The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates

S

swerve

Super Moderator
riksavage said:
My comment reference Germany was not intended to cause offence, it was simply to reflect how certain countries continue to invest in new and very expensive hardware designed for state-on-state conventional warfare at the expense of more relevant systems ideally suited to the current asymmetrical battlefield and likely future conflicts involving failed states outside of mainland Europe.

Whilst Heron is a v-good UAV, Germany is buying just three units and one ground station. ...

And lets be honest if Krauss-Maffai Wegmann made UCAV's, Germany would have more in their inventory than anyone else in Europe, but they don't, so hay-ho Germany has ended up with very high-end, excellent APC's designed to fight in Europe.
Click to expand...
You missed Waylanders comment about Luna, Aladin & KZO. As I understand it, they have been very useful in Afghanistan.

I suggest you look at the Bundeswehr inventory of protected patrol vehicles & the like. Dingo 1 & 2, Mungo, Duro . . . and the Fennek is proving its worth out there.
 
1

1805

New Member
Hambo said:
"1805 Mind It would be good to understand the cost of conversion to cats at this stage. I can’t believe it would be anyway in the £500m/ship as Hambro suggested?
Click to expand...
"

I dont know what copy of the Yellow Pages you own but I dont think there are many catapult makers listed, unless you are after a fishing accessory or a kids toy.

There are probably less than 20 ships worldwide including those in reserve or laid up that possess catapults. I believe there is a single US company that makes them, they provided some to the french but its a pretty specialist field and a massively complex task with a long lead time.

Take a CV, add I assume a GT to provide heat and steam, a water supply to be turned into steam, a pressurised steam system and all the gubgins, then the cats themselves and arrestor gear.

Book that CV into a dockyard for a massive refit for say 24 months labour, cut holes in it on the deck, add cats, wires and blast deflectors, rearrange many of the internal spaces for the equipment. I think the cost would be massive and I think the 500m cost may be from a link to a document on Mr Beedalls site. If done , it needed to be done at the beginning. Maybe in 20years we could afford to but probably not now.

Then add a specialist engineering branch to the RN and servicing costs. It cost a fortune to Phantomise the Ark, it costs a fortune just to do a simple refit on a vessell, so the cost of cats would be anyones guess but not cheap.

Its only worth doing if the cost of F35B is prohibitive. If a SuperHornet/Rafale VS F35B adds 40-50m per airframe then it perhaps makes sense, If the cost of F35b is "only" 20m each more then its worth it for the stealth and growth potential IMO to go with the F35B.

EMALS also looks a massive undertaking with the energy storage, and again with only a dozen or so ships likely to have them at any one time it wouldnt be cheap, what tha cost would be I dont know, but the US has already spent billions developing it.[/QUOTE]

I have assumed if they went with cats it would be before they completed the ships and would be EMALS. So although some redesigns it would not be complete rebuild. Agree it will not be cheap but till fill 500m/ships is high, almost a quarter of the original planned cost?

True EMALS may have cost a lot to develop but as this was based on only USN purchases. The marginal cost of RN purchase, might be favourable for both parties.

I'm not saying it is the idea solution but an option, and RN has considered it in the long term with the design.

I agree with Riksavage future deployments are likely to be low intensity operations and I think a high low mix is ideal (and probably all we can afford). 18-24 F35b/c and a similar number of light attack. Personally I disagree with you on the Hawk 200, it can pack a reasonable punch (as good as an attack helicopter and more robust?) and only c£12m. More than able to do what has been required in Afghanistan, at a faction of the cost. Although the actually Harriers does fit the bill very well/maybe even the Gripen?

I could see a lot more potential exports in the Hawk 200 if the UK adopted.
 
Last edited:
H

Hambo

New Member
I agree with Riksavage future deployments are likely to be low intensity operations and I think a high low mix is ideal (and probably all we can afford). 18-24 F35b/c and a similar number of light attack. Personally I disagree with you on the Hawk 200, it can pack a reasonable punch (as good as an attack helicopter and more robust?) and only c£12m. More than able to do what has been required in Afghanistan, at a faction of the cost. Although the actually Harriers does fit the bill very well/maybe even the Gripen?

I could see a lot more potential exports in the Hawk 200 if the UK adopted.[/QUOTE]

1805, a quick internet scan of Hawk 200 says it can do a very unimpressive A2A mission of 2 hours at 100m, or an attack mission carrying a mighty 2000lbs of bombs and underwing tanks an uninspiring range of "nearly" 300m. So why the hell would you want to put such a plane on a vastly expensive CV?
When you say its more that able to do what is required in Afghanistan, maybe so in RAF colours flying from Kandahar, but as much use as a chocolate Tea Pot flying from a ship in the Indian Ocean, it woudlnt reach its target..
Add to the fact that ship operation would require it to sit for several minutes on a cat burning fuel cutting its endurance even further, then hope its rather puny engine gets it airbourne. You may as well dust of the plans for Sea Vixen. Hawk 200 would give the Royal Navy absolutely nothing other than make it a laughing stock amongst its contempories. Its a trainer and a cheap option for small countries airforces. You would get a better punch licence building Skyhawks, let alone having it try and face serious adversary.
I think the UK PLC can do a little bit better than that.
Very much like your ideas of building cheap expendable ships, its fine unless you are the poor bugger who gets to die in one of them.
 
1

1805

New Member
Hambo said:
I agree with Riksavage future deployments are likely to be low intensity operations and I think a high low mix is ideal (and probably all we can afford). 18-24 F35b/c and a similar number of light attack. Personally I disagree with you on the Hawk 200, it can pack a reasonable punch (as good as an attack helicopter and more robust?) and only c£12m. More than able to do what has been required in Afghanistan, at a faction of the cost. Although the actually Harriers does fit the bill very well/maybe even the Gripen?

I could see a lot more potential exports in the Hawk 200 if the UK adopted.
Click to expand...
1805, a quick internet scan of Hawk 200 says it can do a very unimpressive A2A mission of 2 hours at 100m, or an attack mission carrying a mighty 2000lbs of bombs and underwing tanks an uninspiring range of "nearly" 300m. So why the hell would you want to put such a plane on a vastly expensive CV?
When you say its more that able to do what is required in Afghanistan, maybe so in RAF colours flying from Kandahar, but as much use as a chocolate Tea Pot flying from a ship in the Indian Ocean, it woudlnt reach its target..
Add to the fact that ship operation would require it to sit for several minutes on a cat burning fuel cutting its endurance even further, then hope its rather puny engine gets it airbourne. You may as well dust of the plans for Sea Vixen. Hawk 200 would give the Royal Navy absolutely nothing other than make it a laughing stock amongst its contempories. Its a trainer and a cheap option for small countries airforces. You would get a better punch licence building Skyhawks, let alone having it try and face serious adversary.
I think the UK PLC can do a little bit better than that.
Very much like your ideas of building cheap expendable ships, its fine unless you are the poor bugger who gets to die in one of them.[/QUOTE]

As ever you're so busy rubbish other peoples ideas you just miss the point. I am not saying its a replacement for a buccaneer, but when it come to dropping 285lb SDB (if we can ever afford such things) in support of the Arm,y how much load carrying does it need? The figures I have seen off the internet say 3000kg max load fuel/weapons. I would not see it facing any air-air threat or anything more than heavy machine gun AA fire. But if its not got a long enough range an off the shelf alternative such as I said Gripen? The point is the cost of buying and OPERATING large numbers of F35 b or c is not an option. If itssimilar to the Typhoon which is twice as expensive as the Tornado to fly. Numbers of high performance jets are going to be very small. The Times was saying if you look at Typhoon orders over its life and frames in repair we may never have no more than 100 in operational at any one time.
 
H

Hambo

New Member
1805 said:
1805, a quick internet scan of Hawk 200 says it can do a very unimpressive A2A mission of 2 hours at 100m, or an attack mission carrying a mighty 2000lbs of bombs and underwing tanks an uninspiring range of "nearly" 300m. So why the hell would you want to put such a plane on a vastly expensive CV?
When you say its more that able to do what is required in Afghanistan, maybe so in RAF colours flying from Kandahar, but as much use as a chocolate Tea Pot flying from a ship in the Indian Ocean, it woudlnt reach its target..
Add to the fact that ship operation would require it to sit for several minutes on a cat burning fuel cutting its endurance even further, then hope its rather puny engine gets it airbourne. You may as well dust of the plans for Sea Vixen. Hawk 200 would give the Royal Navy absolutely nothing other than make it a laughing stock amongst its contempories. Its a trainer and a cheap option for small countries airforces. You would get a better punch licence building Skyhawks, let alone having it try and face serious adversary.
I think the UK PLC can do a little bit better than that.
Very much like your ideas of building cheap expendable ships, its fine unless you are the poor bugger who gets to die in one of them.
Click to expand...

As ever you're so busy rubbish other peoples ideas you just miss the point. I am not saying its a replacement for a buccaneer, but when it come to dropping 285lb SDB (if we can ever afford such things) in support of the Arm,y how much load carrying does it need? The figures I have seen off the internet say 3000kg max load fuel/weapons. I would not see it facing any air-air threat or anything more than heavy machine gun AA fire. But if its not got a long enough range an off the shelf alternative such as I said Gripen? The point is the cost of buying and OPERATING large numbers of F35 b or c is not an option. If itssimilar to the Typhoon which is twice as expensive as the Tornado to fly. Numbers of high performance jets are going to be very small. The Times was saying if you look at Typhoon orders over its life and frames in repair we may never have no more than 100 in operational at any one time.[/QUOTE]

You are the one proposing Hawk for the RN, I am just voicing an opinion its a poor choice when it would cost a lot to add catapults. It may well be suitable for the RAF for an Afghan type mission but if you are just after a platform to lob an SDB (or hellfire or LGB) in a low threat, then wouldnt more Predators be a better bet?
Go Gripen by all means but you boost a foreign company (albeit with some BAE marketing). I dont think we can add another type just yet. I am open to the idea of SH /Rafale etc to the carriers buts its only a runner in my mind if F35 is massively more expensive, if not I would accept a small number of F35B, because just 6 flying from QE would be vastly more capable than 9 GR9's off the Ark.

Numbers of all assets are going to be small. Are you saying Typhoon costs twice in fuel per hour than Tornado? If so do you men F3 or GR4 and in what flight profile. I would have thought the Typhoon was far less maintenance intensive than Tornado.
100 airframes at anyone time is ample, since 1982, we have never deployed more than 100 fast air in a conflict, that includes GW1/2 Kosovo and Afghanistan.

I dont rubbish other peoples ideas, in fact no one on here posts stupid or technological impractical or inferior ideas, that honour is restricted to you. I wouldnt even bother questioning many of the expert posters on here they know far more than me about matters in defence, but if you can put up a rationale defence of your proposals by all means please do, the point is most of your ideas are bonkers.
 
1

1805

New Member
You are the one proposing Hawk for the RN, I am just voicing an opinion its a poor choice when it would cost a lot to add catapults. It may well be suitable for the RAF for an Afghan type mission but if you are just after a platform to lob an SDB (or hellfire or LGB) in a low threat, then wouldnt more Predators be a better bet?
Agreed you wouldn't go "cats" just for Hawks, I do think the development of the Hawk could be aligned with UAV like Taranis etc

Go Gripen by all means but you boost a foreign company (albeit with some BAE marketing). I dont think we can add another type just yet. I am open to the idea of SH /Rafale etc to the carriers buts its only a runner in my mind if F35 is massively more expensive, if not I would accept a small number of F35B, because just 6 flying from QE would be vastly more capable than 9 GR9's off the Ark.

Thats not so conclusive if we are focusing on low intensity fights supporting ground troops.

Numbers of all assets are going to be small. Are you saying Typhoon costs twice in fuel per hour than Tornado? If so do you men F3 or GR4 and in what flight profile. I would have thought the Typhoon was far less maintenance intensive than Tornado.

I think that came from a replay to a Parlimentary question

100 airframes at anyone time is ample, since 1982, we have never deployed more than 100 fast air in a conflict, that includes GW1/2 Kosovo and Afghanistan.

Not if thats all you have we have, and its a max of 100

I dont rubbish other peoples ideas, in fact no one on here posts stupid or technological impractical or inferior ideas, that honour is restricted to you. I wouldnt even bother questioning many of the expert posters on here they know far more than me about matters in defence, but if you can put up a rationale defence of your proposals by all means please do, the point is most of your ideas are bonkers.[/QUOTE]

One thing is clear the role of the CVFs has been thought through well. I can't help but feel as i see peoples comments/debated that we would have been better of with 3 ships more aligned to the LHA-6 class
 
B

Bonza

Super Moderator
Staff member
1805 said:
As ever you're so busy rubbish other peoples ideas you just miss the point. I am not saying its a replacement for a buccaneer, but when it come to dropping 285lb SDB (if we can ever afford such things) in support of the Arm,y how much load carrying does it need? The figures I have seen off the internet say 3000kg max load fuel/weapons. I would not see it facing any air-air threat or anything more than heavy machine gun AA fire. But if its not got a long enough range an off the shelf alternative such as I said Gripen? The point is the cost of buying and OPERATING large numbers of F35 b or c is not an option. If itssimilar to the Typhoon which is twice as expensive as the Tornado to fly. Numbers of high performance jets are going to be very small. The Times was saying if you look at Typhoon orders over its life and frames in repair we may never have no more than 100 in operational at any one time.
Click to expand...
I tend to agree with Hambo on this one re the Hawk 200. You're talking about not only modernizing the aircraft, but navalizing it as well - how much development time and funding are you willing to spend for a low capability, short range aircraft? Remember this aircraft, whatever you choose, is going to take up valuable deck and hanger space. Thus I would think getting the best return on capability would be a priority - and if you're worried about the costs of F-35 then that to me screams Super Hornet (not in terms of platform favouritism, but in terms of availability and capability versus cost). Yes it will be more expensive to operate than a Hawk 200 variant, but it will be able to accomplish a great deal more, and how much time and money are you willing to spend on developing a Hawk before you get the capability?

If you're going to spend money developing platforms for carrier use, I would think you'd be making a wiser investment (in terms of future benefits) focusing on UCAVs.
 
1

1805

New Member
Bonza said:
I tend to agree with Hambo on this one re the Hawk 200. You're talking about not only modernizing the aircraft, but navalizing it as well - how much development time and funding are you willing to spend for a low capability, short range aircraft? Remember this aircraft, whatever you choose, is going to take up valuable deck and hanger space. Thus I would think getting the best return on capability would be a priority - and if you're worried about the costs of F-35 then that to me screams Super Hornet (not in terms of platform favouritism, but in terms of availability and capability versus cost). Yes it will be more expensive to operate than a Hawk 200 variant, but it will be able to accomplish a great deal more, and how much time and money are you willing to spend on developing a Hawk before you get the capability?

If you're going to spend money developing platforms for carrier use, I would think you'd be making a wiser investment (in terms of future benefits) focusing on UCAVs.
Click to expand...
I'm not particularly attached to the Hawk, more the need for a hi-lo mix. I would actually prefer the F35b to be brought in reasonable numbers or to work alongside Harriers. I wouldn't worry about deck/hangers the rate the RN is going, we will have plenty of space just no aircraft!

We could end up with Harriers retired c2012-15 no F35 till 2018-20
 
StevoJH

StevoJH

The Bunker Group
1805 said:
We could end up with Harriers retired c2012-15 no F35 till 2018-20
Click to expand...
Harriers will be in service until ~2018-2020 from memory. Not too long ago a 10 year maintenance deal was signed with BAe. The Harriers arent going anywhere.
 
1

1805

New Member
StevoJH said:
Harriers will be in service until ~2018-2020 from memory. Not too long ago a 10 year maintenance deal was signed with BAe. The Harriers arent going anywhere.
Click to expand...
Well it depends on whether the RAF will fight to keep Harriers over Tornados (GRs I assume the F3 will go anyway) in the SDR. I would hope they would but they might not.
 
StevoJH

StevoJH

The Bunker Group
1805 said:
Well it depends on whether the RAF will fight to keep Harriers over Tornados (GRs I assume the F3 will go anyway) in the SDR. I would hope they would but they might not.
Click to expand...
F3's are effectively gone. From memory the OCU has stood down or been folded into the GR4 OCU. The active squadron is to be disbanded when the next Typhoon squadron stands up.

As for the harriers, I'm assuming the penalty clauses on the maintenance contracts will be high enough to make withdrawing them from service a painful experience, plus they are required for the CVS, as the RN doesnt have enough harriers to fill one up by themselves.

GR.4 is currently busy in Afghanistan, any move to cut the force would presumably be spun very negatively by the press.
 
1

1805

New Member
StevoJH said:
F3's are effectively gone. From memory the OCU has stood down or been folded into the GR4 OCU. The active squadron is to be disbanded when the next Typhoon squadron stands up.

As for the harriers, I'm assuming the penalty clauses on the maintenance contracts will be high enough to make withdrawing them from service a painful experience, plus they are required for the CVS, as the RN doesnt have enough harriers to fill one up by themselves.

GR.4 is currently busy in Afghanistan, any move to cut the force would presumably be spun very negatively by the press.
Click to expand...
Completely agree with you. But now you see how vunerable the RN is. There was speculation at the time why the RAF was pulling the Harriers our and replacing with Tornados, when the Harriers were probably better suited to supporting the Army. I'm sure everyone here will find valid reasons but there was a view it was to protect Tornados (heavy bombers are the spirital heart of the RAF not fighters)

Two huge oversized carriers fullfilling the role of HMS Ocean, with no F35 on the horizon for nearly a decade (well you have survived for 10-15 years why do you need them now??)
 
H

Hambo

New Member
1805 said:
I'm not particularly attached to the Hawk, more the need for a hi-lo mix. I would actually prefer the F35b to be brought in reasonable numbers or to work alongside Harriers. I wouldn't worry about deck/hangers the rate the RN is going, we will have plenty of space just no aircraft!

We could end up with Harriers retired c2012-15 no F35 till 2018-20
Click to expand...
1805, I cant understand your almost obsesion with a hi-lo mix. Im not claiming to be an expert, or having a pop but the last decade has shown one thing. Iraq AND Afghanistan equals overstretch. I think your views that we need more airframes , dozens of low end warships etc assume we are going to be fighting in numerous low intensity conflicts, in geographical areas A,B,C and D simultaneously, therefore needing all these low end weapons to suppress a few fuzzywuzys.

More likely the UK will be able to do one conflict at anyone time, something like 10,000 troops deployed. We might be able to do a second conflict but it would be a lower case "b"conflict. Any politician who over commits us like we have been in the last decade will get the boot.

Therefore rather than developing a new array of low cost platforms (which as we know when UK industry is involved, is never low cost) we should invest in the high end and use them for low intensity conflicts when necessary.

We still need that first class, heavy hitting punch, be it RN taskforce with CV,Astutes, F35 and a flexible and deployable army and RAF.

There is no UK home threat at present. But as long as we can deploy 10,000 troops, 50 or so RAF fighters and a decent sized naval force overseas, then we are in good shape and will be able to do pretty much the same missions we have been over the last 30 years. I cant see the point of spending money on low tech platforms that cant go up against a decent foe. Rather than 10 Hawk or Hawk equivalents I would rather 2 F35s because the Hawk will be toast against a SU30, but the F35 will be able to blow up a taleban hut and down the Sukhoi.

Once you tell politicians that your military will accept kit only fit for low end, you will never persuade them to go back to buying the decent stuff when a real threat comes along. We will cease to be a serious military.
 
Systems Adict

Systems Adict

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
FluffyThoughts said:
Ok, I may be going senile, but I don't remember the 'vent system/office-block'' behind the LRR-mast being on Daring. http://img412.imageshack.us/img412/1936/fx1002862441.jpg

Is this a new feature? Does anyone know it's purpose?
Click to expand...
As SteveO stated, it's been there since day 1 !

Have a look at this page...

Newsroom - BAE Systems

On the Right hand side of the little embeded Video box there's a title that says "Type 45 and Astute".

Click on the link & at about 20 seconds in you'll see the back end of the ship for the 1st time in the clip.

It's the usual professional clip, which is actually edited together from several of the companies previous clips of Type-45 at sea.

Enjoy ! :D

SA :flash
 
S

swerve

Super Moderator
1805 said:
Completely agree with you. But now you see how vunerable the RN is. There was speculation at the time why the RAF was pulling the Harriers our and replacing with Tornados, when the Harriers were probably better suited to supporting the Army. I'm sure everyone here will find valid reasons but there was a view it was to protect Tornados (heavy bombers are the spirital heart of the RAF not fighters)

Two huge oversized carriers fullfilling the role of HMS Ocean, with no F35 on the horizon for nearly a decade (well you have survived for 10-15 years why do you need them now??)
Click to expand...
The Harriers are wearing out. Afghanistan was hard on them. We need to limit the wear on the fleet to keep them in service until F-35B starts arriving, or we'll have a long gap with no carrier-capable aircraft at all.

We're not going to have two 'huge oversized carriers fullfilling the role of HMS Ocean' - because we pulled the Harriers out of Afghanistan to prevent that happening.
 
StevoJH

StevoJH

The Bunker Group
FluffyThoughts said:
:lol3

If that 'feature' was part of the original design why did we spend so much on stealth-features? It looks as in-place as a box of OXO-cubes at a Royal function. Someone needs to revisit that piece of kit.... :sick
Click to expand...
T45 is said to have the Radar Profile of a 500 ton ship rather then a 7,500 ton ship, what more do you want? Besides, If you want to see LO and boxy, look at the F-117.
 
Systems Adict

Systems Adict

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
FluffyThoughts said:
:lol3

If that 'feature' was part of the original design why did we spend so much on stealth-features? It looks as in-place as a box of OXO-cubes at a Royal function. Someone needs to revisit that piece of kit.... :sick
Click to expand...
Hmmm...

Have you seen any Aerial shots of a Type-45 ? Look at where 'the Box' is.

If you do, you'll understand the need for 'the box'. Apart from that, the whole ships is designed in STEALTH format, so there are very few vertically flat surfaces that reflect radar signals back.

Apart from that, go & google pictures of the Franco / Italian equivalents & compare them to Type-45, then answer this question....


Which, of all 3 designs, is the best looking (asthectically pleasing), design....


I KNOW the answer before you've looked ! :p:


SA :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top