I did some browsing on some Spanish sites and the only thing that I could come up with was a bit of a dodgy page stating that the idea was to put harpoon on the Sea Hawks and the harriers but it remains pending. According to the Armada site the Sea Hawks have penguin capability anyway and the f100 and f80 frigates carry harpoon as well. Top this off with the fact that the air forces EF18B can carry the harpoon it would be a bit of overkill to fit the Sea Hawks as well.
The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter overlander
- Start date
Sea Eagles have long been an option for the Westland Sea King though only India has every taken this up. The missiles were modified with a booster rocket to get them up to speed.
I really dont know how the Sea Hawk-Harpoon thing ended, but as far as I can tell the spanish harriers do carry and use Harpoons, just as the italian and american ones, btw Harpoons can also be launched from Typhoons, not just the EF-18s...
Well if its like that then the Spanish have the Asuw angle pretty much covered. Mind you they need to make up for the lack of hunting force given by our Subs.I really dont know how the Sea Hawk-Harpoon thing ended, but as far as I can tell the spanish harriers do carry and use Harpoons, just as the italian and american ones, btw Harpoons can also be launched from Typhoons, not just the EF-18s...
I guess as Sea Eagle has been retired and the Nimrods are long gone we lack the capability for a swarm attach on a well defended Surface target.
Off the subject slightly but assuming the sensor outfit of the MR4 was not the issue and is still around (i.e. it was rebuilding the old Nimrod?) Why doesn't the MOD just buy 2-3 suitable commercial aircraft (A320/Bombardier/Boeing) off the shelf?
You would have the running costs, but it could be delayed a few years and running something like an A320 has got to be relatively modest?
Ancient history now but....another mad decision only the RN/MOD could have operated both Sea Eagle and Harpoon. It could only have been worst if they has chosen Sub-Harpoon for the SSNs, Exocet for surface fleet and developed Sea Eagle. Makes you wonder how committed they are to Aster/Sylver and what will end up on the T26.
StevoJH
The Bunker Group
You realise they did do that right? Check what the Counties and Leanders were carrying.
I hate to defend them; the ships you mention were fitted with the older MM38 version at a time when I understand Harpoon and for that matter Sea Eagle were not options. The MM38 left service around the time Harpoon came in.
I think the USN was using a modified Standard missile as a stop gap until they got their own SSM (I guess you could say the RN did the same with Sea Dart although that was a DP weapon, I don't think the SSM Standard were?), interestingly the USN seems to have moved slightly back in that direction.
The French played a real blinder with the MM38, as I understand it bringing together largely existing technology into a ground breaking weapon.
kev 99
Member
But MM40 was still in service with the Type 22 batch 1 & 2s while Harpoon was being introduced on the Batch 3s.
Well the German navy is fitting spare Harpoon launchers to its new F124s while the rest of the fleet will have RBS15.
Last edited:
The sensor suite on the MR4 was already looking a bit dated by the time they started to fly the thing on tests so dragging the kit out of the dustbin and cramming it into an entirely novel airframe, rigging it for air to air refuelling, installing hardpoints and ejector racks for sonar buoys, fitting it with a weapons bay...let's just not eh?
P8's, for Christmas, please Santa, we've been good we have,
Ian
imperialman
New Member
Nice little chunk from Hansard:
Mr Jenkin: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what provision has been made for (a) carrier-borne air-to-air refuelling capability and (b) fixed-wing carrier on-board delivery for the Queen Elizabeth class aircraft carrier; and what the in-service date is for each capability. [62458]
Peter Luff [holding answer 27 June 2011]: The strategic defence and security review announced the decision to procure the carrier variant of the joint strike fighter to operate from the new Queen Elizabeth class aircraft carrier from around 2020. We are currently studying the most cost-effective way to provide an embarked air-to-air refuelling capability and assessing potential solutions for the Queen Elizabeth class on-board delivery requirement.
Mr Jenkin: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what provision has been made for (a) carrier-borne air-to-air refuelling capability and (b) fixed-wing carrier on-board delivery for the Queen Elizabeth class aircraft carrier; and what the in-service date is for each capability. [62458]
Peter Luff [holding answer 27 June 2011]: The strategic defence and security review announced the decision to procure the carrier variant of the joint strike fighter to operate from the new Queen Elizabeth class aircraft carrier from around 2020. We are currently studying the most cost-effective way to provide an embarked air-to-air refuelling capability and assessing potential solutions for the Queen Elizabeth class on-board delivery requirement.
Reusing parts of the MRA4 sensor suites (BTW, how many have we bought?) makes sense in the context of fitting sensors to relatively cheap airframes for which adaptations for fitting sensors have already been tested, such as C-295 or ATR-72, as a gap-filler until we have the budget for something better. May be dated, but a lot better than nothing. Secondhand C-295 or ATR-72 MPAs would probably be salable (at a modest price, but every little helps) in ten years time, or whenever, to a country for which they'd be a significant step up from their old kit.
I know money is tight but I think it would make sense to consider a larger aircraft A320/Cseries and include some capability proposed in the Future Offensive Air System non-penetrating aircraft concept. It would surely have been much cheaper to have delivered Stom Shadow via such an approach than the heculean Tanker/Tornado effort seen recently in Libya.
Why not just buy the P-8, it will, without a doubt, provide greater capability, earlier than any bodged together option.
You may well be right, I was assuming that there would be some content from the MR4 sensor outfit that could be recycled however that may not be the case.
We are not going to start developing a new MPA. Full stop. It will not happen. It is completely impossible. There is not, & will not, be a budget for it. Anyone in the MoD or forces who suggests it will be harming his career. All speculation on those lines is completely pointless.
We will either do without for several years & then buy an off the shelf (perhaps slightly customised) new MPA, or we will buy a cheap, low-risk, interim MPA, either off the shelf or as a quick & easy bodge, and eventually replace it with an off the shelf new MPA.
The most likely future MPA is P-8. An A320 derivative, as proposed by Airbus Military, has an outside chance, but IMO only if someone else buys it first.
Volkodav - we don't have the budget for P-8 at the moment. Maybe after 2015. C-295 MPA or similar could be delivered relatively quickly (more so than P-8) & cheaply. There are a few suitable types which are already fully developed, in production, & in service, with lead times for orders considerably less than that for the P-8, & we could get enough for a basic interim capability for the price of one or two P-8s.
Or perhaps refurbished P3's. With the work done by NZ,Aus and the USN on P3 upgrades and rebuilds, and the range of variants, at least this is a known quantitiy with pretty good capability for the short term.
I was not proposing developing a new MPA, just taking the content that works...if any, and placing it in a cheap commercial airliner as an interim solution. There must be something that works after £4bn.
kev 99
Member
That is more or less exactly what the P8 is, only difference really is that it isn't our kit that works it's someone else's.
First, you have to adapt the commercial airliner. That is an expensive process, and takes quite a long time. This process has been done before: the results are called P-3, Nimrod, & P-8.
I repeat: it won't happen. It is not affordable in the current budget, & would take far too long for an interim capability.
Fitting the already bought sensors to an off the shelf MPA such as ATR-72 or C-295 would cost a small fraction of the price of adapting an airliner & be much quicker, because the MPA airframe is already adapted, already has physical modifications, electrical systems which can power sensors, terminals, etc., designed, built, tested & certified. You save all that work & expense. You also get a much cheaper airframe to buy and operate, with manufacturer support available, & with a resale value if you decide to replace it with a high-spec MPA such as P-8. A bodged-up unique airliner adaption has no resale value, & no manufacturer support for you modifications. I can't see a single argument in its favour.
Alexsa: I'm not at all sure about the wisdom of fitting the kit to used P-3s as an interim solution. Firstly, old P-3s would probably need a thorough overhaul of the airframe, engines, & systems, with a lot of replacements & re-lifing. That would take time & cost money. It's worthwhile if you're intending to operate them long term (cf Spain & the Spanish-modified P-3s for Brazil), but not for something you want quickly, cheaply, & for a relatively short time. Secondly, the operating cost would be much higher than the smaller competitors..
Amphibious Vessels - BAE Systems
Noticed this on the BAe website as a concept LHD, havent seen it before. I know there is no money , but this looks like a 2011 concept, so is there something in the pipeline?
http://www.baesystems.com/BAEProd/groups/public/documents/bae_publication/bae_pdf_lhd_datasheet.pdf
Noticed this on the BAe website as a concept LHD, havent seen it before. I know there is no money , but this looks like a 2011 concept, so is there something in the pipeline?
http://www.baesystems.com/BAEProd/groups/public/documents/bae_publication/bae_pdf_lhd_datasheet.pdf