The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter overlander
- Start date
Dassault is talking about 25mn Euros for Son of Neuron.
Not quite. Neuron has an Adour, same as the Hawk. The scaled-up successor will have a modified, non-afterburning, Rafale engine.
Yes, bombing from Cyrus. IIRC the Hunters (& Venoms) did CAP in case of Egyptian raids on the Cyprus bases, to the annoyance of the pilots, who'd rather have been escorting bombers.
As has already been said, a few times, Taranis is just a technology demonstrator. The full-size aircraft is supposed to be quite a lot bigger, & with a correspondingly bigger payload.
And what's wrong with just a couple of 2000 pounders? It's what the F-117 carried.
whats the through life of the RN minesweepers? I'm wondering if these are holding pattern upgrades as there ihas been some significant progress made wrt ROV and smaller manned sweeping solutions (ie less than 3 man crew using modular deployed sets)
Qinetic usually play in this space, and have been observers for a few western developments, so I assumed that they would have an elevated interest in heading off to the smaller MS/H solutions - although the smaller manned CTD's are probably not that useful for deep blue operations yet.
For the type of warfare we are likely to be involved in (including Iran) when do you use 2000lbs and if we do they can be dropped by a heavier aircraft like a Tornado or an off the shelf minimal risk replacement.
All the focus at the moments is smaller more accurate munitions that can be used in close support of ground forces.
A CVA-01 would probably have been operating a mix of Buccaneers and F18s I doubt the RAF would have needed to provide much support and as you say their was more than required.I suspect CVA-01 in GW1 would have been supplemental to the RAF presence, perhaps there would have been 1 fewer USN carrier but there probably were enough targets for them all!
The UK mine sweeper fleet is 'plastic' so one would assume the hulls have got pleny of life in them yet. The new ROV and engine upgrades should keep them current for years to come. Tere replacement must way down the pecking order.
But Son of Taranis isn't aimed at supporting ground forces in close engagement with the Taliban. We can do that with anything: Reaper, Mantis, Tornado, Typhoon. Son of Taranis is primarily aimed at deep strike, & for use in high-intensity warfare. For that, some big bunker-busting bombs are very useful indeed.
I didn't mean a low intensity air war like Afghanistan. An attack on a country like Iran would probably face very robust airdefences.
A production UCAV has got to be low cost to enable it to be built in numbers (and exports). They are likely to have a higher loss rate, both from the nature of the beast and the likely deployments (higher risk).
The F35 (if ordered) will do the deep strike role when Tornado is gone and will be in service for c30+ years (2040). For deep strike after that its probably supersonic cruise missiles (if it shouldn't be now??).
The RAF's interest in deep strike, is more about its identity than a key UK requirement. The western approach to destroying C&C will have limited imapct on a decentralised armed force like Iran (for that very reason). A simple if dated example; the death of Nelson had no impact on the outcome of Trafalgar because the plan and instructions where given out some months before, for the very reason that battle communications were not possible at that time. in fact their is a very good case that improvements in communications since have hindered the development of command.
We're unlikely to have very many F-35C, & they'll be rare & precious things. Stealthy UCAVs can be sneakier (fewer stealth compromises dictated by the need for a pilot, etc.), & much cheaper. We're also likely to have few reserve pilots. For the highest risk missions, I'd much rather send a UCAV than an F-35C. It wouldn't necessarily have a higher loss rate (stealthier, as I said), & if it is lost, it's more affordable.
Your argument of higher UCAV loss rate because of higher risk tasks falls apart if you don't have them. The higher loss rate then shifts to your manned aircraft, because they have to undertake all tasks, however high the risk.
A Son of Taranis should be able to deliver a few PGMs over much longer range than an F-35C. An F-35C isn't stealthy if it has to carry external tanks, & can't be refuelled over or within interception range of enemy airspace.
Command centres aren't the only possible targets of deep strike UCAVs, & anyway, everybody except insurgents & pilots has them, however decentralised their command structure supposedly is. There are also air defence radars, missile launchers, hardened aircraft shelters - oh, lots of things you might want to blow up before risking lots of pilots over a country.
Supersonic cruise missiles need to be very big to have a long range. What would we launch them from? They're also hard to hide, so for deep strike, can be intercepted before they get to the target, & expensive. A UCAV wouldn't have to undertake many raids before it became cheaper than them.
Your argument of higher UCAV loss rate because of higher risk tasks falls apart if you don't have them. The higher loss rate then shifts to your manned aircraft, because they have to undertake all tasks, however high the risk.
A Son of Taranis should be able to deliver a few PGMs over much longer range than an F-35C. An F-35C isn't stealthy if it has to carry external tanks, & can't be refuelled over or within interception range of enemy airspace.
Command centres aren't the only possible targets of deep strike UCAVs, & anyway, everybody except insurgents & pilots has them, however decentralised their command structure supposedly is. There are also air defence radars, missile launchers, hardened aircraft shelters - oh, lots of things you might want to blow up before risking lots of pilots over a country.
Supersonic cruise missiles need to be very big to have a long range. What would we launch them from? They're also hard to hide, so for deep strike, can be intercepted before they get to the target, & expensive. A UCAV wouldn't have to undertake many raids before it became cheaper than them.
I don't have an issue with a higher loss rate due to high risk missions, but its a reason why they have to be cheaper. Although I accept there will be high value targets, in the wars of the future and present (for different reasons) airpower needs to focus on supporting the troops on the ground, rather than the modern equivilant of strategic bombing.
Son of Taranis based round a EJ200 and with a deep strike brief is very dangerous project for the CVF. Just the sort of project that could become very expensive and none would ever see service on one. Whereas a production Taranis at c£20m would be a useful addition to the CVF.
If we don't have another F35 for deep strike we can rely on our allies (thats a great get out for any capability gap of any length)
Last edited:
BAE sees their future in continued development of UCAV/UAV. Many nations will want to jump on the bandwagon, pilot training costs are much reduced, 90% of training can be completed in a simulator, no need to invest in prop or jet trainers for a start. Look at a country like NZ, which has ditched it's fast air, it could invest in small numbers of modern UCAV's and overnight take a huge capability leap.
Mantis is designed as a cost effective long range, long endurance asset to deal with asymmetrical threats and provide real time surveillance. The advantage of Mantis is its ability to fly the entire mission without any human interface once the mission is programmed in on the ground.
Taranis and now Demon are high end stealthy platforms aimed at the more sophisticated threat, but still offering a cost and range advantage over a manned platform. They would prove useful against Iran targeting command, control and critical infrastructure. They should form the advance wave looking for weak spots in the enemy’s defences. Follow-on F35C's can use the intelligence gleaned by the stealthy UCAV's to maximize their limited numbers.
Theoretically you could launch Taranis to the four corners of the compass from a QE Class and only bring the human element in once the threat is detected or on the final target run.
Last edited:
I am comfortable with most of this. I would like to see a production Taranis in service asap. But when you start to increase the size, cost will go up and you defeat the point of them.
The saving on pilot weight and kit is a small percentage, and if you are just doing this to avoid a few pilots lives, although hard the last 10 years would not support the case (how many pilots lost v soldiers on the ground).
the UCAV is not as such going to be cheaper than the equivilant manned plane. The F35 is a completely different capability if you try and match a UCAV with F35 capability, it will be very expensive. This is my convern as soon as I hear talk about fitting EJ200, how long before saying lets go afterburn and why not fit two?
There maybe a seprate case that manned single role aircraft would be cheaper to build and operate than a multi role aircraft, which could be a jack of all trades master of none.
Neutral Zone
New Member
I agree about what the air group would have consisted of. Maybe the RAF contribution would not have been necessary from a military viewpoint but politically Britain would have wanted to have made the largest possible contribution so as to have more bargaining power with America over the strategy, that would have meant sending everything available. IIRC there was a story at the time that the US had requested that Ark Royal be sent to the Gulf to help with enforcing the sanctions on Iraq so as to free up a USN carrier for combat duty, in the end it was stationed off Cyprus for some reason! So there would have been a role for a CVA-01.
You could argue that the USN carriers in Desert Storm were superfluous as extra USAF assets could have provided the same capability. There were clear military reasons for having the maximum possible contributions from all services as although it turned out to be a cakewalk analysts at the time expected a much messier affair and certainly the use of chemical weapons against the air bases like Dhahran.
I think places at the table would have been influenced by troops on the ground. Not that I think it was something worth much; did we have any influence on strategy...did we want to, the US seemed to do a good job of coordination.
I am surprised you thought it would be hard at the time. I do remember talk of 30,000 casualties, surely you didn't believe that conditioning?
That's rather problematic given the number of USN sorties flown and space available at the various air bases. The A-6 and F/A-18 brought some important capabilities to the table as well. There would not have been enough room on allied airfields in range. The carriers could have contributed more with a more flexible ATO. It also didn't help that at the time the ATO had to be flown out to the carriers.
If you had enough basing then the carriers are not needed per se. The carriers however do quickly bring not just the aircraft but the ground crew, equipment, supplies, and facilities. One should not underestimate the value in a fully functional, manned, and equipped mobile airbase. Moreover, in another operation the utility of land bases vs carriers can become moot give political factors- often it's carriers or nothing.
You could argue that the USN carriers in Desert Storm were superfluous as extra USAF assets could have provided the same capability. There were clear military reasons for having the maximum possible contributions from all services as although it turned out to be a cakewalk analysts at the time expected a much messier affair and certainly the use of chemical weapons against the air bases like Dhahran.[/QUOTE]
If you had enough basing then the carriers are not needed per se. The carriers however do quickly bring not just the aircraft but the ground crew, equipment, supplies, and facilities. One should not underestimate the value in a fully functional, manned, and equipped mobile airbase. Moreover, in another operation the utility of land bases vs carriers can become moot give political factors- often it's carriers or nothing.
You could argue that the USN carriers in Desert Storm were superfluous as extra USAF assets could have provided the same capability. There were clear military reasons for having the maximum possible contributions from all services as although it turned out to be a cakewalk analysts at the time expected a much messier affair and certainly the use of chemical weapons against the air bases like Dhahran.[/QUOTE]
Mantis is firmly aimed at the SCAVENGER programme to replace Sentinal R1 (scheduled to retire following Afghan withdrawel in 2015). If the French buy-in the subsequent reduced unit costs might make it competative. if they don't I can't see the programme surviving because the next gen Reaper will be cheaper. Operating the successful candidate from a carrier would bring a huge ISTAR boost to the deployed ARG. It will be interesting to note if 'marinisation and folding wings' are included in the final spec.
http://www.defenceiq.com/article.cfm?externalid=2768
Looking at current plans for RAF/FAA/AAC, we can see, which might be capable of being deployed on a QE Class (IN-BOLD) around 2020:
160 Typhoon
F35C 50-80? (RAF - FAA mix), final numbers to be confirmed in batch 1
E-3D, AIRSEEKER (Rivet Joint) and SCAVENGER (RPAS)?
Fixed wing lift:
14 A330
7 C-17
22 A-400M
battlefield lift capability consisting of:
60 Chinook
25 Merlin (transferred to Royal Marines)
24 upgraded Puma
Wildcat 28 X RN 34 X ARMY
67 Apache (Army Aircorp)
Last edited:
These are validate points but I'd just like to offer a different perspective on the relative merits of high preformance UACV's versus high preformance manned jets. My understanding is that the UACV combat jets have an attritional advantage in high intensity warfare in that robots are faster to replace than competent combat pilots. Since it is hard enough to find suitable people to become combat pilots and then it takes a long time to train them to the level needed to make them effective, the war will be over by the time lost 'top guns' can be replaced. High preformance UACV's, on the other hand, are good to go when they roll of the production line.
I expect a future airforce would find the need to field both autonomous high preformance UACV's and manned combat jets. The UACV's would be the primary weapons platforms (both strike and air to air) while the manned combat jets would provide electronic support, monitoring of the robots and human situational awareness during the mission. If this is so, the manned jets will be even more expensive than they are now. A current example is the EF 18 growler.
weasel1962
New Member
Re:
There are a number of other benefits unsaid. Fighter pilots have shorter career life-spans due to rigours of manned flight. UAV pilot careers may be able to last far longer ie end up with more experienced pilots. Also, no longer will pilots be restricted to those who are fit and just good eye-sight. The next ace could be a fat geek with an x-box champ background.
Also on long flights, UAV pilots can rotate duties and control multiple numbers instead of just 1 on the job which means one could actually have multiple UCAVs inbound/circling controlled only by fewer pilots. Again, force multiplier.
The problem with new tech is that it ends up being shared with/studied by allies who then take the UCAV, improve it, load a lot more capabilities on it, make it cheaper and sell it to potential clients after the original manufacturer dumps $billions into R&D.
There are a number of other benefits unsaid. Fighter pilots have shorter career life-spans due to rigours of manned flight. UAV pilot careers may be able to last far longer ie end up with more experienced pilots. Also, no longer will pilots be restricted to those who are fit and just good eye-sight. The next ace could be a fat geek with an x-box champ background.
Also on long flights, UAV pilots can rotate duties and control multiple numbers instead of just 1 on the job which means one could actually have multiple UCAVs inbound/circling controlled only by fewer pilots. Again, force multiplier.
The problem with new tech is that it ends up being shared with/studied by allies who then take the UCAV, improve it, load a lot more capabilities on it, make it cheaper and sell it to potential clients after the original manufacturer dumps $billions into R&D.
I should say that what I outlined is very conceptual stuff. The Amercians might field such a force in 15 to 20 years, based on Boeing's offering for the USN superhornet replacement plan. Even in this case, Boeing is going to present a manned and unmanned alternative.
What I've been thinking about and also some things I've read about US ideas, autonomous UACV's won't necassarily have one operator for one aircraft. The idea is one operator can monitor serveral UACV's. Such advanced robots could look after themselves for most purposes*. Consider computer games like Starcraft. The sprites can navigate and react to local events. But human oversight, for when to engage, what to engage and also avoiding obviously silly responses, greatly increases the sprites effectiveness. Computers are great when the parameters of problems are well defined (eg: games of chess), but still fall short when broader awareness and creative association of concepts are required.
So I forsee a long future for manned combat jets to accompany robotic jets. The operator would be flying with the formation, in my view. He would be the second crew member in a electronic warefare jet, like a EF 18 or an F 22 with 2 seats. So in terms of training costs, such an operator would be expensive. While it is quite possible to situate the operator anywhere in the world, I would think having him near the combat would put him in a better position to understand what is going on and also reduce the opportunity for communications to be lost due to local adhoc networks being reestablished quickly due to the proximity of the manned jets.
Anyway, this is pie in the sky stuff and this concept might come to nought. The Brits certainly are capable of pushing this area technology ahead if their government wanted too. If they were to operate high preformance UACV's from their carrier, this wouldn't rule out using manned jets too when they are avalible, if my views hold up to analysis. Nothing to stop them operating the lower end 'Predator style' UACV's but it would seem a bit odd to go to the trouble of launching a fleet carrier only to fly toy planes from it. Still, it is better than having a carrier with no planes, I guess.
Just a few other points about manned versus unmanned aircraft. Particularly in peace, but also in anything short of global total war, it is often the case that manned aircraft are needed to 'eyeball' contacts. It would be rather embarasing to have flying robots chasing down a contact, losing communication at a crucial moment, the robot engages and later the contact turns out to have been a commercial passenger jet.
Another point is that countries like my own don't produce high preformance airframes, meaning even an unmanned combat jet is not expendable, hence defeating the attritional advantage argument. The attritional justification really only matters if the nation in question has a production line. America and Japan might have both means and motive to make it happen in a big way but I guess Britian has the means but maybe not the motive given the lack of direct threats. I don't think manned jets will disappear soon.
* The Israeli Heron is capable of autonomous flight according to the company's website. I am not aware whether a single operator can fly several planes. I think the Americans can operate their Predators this way. Perhaps we can do some more research on current capabilities and develop the theme in a specific UACV thread?