one
RN should have gone for Spey engined Crusaders instead of Phantoms (no need to buy carriers and planes and refurb older flat tops all in one go and commonality with our nearest big naval ally)
RN should have gone for CTOL (or at very least contract writers should have insisted that FFBNW cats and traps actually stayed in place during detailed design phase of QE2)
RAAF should have got Buccaneers not Aardvarks
USN should have selected A11 not A12
NATO should have gone for .280 and British Army bought EM2
RAN should have gone Japanese for their Collins class
whoever suggested PFI for RAF IAR should have been shot
likewise whoever allowed a submarine designing and building holiday in the UK
Al.IANAPOEOB
?
Not seen that one before!
I Am Not A Physicist Or Engineer Or Bull****ter ?!
Al.I think the understanding of ‘major surface combatant’ is incorrect here.
I think you make an accurate point of semantics here.
Colloquial use of terms does not always match technical (‘weight’ and ‘mass’ spring to mind; if you want to lose some weight then **** off to the moon, job done)
But I also think that the thrust of the posters’ queries was clear. Major Surface Unit meaning a big warry capital ship. Politics, wiser priorities for spending and the future of humanity to one side I’d love to see what Kirov’s Russian successors would be!
Al.[QUOTE=TomcatViP;2180728]
How can something raise when it’s going down? (minus 3 or 4 % last buy)
Is that the total price? Does it include little extras like the engine?
IFF JSF is genuinely not going to get any more expensive then that is good news. Even if price has stabilised at a higher level than initially promised then that is good thing. Of course it is.
No need to make straw man arguments. It may be cathartic in the short term but makes you look a little bit silly and undermines any valid comments you subsequently make. It’s also rude.
Al.Pls, check how JIT started in those companies and how it still works. Its not manufacturing spread out across the entire globe, it’s local.
Correct, and what I thought I had said
“JIT works fine for Honda or Toyota when their plants are surrounded by industrial estates geared up to supply etc etc”
Al.I don’t think that Appendix D is the actual offset. It’s probably more like “according to our study, the Sea Gripen is feasible (see Annex D Appendix 22 for details) and we would like to co-develop it with you as part of the offset program”.
Absolutely: working out what needs to be changed is the easy (but vital) bit
the complex nitty gritty comes in specifying parts, designing with as many cheap, available easily sourced components as possible; organising logistics chains, QA processes, warehousing and so on
This is even more important for a small run of airframes from small suppliers; JSF can have bespoke everything as there is room to bury inefficiencies, Sea Gripen cannot. the realities of supply in Brazil will be very different to reality of supply in UK, Sweden or anywhere else. there is no point speccing what are theoretically the best and cheapest bits and bobs and widgets if the reality is that the supplier will have too long a lead time or the $1 per unit cost saving is outweighed by a $5 per unit increase in transport or storage costs
JIT works brilliantly for Toyota or Honda plants which are surrounded by industrial estates geared up to produce and supply their jiggers with zero to low lag time. It’s not quite so great if your supplier has a six month spool up time and is so faraway that it will take 2 weeks to physically get the bits to you. That nominal saving in warehousing cost is blown away by the costs of your factory standing idle for so long.
Working out all of these technical production issues not only can be done by Brazillian firms but I would argue must be done by them.
Soapbox mode off
Sign In
