StevoJHI have to admit that i wouldn’t be to surprised if the order for F35B for the RAF/RN was cut to 100 airframes that were completely FAA owned, with further orders being F35A’s or further Typhoons for the RAF to replace the Tornado GR.4.
@ Distiller: The problem with building only amphibious ships with Rotary Winged capability similar to the Mistrals is that they are no where near as flexible. With F35B’s you have the ability to intercept attacking aircraft further out from the taskforce, before they are able to launch their missiles, whereas a defense using T45’s only would be restricted to intercepting inbound missiles, which is a much riskier proposition.
So by replacing the invincible class with a pair, or even four LPH’s or LHD’s you are limiting the intensity of conflict that an RN group can be operational in. It also gives more flexibility in supporting an expeditionary force ashore. With a CVF present you can keep much of your supporting units further out to sea. Your CVF at 200Nm out from shore can keep a flight of F35’s constantly over the combat zone to provide CAS immediately, whereas without them you would have to risk a valuble warship within easy range of the shore to carry out NGFS at any distance inland. CAS can be carried out by Apache and AH-Lynx version, but at higher risk and not as far off shore.
StevoJHDelivery of “Condell” Completes Fleet Renewal (excerpt)
The Minister of National Defence, José Goni, presided at midday today, at the Abrigo quay in Valparaiso, over the reception of the Type 23 frigate “Almirante Condell,” a vessel of British provenance whose delivery marks the completion of the Fleet renewal plan. In total, eight modern and efficient surface warships, with lower operating costs and smaller crews, have been acquired and will remain in service for at least the next 20 years.
The 18 officers and 161 seamen and ratings, commanded by Capt. Jorge Cruz, will remain in the United Kingdom for seven months to fit out the ship and for training.
must not only focus on getting to know the new equipment, which constitutes a real technological leap forward for the Navy,
“The crew not only had to focus on getting to know its new equipment, which constitutes a true technological leap forward for the Navy; but, in addition, it was trained by the FOST, the same agency that prepares the naval units of the prestigious Royal Navy and which, under the most rigorous standards of professionalism, security and efficiency, has trained other Chilean crews during the fleet renewal process. As Minister of Defense of Chile, and on behalf of all Chileans, I am proud of you, who have once again upheld the name of our Navy as one of the most professional in the world,” the minister said.
During a press conference, held with Navy Commander Admiral Rodolfo Codina, Minister Gori said that advanced negotiations are continuing for the acquisition of a used fleet oiler from the United States to replace the ship “Araucano” presently in service.
He also said that the modernization of the fleet air arm is also being evaluated.
(link)
(image)
(image)
Erm, that shipbucket image is a T22, not a T23 😎
StevoJHAlthough in the article attached they claim otherwise, the maths is something like this.
No future orders for super yachts = build CVF bits instead = save nearly 400 jobs = everyone is happy including govt
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/devon/7677609.stm
It would not surprise me at all if a few more military projects now found funding that were scratching round for money last year.
The bit i found interesting was the bit where it said “In turn Babcock in Devonport could get work on frigates displaced from Rosyth.” That would be construction wouldn’t it? Because the Google map image of Portsmouth shows 5 T23’s under refit there, and refits would not be effected by CVF construction in other yards.
Erm, hate to ask this, but how do they get the ships in the inner basin @ portsmouth out while the drydocks are in use? 😉
StevoJHThere could be a lot more said about this all, but basically it comes down to the fact, that the U.K. can’t afford its foreign policy ambitions any more.
No, just means the UK government is spending to much money on other stuff. 😉
StevoJHJonesy,
It was my understanding that the ’36’ figure for JFH was more to do with the limited number of Harriers being upgraded than any reasons of doctrine? I understood that they had just been reluctant to pay up for the upgrades, especially in light of the JCA/JSF being ‘just around the corner’ (beginning to sound like the ‘hydrogen is the fuel of the future, and it always will be!’ argument!). I would hope to see, at the very least, a return to 12 aircraft squadrons, though frankly I don’t hold out too much hope.
As i understand it, all the GR.7’s were upgraded, they just arent all in service. 😉
StevoJHNo area defence missile can hit at 1000m or less at 200 to 300km range. Helicopter have plenty of time to guide faster Ashm against bigger targets and lie low. It is much better solution as it can land on pretty much every surface ships. It does not need aircraft carrier like E-2C.
Line of sight at 1000m ASL is 114km, At that height and range they will be clearly visible to the Defending radar and that is easily within range of both Aster 30 and SM2-ER
A force of single Brahmos is equal to 9 subsonic cruise missiles. Airlaunched will be much more than this as it has height and speed advantage. And i can be used against both ships and land.
I hate to say this again, but please prove this, i will not believe these claims you are making unless you can cite a document from a source that will pass inspection.
StevoJHIt should be mentioned that Ka-31 operates at 1500 to 3000m height so range of AAM and SAMs against is much reduced.
Pretty much any Area Air Defense missile system would find a Ka-31 within missile range and at that height to be target practice, they’d be better off on the deck.
Here is more evidence of using Airpower for long range antiship. Now Japan/Taiwan/China/India has come to same conclusion. what Russia has concluded decades ago. A single airlaunched Brahmos is almost equal to force of 10 to 15 tomhawks.
Sources? Not to mention that the Tomahawk ASM varient was retired many years ago.
StevoJHAh but we are talking about one Perry class frigate at the moment so one box launcher is all we require.
I suppose they could put the mk13 back on but there are only a limited number of SM1 left which have probably already been snapped up by other nations.
Four of the Six Australian OHP’s can now fire SM-2MR from their Mk.13, the other two got decommissioned.
StevoJHGoalkeeper and Sadral. That’s gotta be one of the best defended FACs in the world. Crickey.
The German ones have a Pair of RAM mounts each. 😉
StevoJHConveyor was fitted with a reinforced pad on the bows for VTOL ops for the Harriers. She was never fitted with a ski jump. The pic below shows the pad with the white spot marked forward of the ‘deck park’.
(image)
Merchant ‘carrier’ conversion studies were carried out in the US and in the UK. The British programe was called SCADS and the US had their ARAPAHO concept.
(image)
SCADS
So basicly its possible as long as you have the containerised equipment prepared and know which ships are suitable for conversion. The actual wiki page i was looking at was for Atlantic Conveyers sistership the Atlantic Causeway.
Atlantic Causeway put into HMNB Devonport and was taken in hand on 6 May. She was converted to be able to carry and operate helicopters, and was also fitted with a ski jump to enable her to operate Sea Harriers.[1] A hangar was fitted to her upper deck, and an improved system for delivering aviation fuel. She sailed from Devonport on 14 May carrying eight Sea King HAS.2As of 825 Naval Air Squadron and twenty Wessex HU.5s of 847 Naval Air Squadron.[2] She sailed to the Exclusion Zone via Ascension Island, arriving on 27 May, two days after her sister, Atlantic Conveyor had been hit and burnt out by Exocet missiles.[3] She then disembarked her aircraft and stores in San Carlos Water from 30 May, remaining on station with the rest of the British fleet.
StevoJHI was just looking around wikipedia and saw that it claimed the altantic conveyer and her sistership were fitted with ski jumps during the falklands war. I just had a look at a photo of the conveyer and it “could” be true, however their is a mast sticking up in just in front of the centre of the “ski jump”.
Simply out of curiosity would a rapid merchant conversion of a RO-RO vessel alon the lines of those two be able to be used as a makeshift carrier for either Harriers or JSF in a combat situation assuming that the mast blocking the ski jump was removed?
StevoJHHow many day this assemble force can be supplied? The point is land based force has the choice to wait it out which Sea based force has none. They need to be supplied for fuel/food/weopons on large scale which needs freindly ports and huge amount of money. A dominant/Competent land force can never be defeated by Sea force. Sea force takes months to assemble in the mean time u can accelerate Billistic/antiship production missiles on war footing. and airlift to coastal regions. u cannot resupply ships through strategic airlift u need land bases and but if u need land bases than why not make all investment in theatre/strategic bomber fleet? whats the point of sea based force.
You overstate the time needed to assemble a task force b a significant margin.
The used a total of 113 Ships during the falkland islands conflict, of which 44 belonged to the RN, 2 belonged to the RMAS and 22 belonged to the RFA. The rest of the ships involved were STUFT. The majority of the naval ships set sail from the UK within days of the invasion and the task force was assembled in the south atlantic by early may, with some earlier arriving ships taking part in the recapture of South Georgia.
I’d also like to point out that a forward operating base with Phantom’s, Vulcans and Tankers was also in operation on Ascension Island by mid april.
The whole conflict was over within 3 months, so it hardly take “months” to assemble a Naval task force.
StevoJHIn theory there is lots of merit in what you are proposing here Swerve, but, I fear the outcome would be something quite a bit different than you might have in mind.
The unintended consequence here could easily be that the various pirate groups start to get organised and coordinate their actions. The payout from seizing these vessels is lucrative even by western standards. If getting hold of a 40ft work boat, jury-rigging a pintle for a black market PKM on the stern and getting together 50 gallons of diesel and 6 lads handy with an AK is going to net US$2mn in ransom payouts, per raid, its going to be very tough to disuade these lads from their business.
If they cant beat your technology they’ll just go were you arent and operate there. That means having some ‘fishermen’ getting paid a cut to tag where your OPV is operating and keeping a running report on course, speed and operations in progress. When they feel confident they’ll just launch ops on two target vessels at the extemes of coverage from the OPV. The ‘good guys’ might intervene with one and chase those pirates off, but, the other group will get away with the prize.
What you want to do, instead of that, is to keep the groups scattered and uncoordinated and simply raise the bar on whats necessary to actually be successful and profit from an attack. the best way to accomplish that is with a modest onboard defensive team IMO. If the aforementioned 40ft work boat suddenly finds its being engaged by a GAMBO or two from the freighter it was stalking, or had its PKM gunner alarmingly perforated by a 50cal sniper rifle from that direction, its suddenly not such a good bet for a payday.
If the majority of merchant vessels transitting those waters end up so equipped then, at a stroke, it puts the small-time operators, with little more than machine-gun equipped fishing boats, right out of the game and the background count of incidents diminishes. That still leaves the bigger players with motor vessels sporting real armament of course, but, those are fewer and farther between and are the customers you could reasonably be expecting the various naval services to come in to play against.
Equip the cargo ships that pass through the area with the mounts for 3 shielded .50’s, one for the bow and one for each side of the bridge. Fly 10-20 man security teams from one ship to another while they pass through the area.
StevoJHIADS system has mobile SAMs with practically unilimited amount of SAM. One Battery of S-300PMU-2( 15 year old tech) can engage 36 targets with 72 missiles and that is downgraded export version at range exceeding 200km. And u need bunkerbusting bombs against hardened structures. Now it is possible of creating layered mobile airdefence system of interlinking SAMs and Radar in which even fighters will control SAM missiles. they dont have to light up there radars. opportunities are plenty. Even two decade old system could destroy 400 targets in single salvo. In 21st century ur taking about thousands of targets destroyed in single salvo. Ships are by nature limited and fixed.
Surely it knows where the airbases are but it will not know where the SAMs are. whether they are real or dummy. (read about Rusball). Ground based force has more choice in airbases. Remember Russian aircraft are for rough field performance. It is the aircraft carrier which has no second choice.
Surely there is no airlaunched club since it has been exported yet. How do u know the flight profile of latest antiship missiles when customer themselves will not know about other customer missiles and credible information?
dozen of ships and thousands of VLS.? Always dreaming. who will put so much gas in ships and supply chian? what if war does not happend and u have to back down. u lose all money for moblization. Naval strategy is costly and worth less.
In less than five year time there wont be a place of signifiacance where Russia will not express its interest. u have to live with this reality.I am surely observing various exercises. There are 400+ Flankers and 400+ Su-24. I am not going into bomber and Naval squardons. For Flanker 3 to 4 sorties per day is not a big deal. Its engines are designed for sustained operations of 10 to 12 hrs per day. Infact Su-34 engines are for 16 hr flight times. What do u think they want to put so many hrs per day. 2 to 3 hr per sortie with 3 to 4 sorties are not big deal for Flanker.
In regards to the S-300, they launch 2 missiles at each target, with ~10 missiles controlable at any one time, no system in the world as of today can control 36 missiles simultaneously.
The thing about SAM sights, is that while they are theoretically mobile, they tend to either stay in one place, or operate from a group of specific presurveyed sites which they would practice on in peace time. Satellites watch these units and see where they set up, in a war situation it would be easy enough to check each of these recorded sites to cue in the locations for cruise missile strikes.
Bunker busters are for after SEAD has been carried out, and SAM batteries are not hardened targets as they are designed to be mobile, at most the command structures would be armoured vehicles, not that this would help the actual missile carriers.
A mix of a dozen Burke destroyers and Ticonderoga cruisers would have over 1000 VLS tubes between them (96 for the burke, 122 for the tico). Fortunately for the ships, your flankers would not get 3-4 sorties per day even if the airframes themselves could theoretically withstand it, because between each sortie, the aircraft would have to be rearmed, and that takes time, plus the pilots are not superhuman and *do* need sleep occasionally.
StevoJHYou really need to stop posting here if you don’t even know what an Su-34 is! 😮
Assuming this is a nearby theater, which is almost granted realistically, those same “defending fighters” are targets for bomber escorts.
Ok, I looked it up, its a light tactical bomber, with only around 10 produced, which means that their isnt even one single full squadron of them in service.
Besides, its a replacement for the Su-24, which is basicly the russian version of the A-10.
Sign In
