Think Defence hopes to start sensible conversations about UK defence issues, no agenda or no campaign but there might be one or two posts on containers, bridges and mexeflotes!
1,350 thoughts on “Open Thread – Land, Sea and Air I”
ArmChairCivvy
Today’s Wired mag
“the land-based F-35A model probably won’t be ready for combat until 2018, two years later than previously scheduled.
…
The effects of the delay are cascading throughout the world’s biggest and most powerful Air Force. To keep up its strength while awaiting the F-35,…
Evolving plans see nearly 500 F-15Cs, Ds and Es remaining in the air beyond 2030, by which time the youngest C and D models — the dogfighters — will be close to 50 years old. At least 300 of the more lightly built F-16s are now expected to last through the 2020s, averaging 40 years in service. Of the Air Force’s 2,000 fighters, just 180 or so F-22s can be considered young.”
- but the skin is peeling off!
So, good timing with our delayed carriers
And why are you guys complaining about 70 years old Bulldogs? They are pulling far fewer g’s daily than the pieces featured in the article
Mark
ACC
Same briefing also contained another intersting point the USAF now intends to retain U2 in service indefinitely as the global hawk will be incapable of preforming the U2 missions.
We had a thread about small UAVs and how to remove the threat he maybe one option fire a net at them.
ACC, I read that, interesting stuff but then is an upgraded F16 and F15 fleet all that bad, combined with of course a massive ISTAR capability and a handful of F22 superstars. How much of this is a concerted begging bowl effort by the defence industry
Mark, I still think UAV proliferation is something we are singularly unprepared for, especially so in the urban environment
Phil
The main problem with the F16 and F15 upgrades is sheer fatigue. They are well used airframes and there are serious concerns about actually being able to keep enough airframes airworthy.
Re manufacturing them to zero hour the airframe will cost a huge chunk on top of F35 procurement costs and bring marginal effect improvements. So that’s drama over F16/F15 fleet – they are just worn right out.
Mark
I would say f16/f15 for defence of the us airspace work or high value cap work no. The problem is the f22 fleet it simply too small. Future high end threats like proliferation of Russian tech is the issue. Future power and onboard system demands coupled anti access measure mean we need to move on. F35 has had a responsibly normal development profile. I would say the day it was made a sole supplier contract was the day it’s made it most powerful enemies.
Does the us need an all low observal fleet don’t know.
We have kinda neglected the fact our enemys may use these too.
Wouldn’t disagree the idea r enemies may use them is kind of a doh as homer Simpson would say
andyw
In july last year, Russia’s forecast for Sukhoi PAK-FA (T50) potential buyers was
…Algeria (can purchase 24-36 fifth-generation fighters in the period of 2025-2030 years), Argentina (12-24 units in the years 2035-2040), Brazil (24 – 36 units in the years 2030-2035), Venezuela (24-36 units in the years 2027-2032), Vietnam (12-24 units in the years 2030-2035), Egypt (12-24 units in the years 2040-2045).
Also, Indonesia (6-12 units in the years 2028-2032), Iran (36-48 units in the years 2035-2040), Kazakhstan (12-24 units in the years 2025-2035), China (up to 100 units in the years 2025-2035), Libya (12-24 units in the years 2025-2030), Malaysia (12-24 units in the years 2035-2040), and Syria (12-24 units in the years 2025-2030).
ArmChairCivvy
This is from rpdefence blog, nicely all in one place:
”
JASSM is the third family of GPS guided smart bombs to be developed. The first was the original JDAM bomb kit (added to 500, 1,000 and 2,000 pound bombs), which cost $26,000 each. The longer range JSOW (JDAM with wings and more powerful guidance system), cost $460,000 each. The even longer range JASSM cost $500,000 (the 400 kilometers version) to $930,000 (the 900 kilometer JASSM ER) each. Then there is the SDB (Small Diameter Bomb), a 114 kg (250 pound) JDAM that can also punch through concrete bunkers and other structures. These cost $75,000 each.”
- looks like a stealthy cruise missile costs about $1k for every km of range (I forget already if Storm Shadow ratio falls in line with this?)
ArmChairCivvy
Aviation Week (Sept 7) offered a good overview of IDF’s UAV & Tactical Comms (single service, so no squabbles over who operates UAVs):
…IDF operates in known arenas, it established several unified fusion centers that are capable of receiving information from all sensors and controlling any available weaponry. Their effectiveness was demonstrated during Israel’s “Cast Lead” operation in Gaza in December 2008 and January 2009, where the average exposure time of a Palestinian rocket team was 90 sec. During this short time, several ISR centers, operating from the brigade level and up, were able to detect a suspected target, confirm it as hostile and direct munitions against it.
“It was completely irrelevant what munitions were used or whether they were fired from the air, ground or sea,” a brigade commander who participated in the operation tells Aviation Week.
…
the IDF has bolstered its UAS fleet, currently operating four layers of unmanned systems, soon to be five [+ manned]. The upper tier comprises IAI’s medium-altitude, long-endurance (MALE) Eitan (Heron TP). With its ability to carry multiple payloads and with a range of more than 1,000 km (620 mi.), the UAS is operated from the General Staff level. The Shoval MALE (Heron 1) UAS is mostly deployed for air force missions. The requirement to carry multiple payloads has spurred the Israeli air force to bolster its Elbit Hermes 450 (Zik) fleet with the larger Hermes 900, the first of which has been delivered to the air force. The Zik usually supports the ground battle at territorial command or division level.
At lower altitudes, the IDF equips its battalions with the Sky Rider (Elbit’s Skylark 1-LE), a 6.5-kg (14.3-lb.) UAS with 3 hr. endurance, designed to provide commanders with immediate tactical intelligence. In between the Sky Rider and the Hermes, the IDF plans to deploy the 65-kg Skylark II to provide reconnaissance at the brigade level.
…
Delivering all that information to the operating combat units is the final link in the ISR chain. There, Israel’s ambitious Digital Army Program (Tsayad), aimed at connecting all IDF units and platforms through a common broadband network, is beginning to mature. Several IDF divisions are already equipped with the latest version of the TORC2H C4I (command, control, communications, computers and intelligence) system, which provides commanders down to the company level an integrated battle picture of friendly and enemy forces.
“The vision—that the field commander can point to a target on his handheld machine and the fighter pilot will immediately receive the coordinates and strike—is starting to be realized,” says a senior IDF source.
[now I know who sent a Trojan onto my PC, too; that must be the Pulitzer price in defence blogging!]
paul g
F-35c launched using steam catapult for the first time.
Chris.B.
@ Paul G
Maybe it’s just me but that looked like a damn quick launch. That system is coming along really well lately.
@ ACC
You have to Love the IDF when it comes to remote vehicles. While everyone else is suddenly embracing a UAV revolution, the Israeli’s are sitting there wondering why everyone is getting so excited about this 40 year old technology.
paul g
@chris b, it’s not the emals, it’s a steam catapult, i assume they’re testing the f-35 for use with current systems on the flat tops
Chris.B.
That explains it. Although I think EMALS has done ok so far.
andyw
interesting article on how the US are reforming their acquisition process …
“After years of high-profile failures – Future Combat Systems (FCS) was only the most spectacular – the service is trying a different approach. Rather than develop requirements, launch an acquisition program and only years later test technical performance, the Army is racing to get gear into soldiers’ hands and letting them write the report card. For now, this change is most visible in the efforts to field a battlefield network, but what’s going on in the desert could affect how the Army buys everything from smartphones to combat vehicles.”
the most awesome thing about this is the name of the guy in charge of the brigade modernisation team, Brigadier General Randy Dragon !!!
Mark
Sources have confirmed that the UK provided a formal briefing about the Typhoon to UAE officials on 17 October, after being asked to explore how it might meet future fast jet requirements.
As I have said earlier, if Rafale wins in India, the only production line (within a couple of years) might be in India. This might not be something the UAE would cherish? From your link
“Both the Rafale and the Typhoon … are also in the final stage of a massive contest to meet India’s 126-unit medium multi-role combat aircraft requirement. Final bids were opened early this month, with a selection decision possible within the next few weeks.”
Frenchie
translated from french :
“Dassault and the European consortium Eurofighter must submit, Friday, Nov. 4, the Indian authorities in their commercial offers a competitive tender for 126 fighter aircraft. Dassault for its Rafale and Eurofighter (EADS consortium from), end of April had been shortlisted for one of the largest defense contracts in the third economic power in Asia that seeks to modernize its army. Estimated amount of contract: $ 12 billion.
“There will be no decision today and no date can be given” to announce the name of the manufacturer withheld, said a source from the Ministry of Defence told AFP.
A source within Dassault, “the decision can be made in a day if the difference between the two offers is important but it can take months if the difference is minimal.”
Better chance to the candidate the lowest bidder
In India, the candidate the lowest bidder usually wins the contract. The contract states that the Indian government directly buy 18 aircraft by 2012 while 108 others will be built locally.
For the record, the U.S. truck industry, Boeing and Lockheed Martin as well as the Swedish Saab Gripen and Russian MiG had been placed out of play after a fierce competition.
This is the first call for tenders launched by India, who was far contracts over the counter and rested for 50 years of Soviet technology for its air defense.
Dassault expects in the coming months the decision of three countries for its Rafale, never sold for export: in addition to India, UAE and Switzerland also have to decide.”
ArmChairCivvy
The last French budget only funded 7 Rafales when the capacity of the line is 11 per year
- could be that the other four are already funded
- could also be choking the line to the slowest possible trickle, to keep it alive until the three mentioned contracts are awarded (to somebody); can’t remember right now if Rafale is still in the running also in Brazil (which competition is nowhere near a decision)
Frenchie
No, to the latest news Brazil prefer the Gripen or Super Hornet. Super Hornet would be wise to buy for the two British aircraft carriers, it’s really cheap and we don’t need super aircraft to counter the soviet fleet.
In 2011, France will acquire eleven additional aircraft earlier than planned, to honor a contract clause that obliges the state to guarantee a minimum rate of the production chain, given the fact that the Rafale has not yet found a buyer for export, but if we find a buyer, we will hang out the contract until 2025. It is expected that bought 180 aircraft in total, 132 for the Air Force and 48 for the navy, a little like you.
Yes, they have our old Foch, which is 260 meters long, it is equivalent to Charles de Gaulle, the surface of the Gripen is smaller than the Super Hornet, but the Super Hornet is as wide as a Rafale, it should be good, this is not a question of size but price and technology transfer, as usual.
Mark
Britain has agreed to sell all of its 74 decommissioned Harrier jump jets, along with engines and spare parts, to the U.S. Navy and Marine Corps – a move expected to help the Marines operate Harriers into the mid-2020s and provide extra planes to replace aging two-seat F-18D Hornet strike fighters.
Just go back to the start. 1st of Foot, 2nd of Foot, 1 Lancers, 1 Dragoons etc etc
Frenchie
Shame to lose your Gurkhas, very good soldiers, it is as if we lost “La Légion étrangère”.
Phil
Gurkhas are strange. We should have raised 8 battalions for Afghan for the duration.
Mark
dubai air show news apparently oman will take 12 new build typhoons in the new year. Also it appears the saudi f15 deal maybe in trouble and a follow on order for 48 typhoon maybe in the pipeline
interesting else where news that the puma helicopter fleet new builds will be reduced by at least 4.
Think Defence
Interesting stuff Martin
After all the bluff and bluster, slagging off and general bad press that the arch cold war warrior has had from all and sundry it is standing on the edge of being one of the UK’s largest export programmes that will earn a significant amount of cash.
It might all still go tits up of course but it makes you think, if I had a pound to invest for a return, would it be in armoured vehicles, ships or aerospace?
ArmChairCivvy
Hi Mark,
Those same news also indicate that there is a new RFP for the same number of fighters as the tentative Rafale deal was about(for the UAE, so I assume no deal then)
ArmChairCivvy
This is old stuff (2009 article in the Economist), but maybe cutting down the number of formations is not such a bad idea – making the ones that exist deployable
” On October 1st the trained strength of the British armed forces was 173,270. This is 3.2% below the official requirement, but it understates large gaps in some areas—especially infantry units. Most battalions are 10-20% short of their required numbers; if those deemed unfit to deploy (due to, say, battle injuries) are factored out, they are as much as 42% under strength. So when battalions are preparing for war, they often regroup soldiers from their four scrawny companies into three, and then bolt on a fourth from another unit. To support current operations, the army has cut back training and lowered readiness; instead of having roughly a brigade at high readiness to deal with a crisis, sources say, there is “less than a battle-group” (a 1,500-strong formation).
…
Britain gets by in part thanks to foreigners: Commonwealth citizens (who made up more than 6% of soldiers in 2007), Irish recruits and Gurkhas”
Phil has provided a date from when there will actually be both an air- and a sea-deployable battle group available (through taking the intervention bdes out of roulement).
But longer term, isn’t the solution in having the army bdes based in the areas where they are recruited from, Meaning that the 4th Coy in any type of Bn could be TA?
- mind you, the deployability of TA (as it stands today) is only a fraction of its overall numbers
ArmChairCivvy
Army website “As CGS said in his letter to the Army on 18 July: “Growing to a trained strength of at least 30,000 plus an 8,000 training margin, with better training, more robust terms of service and new arrangements for employers, the future TA is to play a much bigger role in both routine and operational tasks, with strengthened mechanisms for routine mobilisation.”"
In the same piece the objective of 1:8 sustained mobilisation is informed, so that would give half a brigade (3750).Say 4 bdes (not counting the high-readiness bdes), two at a time having TA formations… gives a ratio of 1 in 4!
- not a bad plan, but can it be made to work
- I am not saying that a bde strength is going to be 7.500, just compensating for the fact that in the long run reservist use should be optimised in CS and CSS (diverse specialist trades) and they would be relatively more numerous there compared to regulars than in, say, infantry?
ArmChairCivvy
4.5 gen fighters doing quite well
“UAE Air Force asked the US government in August or September for classified briefings on the capabilities of the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet and F-15E. The Eurofighter consortium might reply: So what? The UAE asked the UK government to provide a similar briefing on the Typhoon in October, and it was the only fighter that received an RfP in the last two weeks.” http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2011/11/dxb11-certain-victory-for-rafa.html?cp=NLC-FGDAY2011
UAE is buying time to get the right plane selected by splitting the order of 60 to some more Block2 F-16s as well
Mark
They will continue to as well. The us won’t currently allow marketing of f35 in the middle East outside israel and turkey. And they can’t really buy uavs as they don’t have a satellite network to operate them.
A few big big months coming for typhoon never count your chickens and keep your fingers crossed.
Confirmation that Nimrod was 95% paid for. -facepalm-
Confirmation that all the banter about “mitigating the gap” with other assets is bullshit. -facepalm-
Confirmation that crews from the Nimrod are going into Canada, US, even Australia and New Zealand to keep expertise alive… Good.
Confirmation that the MOD is desperate for a proper replacement to fit somewhere in the future planning rounds.
With every detail revealed, it makes less and less sense, doesn’t it…?
A400 cost in total for 22 airframes at the moment would 141.13 million. Not that bad at all.
The Wildcat Lynx bit is very, very interesting:
“Based on the current assumptions within the Rotary Wing Strategy the quantity of Wildcat aircraft to be procured comprises 34 Battlefield Reconnaissance Helicopters with a further eight Light Assault Helicopter role variants of the Battlefield Reconnaissance Helicopter, together with 28 Surface Combatant Maritime Rotorcraft. The Light Assault Helicopter role requirement will be subject to appropriate requirement approvals. Planning Round 2011 Options introduce funding for the Light Assault Helicopter role equipment as well as de‑scoping the Battlefield Reconnaisance Helicopter requirement by four aircraft, resulting in a total fleet of 66 aircraft. A further Planning Round 2011 Option was run to revise the profile of the resources available for the Wildcat project between financial year 2014-15 and financial year 2015-16.”
I’m guessing that the Army is willing to trade 4 Wildcats, in order to obtain 8 “Light Assault” helicopters (armed with LMM? Perhaps even Hellfire?) for 847 NAS.
So far, it was planned that 847 would get 6 Wildcats from the Army total.
So, effectively, the Army would lose six helicopters, while now it would only lose 4, with 4 additional Wildcats being built, for a total of 8 weapon-capable ones, and total of Wildcats growing to 66 instead of 62.
A very interesting development. I had heard nothing at all about this.
Consequence of experience with attack helicopters in Libya, perhaps…?
The PUMA HC2 are going to be 24, not 28. It is confirmed.
It is also confirmed that the Medium Armour FRES has been “removed” from the FRES SV family (and probably, i’d dare guessing, we will never hear of it again) and Maneuver Support was also removed from FRES.
Potentially opening the way to the Warrior Bridgelayer.
ATACMS (Large Long Range Rocket) option for the RA GMLRS cancelled in PR11. Bad.
Excalibur (Guided Shell) also had its funding cancelled in PR11, but requirement remains for resurrection later.
MARS Fleet Tanker remaining bidders are three: Daewoo Shipbuilding and Marine Engineering (Republic of Korea), Fincantieri (Italy), Hyundai Heavy Industries (Republic of Korea). Selection expected in PR12.
OUVS cancelled.
In 2016 it will be reopened as Multi Role Vehicle – Protected.
Cooperative Engagement Capability now planned for Type 26, NOT Type 23.
Years away, in other words.
What about Type 45…? Surely the AAW destroyer is the main user for CEC, yet it is not even mentioned…???
ArmChairCivvy
Only been through the NAO 2011 summary so far, but from it this” [bullets added]
- total cost growth on all post-main-gate projects approved before 2002 was, at 16.8 per cent, significantly higher than the 2.8 per cent total cost increase on all projects approved since 2002.
- Most of this latter cost growth has come on the Queen Elizabeth Class aircraft carrier. If this large project is excluded from the analysis, there would have been a net saving of £839 million from projects approved in or after 2002.
- More generally, larger projects have disproportionately suffered from cost increases. Almost all were approved before 2002, yet they still comprise the vast majority of the £10.6 billion (11.4 per cent) cost overrun, noted above.
-This indicates that the Department continues to live with the consequences of cost increases on projects approved before 2002, and particularly the legacy of significant cost overruns on larger projects.”
==============
“What is measured becomes important” and these report shave been running since 2000 – MoD has become expert in managing what hits the headlines by either delaying (sometimes OK, like with Astutes and Typhoons) or cutting quantity – which kills the domestic supply base, and does not help capability most of the time.
=======BACK TO THE REPORT
“Cost growth [primarily] driven by project-level difficulties, such as design and contracting issues, up to 2008; adding £7.5 billion to project costs”
-has been neutralised by reducing units (8-9 bn saved todate),
-but this equipment programmes ‘time profile management’ has blown half of that for nothing(!) as noted in “Departmental planning decisions having added £4.2 billion to forecast costs since 2009″.
ArmChairCivvy
” 4 additional Wildcats being built, for a total of 8 weapon-capable ones, and total of Wildcats growing to 66 instead of 62.
A very interesting development. I had heard nothing at all about this.
Consequence of experience with attack helicopters in Libya, perhaps…?
The PUMA HC2 are going to be 24, not 28. It is confirmed.”
= plus 4 minus 4= zero (but a good trade, anyway)
ArmChairCivvy
A new name for FRES UV
“OUVS cancelled.
In 2016 it will be reopened as Multi Role Vehicle – Protected.”
- Phil’s article on this (towards the end of the v broad piece) was very good!
Gabriele
The Puma HC2 number was always expressed as “up to 28″.
Much depended not just on money but on the state of the airframes. They are old, and no one was ever sure that as many as 28 would have been in good enough conditions to be upgraded.
The 24 figure was around from quite some time. Cost remains over 300 millions, though. So it is not so much about savings, but, i’m guessing, probably avoiding a cost increase due to airframes needing too much work and funding.
After all, even assuming that it is a reduction not to pay for support and usage costs out to 2025… 4 helicopters…? Can’t make that much difference.
Gabriele
@ACC
OUVS and FRES SV are definitely not the same thing, and i don’t think PR11 changed that.
ArmChairCivvy
Hi Gabby, agreed “Much depended not just on money but on the state of the airframes. They are old”
- good ones available from the Dutch, already upgraded, why bother with the dodgy ones?
Think Defence
Lots of interesting stuff in the report as usual. Will probably do a separate post but one that caught my eye was the number of A400 that will have DAS in the programme (more will be fitted later I am sure)
Anyone guess what the number is
ArmChairCivvy
RE “OUVS [cancelled] and FRES SV [UV I said] are definitely not the same thing
… just a prediction of what we will see as tender process in 2016
ArmChairCivvy
Definitely ” Will probably do a separate post ” worth it,
- but when is this Equipment Plan due to be out?
What a nice pair the two would make (for discussion)
Think Defence
ACC, tend to agree with you on FRES SV and OUVS being merged
Frenchie
It is written :
“The Operational Utility Vehicle System project has been removed from the programme during 2011. A Review Note has been prepared to reflect this, which states that the requirement will be re-scoped, and the outcome of this work will form the basis for the Multi Role Vehicle – Protected Programme. It is currently planned for Multi Role Vehicle – Protected to commence concept stage during Financial Year 2015-16. Multi Role Vehicle-Protected will have its own Initial Gate and Main-Gate Approvals.”
This means for me that the FRES UV will be replacing OUVS in 2015-2016, Mastiff and other vehicles will be replaced by “FRES UV” Multi Role Vehicle-Protected Programme.
I would like well a FRES UV direct-fire, as Centauro.
Tubby
Hi Gabby,
I have read the report differently to you re: “Confirmation that Nimrod was 95% paid for. -facepalm- ”
The report says “A total of £3.4 billion24 was spent on the Nimrod maritime patrol aircraft programme on the assessment, demonstration and manufacture phases up to the 31 March 2011. When the Department decided to cancel Nimrod, around 95 per cent of forecast spend for completing the nine aircraft had been used.” This simply means at the point of cancelling they spent 95% of the budget available not that the remaining 5% of that budget would have brought Nimrod into service.
I found it rather damning that they decided against completing the Nimrod for re-sale as the report says “The Department judged continuing production as risky because it could involve further difficulties and cost increases of the type that had already been encountered on the project to date”.
Think Defence
Frenchie, I think it will be other way around, FRES UV will be replaced by OUVS successor!!
Today’s Wired mag
“the land-based F-35A model probably won’t be ready for combat until 2018, two years later than previously scheduled.
…
The effects of the delay are cascading throughout the world’s biggest and most powerful Air Force. To keep up its strength while awaiting the F-35,…
Evolving plans see nearly 500 F-15Cs, Ds and Es remaining in the air beyond 2030, by which time the youngest C and D models — the dogfighters — will be close to 50 years old. At least 300 of the more lightly built F-16s are now expected to last through the 2020s, averaging 40 years in service. Of the Air Force’s 2,000 fighters, just 180 or so F-22s can be considered young.”
- but the skin is peeling off!
So, good timing with our delayed carriers
And why are you guys complaining about 70 years old Bulldogs? They are pulling far fewer g’s daily than the pieces featured in the article
ACC
Same briefing also contained another intersting point the USAF now intends to retain U2 in service indefinitely as the global hawk will be incapable of preforming the U2 missions.
We had a thread about small UAVs and how to remove the threat he maybe one option fire a net at them.
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&newspaperUserId=27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7&plckPostId=Blog%3a27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3a96ed2e4d-1d55-493e-b401-8cf0d9911350&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest
US efforts to go for a new IFV maybe FANG
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&newspaperUserId=27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7&plckPostId=Blog%3a27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3a36170922-c273-4947-8640-f8bd0291bd45&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest
ACC, I read that, interesting stuff but then is an upgraded F16 and F15 fleet all that bad, combined with of course a massive ISTAR capability and a handful of F22 superstars. How much of this is a concerted begging bowl effort by the defence industry
Mark, I still think UAV proliferation is something we are singularly unprepared for, especially so in the urban environment
The main problem with the F16 and F15 upgrades is sheer fatigue. They are well used airframes and there are serious concerns about actually being able to keep enough airframes airworthy.
Re manufacturing them to zero hour the airframe will cost a huge chunk on top of F35 procurement costs and bring marginal effect improvements. So that’s drama over F16/F15 fleet – they are just worn right out.
I would say f16/f15 for defence of the us airspace work or high value cap work no. The problem is the f22 fleet it simply too small. Future high end threats like proliferation of Russian tech is the issue. Future power and onboard system demands coupled anti access measure mean we need to move on. F35 has had a responsibly normal development profile. I would say the day it was made a sole supplier contract was the day it’s made it most powerful enemies.
Does the us need an all low observal fleet don’t know.
We have kinda neglected the fact our enemys may use these too.
Wouldn’t disagree the idea r enemies may use them is kind of a doh as homer Simpson would say
In july last year, Russia’s forecast for Sukhoi PAK-FA (T50) potential buyers was
…Algeria (can purchase 24-36 fifth-generation fighters in the period of 2025-2030 years), Argentina (12-24 units in the years 2035-2040), Brazil (24 – 36 units in the years 2030-2035), Venezuela (24-36 units in the years 2027-2032), Vietnam (12-24 units in the years 2030-2035), Egypt (12-24 units in the years 2040-2045).
Also, Indonesia (6-12 units in the years 2028-2032), Iran (36-48 units in the years 2035-2040), Kazakhstan (12-24 units in the years 2025-2035), China (up to 100 units in the years 2025-2035), Libya (12-24 units in the years 2025-2030), Malaysia (12-24 units in the years 2035-2040), and Syria (12-24 units in the years 2025-2030).
This is from rpdefence blog, nicely all in one place:
”
JASSM is the third family of GPS guided smart bombs to be developed. The first was the original JDAM bomb kit (added to 500, 1,000 and 2,000 pound bombs), which cost $26,000 each. The longer range JSOW (JDAM with wings and more powerful guidance system), cost $460,000 each. The even longer range JASSM cost $500,000 (the 400 kilometers version) to $930,000 (the 900 kilometer JASSM ER) each. Then there is the SDB (Small Diameter Bomb), a 114 kg (250 pound) JDAM that can also punch through concrete bunkers and other structures. These cost $75,000 each.”
- looks like a stealthy cruise missile costs about $1k for every km of range (I forget already if Storm Shadow ratio falls in line with this?)
Aviation Week (Sept 7) offered a good overview of IDF’s UAV & Tactical Comms (single service, so no squabbles over who operates UAVs):
…IDF operates in known arenas, it established several unified fusion centers that are capable of receiving information from all sensors and controlling any available weaponry. Their effectiveness was demonstrated during Israel’s “Cast Lead” operation in Gaza in December 2008 and January 2009, where the average exposure time of a Palestinian rocket team was 90 sec. During this short time, several ISR centers, operating from the brigade level and up, were able to detect a suspected target, confirm it as hostile and direct munitions against it.
“It was completely irrelevant what munitions were used or whether they were fired from the air, ground or sea,” a brigade commander who participated in the operation tells Aviation Week.
…
the IDF has bolstered its UAS fleet, currently operating four layers of unmanned systems, soon to be five [+ manned]. The upper tier comprises IAI’s medium-altitude, long-endurance (MALE) Eitan (Heron TP). With its ability to carry multiple payloads and with a range of more than 1,000 km (620 mi.), the UAS is operated from the General Staff level. The Shoval MALE (Heron 1) UAS is mostly deployed for air force missions. The requirement to carry multiple payloads has spurred the Israeli air force to bolster its Elbit Hermes 450 (Zik) fleet with the larger Hermes 900, the first of which has been delivered to the air force. The Zik usually supports the ground battle at territorial command or division level.
At lower altitudes, the IDF equips its battalions with the Sky Rider (Elbit’s Skylark 1-LE), a 6.5-kg (14.3-lb.) UAS with 3 hr. endurance, designed to provide commanders with immediate tactical intelligence. In between the Sky Rider and the Hermes, the IDF plans to deploy the 65-kg Skylark II to provide reconnaissance at the brigade level.
…
Delivering all that information to the operating combat units is the final link in the ISR chain. There, Israel’s ambitious Digital Army Program (Tsayad), aimed at connecting all IDF units and platforms through a common broadband network, is beginning to mature. Several IDF divisions are already equipped with the latest version of the TORC2H C4I (command, control, communications, computers and intelligence) system, which provides commanders down to the company level an integrated battle picture of friendly and enemy forces.
“The vision—that the field commander can point to a target on his handheld machine and the fighter pilot will immediately receive the coordinates and strike—is starting to be realized,” says a senior IDF source.
[now I know who sent a Trojan onto my PC, too; that must be the Pulitzer price in defence blogging!]
F-35c launched using steam catapult for the first time.
@ Paul G
Maybe it’s just me but that looked like a damn quick launch. That system is coming along really well lately.
@ ACC
You have to Love the IDF when it comes to remote vehicles. While everyone else is suddenly embracing a UAV revolution, the Israeli’s are sitting there wondering why everyone is getting so excited about this 40 year old technology.
@chris b, it’s not the emals, it’s a steam catapult, i assume they’re testing the f-35 for use with current systems on the flat tops
That explains it. Although I think EMALS has done ok so far.
interesting article on how the US are reforming their acquisition process …
“After years of high-profile failures – Future Combat Systems (FCS) was only the most spectacular – the service is trying a different approach. Rather than develop requirements, launch an acquisition program and only years later test technical performance, the Army is racing to get gear into soldiers’ hands and letting them write the report card. For now, this change is most visible in the efforts to field a battlefield network, but what’s going on in the desert could affect how the Army buys everything from smartphones to combat vehicles.”
http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=8156310&c=FEA&s=CVS
the most awesome thing about this is the name of the guy in charge of the brigade modernisation team, Brigadier General Randy Dragon !!!
Sources have confirmed that the UK provided a formal briefing about the Typhoon to UAE officials on 17 October, after being asked to explore how it might meet future fast jet requirements.
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/dubai-uae-issues-shock-eurofighter-typhoon-request-364701/
Hi Mark,
As I have said earlier, if Rafale wins in India, the only production line (within a couple of years) might be in India. This might not be something the UAE would cherish? From your link
“Both the Rafale and the Typhoon … are also in the final stage of a massive contest to meet India’s 126-unit medium multi-role combat aircraft requirement. Final bids were opened early this month, with a selection decision possible within the next few weeks.”
translated from french :
“Dassault and the European consortium Eurofighter must submit, Friday, Nov. 4, the Indian authorities in their commercial offers a competitive tender for 126 fighter aircraft. Dassault for its Rafale and Eurofighter (EADS consortium from), end of April had been shortlisted for one of the largest defense contracts in the third economic power in Asia that seeks to modernize its army. Estimated amount of contract: $ 12 billion.
“There will be no decision today and no date can be given” to announce the name of the manufacturer withheld, said a source from the Ministry of Defence told AFP.
A source within Dassault, “the decision can be made in a day if the difference between the two offers is important but it can take months if the difference is minimal.”
Better chance to the candidate the lowest bidder
In India, the candidate the lowest bidder usually wins the contract. The contract states that the Indian government directly buy 18 aircraft by 2012 while 108 others will be built locally.
For the record, the U.S. truck industry, Boeing and Lockheed Martin as well as the Swedish Saab Gripen and Russian MiG had been placed out of play after a fierce competition.
This is the first call for tenders launched by India, who was far contracts over the counter and rested for 50 years of Soviet technology for its air defense.
Dassault expects in the coming months the decision of three countries for its Rafale, never sold for export: in addition to India, UAE and Switzerland also have to decide.”
The last French budget only funded 7 Rafales when the capacity of the line is 11 per year
- could be that the other four are already funded
- could also be choking the line to the slowest possible trickle, to keep it alive until the three mentioned contracts are awarded (to somebody); can’t remember right now if Rafale is still in the running also in Brazil (which competition is nowhere near a decision)
No, to the latest news Brazil prefer the Gripen or Super Hornet. Super Hornet would be wise to buy for the two British aircraft carriers, it’s really cheap and we don’t need super aircraft to counter the soviet fleet.
In 2011, France will acquire eleven additional aircraft earlier than planned, to honor a contract clause that obliges the state to guarantee a minimum rate of the production chain, given the fact that the Rafale has not yet found a buyer for export, but if we find a buyer, we will hang out the contract until 2025. It is expected that bought 180 aircraft in total, 132 for the Air Force and 48 for the navy, a little like you.
Hi Frenchie, thanks v much for the info.
TD may want to move the whole discussion to the rumble-jungle thread (?) but considering the size of the old carrier (that Brazil has) may still make the physical dimensions of the two remaining contenders the deciding issue (SeaGripen is smaller than SuperHornet). More here http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=
Hi ACC,
Yes, they have our old Foch, which is 260 meters long, it is equivalent to Charles de Gaulle, the surface of the Gripen is smaller than the Super Hornet, but the Super Hornet is as wide as a Rafale, it should be good, this is not a question of size but price and technology transfer, as usual.
Britain has agreed to sell all of its 74 decommissioned Harrier jump jets, along with engines and spare parts, to the U.S. Navy and Marine Corps – a move expected to help the Marines operate Harriers into the mid-2020s and provide extra planes to replace aging two-seat F-18D Hornet strike fighters.
http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=8225756&c=EUR&s=AIR
They were not good enough for the UK but very good for the USMC, they are very intelligent at MoD.
Historic Army regiments may be sacrificed in cuts
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/8887880/Historic-Army-regiments-may-be-sacrificed-in-budget-cuts.html
Just go back to the start. 1st of Foot, 2nd of Foot, 1 Lancers, 1 Dragoons etc etc
Shame to lose your Gurkhas, very good soldiers, it is as if we lost “La Légion étrangère”.
Gurkhas are strange. We should have raised 8 battalions for Afghan for the duration.
dubai air show news apparently oman will take 12 new build typhoons in the new year. Also it appears the saudi f15 deal maybe in trouble and a follow on order for 48 typhoon maybe in the pipeline
http://au.zinio.com/reader.jsp?issue=416198869&o=ext
interesting else where news that the puma helicopter fleet new builds will be reduced by at least 4.
Interesting stuff Martin
After all the bluff and bluster, slagging off and general bad press that the arch cold war warrior has had from all and sundry it is standing on the edge of being one of the UK’s largest export programmes that will earn a significant amount of cash.
It might all still go tits up of course but it makes you think, if I had a pound to invest for a return, would it be in armoured vehicles, ships or aerospace?
Hi Mark,
Those same news also indicate that there is a new RFP for the same number of fighters as the tentative Rafale deal was about(for the UAE, so I assume no deal then)
This is old stuff (2009 article in the Economist), but maybe cutting down the number of formations is not such a bad idea – making the ones that exist deployable
” On October 1st the trained strength of the British armed forces was 173,270. This is 3.2% below the official requirement, but it understates large gaps in some areas—especially infantry units. Most battalions are 10-20% short of their required numbers; if those deemed unfit to deploy (due to, say, battle injuries) are factored out, they are as much as 42% under strength. So when battalions are preparing for war, they often regroup soldiers from their four scrawny companies into three, and then bolt on a fourth from another unit. To support current operations, the army has cut back training and lowered readiness; instead of having roughly a brigade at high readiness to deal with a crisis, sources say, there is “less than a battle-group” (a 1,500-strong formation).
…
Britain gets by in part thanks to foreigners: Commonwealth citizens (who made up more than 6% of soldiers in 2007), Irish recruits and Gurkhas”
Phil has provided a date from when there will actually be both an air- and a sea-deployable battle group available (through taking the intervention bdes out of roulement).
But longer term, isn’t the solution in having the army bdes based in the areas where they are recruited from, Meaning that the 4th Coy in any type of Bn could be TA?
- mind you, the deployability of TA (as it stands today) is only a fraction of its overall numbers
Army website “As CGS said in his letter to the Army on 18 July: “Growing to a trained strength of at least 30,000 plus an 8,000 training margin, with better training, more robust terms of service and new arrangements for employers, the future TA is to play a much bigger role in both routine and operational tasks, with strengthened mechanisms for routine mobilisation.”"
In the same piece the objective of 1:8 sustained mobilisation is informed, so that would give half a brigade (3750).Say 4 bdes (not counting the high-readiness bdes), two at a time having TA formations… gives a ratio of 1 in 4!
- not a bad plan, but can it be made to work
- I am not saying that a bde strength is going to be 7.500, just compensating for the fact that in the long run reservist use should be optimised in CS and CSS (diverse specialist trades) and they would be relatively more numerous there compared to regulars than in, say, infantry?
4.5 gen fighters doing quite well
“UAE Air Force asked the US government in August or September for classified briefings on the capabilities of the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet and F-15E. The Eurofighter consortium might reply: So what? The UAE asked the UK government to provide a similar briefing on the Typhoon in October, and it was the only fighter that received an RfP in the last two weeks.”
http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2011/11/dxb11-certain-victory-for-rafa.html?cp=NLC-FGDAY2011
UAE is buying time to get the right plane selected by splitting the order of 60 to some more Block2 F-16s as well
They will continue to as well. The us won’t currently allow marketing of f35 in the middle East outside israel and turkey. And they can’t really buy uavs as they don’t have a satellite network to operate them.
A few big big months coming for typhoon never count your chickens and keep your fingers crossed.
While we await the outcome, their view of the world will keep us entertained
http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2011/10/21/Eurofighter%20chart.jpg
NAO report 16 november 2011.
http://www.nao.org.uk/publications/1012/major_projects_report_2011.aspx
£6bn cost increases and 26 years of delay for major MoD projects
http://www.defencemanagement.com/news_story.asp?id=18036
Confirmation that Nimrod was 95% paid for. -facepalm-
Confirmation that all the banter about “mitigating the gap” with other assets is bullshit. -facepalm-
Confirmation that crews from the Nimrod are going into Canada, US, even Australia and New Zealand to keep expertise alive… Good.
Confirmation that the MOD is desperate for a proper replacement to fit somewhere in the future planning rounds.
With every detail revealed, it makes less and less sense, doesn’t it…?
A400 cost in total for 22 airframes at the moment would 141.13 million. Not that bad at all.
The Wildcat Lynx bit is very, very interesting:
“Based on the current assumptions within the Rotary Wing Strategy the quantity of Wildcat aircraft to be procured comprises 34 Battlefield Reconnaissance Helicopters with a further eight Light Assault Helicopter role variants of the Battlefield Reconnaissance Helicopter, together with 28 Surface Combatant Maritime Rotorcraft. The Light Assault Helicopter role requirement will be subject to appropriate requirement approvals. Planning Round 2011 Options introduce funding for the Light Assault Helicopter role equipment as well as de‑scoping the Battlefield Reconnaisance Helicopter requirement by four aircraft, resulting in a total fleet of 66 aircraft. A further Planning Round 2011 Option was run to revise the profile of the resources available for the Wildcat project between financial year 2014-15 and financial year 2015-16.”
I’m guessing that the Army is willing to trade 4 Wildcats, in order to obtain 8 “Light Assault” helicopters (armed with LMM? Perhaps even Hellfire?) for 847 NAS.
So far, it was planned that 847 would get 6 Wildcats from the Army total.
So, effectively, the Army would lose six helicopters, while now it would only lose 4, with 4 additional Wildcats being built, for a total of 8 weapon-capable ones, and total of Wildcats growing to 66 instead of 62.
A very interesting development. I had heard nothing at all about this.
Consequence of experience with attack helicopters in Libya, perhaps…?
The PUMA HC2 are going to be 24, not 28. It is confirmed.
It is also confirmed that the Medium Armour FRES has been “removed” from the FRES SV family (and probably, i’d dare guessing, we will never hear of it again) and Maneuver Support was also removed from FRES.
Potentially opening the way to the Warrior Bridgelayer.
ATACMS (Large Long Range Rocket) option for the RA GMLRS cancelled in PR11. Bad.
Excalibur (Guided Shell) also had its funding cancelled in PR11, but requirement remains for resurrection later.
MARS Fleet Tanker remaining bidders are three: Daewoo Shipbuilding and Marine Engineering (Republic of Korea), Fincantieri (Italy), Hyundai Heavy Industries (Republic of Korea). Selection expected in PR12.
OUVS cancelled.
In 2016 it will be reopened as Multi Role Vehicle – Protected.
Cooperative Engagement Capability now planned for Type 26, NOT Type 23.
Years away, in other words.
What about Type 45…? Surely the AAW destroyer is the main user for CEC, yet it is not even mentioned…???
Only been through the NAO 2011 summary so far, but from it this” [bullets added]
- total cost growth on all post-main-gate projects approved before 2002 was, at 16.8 per cent, significantly higher than the 2.8 per cent total cost increase on all projects approved since 2002.
- Most of this latter cost growth has come on the Queen Elizabeth Class aircraft carrier. If this large project is excluded from the analysis, there would have been a net saving of £839 million from projects approved in or after 2002.
- More generally, larger projects have disproportionately suffered from cost increases. Almost all were approved before 2002, yet they still comprise the vast majority of the £10.6 billion (11.4 per cent) cost overrun, noted above.
-This indicates that the Department continues to live with the consequences of cost increases on projects approved before 2002, and particularly the legacy of significant cost overruns on larger projects.”
==============
“What is measured becomes important” and these report shave been running since 2000 – MoD has become expert in managing what hits the headlines by either delaying (sometimes OK, like with Astutes and Typhoons) or cutting quantity – which kills the domestic supply base, and does not help capability most of the time.
=======BACK TO THE REPORT
“Cost growth [primarily] driven by project-level difficulties, such as design and contracting issues, up to 2008; adding £7.5 billion to project costs”
-has been neutralised by reducing units (8-9 bn saved todate),
-but this equipment programmes ‘time profile management’ has blown half of that for nothing(!) as noted in “Departmental planning decisions having added £4.2 billion to forecast costs since 2009″.
” 4 additional Wildcats being built, for a total of 8 weapon-capable ones, and total of Wildcats growing to 66 instead of 62.
A very interesting development. I had heard nothing at all about this.
Consequence of experience with attack helicopters in Libya, perhaps…?
The PUMA HC2 are going to be 24, not 28. It is confirmed.”
= plus 4 minus 4= zero (but a good trade, anyway)
A new name for FRES UV
“OUVS cancelled.
In 2016 it will be reopened as Multi Role Vehicle – Protected.”
- Phil’s article on this (towards the end of the v broad piece) was very good!
The Puma HC2 number was always expressed as “up to 28″.
Much depended not just on money but on the state of the airframes. They are old, and no one was ever sure that as many as 28 would have been in good enough conditions to be upgraded.
The 24 figure was around from quite some time. Cost remains over 300 millions, though. So it is not so much about savings, but, i’m guessing, probably avoiding a cost increase due to airframes needing too much work and funding.
After all, even assuming that it is a reduction not to pay for support and usage costs out to 2025… 4 helicopters…? Can’t make that much difference.
@ACC
OUVS and FRES SV are definitely not the same thing, and i don’t think PR11 changed that.
Hi Gabby, agreed “Much depended not just on money but on the state of the airframes. They are old”
- good ones available from the Dutch, already upgraded, why bother with the dodgy ones?
Lots of interesting stuff in the report as usual. Will probably do a separate post but one that caught my eye was the number of A400 that will have DAS in the programme (more will be fitted later I am sure)
Anyone guess what the number is
RE “OUVS [cancelled] and FRES SV [UV I said] are definitely not the same thing
… just a prediction of what we will see as tender process in 2016
Definitely ” Will probably do a separate post ” worth it,
- but when is this Equipment Plan due to be out?
What a nice pair the two would make (for discussion)
ACC, tend to agree with you on FRES SV and OUVS being merged
It is written :
“The Operational Utility Vehicle System project has been removed from the programme during 2011. A Review Note has been prepared to reflect this, which states that the requirement will be re-scoped, and the outcome of this work will form the basis for the Multi Role Vehicle – Protected Programme. It is currently planned for Multi Role Vehicle – Protected to commence concept stage during Financial Year 2015-16. Multi Role Vehicle-Protected will have its own Initial Gate and Main-Gate Approvals.”
This means for me that the FRES UV will be replacing OUVS in 2015-2016, Mastiff and other vehicles will be replaced by “FRES UV” Multi Role Vehicle-Protected Programme.
I would like well a FRES UV direct-fire, as Centauro.
Hi Gabby,
I have read the report differently to you re: “Confirmation that Nimrod was 95% paid for. -facepalm- ”
The report says “A total of £3.4 billion24 was spent on the Nimrod maritime patrol aircraft programme on the assessment, demonstration and manufacture phases up to the 31 March 2011. When the Department decided to cancel Nimrod, around 95 per cent of forecast spend for completing the nine aircraft had been used.” This simply means at the point of cancelling they spent 95% of the budget available not that the remaining 5% of that budget would have brought Nimrod into service.
I found it rather damning that they decided against completing the Nimrod for re-sale as the report says “The Department judged continuing production as risky because it could involve further difficulties and cost increases of the type that had already been encountered on the project to date”.
Frenchie, I think it will be other way around, FRES UV will be replaced by OUVS successor!!