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”
x
Did I hear somebody at the back mutter something about T26 exports?
James
The Canadians had a bit of a problem with a used sub we sold them a few years back. Perhaps we’ll see a joint Canadian / Australian fleet sailing up the Bristol Channel and shelling Abbey Wood, and not stopping until they get their money back?
Observer
James, sell em the shells, then refund them from there.
ACC, where did the ice come from?
AJ, well, it would depend on what actually went wrong. For all we know, it might have been a short in the “wrong time, wrong place”. I’ll wait for the engineer’s report. And I’ll also remember that it was a bargain and factor that into consideration.
Phil
The Canadians have had outrageous trouble with their Upholder class subs. I believe one has only fired its first torpedo in Canadian service ever a month or so ago. I shit you not!
Aussie Johnno
I would remind you gentlemen that with Ocean in refit, and one of your Albions parked, your Bays currently provide three quarters of your over the beach capability. Could get interesting if this is more than an isolated failure.
Seriously if the ‘éxperts’ in the UK can’t figure out an insitu repair the word is they will have to start cutting to get the thing out with 6 months + being mentioned.
Observer
@AJ
I was googling up the history of the ship and I really am not sure if it’s the entire class, or simply that ship. Some ships simply are bad luck.
ArmChairCivvy
Observer,
From mind boggling short cuts, in order to engineer to cost
RE “ACC, where did the ice come from?”
- it is not the first time the amphibs have struggled with the engines under v hot conditions (can’t keep all the ship names in my head)
- if you have very exacting hull requirements as for sea states, slamming etc, the ice certification would probably be a half per cent of the total ship cost (where was it that the unutilised carbon reserves tend to be, again?); has it been done – no! Has it been considered – probably not?
Anixtu
No mention so far of the transformer going on fire like the last time.
(Which also left the ship drifting at an inopportune moment ivo Eddystone. Salvage tugs were involved that time IIRC.)
Tubby
Dumb question time, but I was wondering – given that according to AgustaWestland the Army Wildcat will only have room for 6 “passengers”, if there was any value in a Super Wildcat, stretched to add space for two extra passengers so it could carry a section and re-engined with the GE CT7-2E1 engines. I have suggested the CT7-2E1 because AgustaWestland already have experience installing them on helicopters as they are in the AW189 and AW149, and the engines appear to be broadly the same in length, and mass, but with higher installed power on the CT7-2E1′s than the CTS800-4N, and it seems stupid to have a light utility helicopter that cannot move a section, and since the Government is committed to its four helicopter types only plan once Puma is phased out there is no chance introducing a new helicopter that fits in between the undersized Wildcat and the Merlin.
Opinion3
@Tubby
Possibly but does it make sense? AW already seem to have three overlapping military helicopters. NH90/AW149/AW139M
I think it is time to accept equipment as ‘as is’ for the moment and to focus on getting the max out of everything/integration/fit the designed for but not fitted stuff.
Might be a 10 year plan my proposal. Look at the ‘small’ mods to FRES design (£500M)
James
Opinion 3,
Tubby’s right in the sense that – in a perfect world – you would not be splitting sections between aircraft. However, you are entirely correct in that things get unaffordable pretty quickly by having variations on standard designs.
Two “real world” points to counter the “perfect world”:
1. In operations short of all out war, there’s always a dog team or an interpreter or FAC or FOO or some other body that you’ll be taking along anyway, so load balancing between helos is not in fact such an issue. i.e. You’ll get a section plus dog team plus interpreter in between 2 Wildcats just as you have to have 2 Wildcats to transport a section based on available seats.
2. Also, in all out war, the rule book goes out of the window, and you can squeeze bods in everywhere way beyond peacetime limits. This also applies to the French in peacetime. We had about 30 on a French Puma doing the hop from Split to Sarajevo. It was a trip originally planned for the Force Commander and his staff (about 8 of us all up, including bodyguards). When we landed to refuel in Split before going on to Sarjevo there were 20 or so Foreign Legionnaires hanging around waiting for something to take them back to their Battalion in Sarajevo, and the FC, being Colonel of the Legion, would not leave the boys there. So they all crammed in as well. Given the FC and all his French staff and the bodyguards were all Legion, it was like a Legion party on board, all backslapping and wild gesticulations. I’m sure I saw the pilot having a smoke as well….
wf
@Tubby: Lynx with CTS7′s? You are describing a Blackhawk
Tubby
Thanks for the input Opinion3 and James, I guess the easiest (and I suspect they way it would go in an all out war) way to get the passenger numbers up is to remove the crash resistant seating, and squeeze a section in.
I guess I am pretty annoyed that the Army Wildcat replaces the Lynx and the Gazelle and in certain areas is worse than the helicopter’s it replaces, it cannot fulfil the armed scout role with just a door gun so cannot fully replace the Gazelle (and there is a good argument that the OE turret should have been mounted on a mast above the rotor to allow it to scout from behind masking terrain), and due to installing modern crash resistant seats without increasing the cabin space the Wildcat cannot carry a section.
Plus while many bemoan that the FAA is short changed (and in certain key areas it certainly is – I have tenner on the Merlin’s never being marinised and ending up being a millstone around CHF’s neck) the AAC has royally been screwed in helicopter numbers as the Wildcat is not being procured in sufficient numbers and IMO is flawed for use by the Army, but then I am bound to say that as I am a fan of a mix of AW109LUH in the armed scout role, and AW149 or Blackhawks in the utility role.
Phil
It’s good enough for its role. Be glad we’re getting something.
Tubby
Sorry Phil, for being a civvy moaning about the Army getting short changed, I know your ex-Army so I hope that I haven’t hacked you off.
James
“Crash resistant seating”??? What happened to the old grey webbing lattice seats on metal frames, like a cheap lawn chair? I thought earlier I recall Lynx having space for 8, but thought I may be mis-remembering. Gucci carbon fibre seats drive the cost up, and capacity down.
Dear God, the Army’s getting soft. To my mind, you make a contract with Old Nick himself when you get in one of those things. You don’t expect to walk away from the smouldering ruins when the laws of physics are reapplied and the thing spirals out of the sky. Thank God they are not flown by Kevins, however.
I don’t recall UK Gazelle having any weaponry at all on board, but the French ones did (Euro-HOT missiles? Can’t quite recall). Our Gazelles may have been capable of getting a GPMG mounted somewhere, but I didn’t ever see it.
Phil
It’s not that. Across all three services I’d rather see good enough platforms in service than perfect platforms that just get cancelled. Wildcat is low risk and there’s little chance of it getting binned. We might even get more later down the line who knows? This makes it more useful than vapourware. It’s why I am happy with F35B. It’s good enough.
Tubby
Fair enough Phil, 80% solution that actually gets into service is a good plan – and heaven knows the MoD has had a tendency to try to procure equipment which are all over specified Powerpoint presentations with to much gold plating.
Opinion3
@Tubby
I am so with you that I rather think the BLUH Lynx is probably more a political rather than a military decision. Having said that the original Lynx had reasonable sales abroad so maybe giving it a leg up was the right thing to do.
I have to say, if I was Defence Secretary all new equipment purchases would be on hold (except where contracts have been signed or there was a justifiable need as identified in the SDSR). Instead I would be forcing the identification of underutilised/out of service/fitted for not with/unintegrated kit to be made to work. Set out some KPIs and squeeze the services until they were met.
I realise that most (if not all of the cockups) result from political decisions but it would hopefully result in more operational capabilities through asset management rather than asset shopping lists.
Another question when it comes to sales is “who is your target market?”. With Europe in a cost cutting frenzy, and the US generally being rather protectionist about it’s arms market, I can only see 3 possible areas for sales.
1) Middle East. That area is fairly peaceful, Arab Spring not withstanding, and economically still stable, so they might be looking to take a chance on a buyer’s market and do a bit of military upgrading on the side.
2) India. After a fair bit of neglect of the Indian Armed Forces, they are currently trying to “modernize” to meet increasing Chinese and Pakistani military imbalance, but the modernization program has a few bugs in it, namely protectionism and politics. Any sales there has the potential to be mired in red tape for a decade or two, and they usually insist on tech tansfer and local co-op.
3) Asia. IMO probably the best chance at a seller’s market. Most countries here are gearing up to stay on a competitive footing military wise with China especially with all the muscle flexing in the Spratleys, and a side note of trying not to let thy neighbour get too big an edge. Just in case, you know. Unfortunately, with long term American and Russian involvement in the area, they tend to be the “go to” guys for weapons due to familarity. Despite this, I do still think it is the best chance due to pressure from China. When the 600 pound gorilla looks about to sit on you, you grab the most convenient solid slug loaded shotgun you can find, and to hell with who the manufacturer is.
But has any equipment been designed for use in tropical terrain? Only in the most general way IIRC. Which is cutting off your biggest potential market.
x
“but the modernization program has a few bugs in it, namely protectionism and politics”
and corruption.
Observer
Corruption is not really that big a problem. It’s accusations of corruption being used as weapons by opposition politicians and government, leading to massive time and resource wastage to investigate. And log jamming every procurement process. If you lost a bid, you try again by accusing the panel of corruption, force a rebid then spin the lottery wheel once again. Unfortunately, if you win, guess what your opponent will do?
What does that mean in terms of kit, do you think, TD?
3 x Armd Regiments with Challenger2?
3 x Armd Cav Regiments with Scout SV?
3 x Lt Cav Regiments with Jackal?
3 x Lt Cav Regiments with Jackal (or WMIK)?
So, a total of nine Armoured or Recce regiments for the Regulars. That means two are going to be lost or assimilated into others through amalgamation. Am I right? If the Infantry are going to lose five that means one hell of a number are going to be lost from the rest of the Army (Artillery, Engineers, Logistic, etc.)
All this assuming that the rumour is correct, by the way.
I suppose the CVR(T)2 would be an alternative to Jackal in my list above.
x
Observer said “Corruption is not really that big a problem.”
I sense another rabbit hole so I am going to back away.
jedibeeftrix
“I suppose the CVR(T)2 would be an alternative to Jackal in my list above.”
please!
Phil
The TA Yeomanry are getting RWIMK according to a new TA update magazine I read on Armynet. Whatever RWIMK is. Sounds shit.
Observer
@x
Honestly, check how many accusation of corruption there vs actual charges. It’s political mudslinging mostly, similar to the West. Remember the defence firm blacklistings? The one whose common point was that the firms did business with the Indian MoD?
Accusations tend to be more common than facts, especially if you don’t have to actually produce evidence to back it up.
Mike W
@jedibeeftrix
I don’t know why the “please”. It seems a much better protected vehicle than the Jackal. I think, though, judging by your previous comments, that your military expertise in certain areas outweighs mine , so I shall bow to superior knowledge in this case. It might have been of course that you think that the whole FRES SV versus CVR(T)2 versus Jackal (and others!) debate has been done to death. I don’t agree but there we are.
Phil
CVRT 2 is a bit old isn’t it? Running those things on surely will be a nightmare?
I expect the light cav should they come about to have some SCOUT in them but I guess they will mostly be these new foxhound things right?
Jackal doesn’t seem very appropriate for anything other than light forces. I can’t see the TA getting them either if they are only just getting RWIMK or whatever you call it. I doubt the Army even knows to be honest they’ll still be working out the costings.
@ Mike – “I think, though, judging by your previous comments, that your military expertise in certain areas outweighs mine , so I shall bow to superior knowledge in this case.”
Lol, seriously, i flatter myself that i have a reasonable understanding of the intersection between military and politics, but, tactics and equipment to to achieve battlefield goals……………. “I know nothing!” (manwell voice).
I just like CVR(t) and the roles its mobility/firepower allow it to play, and with the increasing focus on rapid interventions a modern CVR(t)2.0 seems perfect to operate alongside 16AAB or 3Cdo.
Much as was the case of the islands that must remain verboten; attaching a squadron (?) of the Blues & Royals (?) to light brigades has brilliant effect.
@ Phil – i believe we are talking about the CV21 that BAE are touting out to foriegn markets.
What you meant to say was attaching a squadron of 8 to 12 ton vehicles.
I think the MoD have been smart choosing ASCOD. By the time “we” go to fight in Africa the Chinese should have built lots of nice bridges and other infrastructure capable of supporting a 34 tonne vehicle with its superior armour and armament. Inadvertently the Chinese are aiding us in their ultimate destruction.
jedibeeftrix
yes…………….. i think so. :p
Mike W
@jedibeeftrix
“I just like CVR(t) and the roles its mobility/firepower allow it to play, and with the increasing focus on rapid interventions a modern CVR(t)2.0 seems perfect to operate alongside 16AAB or 3Cdo.
Much as was the case of the islands that must remain verboten; attaching a squadron (?) of the Blues & Royals (?) to light brigades has brilliant effect.”
Phew! That’s a relief. I thought you were disagreeing with me!
Incidentally, has anyone seen any news from DVD 2012? I have been looking intermittently for two days but the news released has been minimal. So much for the MOD’s efforts in the export drive!
To lighten the mood and they do deserve it really don’t they?
Gareth Jones
@ x – I’ve come across the company on the web – looks interesting. Those ISO containers on the back could house USV/UUV’s or weapon systems?
Simon
Just for info. My FOI request for live ordnance dropped per year (since 1980) per aircraft type was refused because it would cost £8400 to collate the data.
Shame, would have made a good book
Chris.B.
Picked this up from a link El Sid posted in another thread;
“The Royal Navy SKASaCs detachment based at Camp Bastion have yet again played a pivotal role in a successful operation to remove capability from the insurgents. The key activity this week occurred when the Sqn were conducting a night time training mission. The flexibility of the Sea King allowed them to adapt rapidly to an unfolding situation in the desert areas of Helmand province. The crew used the advanced capabilities of the SKASaCs radar to direct ground forces to interdict two suspect vehicles transiting the desert. The vehicles were found to contain a large number of bags containing ammonium nitrate, which was to be used to produce home made explosives. This is the key element used against coalition troops in the form of improvised explosive devices (IEDs). The SKASaCs team have also received high praise this week from senior ground force commanders for the quality of their intelligence products which have been pivotal to the success of countless ground operations”
Nice work.
Gareth Jones
@ Paul b – if they are that useful in land warfare would it make sense to increase their numbers? Might add to our ISTAR capabilities and they are due to be replaced soon. Either transfer the old aircraft to AAC or increase the number of new aircraft for the FAA?
Gareth Jones
That should be Chris B – Sorry!
Red Trousers
@ Gareth,
we’ve got an ASTOR system for that sort of thing, complete with the world’s best in-service SAR/MTI radar, tactical ground stations attached to the forward brigades, trained imagery analysts, comms, a mission planning system that directly interfaces with Land commanders decision cycles, a special “Quick Fire” SOP for suspect movement that is integrated into RA fire control orders. There’s even specially domesticated Kevins who know how the smooth and handsome land forces work.
Oh, hang on. What was that? It’s being taken out of service early? Who the hell thought that was a good idea?
All Politicians are the Same
Some of the video I have seen from SKASAC is incredible. Can pick out high points in Green Zone and track vehicles along it.
Chris.B.
@ Gareth,
Like James said, we have the Sentinel mounted ASTOR which is basically the same thing but in a more comprehensive, capable package. If and when Sea King is replaced by Merlin in the Airbone Surveillance role, probably using those LM Vigillance Pods, it should be able to do the same thing, perhaps even better with the newer radar.
Other than the ability to operate off of surface vessels, I’m not sure what advantages a heliborne system might offer over a fixed wing one? Perhaps greater loiter when scanning down a certain street in urban areas? APATS, have you heard anything about that sort of thing? Could you give us more of a run down?
@ James,
Why keep boring old ISTAR kit? It’s not like we or the Yanks use it for anything, like, every operation we possibly can. Who needs detailed SAR imagery after all? Or real time GMTI reports? Or pattern of life pictures etc? All in a relatively low cost, low running cost airframe? Useless…
On a slightly more worrying note, there was an anonymous comment made by a Yankee ISTAR chap to some defence writer, and bugger me if I can’t find the source now, who basically thinks that all the kit that is going into the RAF’s new Airseeker (based on a Boeing 707) could probably be fitted to the Sentinel for much less, saving on having to buy a whole new fleet of aircraft and extending the life and usefulness of Sentinel.
Food for thought it that turns out to be true.
ArmChairCivvy
The haste in which SDSR was carried out shows in the testimonies made thereafter
- this element that James pointed out ” tactical ground stations attached to the forward brigades” is the only way those brigades can in a meaningful way integrate with the American JSTARS
- as long as that remains the case, it is like a life insurance for the system
If, as was stated in an interview for Aviationweek recently, the ambition is to have UAVs of all makes integrate with the (GD) land-based back end, I wonder about the interplay between these and the above mentioned ground stations… maybe it is only in the next layer (Solomon, or has it been renamed as a project)
ArmChairCivvy
@Simon, RE: Manoeuvre from the sea
This has, as attachments C & D the the landing plans for two, differently sized units, but including kit that makes them capable of manouevre once ashore (not just light infantry, on foot)
The US kit as for ship-to-shore connectors is very similar to ours, capacity and speed wise. Also assumptions, like stand-off distances, are spelt out very clearly
… I was left with the impression that you gave up with the spreadsheet exercise as the input data was not comprehensive enough (what, how much in each wave, by which means)?
ArmChairCivvy
There would seem to be no hurry to bin the Tranche 1 Tiffies?
“A Drop 2 package equipped Tranche 1 Typhoon has already completed its first test flight on 2 May 2012, at RAF Coningsby in Lincolnshire, UK.
The testing was conducted by 17(R) Test and Evaluation Squadron, which will continue to evaluate the aircraft in the future, prior to its roll out to the Tranche 1 fleet.”
- proper ground attack I take it is the beef; does not say though if any new weapons have been cleared (or is this now the interim capability, that had to be confirmed to clinch the Saudi deal?) http://rpdefense.over-blog.com/article-bae-to-upgrade-raf-s-tranche-1-typhoon-fleet-107299932.html
Did I hear somebody at the back mutter something about T26 exports?
The Canadians had a bit of a problem with a used sub we sold them a few years back. Perhaps we’ll see a joint Canadian / Australian fleet sailing up the Bristol Channel and shelling Abbey Wood, and not stopping until they get their money back?
James, sell em the shells, then refund them from there.
ACC, where did the ice come from?
AJ, well, it would depend on what actually went wrong. For all we know, it might have been a short in the “wrong time, wrong place”. I’ll wait for the engineer’s report. And I’ll also remember that it was a bargain and factor that into consideration.
The Canadians have had outrageous trouble with their Upholder class subs. I believe one has only fired its first torpedo in Canadian service ever a month or so ago. I shit you not!
I would remind you gentlemen that with Ocean in refit, and one of your Albions parked, your Bays currently provide three quarters of your over the beach capability. Could get interesting if this is more than an isolated failure.
Seriously if the ‘éxperts’ in the UK can’t figure out an insitu repair the word is they will have to start cutting to get the thing out with 6 months + being mentioned.
@AJ
I was googling up the history of the ship and I really am not sure if it’s the entire class, or simply that ship. Some ships simply are bad luck.
Observer,
From mind boggling short cuts, in order to engineer to cost
RE “ACC, where did the ice come from?”
- it is not the first time the amphibs have struggled with the engines under v hot conditions (can’t keep all the ship names in my head)
- if you have very exacting hull requirements as for sea states, slamming etc, the ice certification would probably be a half per cent of the total ship cost (where was it that the unutilised carbon reserves tend to be, again?); has it been done – no! Has it been considered – probably not?
No mention so far of the transformer going on fire like the last time.
(Which also left the ship drifting at an inopportune moment ivo Eddystone. Salvage tugs were involved that time IIRC.)
Dumb question time, but I was wondering – given that according to AgustaWestland the Army Wildcat will only have room for 6 “passengers”, if there was any value in a Super Wildcat, stretched to add space for two extra passengers so it could carry a section and re-engined with the GE CT7-2E1 engines. I have suggested the CT7-2E1 because AgustaWestland already have experience installing them on helicopters as they are in the AW189 and AW149, and the engines appear to be broadly the same in length, and mass, but with higher installed power on the CT7-2E1′s than the CTS800-4N, and it seems stupid to have a light utility helicopter that cannot move a section, and since the Government is committed to its four helicopter types only plan once Puma is phased out there is no chance introducing a new helicopter that fits in between the undersized Wildcat and the Merlin.
@Tubby
Possibly but does it make sense? AW already seem to have three overlapping military helicopters. NH90/AW149/AW139M
I think it is time to accept equipment as ‘as is’ for the moment and to focus on getting the max out of everything/integration/fit the designed for but not fitted stuff.
Might be a 10 year plan my proposal. Look at the ‘small’ mods to FRES design (£500M)
Opinion 3,
Tubby’s right in the sense that – in a perfect world – you would not be splitting sections between aircraft. However, you are entirely correct in that things get unaffordable pretty quickly by having variations on standard designs.
Two “real world” points to counter the “perfect world”:
1. In operations short of all out war, there’s always a dog team or an interpreter or FAC or FOO or some other body that you’ll be taking along anyway, so load balancing between helos is not in fact such an issue. i.e. You’ll get a section plus dog team plus interpreter in between 2 Wildcats just as you have to have 2 Wildcats to transport a section based on available seats.
2. Also, in all out war, the rule book goes out of the window, and you can squeeze bods in everywhere way beyond peacetime limits. This also applies to the French in peacetime. We had about 30 on a French Puma doing the hop from Split to Sarajevo. It was a trip originally planned for the Force Commander and his staff (about 8 of us all up, including bodyguards). When we landed to refuel in Split before going on to Sarjevo there were 20 or so Foreign Legionnaires hanging around waiting for something to take them back to their Battalion in Sarajevo, and the FC, being Colonel of the Legion, would not leave the boys there. So they all crammed in as well. Given the FC and all his French staff and the bodyguards were all Legion, it was like a Legion party on board, all backslapping and wild gesticulations. I’m sure I saw the pilot having a smoke as well….
@Tubby: Lynx with CTS7′s? You are describing a Blackhawk
Thanks for the input Opinion3 and James, I guess the easiest (and I suspect they way it would go in an all out war) way to get the passenger numbers up is to remove the crash resistant seating, and squeeze a section in.
I guess I am pretty annoyed that the Army Wildcat replaces the Lynx and the Gazelle and in certain areas is worse than the helicopter’s it replaces, it cannot fulfil the armed scout role with just a door gun so cannot fully replace the Gazelle (and there is a good argument that the OE turret should have been mounted on a mast above the rotor to allow it to scout from behind masking terrain), and due to installing modern crash resistant seats without increasing the cabin space the Wildcat cannot carry a section.
Plus while many bemoan that the FAA is short changed (and in certain key areas it certainly is – I have tenner on the Merlin’s never being marinised and ending up being a millstone around CHF’s neck) the AAC has royally been screwed in helicopter numbers as the Wildcat is not being procured in sufficient numbers and IMO is flawed for use by the Army, but then I am bound to say that as I am a fan of a mix of AW109LUH in the armed scout role, and AW149 or Blackhawks in the utility role.
It’s good enough for its role. Be glad we’re getting something.
Sorry Phil, for being a civvy moaning about the Army getting short changed, I know your ex-Army so I hope that I haven’t hacked you off.
“Crash resistant seating”??? What happened to the old grey webbing lattice seats on metal frames, like a cheap lawn chair? I thought earlier I recall Lynx having space for 8, but thought I may be mis-remembering. Gucci carbon fibre seats drive the cost up, and capacity down.
Dear God, the Army’s getting soft. To my mind, you make a contract with Old Nick himself when you get in one of those things. You don’t expect to walk away from the smouldering ruins when the laws of physics are reapplied and the thing spirals out of the sky. Thank God they are not flown by Kevins, however.
I don’t recall UK Gazelle having any weaponry at all on board, but the French ones did (Euro-HOT missiles? Can’t quite recall). Our Gazelles may have been capable of getting a GPMG mounted somewhere, but I didn’t ever see it.
It’s not that. Across all three services I’d rather see good enough platforms in service than perfect platforms that just get cancelled. Wildcat is low risk and there’s little chance of it getting binned. We might even get more later down the line who knows? This makes it more useful than vapourware. It’s why I am happy with F35B. It’s good enough.
Fair enough Phil, 80% solution that actually gets into service is a good plan – and heaven knows the MoD has had a tendency to try to procure equipment which are all over specified Powerpoint presentations with to much gold plating.
@Tubby
I am so with you that I rather think the BLUH Lynx is probably more a political rather than a military decision. Having said that the original Lynx had reasonable sales abroad so maybe giving it a leg up was the right thing to do.
I have to say, if I was Defence Secretary all new equipment purchases would be on hold (except where contracts have been signed or there was a justifiable need as identified in the SDSR). Instead I would be forcing the identification of underutilised/out of service/fitted for not with/unintegrated kit to be made to work. Set out some KPIs and squeeze the services until they were met.
I realise that most (if not all of the cockups) result from political decisions but it would hopefully result in more operational capabilities through asset management rather than asset shopping lists.
Riverhawk Fast Seaframes vis Sol’s site,
http://snafu-solomon.blogspot.co.uk/2012/06/riverhawk-fast-sea-framesnew-company.html
Another question when it comes to sales is “who is your target market?”. With Europe in a cost cutting frenzy, and the US generally being rather protectionist about it’s arms market, I can only see 3 possible areas for sales.
1) Middle East. That area is fairly peaceful, Arab Spring not withstanding, and economically still stable, so they might be looking to take a chance on a buyer’s market and do a bit of military upgrading on the side.
2) India. After a fair bit of neglect of the Indian Armed Forces, they are currently trying to “modernize” to meet increasing Chinese and Pakistani military imbalance, but the modernization program has a few bugs in it, namely protectionism and politics. Any sales there has the potential to be mired in red tape for a decade or two, and they usually insist on tech tansfer and local co-op.
3) Asia. IMO probably the best chance at a seller’s market. Most countries here are gearing up to stay on a competitive footing military wise with China especially with all the muscle flexing in the Spratleys, and a side note of trying not to let thy neighbour get too big an edge. Just in case, you know. Unfortunately, with long term American and Russian involvement in the area, they tend to be the “go to” guys for weapons due to familarity. Despite this, I do still think it is the best chance due to pressure from China. When the 600 pound gorilla looks about to sit on you, you grab the most convenient solid slug loaded shotgun you can find, and to hell with who the manufacturer is.
But has any equipment been designed for use in tropical terrain? Only in the most general way IIRC. Which is cutting off your biggest potential market.
“but the modernization program has a few bugs in it, namely protectionism and politics”
and corruption.
Corruption is not really that big a problem. It’s accusations of corruption being used as weapons by opposition politicians and government, leading to massive time and resource wastage to investigate. And log jamming every procurement process. If you lost a bid, you try again by accusing the panel of corruption, force a rebid then spin the lottery wheel once again. Unfortunately, if you win, guess what your opponent will do?
Duty rumour for the RAC is
3x Armd Regt
3x Armd Cav Regt
3x Lt Cav Regt
3x Lt Cav Regt (TA)
What does that mean in terms of kit, do you think, TD?
3 x Armd Regiments with Challenger2?
3 x Armd Cav Regiments with Scout SV?
3 x Lt Cav Regiments with Jackal?
3 x Lt Cav Regiments with Jackal (or WMIK)?
That kind of idea or am I talking through my hat?
Don’t think you will be far off there Mike
TD
Thanks for the reply.
So, a total of nine Armoured or Recce regiments for the Regulars. That means two are going to be lost or assimilated into others through amalgamation. Am I right? If the Infantry are going to lose five that means one hell of a number are going to be lost from the rest of the Army (Artillery, Engineers, Logistic, etc.)
All this assuming that the rumour is correct, by the way.
I suppose the CVR(T)2 would be an alternative to Jackal in my list above.
Observer said “Corruption is not really that big a problem.”
I sense another rabbit hole so I am going to back away.
“I suppose the CVR(T)2 would be an alternative to Jackal in my list above.”
please!
The TA Yeomanry are getting RWIMK according to a new TA update magazine I read on Armynet. Whatever RWIMK is. Sounds shit.
@x
Honestly, check how many accusation of corruption there vs actual charges. It’s political mudslinging mostly, similar to the West. Remember the defence firm blacklistings? The one whose common point was that the firms did business with the Indian MoD?
Accusations tend to be more common than facts, especially if you don’t have to actually produce evidence to back it up.
@jedibeeftrix
I don’t know why the “please”. It seems a much better protected vehicle than the Jackal. I think, though, judging by your previous comments, that your military expertise in certain areas outweighs mine , so I shall bow to superior knowledge in this case. It might have been of course that you think that the whole FRES SV versus CVR(T)2 versus Jackal (and others!) debate has been done to death. I don’t agree but there we are.
CVRT 2 is a bit old isn’t it? Running those things on surely will be a nightmare?
I expect the light cav should they come about to have some SCOUT in them but I guess they will mostly be these new foxhound things right?
Jackal doesn’t seem very appropriate for anything other than light forces. I can’t see the TA getting them either if they are only just getting RWIMK or whatever you call it. I doubt the Army even knows to be honest they’ll still be working out the costings.
@ Mike – “I think, though, judging by your previous comments, that your military expertise in certain areas outweighs mine , so I shall bow to superior knowledge in this case.”
Lol, seriously, i flatter myself that i have a reasonable understanding of the intersection between military and politics, but, tactics and equipment to to achieve battlefield goals……………. “I know nothing!” (manwell voice).
I just like CVR(t) and the roles its mobility/firepower allow it to play, and with the increasing focus on rapid interventions a modern CVR(t)2.0 seems perfect to operate alongside 16AAB or 3Cdo.
Much as was the case of the islands that must remain verboten; attaching a squadron (?) of the Blues & Royals (?) to light brigades has brilliant effect.
@ Phil – i believe we are talking about the CV21 that BAE are touting out to foriegn markets.
http://www.defensenews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2012305090001
@ jedibeeftrix
What you meant to say was attaching a squadron of 8 to 12 ton vehicles.
I think the MoD have been smart choosing ASCOD. By the time “we” go to fight in Africa the Chinese should have built lots of nice bridges and other infrastructure capable of supporting a 34 tonne vehicle with its superior armour and armament. Inadvertently the Chinese are aiding us in their ultimate destruction.
yes…………….. i think so. :p
@jedibeeftrix
“I just like CVR(t) and the roles its mobility/firepower allow it to play, and with the increasing focus on rapid interventions a modern CVR(t)2.0 seems perfect to operate alongside 16AAB or 3Cdo.
Much as was the case of the islands that must remain verboten; attaching a squadron (?) of the Blues & Royals (?) to light brigades has brilliant effect.”
Phew! That’s a relief. I thought you were disagreeing with me!
Incidentally, has anyone seen any news from DVD 2012? I have been looking intermittently for two days but the news released has been minimal. So much for the MOD’s efforts in the export drive!
http://www.imagebam.com/image/9ee957197581818
To lighten the mood and they do deserve it really don’t they?
@ x – I’ve come across the company on the web – looks interesting. Those ISO containers on the back could house USV/UUV’s or weapon systems?
Just for info. My FOI request for live ordnance dropped per year (since 1980) per aircraft type was refused because it would cost £8400 to collate the data.
Shame, would have made a good book
Picked this up from a link El Sid posted in another thread;
“The Royal Navy SKASaCs detachment based at Camp Bastion have yet again played a pivotal role in a successful operation to remove capability from the insurgents. The key activity this week occurred when the Sqn were conducting a night time training mission. The flexibility of the Sea King allowed them to adapt rapidly to an unfolding situation in the desert areas of Helmand province. The crew used the advanced capabilities of the SKASaCs radar to direct ground forces to interdict two suspect vehicles transiting the desert. The vehicles were found to contain a large number of bags containing ammonium nitrate, which was to be used to produce home made explosives. This is the key element used against coalition troops in the form of improvised explosive devices (IEDs). The SKASaCs team have also received high praise this week from senior ground force commanders for the quality of their intelligence products which have been pivotal to the success of countless ground operations”
Nice work.
@ Paul b – if they are that useful in land warfare would it make sense to increase their numbers? Might add to our ISTAR capabilities and they are due to be replaced soon. Either transfer the old aircraft to AAC or increase the number of new aircraft for the FAA?
That should be Chris B – Sorry!
@ Gareth,
we’ve got an ASTOR system for that sort of thing, complete with the world’s best in-service SAR/MTI radar, tactical ground stations attached to the forward brigades, trained imagery analysts, comms, a mission planning system that directly interfaces with Land commanders decision cycles, a special “Quick Fire” SOP for suspect movement that is integrated into RA fire control orders. There’s even specially domesticated Kevins who know how the smooth and handsome land forces work.
Oh, hang on. What was that? It’s being taken out of service early? Who the hell thought that was a good idea?
Some of the video I have seen from SKASAC is incredible. Can pick out high points in Green Zone and track vehicles along it.
@ Gareth,
Like James said, we have the Sentinel mounted ASTOR which is basically the same thing but in a more comprehensive, capable package. If and when Sea King is replaced by Merlin in the Airbone Surveillance role, probably using those LM Vigillance Pods, it should be able to do the same thing, perhaps even better with the newer radar.
Other than the ability to operate off of surface vessels, I’m not sure what advantages a heliborne system might offer over a fixed wing one? Perhaps greater loiter when scanning down a certain street in urban areas? APATS, have you heard anything about that sort of thing? Could you give us more of a run down?
@ James,
Why keep boring old ISTAR kit? It’s not like we or the Yanks use it for anything, like, every operation we possibly can. Who needs detailed SAR imagery after all? Or real time GMTI reports? Or pattern of life pictures etc? All in a relatively low cost, low running cost airframe? Useless…
On a slightly more worrying note, there was an anonymous comment made by a Yankee ISTAR chap to some defence writer, and bugger me if I can’t find the source now, who basically thinks that all the kit that is going into the RAF’s new Airseeker (based on a Boeing 707) could probably be fitted to the Sentinel for much less, saving on having to buy a whole new fleet of aircraft and extending the life and usefulness of Sentinel.
Food for thought it that turns out to be true.
The haste in which SDSR was carried out shows in the testimonies made thereafter
- this element that James pointed out ” tactical ground stations attached to the forward brigades” is the only way those brigades can in a meaningful way integrate with the American JSTARS
- as long as that remains the case, it is like a life insurance for the system
If, as was stated in an interview for Aviationweek recently, the ambition is to have UAVs of all makes integrate with the (GD) land-based back end, I wonder about the interplay between these and the above mentioned ground stations… maybe it is only in the next layer (Solomon, or has it been renamed as a project)
@Simon, RE: Manoeuvre from the sea
This has, as attachments C & D the the landing plans for two, differently sized units, but including kit that makes them capable of manouevre once ashore (not just light infantry, on foot)
http://www.sa-soldier.com/data/06_sadflinks/UsedPDFs/SADF_OPs_analysis.pdf
The US kit as for ship-to-shore connectors is very similar to ours, capacity and speed wise. Also assumptions, like stand-off distances, are spelt out very clearly
… I was left with the impression that you gave up with the spreadsheet exercise as the input data was not comprehensive enough (what, how much in each wave, by which means)?
There would seem to be no hurry to bin the Tranche 1 Tiffies?
“A Drop 2 package equipped Tranche 1 Typhoon has already completed its first test flight on 2 May 2012, at RAF Coningsby in Lincolnshire, UK.
The testing was conducted by 17(R) Test and Evaluation Squadron, which will continue to evaluate the aircraft in the future, prior to its roll out to the Tranche 1 fleet.”
- proper ground attack I take it is the beef; does not say though if any new weapons have been cleared (or is this now the interim capability, that had to be confirmed to clinch the Saudi deal?)
http://rpdefense.over-blog.com/article-bae-to-upgrade-raf-s-tranche-1-typhoon-fleet-107299932.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/9366306/Battalions-with-foreign-bias-face-axe-in-Army-cuts.html
Torygraph with supposed units facing the chop, surprised to see the fusiliers get the chop.