Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Aircrew Forums > Military Aviation
Reload this Page >

Future Carrier (Including Costs)

Military Aviation A forum for the professionals who fly military hardware. Also for the backroom boys and girls who support the flying and maintain the equipment, and without whom nothing would ever leave the ground. All armies, navies and air forces of the world equally welcome here.

Future Carrier (Including Costs)

Old 1st Jul 2006, 11:36
  #301 (permalink)  
Suspicion breeds confidence
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Gibraltar
Posts: 2,404
Likes: 0
Received 6 Likes on 2 Posts
Vec,

A CVS with a GR7/9 is incapable of achieving any like a 400nm strike.
Navaleye is offline  
Old 1st Jul 2006, 11:45
  #302 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Falmouth
Posts: 1,651
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
However, there is no requirement for the RN to target OCA or Ground Formations. TLAM may be bugger all use but say that to Mr and Mrs Rugova who had their lives destroyed by TLAM.
vecvechookattack is offline  
Old 1st Jul 2006, 18:30
  #303 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Portsmouth
Posts: 513
Received 156 Likes on 83 Posts
VVHA - with all due respect you're talking bollocks. When we put tacair on a carrier, we must assume that a fairly wide-ranging target set may be required. We can't just sit on the ship and backheel parts of the frag because we don't fancy it or "because it wasn't expicitly in the requirement".

Mr & Mrs Rugova are even more likely to have a bad day if the TLAM target set is expanded.
Not_a_boffin is offline  
Old 2nd Jul 2006, 19:30
  #304 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Falmouth
Posts: 1,651
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Not_a_boffin
VVHA - with all due respect you're talking bollocks. When we put tacair on a carrier, we must assume that a fairly wide-ranging target set may be required. We can't just sit on the ship and backheel parts of the frag because we don't fancy it or "because it wasn't expicitly in the requirement".

Mr & Mrs Rugova are even more likely to have a bad day if the TLAM target set is expanded.
You can't assume a requirment. You CAN assume an NBCD Condition but not a requirment.
vecvechookattack is offline  
Old 2nd Jul 2006, 19:49
  #305 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: OMQs
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
GR7/9 Range

Navaleye,

I think you'll find that a GR7/9 is capable of around 400nm strike ranges, carrying a wide range of weapons, and that's without refuelling.
Alistair Kayim is offline  
Old 2nd Jul 2006, 21:59
  #306 (permalink)  
Suspicion breeds confidence
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Gibraltar
Posts: 2,404
Likes: 0
Received 6 Likes on 2 Posts
I think you'll find that a GR7/9 is capable of around 400nm strike ranges, carrying a wide range of weapons, and that's without refuelling.
...not without escort
Navaleye is offline  
Old 2nd Jul 2006, 22:28
  #307 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Tx, USA
Posts: 63
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Navaleye,

Depends on the war you're fighting. True, I'd never 'go' against a potent air threat without some form of OAA to try and sort the enemy out but you miss the argument and your statement against the GR9's strike range from CVS is still wrong. It can do it, and with a warload, so admit you're wrong and research your information before making these statements.

No more bulls**t......please!
Barn Doors is offline  
Old 2nd Jul 2006, 23:38
  #308 (permalink)  
Suspicion breeds confidence
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Gibraltar
Posts: 2,404
Likes: 0
Received 6 Likes on 2 Posts
Of course, I'm always happy to be corrected. I looked at a largely low level attack profile (hence avoiding the need for escort) which suggests a max 350mn range according to public figures. If I'm wrong then mea culpa, but a medium level sortie in defended skies even with just a strong MANPADS threat seems very risky to me.

I also heard that the Konkan exercises in the Indian Ocean against the Indian Navy showed glaring gaps in the air defence capability of the fleet, with far too much emphasis placed on the T42 which simply could not cope. I won't spill the beans here, but the results were at the bottom end of expectations. Much arse scratching to be had, not least of which is how to defend the early warning assets, but the general view is that wheels have come off big time. Cause for major concern. I hate to say I told you so.

Last edited by Navaleye; 3rd Jul 2006 at 00:47.
Navaleye is offline  
Old 3rd Jul 2006, 09:04
  #309 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Portsmouth
Posts: 513
Received 156 Likes on 83 Posts
VVHA

If we insist on defining every single requirement (based on those oh so realistic scenarios that the IAB mandate we use), then fair play. But the scenarios are just guesses (and not particularly good ones at that).

However, you highlight the flaw in so-called Smart Procurement - every little requirementmust be justified by some sort of OA, which can only be based on the endorsed scenario set. As this changes every couple of years (must try and stay relevant etc) - hey presto, the requirement changes (or seems to, or requires rejustifcation against the new scenario). Cue even more studies, confusion for industry as the goalposts move and delay for the project. It is no co-incidence that a recent NAO report exposed "savings" as either number cuts or deferments. Why we cannot derive a set of generic capability levels (eg a Fulcrum Operator, full BVR, with good training and AAR, or an A4 / Mirage operator with no BVR, good training, poor AAR - topical anyone?) and use them to define the capability required is beyond me.

Buying a carrier and airwing without the capability to do OCA, DCA, CAS, BAI and deep strike (maybe at different times, but still capable) would be just plain daft.
Not_a_boffin is offline  
Old 3rd Jul 2006, 22:15
  #310 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Falmouth
Posts: 1,651
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Im afraid that youre correct. Every single requirement MUST be stipulated. Look at it this way. You go down to the car show room in order to buy a new car.

"What do you want"? asks the friendly salesman

"I want a big red one which is fast but also has enough room to get the wife and kids in" You reply.

"There you go matey...a shiny new Vectra" (OMG !!! )

But on delivery you notice there is nowhere to attach the trailer for the boat... Disgruntled you return to the friendly salesman and object.

"But there was no requirment for a towbar....but if you return the car to the garage we can fit one for twice the price you origionally thought it would be.

Same goes for Military (or even Civilian) procurement. If you don't get the requirment right then you are completely buggered. As a good example of this please see this post

http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=233146

That is a very good example of the requirment going wrong



Please ignore the appalling spelling and punctuation..... too much wine
vecvechookattack is offline  
Old 3rd Jul 2006, 22:59
  #311 (permalink)  
Suspicion breeds confidence
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Gibraltar
Posts: 2,404
Likes: 0
Received 6 Likes on 2 Posts
Please ignore the appalling spelling and punctuation..... too much wine
Vec,

Help is available.
Navaleye is offline  
Old 4th Jul 2006, 07:00
  #312 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 3,225
Received 172 Likes on 65 Posts
VVHA

Alcohol or not, you are spot on. The process is simple.

DEC state the requirement. In doing so, they are meant to consult with nominated DPA IPT/PM and, very importantly, create a risk register so they can demonstrate they have mitigated the highest risks as far as possible. Invariably they do neither, except perhaps on the very biggest, politically visible, projects where they are actually allocated staff and funding.

DEC have a representative in the IPT called the Requirement Manager. His job (in simple terms) is to tease out and articulate detail, boundaries and constraints. Since these posts have been militarised, and are filled at two or three grades higher than when civvies did the job, the incumbents don’t want to know about detail. In a way they are right. In career terms they are way past that. Trouble is, they have no staff to do the detail, and few colleagues who understand it. But, the devil is in the detail. For many reasons, his task is impossible if he is not an engineer. Invariably he is not. (Same applies to the ILSM post).

To cost a requirement accurately, one must first quantify the requirement. While this may seem obvious, in recent years MoD haven't thought it matters (thereby creating one of the high risks I mentioned). Hence, DEC will state the “requirement”, acknowledge the unit price is £1M, give you £5M, and say “We’ll tell you how many we want in due course”. A year later they will say “We want 20, next month, and the funding has been cut to £2.5M”. This is a REAL example which happened to me in 2003/4. It was scrutinised by the “IPT Management Board” (actually a collection of mainly junior, grossly inexperienced staff) and ok’d. 10 years ago the PM would have declared planning blight without fear of censure. Today he’d be disciplined. (I did, I was). 20 years ago DEC’s (OR) own staff would not have dared insult PE with such dross.

So far, I’ve not pointed the finger at DPA. You will be pleased to know that CDP has ruled on a number of occasions that ANY project manager MUST have the competencies to carry out the role of the Requirement Manager, ILSM and every other post in the project team if the incumbent is unable or unwilling to do it himself. And complete the task without other resources. Thus mitigating all of the above at a single stroke. I’m sure every PM you’ve ever met can do this. But wait, the rule only applies to non-graduate PMs. That means, at a given grade, certain staffs are singled out and treated differently by having higher expectations placed on them before they can advance. See where I’m going? In time (sooner rather than later) the upper echelons of DPA will consist almost entirely of staffs who have no practical experience, have never started or finished a project as the PM, and done very little in between. Their c.v. will consist of pages of half-day seminars. It’s a vicious circle and the loser is – you.
tucumseh is offline  
Old 4th Jul 2006, 15:43
  #313 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Falmouth
Posts: 1,651
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Absolutely spot on....apart from DEC state the requirement


It should read.....DEC should state the requirment.....More often than not (in fact pretty much always) the end user states the requirment and he is the bloke what writes it....Ive done plenty of SOR's to know that.
vecvechookattack is offline  
Old 4th Jul 2006, 16:16
  #314 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 3,225
Received 172 Likes on 65 Posts
V

Absolutely right. Perhaps better to say they endorse the requirement. I tend to think they should cut out their middle man (the RqM) and relocate to Bristol or their outstation at Shrivenham. Closer contact with DPA would eliminate the silly mistakes that delay programmes. It is an enormous waste of highly skilled officers to have them twiddle thumbs for 2+ years as a RqM when there is a raft of capable, but more junior, civvies begging to do the jobs. (At half the price!).
tucumseh is offline  
Old 4th Jul 2006, 16:18
  #315 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Falmouth
Posts: 1,651
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Couldn't agree more. The Shawbury Bowser stroy is a good case of why you are absolutely correct.
vecvechookattack is offline  
Old 5th Jul 2006, 08:46
  #316 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 3,399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Better Plan.
Put everybody involved with military procurement/self licking lollipop into a large quarry.
Napalm Quarry.

Ask frontliners which operational aircraft/tanks/ships they want from the yanks inventory.
Buy lots and lots of them off the shelf.

We would never have the newest shinyest kit, but it would all work as advertised
Tourist is offline  
Old 5th Jul 2006, 15:26
  #317 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: London
Age: 75
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Greetings !

Although a new boy to pprune I am sadly old enough to have first hand experience of our last generation of flat-tops. Prior to that I'm told that, with destroyer power-plants, merchant ship scantlings, and proper design an "Ocean" could deploy nearly 40 aircraft on 20,000 tons, happy days!

What happens when the Andrew has to go and tell HMG that what they really meant was three carriers, not two?, ( or perhaps they're going to be part-time assets?) and that the funding will peak at just about the time when FRES, Trident replacement, NGF etc are all standing in line waiting for the honey?. There's the other tiny problem that JSF ( Naval) may never see the light of day. Lucky perhaps that, with only a single set of ways left to build a "proper" carrier on they will have to be built sequentially. I.O.S in, what?, 2025 then? ( you think that's pessimistic, take a look at "Typhoon")

Then we have the thorny question of how do we protect these behemoths?. How many Type 45's do you need?. How many are we likely to get? Integrating air-defence with our American allies is going to be tricky too, with our having opted for Aster rather than SM2 Block4. Sadly, though British Aerospace may seek to have you believe that it's as English as Steak pudding it is, of course, as French as tripe. US is not too keen to share F-TEMA software with our French allies, ( nor with us!) and since none of our other missile assets can effectively use CEC we may have the odd problem there. Of course, if they are to be employed only as floating aerodromes for use in Sierra Leone, Botswana or wherever then that will not need to be a major consideration, but if so why not go for an "Arapaho" concept at one fifth the price.

Incidentally, wasn't one of the main considerations in embarking on the monstrously expensive Typhoon programme to ensure the maintenance of a UK/European capability?.

JSF is neither as French as tripe, nor as English as Steak pudding, it is, is it not, as American as apple pie??.....

So how about JSENAC, I just thought it up!, Joint Standing European Naval Air Component. Two new carriers, one existing ( either French or US), Rafael/Advanced Harrier on board, plus a few screwtops. New CBG assets drawn from existing French/German/UK assets with new builds if required. Rotating command structure on the basis that, if UN sanctioned, any one nation involved can require the use of the assets. and pay for any utilisation in excess of its original allocation. Otherwise funded by anticipated utilisation (i.e. UK might seek 200 op days/yr, France 100).
Complement would, of course, be multi-national on normal deployment with provision for sole-country manning. Bingo, no semi-mythical JSF required, "proper" fighters on board,( admit it guys, you know which one you'd rather fly don't you!) timelines dramatically shortened, European co-operation re-established, much better use of existing CBG assets.

It would be a very hard act to make fly, and BAE would probably hate it, but France would love to sell some Rafael's, I have a strong suspicion that, with maingate now receding into the distant past, and cost rising every single minute, let alone day, it may be the only hope.

over to you all!
EP99j is offline  
Old 5th Jul 2006, 16:05
  #318 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: London
Age: 75
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
US is best!!

Originally Posted by Tourist
Better Plan.
Put everybody involved with military procurement/self licking lollipop into a large quarry.
Napalm Quarry.

Ask frontliners which operational aircraft/tanks/ships they want from the yanks inventory.
Buy lots and lots of them off the shelf.

We would never have the newest shinyest kit, but it would all work as advertised
Ho-Ho-Ho

Now, hands up?, who would rather have a ZSU-23mm to ward off offending aircraft, and who would rather have a "Sergeant York", who would rather have "Stinger" and who "Starstreak", and, as for the B-1 tail warning radar......

Sadly, we all have our whoopsies, from "Corporal" onwards we have bought our fair share of US duds ( some might include C130-J!)
EP99j is offline  
Old 5th Jul 2006, 17:07
  #319 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: London
Age: 69
Posts: 237
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Carrier capable Grippen a possibility ?


Over on the Warships1 “Royal Navy” board is a rather weird thread discussing the possibility of using a carrier capable Grippen in place of the F-35 on the CVFs due to the on-going disagreements over the sharing of certain technologies (possibly now solved?).

Is this sane ?

The thread is here :

http://p216.ezboard.com/fwarships1discussionboardsfrm3.showMessage?topicID=5164.topi c

and the relevant bit is by RicardB who has been quoted on this thread :-

Carrier based Gripen
Gripen International is expected to unveil a carrier borne variant of the Gripen at the Farnborough International Airshow. India is one target market, Brazil presumably another ... and the possible relevance to the UK is obvious.

I've always been highly sceptical about a carrier variant of the Gripen. I suspect that their marketing department has figured that spending say £100,000 on some nice graphics, a glossy brochure and a model will generate many times that in free publicity and press interest.

phil gollin is offline  
Old 5th Jul 2006, 17:10
  #320 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 3,399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Erm, so only buy the good stuff?
Tourist is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.