Al.I can’t see the UK and US working on a common class of SSBN, US Subs are always larger than UK ones, in all likelihood a US design would be too large and costly for the UK Government.
Sadly I think that you are correct.
For any similar role USN ships are significantly larger than RN. (The closest which I can think of are T45 and Arleigh Burkes where the difference in displacement is ‘only’ the displacement of a corvette)
USN ships also tend to have larger manning requirements that RN ships with a similar role (or even similar displacement). DDG1000 is a very big departure from previous USN practice.
Also submarine technology is one of the few areas where the RN has some degree of technical edge and UK may not wish to give that up so easily as USN partners would expect.
Al
Al.I agree wholeheartedly with the thrust of your argument (‘Quantity has a Quality all of its own‘ and all that jazz)
My only concern with some of your suggestions is that (a la Nimrod MR4 and F/A-18E/F) some mod jobs ‘just add X’ can be more expensive than one expects.
The Dutch firm (Damen Schelde) producing Indonesia’s rather groovy Sigma Corvettes quote a “90:10 rule” of shipbuilding: Changing 10% of the ship requires changes to 90% of the drawings. Now Schelde want to push their modular design so this may have to be taken with a pinch of salt. But I would say that any programme to ‘simply add X‘ would need to very carefully managed.
Slightly tangentally I would love military procurement to be fixed-price contracts. But that does rely on decision makers agreeing to stop meddling with the specs or platform numbers mid-contract to find some illusory savings (Eurofighter programme take one pace forward).
Al
Al.Plus supplied the required amount of airframes.
And have been a PR success rather than the mess this has turned out to be. I can almost wear politicians making stoopid decisions on expenditure and equipment, I kind of expect it, but PR is supposedly their forte so making such a purchasing decision makes no sense to me on any level.
Al
Al.5. What the USAF should use is BOTH. You’re absolutely right about bigger aircraft – & we should be putting booms on our A330s, & fitting receptacles to them, & all our other large aircraft. But the USAFs all-boom fleet is a stupid waste of resources, which exists only because SAC (read Curtis LeMay) controlled the tanker fleet & refused to equip it for tactical refuelling, wanting to keep the tankers for its exclusive use, leading tactical air to fit receptacles to its aircraft so it could use the strategic tanker fleet. Duh! The USAF has commissioned its own internal studies, & every one concurs with the critics. It calculated 20 years ago that it could save money, as well as improve tactical efficiency, by fitting underwing hoses to its tankers, & probes on its fighters. Lower operating costs, the existing tanker fleet would last longer (fewer flying hours to do the same job), & fewer tankers needed in the future.
6. The ball was dropped by governments & armed forces. EADS has been pushing an A320-based MPA for years, but no government has been willing to back it. BAe would have been happy to sell new-build Nimrod MRA4s*, but couldn’t get it past the MoD except as a “low-risk” “upgrade” (ha!) of old Nimrods.
*To be frank, BAe would have been happy to sell anything, as long it was built by BAe.
It seems dull and somehow antithetical to the nature of this board to agree again. But I think that’s several nails struck squarely upon their heads there.
I didn’t know that the boom receptacles on USAF Fighters was due to such a stupid piece of ‘this is my turf‘ thinking.
Al
Al.Even just using new build comets would have solved that issue.
You’ll get no disagreement from me on that one. And it would have avoided the comedy ‘oh look the new wings don’t match the old fuselage‘ fiasco
Al
Al.boom is completely useless for India. i expect P8I to be fitted with buddy refuelling because Navy doesn’t have IL-76 and Air force won’t give importance to maritime planes during war time.
1. Could be use of stock images for PR
2. Boom is used by several air arms who might be friendly for India not just by USAF
3. Do we KNOW what next gen IFR is going to be for Indians? Maybe they see advantages in going Flying Boom for their big aircraft?
4. I used to subscribe to the USAF bashing over flying booms* but the USAF operates more big beasts than anyone else so it makes sense for them to have a system which makes refuelling these easier** also bigger aircraft can actually make use of the higher flow rate afforded by the boom which fighters supposedly cannot
5. How many tankers do the USN actually operate? If P8s are going to need (or potentially need) support from USAF then why not fit with boom receptacle? And once the work has been done on fitting one it will cost more to remove it from any sold to RAN or Indians than leaving in place***
6. I am really annoyed that Airbus/BAe/MoD/RAF/RN dropped the ball on Nimrod replacement and did not develop a new platform for MR which could then have been sold to all of the air arms looking to upgrade and replace. If P8 corners the market and allows maximum interoperability by having boom slot and probe then good luck to Boeing/DoD I say.
Al
*i.e. USN and UK types pointing at USAF jocks and laughing that they cannot do probe and drogue refuelling. Anyway as anyone knows real men use wingtip to wingtip refuelling.
** it seems common sensical that refuelling from a drogue is MUCH harder in a bomber than in a fighter
*** witness RAF buying Tristars already fitted with individual entertainment consoles and rather than leaving in place (free) they were removed (costs money) and stored in a hangar (costs money and takes up workspace)
Al.Hmmm… a new design is more expensive than one designed & first built ~25 years ago.
And this is surprising/noteworthy how?
You know the word “inflation”?
Sure, sure
But T23s are chock full of expensive electronics and weapon systems whilst NSCs are not.
T23s have plenty of flaws (and wouldn’t do the NSC role) but their very nature and role calls for an expensive solution. NSC’s does not.
Al
Al.Sorry, all you are proposing is cut after cut. In reality the size of the USN continues to shrink every year! Also, the size on the USN is not based on just being the largest or even most powerful. Its based on the providing enough resources to handle two major conflicts (WARS) in opposite parts of the world simultaneously……….
And having enough ships to guarantee having two in the same channel so that they can collide (sorry I’ll get my coat)
Al
Al.Most definitely not Al!. Look up General Atomics Mariner.
Very interesting
I’m always keen to see that cancellation of projects is due to penny pinching, political short-sightedness or blatant stupidity. In which case it may well be only a matter of time before Mariner is revived. Of course there is always the chance that there were genuine technical difficulties in which case things look a little less rosy.
Re: CH53 as AWACS I assume that Osprey has better endurance (even without pressurised cabin) and so the equally large, high spec, high value (but not quite as expensive!) CH53 would not be any better a choice for AEW.
Shame about the technical realities of operating E2s from LPDs (and of course as you pointed out, you’d need 3 of the things which takes up most of America-class’ aircraft capacity!)
Al
Al.They look like very nice ships. And should be pretty capable (nearly 7 000 tonnes difference between full displacement and empty suggests a good load of helos and stores……)
As ASW assets they certainly will improve on their predecessors and as humanitarian relief vessels they do look pretty darned good.
Part of me hopes that JMSDF does do some trial work on these with JSF and then ramp up to a bigger STOVL class. Because a. I think that JSFs will look very pretty in JMSDF colours b. I am genuinely interested to see what unique spin the Japanese put on the technical aspects of deploying STOVLs.
I am not keen to see a return to Japanese militarism and I am not sure what purely defensive reason would lead to a requirement for such ships so we may just see bigger and more capable ASW assets/ humanitarian relief assets.
Al
Al.Very interesting and a couple of very nice shots this thread, thankyou.
Al
Al.So for ESG tasking you could easily see an optimised airgroup of something like 8 35B’s, 10 Mariner, 6 Osprey and a couple each of CH-53’s and UH-1/MH-60’s.
I assume that you DON’T mean these http://www.marineraircraft.com/
WWIF (not a lot) I think that Jonesey has hit the nail on the head with UAV AEW. IFF a platform can be produced which will recover in operational conditions then for AEW and stand off battlefield surveillance it knocks TOSSer into a cocked hat.
If such a platform cannot be developed then TOSS is almost the only game in town.
Do any of the other USMC assets have the ability to take palletised AEW? And do any of them have an endurance benefit over Osprey?
Could an E2 launch/recover from America?!
Al
Al.LY-60 (LieYing 60) a.k.a. HQ-64 (HongQi 64)
Ta muchly
Was gonna say that launcher looked suspisciously Aspidey but in absence of any knowledge I wussed out and waited.
Al
Al.It should be noted that small decks need aids to help fast jets get off the deck and all but the USN use the ramp which works very well as we all know. The USMC wants ramps on their flat tops but the USN comes up with lots of silly NO’s to that even though they would greatly increase the capability of their AV8B’s as they recently saw onboard HMS Illustrious.
I’m quite happy to play ‘knock the USN’ and as a straight operational issue it does seem daft not to fit them. But……………. more capable LPD/Hs means that USN may have undermined themselves in the political battle to keep/replace/expand their supercarrier capabilities
16 DDH and her sisters will be a welcome addition to their fleet when compared to what they are replacing. Fast jets onboard? maybe for trials but not as a fighting unit, they would want something much bigger. Let us not forget they too have a budget to work within and no real need for such a large vessel at present as they are after all a Self Defence Force.:cool:
If I HAD to guess I’d suggest the JMSDF would maybe use DDHs as a way of getting experience of STOVL ops and then hope that political situation would change to make bigger more useful ships a reality whence they could put that experience and knowledge into practice. They could certainly learn first-hand all kinds of things which would prove useful later on. The F2 programme shows that the Japanese are prepared to undertake a programme which is nominally more expensive than buying off of the shelf IF it allows them to improve their own domestic capabilities
JMSDF budget is pretty huge (hence their very nice fleet of ships) the constraining factor is more likely to be the culture and constitution.
Al
Al.There seems little intelligence in tying down an expensive, manned, relatively short endurance platform like an Osprey flying orbits when you can have a UAV do it much more efficiently!.
Do you ever get the feeling that real life is slowly catching up with your childhood? Not in the sense that we are living in domed cities and have hoverboots like we were promised by the Year 2000, but rather I remember playing a computer game called ‘Carrier Command‘ as a kid where you had a Carrier (no, really?) some fighters and some drones to deploy to complete certain tasks.
Using UAVs as AEW platforms does (alphabet soup to one side) certainly have its attractions. I’m guessing (guessing mind) that the constraining factor is not payload so much as the sea state and winds in which a UAV can be recovered back on deck.
How about resurrecting blimps for AEW platforms? There will certainly be access to compressed air on any ship powered by GTs
Al
Sign In
