I can think of all sorts of circumstances where kit we've got now wouldn't do very well in a hurricane. The UK's air ASW capability is provided by RW at the moment - guess they aren't going to be much help some of the time then. I'm ex Nimrod (hence the handle) so I'm realistic about what even FW can achieve in 80kt winds and SS6+. It became traditional that at some point in every JMC the weather would become so bad that ships would run for the Minches and MPA wouldn't fly. SSK's and SSN also struggle to do their jobs in those conditions, so everyone takes a break until conditions improve. I don't recall the Nimrod fleet being scrapped because it couldn't do ASW in a hurricane.
Having already made the point that you wouldn't consider using these in a contested air environment, I'm a little nonplussed by the immediate replies along the lines of 'yeah useless in a contested environment - it would just get wasted' We've already agreed that so why repeat the point? Mind, the ACC owns the risk, if he felt certain HAV tasks were important enough he might think it worthwhile dedicating defensive assets for the short time needed - in the same way as he would protect, say tac mobility, or conventional ISR. I repeat, beyond possibly the first few days of future campaigns we simply will not be operating in a contested air environment (well, not for long anyway
)
I agree that Rutan achieved amazing things, but that platform could not, for example, replenish a ship at sea, operate off water, snow or a swamp, or carry some of the large aerials that would allow future HAV to do some interesting things (like the entire skin acting as an aerial etc). Most readers seem to think that HAV equals airship which is just not correct. Ballast is not the issue it is for lighter than air craft, aerodynamic lift is part of the design. Yes, Helium is an issue, but partly because the US stopped managing it as a strategic asset between 1996 and 2005 because they had too much to store it economically. There is plenty to go around if we are sensible and as long as we are producing natural gas (it is a by product of the extraction process). Like all resources, cost may become an issue.
I had to do some research on these platforms a while ago and while there are obvious limitations I think they have considerable potentially for certain tasks. There is also a growing amount of work going on at the moment to address the issue of realism in UK defence. This involves a lot of soul searching and an honest appreciation of what we can afford, what capabilities we really have, what we really need and what an 80% solution actually looks like. For the first time that I've seen in my 29 years, there is a sense in some areas that we might be learning the lesson that we cut our cloth according to resources.
So. being the hypocrite I am, I repeat my earlier points despite castigating others for the same failing: (
)
These platforms have no utility in several potential scenarios, they may have great utility in several others. They might even be the sole means of providing some capabilities.
I understand (from open source - I haven't looked at this for 'work' for nearly a year so am not in the loop any more) that the LEMV programme is about 3 months late and has either just started flying in Afg or is about to. On my planet, from order (Jun 10) to first flight in about 18 months is simply stunning. I cannot think of any other similar size/complexity air platform that has done anything like that in the last 20 years.
So, very shortly we will get real performance and operating data from real operations in Afghanistan. Lets look for the positive, ditch some pre-conceptions and look at the real data when it comes in. If it works as some hope, there will be a great British success story to tell that doesn't involve the usual suspects.
Before anyone accuses me of being a shill for HAV or NG I am not. I just had cause to look at this a year ago as part of another project and became intrigued by it.
Standing by for the inevitable flames
