EP99

The Ocean you refer to did indeed take 40 aircraft on 20000 te. Trouble is they were Seafires, Sea Furies & Fireflies (MTOW ~ 10000lbs), drinking thimbles of AVGAS and with stall speeds ~ 70kts. Even the smallest a/c under consideration for CVF weighs three times that and has a stall speed in the 130-140kt range.

There are NO ways in UK big enough to build a proper carrier since Swan Hunter dug up their slipways to put in a small floating dock. Harland & Wolff have a big enough dock but demolished their panel line last year, leaving Rosyth, which can fit the ship in dock but not build all the bits - hence the plan to build it at several facilities around the UK and then stitch it together at Rosyth......

F35-C is the proper carrier version and seems to be trundling along quite nicely - its the UK/USMC version "Dave" as it is known on these boards that is having issues.

Your JSENAC would certainly solve any protection issues, by the time the we and the French had agreed who was i/c, the op would be OBE anyway.

The day the Gripen gets an export order against Rafale, F18E or Mr Mikoyans Fulcrum-K (already sold to India as part of the Gorshkov refit package), Mr BAES will finally deserve his bonus package.

not counting the South African Gripen order then?

or the cezch republic

..and hungary? (potential senior moment in progress)

Carriers, Harriers, Schmarriers!
 

Now there's a thought!, perhaps we NEED an aircraft with [precisely such characteristics, I think, if I was dug in an worried about what was coming over the horizon, I would be rather anxious about aircraft with long hang-times, slow stall speeds, and big guns. ( remember Pucara?) However, point taken and agreed with!.

The question of who commands should not be a major problem, for the period specified ( e.g 150 op days/year ) it would be a given, if something blew up then, provided the operation was UN sanctioned, then it would still not be a problem. Remember, this idea does not prevent any participating nation building its own carriers for unilateral use, it just makes the utilisation of such vessels rather more cost effective. If you do not have UN sanction then, brother, you are on your own.

Navy has another rather big problem, at present DSR has done rather well in terms of modern assets. Once you have carriers you need to have URG assets, and these simply do not exist, if you are conducting littoral operations you need the ships to get the stuff, and the men, where you need them. You will also need the ships to support the ( conventional) carrier. We do not have them.

The whole question of CEC is actually a crucial one. Probably best solved by embarking CEC assets on RFA platforms.( I know, I know), even if they do not carry the missiles themselves they can greatly extend the sanitation limit of the air defence. Screwtops could also do the job, to an extent, but with only 2/3 carriers they take up a hell of a lot of deck space and resources. As to whether Aster can actually do the job at long range, we don't know.

The other problem we are going to face is attack from fast missile boats, given the ubiquitous nature of the load-out capablities of the SM-2 magazine there are some intriguing possibilities there, including borrowing some US army missile assets. That, as they say, is another story!

Regards

Agreed, but who knows what the good stuff is, besides, our American friends are often very reluctant to let us have all the good stuff, like software!.

The Russians however may well be more amenable, and, as we all know, they make some lovely stuff. Imagine, if we'd bought some IL-76's, put Rolls engines and US avionics on them, we could carry lots of Warriors about without wondering how the hell we were going to pay for the A-400m or whatever its called, or indeed for the Globemasters we will no doubt purchase when the lease runs out.

Thinking laterally, on such lines, concerning the FSTA, I see that someone has refurbishing two ex-Ukranian IL-86 Midas tankers to offer for the USN tanking contract. First one in the USA as we speak. The Ukranians have, reportedly, another 18 avavilable. 3 point, NATO standard baskets.

(Thinks, that´ll drag Beagle in with a comment) :}

My mistake! I meant to say "naval export order" - of course Gripen has done well as a low-cost high capability land based fighter, particularly since F16 is still about.

Must preview post before submitting, must preview etc.....

EP99 - by DSR assets, do you mean Afloat Support? If so see MARS project which is largely driven by need to provide huge quantities of F44, F76, bombs, vittles, bin bags & bog roll. They are funded (this week) and part of DIS was specifically written to allow them to be built as cost-effectively as possible.........They are scheduled to be (mostly) in service by the time both CVF are available - it may even happen, Smart Procurement has to work once, just to prove the exception to the rule.

CEC is probably a non-issue. The USN are actually quite reluctant to allow anyone else to integrate with it so probably won't happen. Would need decent sensors on RFA to even consider it. Makes a decent MASC asset like Hawkeye 2000 even more crucial. Would even allow better integration with FR/US forces. BTW your faith in multinational command structures is laudable, but a touch optimistic methinks.

MLRS is not and never will be qualified for Mk41 use. It would also be very difficult to employ against FIAC using white traffic for cover.

regards

Fascinating Stuff!
 

Indeed, Deploy Sustain Recover is presently reasonably well funded, point is the requirements were originally presented for the logistics requirement for supporting over the shore requirements, not OTS plus carriers.

If we cannot use CEC, or develop our own, then the threat we are considering operating against is not a "first world" one. If it is not then we do not need full up carriers. Granted, in a World where the Navy is prepared to use aircraft without A.I capabilities on its carriers anything is a possibility! What, for example, is the point of having a Sampson radar without either a.i. equipped aircraft or a viable, layered, area defence system? and this against the aircraft threat, let alone missile defence. If the missile can do 100 clicks, and the radar can see 20 at low level then the mismatch is likely to put you at the bottom of the ocean. I guess most of the planning guys are too young to remember "Atlantic Conveyor" (I seem to remember that the tapes showed that engagement as not being too good an advertisement for chaff!)

regards



Incidentally, I wasn't thinking primarily of MLRS, rather more of ATACMS but with a payload of BATS.

Fully concur re the Conveyor - what it actually showed was that a "second-world" airforce could do immense damage if long-range situational awareness for the AAWC was poor or missing. Hence the critical importance of MASC (what was Future Organic AEW). Problem is that MASC has always been a very poor relation to the JCA and the CVF and hence always trying to catch up. The danger is now that the Bags are providing such a useful overland capability, that the requirementeers concentrate on that to the detriment of it's two primary roles - Fleet AD and strike co-ordination - neither of which can be adequately performed by an R/W asset.

The ELS requirements (what was DSR) have always had carrier first, OTS second. The current programme calls for (and allegedly) funds different ships for each capability, 3 CVBG support and 3 JSBL ships (and there are good reasons for that). The worry is that cost escalation or slippage in replacing the fleet oilers (the most pressing requirement irrespective of CVF or JSBL) will put the mockers on the rest of it.

MASC will be a key enabler for the future, including submarines and forces ashore as well as aircraft and surface ships. Can't help thinking that V22 would be the best platform in the absence of Hawkeye. Higher altitude than a helicopter, higher speed etc etc.

As discussed here.

A piece from the MOD website: The name is Band, Admiral Sir Jonathon Band

Given that the vast majority of the economic power in the world lies within 100 miles of the coast, and that during the build-up to the invasion of Iraq in 2003, over 90 per cent of military equipment and supplies went by ship, it's a naval function that is likely to endure.

In addition there is what Sir Jonathon calls the "hard-hitting end" of the Royal Navy, which is now focused on the UK's carrier fleet:

"Our defence policy requires us to provide air power when we want to, wherever we want to in the world. If you want that policy you have to have carriers. So you take your air power with you, and you use the high seas to affect the land.

"The reason we're getting big carriers is that we want to get a weight of airpower on day one of the war. And that is best done on two bigger platforms than on three or four smaller ones."

It will be interesting to see if the RN/RAF adopt the Lightning II name for the F35. They don't always follow the American lead.

True but I imagine we will follow suit. Has there ever been an aircraft which was operated by different countries and with different names?

WW2. The Grumman Wildcat was officially called the 'Martlet' by the FAA.

I'll take my snorkel parker off now.:ok:

VV, oh yes... Lots.

I'll just borrow mlc's parka for a moment along with the tupperware sandwich box...

We renamed several US aircraft during WW2, not just the Wildcat -

The Vought Vindicator became the Chesapeake
The Grumman Avenger became the Tarpon
The Grumman Hellcat was meant to be called the Gannet, but at some point just before service entry the US name was reinstated

The Curtiss SBC-4 Helldiver (the original 'Helldiver') was christend the Cleveland in British service, while the Brewster Buccaneer became the Bermuda. The Chesapeake and Bermuda turned out to be rubbish, which is why only sad anoraks like me have heard of them.

The USAAF started out calling its P-51s 'Apaches' but adopted the RAF's choice of Mustang instead (but perhaps not for the A-36 dive bomber variant, depending upon which historian you side with).

The French operated several German aircraft after the war (building more of some of them in France, in fact) - the Storch was the Criquet, the Ju-52 the Toucan and the Bf108 the Pingouin. :8

B-29 = Washington B1...

Archimedes..your anorak is considerably bigger than mine!! :)

OK,OK.... apart from......

The Vought Vindicator
The Grumman Avenger
The Grumman Hellcat and
The Curtiss SBC-4 Helldiver ...

What have the Romans done for us?

The Israelis givew different names to their aircraft from the US originals. In fact I think the F15 has a different name for each variant in IDF service.

So, will it be the GR1 (RAF) or the FGR2 (RN)? :E

If they don't give us all the software it'll be the Sheet Lightning.:hmm:

Orac,

More like B-2 would it not?:confused:

Cause for concern?

BAE and MoD at war over destroyer costs

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.

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.

The Navy News stated ....



Well, that will be a waste of money then seeing as the Ark is going to be a Helicopter Carrier...

Vec, I think the comment suggests a dual purpose. Although Ark as an LPH will never come close to Ocean.

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................

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?

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.

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.

Sunk,

Hows about a Twin Otter and forget the hook?

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 (-:

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.

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.

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.

I am sure that the Indian Navy have Kamov Ka-31 helicopters for AEW etc with a folding and rotating antenna under the fuselage?

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.