The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates

[kev 99]

The ships are purple - but that doesn't mean that the apaches are marinised and certified for long term deployment and operations.

RN is the same as RAN in this respect. If aircraft are purple then they must be accredited for operations off that asset, and more importantly, they must be able to talk and play within the CSS bubble of the flag.

if they can't, then they stay home.

AAC Apaches have been certified for operation from HMS Ocean for quite a while now, not sure about any of the other RN vessels.

 

[gf0012-aust]

AAC Apaches have been certified for operation from HMS Ocean for quite a while now, not sure about any of the other RN vessels.

if thats the case, then the decision narrows down to either a planning or political choice. (ie not capability driven)

there is a distinction though between certified to fly from and being fully accredited to fight from....

 

[kev 99]

if thats the case, then the decision narrows down to either a planning or political choice. (ie not capability driven)

there is a distinction though between certified to fly from and being fully accredited to fight from....

I pretty sure it's the later, it was well over a year ago that I read this though.

 

[1805]

They have to be a fraction of the cost to run a Typhoon. I don't see why the AAC could not have a permanent embarked group.

 

[StobieWan]

They have to be a fraction of the cost to run a Typhoon. I don't see why the AAC could not have a permanent embarked group.

Probably because we're short of spares and the cabs out in Helmand are burning through everything.

Ian

 

[1805]

Probably because we're short of spares and the cabs out in Helmand are burning through everything.

Ian

Probably, the true cost of such a long commitment in Afghanistan is huge, I think we will only get to know the whole bill years after.

The said the there is yet another war to fight.

 

[WillS]

The ships are purple - but that doesn't mean that the apaches are marinised and certified for long term deployment and operations.

One of the excuses (sorry "reasons") for expensively building Apaches in marginal constituencies in the UK rather than buying them from the main production line at a lower cost was the decision to incorporate those special little items we evidently needed for maritime operations, like folding rotor blades. This would seem to me to be a reason to buy Cobras instead, but presumably they weren't shiny enough.

I cannot recall ever hearing of Apaches deploying on UK naval assets apart from trials on Ocean some years ago. The strain of deploying half a dozen (out of 67) to Afghanistan is stretching the AAC to its limit in terms of availability. Rather like the strain of deploying 24 GR4s (out of 100+) to Afghanistan and Libya is stretching the RAF.

Yes, yes, I know. Attrition spares, OCUs, deep maintenance and lack of trained pilots are major factors here but honestly, if you ran a business with this level of efficiency the shareholders would sack you without a moment's thought.

WillS

 

[StevoJH]

Its more the fact that you can't have these aircrew's deployed for 6 months out of every year, if nothing else they'll fall behind in their other training requirements.

 

[Troothsayer]

Apaches were involved in a training exercise on Ark Royal as recently as September last year
[ame="http://www.flickr.com/photos/defenceimages/5158815958/"]Apache Helicopter Operations on HMS Ark Royal | Flickr - Photo Sharing!@@AMEPARAM@@http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4131/5158815958_6c2c0e5174_m.jpg@@AMEPARAM@@5158815958@@AMEPARAM@@6c2c0e5174[/ame]

 

[riksavage]

One of the excuses (sorry "reasons") for expensively building Apaches in marginal constituencies in the UK rather than buying them from the main production line at a lower cost was the decision to incorporate those special little items we evidently needed for maritime operations, like folding rotor blades. This would seem to me to be a reason to buy Cobras instead, but presumably they weren't shiny enough.

I cannot recall ever hearing of Apaches deploying on UK naval assets apart from trials on Ocean some years ago. The strain of deploying half a dozen (out of 67) to Afghanistan is stretching the AAC to its limit in terms of availability. Rather like the strain of deploying 24 GR4s (out of 100+) to Afghanistan and Libya is stretching the RAF.

Yes, yes, I know. Attrition spares, OCUs, deep maintenance and lack of trained pilots are major factors here but honestly, if you ran a business with this level of efficiency the shareholders would sack you without a moment's thought.

WillS

A-stan is a pretty hash environment and the Apache flying hours have gone through the roof, crews and airframes need rotating and the UK doesn't want to knacker it's fleet out completely. Deploying to Libya when other nations under less strain have comparable assets doesn't make sense.

The UK's decision to buy Apache over Cobra was driven by Longbow, weapons load and tank killing capabilities for use in an intensive armour soaked environment supported in the recce role by Lynx (and eventually Wildcat). Cobra couldn't match what Longbow offered. The UK version has an upgraded defensive fit, more powerful engines common to other UK helecopters (allowing for Longbow use in hot and high conditions) and folding rotors. The latter for storage aboard Ocean and movement by strategic lift to support 16 Air Assault once the DZ and closest air-base is secure.

Apache AAC regiments fall under 16, not 3 Commando Brigade's orbat, however it has a secondary role supporting which ever rapid reaction element is in role (Para or Commando).

With a shortage of F38C's, Apache will become a fixture aboard the deployed QE for the CAS role mimicking a USMC America Class rather than a true strike carrier. Currently they are used to escort Chinook in A-Stan, in future they can escort Chinook/Merlin deployed ship to shore in support of Amphib operations. Plus they can act as flying tanks during the initial landing by 3 Commando in thier armoured BV's, basically replacing Challenger, which will have to wait aboard the attached Bay's until the beach is secure.

Comparison as follows:

The America Class can accommodate

12 MV-22B Osprey tilt-rotor aircraft,
Six STOVL F-35B Lightning II strike fighters
Four AH-1Z attack helicopters,
Four CH-53Ks and
Three UH-1Y utility helicopters

QE could realistically accommadate:

Eight - Chinook/Merlin.
Between eight & twelve F-35C Lightning II strike fighters
Between four & six Apache
Between four - six Wildcat
+ Commando Company(s) + support not assigned to Albion

I understand the current deployment over Libya is short of six aircraft to do the job properly and appease the rebels. The UK has decided it has deployed enough (considering other commitment's) and is now offering to fund refugee movements out of Misurata.

The following quote taken from Flight Global sums up nicely why the Harriers will not return.

Speaking before the article's publication, chief of the air staff Air Chief Marshal Sir Stephen Dalton has defended the Ministry of Defence's decision to retire the Harrier in favour of safeguarding the bulk of the Tornado GR4 fleet, describing it as "in cold logic, unavoidable".

With reference to the Libyan operation, Dalton said: "The Tornados have delivered [MBDA] Storm Shadows to penetrate hardened buildings and the dual-mode Brimstone, neither of which could have been delivered by the Harrier."

"I am not knocking the Harrier, just those who have, often willfully, overstated its relative utility in this scenario," he told the Royal Aeronautical Society's Aerospace 2011 conference in London on 13 April.

"In operations such as Ellamy, on the periphery of Europe, the access, basing and over-flight restrictions that would necessitate carrier strike do not apply. There is simply no comparison in terms of platform capability, time on station or versatility between Tornado GR4s operating from a well-found NATO airfield in Italy and Harriers operating from a CVS."

 

[StobieWan]

One of the excuses (sorry "reasons") for expensively building Apaches in marginal constituencies in the UK rather than buying them from the main production line at a lower cost was the decision to incorporate those special little items we evidently needed for maritime operations, like folding rotor blades. This would seem to me to be a reason to buy Cobras instead, but presumably they weren't shiny enough.

Yes, yes, I know. Attrition spares, OCUs, deep maintenance and lack of trained pilots are major factors here but honestly, if you ran a business with this level of efficiency the shareholders would sack you without a moment's thought.

WillS

Nope, we got a *great* attack helicopter out of that deal. It took longer and it cost more I'll concede but in terms of capability, the US are just updating their kit to match capabilities we've flown with for years. Read Ed Macy's "Apache Dawn" as it's a great account of the WAH-64 in Afghanistan.

The major brakes on using the thing has been a complete dunderhead of an approach to pilot training and a shortage of spares. The aircraft is *mint*.

I don't mind forking out more money for more capability so much and Cobra just didn't tick the boxes.

In terms of marginal constituencies, Hampshire has consistently been held by Conservatives, polling double the vote of the next nearest candidate, which traditionally have been lib-dem so that's another conspiracy theory shot to sh!t on contact with reality nfloorl:

Ian

 

[WillS]

Nope, we got a *great* attack helicopter out of that deal. It took longer and it cost more I'll concede but in terms of capability, the US are just updating their kit to match capabilities we've flown with for years. Read Ed Macy's "Apache Dawn" as it's a great account of the WAH-64 in Afghanistan.

The major brakes on using the thing has been a complete dunderhead of an approach to pilot training and a shortage of spares. The aircraft is *mint*.

I don't mind forking out more money for more capability so much and Cobra just didn't tick the boxes.

As I see it when you're buying anything in quantity with a limited amount of money you can either:

1. Buy small quantities of *Mint* kit and resource operational costs (like spares, training etc.) properly.
2. Buy larger quantities if non-ideal but functional cheaper kit, like Cobra,and resource operational costs properly.
3. Buy larger quantities of *Mint* kit and pretend that operational costs will be met in some vague undetermined way.

We chose option 3. IMO it was the wrong choice. Our dunderhead approach to pilot training and spares was an inevitable consequence of mis-allocating the available finite pot of money between capital costs and operational costs.

In terms of marginal constituencies, Hampshire has consistently been held by Conservatives, polling double the vote of the next nearest candidate, which traditionally have been lib-dem so that's another conspiracy theory shot to sh!t on contact with reality nfloorl:

That's very nice for Hampshire (which is a county, not a constituency), however the Westland helicopter factory where the Apaches were assembled is in Yeovil. Unless someone's moved the town recently Yeovil is, and has always been, in Somerset. Throughout the 90s Yeovil and the neighbouring constituencies were Tory target seats held by the Lib-Dems.

WillS

 

[WillS]

The following quote taken from Flight Global sums up nicely why the Harriers will not return.

Speaking before the article's publication, chief of the air staff Air Chief Marshal Sir Stephen Dalton has defended the Ministry of Defence's decision to retire the Harrier in favour of safeguarding the bulk of the Tornado GR4 fleet, describing it as "in cold logic, unavoidable".

With reference to the Libyan operation, Dalton said: "The Tornados have delivered [MBDA] Storm Shadows to penetrate hardened buildings and the dual-mode Brimstone, neither of which could have been delivered by the Harrier."

I think we all know the GR9s have gone and will not come back. However this statement by Stephen Dalton, particularly the last sentence quoted above, is disingenuous at best.

Of course you use Storm Shadows and Tornados for the strategic infrastructure hammering work, nobody is arguing otherwise*. But the bulk of the Libya mission is now about prowling around dropping precision munitions (like Brimstone) on ground units, a task for which I think Carriers/Harriers would have been both better and a lot cheaper.

Harriers were cleared for Brimstone 1. Brimstone 2 was introduced in part due to operational lessons learned in Afghanistan and was intended to be fielded by Tornados, Harriers and Typhoons. It was cleared for operations on Tornados first because the RAF was about to deploy them to Afghanistan. The decision to withdraw Harrier from service put a stop to the plans to clear Brimstone 2 for its use, nothing else.

WillS

*actually that's wrong. Many argue that Tomahawks have a longer range, don't put pilots in danger and cost about the same per unit to deploy.

 

[riksavage]

I think we all know the GR9s have gone and will not come back. However this statement by Stephen Dalton, particularly the last sentence quoted above, is disingenuous at best.

Of course you use Storm Shadows and Tornados for the strategic infrastructure hammering work, nobody is arguing otherwise*. But the bulk of the Libya mission is now about prowling around dropping precision munitions (like Brimstone) on ground units, a task for which I think Carriers/Harriers would have been both better and a lot cheaper.

Harriers were cleared for Brimstone 1. Brimstone 2 was introduced in part due to operational lessons learned in Afghanistan and was intended to be fielded by Tornados, Harriers and Typhoons. It was cleared for operations on Tornados first because the RAF was about to deploy them to Afghanistan. The decision to withdraw Harrier from service put a stop to the plans to clear Brimstone 2 for its use, nothing else.

WillS

*actually that's wrong. Many argue that Tomahawks have a longer range, don't put pilots in danger and cost about the same per unit to deploy.

Yes GR9 could have been upgraded to fire dual-mode Brimstone (which the US & France are now looking at apparently), but the MOD had to make a difficult decision between keeping GR9 or GR4. The latter won the argument based on a number of factors (weapons, sensors, range, speed etc.).

Plus the UK having Apache does offset some (not all) of the deployable CAS capabilities lost when GR9 left service, Apache can be deployed forward aboard Ocean under a protective T45 (Daring or Dauntless) umbrella to assist any amphib/littoral operations, its Longbow radar brings much to the table in a littoral environment processing and prioritising targets.

 

[1805]

As I see it when you're buying anything in quantity with a limited amount of money you can either:

1. Buy small quantities of *Mint* kit and resource operational costs (like spares, training etc.) properly.
2. Buy larger quantities if non-ideal but functional cheaper kit, like Cobra,and resource operational costs properly.
3. Buy larger quantities of *Mint* kit and pretend that operational costs will be met in some vague undetermined way.

We chose option 3. IMO it was the wrong choice. Our dunderhead approach to pilot training and spares was an inevitable consequence of mis-allocating the available finite pot of money between capital costs and operational costs.


WillS

You have hit the nail on the head here. Sadly UK defence procurement nearly always follows option 3, with the consequence it over spends its budget and either does not have the money to exploit it's gold plated purchase or the project gets cut down half way through or worst still cancelled altogether.

The cost v capability is just hopelessly out of line with budget. The Type 45 is another classic example...surely the last AWD to make it into service with them major (and some minor navies) and with such a limited weapons fit. There simply is not the money to properly arm them.

I do hope the Type 26 is a more cost effective solution

 

[WillS]

Yes GR9 could have been upgraded to fire dual-mode Brimstone (which the US & France are now looking at apparently), but the MOD had to make a difficult decision between keeping GR9 or GR4. The latter won the argument based on a number of factors (weapons, sensors, range, speed etc.).

.... plus, let's be honest, politics. The RN, as someone was quoted as saying, "played a good hand very badly" during the SDSR process.

Plus the UK having Apache does offset some (not all) of the deployable CAS capabilities lost when GR9 left service, Apache can be deployed forward aboard Ocean under a protective T45 (Daring or Dauntless) umbrella to assist any amphib/littoral operations, its Longbow radar brings much to the table in a littoral environment processing and prioritising targets.

That's true and I do try to be a 'glass half full' kind of person, really

But, we're talking very nearside amphib operations given the Apache's low speed and poor (by jet terms) combat radius. Still, water under the bridge, eh?

WillS

 

[WillS]

Apaches were involved in a training exercise on Ark Royal as recently as September last year

I stand corrected. Thanks for the reminder, I'd missed that.

WillS

 

[Troothsayer]

.... plus, let's be honest, politics. The RN, as someone was quoted as saying, "played a good hand very badly" during the SDSR process.

Did the RN really have a good hand? I question that thinking. An SDSR carried out when a 10 year old land war is ongoing and is seen as priority for the next 5 years.

There were rumours during the SDSR of the RN losing ALL of its amphibious shipping and going down to as few as a 14 FF/DD force! I'd suggest that the RN didn't come out of the SDSR as badly as it may have.

 

[1805]

Did the RN really have a good hand? I question that thinking. An SDSR carried out when a 10 year old land war is ongoing and is seen as priority for the next 5 years.

There were rumours during the SDSR of the RN losing ALL of its amphibious shipping and going down to as few as a 14 FF/DD force! I'd suggest that the RN didn't come out of the SDSR as badly as it may have.

You could argue the RN amphibious capability is still greater than during the Falklands. The real loss to the RN has been fixed wing airpower, which it gave up before the SDSR with the retirement (very early) of the Sea Harrier. What I feel very uncomfortable about is how we end up accepting huge gaps in capability because we have to has a gold plated product when (if) it does arrive.

I would rather have equipement with 80% of the capability in reasonable numbers all the time then have 10 year gaps when there is nothing and when it does arrive the cost is so crushing we don't have the funds to exploit its capability.

 

[Troothsayer]

The real loss to the RN has been fixed wing airpower, which it gave up before the SDSR with the retirement (very early) of the Sea Harrier.

Yes, although the loss of CVS is overplayed imo. What essential scenario would a GR.9 amphib force undertake than Ocean/Lusty with Apache could not do now?
Given the Prime Minister would not countenance any army cut in personnel, the CVS were a prime candidate for the snip. Ark/GR.9 was a paper tiger.

What I feel very uncomfortable about is how we end up accepting huge gaps in capability because we have to has a gold plated product when (if) it does arrive.

This of course is the biggest downer from CVS loss, the ability to transition as easily between CVS & CVF.
Is CVF gold plated? It won't have its own VLS/Asters, I understand it won't be as armoured as it could have been to save on costs. The cost of CVF is a lot of government fudge and waste of money on delays rather than the ship itself.

I would rather have equipement with 80% of the capability in reasonable numbers all the time then have 10 year gaps when there is nothing and when it does arrive the cost is so crushing we don't have the funds to exploit its capability.

Given that 2% of GDP looks like being the norm for the forseeable future, i'd argue that we will be forced into doing just that anyway from now on.