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!
2,889 thoughts on “Open Thread – Land, Sea and Air II”
Simon
Can someone explain why the LRIP8 for F35 states an airspeed of 700 (knots I presume) for A/C and 630 knots for F35B and a mach of 1.6?
Saw it on a powerpoint on another forum (think it may have been Gabby’s).
Mark
Most likely different kcas speeds at different altitudes and at different design points for each a/c. They aren’t all the same. The overall global numbers are rather meaningless to an a/c operations.
On the cost thing you posted elsewhere if that’s from the Japan article that is inclusive of thru life cost not just acquisition.
And thanks for the help with the it issues it is 3G on the phone that works and wireless on the pc that doesn’t will attempt some refreshes.
An interesting article on the USN’s goal for a F/A-XX contender, ‘bypassing’ the F-35C – further rumblings and also musings on the ‘revolving door’ policy the USN has with Boeing.
Simon
Mark,
So you mean that there is no relationship between the numbers?
What made me ask was that 700 knots is supersonic but no where near M=1.6.
Could it be supersonic dash speed on a hi-lo-lo-hi or something like that? i.e. max sea level speed???
Mark
Simon
As your aware 700 knots at 35000ft is different than at 1000 just cause it m1.6 means little on its own. I don’t know the context so am guessing
Eventually got round to reading the “Bold Alligator” doc you linked the other week. I must say, I remember reading something like that in a doc called, I think, “Marching From the Sea”.
I had the same response to both of the docs… isn’t that what we already do?
I ended up having a discussion with Observer about the methodology of an assault. I advocated movement by aviation with the beach being taken merely to offload heavy equipment, he explained a few realities which I didn’t know about copters, landing spaces, etc.
So, CVF as an LHA is okay, but you’ll notice a “proper” carrier sits nicely out-of-reach in the Bold Alligator exercise, a level of “cover” we’re extremely unlikely to get now.
Simon
One of TD’s wonderful new links suggests that HMS Ocean will be open to the public on particular days this summer (2012).
Is there anyone here that can verify that fact and list the dates?
Mark
Thought you may like these simon
There a few years old but give the general idea
The AirTanker PFI is indeed far too expensive. The RAF should buy the China Eastern trade-in A340s and ask Marshalls of Cambridge to zero-hour and convert them to the RAAF specification (probe, reinforced floor and big cargo door). Then walk away from the PFI. Set a precedent.
Chris.B.
Wonder what the get out clauses look like for the Air Tanker PFI? Shame, that’s one of the few key things about the contract that we don’t know and it’s probably one of the most interesting right now.
I have my doubts as to whether these future platforms will be a conventional main+tail rotor arrangement.
Main reasons for this are:
- Power wasted in diverting to the Tail Rotor (Piasecki was onto something…)
- Rotor speed required for shifting enough air for heavy lift conflicts with maximum never-exceed speeds
To transport heavy items fast, the most promising platforms are an evolution of the Chinook [1] to preserve power-to-weight, albeit still limited by rotor speed problems, or find ways to lift the weight without increasing rotor speed.
For this, either wings [2] or a coaxial arrangement with slowed rotors acting as a disc-shaped wing-form [3]. Note when you use the rotors as a wing-form, you will need a form of propulsion, such as a pusher or puller.
a Chinook with some high-mounted shortish “wings” (i.e. not extending beyond swept area of the two main blades) was an idea i’ve seen a Powerpoint slide of – I think a US concept. Idea being that the extra weight is much more than compensated by the extra lift, and you can suspend “some” stuff below the wings for increased capacity. Not weapons, as Kevin the Chinook pilot is coming from the tag end of the aircrew selection process and probably can’t be trusted with dropping ordnance, but instead some things like 200 litre fuel or water bladders, 200 kilos of spare ammo for the boys, extra Javelins, scoff for an extra month, etc. The loggies would like all of that. Just need to design some form of polypropylene coffins to carry the stuff, and a small hand-cranked winch operable by some soldiers under the Loadie’s supervision to lift it from and lower it to the ground.
The polyprop coffins are shaped to be a section of wing, and go up and down on a couple of strong enough wires. Winched up and locked in place, they are the wing. When detached, all that is left is a couple of metal spars which don’t affect flight very much.
LHA7 USS Tripoli, the next in class to the new USS America, will cost £1,488,405,222. A mere bagatelle.
Simon
These new “America” class do seem interesting in so much as they lack the well deck. Seems odd that the UK has been using separate LPH and LPD for years and just when everyone else (Spain, France, Australia, etc) are building LHDs the USMC go off on build San Antonio and America, effectively splitting the functions again.
My rationale for this is that with F35B and V22 they can stand off further than the horizontal assault ships. However, looking at Bold Alligator and speaking to a few here it seems that is not the consensus.
One last thing… why is America considered an LHA and Q.E. a CV?
Well from the get go LHA was quite literally designed to optimise the operation of assault helicopters…..
Well CV was designed to optimise fixed wing aircraft……..
The main difference is speed which is a function of how the ships will be fought (and air group operation.)
The CV needs speed to launch aircraft and needs to generate wind across the deck this helps even the STOVL planes. Carriers need to turn into the wind to launch aircraft meaning they zig zag. (More CATOBAR than STOVL) The CBG will be the tip of spear. It will need to get there quick and manoeuvre in theatre.
Once sea control and (limited) air superiority has been achieved the ARG will be able to move into theatre. They don’t need high speed but endurance so don’t need as complicated an engine fit out.
Rather like a SPG looks like tank but they are completely different vehicles so it is with flat top amphibs and true aircraft carriers.
Bit rushed that. I am excited it is TT; even though it appears there will be no racing today.
Simon
x,
From what I understand America simply uses the “dock down” tanks as extra fuel tanks for the massively hungry V22s and F35Bs. So, although the well deck is there it’s a bit useless.
I guess they’ll have to fit “proper” temporary tanks in the vehicle holds on future models… or, or, operate F35B from the Nimitz’ offshore?
Thanks for the LHA/CV thing. Still not sure. If you look closely the Wasp/America class can do 22 knots which is only 3 knots slower than CVF will manage! Therefore I don’t really see a massive difference in operational performance. In addition, with only 12 jets “routinely embarked” CVF is hardly a jet-only carrier
x
Well the speed of CVF isn’t optimum. But it was designed for STOVL operation from the get go. Remember we are doing this on the cheap. Compare speed of CVN to LHD and CVF to Ocean. None of this stuff is written in stone.
x
Well the original air group for CVF was much larger.
Observer
Since this is an open tread, I spotted something fairly interesting on Google Satellite Maps yesterday.
When X brought up foilage in Singapore, I got curious as to how much of that green stuff is there, so I went to take a look, and found something.
Look at the extreme bottom right of the island, high zoom.
Guess someone was visiting when the photo was taken
Simon
Observer,
Never realised those Endurance class were so skinny!
Old George is looking as huge as ever!!!
Observer
@Simon
No idea if it’s George Washington or not, no time stamp on it. However it is a nice look at a “typical” CVBG and from an angle not usually seen, satellite!
I count 40? F-18s, 3 E-2s, 4 CH-46 Sea Knights and 2 Seahawks I think. I wonder if the 2 subs parked there are US or local forces? Might be interesting to know if the US doctrinally deploys subs as part of the group.
Simon
Observer,
I saw number 73 on the bow of the Nimitz – I think this is George.
Dunno about the subs but think that they are usually part of a Carrier Strike Group.
I count:
40 F18
3 E2
5 E6
6 Sea Hawks
Alan Garner
Anyone know if it’s possible, assuming future budget improvements, to fit the A70 sylver launcher to T45′s giving them the ability to launch the naval Storm Shadow (Scalp Naval)?
It’s pretty obvious the 45 needs to be multi role and the A70+SCALP seems to be a good solution if it fits the size envelope. Also a good off the shelf bit of kit too that could go in during a refit perhaps? Could also share maintenance with RAF Storm Shadows. By my (very basic) maths that would be much cheaper than Harpoon+TLAM as SCALP can do both jobs.
x
Strike length Mk41 launcher will fit so in theory I think A70 (about 6.5m deep isn’t it?) should fit. There is plenty of fresh air above if there isn’t slack below.
SCALP-N is expensive. I don’t think there would be much of a saving.
tsz52
I looked into this a while ago – unfortunately there isn’t as much commonality between Storm Shadow and SCALP-N as you’d hope.
A70 will only be a better choice if the Euro economies stop tanking and a range of large missiles are developed to compete with the US ones (BMD/ABM Aster and a Euro-ASROC-type would be things of greatness) – won’t be happening any time soon, sadly.
Alan Garner
I’m sure one of the great leaders must have identified a VLS Harpoon replacement, and they must have looked at adding a TLAM capability to DD’s. Think the saving would come in having both with one missile that’s smaller than a Tomahawk.
The A70 in my 45 would have Aster’s (already in service) and SCALP-N (already in French service) or a Brit version. Even if the Euro economies don’t invest in general naval missile development, by the time this got into British service it would all be relatively mature off the shelf kit.
x
tsz52 said “BMD/ABM Aster and a Euro-ASROC-type would be things of greatness”
How so? The European countries that get the most bang for their defence buck buy American. The French and Italian have a complete range of naval weapons but that is more about protecting their domestic industry. Would you rather us be like the Germans, Dutch, Danes, Norwegians, and Spanish, or more involved with the French and Italians? Who got their fully armed destroyers into the water first, and who stitched us up like a kipper. I only advocate FREMM because of base commonality/lineage with Horizon/T45. In a few months time there may not be a “Europe”, but I know there will be a USA for a good while.
tsz52
x: I’m talking about from where we are now, without using hindsight and backwards time-travel (as always, in these kinds of discussions), where we have heavily invested in, and committed to, the Euro-missiles path… though in that usual UK way of sort of committing and sort of not which leaves us hanging in the air, with not much return for our enormous investment.
In hindsight, we *might* have been better off with US missiles and APAR (certainly not SPY-1!), but we didn’t so we are where we are. From here, more investment in Sylver-compatible Euro-missiles would be great for the usual economic, industrial and sovereignty reasons. Also to throw a bit of an extra wild card at any potential adversaries (some of whom may use or know all about, and have countermeasures against, US systems). And don’t forget all the spin-off tech and components that have come from our choice, and are yielding fruit in other related areas (reducing costs and increasing commonality).
“Would you rather us be like…?” It’s a bit hindsight again, but as it became apparent that the RN budget was going to get mercilessly sliced and diced forever; if we’d stopped trying to be a mini-USN and focused more on being like the better-balanced high-medium Euro Navies, we’d be in a much better position now. Whether we like it or not, our budget and naval global commitments do make us more like France than any other nation on Earth. Maybe one day we’ll both stop playing silly buggers and sort it out, instead of keeping on talking about it then failing because of some stupid tiff. This will become increasingly likely as further cuts make pragmatism/survival trump silly BS, and the US continues to distance itself from this neck of the woods.
Please note: I’m not suggesting any exclusivity here – we should expand on all of our significant alliances as much as possible (so we should be working with who’s best at what for our particular needs, eg the US [not France] with Successor). Big subject – they’re just the headlines.
Chris.B.
On reflection, if it were me I’d want the Mk.41. Consider as well the amount of different nations that use them and could potentially develop new weapons for them vs Sylver.
Challenger
What launcher will the Norwegian NSM use?
Also forgive my ignorance on this but what exactly are the choices here? If we discount the current A50 because of its limitations then that surely only leaves A70, because you still need something to stick Asters in?
With the Mk.41 just how big is it? Would it be a direct and therefore fantasy replacement for the Sylver variants of can it work alongside one of them?
The Type 45 is sized to take an additional 16 Mk.41 cells between the current cells and the main gun. I’m fairly sure you could adapt Mk.41 to accept Aster, for a price. Then we have SeaCeptor (god I hate that name) that should quad pack in most silos, including Mk.41.
Challenger
So the NSM has it’s own launcher and isn’t in a VLS?
So correct me if i’m wrong but are these the choices?
A mix of A50 and up-to 16 MK.41 with something like Tomahawk.
Or a big A70 to take both Aster and Scalp.
Or just an A50 and then something like NSM in addition?
Is that about right?
tsz52
Chris.B. 21:31: I can see both sides:-
1 APAR/SMART-L/Mk 41: Access to a huge catalogue of weapons, and a tonne of commonality with allies (which is both good and bad). NATO ship-based ABM standard looks like it’ll be SM-3 linked with SMART-L/SPY-1 for the Euro types, so we could have just jumped on board all that;
2 UK/French/Italian route with Sylver: Some (though not great) evidence that Sylver is a superior VLS (higher RoF, safer if something goes wrong with a launch), all the industrial (and other) benefits that come with developing your own missiles, competition can only ever be a good thing (keeps everyone honest), and for the first time in decades Euro tech was edging ahead of US tech in these key areas, and economies were booming (re development funds and exports). And in Naval terms/requirements, we have far more in common with France than we do the Aegis/APAR lot.
I think that #2 was the right choice then, though wouldn’t have argued too strenuously with a #1 advocate. Main problem being that we wanted new AAW DDGs, which are complete ships, and for the whole package Horizon was the closest fit for us (the Euro-Aegis and APAR programme frigate hulls were too small). The Horizon programme was bad enough, but imagine if we’d also tried to be part of the APAR/US missiles programme too, along with all the bespoke kit that we did actually need (automation, IFEP and WR-21/ICR).
From where we are now, there are still benefits that came from our choice of going the non-US route. The new generation of missiles (not just ship-launched) all share bits and bobs, saving costs (development, and using now-OTS components and software).
Likewise, a lot of Artisan came from Sampson development, and shares a lot of the components in the mast and software.
Seeing these things as complete programmes and systems that you can’t just cherry-pick the good bits out of (historically), then the extra investment in the whole UK/French/Italian route added a lot of cost to the Darings but will be being recouped in having much cheaper combat systems for the Duke upgrades/Type 26s.
There isn’t really anything else out there that’s as cost-effective as the Artisan/CAMM combo, which is the only thing that’s giving us a fighting chance of having 13 new frigates in the nearish future.
If we’d gone the US missiles route, then we’d be wedded to ESSM; so would need to be adding the cost, mass and complexity of some sort of TI radar to our super-austere new frigates (plus MK 41s, rather than just the CAMM boxes that we might be able to get away with installing into the ships with no external VLS in addition).
So in the long run, it might have saved us some money, and at least gives us a chance of being able to export our version of the ‘GCS’ to whomever we like (rather than needing US approval).
Just a few thoughts chucked out: I’m not particularly married to any opinion here, and am happy to discuss but certainly don’t want some stupid row about it. I’m happy enough with how it all went in the end – stonkingly good AAW DDGs, and that opened the door to getting the possibility of a semi-decent number of cheap FFGs, via cheap upgrades to our existing FFGs, when the crunch and butchers’ knives came.
I’d be interested in how folks see the cheap frigate timeline if our Darings had been Type 45 hulls with APAR instead of Sampson and Mk 41s full of US missiles rather than Sylvers with our investment in Euro missiles.
Challenger
Also if NSM has both land attack and anti ship capabilities then surely that is a great advantage?
Could both 2xquad Harpoon and something else like a MK.41 be fitted to a Type 45, or is their not enough room?
Observer
TD, was that a “Naval Strike Missile” in the pic? It didn’t look like a Tomahawk, Tommys don’t have an external engine pod unit.
@x
European stuff isn’t THAT bad, the RSN used Italian torpedos for decades, and the ASTOR isn’t something to be sniffed at. TBH, our ships are a bit like Frankenstein’s monster, bits and pieces from everywhere, but hey, it works, we’re happy.
As an example of how Frankenstein, our corvettes have a German hull, Italian torpedos and main gun, American AShM, Swedish radar, Israeli jammers and AAMs.
It’s a bloody miracle that thing stayed in one piece.
Chris.B.
@tsz52
You can use Mk.41 cells without going full on AEGIS. I think BAE originally proposed just that, because I believe they had (or have) a stake in Mk.41. We could have used Mk.41 on Type 45 and still gone Artisan + SeaCeptor for T26. I’m guessing though that we would have had to stump alone the money to integrate Aster into Mk.41.
Just generally it strikes me as another example of where we tried the whole “spread the costs by finding European partners etc” type job, and then ended up doing our own thing anyway. I don’t know what it is about the UK but we seem incapable of making these kind of joint projects work properly and should probably stop getting involved in them.
tsz52
Aye, if you’re talking about integrating Aster into Mk 41 then that’s a different story. Dunno, I’ve looked into this, but to say how simple a VLS is compared to what’s fired out of it, hard info on the former’s really hard to come by.
It *seems* that Sylver was the better choice for the core AAW role, especially for a ship with a single VLS nest (higher RoF vs saturation, and less likely to suffer catastrophic, widespread damage due to a bad misfire). Add to that the extreme reliability that Type 45 needs to have, and its better to further minimise the chances of anything going wrong by avoiding adapting the singularly-important munition to a different launcher than the one intended.
As to your second point, yeah; really should work, on paper, but rarely does, does it? It’s tempting to go, ‘Them bloody French!..’ but Italy doesn’t seem to end up being too badly done by in these programmes, and some of the French demands did turn out to be correct (eg Rafale having a CATOBAR variant).
It’s mostly that wilful and competitive siblings thing we’ve got going on, coupled with the fact that we (the UK) never really seem to know exactly what the eff we actually want going in to a project, and then never stick to whatever we do vaguely decide. It’ll work out eventually though, because it’ll simply have to one day (zero pi$$ing about money for either of us, and if we don’t sort it then neither of us gets anything, including anything else to plug that capability hole).
Chris.B.
To be fair on Typhoon/Rafale, we had no need for and didn’t envision a future need for, a carrier variant. At the time the deal was struck it really was a case of those bloody French!
Then it was our turn with Type45/Horizon. We all had the same basic need; to provide a close in defensive frigate to protect out carriers against air attack/missile attack. It was us that rocked the boat by wanting a ship for much wider area defensive coverage. Whoops!
As long as all parties can agree early on what they want, work share etc, then it’s all good. The trouble is that rarely happens, and anytime one party pulls out it all goes down the drain again. Given how many of these projects have stunk it up so far, I suspect we’d be better just going it alone from hence forth.
tsz52
“Given how many of these projects have stunk it up so far, I suspect we’d be better just going it alone from hence forth.”
It’d certainly seem that way, but then you’re up against the dreaded ‘defence inflation’ as we all keep going forward – there will come a time when major programmes will just have to be funded by pairs of countries minimum, then a few countries, then entire continents, and so on.
Hopefully that whole ‘plug and play’ modular malarkey might make the process easier in future projects? I’ll believe it when I see it.
Chris.B.
Well, once you extract political delays, we don’t actually do too bad for our money. For example, I’m not exactly a fan of the CVF program but remove the political issues from that and the rest of the program isn’t too bad. Sort of.
Can someone explain why the LRIP8 for F35 states an airspeed of 700 (knots I presume) for A/C and 630 knots for F35B and a mach of 1.6?
Saw it on a powerpoint on another forum (think it may have been Gabby’s).
Most likely different kcas speeds at different altitudes and at different design points for each a/c. They aren’t all the same. The overall global numbers are rather meaningless to an a/c operations.
On the cost thing you posted elsewhere if that’s from the Japan article that is inclusive of thru life cost not just acquisition.
And thanks for the help with the it issues it is 3G on the phone that works and wireless on the pc that doesn’t will attempt some refreshes.
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/senior-official-raises-fa-xx-doubts-while-retired-usmc-generals-question-usns-f-35-commitment-371442/
An interesting article on the USN’s goal for a F/A-XX contender, ‘bypassing’ the F-35C – further rumblings and also musings on the ‘revolving door’ policy the USN has with Boeing.
Mark,
So you mean that there is no relationship between the numbers?
What made me ask was that 700 knots is supersonic but no where near M=1.6.
Could it be supersonic dash speed on a hi-lo-lo-hi or something like that? i.e. max sea level speed???
Simon
As your aware 700 knots at 35000ft is different than at 1000 just cause it m1.6 means little on its own. I don’t know the context so am guessing
Mark,
Page 15, LRIP8+ column, on the following PDF…
http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_download-id-15330.html
Middle of page 4 is odd too (general features).
Mark,
Eventually got round to reading the “Bold Alligator” doc you linked the other week. I must say, I remember reading something like that in a doc called, I think, “Marching From the Sea”.
I had the same response to both of the docs… isn’t that what we already do?
I ended up having a discussion with Observer about the methodology of an assault. I advocated movement by aviation with the beach being taken merely to offload heavy equipment, he explained a few realities which I didn’t know about copters, landing spaces, etc.
So, CVF as an LHA is okay, but you’ll notice a “proper” carrier sits nicely out-of-reach in the Bold Alligator exercise, a level of “cover” we’re extremely unlikely to get now.
One of TD’s wonderful new links suggests that HMS Ocean will be open to the public on particular days this summer (2012).
Is there anyone here that can verify that fact and list the dates?
Thought you may like these simon
There a few years old but give the general idea
CVF ski-jump ramp profile optimisation for F-35B
http://aerosociety.com/Assets/Docs/Protected/Subscribers/AeroJournal/3324_COLOUR.pdf
The role of drag prediction in combat aircraft design and development
http://aerosociety.com/Assets/Docs/Protected/Subscribers/AeroJournal/3280.pdf
From Gallimaufry & Chips
The AirTanker PFI is indeed far too expensive. The RAF should buy the China Eastern trade-in A340s and ask Marshalls of Cambridge to zero-hour and convert them to the RAAF specification (probe, reinforced floor and big cargo door). Then walk away from the PFI. Set a precedent.
Wonder what the get out clauses look like for the Air Tanker PFI? Shame, that’s one of the few key things about the contract that we don’t know and it’s probably one of the most interesting right now.
Re: @TD’s photo for the Future Heavy Lift helicopter.
I have my doubts as to whether these future platforms will be a conventional main+tail rotor arrangement.
Main reasons for this are:
- Power wasted in diverting to the Tail Rotor (Piasecki was onto something…)
- Rotor speed required for shifting enough air for heavy lift conflicts with maximum never-exceed speeds
To transport heavy items fast, the most promising platforms are an evolution of the Chinook [1] to preserve power-to-weight, albeit still limited by rotor speed problems, or find ways to lift the weight without increasing rotor speed.
For this, either wings [2] or a coaxial arrangement with slowed rotors acting as a disc-shaped wing-form [3]. Note when you use the rotors as a wing-form, you will need a form of propulsion, such as a pusher or puller.
[1] http://media.popularmechanics.com/images/advanced-tandem-heli-0108.jpg
[2] http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/photos/uncategorized/2007/05/31/qtr.jpg
[3] http://defense-update.com/images/jhl1.jpg
HMS Queen Elizabeth Flight Deck Departs Cammell Laird.
http://www.irishseashipping.com/photofeatures/services/RoyalNavy/queenelizabeth280512/queenelizabeth280512.htm
TOC,
a Chinook with some high-mounted shortish “wings” (i.e. not extending beyond swept area of the two main blades) was an idea i’ve seen a Powerpoint slide of – I think a US concept. Idea being that the extra weight is much more than compensated by the extra lift, and you can suspend “some” stuff below the wings for increased capacity. Not weapons, as Kevin the Chinook pilot is coming from the tag end of the aircrew selection process and probably can’t be trusted with dropping ordnance, but instead some things like 200 litre fuel or water bladders, 200 kilos of spare ammo for the boys, extra Javelins, scoff for an extra month, etc. The loggies would like all of that. Just need to design some form of polypropylene coffins to carry the stuff, and a small hand-cranked winch operable by some soldiers under the Loadie’s supervision to lift it from and lower it to the ground.
The polyprop coffins are shaped to be a section of wing, and go up and down on a couple of strong enough wires. Winched up and locked in place, they are the wing. When detached, all that is left is a couple of metal spars which don’t affect flight very much.
What you boys want is one of these;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mi-26
Damn near 20 ton cargo capacity. Won’t carry it very far, but still.
Damn near 20 ton cargo capacity. Won’t carry it very far, but still
upgraded version can carry 24 tonnes (mil26T2)
2×14,000shp engines!!
I always loved this daft, beautiful beast:-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mil_Mi-12
‘Twas always the USS Nimitz-style doomsday card to get when playing Top Trumps Helicopters, back in the day.
Chinook with wings…
http://www.aerofiles.com/boevert-347.jpg
Chinook with ducted fans…
http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2009/01/patent-alert-chinook-augmented.html
Chinook on steroids…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_Vertol_XCH-62
LHA7 USS Tripoli, the next in class to the new USS America, will cost £1,488,405,222. A mere bagatelle.
These new “America” class do seem interesting in so much as they lack the well deck. Seems odd that the UK has been using separate LPH and LPD for years and just when everyone else (Spain, France, Australia, etc) are building LHDs the USMC go off on build San Antonio and America, effectively splitting the functions again.
My rationale for this is that with F35B and V22 they can stand off further than the horizontal assault ships. However, looking at Bold Alligator and speaking to a few here it seems that is not the consensus.
One last thing… why is America considered an LHA and Q.E. a CV?
I think ships after LHA7 will have well decks.
http://www.navytimes.com/news/2012/06/navy-marine-tripoli-new-assault-ship-no-well-deck-060112d/
LHA vs CV
Well from the get go LHA was quite literally designed to optimise the operation of assault helicopters…..
Well CV was designed to optimise fixed wing aircraft……..
The main difference is speed which is a function of how the ships will be fought (and air group operation.)
The CV needs speed to launch aircraft and needs to generate wind across the deck this helps even the STOVL planes. Carriers need to turn into the wind to launch aircraft meaning they zig zag. (More CATOBAR than STOVL) The CBG will be the tip of spear. It will need to get there quick and manoeuvre in theatre.
Once sea control and (limited) air superiority has been achieved the ARG will be able to move into theatre. They don’t need high speed but endurance so don’t need as complicated an engine fit out.
Rather like a SPG looks like tank but they are completely different vehicles so it is with flat top amphibs and true aircraft carriers.
Bit rushed that. I am excited it is TT; even though it appears there will be no racing today.
x,
From what I understand America simply uses the “dock down” tanks as extra fuel tanks for the massively hungry V22s and F35Bs. So, although the well deck is there it’s a bit useless.
I guess they’ll have to fit “proper” temporary tanks in the vehicle holds on future models… or, or, operate F35B from the Nimitz’ offshore?
Thanks for the LHA/CV thing. Still not sure. If you look closely the Wasp/America class can do 22 knots which is only 3 knots slower than CVF will manage! Therefore I don’t really see a massive difference in operational performance. In addition, with only 12 jets “routinely embarked” CVF is hardly a jet-only carrier
Well the speed of CVF isn’t optimum. But it was designed for STOVL operation from the get go. Remember we are doing this on the cheap. Compare speed of CVN to LHD and CVF to Ocean. None of this stuff is written in stone.
Well the original air group for CVF was much larger.
Since this is an open tread, I spotted something fairly interesting on Google Satellite Maps yesterday.
When X brought up foilage in Singapore, I got curious as to how much of that green stuff is there, so I went to take a look, and found something.
http://www.maplandia.com/singapore/singapore/singapore/
Look at the extreme bottom right of the island, high zoom.
Guess someone was visiting when the photo was taken
Observer,
Never realised those Endurance class were so skinny!
Old George is looking as huge as ever!!!
@Simon
No idea if it’s George Washington or not, no time stamp on it. However it is a nice look at a “typical” CVBG and from an angle not usually seen, satellite!
I count 40? F-18s, 3 E-2s, 4 CH-46 Sea Knights and 2 Seahawks I think. I wonder if the 2 subs parked there are US or local forces? Might be interesting to know if the US doctrinally deploys subs as part of the group.
Observer,
I saw number 73 on the bow of the Nimitz – I think this is George.
Dunno about the subs but think that they are usually part of a Carrier Strike Group.
I count:
40 F18
3 E2
5 E6
6 Sea Hawks
Anyone know if it’s possible, assuming future budget improvements, to fit the A70 sylver launcher to T45′s giving them the ability to launch the naval Storm Shadow (Scalp Naval)?
It’s pretty obvious the 45 needs to be multi role and the A70+SCALP seems to be a good solution if it fits the size envelope. Also a good off the shelf bit of kit too that could go in during a refit perhaps? Could also share maintenance with RAF Storm Shadows. By my (very basic) maths that would be much cheaper than Harpoon+TLAM as SCALP can do both jobs.
Strike length Mk41 launcher will fit so in theory I think A70 (about 6.5m deep isn’t it?) should fit. There is plenty of fresh air above if there isn’t slack below.
SCALP-N is expensive. I don’t think there would be much of a saving.
I looked into this a while ago – unfortunately there isn’t as much commonality between Storm Shadow and SCALP-N as you’d hope.
A70 will only be a better choice if the Euro economies stop tanking and a range of large missiles are developed to compete with the US ones (BMD/ABM Aster and a Euro-ASROC-type would be things of greatness) – won’t be happening any time soon, sadly.
I’m sure one of the great leaders must have identified a VLS Harpoon replacement, and they must have looked at adding a TLAM capability to DD’s. Think the saving would come in having both with one missile that’s smaller than a Tomahawk.
The A70 in my 45 would have Aster’s (already in service) and SCALP-N (already in French service) or a Brit version. Even if the Euro economies don’t invest in general naval missile development, by the time this got into British service it would all be relatively mature off the shelf kit.
tsz52 said “BMD/ABM Aster and a Euro-ASROC-type would be things of greatness”
How so? The European countries that get the most bang for their defence buck buy American. The French and Italian have a complete range of naval weapons but that is more about protecting their domestic industry. Would you rather us be like the Germans, Dutch, Danes, Norwegians, and Spanish, or more involved with the French and Italians? Who got their fully armed destroyers into the water first, and who stitched us up like a kipper. I only advocate FREMM because of base commonality/lineage with Horizon/T45. In a few months time there may not be a “Europe”, but I know there will be a USA for a good while.
x: I’m talking about from where we are now, without using hindsight and backwards time-travel (as always, in these kinds of discussions), where we have heavily invested in, and committed to, the Euro-missiles path… though in that usual UK way of sort of committing and sort of not which leaves us hanging in the air, with not much return for our enormous investment.
In hindsight, we *might* have been better off with US missiles and APAR (certainly not SPY-1!), but we didn’t so we are where we are. From here, more investment in Sylver-compatible Euro-missiles would be great for the usual economic, industrial and sovereignty reasons. Also to throw a bit of an extra wild card at any potential adversaries (some of whom may use or know all about, and have countermeasures against, US systems). And don’t forget all the spin-off tech and components that have come from our choice, and are yielding fruit in other related areas (reducing costs and increasing commonality).
“Would you rather us be like…?” It’s a bit hindsight again, but as it became apparent that the RN budget was going to get mercilessly sliced and diced forever; if we’d stopped trying to be a mini-USN and focused more on being like the better-balanced high-medium Euro Navies, we’d be in a much better position now. Whether we like it or not, our budget and naval global commitments do make us more like France than any other nation on Earth. Maybe one day we’ll both stop playing silly buggers and sort it out, instead of keeping on talking about it then failing because of some stupid tiff. This will become increasingly likely as further cuts make pragmatism/survival trump silly BS, and the US continues to distance itself from this neck of the woods.
Please note: I’m not suggesting any exclusivity here – we should expand on all of our significant alliances as much as possible (so we should be working with who’s best at what for our particular needs, eg the US [not France] with Successor). Big subject – they’re just the headlines.
On reflection, if it were me I’d want the Mk.41. Consider as well the amount of different nations that use them and could potentially develop new weapons for them vs Sylver.
What launcher will the Norwegian NSM use?
Also forgive my ignorance on this but what exactly are the choices here? If we discount the current A50 because of its limitations then that surely only leaves A70, because you still need something to stick Asters in?
With the Mk.41 just how big is it? Would it be a direct and therefore fantasy replacement for the Sylver variants of can it work alongside one of them?
Challenger
http://media.defenseindustrydaily.com/images/ORD_NSM_Kongsberg_Test_Launch_Coastal_lg.jpg
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-2cCsFKrNVsY/Tvwp2NGHDoI/AAAAAAAAAeU/bhg3hEArxsY/s1600/nsm_coastal_system.jpg
@ Challenger,
The Type 45 is sized to take an additional 16 Mk.41 cells between the current cells and the main gun. I’m fairly sure you could adapt Mk.41 to accept Aster, for a price. Then we have SeaCeptor (god I hate that name) that should quad pack in most silos, including Mk.41.
So the NSM has it’s own launcher and isn’t in a VLS?
So correct me if i’m wrong but are these the choices?
A mix of A50 and up-to 16 MK.41 with something like Tomahawk.
Or a big A70 to take both Aster and Scalp.
Or just an A50 and then something like NSM in addition?
Is that about right?
Chris.B. 21:31: I can see both sides:-
1 APAR/SMART-L/Mk 41: Access to a huge catalogue of weapons, and a tonne of commonality with allies (which is both good and bad). NATO ship-based ABM standard looks like it’ll be SM-3 linked with SMART-L/SPY-1 for the Euro types, so we could have just jumped on board all that;
2 UK/French/Italian route with Sylver: Some (though not great) evidence that Sylver is a superior VLS (higher RoF, safer if something goes wrong with a launch), all the industrial (and other) benefits that come with developing your own missiles, competition can only ever be a good thing (keeps everyone honest), and for the first time in decades Euro tech was edging ahead of US tech in these key areas, and economies were booming (re development funds and exports). And in Naval terms/requirements, we have far more in common with France than we do the Aegis/APAR lot.
I think that #2 was the right choice then, though wouldn’t have argued too strenuously with a #1 advocate. Main problem being that we wanted new AAW DDGs, which are complete ships, and for the whole package Horizon was the closest fit for us (the Euro-Aegis and APAR programme frigate hulls were too small). The Horizon programme was bad enough, but imagine if we’d also tried to be part of the APAR/US missiles programme too, along with all the bespoke kit that we did actually need (automation, IFEP and WR-21/ICR).
From where we are now, there are still benefits that came from our choice of going the non-US route. The new generation of missiles (not just ship-launched) all share bits and bobs, saving costs (development, and using now-OTS components and software).
Likewise, a lot of Artisan came from Sampson development, and shares a lot of the components in the mast and software.
Seeing these things as complete programmes and systems that you can’t just cherry-pick the good bits out of (historically), then the extra investment in the whole UK/French/Italian route added a lot of cost to the Darings but will be being recouped in having much cheaper combat systems for the Duke upgrades/Type 26s.
There isn’t really anything else out there that’s as cost-effective as the Artisan/CAMM combo, which is the only thing that’s giving us a fighting chance of having 13 new frigates in the nearish future.
If we’d gone the US missiles route, then we’d be wedded to ESSM; so would need to be adding the cost, mass and complexity of some sort of TI radar to our super-austere new frigates (plus MK 41s, rather than just the CAMM boxes that we might be able to get away with installing into the ships with no external VLS in addition).
So in the long run, it might have saved us some money, and at least gives us a chance of being able to export our version of the ‘GCS’ to whomever we like (rather than needing US approval).
Just a few thoughts chucked out: I’m not particularly married to any opinion here, and am happy to discuss but certainly don’t want some stupid row about it. I’m happy enough with how it all went in the end – stonkingly good AAW DDGs, and that opened the door to getting the possibility of a semi-decent number of cheap FFGs, via cheap upgrades to our existing FFGs, when the crunch and butchers’ knives came.
I’d be interested in how folks see the cheap frigate timeline if our Darings had been Type 45 hulls with APAR instead of Sampson and Mk 41s full of US missiles rather than Sylvers with our investment in Euro missiles.
Also if NSM has both land attack and anti ship capabilities then surely that is a great advantage?
Could both 2xquad Harpoon and something else like a MK.41 be fitted to a Type 45, or is their not enough room?
TD, was that a “Naval Strike Missile” in the pic? It didn’t look like a Tomahawk, Tommys don’t have an external engine pod unit.
@x
European stuff isn’t THAT bad, the RSN used Italian torpedos for decades, and the ASTOR isn’t something to be sniffed at. TBH, our ships are a bit like Frankenstein’s monster, bits and pieces from everywhere, but hey, it works, we’re happy.
As an example of how Frankenstein, our corvettes have a German hull, Italian torpedos and main gun, American AShM, Swedish radar, Israeli jammers and AAMs.
It’s a bloody miracle that thing stayed in one piece.
@tsz52
You can use Mk.41 cells without going full on AEGIS. I think BAE originally proposed just that, because I believe they had (or have) a stake in Mk.41. We could have used Mk.41 on Type 45 and still gone Artisan + SeaCeptor for T26. I’m guessing though that we would have had to stump alone the money to integrate Aster into Mk.41.
Just generally it strikes me as another example of where we tried the whole “spread the costs by finding European partners etc” type job, and then ended up doing our own thing anyway. I don’t know what it is about the UK but we seem incapable of making these kind of joint projects work properly and should probably stop getting involved in them.
Aye, if you’re talking about integrating Aster into Mk 41 then that’s a different story. Dunno, I’ve looked into this, but to say how simple a VLS is compared to what’s fired out of it, hard info on the former’s really hard to come by.
It *seems* that Sylver was the better choice for the core AAW role, especially for a ship with a single VLS nest (higher RoF vs saturation, and less likely to suffer catastrophic, widespread damage due to a bad misfire). Add to that the extreme reliability that Type 45 needs to have, and its better to further minimise the chances of anything going wrong by avoiding adapting the singularly-important munition to a different launcher than the one intended.
As to your second point, yeah; really should work, on paper, but rarely does, does it?
It’s tempting to go, ‘Them bloody French!..’ but Italy doesn’t seem to end up being too badly done by in these programmes, and some of the French demands did turn out to be correct (eg Rafale having a CATOBAR variant).
It’s mostly that wilful and competitive siblings thing we’ve got going on, coupled with the fact that we (the UK) never really seem to know exactly what the eff we actually want going in to a project, and then never stick to whatever we do vaguely decide. It’ll work out eventually though, because it’ll simply have to one day (zero pi$$ing about money for either of us, and if we don’t sort it then neither of us gets anything, including anything else to plug that capability hole).
To be fair on Typhoon/Rafale, we had no need for and didn’t envision a future need for, a carrier variant. At the time the deal was struck it really was a case of those bloody French!
Then it was our turn with Type45/Horizon. We all had the same basic need; to provide a close in defensive frigate to protect out carriers against air attack/missile attack. It was us that rocked the boat by wanting a ship for much wider area defensive coverage. Whoops!
As long as all parties can agree early on what they want, work share etc, then it’s all good. The trouble is that rarely happens, and anytime one party pulls out it all goes down the drain again. Given how many of these projects have stunk it up so far, I suspect we’d be better just going it alone from hence forth.
“Given how many of these projects have stunk it up so far, I suspect we’d be better just going it alone from hence forth.”
It’d certainly seem that way, but then you’re up against the dreaded ‘defence inflation’ as we all keep going forward – there will come a time when major programmes will just have to be funded by pairs of countries minimum, then a few countries, then entire continents, and so on.
Hopefully that whole ‘plug and play’ modular malarkey might make the process easier in future projects? I’ll believe it when I see it.
Well, once you extract political delays, we don’t actually do too bad for our money. For example, I’m not exactly a fan of the CVF program but remove the political issues from that and the rest of the program isn’t too bad. Sort of.