Future Carrier (Including Costs)
Orac,
More like B-2 would it not?
More like B-2 would it not?
Thread Starter
Saw this story from Navy News today. Also this from the RN site.
Both of these demonstrate how flexible embarked aviation is.
It is approximately eight years since this Government said they would go ahead with CVF. At the time the front line strength if the Navy was reduced by about 10%, with another 20% worth of cuts a couple of years go. In exchange for what exactly?
One of the arguments is that we could do more with less due to information superiority - network centric stuff and all that. ISTAR assets such as 849 with the Sea King ASaCs, and the successor (MASC), will be key. I want to look at this in slightly more detail.
Given that we are unlikely to be able to operate the Advanced Hawkeye, why is it impossible to take the radar from the Hawkeye and place it on/in an Osprey? Surely when in forward flight the Osprey's rotors are not much different from propellors? Me no understand........
If Merlin is used for MASC, am I correct in assuming that it is a little faster than the Sea King, and a few modifications would increase the service ceiling (rotor de-icing, pressurised cabin, stub wing(lets) and hence radar coverage? Would having a AAR probe fitted (as the RAF ones do) be of benefit - allowing them to be kept on station longer?
Comments please.
Both of these demonstrate how flexible embarked aviation is.
It is approximately eight years since this Government said they would go ahead with CVF. At the time the front line strength if the Navy was reduced by about 10%, with another 20% worth of cuts a couple of years go. In exchange for what exactly?
One of the arguments is that we could do more with less due to information superiority - network centric stuff and all that. ISTAR assets such as 849 with the Sea King ASaCs, and the successor (MASC), will be key. I want to look at this in slightly more detail.
Given that we are unlikely to be able to operate the Advanced Hawkeye, why is it impossible to take the radar from the Hawkeye and place it on/in an Osprey? Surely when in forward flight the Osprey's rotors are not much different from propellors? Me no understand........
If Merlin is used for MASC, am I correct in assuming that it is a little faster than the Sea King, and a few modifications would increase the service ceiling (rotor de-icing, pressurised cabin, stub wing(lets) and hence radar coverage? Would having a AAR probe fitted (as the RAF ones do) be of benefit - allowing them to be kept on station longer?
Comments please.
Suspicion breeds confidence
It is speed and range that really matter here. Yes altitude is important but its not the most important thing. The lower down you are the better your radar picture. Very useful for spotting low flying bruisers. The Gannet was cleared for 20kft. It usually flew at between 5 and 10k.
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Falmouth
Posts: 1,651
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Navy News stated ....
Well, that will be a waste of money then seeing as the Ark is going to be a Helicopter Carrier...
adaptation of the hangar and flight deck to accommodate the GR7 and GR9 variants of the Harrier,
Well, that will be a waste of money then seeing as the Ark is going to be a Helicopter Carrier...
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Falmouth
Posts: 1,651
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Exactly, It's alright trying to turn a CVS into an LPH by giving it penty of Flightdeck and hangarage but they failed to realise that an LPH is also home to hundreds of Bootnecks and a CVS can't cope with more than half a dozen of them.
WEBF - look at how the Osprey folds its wings and props, then try to imagine how that would work with the E2 radar above it. Simply terrifying. I suspect the Osprey may well have a higher fuselage height than E2 which would make it very difficult to fit in the hangar with a radar on the roof. Navaleye is also bang on - its the ability to get to station quickly (or accompany a strike) that is important. I don't think a 240kt cruise in V-22 would really cut it for the latter. More to the point no-one will ever fund it - just sorting out the CG issues in translation would be a major programme.
Presumably Ark is to cover for Ocean during her only major refit (due next year I think?). VVHA is right - its fitting the hundreds of Royals in, sorting the passageways for use as assault routes and providing ammo issue points (safely) that are the embuggerance factors. Ark operated well (with the known drawbacks) in Telic - if only we were looking at a sensible maritime support helo, with rotor fold, EMI sorted, compatible materials and everything................
Presumably Ark is to cover for Ocean during her only major refit (due next year I think?). VVHA is right - its fitting the hundreds of Royals in, sorting the passageways for use as assault routes and providing ammo issue points (safely) that are the embuggerance factors. Ark operated well (with the known drawbacks) in Telic - if only we were looking at a sensible maritime support helo, with rotor fold, EMI sorted, compatible materials and everything................
Thread Starter
I guess Osprey isn't an option then, which leaves us with making to best of a MASC version of Merlin or another rotary wing platform.
How much extra performance a modified Merlin would have compared to a normal one I don't know, can anyone give me a ballpark figure (in terms of altitude, endurance etc)? 20%? 30?
However I guess that installing the Sea King ASaCs equipment in a Merlin would be difficult. The rear cabin layout is totally different for a start. Then you have to ask would you need the radome in a bag arrangement, why not either use the existing Blue Kestral radome, or sone sort of array mounted on the aircraft underside?
So the conclusion is that MASC will cost money, whatever option is chosen. But perhaps we would be better of worrying about getting the carriers laid down, and worry about MASC when steel is being cut, welded and so on?
How much extra performance a modified Merlin would have compared to a normal one I don't know, can anyone give me a ballpark figure (in terms of altitude, endurance etc)? 20%? 30?
However I guess that installing the Sea King ASaCs equipment in a Merlin would be difficult. The rear cabin layout is totally different for a start. Then you have to ask would you need the radome in a bag arrangement, why not either use the existing Blue Kestral radome, or sone sort of array mounted on the aircraft underside?
So the conclusion is that MASC will cost money, whatever option is chosen. But perhaps we would be better of worrying about getting the carriers laid down, and worry about MASC when steel is being cut, welded and so on?
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Hampshire
Age: 62
Posts: 144
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The situation changes if the CVF's end up going CTOL, or even STOBAR. Can a SeaKing's kit squeeze aboard any STOL commercial aircraft (rather than go the expense of Hawkeye?). Are there any robust, cheap high wing twin engined ten seaters out there that need an arrestor hook and don't mind a baggy dangling over the side?
WEBF - the compound Merlin (which is the advanced Merlin talked about for MASC) would have primarily an increase in altitude capability and possibly endurance, but not markedly in speed. Still stuck with that stupid gearbox however (at its maximum rating at start of life!!) which puts the mockers on anything else.
I have yet to see how anything (short of running on SK bag or cross-decking the radar / mission system to a bog standard Merlin) can compete cost / capability wise with the most widely used AEW&C aircraft in the world (Hawkeye) which will be still in an existing production run when we buy MASC. All we need is to pick the right variant of JCA (Dave - C) - which would also buy us all manner of interoperability and future proofing.
I have yet to see how anything (short of running on SK bag or cross-decking the radar / mission system to a bog standard Merlin) can compete cost / capability wise with the most widely used AEW&C aircraft in the world (Hawkeye) which will be still in an existing production run when we buy MASC. All we need is to pick the right variant of JCA (Dave - C) - which would also buy us all manner of interoperability and future proofing.
Thread Starter
Sunk At Narvik
Welcome to PPRuNe. I've read many of your coments elsewhere. I think a lot of the Sea King ASaCs kit is aircraft specific, you can't just unbolt it from one airframe and put it in another.
Regardless of these issues, we really ought to be cutting steel.
Welcome to PPRuNe. I've read many of your coments elsewhere. I think a lot of the Sea King ASaCs kit is aircraft specific, you can't just unbolt it from one airframe and put it in another.
Regardless of these issues, we really ought to be cutting steel.
Sunk,
Hows about a Twin Otter and forget the hook?
Hows about a Twin Otter and forget the hook?
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Hampshire
Age: 62
Posts: 144
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WEB, thanks for the welcome (-: From a procurement point of view I'm always sceptical that we buy the absolute best equipment/get mesmerised by the USN when in fact requirements might be met with cheaper (dare I say COTS?) solutions. The current Sea King AEW was a bodge job post Falklands- yet by some accounts has evolved into a highly capable and valuable piece of kit. The downside seems to be endurance and operating ceiling? Hence my suggestion that we purchase a commercial twin engine and transfer the grey boxes over.
SASless- Twin Otters don't offer much of a ceiling increase over Sea Kings?
The importent thing about this program is to get the carriers themselves built, worrying about the aircraft is like cancelling your latest car because you can't afford the leather trim. The ships will last forty to fifty years and during that time naval aviation will change dramatically. Of course its nice to get the trim sorted at purchase, but don't sabotage the whole deal in the process. Hence interest in Gripen (-:
SASless- Twin Otters don't offer much of a ceiling increase over Sea Kings?
The importent thing about this program is to get the carriers themselves built, worrying about the aircraft is like cancelling your latest car because you can't afford the leather trim. The ships will last forty to fifty years and during that time naval aviation will change dramatically. Of course its nice to get the trim sorted at purchase, but don't sabotage the whole deal in the process. Hence interest in Gripen (-:
Sunk
While I understand where you’re coming from, the Sea King AEW Mk2 was by no means a bodge job – what was a bodge was the political decision in preceding decades to ditch an AEW capability in the first place. The conversion of ASW Mk2s to AEWs was a prime example of what can be done quickly and efficiently by a very small team with some gumption and ingenuity about them. I agree the ASaC Mk7 is highly capable. It is, in fact, a good example of what DPA now call “incremental acquisition” which, like most “initiatives”, is long standing best practice anyway (although implemented by very few!).
The Mk2 was incrementally upgraded throughout the 80s and early 90s, a process which was frozen when it became apparent the RN had successfully argued for a properly funded upgrade. (Radar, Comms, IFF, JTIDS, IN/GPS and much more you never hear mentioned. In every aspect it was first of type and led the way). The pity, in my opinion, was that the funding dictated retention of the Sea King when, for example, the Merlin option was available. Not because the Sea King is incapable (it fully meets the time on task and ceiling requirements you mention) and is, in many ways, simply a taxi for the mission system; but because the AEW fleet is a mixed bag (sic) of Mks 1, 2 , 5 and 6, some dating to 1969. Others were built in the late 80s. When the Mk2 cabs (tail numbers) were chosen for conversion in 82, I don’t think anyone envisaged a 30+ year life. Still, there are very few projects to which money is no object – I can think of only one I've ever managed – and what the RN have got is the best in the world given the political constraints.
While I understand where you’re coming from, the Sea King AEW Mk2 was by no means a bodge job – what was a bodge was the political decision in preceding decades to ditch an AEW capability in the first place. The conversion of ASW Mk2s to AEWs was a prime example of what can be done quickly and efficiently by a very small team with some gumption and ingenuity about them. I agree the ASaC Mk7 is highly capable. It is, in fact, a good example of what DPA now call “incremental acquisition” which, like most “initiatives”, is long standing best practice anyway (although implemented by very few!).
The Mk2 was incrementally upgraded throughout the 80s and early 90s, a process which was frozen when it became apparent the RN had successfully argued for a properly funded upgrade. (Radar, Comms, IFF, JTIDS, IN/GPS and much more you never hear mentioned. In every aspect it was first of type and led the way). The pity, in my opinion, was that the funding dictated retention of the Sea King when, for example, the Merlin option was available. Not because the Sea King is incapable (it fully meets the time on task and ceiling requirements you mention) and is, in many ways, simply a taxi for the mission system; but because the AEW fleet is a mixed bag (sic) of Mks 1, 2 , 5 and 6, some dating to 1969. Others were built in the late 80s. When the Mk2 cabs (tail numbers) were chosen for conversion in 82, I don’t think anyone envisaged a 30+ year life. Still, there are very few projects to which money is no object – I can think of only one I've ever managed – and what the RN have got is the best in the world given the political constraints.
Thread Starter
Just out of interest, what do the Navies of Italy and Spain use for AEW?
Going back to the manning issue, experimentation is taking place into new ways of manning ships, including swapping the crews of ships of the same class, augmentation using personnel taken from sister ships in the UK or from the squad system, and others. I hope they remember the importance of a coherent crew for morale and psychological reasons. Also a recent FOST briefing said that the changeover of personnel under TOPMAST lead of ships needing more training to bring the level of teamwork back up.
Unfortunately I think more cuts are on the way, particularly in the training and support areas.
Going back to the manning issue, experimentation is taking place into new ways of manning ships, including swapping the crews of ships of the same class, augmentation using personnel taken from sister ships in the UK or from the squad system, and others. I hope they remember the importance of a coherent crew for morale and psychological reasons. Also a recent FOST briefing said that the changeover of personnel under TOPMAST lead of ships needing more training to bring the level of teamwork back up.
Unfortunately I think more cuts are on the way, particularly in the training and support areas.
Both the Italians and Spanish use SH3-Ds with a Searchwater dangling off them (in essence SKW). No option really given that their carriers are evn smaller than ours. The Indians were looking at a Helix variant with some radar folding up onto the rear fuselage (as was Ivan at one stage).
The crew rotation thing is being trialled under Sea Swap. Both this and Topmast are being discussed on Rum Ration.
http://www.rumration.co.uk/cpgn2/For.../start=15.html
http://www.rumration.co.uk/cpgn2/For...pic/t=675.html
The buzz is indeed that even more cuts are on the way - question is where is all the money going? Not in support or procurement thats for damn sure.
The crew rotation thing is being trialled under Sea Swap. Both this and Topmast are being discussed on Rum Ration.
http://www.rumration.co.uk/cpgn2/For.../start=15.html
http://www.rumration.co.uk/cpgn2/For...pic/t=675.html
The buzz is indeed that even more cuts are on the way - question is where is all the money going? Not in support or procurement thats for damn sure.
Suspicion breeds confidence
Webf, I believe that the Italians use a version of the Merlin with larger radar under the nose. No bags, but I don't think it has the capability of the current SKW, but am happy to be corrected.